So when you said “Now, we believe that these translations are themselves theopneustos, and thus accurately convey the teachings of Christ. But that in itself is a revelation through the Church. (Other than Matthew 27:46)”
So when you said, “Why? As for me, it is because I know that those to whom Christ entrusted Divine Authority have determined that. You can’t possibly deny that same Authority and yet have “absolute faith” in the very things that they, through the promised protection of the Holy Spirit, have determined.”Nope. Not there, either.
Unless you believe you can’t “know” something that is “only” 99.99999999999999% sure.
That’s not what I’m saying.
How can you misunderstand things so terribly?
So you weren’t saying that you can be certain of divine revelation in Scripture because the church was given divine, infallible authority by Jesus?
So if a Protestant says that he or she believes in the veracity of the Scriptures with a diminishingly small error of probability, without the need for an infallible church body to tell him so, your response will not be “But you don’t have infallible certainty, so you really can’t KNOW”?
Well, they’d be lying.
Exactly. It’s not that Catholics don’t have a good argument. It’s that the infallibility argument isn’t a good one because it works equally well against Protestants and Catholics. If your argument works against your own position, it probably isn’t a good argument.
It’s not that it works against our position. But in the absence of an infallible declaration from Rome in regards to the Canon, all we have is an authoritative declaration.
You don’t? Isn’t Trent considered an infallible declaration on the canon?
I don’t see how compiling books necessarily leads to infallibility forever in matters of all faith and morals. So if after prayer and study I were convicted to believe by faith that Christ has needed to reform aspects of His Church to ultimately keep the gates from prevailing due to human leaders straying, then I’d rather join the one coming along 1800 yrs later if I believe it’s the one where Christ is leading me to at a given time. Rather than the one just because it may have compiled the books properly so many centuries ago.
It is, only inasmuch as relying on the statement “I have certainty about the canon because X is infallible,” only moves it back one step. You’d still have to demonstrate that X is infallible without referring to a fallible authority. Otherwise you’d be in the same position as the Protestant who relies on fallible authorities.
Seriously? Equally well?
I didn’t say compiled. For the NT, the Catholic Church authored it.
Hey, that sounds like Muhammad’s story. And Joseph Smith’s.
Seriously? The same position?
And it takes pride to think that every other Christian simply chooses what to believe and then picks a church that conforms to those beliefs, and especially to confirm them in their sin. But oh humble you have truly submitted to God’s will.
I’m not saying that dronald’s evidence is equally as strong as yours. I’m just saying that both your evidence and his evidence is equally fallible.
People who choose their faith community based entirely on their own beliefs are making God in their image.