Friday, January 13, 2023
https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/ posts, as of 1-23, by the grace of God.
Staples sophistry, take 2.
Staples sophistry, take 2.
Having exposed Staples misdiagnosis on “The Protestant Achilles' Heel,” Morgana simply proceeds to provide another opportunity to expose cultic Catholic devotion which drives them to deny what Scripture reveals and compel Scripture to support teachings which are part of the many traditions of men that developed over time. While RCs cannot see Scripture as the only supreme sufficient (in formal and material aspects) standard for faith as described in my prior rebuttal, yet in-credibly they see the “Immaculate Conception” in Scripture, which is neither taught nor required in Scripture.
In my new book, Behold Your Mother - A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines, I give eight reasons for belief in the Immaculate Conception..Here, I will present some snippets from three of these biblical reasons for faith. But first, I must say I am sympathetic to my Protestant friends, and others, who struggle with this teaching of the Catholic Faith. Romans 3:23 says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” I John 1:8 adds, “If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.”
However, Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression... Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact.
Here the sophistry begins by arguing that since salvation and God being a Savior can mean being protected from sinning then this supports the premise that Mary never sinned. However, the former does not equate to the latter, and which remains to be established.
But what about “all have sinned,” and “if any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him?” Wouldn’t “all” and/or “any man” include Mary? On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But this way of thinking carried to its logical conclusion would list Jesus Christ in the company of sinners as well. No Christian would dare say that!
And the reason “No [true] Christian would dare say that!” is actually a refuting argument against the Immaculate Conception! For the reason why no true Christian would dare say that Christ sinned is because He is plainly declared to be without sin many times. (2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22; cf. Jn. 8:45; Heb. 7:26) And which is consistent with how the Holy Spirit characteristically mentions notable deviations from the norm — which the sinless state of Mary certainly would be — even of far less primary persons. from From extraordinary age (Methuselah), to not dying (Enoch), to length of fast, to miraculous birth (Abraham and Sarah), to extraordinary height (Ogg) or strength (Samson) or toes (Goliath), or holiness (Job, Noah, Daniel) to supernatural transport (Phillip), to the extraordinary length of celibacy of Anna, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, to virgin birth (Mary), to diet (John the Baptist), to the sinlessness of Christ, to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, to the signs of an apostle, etc. Yet despite this the Holy Spirit says nothing about Mary being either sinless, or a perpetual virgin, or created beings being prayed to. And instead what He does teach weighs towards the norm for Mary having sinned and sexually cleaving in marriage.
Thus the argument for unrecorded Marian exception has no warrant, but instead only warrants her being as others in these aspects.
Romans 5:12 will deal with original sin...Original sin is not something we do; it is something we’ve inherited.
Actually, we inherit a spiritually dead Adamic nature that is prone to sin, and thus all do sin in time, except one who was God incarnate. And while we enter into the effects of the actions of others, yet we are not judged for what we are not culpable for, but judgment is always according to what we ourselves have done in the respective judgments of redeemed and lost, (2Cor. 5:10; . 20:11-15) and in accordance with light and grace given. (Lk. 12:48)
The question remains: how do we know Mary is an exception to the norm of “all have sinned?” And more specifically, is there biblical support for this claim? Yes, there is. Indeed, there is much biblical support,
Which audacious claim is typical of RCs who are all to willing to see whatever is needed or desirable to support Rome, and as if this support was the basis for their veracity, which they are not. And even to relying on arguments their own church does not officially teach, but who will dismiss ours on that basis and tell us we need to rely on Rome to interpret Scripture.
And [the angel Gabriel] came to [Mary] and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”... First, according to many biblical scholars as well as Pope St. John Paul II, the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or “Hail, full of grace.”
Wrong. His own RC Bible for America does not say this “full of grace,” as the word for “full” is not even there. Kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") in Lk. 1:28, is never used for "full" elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28 simply says she was graced, favored, enriched with grace, as in Eph.1:6.
CARM finds,In Greek: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. κεχαριτωμένη, is the pf. pass. ptcp. of χαριτόω (charitoō). It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. Repeated: It is a passive participle derived from charitoō. It does not mean "full of grace" or ‘completely filled with grace’ which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.... More technical data from source here: In contrast, the only one (though in some manuscripts Stephen in Acts 6:8) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT. If Mary was uniquely perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was, as Christ was, (plērēs charis) and RCs would not have to engage in such egregious extrapolations in seeking to justify this invention.
However, seeking to compel Scripture to support her tradition of men, Lk, 1:28 was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB, rather than "highly favored" or similar, as in Rome's current official New American Bible, “Hail, favored one!" (http://usccb.org/bible/luke/1) Yet the DRB correctly translates Eph. 1:6 as "in which he hath graced us."
When you add to this the fact that St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle...The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being...But only Mary is given the name “full of grace” and in the perfect tense indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.
Mary is not given a name (see below) and nor said to be “full” of grace, and uniquely so, nor from what i read does kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6)
See more on this issue here as White gets into detail with the Greek. (And notes that the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.)
Even Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin said of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene:
"This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense" like Mary's grandmother). He went on to say, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." Meaning the text does not teach the IM, nor is that necessary, but tradition becomes binding doctrine under the ultimate presumed authority of Rome.
Moreover, while Mary is highly blessed among women, and is to be honored according to what is written, this does not translate in the type of supererogation of praise seen in Catholicism, in which humble Mary is made into an almost almighty demigoddess!
Generally speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would almost be expected to be found in the immediate context.
And indeed, in context that the angel was simply telling Mary she was graced of the Lord is confirmed in v. 30, “And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour [charis] with God,” (KJV), or as in the RC DRB: “hast found grace with God.”
The fact that the angel replaces Mary’s name in the greeting with “full of grace” was anything but common...
The fact is that the angel simply does not, but simply tells her that she is graced, as she was. Which is like the greeting given to Daniel, “O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong,” (Daniel 10:19) Likewise, literally in Greek, the angel tells Mary “Hail” [rejoice], graced [one], the Lord is with thee: blessed thou among women.”
In each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named...What’s in a name? A lot according to Scripture!
But there is no name change here, as unlike cases such as “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham,” (Genesis 17:5) “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel,” (Genesis 32:28) ”Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone, (John 1:42) Mary is never addressed as “full of grace,” but is said to have found grace with God, and thus it is said of her, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,” and “henceforth all generations shall call me blessed,” (Lk. 1:42,48) And which does not say “more blessed than all women” due to Mary having surpassing virtue. And in fact, as Ratzinger admits, Mary “in the gospel tradition is quite marginal,” (God and the world, p. 296) while the Holy Spirit is far far more descriptive of the sacrificial labor of Paul, to whom He never manifestly attributes sin after his conversion.
Nor is “blessed art thou among women” a unique type of appellation, as Scripture also says, “Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.” (Judges 5:24)
Thus there is nothing in Lk. 1:28 that teaches or even infers Marian sinlessness, which we can be sure the Holy Spirit would have stated if that was the case as He did with other notable exceptions to the norm, especially among principal persons.
2. An Ancient Prophecy—Genesis 3:15:..I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. Not only do we have the Virgin Birth here implied because the text says the Messiah would be born of “the seed of the woman” (the “seed” is normally of the man), but notice “the woman” is not included as “the seed” of the devil. It seems that both the woman and her seed are in opposition to and therefore not under the dominion of the devil and “his seed,” i.e., all who have original sin and are “by nature children of wrath” as St. Paul puts it in Eph. 2:3. Here, we have in seed form (pun intended), the fact that the woman—Mary—would be without sin, especially original sin, just as her Son—the Messiah—would be. The emphasis on Mary is truly remarkable in that the future Messiah was only mentioned in relation to her. There can be little doubt that a parallel is being drawn between Jesus and Mary and their absolute opposition to the devil.
In-credible! The RC again examples he can see what he wants to if it can support his Roman religion. Note first that though I agree the seed of the women is Christ, both Hagar and Rebekah are said to have seed. (Gn. 16:10;24:60) . Meanwhile the Hebrew words in this entire verse actually only says, “put/place enmity/hostility between woman between seed seed it/he bruise head thou shalt bruise heel.” And much commentary has been written about how this is best translated and what it precisely means. Thus the “little doubt that a parallel is being drawn between Jesus and Mary” being both sinless is based upon a text for which there is much doubt about its precise rendering and meaning,
And while I agree with the text Staples quotes, yet nowhere does it say the women is uniquely different from the rest of mankind, as it only distinguishes between the seed of the devil and seed of Eve, which prophetically would be between the lost and Christ coming ultimately through Mary, or perhaps between demons and Christ. “Seed” is singular, but it can refer to a single line of decedents. And as Christ genealogy is full of souls who were lost at least at one time, the only exclusion of any seed that is not fallen is the sinless Christ. The seed of the women no more excludes her from being fallen then it does the parents of Mary.
Behind the Roman reasoning is the premise that a sinless vessel is essential for Christ to be sinless, but which is fallacious. 1 Sam.2:2 and Rev.15:4 states that there is "no one holy as the Lord" and "Thou only art Holy." Yet God used impure men to bring forth His pure expressive word to men, and if God could preserve Mary from sin then it is certain He could preserve Christ from being contaminated from the impurity of the vessel through which His body was supplied. For Hebrews 10:5 states that “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.”
And it is also argued, that "The human male determines the sex of the offspring. His entrance into the unfertilized egg of Mary caused it to develop without the expected duplication of the female X chromosomes. When an artificial egg duplicates its chromosomes in response to artificial stimulation. the result is female" D. Hocking from his Christology course (animal studies). And thus “The blood type of the Son of God was a separate and precious type unlike any other, it had no sin. Because of this method of conception, it is not possible that Mary could have supplied any of her Adamic blood for Jesus who was to be the spotless lamb of God.” “The Holy Spirit who is God, protected His sinlessness, as God the Son entered the womb and the egg of Mary and took upon Himself a human nature in addition to His divine nature (clothed himself in humanity Phil. 2:5-8). There was no change of nature but an addition, adding humanity to His deity.” (http://www.letusreason.org/rc11.htm)
I am not sure if I agree that the sin nature is dependent on the male seed, but if God can produce a male from a female virgin then He can certainly bring forth a perfect sinless male from a fallen vessel tainted by sin.
Note also here that Staples is not arguing for a binding, infallible interpretation of Gn. 3:15, while Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for "Ineffable God") which defines the infallible (which presumed status only pertains to the actual pronouncement) dogma of the Immaculate Conception relies upon a Vulgate translation [and thus the Douay Rheims] of Gn. 3:15 which changed the “he” to “she shall crush thy head,” and thus that “the most holy Virgin” “was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.” (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm)
However, as the Catholic Encyclopedia (Immaculate Conception) states, The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)
As with others, the official Roman Catholic Bible for America translates this,
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.”
The approved notes (1970 ver.), while also noting the Traditional Messianic exegesis, explains this saying, “They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman.” (http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm)
RC apologist Jimmy Akin also states,
Q: Please explain to me how come the Douay-Rheims Gen 3:15 and the New American Bible Gen 3:15 differ. I’m sure you know what I am talking about.
...The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman... just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew. (www.jimmyakin.com/mary-and-genesis-315)
The Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission explains the controversy:
“The Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15 speaks about enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the offspring of both. The personal pronoun (hu’) in the words addressed to the serpent, “He will strike at your head”, is masculine. In the Greek translation used by the early Church (LXX), however, the personal pronoun autos (he) cannot refer to the offspring … but must refer to a masculine individual who could then be the Messiah, born of a woman. The Vulgate (mis)translates the clause as ipsa … This feminine pronoun supports a reading of this passage as referring to Mary which has become traditional in the Latin Church. (Source.)
The Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata), the revised Latin version authorized by the Vatican, corrected the error and changed it from ipsa to ipsum in the Latin.
As a reformed source states, “He” .. in the original Hebrew is masculine. It is pronounced “hoo” and can also mean “it.” Many think it means “it” in reference to collective offspring of the woman crushing the head of the serpent. In the LXX, however, it is rendered autos “he,” indicating that the passage should be understood as a Messianic prophecy about Jesus Christ alone crushing the head. “He [Jesus] will crush the serpent’s head.” (http://reformedapologeticsministries.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholic-misuse-of-genesis-315.html)
More here.
The Hebrew Masoretic text reads that one who will crush the serpents head is in the masculine, speaking about Christ, and the NT does not mention Mary of doing this, but that “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [Christ] also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (Hebrews 2:14,15) Glory be to God.
3. Mary, Ark of the Covenant: The Old Testament ark of the Covenant was a true icon of the sacred. It was a picture of the purity and holiness God fittingly demands of those objects and/or persons most closely associated with himself and the plan of salvation. Because it would contain the very presence of God symbolized by three types of the coming Messiah—the manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s staff—it had to be most pure and untouched by sinful man (see II Sam. 6:1-9; Exodus 25:10ff; Numbers 4:15; Heb. 9:4).
In the New Testament, the new and true Ark would not be an inanimate object, but a person—the Blessed Mother. How much more pure would the new and true Ark be...
This is another attempt to glorify the creature rather than the Creator, God blessed for ever, as it is Christ who best fulfills the typology of the ark of the Covenant.
• God commanded Moses to “make an ark of shittim wood,” which wood represents the humanity of Christ, “And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it,” (Ex. 25:10,11) and which gold can be seen to represent glory. And thus the wise men brought gold as a gift to Christ (not Mary), and was girded about His loins and breast with a golden garment, (Dan. 10:5; Rv. 1:13) which also is never said of Mary.
• The Ark, once made, was moved via poles, so as not to be directly touched by sinful man (Ex. 25:12-16; II Sam. 6:1-9), yet which men Mary was touched by, as well as Christ. And the former was ritually defiled by giving birth, and thus observed the required days of purification, (Lk. 2:22-24; cf. Lv. 12:2,6-8) and then brought the required living creatures to the priest “for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood.” (Leviticus 12:6,7)
But the sanctity of the Ark corresponds to the spiritual purity of Christ, who being the Lamb of God is alone said to be “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens,” (Hebrews 7:26) “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” (1 Peter 2:22) “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Which is never said of Mary. Yet Catholics have the audacity to make Mary was sinless, even as binding doctrine, when Scripture nowhere teaches it, and we can be confident that it would say so if that was true, and especially if was a binding doctrine, just as it clearly records the sinlessness of Christ and other extraordinary or otherwise notable aspects of its subjects, even far lesser ones.
• And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold....And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end:...And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims (Exodus 25:17,19,22) On top of the ark was the mercy seat on which rested the cloud signifying the presence of God, between two cherubs of gold. The Greek word (Hebrews 9:5) for “mercy seat” is hilasterion, meaning “that which makes atonement.”
This easily corresponds to Matthew 17:4,5, in which Moses and Elijah, representing the law and the prophets, can be seen to answer to the two cherubims, and who talk with Christ under a bright cloud, and in which context all are called to commune with Christ, the atonement: “While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him,” thus directly communing with God. (cf. Heb. 10:19) And which is said to Peter, James and John, whom Paul later states (Gal. 2:9) appeared to be pillars of the church (if not in that order), thus this call to directly commune with God via the mercy seat under the cloud is to the church.
• “And in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.” (Exodus 25:21)The Ark contained the 2 tables of the Law, which testimony in the NT becomes grace and Truth, and the Scriptures uniquely state Christ was “full of grace and Truth.” (Jn. 1:14) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (Jn 1:17)
• And they commanded the people, saying, When ye see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, and the priests the Levites bearing it, then ye shall remove from your place, and go after it. (Joshua 3:3) And it was Christ, not Mary, who said “Follow me,” (Mt. 4:19) and “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me,” (John 10:27) as Christ alone was God manifest in the flesh. (Jn. 1:1-3,14; 20:28; 1Tim. 3:16)
• “And the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them in the three days' journey, to search out a resting place for them.” (Numbers 10:33) And Christ, not Mary said,”I go to prepare a place for you.” (John 14:2)
Therefore it is Christ, not Mary who is clothed with gold, and declared to be undefiled, sinless, and the atonement/mercy seat, with two cherubs of glory on each side, by whom believers commune with God under the cloud of glory, and whom constrains the testimony of grace and Truth, and goes before believers.
And thus by God grace Staples compulsion of Scripture to support vain traditions of men is once again exposed, which he inventively adds to within the rest of his book (which is not dealt with here), promoting the Mariolatry of the false Mary of Catholicism, thinking of mortals above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6) to his own condemnation and those who sadly subscribe to this. It is the Lord who is high and lifted up, not any Queen of Heaven, which is only found among pagans. But despite what Scripture says and fails to say, likewise many Catholics basically insist,
“But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem...” (Jeremiah 44:17)
Staples misdiagnosis on “The Protestant Achilles' Heel”
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 [if qualified as a popular level] 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.
[See also 14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)