I have already demonstrated to you why your argument is false in post #9. There is no circular logic, but it is too convenient for you to ignore this, isn’t it?
Logic and the plain words of the NT require an acceptance of that fact. Perhaps you have never stopped to pull all the pieces together to see what they add up to.
First let me say that I believe that the Bible is inspired and inerrant. However for the purpose of looking at the argument presented, these are not assumed.
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.
This assumes that because somethings in a history is factually true that everything in it is true. This does not logically follow. We can use historical sources and archeological discoveries to show that some things in Homer’s Iliad are true. Does this mean the existence of the Greek gods is true?
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.
This involves a personal interpretation, or an assumption, that the history shows Jesus claimed he was God. Other interpretations are possible. Arianism made a different interpretation.
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.
This again involves a personal interpretation of what the history says about the Church. It makes an assumption as to virtually everything over which Catholics and Protestants disagree.
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.
At no place in the argument has it been shown that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. It is an unwarranted jump to conclude that because Jesus founded a Church it is the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church also makes this claim.
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.
Yet again this involves a personal interpretation that when the Bible deals with the Church and authority it is referring to a specific institutional organization. It also involves the personal interpretation that Scripture shows that institution is infallible.
What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.
To summarize what I said above:
a) general historical accuracy does not prove accuracy in everything;
b) the argument involves multiple personal interpretations as to the nature, attributes and identity of Church as referred to in Scripture.
I have no doubt you believe that the interpretations involved in the argument are accurate. Otherwise you would not hold them. What seems obvious to you need not be obvious to others. That is the nature of personal interpretation.
This will likely be my last post on this thread as I think anything more would just be repeating myself.
