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.
And the last Adam addressed the woman at the well so she must be the interim Eve. Oh and He addressed the woman who sinned also!! Sheesh!
Oh that sounds legit
/s
#BereanFail
And He addressed the woman who sinned. “woman where are your accusers”. So she must be an Eve in there somewhere.
The lengths to which the Catholic Church will go to make up their beliefs is ripe for ridicule.
All of this brings to mind that certain woman arrayed in purple and scarlet.
Of course, our mothers and fathers pro-create our bodies and do not pro-create our souls. Mary’s body was involved in the pro-creation of the body of Jesus. His human soul was a special creation, just like ours, and his Divine Person existed eternally.
Mary was/is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Thus, it makes perfect sense to call Mary “the mother of God.” She is the mother of a person who is God the Son. A person who is God the Son is her son. She is the mother of God the Son. She is the mother of God.
If Mary is the mother of Jesus, it is self-evident that Mary is the mother of God.
The only conceivable reason anyone would refuse to call Mary the mother of God is that that person is filled with hate for Mary. Where that hate came from I do not know, although propaganda seems a likely candidate.
While true of course, no Catholics are going to buy into it because their version comes from headquarters and so the bible sense of the situation is irrelevant...
Really??? That's the ONLY conceivable reason? Is it in the realm of possibility that Mary can be loved, honored and respected without her having the title "Mother of God"? Can you understand that all this discussion and argument isn't about hatred for Mary but a love for Christ and the truth? All I see that this disagreement is causing is contention and hatred FOR fellow Christians. Mary is on the sideline...and I don't think she would like seeing herself being used in such a way.
Since all Christians believe that Jesus is God, and
Since all Christians believe that Mary is the mother of Jesus,
There is no rational basis for objecting to calling Mary “the mother of God.”
Thus, there can only be irrational bases for objecting to calling Mary “the mother of God.”
Why the hate? As I pointed out, a Moslem poster who opposes you would be filled with hate for the Mother of God.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is a carpenter.
Mary is the mother of a carpenter.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Mary is the mother of God.
The two syllogisms above are identical in form. They are both valid.
This is another way of saying that refusing to call Mary “the mother of God” is totally irrational—unless one is NOT a Christian.
Actually Nestorius determined there were two natures, not persons...
The doctrine was about Him, not her. By clarifying that Mary carried the Second Person of the Trinity in her womb, it said that Christ cannot be divided into 2 persons, but is one person only.
That's not really accurate...The definition was finished up at Chalcedon and it was determined that Jesus had two natures, human and divine which were inseparable...
Nestorius believed that those two natures were separable and therefore Mary was not the mother of the divine nature...
Your religion has made the doctrine ALL about Mary since that dicision allows your religion (in its mind) to call Mary the mother of God...The Catholic glory goes to Mary...No honest person can deny that...It's ALL about Mary...
That entire statement is nonsense and does nothing to furher your cause...Of course Mary was the bearer of the divine nature of Jesus (she carried him abound making her the bearer)...Nestorius never said Jesus was 2 persons...One person with two natures...
What's comical is that you guys throw around the phrase, 'Nestorianism is heretical' so often that people don't really know what Nestorianism is but just fall in line against it because your relgion calls it a heresy...
Anti-Nestorianism has one function and one focus; to elevate Mary to the mother of God...
When Jesus died on the Cross, the bible tells us his spirit went to heaven and Jesus laid in the tomb while Jesus went to the center of the earth...Kind of hard to picture a dead human Jesus travelling to the center of the earth...
Your religion doesn't think things thru too much...
That’s Catholic logic in a nutshell.
Yes it is. I am surprised anyone would bet their eternity on the convoluted logic the catholics come up with. Incredible, like the proverbial pretzel would you say?
Don't forget the Syrophoenician woman. She could be the new Eve too. The possibilities are endless. Any woman that Jesus addressed could be the new Eve. Do you think someone needs to cut me some slack?
Wasn't that sort of syllogism attempted earlier on this thread, and found to be wanting?
Why revive it now?
Was it for reason to get to the ending phrase, wherein one can spout off ---- that unless one agrees with your own choice of wordings, that they are not "Christian"?
It is not "totally irrational" to refrain from referring to Mary as "mother of God".
To use that term "mother of God" one must include further explanation that one is not intending to infer that Mary is mother of God the Father, correct?
Let's try things your way;
The Heavenly Creator is God.
Therefore, Mary is the Heavenly Creator's own mother.
It would do us all well to recall that this terminology came about due to disputes over the nature of Christ --- this Son of God whom we know of as Jesus, who came to us in earthly incarnation, born of the virgin Mary, even as also it is otherwise understood, that this same Christ had himself existed (as one essence) with God the Father, from before the foundations of the world were laid. Or else the Apostle Paul, and John too, have badly misled us..?
Which leaves it to be that at this juncture, to avoid making Mary out to be her own great-great-grandmother so to speak, to limit oneself to referring to Mary as mother of Jesus (which is Scriptural) the further explanation that this Jesus was "God with us" can be added, with still further Christological considerations be open to investigation from there.
Using the term "mother of God" requires further explanation of yet another sort, one which would be more like subtraction than addition, which must be included ---namely --- that Mary is not "mother of" ---->God the Father, for you are not claiming that she is that also, in addition to being mother of the Incarnate Christ, are you?
Please answer that question, or just do as you have with other comments from myself which raise difficult challenges to your assertions, and do not respond to me at all.
Your choice, yet if you do not clarify your own positions, then there would be no one to blame but yourself if somebody later on fails to understand what they truly are, and what they are not...
Why is this so difficult? Must it be so difficult?
Aah, that word "difficult"... as I jokingly included in comment to another here the other day in differing context --- there's a small "cult" hiding out in plain view, coming right after the "diffi".
Could it be ---- the cult of Mary? I do think so, and that was fed from very early on in the history of the Church by spurious writings and pseudograph, such as what is known today as the Protoevangelium of James. It is notable that Origen mentioned that he did not come across any mention in ecclesiastical writings of Mary being perpetually virgin prior to the era which the pseudograph had begun to do it's insidious work (of smuggling discreet form of goddess worship into the Church -- dressed up in the clothing of Mary, the mother of Christ himself).
Since the writing has in a sense all but disappeared from sight (out of sight, out of mind) then unless one is informed of such things, the writer whom presented himself as being James has perpetrated a near-perfect religious crime (the only perfect crimes are the ones which no one detects).
Things become more fantastical from there on out, in regards to extra-biblical writings which enjoyed widespread popularity, and cannot BUT be seen as among primary sources for the more breathless of the Marianist devotions.
That type of "devotion" was simply not taught within the most primitive Church, or is extant within thus traceable to earliest writings which were among more official correspondence -- which leaves those attitudes and teachings to be outside of that which was passed down by Christ and the Apostles.
But for those who insist that "Mary" is capital "M", "Mother of God" here's a little song for your listening pleasure (which hopefully, will induce further investigation & pondering):
It does not demonstrate that your conclusion is correct either.
Then there must have been more than one Eve replacement because Jesus addressed other women as *Woman*.
To a woman He healed.
Luke 13:12 When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, “Woman, you are freed from your disability.”
To the Samaritan woman at the well.
John 4:21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
To the woman caught in adultery.
John 8:10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
To Mary Magdalene at the tomb.
John 20:15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”
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.