But it's not in the Bible!: The Problem with Protestantism

[RNRobert]

I’ve noticed that many Protestants, whether on these forums or in print, television and radio, often attack Catholic doctrines by saying “It’s not in the Bible.” According to them, Christianity began to become corrupted when Constantine legalized Christianity in the fourth century AD, and as a result pagan beliefs and practices crept into the Church, which resulted in “Catholicism,” a paganized form of Christianity which held sway until Martin Luther’s glorious “Reformation” (some extreme sects claim that Christianity started to go off the rails as soon as the last apostles died). Protestants like to point to various dogmas proclaimed throughout the centuries as “proof” that a Catholic teaching is “unbiblical” (Some Protestant works, like Lorraine Boettner’s book, Roman Catholicism, have lists of Catholic inventions- click here and this page to see some examples from the Catholic Answers website). However, I’ve noticed when I’ve asked a fundamentalist on this forum to ask where I can find the words “Trinity” or “Incarnation” in the Bible (doctrines held by the vast majority of Christians, including most Protestants), they either change the subject, accuse me of attacking Scripture, or otherwise evade the question.

I think the key problem with Protestantism (particularly the fundamentalist kind) is that they are fixated on the first century church. I remember seeing and hearing this reverence for first century Christianity in the Baptist Church I attended. To be sure, the first century church was the one that saw Jesus on this earth, that learned it’s faith from the apostles, and saw firsthand the writings that would later become the New Testament. However, if you read the New Testament carefully, you will notice that the first century church wasn’t perfect- it had its share of problems. Some churches were lax spiritually or were leading immoral lives (read Paul’s letters to the Corinthians or John’s letters to the seven churches in Revelation). Also, even in the first century false teachings were starting to pop up- read Galatians, or 1 John, or Jude. In any case, Protestants expect the Church to be static, to remain “frozen” as it was in New Testament times. The problem is, we no longer live in that era, and today’s Christians face problems that the early Christians could never have imagined (stem cell research, cloning, genetics, medical/moral issues like Terry Schiavo, to name a few).

This, I think, is also why the Protestant doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” is deficient. The New Testament is a first century document written primarily to address the problems of that era. Now, before some Protestant accuses me of “trampling on holy ground,” as I have been accused of before on this forum, let me explain that this in no way invalidates Scripture for the purposes of “teaching, for refutation, for correction and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Also, the Catholic Church teaches that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, and considers the magisterium the servant of Scripture (Dei Verbum 10, Vatican II documents).

Continued…

 

[RNRobert]

Part 2…

However, throughout the 2,000 years of Christianity there have been challenges to the faith in the forms of various heresies, or simply questions in theology that needed to be addressed; hence the need for the Church as a living interpreter to apply the deposit of faith (both written and oral) to new situations as they arise. Some dogmas, like the Trinity in the third century or transubstantiation in the thirteenth, were not simply ‘new’ doctrines that were ‘added’ to the faith, but rather a means of defending a long-held belief that had come under attack. Other doctrines, like the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, were not declared to combat heresy but to clarify beliefs that were long held by many Catholics. The Church is a living organism that spans the centuries. To attack her because she doesn’t resemble the first century church is analogous to attacking an oak tree because it no longer resembles an acorn. I think this is why many Protestant sects simply are nothing but revivals of old heresies the Church condemned centuries ago. A few examples: the Sabellian ‘Jesus-only’ view of some Pentecostal sects; Calvinism with it’s doctrine of total depravity a rather Christianized form of Manichaeism (taught that matter was evil); and sects like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny Christ’s Deity are nothing more than the old heresy of Arianism once more rearing it’s ugly head.

Not all Protestants take this extreme view. Some sects (like the Lutheran and Episcopalian churches) recognize some of the teachings of the early church fathers. However, they, like the Orthodox Churches who consider themselves the “Church of the seven councils,” still restrict themselves. Unlike the fundamentalists who expected the Church to be permanently ‘set’ as soon as the ink was dry on the NT books, these churches merely push the date forward a few centuries. Why must they put a limit on the ability of the church to grow in its understanding? In the words of Karl Adams’s Spirit of Catholicism, they

(treat) revelation as so much dead capital, as a store of gold which must be passed on to future generations in a merely external fashion, and of overlooking the energies that lie in the revelation and work for the further development of its germinal content.

I think this is why Protestantism (and to a lesser extent Orthodoxy) is unable to effectively deal with the problems of today. I believe this is why so many Protestant denominations have caved on issues like divorce, birth control, abortion and homosexuality, and why so many (particularly the mainline denominations) seem to not even have the belief in Christ their founders had.

Continued…

 

[RNRobert]

Conclusion.

I’d like to conclude with a passage from Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners (which I’m currently reading) that I think sums up the whole subject nicely:

It seems strange so many Christians think the Apostles fulfilled their commission by writing the New Testament, leaving behind them no successors, nor any need for successors, with the authority Our Lord had given themselves. It seems strange, for one reason, that it would mean only five of the Twelve had obeyed their Master…

It would seem strange for another reason- that the Church Christ founded would have been a teaching church only for a half-century or so, in all the centuries since merely a library.

Circumstances change and someone must have the authority to apply the teachings to the new circumstances; otherwise they end up as frustrations rather than teachings. Even in the doctrines themselves there are depths which the believing mind can explore, with all the danger of error but all the rich possibilities of development. With every operation of the unstagnant mind of man upon the truth, the question must arise, “What did Christ mean?”

So it has proved. There is not a word uttered by Christ which has not met a number of diverse interpretations, some of them intelligent, some immensely attractive, but contradicting each other. How are we to know? It is not enough to have Our Lord’s words; the words themselves can only be a kind of talisman without the meaning. Without a teacher- to tell us, beyond the possibility of error, which of the various meanings is Christ’s- we should have no revelation but only an everlasting pile of conundrums.

 

[Malachi4U]

It appears that nobody knows protestants and their theological truths and un-truths like “EX”-protestants.

Good job RNRobert!

Our enlightened band of EX-protestants is growing! Perhaps someday ther will be more EX-protestants than EX-Catholics? We can only pray.

 

[Exporter]

The originator of this thread used the name of Loraine Boettner.

I have a book by Karl Keating that gives much information about the Professional Anti-Catholic , Loraine Boettner.

The books name is Catholocism and Fundamentalism. Many other Professional Anti-Catholics use Boettner , Jimmy Swaggart for one.

RNRobert: Thanks for the good effort. I agree with you.

 

[Steve_M]

RNRobert:

Part 2…

Calvinism with it’s doctrine of total depravity a rather Christianized form of Manichaeism (taught that matter was evil);

Good point. I’ve never thought of this one.

As a former Southern Baptist, and recent convert, I couldn’t agree with you more.

 

[edwinG]

Hi,

I am not Roman Catholic so maybe you class me as protestant because I dont hold to the Catholic teaching.

Sola Scripture without the Holy Spirit is missing out on the abundance of life, joy and peace in Christ. Christ sent the Holy Spirit. He should not be ignored, to ignore Him is to ignore Christ.

Believing solely in the Holy Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit is definitely not static. This is up to date, this very second, personal, especially for you in your life, carrying your cross and fully sufficient in all things . You also are always aware how much the Holy Spirit knows what you are doing tomorrow, in 2 weeks, next year etc because of how He organises your life. Your faith comes alive and grows.

Believing in the Holy Bible and man’s wisdom is fraught with danger. I note what you say about the invasion of false teachings even in the days of the first apostles. Surely these are the first fruits of a warning. This is where I see the Roman Catholic church. Hopefully I am wrong but for most part the posts I read make me think people don’t really understand the Holy Spirit, therefore dont have a personal relationship with Him, sent by Christ to lead you into truth. I imagine you think He is some nice words on a page. The only work you allow to happen in your life is the hidden works by the Holy Spirit. You dont seem to be actively participating. You seem to have passed your responsibility to the Roman Catholic church. You have cut out the Holy Spirit and replaced Him who Christ sent with the Roman Catholic church. Does the Church know more than the Holy Spirit? Where is your faith in His ability to care for you, in His ability to keep you safe, in His ability to lift you up on that final day. The Roman Catholic church seems to have interceded and now stands between you and Christ, who is the Holy Spirit. Please tell me I am wrong, then explain in concrete examples some of the instances of the leading of the Holy Spirit in your life so the members of this forum can be edified… Let our posts glorify His holy name.
Christ be with you
Walk in love
edwinG

 

[rarndt01]

There certainly is nothing wrong with scripture and it definitely should be consulted for doctrine, reproof and correction. But the bible in and of itself is NOT it’s own interpreter. If it was, then everyone would believe the same way. The evidence of thousands of divisions in Christianity shows that the bible is NOT it’s own interpreter. So who or what is that interpreter? You might say, well the Holy Spirit. That’s true. And the Holy Spirit indwells in all believers, but he does not speak AUDIBLY and say now believe such and such and do not believe such and such.

Rather the God has left that interpretation to his church. The one that Christ and the apostles started and passed on through the centuries. This is the Catholic church. Because the church has ALWAYS existed since the time of the apostles the Catholic church has the PROPER understanding of just what Christ and the apostles REALLY meant on doctrine. The church is the divine authority.

If I were to pick up my bible and say well I believe this, doesn’t make it absolutely true. I am guilty of pre supposition. And this is the problem in mainstream America. Most Protestant churches have pastors, professors,teachers and writers who pre suppose what the apostles meant when they wrote something. But Protestantism FAILS to accept the ancient authority or that the church the proper interpretation to begin with. So Protestant denominations CREATE their own interpretation.

 

[RNRobert]

Hello Edwin!

I used the term “Protestant” as a blanket term for those who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but belong to one of the many evangelical/fundamentalist/non-denom sects that have come about since Luther’s revolt in 1521.

In your post you stated that it appears I have let the Catholic Church intercede between me and the Holy Spirit. Hardly. Catholics are urged to study the Bible daily and constantly seek the Holy Spirit. If they do not, they are Catholics in name only.

However, Jesus did not intend Christians to be nothing more than a bunch of Lone Rangers with a Bible. He didn’t hand out New Testaments, telling everyone “read this, and ask the Holy Spirit what it means.” Instead, he saw the people “harrassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matthew 9:36). He gave the Apostles as shepherds for his followers, with power to preach and teach in his name. Before he ascended He told Peter, the Chief Shepherd, to “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs.” (John 21:15-17). During New Testament times, The leaders of the Church used their authority to correct immoral behavior or false teachings. Now, when the last of the Apostles died, what happened to their authority? Did it simply pass to the writings they left behind, or did they appoint flesh and blood Christians to follow in their footsteps? Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Apostles appointed successors, the bishops to take the role of preaching, teaching and correcting. Jesus gave the Apostles instructions in Matthew 18:15-17 on how to deal with a sinning brother. If he doesn’t listen to you, or a fellow Christian, or even the whole church, he is to be shunned. If there is no institutional church, then this passage is meaningless: The whole point of this is to correct the sinning brother. A person can simply join another church, or start his own.

I agree with you- one’s relationship with the Holy Spirit should never be static! However, in my post I was referring to some Christian organizations who believe that the institutional church should remain EXACTLY as it was in the 1st century.
To get back to the Holy Spirit. Jesus never intended to be his followers to be “just me, the Bible and the Spirit.” He founded a CHURCH, not a Bible Society, and He wanted His Church members to be One, as He and his Father were one (John 17:23), with One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism, as Paul told the Ephesians. The problem is, which Church did He found? There are thousands of churches out there, all who claim to follow the Bible and be led by the Holy Spirit, but they contradict each other. God is NOT the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 16:33), so which church is TRULY led by the Spirit??
I became a Catholic because the Holy Spirit prompted me to listen to Catholics around me. I feel the Holy Spirit when I go to confession, or partake of the Eucharist, or when I pray for others, and countless other times. Just because I’m a Catholic does NOT mean I replace the Holy Spirit with the Church. I still need to seek him on a daily basis in my life. However, as a Catholic, I am confident that I have Spirit-led shepherds that keep me from error, no longer “tossed by waves and swept along by wind of teaching arising from human trickery.” (Ephesians 4: 14).

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Calvinism with it’s doctrine of total depravity a rather Christianized form of Manichaeism (taught that matter was evil).

I’d like to follow up on the total depravity thing and any theology that proposes a useless or destroyed human will, intellect, what-have-you.

It seems like a reductionist argument. For example, take Marxism’s assertion that all human endeavor is motivated by economic forces. One need only ask the Marxist what economic motive they have for telling us this. If they affirm that they are economically motivated, it must be rejected because it is a motive other than truth. If they say it is truth, then they are claiming to be above the economic motive. But if they can be above it, why can’t someone else who disagrees be above it?

So it would seem with total depravity. If a Calvinist says man is totally depraved, would that not include the Calvinist man telling us this? If not, why is his claim beyond depravity and other’s are not?

Scott

 

[Christy_Beth]

Jesus gave us a church to teach and guide us. Yes, the Holy Spirit is there, otherwise we wouldn’t have a church. Help me out here, I don’t have my bible with me. I believe it was in MAtthew that Jesus told us how to act towards someone we had something against. First, we are to approach that person on our own. If that doesn’t work, take two or three others as witness. And if they *still *won’t listen, to take it before the church. And if that person won’t listen to the church, we are to treat them “like a gentile or tax collector.”

As for teachings in the bible, show me where Jesus said that communion is to be symbolic. He doesn’t. He meant it to be literal. Yet every protestant church that I know of, insists that it is meant to be symbolic. They say that Jesus didn’t mean it when He said that “This IS my body,” and, “this IS my blood.” Also note His words in the sixth chapter of John. He was taken literally, and never said it was meant otherwise. And protestants want to talk about “man-made traditions”!!

 

[edwinG]

rarndt01. So who or what is that interpreter? You might say:

Hi,
I haven’t yet worked out how to cut and paste properly to form a concise message so I ask for your patience.
Yes the Holy Spirit is not audible and is not visible. You just need to practice and if you are on the wrong path, He will lead you back. If you want to be stubborn and stiffnecked , you can be this way as well. Do you really believe that God in His wisdom has created a path, Following the Holy Spirit , that is not possible. Is Christ wrong? Christ is the Church, and the head of the Church. The Roman Catholic church is the Roman Catholic church. It is led by men. If the pope was in one corner of the room and the Holy Spirit was in another corner, who would you go to? If you start practising listening to the Holy Spirit your faith will grow immensely. If you really want to pick up your cross there is no other way. How can the church on earth tell all of its individual members what they are to do each and every day. It is impossible, but through the leading of the Holy Spirit, you are God’s servant, following His direction and doing His work in love. God loves everyone and as you are His servant, He wants you to help Him, it may be a person on the other side of the road on Tuesday at 4.30pm. Can the earthly church send you over to the other side of the road. No the earthly church doesnt even know where you are at 4.30 on Tuesday but the Holy Spirit does and if you listen to Him you will go over the road and be God’s servant and help that person. Because you are doing Gods work, and you will know it Joy will flood into your life. Their is a huge reward in knowing you are personally doing Gods work by spreading His love here on earth.Understanding comes.Come alive to Christ because the Holy Spirit listens to Jesus and only does as He hears, from Jesus.
Christ has not left the interpretation to any earthly church. He , through the Holy Spirit provides all truth to whoever seeks it. Now some may know some parts of the truth and some one else may know a different part, no one knows all of the truth, but Christ has work for you each day, and He will reveal the truth to you as you need it in your growth in Him and to carry out His work.
Christ has consecrated Himself to meet your every need in understanding. The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth. What ever you seek you will find, if you seek evidence to support a wrong view, you will find it,if you seek the truth you will find it.Start believing in Christ’s word regarding the Holy Spirit. Yes the church is the devine authority because the Church is Christ, but not any earthly church.
No one is meant to sit down and study the bible and then because of tradition etc understand all of it. We have had the Gospel for 2000 years and man hasn’t yet understood all of it.Simply because the Holy Spirit hasn’t revealed it too us. We dont need to understand ALL of the bible to do Gods work of spreading His love to our neighbour. Loving someone is doing the little things in life, not moving mountains and making spectacular statements.
Christ be with you
Walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[edwinG]

RNRobert:

Hello Edwin!

In your post you stated that it appears I have let the Catholic Church intercede between me and the Holy Spirit. Hardly. Catholics are urged to study the Bible daily and constantly seek the Holy Spirit. If they do not, they are Catholics in name only.

Amen Amen,Will you edify the members with a witnessing statement of following the lead of the Holy Spirit to the praise and glory of Christ.

However, Jesus did not intend Christians to be nothing more than a bunch of Lone Rangers with a Bible. He didn’t hand out New Testaments, telling everyone “read this, and ask the Holy Spirit what it means.” Instead, he saw the people “harrassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matthew 9:36). He gave the Apostles as shepherds for his followers, with power to preach and teach in his name. Before he ascended He told Peter, the Chief Shepherd, to “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs.” (John 21:15-17). During New Testament times, The leaders of the Church used their authority to correct immoral behavior or false teachings. Now, when the last of the Apostles died, what happened to their authority? Did it simply pass to the writings they left behind, or did they appoint flesh and blood Christians to follow in their footsteps? Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Apostles appointed successors, the bishops to take the role of preaching, teaching and correcting. Jesus gave the Apostles instructions in Matthew 18:15-17 on how to deal with a sinning brother. If he doesn’t listen to you, or a fellow Christian, or even the whole church, he is to be shunned. If there is no institutional church, then this passage is meaningless: The whole point of this is to correct the sinning brother. A person can simply join another church, or start his own.

I agree completely. No lone ranger stuff. Christ commanded us. Love one another. The earthly church has a very important role.

I agree with you- one’s relationship with the Holy Spirit should never be static! However, in my post I was referring to some Christian organizations who believe that the institutional church should remain EXACTLY as it was in the 1st century.
To get back to the Holy Spirit. Jesus never intended to be his followers to be “just me, the Bible and the Spirit.” He founded a CHURCH, not a Bible Society, and He wanted His Church members to be One, as He and his Father were one (John 17:23), with One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism, as Paul told the Ephesians. The problem is, which Church did He found? There are thousands of churches out there, all who claim to follow the Bible and be led by the Holy Spirit, but they contradict each other. God is NOT the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 16:33), so which church is TRULY led by the Spirit??
I became a Catholic because the Holy Spirit prompted me to listen to Catholics around me. I feel the Holy Spirit when I go to confession, or partake of the Eucharist, or when I pray for others, and countless other times. Just because I’m a Catholic does NOT mean I replace the Holy Spirit with the Church. I still need to seek him on a daily basis in my life. However, as a Catholic, I am confident that I have Spirit-led shepherds that keep me from error, no longer “tossed by waves and swept along by wind of teaching arising from human trickery.” (Ephesians 4: 14).

As the Holy Spirit prompted you to be a member of the Roman Catholic church, can you conceed that the same can be true for members of other earthly churches.
Christ be with you
walk in lovehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
edwinG

 

[BayCityRickL]

Fr. John Trigilio on EWTN offered the Mass on 9/30 which is the feast day of St. Jerome, who compiled the Bible into Latin.

FJT points out that the word “bible” is not in the Bible, either. He made a lot of great points, and it’s too bad they don’t re-run those homilies or have them available on cassette.

But, the overall point is that the writings were held by the Church, canonized by the Church, and assembled into a book – the Bible — over the course of time, and as the Church adapted it to new technologies (we seldom stop and appreciate how innovative that was and how adaptive the Church was with it).

So, you might say that one of the critical things the Church did, which was not IN the bible, was to assemble the Bible. Further, this is not simply the mechanical process, although that is involved. You also have the guidance of the Holy Spirit on how the books interrelate, etc. Certainly the importance of the individual writings was a part of the early “tradition” of the Church, which scripture does refer to, but only in general. Certainly that tradition involved the interpretation of those writings, as well.

 

[jcrawf]

BayCityRickL:

FJT points out that the word “bible” is not in the Bible, either. He made a lot of great points, and it’s too bad they don’t re-run those homilies or have them available on cassette.

I don’t like to be technical, but the word ‘bible’ is in the Bible. Ok, first off, the Greek word biblos is used in Matthew 1:1 to indicate a ‘record’, or an ‘account’. It can also mean a ‘book’, which is essentialy what ‘bible’ means and what the Bible is.

However, I agree with the rest. The very cannon of the Bible is the most ‘un-Biblical’ thing about the Bible; but that’s because the cannon of the Bible is part of tradition.

Pax tecum,

John

 

[RobedWithLight]

jcrawf:

I don’t like to be technical, but the word ‘bible’ is in the Bible. Ok, first off, the Greek word biblos is used in Matthew 1:1 to indicate a ‘record’, or an ‘account’. It can also mean a ‘book’, which is essentialy what ‘bible’ means and what the Bible is.


Pax tecum,

John

You are correct in the sense that *Biblos *which may mean record or account is indeed used in Matthew 1:1. However the account/record referred to in the passage refers to the record of the generations of Jesus Christ, a listing of Christ’s ancestors, not the actual holy Bible we now use. Perhaps that is what is meant when we say that the term ‘Bible’ is **not **in the bible. It is not the word per se, but the meaning that Protestants commonly ascribe to the word “Bible” that is **not **present in the Bible.

I agree fully with your last paragraph in any case.

Gerry

 

[enanneman]

Edwin, peace be with you, my brother in Christ. I certainly agree with you that we must listen to the Holy Spirit as it moves within us our entire lives. However, cast your eyes across the tens of thousands of Christian denominations. Surely, the pastors and ministers leading their individual flocks feel that they too are listening to the Holy Spirit and letting it guide them to truth. How, then, can you reconcile the differing doctrinal beliefs among the denominations? How can you say that that the pastor of the Lutheran church on Main Street is moved and the nondenominational minister on First Avenue is moved if they teach conflicting beliefs?

The fact is that God did not come down to this earth to walk among us to give us a book. We don’t know of a single word the Lord Jesus wrote with the exception of what he wrote in the ground in front of the crowds who wanted to stone the woman. God came down to earth to give us a church, and upon Peter, he built his church. The apostles spread out across the known world to share the good news, to baptize followers, and show them how to live their lives in Christ. The apostles passed down their teachings to these new followers who passed it down throughout the succeeding generations, and this deposit of faith is what we are blessed with today.

Peace and God bless!

Eric

 

[sparkle]

RNRobert:

Conclusion.
I’d like to conclude with a passage from Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners (which I’m currently reading) that I think sums up the whole subject nicely:

EXCELLENT ROBERT~~~~~~

 

[mercygate]

edwinG:

As the Holy Spirit prompted you to be a member of the Roman Catholic church, can you conceed that the same can be true for members of other earthly churches.
Christ be with you
walk in lovehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
edwinG

Perhaps . . . as a step along the journey to the fullness of Truth in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, which guards with care “the faith that we have received . . . for without ceasing, under the action of God’s Spirit, this deposit of great price, as if in an excellent vessel, is constantly being renewed and causes the very vessel that contains it to be renewed.” (Irenaeus of Lyons: Adversus Haeresis)

 

[GoodME]

The Bible should be one ingredient that makes up our Faith. It was given to us by the Church to help us.

It is not the ONLY tool we are to use. The term “Sola Scriptura” takes a dull blade and severs all the other things that are meant to define our Faith practice.

Many of which are described in Scripture - Read the last 3 verses of the Gospel of John, for example. The message is a testimony - some of which was written down in the Bible.

So - “Sola Scriptura” must therefore eliminate 99.9% of the message, as we have 27 books in the NT, and John says that if it were all written, the world could not contain all the books.

The Roman Catholic Church is the modern day vessel and guardian of that Faith. Scripture; plus the rest of the message “that wasn’t written down” - just like John said.