When the Homily is about Immunology

The Great Dichotomy: Scripture vs. Myth

You will recall in my previous post I quoted Pastor Drisoll as writing:
Therefore, the Mary of Scripture greatly differs from the Mary of myth, legend, and folklore.

Something in this statement has been bothering me the last day and I could not initially put my finger on it. I believe it is a common misconception that hardcore "sola scriptura" protestants have with regard to Scripture and Tradition, setting up a false dichotomy between the two and labelling the latter as "myth, legend, and folklore."

How does one have SO MUCH faith in a collection of ancient writings and SO LITTLE faith in the Traditions of the Community that CHOSE those writings (while eschewing so many others) and called them Holy? I really don't understand how Driscoll and others can hang so much of their belief on this rag tag aggregation of early church writings without giving a nod to the authority that gives them authority to begin with.

How do Protestants KNOW Jesus Himself was not a gnostic? How do they know that the gnostic conspiracy theories aren't true? After all many of their arguments are true: The CHURCH picked out the New Testament and the very first list of the NT canon we see that matches ours today didn't appear until the late 4th century. Even around the time of Nicea in the early 4th century we see Eusebius in his "History" noting how some documents they were "unsure" about and that the Church was still very much hashing out what ought to be considered authoritative (which is to say: which books ought to be read in their services...an interesting detail, I think, because they were apparently not looking to create a document that would allow Christians 1500 years later to reinvent the Church.) So again, I wonder, how can you be sure that the Church GOT IT RIGHT? How do they know that Marcion's New Testament isn't the correct one? (After all, his came first!)

How do WE know that Jesus wasn't a gnostic? Well, we have faith in that which Jesus Himself established: the Church. We believe that Saint Irenaios "won the argument" way back in the 2nd century, and his points were rather different than the sripture-carpet-bombing that protestants wield upon one another (and us) - usually without affect.

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? ...then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed, but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down, from whom the Church, receiving [these truths], and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity, has transmitted them to her sons.

I think protestants have an obligation to explain their profound and deep faith in the New Testament, and I expect they will have opportunity to do so as a very popular book made into a movie is going to challenge them and their friends on this point. For them, the implications involved in the fact that "mere men" chose the books of the New Testament may be scandalous, but to us...well, it's a given. The New Testament is the most important part of our Holy Tradition, it is community property - never intended to reveal all manner of truth to Pastor-Prophet Bobby-Joe in the context of him and his wives sitting in their shack down the hollar. The CHURCH is the "pillar and ground of truth" and that is how we managed to pick the right books. Ironically, to have faith in the Bible means you have must also have faith in the Church (even the Church, post-Constantine!).

So, setting up this dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition is self-contradictory. Scripture IS Tradition. Are you really terribly suprised when unbelievers say the New Testament is made up of nothing but myth, legend, and folklore? How will you convince them (much less me) that a dichotomy exists?