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.
Dictionary.com: all
adjective
1. the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration): "all the cake; all the way; all year."
2. the whole number of (used in referring to individuals or particulars, taken collectively): "all students."
3. the greatest possible (used in referring to quality or degree): "with all due respect; with all speed."
4. every:
The prot position now is that All doesn't mean all and can no longer be trusted. Is that what you are saying?
Two sets of Rules on FR.
It was asking a personal question.
When (or if) you were to point out those sort of things when others do so (like "getting personal" but beyond mere questioning) such as those whom more closely share your own religious convictions (even yourself?), then I might take what you say more serious.
Until then, it comes across to me as effort to bind one group -- while protecting yet another from all criticism.
I tend to take the long view, in these things. ;^')
Didn't you see the smiley at the end of the note? Sorry for the misunderstanding!
Why not?
God bless you!
God bless you!
God bless you!
Sorry also.
God bless you!
I clicked on one of your links and it went to your blog......is there some reason you do not source these?
Huh?
You posted that to the WRONG guy!
I can’t believe people would bother reading absolute filth and degeneracy as this garbage.
Christians don’t, only Catholics do. :p
Would you post them?
Or just some examples of them?
(Most of the time)
May we be made worthy of the promises of Christ through your prayers.
HERESY!!!
As far as I can tell
What is there which is attributed to others, is sourced, including links to scripture.
Some of the links lead to other portions within his own work to more extensive commentary as for some particular point of discussion. When there are quotations from others in those places of deeper discussion, I do not know if there are many (or even one?) which does not provide source information.
Is there something more specific which one should be able to demand "source" for?
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.