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

[bmonk]

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

However, Matthew 16 is not the only source. John 14-16 is even stronger in defense of infallibility of the Church, as Jesus promises to send the Spirit, the Paraclete, who is the “spirit of truth” to “be with you always,” to “teach you everything and remind you of all that * told you,” and “when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” That seems pretty clear that the Spirit, who is to be with you =the Church, or the Apostles, since this is the Last Supper] and to guide them “to all truth,” truth as taught by Jesus.

Again, this is from the Gospel according to John, considered to be the latest of the Gospels. On the other hand, we now have at least three or four pretty much independent sources referring to the Spirit and to the Church’s authority–Matthew, Luke (in Acts), John, and Paul. Where did they get this? It has to go back to the source when they were last together–the Apostles themselves, and to Jesus.*

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

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 Bible is a work of Tradition which was composed by the Church and inspired by the Holy Spirit. In the OT the authenticity of the Church’s infallibility is seen by the fulfillment of the OT prophecies by Christ Himself. In the NT the Church is held to be infallible because it was founded by the same Christ who commissioned it with the mission to preach to all peoples making disciples of all nations ( a mission the original Apostles could not complete in their life time alone). The Divine institution of the Church is proved by its link to the Apostles and by the fulfillment of Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it. The Catholic Church fulfills this command since it has lasted for 2000+ years through many attacks both within and outside of its walls.

 

[Richca]

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.

We need faith because the existence of God, though it can be demonstrated ( the 5 proofs from St Thomas Aquinas) is not self-evident to us. Thus St Thomas Aquinas says:

No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition “God is” can be mentally admitted: “The fool said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident. (Summa Theologica Pt, 1, Q.2, Art. 1).

That the existence of God can be demonstrated St Thomas says:

The Apostle says: “The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Rom. 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists. (Summa Theologica Pt. 1, Q.2, Art. 2)

 

[Richca]

We have faith in

God, not faith that God exists.

Faith is the belief that God exists.

“But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6).

 

[Contarini]

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

Early followers of Jesus, of course. No one disputes that Jesus’ followers started establishing communities very early and that these communities were called “ekklesiai.” The question is how much (going by purely historical methods and not introducing Christological complexities) we can say Jesus intended this to happen. Also, the typical view is that the notion of a universal “ekklesia” is relatively late (late 1st/early 2nd cent.). I agree that this is often argued in a circular fashion–we know the idea is late because it doesn’t occur in early writings, and we know that Ephesians, for instance, can’t really be by Paul because we know the idea is late. But I think there is evidence, even if we accept Ephesians as Pauline, for a development from local church to universal church–it’s just that if Ephesians is by Paul the development by the 60s A.D. rather than a few decades later.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Early followers of Jesus, of course.

Of course.

That prompts the question: on whose mandate?

I kind of feel like the “early followers of Jesus, of course” answer is as obfuscatory as as parent telling a child, when asked "Who made me?: well, your mommy and your daddy did, of course!

The unsaid assumption is, naturally: they did this only through the power and authorship of God.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Faith is the belief that God exists.

“But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6).

Look at the context of the verse.

1. Without faith it is impossible to please God.
2. You need to believe God exists.
3. Once you know He exists you can seek Him, and He will reward you.

The verse is not saying that faith is the belief God exists. It’s saying that once you believe He exists He will reward you for seeking Him-which requires faith.

“Seeking” God is clearly not the same as believing He exists. How do we know that?

It’s simple. Let’s say that “seeking” God means believing He exists. Why is “believes He exists” even in there? Let’s take it out and assume that “seek”=“believe”:

“But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he rewards those who seek him.”

There is no difference, if we accept that seek=believe, with this and the original paragraph!

So, what is actually meant by “seek”? Well, religious people speak of “searching” for God all the time. I think it probably has to do with seeking a personal relationship with Him, or seeking to become more like Him-become more holy, in other words.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

We need faith because the existence of God, though it can be demonstrated ( the 5 proofs from St Thomas Aquinas) is not self-evident to us. Thus St Thomas Aquinas says:

No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition “God is” can be mentally admitted: “The fool said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident. (Summa Theologica Pt, 1, Q.2, Art. 1).

That the existence of God can be demonstrated St Thomas says:

The Apostle says: “The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Rom. 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists. (Summa Theologica Pt. 1, Q.2, Art. 2)

I think we might be trying to say basically the same thing.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

We need faith because the existence of God, though it can be demonstrated ( the 5 proofs from St Thomas Aquinas) is not self-evident to us. Thus St Thomas Aquinas says:

No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition “God is” can be mentally admitted: “The fool said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident. (Summa Theologica Pt, 1, Q.2, Art. 1).

Richca thanks for this. This is a subtle distinction I had not averted to before .

 

[Aquinas_Jr]

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 is not a circular argument when considered thus:

NATURAL REASONING-
EXISTENCE OF GOD-
KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ABSTRACTED FROM EXISTENCE-
RECOGNITION OF THE GOD OF THE BIBLE WITH THE GOD KNOWN BY NATURAL REASONING-
RECOGNITION OF JESUS AS GOD WITHOUT CONTRADICTING REASON- RECOGNITION OF THE CHURCH

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

PR I am a Catholic (thus part of your “we” hopefully) but as your words do not represent my views … well, I leave you to run the syllogism .

** 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.”

Tell that to Ben Hur - or was it Marcellus!

OK.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Faith is the belief that God exists.

“But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6).

Richca
This is a bit ambiguously stated - and I think the face meaning is not quite right (which may be why others have reacted to it).

Yes, “Faith” for most people may well include belief in God’s existence.
However it does not have to be so. Aquinas holds that the fallen angels do not believe in God’s existence - they actually know of it directly through their more powerful intellect.

In theory this is meant to be possible for rational humans as well (though most people probably come to believe in God’s existence as an obvious co-consequence of hearing his teachings and accepting the kerygma, in faith, as true).

The quote you have above may be a little out of context in this regard. Perhaps I am wrong but “must believe that He exists” really seems to emphasise acceptance of **God’s existence **(whether by reason or faith) rather than faith in God’s existence.

 

[PRmerger]

PR I am a Catholic (thus part of your “we” hopefully)

Nope. You weren’t part of the we.

When I say, “We like noodles” it seems ludicrous for someone to point out, “Ma’am, I just want to let you know that I don’t care for them.”

This is the response he’s going to get:

elisakreisinger.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/eyeroll.gif

Yeah. So you’re not part of the “we.”

You haven’t met Him. That’s a great tragedy, since you’re Catholic. Great. Tragedy.

but as your words do not represent my views … well, I leave you to run the syllogism .

I don’t think you know the meaning of the word, “syllogism”. I did not present one.

Tell that to Ben Hur - or was it Marcellus!

OK.

Tell that to the Roman soldiers who held His hands and crucified Him. They apparently didn’t feel His strength either.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Nope. You weren’t part of the we.

When I say, “We like noodles” it seems ludicrous for someone to point out, “Ma’am, I just want to let you know that I don’t care for them.”

This is the response he’s going to get:

elisakreisinger.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/eyeroll.gif

Yeah. So you’re not part of the “we.”

You haven’t met Him. That’s a great tragedy, since you’re Catholic. Great. Tragedy.

I don’t think you know the meaning of the word, “syllogism”. I did not present one.

Tell that to the Roman soldiers who held His hands and crucified Him. They apparently didn’t feel His strength either.

PRMerger
Lots of heat and smoke but very little light
You are right, I defintely haven’t met Jesus as did the apostles. Neither have you.
I look forward to that though.

May I observe this Forum area is devoted to Apologetics.
I am simply pointing out that use of a faith-inspired vocab (e.g. “I have met Jesus”) probably isn’t all that helpful in explaining the reason’s why we believe to non-believers because it may come across as an incomprehensible use of colloquial English. Yes there is a place for that, there are also places where it doesn’t help.

I am sorry that you so quickly feel the need to cast people, who mildly express a contrary view, into the outer-darkness. Lighten up my friend.

Re *“Tell that to the Roman soldiers who held His hands and crucified Him. They apparently didn’t feel His strength either.” *Well Centurion Longinus obviously did remember Jesus, he was the one who put the spear through Jesus’s side. He was in charge of Jesus’s execution squad. Have a read here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Longinus. One of my favorites.

 

[Richca]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richca
Faith is the belief that God exists.

“But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6).

Richca

This is a bit ambiguously stated - and I think the face meaning is not quite right (which may be why others have reacted to it).

 

[Richca]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richca
Faith is the belief that God exists.

“But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6).

Look at the context of the verse.

1. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

 

[PRmerger]

PRMerger
Lots of heat and smoke but very little light

Were you under the impression that we were talking Aristotelian metaphysics here?

I thought you were disputing my use of the pronoun “we’”.

That’s not exactly high theology. It’s pretty simple, actually, so no “light” needed. It was just a very basic grammar lesson I was offering to you.

You are right, I defintely haven’t met Jesus as did the apostles.

Right. I am indeed.

And just so we’re clear: you are the one who is adding the “as did the apostles.”

I never proclaimed that.

This is what I said here:

You haven’t met Him. That’s a great tragedy, since you’re Catholic. Great. Tragedy.

and again here:

Because we have met Him.

No mention at all about meeting Him “as did the apostles.”

Take this parallel: I say, “We like noodles!” and you respond (after the absurd tributary regarding the grammatical referents for “we”), “But not everyone can eat noodles! Remember, there’s those with celiac disease!” Um…ok. No one said that everyone can eat noodles.

:whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, Aquinas holds the opposite. He says the angels had need of faith before they were given the beatific vision. The angels were tested as to whether or not they would serve God before he rewarded them with heaven. To know of God’s existence directly only comes with the beatific vision as St Paul says: “At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face.” ( 1 Corinthians 13:12). (Summa Theologica Pt. II-II, Q.5, Art. 1)

 

[PRmerger]

I am sorry that you so quickly feel the need to cast people, who mildly express a contrary view, into the outer-darkness.

Believe me, Blue, if I had cast you into the “outer-darkness” you would know.

We are in dialogue and I am refuting your comments.

That’s exactly the purpose of a forum.

Lighten up my friend.

Right back at 'cha.

Re *“Tell that to the Roman soldiers who held His hands and crucified Him. They apparently didn’t feel His strength either.” *Well Centurion Longinus obviously did remember Jesus, he was the one who put the spear through Jesus’s side. He was in charge of Jesus’s execution squad. Have a read here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Longinus. One of my favorites.

Interesting. A non-sequitur, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

To believe is to have faith.

Only in a very limited sense.

…the believer’s intellect assents to that which he believes, not because he sees it either in itself, or by resolving it to first self-evident principles, but because his will commands his intellect to assent. Now, that the will moves the intellect to assent, may be due to two causes. First, through the will being directed to the good, and in this way, to believe is a praiseworthy action. Secondly, because the intellect is convinced that it ought to believe what is said, though that conviction is not based on objective evidence. Thus if a prophet, while preaching the word of God, were to foretell something, and were to give a sign, by raising a dead person to life, the intellect of a witness would be convinced so as to recognize clearly that God, Who lieth not, was speaking, although the thing itself foretold would not be evident in itself, and consequently the essence of faith would not be removed.

**Accordingly we must say that faith is commended in the first sense in the faithful of Christ: and in this way faith is not in the demons, but only in the second way, for they see many evident signs, whereby they recognize that the teaching of the Church is from God, although they do not see the things themselves that the Church teaches, for instance that there are three Persons in God, and so forth. **

The Bible says that “demons believe”, but that only means faith in a very narrow, limited sense.