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.

[RnMomof7]

I don't know if I believe that stuff...I've been asking St. Alfonso for 2 weeks to find my car keys for me...So far he has failed

No wonder.you have been praying to the wrong guy.. St Anthony is the find guy

[RnMomof7]

And Christ told the Apostles to teach, which would involve hearing.

And of course you know that is what the epistles are... written teaching and corrections to the church,that were circulated between the churches

I was using that one difference as an example, not as a starting point for discussion, so I will comment only briefly. For Catholics, to do penance is a natural outcome of our realization that we have offended God, and our desire to contribute in some tiny way to the repair of the harm we have caused, for which Christ paid such a heavy price. We want to join ourselves in the small way that we are capable of with Him in that endeavor. We are in no way trying to insincerely get away with a lesser reaction to our sin; we just have a different understanding of how to express that sorrow.

So do 5 hail marys and 5 our fathers repair any damage on might have done /??

I am sorry: I should have been more clear that I was referring only to the New Testament writings when I discussed the teachings of the early Church. Of course the Apostles had the Old Testament.

Actually Pauls letter to the churches were considered scripture as they were being written 2 Peter 3:16

[Iscool]

No wonder.you have been praying to the wrong guy.. St Anthony is the find guy

Ahhhh, I see...So what will St. Alfonso give me???

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “For Catholics, to do penance is a natural outcome of our realization that we have offended God, and our desire to contribute in some tiny way to the repair of the harm we have caused...” <<

.
But the word of God plainly tells us that we cannot do that!

Our “payment” is just more filthy rags to add to the mountain thereof.

And finally, the apostles didn’t just “have” the ancient scriptures; they were the total substance of what they preached. They didn’t teach men’s traditions, they taught God’s word. (Read Acts 28 for Luke’s testimony to that effect)
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Actually Pauls letter to the churches were considered scripture as they were being written 2 Peter 3:16 “ <<

The word “other” in 2Peter 3:16 was added in by Eusebius, 300 years after Peter wrote it. Its not in the early copies.

The apostles had too much humble appreciation for the ancient scriptures from which they lived their lives to declare their contemporary contributions “scripture.” (even though we do place that value upon them)
.

[roamer_1]

Thus, the understanding of the word now translated as either “do penance” or “repent” (for example) in the early Church was based, **not** on the Bible, but on the teachings of Christ themselves. The early Christians understood the meaning of this word because an Apostle or the disciple of an Apostle explained it to them if they understood it in the wrong sense., and later, because the early Christians continued to pass on the teachings of Christ, we understood that what Christ wanted was more than repentance; He wanted penance from us as well.

Having admitted down-thread that the Scriptures in the hands of the Early Church were the Hebrew Scriptures, Don't you think that it would be wise to understand the Hebrew concept?

The concept is teshuva, and follows fairly closely to the definition of repentance as noted by Protestants... However, I will give you a fig leaf - There is a form of penance in modern Judaism at least, in that one must confess to the one(s) harmed by your actions, and do all you can to repair any harm you have caused. It is important to understand that forgiveness is not offered by a priest, but rather from those whom you have offended.

However, that isn't much of a fig leaf, because the normative Protestant sense of repentance generally assumes these things...

But in the ancient sense, the concept means to turn - to turn once again to face YHWH and away from one's sins... To go back to the path of Torah. If forgiveness cannot be found in those you have offended, your appeal ultimately rests in YHWH, who promises to forgive you like you have forgiven others...

So with that in mind, maybe there is some middle ground to be found in following Torah.

[RnMomof7]

You will love this .....of St. Alphonsus Marie Liguori, bishop, patron saint of priest-confessors and moral theologians, and the founder of the Redemptorist Congregation of priests, brothers, and sisters.Aug 1, 2014

Moral Theologins

[Iscool]

You will love this .....of St. Alphonsus Marie Liguori, bishop, patron saint of priest-confessors and moral theologians, and the founder of the Redemptorist Congregation of priests, brothers, and sisters.Aug 1, 2014

Moral Theologins

Wow...LOLOL...

[Chicory]

****Having admitted down-thread that the Scriptures in the hands of the Early Church were the Hebrew Scriptures, Don’t you think that it would be wise to understand the Hebrew concept?****
Well, since the New Testament refers to material found in the Septuagint (which includes more books than do the Hebrew Scriptures), it seems that they were familiar with the Greek Scripture, altho using as their languages Aramaic and Hebrew.

____________________________
****The concept is teshuva, and follows fairly closely to the definition of repentance as noted by Protestants... However, I will give you a fig leaf - There is a form of penance in modern Judaism at least, in that one must confess to the one(s) harmed by your actions, and do all you can to repair any harm you have caused. It is important to understand that forgiveness is not offered by a priest, but rather from those whom you have offended.****
That was an interesting article, thank you for posting it. Yes, atonement would be another word for the Catholic idea of “doing penance,” except that now we have also to recognize our debt to God. If I steal money from a person, not only must I make atonement to the person himself, I must also make atonement to God… which is what we call “doing penance.”

_____________________________
****However, that isn’t much of a fig leaf, because the normative Protestant sense of repentance generally assumes these things…****
I did not know that and am glad to hear that this is the case.

[Chicory]

****But the word of God plainly tells us that we cannot do that!****
We cannot “contribute in some tiny way to the repair of the harm we have caused”? We cannot in any way make atonement for our sins?

_______________________________
****Our “payment” is just more filthy rags to add to the mountain thereof.****
????? I do not understand this; I have never seen anything like it in the Bible.

______________________________
****And finally, the apostles didn’t just “have” the ancient scriptures; they were the total substance of what they preached. ****
I think I must have been unclear, or maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you saying that everything the Apostles taught is in the OT? Or that there is nothing taught by the Apostles outside the OT and the NT combined? Or something else?

****They didn’t teach men’s traditions, they taught God’s word. (Read Acts 28 for Luke’s testimony to that effect)****
And the Catholic Church teaches the same thing. The difference is that the Church’s understanding is that not *everything* Christ taught to the Apostles, which the Apostles then taught to their disciples, etc., is in the Bible.

[Chicory]

****But the word of God plainly tells us that we cannot do that!****
We cannot “contribute in some tiny way to the repair of the harm we have caused”? We cannot in any way make atonement for our sins?

_______________________________
****Our “payment” is just more filthy rags to add to the mountain thereof.****
????? I do not understand this; I have never seen anything like it in the Bible.

______________________________
****And finally, the apostles didn’t just “have” the ancient scriptures; they were the total substance of what they preached. ****
I think I must have been unclear, or maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you saying that everything the Apostles taught is in the OT? Or that there is nothing taught by the Apostles outside the OT and the NT combined? Or something else?

****They didn’t teach men’s traditions, they taught God’s word. (Read Acts 28 for Luke’s testimony to that effect)****
And the Catholic Church teaches the same thing. The difference is that the Church’s understanding is that not *everything* Christ taught to the Apostles, which the Apostles then taught to their disciples, etc., is in the Bible.

[Chicory]

****And of course you know that is what the epistles are... written teaching and corrections to the church,that were circulated between the churches****

Since Christ told the Apostles to teach, and since St Paul emphasized the need to hear, it would seem that there was no impetus to write down *everything* Christ taught. The Catholic Church acknowledges this and maintains the “Oral Tradition” in what we call Tradition. It is not a tradition of men but a separate body of knowledge taught by Christ through the Apostles and not included in the writings later canonized into the NT.

___________________________________
****So do 5 Hail Marys and 5 Our Fathers repair any damage on might have done /??****

Not at all. The penance we see the priest request of the penitent is merely a starting point.

[Chicory]

****If you don’t accept the milk of the word, God will never give you any meat...As a result many Christian when they can’t get beyond a certain point, will come up with their own interpretation instead of God’s…****

How would Protestants know which teachings are correct? How would they be able to judge among the various ideas?

_________________________________
****The same thing happens in your religion except that we use God’s word, the bible as our standard where you guys use man’s failed wisdom as your standard…****

Many Protestants do seem to think that the Catholic Church’s teachings come from the thinking of humans; they do not understand that our foundation includes the Bible—which many Protestants seem to take as their sole authority—but the Catholic Church also has other parts to the authority—parts which are **also and equally** from God.

[Resettozero]

Please cease pinging me to your posts to other FReepers.

[Chicory]

****My goodness. The RCC has had 2,000 YEARS to write interpretations of the Bible.

****They sure had enough time to write out that list of anathemas for anyone who disagreed with them.

I regret that neither I nor the article posted by another poster were sufficient to explain the Catholic view of the Church’s teachings.
.
.
.
Editor-Surveyor says that Protestants don’t interpret the Bible, so, actually, I am now confused about the topic of interpretation. Perhaps you could clarify—maybe I am using the wrong words, or perhaps misunderstanding?

[Chicory]

****Scripture is easy enough to deal with.
****You read it and obey it.
****that alone is enough to keep a person busy for a lifetime.....
****And if you don’t understand something, ask the Holy Spirit to show you what it means. He WILL do it.****

How does one become a member of the Body of Christ? Protestants have different views about this, why is that? Which view is correct? How does one judge?

[Chicory]

I am not ignoring your reply; it is simply taking me a long time to write a response for your very informative comment.

[Chicory]

I am so sorry! And unfortunately I think I sent a couple more before I saw your post to me.

Again, my apologies.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Many Protestants do seem to think that the Catholic Church’s teachings come from the thinking of humans; they do not understand that our foundation includes the Bible—which many Protestants seem to take as their sole authority—but the Catholic Church also has other parts to the authority—parts which are **also and equally** from God” <<

.
If it isn’t in the Bible, it didn’t come from God.

The ancient Hebrew scriptures are consistent throughout the centuries, and are the total of God’s revelation to men.

The NT merely repeats and confirms those scriptures.

Every doctrinal point Yeshua ever uttered was preceded with the words “It is written.”

Even Paul’s revelation of the “mystery” of Yeshua’s remarriage to his rejected bride was there in Torah and the prophets all along.
.

[Resettozero]

Please cease pinging me to your posts to other FReepers.