Replies

Whether unintentional or not, he doesn’t get “sola scriptura.”

And it’s not surprising, either, that Tim Staples apparently doesn’t believe in the literal history of Genesis 1-11 - the Creation account, the fall of Adam and Eve, and the account of the Flood and Noah’s Ark.

http://www.biofides.eu/is-genesis-to-be-understood-figuratively/?lang=en

I was only able to listen to the first 2+ minutes of the five, but from that he seems in the evolution camp. He clearly says, though, that he doesn’t take Genesis 1-11 literally. And I would be surprised if most of those Christians who convert to Catholicism weren’t also. I’ve rarely been able to find what these converts have to say about Genesis and Creation versus evolution, though, and have to wonder if the oversight, if it’s proven out, isn’t intentional. It would be one of the last things they would want to bring up to Bible-believing Christians.

Whether unintentional or not, he doesn’t get “sola scriptura.”

Likely, he has never gotten a clear definition of Sola Scriptura. I don't blame him; I have never either. For example whenever the Assumption of Our Lady comes up, adherents to Sola Scriptura demand that Catholics demonstrate where it is in Scripture. If the adherents to SS want a passage that says "Mary, Mother of Jesus, is in heaven body and soul" no such passage exists. However, we frequently point to Rev. 12. In this passage, a woman in heaven is described as giving birth to a male child destined to rule all nations. The male child is clearly Jesus; the woman is his mother. It is logical to ask if this woman is Mary (the woman who gave birth to Jesus). However, the response I have gotten goes like this, "You're wrong. That woman is Israel. You need to understand the role that Israel will play in Salvation." I have yet to see a clear explanation for how that woman cannot be Mary. There are some difficulties raised by viewing the woman of Rev. 12 as Mary, they are addressed here.

Because of the above, and similar examples, I have a very hard time seeing Sola Scriptura as anything other than "My hatred for Catholicism and my own opinions wrapped in Scripture". If the response concerning the Assumption of Our Lady were "I disagree that the woman is Mary", I would have a much easier time seeing Sola Scriptura a reasonable interpretation of Scripture. I have other reasons for disagreeing with it; however, the above attitude makes it harder to view it as a reasonable interpretation.