TF recently posted this. Relying on secular media accounts while not utilizing good critical thinking skills seems to have recurred as a theme.
There is a large measure of infection of enlightenment and protestant weltanschauung in modern Catholicism because the same enemy who attacked the Church to subvert it with doctrinal chaos is still attacking it for the same reason. The fact that there are orthodox Catholics and unorthodox Catholics says nothing about the regula fide of Catholicism. You have asserted that but not demonstrated it. The contention that sola scriptura as a regula fide, however, leads to disunity and doctrinal chaos can be and has been demonstrated (because of its very nature). Your argument, such as it is, hangs on the premise that doctrinal disunity among Catholics is among Catholics who share the same faith and understand and adhere to it equally; this is qualitatively different from protestants who understand and adhere to sola scriptura protestantisms equally yet arrive at wildly disparate conclusions.
6 Comments
May 30, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Hi Mike, Good points in response to a bad argument.
The problem that I have with TF’s argument is the assertion that Catholic apologists actually make the sort of lame argument he suggests.
God bless!
May 30, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Turretinfan continued to miss the point by saying “Oddly, though, he seems to agree with the title of the post, namely that Catholicism is not a good predictor of convictions.” I replied (with an additional interjection here):
The interesting thing is that, again, in my post there is a built-in, intentionally equivocal usage of “Catholic” for effect. There was, however, no such equivocal usage of “protestant” because those protestants other protestants would accuse of heterodoxy are acting as faithful protestants according to their regula fide. Even factionalists of one sort or another in the Reformed, Lutheran, Arminian and other camps acknowledge that their fellow factionalists are acting according to the principles of sola scriptura, perspecuity, etc. Hopefully you see that now. There is a demarcable, qualitative difference between the sorts of “catholics” who uphold pro-abortion policies and judicial rulings, and those Catholics who do not because they follow the Catholic regula fide and thus stay within the boundaries of Catholic orthodoxy. There is no such difference in protestantisms in actuality because all protestantisms to a greater or lesser degree utilize its regula fide by the very definition their forebears gave to it.
May 30, 2009 at 7:25 pm
And just to be clear, while it would appear that I may on one aspect agree with the stated premise “Catholicism is not a good predictor of convictions,” on another crucial aspect I do not. Catholicism is a perfectly good predictor of convictions, when A) actual, doctrinally sound Catholicism is in view and not merely cultural apellations and B) faithful adherents to said Catholicism are in view, not merely familial, cultural or more nefarious pseudocatholics. By their fruits ye shall know them. One looks in vain for a protestant non-arbitrary, binding definitional authority which can provide absolutely valid and proper hermeneutical keys by which to utilize its sola scriptura methodology. Thus, one can accurately say that “Protestantism is not a good predictor of convictions” with none of my aforementioned caveats.
May 31, 2009 at 6:06 am
Excellent remarks…and therefore totally unsurprising that they haven’t seen the light of day over there. Sola scriptura is actually an excellent predictor of divisions, given a sufficiently large sampling of adherents – even within a single Protestant denomination or theological tradition (or congregation, for that matter).
RdP
May 31, 2009 at 7:54 am
Good points, Paul and Reginald. Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for the kind words. In fairness to TF, he may not have seen these latest comments yet so as to approve or relegate them. Time will tell.
June 2, 2009 at 3:38 pm
He’s posted other comments since then. I have no qualms saying that he’s once again cherry-picking. His blog, his prerogative. But the folks who read his blog and follow up by checking commenters’ reactions there and on their own sites can form their own opinions as to his actions and motivations.