Replies

My initial statement was that I have not gotten a clear definition of what Sola Scriptura means.

My post then focused on a specific example of what I see as a general problem with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Namely, certain individuals are so determined to believe that Catholicism hates the Bible that they insist that no Catholic Doctrines can be found in the Bible. Then when presented with evidence, they demand proof rather than simply disagree. This leads me to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura (as it is practiced) is a mixture of hatred of Catholicism and magisterium mei wrapped in sound bytes of Scripture.

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?

At no point did I state I was offended by someone's opinion. The answer to your question is that stating the woman in Rev. 12 is not Mary denies the obvious. I do not have a problem with a double/triple interpretation with the woman also being Israel and/or the Church.

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.

If the woman in question is Mary, she is described in Heaven bodily. At this point, the Assumption of Mary is in Scripture and hence is part of Revelation from the standpoint of Sola Scriptura. Until I can get a clear understanding of what Sola Scriptura is, I am not going to address the rest of your post. Part of what I need cleared up is "Does Sola Scriptura require each doctrine to be laid out explicitly, or can one arrive at a doctrine implicitly?". Every definition I have read allows implicitness; however, I have never seen it practiced in such a manner. If it allows for implicitness, can a denomination state that a doctrine arrived at implicitly is a requirement for being a member of that denomination? Again, every definition I have read answers that question with yes; however, I have never seen it practiced in such a manner.

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.

Observing adherents to Sola Scriptura respond to certain elements of Catholic teaching they disagree with, it appears to me that adherents of Sola Scriptura worship themselves and any claims that the Holy Spirit will guide them towards truth exist to cover that up.

and how Joseph adopted Jesus, so that God could adopt us,

Romans 8:29 very heavily implies that Jesus is our elder brother. From this I think it is reasonable to conclude that Mary is our Mother. Ironically, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees by saying that one of their traditions ( setting aside money for the temple) nullifies the commandment of honoring one's father and mother. The Catholic Church insists on honoring Mary. So far (even if I were to stick with what I see as a completely erroneous doctrine) it appears to me that the Catholic Church practices Sola Scriptura far better than any self-described adherents to it.

That, in turn, has radically re-drawn the Gospel in Catholicism, to the point that Mary is “co-redemptrix.”

Co-redemptrix is not one of the 4 Marian Dogmas of the Catholic Church. However, if we start at the Hebrew, Miriam, what does this translate to in English? Wikipedia lists 4 translations: "wished-for child", "bitter", "rebellious" or "strong waters". Wished for child is evidenced in the Protoevangelium of James. While not part of the Bible, the document predates the earliest date I have ever seen someone attempt to abscribe to the foundation of the Catholic Church. That date is Constantine becoming emperor. Rebellious is a hard one to pin to Mary especially in light of the Immaculate Conception; however, if she is seen as rebelling against Satan and the rulers of this world by saying yes to God, it fits. That leaves bitter and strong waters. Jesus says that unless one is born of water and the Spirit, one cannot enter Heaven. Well, Miriam means water. Concerning bitter, the Jews were required to eat bitter herbs with the Passover Lamb.

I have been meaning to get back to your post, but didn’t have time to for a few days so it ended up getting pushed to the side for a bit.

No, those who believe in some form of sola scriptura don’t hate the Catholic Church, and that’s not where the criticisms of it come from. I came to know and understand the Bible first and was neutral about RCC teaching then. But as time went on I came to see more and more how it was in error. And those conclusions weren’t arrived at in knee-jerk reaction, superficially, but in serious consideration and humility, with the thought that the intial appearance of error doesn’t mean there’s error. It takes a lot of examination to reach those conclusions. Seeking to discern what’s true according to God is not in any way a light matter.

One thing about Catholic apologetics is that when both ordinary Catholics and so many of the clergy do it, they tend to not mention that sources like a Catholic encyclopedia (for example, newadvent.org) will say that there isn’t conclusive proof from the Bible for a Catholic teaching. Yet, Catholics will so very often argue just that sort of thing, that by Scripture alone, even independent of Catholic tradition, the Catholic teaching is proven true. But in actuality, they are attempting to use Scripture and Catholic tradition to prove Catholic tradition’s interpretation of Scripture. Not the same thing. That’s actually saying that Catholic tradition teaches something, and you can also make a case for it from the Bible, so therefore Scripture itself says Catholic teaching is correct.

But this thinking, so common in Catholic apologetics, violates proper logic. Proper logic goes:

All bassett hounds are dogs.
Spot is a bassett hound.
Therefore, Spot is a dog.

But this is very often Catholic reasoning on things:
All dogs are beagles.
Spot is a dog.
Therefore, Spot is a beagle!

Spot could be a beagle, because he’s a dog, but it’s a logical possibility, not a certainty, from that information. Yet Catholics will argue that because the Catholic Church says he’s a beagle, and the Bible indicates that it’s talking about a type of hound, and a beagle is a hound, that the Bible therefore proves he’s a beagle. That’s backward. The real questions that need to be answered are how the tradition truly formed, so that it can be shown to have been a faithful belief when it was, and if it is in accordance with Scripture. Much of doctrine can be implied, according to sola scriptura beliefs, but some measure of implication doesn’t make any old interpretation true.

The Bible tends to teach many of the same lessons over and over, often with new little points made here and there, and then even demonstrating how different lessons relate to each other. If you take a passage or even a few, and come up with an implied interpretation from them, it shouldn’t directly contradict major lessons from the Bible. Nor should an implied interpretation teach things that go beyond what the Bible has revealed.

That’s the case in Revelation 12. You will admit other possible meanings for the woman, but they’re actually trivial as the one and only interpretation that matters is that it’s Mary, to Catholic thinking. But although it is indeed reminiscent of her, again, other things about it don’t fit. And much is a deliberate mystery left by the Lord. I wholeheartedly believe He means it to be something that we partly but cannot fully grasp here. This “woman,” if she really is an actual woman, was apparently with child before Satan drew the fallen angels out of Heaven, and she appeared in Heaven and then later was on earth.

Really, though, the problem in discussing these things with many Catholics, to put the logic and sola scriptura issues another way, is that they look at it all through confirmation bias, so for the most part they simply can’t see the issues at hand, and the different implications of those issues that are involved. Rather than truly investigating in an impartial sense the claims of the Catholic Church, including on how doctrine was created, many Catholics go looking at the evidence merely to defend Catholicism. No true investigation is going on.

So, if that’s the case, the matters involved in Revelation 12 just can’t be grasped when such Catholic thinking is used. I see Revelation 12, and Revelation on the whole, as revealing a lot of things, but they’re wrapped in mysteries. Many answers are given, but maybe just as many questions are raised. And for now, that clearly seems to me what God’s will is for us, in how much we are to know. The grappling with what different things mean, without being able to come to definite conclusions, though, is good for us spiritually. It causes us to study and dwell on what different things might mean.

Then, for another example, if you take the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it didn’t really come along until relatively recently, and then it was optional at first, as some supported and some opposed it, and then it became a mandatory belief. If you read the Bible, and consider the very low priority given to the matter at the Church’s beginning, versus all that we can see that they gave high priority to, then just by that the whole issue must be seen as a distraction, something to pull the attention of Christians away from far more important matters.

On implied doctrine, then, what should be considered is how something is implied. Is the Trinity just something barely mentioned one time, that Scripture is inconclusive about? No, over and over again, with support from the Old Testament, too, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are clearly described. The Trinity is never identified and defined, but it clearly demonstrated for us. And, considering how much the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are spoken of in Scripture (they are virtually the entire focus of the New Testament, in one way, while in another mankind and Satan may also of course be considered as very important in the New Testament, too), then it is no far reach to accept the Trinity. It’s clearly there, and undeniably of the greatest importance. It’s also an implication that arises by itself, out of Scripture.