I'd like to remark on a neglected argument for the Protestant faith. Or, to put this in reverse, a neglected argument against Catholicism.
The primary objection to the Protestant faith is Protestant diversity. "Interpretive pluralism." The "scandal" of denominations. Sola scripture is a "blueprint for anarchy".
However, we can flip that around. Even if we say Protestant pluralism is a point of weakness, that's simultaneously a point of strength. Mind you, I think it's nonsensical to say the truth is a point of weakness, but for the sake of argument, let's say Protestant pluralism is a point of weakness. Yet that's also, and equally, a point of strength.
Here's what I mean: Traditionally, since the time of Trent, Catholicism has been a tight package. A take-it-or-leave-it package. The entire package must be true. If any Catholic dogma is false, then that falsifies the whole package.
This means Catholicism has an extremely high burden of proof. Or, to put it in reverse, a very low threshold for disproof. It can't afford to be wrong at a single point. You must check every box.
Because traditional Catholicism is so inflexible, that makes it highly vulnerable to falsification. It has no give. Every Catholic essential and distinctive must be true for Catholicism to be true.
So Catholicism has many exit points. And a Catholic apologist has to block every single exit.
To put this another way, from a Catholic standpoint, if Catholicism is false, then Christianity is false. According to Catholicism, the church of Rome is the One True Church, directly founded by Jesus, 2000 years ago. This means that from a Catholic standpoint, if Catholicism is false, then there's no Christian fallback option. Christ was a false messiah. Or he was misrepresented by the NT, church fathers, and church councils.
By contrast, the very flexibility of the Protestant faith makes the burden of disproof far higher. For instance, from a Presbyterian standpoint, if Presbyterianism is false, it doesn't follow that Christianity is false. Within the Protestant faith, there are lots of Christian fallback options. Like the principle of redundancy in engineering, the Protestant faith has many backup systems. I'm not saying that's intentional. Rather, it's a fringe benefit.
Ironically, what Catholic apologists single out as a strength of Catholicism and a weakness of evangelicalism is, in fact, a fatal weakness of Catholicism. Puncture the hull at any point and the ship sinks.
Now, I say "traditionally" because Catholicism, since about the time of Pius XII, has been undergoing drastic change–a trend accelerated by Pope Francis. So it's unclear, after the dust settles, what Catholicism still represents. I pity someone attempting to write an introduction to the Catholic faith under the pontificate of Francis. That may be out of date before the ink is dry. Catholics must consult the daily newspaper to know what they're still supposed to believe.
///Puncture the hull at any point and the ship sinks. ///
ReplyDeleteThat was the way out for me. The pure need to rely on "The Church" as opposed to history on the Marian dogmas.
If Rome's doctrine of infallibility can be refuted sufficiently, then it follows that the whole system of Roman Catholic doctrine fails as well because they are all bound together by claims of authority over Christendom. It would mean that the Church of Rome is subject to the test of divine Scripture.
ReplyDelete"By contrast, the very flexibility of the Protestant faith makes the burden of disproof far higher."
ReplyDeleteThis is the very problem. The author tries to turn this around to a positive, a 'fringe benefit'. This shows that there is no 'Protestant Faith', only a cabal of different interpretations that may or may not be correct. Who knows?
What about One Church, One Body, One Faith, One Truth?
No, forget about that: redundancy, many different versions of the Truth, of the Faith, of the Body, of the Church. One will be right, for sure? Or many will have at least some of it right, right? But who exactly? No one can tell, no one even cares anymore, because, you know, contrary what those pesky Catholic apologists say, it actually is a 'fringe benefit'.
If there is 'One faith [Eph. 4:5], one truth [John 8:32], one body [1 Corinthians 12:13]', by necessity ALL of it must be true, simultaneously. Or else it is NOT that 'one faith, one truth, one body'.
So this article actually gave another argument for the Catholic Church.
Good going...
///This is the very problem. The author tries to turn this around to a positive, a 'fringe benefit'. This shows that there is no 'Protestant Faith', only a cabal of different interpretations that may or may not be correct. Who knows?
DeleteWhat about One Church, One Body, One Faith, One Truth?///
It's not so simple as you suggest. You fail to say precisely how Protestants fail to have "one truth" or "one faith". You fail to define "faith". Where does "faith" include things like priest, bishops, popes? You (Roman Catholics) have a significant burden of proof which you fail to meet.
Of the bible verses you cite:
One faith [Eph. 4:5]
one truth [John 8:32]
one body [1 Corinthians 12:13]
None of these point to the Roman Catholic religion, nor the truth of the Roman Catholic religion, nor the notion that Roman Catholicism is the "one body".
Because it's when you start making positive cases for each of these that the Roman Catholic apologetic falls apart.
i) The "one truth" is Jesus, not "the Church".
Deleteii) I've run through all the stock Catholic prooftexts.
iii) It's an thing about "those pesky Catholic apologists". Most of them are laymen. Most of them are converts to Catholicism. Why doesn't Rome have an office at the Vatican to give the official arguments and official interpretations for Catholicism? Instead, Rome delegates that task to the private interpretation of "those pesky Catholic apologists"–most of whom never attended a Catholic college, much less seminary. Most of whom don't speak for the Magisterium.
And when they converted to Catholicism, they had to exercise their private, fallible judgment. They had to decide for themselves that Scripture, church fathers, and church history points to Rome. What "those pesky Catholic apologists" give us is their bottom-up argument for a top-down authority. The magisterium is a skyscraper erected on the foundation of fallible opinion. Gives Catholics an illusion of certainty.
The verses that you have alluded to above demand being unified according to the truth of God's Word, not under a church hierarchy.
Delete