Blind Followers, Inconsistencies, Double Standards and More Confusion

Reformed Apologist ^ | December 17, 2012 | Reformed Apologist

[RnMomof7]

Roman Catholics often assert that Protestantism operates under the principle that Scripture is open to private interpretation because Protestants deny the need for an infallible magisterium to interpret Scripture. Is historic Protestantism really a religion of "me and my Bible?" Do the tenets of historical Protestantism really deny 2 Peter 1:20, which informs that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation?

An honest and informed Roman Catholic understands that Protestants do not think that Scripture has no need for an interpreter.

1. An honest and informed Roman Catholic understands and will gladly concede that historic Protestantism affirms that Scripture is the interpreter of Scripture. This is often referred to as the analogy of Scripture.

2. Even for the Roman Catholic, Scripture interprets Scripture with respect to the magisterium's basis for Christian doctrine. In turn the magisterium is to relay its interpretation of Scripture to the laity. Even Marian doctrines are alleged to be derivable from Scripture.

3. Even when a Roman Catholic lay person offers an argument from Scripture, say to reconcile James with Paul, they too operate under the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. At the very least, won’t a Roman Catholic appeal to Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture to derive and offer proof of Rome's doctrine for an infallible magisterium?  Rarely does one find a Roman Catholic assert “the pope has said so and that settles it.”

Roman Catholics not only often impugned Protestantism unjustly; they maintain a double standard while doing so. I am not suggesting ill intent. I'm just pointing out what is commonplace.

More inconsistencies, double standards and confusion

Another common objection levied against the perspicuity and sufficiency of Scripture is that since there are so many denominations that hold conflicting views we simply cannot know what Scripture teaches without an infallible magisterium.  An easy refutation of this argument is that Christ held the Jews responsible to know the Scriptures even in spite of the error of the teaching magisterium of his day. Moreover, there is no Old Testament precedent for the need or establishment of an infallible magisterium. In fact, those that would set themselves above Scripture were often to be disregarded utterly and completely. If the New Testament abrogates this principle then it should be demonstrable from Scripture, which of course would undermine the absolute need for an infallible magisterium. In any case, allowing for the premise that Peter was the first pope (and all that entails), how does one reach the grand conclusion of an unbroken lineage of infallible popes that would reside in Rome?

Indeed, the doctrines that exist within the entire set of Protestant denominations cannot all be correct given that contradictory doctrines exist within Protestantism. Yet that’s a far cry from  substantiating the need for an infallible magisterium, especially in light of Old Testament precedence as noted above. Nor do conflicting Protestant denominations imply that Rome has true doctrine.

A Fresh Polemic?

Although in one sense Rome has a greater chance of being correct than any given set of conflicting doctrines, Roman Catholics are not able to argue successfully that Roman Catholicism has any more chance of being correct than any particular denomination that has not contradicted itself. Rome likes to compare herself with the whole of Protestantism rather than with a single Confession that is internally consistent with itself, like the Westminster standards.

Coming at this from a non-Trinitarian unbelieving perspective, we can just as easily lump Roman Catholicism in with all other Trinitarian denominations making the set even more inclusive. Given such a cataloging of Trinitarian denominations and by employing the Roman Catholic's way of reasoning, one may just as easily ask in the spirit of Roman Catholic skepticism how truth can be known given all the opposing doctrines within Trinitarian theology (Roman Catholicism included). In other words, Roman Catholic apologists often point to conflicting doctrines within the whole of Protestantism to create need for Romanism, the supposed arbiter of truth. Yet if we lump Rome in with all the rest of Christianity (and apply her reasoning) then her disagreements with the Westminster standards, for instance, makes her doctrine as questionable as all the Protestant denominations she would cast doubt upon. In response to this Roman Catholics might say that Rome claims infallibility whereas Protestant denominations don't. But how does the claim of infallibility establish actual infallibility any more than it points to absolute delusion?!

In Conclusion

If Scripture does not inform the Roman Catholic magisterium about what Scripture has to say, then who or what does? To deny that the popes affirm the analogy of Scripture for the magisterium is to reduce Scripture to brute particulars that have no  discernible coherence, which would mean that the magisterium with respect to interpreting Scripture must be making things up as they go along and that any appeal to Scripture is disingenuous at best. Therefore, it’s not that Rome so much denies the intelligibility of Scripture. Rather, Rome would have us believe that Scripture is only intelligible to the magisterium. Consequently, individual Roman Catholics should not appeal to Scripture to justify the Roman Catholic communion and the church's need for the popes. Rather, Roman Catholics should be consistent by simply pointing to the authority of the popes to defend the claims of the popes. That, however, is an admission of being a blind follower of something other than Scripture, which is an embarrassment for Roman Catholics yet a necessary implication of their view of the church and Scripture.

As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture.

[ealgeone]

Your article is one on how to interpret the Bible....from a catholic perspective. It is not a listing of the texts that were asked for.

But here is the basic problem with catholic exegesis....

In their turn, the fathers of the church made use of typology and allegory in order to actualize the biblical text in a manner appropriate to the situation of Christians of their time.

This has led to so many errors of understanding the word and is in large part the reason catholics are so messed up on Mary.

When I saw these first two I almost quit reading.

E. Contextual Approaches

1.The Liberationist Approach

2.The Feminist Approach

F. Fundamentalist Interpretation

The works are in favor of the first two and opposed to the last.....and we're surprised why.

No wonder catholics vote for liberals the way they do.

So the question remains.....need a list of the verses that have been interpreted by the "magisterium".

[ealgeone]

Do catholics immerse or sprinkle?

What is the Biblical model?

[Salvation]

It’s a starter.

Another is read the Early Church Fathers.

[ealgeone]

But that wasn't the question. What verses have the "magisterium" defined?

There should be a list somewhere.

We know there's tons of stuff on Mary....yet not a single listing of defined verses????

[Alex Murphy]

What verses have the "magisterium" defined? There should be a list somewhere. We know there's tons of stuff on Mary....yet not a single listing of defined verses????

I've asked that question myself for over a decade, and I've never received an answer. Have you noticed that the people who tell us to read the "Early Church Fathers" demonstrate little familiarity with the works of the Earliest Church Fathers, i.e. the New Testament writings of the Apostles?

[ealgeone]

Yes....if they read the ECFs they would find the ECFs are all over the board on issues near and dear to catholicism. A whole lot of contradictions.

[Chicory]

****This is a common straw man raised against evangelicals. You will not find any serious evangelical ever saying the Bible is the sole source of all possible information.  What you will find is that as a matter of conflict resolution as between two sources, where one is the word of God and the other is the word of man, the typical evangelical will always defer to the word of God.  ….****

This is interesting, thank you! What are some of the sources Evangelicals will use?

And please notice that I said that nothing the Catholic Church teaches can contradict Scripture :) nor the other two sources of information.

________________________________
****And yes, it is a denigration of Scripture to hold human opinion over the heads of others, complete with anathemas, when there is no unequivocal basis in Scripture for such pronouncements. Such injurious speculations are a positive harm to the body of Christ, and we should never seek to enforce them as equal in moral and spiritual force to God’s own words.****

You think that everything outside of Scripture is only human opinion, and as a result you have a problem with how the Catholic Church teaches. That information which the Catholic Church calls Tradition comes from Christ Himself. That which is taught by the Magisterium is derived from these two divine sources and is protected by the Holy Spirit. None of the three sources can be contradicted.

So what you are saying here is as wrong about the Catholic Church as what I said about the only source being Scripture when applied to Evangelicals—can you see that?

[Mark17]

Why don’t y’all back up your beliefs like most Protestants do? Don’t you know the Bible? I applaud these Protestants for the great jobs they do. They need to keep up the good work,

As a former catholic myself, I have to agree. But you know what Mana? I don't care about all kinds of different arguments that, although they are important, pale in comparison to the only argument that matters, and that is: what is your plan of salvation? Heaven or Hell, what qualifies me to go to the former and avoid the latter? Nothing else really matters, does it? We can debate other issues till Gabriel blows his horn, 😀😄😃😇🙈🙊🙉🇵🇭 but what about Heaven or Hell?

I hope you and your doctor are doing well.

[Chicory]

****Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,... ****

And how does this show the triune nature of God? How does it show that the three Persons of God are equal, for example? Or so united as to be One, while remaining separate Persons? Because I think the reason this verse and others seem self-evident to us is that we have already learned the doctrine.

It’s like Watson and Holmes: Watson was always amazed at how clear Holmes’ deductions were.... after Holmes had explained them.

[Gamecock]

It first came from Scripture.

[MamaB]

Mark, my eyes are doing great. Moved yesterday and lost my keys today. There are here somewhere but it is still frustrating. My key to unlock the gate, my safety deposit key, key to my house, to the townhouse, car key, were all on it. My daughter has my new keys to this apt or they would have been on the ring, too. I have an extra key to car and I have a garage door opener but that safety deposit key is going to cost me some of that money I found. Think it will cost about $100. : (

[Resettozero]

Agree with you on this.

[MamaB]

If you think that, then why do y’all keep bringing up Protestant names?

[Salvation]

Thank you.

[Salvation]

Thank you.

[Mark17]

e put in one category to be bashed.

Likewise, all Protestants cannot be put in one category to be bashed.

Simple enough for me.

Seems simple enough for me too. What saddens me, is all those snow flakes falling, and you know what that means. It doesn't have to be that way. God bless us all, and may He reveal Himself to millions.

[metmom]

That doesn’t answer the question.

I didn’t ask HOW the RCC interprets Scripture. I asked for the actual interpretations themselves of the verses of Scripture.

WHICH VERSES have been infallibly interpreted?

How many and what is the interpretation?

[metmom]

Don’t move the goalposts.

That wasn’t what you originally asked.

[Religion Moderator]

You think Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of 'making it personal. Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Chicory]

****Do Catholics immerse or sprinkle?
****What is the Biblical model?****

Neither sprinkling nor immersing: Catholics pour water over the head of the person being baptized. Usually the person is positioned in a way that the water is poured from the forehead to the back of the head.

What is the Biblical model? We know that St John the Baptist baptized “in the Jordan,” which made sense in a time without plumbing, but it seems unlikely that St Paul baptized with a full immersion when he baptized a household after his release from prison by an earthquake (Acts 16:33).