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]

BTTT!

[Salvation]

**as Catholicism is a defective and errant system!**

Your reference for this statement please. (Accepted by the Religion Moderator and his/her rules, of course.)

[caww]

....”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).”.....

Exactly!... Therefore there must be 'an authority' 'everything' is tested and rests on...His Word. If it doesn't align...then it needs questioning and proved for what it is.

[MamaB]

OT. I moved yesterday. I was unpacking boxes today and you will never guess what I found. 14 $20 bills. God takes care of us. The movers had just emptied kitchen drawers into boxes and the money was still in a bank envelope. I had already found $100 bill in an old cd case which I kept in my car plus 2 $100 bills hidden away. I use to go on trips about every 2 months and this money was left over from them. I had hidden them so well that I forgot about them. My niece told me to keep unpacking. : ). Isn’t God great?

[Salvation]

First reading

Isaiah 7:10-14,8:10 ©

The Lord spoke to Ahaz and said, ‘Ask the Lord your God for a sign for yourself coming either from the depths of Sheol or from the heights above.’ ‘No,’ Ahaz answered ‘I will not put the Lord to the test.’

  Then he said:

Listen now, House of David:

are you not satisfied with trying the patience of men

without trying the patience of my God, too?

The Lord himself, therefore,

will give you a sign.

It is this: the maiden is with child

and will soon give birth to a son

whom she will call Immanuel,

a name which means ‘God is with us.’

[caww]

...”They can attempt to defend it, if they want ... but stop all the “wah, wah, wah” stuff and whining about it ... :-) ...”....

Maybe some can really only handle “The Milk of the Word” ....

[vladimir998]

“As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium.”

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.

[caww]

Never the less it’s a fair question....

[Star Traveler]

What?! ... starting with Post #1 ... maybe ... LOL ...

Then we could just start listing all the other Free Republic threads on “that” for the last ten years ... :-) ...

Did you miss them all? I doubt it. I already know it’s it’s a defective and errant system, but I rarely take my time to involve myself in those threads. I’m more interested in other things. But you’ve got plenty of others who do think it’s worth their time, so you’ve got no shortage of information on it.

[Chicory]

****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.****

First of all, this is absurd. If Protestants believe that they are right because the put Catholics into a “heads I win, tails you lose” position, they don’t have much to stand on, do they?

____________________________________________
****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.****

How can Scripture be the interpreter of Scripture? Scripture is a group of writings—people are the ones who interpret.

____________________________________________
****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.****

The Church does not claim that its teachings are derived from Scripture: the Church existed before the New Testament; therefore, Church teachings cannot be derived from something which did not yet exist.

Moreover, the choice of which of the many extant writings were to be finalized as part of the canon of Scripture was made by the Church based on the adherence of the individual work with the teachings of the Church. Thus, the Scriptures are based on Catholic teaching.

____________________________________________
****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.”****

Catholics are practical enough not to assume a Catholic sensibility on the part of non-Catholics. It is understood that saying “the pope says so, so that is settled,” to someone who does not accept papal authority won’t do a lot to explain Catholicism to them.

However, among orthodox Catholics, there is a saying: Roma locuta; causa finita est, or Rome has spoken, the matter is settled. When Catholics are discussing a topic among themselves, the discussion is much different than when they are talking to non-Catholics. There are requests for quotes from definitive writings; there are discussion regarding the level of belief a Catholic must have in the document; etc. All this would be lost on those who are not Catholic.

____________________________________________
I could go on, but thought it might make the post too long.

[metmom]

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

Whatever happened to Catholic unity? One faith and all that?

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

Are you now throwing your fellow Catholics under the bus?

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

We've been telling y'all that for years.

Hallelujah!!!!

Something finally sunk in.

[Salvation]

How many FR Catholics do you really think agree with Nancy Pelosi’s brand of Catholicism?

She is a CINO and has been told not to receive Communion by her bishop.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

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

---

That’s because we find God’s Word to be sufficient. We haven’t made up a whole bunch of garbage like the Catholics.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

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

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

---

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

You might say “your belief in ****” is misguided” and you’ve violated the rules. However if you say “Catholics/Protestants belief of ****” is acceptable even if it’s not accurate.

[metmom]

Your opinion is irrelevant as long as the CHURCH keeps treating her as a member. They can tell her to stop receiving communion, but they need to stop giving it to her. As long as they as willing to give it to her, she has no reason to stop.

When the RCC stops giving her communion and ex-communicates her, then she is no longer Catholic and you are free to disown her.

But Catholics have no choice as far as obeying and adhering to the decisions of the church, so if they accept her, she’s yours.

And you don’t have to like it, but you have no say in the matter.

And it also doesn’t matter if you agree with her or not.

[Star Traveler]

You said a lot of things, but the one thing that caught my attention was ...

— — —

Thus, the Scriptures are based on Catholic teaching.

— — —

Now, I don’t know whether that is just your idea, or if it’s Catholic teaching and doctrine.

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.

[redleghunter]

"Abortionist candidate J.F. Kerry receives Communion in Boston. Kerry, a Catholic, is known for his public pro-abortion stands. He consistently votes for pro-abortion legislation, and even supported Clinton's veto of the partial birth abortion ban. If elected, he would not appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court." http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A057rcKerryCommunion.htm