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.
It's simply the introduction of a point of view. A thread recently posted had people referring to the Eucharist as a cracker, with one joking about putting on cheese. As a former Catholic, you know what the Blessed Sacrament means to us.
This is not retaliation, nor an effort to secure converts. It is simply a Catholic viewpoint. Wherever you chose to go upon leaving the Church, may God lead you to Him! God reaches people in many ways!
She left FR, because non caucus people would regularly show up and attack her post.
The Pope is infallible when formally defining a dogma regarding faith or morals, to be held by the entire Church.
The Pope is not infallible when yakking at the back of a plane, no matter what he is talking about, and also not when talking or writing about science, or economics, etc.
No matter how stupid, vain, irresponsible, immature, imprudent, or shallow the Pope may be, none of it has anything to do with “infallibility.”
Precisely.
Yes.
Funny. I see it the other way ‘round.
They’re a member of an exclusive club and you can’t join.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/452937/pope-francis-tackles-climate-change-destroy-creation-creation-destroy
“Not to worry, we’ll be at high-level Sunnis-and-Shia in no time”
Naw, Christians have already been there - done that. Examples (from memory, to lazy to google).; WR of Roses, latest example that I can think of is Irish in-house fighting between Catholics and Protestants.
Placemarker
Well, if the encyclical is premised on the truth of the Global Warming Hoax, anything it says of a “moral” nature will be irrelevant.
It will be the worst abuse of papal authority since the last abuse of papal authority by Bergoglio and until his next abuse of papal authority.
And yet we have Francis...
Just like he never said to go to the created church that actively persecutes the Jews now, not content to advocate. Why wait, don't advocate, get it done. Catholicism's history.
However, Fr. Peter Stravinskas, in his Catholic Dictionary, defines salvation as “The result of being released from death through the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ, which brings us to the newness of life in heaven.” Did you catch that last part? According to this definition, salvation is something that has future significance. It is something that takes place later, when you die and consequently gain victory over death and receive eternal life in heaven.
So, which one is it? Does salvation take place now or later? I think it’s both. By God’s grace, we are every day being saved until we come to that day when God declares us fit to live with Him forever in heaven. That is why, in the Bible, salvation is referred to in the past tense (as something that has already taken place), in the present tense (as something that is taking place), and in the future tense (as something that will take place). Here are a few examples of each:
Past Tense: “in this hope we were saved” (Rom 8:24); “by grace you have been saved” (Eph 2:8).
Present Tense: “to us who are being saved” (1 Cor 1:18); “those who are being saved” (2 Cor 2:15).
Future Tense: “we shall be saved” (Acts 15:11); “he himself will be saved” (1 Cor 3:15).
Now that we know what salvation is, we can answer the question at hand. The Church believes that a person receives salvation both in this life, by living a life of faith and reception of the sacraments, and in the future, by persevering to the end (cf. Rom 11:22; Gal 5:1; Phil 2:12; Col 1:22-23; Heb 3:14) and standing before God with grace and faith intact. May we all “run with perseverance the race that is set before us” (Heb 12:1).
Pax Christi,
phatcatholic
Religion is religion and trading one way of trying to work your way to God for another is not going to get anyone to God because a relationship with God is not about performance but SONSHIP.
“However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.”
**So, the Holy Spirit has founded 40,000 Protestant churches?**
Not!
I was just talking about here on FR
...” Whereas the Protestant can ultimately submit only to his own judgment, which he knows to be fallible...
Oh poppycock!....
The Bible is very clear that those who “thirst” after righteousness will be filled....that the man and woman of God may be prefect, mature, complete...’thoroughly furnished’ unto every good work.
2nd Peter further tells us ...
“He has given us “ALL THINGS” that pertain unto life and Godliness.... THROUGH the knowledge of Him....
...and further states....Him who has ‘called us’ to Glory and Virtue....and ‘given us’ great and precious promises...BY THESE we are partakers of the divine nature.”
Are you then saying that God didn’t mean what he’s saying in these verses written to us??????
...”God’s truth can be known—and known with certainty”....
Do you know “with certainty”, do you have that assurance you are saved?
How do I get that t-shirt?
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.