The Protestant Achilles' Heel

catholic.com ^ | March 21, 2014 | Tim Staples

[ravenwolf]

Sola Scriptura was the central doctrine and foundation for all I believed when I was Protestant.

---

I agree, never mind what the Bible says as it is not to be trusted, God tells me what he wants me to do and it very seldom goes along with scripture.

[Secret Agent Man]

with a inviting title like that you know this is all offered in a spirit of love.

can we just top posting articles that merely serve to be a springboard into backhanded insults at other denominations?

bdcause you aren’t gonna have anything but fights with an article that starts out with a title like that.

[Bigg Red]

...you aren’t gonna have anything but fights with an article that starts out with a title like that.

***
I cannot argue with that.

[dartuser]

There is far more scriptural support for sola scriptura than there is for any of the Marian doctrine which is mostly based in ‘tradition’.

mostly ???? ... try ENTIRELY.

[tbpiper]

The first part of the doctrine as I understand it involves the basic facts of the virgin birth. After that, it gets rather fanciful.

[boatbums]

I feel sorry for Tim. He’s a failed Protestant who has to attack his former faith in order to justify his leaving it. That he imagines attacking the authority of the Word of God in favor of a fallible, human institution that has and will continue to make errors only shows that desperation. It’s not missed that Staple presumptuously makes the sacred Scriptures subject to the authority of men rather than how God intended His word that He sent forth. It WILL accomplish all that He intends no matter how much deluded men throw it its path. The gates of hell truly cannot prevail against the truth - it will penetrate the thickest walls of human and demonic deceit and free those whose hearts are diligently seeking God.

[Faith Presses On]

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

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

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

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

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

Some of these articles remind me of the establishment GOP - too busy shooting its allies to have time to fight the real enemies.

[Springfield Reformer]

For example, I had about six different Protestants respond to the following question with rants. But not one of them responded with a “yes” or a “no.”

Is the following a formally valid syllogism or a formally invalid syllogism?

Emily is the mother of Sam.
Sam is a fireman.
Emily is the mother of a fireman.

LOL! I seem to recall we dealt with this a while ago. Your syllogism is fine if you don't try to import complex ontologies into the terms.  Sam being a firemen is one thing, and Jesus being God is quite another. The category of "fireman" does not describe a divine trinity of persons.  The formal correctness of the syllogism assumes a proper analogy of terms.  Put in colloquial terms, comparing apples to oranges is fruitless. :)

As for yes and no answers, they're fine, if and only if they are answerable that way.  How about, when did you stop beating your wife?  Not so easy to give a yes or no response, is it? That's called a loaded question.  The question makes an assumption of facts not in evidence.  If the responder simply says "yes" without qualification, they're admitting a fact that isn't true. Unhelpful, if truth is the objective.

I'm an attorney.  In preparing a client for deposition or courtroom testimony, I tell them to watch out for false dilemmas, false "either/or" scenarios.  If they need to qualify the answer, then they get to qualify the answer.  If the other attorney tries to force them to admit something they really don't think is true, if I spot it first, I'll object, "the question assumes facts not in evidence."  If the client spots the problem, they should ask for clarifications, or otherwise present an answer that best represents the truth, but should never allow themselves to be bullied into a false simplicity.  Whatever works best for getting at the truth. Wouldn't you agree that is a worthy objective?  A simple yes or no answer will do.

Peace,

SR

[Iscool]

Here's a post written specifically for you and Staples...

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).

This Staples is a Pentecostal Catholic..He couldn't figure out the scriptures before he was a Catholic and he certainly hasn't improved...

[ronnietherocket3]

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

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

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

[ronnietherocket3]

I am going to add the following:

A decent percentage of time, adherents to Sola Scriptura appear to want me to substitute their magisterium for that of the Catholic Church. I am apparently supposed to accept this because they have true eyes of faith (no evidence let alone proof of this proposition is presented).

[Arthur McGowan]

The category of "fireman" does not describe a divine trinity of persons.

Neither does "God" in "Mother of God."

[Iscool]

The non-circular evidence for the authenticity of the Catholic Church is primarily historical, both as to its hierarchical continuity with the early Church, its doctrinal continuity with the New Testament and the early Church, the miracles of healing and other gifts with which it has been accompanied through the centuries, and the extraordinary holiness of many saints.

Doctrinal continuity with the New Testament...Surely you jest...Assumption of Mary??? Sinlessness of Mary??? Calling clergy father??? The bible condemns your religion...There is no doctrinal continuity...

Those who propagandize against the Catholic Church therefore concoct accusations of forgeries and frauds, attempt to demonstrate that various Catholic beliefs are absent from the New Testament and/or incompatible with it, and studiously ignore the miracles of healing, and miracles of holiness that have accompanied the Church through history.

Sorry Charlie...Those forgeries are proven and a matter of history...

Your religion or no church has ever healed anyone...Ever...

There’s another characteristic I’m noted among propagandized Protestants: a refusal to answer yes-or-no questions, even when the question is exceedingly simple and totally transparent.

Here's the answer to your question then::: NO...

[GeronL]

does that website do anything other than pander HATRED against Christians?

[GeronL]

Mary is not a deity is what it means. You can only get to the FATHER in Jesus’ name, and Mary is not Jesus. Jesus does not need the help of “intercessors” to hear our prayers.

[ronnietherocket3]

Just as you just did: PRETENDING that the word “God” has only one referent: “the Trinity.”

Where did I do this? I did not talk about the trinity in my post.

[Arthur McGowan]

I attributed it to you. It was said by another poster.

[Springfield Reformer]

The category of "fireman" does not describe a divine trinity of persons.

Neither does "God" in "Mother of God."

Sure it does.  Without adding the full range of confessional qualifiers to the statement, every time it is made, any trinitarian listener is going to understand the term as comprehensive. It's automatic. That's why you make an unqualified statement, to import the whole thing.

Furthermore, when Emily begets Sam, she is his mother in the generative sense.  She and the father are both necessary causes for Sam to exist.  But for Emily, Sam would not exist.  The statement, "But for Mary, God would not exist," is patently false.  If you cannot rearrange the terms in both syllogisms in the same way and get the exact same result, the analogy is defective.  This comparison between two syllogisms breaks down because the terms are not describing the same category of being.

Peace,

SR