Isn't it all a great circle? Can anyone break it?

[Actaeon]

I’m back into this thing of circular reasoning I came across once. (Showers get you to think! )

Here’s the question I started out with and afterwards I list my line of thought: How do I know it’s true?

1. The Bible is accurate and gives us information on Jesus Christ.
   → How do I know it contains the truth and nothing but truth?
2. Because the Church has infallibly declared the Bible’s contents inspired and inerrant.
   → How can the Church make an infallible statement?
3. The Bible provides evidence for such a capability.

Now here is where my problem started: You cannot get a foundation for a belief from a connected belief that bases itself on the matter in question. Either I grant that there might be no error in such a passage of Scripture, or there is. (If there is, that ends the question, if not, I continue my thought)

1. Granted that such passages do not contain false information and Jesus Christ said this, isn’t interpretation involved? How do I know this interpretation is correct?
   → The answer couldn’t be “The Church interprets”, because that would form a circle, could it?
2. After all, without the dogmatic definition of inerrancy and simply treating the Bible as a human historic document, Jesus becomes only a man. Why take anything seriously he claimed about the supernatural?

I am in no way criticising the Church or Christian beliefs, after all I am one myself, but I have the feeling there’s something badly wrong with my thinking on the matter. Actually, I am very confused!

Can anyone point out where the mistakes are?

Thank you.

The only reason we know that the bible is doctrinally true is the church. Period. Full stop. End of argument.

There is no real circle, because the church does not derive her authority from the Bible AT ALL. The church derives its authority 100% directly from God, in being sealed in the Holy Spirit. All sorts of primary source documents (writings of the ECFs) attest to this, as well as the continuity of Christian History. If tomorrow every copy of the Bible were wiped off the earth, along with all memory of the Bible, the Catholic church would still go on with equal authority.

So the argument is only circular if you consider the Bible a source of authority (rather than an authoritative source), when in fact it is not (it is a teaching tool certified by the church)

 

[onemangang]

It really boils down to epistemolgy.

How do we know anything? Start there

 

[CutlerB]

The only reason we know that the bible is doctrinally true is the church. Period. Full stop. End of argument.

There is no real circle, because the church does not derive her authority from the Bible AT ALL. The church derives its authority 100% directly from God, in being sealed in the Holy Spirit. All sorts of primary source documents (writings of the ECFs) attest to this, as well as the continuity of Christian History. If tomorrow every copy of the Bible were wiped off the earth, along with all memory of the Bible, the Catholic church would still go on with equal authority.

So the argument is only circular if you consider the Bible a source of authority (rather than an authoritative source), when in fact it is not (it is a teaching tool certified by the church)

But you see, once you trust human claims: How do you know that is not a lie? Which normal human can make such a claim?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m back into this thing of circular reasoning I came across once. (Showers get you to think! )

Here’s the question I started out with and afterwards I list my line of thought: How do I know it’s true?

1. The Bible is accurate and gives us information on Jesus Christ.
   → How do I know it contains the truth and nothing but truth?
2. Because the Church has infallibly declared the Bible’s contents inspired and inerrant.
   → How can the Church make an infallible statement?
3. The Bible provides evidence for such a capability.

Now here is where my problem started: You cannot get a foundation for a belief from a connected belief that bases itself on the matter in question. Either I grant that there might be no error in such a passage of Scripture, or there is. (If there is, that ends the question, if not, I continue my thought)

1. Granted that such passages do not contain false information and Jesus Christ said this, isn’t interpretation involved? How do I know this interpretation is correct?
   → The answer couldn’t be “The Church interprets”, because that would form a circle, could it?
2. After all, without the dogmatic definition of inerrancy and simply treating the Bible as a human historic document, Jesus becomes only a man. Why take anything seriously he claimed about the supernatural?

I am in no way criticising the Church or Christian beliefs, after all I am one myself, but I have the feeling there’s something badly wrong with my thinking on the matter. Actually, I am very confused!

Can anyone point out where the mistakes are?

Thank you.

Try this argument:

1. The Bible is accurate and gives us information on Jesus Christ
2. We know the Bible is accurate because it is a primary source that has been confirmed historically at various times and is attested to as accurate by other primary sources.
3. We know the Catholic Church is the one Jesus founded because we can record the succession of Popes down to Saint Peter, and it was universally attested at the time that this Church was the One Church founded by Christ, and we have primary sources to back this up.
4. It has been historically understood that the Church by virtue of its teaching authority as given to it by Jesus could make infallible decisions.
5. This infallible Church declared the Bible inerrant.

 

[CutlerB]

Try this argument:

1. The Bible is accurate and gives us information on Jesus Christ
2. We know the Bible is accurate because it is a primary source that has been confirmed historically at various times and is attested to as accurate by other primary sources.
3. We know the Catholic Church is the one Jesus founded because we can record the succession of Popes down to Saint Peter, and it was universally attested at the time that this Church was the One Church founded by Christ, and we have primary sources to back this up.
4. It has been historically understood that the Church by virtue of its teaching authority as given to it by Jesus could make infallible decisions.
5. This infallible Church declared the Bible inerrant.

I understand that and it seems correct to me, as long as one can establish Jesus’ credibility by other sources, except by the Bible. Although, doesn’t the apostles’ martyrdom provide ample evidence for the truth of the writings’ claims?

Sorry for all this back and forth, my mind keeps playing tricks.

 

[fhansen]

I’m back into this thing of circular reasoning I came across once. (Showers get you to think! )

Here’s the question I started out with and afterwards I list my line of thought: How do I know it’s true?

1. The Bible is accurate and gives us information on Jesus Christ.
   → How do I know it contains the truth and nothing but truth?
2. Because the Church has infallibly declared the Bible’s contents inspired and inerrant.
   → How can the Church make an infallible statement?
3. The Bible provides evidence for such a capability.

Now here is where my problem started: You cannot get a foundation for a belief from a connected belief that bases itself on the matter in question. Either I grant that there might be no error in such a passage of Scripture, or there is. (If there is, that ends the question, if not, I continue my thought)

1. Granted that such passages do not contain false information and Jesus Christ said this, isn’t interpretation involved? How do I know this interpretation is correct?
   → The answer couldn’t be “The Church interprets”, because that would form a circle, could it?
2. After all, without the dogmatic definition of inerrancy and simply treating the Bible as a human historic document, Jesus becomes only a man. Why take anything seriously he claimed about the supernatural?

I am in no way criticising the Church or Christian beliefs, after all I am one myself, but I have the feeling there’s something badly wrong with my thinking on the matter. Actually, I am very confused!

Can anyone point out where the mistakes are?

Thank you.

It’s all a matter of grace as near as I can tell. Either God is the source of my faith in Himself, His promises, His Church, His Word, etc, or the reasoning ends up circular. Grace is what ends the circularity and makes our faith reliant directly on Him.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“1. The Bible is accurate…”

What does this actually mean?

The Bible can mean just about anything a community/family/individual, rightly or wrongly, might want it to mean.

 

[Hunter24]

I’m back into this thing of circular reasoning I came across once. (Showers get you to think! )

Here’s the question I started out with and afterwards I list my line of thought: How do I know it’s true?

1. The Bible is accurate and gives us information on Jesus Christ.
   → How do I know it contains the truth and nothing but truth?
2. Because the Church has infallibly declared the Bible’s contents inspired and inerrant.
   → How can the Church make an infallible statement?
3. The Bible provides evidence for such a capability.

Now here is where my problem started: You cannot get a foundation for a belief from a connected belief that bases itself on the matter in question. Either I grant that there might be no error in such a passage of Scripture, or there is. (If there is, that ends the question, if not, I continue my thought)

1. Granted that such passages do not contain false information and Jesus Christ said this, isn’t interpretation involved? How do I know this interpretation is correct?
   → The answer couldn’t be “The Church interprets”, because that would form a circle, could it?
2. After all, without the dogmatic definition of inerrancy and simply treating the Bible as a human historic document, Jesus becomes only a man. Why take anything seriously he claimed about the supernatural?

I am in no way criticising the Church or Christian beliefs, after all I am one myself, but I have the feeling there’s something badly wrong with my thinking on the matter. Actually, I am very confused!

Can anyone point out where the mistakes are?

Thank you.

Thats the crux of it isn’t it. That is why you are you are Christian and I am not, It is all dependant on ones belief in the accuracy of the bible.

I don’t believe the bible to be the word of God, which is why I am not Christian. But you do, so you are. its just a simple matter of opinion.

This however perfectly demonstrates why some people have difficulty diolouging with non-Christians, knowing the bible cover to cover wont do much good when the other person just thinks its a book.

This is the ultimate question my friend, and each person is on a journey to find the answer to it. what do YOU believe? What are you willing to put your FAITH in?

 

[InternetWoman]

And God is (easily?) known to be real because…

There are things called “proofs of God”. Most of them were developed by St. Thomas Aquinas (in case you want to look them up). There are not proofs in the sense we use that word today - meaning something that forces you to believe. God does not do that because it would violate our free will. So we can think of them as “seriously good reasons to believe.” The one I’m going to relate is just one of about 5 from Aquinas. It is called the “first-cause argument.”

1. I exist (easy to believe, at least by me).
2. I only exist because my parents existed, met, married, etc.
3. They only existed because their parents existed, who only existed because…

OK, so you can see this is a potentially infinite argument. Except it CAN’T be an infinite argument. It’s like the human pyramid that cheerleaders build. I’m the one on the top, my parents are the next level down, theirs the next level down, etc. But SOMEONE has to be standing on the ground - or else the entire pyramid would collapse. So someone has to be the “ground” of existence. He/she/it can’t have conditional existence (or else they would just be another level in the pyramid). So He/she/it has UNCAUSED/UNCONDITIONAL existance. They exist simply on their own “authority”. And this uncaused cause is the source of all other existence. We call it God.

Now, this “proof” does not immediately lead us to the knowledge of a loving God - but that realization does flow from this first proof (I can bore you with that if you want).

And the really cool thing is that the Bible is consistent with this. When Moses asked God His name He said “I am who am”, tell them “I am” sent you. God is the great “I AM”. The one from whom all existence flows.

One quote I’ve seen says “Existence is radically unnecessary.” There is nothing about the physical world that MUST exist. It’s all conditional. But yet we are all here. What is our source? The one who “IS”.

Aquinas can be a bit daunting to read. The philosopher Peter Kreeft has a book “Fundamentals of the Faith” (Ignatius) that describes Aquinas’ proofs. I find it easier.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

There are things called “proofs of God”. Most of them were developed by St. Thomas Aquinas (in case you want to look them up). There are not proofs in the sense we use that word today - meaning something that forces you to believe.

Hmmm, well, NO proof “forces” anybody to believe. There are mathematical proofs that PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that .9 repeating is wrong, but there are STILL people who won’t believe it. But the fact that it is logically proven doesn’t take away our free will.

Same with proofs for God’s existence. They are what they say-proofs. If they are indeed valid, and I think they are, then God must exist. So, I think God must exist.

 

[Hunter24]

There are things called “proofs of God”.

If you could prove god then why is it called faith? we know so little about the universe, we have no idea how life may have arose, we learn more every day.

 

[PRmerger]

If you could prove god then why is it called faith?

Why is *what *called faith?

we know so little about the universe, we have no idea how life may have arose, we learn more every day.

Indeed.

The Catholic mantra is fides quarens intellectum. Faith seeking understanding. That is, faith* and *reason tell us that God exists.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If you could prove god then why is it called faith?

We have faith in God, not faith that God exists.

 

[Contarini]

The “spiral argument,” as I’ve argued many times before, simply doesn’t work for at least two reasons:

1. No passage of the NT unambiguously says that Jesus founded an infallible Church. That’s one somewhat speculative way of interpreting certain passages, particularly Matt. 16.
2. The historicity of the relevant parts of Matt. 16 is disputed by many scholars on sound historical principles. The parallel passage in Mark doesn’t contain the promise to Peter; Matthew is generally considered later than Mark; and so it seems quite plausible, on purely historical grounds, that this is a later interpretation of what Jesus said. Note that for the purpose of defeating the spiral argument all that’s necessary is to show that it’s at least somewhat plausible. Of course through purely historical grounds we don’t know. Maybe Matthew had an additional source Mark didn’t have. Maybe Matthew is actually written first. And so on. But the spiral argument requires certainty, and we do not have that here.

The basic problem with the OP is the assumption that we need some kind of deductive argument in which each conclusion follows logically and necessarily from the preceding premise. But that’s not how questions of faith work. Reasonable faith is based on inductive, cumulative evidence of many kinds coming from many sources.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

The “spiral argument,” as I’ve argued many times before, simply doesn’t work for at least two reasons:

1. No passage of the NT unambiguously says that Jesus founded an infallible Church.

But the NT is quite clear that Jesus did found a Church. The infallible part is irrelevant. At least as it applies to this discussion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Because we have met Him.

As my Maori boss used to say, “what’s with the “we” whiteman!”

You appear to be using the word “met” in a faith-inspired analogical sense because I have never “met” Jesus in the normal colloquial meaning of that word.

If I had I am sure I would remember the way he said “hello” and the strength in his hand.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
And God is (easily?) known to be real because…

There are things called “proofs of God”. Most of them were developed by St. Thomas Aquinas (in case you want to look them up). There are not proofs in the sense we use that word today - meaning something that forces you to believe. God does not do that because it would violate our free will. So we can think of them as “seriously good reasons to believe.” The one I’m going to relate is just one of about 5 from Aquinas. It is called the “first-cause argument.”

1. I exist (easy to believe, at least by me).
2. I only exist because my parents existed, met, married, etc.
3. They only existed because their parents existed, who only existed because…

OK, so you can see this is a potentially infinite argument. Except it CAN’T be an infinite argument. It’s like the human pyramid that cheerleaders build. I’m the one on the top, my parents are the next level down, theirs the next level down, etc. But SOMEONE has to be standing on the ground - or else the entire pyramid would collapse. So someone has to be the “ground” of existence. He/she/it can’t have conditional existence (or else they would just be another level in the pyramid). So He/she/it has UNCAUSED/UNCONDITIONAL existance. They exist simply on their own “authority”. And this uncaused cause is the source of all other existence. We call it God.

IW the point I am making is that 99.99% of humanity (which doesn’t have angelically powerful intellects) take such things on “faith” in any case - because those with such mighty intellects are by no means unanimous on this matter of allegedly pure, objective “reason” anyhow (e.g. Hume, Kant and many more credible figures point to assumptions/limitations in the Quinque Viae. Cf quodlibet.net/aqu5ways.shtml for one example of many).

Therefore your spiral argument based on reason never makes it off the starting blocks of reasonable certitude .

Personally I believe in God and that God is loving because of the fact of Jesus’s bodily resurrection. It isn’t a fact for me (I have not met him) but it was for the apostles. I believe the testators are credible and the message, despite its incredible claim, has been handed down faithfully and largely uncorrupted.

When one accepts the reality of the resurrection then the claims of the one ressurected have to be taken seriously (because the resurrection suggests vindication by his Father) and therefore lived.

The Angelic Doctor’s dry arguments (mostly from Aristotle) pretty well leave me dead and, as motives for conversion, probably no more helpful than an ash-tray on a motorbike .

 

[PRmerger]

As my Maori boss used to say, “what’s with the “we” whiteman!”

It’s just me and zillions of other Catholic folks. I think that constitutes a “we”, don’t you think?

You appear to be using the word “met” in a faith-inspired analogical sense because I have never “met” Jesus in the normal colloquial meaning of that word.

I wasn’t talking about it in the “colloquial” sense, no.

If I had I am sure I would remember the way he said “hello” and the strength in his hand.

I don’t think so. :nope:

There were folks who sat right next to him and didn’t “remember the way he said hello and the strength in his hand.”

 

[Contarini]

But the NT is quite clear that Jesus did found a Church. The infallible part is irrelevant. At least as it applies to this discussion.

No, the NT isn’t clear historical evidence, for the reason I gave above–many scholars think that Matthew reflects a more “developed” situation in the late 1st century and that’s why it has Jesus talking about the church. None of the other Gospels use the word “church.” Many scholars–even Catholic scholars, though no doubt hopelessly liberal ones in your view (but that’s supposed to be irrelevant if we’re just talking about historical methods)–deny that Jesus founded a Church. N. T. Wright and other conservative scholars have done a good job of answering these arguments, I think, by stressing the idea that Jesus’ mission was to “gather the tribes” and renew Israel, including Israel’s mission of bringing knowledge of God to the Gentiles. But the fact remains that from a purely historical point of view one can’t say with any confidence that Jesus consciously intended to “found a church” rather than renewing Israel.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

No, the NT isn’t clear historical evidence, for the reason I gave above–many scholars think that Matthew reflects a more “developed” situation in the late 1st century and that’s why it has Jesus talking about the church. None of the other Gospels use the word “church.” Many scholars–even Catholic scholars, though no doubt hopelessly liberal ones in your view (but that’s supposed to be irrelevant if we’re just talking about historical methods)–deny that Jesus founded a Church. N. T. Wright and other conservative scholars have done a good job of answering these arguments, I think, by stressing the idea that Jesus’ mission was to “gather the tribes” and renew Israel, including Israel’s mission of bringing knowledge of God to the Gentiles. But the fact remains that from a purely historical point of view one can’t say with any confidence that Jesus consciously intended to “found a church” rather than renewing Israel.

Edwin

And the churches that are mention in the NT–who do these scholars think these churches are founded by?