☦️

A retort in 6 points from a Christian of the Reformed, Protestant tradition. I. The Reformed faith doesn't trade one magisterium for another or for private opinion. We hold Scripture alone as the supreme, infallible rule of faith because its God-breathed and sufficient for teaching, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16-17). Councils, fathers, pastors, creeds all subordinate, tested by this standard. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it (an unbroken line of bishops guaranteeing infallible teaching) has no clear promise or command in Scripture. True succession is faithfully handing down the gospel once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), not an institutional chain immune to error. When visible structures depart from apostolic teaching, as Rome has in many eras with doctrines like papal infallibility or Marian dogmas absent from early witness, the faithful remnant preserves the deposit, just like in Israel's history. II. The charge of "private interpretation" causing endless splits doesn't quite capture us. Scripture isn't so obscure it needs an infallible magisterium to unlock it. The Holy Spirit illumines believers (1 John 2:27), and the church guides through faithful preaching and discipline. But the final appeal stays with Scripture, not fallible human offices. Early Christians condemned heretics not merely for rejecting "Church authority," but for twisting apostolic doctrine as shown in Scripture and received teaching. The Reformers aimed to return to that pure standard amid medieval corruptions like indulgences, sacramental overreach that clouded the gospel of grace. III. On the splintering among Protestants: it grieves us, but it reveals the devil's focused attack on the true church. Satan, father of lies (John 8:44), targets hardest those who cling tightest to God's pure Word, sowing division where the light shines brightest (Matt 13:24-30). Rome, with its centralized magisterium, was captured long ago by pagan influences, political ties from Constantine onward, and doctrinal additions that elevated tradition above or equal to Scripture (contra Col 2:8). That long capture made it less threatening to the enemy, binding souls in rituals and hierarchies rather than freeing them by faith alone in Christ alone. Protestantism, returning to biblical primacy, became the main battlefield. The devil exploits sin, culture, and interpretive differences to fracture what most threatens his kingdom: the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2:9) armed with accessible Scripture. Yet even in division, Christ's true church endures, refined like gold in fire (1 Pet 1:7), producing global missions and revivals that Rome's structure often hindered. IV. This biblical freedom was providentially unleashed in the Reformation, tied to Gutenberg's printing press in 1450. It placed God's Word in ordinary hands in common languages, breaking clerical monopoly. Rome had frequently banned vernacular Bibles pre-Reformation. Works like Tyndale's English translation (for which he was martyred) flooded Christendom with Scripture. Believers could test every teaching (Acts 17:11), igniting reforms and revivals rooted in Scripture's sufficiency, not evolving traditions. V. That liberty also shaped Protestant governance: covenantal, consensual, resistant to absolutism. It influenced Western nation-states from Calvin's Geneva republic with mutual accountability under God's law, to England's parliamentary advances via Puritan ideals, to America's colonies. There Reformed theology, through Winthrop's "city upon a hill" (Matt 5:14) and compacts like the Mayflower, laid foundations for constitutional republics prizing individual rights, religious liberty, and limited government under divine sovereignty. These mirrored biblical federalism (Ex 18:21-22) and helped drive freedom, innovation, and prosperity, contrasting Rome's historical ties to monarchy and inquisitorial control. VI. In short, the hard forks aren't mere chaos; they're the messy vitality of a church alive to Scripture, under siege yet advancing. Rome's "unbroken tradition" often masked departures from apostolic simplicity, while Protestantism, though wounded, has multiplied disciples through open access to truth. May we both dig deeper into that Word where Christ is fully revealed. Grace and peace. To learn more I recommend the book in the attached image. H/T to #Grok for research assistance. #ToChristAlone View quoted note →

Thanks Josh. I know we disagree, but I appreciate your time and response. First off, if the Bible is the only authority, why so many Protestant divisions on how to interpret it? If a church had authority to close canon, why not to interpret it? From what I see, the Bible itself doesn't claim to contain everything, considering oral teachings are mentioned as well as traditions. Even the gospel of John mentions, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." Second, if the Bible is the only authority, where does it define the exact canon for a Bible? Why align with a Hebrew canon defined by a community that didn't recognize Christ, rather than the fuller canon the early Church recognized? It could be argued therefore that Hebrew sources (following their defined canon) are your magisterium for biblical canon, even though you claim you don't have one. This reveals a core issue in that you claim sola scriptura, but you don't determine the canon individually, you defer to a historical judgment. The Apostles established a Church, not a book (praise be to God for our scriptures). To be clear we don't trust the magisterium over the scripture, we trust it because of scripture. Whether you claim to trust an authority or not, by claiming trust in a defined canon you are choosing an authority. And down the chain to your pastors, theological tradition, your church's confession or catechism. You just call it 'ministerial authority' rather than 'magisterium.' If apostolic succession has no merit, why trust the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15? Peter, James, and Paul don't say 'go home and read Scripture individually.' They exercise corporate, binding authority. If apostolic succession is meaningless, why does this council matter at all? And if it matters, doesn't that prove the Church has interpretive authority? The question isn't whether we need interpretive guidance; it's where that guidance comes from and how we know it's trustworthy. Your framework requires authorities, but you won't admit it. Let's be honest about what we actually trust and why. I'm not claiming to have all of the answer. These are serious questions that I wrestle with and they actually lead me further into Catholicism.

"The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, depends not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God."

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

Of the Holy Scriptures — The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

Chapter 1

The church doesn't make Scripture God's word. It recognizes that it is God's word. Just like an apple doesn't have to say it's an apple to be an apple. That's what it is. It's not an orange no matter how many people agree it is. 2+2=4 even if the whole world says it isn't. We could go on and on. I hate seeing people, especially younger guys with families, "go home to Rome." There's nothing for you there. Ask your priest what he thinks the Galatian heresy was about. Ask him what he thinks Paul meant when he called all of his own works "skubala" with respect to gaining Christ and being found in Him (Phil. 3:8).