Posted on 01/31/2015 8:43:45 PM PST by Morgana
My new book, The Protestant's Dilemma, shows in a myriad of ways why Protestantism is implausible. We sifted through many arguments to boil the book down to the most essential. A few chapters didn't make the cut but are still good enough to share. Here's one of them.
If Protestantism is true,
There's no way to know whether you're assenting to divine revelation or to mere human opinion about divine revelation.
Protestants and Catholics both believe that God has revealed himself to man over the course of human history, culminating in his ultimate self-revelation in Jesus Christ. But whereas Catholics believe that Christ founded a visible Church—which subsists in the Catholic Church—and has protected its doctrines from error, Protestants reject the notion of ecclesial infallibility, maintaining that no person, church, or denomination has been preserved from error in its teachings. Which means that anyone could be wrong, and no person or institution can be trusted with speaking the truth of divine revelation without error.
Universal Fallibility
“No one is infallible.” If Protestantism has a universal belief, this is it. Luther pioneered this idea when he asserted that popes and Church councils had erred. If they had erred, it meant God had not guided them into all truth; instead, he allowed them to fall into error and, worse, to proclaim error as truth.
And so the most a Protestant can do is tentatively assent to doctrinal statements made by his church, pastor, or denomination, since those statements, being fallible, could be substantively changed at some time in the future. We see this all the time in Protestantism, most commonly when a Protestant leaves one church for another due to doctrinal disagreement, especially after his church changed its position on an issue he considered important.
Consider the question of same-sex “marriage.” Until quite recently, all Protestant denominations taught this was a contradiction in terms. But now many have modified or even completely reversed this doctrine. Those Protestants who accept this new teaching believe that the old one was wrong—an erroneous human opinion that became enshrined in their church’s statement of faith. They can do this confidently, knowing that none of their fellow church members can plausibly claim that it contradicts an irreformable dogma that was infallibly revealed by God.
Ultimately, then, a Protestant (who remains Protestant) studies the relevant sources—Scripture, history, the writings of authoritative figures in his tradition—and chooses the Protestant denomination that most aligns with his judgment. But then, they say, Catholics do the same thing: studying the sources and then choosing the Catholic Church based on their own judgment. So they see no difference in this regard.
Because Catholicism is true,
Christians can know divine revelation, as distinct from mere human opinion, because God protects it from authoritatively teaching anything that is false.
How is the Catholic’s judgment different from a Protestant's, if at all? The difference lies in the conclusion, or finishing point, of the inquiry they make. Whereas the Protestant can ultimately submit only to his own judgment, which he knows to be fallible, the Catholic can confidently render total assent to the proclamations of the visible Church that Christ established and guides, submitting his judgments to its judgments as to Christ's.
And so a Catholic can know divine revelation, as distinct from human opinion, by looking to the Church, which speaks with Christ’s voice and cannot lie. For a Protestant, only the Bible itself contains God’s infallibly inspired words, so he desires to assent to that. But since the Bible must be interpreted by someone, the closest he can come to assenting to biblical teaching is assenting to his own fallible interpretation of it. And assenting to yourself is no assent at all.
The Protestant’s Dilemma
If Protestantism is true, all are fallible. So the Protestant must rely on his own judgment above that of his church. And the orthodoxy of the church itself is judged against his interpretation of the Bible. Thus is becomes impossible to distinguish between what divine revelation actually is versus what a fallible human being thinks it is. This fact makes the Catholic Church, philosophically speaking, preferable to Protestantism, since God’s truth can be known—and known with certainty.
LOLOLOL Oh that’s too funny!
This article makes it look like they never even got the Gospel Message.
As for Islam being the enemy you say that it is... you might want to let your Pope know about that...he's got other plans for Islam and Catolicism
WOw...that OP-ed is really hard to read. Quite convoluted to come to a simple conclusion.
I often read along on these threads that spark such heated debate. I have lived 50 some odd years and never really knew of this anti-Catholic thing. I have been Catholic, Evangelical, born again, atheist, and even Wiccan through the years to only finally come full circle back to Catholicism. Maybe it had to do with the way I was looking for God, Christ, Holy Spirit...but in traveling all those spiritual paths I didn’t meet many who harbored such vitriol as I often see here on FR.
All that personal history said, I offer to this contingent, James Chapter 2. Faith and deeds/works go hand in hand. One without the other is DEAD.
James 2
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?
15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food.
16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.
19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend.
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
If you read the opening Chapters in Revelations and the letters to the Churches, even there God speaks of faith and works and how these Churches need to repent. Some did deeds and others only faith...but all had something God holds against them.
The admonishment by James is very clear. It is our deeds that demonstrate our faith, they go hand in hand.
I'm not Catholic, and I did not know until you told me what the Pope had said about islam....truly unbelievable.
The end times draw nearer each hour.
....” Justfication by faith in Christ/works don’t save you is one of the toughest truths in the world to accept. It goes against the way of the world and every instinct natural man has.”......
As Christians we are all sinners saved ‘by grace’....and we’ll never get beyond that...we will always be sinners saved by grace.
...”He was too impatient for change to happen”...
No, he took a stand so change wouldn’t happen further.
“Preferable”???
If ya think ya want to wind up in Heaven, “preferable” isn’t the issue. R.C. links works to salvation (un-scriptural). The Bible, which is the default for most Protestant denomincations, clearly states, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us”. If Heaven is your goal, then Catholicism definitely is NOT “preferable”.
But if you get warm fuzzies from liturgy, chants, rituals, etc., not caring about where you’ll spend eternity, then Catholicism is “preferable”. (In which case there’ll be a lot of very, very warm, hot, blazing fuzzies in the Hereafter.)
Wish we had a thumbs up button. :-)
Comfort in the familiar is not the answer....You might consider Christianity next trip around....
“So, the Holy Spirit has founded 40,000 Protestant churches? “
The term ‘church’ in the NT comes from the word meaning a gathering of people. It is used to describe a gathering of people who gathered for a riot in Acts. Tyndale correctly translated it ‘congregation’.
In that sense, the Holy Spirit has founded a few hundred thousand ‘churches’ - congregations. There are and will be tares among the wheat, as Jesus predicted. There will be deceitful men who will lead many astray, as was happening even in the time of the Apostles.
But as Peter wrote, believers have scripture to keep them from going too far astray, combined with the Holy Spirit if they are, indeed, believers. Peter said to trust scripture over experience or men - good advice to everyone.
It is a pity the Catholic Church ignores what Peter wrote:
“So we have the prophetic word strongly confirmed. You will do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dismal place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all, you should know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their unrestrained ways, and the way of truth will be blasphemed because of them. They will exploit you in their greed with deceptive words. Their condemnation, pronounced long ago, is not idle, and their destruction does not sleep.”
They further stated...."We are expecting a step forward from the Pope... If in one of his addresses he were to declare that Islam is a peaceful religion, that Muslims are not looking for war or violence, that would be progress in itself.”
Additionally.... Kerry/Obama have been proposing a plan that would place Jerusalem’s holiest sites into the hands of the VATICAN, (which is what the Vatican has coveted for eons) along with a group of Muslim countries such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia...... This 'Vatican-Muslim Alliance' would include managing the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site. BiBi said no way....now they're trying to affect BIBI's re-election ecause he is seen as holding up their show.
Romans 3:23
All have sinned. Of course, starting with Eve’s original sin, except Our Lord.
Does Romans 3:23 somehow prove Protestantism? Not at all.
John the Baptist received sanctifying grace in the womb - God can infuse grace at any time He desires, including at or even prior to conception. Not in the bible? Wrong - Luke 1:27- 30 is the scriptural proof text for the Catholic belief.
Kecheritomene is a perfect passive Greek participle translated as: completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace. A perfect participle denotes an action that has been completed.
Highly favored one is a later deliberately imprecise mistranslation.
The detailed correct translation is “full of grace which thou hast received”.
A person may choose (opinion) not to believe the Catholic translation of Luke 1:28. However, blithely ignoring the fact that the earliest (Catholic) Church fathers writing long before Luther also held Mary’s sinlessness to be true. For an example, take Theodotus of Ancyra writing in early 5th century A.D., praising the Blessed Mother as a Virgin as “included in woman’s sex but without a share in woman’s fault”. His is just one example of many that the Church has unbrokenly taught that Mary’s perpetual virginity. This means the eastern churches as well, not just “Rome”.
Even if a person chooses to ignore the scriptural doctrine contained in Luke 1:28; the problem remains:
Not Catholics aren’t scriptural but: whose interpretation of Scripture contains the Truth? Luther and has band of heretical so called reformers who came along MUCH later, or the true Church who has never deviated from her intrepretation of Luke 1:28?
The question is actually: which “opinion” on the interpretation of scripture is correct? The excerpt from the book reiterates this problem, which is actually the issue; the idea that Catholics aren’t scriptural is a straw man and misstates the thesis that ought to be addressed, which is which scriptural interpretation defines the Truth.
To conclude: Romans 3:23 is true AND does not somehow disprove Luke 1:28. Again:
God can infuse sanctifying Grace into a sinful soul at any time He desires, including the moment before conception. He is God, after all!
To that I would add what Christ Himself said in John 6:45:
“It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—”
Those that come to Christ are taught by God the Father, not by the unholy potentate on his Roman throne, not by the magisterium, not by bishops or priests.
Then he's a disgrace to his office.
“There’s no way to know whether you’re assenting to divine revelation or to mere human opinion about divine revelation.”
For the poor confused soul who penned the above:
“My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.” (John 7)
Amen!! The Bible is crystal clear on this. Were it remotely possible, even our very best performance every single day of our lives wouldn’t be enough. Those who offer the Lord their works are going the way of Cain.
With it, you've no doubt stepped on a lot of egos that would much prefer to fight the "I'm right and you're not" battle and they'll be along to tell you how wrong you are, along with a few insults about you, your history and your conclusions.
When it comes to words and deeds, if I can have one or the other, I'd much rather be around those who have never heard God's Word yet live as though they have, rather than those who know the Word, but the Word doesn't know them.
The latter makes me run from them and their understanding, and from their belief system that they claim is Christian.
Their examples make a good case for atheism. Heretic that I am, I'd rather hang with Osteen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.