Do you agree that the Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth?

True if it were a stool, but it isn't.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

--Buddha

Love and blessings

Don

Correct

I think some who are answering must be kids out of school on vacation or those who are ignorant of the phrase

The "Three-legged stool" term is used for many situations. Just google it. Here is another example:

"The economic system never operates in a vacuum, but is part of a three-legged stool, the other two legs of which are a religious-moral system and a legal system. These three legs of the stool operate together to form the character of any country."

We know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church.

Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic.

If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles.

Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

If you have a three-legged stool, I see it more as one leg being "spiritual truth", one leg being "scientific truth" and the final leg being "personal truths".

If you are searching for a spiritual truth, then ancient texts and recognized religions is an excellent place to start. This is the most difficult search you can make but possibly the most rewarding. If you are looking for scientific facts then study science. These truths are proved and agreed upon in the traditions of science. However, even here there are differing theories that can confuse and it is your job to determine that which is most logical to you. Your personal truths are the combination of your own history and traditions. And remember, spiritual truth and scientific truth do not have to be mutually exclusive and everything adds to your "personal truths".

Any truth is worth gaining. Disregarding something out-of-hand will only shrink your knowledge base (the seat of your stool).

Was this answer too complicated? Probably. Ohwell, made sense to me. Hope it helped.

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a standard of truth, but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church.

The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. Every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola Scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.

Given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked.

In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list.

One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so minor that differences don’t matter.

Absolutely. And those who are arguing the loudest against them belong to the 35,000+ Protestant denominations, sects, and splinter groups that prove the need for all three.

Without a checks and balances system, Sola Scriptura isn't "By Scripture alone," but rather, "By my interpretation of Scripture alone." And when the inevitable conflict arises between two men's ideas about the Bible, another rupture occurs within Protestantism.

The Catholic Church demonstrates Her wisdom and desire to obey God by making sure that one person alone cannot formulate doctrine for the entire Church based on his version of the truth. You'd think that Protestants might have learned something from that little Martin Luther "If God disagrees with me, then He is wrong" fiasco.

Apparently not, if the answers you're getting are any indication.

I do not believe this is a three legged stool situation. It's God and His Word. The Church is apart of the Bible if done correctly and Traditions, if they are of man, hold nothing when it comes to God. If God's Word doesn't say it to be true then it is not. Don't take any man's word for anything. You should always use scripture from The Bible to base your beliefs.

No.

Many have arrived at truth without any of the above.

How about the Old Testament Patriarchs, such as Abraham?

yes

I pity some people

limiting God only to what is in the bible, how very sad

Of course they will not agree with you as their unable to see for their darkness.

Feel free. I'd much rather sit in a comfortable four-legged logic chair, or lay in a big, soft bed of reason.

No. The Bible is the only source of truth. It is for that reason that Jesus said in prayer to his Father: "Teach them your word, which is truth." (John 17:17)

The Church is filled with traditions that go contrary to the Bible. For instance, where in the Bible does it teach priestly celabacy? Nowhere. Where does the Bible say that it is acceptable to call priests "father"? Nowhere. What Jesus said to the religious leaders of his day applies to the Church now. He said: "You cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition." (Matt. 15:7)