How "Scripture Alone" Leads the Faithful Astray -- With scripture alone as their guide, the major Protestant denominations have somehow fostered more unity around the bioethics of secular humanism than they have about baptism, communion, and whether you can lose your salvation.
1 - Have you investigated the Catholic man who developed the controceptive pill? What little I have learned is that he expected indorsement from the Catholic Church.
2 - Have you investigated the Pope who, years ago, communicated that Canaan was curesed in Gen. 9 and therefore his descendants could be inslaved because they were not fully human. I've read some material about this being a reason for Southerners enslaving blacks, treating them as chattels and selling off families because, as sub-humans, blacks did not have the emotions and family ties of humans but they were more like horses. Actually, some slave oweres listed slave familiy records in the samle records as their horses.
1. I’m aware of the Catholic man who helped, but he did so knowing he was going against Church teaching. Sola scriptura advocates are under the impression they are faithfully following the scriptures, and so they are deceived whereas the Catholic is rebelling. The Church teaches that the Catholic man is under more condemnation because he knows he’s disobeying, but the Protestant is not because scripture is not clear.
2. I would be interested in reading more about it, but haven’t. Feel free to drop some resources on popes and the slave trade.
Keep in mind this is not an argument for Catholicism. It is rather an argument that sola scriptura has a different set of risks. Catholicism has its risks as well,”Clericalism” being one of them.
What the Protestant does with the scripture is similar to what a Catholic will do with punting to their priest: “Well, my priest told me I can get an abortion, and that’s good enough for me.” Protestants will say, “well, the scripture doesn’t say I can’t use IVF, so I guess I can.”
Great piece. I have a question, however. How is it that of all Christian ecckesial groups in the West, it 19th century Protestants who ended the slave trade by way of their activism and novels? They used Scripture to pique the moral consciences of their countrymen.
Why not Catholics? Or am I misinformed? I am a convert to Catholicism via decades of Evangelical-cum-Amglicanism.
Thanks for reading! There is a good article on that in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It's far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, so feel free to read that first. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
If you're interested in my off-the-cuff answer, keep reading:
I don't think you're misinformed. I think that Protestants who fought slavery were incredibly courageous, and proved that "What man intended for evil, God can use for good." The Protestants weren't intending evil when they revolted against the Church; they were intending good and were responding to genuine corruption among the clergy -- which is distinct from corruption of doctrine -- but they had unintentional evil come about. God still used the scriptures to inspire individuals and raised godly men among them. As the Church teaches, there is still grace within the Protestant communities. But there are also dangers.
After reading that article, I am thinking about doing another piece on the providence of God's timing of the New Covenant, but in summary, the Church was already elevating slaves as equals in their rituals and practices in the underground Church. And as Catholicism spread, slavery continued to be reformed as the Church spread. But in spreading, the Church inherited a lot of social and economic problems from the converted barbarians and nations.
According to the encyclopedia article below:
"In the [Early Church] Christian cemeteries, there is no difference between the tombs of slaves and those of the free...Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly, but it acted as though slavery did not exist."
It's also worth noting that in many Protestant countries during the Middle Ages, serfdom continued longer than it did in Catholic ones:
"In the Middle Ages, slavery, properly so called, no longer existed in Christian countries; it had been replaced by serfdom, an intermediate condition in which a man enjoyed all his personal rights except the right to leave the land he cultivated and the right to freely dispose of his property. Serfdom soon disappeared in Catholic countries, to last longer only where the Protestant Reformation prevailed."
So, slavery as it developed throughout 2000 years was very different from the idea of chattel slavery. In many countries, including Judaism, it was seen as a form of welfare. But the Church, as it spread, was figuring these things out in light of the New Covenant. I think we are seeing a similar thing happening today with immigration as the Church is dealing with modern immigration, which is very different from immigration in the past.
When we read the history of the Church, it's important to know that the economic and political world was developing alongside the spreading of the Church. This created problems that the Church had to solve, and this is the context that forces the Church to develop its teaching. Part of the reason why the Church is a "wiser" institution than Protestant institutions is that, to put it bluntly, it's just been around longer, and it is truly global, whereas Protestantism tends to be national. The Church was responding to abortion in the 1930s, not solely because of its spreading into America, but because other countries were already flirting with the idea of it and changing their laws to accommodate it.
The fact that much of the Church's teaching and doctrine developed before a canonized New Testament is also an indication that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church. There is more I could say, but at this point, you're probably better off reading the detailed article I linked above.
Two thots:
1 - Have you investigated the Catholic man who developed the controceptive pill? What little I have learned is that he expected indorsement from the Catholic Church.
2 - Have you investigated the Pope who, years ago, communicated that Canaan was curesed in Gen. 9 and therefore his descendants could be inslaved because they were not fully human. I've read some material about this being a reason for Southerners enslaving blacks, treating them as chattels and selling off families because, as sub-humans, blacks did not have the emotions and family ties of humans but they were more like horses. Actually, some slave oweres listed slave familiy records in the samle records as their horses.
Just wondering.
1. I’m aware of the Catholic man who helped, but he did so knowing he was going against Church teaching. Sola scriptura advocates are under the impression they are faithfully following the scriptures, and so they are deceived whereas the Catholic is rebelling. The Church teaches that the Catholic man is under more condemnation because he knows he’s disobeying, but the Protestant is not because scripture is not clear.
2. I would be interested in reading more about it, but haven’t. Feel free to drop some resources on popes and the slave trade.
Keep in mind this is not an argument for Catholicism. It is rather an argument that sola scriptura has a different set of risks. Catholicism has its risks as well,”Clericalism” being one of them.
What the Protestant does with the scripture is similar to what a Catholic will do with punting to their priest: “Well, my priest told me I can get an abortion, and that’s good enough for me.” Protestants will say, “well, the scripture doesn’t say I can’t use IVF, so I guess I can.”
Both end up in sin but for different reasons.
Great piece. I have a question, however. How is it that of all Christian ecckesial groups in the West, it 19th century Protestants who ended the slave trade by way of their activism and novels? They used Scripture to pique the moral consciences of their countrymen.
Why not Catholics? Or am I misinformed? I am a convert to Catholicism via decades of Evangelical-cum-Amglicanism.
Thanks for reading! There is a good article on that in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It's far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, so feel free to read that first. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
If you're interested in my off-the-cuff answer, keep reading:
I don't think you're misinformed. I think that Protestants who fought slavery were incredibly courageous, and proved that "What man intended for evil, God can use for good." The Protestants weren't intending evil when they revolted against the Church; they were intending good and were responding to genuine corruption among the clergy -- which is distinct from corruption of doctrine -- but they had unintentional evil come about. God still used the scriptures to inspire individuals and raised godly men among them. As the Church teaches, there is still grace within the Protestant communities. But there are also dangers.
After reading that article, I am thinking about doing another piece on the providence of God's timing of the New Covenant, but in summary, the Church was already elevating slaves as equals in their rituals and practices in the underground Church. And as Catholicism spread, slavery continued to be reformed as the Church spread. But in spreading, the Church inherited a lot of social and economic problems from the converted barbarians and nations.
According to the encyclopedia article below:
"In the [Early Church] Christian cemeteries, there is no difference between the tombs of slaves and those of the free...Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly, but it acted as though slavery did not exist."
It's also worth noting that in many Protestant countries during the Middle Ages, serfdom continued longer than it did in Catholic ones:
"In the Middle Ages, slavery, properly so called, no longer existed in Christian countries; it had been replaced by serfdom, an intermediate condition in which a man enjoyed all his personal rights except the right to leave the land he cultivated and the right to freely dispose of his property. Serfdom soon disappeared in Catholic countries, to last longer only where the Protestant Reformation prevailed."
So, slavery as it developed throughout 2000 years was very different from the idea of chattel slavery. In many countries, including Judaism, it was seen as a form of welfare. But the Church, as it spread, was figuring these things out in light of the New Covenant. I think we are seeing a similar thing happening today with immigration as the Church is dealing with modern immigration, which is very different from immigration in the past.
When we read the history of the Church, it's important to know that the economic and political world was developing alongside the spreading of the Church. This created problems that the Church had to solve, and this is the context that forces the Church to develop its teaching. Part of the reason why the Church is a "wiser" institution than Protestant institutions is that, to put it bluntly, it's just been around longer, and it is truly global, whereas Protestantism tends to be national. The Church was responding to abortion in the 1930s, not solely because of its spreading into America, but because other countries were already flirting with the idea of it and changing their laws to accommodate it.
The fact that much of the Church's teaching and doctrine developed before a canonized New Testament is also an indication that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church. There is more I could say, but at this point, you're probably better off reading the detailed article I linked above.
Thanks! I love New Advent. 🙏🏼✝️📿