Does the Bible teach that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in its pages?

A Catholic buddy of mine offered this list as a start...
Hmmm...things non-Catholics believe that are not in the Bible. Lets see.
1. Evangelistic appeals.
2. Vacation Bible School.
3. Youth groups and youth pastors.
4. Church picnics,
5. Praise bands.
6. Bible Colleges.
7. Short hair on men, long hair on women. ( I once knew a preacher who insisted Jesus had a crew cut)

A non-Catholic then asked, "Can you show me where in the Bible it calls tradition God breathed?" to which I replied, Sure...2nd Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

So still no one has shown me where the Bible says that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the pages of the Bible. I need to see this if I'm going to abandon my Catholic faith and return to what you have.

In fact...you need to show it to all of us Catholics because so long as you can't, every Catholic reading this has no chance of converting away from our most holy faith.
Worse still...it makes it appear that we are right to reject this and (God help us all!), that would mean that you would be wise to seriously consider converting to the Catholic faith ASAP. 

If it's not in the Bible then it violates the very tenet that virtually every n-C doctrine is based upon, that such things must be found in the pages of the Bible. That's probably the fundamental foundation of most n-C belief and teaching in the last 500 years. 

This is a doctrine is one that many non-Catholics hold very dear and I'm serious...if you can show me this and not be refuted by me and my Catholic brothers and sisters, then you have a chance to really dent our Catholic faith. If you can't....well...that dent might be somewhere else.

I have Bibles all over the place right here and you even get the benefit of the 73 book canon to use. I absolutely need to see this. Seriously.

This article is about getting some non-Catholic to show me where this idea is found within the pages of the Word of God. That's all I'm asking here.

If you want to shake me as a Catholic loose from my faith then this is what it will take.

I've read the Bible several times and cannot find this taught there, even with 73 books to work with.

I re-converted to the Catholic faith in part because of this very thing. If the Catholic Church is wrong on this...it should be pretty simple to show me.

which is one of the things that a lot of people on both sides of this issue don't understand. My friend John Martignoni has a kinda neat way of explaining that here.

 A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn't...is that true?
The Fullness of truth is important. In John 14:6 Jesus tells us that He is "the truth" and I for one want nothing less.

I am trying to get you or any of the other n-Cs here that hold that belief to show us where it is found in the Word of God. 

Again though....where is this scriptural mandate that all that we believe and practice must be found in the pages of the Bible? 

I don't understand how people can believe this idea since St. Paul plainly tells Timothy that he's to withdraw from anyone who doesn't walk according to that tradition. If it wasn't inspired, the why would he make a big deal of it?

2nd Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

The following article from my blog points out some other ways in which the apostles showed their thinking on Sacred Tradition.
Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.

One of the big problems in discussing this topic is that so many different non-Catholics have differing definitions of what this actually means and that makes it really hard.

This is another case where we Catholics have difficulty seeing that often propagated "Unity in essentials" that they speak of.

Perhaps this is also another by product of this very foundational doctrine of post reformation non-Catholic Christianity?

Here are scriptures that one non-Catholic offered me..and my responses.

1 Cor 4:6
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
Which is a very good point to make about that same interpretation which goes beyond what is written.
Luke 1:1-4:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Here again, this does not say that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the Bible. In fact....it actually is saying that the purpose of Luke's Gospel is to affirm oral tradition.
In Matthew 4:1-11. Three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied exactly the same three dangerous words that defeated the Devil: "IT IS WRITTEN" If any one could have used oral tradition, it was Jesus, yet he chose the only safe and sure way to defeat Satan: Scripture.
Still, this does not tell us what you claim it does. It infers much, such as that scripture is useful for resisting temptation, which certainly agrees with 2nd Timothy 3:16, but being useful is not the same as being the only and ultimate authority, which is something that I have not found in the Word of God.
Mark 12:24
24 Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?
We've already discussed that ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ, but this also fails to make the claim that would make your belief scriptural.
2 Timothy 3:15
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Again...where does that even infer a sole and final authority to the Bible? In point of fact, St. Paul is here referring to the Old Testament, which by the same logic that you have used would eliminate the New Testament from any inspired authority. That's just based upon your own logic and not something that either of us believe.
1 John 5:13
13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Does not claim the authority asserted. Another case of interpretation going beyond what is written?
2 Timothy 3:16-17:
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Catholics have no problem at all with this verse. We believe that is means exactly what it says and we do not believe it means anything more. This does not claim a final and ultimate authority. Like I said before...it's inspired and useful...


Luke 10:26
What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

Jesus expected even his enemies to correctly interpret the Bible by simply reading and studying it.
Again...this refers to the Old Testament and by your own logic would cast aside the New Testament as well as open the door for an interpretation that says we need to read and obey the law to be saved. That won't wok now, will it?

Acts 17:11-12
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

Even though the apostles were inspired with genuine oral revelation, they always directed people to the scriptures for the final determination of truth.
They were talking to Jews about the Messiah. What other source would one expect them to use seeing that even Our Lord pointed out, "For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many."  Still there is no claim of final and ultimate authority here in this passage.
Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
But by this logic this verse would deny inspiration and acceptance of the New Testament (again) since it specifically refers to the law. Further (and again) this would mean that we are still to obey the law in order to be saved. I know that that is not what most non-Catholics believe nor are trying to say, but that is where it logically and specifically leads. 
  I maintain that the Bible is the sole INFALLIBLE authority, to which all other authority is subordinate.
If that is true then I would like to see the Biblical passages that lay claim to that authority. Please show me.
Sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is the SUPREME canon of faith. There are other authorities. I, for instance, consider my pastor an authority, but his words should be measured against the Scriptures. If they collide, he is the one who's in error.
Since this belief requires that any such belief has its basis in the Bible, I would like to see the scriptures where that is taught.

And who is the authority that decides when that happens and where do they derive their authority from?

What I believe we see here is a assertion of conclusion drawn from a fallacious premise not supported by the text of the scriptures quoted.  

The reason why I like this one that it occurred to me one day that I do not feel that I have to logically prove this is true in some debate format in order for me to believe this is true. Maybe some other folks are up to this, but I think I will pass myself..
Certainly your prerogative, however, it is not a matter of feelings, which can mislead us, but of facts. Facts as to what given passages of scripture actually say, or do not say in order to ascertain objective truth. If it is untrue that the Bible lays claim to the infallible authority that your definition ascribes to it, then, even by the errant standard of Sola Scripture (as you have defined it) one would have to reject that interpretation.
It occurred to me that it is a fact that today I do not hold to any other infallible rule of faith and conduct So logically unless I am convinced that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct out there (be it the Book of Mormon, your pope speaking on faith and morals, or David Koresh), the Bible is my only infallible rule of faith and conduct.
Just because you are convinced does not make it correct. One can be sincerely in error and this is one reason I suspect some people ascribe to this belief.

To me it's fairly simply. If you want me to believe that everything that we believe and practice must be found in the Word of God, then you need to show me precisely where the Bible says that. So far I haven't seen anything like that, but have seen a lot of verses and then interpretations of men telling me they mean something other than what they actually say. 


Now of course convincing me that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct is a very difficult sell. Per 1 Thess 5:21 I am to examine everything carefully and hold fast to that which is good. So I don't know how one can convince me that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct except through the rule of faith and conduct that I know is infallible. And I have not seen anything in the Bible that gives me the license to elevate any other rule of faith to the status of infallible.
Yet I have not seen anything that gives anyone the license to elevate the Bible to that status while I do see the simple statement from St. Paul as to what the pillar and ground of the truth is.

1st Timothy 3:15 "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth"

I approach this based on the presumption that the Word of God, the Bible is indeed God's Word. Your line of questioning does not appear to accept the presumption, therefore no matter how I would answer, it would not make any difference to you. What your view of the Bible is will be the determining factor of how one receives the Word of God. When you cite the church as being the pillar and support of the truth; it simply means that God has chosen to work through His elect to maintain the purity of His word and all that is contained.
Presumption does not work. It comes to a conclusion even before it has looked at the facts. Would anyone want to be the subject of any case where presumption was the basis for conclusion? Very risky.

Where does 1st Timothy 3:15 even infer such a belief as you assert? I'll have to disagree with your interpretation and go with what the Word of God actually says right there.
There is no place in the Bible that explicitly states that all Christian teachings MUST BE in the Bible, but a logical and rational thought will lead you to that conclusion; simply put, where else will you find it?
You express a gross fallacy because that may be your own opinion, but even if one accepts the authority ascribed to the Bible by Sola Scriptura, one would have to reject that.

As to your last question...you already answered that when you touched on 1st Timothy 3:15 above. What does that verse literally tell us is the pillar and bulwark of the truth?

You have two premises that must be true for what you said above to be true and is a source of major doctrinal error within your church. First you must put your church above the authority of scripture to make the claim that your church interprets the bible.
Which is the only option supported by the New Testament.
Second you presume that "scared tradition" were taught by Jesus adn passed down to the apostles and are outside of Scripture. How can you derive this and prove it is of divine authority unless you just make the claim that your church says it is that way; therefore it is.
Not so at all. I examined the evidence in the New Testament and wrote the following article on my blog based upon what I found.Take a look. Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.
The logic make no sense and I don't believe it to be possible to show Jesus taught anything that is not in the written pages of Scripture. Jesus himself said that Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God; where do all Christians go to find what proceeded out of the mouth of God? the Bible? 
So then teachings that the apostles offer in their New Testament writings, (and there are a great many) that Our Lord never spoke about are invalid? Surely you didn't mean that! Yet that is the only logical conclusion to arrive at based upon what you have just said. 

I cannot force a reasonable and logical deduction on any person; you either get it and see it or you don't. Jesus said the Man shall not live on bread alone but by every word the proceeds from the mouth of God; where does a Christian go to find what proceeds from the mouth of God? The Bible?
Was the New Testament written at that point when Our Lord said that? Isn't He quoting an Old Testament proverb? (Deuteronomy 8:3 to be exact) In all 3 places recorded, there is no New Testament scriptures...as a result you cannot correctly use that to support a premise that involves the New Testament Christian faith.
The antithesis of you question is where does it not say we are to use the Bible for all teaching of moral principle and practices? Where does it say we are to obey "traditions" not written and contradict the teaching God has given. traditions are okay if they don't contradict, but when they do then they need to be done away with otherwise god's word becomes perverted and another gospel will emerge..right?
There are no such contradictory Sacred Traditions, and the link to the article on my blog will refute that idea.

All of you keep repeating the same fatal fatal flaw. You are putting the authority of your church above that of scripture;
Not so! The New Testament puts the Church above scripture, as has been shown already, while no one has yet given me a single passage of the Bible that tells us that everything that we believe and practice must be found in its pages.

People can argue all day that we Catholics don't understand, but if you don't have a scripture text that specifically says what you say is true, then even by a Sola Scriptura standard one would have to reject it as a false teaching.
NOTE: See page 21.