Assenting to Authority (Protestant vs. Catholic)

[brb3]

No let me boil this question down to you. How do Protestants come to know that “Scripture is the Word of God”? In other words, how do you know that the “Bible (is) the Gold Standard”? Simple question and I hope to see a straight forward answer

Since u won’t…then I will !

Yes, they do have Authority —scriptural, via Christ …provided the preach Christ & Christ Crucified.

Are they that first Church ? Nope …but, many have roots via CC …and they are our separated brethren.

 

[Semangelof]

I don’t have any trouble understanding the churches authority, however I do not understand how they can achieve that authority outside of transcendental means.

If you say Jesus gave you the authority then I must then say who gave Jesus the authority? God of course gave Jesus that authority, but that claim requires transcendental revelation. That is what distinguishes us who believe Jesus is God from those who believe He is just a man.

The revelation of the Holy Spirit is the first, not the authority of the church, for without the revelation of the Holy Spirit the church has claim to nothing. There would be no church through Peter without the Holy Spirits revelation to him that Jesus came from God, and was God and was the Messiah. The Holy Spirit is the first.

What we need is reliance on both. If we rely entirely on everyone being their own priest we fall to the mistakes of the protestants. In the protestant realm we have so many denominations our nondenominations have undenominations and even those split into denominations of undenominations. It’s insanity. An entire dependence on private revelation doesn’t work. We have to submit to some authority, because we fail to understand the Spirit on our own.

However if we lose all claim to the Holy Spirit we lose all hold on God. Because it is the Holy Spirit who acts first. It is through revelation of the Holy Spirit in which all claims of authority could reside.

We have to have both, somehow we have to have the right amount of both.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Since u won’t…then I will !

Yes, they do have Authority —scriptural, via Christ …provided the preach Christ & Christ Crucified.

Are they that first Church ? Nope …but, many have roots via CC …and they are our separated brethren.

That was really hard to understand. What are you trying to say?

Do you realize that to claims

1. Scripture is the Word of God
2. The Church today lacks the same teaching accuracy as before / or has strayed from the truth
3. The Church’s mission was to just give us Scripture and let us be

are all Transcendent CLAIMS. Do you understand that? You are trying to justify Transcendent claims by using more Transcendent claims. That is unreasonable. Please give me reason to think the three propositions listed above as true. If not, Protestantism does not stand.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I don’t have any trouble understanding the churches authority, however I do not understand how they can achieve that authority outside of transcendental means.

If you say Jesus gave you the authority then I must then say who gave Jesus the authority? God of course gave Jesus that authority, but that claim requires transcendental revelation. That is what distinguishes us who believe Jesus is God from those who believe He is just a man.

The revelation of the Holy Spirit is the first, not the authority of the church, for without the revelation of the Holy Spirit the church has claim to nothing. There would be no church through Peter without the Holy Spirits revelation to him that Jesus came from God, and was God and was the Messiah. The Holy Spirit is the first.

What we need is reliance on both. If we rely entirely on everyone being their own priest we fall to the mistakes of the protestants. In the protestant realm we have so many denominations our nondenominations have undenominations and even those split into denominations of undenominations. It’s insanity. An entire dependence on private revelation doesn’t work. We have to submit to some authority, because we fail to understand the Spirit on our own.

However if we lose all claim to the Holy Spirit we lose all hold on God. Because it is the Holy Spirit who acts first. It is through revelation of the Holy Spirit in which all claims of authority could reside.

We have to have both, somehow we have to have the right amount of both.

Actually, no! The initial assent must be 100% through reason.

Notice in my OP that I do not claim Christ has divinity as a proposition to assent to apriori. I only claim that Christ has demonstrated his authority on the Transcendent through his death and resurrection. At that point, where and from whom Christ attained his authority is irrelevant.

We cannot postulate Transcendent truths in our quest for discovering the true religion since none of the Transcendent truths are within the scope of human verification. We cannot see if Jesus got authority from the father. We cannot see if God is a Trinity in the first place. We cannot even see if a certain text is the inspired Word of God. To assume such things is to already be Christian. That is unreasonable.

So our first assent is always based on reason. Otherwise we can dream up any Transcendent truth we like, whether it be that a heaven and hell exists or that there are invisible flying Ponies in the world or any other thing you can think of. Both truths are unreasonable to believe in because there is no reason to think them true or that they are from a source that has seen these things or from a teaching authority coming from a source that has shown he/she can know such things.

But once one has found the right authority, one must assent 100% by faith. So in this case, that would be the Catholic Church. If one were to follow the above, all we will have are either Catholics or Agnostics. Why? Because no one will assent to a set of Transcendent truths without authority. The problem with Protestants and other religions (including Atheism) is that they do indeed assent to Transcendent truths (in the case of Atheism, this would be that there is no Transcendent reality in the first place) without bothering to ask if such an assent is reasonable. Neither of them want to look critically at their religious founder (or themselves) or “Church” to see if they have authority to make Transcendent claims. Rather, they will try to use the teachings themselves to try and back up the claim that they have authority. But that is unreasonable and a classic example of circular reasoning.

 

[Semangelof]

Actually, no! The initial assent must be 100% through reason.

I don’t understand. You claim reasonably authority or actual authority?

Notice in my OP that I do not claim Christ has divinity as a proposition to assent to apriori. I only claim that Christ has demonstrated his authority on the Transcendent through his death and resurrection. At that point, where and from whom Christ attained his authority is irrelevant.

I cannot accept that He actually did but through the Spirit. I cannot affirm by my senses that he was resurrected, I trust the account because the Spirit affirms it. I can use reason, but I cannot affirm it by that alone. There are several people on TV right now that demonstrate their authority on the transcendent that are frauds. I wish there was an easier way but I don’t know that there is. We have to use both faith and reason. Without the Spirit we never finish the work in our hearts, and without reason we waste our time on frauds.

From the very start of it all.

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “**Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. **18And I tell you that you are Peter,b and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hadesc will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee loosed in heaven.” 20Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Peter never reasoned the authenticity of God. I realize it could be helpful to the world to make God accessible entirely through reasoning, but I’m having trouble getting there in actuality. I also struggle with whether it would be profitable to do so.

And here

1Corinthians2:The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.c 14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

 

[Goya]

I don’t understand. You claim reasonably authority or actual authority?

I cannot accept that He actually did but through the Spirit. I cannot affirm by my senses that he was resurrected, I trust the account because the Spirit affirms it. I can use reason, but I cannot affirm it by that alone. There are several people on TV right now that demonstrate their authority on the transcendent that are frauds. I wish there was an easier way but I don’t know that there is. We have to use both faith and reason. Without the Spirit we never finish the work in our hearts, and without reason we waste our time on frauds.

From the very start of it all.

Peter never reasoned the authenticity of God. I realize it could be helpful to the world to make God accessible entirely through reasoning, but I’m having trouble getting there in actuality. I also struggle with whether it would be profitable to do so.

And here

You do realize that the Father is not the Holy Spirit, don’t you? Christ doesn’t say the Holy Spirit, or the Paraclete, or teh Spirit of Truth, or the Advocate, or the ‘Comforter’, revealed this to you…‘THE FATHER revealed this to you’ (St. Peter).

(I was about to point this out to you in prior post, but got sidetracked).

Not necessarily a crucial point in terms of your assertion–that ‘it begins with the Spirit’–but I don’t think you got the right starting point. That I believe, would be the pentacost.

And be that as it may, the Holy Spirit doesn’t come to all of the disciples, does he? Nope.

He comes to THE APOSTLES.

He works through THE APOSTLES.

IOW, he works through the established structure–the folks who were chosen–by Christ.

To use the Holy Spirit as you suggest–to pretend to circumvent the Church to access Trancendental Truth, outside of teh structure that Christ established, is simply folly–as evidenced by the thousands of denominations (as oyu pointed out) , ever splintering into more and more eccleisatical communites…

The Holy Spirit–along with the Son and the Father–share one common Will.

One person of the Trinity cannot and would not go against, undermine, or contradict the other.

…and so the Holy Spirit works with and through, the Church that Christ founded.

 

[brb3]

I don’t understand. You claim reasonably authority or actual authority?

I cannot accept that He actually did but through the Spirit. I cannot affirm by my senses that he was resurrected, I trust the account because the Spirit affirms it. I can use reason, but I cannot affirm it by that alone. There are several people on TV right now that demonstrate their authority on the transcendent that are frauds. I wish there was an easier way but I don’t know that there is. We have to use both faith and reason.

From the very start of it all.

Peter never reasoned the authenticity of God. I realize it could be helpful to the world to make God accessible entirely through reasoning, but I’m having trouble getting there in actuality. I also struggle with whether it would be profitable to do so.

And here

Saul tried to use reason to understand the new Way of Christ … and could not. It took revelation by Christ & HS to show him his error. And, it took directed revelations from Christ to him … to teach him the faith and his mission. It took a miracle… for Saul to become St. Paul.

Eufros …

If Christianity was revealed by reason alone … all our scientists and savants in this world would be Christians. But, it is not so. What to the wise man appears as folly and myth … is certitude to the Regenerated adoption of God. We walk “not by sight, but by faith, and revelation”. Faith is a mystery, conveyed to the believers by HS. We are talking supernatural encounters with the God-man to the converts of the Apostles … down thru the ages ---- via HS. Events we can not explain in ordinary ways to a secular man. We all enter via the ‘narrow’ door … as children, fully confessed ones !!

Yet, once we have faith …then our reason can be used to fully understand the need for
Authority.

Comprende ?

 

[Semangelof]

You do realize that the Father is not the Son, don’t you?

I believe that Jesus is God. I believe in the mystical union of the Holy Trinity.

John1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

To use the Holy Spirit as you suggest–to pretend to circumvent the Church to access Trancendental Truth, outside of teh structure that Christ established, is simply folly–as evidenced by the thousands of denominations (as oyu pointed out) , ever splintering into more and more eccleisatical communites…

Truth, which is why I do not suggest it. I suggest they both work together.

Yet, once we have faith …then our reason can be used to fully understand the need for
Authority.

Comprende ?

Agree, it is absolutely necessary. Without it, as I say, we will have nondenominations making undenominations into infinite absurdity.

 

[Goya]

I believe that Jesus is God. I believe in the mystical union of the Holy Trinity.

John1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Truth, which is why I do not suggest it. I suggest they both work together.

The persons are one God–not one person.

*The Father is not the Son;
The Son is not the Holy Spirit; and
the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

Yet they are one God.*

…and yes they work together–but the still, the Holy Spirit works thorugh the Church that Christ founded, and certainly does not work against her.

 

[Goya]

^^^btw: that little gem re. the Trinity, came from one of the early councils (don’t remembe which one). It’s not in your bible, but it’s very helpful in avoiding confusion regarding the Persons of the Trinity.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I don’t understand. You claim reasonably authority or actual authority?

I mean a reasonable authority. Usually we consider a reasonable authority (meaning an authority you arrive at through reason) to be the actual authority until proven otherwise.

I cannot accept that He actually did but through the Spirit. I cannot affirm by my senses that he was resurrected, I trust the account because the Spirit affirms it…

Well if that is really the reason you trust it, then you would indeed be unreasonable. Why? Because we do not even know of the existence of a Spirit before assenting.

As for the resurrection, just because you did not see it through your senses does not mean someone else who lived at that time did not. Those who lived at that time could see and know if did happen or not. This is why we say it is a historical truth.

We accept that Christ died and rose from the dead, the same way we accept the fact that Julius Caesar married Cleopatra. Neither of those claims require us to postulate the existence of a Holy Spirit or some other Transcendent mechanism.

Later on after assenting, we can say that our assent has been strengthened through the spirit but not before that.

Peter never reasoned the authenticity of God. I realize it could be helpful to the world to make God accessible entirely through reasoning, but I’m having trouble getting there in actuality. I also struggle with whether it would be profitable to do so.

Well Peter did reason. If Christ did not rise from the dead, he will have abandoned Christianity. If Christ just died, then Peter would be unreasonable to even think of Christ as anything more than a liar.

But we have a bit more of a challenge than Peter did. We not only need to verify Christ’s death and resurrection as historical fact, but we also need to make sure that it is reasonable to think that Peter has authority to teach what Christ taught. Essentially, we need to figure out the authority who can teach us these Transcendent truths.

To just believe in Transcendent truths is dangerous and unreasonable. Do you at least agree with that? Because we can make up and believe anything. Proof in point, take a religion like Hinduism with their 1 million+ deities, Islam, or a cult like that of David Koresh or Jim Jones. So regardless of how uncomfortable we may feel, we have to accept that we cannot just assent to arbitrary Transcendent claims unless we have pure reason to think that the person making the claims has authority.

 

[Semangelof]

The persons are one God–not one person.

*The Father is not the Son;
The Son is not the Holy Spirit; and
the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
I understand what you mean now.

 

[Semangelof]

Well if that is really the reason you trust it, then you would indeed be unreasonable. Why? Because we do not even know of the existence of a Spirit before assenting.

As for the resurrection, just because you did not see it through your senses does not mean someone else who lived at that time did not. Those who lived at that time could see and know if did happen or not. This is why we say it is a historical truth.

If I believe without reason then yes that is unreasonable and is folly. That he died is an historical historical truth, that He rose is not in our history books. Only you and I believe that. We reason it is true by the 500+ who saw Him, and the Spirit works invisibly on our hearts to complete the truth. 500 people is not enough to convict by reason alone, if it were we would have to accept all sorts of heresies.

Well Peter did reason. If Christ did not rise from the dead, he will have abandoned Christianity. If Christ just died, then Peter would be unreasonable to even think of Christ as anything more than a liar.

That he reasoned there is not doubt, but it is the word of God that the truth was revealed to him first, without flesh and blood.

To just believe in Transcendent truths is dangerous and unreasonable. Do you at least agree with that? Because we can make up and believe anything. Proof in point, take a religion like Hinduism with their 1 million+ deities, Islam, or a cult like that of David Koresh or Jim Jones. So regardless of how uncomfortable we may feel, we have to accept that we cannot just assent to arbitrary Transcendent claims unless we have pure reason to think that the person making the claims has authority.

Have I not said so myself?

 

[Eufrosnia]

If I believe without reason then yes that is unreasonable and is folly. That he died is an historical historical truth, that He rose is not in our history books. Only you and I believe that. We reason it is true by the 500+ who saw Him, and the Spirit works invisibly on our hearts to complete the truth. 500 people is not enough to convict by reason alone, if it were we would have to accept all sorts of heresies.

The fact that he rose from the dead does not need to be in history books for it to be historical fact. And what exactly do you mean by history books? Do you mean something like text books? Because the resurrection is indeed something that those at the time can see and would have written about. So you can take the Scriptures as historical text to support the claim that Jesus did rise from the dead.

So make no mistake, if all we have is a belief, then Christianity is not worthy of assent.

That he reasoned there is not doubt, but it is the word of God that the truth was revealed to him first, without flesh and blood.

There is no spirit, Word of God, etc before assent. If Jesus died and did not rise, regardless of what Peter felt, he would be unreasonable to assent.

So reason has to settle what or who to assent to. It is not a mixture.

Have I not said so myself?

But you keep insisting in having Transcendent truths as support for assent. You cannot logically do that since it will require you to already assume the religion that gives you the Transcendent truths to be true. So that gets you nowhere, yes?

 

[Semangelof]

The fact that he rose from the dead does not need to be in history books for it to be historical fact. And what exactly do you mean by history books? Do you mean something like text books? Because the resurrection is indeed something that those at the time can see and would have written about. So you can take the Scriptures as historical text to support the claim that Jesus did rise from the dead.

It’s a historical fact because it happened, which is something we believe through reason and faith, but our reason and faith is not acceptable to the world to make it a historical fact. If by reason alone it could do so then it would already be so.

There is no spirit, Word of God, etc before assent. If Jesus died and did not rise, regardless of what Peter felt, he would be unreasonable to assent.

We know through scripture that there was.

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “**Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. **

Peter did not give up his belief even after Jesus died. However after he witnessed the resurrection, his reason completed what was already in his heart.

But you keep insisting in having Transcendent truths as support for assent. You cannot logically do that since it will require you to already assume the religion that gives you the Transcendent truths to be true. So that gets you nowhere, yes?

Neither can you prove that Jesus rose from the dead by sufficient reason and yet we both believe. I believe that faith and reason complete the heart, and that one cannot be without the other in the Christian heart. Your reasoning and my faith are not sufficient apart from each other. Faith and reason complete the truth together. This is why the world does not share in our reasoning, they lack a key component to complete the truth.

You can reason all you want to the world, but you will not succeed unless the Spirit undoes what satan has done in their hearts.

 

[Eufrosnia]

It’s a historical fact because it happened, which is something we believe through reason and faith, but our reason and faith is not acceptable to the world to make it a historical fact. If by reason alone it could do so then it would already be so.

When you study Quantum Physics, though you didn’t perform the experiment yourself, you believe that the results are valid. That is a reasonable faith given the evidence you have to think it true. It is the same with Julius and Cleopatra.

What I am objecting to in your case is because you postulate more Transcendent claims like the Holy Spirit guiding you etc. There is no room for that in the initial part of the search.

We know through scripture that there was.

No we do not know. The existence or non-existence of a Holy Spirit is a Transcendent claim. We have no reason to assent to a Transcendent claim by a person unless we already know that person is authoritative to speak of such matters.

Assenting to Transcendent truths is not the same as believing a historical truth. Historical truths are things we know others can see from their senses. Transcendent truths are not.

Peter did not give up his belief even after Jesus died. However after he witnessed the resurrection, his reason completed what was already in his heart.

You sound like you knew Peter. Anyway, the point here is that you cannot assume Transcendent truths in your search. That is a logical issue. Not a theological one. So I am not sure what Peter has to do with this.

Neither can you prove that Jesus rose from the dead by sufficient reason and yet we both believe. I believe that faith and reason complete the heart, and that one cannot be without the other in the Christian heart. Your reasoning and my faith are not sufficient apart from each other. Faith and reason complete the truth together. This is why the world does not share in our reasoning, they lack a key component to complete the truth.

One can show that the death and resurrection is HISTORICAL. Otherwise I for one will not believe it. What madness it would be to believe something so supernatural without reason?

FYI, the Catholic Church itself is of the same position and has said so as it condemned errors of modernism.

You can reason all you want to the world, but you will not succeed unless the Spirit undoes what satan has done in their hearts.

Ok please understand. None of the above things exist as far as we know at the stage of looking for what to believe. First you need to know by reason as to what you should assent to. Then you assent. Otherwise your procedure is in logical error and you cannot conclude that you are reasonable to assent whichever thing you want to claim.

 

[Semangelof]

When you study Quantum Physics, though you didn’t perform the experiment yourself, you believe that the results are valid. That is a reasonable faith given the evidence you have to think it true. It is the same with Julius and Cleopatra.

What I am objecting to in your case is because you postulate more Transcendent claims like the Holy Spirit guiding you etc. There is no room for that in the initial part of the search.

Those things are established science and history and yet Jesus being the son of God is not, why? Because there isn’t sufficient reason for them to establish it. They lack a key piece to complete the truth.

No we do not know. The existence or non-existence of a Holy Spirit is a Transcendent claim. We have no reason to assent to a Transcendent claim by a person unless we already know that person is authoritative to speak of such matters.

Then you have created a paradox where reason proves scripture to be true and scripture disproves that reason to be valid on account of it self being false. Your paradox would deny us all.

One can show that the death and resurrection is HISTORICAL. Otherwise I for one will not believe it. What madness it would be to believe something so supernatural without reason?

It is historical that people believe it, but it is not accepted as historical fact that it happened, on account of insufficiency between the claim and evidence. It’s a lot easier to believe that Georoge Washington was a president, but that he was was god will require much more to stand to reason. As far as madness to do so without reason, have I not already said so?

FYI, the Catholic Church itself is of the same position and has said so as it condemned errors of modernism.

If what I have said is against your doctrine then I must cease in respect to the Forums and the Pope. If that is the case then we cannot converse any further here.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Those things are established science and history and yet Jesus being the son of God is not, why? Because there isn’t sufficient reason for them to establish it. They lack a key piece to complete the truth.

First thing is that before we speak of doctrine, here we are speaking of reasons to assent to a doctrinal system in the first place.

Now as I said a couple of times before, we only have access to the truth that Jesus is the Son of God through the teachings of the Church. Otherwise we only know that he has authority to teach the Transcendent knowledge by virtue of his death and resurrection. We cannot know if Jesus is Son of God through our senses because that itself is a Transcendent claim.

It also appears to me that you are confusing doctrine with reasons. The idea that the Holy Spirit guides us, or Grace is given to us, are Transcendent truths. Before assenting, we do not see them and we can only think of them with any certainty after assent. Therefore, they are useless at the stage of assent because we cannot use them in reasonable argumentation to convince ourselves.

To give you a more obvious example, it is true that God sustains every moment of our existence. But we do not know this through our senses because it is a Transcendent claim. We can only know this for sure after we have discovered the true set of Transcendent claims. If one were to argue that we should believe in Christianity because God sustains our every moment of existence, we would be illogical. The fact that God sustains is something that we are yet to know and we can only know with certainty once we have assented to a religion.

So I am not denying that the Holy Spirit works in all of us. Rather, the point here is that this truth is not known to anyone before they assent to Christianity. To assent to Christianity, one must have REASONS to think it has true Transcendent claims and the authority to teach it.

In this context, therefore we cannot speak of mixing Transcendent truths with reason to discover the true faith. The validity of assenting to Christianity stands or falls on the grounds of reason.

When you say things like “Holy Spirit revealed it to me”, we have no certainty that it is even the Holy Spirit, something else, or your own imagination. For all you know, it might be a pink invisible Pony that wants to trick you. The reason why it goes down to such absurd levels is because we are speaking of Transcendent truths. We cannot prove or deny them. So you can postulate any concept you like to back your distorted claim but it would still be unreasonable unless it can be backed by natural reason.

Do you understand the difference here and the problem with your position? You cannot have a semi Transcendent attempt at discovering religion because without religion, you cannot assume any Transcendent truths to begin with.

Then you have created a paradox where reason proves scripture to be true and scripture disproves that reason to be valid on account of it self being false. Your paradox would deny us all.

I am not sure what you speak of here. Scripture cannot disprove reason. When I say that the Holy Spirit cannot be known through reason, it does not mean that the Holy Spirit is a logically untenable concept. Rather, what it means is that there is no reason to think that a Holy Spirit exists on natural reasoning alone. It is a Transcendent truth that must be taught to us by an authority.

So there is no paradox.

It is historical that people believe it, but it is not accepted as historical fact that it happened

This is the most weirdest statement I have heard. One could say this about anything. It was believed by those at the time that Washington became president, but he was not etc. Your claim is meaningless because usually people believe at the time what they witnessed.

The Apostles didn’t die because they believed that Christ rose from the dead. What lunacy that would be. They died because they saw the risen Christ or those who saw the risen Christ told them about what they saw.

What puzzles me the most in all of this is whether you actually even believe what you are writing here or just trying to defend Protestantism. Who in their right mind would say that just because I feel convinced about some claim, it must be from the Holy Spirit and it must therefore be true? You should tell that to the people who followed Jim Jones or David Koresh.

 

[Semangelof]

So no one is really denying that the Holy Spirit works in all of us. Rather, the point here is that this truth is not known to anyone before they assent to Christianity. To assent to Christianity, one must have REASONS to think it has true Transcendent claims and the authority to teach it.

If you mean that the Spirit can work unknown to us in union with our reason then I agree.

When you say things like “Holy Spirit revealed it to me”, we have no certainty that it is even the Holy Spirit, something else, or your own imagination. For all you know, it might be a pink invisible Pony that wants to trick you. The reason why it goes down to such absurd levels is because we are speaking of Transcendent truths. We cannot prove or deny them. So you can postulate any concept you like to back your distorted claim but it would still be unreasonable unless it can be backed by natural reason.

We have ever been in agreement here. I have verified my agreement numerous times.

Do you understand the difference here and the problem with your position? You cannot have a semi Transcendent attempt at discovering religion because without religion, you cannot assume any Transcendent truths to begin with.

I understand that Faith without reason, and reason without faith each create their own paradox. I cannot prove by the transcendental alone and you cannot prove through reason alone. Neither one of us will succeed. However if we join forces, combine faith and reason, then hearts will change. That is my belief, faith combined with wisdom and knowledge (reason) complete the Christian soul. And I should add in reference to the beginning of this thread…Authority to guide that soul.

 

[Eufrosnia]

If you mean that the Spirit can work unknown to us in union with our reason then I agree.

We have ever been in agreement here. I have verified my agreement numerous times.

I understand that Faith without reason, and reason without faith each create their own paradox. I cannot prove by the transcendental alone and you cannot prove through reason alone. Neither one of us will succeed. However if we join forces, combine faith and reason, then hearts will change. That is my belief, faith combined with wisdom and knowledge (reason) complete the Christian soul.

Look, let me approach this again. My point is basically as follows.

One is reasonable in believing the Catholic Church has authority because it is verifiable through reason (as I listed in my OP).

One is unreasonable in assenting to Protestantism because it requires a prior assent to Transcendent truths.

Now from what I understand, you are trying to defend this by saying even Catholics need to assume some prior assent. But nothing in my OP requires prior assent to Transcendent claims. All of it is based on empirical claims that can be studied, refined or refuted. They may require faith in others that they are reporting what they saw but that is not a faith regarding a Transcendent claim. It is purely a empirical claim.

But now you may say it is still defensible to have Transcendent claims. I will object as follows

Let us take the simple propositions

1. Scripture is the Word of God because the Holy Spirit has revealed it to me
2. Jesus is the Son of God because the Holy Spirit has revealed it to me

Both the above propositions are doubtful because I can ask you one simple question. How do you know that a Holy Spirit exists before being Christian and how do you know that it was indeed the Holy Spirit speaking to you? It might be someone else speaking to you.

You might say that I felt this deep conviction that it was God speaking to me. But we all know of people who claimed as such and turned out to be wrong. Case in point, Jim Jones and his cult of followers or David Koresh and his cult of followers.

So my objection to you is that we cannot back our reason for assent using Transcendent claims. I agree that RELIGION is about Faith and Reason, only so far as we figure out the authority to assent by REASON and then assent to everything it teaches by FAITH.

But you cannot mix faith in Transcendent truths with reason in the process of assent. That is absurd. Surely, what part of this is logically unsound to you?

To lay it out in another argument

1. I have a deep conviction by the Holy Spirit that X is the Word of God
2. Therefore, I must believe in religion Y that holds X to be the Word of God

The above is unreasonable since proposition (1) itself is a Transcendent claim. Since no human can speak of Transcendent claims, no one can have any certainty about (1). When I mean any, I mean NO CERTAINTY. You cannot just conjure up propositions that cannot be disproved and just assume them true.

So as far as logic goes, what you are saying makes zero sense. Therefore what do you expect me or anyone else to do? Just agree with you? What you are saying is equivalent to 2+2 = 5. Its wrong and logically invalid.