Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[Miguel_Sastre]

I agree with you that there is a real truth out there to be grasped. The problem is that you can’t find it from Scripture alone - otherwise there would be no doctrinal disputes within Christianity.

That’s a non-sequitur, Paul, if there ever was one. Let’s substitute “sola Roma” for “sola scriptura,” and see if your reasoning holds: “The problem is that you can’t find it from Scripture, Tradition and/or the Magisterium–otherwise there would be no doctrinal disputes within Christianity.”

Refutation: If this were true, Paul, then there would be no doctrinal disputes in Christianity, which I suspect for you means “Catholicism.” But even within Catholicism there is now, and always has been doctrinal disputes. Even by adding two more infallibilities (i.e., Tradition and the Magisterium), you have not eliminated dispute. In fact, you’ve complicated matters precisely by adding two more infallibilities. Here are just some of the problems that ensue:

1. In addition to defending an inerrant Bible, you also have to defend the inerrancy of Tradition and the inerrancy of the popes and councils. That’s a tall order, especially when the three doctrines that the pope had defined (including his own infallibility!) either contradict scripture or lack a sufficient basis in it in order to bind the conscience of the believer.
2. Papal infallibility has actually lead to more, not less dissent within your communion simply because many have come to the conclusion that unless the pope uses his charism of infallibility, everything undefined is up for grabs. Thus there has been an unprecedented tendency toward dissent and disobedience since the 1870 definition.
3. The face-saving need to add a development of doctrine theory to supplement “sola Roma,” since clearly many dogmas that long had been presumed to have been directly taught by Jesus and the apostles are now–in light of a modern historical consciousness–now known not to have been taught by them.
4. The necessity to authorize both historical anachronism and eisegesis in order to read back present dogmas into an age when such beliefs were non existent and then argue that such beliefs were always “implicit” or “latent” or “there in germ form” all along.

And the liability to faulty understanding of scripture can not be overstated.

Especially when you begin with “sola Roma” as your presupposition and then approach the text in search for confirmation of your beliefs. If you torture a text long enough, Paul, it can be made to say anything.

Your mmistake here is that you don’t recognize taht there is nothing that The Catholic Church teaches that is in opposition to scripture. It elaborates on scripture, but it does not contradict it.

Your mistake is believing first that Rome cannot error, and then making the evidence try to agree with your prior assumption.

Name a Catholic dogma that can’t be traced back in its essence to the Apostles?

Rather than do that, Paul, which would be the subject for another thread for every doctrine I could mention (i.e., infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the sinlessness of Mary,infallibility, the theory that tradition is on par with scripture, etc), I’ll just highlight your qualification: “in essence.” Compare that to the WCF which said that doctrine must be based on either what is clearly stated in scripture or what must be derived from it by “good and necessary consequence.”

Granted that all parties admit that there is nothing in Luke 1:28 that explicitly says Mary was conceived without sin, is there anything there that would obligate us to conclude this by good and necessary consequence? Not at all. In fact, there is no reason whatsoever to think Luke was asserting an implicit doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness in the Angel’s greeting and every reason to suppose that “sola Roma” is at work here. In other words, begin with the defined belief as defined by Rome, then reason backwards to the conclusion that it must be contained in scripture, at least “in essence.” Well, Paul, what belief could NOT be grounded in scripture using this methodology? Rome’s approach has no controls here because Rome, not scripture or tradition, is the standard by which beliefs are determined. That’s because you believe first in sola Roma and only in scripture and tradition insofar as they agree with Rome. Intellectual honesty calls for you to admit at least this much, Paul.

Okay, so you are more heretical than Luther or Calvin. How does this make you more credible?

Because I can trace my baptismal beliefs back to the New Testament. But you can’t and neither could they. Did you know that the earliest known reference to infant baptism is found in Tertullian and in it he questions the practice? The historical trail dries up there. Anything prior to Tertullian is based on inference and conjecture. But there simply is no evidence for anything but believers baptism prior to that. And yet you call me the heretic. That’s laughable since the best evidence is on my side, not yours. If you doubt me, then prove your position. Demonstrate for us from the historical record, which includes the scriptures themselves, that infants were baptized in the apostolic age. I already know you can’t do it. But if you think otherwise, by all means, prove me wrong.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Because I can trace my baptismal beliefs back to the New Testament. But you can’t and neither could they. Did you know that the earliest known reference to infant baptism is found in Tertullian and in it he questions the practice? The historical trail dries up there. Anything prior to Tertullian is based on inference and conjecture. But there simply is no evidence for anything but believers baptism prior to that. And yet you call me the heretic. That’s laughable since the best evidence is on my side, not yours. If you doubt me, then prove your position. Demonstrate for us from the historical record, which includes the scriptures themselves, that infants were baptized in the apostolic age. I already know you can’t do it. But if you think otherwise, by all means, prove me wrong.

Miguel, I believe this post from a thread regarding infant vs believer baptism provides exactly that evidence which you assert does not exist, and it even comes from a Protestant source:

He hasn’t investigated enough. He’s using the Catechism to claim “the 2nd century”, but there is earlier evidence.

And, finally, archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]

You’ll find this comes from a Methodist minister at revneal.org/Writings/aletter.htm*

Since St. John the Apostle died c. 100 A.D., I think it’s safe to say that 91 A.D. qualifies as archeological/historical evidence that shows “that infants were baptized in the apostolic age.”

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Miguel, you amuse me to no end, you know that?

What you just said here is, essentially, that the only way for anyone to “correctly” understand the passages that give evidence for your brand of SS is for the reader to first assume the correctness of your brand of SS, and then to practice eisigesis when reading them.

If that’s not some of the most horrifically misguided advice about biblical interpretation I’ve ever heard, I don’t know what is.

Okay, you’re cut off here… Rather than rant, which is what your doing, try thinking about what I’m actually saying here. Just think about this. Long ago, before there was scripture, no one knew nor could know that scripture was authoritative for the simple reason that it did not yet exist. Then, at some point, God gave his people scripture. Now ask yourself this. How did these people know that at this point they were to look at scripture as authoritative. (Never mind for the moment the question of “sufficiency.” I’m just talking authority.)

I can only come up with one conclusion here. The people of God recognized God’s word because of an intrinsic quality that it possesses. I do not believe that anyone was authorized to tell them this (the Catholic theory) nor that they looked to the book itself in order to find a verse that said, “look to the book” (the Catholic misunderstanding of the Protestant theory).

This is why I stated that it is neither the explicit nor implicit propositions of scripture that spell out scriptural authority for us (though there are plenty of these in scripture), but rather the intrinsic authority of scripture itself that is its own authentication precisely because it is what it is–God’s word.

If you begin at the beginning, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and stopped right there, you would have no way of knowing from these words that such words are in fact God’s word. You could only safely infer from those words that someone else (Moses) thought that God created the heavens and the earth. Moses obviously wasn’t there to witness this and so you would be in no position to know if Moses was telling the truth or not. And yet this line of Moses was received by the people of God as inspired scripture long before there was any other text spelling out the nature and character of God’s word.

Now if we jump forward in time to David and read this from Psalm 19, things change:

7 The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;
8 the precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes;

Now we have scriptural testimony about scripture itself. The “law of the Lord,” definitely refers to written scripture. If David were to have shown this to his buddy Jonathan, Jonathan would then have something grounded in scripture to say about Genesis 1:1, that no one at the time had. But did anyone have to wait for Psalm 19 in order to know that Genesis was authoritative? Of course not. In fact, Psalm 19 tells us that Genesis and the rest of the books of Moses were already authoritative. This is why I said that even if we had the very words from Jesus saying, “sola scriptura–that’s the rule of faith,” such would only be a reiteration of a truth that was already believed prior to Jesus having said it. For scripture is God’s revelation to his people and therefore is already authoritative, even before we read in scripture any words that say, “God’s word is authoritative.” In other words, God’s word is authoritative because it is from God, not because it claims this for itself.

I hope now you understand the point I was making and respond to it, rather than rant about a point I was not making.

In much the same way that your offering of Satan as the model-SS-interpreter was a far better argument against your version of SS than I could ever have come up with myself,

Again, it’s not that you’re missing the point, but that you’re twisting the point–further proof that your purpose here is to rant rather than respond. I should not have to clarify the obvious. The debate between Satan and Jesus was only ever going to be settled by scripture. Had either party appealed to “tradition” or the “magisterium,” the debate would be lost. Why? Because neither the former nor the latter are on par with scripture. “As it is written,” therefore, discloses the correct view of scriptural authority. This does not mean, however, that scripture cannot be misused. It can be, and was by the Devil. But Jesus didn’t respond by saying, “You err, Lucifer, because that’s just your private interpretation, and so you need to submit to the Magisterium.” Rather Jesus countered a misused scripture with the correct use of scripture, thereby giving us the proper methodology for dealing with this error.

For example: When Rome says, “Mary was immaculately conceived, for it is written, ‘Hail favored one,’” we Protestants reply, “It is also written, ‘All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.’” Do you know who wins this debate? We do. Why? Because Rome’s interpretation is eisegetical. It twists Luke’s meaning to say something entirely different. Our interpretation of Paul, however, is exegetical. It is faithful to the assertion Paul makes about the universality of sin. In other words, we appeal to reason, not self-proclaimed authority to settle the matter. We ground our arguments in the facts rather than read back the later speculation of medieval scholasticism into a text where it does not belong. That’s the fundamental difference between our views. We follow the model Jesus gave us and you…well, draw your own conclusion.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Miguel, I believe this post from a thread regarding infant vs believer baptism provides exactly that evidence which you assert does not exist, and it even comes from a Protestant source:

Since St. John the Apostle died c. 100 A.D., I think it’s safe to say that 91 A.D. qualifies as archeological/historical evidence that shows “that infants were baptized in the apostolic age.”

Thank you. That is fascinating. But I don’t think the archeological evidence allows us to conclude that the practice was apostolic in origin. At best we an say that it was early, assuming the accuracy of radio-carbon dating and assuming the source to which the Methodist minister is referring is in fact credible on scientific grounds. But let’s assume that it all checks out. Does that mean the Romans were following common apostolic practice or that they diverged from it? It seems to me this could go either way. So it seems to me that the evidence is inconclusive–though if legitimate–I’d concede that it would lend your view far more probability.

Consider, however, the solid and copious evidence for believer baptism that we do have. If the NT constitutes our earliest reliable historical record of the practice of the churches the apostles left behind, then we have conclusive evidence for believer baptism and nothing but silence on a matter where we ought to expect at least some mention of the baptism of an infant or small child.

Further, Tertullian’s comments (I’m not digging those up right now) question the practice and when we add to that the silence of the East–it seems that the practice, really did begin sometime after the apostles, somewhere in the West–perhaps even Rome. Don’t you find it the least bit troubling that in none of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical lectures (preached to those preparing for baptism), do we find even a hint that such baptisms might include infants? Cyril gives us a lot of information about baptism–much of which is favorable to your view (e.g., one can detect a theology of baptismal regeneration in Cyril)–but none of which even alludes to the possibility that some of the catechumens might have had their children with them with the intent to have them baptized as well? That Cyril is bishop of Jerusalem is all the more significant, especially if infant baptism was the practice of the first church established in Jerusalem at Pentecost. One would think the practice would have been well established by Cyril’s day–yet he betrays no knowledge of it.

Or consider the occasion of 1 Peter, parts of which many scholars believe was a baptismal sermon. Isn’t it the least bit troubling that Peter no where mentions infants or small children. Rather he speaks to those old enough to know that baptism is the “pledge of a good conscience” and not merely “the removal of dirt,” (cf, 1 Peter 3:21)? But how can an infant make such a pledge? And since baptism literally means “immersion,” and since we know that those baptized really went under the water, might we at least reasonably wonder whether or not it would have been prudent to submerge infants? One might expect that–had infant baptism been the practice of the apostles–that they might have made some mention of a different mode of baptism for them. Yet the only hints we get from scripture is that the baptized person went under and that people sought places with plentiful water in order to complete the symbolism that going under in order to rise again to newness of life entails. (cf Rom. 6).

That said, I quite agree that there is nothing in the NT that says, “thou shalt not baptize an infant.” But every baptism that is recorded presupposes a conscious faith in Jesus Christ prior to receiving baptism and not subsequent to it. I therefore construe this silence as dissent simply because an infant does not and cannot meet that criteria. I acknowledge, however, that there is a way to construe that silence as assent. But I prefer to err on the side of caution, especially when we consider the disastrous consequences that infant baptism has had. Here I speak of the phenomenon of millions of baptized unbelievers, many of whom think of themselves as “Christians,” but most of whom are not by any reasonable biblical standard–especially the ones we read about in Revelation 1-3.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

That said, I quite agree that there is nothing in the NT that says, “thou shalt not baptize an infant.” But every baptism that is recorded presupposes a conscious faith in Jesus Christ prior to receiving baptism and not subsequent to it. I therefore construe this silence as dissent simply because an infant does not and cannot meet that criteria. I acknowledge, however, that there is a way to construe that silence as assent. But I prefer to err on the side of caution, especially when we consider the disastrous consequences that infant baptism has had. Here I speak of the phenomenon of millions of baptized unbelievers, many of whom think of themselves as “Christians,” but most of whom are not by any reasonable biblical standard–especially the ones we read about in Revelation 1-3.

I’m glad you’re sticking around Miguel. It’s for a different thread topic but I think erring on the side of caution would be to baptize infants. If you are correct there are no consequences, if we are correct there are grave consequences.

I also don’t find your objection valid. After all sola fide could be blamed for easy believism which is extremely dangerous, “I said a sinners pray, I’m golden”. But I wouldn’t expect you to abandon a belief because others don’t understand it. Isn’t that what you’ve said about SS as well? Like I said, different topic.

God bless

 

[Philthy]

That’s a non-sequitur, Paul, if there ever was one. Let’s substitute “sola Roma” for “sola scriptura,” and see if your reasoning holds: “The problem is that you can’t find it from Scripture, Tradition and/or the Magisterium–otherwise there would be no doctrinal disputes within Christianity.”

Refutation: If this were true, Paul, then there would be no doctrinal disputes in …“Catholicism.” But even within Catholicism there is now, and always has been doctrinal disputes.

Sorry Miguel, but it is you who has provided the non-sequitor. Allow me to clarify:
You have proposed that Scripture is both formally and materially sufficient. Paul correctly points out that even - as in especially - among those who hold that opinion there is considerable and contradictory theological positions. Such diversity of understanding by well-intentioned believers genuinely seeking to know “what the Bible means by what it says” directly contradicts your claims regarding the sufficiency of Scripture.
Rather than directly responding to Pauls point, you instead attempted imply that the “same” could be said regarding Catholicism. But can you show two contradictory Magisterial proclamations? Contradictory infallible declarations? Contradictions between either of the above and the Catechism? No, you cannot. And that is where your argument loses it’s course. It is not merely the fact that there is “debate” within the members of a community - both Catholicism and Protestantism have that. What is fundamentally different is that Protestant churches - as alleged interpreters of Scripture - disagree with one another. This happens not only concurrently, but also within the same denomination over time. The various divisions that have occurred over generations within the Episcopal church, for example amply demonstrate this. The same can be said of the Lutheran communities over time. We don’t see that within Catholicism, and that is because the “same” thing isn’t happening within Catholicism. There are always individual dissenters in all of these communities, but it is the authoritative elements of the institutions themselves that have produced interpretive diversity within Protestantism, but not within Catholicism. If Scripture were formally and materially sufficient in the manner you propose, interpretive diversity within those authoritative elements would not have occurred.

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

That may be the case. But this does not imply that tradition is on par with scripture. For example: The divinity of Christ is taught in both scripture, the Nicene creed, the Westminister Confession of Faith, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But the reason why the NC, WCF and CCC are all correct in this regard is because what these documents teach are grounded in scripture. ** Scripture, therefore, has final normative authority here**, and we accept those other documents only insofar as they conform to the norm of scripture.

This is not logical. For one thing, it seems to me you reversed clauses. Did you mean to say, “We accept those other documents only insofar as they conform to the norm of scripture; therefore Scripture has final normative authority here.”? More to the point however, there is no “final normative authority” apart from it’s correct interpretation, and that requires another final normative authority. Furthermore, all of the teachings of all of these documents are “grounded in Scripture”, but not all of those teachings agree with one another.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I’m glad you’re sticking around Miguel. It’s for a different thread topic but I think erring on the side of caution would be to baptize infants. If you are correct there are no consequences, if we are correct there are grave consequences.

Ever read Kierkegaard? I think he has one of the most insightful critiques of culture “immersed” in the belief that they’re “basically Christian,” by virtue of their baptism (received as infants). Ever read Flannery O’Connor? I think she gives a great critique of Bible-belt “easy believism” from Catholic point of view. Equally insightful.

I also don’t find your objection valid. After all sola fide could be blamed for easy believism which is extremely dangerous, “I said a sinners pray, I’m golden”.

I wouldn’t blame sola scriptura for this. I’d blame Bill Bright (I think he’s the man behind the plan, but I’m not positive). That said, I don’t think I’d go so far as to say that the “sinners prayer” hasn’t been a blessing to many who have from that point on go on to bear fruit. But I quite agree that it’s problematic to think that one is a Christian simply because one prayed it, even with “feeling.” Also–I can’t stand that illustration of man trying to bridge the gap toward God. That’s horrible theology. Man isn’t trying to find God. Man is trying to hide from Him and is running headlong in the opposite direction. It is God who had bridged the gap to us, and chased us down and given us his grace so that we can believe–and all this simply because that was his good pleasure to do so.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Okay, you’re cut off here… Rather than rant, which is what your doing, try thinking about what I’m actually saying here. Just think about this. Long ago, before there was scripture, no one knew nor could know that scripture was authoritative for the simple reason that it did not yet exist. Then, at some point, God gave his people scripture. Now ask yourself this. How did these people know that at this point they were to look at scripture as authoritative. (Never mind for the moment the question of “sufficiency.” I’m just talking authority.)

No, Miguel, I was not ranting, I was merely showing you exactly how ridiculous your own arguments are. So, in the interest of continuing to do so, I’ll respond…

I can only come up with one conclusion here. The people of God recognized God’s word because of an intrinsic quality that it possesses. I do not believe that anyone was authorized to tell them this (the Catholic theory) nor that they looked to the book itself in order to find a verse that said, “look to the book” (the Catholic misunderstanding of the Protestant theory).

While that’s an interesting theory, it’s pattently historically inaccurate. The people of God did not recognize God’s word “because of an intrinsic quality that it possesses.” Whether you accept the so-called “Catholic theory” or not makes no difference. According to both the Bible and the historical record, God did appoint people to tell them that it was the Word of God. First, he appointed Moses, who gave them the Word of God and told them what it was and how to obey and interpret it, then Moses passed that authority on to the High Priests and Levites, and then Jesus transferred it to the Apostles who, like Moses, passed it on to their successors, the Bishops. You’re right that no one used the version of SS that you would adhere to if you hoped to be logical about it (i.e. “the Catholic misunderstanding of” SS, as you put it). However, no one used either SS as you actually use it (eisigesis of “it is written” as SS)either. They didn’t have to. They had the authority of the Chair of Moses to both give them the Word and interpret it, and after that they had the Chair of Peter.

This is why I stated that it is neither the explicit nor implicit propositions of scripture that spell out scriptural authority for us (though there are plenty of these in scripture), but rather the intrinsic authority of scripture itself that is its own authentication precisely because it is what it is–God’s word.

If you begin at the beginning, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and stopped right there, you would have no way of knowing from these words that such words are in fact God’s word. You could only safely infer from those words that someone else (Moses) thought that God created the heavens and the earth. Moses obviously wasn’t there to witness this and so you would be in no position to know if Moses was telling the truth or not. And yet this line of Moses was received by the people of God as inspired scripture long before there was any other text spelling out the nature and character of God’s word.

See what you did there? You thought you supported your own ideas and instead acknowledged that you do, in fact, acknowledge the “Catholic theory” of directly-God-appointed authority outside the Scriptures. See what I mean about talking yourself out of SS! You’re ssoooooo good at it! You just need to listen to what you’re saying more closely!

Now if we jump forward in time to David and read this from Psalm 19, things change:

7 The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;
8 the precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes;

Now we have scriptural testimony about scripture itself. The “law of the Lord,” definitely refers to written scripture.

Yes, it does. But how did they know that?? Answer: by the authority of the Chief Priests and Levites (whom Jesus acknowledges sit in the Chair of Moses), just like you know it by the authority of the Chair of Peter, the Catholic Magisterium who told your ancesters that the word “Scriptures” in your favorite “SS” verses refer to all the books in the OT (including, of crouse, the 7 you later rejected) and those in the NT. Note, again, how you accept Catholic Truths without realizing that they came from the Catholic Church.

((To Be Continued…))

 

[Tiberius1701]

((Continued…))

If David were to have shown this to his buddy Jonathan, Jonathan would then have something grounded in scripture to say about Genesis 1:1, that no one at the time had. But did anyone have to wait for Psalm 19 in order to know that Genesis was authoritative? Of course not. In fact, Psalm 19 tells us that Genesis and the rest of the books of Moses were already authoritative. This is why I said that even if we had the very words from Jesus saying, “sola scriptura–that’s the rule of faith,” such would only be a reiteration of a truth that was already believed prior to Jesus having said it. For scripture is God’s revelation to his people and therefore is already authoritative, even before we read in scripture any words that say, “God’s word is authoritative.” In other words, God’s word is authoritative because it is from God, not because it claims this for itself.

Except you continue to misunderstand our position. We have never denied the material sufficiency of Scripture. Yet you cannot show (because it was never believed during nor before Apostolic times) that anyone believed in the formal sufficiency of it. If you mean only material sufficiency when you say, “sola scriptura–that’s the rule of faith,” then of course we would agree with you, but you clearly believe that it would also mean formal sufficiency. However, you cannot prove it because it is not true. We too have always believed that God’s Word is authoritative because God breathed it, Miguel, but that’s a long way from saying, as you do, that, therefore nothing else is equally authoritative for the same reason. After all, even Scripture attests to the fact that, immediately after His ressurrection, Christ Himself breathed on the Apostles also (John 20:21-23).

I hope now you understand the point I was making and respond to it, rather than rant about a point I was not making.

I’m beginning to, though I still submit that, whether you mean to or not your words do in fact say things that you do not indend them to, belying the tangled web you must weave in order to defend the erroneous concept of the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Likewise, I hope you are beginning to understand that in some cases the facts do not support your points (as with infant baptism and the actual testimony of the ECFs), and in others the points you do actually - if inadvertantly - make often serve to undermine the points that you hope to be making instead (as with your admissions about Moses, and Satan).

Again, it’s not that you’re missing the point, but that you’re twisting the point–further proof that your purpose here is to rant rather than respond. I should not have to clarify the obvious. The debate between Satan and Jesus was only ever going to be settled by scripture. Had either party appealed to “tradition” or the “magisterium,” the debate would be lost. Why? Because neither the former nor the latter are on par with scripture. “As it is written,” therefore, discloses the correct view of scriptural authority. This does not mean, however, that scripture cannot be misused. It can be, and was by the Devil. But Jesus didn’t respond by saying, “You err, Lucifer, because that’s just your private interpretation, and so you need to submit to the Magisterium.” Rather Jesus countered a misused scripture with the correct use of scripture, thereby giving us the proper methodology for dealing with this error.

First, if it’s so “obvious,” why do so few share your interpretation of it? After all, the Catholic Church is made up of more than twice the number of people as that of all other Christian groups combined, and those who share your particular perspective are no doubt phenomenally fewer in number. It seems to me that this is yet another clue that your theory of the formal sufficiency of Scripture is erroneous.

As for your interpretation, it is equally plausible that Jesus is merely demonstrating the proper manner by which to silence Satan. As Paul points out, different tactics are to be used for each evangelistic situation (I Cor 9:19-23). He could’ve just as easily said, “To the author of SS, I make myself accountable only to Scripture, (though I am yet under the authority also of the Church).”

When it’s fallible man vs fallible man, the vast array of confused Christians wandering vaguely with no authority over their errant interpretations but their own feeble minds again, as always, serves as a rather powerful historical argument against your interpretation of Scripture. Luther and his “friends” in the Deformation tried to settle the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper with your strategy of nothing but “it is written,” and yet they, who understood SS far more intimately than do you, failed to come to any consensus.

((To Be Continued…))

 

[Tiberius1701]

((Continued…))

For example: When Rome says, “Mary was immaculately conceived, for it is written, ‘Hail favored one,’” we Protestants reply, “It is also written, ‘All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.’” Do you know who wins this debate? We do. Why? Because Rome’s interpretation is eisegetical. It twists Luke’s meaning to say something entirely different. Our interpretation of Paul, however, is exegetical. It is faithful to the assertion Paul makes about the universality of sin.

Incorrect again, you Protestants loose that particular debate because Rome first responds with the obvious fact that Jesus didn’t sin, ergo since at least one exception is made in your “it is written” quotation, there could be more. (Gasp! Might a hole be showing in your “winning” interpretation!?) Second, Rome responds with another passage - the very one that Paul is quoting: Psalm 14:1-5.
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none that does good.
The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
to see if there are any that act wisely,
that seek after God.
They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt;
there is none that does good,
no, not one.
Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread,
and do not call upon the Lord?
There they shall be in great terror,
for God is with the generation of the righteous.
Note the context: the Psalmist is saying that “the fool [who] says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” is corrupt; that all fools “do abominable deeds… all have gone astray… there is none [of such fools] that does good, no, not one.” Sounds familiar? Of course, because Paul is saying the same thing: all of the unrighteous have all sinned. This no more includes Mary than it does her Son, the Messiah! Do you honestly believe that Mary, who said to God, “be it done to me according to Your will,” also said in her heart, “There is no God”? If there is an implicit exception for the righteous people of God who do not say in their hearts, “There is no God,” then how much more does it make sense for there to be an ever greater exception for both the New Adam (Jesus) and the New Eve (Mary)?

Just as the mere fact that you were unaware of the archaelogical evidence in favor of infant baptism does not make that evidence cease to exist, so also the mere fact that you are unaware of the context of Paul’s OT quote does not make that context irrelevant. On the contrary, that knowledge which you do not have but which the Holy Spirit has faithfully entrusted to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church does remain both relevant and authoritative whether or not you acknoledge or comprehend it.

In other words, we appeal to reason, not self-proclaimed authority to settle the matter. We ground our arguments in the facts rather than read back the later speculation of medieval scholasticism into a text where it does not belong. That’s the fundamental difference between our views. We follow the model Jesus gave us and you…well, draw your own conclusion.

In conclusion, I will co-opt and correct your closing “rant.” As I have shown, and as others have also, it is not you but we who “appeal to reason, not self-proclaimed authority to settle the matter.” You proclaim your own authority while we faithfully echo that Authority proclaimed by God. “We ground our arguments in the facts rather than read back the later” ungrounded, modern “speculation” that neither has its basis in history, Scripture, Tradition, nor the Spirit of God. “That’s the fundamental difference between our views. We follow the model Jesus gave us and you,” first in the Old Testament Mosaic Magisterium and then in the New Magisterium based on the Chair of Peter as conferred on him by Christ Himself, while you, on the other hand, read the text without context and “draw your own conclusion.”

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I wouldn’t blame sola scriptura for this. I’d blame Bill Bright (I think he’s the man behind the plan, but I’m not positive).

I was speaking about Sola Fide, faith alone. People misunderstand the belief, like people misunderstand the belief on infant baptism, but that shouldn’t be a reason to jettison the belief.

That said, I don’t think I’d go so far as to say that the “sinners prayer” hasn’t been a blessing to many who have from that point on go on to bear fruit.

The same could be said of infant Baptism.

But I quite agree that it’s problematic to think that one is a Christian simply because one prayed it, even with “feeling.” Also–I can’t stand that illustration of man trying to bridge the gap toward God. That’s horrible theology. Man isn’t trying to find God. Man is trying to hide from Him and is running headlong in the opposite direction. It is God who had bridged the gap to us, and chased us down and given us his grace so that we can believe–and all this simply because that was his good pleasure to do so.

I like your bridge analogy.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

The same could be said of infant Baptism.

Quite trenchant, RC! Quite trenchant, indeed!

 

[inkaneer]

Again, it’s not that you’re missing the point, but that you’re twisting the point–further proof that your purpose here is to rant rather than respond. I should not have to clarify the obvious. The debate between Satan and Jesus was only ever going to be settled by scripture. Had either party appealed to “tradition” or the “magisterium,” the debate would be lost. Why? Because neither the former nor the latter are on par with scripture. “As it is written,” therefore, discloses the correct view of scriptural authority. This does not mean, however, that scripture cannot be misused. It can be, and was by the Devil. But Jesus didn’t respond by saying, “You err, Lucifer, because that’s just your private interpretation, and so you need to submit to the Magisterium.” Rather Jesus countered a misused scripture with the correct use of scripture, thereby giving us the proper methodology for dealing with this error.

For example: When Rome says, “Mary was immaculately conceived, for it is written, ‘Hail favored one,’” we Protestants reply, “It is also written, ‘All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.’” Do you know who wins this debate? We do. Why? Because Rome’s interpretation is eisegetical. It twists Luke’s meaning to say something entirely different. Our interpretation of Paul, however, is exegetical. It is faithful to the assertion Paul makes about the universality of sin. In other words, we appeal to reason, not self-proclaimed authority to settle the matter. We ground our arguments in the facts rather than read back the later speculation of medieval scholasticism into a text where it does not belong. That’s the fundamental difference between our views. We follow the model Jesus gave us and you…well, draw your own conclusion.

If I may jump in here, in regards to your statement that the debate between Satan and Jesus was only ever going to be settled by scripture. It should be noted that it was Satan who was tossing scripture quotes at Jesus and Jesus responded with scripture. Satan obviously had a wrong interpretation. Reminds me of protestants tossing scripture quotes at Catholics and we in turn responding with scripture right back. Again it is the protestants with the wrong interpretation. But to use this as some sort of proof or evidence for sola scriptura is ludicrous.

Also, I disagree with your statement that you win the debate on the “All have sinned” argument. You don’t really believe that. If you did then you would baptize infants. After all, **ALL DOES MEAN ALL **does it not? Then there is the mentally deficient, those whom all christians acknowledge as incapable of sin. Does all mean all. Of course we know that Jesus was fully human and like us in all ways but sin. If really meant all then Jesus wouldbe included in the all. So your argument fails on purely logical grounds. But it fails also on other grounds too.

Your arguement fails on scriptural grounds as well. You did the old protestant trick of chop quoting, cherry picking, taking out of context; whatever you wish to call it. In the process you apply an interpretation that was not intended by the author. Taking in its context it is clear that Paul is comparing and contrasting the benefits of being either a Jew or a Gentile. Paul concludes that there is no benefit to being either one. Why? because as he writes “All have sinned…” meaning that both Jews and Gentiles are guilty of sin and need salvation. This interpretation is supported by strictly protestant sources such as the KJV NT Greek lexicon. The Greek word that is interpreted as “ALL” is the word pas. The KJV lexicon says this word can have two meanings. They are:

1. individually
   each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2. collectively
   some of all types

It then adds the following:

“… 'the whole world has gone after him” Did all the world go after Christ? “then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.“Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? “Ye are of God,little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. Does the whole world there mean everybody? **The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile …” **

Allow me to repeat the last part from that protestant gold standard ofthe KJV Lexicon:

“…**The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile …” **

So you lose the argument. The whole basis of your argument is applying a strict interpretation to a Greek word that also has a more generic or ambiguous meaning. And you do this with no authority. You are in fact doing what you accuse Catholics of doing. But it is you who has the “eisegetical” interpretation.

By the way, if you want to debate whether Jesus had any sibling brothers or sisters, that is other children of Mary, I would be happy to prove you wrong on that issue also. Shall we?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Sorry Miguel, but it is you who has provided the non-sequitor. Allow me to clarify:

Sure ,but first allow me to take you back to the context in which I said this. I was responding directly to this claim by PaulC: “I agree with you that there is a real truth out there to be grasped. The problem is that you can’t find it from Scripture alone - otherwise there would be no doctrinal disputes within Christianity.”

It’s the “otherwise there would be no doctrinal disputes” part that does not follow from “you can’t find it [objective truth] from scripture alone.”

In fact, you can. Scripture has an objective meaning. We use exegesis, not magisterial authority to find that meaning. The fact that people disagree as to what that objective meaning is does not mean there is no objective meaning to be found. Nor does a magisterial decree give objective meaning to a text that it did not already have. Formal sufficiency is not the claim that there will be no disagreements. It’s the claim that scripture is sufficiently clear that no other revelation or authority external to it is needed to know what that meaning is. Paul’s objection, therefore, is not only a non-sequitor, it is also irrelevant to the position Protestants hold—and—as we shall see, so is yours.

You have proposed that Scripture is both formally and materially sufficient. Paul correctly points out that even - as in especially - among those who hold that opinion there is considerable and contradictory theological positions. Such diversity of understanding by well-intentioned believers genuinely seeking to know “what the Bible means by what it says” directly contradicts your claims regarding the sufficiency of Scripture.

And now you’re asserting the same non-sequitur. We’ll use an example in your tradition so that you can clearly see the problem. Lumen Gentium 8 said the church “subsists” in the Catholic Church. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has subsequently clarified what this means in an effort to correct “misunderstandings.” Nevertheless, many Catholic theologians maintain that the CDF has it wrong. Why? Well, for one, they were at Vatican II, sat in the conferences that debated the term, and can still remember the reasons for choosing it over the word “est.” To wit, they wanted to avoid making a one to one equation between the church and the Catholic Church so as not exclude non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities from the church Christ founded.

So even with an authority to “decide the issue,” dissent still remains within Catholicism and for good reason. Now this raises questions. Is it the case that no “objective” meaning can be found in the CDF clarification of the meaning of “subsists” simply because there are dissenters who take issue with the CDFs finding? I expect you would reject this as a non-sequitur. I expect that you would say the mere fact of dissention from the Magisterium does not mean there is no objective meaning in what the Magisterium says. Ironically, it is the dissenters who are using that same piece of reasoning to argue that the CDF got it wrong. After all, they can still remember how the term was being used at the time it was debated and so they can attest to the “objective” meaning that was intended at the time and thereby rightfully protest that the CDF has erred in defining “subsists” in a way that was not intended by the council fathers. In other words, the truth is “out there” to be found. Dissent and disagreement do not negate this fact.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Miguel Sastre:

Long ago, before there was scripture, no one knew nor could know that scripture was authoritative for the simple reason that it did not yet exist. Then, at some point, God gave his people scripture. Now ask yourself this. How did these people know that at this point they were to look at scripture as authoritative. (Never mind for the moment the question of “sufficiency.” I’m just talking authority.)

I can only come up with one conclusion here. The people of God recognized God’s word because of an intrinsic quality that it possesses. I do not believe that anyone was authorized to tell them this (the Catholic theory) nor that they looked to the book itself in order to find a verse that said, “look to the book” (the Catholic misunderstanding of the Protestant theory).

I have emphasized your retro-active hermeneutic. You have chosen to accept this viewpoint.

What you should take into account is the historical fact that the Magisterium is foremost the teaching authority. The Apostles were the original Magisterium. Their successors naturally preserved their writings and incorporated them INTO the Church’s liturgy. It was this early, historical, apostolic TRADITION that ultimately developed into a viewpoint (by the Magisterium) that these writings were more than good advice and Jesus accounts by their predecessors, but in fact were tantamount nay, equal to Sacred Scripture. These Gospels, and Epistles were eventually codified, defined and canonized into the Sacred Scriptures even before the 4th century. The “books” now finally existed in a form that was recognizably Sacred Scripture, not just by the Magisterium, but by the entire Church. Once this happened, heretics IMMEDIATELY began to spring up with their own INTERPRETATION of what NOW constituted Sacred Scripture. The very existence of Sacred Scripture was a two edged sword. It was a proof and bedrock of the Magisterial teachings, and at the same time a stumbling block to heretics. This is historical fact, and has been something the Church has been dealing with ever since.

Compare with the US Constitution. Without the Supreme Court safeguarding the INTERPRETATION, the constitution would be just a jumble of words capable of bearing any interpretation.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Reply to Tiberius,

While that’s an interesting theory, it’s pattently historically inaccurate.

And you know this, how? How do you know precisely when and on what basis a book was first recognized to be scripture? Do tell, because this is one of the great unknowns in canonical studies. But if you have the answer, well, by all means share it!

The people of God did not recognize God’s word “because of an intrinsic quality that it possesses.”

Sure they did. There’s no other reasonable explanation. If you say, “No, it’s because the Magisterium told them so,” then how did they know? If the people of God can only recognize scripture once the Magisterium has told them what it is, then you run headlong into all kinds of problems. Logically, this would imply that the Magisterium would need an even higher Magisterium to tell them, and so on and so on ad infinitum. Historically, you’re left with the problem that canons emerged long before canonical decrees did. Moreover there was no “infallible” decree in your church until Trent. Does that mean no one knew what scripture was prior to Trent? Of course not.

Whether you accept the so-called “Catholic theory” or not makes no difference.

But it makes all the difference in the world. Let X = any given doctrine or book of the Bible. Let Y = the Magisterium. You’re claiming that in order to know X, that Y has to tell you so first. My response: How do you know that Y has this authority to do this in the first place? In other words, on what basis do you attribute authority to Y? (Please don’t say on the basis of X—as that would be circular.)

According to both the Bible and the historical record, God did appoint people to tell them that it was the Word of God.

I see all kinds of evidence for God appointing people. But I don’t see any specific evidence for the specific claims you are making. Where do you see in the Bible God appointing people to an office and charging that office with the specific task of teaching the people of God which books are inspired and which are not—as if the people of God did not already know which was which?

Do you have evidence to support the claim that there was always a Magisterium to tell us what the books of the Bible were? Let’s see it. And then kindly explain how they knew which books to pick. Was there a Magisterium for the Magisterium? And was there a Magiserium for the Magisterium for the Magisterium?

You’re right that no one used the version of SS that you would adhere to if you hoped to be logical about it (i.e. “the Catholic misunderstanding of” SS, as you put it).

Excellent! I’m glad you’re willing to acknowledge that sola scriptura is NOT the claim that sola scriptura itself has to be taught in the Bible in order for sola scriptura to be true. This is because it is posited as a starting point and therefore even though it is in the Bible, this is NOT why it’s true. Merely claiming authority for oneself, as Rome does, most certainly does not mean Rome has authority just because it makes that claim. Likewise, the mere fact that the Bible tells us the word of God is authoritative, does not make it true. For the Bible already is authoritative and therefore is true because it comes from God.

They had the authority of the Chair of Moses to both give them the Word and interpret it, and after that they had the Chair of Peter.

What is your evidence that the Chair of Moses functioned this way? You seem to be reading a lot into Matthew 23:1-3. Jesus tells his disciples to listen to the scribes and Pharisees because they sit upon the Chair of Moses—which may have been a literal chair in ever synagogue. But Jesus doesn’t shrink from correcting them when they’re wrong. And on what basis does he correct them? “You err because you do not know the scriptures…” Score: Bible 1, Magisterium 0.

See what you did there? You thought you supported your own ideas and instead acknowledged that you do, in fact, acknowledge the “Catholic theory” of directly-God-appointed authority outside the Scriptures.

Now you’re seeing sola Roma in even my writings. Amazing.

Yes, it does. But how did they know that? Answer: by the authority of the Chief Priests and Levites…

And how did they [the Chief Priests and Levites] know which OT books were inspired? And how do you know how they knew this?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Except you continue to misunderstand our position. We have never denied the material sufficiency of Scripture.

That’s because no one before Yves Congar, O.P. and Karl Rahner, S.J. ever talked about “material sufficiency” as an acceptable Catholic understanding of scripture and tradition. It’s hard to deny what was never held in the first place. Prior to the modern material sufficiency view, the more common understanding was that the Deposit of Faith was contained partly in scripture and partly in tradition. Few hold this position today. But more ought to. For you’re not going to find the Immaculate Conception in Scripture, even implicitly.

Yet you cannot show (because it was never believed during nor before Apostolic times) that anyone believed in the formal sufficiency of it.

Sure I can. David believed this about scripture: “The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple” (Psalm 119:130). Moreoever, it is the presupposition of everyone who ever said, “It is written.” One does not cite scripture to an opponent unless one believes that the scripture itself is clear enough to be understood. Does that mean every scripture is always and immediately clear? No. Peter talked about some things in Paul that are “hard to understand.” Even trained exegetes will point out that there are a number of ambiguities in both Testaments—places where the Hebrew is unclear or the meaning is uncertain. But sola scriptura has never been the claim that everything is clear; rather it has always been the claim that the main things are clear. This is presupposed whenever an inspired author cites a previous work of scripture. Paul can only tell the Corinthians not to go “beyond what is written,” because he assumes that “what is written,” will be sufficiently clear to them.

If you mean only material sufficiency when you say, “sola scriptura–that’s the rule of faith,” then of course we would agree with you,

No, you wouldn’t. For while it may have become fashionable to use the term, “material sufficiency,” you don’t mean the same thing by it when—at the same time—you claim that doctrines like the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are part of the “material” of scripture. This is because you don’t really believe in the material sufficiency or formal sufficiency of the Bible. What you really believe is the formal and material sufficiency of Rome. That’s the standard by which you determine the meaning of both scripture and tradition, despite what scripture and tradition may actually mean.

First, if it’s so “obvious,” why do so few share your interpretation of it? After all, the Catholic Church is made up of more than twice the number of people as that of all other Christian groups combined,

Thanks for this beautiful illustration of the ad-populum fallacy. And how much of the population within your church is—and let’s use your terminology—in the state of grace? Start with Europe and give us a rough guestimate of how many people with Catholic baptismal certificates would even have the remotest interest in reading scripture?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

and those who share your particular perspective are no doubt phenomenally fewer in number. It seems to me that this is yet another clue that your theory of the formal sufficiency of Scripture is erroneous.

I’ll make you a deal. You can go with the law of large numbers, and I’ll bet on the tiny remnant chosen by grace. We’ll see who’s right in the end.

As for your interpretation, it is equally plausible that Jesus is merely demonstrating the proper manner by which to silence Satan. As Paul points out, different tactics are to be used for each evangelistic situation (I Cor 9:19-23). He could’ve just as easily said, “To the author of SS, I make myself accountable only to Scripture, (though I am yet under the authority also of the Church).”

It seems you’ll go to almost any length to avoid the obvious. Scripture is the trump card in any debate. That’s always been understood. But that says something about the relative weight we give to those authorities we recognize. And what are you seeing in 1 Cor 9:19-23 that I’m not?

I’ll quote it for you: 19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

How does this even begin to address the point I was making about Jesus using scripture to counter even the misuse of scripture?

When it’s fallible man vs fallible man, the vast array of confused Christians wandering vaguely with no authority over their errant interpretations but their own feeble minds again, as always, serves as a rather powerful historical argument against your interpretation of Scripture.

Actually, your words here are proof that you have no idea what sola scriptura means. Your caricature of every man with his bible all by himself without the church, without teachers, without the Holy Spirit is a canard. So too is your appeal to an allegedly infallible church that you can’t even prove to be infallible, that itself hardly ever gives us an infallible interpretation of scripture anyway, and even when it does make an infallible definition, still has not overcome the problem of fallible men having to read those allegedly fallible interpretations to make sense of them for themselves. If the Protestant has nothing but a Bible and his own subjectivity, then you have nothing but your own fallibility and subjectivity when deciding for yourself that Rome is the one, true, infallible church that you’ve decided to believe in on the basis of your own subjective, and infallible interpretations of scripture and history. Be consistent. If subjectivity is a problem for one, it’s a problem for all.

Incorrect again, you Protestants loose that particular debate because Rome first responds with the obvious fact that Jesus didn’t sin, ergo since at least one exception is made in your “it is written” quotation, there could be more.

Jesus isn’t an exception. He’s in another category altogether since he is incapable of sin. In other words, the words “all have sinned,” cannot be predicated of God. You might as well call the Father and the Holy Spirit “exceptions” too, since they all are incapable of sin. So let’s see where we stand now. Protestants say that Jesus isn’t an “exception,” for the simple reason that one cannot predicate sin of God in the first place. One can only be an “exception,” where a pre-existing potential exists. But this potential does not obtain in the case of Jesus. Moreover, even were we to agree that Jesus is an exception—at least we would have scriptural grounds to make such an assertion: “He who knew no sin became sin…” (2 Cor. 5:21). That’s solid. Here’s what’s not solid: “Hail favored one,” from which we infer, “the perfect passive participle indicates a singular perfection of grace that must have extended back in time all the way to conception.”

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Sounds familiar? Of course, because Paul is saying the same thing: all of the unrighteous have all sinned.

Again, it seems you’ll go to any length for the sake of your traditions. But in point of fact, Paul is teaching the universality of sin for all humanity without exception, and so was the Psalmist he cited. “All,” when taken in context of Romans 3, means both Jews and Gentiles. But because these two categories exhaust all of humanity, there is no one who is not under sin’s power.” As Paul says, “What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin…” (Romans 3:9). Notice that Paul tells us what he means by “all,” i.e., “both Jews and Greeks.” Of course, this means every human being. For anyone who is not a Jew must therefore be a Gentile (which is what he means by “Greek” in this passage). Are there any exceptions to this rule? Paul makes none. Jesus goes without saying since he is God and Savior. The Savior from sin cannot himself be a sinner. Here is where it would be incumbent upon Paul to mention Mary as an exception if he truly believed she was one.

If there is an implicit exception for the righteous people of God…

But “none” are righteous so there are no exceptions, implicit or explicit, and no, the context of Psalm 14 does not change that fact. First, you attempt to limit lines such as “there are none who do good,” only to fools isn’t even faithful to the psalm. It works for verse 1, but not for verse 3. This is because the purview changes in verse 2, which reads as follows: “The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.” Notice that “the children of men,” means everyone, not just the fool. Now notice verse 3: “They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.” Context, context, context. To whom does the “they” refer in verse 3? It refers to “the children of men” back in verse 2. That is the most natural reading. And thus Paul is perfectly faithful to the Psalm when he concludes from it that “all have sinned.”

But even if Paul were reading the Psalm without the broader context in view, you’re still making a basic hermeneutical mistake. Your mistake is to read the New as if it were the Old. The right methodology, however, is the read the Old in light of the New. It’s the use Paul puts the Psalm to that is determinative of his meaning for, “none are righteous,” and not the other way around. The New Testament context, therefore, is what determines Paul’s meaning. Now it surely is legitimate to survey the OT context to see what the text meant there. This may help us understand what may have drawn Paul to that particular passage and not another. But the OT context does not and cannot have the final say.

So what did Paul say? For one, Paul includes himself and all Jews under his indictment when he asks, “Are we Jews any better off?” This would have been the ideal place to qualify this remark with something like, “Are we unrighteous Jews—as opposed to those righteous ones like Mary—any better off?” But the mere fact that he says “No, not at all,” suggests rather strongly that he did believe anyone—not even Mary—was truly righteous. Of course, Paul will call himself “blameless” with respect to law-keeping. And in this sense, many, many Jews could be considered “righteous.” But Paul sees a deeper problem in humanity. Even law-abiding Jews are still sinners, despite their covenant righteousness that comes as covenant keepers. In that sense, there are “none” who are righteous because “Sin” (personified) living in us has found an opportunity in the commandment and has put us to death spiritually (cf, Romans 7:11). That is the default condition of all humanity, Jew and Gentile alike, including Mary (a Jew), not withstanding Rome’s “infallible” decree to the contrary. (There mere fact that Rome says this is proof positive that she is not infallible.)