Assenting to Authority (Protestant vs. Catholic)

[Tomster]

It’s not weird. Empiricism involves establishing the truth of something via direct, sensory experience, not the sensory experience of another and then taking their word for it.

That is certainly true about them, but not about you. If you recall, my earlier question to you was how did you arrive at your conclusion that the RCC is the one true church. You replied with a syllogism consisting mostly of historical “facts” and then defended those historical facts on the basis of empirical verification, so naturally, I thought you were referring to your own empirical observation.

The reality of those past events, for you, is dependent on the claims of people you never knew and, for all you know, could have been hallucinating. So you are taking their word for it. You are interpreting their witness as true, and it is your own fallible interpretation. The problem is that you have to use a fallible means to determine your infallible authority.

And since it was posted on the other thread, I’ll paste here your syllogism:

1. Jesus died and rose from the dead – Historical fact
2. Jesus was a rabbi – Historical fact
3. Jesus had students (Apostles) – Historical fact
4. Rabbi’s pass their knowledge and teaching authority to their selected students – Natural reasoning and History
5. Therefore Apostles have the knowledge given to them by Jesus and the authority to teach
6. The Apostles had selected students of their own – Historical fact
7. Therefore these students (who we have usually come to refer to as Apostolic Successors) have the knowledge and authority to teach what Jesus revealed as well
8. Today you assent to the Catholic Church to learn what Jesus taught because it has the Apostolic Successors of Christ

No, it’s not. Jesus went against the established grain of the Judaism of His day in serious ways, as we all know. Who is to say, then, that He did not go against the grain in this area? Unless you can establish that with certainty, then this premise is doubtful and, consequently, makes premise 4 in your argument pointless.

I know that what they wrote has authority because it is inspired Scripture, and you agree that it is inspired Scripture (if you accept everything the RCC teaches), so it’s not pointless to quote it.

But in the approach you’re using, that fails because you are relying on your own interpretation of what others have said/written.

No, because I’m not saying that Protestantism actually has a problem that warrants its purging. I’m saying that Catholicism suffers from the same problem that you claim Protestantism has. You have claimed that Protestantism has no real authority, no “parent” to tell the “child” when his interpretation is wrong or right. But that is not true. The authority is Scripture, and that Scripture is a living voice, God-breathed, and corrects those who are willing to submit to its teachings. That is perfectly reasonable.

I don’t think so. Consider:

1. Based on Paul’s reaction to the Judaizers in his letter to the Galatians, something can be considered to be another gospel if it shifts some or all of the burden of salvation from Christ to believers.
2. Paul wrote in Gal. 1 that those who preach another gospel are anathema, regardless of their position, office, etc.
3. The RCC preaches another gospel in that it shifts the burden of salvation from Christ to the believer’s obedience to the commandments:

“For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches,[99] continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace,…” (Council of Trent, VI.XVI)

1. Any church that does not faithfully pass on what the apostles taught cannot be said to be an apostolic church.
2. The RCC does not faithfully pass on what the apostles taught because it has distorted the gospel message.
3. Therefore, the RCC is not apostolic and is to be rejected.

You’re way off 1st base my friend. I’m going into my stretch right now and I have decided to pick you off.

The Risen Christ entered the room and said to his Apostles, “All power is given to Me in heaven and earth. Go, therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, I also send you.” When He had said this, He breathed on them, and He said to them: "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, the are forgiven, whose sins you shall retain they are retained.

The impossible has happened. The Son of God has given His almighty power to eleven weak men; to bind and loose, to rule and guide until the end of time. The Apostles and their successors, then, are invested with with the power and authority of Christ Himself.

Friend, does your church hold out to you the infallible teachings of Jesus Christ handed down through the ages through the ministry of the Church He established? Can your pastor give you the absolute assurance that your sins have been forgiven through the ministry of the Church He established? If not, re-consider #4 in your post listed for your convenience above. Maybe it’s time for you to come home.

 

[Tomster]

^^^[follow up to my prior post]: if a Jew were to ask a Catholic this question, we point to Jesus Christ. We claim that Christ is the Son of God; we proclaim the Trinity…we proclaim the Gospel…this is how we assert that the Jews were divested of their authority as Custodian of the Word of God, as Fiduciary of the Deposit of Faith, and of Divine Revelation.

The Old Covenant has been ‘updated’–so to speak–Divinely. That is the ‘Divine Revelation’ basis for our claim to be Custodian of the Word of God, and Fiduciary of the Deposit of Faith, and of Divine Revelation.

When, where, and how–upon what basis–did the Church that Chirst founded–lose this charge, and its incumbent authority?

The possibilty exists that our Protestant brothers are comparing notes trying to come up with an answer. I could be wrong but the possibility exists.

 

[Koineman]

@ CY CARL, KOINEMAN, OR BRB3–or anyone else of protestant persuasion:

Originally Posted by Goya
Ok, so now that y’all have chimed in…perhaps y’all (and anyone else of Protestant persuasion) can tell us what became of the Church that Christ founded? Rather, stated differently:
When or how–that is, by what event or person–claiming or otherwise amounting to ‘Divine Revelation’–was the Church that was born on the Pentacost, and to which the Bible was entrusted–supposedly DIVESTED of the authority with which she was invested, at the Pentacost?

I’m not sure about your wording here. No church “determined” the books of the Bible. The early church recognized the books that were in popular usage throughout all the churches.

she had the authority to pronounce the Trinity, against heresy; to comprise the Nicene Creed; to declare what constitutes heresey…what constitues the Gospel…

Authority is valid only insofar as it conforms to apostolic teaching. That apostolic teaching is known through Scripture. You’re assuming that authority resides solely in a visible office, but there is more to it than that. It is also dependent on the content of one’s teaching. Anyone who does not pass on apostolic teaching faithfully does not have apostolic authority. The messenger does not have more authority than the message. So the Reformation didn’t do away with the church; it sought to preserve and defend apostolic teaching.

Sola scriptura is not prophesized, or otherwise provided for in the Bible;

Wrong. 2 Tim. 3:16:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (NASB)

If the purpose of Scripture is to make the man of God adequate and equipped for every good work, then it is sufficient. There’s no need for anything else. If there were, then the claim that Scripture makes the man of God equipped for every good work is false.

 

[Koineman]

If not, re-consider #4 in your post listed for your convenience above. Maybe it’s time for you to come home.

Sorry, I already went through my pro-Catholic stage, when I spent considerable time examining the claims of the church and actually wanting the RCC to be proven true. In the end, I realized that they are preaching another gospel. That is not a charge I make lightly, but it is the inevitable conclusion I’ve come to. Therefore, the RCC is no “home” for me to come to, for if I were to embrace RC teaching wholeheartedly, I would inevitably take my eyes off of Christ and end up trusting something other than His redemptive work, and that is perilous to do.

 

[Tomster]

I’m not sure about your wording here. No church “determined” the books of the Bible. The early church recognized the books that were in popular usage throughout all the churches.

Authority is valid only insofar as it conforms to apostolic teaching. That apostolic teaching is known through Scripture. You’re assuming that authority resides solely in a visible office, but there is more to it than that. It is also dependent on the content of one’s teaching. Anyone who does not pass on apostolic teaching faithfully does not have apostolic authority. The messenger does not have more authority than the message. So the Reformation didn’t do away with the church; it sought to preserve and defend apostolic teaching.

Wrong. 2 Tim. 3:16:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (NASB)

If the purpose of Scripture is to make the man of God adequate and equipped for every good work, then it is sufficient. There’s no need for anything else. If there were, then the claim that Scripture makes the man of God equipped for every good work is false.

Wow! This is incredible. Since you have just gotten picked off of 1st base and don’t even know it yet, I’ll provide a replay for you.

So, according to your standards, "Authority is only valid only insofar as it conforms to Apostolic teaching . What do you make of the words of Jesus, as I quoted to you above, regarding Him giving the Apostles the authority to actually forgive sins? Mind you, Jesus didn’t say to the Apostles “you have the authority to cover them over”.

Jesus actually told His Apostles that they had the power to forgive or retain the sins of others in His Name. Talk about authority!

Friend, does your pastor provide the most consoling gift of sacramental absolution per direction of Jesus of Nazereth, as recorded in Scripture, and which has been practiced, authoritatively, through the 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church? If not, maybe it’s time for you come home.

 

[Tomster]

Sorry, I already went through my pro-Catholic stage, when I spent considerable time examining the claims of the church and actually wanting the RCC to be proven true. In the end, I realized that they are preaching another gospel. That is not a charge I make lightly, but it is the inevitable conclusion I’ve come to. Therefore, the RCC is no “home” for me to come to, for if I were to embrace RC teaching wholeheartedly, I would inevitably take my eyes off of Christ and end up trusting something other than His redemptive work, and that is perilous to do.

Ah, faith alone. Explains a lot.

 

[Goya]

Koineman;10726130]

I’m not sure about your wording here. No church “determined” the books of the Bible. The early church recognized the books that were in popular usage throughout all the churches.

Yes…and ‘un-recognized’ many others.

Ergo, ‘determined the Bible’.

Authority is valid only insofar as it conforms to apostolic teaching. That apostolic teaching is known through Scripture. You’re assuming that authority resides solely in a visible office, but there is more to it than that. It is also dependent on the content of one’s teaching. Anyone who does not pass on apostolic teaching faithfully does not have apostolic authority. The messenger does not have more authority than the message. So the Reformation didn’t do away with the church; it sought to preserve and defend apostolic teaching.

The reformation stole from the Church, what was hers—along with millions of souls. It didn’t do away with the Church, because the Holy Spirit protected the Church–just as Chirst promised St. Peter-- ‘…the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.’

Wrong. 2 Tim. 3:16:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (NASB)

Canned apologetic, for canned apologetic. ‘Profitable’ doesn’t mean sufficient.

Hardly a prophecy of sola scriptura.

If the purpose of Scripture is to make the man of God adequate and equipped for every good work, then it is sufficient. There’s no need for anything else. If there were, then the claim that Scripture makes the man of God equipped for every good work is false.

None of which provides for a DIVESTMENT of authority, of the Church that Christ founded.

Re-cap of what the Bible does/does not provide for:

1. Christ did not hand his Apostles, a Bible.
2. In fact, Christ didn’t write anything down, AT ALL. This is staggering, in light of the ‘lost/found in the Temple’ episode. Jesus Christ is found in the Temple–when he was around 13 years old–lecturing the Church elders about scripture. Clearly, this child prodigy was learned and well read–and yet, Christ never wrote anything down at all–other than in the sand, with a stick.
3. Christ never prophsizes the Bible. Never mentions such a thing at all.
4. Though he does prophesize His Church (e.g.–"…thou art Peter (Petros) and upon this rock I shall build my Church").
5. Chirst passes his Faith system on to his followers–the Aposltes–orally. He expressly instucts them to do the same. They do. They expessly instruct their followers to do the same. They do. That is and yields, Tradition.
6. The Bible distinguishes between "Apostles’ and ‘disciples’. All Apostles are included as Christ’s disciples; not all disciples are Apostles. The Apostles are the 12–then minus Judas, then plus his successor, Matthias, then later, plus Paul. This distinction signifies a ‘hierarchy’. The replacement of Judas, and the later addition of St. Paul, signifies succession, and growth, respectively. ***This is the Church that Jesus Christ founded. ***
7. There is no Bible at the time of the Pentacost, nor for centuries afterwards;
8. Nor even mention of a thing known as a ‘bible’, in the Bible–let alone mention of a concept known as ‘sola scriptura’. Not in the Gospels; not in the Acts of the Apostles; not in any letter by St. Paul, St. James, St. Peter, or anyone else. Hence the very concept of a ‘Bible’ at all, is the friut of the Church that Christ founded–i.e.–the fruit of Tradition.
9. Note: re. reference to ‘scripture’ in the Bible–this refers to then existing scritpure; there is no express reference to scripture which will come into being; that only becomes so, through Tradition.
10. And of course, no prophecy whatsoever, of the reformation.

Ergo, still no Divine authority for what has been horribly inaccurately dubbed, “the reformation.”

 

[Koineman]

So, according to your standards, "Authority is only valid only insofar as it conforms to Apostolic teaching . What do you make of the words of Jesus, as I quoted to you above, regarding Him giving the Apostles the authority to actually forgive sins? Mind you, Jesus didn’t say to the Apostles “you have the authority to cover them over”.

You’re making the same assumption that Goya made, i.e., that authority resides solely in a visible office. There’s more to it than that, as I clearly explained in the very part of my post that you quoted. It seems you aren’t carefully reading what I write.

First prove your assumption that authority resides only in a visible office, and is not also to be determined by the content of one’s teaching, and then we can get somewhere.

 

[Goya]

You’re making the same assumption that Goya made, i.e., that authority resides solely in a visible office. There’s more to it than that, as I clearly explained in the very part of my post that you quoted. It seems you aren’t carefully reading what I write.

First prove your assumption that authority resides only in a visible office, and is not also to be determined by the content of one’s teaching, and then we can get somewhere.

How about you show us where, when, and how–by what person, event, or otherwise amounting to Divine Revelation–the Church that Chirst actually founded–that was passed on, AS HE PASSED IT ON, and as HE INSTRUCTED THEM to pass it on, and by WHOM He passed it on to–was somehow displaced.

Doesn’t such an allegation amount to ‘…the gates of Hades [prevailing] against it’?

 

[Goya]

You’re making the same assumption that Goya made, i.e., that authority resides solely in a visible office. There’s more to it than that, as I clearly explained in the very part of my post that you quoted. It seems you aren’t carefully reading what I write.

First prove your assumption that authority resides only in a visible office, and is not also to be determined by the content of one’s teaching, and then we can get somewhere.

btw: here is the basis for the claim that the authority resides in the ‘visible’ Church, from my post 2 above:

1. Chirst passes his Faith system on to his followers–the Aposltes–orally. He expressly instucts them to do the same. They do. They expessly instruct their followers to do the same. They do. That is and yields, Tradition.

1. The Bible distinguishes between "Apostles’ and ‘disciples’. All Apostles are included as Christ’s disciples; not all disciples are Apostles. The Apostles are the 12–then minus Judas, then plus his successor, Matthias, then later, plus Paul. This distinction signifies a ‘hierarchy’. The replacement of Judas, and the later addition of St. Paul, signifies succession, and growth, respectively. ***This is the Church that Jesus Christ founded. ***

Were the Apostles invisible? Did Chirst instruct them to keep their message secret? Or carry it to the world? Where is the mention of some ‘invisible’ church? This is nothing more than a manufactured justification for rebellion…'er… the reformation.

 

[Tomster]

You’re making the same assumption that Goya made, i.e., that authority resides solely in a visible office. There’s more to it than that, as I clearly explained in the very part of my post that you quoted. It seems you aren’t carefully reading what I write.

First prove your assumption that authority resides only in a visible office, and is not also to be determined by the content of one’s teaching, and then we can get somewhere.

No problem.

By an ineffable mystery Christ found a way to incorporate in Himself the men who answer His call. He instituted the Church as a Mystical Body (cf. the epistles of St. Paul), of which Christ is the Head and the faithful His members. The Church is a social organization, with a visible hierarchic structure and spiritual vitality, nourished by Christ through the sacraments. The life of the Church springs from Christ the Redeemer and is guarded and regulated by the bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, constituted by the Lord as the foundation stone of His Church and its supreme pastor. (Biblical references have already been provided for you). The marvelous and sublime Mystical Body, synthesis of all God’s works, rich in the light of truth and inexhaustible lifeblood of supernatural life, is open to all men of good will. The soul enters it, meets with Christ, purifies itself in Him, is transformed, treads firmly with Him the return road to the heart of God from where it came into being at the moment of its creation. Believe it!

 

[Tomster]

You’re making the same assumption that Goya made, i.e., that authority resides solely in a visible office. There’s more to it than that, as I clearly explained in the very part of my post that you quoted. It seems you aren’t carefully reading what I write.

First prove your assumption that authority resides only in a visible office, and is not also to be determined by the content of one’s teaching, and then we can get somewhere.

Koineman,

The Catholics on this message board have provided the answers you have requested.

I believe Goya has some questions for you.

 

[Koineman]

No problem.

By an ineffable mystery Christ found a way to incorporate in Himself the men who answer His call. He instituted the Church as a Mystical Body (cf. the epistles of St. Paul), of which Christ is the Head and the faithful His members. The Church is a social organization, with a visible hierarchic structure and spiritual vitality, nourished by Christ through the sacraments. The life of the Church springs from Christ the Redeemer and is guarded and regulated by the bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, constituted by the Lord as the foundation stone of His Church and its supreme pastor. (Biblical references have already been provided for you). The marvelous and sublime Mystical Body, synthesis of all God’s works, rich in the light of truth and inexhaustible lifeblood of supernatural life, is open to all men of good will. The soul enters it, meets with Christ, purifies itself in Him, is transformed, treads firmly with Him the return road to the heart of God from where it came into being at the moment of its creation. Believe it!

All this does is focus only on the visible office. Consequently, none of this proves that authority is not also to be determined by the content of one’s teaching, but thanks for discussing.

 

[aidanbradypop]

All this does is focus only on the visible office. None of this proves that authority resides only in a visible office and is not also to be determined by the content of one’s teaching, but thanks for discussing.

SO God gave you authority also?

 

[Tomster]

All this does is focus only on the visible office. Consequently, none of this proves that authority is not also to be determined by the content of one’s teaching, but thanks for discussing.

You’ve totally missed out on the teaching of St.Paul when he announced the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ in his epistles. The Catholic Church is both visible and invisible. You just haven’t been able to distinguish that yet.

 

[Tomster]

SO God gave you authority also?

Well, if God has, I’d like to see the Scriptural basis for it.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Well, other Protestants will not be so Rebellious, and grant that the Catholic Church was kosher in the beginning, but lost her way in 1200-1500’s … and Christ, took away her ‘lamp-stand’ … or else ‘spat’ her out, like Churches at Ephesus and Laodicea — to give to another.

Plus, they use Revelation … to point out at least 7 Churches existed, ---- not just a single Catholic Church. And, they will point to the split of Eastern Church from RCC … as evidence Catholics are incorrect about a unified Apostolic Church from Day 1… and which has the primacy.

Look, you are going off the rails here and making actual Transcendent claims when neither you nor I have insight in to the Transcendent. I also noticed you quoted Scripture again which is still under question for this discussion on whether it is the Word of God.

So as I said before, if the authority is with the Church, you have to assent to it. Any discrepancy you perceive is Theological. To say that the Church practices in the early Church as well as the explicit teachings of the early Church must be the only list till the end of time is itself a Transcendent claim that you nor I can make. Do you understand that?

 

[Eufrosnia]

It is your opinion that the resurrection is a historically verifiable fact. Other than Christian writings what other sources verify this? If we can rely on statements of the members of the religion, what reason is there to not believe other religions’ claims. For example on whether Mohammed was a prophet, if allow early Islamic writings as proof, we would have to believe he was.

The reason we believe in the resurrection is because of faith not that it is historically provable.

Ok, first of all, if the Resurrection is not historically verifiable, Christianity is unworthy of belief. And no, it is not my opinion that the resurrection is historically verifiable just as much as it is not my opinion to say Julius Caesar was a Roman emperor.

As for Mohammed, you seem to be a bit confused. We don’t accept Mohammed because he has done nothing to prove his authority. Even the alleged miracles lack the extraordinary witness Christianity has through martyrdom for the resurrection.

Where does the requirement that it be accessible through natural reason come from? This is your opinion, or that of the person you are using as a reference. It can not be stated as if it was fact.

Because no man is reasonable in just believing some random authority when it is unreasonable to do so. If you wanted to get medicine for a disease, would be logical if you went to an Engineer to ask for treatment? Absurd, yes? Same with religion. To go to some random individual to get help is absurd.

It is possible to tell that Scripture is the word of God through the working of the Holy Spirit. We don’t need to know about the Holy Spirit for Him to convict us of the nature of Scripture when we read it. If it is God’s will then we will recognize it as His Word. I note your use of the phrase “one can decide through reason”. This is no different than saying you must make a personal interpretation of the evidence you use are using both as to its meaning and credibility. Your interpretation on this is no more verifiable than that of a person who reaches a different decision on the same evidence.

But how on earth would you come to know something called the Holy Spirit if not for Scripture? How can you even know of the claim you make above if not for Scripture? What you say does not make logical sense because it already assumes what it sets out to prove i.e. That Scripture is indeed the Word of God.

The conviction you speak of must be through using God given reason first. Not some arbitrary happy feeling that made you think the Bible is true. That exists in every religion with their particular holy books or writings and is therefore not an indicator of it being true.

I would hardly deny that the Apostles had authority. The question is whether their authority could be passed to others and, if so, to what extent. Passing teaching on does not mean that the transmission is done infallibly.

How can Apostles have authority if it was not in the form Christ the teacher passing it down? You can’t just conjure up things like Apostles had authority because they did nothing for us to think they actually had authority. Even if they did, we lack the type of witness the Resurrection has to believe they indeed do these things.

So the only way you can even accept that Apostles had authority is to think of the teaching office getting passed down. Therefore it is natural to assume the Apostolic Successors as having the same authority.

You on the other hand make unreasonable assumptions like “Scripture is the Word of God” without any reason and are trying to justify it when what reason do you even have to think as such?

 

[Eufrosnia]

SyCarl…

Great quotes from the ECF’s !! They all accepted Sacred Scripture as the Gold Standard of Christianity. Yes, there was some tradition in the beginning, but the essentials of it were captured in SS for us by the HS.
Scripture is now the Rosetta Stone of our beliefs.

Nevertheless, the CC was from Peter, is the first and truest example of the faith. History confirms this fact…and the HS confirms Christ is risen and ruling from on high.

Look, these are more Transcendent claims. You sound as if you visited Heaven, took a look around, talked with Christ on how he set things up, and are now walking the earth. If that is indeed your story, then you are reasonable in believing everything you said above. But if not, you are just speculating.

We don’t put our lives on speculation of individuals. It is unreasonable to do so. So even you have to assent to an authority if you really want to be Christian. Do you think it actually right for you to write speculation about what Christianity must be like? Like honestly ask yourself what actual authority you have to make claims like the above. If you feel that “I feel a deep conviction”, you wouldn’t be the first person who felt that way. Ask any follower of Jim Jones or David Koresh. They will tell you how much conviction they felt.

So bottom line here is that No authority = Not worthy of assent.

 

[Eufrosnia]

It’s not weird. Empiricism involves establishing the truth of something via direct, sensory experience, not the sensory experience of another and then taking their word for it.

Where in empiricism is there a requirement that YOU yourself observe first hand? Do you know how many expensive experiments are carried out once in a decade to come up with results that others use? So it seems to me like you don’t really understand how knowledge works in our world. If we were to adopt your position, Science itself is not even an empirical science because no scientist directly verifies every result.

You replied with a syllogism consisting mostly of historical “facts” and then defended those historical facts on the basis of empirical verification, so naturally, I thought you were referring to your own empirical observation.

When I say that Julius Ceasar was a Roman Emperor and that is historical fact, it would be very naive for you to think that I meant I saw it myself. Did you see your birth from your own parents? When was the last time you did a DNA test? Would you question their claim that you are their son/daughter?

People accept empirical claims from others when the source is reliable enough in proportion to the claim being made. This is normal and how things work among normal people.

The reality of those past events, for you, is dependent on the claims of people you never knew and, for all you know, could have been hallucinating. So you are taking their word for it. You are interpreting their witness as true, and it is your own fallible interpretation. The problem is that you have to use a fallible means to determine your infallible authority.

Ok look, you seem to be in a tangle about this issue. I don’t care or no anything about infallibility at this stage. I am only concerned about who is the authority. Do you understand that?

When I want to get treatment for a disease, I turn to a Doctor because that is what Reason points me to. For you to say that it is a fallible decision so therefore it is unreasonable is absurd. Who else do I turn to? Myself? Or pick a book and interpret it myself?

So don’t try to justify your own unreasonable position by thinking too narrowly.

Any normal person will turn to a Doctor. If you were to just say “I am going to treat myself”, people will rightly say you are being unreasonable and naive.

No, it’s not. Jesus went against the established grain of the Judaism of His day in serious ways, as we all know. Who is to say, then, that He did not go against the grain in this area? Unless you can establish that with certainty, then this premise is doubtful and, consequently, makes premise 4 in your argument pointless.

Ok listen to yourself here. We don’t believe things that do not have proof. Logical Possibilities are not actualities. This is how human thinking works. Jesus may have had another twin he hid for a long time that no one knew about and after his death, the twin took over and then disappeared. Is that possible? Yes. But would be reasonable for me to believe that? NO! That would be highly unlikely and therefore absurd.

You know what else is possible? Maybe Jesus was kidding around the whole time on earth and he wasn’t serious. He died, rose from the dead and went to heaven. Is that reasonable for me to believe? NO!

For Jesus to go against how the natural teaching office works would therefore be just as absurd.

I know that what they wrote has authority because it is inspired Scripture, and you agree that it is inspired Scripture (if you accept everything the RCC teaches), so it’s not pointless to quote it.

Stop making illogical claims without reason. At this point I do not agree with anyone that anything is Scripture because that question is under test. All I can agree with you is that there are some books which seem historical. But that is not saying it is the Word of God.

But in the approach you’re using, that fails because you are relying on your owninterpretation of what others have said/written.

You have serious issues and in your system of thought, entire Christianity itself is worthless because even if you heard it from Christ himself, it is still you interpreting it. Do you understand how absurd you sound?

The rest is not even worth addressing because you are postulating a position that is just absurd and no one can follow and destroys Christianity itself. You are just so convinced in your flawed Protestant position (Why only God knows), that you are trying to go to any lengths to defend it.

In your view, even if Jesus was sitting next to me giving instructions, it would still be pointless because its still my interpretation

In your thinking, you have not yet grasped the difference between facts that cannot be verified directly and facts that can be verified. If I don’t understand a historical truth, I can ask, do more research etc. If I don’t understand a Transcendent truth or if I am doubtful about it, I have to turn to an authority. I can’t do research by myself to refine my knowledge.

Same with knowing what an authority teaches. If I am uncertain, I can do more research to figure out what the authority is saying. Why? Because the authority exists in the real world and I have access to what it teaches as well as those who teach it. Those who teach (like the Pope) can certify others who he knows has understood what the Church teaches correctly to teach others (that is what he does in instituting Bishops and Priests).

You don’t seem to understand that simple concept and I am not sure if you even want to because you are convinced that “I must defend Protestantism” at all cost. WHY?