Church Can't Ever Go Corrupt

  • Thread starter Thread starter AirLiner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AirLiner

Guest
I tried to post a similar argument here before, but it the response was a tragic mess. I’ve reorganized it and cleared it up so hopefully its more understandable and we’ll have more productive discussion this time.

Premise 1. Human beings have moral obligation. This moral obligation was authored by God. He intends human beings to be moral.
**
Premise 2.** Human beings are fallible and unable to agree on an objective morality.

Premise 3. Therefore God must intervene to provide human beings with objective morality so that they may fulfill they’re moral obligation. Due to their fallibility human beings must have a dynamic teaching authority capable of addressing all issues regarding objective morality. This authority can’t be the Bible alone simply for the fact that there are multiple honest interpretations of it, and then we end up no better than we were in premise 2.

Premise 4. Since this authority is a product of God’s intervention, it could only go corrupt if God deliberately abandoned it.

Premise 5. However this violates premise 1, and if God did not intend human beings to be moral, He never would have instituted moral teaching or even morality in the first place. Therefore the possibility of God’s Church going apostate is a contradiction, it’s impossible.
 
No, I’m sick of hundreds of subjective Biblical interpretations. Find me a flaw in the logic, the premises themselves.
 
I didn’t take part in any previous discussion, so I don’t know how useful my comments are, but:

I don’t think you have made a case using 4-5 premises alone (and even if you did, that would still be asking a neutral party to accept a great deal on your say-so before they arrived at a conclusion). Below I’ve separated out the premises I note in my reading of your argument. At best I see eight or maybe nine *a priori *assumptions that must be made before you reach your conclusion:

Human beings have moral obligation.

This moral obligation was authored by God.

He intends human beings to be moral.

Human beings are fallible and unable to agree on an objective morality.

Therefore God must intervene to provide human beings with objective morality so that they may fulfill they’re moral obligation.

Due to their fallibility human beings must have a dynamic teaching authority capable of addressing all issues regarding objective morality.

This authority can’t be the Bible alone simply for the fact that there are multiple honest interpretations of it, and then we end up no better than we were in premise 2.

Since this authority is a product of God’s intervention, it could only go corrupt if God deliberately abandoned it.

However this violates premise 1, and if God did not intend human beings to be moral, He never would have instituted moral teaching or even morality in the first place.

Therefore the possibility of God’s Church going apostate is a contradiction, it’s impossible.

Without prejudice to whether I agree with your argument, I don’t think you’ve logically proved it here. Effectively you’ve said if you believe A, and if you believe B, and if you believe C, and if you believe D, and if you believe E, and if you believe F, and if you believe G, and if you believe H, and if you believe I - then J must inevitably be true. That doesn’t constitute proof, and resembles a sorites more than a logical argument.

As I say, that doesn’t mean I disagree with you. But if I were coming to this argument as a tabula rasa, why would I accept your a priori assumptions?
 

A group (small or large) that calls itself the church surely can go corrupt. Have you ever looked at the 99 theses posted on the door of the chruch by Martin Luther. If the church of his day had not been corrupt, we may not have this forum today. Just a thought.​

Focussing our attention of anything but the Lord is problematic. Leading anyone to anything but Jesus is problematic. It is Jesus alone Who saves. Not Jesus plus a church. Thank God for churches. Thank God He uses sinners. But look to Jesus, He alone is the Author and Finisher of our faith, or so says the author of the book of Hebrews.
 
AirLiner said:
I tried to post a similar argument here before, but it the response was a tragic mess. I’ve reorganized it and cleared it up so hopefully its more understandable and we’ll have more productive discussion this time.

Premise 1. Human beings have moral obligation. This moral obligation was authored by God. He intends human beings to be moral.
**
Premise 2.** Human beings are fallible and unable to agree on an objective morality.

Premise 3. Therefore God must intervene to provide human beings with objective morality so that they may fulfill they’re moral obligation. Due to their fallibility human beings must have a dynamic teaching authority capable of addressing all issues regarding objective morality. This authority can’t be the Bible alone simply for the fact that there are multiple honest interpretations of it, and then we end up no better than we were in premise 2.

Premise 4. Since this authority is a product of God’s intervention, it could only go corrupt if God deliberately abandoned it.

Premise 5. However this violates premise 1, and if God did not intend human beings to be moral, He never would have instituted moral teaching or even morality in the first place. Therefore the possibility of God’s Church going apostate is a contradiction, it’s impossible.
Click to expand...
Yes, human beings are fallible. All of them. That means the Magisterium of The Catholic Church is, too. Show me the logical flaw in that?

Yes, if self alone is “infallible” then self alone would be infallibly correct in declaring self as infallibly correct. It’s called a circular argument. A conditional statement is made, the condition never substantiated but in stead the conclusion simply loops back to it.

ANYONE or ANYTHING can insist, “I alone am correct.” It has absolulely nothing to do with being correct, it only has to do with the exemption of one (self) from accountability. Read any of the cults?

“I alone am correct ergo when I alone insist that I alone am correct, it is logical to conclude that I’m correct.” I realize you think this is logical, but actually it’s a circumvention of it. It’s just a circle.

.
 
I would simply say the answer…or non-answer is in your 1st line

He intends human beings to be moral.

You know what God intends? I would say that is false… we have no idea of Gods full intentions. to think we do is…well I dunno.
 
AmericanJosiah said:
Yes, human beings are fallible. All of them. That means the Magisterium of The Catholic Church is, too. Show me the logical flaw in that?

Yes, if self alone is “infallible” then self alone would be infallibly correct in declaring self as infallibly correct. It’s called a circular argument. A conditional statement is made, the condition never substantiated but in stead the conclusion simply loops back to it.

ANYONE or ANYTHING can insist, “I alone am correct.” It has absolulely nothing to do with being correct, it only has to do with the exemption of one (self) from accountability. Read any of the cults?

“I alone am correct ergo when I alone insist that I alone am correct, it is logical to conclude that I’m correct.” I realize you think this is logical, but actually it’s a circumvention of it. It’s just a circle.
Click to expand...
AmericanJosiah: Regarding the establishment of the Magisterium and its supposed fallibility: Matthew 25, John 20:19 and Acts 2 contradict your view.

Lutherans are founded by a man, not God. By your own logic something seems undone in the Lutheran Church.

The Holy Spirit in Acts 2 and Christ’s words in Matthew 25 and John 20 explicitly indicate that these men (and the men they chose and laid hands on to grant apostolic succession) were granted authority to teach. Peter and his successors, the Popes, are the lead shepherds that, through the Holy Spirit that came upon them in Acts 2, act within the Holy Spirit’s guide. With the Spirit as a guide, the Magistarium is more than a group of guys. They’re the Holy Spirit’s voice on matters of faith (and they don’t have to use that authority often).

Since Martin Luther was only a priest, who gave him authority to teach? The Magistarium (through his bishop) at the time. The teaching authority became broken in Lutheranism. In short, if the Magistarium is wrong, then Martin Luther and all that followed him are following an error, too.
Dokimas said:

A group (small or large) that calls itself the church surely can go corrupt. Have you ever looked at the 99 theses posted on the door of the chruch by Martin Luther. If the church of his day had not been corrupt, we may not have this forum today. Just a thought.​

Focussing our attention of anything but the Lord is problematic. Leading anyone to anything but Jesus is problematic. It is Jesus alone Who saves. Not Jesus plus a church. Thank God for churches. Thank God He uses sinners. But look to Jesus, He alone is the Author and Finisher of our faith, or so says the author of the book of Hebrews.
Click to expand...
Hi, Dokimas.

Do you say what you do by your own authority? Scripture does not grant personal authority to any men other than the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, to teach the word of God without error. True, it *is *Christ alone that saves. But grace, the gift of the Holy Spirit given by God to save you, is not a permanent thing inside you just because someone cries out “Lord, Lord.” Christ affirmed this, too (Matthew 7:23).

That’s not to say that any of us, Catholics or otherwise, can’t read and appreciate and even interpret God’s word. But in the end, it’s important that we do get the meanings and practices right, and not simply enjoy the knowledge that God knows us. Salvation is more than faith; it is living out your faith through everything you do and everyone you meet. In short, it is not enough to know Christ; we must imitate him, too (1 Corinthians, Book 11).

(Don’t confuse this with the old “Faith vs. works” argument, by the way. St. Paul’s many letters are often trying to tell new Jewish Christians that following the works of the Mosaic Law–the part of the covenant of the Old Testament–are no longer required with the New Covenant.)
 
AirLiner said:
I tried to post a similar argument here before, but it the response was a tragic mess. I’ve reorganized it and cleared it up so hopefully its more understandable and we’ll have more productive discussion this time.

Premise 1. Human beings have moral obligation. This moral obligation was authored by God. He intends human beings to be moral.
**
Premise 2.** Human beings are fallible and unable to agree on an objective morality.

Premise 3. Therefore God must intervene to provide human beings with objective morality so that they may fulfill they’re moral obligation. Due to their fallibility human beings must have a dynamic teaching authority capable of addressing all issues regarding objective morality. This authority can’t be the Bible alone simply for the fact that there are multiple honest interpretations of it, and then we end up no better than we were in premise 2.

Premise 4. Since this authority is a product of God’s intervention, it could only go corrupt if God deliberately abandoned it.

Premise 5. However this violates premise 1, and if God did not intend human beings to be moral, He never would have instituted moral teaching or even morality in the first place. Therefore the possibility of God’s Church going apostate is a contradiction, it’s impossible.
Click to expand...
Premise 3 is an attempt at a logical conclusion (therefore) which is based on the first two premises.

Conclusions that start with “Therefore God must…” are immediately suspect as they attempt to speak for God, whose ways are not our ways.

Furthermore, this conclusion can be sanity checked. If this conclusion is true, then it must be true for all peoples in all time periods. In other words, if this is a valid conclusion based on the first two premises, I would expect all peoples during all time periods to have access to some dynamic teaching authority concerning morality.

So my first question would be where would this teaching authority be for the Inca tribe in South America in the years before Christ? Or in the years after Christ for that matter?
 
Oh good now we’re getting somewhere. The only presupposition I deliberately included was number 1 and number 2, everything else was supposed to follow form that. So if you don’t believe in morality this isn’t for you, I’d have to come up with a longer argument to prove the existence of morality.

Premise 2 is proven by history, even when you have philosophers and theologians honestly trying to find the true morality they disagree with each other.

Premise 3 attempts to solve the paradox of having both premise 1 and 2. How can morality exist if our fallibility prevents us from reaching it? A believe a good solution is having God teach humanity morality. He can do it directly, or guide teachers on Earth. Someone pointed out that the Catholic Church is made up of men, therefore susceptible to the fallibility I pointed out in premise 2.

However you must remember that the Catholic Church believes it is guided by the Holy Spirit. Now exactly how God can guide fallible human beings into never teaching error is another discussion for another time, all I’m trying to show here right now is that God must intervene to provide morality to human beings.

How about finding Jesus yourself by personally interpreting the Bible? Well, there is a major problem with that. Many people have tried that over history and have come to disagreements with each other, its an ineffective and therefore false way of finding morality and God.

The best point in this discussion has been brought up by AmateurPianist, who noted that if these premises are true they should apply to all people in all of history in all places. This is a good point. I do believe these premises have applied to all historical persons. Now God must have been intervening since human beings first became fallible. From the Judeo-Christian perspective, this was occurring with the prophets, and the Jews in the time before Christ. They were God’s teaching authority, He was guiding them to teach morality. After the coming of Christ, Catholics believe that this authority was passed on the Apostles and then to the Bishops and so forth. However the problem still remains of people who never knew these authorities even existed. Well all they had was their fallible reason, and you can believe that they will be judged by their best honest use of this fallible reason, but nonetheless the fact remains that there was a teaching authority around somewhere on Earth when these people were alive.
 
AirLiner said:
No, I’m sick of hundreds of subjective Biblical interpretations. Find me a flaw in the logic, the premises themselves.
Click to expand...
Ill take the word of God any day to human reasoning.The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man.
All your premises fit into the Mosianic covenant, yet that proved to be in lacking.
 
AirLiner said:
However you must remember that the Catholic Church believes it is guided by the Holy Spirit. Now exactly how God can guide fallible human beings into never teaching error is another discussion for another time, all I’m trying to show here right now is that God must intervene to provide morality to human beings.

.
Click to expand...
What you have missed is that God gave Himself so that humans can be moral agents without Him we are corrupt, It is Christ within us individually that changes us to be moral. You have missed the mark so profoundly that your own salvation comes into question.
 
:
Hisalone said:
Ill take the word of God any day to human reasoning.The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man.
All your premises fit into the Mosianic covenant, yet that proved to be in lacking.
Click to expand...
Thats very true 👍
 
AirLiner said:
The best point in this discussion has been brought up by AmateurPianist, who noted that if these premises are true they should apply to all people in all of history in all places. This is a good point. I do believe these premises have applied to all historical persons. Now God must have been intervening since human beings first became fallible. From the Judeo-Christian perspective, this was occurring with the prophets, and the Jews in the time before Christ. They were God’s teaching authority, He was guiding them to teach morality. After the coming of Christ, Catholics believe that this authority was passed on the Apostles and then to the Bishops and so forth. However the problem still remains of people who never knew these authorities even existed. Well all they had was their fallible reason, and you can believe that they will be judged by their best honest use of this fallible reason, but nonetheless the fact remains that there was a teaching authority around somewhere on Earth when these people were alive.
Click to expand...
Actually, as I think about it, my best point was the point that any argument that starts
Premise, Premise, Therefore God must is flawed right from the start.

There is no “Therefore God must” with God. There is only “God graciously does”.

And what God does is according to His grace, not according to our fallible human reasoning.
 
Scripture may be divine, but personal interpretation isn’t. People seem to be avoiding the issue that if there is no Church guided by God and we are supposed to interpret the Bible ourselves, then why have such endeavors resulted in disagreement, fragmentation, and thousands of denominations?
 
AmateurPianist said:
Actually, as I think about it, my best point was the point that any argument that starts
Premise, Premise, Therefore God must is flawed right from the start.

There is no “Therefore God must” with God. There is only “God graciously does”.

And what God does is according to His grace, not according to our fallible human reasoning.
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to subject God to my reasoning merely to understand him through it. Would you be offended by the philosophical assertion “…therefore God must exist”.
 
AirLiner said:
I’m not trying to subject God to my reasoning merely to understand him through it. Would you be offended by the philosophical assertion “…therefore God must exist”.
Click to expand...
I am not offended by anything here.

I just believe that any argument that starts “Premise, premise, therefore God must do” is flawed from the start (and this is different from from "premise, premise, therefore God exists fwiw).

God, being God, is not constrained by human reasoning and human logic. God’s ways are not our ways, neither are His thoughs our thoughts. There is no “therefore God must” with God unless God has specifically revealed it to man. There is only “God graciously does”.
 
Spencerian said:
AmericanJosiah: Regarding the establishment of the Magisterium and its supposed fallibility: Matthew 25, John 20:19 and Acts 2 contradict your view.
Click to expand...
Nope. None of the Scriptures you lists (ah, a Catholic using Sola Scriptura!) so much as even MENTIONS The Catholic Church or the Bishops thereof or the Pope thereof. And none of them so much as even MENTIONS anything or anyone being infallible or unaccountable. And none of them so much as even MENTIONS interpretation of Scripture or Catholic Tradition. And none of them so much as even MENTIONS arbitration of the teachings of The Catholic Church or any other. So, the listed (but for good reasons not quoted) Scriptures substantiate NOTHING of what one alone (The Catholic Church) claims for one alone (The Catholic Church) in order to exempt one alone (The Catholic Church) from accountability.

And it’s not my view, it was the opening poster’s view.
The Holy Spirit in Acts 2 and Christ’s words in Matthew 25 and John 20 explicitly indicate that these men (and the men they chose and laid hands on to grant apostolic succession) were granted authority to teach.
Click to expand...
My advanced calc teacher was authorized to teach, too. By the University of California. It doesn’t mean that he is infallible/unaccountable, the sole authority, the sole intepreter, the sole arbiter, and that whatever he says is to be accepted with docility as the spokesman of God - and that all who succeed him as the teacher of that class will also be infallible, unaccountable, the sole authority, the sole interpreter, the sole arbiter. Or that The University of California was founded in 31 AD by Jesus of Nazareth in Berkley, California. Lots of very illogical leaps there, my friend.

Read the 3 chapters. Actually READ them. The words there. Those things formed by black letters on the white page. You’ll see that The Catholic Church ISN’T EVEN MENTIONED. Or all the bishops of The Catholic Church. Or the bishop of the Diocese of Rome (or even Rome). NOTHING about anything or anyone being infallible or unaccountable. NOTHING about anyone passing such on to anyone. NOTHING about anyone or anything being the sole interpreter of anything. NOTHING about anything or anyone being the sole arbiter of anything (much less infallibly, much less as God speaking). It has nothing to do with the claims of one alone for one alone to exempt one alone from accountability.
Since Martin Luther was only a priest, who gave him authority to teach?
Click to expand...
The same thing that gives you that authority, after all - what are you attempting to do in your post? Cook chili? Wash the dog? Come on…

.
 
The phrase “God must” was only used once in my premises. I am merely postulating that God would teach human beings morality if they were unable to find it for themselves.

And don’t be so hostile to reason, again I’m not subjecting God through reason, merely seeking to understand Him. Reason is a part of Creation too. All I’m doing here is trying to show that the existence of a Divine Guide is necessary given the existence of human fallibility and morality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top