J
jimmy
Guest
I am still waiting for the answer to my question in post 85 above. Since Martin is suspended, any protestant can give me an answer.
- Status
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Scott Waddell:
BigScott: Do you believe history determines christian orthodoxy?
[22:52] No… but history confirms it.
[23:05] BigScott; So you believe that Jesus founded a church because of a verse in the Bible?
I have a hard time believing he said this. But he did.
[23:16] BigScott; Well, what I accept is irrelevant to your defense. But as a sidenote, yes I presuppose the authority of the Scriptures as a necessary starting point in which to have a cogent epistemology (but that then would reveal my defense, not yours ;] )
Hmm, up a creek without a paddle?
[23:20] no… trying to come to consensus that the Scriptures have authority, in and of themselves (not “sole” authority at this point, but that they are authoritive)
[23:21] BigScott: You believe that we must have a ‘consensus’ in order for you to give your defense?
Here is the same thing I addressed to ML. If we both agree that scripture is an authority then that so called infinite black hole mentality fails on the spot.
[23:27] interesting point =- but it begs the question I’m seeking.
So if im getting this right “begs the question” = “the tactic”?
Ill be watching for that phrase from now on.
[23:40] what more can I say regarding #1? Jesus said it, I believe it. Then I go on in the further propositions to summize what is meant by “church” in prop 1
[23:40] BigScott: I don’t think you understand the point I’m making here.
[23:40] BigScott: You’re assuming JEsus said that - I’m inquiring into how you know JEsus said it.
Here is the kind of stuff that kills me, this line of thought works only if one of us DOESNT use the Bible, but we both do. They talk like the Bible cant be interpreted on any level, and then turn around and interpret it (infallibly) to their congregations.
[23:41] You’re attempting to make “me” the final arbitor/interpretor… and I have already stated I am not in that position and submit to the Authority that is.
[23:41] BigScott: Well, that’s precisely what I’m getting at.
O.K., thats the “tactic”!
[00:27] I’ve read his apologia pro vita sua
I dont believe that.
In short the problem I see with these guys is that when they are talking to you they question the authority of scripture to the point where they cant even use the Bible to defend their position as being Christian, but when they turn around and are debating their own kind, scripture all the suddenly is crystal clear proof for them.
Select quotes
BigScott: Do you believe history determines christian orthodoxy?
[22:52] No… but history confirms it.
[23:05] BigScott; So you believe that Jesus founded a church because of a verse in the Bible?
I have a hard time believing he said this. But he did.
[23:16] BigScott; Well, what I accept is irrelevant to your defense. But as a sidenote, yes I presuppose the authority of the Scriptures as a necessary starting point in which to have a cogent epistemology (but that then would reveal my defense, not yours ;] )
Hmm, up a creek without a paddle?
[23:20] no… trying to come to consensus that the Scriptures have authority, in and of themselves (not “sole” authority at this point, but that they are authoritive)
[23:21] BigScott: You believe that we must have a ‘consensus’ in order for you to give your defense?
Here is the same thing I addressed to ML. If we both agree that scripture is an authority then that so called infinite black hole mentality fails on the spot.
[23:27] interesting point =- but it begs the question I’m seeking.
So if im getting this right “begs the question” = “the tactic”?
Ill be watching for that phrase from now on.
[23:40] what more can I say regarding #1? Jesus said it, I believe it. Then I go on in the further propositions to summize what is meant by “church” in prop 1
[23:40] BigScott: I don’t think you understand the point I’m making here.
[23:40] BigScott: You’re assuming JEsus said that - I’m inquiring into how you know JEsus said it.
Here is the kind of stuff that kills me, this line of thought works only if one of us DOESNT use the Bible, but we both do. They talk like the Bible cant be interpreted on any level, and then turn around and interpret it (infallibly) to their congregations.
[23:41] You’re attempting to make “me” the final arbitor/interpretor… and I have already stated I am not in that position and submit to the Authority that is.
[23:41] BigScott: Well, that’s precisely what I’m getting at.
O.K., thats the “tactic”!
[00:27] I’ve read his apologia pro vita sua
I dont believe that.
In short the problem I see with these guys is that when they are talking to you they question the authority of scripture to the point where they cant even use the Bible to defend their position as being Christian, but when they turn around and are debating their own kind, scripture all the suddenly is crystal clear proof for them.
D
Deus_Solus
Guest
Scott Waddell:
If you take a look at my posts at #73 J, I critique the Van Til form of reasoning, but the “reply” in #83 is the same arguments re-iterated in an even more skeptical form including bald assertions like “Self authenticating authority is not weaker, therefore it is stronger.” and “If Catholicism is true, then we cannot know the truth.”. This form of argument is so dangerous because it posits skepticism (which, if you are drawn in, will tear your position to shreds), then enters with a “self-authenticating” source of knowledge to counter the skepticism. Never mind that the self-attesting portion of the argument is rife with fallacy, your position has already been destroyed.
As I pointed out, you can’t argue from skepticism if there are common premises, something that is crucial in Catholic/Protestant apologetics. Unless you are capable of refuting the philosophy of the argument (which is possible, but very hard), it is best to stick to historical facts. Hey, its the historical facts that are progressively leading me to the Church.
Thanks, thats a great resource for a rational approach to this argument. So crucial is the restraint shown in not going beyond what needs to be said, and not boldly proclaiming “YES its true! I believe”. Then you have just fallen into the trap.
I don’t know if that’s sad or laughable. When there’s nowhere else to turn in debate, use ad hominem seems to be the general rule.
If you take a look at my posts at #73 J, I critique the Van Til form of reasoning, but the “reply” in #83 is the same arguments re-iterated in an even more skeptical form including bald assertions like “Self authenticating authority is not weaker, therefore it is stronger.” and “If Catholicism is true, then we cannot know the truth.”. This form of argument is so dangerous because it posits skepticism (which, if you are drawn in, will tear your position to shreds), then enters with a “self-authenticating” source of knowledge to counter the skepticism. Never mind that the self-attesting portion of the argument is rife with fallacy, your position has already been destroyed.
As I pointed out, you can’t argue from skepticism if there are common premises, something that is crucial in Catholic/Protestant apologetics. Unless you are capable of refuting the philosophy of the argument (which is possible, but very hard), it is best to stick to historical facts. Hey, its the historical facts that are progressively leading me to the Church.
- Status