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 weaknesshis 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 isnt explicit in the Bible, then we dont 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? Doesnt that say the Bible is all we need? Question answered.
The fact is: II Timothy 3or any other text of Scripturedoes 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. Well 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 authorityScripture. 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 apostlesand by allusion, the Churchinto 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 dont want to hear about God guiding the Church! Wouldnt 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 Churchs 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 Christas a matter of historyestablished 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 Kingdomthe Churchthat 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. Whats 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 dont need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, etc.
Of course, any Christian would immediately say this is absurd. And of course it is. But Jamess emphasis on the central importance of patience is even stronger than St. Pauls 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 Protestantismsola scripturathe 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 Churchnot the Bible aloneis the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith and discipline. But isnt it also telling that since the Reformation of just ca. 480 years agoa reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principlethere 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.
Let's try things your way.
Mary is mother of God.
The Heavenly Creator is God.
Therefore, Mary is the Heavenly Creator's own mother.
Here's a syllogism of the same logical form as yours:
Mary is the mother of a fireman.
Sam is a fireman.
Therefore: Mary is the mother of Sam.
As you can see, your syllogism is formally invalid. My example is formally invalid in precisely the same way. Undistributed middle.
My original syllogism, on the other hand, is valid:
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God the Son, the Word Incarnate.
Mary is the mother of God the Son, the Word Incarnate.
Mary is the mother of the Incarnate Word of God, the Incarnate Son of God, i.e., Jesus Christ. She began to be his mother around the year 0 A.D. She did not exist when the universe was created.
Mary is the mother of a man who is also God. The Incarnate Word of God had a human mother, whose name was Mary. God-made-man was the son of Mary. Mary is the mother of God.
Since you blundered with your last attempt to formulate a syllogism, let's see you try to do it again, without botching it.
No, it makes it blasphemy.
She is not God and God has no mother. God is eternal and self-existent.
She is the mother of a person who is God the Son.
She is mother of a person born who is called the Son of God.
A person who is God the Son is her son. She is the mother of God the Son.
She is mother of God the Son Incarnate, which is not the same as being mother of the Second person of the Trinity, the mother of His divinity as another Catholic poster claimed.
She is the mother of God.
Nope. God has no mother.
Jesus did.
There's that projection thing again.
It's a shame that Catholics can't understand love for the truth.
The only thing that is hated is the lies propagated by Catholicism that lead people away from the Truth of God's word.
You also have yet to prove that anyone *hates* Mary. Refusing to call her the fabricated name based on faulty logic that the Catholic church has assigned her is not *hating* anyone no matter how much someone wants to believe it.
If the best argument for calling her *mother of God* Catholics have is to falsely accuse others of *hate* then they have a pretty weak case.
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.
Sure there is. Because the Holy Spirit when He inspired and breathed out Scripture, saw fit to address her as *mother of JESUS*.
If He had used the term *Mother of God*, it wouldn't be an issue.
But when anyone comes along and changes what the Holy Spirit inspired, then those who love and defend the truth WILL speak up.
Thus, there can only be irrational bases for objecting to calling Mary the mother of God.
So adhering to the integrity of Scripture and agreeing with that is *irrational*, eh?
That's telling......
What of your own? It was apples and oranges, as another (logically) pointed out.
Why did you persist, and now add all the rest of the "additional explanation" sort of thing?
As I pointed out, all of that type of thing can be required, even regardless of which "title" one gives to Mary, herself.
Mother of God, can go too far, as I just demonstrated.
There is logical enough reason to shy away from full-throated exclamation of that term, and still be able to get to place of understanding that is was God Himself, in the form of the Son (the heir, even, as Jesus used that concept in explaining 'how the heavens go' in regards to man) whom willingly gave Himself, for us...even for those whom had cruelly rejected Him.
While "mother of Jesus" also, admittedly enough as a closed phrase, if you will, doesn't tell us much about who Jesus really is, and so also requires additional information & explanation, but not to explain Mary, herself.
Yes.
I dunno about that last.
As for the first part, God the Son Incarnate is indeed the 2nd person of the Trinity, being He was from before He was born -- AND -- when He was born, thus ultimately, in that sense, Mary did give birth to the One whom we otherwise accept the description, was "fully man, and fully God", with there being no divisibility of those aspects -- when He existed in the form of a man.
What exactly we should think of Him now (other than God?) can be somewhat puzzling. He did say to his disciples (John 6:62)
On His Father's side, He was God.
And He was Jewish, on his mother's side.
Yet now -- has indeed returned to where He was "before" (like -- where He was before He was born in the likeness of sinful flesh making Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. (Romans 8:3, and Philippians 2:7).
Don't get me wrong ma, I'm not meaning to be coming across as lecturing to you, but instead am writing of Christological considerations. Perhaps someone out there in the interwebs could be edified. Meanwhile, this conversation is intruding upon the rest of the forum...
I don't believe it's an intrusion...
But I'm thinking that your position brings us to: did the 2nd person of the Trinity die on the Cross??? So far, I don't believe he did...
Most; like 'some'; is a MARVELOUS word!
It allows one to make the MOST outrageous remarks and continue on down the road.
In answer to this question; Where does Rome find, in the Bible, the reasoning fort a LOT of it's non-biblical doctrines??; most FR Catholics will immediately respond,
"Who are YOU to limit what GOD can do?"
Where???
The last ain't too bad; either...!
Heck; them CATHOLIC scribes didn't do too swell at transcribing THAT, when one considers ALL of the variations they produced!
Follow?
THIS guy!?
An AWFUL lot of our FR Catholics have expressed a visceral dislike for the poor fella!
The Health Risks of gay sex.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.
2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
Ezekiel 16:49-50
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
But there IS hope!!!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
Only those who have PASSED Logic 101!
Uh..
...the Protestants will gag on the words he is placing in their collective mouths?
Rome DOES have pictures of folks, whose attention is grabbed by; something.
Why COULDn"t have been Mary?
Who are YOU to limit what GOD can do???
Now WAIT! just a gol durned MINUTE here!!!
Let's try some easy math:
There are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics world wide;
If merely 1% of them 'ask' Mary for help just once each day;
that means that 12 million separate prayers are headed Mary's direction every day.
Given that there are 86,400 seconds per day... (24 hours times 60 minutes times 60 seconds)
...that means that Mary has to handle approximately 139 'requests' per second!
Purty good fer someone NOT a deity!
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.