Whenever I read Catholic apologists, I’m fascinated by the near-total absence of robust exegetical arguments. Most attempts to turn the discussion to Biblical passages result in either a denial that my “private interpretation” is reliable — thus shutting down an exegetical debate before it begins — or lay interpretations shared, as far as I can tell, by virtually no Biblical scholars who study these passages. On the first measure — that I cannot interpret the Bible, so any defense of Protestantism I offer is just my own, unreliable judgment — epistemological objections to interpreting the New Testament strike me as self-defeating. God asks us to interpret him every time he communicates with us. How can we understand him if we don’t engage in interpretation? Or how does someone come to understand that their “private” interpretations are wrong unless they first interpret the speech that tells them so?
Since I don’t have a problem with issuing “private judgment,” here are some exegetical reasons I remain Protestant. Off the top of my head:
Placemarker for coffee in the AM.
I would never consider becoming a Catholic. However, I do like some of their traditions, and the more modern Protestant church I attend now only has a few remaining. That, and I’m guessing the Catholics still get to use real wine instead of juice!
Statistically, the narrative isn’t quite so neat: in recent years,
That is for sure. Far more RCs become evangelical than cross over to Rome.
Most attempts to turn the discussion to Biblical passages result in either a denial that my “private interpretation” is reliable — thus shutting down an exegetical debate before it begins — or lay interpretations shared, as far as I can tell, by virtually no Biblical scholars who study these passages.
For Catholics church teaching is the Supreme Law, under the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial reliability.
But what valid church teaching consists of, and what magisterial level it belongs to - and thus what level of assent it requires - as well as its meaning, are all subject 0 to varying degrees - to variant interpretations by the Catholic.
here are some exegetical reasons I remain Protestant. Off the top of my head: Broadly Protestant notions of justification are clearly taught by the Bible. Pauline church government is authoritarian in some respects but is a distant cousin to the modern Magisterium. NT (and OT) ethics support the implementation of the death penalty in ways that are alien to Francis’s ethical statements and implications. Contra the post-Vatican II ethos, Christ and Paul are utterly unsympathetic to salvation for those who refuse to submit directly and openly to Christ and his Gospel. Biblical unity is defined by adherence to core doctrine. Organizational fealty is never primary in the NT’s exposition of authority and unity. Related: when I read the church fathers, I don’t think many of them would recognize some of the core beliefs of modern Catholicism.
How about the fact that Catholic distinctives simply are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), especially Acts thru Revelation. From becoming actually good enough thru Purgatory to enter Heaven to a separate sacerdotal class of celibate believers who uniquely offer the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, to praying to created beings in Heaven ,
Such works typically do not even have the Nihil Obstat + Imprimatur, which flows from the office of the Inquisition, which means many TradCats seems to long for.
This is downstream of another problem. As a Protestant, I have two basic options when informing my study of the Bible. The first is consulting scholars who think the text is inspired and more or less inerrant.
The other option is consulting scholars who doubt or actively disbelieve all of the above propositions. They approach the text with a hermeneutic of suspicion...When it comes to Catholicism, most or all of the NT Catholic scholars I’m aware of fall somewhere in the second camp..the NAB and the USCCB hedge on Pauline authorship
Oh, its much worse than that! For decades readers of the official Bible for American RCs, the New American (not Standard) Bible (now NABRE) have been told such things - well just see here , by the grace of God. .
In terms of social desirability, Catholicism offers several important features that are often (but not always!) lacking in Protestant circles: a deep sense of historical continuity
Which is actually a fatal basis for their claim to be in the OTC (one true church). Which is that of making the uninspired writings of so-called church "fathers" determinitive of what the NT church believed, versus the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed. And contrary to the Catholic model, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
My best friend of thirty years converted to Catholic long ago from Protestant (Lutheran).
We occasionally have had heated debates, but mostly agree to disagree. Unlike many Catholics of my personal acquaintance, she is not only highly devout, but very knowledgeable and articulate about her faith - however, much of that predates her conversion to Catholic.
My problems with the Catholic Church are as much practical as they are theological - and beyond the scope of a simple post here.
I began studying the Bible at five, and was being groomed for seminary by 16. I have known so many clergy - of many denominations - and have seen so much while working behind the scenes in two denominations, that I have become quite cynical about all human church organizations.
Nota bene: I am not cynical about Christ or his Gospel. I simply refuse to equate a temporal institution with his eternal one. (God working through such does not make such perfect - any more than God working through Cyrus made Cyrus perfect.)
Equally, I reject the premise, hidden or not, that any one theology is perfectly correct. We see through a glass darkly - all of us. For that reason, I am much more interested in the Bible than any theology.
I have become virtually allergic to the every term, “Biblical scholars”; I have met too many seminary-bred heretics, and I know too well how the Frankfurt School has infected all American learning institutions, including Christian seminaries and universities.
The author seems sincere, so this is not a personal attack, but I will offer these comments:
The “Biblical scholars” of Jesus’ time - the Pharisees, Sadducees - almost entirely rejected him. His apostles were laymen. The closest one to a scholar was the apostle born out of time, the chief of sinners, a man who consented to murder.
What made the apostles exceptional was that they knew Jesus, not that they attended this or that seminary, and got a piece of parchment declaring that they were qualified to use words like exegesis!
I have seen much hubris and heresy among the various seminary graduates I have met. What I have seldom seen in any seminarian are humility and wisdom. The ones I knew both before and after seemed disimproved by the experience in Christian terms.
For that reason, to spare myself such temptation to intellectual pride, and to spare myself what increasingly seemed to be a waste of time and money, I balked at attending seminary.
The author is free to think what he likes about someone like me. I am likewise free to do the same about seminarians as a class.
For me; it's because they WASTE so much time doing things that are non-Scriptural.
As attested to on these very threads. Of the Roman Catholics I've encountered on FR, there has only been one Roman Catholic poster who was close to being a good debater.
The articles Roman Catholics link to on catholicanswers.com have some of the weakest apologetics I've seen.
This is due in part to a lack of understanding that only Scripture is inspired and is to be the source of truth for the believer in Christ.
One of the biggest issues I've notice amongst our Roman Catholic posters is the lack of understanding on how to interpret the Bible in context. It seems many are bereft of Biblical knowledge. I know when I've tried to introduce this concept of context it has seemed to be alien to many Roman Catholics.
And when confronted with inspired Scripture that clearly contradicts their positions on the various topics the Roman Catholic often retreats to the cries of the "magisterium" told us so it's ok.
The other problem for the Roman Catholic, and in fairness many non-Roman Catholics, is a lack of knowledge of the original languages used to write the Scriptures. Without that the exegesis, though it can be performed, is short changed.
The irony is that while they condemn *YOPIOS* when a non-Catholic does it, they then go on to give THEIR own personal interpretation of Scripture since Roman Catholicism has officially interpreted so few passages itself, which they then claim leaves everything else open for their pwn personal interpretation.
So it's *Rules for thee but not for me*.
LOL. When I read the Protestant apologetic against Catholicism, "robust exegesis" is not what I'm seeing. More like a robust disregard for either textual or cultural context, exhibited during a frantic search for prooftexts to rip out of context and use as weapons, while the texts that might support the Catholic view are simply swept under the carpet.
His "off the top of his head" reason number 3 means he doesn't understand the difference between "Pope Francis' off-the-cuff opinions" and the "teaching of the church".
Number 4 tells me he doesn't understand that the "post Vatican II ethos" has even less authority than "Pope Francis' off-the-cuff opinions". (The actual documents of Vatican II, IMO, clearly teach the same thing as Pius IX and other Popes before him: only invincible ignorance can excuse lack of Christian faith.)
Broadly Protestant notions of justification are clearly taught by the Bible.
Where does the Bible teach that justifying grace is only forensic and external, i.e., that justification means a change in how God views us, not also a change God works in us at exactly the same time?
Give up knowing Christ, assurance of salvation, and amazing grace...
For a man-made system of false sacraments, eternal insecurity, and The Catholic Hamster Wheel of Guilt??
Ha!!
**Since I don’t have a problem with issuing “private judgment,”**
Is the author equating himself to Jesus Christ?
In my opinion, yes.
Judgment belongs to God alone!
Since I don’t have a problem with issuing “private judgment,”
I don`t either so i will just ask, what difference does it make if you are a member of the Mother harlot or her daughters.
I know lots of Roman Catholics who I know are born again Christians, and there are many Priests who are also born again.
Most of these individuals do not believe the Pope is infallible, and disagree with many of the Pope’s proclamations; especially the current one.
Maybe reading Cardinal Newman allows converts some measure of intellectual peace when comparing the first three centuries of the early church’s views on, say, ecumenicism and what is taught by the modern Magisterium. Development is a powerful notion that can erase apparent or actual contradictions. But as a Protestant, I see no reason to appeal to something like Newman’s sense of doctrinal development, and so what is claimed as development really looks, from the outside, like a set of socially and politically conditioned deviations and contradictions from the earlier deposit of faith.
Yup.
In the time I spent considering conversion to Catholicism, every single apologetics book, essay or article recommended to me was written by a lay Catholic. Why aren’t the bishops engaged in apologetics? Aren’t they the authoritative teachers within Catholicism? If so, why would I trust the exegetical, theological, and philosophical arguments put forth by lay Catholics who have no direct oversight or approval of bishops? To trust these arguments would be to trade one set of private interpretations for another.
A fish always rots from the head down, doesn't it?
This is downstream of another problem. As a Protestant, I have two basic options when informing my study of the Bible. The first is consulting scholars who think the text is inspired and more or less inerrant. This comes with arguments or assumptions about the nature and quality of the Bible’s authorship: Matthew really did write Matthew, the disciples’s memory of Jesus’s teachings is entirely or almost entirely accurate, Jesus really did make accurate prophecies, he really did miracles as described, and so forth.
The other option is consulting scholars who doubt or actively disbelieve all of the above propositions. They approach the text with a hermeneutic of suspicion. They doubt Matthew wrote Matthew. They doubt Jesus said and taught everything ascribed to him. Many claim that Jesus’s teachings were issued as a fallible man: given perhaps as a (mostly) good man, but certainly not as a divinely inspired God-man.
When it comes to Catholicism, most or all of the NT Catholic scholars I’m aware of fall somewhere in the second camp. Why would I follow a denomination that approves of or passes over scholars within its own ranks that seem to deny or doubt the reliability and authority of the Bible on such a regular basis? Consider, for example, how the NAB and the USCCB hedge on Pauline authorship. If Paul didn’t author some of the letters purported to be his, that raises questions about their inspiration and, therefore, divine authority.
If the intellectual leaders of Catholicism have a fairly low view of Scripture,
And they do.
that directly undermines the lay Catholic apologists who appeal to the Bible as if it actually teaches what Jesus and Paul really said. Who am I to believe? The Catholic scholar who questions whether half the Pauline corpus was really written by Paul or the lay Catholic apologist who argues assuming traditional authorship? If I take Catholicism at face value, then I would have to believe the intellectual over the lay apologist. And that would mean there’s no reason to take the lay apologists seriously if their arguments appeal to suspect passages written by someone pretending to be Jesus or Paul.
Furthermore, in the American context, any form of Protestantism that takes the Bible “literally,” is basically despised. In all the important circles, there is enormous social pressure to hide one’s identity as a bigoted, backwards, intellectually inferior, uneducated, and politically conservative Evangelical Protestant.
EXACTLY. Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, and Black Fundamentalism, and islam, and "indigenous" shamanisms) are all perfectly respectable. Only Clem and Buford are despised. It is this social prejudice against rural American "white trash" that is responsible for this absolute 180 degree turn in what was once chrstian belief. So why should "conservative" Catholicism be seen as any less of an enemy as the rest of the redneck-hating cultural elite? What makes its elitism somehow "different?" Most converts are probably self-hating WASPs anyway.
The only way this article could possibly be improved would be to dismiss the "new testament" and call for universal acceptance of the Noahide Laws. But for what is written here, it's about the best I've ever read.
I can't wait to read all the responses from FR Catholics about how their Church has always believed in evolution/higher criticism/etc. and these beliefs are identical to those of Jerome.
Or Roman Catholic?
Why, indeed?
I prefer to be non-demoninational.
No need to subscribe to anyone else's version of Christianity.
I am 58. I have never had anyone ask me why I didn’t covert to their religion.
You all must have some pushy neighbors.
.
1- Broadly Protestant notions of justification are clearly taught by the Bible.
False! - Biblically, justification is solely through the willing keeping of the commandments, and repentance of our failures.
2- Pauline church government is authoritarian in some respects but is a distant cousin to the modern Magisterium.
Paul’s authoritarian tendencies are born of his deep studies in the scriptures, and are not arbitrary in any sense.
3 - NT (and OT) ethics support the implementation of the death penalty in ways that are alien to Francis’s ethical statements and implications.
NT ethics require forgiveness.
4 - Contra the post-Vatican II ethos, Christ and Paul are utterly unsympathetic to salvation for those who refuse to submit directly and openly to Christ and his Gospel.
Yeshua’s Gospel is Moses’ Torah. They are one and the same. Yehova’s grace permits forgiveness following confession and repentance, as described in John’s first epistle. This is not new to post crucifixion times. It is roughly what is called “baptism” in the English Bible. Salvation is only for those that endure in faith to the end.