Refuting Cenon Bibe on Sola Scriptura

Cenon Bibe, a Catholic apologist who runs the blog "Tumbukin Natin", had a debate with a Calvinist on Sola Scriptura. We won't go in to the details of the debate, just his negative introduction. It is written in Tagalog, but I will translate it for you in English.

His counterargument is very common to most Roman Catholics, so it will not be difficult for us to refute. We will deal with the important points of his argument. On his analysis of his opponent's basis which is 2nd Timothy 3:16-17:

MALINAW ang sinasabi sa 2Tim 3:16 na ang LAHAT ng KASULATAN ay KAPANIPAKINABANG at MAGAGAMIT sa
1. PAGTUTURO
2. PAGSANSALA
3. PATUTUWID, at
4. PAGSASANAY

+ WALANG SINASABI na “BIBLIA LANG” ang DAPAT GAMITIN o DAPAT GAWING BATAYAN sa ARAL.
[It is clear that 2Tim 3:16 states that all scriptures are profitable and useful for
1. teaching
2. rebuking
3. correcting, and
4. training
it doesn't say that the only the Bible should be used for the basis of teachings]

What's missing? His analysis of verse 17. Verse 17 continues the thought of verse 16. Verse 16 teaches us the quality of Scriptures and the result is on verse 17: "that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped unto all good works". If Paul had the same thinking with Mr. Bibe, he could have written that Scriptures can make the man of God partially equipped unto some good works. The Scriptures are inspired and profitable so that the man of God can sufficiently perform every good work.

Mr. Bibe's cited 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 to disprove Sola Scriptura. Here is his "exegesis":

At MALINAW po sa 2Thes 2:15 na DALAWA ang URI ng ARAL o TRADISYON na DAPAT PANINDIGAN at PANGHAWAKAN ng mga KRISTIYANO. At iyan nga po ang

1. Sa “SALITA ng BIBIG” o ORAL TRADITIONS, at ang
2. Sa “SULAT” o WRITTEN TRADITIONS (SCRIPTURES o BIBLIA)
[And its clear in 2Thes 2:15 that there are two kinds of teachings or tradition that Christians should defend and uphold. And these are:
1. the word of mouth or oral traditions, and the
2. the letter or written traditions (Scriptures or Bible)]

Oh boy, somebody misread something. Let's read the verse again:

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

Does the verse say hold on to oral traditions and written traditions? Not in a million years. The verse say hold on to the traditions that has been "passed" or "delivered" by word of mouth and by letter. What is being distinguished by the word of mouth and letter is the manner of delivery and not the traditions. It's called teaching, you can teach orally or by letter. It does not mean that there are two components of teachings.

What about Mr. Bibe citation of 1st John 2:24 and 2nd John 1:12? It appears that Mr. Bibe is using what his "comrade" Atty. Marwil Llasos refer to as "tunog" (sound) system. Just because Mr. Bibe read the word "heard" and "talk" he immediately concluded it is oral tradition. It does not follow! The apostles no doubt taught the believers "orally" through their preaching and teaching, but it doesn't mean they are delivering oral traditions which are different from written traditions.

Going back to Mr. Bibe's conclusion:

ILAN lang po yan sa mga PATUNAY na HINDI LAHAT ng ARAL ay ISINULAT ng mga APOSTOL. MARAMI pong ARAL na SINALITA o ORAL.
[That is just some of the proofs that not all teachings written by the apostles. There are teachings which are spoken or oral.]

I'd like to challenge Mr. Bibe to enumerate to us, with supporting historical evidences, all the ORAL traditions which are apostolic and which the Bible does not mention as he claims. I doubt if he can even give a few.

His last verse to disprove Sola Scriptura is 1st Timothy 3:15:

BIBLIA rin po ang NAGPAPAKITA kung SAAN MATATAGPUAN ang BUONG KATOTOHANAN na MULA sa DIYOS.

Ganito po ang sinasabi sa 1Timothy 3:15
“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

PURIHIN si KRISTO! PURIHIN ang DIYOS!

Ayon po mismo sa BIBLIA, HINDI ang BIBLIA ang HALIGI at SANDIGAN ng KATOTOHANAN o ng PANANAMPALATAYA. Ang HALIGI at SANDIGAN ng PANANAMPALATAYA ay ang IGLESIA o ang SIMBAHAN.
[The Bible showed to us where can we find all the truths from God.

Here is what 1Timothy 3:15 says:
“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Praise Christ! Praise God!

According to the Bible itself, it's not the Bible that is the pillar and foundation of the truth or faith. The pillar and foundation of the faith is the church.]

It is common for Roman Catholic apologist to interpret 1st Timothy 3:15 as the church being the "source" of truth simply because they read the word foundation. The Greek word foundation here is hedraioma and it appears only in this verse. Since it only appeared once in this verse, it is not right to assume a meaning that support one's view. Strong's concordance suggests a meaning of "support". Having the word pillar in the same verse, the church is merely the upholder and supporter of the truth and not necessarily the originator.

Mr. Bibe of course made his conclusions from the verses he quoted that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical. But we have refuted here his analysis of the verses that he (mis)used. I'm sure article will reach him. He has the right to respond if he wishes to.