If we’re needing to get rid of it, we should at least know what it is. What is Protestantism?
At the end of the 15th century and the beginning of the 16th century, the Roman Catholic church held almost complete power over the governments, churches, and lives of the West. Heroic men like Jan Huus, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, and John Wycliffe courageously stood against that power because the Roman Catholic Church had been abusing their power by enacting & teaching serious errors for centuries. These men and other paragons, who were committed to the truth of the Bible, protested against the corruption of Rome. Their collective movement became known as the Protestant Reformation. This movement reformed Christianity to its 1st century roots, which focused on Jesus, the Bible, and God’s glory rather than what Rome had been preaching: indulgences, Mariology, and worldly power. Today, the branch of Christianity that is committed the Bible as the highest authority is known as Protestantism. But this post is not about the history of the Reformation or of the steady corruption of the Roman Catholic Church.
Simple. It’s a rebrand. 500 years ago, it was distinctive to be known by which theological tradition one held in relation to the Roman Catholic Church. Today, Protestants have no interest in being identified by their rejection of the ecclesiastical structure of the Vatican. We need to replace the moniker of Protestantism with:
Scripturian
Why did the reformers push to leave the Roman Catholic Church? Because Rome had left the authority of God’s eternal word for ecclesial authority. Scripturians recognize the authority of the Bible as preeminent. We should be identified by what we believe as distinctive and not from whom we once split 500 years ago.
Why not simply Christian? Good question. Yes, as the Apostle Paul said over and over in his epistles, our identity is “in Christ”. But the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox also claim this title. What makes Scripturians distinct from the Vatican and Byzantium is that we regard the Bible as our authority. While Rome seemingly prefers to be known by their statues of Mary, Scripturians prefer to be known by SOLA SCRIPTURA.
When Jesus questioned the reigning theological powers of his day with: “Have you not read…?” He was explicitly declaring that God’s Word is the authority to which the lacking shepherds (Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes) SHOULD have submitted rather than their worldly traditions. The Roman Catholic church should listen to Jesus. They should submit to the Word of God rather than their worldly traditions.
Thankfully, there are many Christian teachings that both Roman Catholics and Scripturians can unite, but the reasons that I am not a Roman Catholic are because of the significant unbiblical errors that the Vatican teaches.
So, let’s unite in this rebranding. Let’s get rid of Protestantism and embrace what truly identifies us as distinct: God’s Eternal Word captured in scripture. We are Scripturians because we want to be identified as believers in what God has revealed in the Bible. Roman Catholics could rebrand as Mariologists, or Papists, or Indulgencians because those are the things that identify them as distinct within Christendom
We’ve got 2 more chapters to go through. In chapter 3, Dr. Ball took the opportunity to look at some evidence (that in the past) was presented to support a young earth. What happens when a scientist, who believes in evolution, views evidence through their lens of evolution? You guessed it, they see evolution and deep time everywhere. Let’s looks specifically at Dr. Ball’s statements about evidences for a young Earth. His comments are in red, with my reply following directly in the default black
At this point, it may appear to the reader that conspicuously missing from the list of scientific evidences are the evidences for a young Earth. I can assure you that it isn’t an oversight.
I addressed this kind of thinking in my article which scrutinized Dr. Ball’s work in Chapter 2. Essentially, there’s no “evidences for an old Earth” or “evidences for a young Earth”. There’s just evidence. Everyone interprets evidence in accordance with their worldview. For Dr. Ball, his worldview is that the Bible is pliable to whatever the latest conclusions from the modern academic paradigm tell him. For Young Earth Creationists, we hold the Bible to be the highest authority, and we view the evidence through the lens that what God has revealed in the Bible as true.
Short Period Comets
Short period comets appear to suggest that the solar system is only a few thousand years old, since comets actually burn away each time they pass close to the Sun, where they interact with the solar wind in producing the fiery tails we observe
Yes, I covered this in Chapter 2. And as expected, Dr. Ball proposes an unseen hypothesized ring of extra solar system objects. Unscientific.
Thickness of Lunar Dust
estimates (if billions of years old) of dust accumulation both on the Earth and on the Moon had been made as early as 1960, using mountain measurements of nickel dust fall [31], which suggested that there may well be an extensive layer of Moon dust, as much as 145 feet…In fact, only about two inches of Moon dust was found at the landing site…This was then hailed as evidence for a young Moon (since accumulation would have only been happening for about 6000 years)…This was then hailed as evidence for a young Moon
This argument has not been used by young Earth creationists in over 30 years. In 1993 (a decade BEFORE Dr. Ball wrote his book), the preeminent young Earth creation organization, Answers in Genesis, wrote an article telling Christians not to use this argument, as it is flawed. Since Dr. Ball considers himself a man of science, there’s no reason that in the next edition of his book, he will have been able to address the latest and most advanced arguments from AIG, Creation.com, and ICR.org rather than trying to defeat an argument that has not been used since before Al Gore invented the internet.
Decay of the Earth’s Magnetic Field
At the present rate of decay, the magnetic field may actually go to zero in a few tens of thousands of years from now…Since the field appears to dying, one can attempt to extrapolate backwards in time to some plausible upper limit to the field strength to calculate an age for the Earth. As expected, such estimates lead to an age for the Earth no more than 10,000 years
Dr. Ball cites the work from Paul Taylor, p50 in the Illustrated Origins Answer Book in 1992. Much work has been done regarding this field of research since 1992. This article from CMI directly addresses Dr. Ball’s objections and shows that rather than the conclusions to which Ball came to, the conclusions of a young Earth are more appropriate. Another from AIG shows that the problems of the old earth models persist given the assumptions that Dr. Ball takes. Dr. Ball’s primary objection to the conclusion of a young Earth with regards to the Magnetic decay relies on radiometric dating, which as we discussed in Chapter 2, are both filled with assumptions and are wildly inaccurate
The rock layers can also be radiometric dated, so that we can determine when the magnetic north pole was near which geographic pole
There’s no reason to accept the conclusions about magnetic decay from Dr. Ball as they are both discordant with the biblical timeline and the conclusions from scientific evidence
Radio Halos in Primordial Rock
Dr. Ball explains the reason why young Earth creationists think that the decay of Polonium in granite is evidence for YEC
The discovery of radio halos by Oak Ridge laboratory scientist Robert Gentry was touted as a clear counterexample to the claims of antiquity made for the oldest primordial rock layers in the Earth. Such halos were claimed be formed from the decays of Polonium-218, which has a halflife of only 3 minutes. They can only form in hardened or crystallized rock. If such halos were found in the oldest rock layers, which as we’ve discussed in the last chapter required a long period of time to cool off sufficiently before solidifying, then how did the Polonium-218 get inside of the rock after it formed? Young Earth proponents claim this is clear evidence that God instantly formed the rock layers of the Earth
Then Dr. Ball explains why he doesn’t like this evidence:
To examine this evidence properly is difficult, since the discovery of various types of halos in rock is still being investigated
Of course it is still being investigated. Those, like Ball, who hold to an old Earth belief, do not like the obvious implications of the rapid cooling of pre-Cambrian rock and the presence of halos from fast-decaying radioactive elements. In the same way that Dr. Mary Schweitzer did not like the implications of finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones, so she repeated the experiment SEVENTEEN times before finally accepting the results. To protect their worldview, they have to try to find a rescue device. Dr. Ball continues with the proposed rescue devices:
Geologist Jeffrey Richard Wakefield carefully examined the locations indicated by Gentry and concluded that each one was actually a younger infusion of igneous rock into the older primordial rock layers…At least one recently discovered mechanism involves a slow gradual process, favoring a much longer period of time in their development
The panic is real. Dr. Ball says that the location is particularly a problem and there might be other ways to explain the data…though he gives no details. Dr. Ball continues:
But the bigger problem I see here is the attempt at using some complex phenomena, without the benefit of a more thorough investigation into its mechanisms, to support a particular age of the Earth
I’ve been told that creationists aren’t REAL scientists, yet Dr. Ball says here that Dr. Gentry is examining “complex phenomena” to make conclusions. Dr. Ball may not like the conclusions, but the research is definitely being done my qualified scientists with qualified investigative methods. I also find it somewhat rich for an old Earther to criticize a scientist making conclusions about the age of the Earth based on the perceived lack of “thorough investigations” considering the failed evolutionary arguments from the last few decades given thorough investigations:
It is a common question of young Earth creationists: “how did light get to Earth in only 6000 years if the light source is billions of light years away?” Dr. Ball asks this question without a very careful investigation of the 1 possibility he critiques or the other possible solutions
Finally, we consider a recent cosmological model claiming support for a young Earth, a model proposed by Gerald Humphries in 1996 in his book, “Starlight and Time”
“Gerald Humphries”?!!?!? Perhaps he means Dr. Russell Humphreys, who wrote the book in question.
Dr. Ball was critical of Dr. Humphrey’s model, but he used arguments, that if applied consistently to his own Big Bang model, would have destroyed it. He didn’t mention how he solves the problems:
Obviously, Dr. Ball could not have known about the fulfilled YEC prediction that was confirmed by the James Webb Space Telescope in 2022 since Dr. Ball wrote his book in 2003. But I added it to the list a a further complication for his foundational assumptions for this article. Dr. Humphreys has been met with fierce opposition to his proposal and has answered many of his critics with technical papers. Dr. Ball may not have known that the answers to many objections have been forthcoming since he didn’t even know Dr. Humphrey’s name.
Neither did Dr. Ball address the many other solutions to the light time travel “problem” that have been proposed by creationists:
Again, I will note that Dr. Ball couldn’t have known about all of these proposals since many of them have emerged as valid solutions in the last few years. The point is that scientists, who hold the Bible as the highest authority, have done and continue to do real scientific work without compromising the fidelity of the specially-revealed Word of God
Here lies the problem with Creation Science. It is not an attempt to understand the physical universe through application of basic laws and principles
This is not the problem, but the foundation. While the shifting conclusions from naturalistic assumptions will constantly change as new paradigms come and go, the eternal word of God will never change. It doesn’t need to change. Because God knows everything, his revelation cannot be overturned. The comment from Dr. Ball could be better said as: “Here lies the beauty of Creation Science. It is not an attempt to understand the physical universe through the eyes of unbelievers, but by accepting the history of the universe that God revealed in his word, creation scientists employ the application of basic laws and principles to make discoveries and solve problems.” As this graphic the humorously represents this principle, the universe has aged faster than the “speed of light”. Notice that the believed age (according to the reigning paradigm of the time) of the universe has changed through the decades and most times, the changes have been outside the previous supposed “error bars”:
Looking through the lens of evolution and the modern academic paradigm, Dr. Ball and other old Earthers will always see old Earth. When we look at the world through the lens of the Bible, we will be able to make sense of what God intended. Reality makes sense and the evidence is fully affirming of the YEC view. There is no logical reason for Christians to think that the constantly-changing theories/stories from old Earthers need to be used as counterfeit authorities to redefine the clear teaching of the highest authority: the Bible.
It will be a shock to no one that the Reformed Church and Roman Catholics disagree about authority. While the Reformed Church accepts the revelation of the Almighty in the Bible, the Roman Catholics hold to a splintered authority structure that gives the Magisterium/Vatican, Catholic traditions, and the Bible to have equal authority over matters of faith and practice.
This difference was highlighted in the fall of 2025 when the Bishop of Rome, Leo XIV, addressed a question about rewarding an American Democratic Senator, who has a notorious record for supporting the murder of unborn children. Rather than chastising the supposedly Catholic senator for pushing a platform that is obviously against the teachings of the Vatican, Roman traditions, and the Bible, the Pope completely capitulated to Leftist ideology by answering: “I think that is very important to look at the overall work that this Senator has done during…40 years of service…Someone that says they are against abortion but says they are in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life.” Ignoring the fact that the Pope equivocated the just punishment of a criminal with the unjust murder of the unborn, the Pope’s comments (correctly) raised the hackles of many self-professing Catholics, who do indeed hold to a pro-life position.
This brings up the crux of the disagreement between the Reformed and the Roman: By what standard can a Catholic disagree with the Vatican? If the person that they believe is God’s Vicar on Earth (or any priest/bishop/cardinal in Roman Catholicism) makes a declaration that is in disagreement with the Bible, how can a mere Catholic disagree?
Let’s analyze this response to see if it is valid or confusion:
“I know a bishop or priest is in error when he contradicts the teaching authority of the Church”
Unfortunately for Catholics, the bishops/priests/cardinals ARE the representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. A Catholic has no authority to which to appeal to criticize the teaching authority of Rome because the bishops and priests ARE the teaching authority of the Vatican. In this case, the bishop of Rome (Pope) is (according to them) Christ’s vicar on Earth. They believe he is the supreme authority over the Roman Catholics because he is supposed to be the representative of Christ Himself. So, if a Catholic doesn’t like something that the Pope says – too bad! They have nothing higher to appeal to than Christ’s representative. If they believe that the pope is mistaken (according to their OWN beliefs), they need to change themselves, because the pope represents the church and Christ Himself. To disagree with the Vicar of Christ is to reject their own beliefs
In the never ending debate between the Reformed and the Romans, SOLA SCRIPTURA is brought up. As a Reformed Christian I recognize and yield to the authority of God’s Word as the preeminent authority over matters of faith and practice. The Catholics inevitably say: “Scripture doesn’t interpret itself. You just believe your own interpretation of the Bible”. For sake of argument, I’ll just accept that assertion in this case, but I will push back on their own presuppositions. The reason that the Catholic gives for having a “better” epistemology is that they have the local priest/bishop to correct their private interpretation. I’m sure you noticed the problem: The Catholic in the screenshot above reserved the right to criticize bishops and priest as being in error, but they rely on the bishops and priests to correct the private interpretations of the Bible. It’s circular confusion. They can’t “know a bishop or priest is in error” since it is the bishop or priest on whom they rely to correct private interpretations. Confusion reigns for these poor Catholics.
“The church has two thousand years of consistent teaching”
Regarding the claim that Rome has had two thousand years of consistent teaching, I will point out that the Roman Catholics have a consistent tradition of adding new traditions:
Purgatory 1274 AD (2nd Council of Lyon)
Indulgences 1415 AD (Council of Constance)
Papal Infallibility 1870 (1st Vatican Council)
Mary Queen of Heaven 1954 AD (Pope Pius XII)
Today, the Roman Catholics aren’t known primarily for their commitment to the gospel of Jesus. They are instead known for their trendy traditions: Mariology, indulgences, purgatory, and focus on the Pope (including papal infallibility). These traditions are obviously not found in the Bible, but Rome continues to add these manmade traditions to their religion as if they have the same authority as scripture itself. In this situation with the pope capitulating to the leftist’s mantra about “you can’t be pro-life if you support the death penalty”, who is to say that this isn’t a new tradition that the current bishop of Rome is adding? In the same week, the Pope was roundly panned for blessing a block of ice at a pagan global warming ceremony. Who’s to say that blessing ice or supporting globalist initiatives won’t be new traditions of Roman Catholics? Certainly not Catholics, who might dislike the optics or the new direction of doctrines. They have no consistent standard to question (in their beliefs) “The Vicar of Christ on Earth”!!!
If the pope refuses to stand against abortion by the authority of the church against the state (in this case, a Senator), what good is his supposed authority? It was for such a time as this that the pope could rightly condemn a state representative for heretical views. Senator Durbin claims to be under the authority of the Vatican, yet he has persistently and callously voted for the continuation of child murder (abortion). Isn’t the pope Catholic? Why won’t he exhort (in the strongest possible terms) the political support by Senator Durbin of the genocide of the unborn?
What About Protestants?
The second half of Aaronaeus’s post was to ask about the protestants. How do protestants determine what is the right interpretation of scripture?
Perspicuity of Scripture – This concept that comes from the Bible itself tells us that the Bible is clear. It can be understood. Does that mean that EVERY single passage of scripture is easily understood on its first reading? No. The doctrine of perspicuity is “that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense.” In 2 Peter 3:16, the apostle tells us that some things are hard to understand. Immediately following, Peter tells his audience to grow in grace and knowledge. How does one grow in grace and knowledge? Proverbs 2:6 says that knowledge comes from the mouth of the LORD (the Bible). Psalm 119 “Teach me knowledge and good judgment, for I trust your commands” (the Bible). Reformed Christians can also gain knowledge from faithful teachers of the Bible in their Bible-believing church. And we should listen to those, who have worked hard spending time building a faithful Christian worldview based on the Bible. Let God’s word, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, give you knowledge from the mouth of God. As Christians, we should be studying God’s word and letting the faithful preaching of the word in the Bible-believing reformed church change our lives for the better. Someone might bring up 1 Corinthians 2:14 which says that the unspiritual person CANNOT understand the things of the Spirit. This is true, but this is not the claim of the Catholic. Those, whose hearts have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit DO have access to guidance by the Holy Spirit in matters of understanding God’s revelation.
Deuteronomy 6:6-7
2 Timothy 3:14-15
Psalm 19:7
Psalm 119:130
Romans 3:21-22
I Corinthians 14:33
Matthew 28:19-20
Denial of Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism – Implicit in Aaronaeus’s post is the idea that ANY and ALL protestant interpretations are equally faithful to the biblical text. I deny interpretive pluralism. While there are extremely minor acceptable interpretations within Christendom, the post-modern reinterpretations of the Bible to accommodate worldliness, modern paradigms, sexual perversion, and prosperity “gospels” are rejected because they are internally inconsistent.
Acts 17 – When the Bereans were faced with what they thought might be a new gospel from the apostle Paul, they did not call the supposed pope (Peter) to confirm whether it was ok for them to accept the arrival of the Messiah in Jesus. They went to the scriptures to test. The highest authority was what God had revealed in scripture, and when they tested Paul by them, they were commended by God. This is proof that the scriptures have greater weight than an ecclesiastical structure to which Roman Catholics yield.
God’s ability to communicate > than man’s ability to communicate. God has spoken through his word, and by God’s grace, we have the ability to read it. Under guidance by the Holy Spirit, the Christian is able to discern God’s Word. What the Catholic church teaches, is that lay people CANNOT discern God’s Word; they must get the infallible interpretation based on Rome’s manmade traditions mixed with the Vatican’s ever-changing interpretation. The Catholics say that you must listen only to what Rome says. Only Rome’s interpretation matters. I’ve asked Catholics several times where I can find the infallible interpretation of every verse in the Bible, so that I would know what Rome’s infallible interpretation is, but they can never provide it. The Catholic will be tempted to say: “whose interpretation is valid?” Firstly, it is not the entity that teaches Mariology, indulgences, and blesses ice. Secondly, the faithful Christian will strive for the best and most consistent application of using scripture to interpret scripture. While the scriptures are generally perspicuous, there are passages that need deeper study. So, we use the plain to interpret the obscure. We know from Luke 24:27 that ALL of scripture is about Jesus, and with this general principle in mind, we can (with the help of the Holy Spirit & faithful pastors/teachers) discern the correct interpretation. If there is dispute, we reason from the scriptures (the highest authority) to have consistency.
Distraction fallacies
Sweeping generalization: The sweeping generalization fallacy is: since most everyone disagrees about most things, then everyone disagrees about everything. For Catholics it takes the form of: “There are 40,000 protestant denominations.” One of the worst and most common misrepresentations from Catholics about protestants is that when people reject the Vatican that everyone splinters into irreconcilable denominations. Firstly, this is a hypocritical claim because the Catholic church has many denominations…perhaps as many as 250. These Catholic denominations have been deceived by the things of the world. Secondly, just because some protestants have a disagreement about some doctrine is NOT proof that everyone disagrees about everything in unreconcilable divisions. It’s fallacious.
Hasty generalization: A hasty generalization is taking a small sample size and applying it universally. So they fallaciously say: “private interpretation leads to snake handling because there’s a protestant sect that lets snakes bite them, so all protestant doctrine is false.” Catholics believe that since A protestant denomination misinterpreted the biblical text, then ALL protestants have misinterpreted the biblical text. It’s fallacious.
Equivocation fallacy: “The Catholic church as 1 single interpretation given to them from the Pope, so protestants must too”. It’s a perspective that views tribe as important rather than the biblical text itself. This is covered in the section below
Another implicit claim of the Catholics regarding the debate between the authority of Rome’s traditions vs. the authority of scripture, is TRIBE. For the Roman Catholics, it’s not so much about which doctrine or which interpretation speaks most consistently, it is “Are you a part of my theological tribe (Roman Catholicism)?”. They get the idea that there’s a Catholic tribe and a protestant tribe, so they think that the protestant tribe is both wrong (since it’s not in the Catholic tribe) and internally splintered since there are so many interpretations. I’ve already shown why Catholicism itself is wrong, but their belief that there is a single protestant tribe is also incorrect. Christians, who are reformed, don’t consider membership in a particular “tribe” to be what’s important. We consider what the text actually says/means to be what’s important for doctrinal faithfulness. Consistency and faithfulness to the text itself is what defines reformed Christianity rather than membership in a tribe as Catholics believe.
So Aaronaeus’s question is not applicable. Faithful Christians sit under the authority of elders in a Bible-believing church that holds to the authority of the the faithful Christian creeds/confessions. If an elder in the local body of believers acts outside the boundaries of Biblical doctrine, a Christian can appeal to scripture (the highest authority) to correct him. If a creed/confession is shown to be unbiblical, then a Christian can appeal to scripture. The Catholic has no such authority to which to appeal. They must obey the teachings of their priest, bishop or cardinal because that person IS their highest authority
ApoloJedi 