Posted on 02/02/2015 3:08:42 PM PST by Morgana
According to ancient Greek legend, the great warrior, Achilles, was invulnerable against attack, except for one area of weakness—his heel. That weakness would be exploited near the end of the Trojan War by Paris. As the story goes, he shot Achilles in the heel with an arrow, killing his seemingly undefeatable foe.
Okay, so referring to Sola Scriptura as the Protestant Achilles's Heel is not a perfect analogy. There are many weak spots in Protestant theology. But the use of the image of "Achilles's Heel" in prose today is employed not only to accentuate a singular weakness in an otherwise impenetrable person or institution, but a particularly acute weakness. It is in that sense that I think the analogy fits.
Sola Scriptura was the central doctrine and foundation for all I believed when I was Protestant. On a popular level, it simply meant, “If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!” And it seemed so simple. Unassailable. And yet, I do not recall ever hearing a detailed teaching explicating it. It was always a given. Unchallenged. Diving deeper into its meaning, especially when I was challenged to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism, I found there to be no book specifically on the topic and no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors.
Once I got past the superficial, I had to try to answer real questions like, what role does tradition play? How explicit does a doctrine have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? How many times does it have to be mentioned in Scripture before it would be dogmatic? Where does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How do we know what the canon of Scripture is using the principle of sola scriptura? Who is authorized to write Scripture in the first place? When was the canon closed? Or, the best question of all: where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible? These questions and more were left virtually unanswered or left to the varying opinions of various Bible teachers.
The Protestant Response
In answer to this last question, “Where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible?” most Protestants will immediately respond as I did, by simply citing II Tm. 3:16:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
“How can it get any plainer than that? Doesn’t that say the Bible is all we need?” Question answered.
The fact is: II Timothy 3—or any other text of Scripture—does not even hint at sola scriptura. It says Scripture is inspired and necessary to equip “the man of God,” but never does it say Scripture alone is all anyone needs. We’ll come back to this text in particular later. But in my experience as a Protestant, it was my attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism that led me to conclude: sola scriptura is 1) unreasonable 2) unbiblical and 3) unworkable.
Sola Scriptura is Unreasonable
When defending sola scriptura, the Protestant will predictably appeal to his sole authority—Scripture. This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself. One cannot prove the inspiration of a text from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the Koran, and other books claim inspiration. This does not make them inspired. One must prove the point outside of the text itself to avoid the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Thus, the question remains: how do we know the various books of the Bible are inspired and therefore canonical? And remember: the Protestant must use the principle of sola scriptura in the process.
II Tim. 3:16 is not a valid response to the question. The problems are manifold. Beyond the fact of circular reasoning, for example, I would point out the fact that this verse says all Scripture is inspired tells us nothing of what the canon consists. Just recently, I was speaking with a Protestant inquirer about this issue and he saw my point. He then said words to the effect of, “I believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth as Jesus said in Jn. 16:13. The Holy Spirit guided the early Christians and helped them to gather the canon of Scripture and declare it to be the inspired word of God. God would not leave us without his word to guide us.”
That answer is much more Catholic than Protestant! Yes, Jn. 16:13 does say the Spirit will lead the apostles—and by allusion, the Church—into all truth. But this verse has nothing to say about sola scriptura. Nor does it say a word about the nature or number of books in the canon. Catholics certainly agree that the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to canonize the Scriptures because the Catholic Church teaches that there is an authoritative Church guided by the Holy Spirit. The obvious problem is my Protestant friend did not use sola scriptura as his guiding principle to arrive at his conclusion. How does, for example, Jn. 16:13 tell us that Hebrews was written by an apostolic writer and that it is inspired of God? We would ultimately have to rely on the infallibility of whoever “the Holy Spirit” is guiding to canonize the Bible so that they could not mishear what the Spirit was saying about which books of the Bible are truly inspired.
In order to put this argument of my friend into perspective, can you imagine if a Catholic made a similar claim to demonstrate, say, Mary to be the Mother of God? “We believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and guided the early Christians to declare this truth.” I can almost hear the response. “Show me in the Bible where Mary is the Mother of God! I don’t want to hear about God guiding the Church!” Wouldn’t the same question remain for the Protestant concerning the canon? “Show me in the Bible where the canon of Scripture is, what the criterion for the canon is, who can and cannot write Scripture, etc.”
Will the Circle be Unbroken?
The Protestant response at this point is often an attempt to use the same argument against the Catholic. “How do you know the Scriptures are inspired? Your reasoning is just as circular because you say the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so and then say the Scriptures are inspired and infallible because the Church says so!”
The Catholic Church’s position on inspiration is not circular. We do not say “the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so, and the Scriptures are inspired because the infallible Church says so.” That would be a kind of circular reasoning. The Church was established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so.
Having said that, it is true that we know the Scriptures to be inspired because the Church has told us so. That is also an historical fact. However, this is not circular reasoning. When the Catholic approaches Scripture, he or she begins with the Bible as an historical document, not as inspired. As any reputable historian will tell you, the New Testament is the most accurate and verifiable historical document in all of ancient history. To deny the substance of the historical documents recorded therein would be absurd. However, one cannot deduce from this that they are inspired. There are many accurate historical documents that are not inspired. However, the Scriptures do give us accurate historical information whether one holds to their inspiration or not. Further, this testimony of the Bible is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christians and non-Christian writers like Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and more. It is on this basis that we can say it is an historical fact that Jesus lived, died, and was reported to be resurrected from the dead by over 500 eyewitnesses. Many of these eyewitnesses went to their deaths testifying to the veracity of the Christ-event (see Lk. 1:1-4, Jn. 21:18-19, 24-25, Acts 1:1-11, I Cr. 15:1-8).
Now, what do we find when we examine the historical record? Jesus Christ—as a matter of history–established a Church, not a book, to be the foundation of the Christian Faith (see Mt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18. Cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:10,20-21; 4:11-15; I Tm. 3:15; Hb. 13:7,17, etc.). He said of his Church, “He who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk. 10:16). The many books that comprise what we call the Bible never tell us crucial truths such as the fact that they are inspired, who can and cannot be the human authors of them, who authored them at all, or, as I said before, what the canon of Scripture is in the first place. And this is just to name a few examples. What is very clear historically is that Jesus established a kingdom with a hierarchy and authority to speak for him (see Lk. 20:29-32, Mt. 10:40, 28:18-20). It was members of this Kingdom—the Church—that would write the Scripture, preserve its many texts and eventually canonize it. The Scriptures cannot write or canonize themselves. To put it simply, reason clearly rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle because one cannot determine what the “scriptura” is using the principle of sola scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical
Let us now consider the most common text used by Protestants to “prove” sola scriptura, II Tm. 3:16, which I quoted above:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
The problem with using this text as such is threefold: 1. Strictly speaking, it does not speak of the New Testament at all. 2. It does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. 3. The Bible teaches oral Tradition to be on a par with and just as necessary as the written Tradition, or Scripture.
1. What’s Old is Not New
Let us examine the context of the passage by reading the two preceding verses:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood (italics added) you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
In context, this passage does not refer to the New Testament at all. None of the New Testament books had been written when St. Timothy was a child! To claim this verse in order to authenticate a book, say, the book of Revelation, when it had most likely not even been written yet, is more than a stretch. That is going far beyond what the text actually claims.
2. The Trouble With Sola
As a Protestant, I was guilty of seeing more than one sola in Scripture that simply did not exist. The Bible clearly teaches justification by faith. And we Catholics believe it. However, we do not believe in justification by faith alone because, among many other reasons, the Bible says, we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24, emphasis added). Analogously, when the Bible says Scripture is inspired and profitable for “the man of God,” to be “equipped for every good work,” we Catholics believe it. However, the text of II Tim. 3:16 never says Scripture alone. There is no sola to be found here either! Even if we granted II Tm. 3:16 was talking about all of Scripture, it never claims Scripture to be the sole rule of faith. A rule of faith, to be sure! But not the sole rule of faith.
James 1:4 illustrates clearly the problem with Protestant exegesis of II Tim. 3:16:
And let steadfastness (patience) have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to II Tm. 3:16 we would have to say that all we need is patience to be perfected. We don’t need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, etc.
Of course, any Christian would immediately say this is absurd. And of course it is. But James’s emphasis on the central importance of patience is even stronger than St. Paul’s emphasis on Scripture. The key is to see that there is not a sola to be found in either text. Sola patientia would be just as much an error as is sola scriptura.
3. The Tradition of God is the Word of God
Not only is the Bible silent when it comes to sola scriptura, but Scripture is remarkably plain in teaching oral Tradition to be just as much the word of God as is Scripture. In what most scholars believe was the first book written in the New Testament, St. Paul said:
And we also thank God… that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God… (I Thess. 2:13)
II Thess. 2:15 adds:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you have been taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
According to St. Paul, the spoken word from the apostles was just as much the word of God as was the later written word.
Sola Scriptura is Unworkable
When it comes to the tradition of Protestantism—sola scriptura—the silence of the text of Scripture is deafening. When it comes to the true authority of Scripture and Tradition, the Scriptures are clear. And when it comes to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the biblical text is equally as clear:
If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone … But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you … If he refuses to listen … tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Mt. 18:15-17)
According to Scripture, the Church—not the Bible alone—is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith and discipline. But isn’t it also telling that since the Reformation of just ca. 480 years ago—a reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 denominations that have derived from it?
For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms (the Monophysites, Nestorians, the Orthodox, and a very few others). Now in just 480 years we have this? I hardly think that when Jesus prophesied there would be “one shepherd and one fold” in Jn. 10:16, this is what he had in mind. It seems quite clear to me that not only is sola scriptura unreasonable and unbiblical, but it is unworkable. The proof is in the puddin’!
If you liked this post and you would like to dive deeper into this topic and more, click here.
The problem is you are only looking at what it seems to you that Protestants are doing wrong and don’t look further back in the process, at what Catholicism is doing.
The Protestant arguments against certain Catholic beliefs have become “doctrine” of a sort, but for the most part they are actually just objections to the extremes and unwarranted certainties of Catholicism.
Take, for instance, the question of whether or not Mary knew Joseph and had more children, or remained a virgin. Protestant counterarguments come in because of, first, the Catholic claims of certainty on the matter, but then, even moreso, because from that one claim Catholicism has added more and more “certainties” to the point of raising Mary to the level of an idol. That, in turn, has radically re-drawn the Gospel in Catholicism, to the point that Mary is “co-redemptrix.” If Mary wasn’t so over-emphasized, to the distorting of the Christian faith in all sorts of ways, then evangelicals wouldn’t so vehemently counter the Catholic dogma that Mary was a perpetual virgin. For is the belief that Mary *did* have children some major theological doctrine, up there in importance with fundamentals like the inerrancy of the Bible, Jesus’ blood atonement, and His resurrection? No, it isn’t.
Now, I know you won’t agree that Mary is an idol in Catholicism, and you’re welcome to say whatever you want on the matter, but I’m not interested in going over all the issues point by point here. I’ll just present what I’ve concluded on it. Catholics know the differences between God, and creatures, and idols, but the abstract knowing doesn’t mean they haven’t made her an idol. Muslims say they’re monotheists yet they seem to make both Mohammed and Muslim men in general into idols/false gods. According to the ability that God has given all humans to understand and discern the spiritual, Catholicism worships Mary, and the claims of distinctions between how they treat God and Mary are like legal technicalities to cover that up. Then there are the claims that Catholics do but don’t pray to Mary, that praying is just asking, the prayers are just for intercession, and people ask other people to pray for them, and so on. I’m not satisfied that any of these claims hold any water whatsoever. I’ve looked into them and read the various prayers to Mary, which include professions of dedicating oneself completely to her and calling her Healer, as well as well as the Catholic’s life, sweetness, and hope.
On Revelation 12, then, I would say first that it is of course impossible to read it without thinking of Mary. That is why, I would also say, that it offends you if someone says, no, this passage is about Israel. It seems to deny the obvious - isn’t that your point?
Yet again, though, the real problem here is the Catholic seizing on this passage to support Catholic teaching which has built Mary into an idol over the years, in essence where Scripture gave an inch a mile was taken. And the Catholic way to examine such questions now is to hold Catholic teaching before all else, to cherrypick from the Bible when it helps, and to twist and deny whatever is in the Bible that doesn’t help the Catholic teaching cause. The Bible is therefore made the slave of Catholic teaching, merely there to lend support to Catholic teaching.
And it’s the case with the woman in Revelation 12. The passage is of course related to Mary, but exactly how? And just because it is, doesn’t justify all the various claims that Catholicism makes that aren’t warranted about Mary, as they exceed what’s been revealed while also contradicting Scripture. But to continue with Revelation 12, yes, it speaks in a sense of Mary, of that I have no doubt, but it is also not quite Mary, either, and as others have pointed out, it also speaks in some ways of Israel, as well, and there could be other possibilities too - like, for example, the birth of Christ Himself within each believer, and how Satan tries to destroy Christ within us once He’s been born there.
Like “a father sacrificing his son” can speak not only of God the Father and God the Son, but also of Abraham and Isaac (as Abraham did entirely yield his son to God’s will, although Isaac wasn’t killed), and how Joseph adopted Jesus, so that God could adopt us, who aren’t His children, God often uses the same spiritual figure in different ways to accomplish His objectives.
Then note that in Revelation 17, there is another woman talked about - the whore of Babylon. And what is her identity revealed to be? “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth,” (17:18). So she wasn’t a woman, actually, but a city - perhaps. Again, “Babylon” might very well not even be Babylon. From Revelation 11, too, which tells of the Two Witnesses: “And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.” So Jerusalem, spiritually, is “Sodom” and “Egypt”! Revelation reveals such relationships between things and people, but much of it, too, isn’t fully explained and revealed, but only gives us glimpses of the truth for now.
And again, the thing about Catholic interpretation of Revelation 12 is that it is about affirming Catholic doctrine, which overstepped what was revealed to begin with, to created doctrine that contradicts God’s Word and distorts the fundamentals of Christian faith, chiefly by making Mary into an idol.
That has to be the most pathetic attempt at a defence I have ever encountered. If you haven't found the truth of the trinity in scripture yourself I'll simply understand that it's not worth my time to continue with you.
|
Staples misdiagnosis on “The Protestant Achilles' Heel” First, this sophist resorts to employing a straw man: Sola Scriptura was the central doctrine and foundation for all I believed when I was Protestant. On a popular level, it simply meant, “If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!” Which is a blatant mischaracterization of the very thing Staples imagines he is refuting! For as no less than the Westminster Confession states, “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, and Scripture is such that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” Cp. VI: Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm Once I got past the superficial, I had to try to answer real questions like, what role does tradition play? Why not ask Prot scholars who deal with this issue and SS rather than whoever Staples go his ideas from? Was Muhammad right in thinking at one point that the Trinity consisted of the Father, the Son and Mary? (Though considering the demi-goddess Rcs make of her than is understandable.) This [SS] does not mean — as Catholics often assume — that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. - Evangelical authorities Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie: http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf **From Alister McGrath's [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism: Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings” In answer to this last question, “Where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible?” most Protestants will immediately respond as I did, by simply citing II Tm. 3:16: So since that is as far as most Protestants get, or Jn. 16:13, then these are the only texts Staples deals with, and does not deal with actual arguments based on the former, such as apologist James White sets forth in debating RCs, which can be seen here But why not also examine the abundant evidence that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God Then answer the following questions: • 1. What other transcendent objective, comprehensive body of revelation is wholly inspired of God? Infallible decrees? No, not even according to Rome, which only hold these utterances - and not even the reasoning or arguments behind them - are protected from error. But which does not the anointed power of the word of God, which is alive "and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12) Are the words of the church which express Tradition wholly inspired of God? No, Catholic teaching says these are not either. She does claim oral (as oral) tradition is, however that exists in a nebulous amorphous form, the authenticity of which rests upon the premise of the perpetual magisterial infallibility of Rome, which is the alternative Staples must establish but only assumes is true. • 2. What body of Truth is said to instrumentally be used for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and to make one "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works? That the man of God can be complete because he has available to him this body of Truth? (2Tim. 3:15,17) • 3. What body of Truth did the Lord establish His Truth claims by, and specifically open the minds of the disciples to? (Lk. 24:44,45) It was not Cath. tradition. Thus we see that Scripture has a unique status and is uniquely qualified to be the supreme standard for Truth and obedience, and being the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters, and indeed, as written, it manifestly became that standard, which oral preaching depended on. Moreover, the unique instrumental ability of Scripture referred to above was written while as yet the NT was yet to be complete, but which in principle extends to whatever will given as Scripture. And which relates to the other aspect of SS, that of its full sufficiency, of Scripture both formally providing all the Truth essential to function as the supreme authoritative standard as the wholly inspired word of God, the "rule of faith" for the Church, which sufficiency is nowhere found in Scripture and in no other source. And that it also materially (some RCs also hold Scripture as being materially sufficient) provides for helps in this, which includes reason, the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the church, and the guidance of conscience and the Spirit. Concerning the latter, most every SS preacher allows that God can "speak" to a person's heart - especially during the offering - whether by conscience and or impressions of the Spirit. And as a conditional continuationist i allow that God may speak thru prophecy (though i know of no contemporary ones), a word of wisdom or knowledge, even perhaps if by a tongue (rare today i would say). But all of which are subject to testing by Scripture, and do not make such formally or even materially sufficient, and a supreme authoritative standard which is binding upon all as the wholly inspired word of God. Scripture is a unique body of Truth that stands in a class by itself, with its writings being established as being of God due to their enduring Divine qualities and attestation. While the position of the sufficiency of Scripture only pertains to a 66 book canon, and does not hold that the written word always was the the rule of faith, yet as said, as written, it is manifest that Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. And which materially provided for additions to it, of writings of God being recognized and established as being so — without an assuredly infallible magisterium — and thus in principal it materially provided for a canon of Scripture. And if Scripture was the only transcendent objective formal body of Truth which that is wholly inspired of God, and instrumentally able to make one wise unto salvation, and to work to make one complete, throughly furnished unto all good works, then this attests to it alone being the supreme sufficient (in its formal and materal aspects) standard for Truth and Faith. When defending sola scriptura, the Protestant will predictably appeal to his sole authority—Scripture. This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself. One cannot prove the inspiration of a text from the text itself. Wrong debate, as this is with Caths which already assent to Scripture being wholly inspired of God, while unlike with so many RCs, Scripture provides for man's recognition of what is of God without an infallible church. Beyond the fact of circular reasoning, for example, I would point out the fact that this verse says all Scripture is inspired tells us nothing of what the canon consists. See above. It is both historically and Scripturally evident (Lk. 24:44,456, etc.) that both men and writings of God were discerned and established as being so without an infallible church. Catholics certainly agree that the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to canonize the Scriptures because the Catholic Church teaches that there is an authoritative Church guided by the Holy Spirit. But here the RC enages in circularity, that of proving the Scriptures by the church and the church by the Scriptures. That leads to Staples entering into a graveyard spiral (below). “Show me in the Bible where the canon of Scripture is, what the criterion for the canon is, who can and cannot write Scripture, etc.” Again, it is both historically and Scripturally evident (Lk. 24:44,456, etc.) that both men and writings of God were discerned and established as being so without an infallible church. Thus if the books the NT preachers and writers abundantly invoked for support were est. as Scripture, and others rejected, then in principle what is written provided for recognition of additional writings as being Scripture, and thus for a larger canon. Even if as then, there was no complete universal complete assent. The Catholic Church’s position on inspiration is not circular. We do not say “the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so, and the Scriptures are inspired because the infallible Church says so.” That would be a kind of circular reasoning. The Church was established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so. However, to invoke Christ means that one has an authoritative source of what He said, which is Scripture, but which RCs hold requires the church (which it says the Christ of Scripture established) to give it authority as certainly being of God: Cardinal Avery Dulles: People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high.” - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium" "...the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm But which is contrary to what Scripture reveals and to how the church began. For the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) Thus to avoid circular reasoning the RC cannot even reference Scripture as being so, but is compelled to reduce it being a merely reliable historical document. However, this is not circular reasoning. When the Catholic approaches Scripture, he or she begins with the Bible as an historical document, not as inspired.... Further, this testimony of the Bible is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christians and non-Christian writers But which argument appeals to men to discern that the church of Rome is of God, but denies they can correctly assuredly know Scripture is of God apart from the church of Rome. Yet if they allow souls can discern the latter from history then they must also allow souls can be right in discerning the church of Rome is contrary to these historical writings, as well as that these writings are of God. To put it simply, reason clearly rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle because one cannot determine what the “scriptura” is using the principle of sola scriptura. Wrong, as explained before. Only ignorance or deception can explain the failure to see from Scripture that even without an infallible church souls recognized both men and writings as being of God, upon which foundation the NT church began. While Rome argues souls can assuredly know discern the church of Rome is of God from historical sources, yet it denies they can correctly assuredly know she is not from these sources, and that Scripture is of God apart from the church of Rome. Thus reason clearly rejects as a self-refuting principle the alternative to SS, that of sola ecclesia, in which the church alone is the supreme infallible authority, and essential for souls to know what Scripture is. Because without an infallible church one can assuredly ascertain both men and writings as being of God, and thus the very NT church began. Let us now consider the most common text used by Protestants to “prove” sola scriptura, II Tm. 3:16, which I quoted above: And which i above showed supports SS. The problem with using this text as such is threefold: 1. Strictly speaking, it does not speak of the New Testament at all. Regardless, it speaks of what Scripture both is and enables, which unique qualities as the only wholly inspired formal body of Truth is able to instrumentally work to make one complete, throughly furnished unto all good works. Thus it supremely qualifies it to be the sole supreme sufficient rule of faith, if anything is. . 2. It does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. This is from a man who imagines Scripture teaches by fallacious extrapolation perpetual magisterial infallibility, but in contrast, the unique qualities of this wholly inspired writings uniquely qualify them as being the sole supreme sufficient standard, as described, and its status as the supreme standard is abundantly testified to. The alternative, that of the church being supreme over and above Scripture, is not. (Some RCs argue Rome is not supreme ove Scripture, however, when you uniquely claim to assuredly correctly declare what Scripture consists of and means, then you are effectively claiming supremacy over it.) 3. The Bible teaches oral Tradition to be on a par with and just as necessary as the written Tradition, or Scripture. Wrong. "Oral Tradition" as oral preaching of the word of God in the NT was dependent upon Scripture which affirmed it textually as well as the manner of other supernatural attestation given to it. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) In addition, Oral Tradition as meaning the passing on of Truths presupposes these were never subsequently written, but which always seems to be the case with any revelation called the word of God/the Lord, and as written, it is manifest that Scripture became the standard by which all Truth claims were tested by. Which the noble Bereans exampled. (Acts 17:11) Moreover, for Rome especially, oral Tradition can even be a specific event not recorded or promised in Scripture, nor even supported by early "tradition," but which is "remembered" 1800 years later and made binding doctrine. This presumption requires making the church the supreme authority as being assuredly infallible, but which is not seen or promised in Scripture, nor is it essential, which is a presupposition this RC premise is based upon. None of the New Testament books had been written when St. Timothy was a child! To claim this verse in order to authenticate a book, say, the book of Revelation, when it had most likely not even been written yet, is more than a stretch. That is going far beyond what the text actually claims. Wrong. Rather, contrary to Roman reasoning, if all Scripture is wholly inspired of God, then it applies to all that was or will be given as such. Saying "all men are mortals" does not simply apply to the present human race as it now stands, but all that share that nature. The Bible clearly teaches justification by faith. And we Catholics believe it. However, we do not believe in justification by faith alone because, among many other reasons, the Bible says, we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24, emphasis added). And Reformers clearly taught that obedience was necessary as a fruit of saving faith, “Such a faith will work in you love for Christ and joy in him, and good works will naturally follow. If they do not, faith is surely not present: for where faith is, there the Holy Ghost is and must work love and good works.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:21-22] "...it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt] And it is evangelicals, those who hold most strongly to the most basic Prot. distinctive of Scripture being supreme as the wholly inspired accurate word of God, that testify the most, in contrast to Caths, that they believe works follow faith. Meanwhile, in Ja. 2 the manner in which one is justified cannot be the same as Gn. 15:6 and Rm. 4, that of the faith of the unGodly being counted for righteousness, which faith itself appropriates, otherwise it would contradict both Moses and Paul. But one is justified as being a believer with salvific faith, which must be the kind of faith which effects obedience, versus an inert, merely intellectual fruitless faith, which is what James argues against, as do Reformers. However, the text of II Tim. 3:16 never says Scripture alone. Nor does Scripture say Mary alone was sinless among culpable souls born of men, but RCs somehow see Scripture teaching this, yet cannot see that Scripture is the only objective body of revelation that is said to be wholly inspired of God, and instrumentally able to make one wise unto salvation, and works to make one complete, and thus the only supreme sufficient rule of faith. James 1:4 illustrates clearly the problem with Protestant exegesis of II Tim. 3:16: And let steadfastness (patience) have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to II Tm. 3:16 we would have to say that all we need is patience to be perfected. More fallacious Roman reasoning as this pertains to two different categories. One pertains to a body of Truth functioning as a standard for Truth and obedience, which instrumentally thru the church works to make one complete, furnished for every good work, while the other pertains to one of the virtues Scripture provides for. The outworking of which makes one mature in tested virtue, overcoming sin. Thus this aspect of perfection is one which Scripture equips, exhorts to, and and instructs in. But which does not work to fully equip him. Likewise Scripture provides for the church, which uses the Scriptures to conform one to Christ. o then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you have been taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. According to St. Paul, the spoken word from the apostles was just as much the word of God as was the later written word. What the RC ignores here is that , the spoken word, as with all Truth claims, relied upon and was subject to testing by the established written word, and thus the appeal to it. See also my comments on this made before. When it comes to the tradition of Protestantism—sola scriptura—the silence of the text of Scripture is deafening. Rather, the RC has blinders on as a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906), "The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question." (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ) when it comes to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the biblical text is equally as clear: If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone … But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you … If he refuses to listen … tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Mt. 18:15-17) According to Scripture, the Church—not the Bible alone—is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith and discipline. Another category mistake. Scripture is the final court of appeal as to being the supreme authority on Truth, like as the US Constitution is in defining the role of government, while the Supreme Court is the final court as regards government judging cases regarding what that means, binding or loosing souls thereby. But which does equate to or require ensured perpetual infallibility, but as in the OT judiciary, though it has authority, yet it can be wrong, unlike Scripture. Also, the rulings of the court can be subject to interpretation, as are those of Rome. For Mt. 18:15-17 is not some new thing, but is the NT equivalent of the OT judiciary seen in such places as Dt. 17:8-13. And which mainly had to do with personal transgressions and disputes, (cf. Dt. 19:16-20) , and whose judgments were binding or loosing, even to disobedience being a capital offense. Yet as with all obedience enjoined to men, this was conditional and the magisterial office did not possess perpetual infallibility as per Rome (although those of such might sometimes speak Divine Truth), which is nowhere seen or promised in Scripture, nor it necessary for discernment and preservation of Truth. And Westminster clearly upholds the authoritative magisterial office of the church. "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm) However, under the RC model for authority, souls are to submit to the historical magisterium of the instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation, and recipient of promises of God's presence and preservation as a people. Which means 1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the eat of Moses over Israel, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 3:2; 9:4-5) But isn’t it also telling that since the Reformation of just ca. 480 years ago—a reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 denominations that have derived from it? What is telling is that the RC engages in a number of fallacies: 1. That Rome exists as the example of the NT church, which it manifestly does not. The NT church also saw its limited degree of unity under manifest apostles of God, who could say they were, "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,..." (2 Corinthians 6:4-7) Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12) And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; (Acts 2:43-44) We do not see this manner of leadership today, and that of Rome is not even in the running (nor am i), and she fails of both the qualifications of apostolic successors, and the credentials of Biblical apostles. 2. Comparing one church with a varied multiplicity of churches, many of whom do not hold to the primary Reformation distinctive of Scripture being supremely authoritative as wholly inspired and accurate word of God, is a valid comparison. Which is besides other problems with the 33k figure. 3. That unity under Rome is superior to that of the aforementioned type believers. Organizational unity, while an ideal, does not equate to spiritual and doctrinal unity, and unity under Rome is very limited and largely on paper, as in addition to things RCs can conscientiously disagree on, RC disagree with their church more than most others do, yet Rome conveys implicit sanction of such by treating even proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members in life and in death, as well as her liberal majority (at least in the West). Thus the rest must count them as brethren, rather separating as commanded. You also have SSPX type sects and SSPV and EO divisions because some do separate to a degree (not enough). As one poster wryly remarked, The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html 4. That the Roman alternative to SS, that of sola ecclesia, is Biblical, as it is not. Again, the church did not begin under the premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, thus calling for implicit assent to her based on that premise of ensured veracity, but instead it began with God-fearing souls discerning men as being of God due to their Scriptural substantiation in word and power. Therefore under the Biblical model the church can only expect its level of unity insomuch as God-fearing souls see that manner of leadership, and or they seek the Lord as the 120 did before Pentecost. In addition sola ecclesia is shared by many cults, and which see superior unity to Rome, yet under which is seen the most serious heresies. For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms Yet it still had divisions, and Catholicism today exists in sects and schisms. And under her model it can sink to the condition seen leading up to the Reformation: Cardinal Ratzinger observed, "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. "It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/) Cardinal Bellarmine: "Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,) Now in just 480 years we have this? I hardly think that when Jesus prophesied there would be “one shepherd and one fold” in Jn. 10:16, this is what he had in mind. Actually, the Reformation fostered this, as a far greater percentage of evangelicals have Christ as their shepherd than the fruit of Rome, while to have Christ as shepherd requires doing what RCs are not to do, but evangelical converts from Rome have. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (2 Corinthians 6:14-16) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:17-18) This is what RCs need to do in light of the manifest deformation of Rome, and come to God as souls damned for their works - not saved because of them - and destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God. And with contrite heart cast their whole-hearted repentant faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Divine Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) And whose faith is thus counted as righteousness, but it is a faith that will follow Him, confessing this first in baptism. Thereby they will realize the essential unity of the Spirit which evangelicals who walk therein do, due to Christ being in them, and them in me, which Jn. 17:21,23 speaks of. Glory be to God. |
Ping to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3253337/posts?page=103#103 In between snow shoveling the new 17’’, on top of the last 29’’ (approx.) Bless the Lord.
Correct. If the title “Co-redemptrix”, “departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” as Cardinal Ratzinger said, then likewise does Mother of God. Scripture is careful to qualify Israel as progenitor of Christ,
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:5)
Not long before that I was a little pre-Kindergartener and my father had a communications platoon, so my mother took one of his khaki uniforms, like Gunnery Sergeant Carter is wearing in that picture and made me a little outfit. I then went to visit him on base and called all 90 of them to attention. Hilarious!
LOL, I like that one. Maybe now, when a quarterback throws a long pass into the end zone, we will have to change it to a hail Theodore pass. Sound about right?
Oh fun!!! Shovelling snow!!! NOT. My heart goes out to you man!!
It’s amazing what one finds when honestly searching for truth isn’t it? Thanks for posting that and all the work you do here.
ROFL!! Catholics will grasp at any straw they can!!!!!
.
Sola Scriptura is the great badge of courage and truth to every beliver.
.
BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!
That’s Catholic logic in a nutshell.
.
>> “Jesus is the Word, the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, who is God.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity.” <<
.
That ridiculous canard has been so completely exposed as sophistic foolishness, yet it gets repeated as though repetition will call up the demon that has the power to make it true.
The Logos is eternal. He has no Mother, only the Father.
Only biological things have mothers.
When Yeshua arose from the tomb, he was not a biological being, and he had no mother. One has to note that there is no mention of any family reunion after the resurrection. There is no mention of Mary, widow of Joseph, at all.
He ascended to the Father as the only kind of being that could possibly do so: A spirit being.
.
I wasn’t talking about Arthur
.
>> “Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? Show me where that is in Scripture.” <<
.
Trinity is an idea created by men as a crutch to explain the nature of God.
Attempting to make “The Trinity” a spiritual concept makes people stumble all over themselves.
There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures that says God is three separate beings. Yeshua constantly told men that he and the Father were one. This is obviously a confusing thing to us as limited mortals, but the word trinity leads us away from understanding, not toward it.
The Holy Spirit is God who comes to us as a comforter, and communicator. That fails to make the Holy Spirit another being.
Paul has told us that when we are face to face with God, we will know as we are known, but now only darkly as through an un-silvered glass. WE need to just accept that, and not expand upon our ignorance blindly.
.
I know. In fact, as far as I know, your statement applies to no one on this thread. And that was my point.
Peace,
SR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.