R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You mean other than the fact that an infallible Church which speaks with the Authority Christ said we must?
Gee, no reason, I guess…
- Status
Gee, no reason, I guess…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
MUCH better…thank you!
How is it different? Well, to begin with…YOUR scriptures are dependent upon MY Church.
But seriously, here is the process that you and I should both follow in establishing that 1) the Church is true and 2) the Bible to be inspired:
Step One- An Accurate Text
The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.
Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.
Step 2 - The Bible as Historical Truth
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)
We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.
Step Three - Jesus Founded an Infallible Church
Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.
We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.
(I’m done here, but you have to go to next step.)
Step Four - An Infallible Church Tells Us the Bible is Inspired
This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.
Thoughts?
C
Cachonga
Guest
Randy Carson:
Step 1 - No dispute.
Step 2 - Have you applied this to the book of Judith?
Step 3 - I agree Jesus established His Church, but I do not see any promise that Peter or anyone else would be infallible. If this concept comes from tradition (since it’s not in Scripture), then we go back to the circular argument of the Church being infallible because it says it’s infallible. If the promise of infallibility is in Scripture, please give the reference.
Step 4 - Again, without clear Scriptural support for the claim of infallibility, it comes down to “the Church is infallible because she says so!”
I would suggest that the early Church would not recognize YOUR “Catholic” Church as it is today. But we have strayed from the topic. Quickly, I will comment on the steps (BTW - very well written - exactly as I’ve heard it before from some other RC apologist; he also claimed this argument is not circular, but spiral).
Step 1 - No dispute.
Step 2 - Have you applied this to the book of Judith?
Step 3 - I agree Jesus established His Church, but I do not see any promise that Peter or anyone else would be infallible. If this concept comes from tradition (since it’s not in Scripture), then we go back to the circular argument of the Church being infallible because it says it’s infallible. If the promise of infallibility is in Scripture, please give the reference.
Step 4 - Again, without clear Scriptural support for the claim of infallibility, it comes down to “the Church is infallible because she says so!”
T
The_Way
Guest
If you agree it was Jesus who established His Church then it has to be the Catholic Church since the Pope and the Bishops descend from the apostles. Keeping that in mind if you think the Church has made mistakes in her teachings, then Jesus made a mistake in instituting his Church.
Please keep that in mind before you start drawing your own conclusions.
God bless,
K
kepha1
Guest
Then you must ignore the archeological evidence from the Roman Catacombs of the first century, and ignore the historical truth that a long list of Sacred Traditions predate the canon of scripture. What the early Church would not recognize is Protestantism. You must also ignore the fact that none of the early Church Fathers were remotely Protestant, and truckloads of evidence show the early Church to be Catholic, with “0” evidence of anything remotely Protestant.
No dispute if you accept what the Church Fathers measured scriptures with, and that the scriptures are a subset of Apostolic Teaching. To dispute that you have to be a historical revisionist.
Let’s leave the Deuterocanonical books out of this for the time being, and we can just refer to the Protestant Bible as it is. Dragging deuteros into this discussion is a red herring, it has no bearing on the list of Protestant accepted books, or on the New Testament. It’s a different topic, but only brought up to challenge the authority of the Church which gave us the New Testament and to teach us things that are not explicit in the Bible. That is the issue, isn’t it?
“He who hears you (Apostles and successors) hears Me.” That is infallibility.
Not: “he who hears your private opinions of scripture hears me”
Eph. 5:32- Paul calls the Church a “mystery.” This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. “Church” does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.
Because you reject the Catholic definition of “Church”, you cannot understand the meaning of infallibility, even when it is explained to you and given some 50 bible verses related to infallibility. scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-IV
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-IV
I think I am beginning to understand you. The Catholic church, to do what she has done, did so out of 100% human effort without infallibility. My goodness! Even we don’t give ourselves that much credit!
See http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-IV which you have seen 100 times. We can play scripture tennis all year, it won’t make any difference to you as long as you buy this Protestant Gnostic lie that Christ cannot co-exist with sinful men, and Jesus just gave Peter a pat on the back for being the only one with the right answer about who He is.
That is but another Protestant lie. Infallibility is a charism from God that without, there would be no Church today, and no Bible either.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Great work there, kepha1.
The discussion is on a repetitive cycle mode now as all the issues have been addressed and known to Cachonga already. I have nothing to add unless if there is new area uncovered.
This is a question to Cachonga: Since you had left the Catholic Church presumably because she is in error - what church you are in now and how how is that she can be infallible ? Out of the topic but it helps to see the foundation you based your argument on.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I think scripture does make it clear that Jesus intended to establish an authritative Church that spoke infallibly on His behalf. There are almost too many verses to reference, but here are some of my favorites:
The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility.
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?
Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?
John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—
Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?
John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time?
John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise?
Now, consider the following three verses:
1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.
Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?
In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”
C
Cachonga
Guest
Just a reminder - the topic of this thread is the assupmtion of Mary.
- Status