Assenting to Authority (Protestant vs. Catholic)

[Goya]

I will fix your answer to why protestants and Catholics walk away more protestant and more catholic. It’s not that we need a new argument to beat each other over the heads with. It’s our hearts, they commonly lack love and peace. If your argument was true perfection and compulsory to me I would reject you on the sole reason that I neither wish to remember nor require to testify that a heart such as yours was the source of my conversion.

***We need to come to each other with love and peace, otherwise God is not a part of it. ***Without Him our works will fail, indeed they do fail.

This is, for better or worse, the truth of the matter. The mind follows the heart; not vice versa.

Christ’s loyalty began with love, and touching His follwoers, deeply.

…then, folks listened to what he said.

Some of them, even wrote some of it, down.

(A wise, sage friend of mine, once put it this way: People don’t usually remember you for what we say or do, nearly as much as they remember how you made them feel.)

 

[Semangelof]

And that highlights the exact issue here. The reason why we cannot know if the Sheriff has such authority is that “Power to confine a person to a location” is a Transcendent power. We cannot know if the Sheriff has such authority because he has not demonstrated an ability to make us think he has knowledge regarding Transcendent claims. Now we can accept it because you said so if YOU had demonstrated your authority on knowledge regarding the Transcendent. But since you have not provided any evidence to do so, I cannot assent to the idea that “Sheriff has power to confine another human being”.

The office of sheriff is not a transcendent office. If you want to shift the definition of transcendent between it’s theological one and it’s secular one to suit your purpose, I will say you disprove your credibility.

Christ is not revealed by men and neither am I claiming as such. But if Christ cannot give justification to think him authoritative on reason alone, he is indeed not worthy of belief. A religion being unworthy of belief is its weakness.

Ah, but He has given the proof of his authority. You missed it. It must be in your heart even now, or your reason is hypocritical.

In short, one does not need to show authority being given from God first to demonstrate that one is knowledgeable in a certain matter.

Have I not already given to you that you were given authority? Now I ask again that you prove that authority of value. Prove that Christ had the authority to give you that authority in the first place. You still have not, because you cannot. Your argument only at best proves the authority from a mystic. A worthless authority.

 

[Goya]

moved.

 

[Eufrosnia]

This is, for better or worse, the truth of the matter. The mind follows the heart; not vice versa.

Christ’s loyalty began with love, and touching His follwoers, deeply.

…then, folks listened to what he said.

Some of them, even wrote some of it, down.

I think we need to arrive at something objectively, equipped with reason. Not because the other person is loving or peaceful or good.

Because without religion, “love, peacefulness, goodness” are all arbitrary projections of our own selves and ideas. The gay person believes that one who supports their sexual orientation is a good person. The fornicator believes likewise and thinks he is in love with every person. The Muslim believes he is showing his love for God as he explodes himself and so forth.

So the biggest problem in the 21st century (now this is my opinion of course) is that people have become more gullible because they abandon reason. Maybe they always were this gullible and no one cared to exploit it straight out but with media, psychological research and other developments, there are lots of people ready to exploit these shortcomings.

Therefore, if one does not rely on reason, it is more than likely that one will stray very quickly in to projecting their own needs and desires on to God or Gods or following what others have conditioned in us to desire. That to me is dangerous and not worth the risk. Christianity can do better than that and that is what it should aim at. Not emotional appeal.

 

[Goya]

I think we need to arrive at something objectively, equipped with reason. Not because the other person is loving or peaceful or good.

Because without religion, “love, peacefulness, goodness” are all arbitrary projections of our own selves and ideas. The gay person believes that one who supports their sexual orientation is a good person. The fornicator believes likewise and thinks he is in love with every person. The Muslim believes he is showing his love for God as he explodes himself and so forth.

So the biggest problem in the 21st century (now this is my opinion of course) is that people have become more gullible because they abandon reason. Maybe they always were this gullible and no one cared to exploit it straight out but with media, psychological research and other developments, there are lots of people ready to exploit these shortcomings.

Therefore, if one does not rely on reason, it is more than likely that one will stray very quickly in to projecting their own needs and desires on to God or Gods or following what others have conditioned in us to desire. That to me is dangerous and not worth the risk. Christianity can do better than that and that is what it should aim at. Not emotional appeal.

I’m not saying it’s better–I’m simply recognizing the way it is. Sure there is great need for reason–but make no mistake–for Christianity to have exploded the way that it did, and to sustain as it has…was not a matter of ‘reason’, or dry intellectual revelation. It was indeed lead by emotion. Christ’s message is first and foremost, a revelation of and to, the Heart.

Chirst’s message(s) of Faith, Hope and Charity, of Love and Forgiveness, and of Life Eternal…resonate uinverally–they speak to Man’s heart, first.

Reason comes later.

We seek to reason, to figure out Christ’s message; we seek to reason, to understand it; we seek to reason, to reconcile the vileness of our worldly existence, with the beauty of His message…

…but it is indeed the beauty of the message, that calls us to reason–to in order to BELIEVE.

 

[Eufrosnia]

The office of sheriff is not a transcendent office. If you want to shift the definition of transcendent between it’s theological one and it’s secular one to suit your purpose, I will say you disprove your credibility.

Ok listen. The idea of the sheriffs office, in case you did not notice in the previous reply, was to use the power to confine. Such a power is not a natural one unless we are speaking of simply “him being mighty is reason for him to confine whoever he pleases”. Then in that case, YES, the sheriff has already demonstrated his authority through his size and we would do well to listen. You making him sheriff is not even necessary.

Now if I found a way to cure Cancer and also cured enough patients to show that it is not a random cure or some placebo effect, then you believe me as knowledgeable in the field of curing Cancer. This is not because I got authority from God or got a reference letter from him but because I demonstrated my authority on the subject to you. Which part of this are you finding hard to understand?

Ah, but He has given the proof of his authority. You missed it. It must be in your heart even now, or your reason is hypocritical.

What? I was speaking of the general case. Please read carefully. You are are attributing positions that I do not actually state.

Have I not already given to you that you were given authority? Now I ask again that you prove that authority of value. Prove that Christ had the authority to give you that authority in the first place. You still have not, because you cannot. Your argument only at best proves the authority from a mystic. A worthless authority.

I am not even sure what you are talking about here. You have constructed the idea that all authority must come from God. Such a fact is not worthy of belief until one assents and therefore certainly not even a requirement for assenting to an authority regarding ANYTHING.

So what exactly are you speaking of here?

If I found a cure for cancer and demonstrated that it works, I have demonstrated my knowledge regarding Cancer and a cure for it. it is my authority to give and pass that authority down to those who I select. This is how it works in any field.

I am not sure which belief system of Christianity you are from but it worries me that you go to the depth of denying something so obvious to justify your blind assent to it.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I’m not saying it’s better–I’m simply recognizing the way it is. Sure there is great need for reason–but make no mistake–for Christianity to have exploded the way that it did, and to sustain as it has…was not a matter of ‘reason’, or dry intellectual revelation. It was indeed lead by emotion. Christ’s message is first and foremost, a revelation of and to, the Heart.

Chirst’s message(s) of Faith, Hope and Charity, of Love and Forgiveness, and of Life Eternal…resonate uinverally–the speak to Man’s heart, first.

Reason comes later.

We seek to reason, to figure out Christ’s message; we seek to reason, to understand it; we seek to reason, to reconcile the vileness of our worldly existence, with the beauty of His message…

…but it is indeed the beauty of the message, that calls us to reason–to in order to BELIEVE.

What you say above is dangerous and obviously, without reason yes? The beauty of the message is not evidence that it is true. Also, the actual idea that our hearts lead to the truth is a bold Transcendent claim to make. One which we cannot say or know is true before assent.

Christianity definitely did explode in growth, but it is certainly not sustaining itself. It is withering and choking under the assault of Atheism. If Christians had actually assented on reasonable grounds, there would not be such withering under pressure and they would have reasons" to defend with. But as it stands, I agree that lot of people just converted because of the “beauty”. Now with lot more other “beautiful” positions opening up, people are becoming more and more confused.

Beauty after all, in the strict sense, is the quality of reflecting the ontological reality of the object. Since the ontological reality is usually Transcendent when it comes to many things, no one can even say for sure if a message is even beautiful. We have nothing to compare it against to say it is truly beautiful and captures the actual ontological reality.

So this whole “beauty appeals” business was the biggest scam ever used by anyone to convert people to their belief system.

 

[Semangelof]

Ok, please, before you unravel the whole nine yards of emotional appeal, I would advise you to stop. Hearts don’t convince anyone. If you had ever witnessed the conviction and “love bombing” done by the likes of cults of Jim Jones and David Koresh, you would not even stoop down to that level. Also, the word “LOVE” lacks any meaning apart from religion and is merely an emotional response. People name a lot of things as “LOVE” these days and that alone should make one cringe at the idea of convincing others by “LOVE”.

As far as a person is concerned, any authority not backed by reason is not worthy of assent. To say otherwise is to appeal to an authority which has no reason to give to believe it is a worthy authority to assent to, which by definition, is absurd.

You deny peace and love. Therefore I reject you entirely. I walk away from this entire thread for no portion of God is presented in your efforts.

I pray that God never gives you a position of power. For you deny the fruits of the Spirit. Outside of those fruits your works will only accord with the devil.

 

[Eufrosnia]

You deny peace and love. Therefore I reject you entirely. I walk away from this entire thread for no portion of God is presented in your efforts.

I pray that God never gives you a position of power. For you deny the fruits of the Spirit. Outside of those fruits your works will only accord with the devil.

Sigh. Well, do whatever you wish. I can only give reason. I cannot give you peace or love because those things do not mean anything before assent. Even me telling you Protestantism is wrong would be considered by you as “not love” while for me it would be one of the greatest acts of charity I can do. But you can reject all of it with your free-will and believe whatever fairy tale you want.

But at least keep in mind that the collapse of the Catholic position is not support for Protestantism either. The correct conclusion would be that both are fairy tales. Not that we are reasonable in believing them now by pure faith.

Anyway, at least know that Catholicism has a reasonable position which you have not, at least in this thread, shown to be invalid. So at least when the day comes when you start to get tired of just believing a fairy tale, please try to reanalyze what I have said and maybe you will become a Catholic.

 

[Goya]

What you say above is dangerous and obviously, without reason yes? The beauty of the message is not evidence that it is true. Also, the actual idea that our hearts lead to the truth is a bold Transcendent claim to make. One which we cannot say or know is true before assent.

Christianity definitely did explode in growth, but it is certainly not sustaining itself. It is withering and choking under the assault of Atheism. If Christians had actually assented on reasonable grounds, there would not be such withering under pressure and they would have reasons" to defend with. But as it stands, I agree that lot of people just converted because of the “beauty”. Now with lot more other “beautiful” positions opening up, people are becoming more and more confused.

Beauty after all, in the strict sense, is the quality of reflecting the ontological reality of the object. Since the ontological reality is usually Transcendent when it comes to many things, no one can even say for sure if a message is even beautiful. We have nothing to compare it against to say it is truly beautiful and captures the actual ontological reality.

So this whole “beauty appeals” business was the biggest scam ever used by anyone to convert people to their belief system.

Whooaaa there, Nelly…

1st, I did not say "…our hearts lead us to Truth’–I said ‘we’–as in human beings–are lead by our hearts. That’s not a transendant claim; it’s a claim about human nature. For better or for worse, that’s how we’er wired;

2nd–don’t be so quick to condemn exploitation of this wisdom–for Chirst himself explotied it, much to all of our benefit;

3rd–how can you underestimate the beauty of teh message? There is nothig to compare to it’s beauty… Our charge, is to carry its beauty to the World. Our challenge, is to champion its beauty, over the sex appeal of sin.

 

[Goya]

You deny peace and love. Therefore I reject you entirely. I walk away from this entire thread for no portion of God is presented in your efforts.

I pray that God never gives you a position of power. For you deny the fruits of the Spirit. Outside of those fruits your works will only accord with the devil.

I don’t believe that’s what he did, nor do I think your reaction is warranted.

He’s fitting reason into faith–and surely reasonable minds may disagree as to where/how it all fits together.

That’s hardly cause to suggest that he ‘denies peace and love’.

fwiw.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Whooaaa there, Nelly…

1st, I did not say "…our hearts lead us to Truth’–I said ‘we’–as in human beings–are lead by our hearts. That’s not a transendant claim; it’s a claim about human nature. For better or for worse, that’s how we’er wired;

2nd–don’t be so quick to condemn exploitation of this wisdom–for Chirst himself explotied it, much to all of our benefit;

3rd–how can you underestimate the beauty of teh message? There is nothig to compare to it’s beuty… Our charge, is to carry its beauty to the World. Our challenge, is to show the beauty, over the sex appeal of sin.

But what do you mean by beauty until we have already assented? If we do not believe certain Transcendent truths about humanity and its nature, we will not necessarily agree that Christian ethics are beautiful. It may seem harsh or incorrect depending on our view of human nature.

This is why I believe that the beauty of the message is not good enough.

In the case of Christ, to reduce it to that I think is a problem. I do not think that people believed Christ, even before his death and resurrection, because he just seemed to pain a pretty picture.

I would say there were two types of assent before that. One which came from people who were already Jews and saw the consistency of what Jesus said with their Jewish faith (probably very few). The second, those who assented because they saw Jesus actually forgive sins which they perceived by him curing people of diseases (especially the unclean), casting out demons etc. So the fact that they already believed in someone being possessed or unclean would also tell us that they already believed in that part of the Transcendent claims. If these were Jews or Samaritans, that would be the certainty of the faith handed down from generation to generation. A certainty that was given through events such as the Exodus, Punishments by God when they did not keep the covenant etc.

But without getting in to the topic of justifying Jewish assent through reason, Christ I would say, did appeal to reason.

 

[brb3]

I am talking about anyone’s authority to teach knowledge. That authority is attributed to a person who has demonstrated his/her expertise on the subject by an act, and from a student that this very person has selected to carry on and teach the knowledge that he taught.

The fact that all authority is given by God in this case is an underlying Transcendent truth. It is not apparent till one assents to a religion that claims that as true

OK … how about Billy Graham, Charles Spurgeon, John MacArthur, Alistair McGrath, etc …

Do they have the Authority of God … to teach the Gospel ? What about the laity … me/you/etc ? Who decides who God has approved ?

 

[brb3]

I can only give reason. Even me telling you Protestantism is wrong would be considered by you as “not love” while for me it would be one of the greatest acts of charity I can do. But you can reject all of it with your free-will and believe whatever fairy tale you want. rrect conclusion would be that both are fairy tales. Not that we are reasonable in believing them now by pure faith.

.

How was the early church recognized ? By their reason, or by their Love ?

If Protestantism is wrong … then why does God affirm it with grace and gift of HS ?
And, why does the Catholic Church leadership affirm Protestants are redeemed children of God ?

 

[Eufrosnia]

OK … how about Billy Graham, Charles Spurgeon, John MacArthur, Alistair McGrath, etc …

Do they have the Authority of God … to teach the Gospel ? What about the laity … me/you/etc ? Who decides who God has approved ?

I think it is very important that we understand what we mean by teach as pertaining to what we teach. When we say, the Church has the sole authority to teach the gospel, we are speaking of the Church’s authority to interpret the gospel with finality. When the Church says that x,y,z are called to teach, the Church means that the person knows the Catholic position regarding things and can convey that to others. They can even read Scripture in light of Catholic understanding (note how one is already convinced who is right before reading) and even perform and use private interpretations to teach as long as it is not contradictory with the Church teaching.

So there are two types of teaching offices, if you will, at work.

Now, all the people you listed, we usually speak of the second type of teaching. They do not have authority to say that they are the final interpreter of Scripture because they don’t really have anyway to tie their authority using natural reason to Christ. So usually they will tie it in a supernatural way by appealing to a claim such as “Holy Spirit will guide me to interpret this infallibly”. But what most the followers fail to realize is that there is really no reason to think that claim true.

So the Protestant who listens to these individuals will usually then go and interpret the Bible in light of what has been taught to them as well.

What you have to realize, and what many Protestants do not realize, is that a passage in Scripture can have many interpretations. One can actually construct many different frameworks consisting of various contradictory interpretations of the Bible.

Take John 6 for an example. One may interpret it to be symbolic, real, Jesus joking around, Jesus just testing us and not really meaning what he says etc. None of them force us to interpret another passage a certain way so we can build a number of different contradictory interpretations around this very interpretation itself. At the end of the day, they are all just interpretations. Add to this the problem that Protestants don’t have access to entire Divine Revelation because they do not accept Tradition and you can see how the process can very easily stray from the truth.

I am glad you asked the question btw. A very good one and I hope the above answer helps you better understand the issue.

 

[brb3]

So there are two types of teaching offices, if you will, at work.

Now, all the people you listed, we usually speak of the second type of teaching. They do not have authority to say that they are the final interpreter of Scripture because they don’t really have anyway to tie their authority using natural reason to Christ. So usually they will tie it in a supernatural way by appealing to a claim such as “Holy Spirit will guide me to interpret this infallibly”. But what most the followers fail to realize is that there is really no reason to think that claim true.

So the Protestant who listens to these individuals will usually then go and interpret the Bible in light of what has been taught to them as well.

So then … they have God’s Authority to teach the Gospel, as Evangelizers … and are being led of H.S. ?
So long as they don’t develop Doctrines / Dogmas … and tell Catholics they must believe them ?

 

[Eufrosnia]

So then … they have God’s Authority to teach the Gospel, as Evangelizers … and are being led of H.S. ?
So long as they don’t develop Doctrines / Dogmas … and tell Catholics they must believe them ?

The ones you speak of have authority to teach Protestant understanding of Scripture. Other than that, they are really “pulling things out of their arse” so to speak on what Scripture speaks of in different points. So not only are they wrong to teach Catholics but Protestants too. They may be right half of the time or wrong half of the time. (Keep in mind that they are incorrect to teach anyone that what they teach is what the actual gospel teaches i.e. that Protestant understanding is THE correct understanding. But obviously this is what they do).

The real problem here is that there is actually no teaching that all faithful are guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture correctly. If you read history and know a bit about the organization structure of the Church in the early periods, such a thing was missing even at that time.

But what is scary today is that it has become the cornerstone of Protestant Theology. No one bothers, or perhaps is somewhat reluctant, to even ask how they came to know it. Usually many will try to justify this belief using Scripture. But that would of course require us to first believe it true i.e. trying to justify the guidance of the Holy Spirit every believer in interpreting Scripture is done by interpreting Scripture itself.

 

[brb3]

The ones you speak of have authority to teach Protestant understanding of Scripture. Other than that, they are really “pulling things out of their arse” so to speak on what Scripture speaks of in different points. So not only are they wrong to teach Catholics but Protestants too. They may be right half of the time or wrong half of the time. (Keep in mind that they are incorrect to teach anyone that what they teach is what the actual gospel teaches i.e. that Protestant understanding is THE correct understanding. But obviously this is what they
The real problem here is that there is actually no teaching that all faithful are guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture correctly. If you read history and know a bit about the organization structure of the Church in the early periods, such a thing was missing even at that time.

But what is scary today is that it has become the cornerstone of Protestant Theology. No one bothers, or perhaps is somewhat reluctant, to even ask how they came to know it. Usually many will try to justify this belief using Scripture. But that would of course require us to first believe it true i.e. trying to justify the guidance of the Holy Spirit every believer in interpreting Scripture is done by interpreting Scripture itself

Well they oftentimes say “Scripture interprets scripture”

… and we know scripture says “the HS will guide you unto all understanding” !

 

[Goya]

Eufrosnia;10742121]

But what do you mean by beauty until we have already assented? If we do not believe certain Transcendent truths about humanity and its nature, we will not necessarily agree that Christian ethics are beautiful. It may seem harsh or incorrect depending on our view of human nature.

My point is that beauty preceeds assent.

This is why I believe that the beauty of the message is not good enough.

Perhaps not enough, in and of itself, but without beauty attracting us in the first place, there is no incentive to apply reason.

e.g.–I see no attraction at all, to Islam. Hence I do not subject its claims to reason. I have dismissed them, almost ab initio (and certainly, that rejection has been mostly confirmed with what I have leared and read subsequent thereto).

In the case of Christ, to reduce it to that I think is a problem. I do not think that people believed Christ, even before his death and resurrection, because he just seemed to paint a pretty picture.

Christ’s disciples followed him everywhere he went. Palm Sunday? Laying palm fronds before his donkey, as he triumphantly entered J’lem? Within a mere three years of his ministry…

The Apostles don’t appear to apply much reason at all, until after they were already following him. Christ comes up to them, interrputs them in the middle of what they’re doing, says “…come, follow me…”–and they do. What reason was ever applied there???

Only after Christ is crucified, do we see them begin to apply reason. Before the Res’n, yes, they were scattered and in hiding–but that wasn’t a rejection according to reason–that was self-preservation, plain and simple. During this period, we see them begin to apply reason. The attraction to the beauty remained, and was evident even prior to the Pentacost–even prior to the Resurrection… then after the Resurrection, it was confirmed.

Worst sitll, is that when we see some of his disciples apply reason–it doesn’t work out so well.

“…many disciples walked with him no more”–John 6:66–right after, and directly in resonse to, Christ proclaiming the Eucharist ("…unless you eat the body of teh Son of Man, and Drink his blood, you have no life in you").

Apply reason to Christ’s claims about eating his body and blood…and ‘assent’ crumbles.

However, taken on Faith, according to the compulsion of the beauty of the message, and you have the foundation of Christ’s Church.

I would say there were two types of assent before that. One which came from people who were already Jews and saw the consistency of what Jesus said with their Jewish faith (probably very few). The second, those who assented because they saw Jesus actually forgive sins which they perceived by him curing people of diseases (especially the unclean), casting out demons etc. So the fact that they already believed in someone being possessed or unclean would also tell us that they already believed in that part of the Transcendent claims. If these were Jews or Samaritans, that would be the certainty of the faith handed down from generation to generation. A certainty that was given through events such as the Exodus, Punishments by God when they did not keep the covenant etc.

Again, they believed, because they wanted to believe; they wanted to believe, because it’s beautiful. Reason was applied after the initial attractant–beauty. Assent follwed, upon confirmation of their application of reason (i.e.–their eyes saw…then they beleived).

But without getting in to the topic of justifying Jewish assent through reason, Christ I would say, did appeal to reason

.

I’m not saying Chirst didn’t appeal to reason–I’m simply saying that the need, or cause, or application of reason, comes after the attractant of beauty.

What’s more, assent may even come before application of reason, according to the beauty of Truth–as it did with the Apostles–if we are fortunate enough to be presented with Truth, rather than an imposter.

Stated differently, reason is certainly useful in filtering out imposters of Truth, and for confirming Truth–but not necessary for assent to Truth.

 

[Goya]

OK … how about Billy Graham, Charles Spurgeon, John MacArthur, Alistair McGrath, etc …

Do they have the Authority of God … to teach the Gospel ? What about the laity … me/you/etc ? Who decides who God has approved ?

They are teaching their version of the Gospel. Their story tells of the right person; the right salvation narrative; the right books…the right characters…the right foundation (i.e.–the OT…)…

…but they drop the ball, at the conclusion of the narrative.

Christ left us a CHURCH, not a book.

THE Gospel leads souls to the Church that Christ founded; the Church, leads folks to Christ, in the Eucharist; Christ leads us to Heaven…

These preachers lead folks away from that Church, as they profit like bandits off of the beauty of the message.

Are they really teaching the Gospel? The full Gospel Truth?

…or just enough to divert the funds away from the Church that Christ founded, and into their own personal coffers?

…just say’n…