It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Getting back to your OP…

Do you think it really is necessary for a Sola Scripturist to substantiate their belief in the Bible alone through a proof text found within that Bible alone? IOW, does it refute Sola Scriptura simply by revealing that Scripture itself does not even implicitly reveal it to be true?
Well, yes, unless you redefine “Sola Scriptura” to mean something other than “Only Scripture” which really seems to be the only way to logically maintain belief in “Sola Scriptura”.
I’m asking this not because I believe it one way or the other, but because I myself have been grappling with it since you started the thread. I’m certain you won’t find anyone who can successfully answer your OP here, and you probably know that too. And it certainly should be an eye opener for many Bible-only lurkers out there, as they recognize that their belief in Scripture alone is not scriptural. But does it have to say it in Scripture for one to actually believe it? Most SS’ers also believe in Spirit led revelation, and affirmations from the Spirit which somehow validate what other humans are teaching them. In this way, a person gets taught from their ecclesial community that Scripture alone is wholly sufficient, and the Spirit affirms it in their heart that that is true. This would seem to be the position someone like DerekD would take.
I really only see a few ways possible ways to define “Sola Scriptura”
1.) Only what is explicitly in scripture (as I, led by the Holy Spirit see it.)
2.) Only what is explicitly or implicitly in scripture (as I led by the Holy Spirit see it.)
3.) Only what is not explicitly contradicted by scripture (as I led by the Holy Spirit see it.)
4.) Only what is explicitly in scripture as interpreted in light of some other authority.
5.) Only what is explicitly or implicitly in scripture as interpreted in light of some other authority.
6.) Only what is not explicitly contradicted by scripture as interpreted in light of some other authority.

1 and 4 seem to be to be obviously, logically, self refuting since we all know there is no explicit verse in scripture stating such.

2 and 3 seem to be obviously self refuting, from a practical stand point, given the plethora of contradicting interpretations offered by the lay novice, expertly trained and ordained alike.

5 seems to be contradicted by scripture itself as scripture claims that there is much taught by Christ and His Apostles that was not written down.

This leaves 6 as the only viable definition.

The “problem” with this definition of course is that it doesn’t really rule out anything; especially the Catholic Church which is supposed to be the entity that “Sola Scriptura” was supposed to be used to refute.

This of course leads one to believe that those defining “Sola Scriptura” in this way should no longer demand that Catholics “Show me where it says that in the bible…” as there rebuttal to Catholic Theology.

But somehow this re-definition doesn’t seem to stop some folks from wanting one definition when explaining why “Sola Scriptura” should be accepted and then applying another definition when discussing opposing theological positions.
Of course, that sort of position raises the question of where did their teachers themselves discern that it was true? …I find the obstinate refusal to articulate which interpretation of Scripture holds the supreme authority to be the most frustrating element of it.
Yeah, I think you pretty much sum is up.

I think there is a good reason that they have to stop short in their definition. If they finish the definition, they either put forth something that is self refuting or they have to put forth something that doesn’t help them in refuting Catholicism (or any other conflicting Christian belief system).

So…when in doubt….punt.

Chuck
 
[SIGN][/SIGN]
Derek D states: “it (The Bible) is pillar and support of the truth; it not even difficult to see god entrusted a body of believers to preserve his truth and to use that truth to edifiy and teach and practice his truth.”
It certainly is. But it does not state all the Christ did while onearth - it even says so. The canon of the bible was not even finalized, agreed upon, and approved until the 4th century - by Catholics, mind you. The New Testament you possess was given to you by the Catholic Church, inspired by God. Yes, the Catholic Church gave Protestants the Bible. Luther thanked them for it by removing books which did not jibe with his view on things (Macabees - Purgatory). He wanted to remove James (“faith without works is dead”) due to his belief that humans are “dunghills covered with snow” and are incapable of “doing” (works) good. Hence, the “faith alone” argument. Nowhere in the Bible is this statement to be found, except in James, where it is refuted. Indeed, Luther’s German translation actually inserted the word “alone” to suit his needs. Again, this was just a man making the rules up along the way to fit his own earthly vision - against that of God. Subsequent reformers are just as guilty, because they branched off of Luther’s branch - to each his own.

Protestants - beginning with Mr. Luther - have hacked away at the Bible over the years by removing entire books, distorting it through terrible translations, etc. Heck, now you can buy Joyce Meyer’s interpretation of the Bible if her translation fits your particular worldview. If not, simply get another translation that does. This is not Christianity, my friend. This is not Truth. This is, however, confusion. The Bible was given to you by God, through the Catholic Church, which spread His truth throughout the world for centuries before a Bible was even written. He not only gave us the Bible through the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church to serve as your scriptural interpreter and teacher, as well. There can be only one Truth, not tens of thousands of competing visions of Truth. Please come to understand this.

The Catholic Church (not church, mind you) is Holy and divine. It is not corrupt, and cannot be so. People within the Church can be - and are. The Church itself is pure, as it is Christ’s Church. The Church has lasted 2000 years. It has lasted longer than any other human institution or government. And it will continue to do so. It will be here long after all others are gone. Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. They have not, and will not. Only such divine protection can account for the Church’s survival against endless attacks from within and without. This divine protection will ensure it’s continued survival and growth. Indeed, we just added 400,00 members this week, likely to swell to millions more in the months and weeks to come as our Anglican brothers and sisters flee man-made religion to come home to Christ’s Church (no offense to my Anglican brothers and sisters, but it is the truth).

Our friend Mr. Luther headed up a group of people who were upset and bitter over legitimate wrongs and practices taking place within the Church, being done by people within the Church. . Rather than reform the Church (again, not church) from within, Luther was cursed with pride and his new practice now bears his - a mortal man’s - own name. This is why Lutheranism is dwindling away, and will be virtually gone within the next 40/50 years, certainly within the USA, maybe a little later elsewhere. It is a man’s vision of how he wanted things to be, not how Christ wanted things to be. It was doomed from the start. Aforementioned Anglicanism - formed when a king was not allowed an anullment - is dying, as well.

Man-made religion will not cut it. It will rot. As far as “… (T[SIGN]he Bible)” being a “pillar and support of the truth; [/SIGN]it not even difficult to see god entrusted a body of believers to preserve his truth and to use that truth to edifiy and teach and practice his truth”, who on earth among our feuding, conflicted, contradictory, and self-righteous Protestant brethren is to say what the Bible means? On whose authority do you all rely? The Pentacostal down the street, who believes differently than you, different from the Lutheran, differently from the Episcopal, differently from the 7th Day Adventist, different from the “non-denominational”, different from the Methodist, different from the Assembly of God, different from the…? You get the point (hopefully). It doesn’t end, and never will. God is not the author of this confusion. Protestants often argue that Catholics allow a man to come between them and God when they confess to a priest. What malarkey. Protestants - all, each and every one, of Protestants - have done so. Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Knox, on and on. Each with their own “Biblical teaching.”

Protestantism can be boiled down to one’s own interpretation of the text, which is why the reformers have been reformed, and reformed, and reformed, and will always be reformed. Indeed, the truest form of Protestantism is one man, alone with a Bible, understanding it as he sees fit, seeing others as confused and wrong, while believing what he reads (if he can read, comprehend, etc.) as the True Word.

Christ gave humanity a teacher - the Catholic Church. Eventually, most will realize this (as I hope you do) and will come home.
Way to go. Very good comments. Protestants claim the bible contains the whole of Christian truth. The ironic part is it is the bible itself that proves them wrong.
 
[SIGN][/SIGN]
Let me see if I understand what you are saying:

Premise: Non-Catholics often say that a teaching can only be a teaching if found in the Bible.
Premise: But, the Bible doesn’t adctually say that at teaching can only be a teaching if it is found in the Bible.
Conclusion: [SIGN]Therefore, based on the fact that it isn’t a teaching found in the Bible, it can’t [/SIGN]be a teaching.

Observation: You yourself are accepting the condition of Premise #1 in order to arrive at your conclusion which denies it? I love the irony. 😛
No not at all. The fact is it is stated in the bible. It does actually state that. It states that oral teaching was entrusted to the Apostles directly from Jesus Christ. Thats what the bible says.

Jesus told his disciples He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me and who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

Hears me. You get it. He told his Apostles to go out and Teach, preach the word to all. He did not say write this down in a book. The bible itself once again tells you that all could not be written down. Now if it could not all be written down, does that mean it was not the word of God. Would that no contradict scripture?
 
No. The assertion was that the Catholic Church was not mentioned in scripture and that is read ekklesia kath olos which is factually read Catholic Church, even by definition in translation.

“the church throughout all” is the literal definition of Catholic, or universal.

It is simply meant to prove a point…nothing more.
You are correct CM. The word Katholos or Catholic in english originated from Romans 1:8.It means universal, which means throughout the world. It is stated in Romans.
 
Let me see if I understand what you are saying:

Premise: Non-Catholics often say that a teaching can only be a teaching if found in the Bible.
Premise: But, the Bible doesn’t adctually say that at teaching can only be a teaching if it is found in the Bible.
Conclusion: Therefore, based on the fact that it isn’t a teaching found in the Bible, it can’t be a teaching.

Observation: You yourself are accepting the condition of Premise #1 in order to arrive at your conclusion which denies it? I love the irony. 😛
So perhaps you are beginning to see the circular reasoning that involved in this doctrine.

I do not accept or believe it, but have set forth the premise based upon the fallacious reasoning that I have been hit with by those who are proponents of that belief.

If the specific teaching is in scripture, then that would lend it credence, however…if not, then why would people who believe it to be Biblical continue to believe and preach it?
 
I would much appreciate it if someone one, (especially you who are n-Cs) would display and clarify for me just precisely where it is in the Word of God that it specifically states that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found within its pages.

This also is for some of you Catholics that come in here and all but demand to know where some Catholic teaching or practice is found in the Bible.

The reason I am posting this is because I have read the Bible (all 73 books of it!) many times and have yet to find anything that supports this idea. I have concluded that the Catholic Church is correct in teaching that the Bible does not say this and therefore it is error.

I want all of us Catholics to understand that this is a fundamental doctrinal error of some communities of n-C Christianity and so there is no reason to get distressed when someone comes at you with this stuff, because the fact of the matter is …it’s NOT in the Bible itself.
You are preaching to the choir, I fully agree, and I too have read it thru more than once. There is nothing in the bible saying everything we do or believe must be written in the bible. That is a tradition of men that came along with the reformation. Pax Christi
 
This is very helpful. I have been in a heated argument with my Protestant friends. I couldn’t understand why they where so mad, until now.

I stated that I thought God gave us “free will” at creation, because He created us in his own image. And He has free will. They refuted it, saying it given to us after we ate from the fruit of knowledge. And God could not have free will because He can’t sin. (I don’t interpret free will that way. To me it means free to choose) then where did they turn? “Where does it say it in the Bible?” My answer was I don’t know. But low and behold I found it, the next time I picked up my bible (thank you Jesus). It was in:

Sirach 14
When God, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice.

I have stumped them so they have to attack the Catholic Bible to keep there beliefs valid. Just think how many of their “Bible only” things would be wiped out if they accepted the deuterocanonical books.
 
Militant,

Getting back to your OP…

Do you think it really is necessary for a Sola Scripturist to substantiate their belief in the Bible alone through a proof text found within that Bible alone? IOW, does it refute Sola Scriptura simply by revealing that Scripture itself does not even implicitly reveal it to be true?
Well…if someone tells me that everything I believe as a Christian has to be found in the Bible, it only makes common sense that they be able to show where that is in the scriptures. Doesn’t that follow logically?
I’m asking this not because I believe it one way or the other, but because I myself have been grappling with it since you started the thread.
I certainly understand because I too experienced something like that at a certain point in my journey home to the Catholic faith.
I’m certain you won’t find anyone who can successfully answer your OP here, and you probably know that too.
Let’s just say that suspect as much, but am open to proofs if someone can offer irrefutable substantiation. So far…I haven’t seen it.
And it certainly should be an eye opener for many Bible-only lurkers out there, as they recognize that their belief in Scripture alone is not scriptural. But does it have to say it in Scripture for one to actually believe it?
That would depend upon whether one is Catholic or not wouldn’t it? And so far as I can tell…that is a pivotal difference between our most holy faith and that of those post reformation faith communities that hold this belief.

IOW, yes. I think, based upon the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as it has been explained to me thus far, for it to be credible, it would have to be found in the Bible
Most SS’ers also believe in Spirit led revelation, and affirmations from the Spirit which somehow validate what other humans are teaching them. In this way, a person gets taught from their ecclesial community that Scripture alone is wholly sufficient, and the Spirit affirms it in their heart that that is true. This would seem to be the position someone like DerekD would take.
True, but if the scriptures themselves do not actually teach what these preachers & teachers say, then, to any logical person would have to examine it more closely to confirm it.

Remember how often we hear that we should all imitate the Bereans in Acts of the Apostles 17.
10 But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.”
Of course, that sort of position raises the question of where did their teachers themselves discern that it was true? If they themselves learned it from another, and the Spirit convicted them in it, then keep working backward…someone, somewhere back in the chain had to have been taught it by either Christ Himself, or presumably from one of the apostles themselves. And since it is not revealed in Scripture, a SS’er must concede that this teaching was handed down traditionally.
Which is something that so many of them tell us they reject. “The teachings of men”, y’know? That would make it inconsistent with “the Bible only” community.
But should that concession then easily refute Sola Scriptura? I’m not so sure. A true SS’er is willing to concede that there are fully Christian traditions that contain truth…it’s just that none of them can contradict Scripture
. And since Scripture also does not explicitly refute Sola Scriptura, then this extra-biblical, traditional teaching of SS can be believed, especially when one is personally convinced that the Spirit affirms it in their hearts. I know that “hold fast to the traditions” is a scriptural text we use to show them that SS is wrong, but this is not explicit enough for them.I haven’t encountered aanyone who asserted that though, and I think that would be a fairly monumental theological shift. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/flip_emoticon_jfo.gif http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/notbestdaywhite.jpg
(Cont’d)
 
…I have stumped them so they have to attack the Catholic Bible to keep there beliefs valid. Just think how many of their “Bible only” things would be wiped out if they accepted the deuterocanonical books.
Honestly I have found that even with their versions of the Bible, I have enough to support purgatory, Mary, the Saints, the True Presence, and other such things. They of course interpret such verses differently.:rolleyes: Then you point out that their interpretation is fallible…and they must admit that the Catholic, at the very least has the same potential to be right as they are!

Of course our interpretations carry historical weight so it’s not a coin toss.👍

I am always amazed at how a non-Catholic will adamantly argue how the Catholic interpretation is clearly wrong, and their or another Christians is clearly correct…yet when you discuss infallible teachings, they immediately pounce out with how no person could teach infallibly…sadly many do not realize their circular interpretive argument.
 
Anyway, see where I’m going?
Yes, I do. 🙂
One last note…going back to my underline above…to me, this is the biggest loophole that remains…SS’ers never seem to finish the definition of their own doctrine…they conveniently leave it truncated, ignoring the need for *an interpretation *
of Scripture…they simply say Scripture, as if it speaks for itself, interprets itself.I can agree with that with only the caveat that I have never encountered anyone from the SS theological schools who didn’t tell me that this would be wrong.
I think there’s a serious inconsistency if someone used that tack.
One even would think that they reject the whole concept of interpretation when it comes to reading and understanding a written text.
I have to agree.
How often have we all seen SS’ers come in here and say “Hey, this is not my private interpretation, this is just what it says, this is Scripture speaking for itself”…when it’s plain as day that they are not merely quoting Scripture verbatim, but rather offering the inferred teaching from said Scripture (hence, interpreting it).
Yep.
You know, as much as the whole notion of SS is errant, I find the obstinate refusal to articulate which interpretation
of Scripture holds the supreme authority to be the most frustrating element of it.Again, I agree.
 
You are preaching to the choir, I fully agree, and I too have read it thru more than once. There is nothing in the bible saying everything we do or believe must be written in the bible. That is a tradition of men that came along with the reformation. Pax Christi
👍
 
So perhaps you are beginning to see the circular reasoning that involved in this doctrine.
Oh it is most definitely is circular reasoning. I just found it funny that your own post against it employed the very sort of reasoning you were rejecting.
I do not accept or believe it, but have set forth the premise based upon the fallacious reasoning that I have been hit with by those who are proponents of that belief.

If the specific teaching is in scripture, then that would lend it credence, however…if not, then why would people who believe it to be Biblical continue to believe and preach it?
[SIGN][/SIGN]

No not at all. The fact is it is stated in the bible. It does actually state that. It states that oral teaching was entrusted to the Apostles directly from Jesus Christ. Thats what the bible says.

Jesus told his disciples He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me and who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

Hears me. You get it. He told his Apostles to go out and Teach, preach the word to all. He did not say write this down in a book. The bible itself once again tells you that all could not be written down. Now if it could not all be written down, does that mean it was not the word of God. Would that no contradict scripture?
Agreed, there is more teaching that is true than that which is found in the Bible. However, as I stipulate that point, I would also argue that if a teaching runs contrary to the revelation of God’s truth as found in the Bible, then regardless how well presented by logic or other arguments and regardless how well supported by history and the traditions of the church, and regardless how much affirmed in the non-canonical writings of the Church that it nonetheless should not be accepted as a true teaching of the Church whatever its origins.

Let us use reason, tradition, experience along with scripture, but never shall they trump scripture.
 
I find the obstinate refusal to articulate which interpretation of Scripture holds the supreme authority to be the most frustrating element of it.
That’s easy. We all go with our favorite authority. For most of us, that is our own reason, for who believes anything contrary to their own understanding? Even those who claim to follow the teaching magestrium of the Catholic Church do so only to the extent or in the manner that they themselves understand that teaching to be meant.
 
Let me see if I understand what you are saying:

Premise: Non-Catholics often say that a teaching can only be a teaching if found in the Bible.
Premise: But, the Bible doesn’t adctually say that at teaching can only be a teaching if it is found in the Bible.
Conclusion: Therefore, based on the fact that it isn’t a teaching found in the Bible, it can’t be a teaching.

Observation: You yourself are accepting the condition of Premise #1 in order to arrive at your conclusion which denies it? I love the irony. 😛
No not true. We are assuming (for the sake of the Non-C’s position) that their premise is true. But if we use **their **position (that every teaching must be in the Bible) than must prove that that teaching is in the Bible. Which it isn’t.

You are assuming that we hold the same premise as a non-C which is not true.
 
That’s easy. We all go with our favorite authority. For most of us, that is our own reason, for who believes anything contrary to their own understanding?
Then does the discussion so far make you rethink your own position on this belief?
Even those who claim to follow the teaching magestrium of the Catholic Church do so only to the extent or in the manner that they themselves understand that teaching to be meant.
Irrelevant to this discussion though, since this belief is not one held by Catholics. (BTW, that is why we re so big on catechesis.)
 
Doesn’t the Bible tell us to evangalize?

Doesn’t the Bible tell us to teach our youth in the ways of the Lord?

ditto

Show me one Protestant who believes these are a necessary means of worship!

Doesn’t the Bible say that we are to worship with the banging of drums and the clanging of cymbals?

Doesn’t the Bible say that ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ and aren’t these schools set up to teach people those Scriptures?

Doesn’t the Bible say something about men praying with a covering on their heads and women praying without a covering and doesn’t this passage go on to say that long hair is a covering? (BTW: the Jesus crew cut thing is just silly men didn’t wear their hair that way in biblical times.)
Actually, St. Jerome said ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ…not the Bible…
 
No not true. We are assuming (for the sake of the Non-C’s position) that their premise is true. But if we use **their **position (that every teaching must be in the Bible) than must prove that that teaching is in the Bible. Which it isn’t.
That doesn’t necessarily follow. Everyone, C and Non-C alike, starts with some sort of apriori understanding first of whether or not there even is something that can be called truth, 2nd if there is what the nature of that truth might be, 3rd where one can find truth and 4th the nature of how that truth is revealed. Apriori assumptions are just that, assumptions. They are not something that is proven. For they are held even before proof is submitted on the basis of an internal belief that those assumptions are themselves true. This is the irony of those who don’t believe in absolute truth, that they have an implicitly held absolute truth, namely that there are none. Likewise, a person can hold that all truths are revealed in scripture, even though the truth is that he/she holds to at least one truth that is not revealed, namely that all truths are revealed. And those who hold that all truths are proclaimed by the teaching magestrium of the Catholic Church, likewise will also hold to at least one truth (which although proclaimed by the Catholic Church) they hold to not because the Catholic Church proclaims it, but because they believe it to be truth before the Church proclaims it. It then as the Church makes this proclamation becomes its own circular argument.
 
And those who hold that all truths are proclaimed by the teaching magestrium of the Catholic Church, likewise will also hold to at least one truth (which although proclaimed by the Catholic Church) they hold to not because the Catholic Church proclaims it, but because they believe it to be truth before the Church proclaims it. It then as the Church makes this proclamation becomes its own circular argument.
I’m not sure I’m following you…my approach would be something more like this:

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.

The Bible as Historical Truth

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

(cont.)
 
This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

+++

The paragraph in red shows that the determination that there is a Church which was established by God and speaks with His authority comes later and NOT at the beginning of the argument…how is this circular? 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top