If Protestantism is true then . . .

[JohnMartin]

Some points are given below to show the consequences if Protestantism is true -

If Protestantism is true then -

1) Individual interpretation of a text called scripture is true. Yet there is no evidence in that text that God wants men to privately interpret a text, nor is there any evidence that private interpretation of a text is the normative means to determine Christian doctrine.

2) Subjectivism is true, for Protestantism is based upon the subjective judgements of the Reformers and subsequent subjective judgements of later Protestants. Yet subjectivism is false, for truth is always objective.

3) The gospel of the sacraments is false and the gospel of justification by faith alone is true. Yet there is 1) strong evidence for old testament sacraments, and new testament sacraments, and 2) no evidence in the bible for justification by faith alone, and 3) very little to no evidence for justification by faith alone in church history.

4) Church history is irrelevant to revealed truth. For the history of the church is Catholic, containing much evidence for Catholic doctrine and practice. Yet the reformers rejected church history, or only selectively embraced church history and invented many novel doctrines, such as 50 Heterodox Beliefs of Luther in 1520. Yet Christ is God and therefore must control church history, contrary to the illogical rejection of the Protestant reformers.

[Meh Gerbil]

For me the most troubling aspect of this post is the complete and utter lack of faith.

[seer]

This should be on the Theology Board.

[37818]

1) Individual interpretation of a text called scripture is true. . . .

The genuine church of the Lord Jesus Christ is the one He is building (Matthew 16:18).

The Apostle Peter regarding the "more sure word of prophecy" wrote, ". . . Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. . . ." v.20 -- 2 Peter 1:19-21.

The apostolic authority resides in the Holy Scripture not in the interpretation nor succession of men.

[Meh Gerbil]

I want to take one point to illustrate the absurdity of this post.
I find similar problems with all 14 points.

Individual interpretation of a text called scripture is true. Yet there is no evidence in that text that God wants men to privately interpret a text, nor is there any evidence that private interpretation of a text is the normative means to determine Christian doctrine.

1: I'm not aware of any Protestant who believes in this definition of individual interpretation. The fact is every Protestant minister under which I've sat has made extensive use of the opinions/writings of those that have gone before - often citing Catholics and the early church fathers and their views when addressing a particular passage of Scripture. They might deny it but they're staunch traditionalists.

2: I'm not aware of any Protestant who wouldn't at least invoke the Holy Spirit as a guide when interpreting Scripture. I'm sure they exist but they'd be the exception to the rule.

Your straw man is ridiculous.
Some of your points are so off the reservation as to be unintelligible.
At least understand something before you critic it.

[Sparko]

JM, did you recently discover logical arguments? Because you really suck at it.

You just make a bunch of straw man arguments and stick numbers in front of them and call it logic.

[Sparko]

Also you are doing exactly what we told you over and over not to do: Post a thread with way too many points in one post to debate.

[Obsidian]

The Roman Catholic Church is a joke now. I wouldn't be surprised if it were outright disbanded within the next 50 years. They hardly even pretend to be Christian anymore.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatic...inalizing-them

[Trout]

15) swinging that smoky thing is dangerous.

[KingsGambit]

The Roman Catholic Church is a joke now. I wouldn't be surprised if it were outright disbanded within the next 50 years. They hardly even pretend to be Christian anymore.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatic...inalizing-them

But this is irrelevant to the post here.

[JohnMartin]

The genuine church of the Lord Jesus Christ is the one He is building (Matthew 16:18).

The Apostle Peter regarding the "more sure word of prophecy" wrote, ". . . Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. . . ." v.20 -- 2 Peter 1:19-21.

The apostolic authority resides in the Holy Scripture not in the interpretation nor succession of men.

There is strong biblical basis for the binding nature of oral tradition -

There is also evidence for the binding authority of the church in Acts 15, and Matt 16, and 18.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I want to take one point to illustrate the absurdity of this post.
I find similar problems with all 14 points.



1: I'm not aware of any Protestant who believes in this definition of individual interpretation. The fact is every Protestant minister under which I've sat has made extensive use of the opinions/writings of those that have gone before - often citing Catholics and the early church fathers and their views when addressing a particular passage of Scripture. They might deny it but they're staunch traditionalists.

2: I'm not aware of any Protestant who wouldn't at least invoke the Holy Spirit as a guide when interpreting Scripture. I'm sure they exist but they'd be the exception to the rule.

Your straw man is ridiculous.
Some of your points are so off the reservation as to be unintelligible.
At least understand something before you critic it.

Bottom line is the minister only arrives at his own private interpretation of texts, and nowhere in the texts, does the text teach private interpretation of the text as the means to derive doctrine. The text does contain content concerning a teaching church in Acts 15 and the binding nature of oral tradition in several other passages. The many Protestant notions of private interpretation are all unbiblical and unhistorical.

JM

[JohnMartin]

JM, did you recently discover logical arguments? Because you really suck at it.

You just make a bunch of straw man arguments and stick numbers in front of them and call it logic.

Demonstrate your claim with two examples, showing the errors in each.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Also you are doing exactly what we told you over and over not to do: Post a thread with way too many points in one post to debate.

Lets debate any single point you want. I prefer point 4 -

4) Church history is irrelevant to revealed truth. For the history of the church is Catholic, containing much evidence for Catholic doctrine and practice. Yet the reformers rejected church history, or only selectively embraced church history and invented many novel doctrines, such as 50 Heterodox Beliefs of Luther in 1520. Yet Christ is God and therefore must control church history, contrary to the illogical rejection of the Protestant reformers.

JM

[Ana Dragule]

The Roman Catholic Church is a joke now. I wouldn't be surprised if it were outright disbanded within the next 50 years. They hardly even pretend to be Christian anymore.

The Orthodox church is here when you are ready. Here doors are always open.