Critique of Ten Exaggerated Claims of the “Reformation”
1. THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION RELOCATED SPIRITUAL AND THEOLOGICAL AUTHORITY TO SCRIPTURE.
. . . the Reformers were appealing to the revelation of God as the final arbiter of truth, against the claim of papal infallibility from Rome and the abuse of tradition insofar as it conflicted with biblical teaching.
The problem is that the Bible itself doesn’t teach that it alone is the infallible authority (as sola Scriptura holds). In other words, it’s a self-defeating, internally contradictory point of view. Nor is the Catholic view one that holds Church or tradition as above, or superior to the Bible. We never denied that the Bible had a profound authority. Our view is that authority or the rule of faith is a combination of Bible-tradition-Church: what is known as the “three-legged stool.” We simply hold that there is a need for authoritative, “the buck stops here” interpretation of the unique inspired revelation of Scripture. In the biblical (and historic Catholic) view the inspired, infallible Bible is interpreted by an infallible, divinely guided Church, which in turn infallibly interprets and formulates the true doctrinal (apostolic) tradition.
Because Protestantism doesn’t allow that in its rule of faith, it keeps hopelessly dividing and can never resolve its doctrinal disputes. That’s not God’s will, who desired that the entire one true Church would be “one” in doctrine and belief. Protestantism has a lesser form of the same notion, by formulating authoritative creeds and confessions (e.g., the Lutheran Book of Concord). But they are only as good as one denomination. That’s the problem.
There are literally scores of biblical and logical arguments against sola Scriptura. I wrote an entire book consisting of a hundred of these, and in a second book I took on two of the most renowned historical defenders of the doctrine. Here are three of my favorite arguments, and ones I consider among the best:
Matthew 16:18-19 (RSV) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
There is such a thing in the Bible as “the Church” and it was established by Jesus Christ Himself, as His own Church. St. Peter and the other apostles (of whom bishops and priests are successors) were given the power to bind and loose: Jewish rabbinical terms for penance (binding) and forgiveness extended by a representative of God (loosing). These decisions corresponded with the decrees or will of heaven itself (that is, God). Therefore, such power is indicative of a strong view of the authority of the Church. Another notable element in this passage is the concept of the “powers of death” not being able to prevail against the Church. This means that the Church (not just individual Christians, but the collective entity) will always emerge victorious in its spiritual and theological battles.
Acts 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.
St. Paul didn’t simply hand out Bibles. He also proclaimed an authoritative Church decision, made at the Jerusalem Council, which is described in Acts 15:1-30. The “apostles and elders” (15:6), representing the “whole church” (15:22) gathered, much as bishops in our time got together at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). The main question they dealt with was whether Gentile Christian converts were required to be circumcised and to observe the entire Jewish Law.
The Church in its council decided that it was
not necessary, with the participants confidently proclaiming, “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” The Holy Spirit guided the process (cf. Jn 16:13). St. Paul then went out and proclaimed what the council (himself included) had decided, to be observed as a binding decree.
If that’s not infallible Church authority, it’s difficult to imagine what would be. If God approved of such Church-wide decisions in the
early Church, why not also
today? Why would that cease?
It makes no sense to argue that it all went away and that we were left to fend for ourselves as mere individuals.
1 Timothy 3:15 . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Truth is truth. It cannot be error, by its very essence and definition. Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar or bulwark or ground,
be something less than total truth??? (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)?
It cannot. It’s impossible, as a straightforward matter of both logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source.
Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the
foundation of truth, the Church
must be
infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be
less great and strong than that which is built upon it.
Truth cannot be built upon any degree of error whatever because that would make the foundation weaker than the superstructure above it.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/11/critique-ten-exaggerated-claims-reformation.html