The Philosophical Impossibility of Apostasy

  • Thread starter Thread starter AirLiner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AirLiner

Guest
As we all know nearly every non-Catholic Christian religion exists due to the claim that the Church has gone corrupt, and while this evidence tends to rely on historical claims and interpretations of the Bible, I think people have forgotten this is also a matter of philosophy. I believe it’s a logical impossibility.

We have to look at why a Church exists in the first place.

The fact is that purpose in this universe exists. Matter fulfills its purpose by obeying the physical laws. Matter has no will it just goes along with it. However human beings have free will and intellect. We don’t have to go along with our purpose (morality) and due to our intellect we must also be able to know and understand it. This purpose/morality is what is referred to as natural law in Catholic philosophy.

Now if we are meant to be moral and have the ability to know and understand morality why couldn’t God just let us figure out morality for ourselves? The reason is that we are fallible. History attests to this. Even when philosophers honestly attempt to figure out morality they often end up disagreeing with each other.

But how could God expect us to find morality with our imperfect reasoning? Well obviously he would have to get involved somehow to teach humanity the proper morality. Hence the existence of a Church. This solves the dilemma of having fallible reasoning at the same time as the duty to find and follow morality.

God could never cease to be involved in this institution because then our human fallibility would result in immorality. Hence if God left humanity in the dark that would mean that He didn’t intend humanity to be moral, this is a blasphemous notion. Also if God didn’t intend humanity to be moral he would’ve never established a Church in the first place.

Instead of an institution could God have only placed a holy text to guide humanity? No, because this falls under the same problems that mere reason has. Just as history has shown that philosophers and pure reason failed to find morality so has history has shown us that despite honest efforts there have been different interpretations of holy texts. A text itself cannot protect is people against apostasy.

I believe this analysis fits Christianity quite well. After the fall, human beings were going to need help in being moral so God communicated directly to humanity, then through prophets. After Christ returned, He established an institution that continues to guide humanity to this day.
 
AirLiner said:
I believe this analysis fits Christianity quite well.
Click to expand...
Well ok, if you say so…
AirLiner said:
After the fall, human beings were going to need help in being moral so God communicated directly to humanity, then through prophets.
Click to expand...
No, God spoke the ten commandments, directly to the thousands of Israelites who stood at the foot of the mountain.
 
Ah, but even then my argument still stands. God is involved with humanity. And if He founded a Church it shouldn’t be able to go corrupt.
 
AirLiner said:
Ah, but even then my argument still stands. God is involved with humanity. And if He founded a Church it shouldn’t be able to go corrupt.
Click to expand...
Well, I think God only speaks once in the new testament, he says; this is my son in whom I am well pleased. But, he said nothing about a new covenant or a church… And Jesus said least, about these two things…
 
If you belive the scriptures or narratives are living, then I do see where you are coming from, but I object that the catholic church is the only one who sees it that way.
Perhaps I don’t understand how you view the lineage of christian community?
 
geometer said:
Well, I think God only speaks once in the new testament, he says; this is my son in whom I am well pleased. But, he said nothing about a new covenant or a church… And Jesus said least, about these two things…
Click to expand...
Correction: Mark9:7 And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; LISTEN to him.”

Peace and God bless onenow1:popcorn:
 
geometer said:
Well, I think God only speaks once in the new testament, he says; this is my son in whom I am well pleased. But, he said nothing about a new covenant or a church… And Jesus said least, about these two things…
Click to expand...
You forgot that Jesus is also God and he said “upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.
 
Here’s why I believe the Church is infallible and unable to apostate:

Jesus Christ, God and Man, was, as Man, anointed with the Holy Spirit and led by Him throughout His life. And because of His Humanity was from conception united to the Divinity, He was completely sinless and He enjoyed the Beatific Vision.

The Church of Christ is the Body of Christ. As such, it must be both Divine and Human, and its members must individually be anointed with the Holy Spirit and generally led by Him throughout the Church’s life. And because the Church’s humanity is from the moment of its existence united to the Divinity, the Church must be completely sinless and enjoy the Beatific Vision.

Because the Church is infallible, it must be led by the Holy Spirit. Because the Church is holy, it must be sinless (though its individual members are sinners). Because the Church is in Heaven, it enjoys (in the blessed) the Beatific Vision. And because of its constant unity to Christ, the Church can never be apstoasy (though its individual members may leave Christ; it is as with a man who loses skin cells when he is cut: the man is not dead, though the cells he has lost are).
 
onenow1 said:
Correction: Mark9:7 And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; LISTEN to him.”

Peace and God bless onenow1:popcorn:
Click to expand...
Well, I was mistaken, he spoke twice. In Matthew 3:17 he said, This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.

We can be pretty confident that this did happen because it is repeated many times thoughout three of the gospels. But the point that I was making is that he did not declare any covenants or establish churches.

And, Jesus has very little to say about a church or the new covenant.

Furthermore, it grievous to say that god is a man, that is not good news. The good news is that a men can become a sons of God.
 
geometer said:
Furthermore, it grievous to say that god is a man, that is not good news. The good news is that a men can become a sons of God.
Click to expand...
You have no right to say what is the Gospel. Only the Church which tirelessly guards and preaches the Gospel may say what its Master has said regarding what the Gospel is. And He has said it is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, that is, the Gospel of Peace, of Love, of Mercy, of Joy, and of Redemption.
 
Eucharisted said:
You have no right to say what is the Gospel. Only the Church which tirelessly guards and preaches the Gospel may say what its Master has said regarding what the Gospel is. And He has said it is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, that is, the Gospel of Peace, of Love, of Mercy, of Joy, and of Redemption.
Click to expand...
Well, what do you think that Philip said to them when he was born again of the spirit of God? What was the good news to Philip at that moment of his new existence? Don’t you think that he would have seen all things anew?

See Acts chapter 8.

It is like that.
 
geometer said:
Well, I was mistaken, he spoke twice. In Matthew 3:17 he said, This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.

We can be pretty confident that this did happen because it is repeated many times thoughout three of the gospels. But the point that I was making is that he did not declare any covenants or establish churches.

And, Jesus has very little to say about a church or the new covenant.

Furthermore, it grievous to say that god is a man, that is not good news. The good news is that a men can become a sons of God.
Click to expand...
I agree Jesus does not really warn anyone about church in the way we would see it.

I often wonder about his words where he says something like listen to them do what they say but not as they do.

The thing is there, he is talking about priests.

How many people were priests then? Not many I think.

So, what does this really say about his condemnations about hypocricy?

People seem to apply it to laypeople also. But, Jesus talked about it in terms of leadership.
 
StrawberryJam said:
I agree Jesus does not really warn anyone about church in the way we would see it.

I often wonder about his words where he says something like listen to them do what they say but not as they do.

The thing is there, he is talking about priests.

How many people were priests then? Not many I think.

So, what does this really say about his condemnations about hypocricy?

People seem to apply it to laypeople also. But, Jesus talked about it in terms of leadership.
Click to expand...
Yes he was teaching about priesthood when he said that the Rabbis know what the scriptures mean, but do not do as the scriptures say.

I don’t want to magnify a scandal but really, how many modern priests really took his words seriously, even though its probably the same, they do know the meaning of the words of the new testament.
 
geometer said:
Yes he was teaching about priesthood when he said that the Rabbis know what the scriptures mean, but do not do as the scriptures say.

I don’t want to magnify a scandal but really, how many modern priests really took his words seriously, even though its probably the same, they do know the meaning of the words of the new testament.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how many, but I think it is some test of some kind.
 
geometer said:
Well, what do you think that Philip said to them when he was born again of the spirit of God? What was the good news to Philip at that moment of his new existence? Don’t you think that he would have seen all things anew?

See Acts chapter 8.

It is like that.
Click to expand...
Hey Geo,
Free thinking can be good but it can also be deadly if you go too far. The Good News (Gospel) is only one thing and it cannot be changed. We are saved by the Gospel and without it there is no salvation and no life. There is no hope. There is only death. See Gal. 1:9 This is a very serious verse.
 
Kalos said:
Hey Geo,
Free thinking can be good but it can also be deadly if you go too far. The Good News (Gospel) is only one thing and it cannot be changed. We are saved by the Gospel and without it there is no salvation and no life. There is no hope. There is only death. See Gal. 1:9 This is a very serious verse.
Click to expand...
I was sent by God my father, I descended from heaven just like Philip did. This is what happened to me.

What happened to you?
 
StrawberryJam said:
I agree Jesus does not really warn anyone about church in the way we would see it.

I often wonder about his words where he says something like listen to them do what they say but not as they do.

The thing is there, he is talking about priests.

How many people were priests then? Not many I think.

So, what does this really say about his condemnations about hypocricy?

People seem to apply it to laypeople also. But, Jesus talked about it in terms of leadership.
Click to expand...
Actually, Jesus was speaking about the Pharisees (a Jewish sect) and the scribes (those who were experts in Scriptures). They were being hypocritcal because, while they externally followed God, internally they were proud and self-righteous. This is why He said the cup was clean on the outside, but filthy on the inside. Not too many Jews understand this, though, because, ever since Judaism became dominated by the Pharisees, the Pharisee’s external righteousness was seen as true holiness; that is, external acts were favored over true love. This is why Judaism now teaches that actions are more important than beliefs.
 
Already this discussion has turned into trying to figure out what the Bible meant. This was the type of argument I was trying to avoid.

My argument was supposed to be from logic. If you disagree with it go back to the original post and point out any premise you have a problem with.
 
Eucharisted said:
Actually, Jesus was speaking about the Pharisees (a Jewish sect) and the scribes (those who were experts in Scriptures). They were being hypocritcal because, while they externally followed God, internally they were proud and self-righteous. This is why He said the cup was clean on the outside, but filthy on the inside. Not too many Jews understand this, though, because, ever since Judaism became dominated by the Pharisees, the Pharisee’s external righteousness was seen as true holiness; that is, external acts were favored over true love. This is why Judaism now teaches that actions are more important than beliefs.
Click to expand...
Jesus was a Pharisaical teacher and more strict. The best teachers are still judged that way strict teachers are regarded as the best…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top