# Analysis of Roman Catholic "spiral"



## wturri78 (Mar 3, 2009)

Here is a good analysis over at the Alpha Omega blog, responding to the claim that Protestants cannot have certainty about the Scriptures without having an infallible Magisterium. I think it does a pretty good job of taking apart the alternative (namely, that we can have confidence in an infallible church without thinking in circles). I've encountered exactly this argument from Catholics before, and I usually find they haven't thought through their own positions.

I hope it's helpful.

Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White


----------



## Confessor (Mar 4, 2009)

Good read. What I've noticed in Romanist arguments is that they try to construct some magical barrier between the text and whatever a person can learn from it, so that an infallible interpreter is needed. But all this does is push back the problem, for every single individual Romanist must still interpret the Catholic Catechism to understand it means.

In other words, they arbitrarily assert that the Bible is a useless hodgepodge of words -- unless you're an infallible interpreter, of course -- while the Catholic Catechism is crystal-clear language (in fact, consistent Romanists like those in the Middle Ages would forbid Bible-reading to the laymen). While I would admit that the Catechism can be easier to understand than the Bible, that doesn't mean the Catechism accurately represents biblical teaching, and more relevantly, that doesn't allow Romanists to declare a magical barrier between the Bible and its readers while failing to do so between the Catechism and its readers. _In fact, nearly all Romanist arguments are arbitrary and self-refuting in this respect._

Therefore, all we need to do is tell Romanists that they do in fact know how to read, and point to any of the perspicuous passages teaching Reformed theology.


----------



## Rangerus (Mar 4, 2009)

I liked reading that article because it made me feel very smart indeed.


----------



## wturri78 (Mar 20, 2009)

You all really need to get better with the word _mystery_. It's the all-encompassing trump card that allows you to escape contradiction while sounding pious.

For example: The Catholic tells you of a need for infallible intepretation because of this barrier between what the text says, and our ability to understand it. You respond by pointing out that they just move it up a few levels, and individual Catholics still need someone to infallibly interpret the Church's infallible interpretations. The Catholic can then reply, "The Spirit's work in the Church is indeed a mystery..."

Problem solved! Now we can get down to chanting and gazing at our navels.


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 20, 2009)

I like how Martin Luther responds to the allegation that the Bible is not entirely clear at points; he responds citing scripture that exclaims that the word is clear, it is easy to understand and to apply, etc.

Of course his reply seems to beg the question; he assumes it is clear and can be understood by citing scripture anyway.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 22, 2009)

wturri78 said:


> Here is a good analysis over at the Alpha Omega blog, responding to the claim that Protestants cannot have certainty about the Scriptures without having an infallible Magisterium. I think it does a pretty good job of taking apart the alternative (namely, that we can have confidence in an infallible church without thinking in circles). I've encountered exactly this argument from Catholics before, and I usually find they haven't thought through their own positions.
> 
> I hope it's helpful.
> 
> Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White



Thanks!!! More vintage White, always appreciated!!

-----Added 3/22/2009 at 06:46:45 EST-----



KS_Presby said:


> wturri78 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a good analysis over at the Alpha Omega blog, responding to the claim that Protestants cannot have certainty about the Scriptures without having an infallible Magisterium. I think it does a pretty good job of taking apart the alternative (namely, that we can have confidence in an infallible church without thinking in circles). I've encountered exactly this argument from Catholics before, and I usually find they haven't thought through their own positions.
> ...



Actually another blogger..but thanks.


----------

