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.

[CynicalBear]

>>Y'all don't have any choice about obeying and agreeing with Catholic teaching.<<

The Catholic cult demands "submission of will and intellect". That alone should be a red flag to any rational human being.

[RnMomof7]

That’s not a logically sound statement. The Magisterium and Scripture work together and thus are not mutually exclusive in themselves. The same applies to Tradition.

So the magisterium statements are the equivalent to scripture ?

[vladimir998]

“So the magisterium statements are the equivalent to scripture ?”

Where do you see that in my comment?

[vladimir998]

“Unfortunately if you respond to something from a specific person you are “making it personal.” Both sides are limited to broad statements.”

That’s untrue on two counts:

1) Almost always only one side is said to be “making it personal”.

2) There is at least one example of a “broad statement” somehow, inexplicably, being turned into a “making it personal” situation.

[Chicory]

****Now, I don’t know whether that is just your idea, or if it’s Catholic teaching and doctrine.****
My words, chosen badly :o
________________________________
****What I do know of God’s Word, is that it’s from God and it’s not based on any human agency. God chose the ones involved, he totally superintended what they wrote so to be His Word and no one else’s, and thusly, he chose (as a consequence) what books are “His Word”.
****No one else chose those books of the Bible, except God, himself. The only thing Christians have done is to “recognize” which books God chose, but Christians had no part choosing what was in and what was out. God alone is the sole party in that.
****It is the height of arrogance that anything from man had a thing to do with God’s Word. No man on earth and no organization of men on earth has a thing to do with the Word of God.****

The Catholic Church does teach that Scripture and the teachings of the Church are all from God as you say; I used a sort of short-hand to describe the situation.

If you look at Matthew 16:17, you will see that Christ greets Simon’s words that Christ is the Messiah with the comment that this was knowledge, not from man, but from God in Heaven. So we believe that all the Church teaches comes from God in Heaven.

Then in Matthew 28, 18-19, Christ explains that God has granted Him all power or authority, and He instructs the Apostles to go and teach all nations. Notice that He did not say, Go and write a book… Instead, He told them to teach.

And what were the Apostles to teach? Looking at the contents of the New Testament, we see 4 short biographies of Christ, many letters written to address specific situations, and Revelation. The Bible was not written as a textbook; it does not contain all that Christ taught, as we can tell by the absence of information about what He taught during His 40 days in this world after His Resurrection. We can also see much of what the Apostles taught in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, which line up with Catholic teaching.

Scripture states that the “pillar and ground of truth” is the Church, *not* Scripture (1 Tim 3:15).

[Chicory]

****Your post reads that the following is ‘Not true”....
****…..**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. ** ****

The problem is that the statement you quoted inaccurately describes a situation as an either-or situation. Catholic teaching has as its basis Scripture, the Magisterium, and Tradition, which last is a restrictive term referring to those teachings and understandings which have always existed in the Catholic Church.

No Catholic teaching can contradict any one of those three. What happens wrt Scripture in the Catholic Church is that the passage is interpreted in the light of the perennial teaching of the Church by the Magisterium, which has the authority conferred on it by Christ and the protection from teaching error of the Holy Spirit.

What do the Protestants have? (I am not bashing, but asking these questions.) How is it that the Protestants have at least 5 explanations about baptism, from being totally necessary to being merely symbolic? From being conferred upon infants to limited to adults? From needing full immersion to needing only a bit poured over the head? Where did all these different ideas come from, and does it not make Protestants uncomfortable that there are all these different teachings?

[RnMomof7]

Scripture states that the “pillar and ground of truth” is the Church, *not* Scripture

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

[RnMomof7]

Where do you see that in my comment?

The Magisterium and Scripture work together

Seeing the magisterium has only defined a handful of scriptures, one must assume that Catholics think all the teachings they give are infallible

[Chicory]

I think the main problem you have here is that you don’t understand how Catholic teaching works. You see a little bit here and a little bit there, and you compare that with how things work in your denomination and think Catholics are doing it wrong. Which is ok, except when you then criticize Catholics based on a misunderstanding.

For example, we can explain some things from Scripture and some things from Tradition (for example, as shown in ECF teaching) and some things from Magisterial teaching. There’s a **lot** of overlap, as there should be, but sometimes one is clearer than another.

Because we have more sources of information, I get the impression that you think we somehow denigrate Scripture. We don’t at all; we just see that not everything is in Scripture.

As an example, consider the history of the idea of the Trinity, which is not explicitly explained in the Bible. Someone completely unacquainted with any Christian ideas would not read the Bible and see the Trinity in there. Where did that idea come from?

[metmom]

Someone completely unacquainted with any Christian ideas would not read the Bible and see the Trinity in there. Where did that idea come from?

Um, the Bible.

It most certainly is in there.

If it's not then it's nothing more than unscriptural speculation no Christian should be entertaining.

[Salvation]

**Seeing the magisterium has only defined a handful of scriptures**

Not correct information

[Legatus]

Where did that idea come from?

Don't tell the Protestants but it came from the first recorded Marian apparition. It is reported by St. Gregory of Nyssa (IIRC) of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus that Mary and the Apostle John appeared to him and explained the doctrine of the Trinity.

[Chicory]

****Um, the Bible.
****It most certainly is in there.

****If it’s not then it’s nothing more than unscriptural speculation no Christian should be entertaining. ****

So.... where is it?

[metmom]

Prove it.

Link to the source that shows what they are.

[metmom]

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,...

[Springfield Reformer]

Because we have more sources of information, I get the impression that you think we somehow denigrate Scripture. We don’t at all; we just see that not everything is in Scripture.

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 presupposes there is a conflict, of course.  However, even in matters where there is no direct or obvious conflict, the word of God will be regarded as an indisputable authority, whereas non-Scriptural pronouncements will be taken as only provisionally beneficial, depending on how they square with known truth from God's own revelation to us.

Its a jurisdictional matter.  Consider the case of the rule of Corban.

For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO CURSES FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH.' But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"—' (that is, a gift to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."
(Mark 7:10-13) (NKJV)

By blurring the line between the two jurisdictions, the Pharisees usurped God's authority and displaced it with their own.  There is no problem with looking to secondary sources for beneficial information. But for those sources to have any authority, they absolutely must conform to divine revelation. And that was what had NOT happened with Corban.  It had evolved from possibly a good intention, wanting to honor God with our resources.  Who could find fault with that?  Yet Jesus DID find fault with that, when it ran into conflict with the explicit divine command to care for one's parents.

So you see, Jesus didn't say it was wrong to give gifts to God, or call them by a special name, etc, and if some tradition arose that did all that, and still was not in conflict with any known divine truth, it could be considered and might even be beneficial.  But the jurisdictional difference matters, and secondary sources can never be promoted to equality with the word of God.  

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.

Peace,

SR

[WVKayaker]

Good morning (here in the Philippines!), mom...

This is just another distraction trying to add FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), and adding nothing to the dialogue contained in the threads premise.

I wouldn't waste a lot of time on trolls!

Look! Squirrel! (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain TRUTH!)

[Legatus]

Before the long knives come out, I went ahead and did the googling for those who will no doubt doubt.

Probably, the first recorded Marian apparition was to Saint Gregory the Wonder-Worker, Bishop of Neo Caeserea, who died in 270 A.D. The account of his vision is preserved by St. Gregory of Nyssa in his life of the Wonder-Worker:

... Once again [Gregory] was terrified and turned his face away, unable to bear its sight. The vision was especially amazing since the night was gloomy, for it resembled something like a light illuminated by another light. Since he could not look upon this spectacle, he heard from those who appeared to him speaking in detail about what he was seeking. Not only was he revered with regard to true knowledge of faith but recognized the names of each man who appeared when they called each other by their respective names. It is claimed that this vision of a female form told [Gregory] that the evangelist John was exhorted to manifest the mystery of truth to a young man, saying that she was chosen to be the mother of the Lord whom she cherished. He also said that this fitting vision had vanished again from his sight. He was immediately ordered to write down this divine revelation and later proclaim it in the church. In this way it became for others a divinely given legacy through which the people might repulse any evil of heresy. The words of that revelation are as follows:

One God, Father of the living Word (who consists of wisdom, power and who is the eternal pattern), perfect Begetter of who is perfect, Father of the Only Begotten Son.

One Lord alone from him who is alone, God from God, pattern and image of the divinity, mighty Word, wisdom which encompasses everything, true Son of true Father, immortal [Son] of the immortal [Father], and eternal [Son] of the eternal [Father]. One Holy Spirit whose life is from God and who was made manifest through the Son (as well as to men), perfect image of the perfect Son, living source of those who are alive, holy provider of sanctity in whom God the Father appeared who is above all and in all,

Perfect Trinity to whom belongs glory, eternity and kingship which can never change. (Thus the Trinity is not created, has anything else which claims to be first, nor is there anything which exists that can be introduced later. Similarly, the Son neither lacks the Father nor does the Spirit lack the Son; rather, the Trinity forever remains immutable and constant.)

[Salvation]

Happy reading

http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm

[CynicalBear]

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I'm not sure why people can't find those and many others.