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.
“This fact makes the Catholic Church, philosophically speaking, preferable to Protestantism, since God’s truth can be known—and known with certainty.”
The church whose “infallible”’leader’s attitude toward homosexuality is “Who am I to judge?” The same church whose “infallible” leader is commanding his 1.5-billion strong flock to support the blatant lie that global warming is man-made? The same church whose esteemed leaders overlooked with as wink and a nod years of child molestation by priests?
That church?
So, the Holy Spirit has founded 40,000 Protestant churches?
Good thing no Catholics (including the clergy and upper leadership) were ever anti-Semitic or your argument would fall apart. Oh, wait...
It boils down to why the person is doing the good works. If they are doing the good works out of gratitude that God has saved them completely and their good works have nothing to do with it, they have the proper biblical mindset. If they are doing the good works because they somehow think doing them earns them God’s graces or forgiveness and they can’t get to heaen without “being good”, they do not have the proper biblical mindset about what good works is all about.
Click on the source link.
“If Protestantism is true, all are fallible. So the Protestant must rely on his own judgment above that of his church.”
How stupid of an analysis. The present Pope is all one needs to show that the judgment of the church is fallible. To believe the Roman catholics, you must believe that the pope is a normal fallible guy, UNTIL God uses magic to suddenly make him infallible about doctrines.
Next, the “church” does not possess the trait of “judgment”. The church is a group of individuals. SO to trust the judgment of the “Church”, you are actually doing nothing but trusting an individual. The only way this is tenable as a position, is if you believe that God has exalted that individual and will only share truth with him. Yet, god was mean enough to make this person an idiot on all other topics. (like the inquisition popes, or this present pope)
Last, of course Protestants believe that individuals are fallible. They can be wrong. It is a big responsibility to be sure you are truly within Gods word and truth. You can indeed make a mistake, just like a pope can, even on matters of doctrine.
I agree with you and you know 2nd I respect you.
The truth burns inside me and it explodes at moments like this.
The lie was defined when Moses descended from Sinai.
It has always been the same lie.
Cows, men, and books must not be worshiped.
You’re right.
Godspeed, sister.
Someone please translate this for me. Is it sarcasm disagreeing with my post, or actually agreeing? The metaphors are thick as gruel.
Yeah, no kidding.
Or as another poster said on another thread
"Oooh look! The latest in anti-Catholic porn, so pathetically typical of FR lately."
Here’s a joke for you.
What’s more powerful than god
the rich want it
the poor have it
and if you eat it, you die?
How long it takes you to get the joke will tell you where you are.
Nothing. Is that the joke ? Where am I ? What’s my name ?
Testing new tagline...
Nothing. The "what is more powerful than God?" question gave it away... : )
Although I do think that the wealthy sometimes perceive themselves as lacking, as if it's never enough. That's why the Hammacher-Schlemmer catalog has a gizmo to wind the owner's self-winding watch for them. A steal at 18 grand!
Excuse me while I open myself a 65¢ can of tuna- and say Grace beforehand because I'm grateful to God for it! There are so many who have nothing at all to eat, all over our world...
Or what about this tagline...
The author should consider investing in a Bible, paying close attention to the letters written specifically to the Body of Christ. Then, he might see the foolishness of his premise - my religion can beat up yours.
For a Believer, there is no dilemma. There is God’s Way - Jesus, and man’s way - religion. One is by faith, and the other by works. One is by God’s Grace, and the other by human merit. One is Liberty, and the other is religious bondage. Seems like an easy choice to me.
1 Corinthians 2:12-16 (KJV)
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:1-4 (KJV)
1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
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.