Blind Followers, Inconsistencies, Double Standards and More Confusion

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?

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?

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.

When I say Protestants and Catholics and/or any other religion, what is being talked about are the doctrines and teachings from the group in question.

And whatever individual you’re talking to ... they are going to be adhering to those doctrines and teachings, for themselves and telling others that they should adhere to them.

SO Catholic bashing and Protestant bashing ... is ... bashing whatever those doctrines and teachings are, which are being discussed, by that individual who is bringing it up.

It’s ALL FAIR GAME ... and you’ll notice that it is EXPLICITLY fair game in the guidelines for the Religion Forum on Free Republic, in the “open” category. At least Free Republic recognizes Catholic bashing and Protestant bashing (and other religious bashing) in terms of the “systems being talked about.

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.

Wow! Heads I win, tails you lose! Rhetorical tautology straight off the third grade playground.

Seriously, do you have to work hard to find pieces as dumb and shallow as this, or is it easy? I wouldn't know; I've never tried. The first sentence, in particular, is just plain garbage.

It would be nice if there were FR Protestants who actually wanted to discuss the things that divide and unite us in a sane and friendly manner, but it seems like most of them have internalized ::ROME IS THE ENEMY:: to such an extent that that is impossible.

On the off chance someone reasonable is reading this thread: "Scripture interprets Scripture" is a fine principle, but it still requires human beings to research, interpret, and understand the Scriptures. Anyone who has ever participated in a Bible study with a heavy-duty Bible scholar knows what I'm talking about. There are layers upon layers of meaning that require familiarity with the original languages, historical knowledge of the time period, etc.

We really don’t need Catholics here to talk about Catholic teachings and doctrines. It’s all documented and it can easily be referenced, without involving any individual Catholic who may personally be offended because the Catholic teachings and doctrines are defective and in error.

In fact, they get in the way when they start to make it personal. It really has nothing to do with them personally, as Catholicism is a defective and errant system!

SO ... if individual Catholics feel offended, all they need to do is leave, because we can easily talk among ourselves and they won’t have to listen ... :-) ...

On the other hand, if they stay, then stop feeling offended and accept the fact that others think that they are following a defective and man-made system that is full of doctrinal errors. They can attempt to defend it, if they want ... but stop all the “wah, wah, wah” stuff and whining about it ... :-) ...

Moreover, there is no Old Testament precedent for the need or establishment of an infallible magisterium.

Sorry, but you're retrojecting your Protestantism onto ancient Jews.

Israel was to set up courts in every city (with the largest being of course at Jerusalem) and the Torah obligated Jews to abide by their decisions. This authority exists today in the Battei Din (courts) and Torah decisors.

The Torah enjoins several commandments the details of which are not spelled out in the Written Torah. When the Torah says to "heave" certain things and "wave" others, what does that mean? It has to mean something, right? It was written by G-d; it can't merely use words arbitrarily. Clearly there was a ritual for "waving" and a ritual for "heaving." But we are never told what they are. Furthermore, we are told that in some rituals people were "waved." Surely Martin Luther and John Calvin didn't claim to know how to reproduce that ritual, did they?

Another good example is the laws of the Hebrew calendar. G-d didn't simply point to an Egyptian calendar hanging on the wall at the beginning of Exodus 12 and say "we'll call this the 'first month.'" The Egyptian calendar was a solar calendar. No, at the point in time described in the beginning of Exodus 12 G-d gave Moses a whole group of laws and regulation for correctly calculating the dates of the Jewish calendar. Those laws are found nowhere in the Written Torah or the rest of the Hebrew Bible, yet without them one could not observe a single Biblical feast. In fact, even those Protestants who practice a Judaeo-chrstian syncretism, while rejecting anything "not explicitly in the bible," nevertheless implicitly recognize the authority of the Oral Torah when they accept the current dates of the Jewish holidays hey celebrate.

And finally, the big two: 1)the Written Torah consists of nothing but a list of over 304,000 consonants. There are no vowels. There is no punctuation. The organization of these consonants into words with their proper verbal pronunciation come from the Oral Torah, without which the Written Torah would be indecipherable.
2)Before the invention of the printing press or even before the Torah had been translated into another language, it was transmitted from generation to generation by learned soferim (scribes) who wrote it by hand in accordance to the most minute of rules and regulations (none of which, again, are elucidated in the Written Torah). The rules include what skins may be used as writing parchment, which tendons may be used to stitch them together, and what juices may be used to compound the ink. And it dictates the sizes and shapes of the letters and the "crowns" attached to them. This is the source of every single Pentatueuch translation in history, and the correctness of every translation depends entirely and assumes fully that the method and oral laws which govern the writing of Torah Scrolls are 100% authentic and trustworthy. I know Protestants don't like to hear this kind of talk because the Catholic claim that "you wouldn't have the bible without us!" has turned them off, but there is absolutely no comparison with the Catholic claims. Without authentically G-d-given oral laws instructing how to copy out a kosher Torah Scroll there would be no Bibles in the world today . . . not one. And in case some of you may be unaware of it, this method of hand-writing Torah Scrolls has been followed continuously since Moses himself and it is these kosher Torah Scrolls that are ritually read in Jewish worship.

My ethno-cultural attachments to American Fundamentalist Protestantism sometimes distort my own beliefs and I'm sure many Protestants assume that I believe just as they do on everything. This is not true and, to tell the truth, some Catholic/Orthodox criticisms of Protestantism are valid. But their answer to Protestantism is so fallacious that it gives Oral Tradition a bad name.

Of course, what Protestants mean when they speak of "perspecuity of Scripture" is not any of these things but rather those matters pertaining to "salvation." This chrstian "salvation" is a will-o'-the-wisp about which all the various chrstians have never agreed and never will agree. It is the "new testament" that keeps all those who (at least in theory) fear the One True G-d divided and constantly at each others' throats. Just as the "Pharasaical legalism" which all chrstians so hypocritically denounce is exactly what G-d intended and what the world needs.

Maybe you'll believe it when 'Adam HaRi'shon is resurrected and tells you.

Wow! All that to say this...........

“Scripture interprets Scripture” is a fine principle, but it still requires human beings to research, interpret, and understand the Scriptures....There are layers upon layers of meaning that require familiarity with the original languages, historical knowledge of the time period, etc.”

God's Spirit wrote it so there's every reason to accept that when Jesus said....”When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. ...”He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.”

That does not mean teachers cannot enhance our understanding, I've sat among some great ones, but there's a difference between learning from them as it adheres to the truths and authority of the scriptures...and of those who ‘claim’ the authority of infallibility. You mentioning "layers' and layers"....of meaning...but often simple historians can enlarge our understanding....or proven biblical translations of the scriptures as well. A simple authors book on a given topic can enhance our understanding....but none of them have the authority of God's Word no the power of His Spirit to reveal truth.

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.