Assenting to Authority (Protestant vs. Catholic)

[Semangelof]

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).

Within the realm of my faith and reason this is true.

Outside of which your authority means nothing if it came from some guy, witnesses or not. It only means something if the person who gave you that authority had himself the authority to do so.

This brings us back to my first post. Christ gave you authority but then who gave him authority? How can I accept your authority without first accepting the original source of that authority? How can I tear God out the sky by reason alone?

Where as Peters first claim was by revelation and not reason, it must be revealed to men by faith and completed and secured by reason and authority. We complete the truth of that authority when faith and reason meet.

You can prove to men by reason that Christ gave you authority, but you cannot prove to them by reason alone that Christ had the authority do so in the first place. For that you need to prove God did it. For you to believe that you must be acting through reason and faith.

Lets say I pause the world and give you perfect wisdom to reason to the world that God exists as never before. You will not succeed with wisdom alone, apart from God working on their hearts satan will overcome your works.

 

[Semangelof]

I got to run to bed for the night. It has been a pleasure to challenge our hearts to truth through each other. Peace and see you tomorrow perhaps.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Christ gave you authority but then who gave him authority? How can I accept your authority without first accepting the original source of that authority? How can I tear God out the sky by reason alone?

Where as Peters first claim was by revelation and not reason, it must be revealed to men by faith and completed and secured by reason and authority. We complete the truth of that authority when faith and reason meet.

You can prove to men by reason that Christ gave you authority, but you cannot prove to them by reason alone that Christ had the authority do so in the first place. For that you need to prove God did it. For you to believe that you must be acting through reason and faith.

Lets say I pause the world and give you perfect wisdom to reason to the world that God exists as never before. You will not succeed with wisdom alone, apart from God working on their hearts satan will overcome your works.

You are confusing things a lot here. First thing I want you to understand is regardless of what conclusions we can arrive at, it is unreasonable to postulate Transcendent truths as true to arrive at a reasonable authority to assent. Which part of this do you have difficulty with? Because this is almost trivial. You cannot just assent to arbitrary Transcendent claims to back your position. It is as simple as that.

Now about the actual objection that you seem to keep bringing up even after I answered it. We believe that Christ died and rose from the dead DEMONSTRATES the authority he has over the Transcendent by that act itself.

When the Doctor finds the first cure for Cancer and demonstrates that it works, he/she proves himself the authority regarding the knowledge for curing Cancer. Whether he got that authority from you or God in the Transcendent sense is irrelevant for us. You would be absurd to even ask such things as a prerequisite before assenting to the fact that he can cure Cancer.

So in the same way, whether Jesus got the authority from YOU or GOD or some other person is irrelevant to us after he has demonstrated his authority. The point here is that if one is looking for the most believable individual regarding Transcendent truths, Christ is ones best bet. You have somehow confused this as me wanting to speculate Christ having some authority in the Theological sense. That is incorrect. I am dealing here with verifiable truths.

It is quiet possible that you missed my post to another on this thread regarding how we know Christ has authority through this act of dying and rising from the dead. So I refer you to the posts here

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10728922&postcount=84

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10728946&postcount=85

So please read them and understand what is being said first. It does you nor I any favors for you to argue against a straw man.

Now you also go and keep speaking about God and Satan. Please, I am not quiet sure which part of my OP you don’t understand but we don’t know of the existence of a Devil or a Holy Spirit when we analyze which religion is true. All of those are Transcendent claims and beyond human perception. That is why we don’t care if Christ got authority from God or you. All we care about is whether Christ’s act demonstrates authority over the Transcendent. As I showed in the above cited threads, there is good reason to think it does.

Also, please understand that if all reason to support Christianity fails, that is not proof that we must start arbitrarily assenting to Transcendent truths. You seem to be under this very fallacious reasoning. If we cannot give reason for Christianity without appealing to Transcendent claims, then Christianity is simply not worthy of belief.

Faith and Reason meet at the point of assent. It is unreasonable to have FAITH in Transcendent claims prior to assent. Why? Because you can dream and believe any hocus pocus Transcendent claim you can think of before assent. That is absurd.

---

Now since you keep bringing this issue of Peter I will address it. Please know that I am not addressing this because I think there is merit to what you say but because it seems to be a major stumbling block for you.

It was not Peter who said that “The Holy Spirit has told me that you are the Son of God”. There is good reason for that. Why? Because Peter being a mere human being cannot say if something is from the Holy Spirit or from the Devil. At that point in time, he probably did not even know of the existence of a Holy Spirit. If it were up to Peter, he would have thought that his impulse to stop Christ from going to Jerusalem was also from the Holy Spirit.

So the important point you somehow missed is that Peter had to be told by someone authoritative that it was indeed the Holy Spirit that had revealed such a thing to him. That authority was CHRIST. Peter knew that he can trust Christ because of the miracles he did and the display of authority over the natural world and even hints at authority over the Transcendent as he raised the dead to life. But Peter’s final confirmation will come when Christ rose from the dead (for reasons I highlighted in the threads I cited). Bottom line here though is that one needs an authority to tell us that it is indeed the Holy Spirit that is revealing these things. Today, this authority is the Church.

Therefore, nothing about the example of Peter contradicts anything I have said here regarding the need to know who has authority through reason. God does not want you to just assent to any looney idea that we can dream up as human beings. That is wrong and logically absurd. But what you are advocating is just that. Why? All in the name of defending Protestantism.

 

[Semangelof]

Now about the actual objection that you seem to keep bringing up even after I answered it. We believe that Christ died and rose from the dead DEMONSTRATES the authority he has over the Transcendent by that act itself.

Again, that demonstration is only proved by faith and reason. The world has not accepted that. There are plenty of Pagan miracles witnessed by many in the same history books for which we derive our history but they are not accepted.

When the Doctor finds the first cure for Cancer and demonstrates that it works, he/she proves himself the authority regarding the knowledge for curing Cancer. Whether he got that authority from you or God in the Transcendent sense is irrelevant for us. You would be absurd to even ask such things as a prerequisite before assenting to the fact that he can cure Cancer.

That is because the cure for cancer can be repeated and demonstrated. We have only an account of His resurrection apart from faith.

So please read them and understand what is being said first. It does you nor I any favors for you to argue against a straw man.

So one can conclude in this way that Christ is a valid authority to believe regarding the Transcendent. One thing to note is that it does not immediately tell us if Jesus is God. That is not something we can answer by reason alone and something we must accept because the Church (which has the authority) teaches that Christ claimed as such.

What can I do with this? It’s a circular paradox. You haven’t proved your authority yet to tell me it happened.

Now you also go and keep speaking about God and Satan. Please, I am not quiet sure which part of my OP you don’t understand but we don’t know of the existence of a Devil or a Holy Spirit when we analyze which religion is true.

If we were unbelieving this would be true, however we are both believers. Having now been given the faith and reason we now have to capacity to analyze truth of this matter. If you suggest we come to your truth by denying scripture given from God I would say that will lead you no where.

So the important point you somehow missed is that Peter had to be told by someone authoritative that it was indeed the Holy Spirit that had revealed such a thing to him. That authority was CHRIST.

And there you have proved the second part. First came the revelation from God to Peter, then came the reasoning and guidance by authority through Christ. You cannot evade this scripture. The word of God proves you wrong, the revelation that Christ was the Messiah came to him by revelation, and by no means through flesh and blood.

Now simply put your original argument is circular. You claim you have the authority because you have been given the authority to have authority. You say that this authority can be proven by reason alone. So lets toss all faith aside and hear you prove it.

Deny the Holy Spirit and through reason alone prove that the God we know exists to give you the authority you claim. If you cannot do so then you cannot support your claim. If you succeed then you have created a new Gospel unknown to me, of reason in God and faith in men.

 

[Eufrosnia]

PART 1 of 2

Again, that demonstration is only proved by faith and reason. The world has not accepted that. There are plenty of Pagan miracles witnessed by many in the same history books for which we derive our history but they are not accepted.

Look, the world has not officially accepted that your parents are so and so either. It does not mean that you are unreasonable to believe that they are given the evidence you have, till proven otherwise .

The things I listed in my OP can be backed by evidence the world accepts or evidence you can discover yourself. For an example, take the death and resurrection.

The world does accept that the very early Christians died claiming that Jesus did indeed die and rise from the dead when persecuted. So as far as second hand evidence goes, their witness is convincing, not in a supernatural sense but in terms of reason.

Same with everything else I have listed in my OP. There is no requirement for faith in some Transcendent entity. One can verify each of the claims using historical evidence and testimonies by others.

As for Pagan religions, we don’t have any reliable witnesses to these miracles and as to how they knew about who performed them. Let me give you an example. The Hindus believe that their Goddess helped during a certain battle. The only problem here is that who made that claim that “this particular Goddess was the one that helped”. Why is this such a problem? Because no man can see the Transcendent and since this help Goddess is a Transcendent being, no one can know if it was indeed her by just that event. You know what all of that sounds a lot like? Protestantism and its Transcendent claims it wants us to believe without reason.

Anyway, I am not sure what you are out to do here. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you can assent to a religion by first believing in some Transcendent claims by faith? Is that it? Because that claim is illogical and therefore rejected by reason (Read Part 2 below as to why).

That is because the cure for cancer can be repeated and demonstrated. We have only an account of His resurrection apart from faith.

Wow. I am seriously starting to think that you just want to reply to me more than actually think about what you are saying.

When a person assents to the guy who cured cancer, they don’t know if it will work for them or if it works in general. They hope so because he has cured just one other person. One has reason to believe on that one person alone or a certain number sufficient to eliminate randomness. Same with the resurrection. The Resurrection demonstrates authority and he does not need die and rise multiple times for us to know that. Why is once enough? Because we have no believable claims about a single person who has randomly managed to be killed and come back to life by himself.

What can I do with this? It’s a circular paradox. You haven’t proved your authority yet to tell me it happened.

Read my OP. Nothing in my OP assumes another authority other than our daily use of natural reason. Now if you are under some impression that use of natural reason itself must be authorized, I am afraid we are heading down the road to absurdity.

In other words, you could have been born and raised to believe in the existence of a pink invisible Pony and we will be having this same discussion.

The reasoning faculty is assumed to be the starting point for all human beings, INTUITIVELY. Even as you argue against it, did it ever occur to you that you are using REASON ITSELF?

Seriously, how low do Protestants have to go to defend their faith?

(CONTINUED TO PART 2)

 

[Eufrosnia]

PART 2 of 2

If we were unbelieving this would be true, however we are both believers. Having now been given the faith and reason we now have to capacity to analyze truth of this matter. If you suggest we come to your truth by denying scripture given from God I would say that will lead you no where.

LOOK, for the MILLIONTH TIME, we are analyzing the merits of our belief. So we are not believers yet for the purpose of this thread! What this thread shows is that you are unreasonable in your belief in this Protestantism. Do you understand that?

So no, we are not the same. You believe in something arbitrary that is filled with errors but cannot be disproved. Why? Because it is a Transcendent pile of claims. We can add the existence of a Pink invisible pony to Protestantism and no one will still be able to argue. What part of this don’t you get?

You can’t argue using reason for being unreasonable.

And there you have proved the second part. First came the revelation from God to Peter, then came the reasoning and guidance by authority through Christ. You cannot evade this scripture. The word of God proves you wrong, the revelation that Christ was the Messiah came to him by revelation, and by no means through flesh and blood.

Sigh. Even if it came to Peter from the Holy Spirit, my point is that Peter would have been unreasonable to believe it as true if Christ had not verified it to him (or had given a promise/teaching to him that he will be protected in making such claims). How could you miss that important point? So even if the Holy Spirit told you (which really means you felt this conviction about something), you would still be unreasonable to believe it apart from a valid authority. You would also be unreasonable to believe in the validity of an authority unless you had reason to think they had authority. We are also not speaking of a supernatural authority but a natural authority to teach the Transcendent as argued in the OP.

Now simply put your original argument is circular. You claim you have the authority because you have been given the authority to have authority. You say that this authority can be proven by reason alone. So lets toss all faith aside and hear you prove it.

Do you actually understand what circular reasoning is? Circular reasoning happens when one assumes in the premise, the very thing that one sets out to prove in the conclusion.

In my OP argument, there are no such assumptions. Just premises that one can observe on their own and a conclusion that follows. So no matter how many times you jump up and down, as far as a logician is concerned, the argument is valid. I can’t honestly stop you from thinking its not circular of-course because people can believe just about anything.

As for your line or argumentation that figuring out the true religion requires both REASON AND FAITH IN THE TRANSCENDENT CLAIMS, that can be shown to be circular.

Why? Because we are not justified in assenting to any Transcendent claim without REASONS to think it true or is from a valid authority. In my OP, I escape this problem because all of the listed premises are natural claims and even the authority is first and foremost a natural sense of authority regarding a field of knowledge. You on the other hand, take a nose dive in to it and therefore your argument is indeed circular.

Now you also seem to be going at this argument which seems to resurface there and there.

1. Various Bible passages speak about assent without using reason alone to figure out who to assent
2. Eufrosnia speaks of figuring out assent using pure reason
3. If we were to accept Eufrosnia, we will end up contradicting ourselves after assent and reading the Bible

The real problem here is your premise 1. As a Protestant, you seem to be forgetting that you are not in charge of interpreting the Bible. So unless the authority in charge of the Bible declares premise 1 to be true, there is no contradiction if you follow what Eufrosnia says. Oh and news flash, the Church has not declared premise (1) to be true.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

SyCarl, your quotes of Irenaeus don’t portray the entire story. Here is Irenaeus on authority of bishops:

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches,** we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul**; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Against Heresies, Book 3, Chp. 3

1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth.** For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?**

2.** To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink**, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

Against Heresies, Book 3, Chp. 4

Chrysostom, Augustine, and essentially all the fathers speak of bishops and the authority of the Church. It is not surprising to me that they should also speak of the authority of Scripture, but again, we would not know this if it weren’t for the Church. Augustine says as much:

But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent?

Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, Chapter 5

 

[Semangelof]

Look, the world has not officially accepted that your parents are so and so either. It does not mean that you are unreasonable to believe that they are given the evidence you have, till proven otherwise .

I don’t need to verify it it is a natural and proven law. If they for some reason didn’t die or return from the dead I will require substantial evidence.

The problem with your premise is that if you accept wholly by reason of evidence then you must accept all by reason of evidence. You can’t pick and choose whom you call authoritative on it, if you real it was the “authorities” that denied it all.

One has reason to believe on that one person alone or a certain number sufficient to eliminate randomness. Same with the resurrection. The Resurrection demonstrates authority and he does not need die and rise multiple times for us to know that. Why is once enough? Because we have no believable claims about a single person who has randomly managed to be killed and come back to life by himself.

Same thing here, we believe those ancient witnesses due our heart confirming the truth because reason alone is insufficient to complete it. I cite the authorities at the time, Rome, the Pharisees, and the Sadducee. And by my faith and reason I conclude the authorities wrong and the Truth of Christ right.

Read my OP. Nothing in my OP assumes another authority other than our daily use of natural reason. Now if you are under some impression that use of natural reason itself must be authorized, I am afraid we are heading down the road to absurdity.

I know that is the problem. You have only proved you have the authority to have authority. What that authority is or how you have the authority to be given in the first place is still unproven.

The reasoning faculty is assumed to be the starting point for all human beings, INTUITIVELY. Even as you argue against it, did it ever occur to you that you are using REASON ITSELF?

Yes for the things of man. Man made their reason on God. They say He was just a man. No I am using faith and reason. For reason alone was insufficient.

Seriously, how low do Protestants have to go to defend their faith?

Faith and reason is not exclusive to protestants, you can find those ideas taught in the catholic church. One of my favorite explanations comes from Father Barron.

Reason having done all it’s work now there is a surrender to a reality that I can’t even in principle control. But one that beguiles me from the far side of reason.

If you think I am arguing protestantism you are mistaken. We even had a catholic come in and say the same thing “faith and reason”.

LOOK, for the MILLIONTH TIME, we are analyzing the merits of our belief. So we are not believers yet for the purpose of this thread! What this thread shows is that you are unreasonable in your belief in this Protestantism. Do you understand that?

Oh ok so this is some thinly veiled jab a protestantism. I see why your so upset and agitated right now. I thought you just wanted to make evangelism relegated to reason. I assumed better of you. If your heart were in the right place to start with this thread would have gone a whole lot smoother.

 

[Semangelof]

Sigh. Even if it came to Peter from the Holy Spirit, my point is that Peter would have been unreasonable to believe it as true if Christ had not verified it to him (or had given a promise/teaching to him that he will be protected in making such claims). How could you miss that important point? So even if the Holy Spirit told you (which really means you felt this conviction about something), you would still be unreasonable to believe it apart from a valid authority. You would also be unreasonable to believe in the validity of an authority unless you had reason to think they had authority. We are also not speaking of a supernatural authority but a natural authority to teach the Transcendent as argued in the OP.

Yes, if Peter acts without reason he is unreasonable. This is why I say faith and reason. If you believed by reason you are reasonable whether an authority is involved or not. You can believe some authority by reason. But if the source of the authority cannot be grasped by reason alone then you cannot by full reason believe in that authority. Your heart must be beguiled by the far side of reason.

Why? Because we are not justified in assenting to any Transcendent claim without REASONS to think it true or is from a valid authority.

Have I not confirmed this?

Now you also seem to be going at this argument which seems to resurface there and there.

1. Various Bible passages speak about assent without using reason alone to figure out who to assent
2. Eufrosnia speaks of figuring out assent using pure reason
3. If we were to accept Eufrosnia, we will end up contradicting ourselves after assent and reading the Bible

The real problem here is your premise 1. As a Protestant, you seem to be forgetting that you are not in charge of interpreting the Bible. So unless the authority in charge of the Bible declares premise 1 to be true, there is no contradiction if you follow what Eufrosnia says. Oh and news flash, the Church has not declared premise (1) to be true. "

If you want to tell me what I believe I suppose you have the right to do so, it would be worthless but you can do it. Now what is of worth is if I tell you what I believe. That is faith and reason convict my heart of truth, where reason alone is insufficient for completion. It beguiles me to finish it.

Now, the crux of your argument is that you have authority by reason. Which I will give you here. “Christ gave you the authority”. Now you must prove that Christ had the authority to do so by reason alone.

If you cannot do this by reason alone your claim against “faith and reason” is invalid. If you try to accept the evidence by reason alone you will have to accept many religions. Remember, none of the sources have authority, it was the authorities in all their wisdom that denied Him.

As far as my involvement in this thread I am claiming nothing but the importance of faith and reason. So you can stop handing me my beliefs and treating me like a dirty protestant. It’s not relevant where I come in.

 

[brb3]

Yes, if Peter acts without reason he is unreasonable. This is why I say faith and reason. If you believed by reason you are reasonable whether an authority is involved or not. You can believe some authority by reason. But if the source of the authority cannot be grasped by reason alone then you cannot by full reason believe in that authority. Your heart must be beguiled by the far side of reason.

Have I not confirmed this?

If you want to tell me what I believe I suppose you have the right to do so, it would be worthless but you can do it. Now what is of worth is if I tell you what I believe. That is faith and reason convict my heart of truth, where reason alone is insufficient for completion. It beguiles me to finish it.

Now, the crux of your argument is that you have authority by reason. Which I will give you here. “Christ gave you the authority”. Now you must prove that Christ had the authority to do so by reason alone.

If you cannot do this by reason alone your claim against “faith and reason” is invalid. If you try to accept the evidence by reason alone you will have to accept many religions. Remember, none of the sources have authority, it was the authorities in all their wisdom that denied Him.

Good points … well said !

Eufros …

Your academic exercise so far … is not convincing. Reason can take us only so far ---- to theory formulation.

Prove/convince secular scientists that the CC has it’s Authority from God, …asking them to use ONLY their reason. You won’t succeed.

 

[adf417]

Well I did it. It only took me 2 days to finish this thread (I read slow) but I did it.

Thank you Eufrosnia for your experiment on faith and reason. It has helped me see the position the early Christians were in without a faith system they could rely on to begin the transcendence of their faith. It also has shown me that my understanding of this experiment must only be from God.

I also wanted to make an observation if I could. I couldn’t help but notice that early on in this thread it took many clarifications to the OP before you could move on to actual content of discussion. I want to thank you for not giving up on the OP throughout and continuing to keep the focus on it. I’m sure you have a new found respect for the writers of the NT not having the luxury, 2000 years later, to clarify what it was they wrote.

Peace!!!

 

[Eufrosnia]

You can believe some authority by reason. But if the source of the authority cannot be grasped by reason alone then you cannot by full reason believe in that authority. Your heart must be beguiled by the far side of reason.

There is no such natural need to grasp a SOURCE of authority.

Take the example of an astronaut who has walked on the moon. Let us say that in our town, no one else had done that and there were no astronauts. If I wanted to know what it is like on the moon, to walk on it, my best authority is the Astronaut. I don’t ask if he got this authority from God or You someone else. For my understanding, it is sufficient that he be someone who demonstrated reason to think he has that knowledge.

Same here. There is no postulation of a supernatural authority or existence of God in the OP argument. We only think that Christ has authority over Transcendent matters because of his demonstration through his death and resurrection. He did not have to do this multiple times to prove that it was not a random event because there are no other accounts with sufficient level of witness to someone getting killed and rising from the dead.

So your entire counter argument is invalid because it postulates something that the OP argument does not require.

Have I not confirmed this?

Now that I understand you better, I think you have confirmed this. You think this is true and you also think that even the Catholic Church cannot establish its authority on reason alone. That part is false for the reasons I discussed above. Your postulation that we need to assume the existence of a Transcendent authority as a source etc. are false.

But there is something even more erroneous in your conclusion. You therefore conclude that this is proof that reason alone is insufficient for one to come to arrive at assenting to Christianity. That is a logical error. Just because there are no reasons for assenting to Christianity as an authority does not mean that I have justified use of faith. All you would have done is demonstrate that Christianity is unreasonable to assent to (not a very good conclusion I might add for any Christian).

The good news is that your conclusion is invalid anyway because your initial assumption or understanding of the OP is flawed. You have assumed that authority always needs another source. It is not the case in the event where the authority is demonstrable.

So in this case, the authority if Christ was demonstrated by his death and ressurection. As to whether he received the ability and authority over the Transcendent laws themselves from himself or by someone else is itself part of Divine revelation that he must reveal. **Without knowing he is a valid authority to assent to, we would be unreasonable to believe any of his claims, one way or the other. **

Please let me know if things are clearer now.

If you want to tell me what I believe I suppose you have the right to do so, it would be worthless but you can do it. Now what is of worth is if I tell you what I believe. That is faith and reason convict my heart of truth, where reason alone is insufficient for completion. It beguiles me to finish it.

Faith can give you certainty over time on the reason for assent, yes. But if something was wrong in the reasoning itself, then you must doubt that faith, and you would be reasonable to do so.

Otherwise you will be convinced of an error.

Now, the crux of your argument is that you have authority by reason. Which I will give you here. “Christ gave you the authority”. Now you must prove that Christ had the authority to do so by reason alone.

As I said above, this is your primary error in understanding what has been said here. We do not see Christ as having gotten authority from someone. The authority you speak of is more the ability to govern the natural laws and Transcendent laws. Though Christ has demonstrated he can do so, we do not care if he has derived this authority from a higher power or by himself. That is irrelevant. If the Astronaut reached the moon, walked and came back, we do not care about who provided the technology for him to get there to think of him as an authority regarding moon walking or being in space.

Same with Christ. How or who is established his miracles are not our concern. The fact that he could do so simply provides us with reason to believe him as knowing the Transcendent. It is the knowledge we seek first. Not the ability.

If you cannot do this by reason alone your claim against “faith and reason” is invalid. If you try to accept the evidence by reason alone you will have to accept many religions. Remember, none of the sources have authority, it was the authorities in all their wisdom that denied Him.

As far as my involvement in this thread I am claiming nothing but the importance of faith and reason. So you can stop handing me my beliefs and treating me like a dirty protestant. It’s not relevant where I come in.

Well, what I am demonstrating here is that you cannot assent on faith and reason. By faith, I specifically mean faith in Transcendent truths and claims other than its existence.

You can assent and then have faith but not before. I have explained why to you above and I am looking forward to hearing your reply.

P.S. It is also worth noting that you cannot demonstrate to me that one needs Faith and Reason for assent. Because in order to show me that you need Faith as well, you must first be sure that the particular religion that requires such form of assent is TRUE. But since that itself is the question under test, you argumentation will always be circular and hence fallacious.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Good points … well said !

Eufros …

Your academic exercise so far … is not convincing. Reason can take us only so far ---- to theory formulation.

Prove/convince secular scientists that the CC has it’s Authority from God, …asking them to use ONLY their reason. You won’t succeed.

Please read my answer to your friend above.

Also, as far as the search for the true religion is concerned, the proposition that “Authority must come from God” itself is a Transcendent claim and not something you nor I can know before assent. So it is not relevant to this matter and neither is it a reason for assent.

Authority, though it maybe from God, does not require us to know it to assent to it. We assent to authority in our daily lives because many individuals have demonstrated it to us. We assent to a Doctor who has cured our neighbor. To a frequent traveler over knowledge regarding a country we have never traveled to etc. So whether the authority came from God himself or not is a matter of our concern. As far as we are concerned, there is an individual who has demonstrated his knowledge of the Transcendent in rising again after killed. We only care about what he has to say regarding the transcendent. If he mentions something about a source of his authority, even better. If not, it still does not matter because his authority stands on the merits of his own act.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Well I did it. It only took me 2 days to finish this thread (I read slow) but I did it.

Thank you Eufrosnia for your experiment on faith and reason. It has helped me see the position the early Christians were in without a faith system they could rely on to begin the transcendence of their faith. It also has shown me that my understanding of this experiment must only be from God.

I also wanted to make an observation if I could. I couldn’t help but notice that early on in this thread it took many clarifications to the OP before you could move on to actual content of discussion. I want to thank you for not giving up on the OP throughout and continuing to keep the focus on it. I’m sure you have a new found respect for the writers of the NT not having the luxury, 2000 years later, to clarify what it was they wrote.

Peace!!!

Wow! I never thought anyone did that! Thank you for reading and also taking the time to post. It was very encouraging to think that someone might read through the thread even at a later time!

I certainly have found respect about the underlined part That itself is probably a good indicator or reconfirmation to me that Jesus could not have just left behind a book. Probably why in all his life, he never bothered to write one down himself.

 

[brb3]

Authority, though it maybe from God, does not require us to know it to assent to it. We assent to authority in our daily lives because many individuals have demonstrated it to us.

So whether the authority came from God himself or not is a matter of our concern. As far as we are concerned, there is an individual who has demonstrated his knowledge of the Transcendent in rising again after killed. We only care about what he has to say regarding the transcendent. If he mentions something about a source of his authority, even better. If not, it still does not matter because his authority stands on the merits of his own act.

Be more specific … what authority are you speaking of here. Christ’s … or the CC / Peter ?

 

[Semangelof]

There is no such natural need to grasp a SOURCE of authority.

I deputize you the Sheriff of Texas. You have the authority to arrest anyone you see fit to imprison.

Well, what I am demonstrating here

is that you cannot assent on faith and reason. By faith, I specifically mean faith in Transcendent truths and claims other than its existence.

You can assent and then have faith but not before. I have explained why to you above and I am looking forward to hearing your reply.

P.S. It is also worth noting that you cannot demonstrate to me that one needs Faith and Reason for assent. Because in order to show me that you need Faith as well, you must first be sure that the particular religion that requires such form of assent is TRUE. But since that itself is the question under test, you argumentation will always be circular and hence fallacious.

I cannot prove Christ by MY faith and reason, for faith is not mine to give. And this is the beauty of the Gospel and not it’s weakness. Christ is not revealed by men.

No it is your premise to defend. So I ask you to do so. Not shift a burden of proof to me who never claimed I can hand God to anyone. Nor do I understand your explanation above on sheer absurdity of the claim. There you at best try to prove to have the authority of a mystic. It is a worthless authority you claim by reason.

 

[Semangelof]

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.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I deputize you the Sheriff of Texas. You have the authority to arrest anyone you see fit to imprison.

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”.

Do you understand the difference?

I cannot prove Christ by MY faith and reason, for faith is not mine to give. And this is the beauty of the Gospel and not it’s weakness. Christ is not revealed by men.

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.

Not being able to prove something false does not make it true. I am sure you are aware of this, yes?

No it is your premise to defend. So I ask you to do so. Not shift a burden of proof to me who never claimed I can hand God to anyone. Nor do I understand your explanation above on sheer absurdity of the claim. There you at best try to prove to have the authority of a mystic. It is a worthless authority you claim by reason.

I know you never claimed it. That is why I am assuming that you are unaware of it. Just because the Catholic position falls, does not mean that the Protestant position or other positions stand. That includes arbitrary unprovable ideas like “The right authority to assent is discovered through faith and reason”.

Now at least in my case, I do not have to jump ship yet because I have an argument from the Church to defend, which I am still certain that it lacks valid objection against it. Your objection of this authority needing to be from God is addressed above.

In short, one does not need to show authority being given from God first to demonstrate that one is knowledgeable in a certain matter. It may well be the case that God is who gave the authority but as far as the listener/learner/assenter is concerned, that is irrelevant prior to assent. For all the learner cares, they don’t even know if “God gives authority” is a true or false fact regarding the transcendent.

Looking forward to your reply.

 

[Eufrosnia]

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.

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.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Be more specific … what authority are you speaking of here. Christ’s … or the CC / Peter ?

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.