Suppose Someone Wanted to Accuse Me of Sola Scriptura

On Sunday 9 March 2008, I wrote, on the then site Antimodernism, a piece where the title needs to be restated:

Sola Scriptura or Tota Scriptura?*
https://antimodernisminmemoriam.blogspot.com/2012/10/sola-scriptura-or-tota-scriptura.html

Do I believe the Bible ALONE is infallible?

No, I believe Apostolic Tradition and Universal Immemorial Church Tradition and definitions of Councils and Popes and consistency of the ordinary magsiterium are infallible too.

Do I believe that ALL OF the Bible is inerrant?

Yes, I do. Including Genesis 5 and 11. Adam really was 130 or 230 years old (depending on text version) when Seth was born appointed to replace the killer Cain and the killed Abel. Peleg really was born when the Tower project of Nimrod, whatever it was, had failed or was just failing by God confusing the single language into a melting pot of languages foreign to each other. You could understand your wife and children, you could no longer understand your coworker or taskmaster, nor could he understand you.

Including also Joshua 10, and before you point to the possibility of verse 13 being phenomenological language, in verse 12 Sun and Moon are what Joshua miraculously orders to stand still. If it was Earth that stopped and started rotating, as Heliocentrics want, this would be the one and only occasion where a miracle worker ordered sth other to change behaviour than what needed to. When Jesus ordered demons out of people, he didn't expel endogenous malfunctions within the human person, and mislabel this as expelling one or more non-human persons because of misunderstanding. When Joshua ordered Sun and Moon to stand still, it wasn't Earth he made stand still.

These things are directly in the Bible, not just by allusion. These things can be read, not just understood because the Church underlines how the allusion was one of those that Jesus spoke about, for instance on the road to Emmaus. They are the minimum, but we need to believe the totality, what the Church defines, even if it's not openly apparent to every reader (especially to those who ignore what is being alluded to).**

Now, there is one more thing. Some Catholics are confused about what we should object to in "sola scriptura".

Should we object to someone saying this or that can be understood without explicit reference to Church doctrine? No. We would need to object only in the moment when we know something is against Church doctrine, like when someone tries to prove "only Jesus is sinless, Mary isn't" (totally false proposition) from Romans 3:23 or Romans 5:12, when Jesus being an exception is not explicitly stated in either verse, and when Jesus being different as Redeemer, as defeater of the Devil, argues for Mary being sinless, because the Bible by allusion shows Mary defeated the Devil even before Her pregnancy.***

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
I LD of the Passion
21—22.III.2026

* The reposting on MSN Group Antimodernism in memoriam was in 2012, but that was not the origin of the text.
** Classic example: Mary is co-defeater of the Devil and has done Her part as defeating him already before Christ was born of Her or even in Her, because "blessed among women" alludes to Jael and Judith and if you add "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" the allusion to Genesis 3:15 should be very clear, meaning it was the Devil She had been defeating. Hence Her sinlessness, as this was the only defeat possible for a non-divine human person and was a reversal of the Devil's victory in Genesis 3, over Adam and Eve.
*** The first "blessed among women" is pronounced in Luke 1:28. In verse 31 the angel says "thou shalt conceive" meaning Our Lady was not yet pregnant.