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

[Protestor]

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?

Change the way you phrase this it seems wrong and I do not know how to respond.

 

[Protestor]

The Catholic answer is: both/and.

If it is possible can you provide a source for this belief. I literally have never heard of it.

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.

Because the CC said so is not valid premise. It weakens your argument more than it helps you. You just do not understand, which is okay, but I don’t think I can explain it another way so that you do.

In this context the CC means “the Magisterium”.

Well noted

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

I don’t recognize that any group has or ever will exist. I am open to being proven wrong though.

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!”

Divorce and remarriage is not adultery in all cases. How did you know it was the Church that Christ established?

 

[rnmvrck]

But this is putting the cart ahead of the horse. You can’t know if you are allegorizing contrary to God’s intention until you know God’s intention. So as a hermeneutical guide, this makes us go round in a circle. The point of interpreting Scripture is to figure out what God intends by a given passage.

Also, as I have recently suggested on this forum, the word “literally” is itself hard to interpret.

So your hermeneutic remains pretty obscure.

But what do you mean by “as literally as possible”? Do you mean “according to the most common meaning of the English words that the translator chose to use here?” Or, if you know Greek and/or Hebrew, “according to what the lexicographers tell us, or our own linguistic experience leads us to believe, was the most common meaning of the word?”

Well, a lot of us have exactly the opposite experience, also having studied Scripture for years.

Edwin

You cannot know if a verse or set of passages is the Word of God unless you read it first and evaluate what you have read in relation to the passage you are reading, how it fits with the theme of the book, and if what you believe creates contraditions elsewhere. The Bible has this unique characteristic that it is an integrated message system.

By literally, I mean as close to the intent of message that God stated in the original apostolic writtings in bioth the New and Old Testament. In some cases, I need to go do some research and actually go back to the Greek / Hebrew. I also have to test the scripture with the context of the entire passage. The verses were not present back in the day and were put in latter in order to easily reference. Most of all, you have to test what is being said against what other scriptures say becuase there can be no contradictions and your “intepreation” must conform and fit into other parts of the Bible, both new and old testaments. You know that the passage is correct as to “content”, but translations and using various versions can create false intrepetations of the transmitted message. Paul, in Acts 17" says ‘Do not believe anything xxxxxxxx tells you, but go read the Bible with all readiness of mind and search that the scripture is true’. Insert anyone or group where the xxxxx is, and please know I just paraphased my interpretation of the verse.

In many cases, the intent of scripture is very obvious; in other cases, issues occur, but the key is to search the scripture for confirmation especially on issues that key doctrinal beliefs.

 

[stewstew03]

I believe the original writings that comprise the NT are “God breathed” (see my previous post quoting 2 Tim 3-16. These writtings comprise the books of the NT and were basically determined, confirmed and widely accepted by the end of the second century. It is my understanding the RCC accepts the same canon and confirmed that in one of their council meetings. The only errors that would occur come from the transmission of God’s message to man and the translation of the original writtings to all the translated versions. The entire content of God’s message is in the original writtings deemed to be apostolic and inspired … the scripture declares its divine origin and integrity - see 1 Cor 4:1, 2 Cor 5:20, 1 Thess 2;13, Rev 1:1-3, 22:9-10, Rev 18 and Jesus pre-approved the role of the Holy spirit Jon 14:26.
God specifically chose and prepared the men (Jer 1:5, Gal 1:5) and they wrote EXACTLY what God wanted to communicated and you con confirm this therough subleties of the coding structures.

I do not know the canon of RCC although I was a catholic for years and even studied Theology at at jesuit college.

But you don’t have “original writings.” You haven’t seen them. So, because “errors occur [through]…the translation” you have to be open to the possibility that the bible that you own contains errors. You also have to be open to the possibility that any doctrine that developed - such as the trinity - contains error. Given all of this - you have to be open to the possibility that when you try to witness or evangelize - you are not sharing Truth. Rather, you are sharing your fallible interpretation of fallible texts and doctrines!
.

 

[SyCarl]

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.

I accept the canon of the New Testament that over time became to be accepted by most Christians which was adopted in the Westminster Confession of Faith and other reformed confessions and which has been vouchsafed to me by the Holy Spirit. I do not accept it on the authority of the Catholic Church just as I have not accepted the Old Testament canon adopted by it.

 

[icamhif]

History, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture all attest to the primacy of the office which Peter was given. This is an office which is able to confirm the faithful in matters of faith and morals in all the Church.

Scripture is a most high record of the revelation of God’s new and everlasting Covenant. History testifies the Canon of Scripture was confirmed through a Church which was united and recognized a primary function of the Bishop of Rome.

…

History according to whom? Church Tradition, or mainstream scholarship?

What Sacred Traditions? Is it whatever the Catholic Church says is Sacred Traditions?

What Sacred Scriptures? I thought that PRmerger told me that I can’t trust the Scriptures at all, without presupposing that the Church is infallible. Why, then, are you using the Scriptures as any credible evidence?

No need to answer, because here’s my point: By trying to prove how we know that the Church is infallible, you implicitly inscribe some merit to the History, Traditions, and Scriptures, without presupposing that the Church is infallible. (The only alternative is circular reasoning: the Church is true because it says it is.) Good! In the same way, I see that the Scriptures deserve some merits in reliably accounting for the teachings of Christ, without the need to presuppose that the Church infallibly determined the NT canon.

Perhaps I need to stress this point: I’m not against Sacred Tradition or the concept of an infallible Church, in and of itself. I am just against the “all-or-nothing” paradigm.

 

[Reuben_J]

Perhaps I need to stress this point: I’m not against Sacred Tradition or the concept of an infallible Church, in and of itself. I am just against the “all-or-nothing” paradigm.

Noted as per your stance but unfortunately or fortunately that is not what the Lord wants of us. It is all or nothing.

 

[icamhif]

So then a charitable Lutheran is no better than an hedonistic pagan?

 

[rcwitness]

History according to whom? Church Tradition, or mainstream scholarship?

What Sacred Traditions? Is it whatever the Catholic Church says is Sacred Traditions?

What Sacred Scriptures? I thought that PRmerger told me that I can’t trust the Scriptures at all, without presupposing that the Church is infallible. Why, then, are you using the Scriptures as any credible evidence?

No need to answer, because here’s my point: By trying to prove how we know that the Church is infallible, you implicitly inscribe some merit to the History, Traditions, and Scriptures, without presupposing that the Church is infallible. (The only alternative is circular reasoning: the Church is true because it says it is.) Good! In the same way, I see that the Scriptures deserve some merits in reliably accounting for the teachings of Christ, without the need to presuppose that the Church infallibly determined the NT canon.

Perhaps I need to stress this point: I’m not against Sacred Tradition or the concept of an infallible Church, in and of itself. I am just against the “all-or-nothing” paradigm.

Ok, here is what I think we (as Catholic’s) are trying to express…

The Scriptures were NOT the source of the Revelation of Christ. They are an account of the revelation which Jesus was. The Scriptures were written in the days of the ministry of Christ’s Apostles. They are part of the Apostolic ministry.Scripture does NOT record all of Sacred Tradition, yet it has “a fullness” in that it is a Divine expression of the God through literature.

What was a necessary element of Scripture, was that the Church Confirm what constituted Scripture, which means the Church separated what was NOT to be Scripture also.

History shows us records of how the early Church functioned. Scripture itself tells us things which Jesus and His Apostles Taught about the Church. Sacred Tradition are things which the Church professes has been upheld from all or some of the Apostles themselves and Taught to their successors.

None of This is attempting to undermind the individual’s hearing, accepting, and ‘being converted’ by the message of the Gospel! This is the power of the Holy Spirit and the ‘beckoning from the Father’. All of us Christians, at some point in our conversion, heard the Word and recognized the Good Shepherd’s voice. This can be through many different ways of the ‘message’ reaching us.

What it doesn’t mean is that any individual, or even any mere group of Christians was the means which God established to Confirm the faithfull. Whether by what is preached, what is written, or however something is revealed, it is the Church leadership whom is able to Confirm to the whole Body of Christ’s believers what is to be received as from above. This is what I consider to be the Deposit of Faith.

No one in the generations, since the period of fixation of Scripture, is able to take out the Church from the equation of determining what constitutes Sacred Scripture. You would have to actually be in that period of time to know what it was like. Since then, you have at minimum, an already declared body of writings attested to by the Councils and Pope.

 

[Reuben_J]

So then a charitable Lutheran is no better than an hedonistic pagan?

So is a secludued Buddhist monk than a robber, a faithful husband than a philanderer.

Jesus asked us not just to be holy, not just good, not just believing, not just being charitable, not just being a faithful husband, though he exhorted us to be so. He also emphasised that we need to carry his cross and live by his Church and everything that she declares, as the faithful, as believers.

It is not for us to pick and choose those that are pleasant to us only. We are not to be our own Pope or priest. He had instituted a Church and left it behind for us. The reason why, by his grace, that she was able to choose which books that should make up the Bible.

 

[icamhif]

So is a secludued Buddhist monk than a robber, a faithful husband than a philanderer.

Jesus asked us not just to be holy, not just good, not just believing, not just being charitable, not just being a faithful husband, though he exhorted us to be so. He also emphasised that we need to carry his cross and live by his Church and everything that she declares, as the faithful, as believers.

It is not for us to pick and choose those that are pleasant to us only. We are not to be our own Pope or priest. He had instituted a Church and left it behind for us. The reason why, by his grace, that she was able to choose which books that should make up the Bible.

I don’t deny that Christ wants us to see the fullness of truth. I just disagree with the epistemology proposed by PRmerger. It’s a false dichotomy. There are various ways we can be confident or certain about things.

 

[icamhif]

Ok, here is what I think we (as Catholic’s) are trying to express…

The Scriptures were NOT the source of the Revelation of Christ. They are an account of the revelation which Jesus was. The Scriptures were written in the days of the ministry of Christ’s Apostles. They are part of the Apostolic ministry.Scripture does NOT record all of Sacred Tradition, yet it has “a fullness” in that it is a Divine expression of the God through literature.

What was a necessary element of Scripture, was that the Church Confirm what constituted Scripture, which means the Church separated what was NOT to be Scripture also.

History shows us records of how the early Church functioned. Scripture itself tells us things which Jesus and His Apostles Taught about the Church. Sacred Tradition are things which the Church professes has been upheld from all or some of the Apostles themselves and Taught to their successors.

None of This is attempting to undermind the individual’s hearing, accepting, and ‘being converted’ by the message of the Gospel! This is the power of the Holy Spirit and the ‘beckoning from the Father’. All of us Christians, at some point in our conversion, heard the Word and recognized the Good Shepherd’s voice. This can be through many different ways of the ‘message’ reaching us.

What it doesn’t mean is that any individual, or even any mere group of Christians was the means which God established to Confirm the faithfull. Whether by what is preached, what is written, or however something is revealed, it is the Church leadership whom is able to Confirm to the whole Body of Christ’s believers what is to be received as from above. This is what I consider to be the Deposit of Faith.

No one in the generations, since the period of fixation of Scripture, is able to take out the Church from the equation of determining what constitutes Sacred Scripture. You would have to actually be in that period of time to know what it was like. Since then, you have at minimum, an already declared body of writings attested to by the Councils and Pope.

Thanks for the post, RCWitness. I agree with most, if not all, of your points, hence my signature

 

[icamhif]

We can’t. It is part of the act of faith. Or semantic difference regarding the definition of knowledge.

Good point! When it comes to “knowing,” we can be confident, though not certain. One can even have faith, even if he has low confidence.

 

[rnmvrck]

But you don’t have “original writings.” You haven’t seen them. So, because “errors occur [through]…the translation” you have to be open to the possibility that the bible that you own contains errors. You also have to be open to the possibility that any doctrine that developed - such as the trinity - contains error. Given all of this - you have to be open to the possibility that when you try to witness or evangelize - you are not sharing Truth. Rather, you are sharing your fallible interpretation of fallible texts and doctrines!
.

I thought it would be obvious that one does not have to have the original text manuscripts themselves to know that you are reading original text. When you went to school, do you have the original texts? Did you believe what you were reading is what the author actually wrote? But unlike human authors, the author of the Bible had no mistakes. As a matter of fact, I have seen some of the original texts when I was in Israel some years ago.

I believe the many competent scholars, thelogians, archelogists, Church leaders that so on have confirmed, validated, verified the NT Books of the first and second centuries to know that the Greek / Hebrew texts I have access to are exact copies of the original documents. You have to consider the sources of where your beleif comes I also use the KJV which is the best translated version of the Bible there is (IMHO) and if you study how that version was derived (1607) and based on more than 5,556 manuscripts (Hebrew - Vortage, Jamnia; Greek LXX, TR; Latin: OL to Vulgate). I am more certain of the Bible I use everyday than my own name. Based upon my own research and study of how we got the Bible, I am 100% certain that I am reading the and evangelizing others based upon the word of God in both the OT and NT.

 

[PRmerger]

I accept the canon of the New Testament that over time became to be accepted by most Christians which was adopted in the Westminster Confession of Faith and other reformed confessions and which has been vouchsafed to me by the Holy Spirit.

Then you can see how you are NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate. For you accept what was handed down “over time” to Christians that which was NOT WRITTEN in the Sacred Scriptures.

And that is nothing but a testimony of your acceptance of…

Sacred Tradition.

I do not accept it on the authority of the Catholic Church just as I have not accepted the Old Testament canon adopted by it.

Well, it’s either the authority of the CC or the EO that you submit to. There is no way getting around that, Sy.

But either way you must now never identify yourself as a Sola Scriptura advocate.

You accept Scripture PLUS Tradition.

 

[Peter_J]

So then a charitable Lutheran is no better than an hedonistic pagan?

Oh?

 

[dronald]

Then you can see how you are NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate. For you accept what was handed down “over time” to Christians that which was NOT WRITTEN in the Sacred Scriptures.

And that is nothing but a testimony of your acceptance of…

Sacred Tradition.

Well, it’s either the authority of the CC or the EO that you submit to. There is no way getting around that, Sy.

But either way you must now never identify yourself as a Sola Scriptura advocate.

You accept Scripture PLUS Tradition.

Define sola scriptura.

 

[PRmerger]

Alright, I’ll bite. How do you know that what the Church teaches is true?

As a Christian we have 2 choices: Protestant and Catholic (or EO, which is essentially Catholic for this discussion)

I find the Church that can historically be traced back to the time of Christ.

And that is documented here: ranker.com/list/complete-list-of-popes/coffee-junkie?var=3&utm_expid=16418821-119.rk_BoRtrRJWlKfF9iZbujQ.2&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

No other Protestant Church can trace its roots to Christ.

 

[SyCarl]

Then you can see how you are NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate. For you accept what was handed down “over time” to Christians that which was NOT WRITTEN in the Sacred Scriptures.

And that is nothing but a testimony of your acceptance of…

Sacred Tradition.

Well, it’s either the authority of the CC or the EO that you submit to. There is no way getting around that, Sy.

But either way you must now never identify yourself as a Sola Scriptura advocate.

You accept Scripture PLUS Tradition.

Scripture alone does not deny a role for tradition. What it does do is make tradition subordinate Scripture. We follow a liturgical calender, celebrate Easter and Christmas and do so on the traditional days. But none of these things are required to be a true Christian. Everything that is necessary for belief is set out in Scripture. As for differing interpretations and beliefs, that is a result of thinking we need to believe more than is actually required or of wanting to know more than is required. That does not say that some of those beliefs are not true but that it is not necessary to believe them for salvation.

As to accepting the authority of the Catholic or Orthodox churches on the canon of Scripture, that is not the case. I may agree with their definition of the canon but that is not the same as accepting it on their authority. That is clear in that I do not accept either of the Old Testament canons they hold.

You can agree with someone without accepting that they have the sole authority to declare what we agree on. A mundane example, I could agree if you say it is a nice day today but that does not mean I think it is a nice day because you say so…

 

[PRmerger]

Define sola scriptura.

The claim that one should root all Christian teachings in Scripture alone.

Some define it this way: if a doctrine cannot be explicitly found in the Bible I don’t believe it

Another way to express it is: the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church.