# Catholicism and Universalism



## Hebrew Student (Jul 16, 2009)

One of the most common arguments that you hear Roman Catholics using against Sola Scriptura is that one cannot know what the canon of scripture is without an infallible magisterium. One of the clever counters that I like to use is that the Roman Catholic has no way of knowing which church is the infallible magisterium. Why not the Eastern Orthodox? Why not the Mormons? Why not the Syrian Orthodox?

The problem with their whole line of argumentation seems to be that they are forcing the protestant to deny God's voluntary condescention to man, and then, somehow try to get up to the divine. This, however, is very characteristic of Roman Catholicism as they are strong advocates of "natural reason." I have found that they really struggle to answer the above question as to how they know who the 100% infallible interpreter is.

The real problem is that Roman Catholics are using the arguments of the radical skeptics, but they don't realize that skepticism destroys Catholicism. Roman Catholicism makes truth claims, and, when you take those truth claims away, you no longer have Catholicism. Combine this with their belief in "natural reason," and the result is disasterious.

There was an interesting thread on the Catholic Answers forum recently that I think bears this out. The argument that was presented on that thread is, if we cannot know which church is the infallible interpreter, then doesn't that lead to universalism. The reason being because if no one can know what the truth is, then how can anyone be blamed for not believing it?

You may be suprised to say that I believe that this logic is flawless. Because of the "natural reasoning" of the Roman Catholic Church, because of the fact that they don't believe in the first point of the five points of Calvinism, it seems to me that their usage of skeptical arguments leads right down the pit to skepticism and, by extension, to universalism.

I do realize that I am relying very heavily on Van Tillian epistimology, and the inability of natural reason to answer the radical skeptic, but I thought I would throw it out there to see what you guys think.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Jul 16, 2009)

Hebrew Student said:


> You may be suprised to say that I believe that this logic is flawless. Because of the "natural reasoning" of the Roman Catholic Church, because of the fact that they don't believe in the first point of the five points of Calvinism, it seems to me that their usage of skeptical arguments leads right down the pit to skepticism and, by extension, to universalism.



The doctrine of Total Depravity and a high view of human reason (while steering clear of _rationalism_) are not mutually exclusive. 

The WCF begins thus: "Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation."

The first part of the sentence is what I would call a classic high view of reason: Human beings, by the "light of nature" (in other words, _rationality_) and "the works of creation" (_a posteriori_ evidence), have the potential to know that God exists and that God is (all-)good, (all-)wise, and (all-)powerful. Fallen man, though fallen, cannot 'blame' his lack of knowledge in this regard on his fallenness and neither can we; he should know these absolutely basic Divine truths _despite_ his fallenness, due to his being a rational animal. The evidence is there, and he has been given the tools.

The second part of the sentence communicates that men cannot 'reason' their way to salvation, but then no _Christian_ champion of reason makes any such claim on its behalf. That would be rationalism, which is incompatible with Total Depravity.


----------



## Confessor (Jul 16, 2009)

I saw that the book _If Grace Is True_ was advocated in that thread by a Quaker.

If you want to hear a good case for universalism, don't read that book.

-----Added 7/16/2009 at 06:00:00 EST-----

Nathan,

Would you say that the "high view of reason" is more regarding the _content_ of what can be known, whereas TD is more regarding how unregenerates _handle_ the content?


----------



## Skyler (Jul 16, 2009)

Don't most non-Calvinist soteriologies collapse into universalism when forced into consistency?


----------



## DTK (Jul 16, 2009)

Hebrew Student said:


> One of the most common arguments that you hear Roman Catholics using against Sola Scriptura is that one cannot know what the canon of scripture is without an infallible magisterium.


Yes, they are convinced that this is their most formidable, apologetic weapon. The only thing is that they wield it with a glaring double standard for their skepticism. Simply ask them to give you an infallible list of all of Rome's infallible pronouncements, and the skepticism works just fine in reverse. But they refuse to apply the same standard to their own epistemology, or lack thereof.

As Protestants we do not view the canonical list of books as an object of revelation. That list is rather an artifact or result of revelation.

DTK


----------

