Thumbs up or thumbs down on Rome?

Reformation500 ^ | February 23, 2010 | John Bugay

[RnMomof7]

One commenter said:

The way you write, I guess, seems to me to reveal a near certainty concerning the falsity of Catholic Doctrine. It seems as though you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Catholicism simply couldn’t be true. And you’re willing to hang everything on that confidence.

Too often, an argument is put forth in this form: “Protestantism has lots of problems. Therefore, Catholicism.”

I once looked at it this way myself. I was hanging around some close friends who were starting a fellowship for “completed Jews,” — that is, these were all Jewish people who had become believers, and they first started an informal fellowship, and then a church. But by this second phase, they were getting hung up on issues of leadership, church structure, etc. There were a lot of different ways they could have done this, but their disagreements over such issues led me to say, “the Catholic church has already been through these kinds of issues; they have decided upon a resolution to them, so I’m going home to Rome.” And that’s just what I did.

Francis Turretin, at the beginning of Volume 3 of his three volume “Institutes” states, in summary form, he says that Protestants (rightly) look to Scripture, and they determine what “the true faith” is by studying and understanding what the Scriptures say on a doctrine-by-doctrine, or point-by-point basis. And this needs to be done.

But Catholics, Turretin says, simply sweep all of this aside with one motion. They say, “We are The Church, and we decide what ‘the true faith’ is.”

And I think that the imbalance in this form of argumentation accounts for many of the misunderstandings that continue to occur in these types of discussions in our day.

In Turretin’s time, Roman polemicists attempted to prove their position. They argued, for instance, that the Roman church had never changed, that it was the Protestants who introduced novelty into the ongoing sweep of church history.

But by Newman’s time, Newman was realizing that Rome, too, had (“seemingly”) introduced “difficulties” — that neither Rome nor the Protestant churches adhered to the 5th century Vincentian rule: “what was believed always, everywhere, by all.” In fact, he summarily dismissed this as unworkable for both parties.

However, the position that Turretin noticed Roman polemicists were arguing for, “We are The Church, and we decide what ‘the true faith’ is,” was in Newman’s formulation, merely an assumption. That is, Newman assumed (and taught Roman polemicists to assume) that the authority structure that was present in his day, was “in some way” the same authority structure that was in place in the 2nd, 7th, and subsequent centuries.

My thought is that this assumption must not be allowed to stand unchallenged. And especially in the face of such historical evidence as I’ve presented — the historians I’ve cited DO present an alternative church structure that is far more viable, because it is based on real-life evidence that has been discovered.

So what I want to do is to really change the terms of the argument. To bring it out of Newman’s world of fuzzy assumptions, and to force Rome to argue that its conception of itself is right. If its conception of its own history and authority are right, then the evidences that it brings forth to support such contentions will be more than adequate to convince an unbelieving world.

My contention is that it cannot do so. My contention is that the work that I am presenting is also known to “the Magisterium” at Rome. The mere fact that “the Magisterium,” even the CDF, is conceding that “we are conscious of development in the primacy” is a huge historical concession. If Luther and Calvin had had a concession like that, the course of the Reformation could have been different.

We have that kind of concession today. It was forced by historical evidence.

People now need to ask the one question: “Did the Roman church come by its authority in a legitimate way?” Was its authority “divinely instituted,” as  it never tires of reminding us that it is? Or was this authority accumulated through less-than-honest means?

Looking at the early history of the papacy, and the evidence we have of how it came about, I don’t see that the answer to this question is in doubt.

Share this:

[RnMomof7]

ping

[LurkingSince'98]

It’s bash Catholics Wednesday.

It is interesting that so much of the theology of your ‘church’ includes trashing Catholics.

You are sadly predictable.

AMDG

[steve8714]

divinely instituted, of course. Thank you.

[Gamecock]

**It is interesting that so much of the theology**

Theology?

I have to say that you need to get your categories correct.

[alphadoggie]

Christians bash other Christians on FR with alarming frequency, as if there weren’t much bigger fish to fry.

And Jesus wept...

[redleghunter]

Good article. Is this a start to a series?

[SaxxonWoods]

I send best wishes to everyone on their spiritual journey!

After much experience with the Church I recommend going direct to God and ignoring so-called organized religion. It has been corrupted beyond immediate repair much as all systems of govt and religion worldwide have been corrupted.

There is no indication extant that an intermediary institution between a soul and God is required or even desirable. I believe the opposite is more likely.

I have acquired unlimited faith in God and none in organized religion.

[Dutchboy88]

If you believe something posted here is incorrect, you are welcome to refute it with facts. Using what amounts to an ad hominem argument to support the Romanist position is not just weak, but in poor taste. We are interested in facts from the Bible...not your opinion.

[miss marmelstein]

Ha! What a sad way to live a life.

[Campion]

A fact-free post deserves a fact-free response.

[Colofornian]

Christians bash other Christians on FR with alarming frequency, as if there weren’t much bigger fish to fry. And Jesus wept...

Christians (like yourself) bash other Christians on FR (by labeling them "bashers") with at least this post, as if there weren't much bigger fish to fry. And Jesus wept...

Sadly inconsistent, aren't you?:
1. You preach "thou shalt not 'bash'" ... as you bash
2. You preach "Thou shalt fry much bigger fish" ... all as you take the time to post on a thread featuring the size of fish typically tossed back into the water.

Have you thought a more consistent message might actually have more traction?

[redleghunter]

My initial thoughts as well. Thus asked if this was an introduction to a series of some sort.

However, being the curious type, I actually went to the link and the author used this blog post to generate a discussion at his site. The discussion and justification for his initial comments are there to examine for those who want to.

What seemed to me initially as a ‘drive by’ is actually a person who wants to engage in an honest dialogue with Catholics and Protestants.

But yes, this one piece relies on many other posts/works of the author and understand your comments.

Check out the site if you have time or interest.

[Dutchboy88]

Then give us the authority for Rome from the Bible...if it exists. Crickets.

[pgyanke]

Then give us the authority for Rome from the Bible...if it exists. Crickets.

Crickets? Where have you been? Here's just a few from my own posting history...

Explaining the Authority of the Pope
Explaining the Authority of the Church
More on the Authority of the Church
Even more on the Authority of the Church
Explaining the Fatherhood of the Priesthood
Explaining the Problems with Sola Scriptura

Seriously... hardly a day or even a thread can go by without this very same challenge. It gets answered. You don't listen. It's your choice not to listen... but "crickets"?!

[Jeff Chandler]

Christians (like yourself) bash other Christians on FR (by labeling them "bashers")

Hey, you! Stop bashing the basher bashers.

[imardmd1]

Just check out “Pagan Christianity” by Frank Viola and Gerrge Barna, and you will find all the statistics and sources to declare The Romanists have an organization of pagan philosophy stamped on a Christian origin. IMHO, and that of the authors. The Protestantism of Calvin, Luther, and Knox fares little better, although they did surface some irrefutable complaints to the Roman mechanism.

[alphadoggie]

My point is perfectly consistent. Just pointing out that Christians aren’t safe from other Christians here on FR. Any more than that, you’re adding your own interpretation.

[Salvation]

Or should we say “Thumbs up or thumbs down on the false protest-ant church?”

[Salvation]

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Truth Handling and Teaching Authority
Beginning Catholic: Church Authority In Scripture [Ecumenical]
Lists Every Catholic Should be Familiar With: The 3 Pillars of the Church's Authority