Weak Arguments

[Classicist]

Friends,

Sometimes we use pretty lame points to defend the Faith. Here are a few that I found particularly unconvincing as a protestant:

1. Clement, bishop of Rome, wrote authoritatively to Corinth as Pope. This is a non-argument, because the First Epistle of Clement does not actually have the name “Clement” in it. It could easily have been written by the priests of Rome (as in some letters to St. Cyprian of Carthage).
2. The 33 000 protestant denominations prove protestantism is a chaotic mess, and therefore Catholicism is right. This is a category mistake made out of ignorance of the Survey on which the claim is based. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church and the 22 sui iuiris eastern churches are part of that list of Christian denominations! We cannot establish our own Church’s authority over against the 33 000 in that list, because we’re considered part of the list itself. Protestants see us as just another claimant among the 33 000.
3. Peter spoke first at Acts 15, and showed his papal authority. Though Peter spoke first, it is not clear that he presided. The Apostle James closed the Council and made the definitive statement of the Council about doctrine and practice.

Can we please begin to realize that some apologetic arguments are very weak, and should not be used? They’re just not convincing. Let’s try to hash a few more out, and understand better ones. We have them, but they’re not used as often as they ought to be.

 

[bzkoss236]

1. The 33 000 protestant denominations prove protestantism is a chaotic mess, and therefore Catholicism is right. This is a category mistake made out of ignorance of the Survey on which the claim is based. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church and the 22 sui iuiris eastern churches are part of that list of Christian denominations! We cannot establish our own Church’s authority over against the 33 000 in that list, because we’re considered part of the list itself. Protestants see us as just another claimant among the 33 000.

Not necessarily. The Eastern Catholic churches are still very much Catholic. The only difference is how we celebrate, not what we believe. But, the various protestant denominations have differences here and there as to what they believe and some change their beliefs over time depending on their personal interpretation of the bible, where the Catholic Church hasn’t change Her doctrine ever, only better defined it.

 

[Classicist]

Not necessarily. The Eastern Catholic churches are still very much Catholic. The only difference is how we celebrate, not what we believe. But, the various protestant denominations have differences here and there as to what they believe and some change their beliefs over time depending on their personal interpretation of the bible, where the Catholic Church hasn’t change Her doctrine ever, only better defined it.

That’s not the point, friend. The survey which produced the 33 000 number was simply a tally of Christian denominations. Differences in theology were not accounted for. Rome was included with the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, and others. It’s not in our favour or against us.

 

[St_Nephi]

Not necessarily. The Eastern Catholic churches are still very much Catholic. The only difference is how we celebrate, not what we believe. But, the various protestant denominations have differences here and there as to what they believe and some change their beliefs over time depending on their personal interpretation of the bible, where the Catholic Church hasn’t change Her doctrine ever, only better defined it.

I believe the OP is pointing out the fact that the oft cited “list” of Protestant Denominations of some 33,000 sects includes the various sui iuris Catholic churches as individual churches, in the same manner that they include many “Protestant” churches as individual churches, and so this list needs to be more highly scrutinized. Indeed, one will see that this lists each and every individual national Anglican church as an independent church despite the fact that they are all in communion with one another in the same manner that each Catholic church is in communion with one another. It also lists many of the Eastern Orthodox churches as individual nationalistic churches, despite their common communion.

 

[rcwitness]

I’ll adress just one, Acts 15
I think Peter does use, specifically, his authority among the apostles. He clearly states,“Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believel…”

This is the decission of the Lord, that Peter is affirming to the rest of the brethren. This was not contradicted by James, but acknowledged! He then added a plan with specific intentions in carrying out this decision established by the council.

I think your result of thinking James had final authority is a problem with thinking Peter and his papal office is more than what it actually is. See, the other apostles were not useless at the council they didn’t come together just to hear what Peter told them to do. They went to discuss and bring together the issues at hand. When things get bound up, when there are many different voices, when everyone has not concluded the final stance, this is why Peter, in his position, is established. He is the only one who must agree, if present. Other individuals can be outnumbered and submit. But Peter must be on board. This was the case of this council. James was not doing anything over and above that. He was excercizing his judgment and wisdom on the matter decided.
But maybe your point would be that it is not a proof text…? That would be true. In the end, as protestant spirit has shown, is that there is never proof text for any doctrine.

As for the other two,
I’m not studied on the letter from Clement. You may have a point…?

The 33,000 denominations is a testament of division any way you slice it (no pun intd). There is some truth in what you say about “some” division in the 22. I would look at that more of “factions among you” that Paul acknowledged are understandable and inevitable…?

My thoughts,
Michael

 

[MidnightSun12]

That’s not the point, friend. The survey which produced the 33 000 number was simply a tally of Christian denominations. Differences in theology were not accounted for. Rome was included with the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, and others. It’s not in our favour or against us.

I think the take-away point is that there are multiple protestant denominations that believe in Sola Scriptura but have differing views on scripture. While this number may not be anywhere near 33,000, the fact that there is more then 1 protestant denomination with differing views on theology actually proves the point.

It is clear that scripture does not interpret itself and, in fact, needs an appointed body which has been given authority over its interpretation (just like how we have courts which have been given the authority to interpret the law rather then the government handing citizens statute law and telling them to figure it out themselves). Scripture was compiled for the Catholic Church and the Church was given authority over its interpretation.

 

[kwortham]

Let us take the OP’s #1 point to its logical conclusion. In so doing we will cast out most of the New Testament.

 

[rcwitness]

Let us take the OP’s #1 point to its logical conclusion. In so doing we will cast out most of the New Testament.

Perhaps, I think you have a good point to support “some” credibility.

But the whole point of the authority of the bishop of Rome depends on the author, if we are using the letter to support. So, I think its quite different than comparing it to the Canonned scriptures. Meaning, if the books of the NT whose authors are questionable were found to be of different authors than supposed, they would still be infallible.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t use the 33,000 denominations argument; I just use the fact that among Protestants who supposedly rely on the Bible for their teachings, there are several views about Baptism: some think it saves, some think it’s symbolic, some think it’s unnecessary; some think it only “takes” for adults, some think younger people can be baptized, and some think one needs to be re-baptized while others think it only is necessary once…

To me, it is quite obvious from that that one cannot rely solely on the Bible!

 

[kwortham]

Perhaps, I think you have a good point to support “some” credibility.

But the whole point of the authority of the bishop of Rome depends on the author, if we are using the letter to support. So, I think its quite different than comparing it to the Canonned scriptures. Meaning, if the books of the NT whose authors are questionable were found to be of different authors than supposed, they would still be infallible.

The OP said that the 1st Clement letter was questionable, because Pope Saint Clement did not refer to his name in the letter. By the same token and using the same argument, Hebrews should be rejected, among others, because it does not have the authors name inside of the letter.

Now, we know that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church selected Hebrews for canonization. That does not mean that the letter of Saint Clement of Rome was not correct, nor written by Clement or binding on the Corinthians. It only means that it was not selected as was the case with many other great writings.

 

[dmar198]

Friends,

Sometimes we use pretty lame points to defend the Faith. Here are a few that I found particularly unconvincing as a protestant:

1. Clement, bishop of Rome, wrote authoritatively to Corinth as Pope. This is a non-argument, because the First Epistle of Clement does not actually have the name “Clement” in it. It could easily have been written by the priests of Rome (as in some letters to St. Cyprian of Carthage).
2. The 33 000 protestant denominations prove protestantism is a chaotic mess, and therefore Catholicism is right. This is a category mistake made out of ignorance of the Survey on which the claim is based. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church and the 22 sui iuiris eastern churches are part of that list of Christian denominations! We cannot establish our own Church’s authority over against the 33 000 in that list, because we’re considered part of the list itself. Protestants see us as just another claimant among the 33 000.
3. Peter spoke first at Acts 15, and showed his papal authority. Though Peter spoke first, it is not clear that he presided. The Apostle James closed the Council and made the definitive statement of the Council about doctrine and practice.

Can we please begin to realize that some apologetic arguments are very weak, and should not be used? They’re just not convincing. Let’s try to hash a few more out, and understand better ones. We have them, but they’re not used as often as they ought to be.

I appreciate the concern to avoid using bad arguments and logical fallacies, but we also must be careful not to cast out arguments without being very sure they are fallacious. In various ways, all three of your arguments can be salvaged if presented in proper form.

1. The Epistle of Clement has two points that help salvage it. The first is that it doesn’t have to have been written by Clement alone at all. Even if other Roman priests cooperated in its composition, it still shows, through its content and its historical context, that Rome was the chief Church, and it would follow that its bishop was the chief bishop. The fact that the Greek Corinthians (an Eastern church) appealed to the Western Romans to solve their problems, especially when one of the Apostles was still alive, indicates that Church’s authority. So does the language used in it; e.g., he says at one point that they will be sinning if they do not listen to this epistle, which is a claim to a sovereign spiritual authority. There is also the fact that the Epistle was received with so much authority that it was subsequently read in the Church liturgically, as we learn from other Church Fathers. All of that indicates the degree of authority of the Roman Church, and by extension, the Bishop of Rome. Another point I would make about it is that the content of the letter itself indicates that Rome had one bishop. There is a part in the letter where the author refers to Church structure, and he indicates that it was the lay people, under priests, with a “high priest” over them all, and the context indicates that this was not meant to be Jesus, but the local bishop. This indicates that this was the structure the Roman Church had, because the author would not have talked about that structure if that wasn’t the structure he was familiar with.
2. The 33,000 denominations is an endemic part of Protestantism due to its embrace of sola scriptura, which always leads to a “me and the Bible, out under a tree” attitude. THe number may be inflated by poor census procedure, but after you hit 10,000 it makes no difference how much bigger you go: it still shows that sola scriptura has failed.
3. Peter made the authoritative decision and James merely said that they should agree with it. If the pope made a statement in council today, and another bishop stood up and said, “I agree with Francis,” no one would say, “Aha! See? Pope Francis doesn’t have the authority, the guy who spoke after him does!” It is silly to apply that standard to the Acts 15 council, especially when we have explicit testimony from Peter that he was the mouthpiece of God chosen for the purpose of solving that dispute. That is an explicit claim to divine authority that he expected the others to submit to. It indicates his leadership and his infallibility both at once.

 

[rcwitness]

There is a part in the letter where the author refers to Church structure, and he indicates that it was the lay people, under priests, with a “high priest” over them all, and the context indicates that this was not meant to be Jesus, but the local bishop. This indicates that this was the structure the Roman Church had, because the author would not have talked about that structure if that wasn’t the structure he was familiar with.

I would be carefull making that interpretation! I am pretty certain, the Roman Catholic Church does NOT describe the Pope as “high priest”. If they did, I would seriously consider it heresy.

Michael

 

[dmar198]

I would be carefull making that interpretation! I am pretty certain, the Roman Catholic Church does NOT describe the Pope as “high priest”. If they did, I would seriously consider it heresy.

Michael

Very many of the Church Fathers use the term “high priest” for the local bishop and “priest” for the parish priest. In some ways it is meant metaphorically, just adopting an Old Testament term for a local situation. But in the deeper sense the bishop is the high priest of your local Church, because he is Alter Christus. CCC 1586 calls the bishop a “high priest.”

 

[Classicist]

I appreciate the concern to avoid using bad arguments and logical fallacies, but we also must be careful not to cast out arguments without being very sure they are fallacious. In various ways, all three of your arguments can be salvaged if presented in proper form…

Excellent point about 1 Clement.

1. The 33,000 denominations is an endemic part of Protestantism due to its embrace of sola scriptura, which always leads to a “me and the Bible, out under a tree” attitude. THe number may be inflated by poor census procedure, but after you hit 10,000 it makes no difference how much bigger you go: it still shows that sola scriptura has failed.

The point is that Rome itself is included in the 33 000 number. There are 33 000+ Christian denominations, one of which is the Roman Church. To put all Protestants into that list, but not ourselves, is to allow that we are not Christians! The fact is that out of 33 000 Christian denominations, we are just one which claims sovereign authority - the eastern Orthodox denominations claim the same, and the Presbyterians claim to be 100% right in their own way. To an outsider, an atheist, we’re all the same.

Also, by the logic of “many different denominations professing sola scriptura = sola scriptura is meaningless”, can’t we say that all the schisms since 1517 are Rome’s fault? She is the Church out of which the Lutherans and Anglicans ran, just as the Lutherans are the church out of which the Anabaptists ran, and the Anglicans are the church out of which the Puritans ran. If we must blame a Protestant ‘church’ for the schism of her members, then we must consistently blame ourselves for the Protestant schisms! That’s ridiculous, however… so, how do we use the number of denominations to our advantage? It seems difficult.

1. Peter made the authoritative decision and James merely said that they should agree with it. If the pope made a statement in council today, and another bishop stood up and said, “I agree with Francis,” no one would say, “Aha! See? Pope Francis doesn’t have the authority, the guy who spoke after him does!” It is silly to apply that standard to the Acts 15 council, especially when we have explicit testimony from Peter that he was the mouthpiece of God chosen for the purpose of solving that dispute. That is an explicit claim to divine authority that he expected the others to submit to. It indicates his leadership and his infallibility both at once.

Peter certainly did not make the authoritative decision. How do you arrive at that conclusion? James speaks, and gives the decree on strangled-animals, blood, and other things. The Council ends when everyone begins agreeing with James.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

I just wanted to add that if you look at the Jewish Encyclopedia on the sanhedrin (which was likely the model for the first Apostolic Council).

"When a question was raised and a member of the college declared that he was in possession of a tradition according to which the question might be decided, such tradition was decisive. When no member knew of any tradition relating to the question at issue, discussion followed and a ballot was taken (Tosef., Sanh. vii. 1). "

I see Peter giving us that decisive tradition in Acts.

 

[St_Francis]

Excellent point about 1 Clement.

The point is that Rome itself is included in the 33 000 number. There are 33 000+ Christian denominations, one of which is the Roman Church. To put all Protestants into that list, but not ourselves, is to allow that we are not Christians! The fact is that out of 33 000 Christian denominations, we are just one which claims sovereign authority - the eastern Orthodox denominations claim the same, and the Presbyterians claim to be 100% right in their own way. To an outsider, an atheist, we’re all the same.

In actuality, the Catholic Church is counted many times in the 33,000 number, because they counted each diocese as a separate church. Same for the Anglicans.

This really onlly works in context, tho, not as a stand-alone argument.

Also, by the logic of “many different denominations professing sola scriptura = sola scriptura is meaningless”, can’t we say that all the schisms since 1517 are Rome’s fault? She is the Church out of which the Lutherans and Anglicans ran, just as the Lutherans are the church out of which the Anabaptists ran, and the Anglicans are the church out of which the Puritans ran. If we must blame a Protestant ‘church’ for the schism of her members, then we must consistently blame ourselves for the Protestant schisms! That’s ridiculous, however… so, how do we use the number of denominations to our advantage? It seems difficult.

Peter certainly did not make the authoritative decision. How do you arrive at that conclusion? James speaks, and gives the decree on strangled-animals, blood, and other things. The Council ends when everyone begins agreeing with James.

 

[dmar198]

Excellent point about 1 Clement.

Thanks.

The point is that Rome itself is included in the 33 000 number. There are 33 000+ Christian denominations, one of which is the Roman Church. To put all Protestants into that list, but not ourselves, is to allow that we are not Christians! The fact is that out of 33 000 Christian denominations, we are just one which claims sovereign authority - the eastern Orthodox denominations claim the same, and the Presbyterians claim to be 100% right in their own way. To an outsider, an atheist, we’re all the same.

Well, yes, to an atheist we’re all the same, and I see what you mean there. But one important thing to bring up, even to an atheist, is that the denomination explosion came from embracing sola scriptura, which Catholics and the Eastern churches are immune to. The denomination explosion is not a problem with Christianity, it’s a problem with sola scriptura. If you prove that point by argument, an atheist can see why it’s not a problem for Catholics but is a problem for Protestants, and he should be able to appreciate why they are different in this regard. (Eastern Orthodox have a similar problem, stemming from placing final authority in the bishops generally without a “head bishop.” If you’d like to read more about it, click here.)

Also, by the logic of “many different denominations professing sola scriptura = sola scriptura is meaningless”, can’t we say that all the schisms since 1517 are Rome’s fault? She is the Church out of which the Lutherans and Anglicans ran, just as the Lutherans are the church out of which the Anabaptists ran, and the Anglicans are the church out of which the Puritans ran.

They didn’t run out of Church by embracing some aspect of its teaching, but by embracing a new doctrine, sola scriptura. The Anabaptists, on the other hand, left Lutheranism by embracing sola scriptura for themselves. “Just us and our bibles,” they said, “and we don’t need you Lutherans.” But the Lutherans set the precedent by doing that themselves. What that should show us is that sola scriptura is illogical, but it doesn’t prove anything about Catholicism because Catholicism doesn’t share that doctrine.

If we must blame a Protestant ‘church’ for the schism of her members, then we must consistently blame ourselves for the Protestant schisms!

Nope, because we don’t embrace the thing that caused those schisms, that was sola scriptura’s fault, and we repudiated that from the beginning.

That’s ridiculous, however… so, how do we use the number of denominations to our advantage? It seems difficult.

I hope the above analysis helps you see why that argument still works to our advantage, when the blame is placed at the feet of sola scriptura and when that finger-pointing is justified by argument. (Because of course just asserting it proves nothing.)

Peter certainly did not make the authoritative decision. How do you arrive at that conclusion? James speaks, and gives the decree on strangled-animals, blood, and other things. The Council ends when everyone begins agreeing with James.

James proposed what they should do now that the question was solved. But as far as solving the question goes, he constantly pointed to authorities outside of himself: Peter in verse 14 and the Scriptures in verse 15. His proposal that they write a letter declaring the rules for gentiles was not based on his own authority. Peter was the only one who claimed authority to decide the matter in verses 7-11, saying that Jesus had chosen him to be God’s mouthpiece to the Gentiles, and after that everything was just listening to people explain God’s work among the Gentiles (verse 12) and James saying that Peter and the Scriptures agree, therefore let’s write a letter about it (verse 13 to 30). To me, the whole thing shows quite clearly that Peter claimed authority to make the decision in verse 7, and James and the others agreed and decided it would be best to proclaim it in a letter. You’ll notice that before Peter speaks there is wide disagreement (verse 7); but after he speaks there is no mention of anyone disagreeing. That suggests that Peter’s authoritative speech solved the issue.

 

[Bballer32]

1. Clement, bishop of Rome, wrote authoritatively to Corinth as Pope. This is a non-argument, because the First Epistle of Clement does not actually have the name “Clement” in it. It could easily have been written by the priests of Rome (as in some letters to St. Cyprian of Carthage).

Actually, this could be a very strong point in the recognition of papal authority. If, as some people claim, this was actually written by Clement, bishop of Rome, it would only make sense that the man in this position would want people to know of his authority, which as some opponents would say that it was a selfish act.

BUT by saying that priests in Rome might of actually wrote these letters to display the papal authority says a lot. If they write displaying the papal authority, then therefore there must of been a first cause or first display of this authority for them to even develop the idea.

Now, obviously there could be counter arguments for this but this is just my :twocents:

 

[arctic197]

I’m strictly speaking within the borders of Christianity.

The Church is not a denomination. Denomination = to remove one’s name. We did not remove a name, any name for that matter. We are Christians then, now, and forever will be because the gates of hell will not prevail over us.

Big difference in church about Jesus and church *actually *built by Jesus

 

[Goya]

Friends,

Sometimes we use pretty lame points to defend the Faith. Here are a few that I found particularly unconvincing as a protestant:

…

1. The 33 000 protestant denominations prove protestantism is a chaotic mess, and therefore Catholicism is right. This is a category mistake made out of ignorance of the Survey on which the claim is based. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church and the 22 sui iuiris eastern churches are part of that list of Christian denominations! We cannot establish our own Church’s authority over against the 33 000 in that list, because we’re considered part of the list itself. Protestants see us as just another claimant among the 33 000.

…

Can we please begin to realize that some apologetic arguments are very weak, and should not be used? They’re just not convincing. Let’s try to hash a few more out, and understand better ones. We have them, but they’re not used as often as they ought to be.

First, re. the 33,000 pro. denoms figure–I recall looking into this issue a few years ago. I do not recall the 33,000 including the Catholic Church, as Catholics were counted as 22 or 23–seperate from the 33,000 count.

Addiontionally, the 33,000 was discredited–as alluded to by a poster above–because each national denomination was considered a distinct denomonition, though in full commuion with others. Hence United Methodists of the US were accounted for as 1, while UM’s of say, England, were accounded for as another.

By the same standard, that would yield some 230+ Catholic Churches.

Howver, when this factor was corrected, the net result (upon recolleciton) was that there wre still 10,000+ denominations (actually, I think I heard one very conservative estimate, at 8,300+…)–vs. 22 Catholic Churches.

The bottom line, the point stands–even using the most conservative number I’ve heard of–8,300+ denominations!

Not 80; not 800. 8,000!!! EIGHT FREAK’N THOUDSAND, THREE HUNDRED, PLUS!!!

It doesn’t need to be 33,000; it doesn’t need to be 23,000; it doesn’t need to be 13,000; 8,000+ is beyond reconcialable with any notion of unity, by the most liberal standards conseivable.

Now, back to Catholicism–22 churches—EACH ONE OF THEM, able to trace their origins to the Apostles, thorugh Apostolic Succession…

…and the degrees of difference are significantly less, than those amongst our seperated brethren…(e.g.–SDA’s vs. Reformed Calvy’s vs. Lutherans vs. Baptists vs. Evangelical fundies…, are far greater than the Eastern Catholic Churches who don’t recognize PI)…

…what’s more, the Roman Catholic Church accounts for more than all other Catholic Churches, AND THE 8,300 (OR 10,000+ OR EVEN 33,000 PROTESTANT EC’s) COMBINED!

1.1 BILLION, IN ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, accross the globe!

Each observing the same sacraments;

Each observing the same MASS;

Each celebrating the same Liturgy;

Each celebrating the same liturgical year!

Each celebrating the Liturgy of the Word, every Sunday–throughout the world, no matter which country, city, or whathaveyou, the same exact readings…every. single. Sunday…and every. single. major Feast Day!

That’s Unity.

---

To your other point–ok, so you mentioned some apologetics you don’t like–FSOA, we’ll just concede this assertion–but then, you referenced some which we could use, but don’t.

Please share these–I’d love to hear what you think they are.