AtoZ Directory

Donald Trump will soon be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States.

Donald Trump will soon be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States.

Tanzania's president says she is "confident" the country will "overcome" the highly infectious Marburg.

In a rare move hours after the cease-fire took effect, one senior Hamas official said the group wants to engage the new Trump administration.

Debra Tice, whose son Austin was abducted near Damascus in 2012, said the rebel group that toppled the Assad regime promised support in helping to find him.

Some Protestants, like James White, will attempt to justify the doctrine of Sola Scriptura on the basis of the sufficiency of scripture, which they derive from 2 Timothy 3:16-17:All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.Indeed, one can watch many presentations where James White painstakingly attempts to derive Sola Scriptura as an implication of 2 Tim. 3:1617, demonstrating that it is, at best, an implicit biblical teaching.Sufficient is not explicitly said of Scripture in 2 Tim. 3:1617 or anywhere else in the biblical canon. St. Pauls point seems to be that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work, which may imply that several other conditions obtain with respect to the man of God, e.g., that the man is baptized, participating in the sacramental life of the Church, submitting himself to his bishop, etc. In other words, St. Paul is saying that Scripture is profitable for the man of God, and it is strictly a Reformed interpretation that holds Scripture alone is what completes this man. Is Scripture sufficient to make one a man of God? The verse doesnt say that. I would suggest that the man of God needs grace, and Scripture is not identical to grace. But let us set aside this objection and consider, for a moment, the possibility that 2 Tim. 3:1617 implicitly teaches Sola Scriptura. Undoubtedly, if this were so, Sola Scriptura would be an essential, though implicit, biblical doctrine. And thats a problem. As we have seen, it depends on fallible suppositions about the man of God and interpretations of the language of the textinterpretations about which White and others could be wrong, as they are admittedly not infallible in their exegesis.Consider other implicit biblical doctrines that most Christians would consider absolutely essential to the faith, whether they pertain to the Trinity, Christology, soteriology, sacramentalism, or ecclesiology. Insofar as they are implicit, they hinge on fallible interpretations of Scripture. For the Protestant, this is undeniable unless they admit a secondary rule of faith aside from the Bible by which implicit teachings are derived. They might argue that Scripture interprets Scripture, but this really wont do, since it is precisely which Scriptures to apply and how they are applied that is subject to error. Moreover, it is evident that implicit biblical doctrines are not simply derived by applying one Scripture to another. Grammatical, historical, and theological considerations are major factors. So, there is still a problem, which I think can be logically drawn out. In what follows, I hope to formally demonstrate this.LexiconWe define the following predicates and propositions:Ix x is an implicit Biblical doctrineEx x is an essential Biblical doctrineFx x is fallibly derived through exegesisS Sola Scriptura is trueC Scripture alone is sufficient to derive all essential Biblical doctrinesArgumentS C (premise)C (x)(Ex Fx) (premise)(x)(Ix Fx) (premise)(x)(Ix Ex) (premise)S (x)(Ex Fx) (1,2 HS)I E (4 EI)I (6 Simp) I F (3 UI)F (7,8 MP)E (6 Simp)F E (9,10 Conj)(x)(Ex Fx) (11 EG)(x)(Ex Fx) (12 DN)(x)(Ex Fx) (13 QN)(x)(Ex Fx) (14 DM)(x)(Ex Fx) (15 Impl)S (5,16 MT)Q.E.D.Theological and Philosophical ImplicationsEssential Implicit Biblical Doctrines are incompatible with the Sufficiency of Scripture, refuting Sola Scriptura:If Scripture is sufficient, then the essential doctrines of Scripture must be infallible.But many essential doctrines are only implicitly found in Scripture, making their derivation fallible.And if many essential doctrines are fallible, then Scripture is insufficient.The Catholic Framework Avoids This Problem:Catholics assert the infallibility of the Magisterium, which allows implicit doctrines to be infallibly established.This resolves the tension that arises from essential doctrines being implicitly found in Scripture, as such doctrines can be dogmatically defined via the Magisterium.This accords with Dei Verbum, which teaches: Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with Gods most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls (DV II.10).

Shebna is a proud and faithless hypocrite who oversteps, and his throne and key are taken and given to Eliakim. Eliakims authority persists for a time, but after the Babylonian exile and the Second Temple Period, the seat of authority is found in the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin. They can be compared to the vessels of Eliakims house, which hang on the peg of Eliakim until they give way. These are burdensome vessels, just as the Pharisees burden everyone around them. They focus on ritual purity while ignoring moral precepts and so are clean on the outside, but unclean on the inside. Faithlessly, they feast at banquets, and prepare their tombs. In this, they return to Shebnas sin, and the sin of Israel found in Isaiah 22. So, the house of the Pharisees will also fail, according to Jesuss prophesy, and it will become desolate, just as Shebna is sent into exile, and even Eliakims house is predicted to be cut down by the falling cups and jars. However, it is replaced by Christs everlasting kingdom, where Peter is given the keys and seat of authority.In Matthew 23:2, the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses (cf. Isaiah 22:23, where Eliakim sits on the throne of his fathers house). The Pharisees are described as unclean vessels who lay heavy burdens on the people (compare Matthew 23:4, 2526, and Isaiah 22:2425, i.e., the vessels that hang from the peg and that give way). They repeat the sins of Shebna (compare Matthew 23:2728 and Isaiah 22:16, in carving out grand ornate sepulchers) and fail to operate the door of the kingdom justly (compare Matthew 23:13 to Isaiah 22:22, where Eliakim is given the authority to operate the doors). Thus, the failure of the House of Eliakim (Isaiah 22:23), as the burdensome load of the vessels gives way, is fulfilled typologically in Matthew 23:38a house left to you desolate.Why are sepulchers the common sin between Shebna and the Pharisees? I think we can see this in light of the name of Eliakim and the promise to Peter. Eliakims name is connected to resurrection, God will raise up, and Peter is promised that the gates of Hades will not prevail. In effect, the preparation of grand tombs symbolizes a victory of Hades over them. It is an act not merely of pompousness but also of faithlessness.Likewise, the Israelites in the first half of Isaiah 22 were engaging in feasting and revelry, which was an act of faithlessness. This is like preparing a grand tomb for oneself; it is a denial of salvation and resurrection. Haydock writes:Die. Thus the pagans encouraged themselves to feast. (Calmet) Ergo vivamus dum licet esse bene. (Petronius) This conduct betrayed an entire want of faith. (Calmet) Nothing offends God so much as contempt proceeding from despair. (St. Jerome)In other words, in Isaiah, we have a condemnation of the faithlessness of Israel for feasting before battle, as though death will have its victory. Shebna does something similar by celebrating death in his tomb. He loses the key to the kingdom over thatit goes to a new steward.Thus, we see that in Isaiah 22:2, 13, Israel is condemned for its revelry and feasting, and in Matthew 23:6, the Pharisees are at places of honor at banquets or feasts. The Pharisees likewise lose their seat of authority, as they make a similar display of the victory of death, and so the keys to the kingdomand to Hades itselfare handed to Peter. This also makes sense of Christs rebuke of Peter, who starts to think in human ways, believing that Christ needs to avoid death as if it will have victory over Him. Christ reminds him that He will be victorious over death!Nonetheless, just as Shebna was replaced by Eliakim (cf. Isaiah 22:1920), Christ promises, I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town (Matthew 23:34, compare to Matthew 16:24 where Jesus tells his disciplines that they will have to pick up their cross as well). Thus, just as Eliakim receives the key of the house of David, Peter receives the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19). For, it is Peter, who, despite momentary weakness, is chosen to bear the keys of the Kingdom, a kingdom founded on the resurrection.

An Argument that Disciplina Arcani which shows that the Early Church did not teach Sola ScripturaKey:S: The Early Church thought Scripture is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.F: The Early Church thought Scripture was formally sufficient and needs no additional informational context from external sources and traditions in teaching all that is necessary for salvation in the practical life of the believer.D: The Early Church had a practice of keeping certain teachings about sacraments, theology, and spiritual practices, not explicitly and formally detailed in Scripture, restricted to initiated baptized members that they considered essential, sacred, and fundamental to know and understand for ones salvation and full sacramental participation in the faith, e.g. the Eucharist, Baptism, the doctrine of the Trinity, and liturgical rites.Argument:P1: SFIf the Early Church thought Sola Scriptura is true (S), then they thought Scripture is formally sufficient (F), .P2: DFYet, the practice of the Disciplina Arcani (D), which involved withholding and obscuring teachings considered essential and sacred from uninitiated members, implies that Scripture is not formally sufficient.P3: DThe existence of the Disciplina Arcani (D) and its focus on teachings considered essential and sacred is historically documented, and based their understanding of binding scriptural imperatives, e.g. Matt 7:6, 1 Cor 3:1-2, Heb 5:12-14, and Tobit 12:7, indicating that the early Church practiced a form of doctrinal and liturgical secrecy above and beyond what the written scriptures formally express.Conclusion: SThis historical context suggests that the principle of Sola Scriptura, as understood today, would have been foreign to the early Christian community, which relied on esoteric traditions to articulate and inform some of the most sacred and essential aspects of the faith. That is, the Early Church would not have known or operated on Sola Scriptura or the Formal Sufficiency it implies.Deduction:SF (Premise, as many Protestants attest that Sola Scriptura implies the formal sufficiency of scripture)DF (Premise, supported by historical and theological evidence)D (Premise, historically verified)F (2, 3 MP)S (1,4 MT)QEDI would have to conclude, based on this line of reasoning, that Sola Scriptura is a doctrinal innovation, and as such, should be rejected.

Some argue that the Pope has a moral obligation to teach clearly or that, given his charism of infallibility, he should teach with clarity. Others have suggested that Popesplaining proves the futility of an infallible magisterium, since any interpretation of the infallible teacher remains fallible.I would contend that John 6 provides a valuable context for understanding the Papacy. Christ is an infallible teacher, yet his teachings often lack clarity. John 6 contains the Bread of Life discourse, which scandalized the audience of Christ:I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst (John 6:35).This statement led to confusion and grumbling among the crowd, as they asked:How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6:52).Rather than offering a plain and direct clarification, Christ intensifies the very aspects of his teaching that his audience could not grasp:Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (John 6:53).The Jews were provoked to even greater consternation, leading to the departure of many: many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him (John 6:66). Was Christs message clear? The continuing theological debate on this passage proves otherwise. Catholics and Orthodox believe Christ was teaching in anticipation of the Eucharist. Many Protestants, on the other hand, interpret this lesson metaphorically as referring to faith in Jesus and his redemptive death. Thus, it is evident that Christs teaching did not generate unanimous understanding.Even St. Peter did not fully grasp the meaning of the discourse at the time. When Jesus asked the Twelve, Do you also wish to go away? (John 6:67), Peter responded, not with understanding, but with trust:Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God (John 6:68-69).St. Peter serves as the model for how one should assent to an infallible teachereven without complete comprehension. Indeed, reflecting on this reveals precisely why there is an advantage to having an infallible teacher. The truth is outside of St. Peter. His faith precedes his understanding. In modern theological debates, it is the attitude of private judgement and faithlessness that demands understanding precede faith (cf. St. John Henry Newmans Faith and Private Judgment).For those who think the Bread of Life discourse is an isolated incident, it is far from unique. Jesus was frequently criticized for not teaching clearly. In John 10, after Jesus spoke of being the Good Shepherd, there was again a division among the Jews because of these words (John 10:19), and they asked him, If you are the Christ, tell us plainly (John 10:24). Even his own disciples struggled with his teachings. After a series of enigmatic statements in John 16, they exclaimed: Ah, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figure! (John 16:29).Moreover, the disciples directly questioned Jesus on his use of parables. In Matthew 13, they asked, Why do you speak to them in parables? (Matthew 13:10). Jesus replied that to you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given (Matthew 13:11), indicating that his teachings were intentionally veiled for those not disposed to understand. Thus, his use of parables illustrates that Christs teachings, while infallible, were often delivered in a manner that concealed as much as they revealed.In light of this, Christs infallibility did not guarantee immediate or universal clarity in his teachings. Similarly, the Papacy, as a continuation of Christs teaching authority, may not always deliver teachings that are instantly intelligible to all. Yet, as St. Peter exemplifies, the faithful are called to assent to that authority with trust, even when full understanding is lacking. As St. Peter said, Lord, to whom shall we go? (John 6:68), we too must place our trust in the Churchs guidance, for there is nowhere else to turn.The Second Vatican Councils Lumen Gentium corroborates this Petrine principle of trusting in the infallible teacher, even without understanding. In section 25, it states:In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (LG 25).Further emphasizing the necessity of this assent, it continues:This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra (LG 25).The document emphasizes that even when the Pope does not speak infallibly, his teachings still require religious submission. This reflects the model of trust that St. Peter exemplified, trusting in the authority of Christ even when the teaching was not fully understood. Lumen Gentium concludes by reminding the faithful:it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (LG 25).Thus, as St. Peter trusted Christs infallibility without always comprehending his teachings, so too must the faithful trust the teaching authority of the Church.This is because faith is prior to understanding, just as understanding is prior to judgment and reason. As Pope St. John Paul II explains:In Scholastic theology, the role of philosophically trained reason becomes even more conspicuous under the impulse of Saint Anselms interpretation of theintellectus fidei. For the saintly Archbishop of Canterbury the priority of faith is not in competition with the search which is proper to reason. Reason in fact is not asked to pass judgement on the contents of faith, something of which it would be incapable, since this is not its function. Its function is rather to find meaning, to discover explanations which might allow everyone to come to a certain understanding of the contents of faith. Saint Anselm underscores the fact that the intellect must seek that which it loves: the more it loves, the more it desires to know. Whoever lives for the truth is reaching for a form of knowledge which is fired more and more with love for what it knows, while having to admit that it has not yet attained what it desires: To see you was I conceived; and I have yet to conceive that for which I was conceived (Ad te videndum factus sum; et nondum feci propter quod factus sum). The desire for truth, therefore, spurs reason always to go further; indeed, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see that it can always go beyond what it has already achieved. It is at this point, though, that reason can learn where its path will lead in the end: I think that whoever investigates something incomprehensible should be satisfied if, by way of reasoning, he reaches a quite certain perception of its reality, even if his intellect cannot penetrate its mode of being But is there anything so incomprehensible and ineffable as that which is above all things? Therefore, if that which until now has been a matter of debate concerning the highest essence has been established on the basis of due reasoning, then the foundation of ones certainty is not shaken in the least if the intellect cannot penetrate it in a way that allows clear formulation. If prior thought has concluded rationally that one cannot comprehend (rationabiliter comprehendit incomprehensibile esse) how supernal wisdom knows its own accomplishments, who then will explain how this same wisdom, of which the human being can know nothing or next to nothing, is to be known and expressed?.The fundamental harmony between the knowledge of faith and the knowledge of philosophy is once again confirmed. Faith asks that its object be understood with the help of reason; and at the summit of its searching reason acknowledges that it cannot do without what faith presents (Fides et Ratio, 42).To have faith, is to be disposed to trust. It is only once this trust is secured that the intellect could ever be employed to attempt to understand the content of faith. That is the priority of faith.