That’s simply not true. Believing that X is correct does not entail believing that X cannot be incorrect. One could quite rationally believe the Church to be right about the canon of Scripture but also believe it capable of error.My decision to defer to the infallible Church is not infallible. That is correct.
That does not change the fact that you view the Church as infallible, each and every time you quote from the Scriptures.
There is no way to refute this, PC: If you believe that Hebrews, 3 John, the Gospel of Mark, etc are inspired…and the ONLY way you know this is because the CC told you this…and you don’t believe the Church erred in this…then you must believe that the CC has been given the charism of infallibility.
You cannot argue, logically anyway, any other position.
And as I have pointed out over and over, the argument fails utterly, because the alleged historical proof just isn’t there. Also, a case can be made that even universal scholarly consensus that all of the NT is reliable wouldn’t get over the basic problem that all human judgment is fallible. But that’s a counter-factual–in fact there is no such consensus. Scholars approaching the Bible without presuppositions of faith never conclude that all of the NT is historically accurate, and even many scholars who are working from a basis of faith think that the evidence for certain historical inaccuracies is overwhelming. One of the passages most often seen as non-historical is Matt. 16–a pretty key passage for the “spiral argument.”Ah…an easy one. The infallibility of the Church and the inspiration of scripture are interwoven, so it is important to follow this logic very carefully:
Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)
We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.
Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.
We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.
This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.
A Spiral Argument
Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.
The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.
Right.That’s simply not true. Believing that X is correct does not entail believing that X cannot be incorrect.
Novo, could you please address the above?To indict the CC for its alleged embracing of slavery is to indict St. Paul as well, Novocastrian.
So I would be very, very careful about making any accusations against the Church.
For it will only serve as fodder for, say, an atheist, to use this very same argument against you by pointing to St. Paul’s alleged embracing of slavery.
Oh. Okay.And as I have pointed out over and over, the argument fails utterly, because the alleged historical proof just isn’t there. Also, a case can be made that even universal scholarly consensus that all of the NT is reliable wouldn’t get over the basic problem that all human judgment is fallible. But that’s a counter-factual–in fact there is no such consensus. Scholars approaching the Bible without presuppositions of faith never conclude that all of the NT is historically accurate, and even many scholars who are working from a basis of faith think that the evidence for certain historical inaccuracies is overwhelming. One of the passages most often seen as non-historical is Matt. 16–a pretty key passage for the “spiral argument.”
And that’s before you even get into the problems of interpretation.
This is a shoddy argument and by using it you are embarrassing yourself and the Church.
Edwin
Did he not give it the power to bind in heaven what it binds on earth and to loose in heaven what is looses on earth?But since that is your interpretation of Scripture, and therefore fallible, it isn’t infallible evidence of the church’s infallibility.
And I think that if we discount the historical evidence for Christ establishing a Church, then we must necessarily discount the historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection.Oh. Okay.
Just to be clear…it is your position that the NT provides no historical evidence that Jesus founded the Catholic Church?
Or that Jesus ever changed Simon’s name to Peter (Kepha or Cephas in Aramaic)?
Or that Jesus ever promised to give Peter the keys to the kingdom?
Exactly what historical evidence is missing in your opinion?
Jon,
Of course not. Your argument requires certainty, not just “some evidence.” Don’t switch the terms of the argument on me.Oh. Okay.
Just to be clear…it is your position that the NT provides no historical evidence that Jesus founded the Catholic Church?
Or that Jesus ever changed Simon’s name to Peter (Kepha or Cephas in Aramaic)?
Or that Jesus ever promised to give Peter the keys to the kingdom?
Not at all. The historical evidence for the latter is much stronger. The word “church,” after all, is only used in one of the four Gospels (Matthew).And I think that if we discount the historical evidence for Christ establishing a Church, then we must necessarily discount the historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection.
How many times is the virgin birth mentioned in the gospels?Not at all. The historical evidence for the latter is much stronger. The word “church,” after all, is only used in one of the four Gospels (Matthew).
That being said, I don’t think one can prove historically that Jesus rose from the dead. But I think that if you rule out theological presuppositions on both sides, it’s the most reasonable explanation of the evidence.
Thank you for looking that up . Don’t think I said I reject his writings anywhere.That’s just ridiculous.
He only mentions a specific bishop in the following letters:
letter to the Trallians
Letter to the magnesians
Letter to the Ephesians Note Onesimus is mentioned in Col 4:9 and Philemon 1:10…So Ignatius was discussing and praising this bishop and yet you reject his writings?
Writings such as:
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. …] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. …] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)
“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9)
Hello"???
Do you say Onesimus disagreed?
Yet you go to a church under the guidance of no bishop.Thank you for looking that up . Don’t think I said I reject his writings anywhere.
Either way I am cooked meat for anyone with a bishop is still wrong if the bishop does not have Catholic succession-the institutional passing of the torch. We have a presbyter/bishop and overseer presbyter for accountability.Yet you go to a church under the guidance of no bishop.
Perhaps a bit difficult but I assure you it was in response to your question, of how do we gauge, how do we know if one is apostolic even christian. I believe that was your question. As far as JonS I thought I answered his question, or at least piggy backed on his statement about Ignatius. Seemed to be quite cohesive I thought.You keep posting non-sequiturs, poco.
In your response to JonS above I was thinking, “Am I not in on the conversation between poco and Jon? Am I missing something? Why is poco talking about the 7 churches?” And then I realized, “Oh, poco is not really responding to JonS’s arguments.”
That is also what you are doing here in this response.
Please address my questions, poco. Thanks.
You’re overreaching here, my friend……
This is a shoddy argument and by using it you are embarrassing yourself and the Church
…
Why would that matter?The word “church,” after all, is only used in one of the four Gospels (Matthew).
I would see Paul as a step in the right direction towards the treatment of slaves as true human beings. Since then the Holy Spirit has led the Church further into the truth that human beings are created in the image of God and have inherent, God-given dignity.Novo, could you please address the above?
And I’m not assuming that either.I am not arguing that you believe that the CC is infallible in all of her pronouncements.
Why should she be infallible by nature? Why can’t I just think she is correct?Only that you believe that she is infallible when it comes to discerning the canon of the NT.
There is no other logical conclusion that you can make, if you believe that the 27 book canon of the NT is correct.
I’d be really interested to see you lay out your argument a little more formally, with premises and conclusions. Perhaps that would help us get to the bottom of this.[SIGN1]There is no other conclusion.[/SIGN1]