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.

[Salvation]

Sorry about your keys.

Have you ever heard this little jingle of a prayer to St. Anthony?

“Tony, Tony, look around,
Something’s lost and can’t be found.”

I have found so many lost things after saying that little prayer, and of course, looking around for myself! LOL!

God bless.

[Chicory]

****Don’t move the goalposts.

****That wasn’t what you originally asked.****

I asked where the idea of the Trinity was in the Bible. What would you consider the idea of the Trinity? Because I do consider it to be One God in three divine Persons. Maybe the problem is that we have different definitions.

Since my point is that the information in the Bible is insufficient for a normal person with no knowledge of Christian teaching to derive the idea of the Trinity, the quote you provided was an inadequate response to my question.

[Chicory]

I apologize for saying that.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Anything the “magisterium” comes up with is a private interpretation.

Interpretation is always private.

The scriptures are not to be interpreted, they are to be read. The Holy Spirit provides the interpretation to those that are Yehova’s elect.

The rest look to the “magisterium.”
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Just as the “Pharasaical legalism” which all chrstians so hypocritically denounce is exactly what G-d intended and what the world needs.” <<

.
Nice try, but no cigar!

The King of Kings, and Lord of Lords is who denounced Phariseeism. Most “christians” ignorantly embrace it to their own destruction.
.

[Religion Moderator]

Thank you for your support.

[Chicory]

****Anything the “magisterium” comes up with is a private interpretation.

****Interpretation is always private.

****The scriptures are not to be interpreted, they are to be read. The Holy Spirit provides the interpretation to those that are Yehova’s elect.

****The rest look to the “magisterium.”****
.

Who are Yehovah’s elect to whom the Holy Spirit provides interpretations?

[Chicory]

:) No problem!

[editor-surveyor]

The people who love Yeshua, not dead humans and idols.

[vladimir998]

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

1) Who is “they”?

2) The number of verses defined - all of which are defined according to the prohibition of a negative sense rather than an exclusive sense - has nothing in itself to do with “Catholics think all the teachings they give are infallible”.

Are you sure you actually understand what you’re attacking?

[rwa265]

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

---

The challenges to Catholics on this forum are primarily on what Catholics believe. Defenses to these challenges would not be found in “Protestant” writings. They are found in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church and other Catholics writings.

There are so many different other beliefs, that Catholics would not know which specific “Protestant” or other Christian writing to cite. When Luther is quoted, the response is “I do not follow Luther.” When Protestant beliefs are challenged, the response is “I am not mainline Protestant.

What Confession do you follow? Do you adhere to the Westminster standards, or the Methodist confession of faith, or the Baptist beliefs, or the Assembly of God document of belief? Would you be willing to share your specific document of faith so we can discuss them?

[metmom]

Still waiting to see the list of verses and their official interpretations.

[metmom]

“it seems unlikely” is hardly Scriptural support.

[metmom]

Then the doctrine of the Trinity would never have been developed using Scripture.

It’s in there, and it any *ordinary* person CAN find it.

Scripture is not that vague about that.

All that is is a justification for having a magisterium to tell others what to believe.

The HOLY SPIRIT is who leads us into all truth.

Committees are only known for screwing things up.

[metmom]

Scripture is to be read and obeyed.

Thou shalt not steal is not that complicated and needs no *interpretation*.

Neither does Thou shalt not murder, covet, commit adultery, make images and bow down to them, etc.

That is, unless someone is trying to weasel around and justify disobeying them.

Then Scripture needs to be *interpreted* to make it say something it doesn’t say, to find a loophole.

[metmom]

Who are Yehovah’s elect to whom the Holy Spirit provides interpretations?

Believers who have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them.

[metmom]

There are so many different other beliefs, that Catholics would not know which specific “Protestant” or other Christian writing to cite. When Luther is quoted, the response is “I do not follow Luther.” When Protestant beliefs are challenged, the response is “I am not mainline Protestant.

Because it's true. Just because we don't fit into a box for the convenience of RC's doesn't mean we don't have our specific beliefs, which have have been posted on this forum many times.

What Confession do you follow? Do you adhere to the Westminster standards, or the Methodist confession of faith, or the Baptist beliefs, or the Assembly of God document of belief? Would you be willing to share your specific document of faith so we can discuss them?

The BIBLE.

[rwa265]

What Confession do you follow? Do you adhere to the Westminster standards, or the Methodist confession of faith, or the Baptist beliefs, or the Assembly of God document of belief? Would you be willing to share your specific document of faith so we can discuss them?

The BIBLE.

---

Thank you for your response, metmom. It is a perfect example of why Catholics do not cite “Protestant” writings such as the Westminster standards. If you all do not cite a “Protestant” writing in support of a specific belief, Catholics have no way of knowing which specific “Protestant” writing should be cited when responding.

The one thing a Catholic can do, and what I try to do, is to use the King James version of the bible when making a biblical reference.

[Gamecock]

There are so many different other beliefs, that Catholics would not know which specific “Protestant” or other Christian writing to cite. When Luther is quoted, the response is “I do not follow Luther.”

Because there is only one man that we follow. FRoman Catholics can't seem to get their mind around the fact we don't have a corporate headquarters in Wittenberg with a CEO that parades around wearing Prada shoes.

When Protestant beliefs are challenged, the response is “I am not mainline Protestant.

Define "Mainline." I'm certainly not mainline. Mainline churches are spiraling out of control. I left a mainline church that was already teetering on being heretical, and has most recently sealed the deal with Satan, as far as I am concerned. That is another thing FRoman Catholics can't fathom. The fact that, like promised by Jesus, churches can and will spiral out of control. When that happens it is time to man up and find a church that is still loyal to her first love, that being Jesus, the Christ.

All we hear from FRoman Catholics is "I don'r like the church since Vatican II," and I don't like this liberal Pope" and I don't like _____." All of which are warnings but somehow y'all think you can hear the truth through "homosexual priests who have filled the priesthood."

[Iscool]

Who are Yehovah’s elect to whom the Holy Spirit provides interpretations?

Me...God doesn't whisper into people's ears to provide some private revelation...God leads us around the scriptures where every answer is available that has to do with our salvation, sanctification, eternal security and any other thing we need to know about Christianity...