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]

ping

[HossB86]

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.

To the point. And on point.

Thanks RnMom!

Hoss

[HossB86]

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.

To the point. And on point.

Thanks RnMom!

Hoss

[Gamecock]

One minute they bash Luther.
The next they hold him up.

When challenged with facts they queue the crickets.

They are experts at ducking and dodging without putting serious thought into anything. (There are two or so exceptions)

[Salvation]

**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. **

Not true.

[Salvation]

When I saw the title, **Blind Followers, Inconsistencies, Double Standards and More Confusion**, I thought this was going to be about the multi, multi -- however many thousands of non-Catholic sects or denominations. It fits perfectly.

[Star Traveler]

Well ... that settles it ... LOL ...

[Salvation]

LOL!

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Ah... The classic “Pee Wee Herman” debate tactic. “I know you are but what am I.”

[Gamecock]

What is wrong with discussing comparative religion on a religion forum?

[Gamecock]

**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.**

At least we pull out RC catechisms and writings. They, even when challenged, refuse to cite anything from any “Protestant” writing.

[caww]

From the article....

” 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?!”.......

....By 170 A.D. most of the bible had already been approved and read by the church. ...This was long ‘before any council’.

All the New Testament books were written approximately between 40-65 A.D.. (excluding John written in 75-95 A.D). Therefore it’s more than reasonable that the Bible be used as the test of any Doctrine and based on it’s truth.

[Amendment10]

Here are some other passages which compliment 2 Peter 1:20.

Luke 9:45 is interesting because it indicates that understanding the Scriptures is not an act of human will.

Also:
Luke 12:12
Luke 24:45

The bottom line is that anybody’s understanding of the Scriptures is completely up to the Holy Sprit imo.

[caww]

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. **

Ok...then how would you respond to the following......??

...” 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?

[Salvation]

What a conundrum!

[rcofdayton]

That assertion is a non-sequitur. Understanding scripture is paramount for all Christians. That does not have any relevance as to whether or not a magisterium is needed.

[Star Traveler]

To not engage in Catholic bashing, as you put it, would mean that no one should engage in Protestant bashing, either. And both of those things mean that no one can contend for any doctrine at all, that they hold to.

What one has to do in that case is simply say (with no Catholic bashing and no Protestant bashing) is that “truth” is merely a “choice” for someone to determine for themselves and doesn’t apply to anyone else. Someone else can “choose truth” which only applies to them, period. We all have “our own truth” that applies uniquely to each one of us, and not necessarily to the next person.

When you say you should not bash Catholics, and you should not bash Protestants (and any number of other religious doctrines from other systems) ... that’s what you get ... POST-MODERNISM ... truth is only what you see it is for yourself. And Post-Modernism is also what contributes to the idea that homosexuality is simply something for someone to choose for themselves, and that is “their truth” even while it may not be your truth.

It also leads to the idea that we should not criticize other religions, either ... like Islam. No matter what “we” think is wrong with Islam, when we engage in this idea that truth only exists in the eye of the beholder, and it is not ABSOLUTE, then we must respect all other choices as just as valid as our own ... that’s POST-MODERNISN which has infected our society (and the whole world).

Instead, I say — BASH AWAY — because I don’t believe POST-MODERNISM is valid!

Have at it!

[Salvation]

All Catholics cannot be put in one category to be bashed.

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

Simple enough for me.