Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[icamhif]

In my opinion, the topic of this thread is a subset of presuppositional apologetics. I call it Ecclesial-Presuppositionalism.

 

[rcwitness]

But if the writers of Scripture didn’t get the historical details right, why should we assume that they always correctly recorded what Christ said? If one author says in one place that Judas threw down the silver he had received for betraying Jesus and went and hanged himself whereas in another place another author of Scripture says he used the money to buy a field, how can we be sure that Jesus said, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church”? How can we know for sure that Jesus really said, “whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery”? Maybe those two passages are just as unreliable as one of the two passages about what happened to Judas must be (since both cannot be true).

Isnt this kinda the purpose of PRmerger’s question?

How does anyone lay the claim that Scripture (and what constitues Scripture) can be trusted as true? It comes down to faith… but that faith is tied to the Church who has specifically given the canon of Scripture and the promise that it is inerrant in matters of faith and morals and for the sake of salvation.

What the writers of Scripture say were the words of Christ are words that we belief were from Christ.

 

[rcwitness]

In my opinion, the topic of this thread is a subset of presuppositional apologetics. I call it Ecclesial-Presuppositionalism.

scripture is the written account of God’s revelation. The interpretation of that revelation can be known by individuals, but not by themselves. The Church, whom predates Scripture, is able to bind Scriptural prophecy on the whole Church.

 

[spedteacherita]

But more specifically, we have to accept what constitutes Scripture. We can all, since Scripture was Confirmed through the ages, look at the Scriptures as such and then determine if we believe what they say. But, as you say, if we did not have a leadership whom stands by which writings should be believed as Sacred Scripture and which writings should not, there would be chaos… maybe a little like the chaos of many conflicting interpretations, but worse. I think its this recognition of the profound importance of Scripture that the Church recognizes a true communion (though not necessarily perfect) through its belief among all Christians (and of course Baptism).

And remember, the books other than the 4 gospels are eaqually held as Scripture. Though there is probably a certain recognition of the importance of the content in them.

It may seem like chaos at this point but, for the most part, we have the basic, most important belief that Christ became incarnate, took our sins upon the cross as the final sacrifice to atone us for our sins and sinful nature, was resurrected and is going to come back any day now to take his people home. All other aspects can be considered adiaphora because our salvation is not dependent upon them (I know that Catholics see this differently).

We have the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed that is the focal point of our beliefs and anything beyond that are important but not necessarily important for our eternal salvation.

I welcome discussion about this as well (as long as we don’t get too far off of the OP) and especially my fellow Lutherans if I’m not totally getting this right.

God bless!

Rita

 

[rcwitness]

It may seem like chaos at this point but, for the most part, we have the basic, most important belief that Christ became incarnate, took our sins upon the cross as the final sacrifice to atone us for our sins and sinful nature, was resurrected and is going to come back any day now to take his people home. All other aspects can be considered adiaphora because our salvation is not dependent upon them (I know that Catholics see this differently).

We have the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed that is the focal point of our beliefs and anything beyond that are important but not necessarily important for our eternal salvation.

I think the Church would agree with you that these are ‘foundational’ principles of our salvation that have order or importance, yet it doesnt mean that there are no other beliefs and behaviors which bear on our salvation.

For example, what do think about this statement?..

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 

[Peter_J]

I dont know that theyre true, which is why Im not Catholic.

Not to belabor the point, but you’re saying that if you knew that Jesus’s words were true, then you would become Catholic?

 

[benhur]

Only the magisterium of the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.
We are also not to make private interpretations as St. Peter tells us.

Hi M,

Well,John in his epistle says we “little children” have an unction from the Holy Ghost and know all things. “Little children” is all of us called, not withstanding teachers and presbyters, parents, tradition, scripture etc. The Holy Spirit wills to guide us all, every single "cell’ of the body. Every "cell’ has the ability to hear and know His voice as God has gifted us.

I recently read one “teacher” saying the Peter quote is used to upend the God given dignity and responsibility of private interpretation, that the quote is misapplied.We all have free will and must individually come to Christ and come to faith . Call it "personal’, private, individual, one on one. Peter however, is referring to the speaking or writing of God’s Word. They have written or said what God says, avoiding their own "(name removed by moderator)ut’. Another words, just say or write what I say, not what you think I said or should have said etc., etc. And let my words speak for themselves, as if I were speaking to the hearer or reader, for they are capable of understanding and coming to My conclusion , even My interpretation.

But yes, let us be charitable:thumbsup:

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, I was not aware that God has been talking to the Church since Jesus left 2000 years ago. Does the Church make such claim? Can you send me a link to such a claim?

That’s exactly what a dogma is, openmind.

I suggest you read the Catechism, which states: The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88)

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/88.htm

Now, to be sure, the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ…but the Church defines dogma throughout history when she understands a truth that was DIVINELY REVEALED, under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to be in need of further defining.

Dogma is what the Church believes is true from their interpretation Biblical teachings and traditions - I did not know that you believed that God had personally talked to the Church.

Yes, openmind.

God continually talks to His Body, the Catholic Church.

The Church is headed by Christ, and ensouled by the Holy Spirit.

I did not say the Christ would contradict himself, what if he contradicts your dogmas, would you reject him?

That’s as nonsensical as saying, “What if Christ declares the existence of a square circle, would you reject him?”

 

[spedteacherita]

The Catholic Church put up that scripture to back, to confirm her belief. If you do not agree with her, then why use her scripture? I think that was the gist of the OP. At least the Muslims are more honest in this - in disagreeing they came up with scripture of their own.

Does the scripture only belong to the Catholic Church or to Christians as a whole. I don’t disagree with the Catholic Church’s choice but I believe that came from God as it was inspired and thus inerrant.

Why would I come up with my own scripture?

What I’m reading is that the Catholic Church chose that scripture because it backs her beliefs - we use the scripture to understand God’s plan for us (which I thought was what the CC did, as well).

Blessings,

Rita

 

[Jon_S_1]

Hi M,

Well,John in his epistle says we “little children” have an unction from the Holy Ghost and know all things. “Little children” is all of us called, not withstanding teachers and presbyters, parents, tradition, scripture etc. The Holy Spirit wills to guide us all, every single "cell’ of the body. Every "cell’ has the ability to hear and know His voice as God has gifted us.

I recently read one “teacher” saying the Peter quote is used to upend the God given dignity and responsibility of private interpretation, that the quote is misapplied.We all have free will and must individually come to Christ and come to faith . Call it "personal’, private, individual, one on one. Peter however, is referring to the speaking or writing of God’s Word. They have written or said what God says, avoiding their own "(name removed by moderator)ut’. Another words, just say or write what I say, not what you think I said or should have said etc., etc. And let my words speak for themselves, as if I were speaking to the hearer or reader, for they are capable of understanding and coming to My conclusion , even My interpretation.

But yes, let us be charitable:thumbsup:

Blessings

All Christians are guided personally by the Holy Spirit, it’s just we aren’t guaranteed to be infallible or perfect. We have Gods grace helping us, but we often confuse our own wants and desires as Gods.

This is why the church is necessary and uniquely equipped and protected by the Holy Spirit so that we can check our private interpretations against the apostolic faith protected by the church through the centuries.

 

[benhur]

https://imgur.com/jFi4HM3

Yep, you are starting trouble again PR with all or nothing, either or paradigm

 

[PRmerger]

But if the writers of Scripture didn’t get the historical details right, why should we assume that they always correctly recorded what Christ said? If one author says in one place that Judas threw down the silver he had received for betraying Jesus and went and hanged himself whereas in another place another author of Scripture says he used the money to buy a field, how can we be sure that Jesus said, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church”? How can we know for sure that Jesus really said, “whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery”? Maybe those two passages are just as unreliable as one of the two passages about what happened to Judas must be (since both cannot be true).

Egg-zactly my point.

If you don’t trust the Church, you can’t trust the Scriptures.

And if you can’t trust the Scriptures and the Church, you can’t know that Christ resurrected.

And if you can’t know that Christ resurrected, you can’t know that Christ was God.

And if you can’t know that Christ was God, you can’t be a Christian.

 

[benhur]

All Christians are guided personally by the Holy Spirit, it’s just we aren’t guaranteed to be infallible or perfect. We have Gods grace helping us, but we often confuse our own wants and desires as Gods.

This is why the church is necessary and uniquely equipped and protected by the Holy Spirit so that we can check our private interpretations against the apostolic faith protected by the church through the centuries.

My friend, as surely as His perfect guidance for the individual is conditional, so it is for any presbyter , teacher or council or church.

 

[Contarini]

If you don’t trust the authority of the Catholic Church, how do you know what Jesus said, as recorded in the Bible, are true?

So I’ve persuaded you of the invalidity of the “spiral argument”?

I think there are good historical reasons to believe that many of the things said by Jesus are historically authentic–there are criteria scholars have developed to help figure this out, although of course they aren’t certain.

But the bigger problem is that you’re setting up a straw man. One can trust the historic witness of the Church without believing in the Catholic understanding of infallibility.

Edwin

 

[spedteacherita]

I think the Church would agree with you that these are ‘foundational’ principles of our salvation that have order or importance, yet it doesnt mean that there are no other beliefs and behaviors which bear on our salvation.

For example, what do think about this statement?..

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Sorry, I must be having a brain synapse disconnect happening…what do you mean by this?

 

[PRmerger]

Yep, you are starting trouble again PR with all or nothing, either or paradigm

Sometimes things are all or nothing, ben.

Jesus made some things all or nothing. If you’re not for us, you’re against us. Didn’t he say that?

And didn’t he say that no one gets to the Father except through him?

Yep. He certainly did.

All or nothing.

It’s that great Catholic both/and at work again, ben.
You seem to think that since Catholicism has so many both/ands…that EVERYTHING is both/and.

And yet…we have some things which are all or nothing.

That’s what makes Catholicism so formidable to refute.

 

[openmind77]

That’s exactly what a dogma is, openmind.

I suggest you read the Catechism, which states: The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88)

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/88.htm

Now, to be sure, the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ…but the Church defines dogma throughout history when she understands a truth that was DIVINELY REVEALED, under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to be in need of further defining.

Yes, openmind.

God continually talks to His Body, the Catholic Church.

The Church is headed by Christ, and ensouled by the Holy Spirit.

That’s as nonsensical as saying, “What if Christ declares the existence of a square circle, would you reject him?”

OK my mistake, I thought the Church says there have been no new revelations since the Christ left.

But apparently that is not true, God has been speaking secretly to the Church all along last 2000 years. If that is so, it probably won’t make any difference to you when the Christ returns. Good luck with him agreeing with all your dogmas though. And will be very soon when he returns - maybe a couple of years.

BTW, the link of yours does not say anything about God talking to anyone

 

[PRmerger]

Does the scripture only belong to the Catholic Church or to Christians as a whole. I don’t disagree with the Catholic Church’s choice but I believe that came from God as it was inspired and thus inerrant.

The Scriptures “belong” to anyone, sped.

But each and every time you quote from the NT, you are giving your tacit submission to the authority of the CC which discerned for you and me what books belong in there.

Why would I come up with my own scripture?

I know, right??

And yet there are some folks who have decided that the epistles of Paul are NOT inspired.

voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

And, to their credit, they are at least being consistent—“We reject the authority of the CC and therefore we reject what they decided belongs in the NT”.

That’s consistent.

What other (non-Catholic) Christians are doing is being inconsistent when they say they reject the authority of the CC, but take our NT canon and declare it to be the Word of God.

 

[PRmerger]

OK my mistake, I thought the Church there have been no new revelations since the Christ left.

There has been no new revelations since the death of the last apostle, “not since Christ left.”

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was put to writ. As I already stated.

But dogmas have been defined when the Church, in her wisdom, sees that clarity is required on some issue.

But apparently that is not true, God has been speaking secretly to the Church all along last 2000 years. If that is so, it probably won’t make any difference to you when the Christ returns. Good luck with him agreeing with all your dogmas though.

Careful, openmind. This is getting quite close to “contempt for Catholicism”…something that is not permitted here on the CAFs. It is good for you to be here, in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so I would be more judicious about how you phrase things.

Every dogma that the CC has proclaimed is something Jesus “agrees” with.
To imply that the Church teaches something that Jesus objects to is…well, I’d just be more careful in the future.

 

[openmind77]

There has been no new revelations since the death of the last apostle, “not since Christ left.”

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was put to writ. As I already stated.

But dogmas have been defined when the Church, in her wisdom, sees that clarity is required on some issue.

Careful, openmind. This is getting quite close to “contempt for Catholicism”…something that is not permitted here on the CAFs. It is good for you to be here, in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so I would be more judicious about how you phrase things.

Every dogma that the CC has proclaimed is something Jesus “agrees” with.
To imply that the Church teaches something that Jesus objects to is…well, I’d just be more careful in the future.

Hardly contempt, I have great respect for the Catholic Church. But I don’t know about you - you are claiming something the Church does not claim at all - that they hear things from God.