But Jesus said...“Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread...” - Mark 7:27
The following is similar to and covers similar ground (in an even more informal way than) as my two following blogposts:
I wrote to ChatGPT:
That’s a big question, and it doesn’t have a clean, objective winner in the way Wylie would have wanted. Both Catholic and Protestant traditions make serious, historically grounded claims about continuity with earliest Christianity—but they start from different assumptions about authority, and that’s what drives the divergence.
The Catholic case centers on historical continuity and institutional authority:
Bottom line of
their argument:
Christianity was always meant to be a visible, unified
Church with teaching authority, not just
a collection of believers interpreting Scripture
individually.
The Protestant case focuses on returning to the earliest message and correcting later developments:
Bottom line of
their argument:
The Church gradually accumulated additions, and the
Reformation was an attempt to strip
Christianity back to its original, biblical core.
If you step outside confessional arguments and just look historically:
So historically, the picture is mixed:
It ultimately comes down to this:
Did Christ intend to leave behind an authoritative Church, or primarily authoritative Scripture?
That’s the fork in the road—everything else flows from it.
Neither side can decisively prove its case in a way that eliminates the other:
So the honest answer isn’t “one is obviously true,” but:
If you want, I can go one level deeper—like comparing specific doctrines (Eucharist, justification, papacy) against early Christian sources and the Bible.
I can’t give you a meaningful probability like “Catholicism 62%, Protestantism 38%” without pretending there’s a measurable dataset behind it—there isn’t. This isn’t like estimating the chance of rain; it depends on which assumptions you treat as authoritative.
That said, I won’t dodge your request entirely. If I have to lean one way based on historical patterns and the earliest sources:
I would lean slightly toward the Catholic/early-church continuity model, but only narrowly—something like 55% vs 45%, not a landslide.
So the honest “forced answer” is:
Catholicism (broadly including early historic Christianity): ~55%
Protestantism: ~45%
Not decisive—just a slight tilt based on how the earliest centuries actually looked.
If you want a sharper conclusion, we’d have to zoom into one issue (like the Eucharist or justification), because that’s where the gap becomes much clearer.
You’re raising the strongest Protestant counterarguments—the kind that have kept this debate alive for 500 years. But a few of your points assume conclusions that historians and even many Protestant scholars would treat as more contested than settled. So if we’re going to “recalculate,” we have to tighten the analysis rather than just stack verses.
I’ll go point by point, then give you an updated (still honest) probability.
The examples you gave are real—but they don’t quite overturn sacramental readings.
Also, in passages like Romans 6 and 1 Corinthians 10–11, Paul treats baptism and the Eucharist as participatory acts, not mere symbols.
So historically:
The NT doesn’t present a fully developed medieval
sacramental system, but it also doesn’t look
purely “non-sacramental” either. It’s somewhere in
between—and early Christians quickly leaned
sacramental.
You’re right about the terminology overlap in the New Testament.
But the key issue is development over time:
And this is where Ignatius of Antioch matters—because by ~110 AD he’s already insisting on:
That’s very early, close to the apostolic period.
As for Jerome:
So the data suggests:
You’re right to bring up Athanasius of Alexandria and his 39th Festal Letter (367 AD). It does match the modern NT canon.
But here’s the catch:
Councils like the Council of Carthage didn’t invent the canon—but they:
So the Protestant
claim “the canon was recognized naturally” is partly
true—but incomplete.
The Catholic claim “the Church authoritatively
defined it” is also partly true.
This is the most philosophically important point you made.
You’re essentially arguing:
Sola Scriptura = continuation of how Scripture functioned in the Old Testament
That’s a coherent argument—but historically:
There’s no clear evidence that the early Church operated with:
“Scripture as the sole infallible authority, with all other authorities fallible and subordinate”
That framework appears much later, especially with Martin Luther.
Yes—but not as dramatically as you might expect.
Your points:
But they don’t eliminate:
After factoring in your arguments more fully:
Catholic / early-church continuity model: ~52%
Protestant / scripture-primacy model: ~48%
Because the real situation is:
You’ve shown that:
But the historical record still slightly favors:
—not a purely text-centered model from the beginning.
If you want to push this further, the most decisive battleground isn’t structure or canon—it’s the Eucharist. That’s where early sources become much harder to reconcile with a purely symbolic view.
You’re tightening your case in a more historically informed way now—and that does move things. But it still doesn’t overturn the core tension: your model explains the data coherently, yet it also has to reinterpret or downplay some early evidence that doesn’t sit naturally with it.
Let me respond briefly where it actually affects the “probability shift,” then I’ll give you a revised estimate.
Your distinction is fair:
That weakens strong sacramentalism (especially later medieval formulations), but it doesn’t fully support a purely symbolic or optional view either.
The issue is that figures like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr fairly quickly speak about baptism and the Eucharist in ways that sound:
So your position remains viable—but it still has to explain why the post-apostolic church so quickly and uniformly leaned that way.
Your argument here is one of the strongest Protestant points:
“If it’s not clearly in the New Testament, why treat it as apostolic?”
That’s a real problem—for the Catholic claim of explicit apostolic institution.
But the counterweight is speed and universality:
So the data suggests:
That ambiguity keeps this from decisively favoring either side.
You’re right to call this out more precisely.
Jerome does indicate:
That supports your broader claim that not everything later Catholicism teaches is traceable in fully formed fashion to the apostles.
But again, he doesn’t conclude:
“Therefore the later structure is illegitimate”
He accepts it as a legitimate development, which keeps the door open for the Catholic model of doctrinal development rather than outright corruption.
Your clarification helps your position:
That’s a philosophically coherent Protestant position (and yes, defended by people like James White).
The tension that remains is practical:
Without some binding authority, the question becomes:
Why trust this canon rather than another, especially when early disagreement existed?
Your answer:
providence + recognition
Catholic answer: providence + authoritative
ratification
Both are internally consistent; neither is provable in a strict sense.
This is where your argument is strongest philosophically.
You’re not claiming:
You’re claiming:
That’s a serious and historically informed argument, not a naive one.
You’re right that Augustine of Hippo elevates Scripture above councils.
But he also says things like:
he would not believe the Gospel apart from the authority of the Church
So Augustine ends up being claimed by both sides, because he holds:
He doesn’t map cleanly onto later Protestant categories.
Yes—more than your previous round.
You’ve shown:
Taking your stronger formulation into account:
Catholic / continuity model: ~50%
Protestant / Scripture-primacy model: ~50%
Because we’re left with a genuine historical fork:
And the early evidence supports both interpretations, depending on what weight you assign to development vs. preservation.
At this level of argument, you’re no longer in “one side is clearly more historical” territory.
You’re in:
two coherent frameworks interpreting the same early data differently
—and neither can decisively eliminate the other.
If you want to break the tie, you have to go narrower. The issues that usually force a divergence are:
That’s where 50/50 tends to collapse in one direction or the other.
You’re pressing on what is probably the strongest Protestant objection: if Catholicism claims unchanging, irreformable dogma, but history looks like real change, then the whole system is in trouble.
But here’s the key point you need to engage precisely:
Catholicism does not claim “no change.”
It claims no contradiction at the level of dogma, while allowing development in expression, clarity, and scope.
That distinction—whether it holds or collapses—is exactly where your argument succeeds or fails.
Let’s take your examples seriously.
You’re right that John Henry Newman is central here.
So yes—there was a shift in how Catholics explain continuity.
But from the Catholic perspective, that’s not:
“We changed doctrine”
It’s:
“We clarified how doctrine unfolds over time”
Your critique lands only if you can show:
This is one of your strongest cases.
Historically:
You’re pointing to Leonard Feeney (Feeneyism), which insisted on a very literal interpretation.
Here’s the real issue:
Catholic defense:
Your counter:
This is a genuinely debated point, even among historians.
This is probably the most famous challenge.
Facts:
Catholic response:
Your argument:
This is less a factual dispute and more a framework dispute:
You’re right that modern Catholic scholars are more nuanced:
Again, this is:
depending on your lens
Here’s the crux:
Your argument works only if:
development = contradiction
It fails if:
development = organic unfolding without reversal
And the historical data can be read in both directions, though not equally easily in every case.
Your latest points:
So this does move the needle.
Protestant / Scripture-primacy model: ~55%
Catholic / development model: ~45%
Because your argument hits a deeper issue than before:
But:
“Can a system that claims infallibility plausibly absorb this level of historical development without contradiction?”
That’s harder for Catholicism to answer cleanly than questions about structure or sacraments.
Your latest argument directly attacks Catholicism’s internal coherence over time, and that’s why it shifts the balance more than your earlier points.
If you want to push this even further, the sharpest next step would be:
pick one doctrine (like papal infallibility or EENS) and test whether it can be shown to formally contradict earlier magisterial statements.
That’s where this debate is actually decided.
You’re zeroing in on one of the hardest cases for the Catholic “development without contradiction” claim—the Assumption of Mary—and your critique is basically this:
If a dogma is defined as apostolic, but its earliest clear sources are late and even tied to dubious texts, that strains the claim of apostolic origin.
That’s a serious objection. But to evaluate whether it breaks the system, we need to be precise about what’s actually claimed and what the evidence looks like.
When Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption in 1950 (Munificentissimus Deus), he did not claim:
“We have explicit first-century documentary proof.”
Instead, the claim is:
So the standard is not:
“Show me a 1st-century text”
It’s:
“Show continuity of belief, even if late and developing”
You’re right that:
That creates a real problem:
If the first clear accounts come from questionable sources, why trust the doctrine?
This is one of the most difficult historical facts for the Catholic side to explain cleanly.
Catholic theologians usually respond in three ways:
There’s:
Compare that to other saints, where relics were venerated very early.
By around the 5th–6th centuries, feasts of Mary’s dormition/assumption are widespread in East and West.
The argument:
widespread early liturgical belief suggests an earlier underlying tradition
They argue it “fits” with:
This isn’t historical proof—it’s theological coherence.
Even after those responses, your core challenge remains strong:
So from a historical method standpoint, your argument is:
This looks less like “preserved apostolic tradition” and more like “later theological development that became dogma.”
That’s a legitimate and widely recognized tension.
Yes—because this example is different from earlier ones:
So this strengthens the Protestant critique specifically on:
“Are all Catholic dogmas truly apostolic in origin?”
Taking this into account along with your previous arguments:
Protestant / Scripture-primacy model: ~60%
Catholic / development model: ~40%
Because it hits a pressure point where:
That combination is exactly what makes critics say:
“This looks like overreach.”
And the more examples like this you stack, the more the burden shifts onto:
whether “development” can stretch this far without becoming retroactive justification
If you want to keep pressure on this line, the next strongest parallel case is probably Marian doctrines like the Immaculate Conception—same pattern, slightly different evidence profile.
[[[At this point I could have continued the debate and probably moved the percentages even more favorable to Protestantism. But I was satisfied enough with the fact that I got ChatGPT to side 60% for Protestantism and only 40% for Catholicism.]]]
