This is part two of the review, and it should be straightforward to address.

For the first part:

https://watchmencouncil.com/2024/01/04/the-battle-of-doctrinal-foundations-examining-sola-scriptura-and-tradition/

Here is the second point of his opening statement:

A commonly asked question by my opponent (and Protestants like him) who oppose Catholic doctrine/practices is to ask for a Scriptural reference, along the lines of “Show me where X is in the Bible”. As regards to sola scriptura, my opponent cites verses such as the following:

* “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

* “But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so. And many indeed of them believed, and of honourable women that were Gentiles, and of men not a few.” (Acts 17:10-12)

* “…blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.” (St. Luke 11:28; or for that matter, any other verse with ‘the word of God’ in it, such as St. Matthew 4:4, Proverbs 30:5)

My opponent will use this to speak of the importance of Scripture for a Christian life. So far, so good. But then, he will say, WITHOUT ANY TEXTUAL BASIS, that it alone is the only thing we need for such matters. Notice, however, in each of these verses, it IS MISSING, however, a key word: and that is “only” (or a synonym of it). If sola scriptura truly was Biblical, my opponent would have no problem demonstrating where exactly Scripture explicitly teaches itself to be the “only sufficient” source of Christian doctrine. And no, it’s not literalist at all to request a definitive chapter/verse reference for “Scripture alone”. After all, it’s YOUR HERMENEUTIC. You quote Romans 3:23-24 to attempt to prove that the Blessed Virgin Mary sinned, by pointing out the word “all”. You quote St. Mark 7:8 to denigrate the use of “traditions of men” in preference for Scripture. I could go on, but that’s against the spirit of this debate topic. My point is, YOUR HERMENEUTIC requires a literalist view. SO FOLLOW IT.

This argument is quite confused. First, if he holds to material sufficiency, he believes that his dogmas are materially present in divine revelation (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Second, Protestants are not committed to a literal hermeneutic, which is a misunderstanding often found in Catholic critiques. In fact, Protestants have been critical of those who claim a strictly literal hermeneutic (Galatians 4:24). There is no requirement that Sola Scriptura be supported by an explicit statement, as most doctrines aren’t. Moreover, where is the rule that says Sola Scriptura must be explicitly stated to be valid? Lastly, his failure to engage with Mark 7:8-9 and the parallel verse in Matthew 15:6 is problematic. It raises an epistemic issue: many believe they have traditions from God that are not, so how does he know he is any different from the Pharisees?

Let’s propose that sola scriptura is true, for a moment. Suppose that I am an atheist, and I go up to my opponent and propose to him that Numbers 5:11-31 supports abortion, and therefore it is justifiable to be pro-choice. I hope that my opponent will respond “No, that is wrong” and immediately explain the context of that verse, and urge him to “Ask the Holy Ghost to inspire your understanding of Scripture” – i.e. to “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). Moreover, I’m willing to bet that my opponent came to the doctrines he held through study and research – perhaps a friend, a “pastor” at his church, a website, or some Scripture commentary convinced him of it (with some touch of the Holy Ghost, too). What my opponent does not realize is this: by approaching Scripture this way, he has completely refuted his adherence to sola scriptura.

To say that “Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule” yet insist on following a specific interpretation of it – be it one’s own, or someone else’s – is to insist on following an infallible, extra-biblical authority. I say infallible, because if Scripture is the ultimate authority, then it follows that whosoever discerns doctrine from it must also possess some infallibility, otherwise there would be no stable standard of Christian dogma to follow. In addition, one cannot truly ever be “sola scriptura” so as long as they read it only through a Christian lens. Just like I can’t say “I only want McDonalds for breakfast” and “I only want Tim Hortons for breakfast” in the same breath, I cannot insist on “You must adhere only to Scripture” and “You must read Scripture with faith” in the same breath. Either it’s one or the other, or one must follow the other. In the case of the latter, Scripture and Tradition preserves that.

Firstly, why assume that any doctrine derived from scripture must be infallible? Even Catholics distinguish between dogmas, which are infallible, and doctrines, which are not (Matthew 16:19, 1 Timothy 3:15). Secondly, the Catholic Church, through papal encyclicals and documents like Dei Verbum, has allowed Catholic scholars to use modern interpretive methods to understand the text (Dei Verbum 12). If this Catholic’s argument were correct, such scholarly freedom would be seen as folly.

Thirdly, if someone presented a case that the Bible teaches abortion, I would consider their argument. The use of Numbers 5 as a prooftext for abortion is problematic. When has the Catholic Church infallibly declared that Numbers 5 does not teach abortion? This Catholic does not demonstrate this. They might argue that it would contradict the Church’s current dogmatic teachings on abortion. However, this merely shifts the issue. One could argue that the prohibition was specific to the Old Testament context. Could the Catholic Church ever change its stance on abortion? The Catholic Church has not definitively addressed the concept of dialetheia (double truth), which would clarify this issue. Catholics face the challenge that any position they adopt will involve non-dogmatic statements that require acceptance or rejection.

Fourthly, even if Numbers 5 did support abortion, it prescribes a ritual where a woman drinks dusty water and allows God to judge (Numbers 5:17-28). This does not support the idea that women can unilaterally decide to have an abortion. Furthermore, there are many reasons to doubt such an interpretation:

This procedure employs a providential sign from God to indicate infidelity. If the woman is guilty, “her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry,” a curse that some suggest amounts to an “intentional miscarriage.” If so, they claim, this demonstrates that God ordained abortion.

There are several reasons, however, why they’re mistaken and that the passage probably isn’t referring to a type of miscarriage, let alone an abortion.

First, even if the original Hebrew suggests a miscarriage (the child dies), it still wouldn’t support the abortion-choice position. If a child dies in this scenario, it’s because of God’s judgment, not a woman’s private decision. Even if the passage indicates an intentional miscarriage, it doesn’t justify abortion any more than God killing David’s son (2 Sam. 12:14, 18) justifies infanticide. God is the author and sustainer of life. If anyone has the right to take life, He does. In this ritual, there’s nothing in the potion itself that can reveal the woman’s guilt or innocence. The potion is merely symbolic. The curse comes from God and not any human being. There is no parallel here with elective abortion.

But does this text even mention miscarriage? The NIV is one of the few popular translations that renders the passage, “Her womb will miscarry.” Note, though, the NIV is a “dynamic equivalent” translation and not a precise word-for-word translation. The NASB, on the other hand, is more precise, rendering the passage “her thigh will waste away.” The popular ESV doesn’t refer to a pregnancy, miscarriage, or child either. The NIV’s rendering, therefore, is imprecise. If you don’t have access to the original language, stick with a word-for-word translation like the NASB, my own go-to translation when doing careful Bible study.

What, then, is meant by “her thigh will waste away”? When the meaning of the original language is ambiguous, it’s important to turn to a key interpretive principle: Never read a Bible verse. Never try to understand the meaning of a text in isolation from its context. Read as much as you can before and after the passage in question to help you determine what it means. In this case, the context indicates an entirely different meaning than what abortion-choice advocates suggest.

Look at what the verse immediately following the curse says:

If she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, then the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.” [NASB, emphasis mine.]

Notice how the blessing is contrasted with the curse. If the woman is guilty, “her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away.” If she is innocent, “she will then be free and conceive children.” Two things stand out when you read the blessing with the curse. One, the blessing of future fertility suggests that the curse is barrenness, not miscarriage—and certainly not abortion. Children were a blessing from the Lord, and barrenness was a curse, so the contrast between the curse in verse 27 and the promise in verse 28 makes perfect sense. Two, the woman would “conceive children,” suggesting that a child had not yet been conceived. Rather, conception would be a future blessing based on her innocence.

https://www.str.org/w/did-god-ordain-abortion-as-punishment-for-infidelity-

Here Dr. David Falk also gives credence to this interpretation:

If the concern is that without the Church, particularly the papacy, one might end up holding incorrect beliefs, it’s important to recognize that even within the Church, errors can occur. For instance, Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, argued that infants in the womb lacked personhood because they had not yet developed a rational soul.

This issue and argument have arisen multiple times throughout church history. Even Catholic Answers has had to respond to Pro-Choice Catholics:

Some pro-choice advocates claim that the Church’s teaching on abortion has changed because some theologians, such as St. Augustine, speculated that human beings might receive their souls several months after conception. In the first place, those Church Fathers who believed that ensoulment occurs after conception never endorsed the view that abortion is moral. Second, they operated under the mistaken view of human development espoused by the philosopher Aristotle. He thought that unborn children progress through vegetable and animal stages of life before their bodies were “animated” with a rational soul and that they become human beings later in pregnancy.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-catholics-cant-be-pro-choice