Refuting Protestant Argument on Word of God

[garysibio]

We are saved by ‘grace’ through faith ,
Eph.2:8-9 “For it is by grace
you have been saved, through faith-and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9. not by works, so that no one can boast.”

Blessed be the name of the Lord,
jean8

Please reread my comments. I never said that faith does not play a role in our salvation. It does, we cannot be saved without faith as St. Paul says here. However Protestants go farther than this whenthey claim that they are saved by faith alone, something which Scripture specifically denies (James 2:24).

You stopped quoting Ephesians too soon: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:10) The very same faith that St. Paul speaks of in vv 8-9 produces those works. They are works of grace, not works which we do in our own strength but, if we have faith, we will also have these works.

It’s like an incandescent light bulb. When you turn on the electricity (faith), it produces light (salvation) but it also produces heat (works). They are inseperable. You cannot get one without the other. Turn off the faith and you lose both.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

First, I agree it is wrong to label Christ a protestant, but at the same time it would be just as wrong to label Him a Roman Catholic. He was a jew, in fact, He was THE JEW of Jews, perfect in every respect.

Second, when are any of you people going to stop using the silly argument about 35,000 denominations. That is just soooo wrong, you immediately disqualify yourself from being taken serious by any knowledgable Christian. Please read the following article and repent of your gross error.
30000denominations

Taken from the above article last 3 paragraphs

“Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum.”

Me thinks Eric Svendsen is an optimist!

I doubt that many Jews today would still recognize Jesus as being Jewish despite his religious upbringing.

re: number of denominations

The article you linked to was ridiculous. In effect the author quibbles with the definition of denomination used and then redefines it in an attempt to gloss over the inherent divisiveness of Protestantism. His reasoning reminds me of Bill Clinton’s “it depends on what is is.”

The point of the Catholic argument is that, if Protestant theology regarding Scripture and the leading of individuals in its interpretation by the Holy Spirit were true, there should be absolutely no disagreement between individual Protestants whether the disagreements are large or small.

Protestantism claims that the Holy Spirit guides the individual believer with respect to the interpretation of Scripture. If this is true then there must either be absolute agreement among all Protestants or the Holy Spirit is telling some people one thing and other people the opposite. It doesn’t matter if there are 35,000 different Protestant denominations or only two. The fact that there are differences of opinion disproves the Protestant view that individuals are inspired by the Holy Spirit when they interpret the Bible.

In other words you can argue all you want about how much difference is required to make a denomination. You are rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic.

Gary

 

[Protestant101]

The point of the Catholic argument is that, if Protestant theology regarding Scripture and the leading of individuals in its interpretation by the Holy Spirit were true, there should be absolutely no disagreement between individual Protestants whether the disagreements are large or small.

Not true; for the Catholic “argument” is just that - an argument. A polemical one at that. But the Catholic polemic is not fact. The Bible shows the Apostles and others not in 100% agreement all the time; because God leads us all at different rates and ways; therefore it is not so “wrong” for Protestants to not be in agreement all the time.

 

[garysibio]

Not true; for the Catholic “argument” is just that - an argument. A polemical one at that. But the Catholic polemic is not fact. The Bible shows the Apostles and others not in 100% agreement all the time; because God leads us all at different rates and ways; therefore it is not so “wrong” for Protestants to not be in agreement all the time.

It must be nice to just arbitrarily dismiss the evidence against you and make up your own facts as you go along. It’s so much easier than having to actually defend what you believe. There were no doctrinal differences between the apostles. Sts. Peter and Paul had a disagreement over the former’s behavior but that is not a doctrinal difference.

During His agony in the garden the night before He was crucified Jesus prayed to the Father that His followers might be one just as He and the Father were one. (John 17:22). Do you think there are doctrinal differences between Jesus and the Father?

There is only one truth. You have the choice of embracing it or rejecting it. Changing it is not an option. You are preaching relativism by saying that different beliefs are equally valid. They are not.

Gary

 

[sandusky]

garysibio:

The point of the Catholic argument is that, if Protestant theology regarding Scripture and the leading of individuals in its interpretation by the Holy Spirit were true, there should be absolutely no disagreement between individual Protestants whether the disagreements are large or small.

ISTM you are saying that the standard of proof for the one true church of Jesus Christ is absolute agreement on all points of said church’s teaching.

Absolute agreement on teaching being the measure of the one true church would certainly rule out the Catholic church as being the one true church, wouldn’t it?

…The fact that there are differences of opinion disproves the Protestant view that individuals are inspired by the Holy Spirit when they interpret the Bible

That’s an interesting, unsupported assertion.

 

[garysibio]

ISTM you are saying that the standard of proof for the one true church of Jesus Christ is absolute agreement on all points of said church’s teaching.

Absolute agreement on teaching being the measure of the one true church would certainly rule out the Catholic church as being the one true church, wouldn’t it?

I am not saying that we know the RCC is the true church because all Catholics are in agreement and all Protestants are not. There are dissidents within the ranks of the Catholic Church who disagree with its teachings. However there is a big difference between that and Protestantism. It is one of the basic premises of Protestantism that the individual interprets Scripture, supposedly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and arrives at the truth. Your interpretation is just as valid as anyone else’s. In Catholicism, however, the Magisterium alone is guaranteed the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We can opt to submit ourselves to that teaching thereby submitting ourselves to the authority of the Holy Spirit or we can reject the teaching and, thereby, reject the teaching of the Holy Spirit. (I’m speaking of defined dogmas here.) Dissenting opinions are heresy rather than just being another opinion.

BTW, this is not why I believe the RCC is the true church. I believe that because the RCC was founded by Jesus Christ. None of the Protestants denominations existed until the 16th century and cannot make this claim.

That’s an interesting, unsupported assertion.

So you believe that the Holy Spirit can tell one believer that once you’re saved you’re always saved and another believer that you can lose your salvation. There are, after all, sincere believers who honestly believe that they were led to those different conclusions by the Holy Spirit. Obviously, they can’t both be right.

Gary

 

[GJx86]

ISTM you are saying that the standard of proof for the one true church of Jesus Christ is absolute agreement on all points of said church’s teaching.

No, the standard of proof for the one true church of Jesus Christ is the ability to show that the lineage of that church can be traced all the way back to Christ and the Apostles. The fact that not all Catholics agree with the doctrine the Church has established doesn’t mean that the Church doesn’t have the authority to establish doctrine or that the doctrine it has established is false.

Absolute agreement on teaching being the measure of the one true church would certainly rule out the Catholic church as being the one true church, wouldn’t it?

Absolute agreement isn’t useful for proving who has the truth. It does show that we can’t reliably come to that truth just by reading the Bible and interpreting it on our own. The Bible clearly admits of multiple plausible interpretations of certain passages; if it didn’t, we wouldn’t be able to have intelligent people study it for years and come to different conclusions about what it teaches.

The fact that some Catholics disagree with authoritative Church teaching doesn’t diminish the authority of the Church. It means those Catholics are in error. And we can say that because the Church’s authority came from Christ, not from the democratic agreement of all Catholics.

 

[sandusky]

garysibio:

I am not saying that we know the RCC is the true church because all Catholics are in agreement and all Protestants are not.

I know that’s not the reason you believe the Catholic church is the true church, because it couldn’t be the true church if the measure of the true church were absolute agreement; however, you are certain Protestant churches are not true churches because they lack absolute agreement on points—that’s a double standard; isn’t it?

garysibio:

There are dissidents within the ranks of the Catholic Church who disagree with its teachings. However there is a big difference between that and Protestantism.

So your assertion is that disagreement within the Catholic church is fine, and those disagreements neither harm, nor do they destroy the Catholic church’s claim of being the one true church; however, disagreements within Protestant churches are the indicator that they are not true churches? More double standard?

garysibio:

It is one of the basic premises of Protestantism that the individual interprets Scripture, supposedly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and arrives at the truth. Your interpretation is just as valid as anyone else’s.

(That’s a strawman). Be that as it may, aren’t those dissidents within the Catholic church doing the very same thing that you are accusing protestants of doing; namely, they are claiming the guidance of the HS to arrive at the truth, and disagreeing with the Catholic church because they believe that their interpretation is "just as valid as anyone else’s?" Another double standard?

garysibio:

In Catholicism, however, the Magisterium alone is guaranteed the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We can opt to submit ourselves to that teaching thereby submitting ourselves to the authority of the Holy Spirit or we can reject the teaching and, thereby, reject the teaching of the Holy Spirit. (I’m speaking of defined dogmas here.) Dissenting opinions are heresy rather than just being another opinion.

That’s within the Catholic community.

Within the biblical, apostolic community, God has gifted the members of Christ’s body with certain gifts specific to the individual members (1 Cor 12ff). Furthermore, for the members of that body, God states that he has sent not only men gifted to teach, but His Spirit, who, dwelling within each member, is teaching them individually as well (1 Jn 2:20, 26, 27; 1 Cor 2:12;
1 Thess 4:9).

garysibio:

BTW, this is not why I believe the RCC is the true church. I believe that because the RCC was founded by Jesus Christ. None of the Protestants denominations existed until the 16th century and cannot make this claim.

Not true; the roots of my faith flow forward from the apostles, through your church, through the reformation, and into the present.

…The fact that there are differences of opinion disproves the Protestant view that individuals are inspired by the Holy Spirit when they interpret the Bible.

How so?

 

[sandusky]

GJx86:

The fact that some Catholics disagree with authoritative Church teaching doesn’t diminish the authority of the Church. It means those Catholics are in error. And we can say that because the Church’s authority came from Christ, not from the democratic agreement of all Catholics.

Does the fact of their disagreement diminish the authority, and the truth of the Bible’s teaching, or, are they in error on that as well?

 

[GJx86]

Does the fact of their disagreement diminish the authority, and the truth of the Bible’s teaching, or, are they in error on that as well?

Are you talking about the divisions in Protestantism?

What if two disagreeing teachings are equally defensible from the text of Scripture?

If you aren’t talking about those divisions, what are you getting at?

 

[sandusky]

GXj86:

Are you talking about the divisions in Protestantism?

No. I’m talking about your post, and the divisions in Catholicism that you speak of in that post:

The fact that some Catholics disagree with authoritative Church teaching doesn’t diminish the authority of the Church. It means those Catholics are in error. And we can say that because the Church’s authority came from Christ, not from the democratic agreement of all Catholics.

Do their disagreements diminish the authority, and the truth contained in the Bible?

 

[GJx86]

No. I’m talking about your post, and the divisions in Catholicism that you speak of in that posto their disagreements diminish the authority, and the truth contained in the Bible?

No. Why would they? If a teaching is infallible, then rejecting it means you’re wrong, not the infallible teaching. It doesn’t matter where the infallible teaching came from.

I feel like I’m just missing something obvious here. Thanks for your patience.

 

[GJx86]

So your assertion is that disagreement within the Catholic church is fine, and those disagreements neither harm, nor do they destroy the Catholic church’s claim of being the one true church; however, disagreements within Protestant churches are the indicator that they are not true churches? More double standard?

While I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth, this is the point I was originally trying to respond to, because to my mind, this isn’t the argument being made.

The “33,000 denominations” argument aims at this line of reasoning:

1. God instituted one church (Mt 16) with one faith (Eph 4) and desires that we all be one (Jn 17).
2. Because this is God’s will, God cannot teach us about Himself in a way that admits of multiple, equally plausible sets of doctrine.
3. Sola scriptura says that the Bible is the only way that God infallibly teaches about Himself.
4. But using the Bible alone, we can come to multiple sets of doctrine, each equally supported by Scripture, with no other way to distinguish between them – witness the many disagreeing schools of Protestant thought.
5. Thus, by (2) and (4), the Bible cannot be the only way God teaches us about Himself, so sola scriptura is not an acceptable rule of faith.

You could potentially extend this argument by saying that (5) implies that anyone who subscribes to sola scriptura is not doing what God wants, since God couldn’t have wanted sola scriptura.

All this aims to prove is that sola scriptura isn’t a plausible method for learning about God. Some other authority must be necessary. The question of whether that authority lies in the Catholic Church is entirely separate from this line of reasoning.

This is to be distinguished from dissenting on issues where there is no infallible teaching at all, such as speculation on Limbo or whether Mary died before being assumed into heaven. God can’t logically expect us to agree on things that haven’t been infallibly revealed to us yet. (sandusky, I think this may be the point you were getting at. Disagreeing speculation is fine. Disagreeing infallible teaching is not, and sola scriptura lets two people walk up to the Bible and come away with disagreeing infallible teachings.)

We can’t have a situation where (for example) Edgar and Frank read John 6, respectively take it symbolically and literally, start two churches over it, and then claim that both churches are equally right about their interpretation. God can only have meant that passage one way. A system that allows people to hold different interpretations of an existing teaching and be equally right can’t be the one that God devised.

 

[sandusky]

GXj86:

God instituted one church (Mt 16) with one faith (Eph 4) and desires that we all be one (Jn 17).

And as Eph 4 states, His true church is perfectly united, worldwide, presently; as Christ prays (Jn 17), so the Father always answers His prayers.
GXj86:

Because this is God’s will, God cannot teach us about Himself in a way that admits of multiple, equally plausible sets of doctrine.

No argument there. There is only one truth, and that’s God’s truth.
GXj86:

But using the Bible alone, we can come to multiple sets of doctrine, each equally supported by Scripture, with no other way to distinguish between them – witness the many disagreeing schools of Protestant thought.

That doesn’t diminish the authority of the Bible, and the truth of its message.

Moreover, the dilemma you mention—multiple sets of doctrines coming from multiple Bible only churches—occurs in churches that subscribe to the Bible + Tradition as well; isn’t that correct?

Therefore, following your line of thought, one could invoke your extended point #5, and know that God could not have wanted the Bible + Tradition form of church either.
GXj86:

All this aims to prove is that sola scriptura isn’t a plausible method for learning about God. Some other authority must be necessary.

Neither would it seem, as I’ve pointed out, while following your reasoning, that the Bible + Tradition church isn’t a plausible method for learning about God either.
GXj86:

We can’t have a situation where (for example) Edgar and Frank read John 6, respectively take it symbolically and literally, start two churches over it, and then claim that both churches are equally right about their interpretation.

You say we can’t have that, but we do.
GXj86:

God can only have meant that passage (Jn 6), one way. A system that allows people to hold different interpretations of an existing teaching and be equally right can’t be the one that God devised.

Correct; and that is the subject of another thread, and it has been argued on this forum ad nauseam; however, IMO, my interpretation of that passage is the correct interpretation.

 

[po18guy]

It must be nice to just arbitrarily dismiss the evidence against you and make up your own facts as you go along. It’s so much easier than having to actually defend what you believe. There were no doctrinal differences between the apostles. Sts. Peter and Paul had a disagreement over the former’s behavior but that is not a doctrinal difference.

During His agony in the garden the night before He was crucified Jesus prayed to the Father that His followers might be one just as He and the Father were one. (John 17:22). Do you think there are doctrinal differences between Jesus and the Father?

There is only one truth. You have the choice of embracing it or rejecting it. Changing it is not an option. You are preaching relativism by saying that different beliefs are equally valid. They are not.

Gary

Amen once again. The Seventh Day Adventist church, the source of this line of thought, has always had an absolute anti-Catholic teaching. They are beginning to soft-peddle this somewhat, but the essence remains, as can be seen in these forums. Of the three adventist religions (Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist), they remain the only true Christians, and share much with Catholic belief. However, there are also some very unusual tenets of their faith as well.

Their core belief is that the Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon” and that the Pope is the antichrist. This was the teaching of Ellen Gould White, their founder, a rather controversial figure in her own right. Nevertheless, our contentious brother in Christ is nominally Protestant, but absolutely Adventist. They use the edited Lutheran bible, but believe and practice much different from Luther.

Again, further division is the lamentable product of the reformation.

 

[po18guy]

That doesn’t diminish the authority of the Bible, and the truth of its message.

I wonder where the bible get its authority? From itself? Then, we should worship it. Rather, only God has the Authority, and He vested it in His church. The Book is words, but the Word is not a Book. The Word is Christ. A few of His words are recorded in the Book. Is this all you want of Christ? Can’t you imagine that there is more to Christ than the few things he did that are written in the bible? You cannot avoid John 20:30 or John 21:25. After all, they’re in the bible.

Therefore, following your line of thought, one could invoke your extended point #5, and know that God could not have wanted the Bible + Tradition form of church either.

Interesting point! But not the one you think. Since Christ taught using the oral tradition, and told His disciples to do the same, is it not easily arguable that the Oral Tradition was the only method He intended? Live teaching is not easily misinterpreted, as the teacher can correct mistakes in perception. This imitates Christ. Written words are easily misinterpreted, since they completely lack the human qualities of the spoken word.

Secular example: why do college professors lecture? They could just hand out their book and everyone would know the same thing with complete understanding, right? Not! The written word is not as clear as the spoken word. That is entirely obvious from various forums, where the intent of certain posts is interpreted incorrectly.

Neither would it seem, as I’ve pointed out, while following your reasoning, that the Bible + Tradition church isn’t a plausible method for learning about God either.

As uncomfortable as it is to accept, this was the perfect method chosen by Christ, Who read from Sacred Scrolls and taught orally. It is the perfect method of those whom Christ chose. “Bible only” is the imperfect method instituted by those who chose themselves.

IMO, my interpretation of that passage is the correct interpretation.

You have just formed your own personal church, by interpreting scripture in the most easily accepted form. This is exactly what those in John 6:66 did. Bummer of a verse, huh? What He said was hard, so they left Him and returned to something they found more comfortable. As with so many today, they loved the concept of Christ. It was Christ’s reality they had problems with.

If it is that easy to follow Christ, is it really Christ we are following?

 

[Joanna_Ionescu]

A “most likely” proves nothing about the book of John, as you suggest; but again; Protestants have always existed; Jesus Himself was a Protestant; Catholics were never “first.” Jesus’s promise to “the Church” is not denominationally intended. Your so-called “1500 years of history” only proves a progressive development of, not a continuation of doctrine.

This is extremely obscure for me. I need clarification please. Could you define the following orderly and coherently:

1. Protestant.
2. progressive development
3. continuation of doctrine.

I find that a lot of misunderstandings are generated by the fact that terms, notions, concepts are understood very differently. So, meaning is crucial and therefore it must be clarified. Also, is there any meaning in capital P versus small p, i.e. Protestant versus protestant?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Hi! Please help me. I am Catholic. I told a Baptist relative that the Church came before the Bible, because the Bible was put together by the Church. Then he cleverly responded that the Bible is God’s Word, and thus existed before the Church, because the book of John indicates: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Therefore, he says, the Bible came before the Church.

I already pointed him to the pillar of truth bible verse, but how do I refute this argument? (Besids pointing again to 1 Tim 3:15).

Thanks and God Bless you eternally.

Hiedi

You might be interested in listening to “Which Came First, the Church or the Bible?” which is the last link listed on this page. It’s free.

 

[GJx86]

You say we can’t have that, but we do.

Either Jesus meant that we have to actually eat His flesh and drink His blood, or He didn’t mean that. Regardless of what He actually meant, these positions contradict each other, so how can we say that they’re equally correct?

Neither would it seem, as I’ve pointed out, while following your reasoning, that the Bible + Tradition church is a plausible method for learning about God either.

As you say, there is room for disagreement both with and without Tradition. I erred in my original argument by failing to make clear why I think disagreement is acceptable when Tradition is present but unacceptable when Scripture alone is in use. Let me try to draw that distinction here; hopefully this will clarify what I had in mind without contradicting my previous statements.

The problem with disagreements that arise from sola scriptura is that there’s never any way to resolve them: If there are two contradictory, but plausible, interpretations of a passage, we have no way of knowing which one is correct and which is not. Since God’s not writing any more Scripture to help us out, these plausible disagreements are areas where God has made it impossible to be certain about His teaching. The concept of God saying, “There’s an important theological truth here, but I’m not going to let you figure out what it is,” bothers me. Why would God simultaneously want us to come to know Him and not provide us with the means to reliably do so?

Combining Scripture and Tradition avoids this problem by allowing us a way to determine what God actually meant. Tradition gives us a living authority, equal to the Bible, that is capable of defining doctrine to settle these disagreements. John 6, taken by itself, may be ambiguous, but if an infallible authority clarifies it by saying Jesus was speaking literally (or by teaching something that demands this view), then the matter is settled. Tradition and Church authority give God a way to clarify His existing teachings so that we can come to know Him better.

So, the short version: With the Bible alone, I have no way of being certain any one of my possibly-false beliefs is correct, and I will never have any way of gaining that certainty. With the Bible and Tradition, I can gain that certainty, because the teaching authority of Tradition can clarify things that were previously unclear. Though disagreement is possible, we at least have a way of (eventually) resolving it, which lets us come to know God with certainty. I have to imagine that a God as merciful and benevolent as ours would aim to provide us that certainty rather than forcing us to wallow in doubt.

 

[po18guy]

Either Jesus meant that we have to actually eat His flesh and drink His blood, or He didn’t mean that. Regardless of what He actually meant, these positions contradict each other, so how can we say that they’re equally correct?

As you say, there is room for disagreement both with and without Tradition. I erred in my original argument by failing to make clear why I think disagreement is acceptable when Tradition is present but unacceptable when Scripture alone is in use. Let me try to draw that distinction here; hopefully this will clarify what I had in mind without contradicting my previous statements.

The problem with disagreements that arise from sola scriptura is that there’s never any way to resolve them: If there are two contradictory, but plausible, interpretations of a passage, we have no way of knowing which one is correct and which is not. Since God’s not writing any more Scripture to help us out, these plausible disagreements are areas where God has made it impossible to be certain about His teaching. The concept of God saying, “There’s an important theological truth here, but I’m not going to let you figure out what it is,” bothers me. Why would God simultaneously want us to come to know Him and not provide us with the means to reliably do so?

Combining Scripture and Tradition avoids this problem by allowing us a way to determine what God actually meant. Tradition gives us a living authority, equal to the Bible, that is capable of defining doctrine to settle these disagreements. John 6, taken by itself, may be ambiguous, but if an infallible authority clarifies it by saying Jesus was speaking literally (or by teaching something that demands this view), then the matter is settled. Tradition and Church authority give God a way to clarify His existing teachings so that we can come to know Him better.

So, the short version: With the Bible alone, I have no way of being certain any one of my possibly-false beliefs is correct, and I will never have any way of gaining that certainty. With the Bible and Tradition, I can gain that certainty, because the teaching authority of Tradition can clarify things that were previously unclear. Though disagreement is possible, we at least have a way of (eventually) resolving it, which lets us come to know God with certainty. I have to imagine that a God as merciful and benevolent as ours would aim to provide us that certainty rather than forcing us to wallow in doubt.

Amen! Well said.