Replies

Devin's Dilemma

Devin Rose, a professional software developer and lay Roman Catholic apologist, holds like Rome to a novel basis for determination, preservation and assurance of Truth, unseen and unnecessary in Scripture, and that is contrary to how God provided and preserved Truth and faith, and the basis upon which the church began. He thus has effectively invalidated the NT church and supplanted it with the largest deformation of it, which exalts itself and is more cultic in its basis for Truth than Christian. Even though enough Truth is retained so that a relative few souls within it may actually come to Christ as damned and destitute sinners, casting all their faith upon the risen Son of God to save them by His sinless shed blood, and which is my prayer.

Others and myself I have refuted this amateur RC apologist Rose before, by God's grace, and he would not contend further and then deleted all my responses on his web site. Maybe he will at least allow a link to this one on his site, though that is unlikely as he preys on the ignorant or those willing to be deceived by his superficial reasoning and specious conclusions compelled by unreasonable cultic devotion to an elitist church.

There's no way to know whether you're assenting to divine revelation or to mere human opinion about divine revelation...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.

Besides "Protestant" meaning anything from a Unitarian to a Baptist for RCs, what is rejected is not that God preserves Truth and faith thru people speaking Truth, but that of a claim of insured personal infallibility or perpetual magisterial infallibility of office (PMIO), which is nowhere exampled or essential in Scripture.

Instead, both men and writings of God were discerned as being so without a perpetually infallible magisterium, and God often provided and preserved Truth and faith by raising up men from without the formal magisterium to correct it.Which is why the church began with the foundation of apostles and prophets, (Eph. 2:20) both being considered rebels by those who sat in the seat of Moses.

For rather than the the church beginning under the RC premise for determination and assurance of Truth, in which the historical magisterium and recipient of Divine promises of God's presence and preservation are the assuredly infallibility authority on Truth,

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 from 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.)

Thus while Devin Rose imagines he is engaging in Reductio ad absurdum, showing that assuming the opposite of the RC model leads to absurdity, with nothing is left to do but but to accept the conclusion, the opposite is true, as under the RC model 1^st century souls could not have had assurance of Truth as to what was of God apart from, an assuredly infallible magisterium, and should not followed itinerant preachers whom the but should have submitted to the historical magisterium.

“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.

Indeed, yet not universally totally, but as seen in Scripture, while leaders and laity can err to various degrees though God uses them, He has always preserved Truth and a remnant of faithful believers who held to salvific Truth and passed it on, too often in dissent from leadership.

Again, thus the church began in dissent from "the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:27-28)

In response to which the Divine Son of God invoked the authority of another itinerant preacher whom they presumptuously rejected as not being sanctioned by them who like Rome, presumed a level of assured veracity above that which was written. (cf. 1Co. 4:6) And as these authorities represented the historical magisterium, to be consistent RCs must reject John the Baptist and so on, as they do other itinerant preachers who dissent from the historical magisterium.

Meanwhile, despite DV arguing as if Rome cannot err, he must admit that it has, unless he wants to affirm all that popes and Rome has ever taught is without error, and thus RC rulers must yet exterminate all "heretics" from their land. Maybe he does, as others here evidence they support this.

However, what DV does not admit is that only a minority of what Rome teaches is considered infallible, though just what is infallible is subject to interpretation, as is the magisterial level other teachings fall under (and thus the level of required assent), as can be aspects of their meaning.

While Rome allows for the possibility of non-salvific error in non-infallible teaching, all such assurance is based upon the premise of the insured infallibility of Rome, which RCs have assurance of because Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

And thus a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.Which is not Scriptural, but is cultic, like as seen in cults who also effectively operate according to the basic sola ecclesia model Rome presumes.

Also as an aside, that the church has already been lead them into all truth is itself an error, as even Rome allows for further public revelation at the future manifestation of the Lord Jesus, nor does it hold that Christian faith has apprehended the full significance of what has been revealed. (CCC 66)

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.

False, as unlike RCs who are to provide cultic assent to RC decrees, the true Prot (basically evangelical types) are to "prove all things" by the only established assured wholly infallible word of God, the Scriptures (as Christ did with the devil in Mt. 4), which RC "infallible" decrees cannot claim to be.

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.

And thus they must can obey Scripture which commands,

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?...Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, (2 Corinthians 6:14,17)

Which is in contrast to RCs, who must remain even with proabortion, prohomo, promuslim pols whom Rome treats are members in life and in death, and a near majority which support such - which partly evidences what Rome really believes (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20) and is more substantial and speaks louder than some paper conservative statements.

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.

And conversely, evangelicals historically have contended against heresies such as the rejection of the deity of Christ, based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation being determinative of doctrine, not infallibility of office, under which RC model cult members also are bound to believe whatever the latter office teaches.

For while the unScriptural premise of assured magisterial veracity is the easier means of preservation of doctrine and unity, the problem is that it can just as well propagate and perpetuate error and fables as doctrine, as Rome and cults have. Even to a specific event not recorded or promised in Scripture, nor even supported by early "tradition," being "remembered" 1800 years later and made binding doctrine.

And as under the RC model "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906), which extends beyond infallible teaching, then in one century a RC is obey the pope in torturing even suspected witnesses to heresy, while in another that is (non-infallibly) intrinsically wrong.

In addition, under the RC solution to doctrinal disunity the magisterium can contradict itself by basically redefining past teachings, which results in disunity among those who do not simply follow the Pastors like a docile flock, unless it is something infallibly defined.

As one poster wryly remarked,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

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.

The difference is that under Rome, what Scripture, history, and the writings of authoritative figures only assuredly consist of and mean what she says. Rather than assurance of Truth, even of who and what is of God, being based upon the weight of Scripture substantiation, as with the beginning of the church, to be consistent, the RC must hold that that one cannot even know what Scripture is apart from Rome.

Cardinal Avery Dulles: People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html

"..the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Thus rather than attempting to prove Rome by the Scriptures and the Scriptures by Rome, which is circular reasoning, RC apologists resort to appealing to Scripture merely as an historically accurate document, out which they imaginatively extrapolate perpetual magisterial infallibility of office (PMIO), by which one has assurance that said document is of God.

However, it is clearly evident that most of what we hold as Scripture was discerned and established as being so before there was even a church, and which began with common people discerning who and what was of God without a perpetual infallible magisterial office.

Thus the church of Rome, which took much of its form from the Roman empire in which it began, has a fundamentally different foundation than that of the NT church.

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.

But which presumes what it needs to prove, and which assertion that Catholicism is true is based upon the false premise that PIMO is essential for discernment and preservation of Truth, and that in any conflict the only correct understanding of Scripture, history, and the writings of authoritative figures, is that which Rome declares.

Thus the classic recourse of no less an authority than Manning,

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. ” — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

...in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent." — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.”

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.

Thus once again under the Catholic model for discernment, preservation and assurance of Truth then 1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, the instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation and recipient of the promises, rather than non-infallible souls discerning both men and writings as being of God.

Which, like Moses overcoming the magicians who duplicated his first 3 miracles, (Exodus 7:10-11, 21-22; 8:6-7) requires establishing what is of God as the apostles did, "by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2)

Thus the authority of the apostles did not rest upon historical descent of office, but such attestation as,

in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)

In contrast, Rome is like the Pharisees:

The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:46-49)

And to whom John said in response to their argument by descent:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Matthew 3:9)

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.

Which, as said, rests upon the fallacious presumptuous premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility of office (PMIO), which ultimately is circular, while in Scripture both men and writings of God were discerned as being of God and authoritative without an infallible magisterium. And the church began by Truth claims being established upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

Like the Pharisees, Rome presumes a level of veracity based upon historical descent, and like a cult, she presumes supremacy over Scripture, and wants all to implicit assent to her.

For a Protestant, only the Bible itself contains God’s infallibly inspired words, so he desires to assent to that.

Apparently the amateur apologist holds that infallible pronouncements are wholly inspired of God, which they are not.

Meanwhile, rejecting assured personal or perpetual magisterial infallibility does not negate the magisterial office (which Westminster affirms) and its authority, as under the Old Testament disobedience to the magisterium could even be a capital crime. (Dt. 17:8-13) As can disobedience to just civil powers. (Rm. 13:1-7) They can be wrong, and dissent can be right, but until replaced then those under their power are subject to them.

However, discipline by the NT church was only by the passive means of disfellowship, or use of remedial spiritual chastisement. (Matthew 18:17; Acts 5:5-10; Romans 16:17;1 Corinthians 4:20-21; 5:5,11-13; 2 Corinthians 10:8; 13:2;1 Timothy 1:20)

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.

Misleading. Both Prots and Caths make choices of which infallible authority they will assent to as supreme, Scripture or Rome, and interpret each (RCs do), and both also make choices as to what they will assent to from their church. While Rome would have all to render implicit assent to her leaders, yet as Ratzinger said,

Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience [which is to be properly formed] confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" [though not necessarily being correct]. - (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1).

In addition, while Rome would have all to render implicit assent to her teaching, only a minority of them are held as infallible, and the rest allow for some degree of private dissent. Yet Rome effectually teaches this is much larger, and can be public.

Likewise, the fundamental evangelical movement, which most strongly holds to the primary distinctive of the Reformers which Caths attack, that being the supremacy of Scripture, began due to a common commitment to core Truths, and a member who is known to deny such will typically be corrected or censored by his church. The mature Prot. also recognizes the teaching office and the wealth of extensive evangelical commentary, the likes of which the RC is deprived of, and is encouraged to examine.

The Reformers themselves made use of past writings, “...

“...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position. — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, p. 46)

If Protestantism is true, all are fallible.

That all are fallible does not mean no one can speak infallible truth, as even pagans whom Paul quoted did, nor does it mean one cannot know what Truth is, what is of God vs. what is not, which judgment is just what we see in Scripture and under which the church began, as a perpetually infallible office never existed, or was necessary, yet both men and writings were correctly judged to be of God.

So the Protestant must rely on his own judgment above that of his church.

Rather, again, both Caths and Prots rely upon their own fallible judgment as to what their supreme infallible authority is, and both engage in various degrees of interpretation of their teachings, and both of the faithful (to their heritage) hold to core binding Truths as well as those who which may allow some dissent. Of course, the scope of which varies between churches, but DV relies upon Rome vs. a broad brushed body of churches versus one to one. And the EOs also substantially differ with Rome.

But in addition to PMIO being unBiblical, a key difference is that Rome can redefine its teachings, as with the case of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, while Scripture remains the same.

And the orthodoxy of the church itself is judged against his interpretation of the Bible.

And the RC convert fallibly decides that Rome is orthodox based upon his interpretation of the Bible and or other testimony. And as is clearly seen, they also judge what is infallible or not, and whether V2 teaching to papal teaching in encyclicals and bulls etc. is orthodox, while having a great deal of liberty to interpret (wrest) Scripture in seeking to to support Rome.

Meanwhile, though lacking a central magisterium (which is the ideal), yet in its outworking where it counts, evangelicals testify to far more unity in basic values in basic values and core truths than the fruit of Catholicism overall.

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.

If this is impossible then so is the church, as under the RC model the laity could not even have ascertained which men and writings were of God without a perpetual infallible magisterium, yet the church actually began with Truth claims being established upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. It remains that under the RC model 1st c. souls should not have followed itinerant preachers whom the historical magisterium rejected, but who established their Truth claims under the premise of Scripture being supreme.

But it is abundantly evidenced that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

While Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, "the kingdom of God is not in word [self-declaration], but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:20) It is the lack of Biblical apostles under which the NT church realized its limited unity that is the main cause of the evangelical diversity today. Yet among which is most found the essential fellowship of the Spirit, due to a shared conversion and Scriptural relationship with Christ that transcends external lines, and is greater than their differences, as it is centered upon Christ and His unchanging Word, not one particular elitist church with its inventions .