The Error of Comparing Protestantism to New Atheism

By -
The amazing blindness of Catholic.com is too amazing isn't it? I just read an article written yesterday which compares Protestantism to New Atheism. As much as the article is written as professionally as possible in contrast to some self-proclaimed apologists I've had a lot of useless arguments with but I'd like to give a friendly rebuke to the writer Karlo Broussard. It's my sincere prayer that Broussard will see the truth from the pages of the Scripture. 

The writer commits the fallacy of categorical error. He compares Sola Scriptura with Richard Dawkins' views on science. Here's one of the statements that really should be considered a categorical error:
Just as science is the only tool Dawkins and company are willing to use to arrive at knowledge of the natural truth, Protestants use only the Bible for determining what is revealed truth. And as many modern atheists reject anything that science cannot detect, so too do Protestants reject any teaching that is not found explicitly in the Bible. Where Dawkins and others like him are science-only atheists, Protestants are Bible-only Christians.

Here's the problem with the comparison that he has made. For one, atheists have a very distorted view of science. Do modern atheists reject anything that science can't detect? No, they refuse anything that their so-called science can't detect. On the other hand, Sola Scriptura is different. The Scriptures already served as a guide even before the whole Bible is completed. God already warned several times not to go beyond His revelation. If you were in the time of the Judges your Bible would be from Genesis to Deuteronomy. The New Testament used the Old Testament Scripture to defend authority whenever the writer says, "It is written..." as defense to one's authority.

This is what I find funny. How often it is that Roman Catholic apologists use verses that condemn them to defend their stand. A good example is how they misquote 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which says:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and keep the instructions, which ye have been taught, either by word, or by our Epistle. (GNT)

The so-called apostolic succession doesn't even count for this reason. How many times have the tradition of the Roman Catholic institution add something to the Word of God? From the same article, Broussard writes:
The only way to know exactly which books are inspired by God is if there exists an infallible authority outside the Bible that can speak on God’s behalf. Catholic hold that authority to exist in the pope and the bishops in union with him. But Protestants reject this idea, which gives rise to another conundrum. 
If no infallible voice outside the Bible exists, and Protestants believe that our knowledge of which books are inspired is infallible, then we would have an infallible effect produced by a fallible cause, which is absurd. 
I highlight the incoherencies of these foundational beliefs of the New Atheism and Protestantism because, as happens so often with erroneous beliefs, they are based on false assumptions. And it is these false assumptions that stand in the way of people coming to know the fullness of truth subsisting in the Catholic Church. 
If we can expose these false assumptions, then we put those whom we’re evangelizing one step closer to experiencing the joy God intends for them to experience in the Catholic Church.

So who's the infallible voice outside the Bible? Not even papal infallibility teaches that the Pope is perfect and can't err but rather that he is supposedly preserved from doctrinal error. Roman Catholics aren't taught to believe that the Pope can't err in certain areas and that it's the Holy Spirit that supposedly preserves the Pope from such error. The problem also is that do they really realize that how sure are they that the Pope speaks on God's behalf? Did you know God gave a warning already about false prophets? I will be quoting from the Good News Translation which is a Roman Catholic translation although I'm still using only the King James Version.
Deuteronomy 18:22 
If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD and what he says does not come true, then it is not the LORD's message. That prophet has spoken on his own authority, and you are not to fear him.

The Pope may claim all he wants that he's a spokesperson for God but how would you know what he's saying is from God's Word? That's why God gave the Scriptures as a reference as a warning to false prophets. Every book that was checked whether or not they were inspired had to see whether they agreed with the Scriptures that was available to them. As said, it's not Sola Scriptura that caused multiple divisions but it's rather rejecting it. Come to think of it why do you think that the Orthodox churches existed as a split from Roman Catholicism and what does Roman Catholicism have with the so-called "Protestant" denominations like Mormonism? They all reject the teaching of Sola Scriptura and rely on some "infallible" council to "speak for God" even when the Bible is complete.

What's also so funny is how often they tend to accusing born again Christians of blind loyalty to the pastor but they have blind loyalty to the Pope. They still think that salvation is found in the hands of Peter, Mary, the incumbent Pope, their priests even when the Bible gives this one simple answer and it's still in a Roman Catholic translation:
Acts 4:10-12 
 Then you should all know, and all the people of Israel should know, that this man stands here before you completely well through the power of the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth—whom you crucified and whom God raised from death. Jesus is the one of whom the Scripture says, The stone that you the builders despised turned out to be the most important of all. Salvation is to be found through Him alone; in all the world there is no one else whom God has given who can save us.

And those words are the words of Peter whom they claim is the first Pope. Yet nowhere in the New Testament does Peter call himself the Vicar of Christ or that he holds the keys of salvation or that people must have absolute obedience to him as to Christ Himself for salvation. Neither did Peter claim absolute authority over the apostles. I suggest he reads the writings of Peter and Paul carefully and stop taking Scriptures out of context.

Speaking of which, I still can't forget this excerpt from an article called What Evangelicals Can Learn From Catholics":
The ideal Evangelical sermon not only teaches the meaning of the biblical text, it also applies that text to the real-world concerns that the members of the congregation face. Many pastors use expository preaching, which means the pastor will have a series of sermons on a single book of the Bible. Each week, the sermon explains another section of the book, verse by verse, so that by the end of the sermon series, the congregation has a good understanding of the main message of the book. Sadly, expository preaching is probably the biggest reason that Catholics leave the Church in favor of an Evangelical congregation. Ex-Catholics often say that they understood the Bible for the first time after regular attendance at an Evangelical church.

Although the article above came from a Roman Catholic source but it reveals the whole problem of Sola Scriptura for the Roman Catholic institution. These are some quotes that reveal why the Roman Catholic institution rejects Sola Scriptura:
"Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular (in the common language of the people, D.R.) there will by reasons of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good..." (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 274). 
"As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm than utility is thereby caused..." (Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, pp. 412-413). 
"In early times the Bible was read freely by the lay people...New dangers came in during the Middle Ages...To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Terragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Pius IV required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial." (Catholic Dictionary, p. 82).

As said, it's already clear. The more you dwell into Scripture the more you realize that the Bible itself is God's moral compass for humanity. It's the moral compass for church leaders and the church members. While there is the need for human authority but fallible men must be guided by the infallible Word of God. If there was no Bible (because today's Bible already had Genesis up to Revelation) but do you know that the Book of the Law served as the people's copy of the Scriptures? 

Here's what the Bible says about it and I'll quote from a Roman Catholic translation yet again:
Joshua 1:7-9 
Just be determined, be confident; and make sure that you obey the whole Law that my servant Moses gave you. Do not neglect any part of it and you will succeed wherever you go. Be sure that the book of the Law is always read in your worship. Study it day and night, and make sure that you obey everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.


As much as I'm a King James onlyist (though I still don't like how some KJV onlyists are very unprofessional with dealing with non-KJV only brothers and sisters in Christ) but Joshua 1:8 in the Good News Translation actually has the word "study" to tell you to study the Book of the Law. Studying the Book of the Law defends one from false prophets who may even claim to speak for God. I guess expository sermons are getting into some Roman Catholics who have found out the truth of the Scripture. Yes, I can agree with the Roman Catholic source that expository preaching is indeed doing more harm than good but on their part.

See also: