How Can Protestants Be Sure?

[Randy_Carson]

First, for the obvious. As much of the posts around here Catholics keep committing fallacious comparison. They want to compare one denomination( Catholicism ) against a group of denominations( Protestants). However, for an adequate comparison lets compare Catholicism against Presbyterians or Lutherans.

Second, by picking one doctrine where there is unity is composition fallacy. Lets pick another. For example, predestination. I’ve been told there are as many as four different views in Catholicism. How can Catholics be sure?

You bring this up over and over. Thomist v Molinist.

The Catholic Church has not defined this doctrine, and therefore, your question makes no sense. We are free to hold either view or perhaps develop a third. Similarly, the Church has no position regarding creation vis-a-vis a literal seven-day creation or a creation via evolution. The Church has said that Adam and Eve were two real people and that God did the creating. Beyond that, we are free to speculate.

Why is this supposed to trouble us and what mileage do you think you get out of bringing this up over and over?

As a former Protestant from a family chock full of Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and non-denominationalists, I am only too aware of the many flavors of Protestantism. To some degree you are correct; lumping them all together for comparison purposes is incorrect. OTOH, since they virtually all deny Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, Confession, Justification by Grace, Faith and Works, Mary, Purgatory and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, I think a certain amount of shorthand is reasonable.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The can be as sure about their interpretation of their rule of faith as you are about interpreting your infallible rule of faith. As a matter of fact it is worse for you, because you have three infallible rules of faith to interpret.

A stool supported by three legs (Scripture, Tradition & Magisterium) will not fall.

However, Luther threw out Tradition and the Magisterium. His one-legged stool would not stand on its own, so you are now obligated to provide two more legs - YOUR OWN!

 

[SolaScriptura]

No, the comparison is between a Church with a Magisterium and churches that are bible-alone. Thus the question, how can the latter be sure.

Notice the fallacious comparison once again. “a Church” vs “churches”. However, we can be fair by comparing churches with infallible magisterium( Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic Church) against churches that believe in sola Scriptura( Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, United Reformed Churches). I’m sure VociMike doesn’t want to compare apples to apples, because it is so much easier to compare apples to oranges, right Mike?

If the Church allows a variety of beliefs on a matter then there’s no need to “be sure”. The fact is, where the Church teaches on a fundamental doctrine which divides Protestants, there is no division even among those Protestants on the question of what the Church teaches.

Here we have special pleading. Where Catholics disagree it is ok, since the church allows it. Well, couldn’t Protestants say the same? Furthermore, it depends on what one calls fundamental doctrines. So here you are begging the question.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Two words: HOLY SPIRIT!!!

Actually, I was kinda wondering if this would be the common answer.

Sola Scriptura, as usual, simply wants to pull us down by declaring that we aren’t any better off, but that does nothing to explain how he knows with assurance what the Bible really means.

So, is this the correct answer? The Holy Spirit?

 

[Della]

Contarini:

Of course it’s solid. That is not the point. But Randy obviously thinks it isn’t. You should argue with him, not me. He objected that Protestants have no “infallible authority” to tell them how to interpret Scripture. You are claiming that you can be certain as to what Jesus said and what He meant by it without any such infallible authority–by exactly the means that Protestants use to interpret Scripture.

No, I’m not saying that at all. Catholics know what Jesus taught and what he meant by what he taught because of apostolic succession. The NT is but a part of Sacred Tradition which the Apostles taught, both by word of mouth and by what they wrote. You know that as well as we do. So, I don’t understand how you can make the claim you did when you declared that we only believe because the Magisterium says so. That’s simply not true, as you very well know.

 

[Spirithound]

WOW!!! Beautifully said!!! I agree 100%!!!

You agree that Protestantism has fatal flaws?

 

[Libertas]

2 Peter 1:20. Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2 Peter 3:16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Fact is, they can’t be certain. Even their sacred scripture says so.

 

[KindredSoul]

Notice the fallacious comparison once again. “a Church” vs “churches”. However, we can be fair by comparing churches with infallible magisterium( Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic Church) against churches that believe in sola Scriptura( Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, United Reformed Churches). I’m sure VociMike doesn’t want to compare apples to apples, because it is so much easier to compare apples to oranges, right Mike?

Except that every church on that list, without a single exception (only the Orthodox Church can even be argued to be an exception) wouldn’t exist today if not for the Schism, and later the Reformationists and King Henry VIII splitting off from the Catholic Church. History makes that abundantly clear, and few Protestants would dare to argue with the simple fact that if no one had ever broken from the Catholic Church, Protestantism wouldn’t exist. Therefore, it’s completely legitimate to compare the one Catholic Church with all of those churches together, at least those besides the Orthodox; had the Reformation experiment been a successful one, there wouldn’t be Protestant churches. There’d be a Protestant Church, if Sola Scriptura was an equally consistent and stable rule of Faith as the Magisterium. Since the reason that all those other churches are a plurality and so varied is because they broke away from a Mother Church that was unified, it’s not at all unfair for the Catholic to be able to sit back and say “Tsk tsk tsk; that’s what happens when you break away from the Magisterium.”

Here we have special pleading. Where Catholics disagree it is ok, since the church allows it. Well, couldn’t Protestants say the same? Furthermore, it depends on what one calls fundamental doctrines. So here you are begging the question.

No, Protestants cannot say the same, for one simple reason. Catholics say “The Church Allows it.” For Protestants, what church has the authority to allow it? And they can’t say the Bible allows it, because that’s what they disagree on in the first place whenever they disagree with any degree of significance. Faithful Catholics can know when the Church allows for disagreements and when not. If Protestants knew when the Bible allowed for disagreements and when not, there would be one unified Protestant Stance on issues like homosexuality, abortion, divorce, etc. - or else a complete truce agreeing to disagree. Neither has occurred.

 

[Tomster]

contarini, blue serenity;

www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0599-tighe

 

[Bishopite]

They can’t without setting themselves up as an extra-Biblical final authority and violating Sola Scriptura. It’s reason #19 why Sola Scriptura should be rejected.

The best they can do is offer opinions.

Exactly. In another discussion a Protestant, I asked him that same question (how do you know for sure how to interpret Scripture) and he said with logic and a good concordance.
I’m not sure what is a “good” concordance?
Many Protestant denominations with differing doctrines use “concordances” and “logic” to interpret Scripture yet come to differing conclusions of what Scripture means. That’s why sola Scriptura is epistemologically untenable and left to their best guesses.

 

[estesbob]

Two words: HOLY SPIRIT!!!

So what do you do when you and a fellow Christian disagree? Is the Holy Spirit lying to one of you?

 

[Contarini]

No, I’m not saying that at all. Catholics know what Jesus taught and what he meant by what he taught because of apostolic succession. The NT is but a part of Sacred Tradition which the Apostles taught, both by word of mouth and by what they wrote. You know that as well as we do. So, I don’t understand how you can make the claim you did when you declared that we only believe because the Magisterium says so. That’s simply not true, as you very well know.

Either you have the same knowledge everyone does, based on a reasonable examination of the evidence in community guided by the Holy Spirit, or you have a special infallible knowledge assured by the Magisterium. That is what Randy was claiming and that is the only thing I’ arguing against.

Protestants have access to tradition as well, you know.

Edwin

 

[Della]

Either you have the same knowledge everyone does, based on a reasonable examination of the evidence in community guided by the Holy Spirit, or you have a special infallible knowledge assured by the Magisterium. That is what Randy was claiming and that is the only thing I’ arguing against.

Protestants have access to tradition as well, you know.

Edwin

It isn’t the knowledge that the Magisterium alone has access to but the charism of infallibility. Jesus only gave that charism to his Apsotles and their successors, not to all and sundry. And that is what Randy is trying to convey.

 

[Baraq]

The Law of God is written in our hearts, even the Spirit gives us witness. We maintain this truth by our Confessions and Church Government. Our Pastors , elders and deacons confirm this on a local level, whereas our Synods and classes confirm this on regional level.

In the Reformed Church, we have standard confessions, and Biblical methods to correct those who stray from the truth.

 

[Contarini]

Whoa! Hold on here.

I said none of these things. I did say that Protestants acknowledge no infallible Church by which they interpret scripture without error.

Sheesh. All I asked is how you can be sure or your interpretation of scripture?

How can you be sure that the Church is correct? When you ask a question with the phrase “how can you be sure” you are going to come down to epistemology sooner or later. That’s why such questions are a bad idea.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It isn’t the knowledge that the Magisterium alone has access to but the charism of infallibility. Jesus only gave that charism to his Apsotles and their successors, not to all and sundry. And that is what Randy is trying to convey.

And that’s what I’m objecting to, and that’s why your defense of him is beside the point. He seems to be suggesting that without a charism of infallibility one cannot have certainty, and that this lack of certainty is an intolerably bad thing. If he’s not saying this, then I’m at a loss as to what he is saying or what his point might be.

Edwin

 

[mikew262]

I would answer your question with a question. How can Catholics be sure of their understanding of Scripture? You take the word of the Church as to what the correct meaning is, but how do you know that what they tell you is correct? The church claims the guidance of the Holy Spirit but so do “protestants”. Who is right?

There my friend is the million dollar question.

Another possible question is does it really matter as long as a person is sincerely trying to follow God’s word? Only God can be the true judge of that. Maybe the Holy Spirit leads each person differently. Yes, I understand this will bring out the moral relativism critics, however I’m just throwing it out there for discussion.

 

[Contarini]

Let me use an analogy to show why Catholics think this claim is silly.

Let’s say company A and company B both have people who perform math problems, but everyone has a poor ability to do the problems on their own, let say they bat .400.

But, company A thinks it acceptable to use calculators which enables all their employees to get consistent answers all the time, indicating to them that they don’t have to worry about their poor math skills.

Company B doesn’t think calculators are of any benefit despite company A’s results and is frustratred that many people in their company are constantly coming up with conflicting answers.

When company A asserts that company B’s method isn’t the proper approach, company B retorts that company A employees could falter just like company B if they couldn’t find their calculators or if they got a busted calculator, and thus they’re in the exact same boat.

Company A looks the long term results of both companies and doesn’t see how they are in the same boat with Company B at all.

This analogy does not fit what Randy is saying, because Randy did not say “we have a better chance of being right than you do.” He asked how Protestants could be *sure, *implying that there is a kind of certainty about Scripture to which Catholics have access but Catholics do not. I’m simply pointing out that ultimately that certainty rests on the belief in the authority of the Church, which must itself rest on the basis of exactly the same decison-making Protestants Protestants engage in. Ultimately everyone decides these questions by taking in all the evidence and making a complex decision that is simultaneously intellectual and intuitive. You decide this even if you are a cradle Catholic who has always believed firmly in the Church–you are making such a decision implicitly every time you hear an anti-Catholic argument and say reflexively, “That’s nonsense.”

To return to your analogy–Randy’s argument is like someone from company A saying to a member of company B, “You can never be sure you are right, no matter how good your math skills, because you aren’t using our calculators, which have been certified to be incapable of error.” To which the member of company B would reasonably respond, “Even if you guys get much better answers than we do on the whole, it does not follow that every time I do a calculation–even when I multiply 9 by 9 and get 81–I must doubt my results. If you apply that level of skepticism, it would follow that you must also doubt whether you have entered the right information in the first place, and furthermore whether the company that made the calculators was not a fraud.”

Randy is applying an extremely rigorous level of skepticism here, and that skepticism is destructive to his own position. If you want to keep to the argument that Catholicism is better in this regard I will not argue with you. But that doesn’t sound so snappy.

Personal note: I don’t like using calculators because I’m always afraid I will push the wrong buttons. I like to feel the calculation going on in my own head. This may be irrational, but it doesn’t predispose me to accept your analogy!

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

How can you be sure that the Church is correct? When you ask a question with the phrase “how can you be sure” you are going to come down to epistemology sooner or later. That’s why such questions are a bad idea.

Edwin

Again, I simply asked how you can be confident of your interpretation.

Is your silence suggesting that you cannot be certain?

 

[Contarini]

Let’s take a concrete example and explore it. Protestants read the bible carefully and a great many do not find in it that the Eucharist is the actual, real flesh and blood of Christ. Other Protestants do find in the Real Presence in the bible. But I have never heard of a Protestant who read and listened to the teachings of the Church with the same care and did not eventually find in them that the Church teaches that the Eucharist is the actual, real flesh and blood of Christ.

You don’t even need to look for a Protestant–try the Catholic scholar Gary Macy, who has argued among other things that:

1. Lateran IV did not in fact define transubstantiation as a dogma;
2. Before Aquinas, most scholastic theologians understood the Real Presence not to be the sort of thing that could be received (speaking of the actual Body of Christ here, not just the grace of the sacrament) without faith, so that if a mouse ate the Host it would be only eating bread; and therefore
3. Catholic tradition does not mandate transubstantiation as the one way to understand the Real Presence, but Catholics should be open to multiple interpretations.

Now Macy may be full of it, and he is certainly a liberal Catholic, which makes him suspect in the eyes of all on this board. But he is also a scholar who has evidently read the evidence with care and attention, and has come to a conclusion that you would probably find unaceptable.

However, this really doesn’t get to my point. I was not arguing (as some Protestants here are arguing) that having the Magisterium doesn’t help a great deal. I was refuting the very specific argument that Protestants have no way whatever of having a reasonable certainty (i.e., the kind of certainty that Christ promised and that we need to be faithful Christians) about anything taught in Scripture.

The Real Presence is not one of those things that is taught in Scripture with great clarity. I believe it is there, but you do have to bring in a good deal of later interpretation to be certain about it (you have to do far more interpretive work to get a purely symbolic interpretation, but that’s another issue!). However, other things are clearly taught in Scripture, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead. We do not need the Magisterium to tell us that Scripture teaches this. Even though there are some who might argue that Scripture is really speaking metaphorically, or that the resurrection was some kind of ghostly apparition, or whatever, these views are not reasonable interpretations of the text.

Furthermore–back to the Real Presence point–Protestants are not limited to Scripture. Randy knows this because he came up with a pretty good definition of the standard Protestant view of Biblical authority a while ago, and of course there are many Protestants who grant even more to tradition than that (such as myself, though I admit that I’m an extreme case). If you give tradition any kind of voice whatsoever in the interpretation of Scripture, it’s easy to rule out a purely symbolic interpretation (it was BTW in making this argument to Protestant colleagues that I first heard of Macy!).

In short: I am arguing against the specific claim that without the charism of infallibility given to the Church one cannot be certain about *any *interpretation of Scripture. I am not claiming that such a charism has no use or that it does not lead to greater certainty, and I am certainly not arguing that we do not need to draw on the entire span of Christian tradition in order to understand Scripture.

Edwin