By What Standard Do You Examine Your Beliefs?

[De_Maria]

We cannot simply take that on the Church’s authority.

We can, actually. Jesus said:

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

So, those who believe in Jesus, on the authority of the Church or their parents, are more blessed than those who question and contest their witness.

Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

But this is problematic, De_Maria. We first have to JUDGE that the Church rightly interprets Scripture.

The Church does not interpret Scripture. Catholic Doctrine is the basis of Scripture. Therefore, the Catholic Church Teaches her Doctrines through Scripture. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and selected the books of the Old Testament which would be included in the Bible.

The most common reason that some people don’t understand Scripture, is because they are not thoroughly grounded in Catholic Doctrine.

But, I understand what you mean, if you come from a hostile perspective, yes, you do. I did and I had to do it. And whenever you’re ready, we can go through any verses that you think contradict Catholic Doctrine. I will show you that it is your understanding of the verse which is false, not the Catholic Doctrine.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You are totally off base. I am a Catholic, not an unbeliever. But your claim is circular. You will not convince any skeptic if you claim that the Church can put forth circular arguments.

John 20:29 talks about those who have been given the evidence of faith by the Lord, not those who simply follow the Church because the Church says so. We cannot take THAT the Church is an authority on the Church’s authority. To claim that we can is circular. We could, however, take that the Church is an authority on the evidence of judgment or of faith. But the faith PRECEDES submission to the Church; it does not come afterward.

 

[De_Maria]

You are totally off base. I am a Catholic, not an unbeliever. But your claim is circular.

John 20:29 talks about those who have been given the evidence of faith by the Lord, not those who simply follow the Church because the Church says so.

Read it again. Those who have “not seen” are those who have been given the testimony of the Church.

We cannot take THAT the Church is an authority on the Church’s authority. To claim that we can is circular. We could, however, take that the Church is an authority on the evidence of judgment or of faith. But the faith PRECEDES submission to the Church; it does not come afterward.

On the contrary, circular arguments are not necessarily false. Nor are arguments based upon authority. There are many arguments which we can present from every field of knowledge. But in the end, it will boil down to faith.

You will not convince any skeptic if you claim that the Church can put forth circular arguments.

Whether I will or not is not up to you.

1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Read it again. Those who have “not seen” are those who have been given the testimony of the Church.

I could read it 10,000 times, and it wouldn’t say what you’re telling me it says.

On the contrary, circular arguments are not necessarily false. Nor are arguments based upon authority. There are many arguments which we can present from every field of knowledge. But in the end, it will boil down to faith.

Arguments cannot be true or false. Circular arguments are necessarily valid. But they are never convincing. Please take a logic class before you make claims about arguments.

As for arguments from authority, they are convincing precisely when you can verify that the authority is a good authority. And that is what I am saying: that we must find independent reasons to trust the Church. You cannot trust that the Church is an authority because the Church says “I am an authority”.

 

[newcalling]

They are the same. Scripture is part of the church. The Apostles and other scripture authors are part of the church. The church canonized scripture. Perhaps it’s because I’m a convert, but I see them as intrinsically linked. My faith comes from the Holy Spirit. It is examined according to the church and her holy scriptures; both of which would be meaningless without the Holy Spirit.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

They are the same. Scripture is part of the church. The Apostles and other scripture authors are part of the church. The church canonized scripture. Perhaps it’s because I’m a convert, but I see them as intrinsically linked. My faith comes from the Holy Spirit. It is examined according to the church and her holy scriptures; both of which would be meaningless without the Holy Spirit.

I’ll drink to that.

 

[drac16]

Based on the Scriptures primarily. There are some ideas that I picked up through tradition, but traditions are always fallible. The only infallible source is the Bible.

 

[De_Maria]

I could read it 10,000 times, and it wouldn’t say what you’re telling me it says.

Then read it 10,001 times. Because it is saying what I’m telling you.

Arguments cannot be true or false. Circular arguments are necessarily valid.

Arguments are statements. They can be true or false. Take your logic class again.

But they are never convincing.

Says who? You? So, you’re using your authority to argue against authoritative arguments?

Please take a logic class before you make claims about arguments.

It’s you who needs to take those classes. If you’ve taken them, you haven’t understood them.

As for arguments from authority, they are convincing precisely when you can verify that the authority is a good authority. And that is what I am saying: that we must find independent reasons to trust the Church. You cannot trust that the Church is an authority because the Church says “I am an authority”.

You can say whatever you want. But who are you? What are you basing your authority upon? You’re saying, “I am an authority, therefore you must do as I say.” And I’m telling you, “I follow my own authority and it isn’t you.”

There are a lot of reasons why you’re wrong. Let me list just a few.

1. You are arguing against arguments based on authority and basing your arguments on your own authority.
2. You have confused the arguments used against skeptics (atheists, humanists, agnostics) with the arguments used against other Christians.
3. You are making too many assumptions.
   a. You assume that I don’t know that I use arguments from authority and arguments that are circular.
   b. You assume that circular arguments will not work with those who use the most popular circular argument that there is, “Bible alone”. In other words, “I believe it because the Bible tells me so.”
4. And finally, there is no step by step rule that I must start my proof from this type of argument or that type of argument. I do it as the Spirit leads me.

I hope we understand each other.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Then read it 10,001 times. Because it is saying what I’m telling you.

It says nothing about the Church.

Arguments are statements. They can be true or false. Take your logic class again.

Arguments are not statements. They can be valid or invalid, sound or unsound. They cannot be true or false. I teach logic for a living.

Says who? You? So, you’re using your authority to argue against authoritative arguments?

No, they’re not convincing because they have the form:

1. A
2. Therefore A.

You have no reason to believe the premise unless you already believe the conclusion. Hence it is not convincing.

It’s you who needs to take those classes. If you’ve taken them, you haven’t understood them.

I have a dissertation that says otherwise.

You can say whatever you want. But who are you? What are you basing your authority upon? You’re saying, “I am an authority, therefore you must do as I say.” And I’m telling you, “I follow my own authority and it isn’t you.”

I have not made an argument from authority. I have given reasons for all my views.

You assume that circular arguments will not work with those who use the most popular circular argument that there is, “Bible alone”. In other words, “I believe it because the Bible tells me so.”

Yes, I agree that that argument is horrible (that the Bible is true because the Bible says so). It is also not what Protestants say, if you actually talk to them.

 

[De_Maria]

It says nothing about the Church.

What institution do the Apostles compose? And to whom will the Apostles and disciples be witnessing? Will they be witnessing to eye witnesses of Christ’s death and resurrection? Or to people that never heard of Christ until they preach to them?

Arguments are not statements. They can be valid or invalid, sound or unsound. They cannot be true or false. I teach logic for a living.

And you’re caught up in the details. You’re caught up in the jargon.

In the real world, not in your class room, arguments are statements.

As nouns the difference between argument and statement is that argument is a fact or statement used to support a proposition; a reason while statement is a declaration or remark.
What is the difference between argument and statement? | WikiDiff

Says who? You? So, you’re using your authority to argue against authoritative arguments?

No, they’re not convincing because they have the form:

1. A
2. Therefore A.

You have no reason to believe the premise unless you already believe the conclusion. Hence it is not convincing.

This is called a rabbit hole. You’ve changed the subject because you’ve begun to realize that you’re wrong. Address the argument or statement against you. You are using your self imbued authority to argue against arguments based on authority.

I have a dissertation that says otherwise.

We’re not discussing your dissertation, are we? In fact, when did this discussion become about you? I don’t care how many dissertations you have, you don’t understand what is being discussed here.

I have not made an argument from authority. I have given reasons for all my views.

And your reasons are all based on your supposed authority.

Yes, I agree that that argument is horrible (that the Bible is true because the Bible says so). It is also not what Protestants say, if you actually talk to them.

Read the OP again and see what he is saying. Then read what I said and see what I am saying TO HIM.

You need to learn to know your audience. I wasn’t addressing you. I was addressing a Bible only Protestant with the only authority that he recognizes.

Capiche?

 

[Contender4TheFaith]

I believe that scripture, the Word of God, is the only reliable source of truth that we have. Mankind has a way of creating traditions that may not necessarily agree with what He gave us through the writers of scripture through divine inspiration. Can you give me an example of Sacred Tradition that you would hold to that is included in the Bible?

 

[Contender4TheFaith]

If you’re referring to people who are considered infallible, in Christianity there was and is no infallible person but Jesus Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Please note one section of text where I made an argument from authority. Quote it.

The only thing you MIGHT find is where I said arguments cannot be true or false. You can find that in any logic textbook. The source you quoted is not even close to an authority.

At any rate, De_Maria, let me ask you a question: do you believe that I am espousing something that goes against Church teaching? If so, what Church teaching do I deny? If not, why are you so insistent to correct me?

Finally, you have said that you are arguing in a circle. You’ve admitted that. And yet, when I point out why arguing in a circle is a bad thing, you say that I am “changing the subject”. How is this changing the subject?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I was addressing a Bible only Protestant with the only authority that he recognizes.

What made you think he was a Bible-only Protestant? I see no indication of that.

 

[Contender4TheFaith]

I can clear that up…I am a Bible only Christian.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I can clear that up…I am a Bible only Christian.

Got it.

Cool beans.

 

[Cthompson]

You mentioned later that you are a…

I am a Bible only Christian

Where do you think the Bible came from? The books were inspired, but who/what ultimately discerned which books would comprise the Bible?

If you acknowledge the Bible as the ultimate source of faith, you have to respect Church authority, at least on the basis of the early Church comprising the Bible and determining which books are actually inspired and which aren’t.

God bless.

 

[Contender4TheFaith]

You asked: “Should we believe our personal and private interpretation of Scripture? Or, since we are fallible humans, should we instead, obey Scripture’s instructions and learn the Word of God from our rulers in the Church?”

The Holy Spirit is our Helper. He gives understanding. From Job 32:8 - "“But it is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding.”

Yes, there are some parts of scripture that are more difficult to understand than others, but as Psalm 119:130 says, “The unfolding of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple”. Job 32:8 As I often marvel, there is so much in scripture that even a child can understand.

But yes, your point is well taken regarding Hebrews 13:7, but it should not be a blind, unquestioning trust. God does provide us with good teachers and preachers of His Word. However, man is man, and there’s always the potential that a preacher/teacher may have a wrong motive or agenda (there are many false teachers - wolves in sheep’s clothing out there!!!). That’s why we must always measure what they say against scripture to see if it is actually true.

Even in biblical times, the teachings of Paul were scrutinized by the Bereans who examined what Paul and Silas taught. Paul said of them, " Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." They modelled what we should do also when we receive preaching/teaching.

Something for us to always remember too is Psalm 111:10 - “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments; His praise endures forever.”

 

[Contender4TheFaith]

Where do you think the Bible came from? The books were inspired, but who/what ultimately discerned which books would comprise the Bible?

If you acknowledge the Bible as the ultimate source of faith, you have to respect Church authority, at least on the basis of the early Church comprising the Bible and determining which books are actually inspired and which aren’t.

God bless.

Ultimately the Bible came from God and in His own ways, used men to write by divine inspiration and them others to compile what we now recognize as the Bible. The whole process seems to me to be very complex, but a couple of good links for more information here:
How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? | GotQuestions.org (notable quote: “It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.”
How do we decide which books belong in the Bible since the Bible does not say which books belong in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Cthompson]

God … used men to write by divine inspiration and them others to compile what we now recognize as the Bible.

emphasis added

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. God inspired men to write the books of the Bible, as the Bible is not one book, and He inspired men (the Church Magisterium) to compile the books into a Bible.

God bless.