Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[ofthesons]

If you have time enough to post and read other posts, you have time enough to answer a simple question, as does James the Least.

Hey, you need to calm down. I can read other posts while I’m driving (not that that would be a good idea)! And there are a couple of other people I’m trying to respond to.

I enjoy posting in this forum, but I’d rather not be doing it all day.

Why do I even have to explain this to you!?

Maybe you’re not really serious when you say this and you are just messing around with me??

 

[Farsight001]

Hey, you need to calm down. I can read other posts while I’m driving (not that that would be a good idea)! And there are a couple of other people I’m trying to respond to.

I enjoy posting in this forum, but I’d rather not be doing it all day.

Why do I even have to explain this to you!?

Maybe you’re not really serious when you say this and you are just messing around with me??

I’m quite calm. I just don’t understand how you and James the Least can suggest that you don’t have the time to answer a simple yes or no question while providing several posts in response to other users on the same thread, especially when you suspect one of those users (me) of just trying to get under your skin, in which case I wouldn’t be worth responding to and you should just answer the simple question instead.

 

[CopticChristian]

Why have you not realized, based on what I’ve actually said, that I would regard your challenge to me as an philosophically unjustified one?

I said that the Bible is not provable, but that there is justification for belief in it.

Of,

Ok you admit that to use the premise that the Bible is true means that to state that what you believe based on the fact that the Bible is true is based on belief only.

I do not think that anyone says that there is not justification for belief.

I believe that all would agree that the justification comes from understanding the truth. The bible contains some of the Wisdom of God. The Bible is true as supported by those that say it is true and those that declare truth. Do you agree with that? The Bible is supported by the foundation of truth. The Bible is not the mystery hidden for all ages.

 

[CopticChristian]

Why have you not realized, based on what I’ve actually said, that I would regard your challenge to me as an philosophically unjustified one?

I said that the Bible is not provable, but that there is justification for belief in it.

Of,

Here are some starter questions.

True or False

Oriental Orthodox is a Christian Church T/F
Eastern Orthodox is a Christian Church T/F

Catholics added books to the Bible T/F
Protestants removed books from the Bible T/F

Revelation 22:18 says this…T/F

18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

This verse applies to the book of Revelation alone. T/F
This verse applies to the entire Bible. T/F

Take your time.

 

[onemangang]

I am going to give you a more thorough response when I can, but let me set forth some things.

You may not think this is important, but while I do profess to be a Presuppositionalist, I do not subscribe to Greg Bahnsen’s version of it. I don’t even believe you can rightly call his method/apologetic ‘presuppositional’.

I’d like to refer you to a link that just might help you see the difference and get a better handle as to what I’ve been saying or have been trying to say in essence. The attached link leads to a page in which there is a written debate between an unbeliever and Vincent Cheung. I believe the debate is relevant, because if I can recall correctly, Cheung challenges the unbeliever on beliefs that everyone (even the so-called “Presuppositionalist”) takes for granted, but no one ever objectively questions. Even if the debate doesn’t seem to present much detail as to where he is coming from, he has made publications openly available on webpages and free pdf files.

www.vincentcheung.com/biblical-rationalism-vs-psycho-assertionism/

I’m not really convinced that reading his material will make very much of a difference because (1) you probably don’t have the time or interest to do this and (2) because the attempted refutations I have seen have evidenced a misunderstanding of him too.

I’ll get back to you!

Have a nice Sunday!

I am very busy as well and wont be able to respond till tuesday most likely, but I am interested in how Vincent Cheung is going to** infallibly interpret** an** infallible text**, and** infallibly mediate** that infallible text to the fallen world!

I understand presuppositional apologetics a little bit, enough to understand that you have inadequately presented your case for Sola Scriptura, by using it!

There is a body, and by the Grace of our Lord, She is capable of ** infallibly interpreting** an** infallible text**, and** infallibly mediating** that infallible text to the fallen world,** She is called the Church!**

God Bless!

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I am very busy as well and wont be able to respond till tuesday most likely, but I am interested in how Vincent Cheung is going to** infallibly interpret** an** infallible text**, and** infallibly mediate** that infallible text to the fallen world!

I understand presuppositional apologetics a little bit, enough to understand that you have inadequately presented your case for Sola Scriptura, by using it!

There is a body, and by the Grace of our Lord, She is capable of ** infallibly interpreting** an** infallible text**, and** infallibly mediating** that infallible text to the fallen world,** She is called the Church!**

God Bless!

Might I ask a question in return? Mostly for devil’s advocate purposes. I would assume that you have studied on the Scriptures, the fathers, church history, etc. and come to the conclusion that, indeed, the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church Christ established and she is infallible in council and when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

However, your interpretation of the facts of the case are fallibly determined. So, how do you escape that you have fallibly come to the conclusion that Rome is infallible? Is this not what Vincent Cheung (whoever that is lol) is doing when he interprets Scripture?

 

[CopticChristian]

I am very busy as well and wont be able to respond till tuesday most likely, but I am interested in how Vincent Cheung is going to** infallibly interpret** an** infallible text**, and** infallibly mediate** that infallible text to the fallen world!

I understand presuppositional apologetics a little bit, enough to understand that you have inadequately presented your case for Sola Scriptura, by using it!

There is a body, and by the Grace of our Lord, She is capable of ** infallibly interpreting** an** infallible text**, and** infallibly mediating** that infallible text to the fallen world,** She is called the Church!**

God Bless!

One,

Vincent Cheung is a psuedo-intellectual that argues with an athiest, former Calvinist, and then concludes that he usually does not argue with such amateurs. He is a mental midget in my opinion. I visited his site and you will see how he dances around the canon. Anyone that cannot tell the truth about this cannot be trusted for much of anything.

Anyone that believes themselves to be intelligent that cannot write and explain at the level of a 5th grader is lost in their own belief that the rest of the world is less than equal. I would have a field day with this pseudo cum laude.

 

[CopticChristian]

Might I ask a question in return? Mostly for devil’s advocate purposes. I would assume that you have studied on the Scriptures, the fathers, church history, etc. and come to the conclusion that, indeed, the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church Christ established and she is infallible in council and when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

However, your interpretation of the facts of the case are fallibly determined. So, how do you escape that you have fallibly come to the conclusion that Rome is infallible? Is this not what Vincent Cheung (whoever that is lol) is doing when he interprets Scripture?

Igg,

I believe in One God the Father almighty creator of Heaven and Earth…etc…I am not fallibly interpreting anything. I am accepting an infallible interpretation disregarding my ability to interpret fallibly.

If Faith is the substance of those things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen then to believe the manifold wisdom of God through the Church is to accept those things not seen and hoped for. I don’t have to interpret anything. I don’t have to like it, I don’t have to speak it, I don’t have to dream it, I don’t have to imagine it, I can feel sad, I can feel angry, all I have to do is believe it and love it…nothing else matters.

In time with grace by the power of the Holy Spirit I will like it, I will speak it, I will dream it, I will imagine it, I will erase my sadness and anger and find joy…that is all that is asked.

The other side of the coin is that when I or any other Catholic Christian uses Scripture it is not out of concert with the thoughts of the Church and therefore is not an interpretation unlike Cheung who by his own admission is not Sproul, Packer or Carlson, he is a papacy and magesterium unto himself fallibly expressing his point of view that by his own admission is at variance with others. This is not the same.

 

[rinnie]

Well now here is truth.

The bible itself states the CHURCH is the Pilar of All truth. Christ did not leave us a bible. He left us a Church. He told the Apostles to Teach and PREACH the good news.

The bible itself again states hold fast to Traditions taught to you either written or word of mouth. Now did you catch the word of mouth. How can you have word of mouth if it is not written? It must be passed down through the Church as Christ taught.

How can you have only what is written, and not have word of mouth and have the entire true word of God? That is the big question.

In the early days there was no such thing as a bible. Wonder why? Now to read and pray on the written word is a wondeful way to pray and unite oneself with Christ. But before you can even begin to read and pray on the word, should you not know what it is saying?

Christ did not give us all the power of the Holy Spirit to define scripture. If he did, we would all agree. But as the bible tells us it is the Church that teaches.

The bible said we all have DIFFERENT gifts from God. Not all the same. We are told to hold to the teachings of the Apostles and to stay away from strange teachings made by man.

The bible warns us, they have their own motives in mind. So we must obey the word of God, is the bible the word of God? Yes it is,

Who tells us this? Sorry guys it is the Catholic Church

 

[CopticChristian]

Well now here is truth.

The bible itself states the CHURCH is the Pilar of All truth. Christ did not leave us a bible. He left us a Church. He told the Apostles to Teach and PREACH the good news.

The bible itself again states hold fast to Traditions taught to you either written or word of mouth. Now did you catch the word of mouth. How can you have word of mouth if it is not written? It must be passed down through the Church as Christ taught.

How can you have only what is written, and not have word of mouth and have the entire true word of God? That is the big question.

In the early days there was no such thing as a bible. Wonder why? Now to read and pray on the written word is a wondeful way to pray and unite oneself with Christ. But before you can even begin to read and pray on the word, should you not know what it is saying?

Christ did not give us all the power of the Holy Spirit to define scripture. If he did, we would all agree. But as the bible tells us it is the Church that teaches.

The bible said we all have DIFFERENT gifts from God. Not all the same. We are told to hold to the teachings of the Apostles and to stay away from strange teachings made by man.

The bible warns us, they have their own motives in mind. So we must obey the word of God, is the bible the word of God? Yes it is,

Who tells us this? Sorry guys it is the Catholic Church

Rinnie,

Then you too would find this paragraph written by Vincent Cheung unbelievable as I do concerning 2 Timothy 3:16.

It is therefore unreasonable to assume that Paul must refer to only the Old Testamentwhen he says “All Scripture.” As Robert Reymond writes, Paul would have been willing to include, and "almost certainly did include, within the technical category of ‘all Scripture’ the New Testament documents, including his own, as well."5 Since the New Testament documents are regarded as inspired and even called “Scripture,” we may with certainty regard them as “God-breathed.” Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are “Scripture,” and they make up one book that is our Bible. Therefore, there is no problem in regarding the verse as asserting, “The whole Bible is God-breathed.” In fact,there is no excuse in thinking otherwise.

Vincent Cheung wants his readers to “assume” that this is true and then appeals to authority, Robert Reymond, for something to believe and then chides those that read this that there is no excuse to think otherwise. In my opinion there is no excuse to believe this and absent knowing that this is false allows Vincent Cheung followers to belief the rest of his rot and then spout it. One error begets another.

This may be the source of the disordered thinking that ofthesons is putting forth. Now I understand why his position is so insecure and there is no ability to speak and think for himself.

 

[pablope]

Rinnie,

Then you too would find this paragraph written by Vincent Cheung unbelievable as I do concerning 2 Timothy 3:16.

Vincent Cheung wants his readers to “assume” that this is true and then appeals to authority, Robert Reymond, for something to believe and then chides those that read this that there is no excuse to think otherwise. In my opinion there is no excuse to believe this and absent knowing that this is false allows Vincent Cheung followers to belief the rest of his rot and then spout it. One error begets another.

This may be the source of the disordered thinking that ofthesons is putting forth. Now I understand why his position is so insecure and there is no ability to speak and think for himself.

This is what I find ingenious…he writes…“As Robert Reymond writes,…”

Well, I would ask…why not Joseph Ratzinger, or Scott Hahn…or Pope Damasus in AD382…or any of the ECFs…why Robert Reymond?

What makes Cheung or Reymond better and more believable than Ratzinger or Hahn?

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

Then you too would find this paragraph written by Vincent Cheung unbelievable as I do concerning 2 Timothy 3:16.

Vincent Cheung wants his readers to “assume” that this is true and then appeals to authority, Robert Reymond, for something to believe and then chides those that read this that there is no excuse to think otherwise. In my opinion there is no excuse to believe this and absent knowing that this is false allows Vincent Cheung followers to belief the rest of his rot and then spout it. One error begets another.

This may be the source of the disordered thinking that ofthesons is putting forth. Now I understand why his position is so insecure and there is no ability to speak and think for himself.

All scripture is inspired by God this is true, and for guiding us to live righteous lives. But here is the problem. the scripture or the bible passages, whatever way you way to say it cannot teach, and explain.

If that were true, we would all first of all have the power of the Holy Spirit to define it, and if that were true we would all come to the same conclusion.

We would have to. Simply because there is only One Holy Spirit and One truth.

We are taught to go by the Teachings of the Early Fathers of the Church. Well right of the bat that creates a problem, simply because they are not all in the bible.

 

[rinnie]

This is what I find ingenious…he writes…“As Robert Reymond writes,…”

Well, I would ask…why not Joseph Ratzinger, or Scott Hahn…or Pope Damasus in AD382…or any of the ECFs…why Robert Reymond?

What makes Cheung or Reymond better and more believable than Ratzinger or Hahn?

Or if that be the case you or I?

Now as far as authority to teach in the name of Christ Ratzinger does indeed have the power to teach and preach over Hahn, and I am sure Hahn would agree.

But the difference between Hahn and Robert Reymond is Hahn does indeed go by the teachings of the Early Fathers of the Church. When he teaches it is in line with the teachings of the Apostles. If not he can be corrected.

Just like us, when we teach the truth we teach what is taught by the Church, sometimes we also get out of line, and need to be corrected. We all agree the Church has the authority to correct us.

That is the reason we are united in faith as one.

 

[rinnie]

If, as you contend, the verity of the Word of God cannot be proven, is it possible to contend that it cannot be disproven? A basic rule of apparently ancient stuff being authentic or not is that it is considered authentic unless proven false. It is the old innocent until proven guilty concept. As already pointed out, many skeptics and scoffers have come and gone still unsuccessful in trying to disprove Jesus’s existence and purpose. Man wanting to be God is making a full circle–we get that from Lucifer, the angel of light. New Age Humanism is really popular–it is very compatible with our Narcissistic society. What need is there for a word from God The Creator?

There is still a word from the one crying in the wilderness which applies even today: Repent, the Kingdom of God is at hand. Just a note on time, probably more than a few picoseconds: if a thousand years is one day to God, we are coming up on the end of the second day since Jesus walked the earth. Further, the sixth day since the Creation.

So what? The Sabbath of God is nearer than one may think. It will not be a rest for those who deny His Word.

You guys are tough. The Spirit the Holy can break the toughest–see the adventures of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, Book of Acts. Jesus blinded Saul and knocked him down to get his attention. Paul was opthamologically impaired for the rest of his life. The Lord used him to plant many churches and to receive what amounts to a large part of the New Testament.

Will you pray for me? I am already praying for you.

Selah,

James Least

Hi James, I for one for sure will pray for you, and hope you also pray for me. Nothing in this world is more valuable then the Grace of God.

The word of God can indeed be proven and was. When Christ took away death on the cross and died for our sins, It all came full circle. Many lived to see this for themself.

But for us today who want proof, they will not find proof, simply because God don’t play that game. He said if you are one of his, you would never demand proof. If you are one of Gods you know that you have no right to demand anything of God.

We know that God is the way and the truth and the light because he is in us, and we are in him. Anyone can be apart of Christ all they have to do is ask and pray. God wants us all to come to him. But we have free will to reject or accept his love for us.

 

[ofthesons]

Of,

Someone taught you that a particular translation is translated “spoke” when in reality it is nothing like that. It sounds good to suit your purpose. The word “spoke” is

proeuaggelizomai: to announce good news beforehand
Original Word: προευαγγελίζομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: proeuaggelizomai
Phonetic Spelling: (pro-yoo-ang-ghel-id’-zom-ahee)
Short Definition: I preach the gospel beforehand
Definition: I preach the gospel beforehand, foretell good tidings.

In other words what you read and what is written “all nations will be blessed” is a foreshadowing of things to come not that Scripture spoke before it was written.

In Romans Paul is quoting Exodus.

I don’t understand how copy-pasting the defintion of the Greek word that is used in the verse I reference changes anything.

Are you really saying that declaring or announcing beforehand has nothing to do with speaking!? And if you aren’t okay with me using the word, “spoke” (not that it necessarily matters), I could have rendered it, “Scripture preached the Gospel beforehand to Abraham” and you’d still be wrong.

At the end of the day, Scripture was still the one doing the declaring or announcing and Abraham was doing the hearing.

And here is Romans 9:17 as rendered in the King James Translation…

(KJV)Romans 9:17 - For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh

When was Abraham and Pharoah living in this world and when was Scripture written?

Scripture was known before it was written.

 

[onemangang]

Iggy,

First let me give a resounding AMEN to Coptics response.

I think we may have discussed this before Iggy, but it boils down to recognizing infallibility. I do not think one must be infallible to recognize infallibility. If that were the case, then we could only posit that the Scriptures are fallible, or that we as individuals are infallible by positing scripture is infallible.

On the surface it does seem like I MUST posit my own personal infallibility to recognize infallibility of the Church, Scripture, or God, which I would never do of course!

When it comes down to evidentialism, or Presuppositionalism, I posit neither, but at the same time both kind of?

I’m not a relativist, I promise! lol

In Evidentialism, I think there is a load of evidence pointing toward God in all things, and I love Thomas Aquinas arguments for God, but it is only through the faith we received by Grace it is seen!

Presuppositionalism is much the same way to me in this vain, when we recognize anything, we are infact, ‘thinking again’ that which has already been thought into being,. So I believe, we were thought into being to love God, who is the ground and being of all existence. It is therefore not a presupposition per se, but the very thing which we were created to do, love God. It is our function as created beings!

That will only get us so far, right? Still, who is God?
If God did indeed reveal Himself to man, through the person of Jesus Christ, my recognition of this is not Evidential, nor is it Presupposed, but absolute truth, part of every fabric of my being, in born in me, inseparable from my very own being as a created Child of God, I was created to know this!

I think that in our creation, the very fabric of our being is so interwoven with desire, to know God and love God, that to do anything but, is suppression, rather than recognition of Him out of intellect, or personal piety. Grace abounds of course. Is that Grace infallible? I posit yes. Are we still sinners suppressing Truth? I posit yes, but I also believe that God has manifested in the flesh, by grace, through faith and believing this, is not contingent on my ability, but on God creating me for this very purpose. The barrier of sin which separates us from our Father, has been shattered by the Passion of our Lord, and by Grace we, as wayward children, are brought back home with our family. So, on some Level, I think everyone is a believer, suppressing the Truth, rather than believers like you, or I, and many others who profess Christ, who hold to the belief that God is infallible, are not by our confession infallible, by merely stating God is infallible. No , we are merely a creation, performing a function for which we were created to do, love and serve God, albeit, we do so imperfectly due to sin. I think, the Church is performing a task in which She was created to do, albeit, many within Her have erred at times, Her function or role for which She was made, is perfect, because her function lies within God’s perfection in His creation, and She is a Gift to mankind. I think that mankind at times, tries to use Her for a function that She was not created to be, a conduit of grace! When She makes proclamations ex-Cathedra, She is performing Her function, which She was created for. When She compiled, and discerned, Holy Writ, She was performing Her function which She was created for.

Excuse my inability to convey this message properly, perhaps you, or others could glean enough of what I am trying to say, and make it more coherent!

Peace and Love in Christ

 

[onemangang]

I don’t understand how copy-pasting the defintion of the Greek word that is used in the verse I reference changes anything.

Are you really saying that declaring or announcing beforehand has nothing to do with speaking!? And if you aren’t okay with me using the word, “spoke” (not that it necessarily matters), I could have rendered it, “Scripture preached the Gospel beforehand to Abraham” and you’d still be wrong.

At the end of the day, Scripture was still the one doing the declaring or announcing and Abraham was doing the hearing.

And here is Romans 9:17 as rendered in the King James Translation…

(KJV)Romans 9:17 - For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh

When was Abraham and Pharoah living in this world and when was Scripture written?

Scripture was known before it was written.

Are you infallibly interpreting those particular passages, or not?

If you are only fallibly interpreting them, why should anybody listen to you, and your fallible interpretation?

 

[JustaServant]

Are you infallibly interpreting those particular passages, or not?

If you are only fallibly interpreting them, why should anybody listen to you, and your fallible interpretation?

Like I have always said, the simplist way of refuting “sola Scriptura” is by opening your phone book and counting the number of Protestant churches in your town.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Iggy,

First let me give a resounding AMEN to Coptics response.

I think we may have discussed this before Iggy, but it boils down to recognizing infallibility. I do not think one must be infallible to recognize infallibility. If that were the case, then we could only posit that the Scriptures are fallible, or that we as individuals are infallible by positing scripture is infallible.

I agree 100%, oneman. In my question to you, I was operating within the mindset posited by apologists in arguing against sola scriptura…namely, that in order to know that what the church possesses is Scripture, it requires an infallible magisterium within the church to tell us infallibly what is and is not Scripture. It also requires an infallible magisterium in order to tell us the correct interpretation of those Scriptures. This comes down, of course, to a Cartesian worldview in which man can only truly know something if he or she has infallible knowledge of it. I do not operate within that paradigm.

In the same way that you do not have to be infallible in order to recognize an infallible magisterium or interpretation, we, as a church, do not require an infallible magisterium in order to recognize what is and is not infallible Scripture. It only requires that the one who gave Scripture to His church so order history, events, etc. in such a way that He reveals His infallible word to fallible men, who then recognize it and obey it.

On the surface it does seem like I MUST posit my own personal infallibility to recognize infallibility of the Church, Scripture, or God, which I would never do of course!

When it comes down to evidentialism, or Presuppositionalism, I posit neither, but at the same time both kind of?

I’m not a relativist, I promise! lol

In Evidentialism, I think there is a load of evidence pointing toward God in all things, and I love Thomas Aquinas arguments for God, but it is only through the faith we received by Grace it is seen!

Evidentialism is worlds above Presuppositionalism in terms of logic and effectiveness…as demonstrated by Aquinas. However, yes, it only goes so far, because it only reveals a probability, as opposed to a necessity.

I prefer Classical Apologetics, myself.

Presuppositionalism is much the same way to me in this vain, when we recognize anything, we are infact, ‘thinking again’ that which has already been thought into being,. So I believe, we were thought into being to love God, who is the ground and being of all existence. It is therefore not a presupposition per se, but the very thing which we were created to do, love God. It is our function as created beings!

Everyone has presuppositions, of course, but as I think I mentioned to you in another thread, as a worldview, it’s circular. Even, within a Reformed context, Van Til admitted this.

That will only get us so far, right? Still, who is God?
If God did indeed reveal Himself to man, through the person of Jesus Christ, my recognition of this is not Evidential, nor is it Presupposed, but absolute truth, part of every fabric of my being, in born in me, inseparable from my very own being as a created Child of God, I was created to know this!

It’s evidential to a point, I suppose. Definitely not presupposed.

Pax Christi.

 

[onemangang]

I agree 100%, oneman. In my question to you, I was operating within the mindset posited by apologists in arguing against sola scriptura…namely, that in order to know that what the church possesses is Scripture, it requires an infallible magisterium within the church to tell us infallibly what is and is not Scripture. It also requires an infallible magisterium in order to tell us the correct interpretation of those Scriptures. This comes down, of course, to a Cartesian worldview in which man can only truly know something if he or she has infallible knowledge of it. I do not operate within that paradigm.

I feel it boils down to our function as human beings, and we operate within a paradigm that God has ordained!

In the same way that you do not have to be infallible in order to recognize an infallible magisterium or interpretation, we, as a church, do not require an infallible magisterium in order to recognize what is and is not infallible Scripture. It only requires that the one who gave Scripture to His church so order history, events, etc. in such a way that He reveals His infallible word to fallible men, who then recognize it and obey it.

I understand the logic, my contention is that we are bound within the context of our being. Our Knowledge is in direct relationship to our inborn created being. Our Function of creation is to love and serve God. I believe that God gave us a Church, Her function is to be a conduit of Grace! Submitting to God is a function of the Church, and us submitting to the Church is our function. Us submitting to the Church is submitting to God, being that we are living out our function as created beings in doing so!

I believe the function of the Church is to make Christ present, and Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are a Mode of the Church, in Her function.

I do not think that God used the Church to deliver the Scriptures to man, so that man may recognize his function as a created being in the Scriptures, apart from the Church.

I believe we are living rightly within the context of our creation by having our intellect, will and desire moved towards God through the Church, scripture is a mode of the Churches function, in ordering us towards God!

Evidentialism is worlds above Presuppositionalism in terms of logic and effectiveness…as demonstrated by Aquinas. However, yes, it only goes so far, because it only reveals a probability, as opposed to a necessity.

I prefer Classical Apologetics, myself.

I agree

Everyone has presuppositions, of course, but as I think I mentioned to you in another thread, as a worldview, it’s circular. Even, within a Reformed context, Van Til admitted this.

Absolutely, but positing God’s existence in not circular, and I wouldn’t call it a presupposition, being that we were created for the very purpose to Love Him, as I see it anyway!

It’s evidential to a point, I suppose. Definitely not presupposed.

Pax Christi.

Sure I suppose, but God’s existence is not contingent on our ability to recognize Him.
Unless you’re John Dominic Crossan of course lol.

Check out the vid starting at 3:43 Its William Lane Craig on John Dominic Crossan
youtu.be/aw9jvJp_nAo

So where do we go?
We posit God just is, man just suppresses the knowledge we have that is lies in us already, I suppose. Try telling that to an atheist though! lol

Peace and Love in Christ