The Death Knell of Protestantism: Romans 4:3-5

Update 4-14-2010: see part 2 here.

Most readers with even a passing interest in apologetics are familiar with St Paul's words from Romans 4:3-5,

For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness

This passage is critical to the doctrine of Sola Fide because it is where Protestants claim St Paul expressly lays down the doctrine of the 'Imputation of Christ's Righteousness' to the believer at the (one and only) moment of Justification, and that this Righteousness is received by faith. The standard and historic Protestant interpretation of "faith is counted as righteousness" is clearly stated in the Westminster Confession (XI:1):

Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

What this passage is saying is that the phrase "faith counted as righteousness" is not to be understood as 'faith itself is counted as righteousness,' but rather, 'faith receives Christ's Righteousness.' What this article will demonstrate is effectively a silver bullet right to the heart of this heresy.

Should You Believe in the Trinity?

One of the most popular and important publications of the Jehovah's Witnesses is a booklet titled "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" It is written in such a way as to make the doctrine of the Trinity appear to be illogical, unhistorical, and un-Biblical. Just flipping through it, it might seem pretty convincing, but a careful reader will immediately note some significant problems in the forms of (a) misrepresenting the actual doctrine, (b) misquoting sources, (c) citing skewed/biased sources, and (d) misreading Scriptural texts based on this inaccurate information. For more manifest JW errors on other doctrines, see this link (here).

One of the greatest shortfalls of the booklet is that while it relies heavily on what appear to be 'scholarly sources' to disprove the doctrine, there are almost no proper citations of references (e.g. only the title or name of a source is given), and worse yet, many of the sources are anti-Christian to begin with. This is not a good approach if one is attempting to make honest and objective arguments, for it does not allow the reader to verify a quote for context and accuracy, nor does it do any good to quote anti-Christian sources, for it would be nothing more than the special pleading fallacy.

This article will give an analysis of this booklet.

Judica me, Domine

I don't usually make posts commenting directly upon the blog posts of others, but here is one instance which I believe is most necessary. On March 16, 2010, Reformed apologist James White had this to say on his blog:

To all concerned about sola scriptura, patristics, Roman Catholicism, and related subjects. TurretinFan has posted a must-read article here.

After examining the above linked article by Reformed apologist Turretin Fan, I was astonished to see that there was nothing in the way of proof for sola scriptura, anything Protestant about patristicts, nor especially anything coming anywhere close to refuting (or embrrassing) Catholicism.

St Augustine was Catholic, not Protestant

This post was inspired by a series of quotes I came across on a fellow Catholic's blog, The Supplement.

Protestants appeal to St Augustine more than to any other Early Church Father (by far). This is because, since the time of Luther, Protestants believe St Augustine was more or less "Protestant," and thus a strong (historical) ally against the Catholic Church. The fact is, nothing could be further from the truth, and while Protestants might think St Augustine was on their side, the evidence points conclusively to the contrary.

The following are some quotes that The Supplement blog posted, revealing St Augustine actually taught some pretty "Catholic" things - things that wouldn't sit well with Protestant doctrine. And what's most amazing is that these quotes are all taken from St Augustine's best known work, The Confessions - a book which is ironically highly praised by Protestants.

Sola Scriptura is Self-Refuting

There has been a string of posts on some popular Catholic and Protestant apologetics blogs regarding the topic of Sola Scriptura, specifically whether or not it is "self-refuting." While that charge did not originate with me (it has been a Catholic objection to the doctrine for a long time), I have found myself having to not only point it out but explain it as well - to both Catholics and Protestants.

First, by 'self-refuting' I mean it contains a contradiction within itself, meaning it cannot be true. So, if I gave instructions saying, "you may only eat apples, but sometimes oranges," that is a contradiction and thus self-refuting proposition.

The reasoning for Sola Scriptura (SS) being self-refuting is as follows:

(1) SS teaches (in a nutshell) only teachings derived from Scripture are binding on Christians.

(2) SS is a teaching binding on Christians.

(3) Thus, SS must be taught in the Scriptures.

(4) IF SS is NOT taught in the Scriptures, there is a contradiction with item (1) - thus it's self-refuting.

Now, Catholics don't believe SS is taught in the Scriptures, so we would say it's self-refuting. However, many Protestants fall prey to item (4) unintentionally by effectively saying "Sola Scriptura doesn't have have to taught in Scripture to be true." Most don't phrase it in that way, but it often comes in the form of "Scripture is an authority, and I'll take it as my only authority unless someone (e.g. a Catholic) steps up and demonstrates another inspired authority." That, however, is merely a variation of "SS doesn't have to be taught in Scripture." 

Another popular variation of this fallacious argument is when the Protestant objects on the grounds that for them to 'prove' SS they would have the 'unfair' burden of proving a "universal negative" (i.e. the Protestant must prove no other inspired authority exists in the world, leaving Scripture as the 'only' verified authority). But the Protestant isn't ever forced to do this, and no Catholic who understands the issue is asking them to do this, and that's because it's a fallacious argument to begin with. Sadly, this argument is often employed to shift the burden of proof off of the Protestant, but shifting the burden of proof is dishonest and fallacious (even if unintentional).

The line of reasoning where SS is 'assumed true unless proven otherwise' is at most 'negative proof', and clearly falls into the self-refuting category, for one is starting off assuming the teaching rather than getting it from a divine mandate via the Scriptures (i.e. 'positive proof').

Lastly: A Protestant can say Scripture teaches SS, at which point they wouldn't fall prey to item (4), though they (still) shoulder the burden of proof to prove Scripture itself teaches SS.