One of the most popular objections to sola Scriptura among Catholic epologists is the allegation that sola Scriptura is a “blueprint for chaos.” The Protestant rule of faith has generated “33,000” mutually contradictory Protestant denominations–or so goes the argument
However, this objection poses a dilemma for the Catholic epologist. If these are mutually contradictory denominations, then in what sense are they all “Protestant”? You can’t very well classify them under the same rubric unless all “33,000” denominations share a core identity.
So the very objection to Protestant diversity tacitly assumes that all Protestant denominations have a common denominator. They must have something essentially in common that makes all of them “Protestant.”
So the Catholic epologist needs to begin with his general definition of “Protestant.” If, however, there’s a general definition of “Protestant,” then whatever diversity there exists among Protestant denominations can only be measured against the benchmark of their fundamental unity as “Protestant” denominations.
I suppose they would say that the fact that they are non-Catholic makes them Protestant. Even the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are listed as "Protestant" denominations on their list.
ReplyDeleteMany conservative Catholics have started their own schools, colleges, universities and other organizations separate from their local diocese. Their bishop and the pope haven't approved this.
ReplyDeleteFor example, when did John Paul the Great or Benedict the Almost as Great tell Catholic parents to pull their children out of catholic schools and teach them at home? When did they say that Notre Dame wasn't a good school for Catholic youth?
Aren't these Catholics guilty of starting their own denomination?
-Steve Jackson
Someone smarter than I said if just two or three gather together in His Name He is present.
ReplyDeleteLet's do the math of speculations then?
Let's assume of the 6, 2 billion souls are True Believers, all uniquely formed in their mother's womb. Using that rule of that benchmark they gather in twos in His Name?
That means then there are at least 1 billion uniquely Protestant denominations if they all gathered in twos at the same time!
I have a better question, a little side bar digression.
Why didn't all loose and living beings fly off the face of the earth when the earth immediately stood still at the prayer of Joshua?
Jos 10:12 At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon."
Jos 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.
I suppose everyone and everything loose stayed put just because He holds all things together by the Word of His Power?
What happened to the article " Does Kierkegaard Save the Cogito? NO!" that was previously posted on Triablogue? I am interested in the answer to this question. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteRelevant posts at aomin.org by James White
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3073
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3147
video clip of James White addressing the Myth
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2218
Full Dividing Line episode for the above clip
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3069
JOEY & CHRISTY SAID:
ReplyDelete"What happened to the article "'Does Kierkegaard Save the Cogito? NO!' that was previously posted on Triablogue?"
Apparently it was subsequently deleted by whoever originally posted it.
Google has a cache of it. Maybe best to save it before it goes under for good.
ReplyDeleteThe analogy is: Protestants are standing around, looking up at the sun pretty much directly overhead, and disagreeing over whether it's 11:47 AM, 11:51 AM or 12:03 PM by Greenwich Mean Time (the Greenwich clock not being revealed before Judgment Day).
ReplyDeleteWhereas Catholics are all looking at an ancient clock (which - they are very proud to say - has not been re-set in 2,000, or at least 1,700, years) and agreeing that it's 3 in the morning.
The liberal Catholics agree that it's 3 in the morning but deny that this in any way means one should not be wearing sunglasses.
The conservative Catholics insist that the fact Protestants can't agree on the exact time, going by the sun, means that sunlight is insufficient to read the clock by, and that if anyone shall dare to profess to maintain otherwise, by speech or any other overt act, he shall become subject to such penalties prescribed by law as the local Ordinary shall think fit to impose. Thus they are standing in the noonday sun shining approved flashlights on the Ancient Clock so they can read it.
John Martignoni:
ReplyDelete"I personally believe, based on my experiences, that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Protestant denominations, and the main reason for this is sola scriptura."
This is one of the more disappointing posts I've ever read on this blog. The logic was simply awful.
ReplyDeleteHow does this objection pose a dilemma for Catholics? You asked: "then in what sense are they all “Protestant”?"
They are all Protestant in that their root term "Protest" comes from going by Sola Scriptura contra the Catholic Church. That's the sense, and it's a very real and factual one.
So yes, as you say, the objection assumes all Protestants have a common denominator: That common denominator is Sola Scriptura.
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"They are all Protestant in that their root term 'Protest' comes from going by Sola Scriptura contra the Catholic Church. That's the sense, and it's a very real and factual one."
Of course, the Protestant Reformers were "protesting" more than tradition. They were also "protesting" Catholic ecclesiology, soteriology, sacramentology, &c.
"So yes, as you say, the objection assumes all Protestants have a common denominator: That common denominator is Sola Scriptura."
So by your definition, Pentecostals aren't Protestant.
Pentecostals are Protestant, since they do go by Sola Scriptura. If you're speaking of their claims on Charismatic gifts, they'd simply say that's what Scripture teaches.
ReplyDeleteNow you're equivocating. Is belief in continuing revelation (e.g. prophecy) sola Scriptura?
ReplyDeleteBTW, are you admitting that Scripture doesn't teach Catholicism?
ReplyDeleteTo believe in the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit doesn't necessarily touch upon adding new revelation. And adding new revelation doesn't necessarily touch upon the issue of Sola Scriptura if this revelation is of a supplemental nature to the Scriptures. The Adventists believe White was a prophetess, but are adamant nothing she said adds to or contradicts the Scriptures, but merely reaffirms them.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am not admitting Scripture doesn't teach Catholicism (quite the opposite). Pope Leo XIII wrote Providentissimus Deus, which says plainly and repeatedly that the there is no greater resource for divine truths than the Scriptures: "Nowhere is there anything more full or more express on the subject of the Saviour of the world than is to be found in the whole range of the Bible."
If a revelatory supplement is consistent with sola Scriptura, then are infallible pronouncements of the extraordinary magisterium also consistent with sola Scriptura?
ReplyDeleteIf you think Scripture teaches Catholicism, then you evidently believe in sola Scripture. Remember what you said about Pentecostals:
"Pentecostals are Protestant, since they do go by Sola Scriptura. If you're speaking of their claims on Charismatic gifts, they'd simply say that's what Scripture teaches."
Steve: If a revelatory supplement is consistent with sola Scriptura, then are infallible pronouncements of the extraordinary magisterium also consistent with sola Scriptura?
ReplyDeleteN: No, since the supplement claims no infallibility but simply reliability. Infallibility is incompatible with Sola Scriptura by definition, since it carries a binding interpretive authority. The difference is akin to that of a pastor who gets an idea for how to better express/understand a scripture for his congregation and a Magisterium binding the conscience of believers to a specific point of doctrine.
Steve: If you think Scripture teaches Catholicism, then you evidently believe in sola Scripture.
N: No. Something can be a witness to something else without being the sole witness. Further, Scripture can be materially sufficient without being formally sufficient.
S: Remember what you said about Pentecostals:
"Pentecostals are Protestant, since they do go by Sola Scriptura. If you're speaking of their claims on Charismatic gifts, they'd simply say that's what Scripture teaches."
N: Charismatic gifts need not touch upon new revelation, or at least not Church wide revelation. The gifts of the Spirit in places like 1 Cor 12 are clearly "Biblical," though most of Protestantism would say those gifts died off by the end of the Apostolic age, where as Pentecostals deny that.
Nick said...
ReplyDelete"No, since the supplement claims no infallibility but simply reliability."
Really? A prophetic supplement claims no infallibility but simply reliability? How did you come up with that false dichotomy?
"Infallibility is incompatible with Sola Scriptura by definition, since it carries a binding interpretive authority."
No. "Be definition," infallibility merely impossibility of error."
If a prophetic revelatory supplement is inspired (hence: infallible), then that's incompatible with your classification of Pentecostalism as Protestant.
"No. Something can be a witness to something else without being the sole witness."
So a Pentecostal could say Scripture is a witness to prophecy without being the sole witness to prophecy. Therefore, Pentecostalism is incompatible with your definition of Protestantism.
"Charismatic gifts need not touch upon new revelation, or at least not Church wide revelation."
Now you're artificially redefining revelation in terms of "new Church-wide revelation."