Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[David]

A man finds what he believes is an ordinary book.

This book tells the story of man who claimed to be God and then proved he was.

This man called Jesus Christ founded a church, and promised his church would never fail.

This Jesus gave his own authority to certain members of his church who held the office of bishop.

These bishops fill the office of a man named Judas with a man named Mathias.

The same man goes to the library to research Christian churches.

The man finds the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus.

The man joins the Catholic Church.

No circle here.

Peace to all
David

 

[CopticChristian]

A man finds what he believes is an ordinary book.

This book tells the story of man who claimed to be God and then proved he was.

This man called Jesus Christ founded a church, and promised his church would never fail.

This Jesus gave his own authority to certain members of his church who held the office of bishop.

These bishops fill the office of a man named Judas with a man named Mathias.

The same man goes to the library to research Christian churches.

The man finds the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus.

The man joins the Catholic Church.

No circle here.

Peace to all
David

Was this book originally written in English and is it at the library?

 

[David]

Was this book originally written in English and is it at the library?

He read the book in his native language. It may indeed be at the library .

Peace
David

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8815353]Jon, how do you know that what you believe reflects truth? If you already know that what you believe reflects truth then there is no need for faith.

No. Opposite. It comes from faith.

What I am questioning is how you go from Christ is real to then believing in the Bible, Confessions etc. Now the naive answer a 5 year old gives is that its because I was born and raised that way. But after you reach an age of reason, you need to check if your position is REASONABLE.

I’ve told you.

So coming to believe in Protestantism or Catholicism CANNOT BE AN ELEMENT OF FAITH. That has to be from reason. Otherwise whichever religion you believe in is arbitrary.

I don’t “believe” in either. I believe in christ crucified.

It is a burden if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise of course you can abandon reason.

I’ve explained the reason. that you don’t see it is, frankly, your issue. Not mine.

Jon, which part of my question don’t you understand?

After realizing Christ is real (historically or through personal experience), it does not follow automatically that anyone needs to believe in the Bible. I am asking you how you go from there to the Bible.

So far you have been answering in circles. When I ask “How do you know that you have to believe in the Bible?”, you say “Lutheran Confessions tell me”. When I ask “how do you know you have to believe in the Confessions?”, you say “Because it is backed by the Bible”. That is circular reasoning i.e. you have not answered the question.

It is circular to you. Not to me. Perhaps you don’t undestand it because you choose not to, that it seems unreasonable that I do not belong to the same communion as you. For you, it seems, it takes the Catholic Church to teach faith. That’s fine. Your faith is no less “within the system” as mine, no less circular than mine.

Your insistence that you remain Protestant is no different than a Muslim who claims that he will stay Muslim because Allah is guiding him.

Or you that the Magisterium is guiding you.

How do you know the Holy Spirit is guiding you? I know for a fact that any inclination you have to be Protestant can’t be from the Holy Spirit because it is unreasonable. It’s a good sign that this is some other spirit keeping you there.

Perhaps this veiled accusation, not in keeping with charitable dialogue should be ignored.
So, I’ll leave you with this.

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Now, clearly this speaks for itself.

Jon

 

[passer_by]

No. Opposite. It comes from faith.

Jon, ok, so I think we are making progress.

Here in lies your error. We cannot come to believe in the Catholic church or Protestant as true from FAITH. That is unreasonable.

I can claim for sure that it is not how we arrive at the Catholic faith. So if it is how you arrive at your Protestant faith, then it is

1. Arbitrary set of random rules
2. There is no ***reason ***to believe it true (almost restating what you said)

In short, now all I have to say is that you are like a person with Blind faith. Luckily you ended up in a place which has SOME truth but overall, its just blind faith.

This is the point at which I ask “WHAT ARE YOU DOING STILL AS A PROTESTANT IF THERE IS NO REASON TO BE ONE?”

I’ve explained the reason. that you don’t see it is, frankly, your issue. Not mine.

You just said above that there is no REASON. It is just Faith. So the discussion is over unless you want to recant what you said above i.e. Protestantism is unreasonable and it is believed simply by faith.

It is circular to you. Not to me.

That was not a matter of perspective. Logic applies objectively to everyone.

Perhaps you don’t undestand it because you choose not to, that it seems unreasonable that I do not belong to the same communion as you. For you, it seems, it takes the Catholic Church to teach faith. That’s fine. Your faith is no less “within the system” as mine, no less circular than mine.

Catholicism is superior to Protestantism because it gives reasons to believe in the Church. Protestantism is inferior to reason because it wants people to believe in the Protestant Church in the first place using BLIND FAITH.

Right now, you are like an Atheist who keeps saying I am going to remain Atheist even though there is no REASONABLE PROOF for Atheism.

Or you that the Magisterium is guiding you.

That was not what I said I said the logical thing to do after realizing Christ is real is to believe in the Apostles.

Perhaps this veiled accusation, not in keeping with charitable dialogue should be ignored.
So, I’ll leave you with this.

As good as the thought, you are not understanding what I am saying.

You have an element of truth in your religion, no one denies that. All I am pointing out to you is that you could arrive at the fullness of the truth if you bothered to wonder why you believe in those truths.

It would be apparent to you that Protestantism has never given you REASON for believing them. You just believe in it using BLIND FAITH (which you stated yourself) just like a Muslim who believes in his Koran. In short, that is arbitrary.

 

[Radical]

This really caught my eye.
I think you are terribly wrong with the argument.

most Catholics around here do…they are loath to concede that there may be a plank in their own eye whilst they denigrate a Protestant POV.

The argument to being Catholic is of the following form

1. After knowing that Christ rose from the dead (through reason, historicity or personal experience), the most logical thing to do is to listen to the Apostles

that’s fair enough…though that “knowledge” is really a “reasonable faith”

1. We know Apostles had the Authority on deciding on matters of Faith and Morals from Scripture (as a mere historical collection of books) and other writings by Church fathers in Tradition (also read as historical books)

this again seems fair enough…in part b/c you didn’t use “infallible” to describe their authority wrt those decisions as scripture doesn’t credit them with infallibility. You, however, want to slip infallibility into the authority and so this is really the #2 that I described (slightly reworked):
2 The CC interprets certain biblical passages to say that the Church (that Christ founded), through the Apostles, possessed a never-ending gift of infallibility

1. We also know that Apostles instituted successors with the same authority through Scripture (as a mere historical collection of books), other writings by Church fathers in Tradition (also read as historical books)

This just isn’t right. First, nowhere in the NT is it suggested that the Apostles passed on their “same authority”…They were apostles and others were not apostles. Ignatius in his epistles makes it clear that he was something less than an Apostle…and that he did not have their authority to command. From later tradition you can show that the ECFs **at a later time **believed that the apostles instituted successors to their authority, but your historical record is missing the critical evidence at the front end to establish this belief from Christ, the Apostles and the Apostolic Fathers onwards. As such, this is really the #3 that I described (slightly reworked):
3 The CC interprets scripture, traditions and history to say that the CC is the Church that Christ founded b/c it has the true successors to the apostles

1. Therefore we believe in the Church that has Apostolic Succession i.e. the Catholic Church (we believe this is true because the Apostles taught it and they are the ones we listen to)

You either need to add on my 4 & 5 to get an “argument” (which ends up being a circle)….otherwise, you are merely stating your position of faith (as evidenced by “we believe”) …and faith is faith…it isn’t something that you can establish by way of a logical proof or something that you can irrefutably prove with historical evidence. The question becomes whether it is a reasonable faith or a ridiculously blind faith or something in between…but I note that you have now said:

We cannot come to believe in the Catholic church or Protestant as true from FAITH. That is unreasonable.

so it seems you don’t want to admit yours is a position of faith (cuz you think such is unreasonable), but otherwise you are stuck in a circle…have fun

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

To the best of my knowledge, Protestantism only has Scripture (less the 7 books that Luther threw out) and the claim that each person can make whatever interpretation they wish because all is directed by the Holy Spirit (that is why there are 30,000+ competing Protestant groups all claiming their interpretation is correct and those of the other groups are heresy! ) Now, if you are doubting the authenticity of the Gospel of Mark you will need to do more than just wonder out loud - what is your basis for this?

The numbered outline you presented at the end of your post has some significant flaws.
I think your logic needs to have an oil change and tune up… Let me show you why.

well, if the institution isn’t following the HS, then maybe you should go with the individual

Not quite. Christ promised the Holy Spirit to the Church so that no error would be taught (John 16). There was no promise - or even hint - that the individual Apostles, and then their successors would lead perfect lives. At the time of the Protestant Revolt there were Church leaders giving public scandal. But, you know, at no point did any of them teach error.

The take home message is that the Canon of Scripture was established by the Catholic Church about the year 400AD. Luther takes it upon himself to remove seven books that do not agree with his new religion. So, here is the work of the Holy Spirit, recognized by the early Catholic Church as providing the inerrant Word of God - and an individual takes it upon himself to attack it so as to establish a new tradition of men.

that is b/c you are sloppy with the description. It should be:

1. The CC assumes that the scriptures are historically accurate (you would get a lot of argument from non- Christians and liberal Christians as to the level of accuracy)

The basic historical accuracy of the Bible has been attacked by many, for a multitude of reasons. But the accuracy of the Bible keeps on being proven over and over again. On this note, many Protestant writers are all in agreement with Catholic writers. Here are some non-Catholic links proving historical accuracy:
lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/HistoricalAccuracyOfTheBible.htm

seeking4truth.com/historical_accuracy_of_the_bible.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

So, where are the arguments against biblical accuracy, Radical?

1. The CC interprets certain biblical passages to say that the Church (that Christ founded) possessed a never-ending gift of infallibility

Actually, the Church that Christ founded on Peter (Matthew 16) was promised the Holy Spirit to protect it from error (John 16). The Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles and the others gathered in the locked room on that First Pentecost Sunday (Acts 2) and gave numerous Gifts so that the young Catholic Church would spread God’s Word throughout the world. It was not long before the first heresy appeared - and the First Council of Jerusalem came together as recorded in Acts 15 - and resolved the issue of requiring circumcision on new Gentile converts to the Catholic Church.

Christ is quite clear in tell us that He does not lie - He is the Way, the Truth and the Light (John 14) So, what He promised, He delivered.

1. The CC interprets scripture, traditions and history to say that the CC is the Church that Christ founded

If your claim is that the Catholic Church is making a self-serving claim, then this is simply an unsubstantiated allegation. I have already given the reference for Christ founding His Church on Peter (Matthew 16) and gave the Keys to Peter as a sign of his unique authority over the other Apostles. Note there wee not 11 other sets of keys handed out later in Matthew 18 - and this is significant in identifying Peter’s special role as defined by Christ.

Here are some additional links that also reference the Early Church Fathers in recognizing the Primacy of Peter. There are many internal hyperlinks and references given:

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb1.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

ourcatholicfaith.org/

1. Therefore, the CC is infallible

You are so right!

1. b/c the CC is infallible, its interpretations at #2 and #3 are absolutely correct take it or leave it, but that’s a circle

This is where your logic runs into problems, Radical - you never go back over your conclusion since you made it in Item 4) above.

If there is a ‘circle’ it would be the one you are traveling in by going back over your own work to prove - a circular conclusion? You have proven no circularity. You have been given numerous links to substantiate that the Bible is historically accurate, that Christ founded His Church on Peter, and that the Holy Spirit is protecting the Catholic Church from teaching error.

And, let me add, that SS has been condemned as a heresy by the Catholic Church. It is a fatally flawed tradition of man that simply trashes the Word of God by making it subject to the interpretations of anyone who cares to interpret it. This is why there are 30,000+ Protestant groups all claiming that THEIR interpretation is correct and everyone else’s is wrong.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

You have yet to substantiate any of your statements. Do you have more than your own opinion to present?

most Catholics around here do…they are loath to concede that there may be a plank in their own eye whilst they denigrate a Protestant POV.

 

[CopticChristian]

most Catholics around here do…they are loath to concede that there may be a plank in their own eye whilst they denigrate a Protestant POV.
that’s fair enough…though that “knowledge” is really a “reasonable faith”
this again seems fair enough…in part b/c you didn’t use “infallible” to describe their authority wrt those decisions as scripture doesn’t credit them with infallibility. You, however, want to slip infallibility into the authority and so this is really the #2 that I described (slightly reworked):
2 The CC interprets certain biblical passages to say that the Church (that Christ founded), through the Apostles, possessed a never-ending gift of infallibility

This just isn’t right. First, nowhere in the NT is it suggested that the Apostles passed on their “same authority”…They were apostles and others were not apostles. Ignatius in his epistles makes it clear that he was something less than an Apostle…and that he did not have their authority to command. From later tradition you can show that the ECFs **at a later time **believed that the apostles instituted successors to their authority, but your historical record is missing the critical evidence at the front end to establish this belief from Christ, the Apostles and the Apostolic Fathers onwards. As such, this is really the #3 that I described (slightly reworked):
3 The CC interprets scripture, traditions and history to say that the CC is the Church that Christ founded b/c it has the true successors to the apostles

You either need to add on my 4 & 5 to get an “argument” (which ends up being a circle)….otherwise, you are merely stating your position of faith (as evidenced by “we believe”) …and faith is faith…it isn’t something that you can establish by way of a logical proof or something that you can irrefutably prove with historical evidence. The question becomes whether it is a reasonable faith or a ridiculously blind faith or something in between…but I note that you have now said:

so it seems you don’t want to admit yours is a position of faith (cuz you think such is unreasonable), but otherwise you are stuck in a circle…have fun

Radical,

I guess no RCIA for you…oh well…one of the things I keep seeing is that everyone is speaking different languages. I would like to see some agreement on “faith”

Faith is belief in revealed truths
Faith is trust in God

Faith

1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith "man freely commits his entire self to God."78 For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” Living faith "work through charity."79

1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it.80 But “faith apart from works is dead”:81 when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.

1816 The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: "All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks."82 Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."83

Is everyone here speaking the same language when they say…“faith”…I for one do not know what Radical, Passer by, or John NC mean by “faith”…

I would appreciate clarification on what everyone means by this.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CopticChristian,

No… I really do not think RCIA is an option for Radical at this time…

The material you presented on Faith looks good to me. Unless someone has an objection, I think we should work with these items.

God bless

Faith is belief in revealed truths
Faith is trust in God

Is everyone here speaking the same language when they say…“faith”…I for one do not know what Radical, Passer by, or John NC mean by “faith”…

I would appreciate clarification on what everyone means by this.

 

[passer_by]

most Catholics around here do…they are loath to concede that there may be a plank in their own eye whilst they denigrate a Protestant POV.

We shall soon evaluate if this is true

that’s fair enough…though that “knowledge” is really a “reasonable faith”

Are you using Faith in the sense that “I have faith in the principle of contradiction” sense?

Because that I wouldn’t even define as faith.

this again seems fair enough…in part b/c you didn’t use “infallible” to describe their authority wrt those decisions as scripture doesn’t credit them with infallibility. You, however, want to slip infallibility into the authority and so this is really the #2 that I described (slightly reworked):
2 The CC interprets certain biblical passages to say that the Church (that Christ founded), through the Apostles, possessed a never-ending gift of infallibility

There is no need to slip anything in. When you believe in what the early Apostles taught, you believe it is either infallible or you don’t believe it at all. Why? Because if it is possible they will err, you have already no chance of knowing who Christ was.

This just isn’t right. First, nowhere in the NT is it suggested that the Apostles passed on their “same authority”…They were apostles and others were not apostles. Ignatius in his epistles makes it clear that he was something less than an Apostle…and that he did not have their authority to command. From later tradition you can show that the ECFs **at a later time **believed that the apostles instituted successors to their authority, but your historical record is missing the critical evidence at the front end to establish this belief from Christ, the Apostles and the Apostolic Fathers onwards. As such, this is really the #3 that I described (slightly reworked):
3 The CC interprets scripture, traditions and history to say that the CC is the Church that Christ founded b/c it has the true successors to the apostles

Actually the passing of authority is very clear in NT. St. Paul was not an original Apostle. But his calling from Christ WAS RECOGNIZED by the Apostles and he was given authority to teach. Btw, that is what the Church does even today. It recognizes those called by God to be Apostles and grants them authority. It does not MAKE Apostles.

From Tradition, you can get quotes all the way from St. Iranaeus and possibly even before that.

If Apostolic Succession ended with the first Apostles, you will still be screwed because the things you want to believe like the Bible was put together way after that.

This is what a Protestant Scholar J. N. D. Kelly had to say

“[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

Or Pope Clement I in 80 AD

"Pope Clement I

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Apostolic Succession was a very clear Oral Tradition.

You either need to add on my 4 & 5 to get an “argument” (which ends up being a circle)….otherwise, you are merely stating your position of faith (as evidenced by “we believe”) …and faith is faith…it isn’t something that you can establish by way of a logical proof or something that you can irrefutably prove with historical evidence.

So out of the blue, you tell me I need to use to 4 & 5 of yours to support my argument. I supported my argument and concluded very well without the assistance of your circular premises. So it is up to you to first show me WHY my argument fails and the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

If you want to argue the premises, it still does not show my argument is invalid. Since all you have done here is argue my premises at best, I fail to see how the conclusion does not follow???

The question becomes whether it is a reasonable faith or a ridiculously blind faith or something in between…but I note that you have now said:

Something can’t be REASONABLE if it lacks any reason and it is by faith. A Reasonable Faith is to pick the right Church by REASON and then to BELIEVE what the Church teaches by FAITH.

If you have to pick both by Faith, then it is just arbitrary. There is nothing REASONABLE about it.

What exactly is your definition of REASONABLE?

so it seems you don’t want to admit yours is a position of faith (cuz you think such is unreasonable), but otherwise you are stuck in a circle…have fun

You don’t arrive at your religion by Faith. If that were the case, it would just be arbitrary. I can go from hearing about the resurrection of Christ to then believing the Koran. Why? Because I can just pick my beliefs randomly after that and I have nothing to turn to.

 

[passer_by]

Faith is belief in revealed truths
Faith is trust in God

Is everyone here speaking the same language when they say…“faith”…I for one do not know what Radical, Passer by, or John NC mean by “faith”…

I am with you on the definition of Faith.

I am merely asking Jon and Radical to clarify how we first arrive at what we might call Divine Revelation from the truth of the resurrection of Christ which is the starting point of our journey to become Christian.

It is not clear from the fact that Christ rose from the dead that the Bible is Divine Revelation. So Jon, Radical or any other Protestant has to give logical justification for going from Christ to the Bible. So far they have been trying to prove that the Bible is Divine Revelation using the Bible it-self. That is circular reasoning and hence invalid.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am with you on the definition of Faith.

I am merely asking Jon and Radical to clarify how we first arrive at what we might call Divine Revelation from the truth of the resurrection of Christ which is the starting point of our journey to become Christian.

It is not clear from the fact that Christ rose from the dead that the Bible is Divine Revelation. So Jon, Radical or any other Protestant has to give logical justification for going from Christ to the Bible. So far they have been trying to prove that the Bible is Divine Revelation using the Bible it-self. That is circular reasoning and hence invalid.

Can you attend RCIA with circular reasoning?

 

[passer_by]

Can you attend RCIA with circular reasoning?

One attends RCIA to learn the faith. So I don’t see anything wrong in attending it.

On the other hand, if one attends RCIA to check if the teachings make sense so they can adopt Catholicism, it might show some error in their thinking.

One has to decide to be Catholic because it is logically where they can find the teaching of Christ. So after finding that out, one cannot evaluate teaching (barring self-contradictions, one cannot validate teaching especially because they point to truths of supernatural nature), but simply believe all that is taught by FAITH.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Passer_by,

Excellent!

God bless

We shall soon evaluate if this is true

Are you using Faith in the sense that “I have faith in the principle of contradiction” sense?

Because that I wouldn’t even define as faith.

There is no need to slip anything in. When you believe in what the early Apostles taught, you believe it is either infallible or you don’t believe it at all. Why? Because if it is possible they will err, you have already no chance of knowing who Christ was.

Actually the passing of authority is very clear in NT. St. Paul was not an original Apostle. But his calling from Christ WAS RECOGNIZED by the Apostles and he was given authority to teach. Btw, that is what the Church does even today. It recognizes those called by God to be Apostles and grants them authority. It does not MAKE Apostles.

From Tradition, you can get quotes all the way from St. Iranaeus and possibly even before that.

If Apostolic Succession ended with the first Apostles, you will still be screwed because the things you want to believe like the Bible was put together way after that.

This is what a Protestant Scholar J. N. D. Kelly had to say

“[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

Or Pope Clement I in 80 AD

"Pope Clement I

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Apostolic Succession was a very clear Oral Tradition.

So out of the blue, you tell me I need to use to 4 & 5 of yours to support my argument. I supported my argument and concluded very well without the assistance of your circular premises. So it is up to you to first show me WHY my argument fails and the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

If you want to argue the premises, it still does not show my argument is invalid. Since all you have done here is argue my premises at best, I fail to see how the conclusion does not follow???

Something can’t be REASONABLE if it lacks any reason and it is by faith. A Reasonable Faith is to pick the right Church by REASON and then to BELIEVE what the Church teaches by FAITH.

If you have to pick both by Faith, then it is just arbitrary. There is nothing REASONABLE about it.

What exactly is your definition of REASONABLE?

You don’t arrive at your religion by Faith. If that were the case, it would just be arbitrary. I can go from hearing about the resurrection of Christ to then believing the Koran. Why? Because I can just pick my beliefs randomly after that and I have nothing to turn to.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Passer_by,

I think the take-home message is that an argument can be ‘consistent’ but circular and hence illogical. SS is wrong from multiple and logical points of view - it is truly astounding. that it continues to befuddle the Protestant approach.

Ultimately, if God’s Truth is One and there can be no contradictions - how can there be 30,000+ Protestant groups all clamoring that their interpretation is correct and the others have it wrong. For example:

Baptism: optional? not necessary? an ordinance? required?
Confessing one’s sins to one with the special delegated power to forgive them: no? yes?
Sacred Tradition: never happened? preceded the Canon by hundreds of years?
Triune God: no, God is One? Three Persons in One Nature?
SS: yes, it’s all we have? no, Christ gave us His Church,too?

The list is virtually endless - all stemming from the traditions of men vs the Word of God. SS is just the biggest nail in this coffin.

God bless

I am with you on the definition of Faith.

I am merely asking Jon and Radical to clarify how we first arrive at what we might call Divine Revelation from the truth of the resurrection of Christ which is the starting point of our journey to become Christian.

It is not clear from the fact that Christ rose from the dead that the Bible is Divine Revelation. So Jon, Radical or any other Protestant has to give logical justification for going from Christ to the Bible. So far they have been trying to prove that the Bible is Divine Revelation using the Bible it-self. That is circular reasoning and hence invalid.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CopticChristian,

I think Passer_by has a good response … but, I looked at your question a bit differently - and came up with another approach…

Attending RCIA may be like signing up for a non-credit course at one’s local community college to learn, for example about digital photography or comparative religions. RCIA’s requirements for entry and not demanding at all.

" Other than a sincere desire to seek one’s relationship with God and with the people of God, and a desire to possibly become Catholic, there are no requirements." (sjboc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52&Itemid=107 )

Based on this, ‘circular reasoning’ does not appear to be an impediment to signing up for the RCIA program.

Being antagonistic (and this is what appears to be the case) toward the Catholic Faith would probably show itself off early in the program and this would undoubtedly be disruptive to the students. So, from a practical stand-point, I see a problem there.

God bless

Can you attend RCIA with circular reasoning?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Explain for me your understanding of the Pharisees and Saducees as it concerns Abraham. Then explain how you see this as relevant to Apostolic Tradition. I cannot see the parallel. Explain this to me in simple terms.

Sure, but before I answer. What is simple to you?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi, Jose,

What a wonderful Grace. Yes, indeed, I think talking to the priest would be an excellent idea - so good, in fact … let me see if I can help…

Now, I do not want to be accused of shamelessly supporting a particular brand of donut … but… if you are going to get Duncan Donuts anyway - here is a link to some discount codes! retailmenot.com/view/dunkindonuts.com Hopefully, neither you or the priest is a diabetic!

I am asking all on this thread to pray for God’s Grace at Jose’s meeting with the priest.

God bless

Tom and Safia,

Thanks for the prayers!

Tom,

Thanks for the link

Coptic,

You sound very familiar to an attorney I used to go against many moons ago (I worked as an expert on computer forensics and had many cross examinations against him). He loved to play with my words without bringing in his own interpretations. So much, that I ended up including a definition of terms section on my reports, lol.

 

[Safia]

It is circular to you. Not to me. Perhaps you don’t undestand it because you choose not to, that it seems unreasonable that I do not belong to the same communion as you. For you, it seems, it takes the Catholic Church to teach faith. That’s fine. Your faith is no less “within the system” as mine, no less circular than mine.

Here you’re wrong, Jon. Reasoning is either circular or isn’t. If you could persuade us all that Lutheranism is more true than Catholicism, via consistent, logical/rational reasoning, I think we’d all be happy to jump the boat. (I certainly would. I came to faith from a rational-only perspective first.) But your argument is lacking the internal consistency – period.

And, no, our explanation of the faith comes from within the system in certain respects, but our decision to commit to this faith over others doesn’t.