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.
Ya really think as much time was taken READING what you wrote, as you took in WRITING it?
Son; you'll have to remove the saddle to get the burr out from under it.
“There’s no way to know whether you’re assenting to divine revelation or to mere human opinion about divine revelation”
This is rather humorous. According to this guy, Protestants only have a mere human opinion of divine revelation, while Catholics are free from mere human opinion about divine revelation. So is not the Catholic Church and it’s Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons made up of humans? Are Catholics not allowed to form an opinion, or is their opinion assigned to them by the bureaucracy.
After that statement, one would hope if Catholicism were anything like he says, that thinking men would cast off the yoke of tyrannical clergy and find a thinking man’s religion.
because the fight has no intention of spreading God’s word, just to toss slurs
False Dichotomy.
Matthew 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
What protestant group did Jesus say this to?
John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
What protestant group did Jesus say this to?
Matthew 18:18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
What protestant group did Jesus say this to?
The answer is none, just as there were no protestants that received direct revelation from God. The only groups that we know for certain that have are the Jewish people (The last OT prophet being Malachi.) and the first leaders of the Catholic Church who through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible.
Since then the Catholics have been guide by the Holy Spirit as promised in Matthew 18:18.
While other groups have assumed they have that promise, the Catholics are the only ones that have it in writing.
It is doubtful, although over the years here I have witnessed some of the antagonists having taken up my own arguments, as if those were their own, and as if they previously had not been opposed to them.
That sort of thing is one of those RC tricks wherein they can continue to fool themselves into believing that the RC church alone, out of all ekklesia anywhere has never wavered in what is alleged was taught at any one juncture -- while also having never taught anything which is in error (compared to the original authorization bestowed upon the Apostles, which was to preach the Gospel).
What Roman Catholic group did Christ say that to? The answer is none, for He was speaking directly to Peter.
If by that you mean to limit that to when Christ was speaking to individuals, prior to the Crucifixion and Ascension, then the same could be said for anyone, at any time since His Ascension, returning then to where He was before.
In John 6:62 Jesus is attributed to asking of His disciples;
Yes, what then.
Except for when they were not, but instead had rubber-stamped whatever it is that they decided to have been said to come from God, or was otherwise claimed to have been established by God from the onset --- like --- the papacy itself, which is much (theologically) refuted by the contents of Matthew 18.
The earliest Church understood things differently then 'Rome' alone came to view themselves. From time of the last Apostle's demise shall we say, Church polity was horizontally conciliar for many long centuries.
The first efforts by Rome to assert it's own prerogative and singular authority over others, were widely rebuffed.
I should have written;
instead of "then"...Rome alone...
I post a LOT of scripture.
I post a LOT of MOCKING of RCC 'belief'.
Which part upsets you the most?
Matthew 16:18 (Spoken to Peter) "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
Matthew 18:18 (The verse I actually quoted spoken to ALL THE APOSTLES) "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
Further Luke 9:1-2 Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.
These 12 disciples were the DIRECT predecessors of the today's Bishops and Cardinals. Not a single protestant group can trace a direct line back to the apostles Only the Catholic Church can do this.
oh?
I thought we Prots were DESCENDANTS of Catholicism and it's errors?
Placemarker
All of them have "been assigned" even as there can be disagreement among the many, and seemingly extra special dispensations granted for the tooth n'nail expression of relentless hatred for all whom would dare oppose any of the multitudinous claims of Rome as for it's own wonderfulness.
Yet one of the previous "assignments" was to not engage in contentious discourse with (pesky) Protestants and the like, unless they had special & explicit written(?) permission to do so. Marching orders must have changed over time...or have they?
If they have not, then many people here who contend, not for Christ first and foremost, but instead for the Roman Catholic Church first and foremost, could possibly be at odds with both the RC church, and Jesus Christ Himself, at the same time. If that is not the case, and instead the RC church actually approves of all the anti-everyone-other-than-ourselves sort of attitude often exhibited on these pages...then it's official -- the RCC does indeed hate us (or at least "despise" us?).
It's either something along those lines, or all the expressions of anti-Protestant bigotry and hatred which we see on these pages is just [Roman] Catholics expressing their own bigotry and hatred, with the "Church" not having anything to do with it.
You know...like it's just people sinning, instead of "The Church" being in any way (not even the slightest, they'll tell 'ya) in error.
Meanwhile, if that sort of thing is tracked down --- what is revealed in the end but that this "Church" which is allegedly flawless is just a bunch of teachings and writings which can at times conflict with one another, needing 'secret decoder rings' of inventive double-talk to make them appear (to the brain-washed) that the conflicts do not exist.
Personally, I will point out that Christ came to this earth to die for sinners, and to redeem their souls by giving His own life (in form of His own living flesh) as sacrifice, in place of the lives of sinners.
"They" say such things as there are two kinds of Grace...with one of those being 'sacramental' which one can ingest. And of course, according to RC theology, one can only receive that sort of 'grace' by or through their own offices, and none other (my own personal experience refutes that particular RC claim)...
Until one reminds "them" of the Orthodox, which then they will may make some exception for, even as there were those of the RC so-called magesterium whom centuries ago pressed the claim that Orthodox communion was not valid (since it did not submit itself to Romish claims for singular papacy be rightful place for anyone who ascended to the bishopric of Rome) similar to how they (the RCC on highest official levels) deny that the Anglicans possess "valid" communion.
Who knew?
Catholicism is the only religion that does promote thought and reason and to that end has only strictly defined less than 10 verses of scripture. Catholics are even allowed to hold differing opinions on those AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT DIRECTLY CONTRADICT FORMAL DOCTRINE ON THOSE VERSES.
Look at the great theologians of the past Aquinas, Augustine, etc.....
Look at the councils that defined those things that ALL Christians agree on, The Trinity, the nature of the incarnation, The Trinity as three persons with one nature.
Not a single protestant contributed to that.
boring.
Like you think don't know that already? That was the point I was making. For a change -- respond to what is said to you, instead of ignoring anything possibly inconvenient while switching to yet other parroted RC apologetic. Or -- you could just do what you prescribed for Elsie to do (#299), and just "shut up".
I notice you did not touch anything he said there...such as when Elsie was referring to the just previous tangent you were upon, himself having asked;
Do you REALLY think they'll waste much time countering them?
but then you expect everyone to drop everything and respond to your own words (even as you consistently fail to respond to the substance of anyone's comments).
Direct predecessors you say? No, they are not.
Did you not just limit the use of that word "direct" to the Apostles themselves as for them having received direct revelation from God? I did ask you about that -- but received from you no reply as to that point.
Also; anyone today is at the end of a long line of other predecessors, arguably even more so than they are successors to the Apostles themselves.
Revelation as was given Peter, is not inheritable. Even then, at one juncture Jesus told Peter --- "Satan, get behind me!"
Rome -- blow it out yur' [blank]
Not a single protestant contributed to that.
Rome was as much a tag-along for those issues, for Cyril of Jerusalem was not under the authority of the bishopric of Rome, and neither was Athanasius.
Both of those men were of "Apostolic See's" relatively near the time of Christ (if several hundred years is relatively near) having their own 'air of authority', which was not in the least derived from (thus dependent upon) Rome.
I do enjoy how your own choice of words continues to totally undermine the arguments which you attempt to make as you make them, though.
Thanks for the laughs. It's a nice way to start the day...
The Vatican Hall of Shame
The Catholic Church has a history. Boy, does it...
By Tony Perrottet
“Lord, give me chastity and self-control — but not yet.”
— Prayer of the young Saint Augustine, c.380 A.D.
The scandals may be coming thick and strong from the Vatican at the moment, but the Church has always waged a losing battle with its own vice-ridden staff. The problem was that transgressions from official policy often began at the top. Fellow priests put one of the first popes, Sixtus III (432-40), on trial for seducing a nun. He was acquitted after quoting from Christ in his defense: “Let you who are without sin cast the first stone.” In the centuries to follow, political skullduggery and a corrupt election process thrust one improbable candidate after another into the position as god-fearing believers looked on in impotent horror. In fact, so many Vicars of Christ have been denounced as the “Worst Pope Ever” that we have to settle for a Top Ten list.
1. Sergius III (904-11), known by his cardinals as “the slave of every vice,” came to power after murdering his predecessor. He had a son with his teenage mistress — the prostitute Marozia, 30 years his junior — and their illegitimate son grew up to become the next pope. With top Vatican jobs auctioned off like baubles, the papacy entered its “dark century.”
2. The 16-year-old John XII (955-64) was accused of sleeping with his two sisters and inventing a catalog of disgusting new sins. Described by a church historian as “the very dregs,” he was killed at age 27 when the husband of one of his mistresses burst into his bedroom, discovered him in flagrante, and battered his skull in with a hammer.
3. Benedict IX, (1032-48) continually shocked even his most hardened cardinals by debauching young boys in the Lateran Palace. Repenting of his sins, he actually abdicated to a monastery, only to change his mind and seize office again. He was “a wretch who feasted on immorality,” wrote Saint Peter Damian, “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest.”
Boniface VIII
4. After massacring the entire population in the Italian town of Palestrina, Boniface VIII (1294-1303) indulged in ménages with a married woman and her daughter and became renowned through Rome as a shameless pedophile. He famously declared that having sex with young boys was no more a sin than rubbing one hand against the other — which should make him the patron saint of Boston priests today. The poet Dante reserved a place for him in the eighth circle of Hell.
5. All pretense at decorum was abandoned when the papacy moved to Avignon in southern France for 75 years. Bon vivant Clement VI (1342-52) was called “an ecclesiastical Dionysus” by the poet Petrarch for the number of mistresses and the severity of his gonorrhea. Upon his death, 50 priests offered Mass for the repose of his soul for nine consecutive days, but French wits agreed that this was nowhere near enough.
Sixtus IV
6. Decamping back to Rome, the papacy hit its true low point in the Renaissance. (Church historian Eamon Duffy compares Rome to Nixon’s Washington, “a city of expense-account whores and political graft.”) Sixtus IV (1471-84), who funded the Sistine Chapel, had six illegitimate sons — one with his sister. He collected a Church tax on prostitutes and charged priests for keeping mistresses, but critics argued that this merely increased the prevalence of clerical homosexuality.
Innocent VIII
7. The rule of Innocent VIII (1484-92) is remembered as the Golden Age of Bastards: He acknowledged eight illegitimate sons and was known to have many more, although he found time between love affairs to start up the Inquisition. On his death bed, he ordered a comely wet nurse to supply him with milk fresh from the breast.
Alexander VI
8. The vicious Rodrigo Borgia, who took the name Alexander VI (1492-1503), presided over more orgies than masses, wrote Edward Gibbon. A career highlight was the 1501 “Joust of the Whores,” when 50 dancers were invited to slowly strip around the pope’s table. Alexander and his family gleefully threw chestnuts on the floor, forcing the women to grovel around their feet like swine; they then offered prizes of fine clothes and jewelry for the man who could fornicate with the most women. Alexander’s other hobbies included watching horses copulate, which would make him “laugh fit to bust.” After his death — quite possibly poisoned by his pathological son, Cesar Borgia — this pope’s body was expelled from the basilica of Saint Peter as too evil to be buried in sacred soil.
Julius II
9. Julius II (1503-13) is remembered for commissioning Michelangelo to paint the Sistene Chapel’s ceiling. He was also the first pope to contract “the French disease,” syphilis, from Rome’s male prostitutes. On Good Friday of 1508, he was unable to allow his foot to be kissed by the faithful as it was completely covered with syphilitic sores.
10. Incurable romantic Julius III (1550-55) fell in love with a handsome young beggar boy he spotted brawling with a vendor’s monkey in the streets. The pope went on to appoint this illiterate 17-year-old urchin a cardinal, inspiring an epic poem, “In Praise of Sodomy,” probably written by a disgruntled archbishop in his honor. • 11 May 2010
B.S.! Which demonination had all the little altar boys raped??????
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.