How do we know a revelation or prophet is true?

[MysticMonist]

@SalamKahn and I have been discussing privately the question of the method of how one should accept or reject a prophet. He’s Muslim and I’m Bahai (with strong Platonism). How do Catholics approach this question?

Salam argued that there should be objective criteria (moral conduct of the prophet, miracles performed, consistency between his teachings and prior authentic revelation, in this case the Torah).

I agrue that you can’t have objective standards because no one will agree on what they are or how they apply. Christains and Muslims say Jesus fulfills and is true to the Torah. Jews think Jesus contradicts the Torah and doesn’t match the prophecies. Each camp has its reasons and arguments and no outside seeker can rationally choose effectively.

I love Plato and I love his idea of divine illumination. In the Republic, he says that reason is like the human eye. It can see when it is internally working correctly. Blind men cannot see. Yet, it also requires light and no one can see in darkness. Our reason requires divine illumination in order to see. I believe not our reason but also our emotions and intuition can be illuminated or in darkness and this illumination comes from God. How do I know Jesus is a prophet? Because God grants me the ability to see that He is, God illumines my heart and mind in reading or hearIng His teachings.

So why do I think Bahá’u’llá is a prophet? Because his Writings make sense, I feel God’s presence in the prayers he writes. There is nothing in the Baha’i Writings that are so contrary to the God I encounter in prayer that I would reject him. I don’t have blind faith though. I only trust Bahá’u’llá or Mohammad (PBUH) or Jesus or anyone else as far as they are reasonable and correspond to my limited knowledge of God.

What’s the Catholic take on this? It seems that christains, and scripture itself, talk a little bit about both these approaches. Sometimes going prophecy by prophecy by prophecy and sometimes talking about the need for the Holy Spirit to grant us understanding and discernment. Baha’i scriptures also seem to use both approaches, sometimes talking about the fulfillment of prophecy or the objective merits of our prophet and His message, and sometimes making an appeal directly to splendor of the revelation itself.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

For Catholic mystics and prophets, if someone begins to draw a following, the local bishop will generally look into what is going on. If I do not know the person personally I would usually wait to hear what the bishop says before I go rushing after a person. One must be careful because often the supposed seers are pushing some agenda or are fakes or mentally ill or they are trying to get money or their revelations might even be from the devil. I usually stick to the bishop-approved persons.

 

[MysticMonist]

Okay. But how do you know the Church has the proper revelation?
You do make a good point, once you are in a religion then you consult those religious authorities.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

First, the Church has been doing this for centuries and has built up expertise in the areas of investigation, so it’s like how I would trust a construction company with decades of experience to work on my house.

Second, if I truly disagreed with the Church finding (rare, but in a handful of cases the Church has made a mistaken judgment and corrected itself later) I would look perhaps at the holiness of the person involved and what they are exhorting people to do.

Some good things they might tell people to do would be pray, sacrifice, make reparation for their own sins and others.

Some bad things they might tell people to do is rebel in some way against the established Church, or give them (the seer) a money donation.

Usually as Bob Dylan said, it don’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

 

[Vico]

… What’s the Catholic take on this? …

Catechism of the Catholic Church (Second Edition)

36 “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” 11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”. 12

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful. 13

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”. 14

11 Vatican Council I, Dei Filius 2S 3004; cf. 3026; Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum 6.
12 Cf. Gen 1:27.
13 Pius XII, Humani generis, 561S 3875.
14 Pius XII, Humani generis, 561S 3876; cf. Dei Filius 2S 3005; DV 6; St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I,1,1.

 

[MysticMonist]

I really liked that. I agree with the catcheism.
One minor point though: the catcheism says I think that human reason could hypothetically by itself attain knowledge of God without error, if it were not mislead.

Yet I think this is a false hypothetical. First off, we are never apart from God’s illumination. We can imagine a hypothetical world without God, but such a thing can not exist because God creates and sustains it. In the same way, we can’t imagine reason acting by itself since it never does. It’s always illumined, at least partially. We of course can reject illumination, but that’s another topic. Second, I don’t think humans ever exist (without God’s help) in a pure enough state to reason correctly. I think that illumination requires grace.

I’m pretty sure the writers of the catcheism would either agree with this minor point or would say it’s a difference of philosophical points rather than a key issue.

Also, plato says that divine illumination allows our minds to reason at all, not just about religious things. He says we only know mathematical truth because of illumination and recollection. I don’t know if I go that far, but yet again there is no person without God’s presence sustaining them to test the theory on.

 

[SalamKhan]

My position (as MysticMonist is already aware) is as follows:

One can know of God’s existence and His general attributes from reason alone. This is a major part of why the human intellect is reliable, however it is limited. Firstly, most people are slow to employ their reason. Secondly, one cannot attain detailed knowledge about God from reason alone. Thirdly, one cannot define good and evil from reason alone.

In all other fundamental matters as well, such as in law and order, commerce, healthcare, education, etc. when left to ourselves, we can only use trial and error without ever arriving at the best solution, and therefore we are in perpetual error when left to ourselves. However, God, being the creator of all things, has knowledge of all these things, which would include the best solution we are in need of. As God is under no obligation, it is not necessary for Him to solve our problems, for our actions neither harm nor benefit Him. However, it is necessary for us that God would commission a lawgiver/teacher who could impart divine knowledge rapidly and in a simple and concise manner.

The question then must be asked: Have we been abandoned to perpetual trial and error, or has God sent this lawgiver/teacher(s)? To answer this, we must be able to recognise who this lawgiver/teacher(s) is. Prior to being commissioned as lawgiver/teacher, this man must have a reputation among his people as having a truthful and upright character, otherwise how can we verify the claim to Prophecy of a treacherous liar as being true? This man must also be of high intelligence, to the point that He could grasp what is being revealed to him by God at once, otherwise how can we trust that an imbecile is correctly imparting to us the divine knowledge that was revealed to him, when he himself cannot grasp it? This man cannot teach what is contrary to what can be known in general by reason alone, namely the existence of God and His general attributes , otherwise how can we trust he is imparting the details of essential or fundamental knowledge, when he contradicts what is necessarily known in general? Finally, following all the aforementioned, he must affirm his Prophethood via an inimitable miracle. That is, an extraordinary break in nature, this would prove his Prophethood beyond doubt; for example, a king may send a man to some people, and after the people doubt that this man has been sent by the king, the man asks his king to stand up for him, which he does, proving that the man was indeed sent by the king.

We know from mutawatir (mass transmitted) evidence, that Muhammad (S) meets all of these criteria. Mutawatir evidence leaves no doubt in a narrated report. If 60 witnesses for example, heard one man saying “my favourite colour is black” and everyone without exception heard him make this statement, it is absurd to assert that not only did all of them mishear what the man actually said, but even more absurd to assert that they each heard the exact same thing from the moment they misheard the statement. The same would apply if a mass number of people witnessed one man doing something, and their testimonies of this man’s action are in agreement.

 

[jas84173]

There’s been self proclaimed prophets forever.
Right in Jesus day there were many self proclaimed prophets. Mani was a hugely successful prophet for four centuries. Muhammad is the most damning.

Prophet is not a bad thing. Many Saints since Christ have been given the gift of prophesy . However it’s when a person distorts the truth of the Church is it a problem.

Muhammad didn’t teach anything new. Islam is nothing more than accounts of Jesus found in Gnostic texts. The Nag Hammadi texts confirm this. And it is no surprise. Muhammad came from an area where heretics were exiled so he would have known these blasphemous stories.
Bahai was somewhat nice to me as it seems to appeal to universalism but in the end that’s the only appeal it has.

 

[MysticMonist]

Bahai was somewhat nice to me as it seems to appeal to universalism but in the end that’s the only appeal it has.

Yes I’m a universalist I’m happy that you’ve found a faith that guides you closer to God. Catholicism has many valuable teachings and has many holy adherents along with multiple wise contemplative traditions. I fully expect to see you and Salam and everyone else in heaven. God is a good god.

 

[SalamKhan]

Thus far, it seems the Catholics on this thread didn’t actually understand the question. So here are the positions of the Thomists (represented by Thomas Aquinas himself) and Augustinians (represented by Bonaventure) on the question:

Triablogue: Aquinas and Bonaventure on the Inspiration and Authority of Scripture

See also, Thomas Aquinas’ views on the character of the men who receive prophecy:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3172.htm

As well as Augustinine’s view:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140622.htm

 

[Vico]

I really liked that. I agree with the catcheism.
One minor point though: the catcheism says I think that human reason could hypothetically by itself attain knowledge of God without error, if it were not mislead. …

The Christians did not accept Plato or Aristotle directly, but had to modify their thinking, and do not agree with the Arabic philosophers such as Alfaribi’s idea of emanation and the eternity of the world.

We Catholics accept creation ex nihilo per the Lateran Council IV:

“who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.”

LATERAN COUNCIL IV 1215

Ecumenical XII (against the Albigensians, Joachim, Waldensians etc.

The Trinity, Sacraments, Canonical Mission, etc.*

Chap. 1. The Catholic Faith

(Definition directed against the Albigensians and other heretics]

428 Firmly we believe and we confess simply that the true God is one alone, eternal, immense, and unchangeable, incomprehensible, omnipotent and ineffable, Father and Son and Holy Spirit: indeed three Persons but one essence, substance, or nature entirely simple. The Father from no one, the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both; without beginning, always, and without end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the Holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal and omnipotent and coeternal; one beginning of all, creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body. For the devil and other demons were created by God good in nature, but they themselves through themselves have become wicked. But man sinned at the suggestion of the devil. This Holy Trinity according to common essence undivided, and according to personal properties distinct, granted the doctrine of salvation to the human race, first through Moses and the holy prophets and his other servants according to the most methodical disposition of the time.

Ref: Denzinger - English translation, older numbering

 

[STT]

You can never know whether a revelation is true or not because of Satan intervention.

It is interesting to note on contradiction which exist in Islam and Bahaism: Mohammad clearly said that he is the last prophet. Bahies believe in their prophet and in the same time approve Islam.

 

[SalamKhan]

It is interesting to note on contradiction which exist in Islam and Bahaism: Mohammad clearly said that he is the last prophet. Bahies believe in their prophet and in the same time approve Islam.

I agree, they are irreconcilable. There also exists too many irreconcilable differences between religions for all of them to be true. For all religions (as they currently are) to be equally true, they would by necessity have to be equally false.

 

[STT]

There also exists too many irreconcilable differences between religions for all of them to be true. For all religions (as they currently are) to be equally true, they would by necessity have to be equally false.

There is even contradiction between Islam and Christianity. Jesus clearly said that He is God. Muslims approve Christianity and believe that Jesus was only a prophet.

 

[SalamKhan]

Two years ago, I unfortunately left Islam, and wanted to become a Catholic. Alhamdulillah, I of course returned to Islam, during February of this year. One of the reasons why I returned to Islam was because I couldn’t understand how the Jews and the Church determined the Biblical Canon, or who truly had the authority to do so. Another thing I couldn’t understand was which text, if any, was reliable, whether Masoretic or Septuagint, or whether Alexandrian or Byzantine. This made me realise that Jews and Christians really didn’t possess the authentic teachings of Prophet Musa and Prophet Isa ibn Maryam, just as Islam claimed. But, I trust that they’re Prophets because the Qur’an affirms it, and divine knowledge supercedes human knowledge.

 

[MysticMonist]

Salam, thanks for the excellent article you posted. Very interesting.

I’ve been thinking that I’m probably wrong to deemphasize reason or personal character of the prophet or messenger, it’s has to be both common sense and divine illumination.

Here’s a tricky example: Osho

Rajneesh - Wikipedia

He was a famous spiritual guru who was extremely clever. He combined the teachings of Buddhism and Hinduism, often out of context. So a lot of His talks and books are full of wise sounding things and plagiarized but still deep meditative insights. On the surface he could be very persuasive and you could easily think him a worthy guide. Even in legitimate Buddhist circles I’ve found his name mentioned.
Yet he was also a complete fraud with a bunch of wives and cars and ended up leading a terrorist compound in Oregon that poisoned the local water supply.
By my argument of illumination, would I fall prey to an Osho if they sounded good? Salam, my Muslim friend, wouldn’t be so foolish and would point out his worldly, lustful, and violent ways. Osho is no prophet. But if a false prophet says wise things are these things still bad? Is Paul onto something when he says that the world’s wisdom is foolishness? Hmm…

 

[SalamKhan]

Since we are required to obey a Prophet, it is necessary that he practices what he preaches, if he was sinful, then we would be required to obey him in sinning. Moreover, it also implies that this special commission by God is of no efficacy. There is a difference of opinion between the Asha`ri and Maturidi schools on whether prior to being commissioned to Prophethood, being sinless is even a requirement (both agree that truthfulness and general good character among his own people is a requirement).

 

[Vico]

… how one should accept or reject a prophet. …

First what is the gift of prophecy and who can receive it? Catholic Encyclopedia has:

The gift of prophecy is an extraordinary grace bestowed by God. It has never been confined to any particular tribe, family, or class of persons. There is no distinct faculty in human nature by which any normal or abnormal person can prophesy, neither is any special preparation required beforehand for the reception of this gift. Hence Cornely remarks: “Modern authors speak inaccurately of ‘schools of prophets’, an expression never found in the Scriptures or the Fathers” (Comp. Introduct. in N.T., n. 463). Neither was there ever any external rite by which the office of prophet was inaugurated; its exercise was always extraordinary and depended on the immediate call of God. The prophetic light, according to St. Thomas, is in the soul of the prophet not as a permanent form or habit, but after the manner of a passion or passing impression (Summa Theologiæ II-II.171.2). Hence the ancient prophets by their prayers petitioned for this Divine light (1 Kings 8:6; Jeremiah 32:16; 23:2 sq.; 42:4 sq.), and they were liable to error if they gave an answer before invoking God (2 Samuel 7:2-3).
Writing on the recipients of prophecy, Benedict XIV (Heroic Virtue, III, 144, 150) says: “The recipients of prophecy may be angels, devils, men, women, children, heathens, or gentiles; nor is it necessary that a man should be gifted with any particular disposition in order to receive the light of prophecy provided his intellect and senses be adapted for making manifest the things which God reveals to him. Though moral goodness is most profitable to a prophet, yet it is not necessary in order to obtain the gift of prophecy.” He also tells us that the angels by their own natural penetration cannot know future events which are undermined and contingent or uncertain, neither can they know the secrets of the heart of another, whether man or angel. When therefore God reveals to an angel as the medium through which the future is made known to man, the angel also becomes a prophet. As to the Devil, the same author tells us that he cannot of his own natural knowledge foretell future events which are the proper objects of prophecy, yet God may make use of him for this purpose. Thus we read in the Gospel of St. Luke that when the Devil saw Jesus he fell down before Him and, crying out with a loud voice, said: “What have I to do with thee, Jesus, Son of the most high God?” (Luke 8:28). …

… the prophecy must be conformable to Christian truth and piety, because if it propose anything against faith or morals it cannot proceed from the Spirit of Truth;

Devine, A. (1911). Prophecy. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12473a.htm

 

[SalamKhan]

the prophecy must be conformable to Christian truth and piety, because if it propose anything against faith or morals it cannot proceed from the Spirit of Truth

The problem is, that’s already assuming that Christianity is true to begin with. We’re talking about a criteria in the broadest sense. In general, how can we distinguish between true prophecy/revelation and false prophecy/revelation?

I as a Muslim, laid out a criteria according to the intellect. The Thomists, although they believe the intellect to be the arbiter in distinguishing truth and falsehood, assume Christianity to be true prior to distinguishing between true and false prophecy. Meanwhile the Augustinians, believed divine illumination to be the arbiter in distinguishing truth and falsehood.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But how do you know the Church has the proper revelation?

Each person may have different reasons for why they believe. For example, people believed Jesus in his lifetime because he spoke with AUTHORITY, he also miraculously healed many, proving his trustworthiness by many signs and wonders.

I think he would have faded from memory, however, if he didn’t actually raise from the dead as He said he would.

What I also find convincing is the destruction and subsequent exile of Jews from Temple worship. The last significant exile from Temple worship for the Jews was the Babylonian exile, understood by Judaism as punishment for sin. That lasted 40 years, I think. I think it is significant that Jews have been in exile from Temple worship for about 2000 years. Something must have happen before AD 70 that warranted such a looong exile. I think that something was the rejection and crucifixion of the promised Messiah.

Moreover, I studied all the major world religions in college, to include Islam and many Eastern religions. I didn’t find them to be very convincing. By ‘calculatis eliminatis’–so to speak–it further convinced me that Jesus truly is the eternal Son of God