Assumptiones Protestantes

You are working under a flawed system of assumptions, if you think every time you open the Bible you are safe in interpreting for yourself.
In fact, your own pride blinds you to Satan using your ego against you to keep you from the Only Church God ever established.

So in order to overcome that attack by the Malignant One, lets examine the vast array of assumptions which form the lens through which Protestants see Scripture.
This will be difficult for some, and they'll feel beset upon. But its worth a few hard feelings if we can steer a few in the right direction. 

✠ 

1. The Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith.
This is the Holy Grail of Protestants, the key to everything else they hold to. Unfortunately, nowhere does Scripture teach that it alone is the Christian's sole infallible rule of faith.
While the Bible may affirm its own inspiration, truthfulness, and value (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:16–17), it never states that all authoritative Christian teaching must be found exclusively in the written Scriptures - or else - or that no other infallible authority exists.
Instead, Scripture also points to the authority of the apostolic preaching and Sacred Tradition handed on both orally and in writing (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and it describes The Church — not the Bible— as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).* Historically, the doctrine of sola scriptura was unknown in the first 15 centuries of Christianity. Instead, The Church has consistently looked to Scripture, apostolic Tradition, and the teaching authority of The Church - together - as the means by which Christ preserved His truth.
The idea that the Bible alone is the sole infallible rule of faith emerged during the Protestant Reformation, particularly through the teaching of Martin Luther, rather than from the explicit teaching of Scripture or the practice of the only Church which God established through Christ.

* Here, the expression, "The Church," means expressly the Catholic Church, either extant or nascent.
It doesn't mean any group of people that call themselves a, "church," at some later point in time. It means what was The Church, then...and what is STILL The Church today. (See #8)

2. Scripture contains all binding Christian doctrine, either explicitly or implicitly.
Like the doctrine of sola scriptura, this claim is never stated anywhere in Scripture, itself. No biblical author teaches that every binding doctrine of the Christian faith must be found in the pages of Scripture, whether by explicit statement or necessary implication. Instead, the New Testament points believers to both the written Word and the apostolic teaching that was transmitted orally.
St. Paul commands Christians to "stand firm and hold to the traditions" they received "either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15), placing both forms of apostolic teaching side by side as authoritative.
Likewise, the Gospel of John acknowledges that Jesus did many other things that were never written down (John 21:25), and the apostles continued to teach the Church long after Christ's ascension. While every doctrine taught by the Church is to be consistent with what is found in Scripture, the Bible itself never claims to be an exhaustive catalog of every binding doctrine God intended His Church to preserve and proclaim.

3. The canon of Scripture can be known with certainty without an infallible Church.
Scripture, itself, never provides an inspired table of contents identifying which books belong in the Bible, nor does it explain how future generations might determine the canon they'd prefer with certainty.
Every Christian who accepts the Bible as the word of God necessarily relies on some documented, historical process by which the canon was recognized and preserved.
To claim that this certainty can exist apart from The Church's divinely guided authority is to project modern assumptions backward onto the early centuries of Christianity.
It assumes that believers today, armed with a view of their own making, through hindsight and a completed Bible, could independently identify the inspired books just as accurately as the Christians who lived through the process.
This is a form of backward-looking hubris—judging the past by the seeming clarity of the present.
The first generations of Christians did not possess a complete New Testament, and for centuries there were legitimate questions about the status of certain books. If Christ intended His people to know with certainty which writings were His inspired Word, it is reasonable to conclude that He would....

1. Provide the book, Himself, or...

2. Provide His Church with the authority necessary to recognize and preserve that canon faithfully.

But one cannot expect that such a foundational question would be left to the uncertainty of private judgment at any point down the line.
Martin Luther - are you listening?

4. The Holy Spirit guides individual believers to the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Certainly, the Holy Spirit may illuminate the minds and hearts of believers, possibly enabling them to understand and live God's word more deeply.
However, Scripture never teaches that each individual Christian is guaranteed the correct interpretation of Scripture apart from The Church's teaching authority.
If this were the case, sincere, prayerful Christians who all claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit would not arrive at contradictory conclusions on essential doctrines such as baptism, the Eucharist, salvation, church government, or divorce and remarriage.
Yet history demonstrates precisely this outcome.
The problem is not with the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of truth (John 16:13), but with the assumption that every individual's interpretation is divinely guided and therefore authoritative.
Such a view ultimately reduces doctrinal certainty to private judgment and makes conflicting interpretations equally plausible. Rather than fostering the unity for which Christ prayed (John 17:21), it has contributed to enduring doctrinal division.
Scripture instead presents the Holy Spirit as guiding Christ's Only Church into all truth, preserving the unity of the faith through the apostolic teaching entrusted to The Church..., not through countless independent and often contradictory interpretations. 

5. The Church is fallible in doctrine - but reliable in identifying the canon.
This is pure circuitious doublespeak. If the Church can't be trusted when teaching doctrine, how can you claim it is trustworthy to make the most foundational doctrinal judgment of all — this is, which books are inspired Scripture?
The recognition of the biblical canon was itself a doctrinal decision, not just an administrative one. To say The Church was reliable enough to recognize the inspired works that teach us what we need to know, but throw out that same authority when it preserves and teaches what those books mean, is talking out of both sides of your mouth. In other words, the assumption here is that The Church is reliable - until one says it isn't.
Either one accepts that Christ guides His Church in matters essential to the faith, or there is no principled way to say you trust its judgment regarding the canon in the first place.
It comes down to that key word, "principled," I suppose. Either you are, or you look for ways to avoid it when it suits you.

6. Apostolic oral tradition ceased being authoritative after the apostolic age. 
Nowhere does Scripture teach that the authority of Apostolic Tradition would expire with the death of the last apostle.
On the contrary, the New Testament repeatedly presents the apostolic deposit of faith as something to be faithfully preserved and handed on to future generations.
St. Paul commands the Thessalonians to, "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15), placing oral and written apostolic teaching on equal footing.
He likewise instructs Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2), describing a succession of teachers charged with preserving and transmitting the same apostolic doctrine. He also urges Timothy to "guard the good deposit entrusted to you" (2 Timothy 1:13–14), indicating that the faith taught in this way was to be safeguarded rather than replaced or diminished.
Scripture contains no passage stating that The Church should cease relying on apostolic Tradition once the New Testament was complete, nor does it predict that oral apostolic teaching would lose its authority.
Instead, the biblical pattern is one of continuity: the apostles received Christ's teaching, handed it on faithfully, and commanded their successors to do the same.
Consistent with this, the earliest disciples of the apostles never suggested that apostolic Tradition had become obsolete; rather, they appealed to it as the living inheritance of the Church and the authentic guide for preserving the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

7. "The Church in 1 Timothy 3:15 is not a living teaching authority, despite being called, '...the pillar and foundation of the truth.'"
This interpretation requires reading into the text something that simply is not there.
St. Paul explicitly identifies "the church of the living God" as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).
A pillar supports and upholds; a foundation provides stability.
These are not passive descriptions of an institution with no teaching authority, but of a living body entrusted with preserving and proclaiming God's truth.
If Paul had intended Scripture alone to serve as the sole infallible authority, this would have been the obvious place to say so.
Instead, he points Timothy directly to The Church, itslef, that was growing even then.
Moreover, Paul's concern throughout the Pastoral Epistles is that sound doctrine be guarded, taught, and transmitted faithfully....at a time when there was NO Bible.
He instructs Timothy to "guard the good deposit" entrusted to him (2 Timothy 1:13–14), to entrust that same teaching to faithful men who will teach others (2 Timothy 2:2), and to command and teach these things with authority (1 Timothy 4:11, 6:20).
Likewise, Titus is charged to "give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9).
This is the language of a living teaching office, not merely a collection of individual readers interpreting Scripture for themselves. To admit that the words say, "The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" while denying that it possesses any enduring doctrinal authority imposes a limitation that the text itself never makes.
Rather than arising from Scripture, this interpretation is simply the result of the need to stick to sola Scriptura.
How can that be if, sola scriptura means, "by Scripture only?"
Because the Protestant way of working is to rearrange words - to re-interpret them - to suit their own doctrine. Basically, its like this: 
"If it contradicts what we tell outselves, we say it doesn't apply."
So the plain meaning of Paul's words is twisted around to conform to Protestant doctrine - instead of simply letting their doctrine be shaped by the text. But if they did that, well, they'd be Catholic...so that aint gonna happen.

8. The authority exercised in Acts 15 was temporary and not intended to continue.
Scripture never makes this claim. On the contrary, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 demonstrates the Church exercising the authority Christ entrusted to the apostles to resolve doctrinal disputes that threatened the unity of the faithful.

The apostles and elders met, debated, reached a binding decision, and sent that decision to the churches with the authority of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28). Nothing in the text suggests this authority was intended as a one-time event.

In fact, the need to settle questions of doctrine and discipline would only increase as The Church spread throughout the world.
Most importantly, Jesus promised that His Church would endure until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20), that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18), and that the Holy Spirit would guide His One and Only Churchit into all truth (John 16:13).

If Christ established a Church that would continue throughout the ages, it follows that He also provided a continuing means for preserving its unity and faithfully teaching His truths.
To claim that apostolic authority ended with the apostles is to deny Christ's own intentions.

9. Scripture is self-interpreting.
While Scripture is internally interconnected and consistent, and may shed light on itself, it never claims that every passage can be correctly understood simply by one comparing this or that verse with another.

In fact, Scripture acknowledges that some passages are difficult to interpret.
St. Peter specifically warns that there are "some things hard to understand" in St. Paul's letters, which the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).
Likewise, when the Ethiopian eunuch was asked if he understood what he was reading, he replied, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:30–31).
Philip did not tell him to keep reading until Scripture explained itself; instead, he explained the passages to him.

These examples demonstrate that while Scripture is inspired and carries weight, God also intended it to be understood within the teaching ministry of The Church He established, rather than through private interpretation alone. 

10. The early Church fell into major doctrinal error shortly after the apostles.
At this point we're starting to double back on ourselves...becoming circuitious.
This claim is not taught anywhere in Scripture.
In fact, the New Testament presents the opposite expectation.
Jesus promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Only Church (Matthew 16:18), that He would remain with it "always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20), and that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into "all the truth" (John 16:13).
St. Paul describes The Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and instructs Timothy to preserve and transmit the apostolic deposit of faith through successive generations (2 Timothy 1:13–14; 2:2).
While the New Testament repeatedly warns that false teachers and heresies will arise (Acts 20:29–30; 2 Peter 2:1), it never suggests that The Church itself will abandon the apostolic faith or descend into universal doctrinal corruption.
To the contrary, believers are exhorted to, "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3), implying that this faith would continue to be preserved and handed on.
The notion that The Church rapidly fell apart an departed from apostolic Christianity is purely a concotion of the reformation - imposing upon history its own conclusions rather than a conclusion drawn from Scripture.
In many cases, early Christian writers are judged to be in error simply because their beliefs and practices reflect those of the historic Catholic Church - rather than later Protestant distinctives.
This reverses the historical method: instead of allowing the testimony of the early Church to inform our understanding of apostolic Christianity, it assumes a self-created theological system is correct, and any early Christian witness that differs is corrupt.
Scripture gives no reason to expect such a wholesale collapse of Christ's only Church. In fact, while The Church may grow and evolve over time, as all things do, it gives every reason to trust Christ's promises that His Church would faithfully endure and preserve the truth until His return.

11. The Church "could" universally abandon apostolic teaching for centuries without Christ's promises failing.

This could be true - if it were. But it is just an expression of the notion that Protestants, "came to the rescue" of Christianity.... and is purely hypothetical rather than biblical.

It imagines a scenario that Scripture itself never presents.
Christ repeatedly promised not merely the survival of His Church, but its enduring fidelity under His guidance.
He declared that He would build His Church and that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
He commissioned the apostles to teach all nations and assured them, "I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19–20). He also promised that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, would guide them "into all the truth" (John 16:13).
Likewise, St. Paul describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and commands that the apostolic deposit be guarded and faithfully handed on from one generation to the next (2 Timothy 1:13–14; 2:2).

Does all that sound familiar by now? It should.

At the same time, Scripture warns that individuals, local congregations, and false teachers may fall away (Acts 20:29–30; 2 Timothy 4:3–4; 2 Peter 2:1).
But it never predicts that the entire Church established by Christ would universally abandon the apostolic faith for centuries.
Such a claim is not derived from Scripture, but is just an attempt to reconcile a manufactured "historical theory" involving Christ's promises.
If the Church as a whole had ceased to preserve the apostolic faith for 1400 years or so, the burden of proof would rest on those making that claim, for it runs contrary to the plain trajectory of the New Testament and the historical record.
Christ's promises are not that a remnant of truth would survive somewhere in obscurity, waiting for Protestant rescuers to arrive - but that His Church would endure, remain under His presence, and continue faithfully in the mission He entrusted to it until He comes again.

All these self-created, non-Scriptural assumptions must be inserted if one is to reject doctrines such as the Real Presence, apostolic succession, sacramental confession, and baptismal regeneration. These were widespread Christian beliefs for 1500 years... yet today - post-reformation - some or all are considered corruptions.
In other words, you take what doesn't fit your narrative - and throw it out. Then create a work around to suit. That is the only way it can work.

12. Matthew 16:18–19 does not establish a continuing office despite the biblical language of "keys," and "authority."
To deny that Matthew 16:18–19 establishes a continuing office requires one assumes things the text never says.
Jesus singles out Peter, renames him the Rock, promises to build His Church upon that rock, and gives him "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," along with the authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18–19).
The imagery of the keys is significant. In Scripture, keys symbolize an office of delegated authority rather than a merely personal privilege.
In Isaiah 22:20–22, the "key of the house of David" is given to Eliakim as the royal steward, an office that continued beyond its individual holder. Jesus' deliberate use of this imagery indicates an enduring office is intended within His kingdom, rather than a temporary honor bestowed upon Peter alone.
While all the apostles later receive the authority to bind and loose (Matthew 18:18; John 20:21–23), only Peter is entrusted with the keys, emphasizing a distinct role among the apostles.
After the Resurrection, Christ further commissions Peter three times to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," and "feed my sheep" (John 21:15–17), reinforcing his pastoral responsibility over the whole flock.
If Peter's unique authority was intended to expire upon his death, one would expect Scripture to make this clear, and to provide the ongoing plan thereafter...especially since Christ gave his promise of permanence regarding His Only Church (Matthew 16:18; 28:20).
Yet the New Testament contains no indication that the office symbolized by the keys was temporary or without successors. Therefore, those who deny any continuing office must self-assume either that Peter's unique authority ended with him, or, that the gift of the keys carried no enduring significance.
Which is pretty much what Protestants do.
However, neither conclusion is drawn from the biblical text itself; both are theological assumptions that leap-frog over the text... rather than conclusions arising naturally from it.

13. Binding and loosing authority, aka, forgiving sins, was temporary. (see footnote 1)
The claim that the authority to "bind and loose," - that is, to forgive sin - was only temporary finds no support in Scripture.
Jesus forgave sins throughout the Gospels - and He said His Church would last until the end of the age. This meant that His successors would need to do the same, if the Kingdom was to be fufilled.
In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter the authority to "bind and loose" in connection with the keys of the kingdom. Shortly thereafter, He extends the authority to bind and loose to the apostolic body in matters concerning the life and discipline of the Church (Matthew 18:18).
Following His Resurrection, Jesus breathes on the apostles and gives them authority to forgive or retain sins, saying, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (John 20:21–23).
These passages present a continuing mission entrusted to the Church, not a temporary delegation limited to the apostles' lifetimes. Indeed, Christ's Great Commission commands the apostles to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe everything He commanded, while promising, "I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19–20).
Since the apostles themselves would not live until the end of the age, the commission—and the authority necessary to carry it out—necessarily extends beyond their individual lives through the Church they established.
This understanding existed since the beginning, and is reflected in the apostolic practice of appointing successors to continue their ministry (Acts 1:20–26; Acts 14:23; 2 Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:5).
Nowhere does Scripture suggest that the authority to govern, teach, or render binding judgments would expire with the death of the apostles.
To assert that it does requires playing the same old trick used by Protestants whenever they don't want to accept what's in the Bible: They impose a limitation that the biblical text never expresses.
Rather, the New Testament consistently portrays Christ's authority as remaining active in His Church through the ministry He instituted, enduring until His return.

14. The New Testament Church operated under sola scriptura before the New Testament existed.
Even to the casual observer, this claim cannot be reconciled with either Scripture or history..., without some back field trickery.
For centuries decades after Christ's Resurrection, there was no completed New Testament for Christians to consult. The Church grew, evangelized, celebrated the sacraments, resolved doctrinal disputes, and appointed leaders long before the New Testament canon was complete.
During this period, believers devoted themselves to "the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42), relying on the living instruction of the apostles rather than on a completed collection of New Testament writings.
St. Paul repeatedly reminds the churches to hold fast to what they had received from him both orally and in writing: "Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:2).

He also commands Timothy to preserve what he had heard from Paul and entrust it to faithful men who would teach others (2 Timothy 2:2), demonstrating that apostolic teaching was transmitted through a living succession as well as through inspired writings.

So time passed, and we know the memoirs and letters of the New Testament did appear. However, there are those who seem to think that once written, the works that make up the New Testament were instantly transported throughout the Christian world, and everyone had them.
This is another made-up notion that relies on a few bits of information to create yet another spurious doctrine.
The fact is, that, even after the New Testament works had been written, they were scattered - and they were competing with non-canonical works in the same sphere.
There was no quality control, and faith communities of the day did not possess anything even resembling the complete canon.
They may have seen, or have copies of one thing or another - a piece of this, or a section of that. But these congregations were lucky if they could even access a legitimate apostolic letter. So its far-fetched to think that they all instantly had all the canon as soon as the writings appeared.
Which menas that if sola scriptura had actually been Christ's intended rule of faith, He left the earliest Christians without the means to practice the very principle by which they were supposed to live. 
Instead, the New Testament depicts a Church founded upon the apostles (Ephesians 2:20), guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), governed by leaders appointed by the apostles (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5), and identified by St. Paul as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15.
The idea that the apostolic Church functioned according to sola scriptura before the New Testament even existed is not a teaching found in Scripture - but an imposed, late-day construction.
A later fabrication, in other words, which attempts to project a manufactured theological principle backwards onto the earliest generations of Christianity.

15. The apostles intended future Christians to rely on Scripture alone.
Nowhere, in any writings, documents, or material that we know of dis the apostles teach that, after their deaths, the Church would be governed by scripture alone as its sole infallible authority.
While they consistently affirm the divine inspiration, weight, and usefulness of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16–17; Romans 15:4), they also command believers to hold fast to the apostolic traditions they received, whether communicated orally or in writing.
St. Paul instructs, "Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:2).
He also directs Timothy to entrust what he had heard from Paul to faithful men who would teach others, describing a continuing chain of apostolic transmission rather than a transition to Scripture alone (2 Timothy 2:2).
Likewise, The Church - NOT Scripture - is described as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), and believers are exhorted to obey their spiritual leaders (Hebrews 13:7, 17).
Had the apostles intended sola Scriptura to govern The Church after their passing, one could reasonably expect an explicit instruction to that effect. Instead, the New Testament presents Scripture, Sacred apostolic Tradition, and the teaching authority of The Church working together to preserve and transmit the faith once delivered to the saints
(Jude 3).

16. Doctrinal disputes should ultimately be resolved by private study rather than a living authority.
False. The New Testament model for resolving doctrinal disputes is the living authority of The Church, not private interpretation.

The practical consequence of sola scriptura is that doctrinal disagreements are settled by each individual or congregation interpreting Scripture for themselves.
Yet this is not the pattern established by the apostles.
When a serious theological controversy arose over circumcision and the requirements of salvation, The Church did not instruct believers to resolve the matter through private study of Scripture....
Instead, the apostles and elders assembled in council to deliberate, and they issued an authoritative judgment binding on the churches (Acts 15:1–29).
The decision was received as the guidance of the Holy Spirit:
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28). Christ had already entrusted His Only Church with authority to make binding judgments (Matthew 16:18–19; Matthew 18:17–18), and He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth (John 16:13).
St. Peter likewise warns that, "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20–21), and St. Paul identifies The Church—not the individual believer—as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).
The apostolic model, therefore, is not doctrinal autonomy but the authoritative teaching ministry of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and exercised through those entrusted with the care of Christ's flock.

17. Every essential doctrine is clear enough in Scripture that no authoritative interpreter is needed.
Not suprisingly, Scripture itself does not teach anything of the sort. Rather, people who left the authoritative Church that Christ set into motion - to start their own doctrines - made this up so they could justify what they were doing.
On the contrary, in the New Testament, itself, we find the acknowledgement that some passages are, "hard to understand," and a warning that the ignorant and unstable will distort them "to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15–16).
The need for authoritative guidance is likewise illustrated when the Ethiopian eunuch, while reading the prophet Isaiah, humbly confessed that he could not understand the passage without someone to guide him (Acts 8:30–31).
Christ never intended a "Bible," either. Instead, He entrusted the apostles with the mission of teaching all nations in His name (Matthew 28:19–20), promising that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13), and the early Church devoted itself to "the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42).
St. Paul further describes The Church — not the individual reader OR Scripture — as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).
The wide and enduring disagreement among Protestant communities over doctrines they each regard as essential — including baptism, the Eucharist, salvation, church government, and the gifts of the Spirit — demonstrates in practice that sincere reliance on Scripture alone will not produced doctrinal unity.
This stands in contrast to Christ's prayer that His followers "may all be one" (John 17:20–23) and St. Paul's exhortation that believers, "all agree" and that there be "no divisions" among them (1 Corinthians 1:10).
So either Protestants have all missed these points since the 1500's (unlikely)...or they obstinately refuse to accept it. 

18. The unanimous, or near unanimous, witness of the early Church can be rejected if it conflicts with modern interpretation.
Here's one that is quite true - anyone can reject the witness of the early Church if he so chooses. But, he does so on his own because the New Testament does not support rejecting the apostolic witness as it was preserved by those who received it.
The New Testament gives no indication that future Christians should disregard the unanimous or near-unanimous witness of the early Church, if it conflicts with later interpretations of Scripture.
Rather, the apostles expected the faith to be faithfully preserved and handed down from one generation to the next.
St. Paul commands Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2), and exhorts believers to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:2). Jude likewise urges Christians to "contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3), indicating that the apostolic faith was a fixed deposit to be preserved, not continually reinvented.
The Bereans were commended for examining the Scriptures to verify Paul's preaching (Acts 17:11), but they did so under apostolic instruction rather than in isolation.
To reject the consistent testimony of those taught by the apostles and the generations of faithful teachers who followed assumes that a modern interpreter has understood the apostolic faith better than those who learned it directly from the apostles or lived closest to their teaching. Such an assumption is simply one of human pride, and finds no support in Scripture, which consistently emphasizes the faithful transmission, preservation, and guarding of the apostolic deposit (1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:13–14).

19. The Reformation recovered doctrines lost by virtually the entire visible Church.
The claim that the Reformation heroicly recovered doctrines lost by the entire visible Church is difficult to reconcile with Christ's promises concerning His Church.
To maintain that the central doctrines of the Reformation had been lost by virtually the entire visible Church for centuries, requires believing that the Church as a whole fell into fundamental error until the sixteenth century.
Yet Christ promised, "I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
He also assured the apostles, "I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matthew 28:20), and promised that the Holy Spirit would abide with His Church forever and guide it into all truth (John 14:16–17; John 16:13).
St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not an institution destined to lose the gospel for centuries.
Throughout biblical history, God certainly corrected individuals, kings, and even large portions of Israel through the prophets, but He never allowed His covenant people to lose the faith entirely; a faithful remnant always remained (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 11:1–5). Likewise, the New Testament portrays The Church enduring through false teachers, bad leaders and heresies while preserving the apostolic faith (Acts 20:28–31; 2 Timothy 2:2; Jude 3).
Historically, the major doctrines of the Reformers were not taught as the universal faith of The Church before the Reformation, whereas the early Christian writings consistently testify to beliefs such as apostolic succession, the sacramental life, and the authority of The Church.
This claim usually arises because there were periods where The Church fell under the control of bad men. But to claim that Christ's Only Church universally abandoned the Gospel and biblical truth until its purity was heroically restored by sixteenth-century reformers is just smug self-indulgence. It can't be reconciled with both Scripture and the continuous historical witness of Christianity.

20. The Bible’s authority can be separated from the authority of the Church that preserved and transmitted it.
To divorce the Bible from The Church and her authority that preserved and transmitted it is an exercise in futility. They cannot be so neatly separated unless one fools himself into it.
The Bible presents Scripture and The Church as working together, not as separate, competing authorities.
The apostles entrusted the Gospel to the nascent Church as Christintended, before the New Testament was complete, and the first Christians, "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42).
St. Paul describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and commands believers to hold fast to the apostolic traditions received, "either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
For 3 centuries, more or less, Christians lived the faith without a compiled, completed New Testament, relying on the teaching authority of the apostles and their successors.
Historically, it was The Church that recognized the canon of Scripture, preserved the manuscripts through centuries of careful copying, defended the sacred books against heresy and persecution, and formally affirmed the canon in councils such as those at Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397, 419).
The same Church also preserved the writings of the early Fathers, providing an unbroken witness to how the apostolic faith was understood and passed on.
The New Testament, itself, nowhere teaches that Scripture, once completed, would become anyone's sole infallible authority or that The Church's teaching office would cease.
Rather, Christ promised that His Church would endure (Matthew 16:18), that the Holy Spirit would remain with it forever (John 14:16–17), and that the apostles and those who succeeded them would continue to teach in His name (Matthew 28:19–20; 2 Timothy 2:2).
The principle that the Bible possesses supreme authority while the historic Church that received, preserved, recognized, and transmitted it possesses no enduring teaching authority is not itself taught in Scripture. It emerged during the Reformation thanks to Martin Luther and his self-serving doctrine of sola scriptura, making it a man-made theological addition, but not a doctrine explicitly handed down by the one, holy, catholic, apostlic Church.

A deeper examination reveals that many Protestant arguments rest on additional assumptions required by sola scriptura. However, these assumptions are nowhere taught in the Bible and are contradicted by both Scripture and the historical record.

• That the Church Fathers consistently taught Protestant theology despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The men who learned the faith from the apostles and their immediate successors consistently taught apostolic succession, the authority of bishops, sacramental worship, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, and the authority of the universal Church.

None taught sola scriptura as The Church's rule of faith.
If the apostles intended "Protestant theologies," it is inexplicable that those who knew them best failed to teach them.
Instead, the Fathers unanimously appeal to apostolic Tradition and the authority of The Church to refute heresy, not to Scripture interpreted apart from the Church.
This is not to mention that there have also been hundreds of different theologies in Protestantism... and the teaching of them would be obvious if only by the sheer bulk of them.

• That Christian unity can exist without a final visible authority.
Christ prayed that His followers would be one as He and the Father are one (John 17:20–23), and St. Paul commanded believers to have "no divisions" and to be "united in the same mind and the same judgment" (1 Corinthians 1:10).

Such unity cannot exist if every Christian, pastor, or denomination serves as its own final interpreter of Scripture.
Without a living authority to settle disputes, doctrinal disagreement becomes permanent, and division becomes inevitable.
The existence of thousands of Protestant denominations teaching contradictory doctrines demonstrates that Scripture alone has not produced the visible unity Christ intended.

• That Christ established a visible Church but no visible means of preserving doctrinal unity.
Jesus established a visible Church, gave authority to the apostles, and commanded believers to listen to the Church (Matthew 16:18–19; Matthew 18:17–18).
When the first major doctrinal crisis arose, Christians did not separate into competing groups, or rely on private Bible study.
The apostles and elders gathered in council, debated the issue, and issued an authoritative judgment binding on the entire Church, declaring,
"It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28).
This is the New Testament model for resolving doctrinal disputes. The Protestant model has no equivalent.

• That the Holy Spirit preserves Scripture from error but abandons the Church to doctrinal error.
Every Christian accepts that the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved the Scriptures from error (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20–21).
Yet Christ made equally strong promises concerning His Only Church.
- He declared that the gates of Hades would never prevail against it (Matthew 16:18)
- That the Holy Spirit would remain with it forever (John 14:16–17)
- That the Spirit would guide it into all truth (John 16:13).
St. Paul calls The Church — not the Bible — "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).
To claim that the Spirit infallibly preserved the written Word while allowing the Church that received, preached, copied, defended, and transmitted that Word to fall into universal doctrinal corruption for over a thousand years directly contradicts Christ's promises....and the reality of history.

• That private judgment is a safer guide than the Church established by Christ.
The Protestant principle ultimately makes each believer, pastor, or denomination the final judge of biblical doctrine. Martin Luther siad it this way, "each is his own priest."
Yet Scripture repeatedly warns against private distortion of God's Word (2 Peter 3:15–16), commands believers to obey their leaders (Hebrews 13:17), and instructs the apostles to hand their teaching on to faithful successors (2 Timothy 2:2).
The early Church fought heresies by appealing to apostolic succession and the continuous teaching of the Church, not by inviting every Christian to interpret Scripture independently.
History has vindicated that concern.
Private judgment has produced countless conflicting interpretations, each claiming the authority of Scripture while denying one another's conclusions. The doctrine that individual interpretation is a more reliable guardian of truth than the one, apostolic Church established by Christ is itself neither biblical, historical, or true.

Taken together, these assumptions create a system that is often presented as, “just following the Bible.” But, the system itself depends on numerous theological concoctions that must first be fit into Scripture before the text can be interpreted in a Protestant framework.

The Catholic critique is that these assumptions are not derived from Scripture, despite what they say, but are only an interpretive grid through which Scripture is read.

FOOTNOTES
1. Binding and loosing as it relates to forgiving sin

The connection between binding and loosing and forgiving sins is more precise than many people realize. While they are not identical, they overlap because both involve the exercise of Christ's delegated authority over the spiritual life of the Church. 
Binding and looing was a recognized Jewish expression in the first century. It wasn't just a popular phrase, either - "to bind" and "to loose" were rabbinic terms.

• To bind meant to forbid, obligate, or place under discipline.
• To loose meant to permit, release, or remove an obligation.

Rabbis exercised this authority when interpreting the Law and making judgments for the community.

Jesus adopts this language in:

• Matthew 16:19 – Peter receives the keys and the authority to bind and loose.
• Matthew 18:18 – The apostles collectively receive the authority to bind and loose.

In both passages, Jesus says that what they bind or loose on earth will be ratified in heaven.

2. John 20 expands what that authority includes

After the Resurrection, Jesus says:

"As the Father has sent me, even so I send you... Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:21–23)

That is direct and to the point. 

Notice several parallels:

• Jesus commissions the apostles.
• He gives them divine authority.
• He breathes the Holy Spirit upon them.
• They are empowered to make judgments concerning sin.

This is far more than preaching that God forgives sinners. Jesus gives them authority to forgive or retain sins.

3. Forgiving and retaining sins is an example of binding and loosing

Many Catholic scholars understand John 20 as showing one concrete application of the broader authority Jesus gave earlier.

Think of it this way:

• Loose → release someone from the guilt or consequences of sin through absolution.
• Bind → no release of sin guilt when repentance is absent.

The words in English differs, but the function is the same:

Matthew 16 & 18	John 20
Bind	Retain sins
Loose	Forgive sins
Judicial authority	Judicial authority
Decisions ratified by heaven	Decisions effective before God

Both involve authoritative judgments exercised in Christ's name.

4. The authority is judicial, not magical

Jesus does not tell the apostles simply to announce that God forgives everyone.
He says:

"If you forgive... they are forgiven."

"If you retain... they are retained."

To retain sins, they must first determine whether repentance exists. This implies hearing the facts of the case, which helps explain why the Church from its earliest centuries practiced the oral confession of sins before receiving absolution (see also James 5:14–16, where the elders pray over the sick and sins are forgiven).

5. The "keys" strengthen the connection
The keys given to Peter in Matthew 16:19 symbolize governing authority. In Isaiah 22:22, the steward who possesses the key has authority to open and shut on behalf of the king.

When Jesus gives Peter the keys and the authority to bind and loose, He is delegating His own royal authority over the Kingdom. Later, in John 20, He exercises that same authority by explicitly authorizing the apostles to forgive or retain sins in His name.

Putting it together

The progression is striking:

• Matthew 16:19 — Peter receives the keys and the authority to bind and loose.
• Matthew 18:18 — The apostolic college shares in the authority to bind and loose.
• John 20:21–23 — Jesus demonstrates that this authority includes making authoritative judgments regarding the forgiveness or retention of sins.
• Acts 15 — The apostles exercise this authority by making binding doctrinal decisions for the whole Church, declaring, "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28).

Taken together, we are presented with a coherent picture:
Christ entrusted His apostles with real governing authority in His Church.
That authority included teaching, governing, disciplining, and reconciling sinners to God. The authority to forgive or retain sins is therefore best understood not as something separate from binding and loosing, but as one of its most profound and personal applications.