I must say, the rhetoric, circular reasoning, and general lunacy being displayed by the Roman Catholics here is quite dizzying.
Actually, my post was addressed in general to a lack of respect for even the simplest logic…You cannot merely assert something. You must support it with logic and reason, and those things must stand up to tests, lest your claim be invalid. Alternatively, you can simply say “I have faith in this even though it cannot be logically proven”, but such faith is useless in a discussion designed to rationally or logically defend or attack a given position. Faith without logical support and proof is blind, and blind faith will not persuade anyone, whether the faith be for, or against, a certain belief.
Regardless of the path you choose, if you don’t have “proof” of some sort for your claims, they’re useless in a debate. That’s not to say that faith is in conflict with fact and proof, but rather that the two are not required to be mutually inclusive of one another.
so saying it serves no purpose other than as rhetoric, which will only convince those who already believe it.
Generally speaking, yes. I believe that the apostles recorded teaching would not have omitted anything vital to the faith. They wouldn’t be that blind. Thus, it makes anything outside of that a triviality, except as confirmed otherwise by the holy spirit, which guides each of us into the fullness of truth over time, as we’re actually willing to listen to that truth.
You’re standing on the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, when there is no early text proving any sort of supernatural succession of officers within Christianity. Had the Apostles themselves all received the fullness of truth directly from the Holy Spirit, and had Apostolic Succession taken place which would result in that fullness of truth being given to the successors, we’d have no indications of any teaching by anyone who was a valid successor of an Apostle that would be considered heretical. And yet, at the least, you’d conclude that many priests and bishops who became Lutheran or Anglican were indeed teaching heresy, despite this supernatural protection of God’s true church.
If you accept that man can err in things you believe are wrong, you must also accept that man can err in the things you believe are right.
And Roman Catholics say “if our current church doesn’t teach it, we won’t believe it, no matter who said it”.
Let’s not forget that many Protestants actually do believe in the working of the holy spirit, revealing the truth to individual believers.
Roman Catholic doctrines find scriptures that can be made to where they seemingly agree with the church, not actual scriptural support. Many implications can be found based on scripture, but implications require outside knowledge, and thus have a source outside of scripture which must be believed before scripture can be seen to agree.
You actually should state it more correctly – Roman Catholic interpretation of scripture is such that no doctrine or dogma of the Roman Catholic Church is in conflict with it.
However, there are two flaws. First, that the RCC is the measuring rod of scripture, and at the same time, uses scripture to support its dogmas. It’s circular logic.
Second, lack of direct conflicting passages does not make for actual support of a belief. Lack of information cannot be assumed to have a certain meaning.
Exactly.
