Posing Problems in the Westminster Confession of Faith

[JohnMartin]

As a former Protestant, I'm going to call bull on this.

[One Bad Pig]

Go ahead and tell us all how you know the doctrinal content of the bible when there are so many Protestant denominations around that hold to many divergent doctrines derived from the scriptures.
<snip anti-Protestant screed>

...and every single one of them is convinced that they know the doctrinal content of the bible. You claimed they would say otherwise, which is nonsense.

[JohnMartin]

...and every single one of them is convinced that they know the doctrinal content of the bible. You claimed they would say otherwise, which is nonsense.

You don't know every single one of them is convinced that they know the doctrinal content of the bible. You have only made a statement without evidence. Even if I grant that your statement is true, (which it isn't), you have not answered the problem, because every single Protestant uses the principle of private interpretation. So when confronted with many alternate doctrines within Protestantism, they have to conclude that collectively Protestantism does not know the full doctrinal content of the bible. Some may claim to know the doctrinal content, but that's just another false claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny within Protestantism.

Because of the nature of Protestantism within its intrinsic flaws, wherever Protestantism holds sway over a society for a few centuries, the society will eventually abandon its form of Christianity and fall into secularism. Protestantism is false for the following reasons -



JM

[One Bad Pig]

You don't know every single one of them is convinced that they know the doctrinal content of the bible. You have only made a statement without evidence. Even if I grant that your statement is true, (which it isn't), you have not answered the problem, because every single Protestant uses the principle of private interpretation. So when confronted with many alternate doctrines within Protestantism, they have to conclude that collectively Protestantism does not know the full doctrinal content of the bible. Some may claim to know the doctrinal content, but that's just another false claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny within Protestantism.

<snip yet another anti-Protestant rant which has nothing to do with the topic>

Ah, nice strawman you've constructed there. When confronted with many alternate doctrines within Protestantism, Protestants can respond in various ways. Some doctrines are not considered a matter of salvation, so there is freedom to disagree. They can also point to disagreements within Catholicism (e.g., preterism and futurism were both developed by Catholics, Molinism and double predestination were both developed by Catholics, etc.). Alternatively, they can simply declare that other denominations got it wrong - there is no concern within Protestantism that it needs to be monolithic.

[JohnMartin]

Double imputation is a theory of Calvinism which states

sin that does not lead to death

[JohnMartin]

Ah, nice strawman you've constructed there. When confronted with many alternate doctrines within Protestantism, Protestants can respond in various ways. Some doctrines are not considered a matter of salvation, so there is freedom to disagree. They can also point to disagreements within Catholicism (e.g., preterism and futurism were both developed by Catholics, Molinism and double predestination were both developed by Catholics, etc.). Alternatively, they can simply declare that other denominations got it wrong - there is no concern within Protestantism that it needs to be monolithic.

Hence Protestantism is fundamentally disposed to being agnostic. Your straw man allegation has come back to bight you.

Also your statement about Catohlicism is a red herring because Catholicism has a Magisterium to resolve doctrinal matters and Protestantism does not. If a doctrine is not resolved, then the Catholic is free to beleive, or not as he choses. But when the Magesterium makes a decision on matters of faith the Catohlic must follow from authority.

JM

[One Bad Pig]

Hence Protestantism is fundamentally disposed to being agnostic. Your straw man allegation has come back to bight you.

JM

Try not to confuse your assertions with fact. Catholicism isn't monolithic either. How many Catholics go in for geocentrism these days?

Also your statement about Catohlicism is a red herring because Catholicism has a Magisterium to resolve doctrinal matters and Protestantism does not. If a doctrine is not resolved, then the Catholic is free to beleive, or not as he choses. But when the Magesterium makes a decision on matters of faith the Catohlic must follow from authority.

ETA: And the Protestant will say that he needs no Magisterium, because he's free to decide for himself.

[JohnMartin]

Hence Protestantism is fundamentally disposed to being agnostic. Your straw man allegation has come back to bight you.

JM
Try not to confuse your assertions with fact.

My assertions are fact. They are so fact that even when you deny them, you assert them by implication as shown above.

Catholicism isn't monolithic either. How many Catholics go in for geocentrism these days?

Geostatism is taught by the Magisterium, and found in the OT and the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers. Can geostatism be known as part of the deposit of faith? Yes. Should it be believed? Yes. Can Catholics come to know this truth? Yes. Do Catholics come to know this truth? Yes. Are there many Catholics ignorant of this truth, or have a false understanding of this truth? Yes. The subjective judgments of Catholics does nothing to remove the objective means by which the truth of geostatism can be known.

What of Protestants? No. They routinely ignore this truth in scripture, the fathers and do not have a magisterium to ratify the other two sources. They do have in part an objective means to make a judgment about the truth of geostatism, but more often than not fail to act correctly on that truth, just as they do with many other truths. Consequently Protestantism is quasi humanist and eclectic.

Also your statement about Catholicism is a red herring because Catholicism has a Magisterium to resolve doctrinal matters and Protestantism does not. If a doctrine is not resolved, then the Catholic is free to believe, or not as he chooses. But when the Magesterium makes a decision on matters of faith the Catholic must follow from authority.

ETA: And the Protestant will say that he needs no Magisterium, because he's free to decide for himself.

Which means the Protestant takes the place of the Magisterium and becomes a law unto himself. Hence collectively Protestantism devolves from the apparent certitude of the individual to the real agnosticism of the collective. Hence the apparent certitude is really a real agnosticism, regardless of the subjective opinion of any individual Protestant concerning his position on any particular doctrine.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Hence Protestantism is fundamentally disposed to being agnostic. Your straw man allegation has come back to bight bite you.

What was I thinking?

Also your statement about Catholicism is a red herring because Catholicism has a Magisterium to resolve doctrinal matters and Protestantism does not. If a doctrine is not resolved, then the Catholic is free to believe, or not as he chooses. But when the Magisterium makes a decision on matters of faith the Catholic must follow from authority.

JM

Other corrections as well. Bad morning.

JM

[One Bad Pig]

My assertions are fact. They are so fact that even when you deny them, you assert them by implication as shown above.

Well, alrighty then. I can see there's little use in continuing this.

Ta.

[JohnMartin]

Well, alrighty then. I can see there's little use in continuing this.

Ta.

[hedrick]

[JohnMartin]

False. The recent posts have been aimed at finding problems with the double imputation theory of the Reformation, and problems with the Westminster confession.

This is a Protestant problem. There are only theologians, exegetes and ministers within Protestantism. The theologians and exegetes have no authority and the ministers are not sacramentally ordained, so they too have very little authority. Any doctrine derived from these three ministries is only the opinions of those men who hold to those positions within a denomination. Their opinions are not binding on anyone.

If you look at the data in the OT, there were institutions within Israel to teach doctrine and practice. Similarly, in the NT, the Church has the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:17-19, 18:18). The so called data points to an authoritative Church with powers from God to teach, govern and sanctify the Church. There is no indication within the NT or OT text that a believer is to approach the text and work it all out for himself, or work it all out within a denomination. Quite the contrary, the texts clearly show a Church with the authority from the apostles to make doctrinal and practical decisions, such as at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).

Good point. Start with the Church with the authority to bind and loose, which can trace itself back to the apostles.

This is not just a problem with JohnMartin's version of Catholicism, but also with a lot of conservative Christianity.

Your Protestant Christianity only proves my point that Protestantism has the wrong understanding of the authority and role of the scriptures and its insistence in ignoring the authority God gave the church. Your approach only leads to doctrinal confusion, as a product of your unscriptural and unhistorical method. Protestantism leads to doctrinal anarchy and the modern, apostate secular states we see in the West.

You have simply assumed the data is found in a text and ignored the history of Christian belief. Its as though you think you can work it all out yourself, even though Church histroy shows doctrinal wars were and continue to be fought. You don't stand a chance.

JM

[Roy]

My assertions are fact. They are so fact that even when you deny them, you assert them by implication as shown above.

Thanks. That's much nicer than my current signature.

[Roy]

Do Catholics come to know this truth [geocentrism]? Yes. Are there many Catholics ignorant of this truth, or have a false understanding of this truth? Yes.

So the actual answer to the first question is: Do Catholics come to know this truth? No, they don't.

If they did there wouldn't be so many - 90+%? - who remain 'ignorant' of it.

Yet another JM idea shot down immediately by JM himself.