Article 1 - Introduction and Response #1

My Introduction - From Austin Decker

This is going to be a process, and I do not write this with any ill will, hate, or malice toward Catholicism, the Pope, Catholics, Trent Horn, Robert Sungenis, Catholic Answers, or other Catholic Apologists.


I am quite thankful for and impressed by their stance and commitment to pro-life, Jesus as the Christm, the Son of God, and their ability to defend Catholicism.


In short, my responses are written as a Protestant Southern Baptist who, with the help and guidance of mature protestant believers and church history, believes individually reading, understanding, and explaining the Bible with a normal, always consistent, face-value, God-given hermeneutical method is a better authority than the Catholic church, the Pope, the Council of Trent, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


I know those statements could come across as offensive to Catholics, but I try to say this in the kindest way I know-how. Yes, I disagree with the Catholic Church and Catholic.com, but I promise to disagree in a gracious and truthful way.


If my arguments ever need to be updated or clarified, I will do so. It is possible my responses here may be edited or updated in the future to make them better or easier to understand. If you want to quote me, and you want to make sure the quote never goes away, then you may want to grab a screenshot of your quote just for your records. Writing these responses are for my personal spiritual growth and to increase my faith and convictions. My knowledge and learnings should get better over time which means my writings here will probably be updated to reflect my best arguments and beliefs. 


Finally, I promise to approach this fairly. I do not think that I am wrong, but could I be? Yes, I suppose I could be which is why I want to study Catholicism deeper and give a defense of why I am a Protestant and Southern Baptist. If I am wrong on any of my beliefs, views, or theology then, of course, I want to change to the right view. I hope any Catholics, including those at Catholic Answers, or anyone who reads my articles below will be open, honest, and humble enough to say the same and have the same approach as me.


Current Apologists I have responded to:


Catholic Answers 


Trent Horn (especially his book: The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections )


Please email me with any questions. My email is below. Please be specific with your questions. Send me a copy and paste of what I said and the URL that I said it at. I usually respond within 2 days, but it could take up to 2 weeks.


Animatedbibleandtheology@gmail.com

Implicitly or Explicitly?

Response #1


Horn’s first question to discuss is:


"Some Protestant apologists say sola scriptum means that Scripture is the believer’s 'sole, infallible rule of faith', but this definition is too ambiguous.

Is it sufficient for a doctrine merely not to contradict Scripture, or must it be found explicitly or implicitly within Scripture?”


Horn, Trent. The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections . Ignatius Press. Kindle Location 88 OR page 14.


Protestant Response:


The latter is true. A biblical author's doctrine, which is a correct or accurate teaching specially revealed to us by God, must be found explicitly or implicitly in scripture by an interpreter consistently using a normal, face-value, historical, grammatical, God-given hermeneutical method (These ideas will be further developed). It is important to emphasis this point early: Protestants at large agree that a biblical author's intended meaning is the exact same as the intended meaning of God. The Holy Spirit led the biblical authors to reveal God's intended meaning by writing down the scriptures using human languages and human communication. God communicated through human writings. Therefore, whatever the human authors intended to mean, God also intended to mean. There is no difference between the two. 


What about the former? Can a doctrine truly exist that that isn’t explicitly (directly) or implicitly (indirectly) mentioned in scripture but only doesn’t contradict the rest of scripture?


The answer to that is no. All doctrines (accurate teachings specially revealed to us from God) must find their source directly or indirectly from scripture. A potential doctrine that someone tries to create that simply does not contradict scripture is not a doctrine at all since accurate teachings of God (doctrine) can only come from scripture (special revelation). There can be absolute truths that people discover, but that doesn't make those trues doctrines. For example, it is an absolute truth that children are younger than adults. This is a fact, but it is not a doctrine that was specially revealed from God. With that said, logic can be used to determine a doctrine or theology that isn’t directly mentioned in the Bible such as the Trinity.


Please email me with any questions. My email is below. Please be specific with your questions. Send me a copy and paste of what I said and the URL that I said it at. I usually respond within 2 days, but it could take up to 2 weeks. 


Animatedbibleandtheology@gmail.com


-Austin Decker