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

[Protestor]

Well, the Catholic way is you receive the Word, and then you conform your views to it. What you are proposing is that you determine what is true, as it conforms to your personal view.

I have received the Word (Yeshua) and I conform my actions based on his teachings and actions. What I am proposing is that I cannot know something unless I have determined that it is true. My view on the subject has no causal link to the truth value of the premise itself. Which is what I think that you are implying, and is actually part of my original point.

And if you believe the CC got it right with the Trinity, why do you think she got it wrong with so many other things?

The trinity as far as I am concerned is a requirement for being a christian. I don’t think that the CC got anything wrong that is a requirement for being a christian. She can get things right and she can get things wrong, because she is composed of humans who receive revelation, but these revelations are not “I am triune and omnipotent and omniscient”. In other words those who have revelations are not dictated word for word, and because of this they may have interpreted wrong or their interpretation may have been right at some point in time and wrong in others. The revelation may have not even been for their specific time but rather sitting in wait for another to pick up and bring about a revival or for some other reason. The Jews( God’s chosen people) misinterpreted revelation why should it be any different for us.

I am looking for good systematic theologies to read this summer. If you or anyone else suggests one I will gladly read it. I am in the midst of forming what I believe and not believe and why.

 

[PRmerger]

I have no idea about what you are talking about the prophecy in 3 John.

How do you know that 3 John is inspired?

I thought you were asserting that we know that any book in the Bible is inspired when it contains a fulfilled prophecy.

 

[PRmerger]

I have received the Word (Yeshua) and I conform my actions based on his teachings and actions. What I am proposing is that I cannot know something unless I have determined that it is true. My view on the subject has no causal link to the truth value of the premise itself. Which is what I think that you are implying, and is actually part of my original point.

My point is that you wouldn’t know what the Word is, except through giving your tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

The trinity as far as I am concerned is a requirement for being a christian. I don’t think that the CC got anything wrong that is a requirement for being a christian. She can get things right and she can get things wrong, because she is composed of humans who receive revelation, but these revelations are not “I am triune and omnipotent and omniscient”.

So, again, we are back to my original question: what is the canon you use for determining when the CC is right and when she is wrong?

You seemed to be implying that when you decide it makes sense, the CC is right. And when you decide that it doesn’t make sense, the CC is wrong.

So the final arbiter is YOU. Not the Word of God.

Is this not a correct articulation of your point of view?

 

[Protestor]

My point is that you wouldn’t know what the Word is, except through giving your tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

I would not use “tacit submission to the authority of the CC”. I would go as far as saying that it is wrong to use that phrase. Recognition that someone was right or that someone has received revelation is not submitting to them even tacitly.

You seemed to be implying that when you decide it makes sense, the CC is right. And when you decide that it doesn’t make sense, the CC is wrong. So the final arbiter is YOU. Not the Word of God.

Again the Word of God as far as I know is Christ. You seem to be implying that it is the bible and/or anything God says. I would say it is impossible for me to know anything that doesn’t make sense. So absent of divine revelation I would never claim those things to be true or my belief in them. If I do not know if something is true and I do not know how it could be it would only make sense to say it is false. I am the arbiter of what I can and cannot know and what I can and cannot believe. God is welcome to intervene if I am making any grave mistakes and/or if he deems it important that I believe a certain way.

On a seperate note you keep saying the CC like that means anything other than a group of christians who hold a specific set of beliefs. So according to you a believer cannot be the arbiter of his own believes but a group of believers can?

You also understand that you have done the same thing I have, right. You have surveyed the body of doctrine that the CC has and you have determined that it is true. That is unless you mindlessly follow everything that she has ever said and don’t investigate why she is right and leave open the possibility that she is or could be wrong. The CC could be wrong, right? So I guess my question for you is how did you determine that the CC holds all the truth of the christian faith? I come form a physics background so being unfalsifiable is not a good quality. If this is what you are advocating, I want no part of it.

 

[PRmerger]

I would not use “tacit submission to the authority of the CC”. I would go as far as saying that it is wrong to use that phrase. Recognition that someone was right or that someone has received revelation is not submitting to them even tacitly.

To recognize that the Church was right means to know, from some other source, that there was a correct answer.

What was your other source, Protestor?

IOW: when you say, “You are right when you say that the capital of the Philippines is Manila”…you say I am right because you have previously received this info from another trusted source, and my statement is in accord with what you already knew.

So, if you are saying that the Church “was right”, then what are you using as your source for confirmation?

 

[PRmerger]

Again the Word of God as far as I know is Christ. You seem to be implying that it is the bible and/or anything God says.

The Catholic answer is: both/and.

I would say it is impossible for me to know anything that doesn’t make sense.

Well, yeah.

So absent of divine revelation I would never claim those things to be true or my belief in them.

True. And the ONLY way you know what is divine revelation, and what is simply Man’s word is…because the…

Catholic Church told you so.

On a seperate note you keep saying the CC like that means anything other than a group of christians who hold a specific set of beliefs

In this context the CC means “the Magisterium”.

So according to you a believer cannot be the arbiter of his own believes but a group of believers can?

Any group of believers that has the assistance of the Holy Spirit and the promise that they will not be permitted to err…yes.

You also understand that you have done the same thing I have, right. You have surveyed the body of doctrine that the CC has and you have determined that it is true.

No. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I have done.

I have found the Church that Christ established, and then conformed my views to Christ’s.

If I did what you are proposing and found a body of doctrines which conformed to what I believed to be true, then I would be a member of some church that said, for example, “Divorce and re-marriage is NOT adultery!”

For that’s what I would have done if I had been Creator of the World. I would have said that it’s absolutely fine for women who married jerks beforehand could find love anew with a new sweetheart.

 

[SyCarl]

True. And the ONLY way you know what is divine revelation, and what is simply Man’s word is…because the…

Catholic Church told you so.

How do you know what the Catholic Church says is true? You can’t use Scripture because according to your argument we don’t know it is true until someone tells us it is. Without the Scriptures how do you know the Catholic Church has the authority it claims.

Any group of believers that has the assistance of the Holy Spirit and the promise that they will not be permitted to err…yes.

No. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I have done.

I have found the Church that Christ established, and then conformed my views to Christ’s.

You have done exactly the same thing although maybe not quite in the way stated. You say you have found the Church established. How do you know that this is the Catholic Church? You have looked at what Christ has said, made your own interpretation of what He said and then decided that the Catholic Church meets your interpretation of what the Church is. From that point you may conform to what the Catholic Church teaches but only after you have done the other things first.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

How do you know what the Catholic Church says is true? You can’t use Scripture because according to your argument we don’t know it is true until someone tells us it is. Without the Scriptures how do you know the Catholic Church has the authority it claims.

Obviously the “truth” of the CC is on a different basis from that of Scripture as interpretted by the CC.

Is that a problem?
How do you know your dad is your dad…until dna testing only by your mum’s “authority”.

Yes, Faith in God is dependent on faith in a frail human community (and our own search for truth).

Hasn’t it always been so?

 

[PRmerger]

How do you know what the Catholic Church says is true? You can’t use Scripture because according to your argument we don’t know it is true until someone tells us it is. Without the Scriptures how do you know the Catholic Church has the authority it claims.

You have done exactly the same thing although maybe not quite in the way stated. You say you have found the Church established. How do you know that this is the Catholic Church? You have looked at what Christ has said, made your own interpretation of what He said and then decided that the Catholic Church meets your interpretation of what the Church is. From that point you may conform to what the Catholic Church teaches but only after you have done the other things first.

Would you mind answering my question I posed to you first, Sy?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13037225&postcount=809

You have a history of hitting and running, which is one of my pet peeves here on the CAFs.

While you are certainly under no obligation to answer questions posed to you, it isn’t really good manners to come infrequently, pose your questions, and then leave.

Engaging in dialogue is the culture here.

#justsayin

Now, if you answered and I missed it, I apologize and ask you to direct me to your response.

 

[dronald]

What NT canon do you go by? And why?

Can I just chime in for a second and say how sad our state of being is when we as Christians have so much we disagree on, and yet when we find a couple things to agree on (The Trinity, NT Canon) it can still become an argument? “You agree with us so HAH, GOTCHA”.

 

[PRmerger]

Can I just chime in for a second and say how sad our state of being is when we as Christians have so much we disagree on, and yet when we find a couple things to agree on (The Trinity, NT Canon) it can still become an argument? “You agree with us so HAH, GOTCHA”.

It’s no more a gotcha, than it is when, for example you have your brother who was once an atheist come to see that God exists.

If your assessment of his conversion is “GOTCHA!”, well, that’s sad indeed.

If it’s like, “Yes! Welcome to the Truth!”, then, well, that’s my response.

 

[dronald]

It’s no more a gotcha, than it is when, for example you have your brother who was once an atheist come to see that God exists.

If your assessment of his conversion is “GOTCHA!”, well, that’s sad indeed.

If it’s like, “Yes! Welcome to the Truth!”, then, well, that’s my response.

No, what I mean is that even the things we agree on become an argument. I suppose I just find that odd.

Catholics and Protestants are in pretty much full agreement over The Trinity, NT Canon and let’s say abortion. With so much to disagree over, I find it odd to argue over things we agree on.

 

[Telstar]

How do you know what the Catholic Church says is true? You can’t use Scripture because according to your argument we don’t know it is true until someone tells us it is. Without the Scriptures how do you know the Catholic Church has the authority it claims.

You have done exactly the same thing although maybe not quite in the way stated. You say you have found the Church established. How do you know that this is the Catholic Church? You have looked at what Christ has said, made your own interpretation of what He said and then decided that the Catholic Church meets your interpretation of what the Church is. From that point you may conform to what the Catholic Church teaches but only after you have done the other things first.

The Catholic Church traces it’s roots through the historical record, all the way back to Jesus, who established it on the Apostles when He commissioned them to spread His Gospel to the whole world. He promised that the Holy Spirit would stay with them to protect and lead His Church “to all truth”, and that He would also remain with it until the end. Jesus still remains, both physically and spiritually in the Holy Eucharist, which is found in the Tabernacles of every Catholic Church on earth (which is equivalent to the Holy of Holies in the New Covenant).

The Holy Scriptures that make up the Bible that we know today, which the CC discerned as being truly inspired, is also confirmed in many of the writings of the Early Church Fathers from the very beginnings of the Church. If the Catholic Church is not the true Church that was established by Jesus, then all of Christianity is false, because Jesus and the Holy Spirit have both failed to keep the promises He made to the Apostles. Catholics refuse to believe that Jesus could ever fail to do all that He promised us. That’s why we can be confident that the Catholic Church is the true Church that He established on His Apostles, with Peter as their leader, and the Holy Spirit has protected Her from ever falling into error regarding faith and morals.

 

[icamhif]

How do you know what the Catholic Church says is true? You can’t use Scripture because according to your argument we don’t know it is true until someone tells us it is. Without the Scriptures how do you know the Catholic Church has the authority it claims.

You have done exactly the same thing although maybe not quite in the way stated. You say you have found the Church established. How do you know that this is the Catholic Church? You have looked at what Christ has said, made your own interpretation of what He said and then decided that the Catholic Church meets your interpretation of what the Church is. From that point you may conform to what the Catholic Church teaches but only after you have done the other things first.

Well said.

As a former Evangelical, I have personally come to believe that Christ founded a infallible Church hierarchy of some sort, but that’s primarily because I interpreted some verses in the Bible as evidence of it. As you said, that requires me to at least somewhat trust what the Bible says, independent of what any Church says.

That said, one of the first councils to determine the canon of the New Testament is the Council of Carthage (397 AD). Thus, one needs to, to at least some degree, trust the testimony of the Early Christians for at least the first four centuries, in order to be confident that the complete New Testament canon is exactly 27 books. It will do one no good to maintain that some Great Apostasy happened between the 2nd-4th century.

 

[PRmerger]

No, what I mean is that even the things we agree on become an argument. I suppose I just find that odd.

Catholics and Protestants are in pretty much full agreement over The Trinity, NT Canon and let’s say abortion. With so much to disagree over, I find it odd to argue over things we agree on.

Firstly, no one is having an argument here.

Secondly, I’m just helping you connect the dots. If you agree that the CC got it right about the 27 book canon, then you have to follow the dots to where it NECESSARILY goes–you are NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate. And you believe that the Church was infallible, at least on this point.

 

[PRmerger]

Well said.

As a former Evangelical, I have personally come to believe that Christ founded a infallible Church hierarchy of some sort, but that’s primarily because I interpreted some verses in the Bible as evidence of it. As you said, that requires me to at least somewhat trust what the Bible says, independent of what any Church says.

No, icam.

It is impossible–simply impossible–to “trust what the Bible says independent of what” the Catholic Church says.

If you trust what the Bible says, (at least, the 27 book NT) it NECESSARILY means that you trust the CC.

 

[icamhif]

No, icam.

It is impossible–simply impossible–to “trust what the Bible says independent of what” the Catholic Church says.

If you trust what the Bible says, (at least, the 27 book NT) it NECESSARILY means that you trust the CC.

We discussed about this already, PRmerger, and we have our disagreements. So I’ll leave it at that.

Peace.

 

[mek42]

Because some of those words have been confirmed by didache.

 

[PRmerger]

Because some of those words have been confirmed by didache.

Some? Which ones?

And why do you trust the didache?

And what about the rest of the words?

 

[PRmerger]

We discussed about this already, PRmerger, and we have our disagreements. So I’ll leave it at that.

Peace.

Again, I am simply helping you connect the dots.

It’s as if you’re one of those people who are against vaccinating children.

You agree that the studies which show a link to autism are bogus.
You agree that vaccines in theory work.
You agree that there’s no conspiracy by the govt to create a new world order by vaccinating children.

But you still refuse to vaccinate your children.

You say, “We have our disagreements and I’ll leave it at that.”

That’s not a good model or reality to hold, icam.