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.
Not in the least, if you are trying to say that the word "all" in that passage includes the Christ; no way.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, one of the three aspects of the Trinity (the Triune God), along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. As all Catholics and Protestants say if or when they repeat the Nicene Creed,
... one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father...affirming that He was and is Divine, and did not sin when he took the form of Jesus of Nazareth. The "all" you are referring to indicates all humans, who are born into sin and who need the salvation Christ offers.
And the peace of Christ to you as well, Grateful2God!
Thank you! : )
Where in the world do these ideas come from? We have been saying that forever.
So you are saying that Jesus was not fully human, is that correct?
So you don’t trust the Bible? Is that what you really mean to say?
Thanks, and God bless you!
I believe the Bible a lot more than I do man. Where did you get that idea that I did not? I was talking about Protestants believing all have sinned but that was a known. We have been saying that on just about every thread.
No.
That is to say, He as the incarnate Jesus was supernatural. Fully human, and fully divine.
Would you please clarify that statement? It could easily be misconstrued.
It was your answer to my post # 267 in this forum:
You're entitled to your opinion. If you feel things are one-sided, then speak to the Moderator.
God bless you!
Thanks, and God bless you!
What are you referring to (you should show what you are responding to)? If it goes to my blog or web page than that is the source, or provides them. Copied sections of material from others should have attribution, and often is in distinctive color.
Any other questions i can answer?
If there should be a debate, it should be in ecumenical threads, with a focus on debating the topic or question at hand, not in an inflammatory statement positioned as a title on FR RF
Are you really that dense? It should have been obvious.
There was another here who was complaining about "two sets of rules".
But yet again, for the second time you post to me;
That makes no sense to say to me in the context of this thread, but would make perfect sense to have addressed to the one who had said;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3252810/posts?page=262#262
If there was anything "one-sided" which one could conceivably "speak to Moderators about", would not that have to be those same moderator's themselves being "one sided"?
I have no real complaint in that area, though I do wonder how much longer we all must suffer those whom habitually break the rules.
As for myself having asked you a personal question, I should be understood that for someone here to ask a relatively new sign-up if they had been here before, has previously been set aside (by the religion forum moderator) as one of those types of questions which are understandable, thus allowable, (in theory) for there are those persons who were once banned, but then attempt to re-tread here. Some perhaps sign on with a different name for other reasons.
But the "two sets of rules" sort of whining complaint about this forum and it's moderators, is pretty much 100% Roman Catholic whining. It's long been a re-current meme around here...
It seems to me that by yourself asking me if I thought things were one-sided in some manner which a forum moderator could themselves do something to correct(?) you attempted to portray it as if I was joining in with that pitiful whining, and moaning and complaining -- about the forum management.
No, I do not believe there are two sets of rules being enforced by forum management.
But the other individual obviously does.
As for yet another kind of being one sided --- I will say to you, to direct any corrections you may have towards your own cohorts first, rather than myself --- while utilizing such as that provisional "if" word.
Your own doing so, as you did, when and where you did, needed to be directed to the one who was complaining about double-standards, not to me.
Is that sufficient clarification?
So which part of Him sinned, since ALL have sinned?
So you don’t trust the Bible? Is that what you really mean to say?
Do you REALLY get results from trying to put these words into other peoples mouths?
Do you REALLY think they'll waste much time countering them?
Are you a real Catholic who follows what their pope is teaching?
Not my problem.
I am not a mediator.
I report: they decide.
I do not want to be a sleepy watchman on the tower!
Sorry; but the ammo does not fit their weapons.
False teachings can come from ANY source; not just the two that seem to have attracted your attention.
Shut up
Then get OFF of this thread, move to an 'ecumenical' one; and sip tea with the ladies!
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.