Using the Church's authority to prove the Church's authority?

[Non_Serviam]

Alright. I take it my previous posts haven’t inspired a lot of confidence in my powers of … well, common sense for starters.

BTW, I don’t know much about this Angels person to whom you referred, but you know the old saying “Any friend of yours is a friend of mine.”

It is simply the fact that you are able to accept certain things based on certain beliefs you hold. I hold different beliefs, so I don’t automatically accept the same things you do. Likewise there are things I accept that you question-it’s not meant to be an insult, but a recognition that we start from different points and need different evidence to be convinced.

One minor point I’d like to make here: Catholics do not yet agree on how many ex cathedra statements there have been. That doesn’t preclude the possibility that we will find agreement at some time in the future. (Keep in mind that it took a few centuries for Christians to agree that there are 27 books in the New Testament.)

I’ll give you the first part of that statement-it would be tidy if a Pope or Council would infallibly declare what was infallibly declared-then one could study it without all of the qualifications that many Catholics throw up in such discussions-which have been extremely rare in this thread, and I’m thankful for that.

Seems to me that the criticisms on that score are kind of like the “chicken and the egg”. Protestants criticize Catholics for not knowing how many ex cathedra statements there have been, Catholics criticize Protestants for believing in a fallible canon of infallible (or inerrant) documents. But the thing is that each side’s criticism is in some way a reaction to the other side’s criticism. And so we just go around and around.

Alright. I’m not too big a man to admit when I’m impressed.

Speaking of night, it’s getting a little late for me, so I think I respond to your Fides et Ratio comments tomorrow.

There is a certain amount of back and forth in it, although I think you’ll agree that it tends to be Catholics that bring infallibility to the table first. From a non-Catholic point of view it seems odd that the concept of infallibility seems to provide assurance and comfort to Catholics when it isn’t always clear what exactly is infallible.

I suppose it must be similar for Catholics to see non-Catholics expressing assurance in the Scriptures without having what Catholics would perceive as a reasonable basis for that assurance. Correct?

Sleep well-it’s an interesting discussion. I appreciate the investment of time.

 

[Non_Serviam]

If you say the Magisterium is not the body of believers that the Spirit leads into all truth,(and all truth means the fullest version) then you must conclude that the Spirit has contradicted Itself, because the Spirit is leading Protestants into deep divisions.

I think it is a question of perspective-just as Catholics speak of different tenses of salvation-I see being led “into” all truth as meaning one isn’t there yet. I feel confident that God will bring us there, at the very latest when we are with Jesus at the end of time, but that prior to that the Spirit is moving us in the direction of all Truth even if we aren’t all on the same page.

Take for example the passage from the Didache:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

So is it important that the water be living or isn’t it?Is it important that the water be cold or isn’t it? There’s a flexibility on many beliefs and practices in the early church that seems to have been squeezed out by the episcopacy over time. yet the writer(s) of this document were confident that the readers were being led by the Spirit no matter which way these things were done.

The people are not 100% infallible all of the time, the Church is infallible only in instances where the Holy Spirit has led it to declare itself infallible. Why should we be surprised to see that people are people?
Catholics believe authority was given instantaneously, when the keys of the kingdom were given to Peter, not that infallibility is instantaneous. This is quite a confusing statement. Once again, the proclamation of the canon was not instantaneous at all, it took decades.

But the church teaches that infallibility is part of the authority, so if the authority was given instantaneously, then must the infallibility have been instantaneous also? I believe in leadership and I believe that the NT places a high regard on it-at the same time, the NT seems quite comfortable with showing the leaders making mistakes during the exercise of their authority-Paul makes an incorrect statement during the writing of an Epistle, Peter acts incorrectly while in Antioch-and yet there’s no sense that the church is flying into error as a r4esult of these mistakes because the church is seen as the whole body of believers and overall that whole body is going to end up in eternity with Jesus-and thus will be led into all Truth. The leadership is leading but the Spirit is active in the whole body, bringing it along.

And now, I believe I should get some rest as well-good night to you.

 

[Non_Serviam]

This is something I wonder about.

The Eastern Orthodox talk about, e.g., the need for a council to be received by the Church as a whole in order to be called “an Ecumenical Council”; whereas Catholics like to talk about the Magisterium.

I’ve often wondered whether this is truly a disagreement, or merely a difference of emphasis.

I believe it is different-some of the Orthodox on CAF have told stories of Bishops being assailed by their flocks when they tried to return with Council decisions that clashed with the knowledge of the faithful-I can’t give specific examples, but I’m sure if you asked one of them, they could elaborate.

The quote you give in this post seems to shed some light on it, especially the phrase “the whole people of God, including the laity”

If this is correct, that would be quite different from the idea of the Magisterium.

 

[Peter_J]

I’ll give you the first part of that statement-it would be tidy if a Pope or Council would infallibly declare what was infallibly declared-then one could study it without all of the qualifications that many Catholics throw up in such discussions-which have been extremely rare in this thread, and I’m thankful for that.

I agree that would be tidy. But would it be a good thing? Or would it perhaps be a case of “stamping out” legitimate diversity of opinion? (Hmmm … I seem to recall something in the bible, that those in authority shouldn’t “lord it over” their flocks.)

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. Disagreements over ‘instances of infallibility’ are nothing new.

At the Council of Florence (1431-1445) there was a disagreement among the bishop about how many Ecumenical Councils there had already been – the Eastern Bishops said 7, the Western Bishops said 8. (The root question was whether there had been an Ecumenical Council in the 9th century.) Significant to note that the Pope did not tell the Eastern Bishops “You cannot attend this council unless you affirm that there have already been 8 Ecumenical Councils.”

Then, in the 16th century, St. Robert Bellarmine (if I recall correctly) said that the Council of Florence was neither the 8th Ecumenical nor the 9th, but in fact the seventeenth Ecumenical Council (which is what we now consider it to be).

I believe it is different-some of the Orthodox on CAF have told stories of Bishops being assailed by their flocks when they tried to return with Council decisions that clashed with the knowledge of the faithful-I can’t give specific examples, but I’m sure if you asked one of them, they could elaborate.

Yes, that was the Council of Florence.

The council ended and the Eastern Bishops went back home – but then the “rest of the (eastern) Church”, i.e. those members of the clergy that hadn’t come along, as well as the laity, did not accepted the council, and it was deemed not an Ecumenical Council.

The quote you give in this post seems to shed some light on it, especially the phrase “the whole people of God, including the laity”

Funnily enough, I was thinking about posting that same quotation here. But I guess it isn’t necessary.

Glad you liked it, btw.

 

[Peter_J]

P.P.S. For more on the Council of Florence, I would recommend Dr. Anthony Dragani’s commentary:

east2west.org/ecumenism.htm#reunion

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Both state clearly that one must have the Magisterium-the Bible Answer Man (an oxymoron if ever there was one ) makes no such claim to being essential.

Oh, you are wrong about that. (BTW, going back to what you quoted prior to this statement, those are abosultely excellent statements on the origin of infallible truth, and perfect expressions of Orthodox/Catholic belief.) But let’s start with the idea that the concept of the Bible Answer Man is not essential to, say, Evangelical Protestantism. Hank actually thinks he is pretty essential- or, more accurately, he believes his authoritative teaching on “essential Christian doctrine” and “the historic Christian faith” are critical and necessary for all Evangelical Protestants to avoid being “seduced by the cults”, and so forth. (He does not hold to the view that Orthodox and Catholic Christians are “cultic” or “unsaved” or “unchristian”, which is not really relevant, but interesting).

So, I don’t know what your Christian tradition is, but outside the Catholic church there are always authoritative teaching institutions and bodies of knowledge. These reproduce the teaching role of the Magisterium, and are considered necessary.

From another persepective, Tradition itself, as a sacred deposit of truth, complements the interpretation of Scripture for pretty obvious reasons. It is difficult to get the full meaning of Scripture without understanding the original languages. It is also difficult to get a clear sense of how to practice Christianity without understanding its traditional historical practice.

It seems quite clear from these passages that an individual can’t “reason and evaluate the message on their own” if they come to a conclusion that differs from the Magisterium. The Magisterium has declared itself essential to the process of understanding Truth being the sole possessor of Tradition and correct Scriptural interpretation.

Hank Hannegraaf takes exactly the same position as the Magisterium here. For example, last week a woman called the Bible Answer Man and asked about a verse in Leviticus that allows slavery over generations. Hank could not come to a different conclusion than what the verse plainly says, that the God of Israel condones slavery, without resorting to a holistic balancing of Biblical teaching and the integration of that verse into a progressive revelation of God’s grace over time. In order to draw on those concepts, he had to use his teaching authority. He could not deny the simple meaning of the verse, which does condone slavery for the Israelities, by plain reasoning and interpretation alone. He could not explain it away as a historical artifact or an expression.

If you take the verse at face value, and you “reason and evalute the message on its own”, without any explanation by any Magisterial- like body , then you come to the conclusion that God has sanctioned slavery in some circumstances. There is no way around that conclusion.

If the Popes have clearly indicated when they’ve spoken ex cathedra, why are there at least 3 threads on CAF where Catholics debate with one another which papal statements are in fact infallible? Because it hasn’t been clearly listed which statements are or aren’t-look at the debate among Catholics regarding ordinatio sacerdotalis as a recent example.

I’m not referring to “a” doctrine, but for the Magisterium to specifically delineate everything contained in the original Apostolic deposit-then people could identify what was Tradition and what developed over time-even the Catechism isn’t claimed to be that exposition of Tradition-no one in the Vatican has said Tradition is limited to what is in the CCC or some subset of it.

I understand what you are asking now. I also understand why you are uncomfortable with it, but the truth is, if you were alive in 395 AD, as the canon was being closed, you would be confronted with the very same rough edges surrounding infallible scriputure. There were two Jewish canons, not one, before Jesus’ time. So, once again, not the neat and clean, “This is God’s word and this isn’t” situation that Protestants have today. The neat and clean version isn’t an accurate depiction of how scripture is determined to be infallible, and it is unfortunate that Protestants have such an unrealistic view of how infallibility happens which causes such confusion for them.

I believe it is intellectually dishonest to say there is no conflict between the text of Unum Sanctam and the relevant portions of the CCC. It requires extreme violence to the text of either or both to “reconcile” them and yet, in spite of Unum Sanctam not being considered infallible, the Magisterium won’t say that Boniface was mistaken and there is now greater clarity on the topic. That may not be sinister, but it does little to inspire confidence that the spirit of openness to correction we see among the Apostles is still a part of things.

Once again, the faithful knew the writings were inspired and responded to them during worship long before the episcopacy made any proclamations to that effect. Sensus fidelium is the preferred term I believe.

I really don’t know what you are referring to. Are you talking about the Pope stating there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church in Unum Sanctum? If so, this doesn’t conflict with contemporary teaching or the catechism at all, it just has to be properly understood. The idea is that when Protestants receive salavation through Jesus, they are receiving the Catholic faith in ignorance that separates them from the fullest understanding of the truth. They are saved through Jesus, but they have a limited understanding. They don’t know that the Christian faith is one, and is Catholic.

 

[Napsack]

I have to say that in reading your posts, you seem to have locked yourself in a box of your own choosing, throwing daggers at anyone who disagrees with you. You keep speaking of Evangelical Protestants as if they are the only ones (who matter) that disagree with you. There are SO many other protestants besides Evangelicals that ultimately deny what Catholicism proclaims to be truth. I was once where you are now, building my own esteem by randomly firing at anyone who wasn’t Catholic, denying the truth of Scripture and holding the magisterium in the ultimate high place of the church. It was a mistake. St. Thomas Aquinas had a Heavenly glimpse toward the end of his life that made him declare his previous writings to be “but straw”. I had something similar that made me know that God isn’t confined to the limits of the Catholic church. he isn’t in a box or limited to one denomination.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

If you say the Magisterium is not the body of believers that the Spirit leads into all truth,(and all truth means the fullest version) then you must conclude that the Spirit has contradicted Itself, because the Spirit is leading Protestants into deep divisions.
The people are not 100% infallible all of the time, the Church is infallible only in instances where the Holy Spirit has led it to declare itself infallible. Why should we be surprised to see that people are people?
Catholics believe authority was given instantaneously, when the keys of the kingdom were given to Peter, not that infallibility is instantaneous. This is quite a confusing statement. Once again, the proclamation of the canon was not instantaneous at all, it took decades.

But the church teaches that infallibility is part of the authority, so if the authority was given instantaneously, then must the infallibility have been instantaneous also? I believe in leadership and I believe that the NT places a high regard on it-at the same time, the NT seems quite comfortable with showing the leaders making mistakes during the exercise of their authority-Paul makes an incorrect statement during the writing of an Epistle, Peter acts incorrectly while in Antioch-and yet there’s no sense that the church is flying into error as a r4esult of these mistakes because the church is seen as the whole body of believers and overall that whole body is going to end up in eternity with Jesus-and thus will be led into all Truth. The leadership is leading but the Spirit is active in the whole body, bringing it along.

And now, I believe I should get some rest as well-good night to you.

No, being in a position of authority and speaking as an oracle of God in an infallible capacity are gifts that operate entirely separate from each other. That is very clear in Catholic teaching.

It does not follow that because authority was given instantaneously that speaking in an infallible capacity was given instantaneously.

You’ve actually make the Catholic point yourself very well above. Peter and Paul are not infallible human beings. They are apostles, and they’ve been given authority despite their sins. Paul is a murderer and persecutor of Christ and Peter has denied and cursed Christ, yet after those sins are committed, Jesus still endorses both men with His authority.

As they lead and exercize their authority, they make mistakes. This has never changed. The Church and popes still make mistakes.

However, there are certain points in time that they are given the gift of expressing the will of the Holy Spirit in a pure and infallible capacity. Both men, both Protestants and Catholics agree, were given this gift when they composed their epistles.

Once again, this has not changed. The popes will, on rare occassion, leave their fallible leadership and receive the gift of infallible expression of the Holy Spirit as the define and declare Church dogma.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I agree that would be tidy. But would it be a good thing? Or would it perhaps be a case of “stamping out” legitimate diversity of opinion? (Hmmm … I seem to recall something in the bible, that those in authority shouldn’t “lord it over” their flocks.)

Wouldn’t it actually do the opposite for Catholics and let them know which concepts continue to be open for theological speculation and reflection? Much like areas of research in todays academic community.

If the gift is truly possessed, wouldn’t the possessor of the gift want the faithful to know with certainty which things are indisputably true?

Or is it preferable from an organizational behaviour standpoint to keep a modicum of “potential infallibility” attached to everything said or written? That would seem to me to be a more “lording” way of doing things.

 

[Non_Serviam]

P.S. Disagreements over ‘instances of infallibility’ are nothing new.

At the Council of Florence (1431-1445) there was a disagreement among the bishop about how many Ecumenical Councils there had already been – the Eastern Bishops said 7, the Western Bishops said 8. (The root question was whether there had been an Ecumenical Council in the 9th century.) Significant to note that the Pope did not tell the Eastern Bishops “You cannot attend this council unless you affirm that there have already been 8 Ecumenical Councils.”

Then, in the 16th century, St. Robert Bellarmine (if I recall correctly) said that the Council of Florence was neither the 8th Ecumenical nor the 9th, but in fact the seventeenth Ecumenical Council (which is what we now consider it to be).

Yes, that was the Council of Florence.

The council ended and the Eastern Bishops went back home – but then the “rest of the (eastern) Church”, i.e. those members of the clergy that hadn’t come along, as well as the laity, did not accepted the council, and it was deemed not an Ecumenical Council.

Funnily enough, I was thinking about posting that same quotation here. But I guess it isn’t necessary.

Glad you liked it, btw.

Validity of councils and antipopes are potential areas of concern for one studying Catholicism’s claims, but they matter less for me as I tend to focus my attention between 33 and 200AD. Looking at the Epistles addressed to established churches we see that the entire congregations are addressed by the Apostles-it seems that responsibility for right belief, right practice and right order in the church is considered by the Apostles to reside in the whole body, not a subset as the Catholic church teaches later. The Orthodox appear to retain some elements of this, but the monarchical episcopacy left its marks on their faith and practice as well.

I found it doing a search to try and provide you with someone to talk to since it isn’t my area of expertise-it was interesting to find you’d already been working with it.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Oh, you are wrong about that. (BTW, going back to what you quoted prior to this statement, those are abosultely excellent statements on the origin of infallible truth, and perfect expressions of Orthodox/Catholic belief.) But let’s start with the idea that the concept of the Bible Answer Man is not essential to, say, Evangelical Protestantism. Hank actually thinks he is pretty essential- or, more accurately, he believes his authoritative teaching on “essential Christian doctrine” and “the historic Christian faith” are critical and necessary for all Evangelical Protestants to avoid being “seduced by the cults”, and so forth. (He does not hold to the view that Orthodox and Catholic Christians are “cultic” or “unsaved” or “unchristian”, which is not really relevant, but interesting).

So, I don’t know what your Christian tradition is, but outside the Catholic church there are always authoritative teaching institutions and bodies of knowledge. These reproduce the teaching role of the Magisterium, and are considered necessary.

I’m glad you like the quotes-yet before we go off to Hank and company, let’s return to the comment I’d made that prompted them, which you appear to have left behind.

That’s the claim made by the Catholic Church-and in insisting on being the only one who can interpret the Scriptures, it guarantees that they will imply what the Magisterium wants them to imply. If we look at the Apostles in Acts, they allowed their hearers the freedom to interpret the Scriptures themselves and evaluate the Apostle’s message against that understanding.\QUOTE]

Now that we’ve established the Magisterium makes itself essential to understanding, perhaps you’d restate your previous comment:
Angels Unaware;4810377:

You are really

misunderstanding the Magisterium if you think they are teaching that people cannot reason and evaluate the message on their own.\QUOTE]

Once we’ve addressed that we can move on to the other points in your post.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

I’m glad you like the quotes-yet before we go off to Hank and company, let’s return to the comment I’d made that prompted them, which you appear to have left behind.
Non Serviam;4810282:

That’s the claim made by the Catholic Church-and in insisting on being the only one who can interpret the Scriptures, it guarantees that they will imply what the Magisterium wants them to imply. If we look at the Apostles in Acts, they allowed their hearers the freedom to interpret the Scriptures themselves and evaluate the Apostle’s message against that understanding.

Now that we’ve established the Magisterium makes itself essential to understanding, perhaps you’d restate your previous comment:

You are really

misunderstanding the Magisterium if you think they are teaching that people cannot reason and evaluate the message on their own.\QUOTE]

Once we’ve addressed that we can move on to the other points in your post.

I am on my way to vigil Mass and to teach SOR, and may not be able to return to this until sometime tomorrow, but no, I would not re-state my comment. Hearing and responding to the gospel, or principles of Christian doctrine that help the Christian grow in grace through sanctification are dependent on sound teaching.

Here is an example. Not a perfect analogy, but it gets the point. Students are free to understand the history of the American revolution and to embrace the principles that led to the founding of our constitution. They are free to apply those historical and philsophical ideas to their own lives. They are not free to invent history or to make claims that are untrue, and say, for exmple, that the Constitution was based on Egyptian hieroglyphics.

The role of the Magisterium is not to control and prohibit the digestion of the Word of God, (this is a false accusation against Catholicism that springs from Pre-Vatican II days in the US, I think, when Catholics typically did not study the Bible and the Mass was not in the venacular) but to guide the hearer of the Word of God out of heresy.

 

[Peter_J]

Wouldn’t it actually do the opposite for Catholics and let them know which concepts continue to be open for theological speculation and reflection? Much like areas of research in todays academic community.

If the gift is truly possessed, wouldn’t the possessor of the gift want the faithful to know with certainty which things are indisputably true?

Or is it preferable from an organizational behaviour standpoint to keep a modicum of “potential infallibility” attached to everything said or written? That would seem to me to be a more “lording” way of doing things.

It’s interesting to note that your criticism here applies just as strongly (if not more so) toward the Orthodox, as it does toward Catholics – since the Orthodox, too, have never said which of their statements (e.g. statements made over the years by the various Patriarchs of Constantinople) are infallible. Eh?

 

[Non_Serviam]

I am on my way to vigil Mass and to teach SOR, and may not be able to return to this until sometime tomorrow, but no, I would not re-state my comment. Hearing and responding to the gospel, or principles of Christian doctrine that help the Christian grow in grace through sanctification are dependent on sound teaching.

Here is an example. Not a perfect analogy, but it gets the point. Students are free to understand the history of the American revolution and to embrace the principles that led to the founding of our constitution. They are free to apply those historical and philsophical ideas to their own lives. They are not free to invent history or to make claims that are untrue, and say, for exmple, that the Constitution was based on Egyptian hieroglyphics.

The role of the Magisterium is not to control and prohibit the digestion of the Word of God, (this is a false accusation against Catholicism that springs from Pre-Vatican II days in the US, I think, when Catholics typically did not study the Bible and the Mass was not in the venacular) but to guide the hearer of the Word of God out of heresy.

Fair enough-thank you for taking the time to share this.

It’s an interesting analogy you put forward. A teacher lines up with Jesus’ command to the Apostles to teach those who come after, so we are in agreement here.

It’s that “nature of authority” point where we differ. If a student made such claims, there are two approaches the teacher could take:

1. The teacher could say “I am the teacher-I have the authority to say what is correct in this class and I say that’s wrong”
2. The teacher could show that their teaching is supported by evidence and proof and that their authority is to communicate this information and to support and assist the learners in acquiring and using the knowledge. The teacher doesn’t claim to validate the knowledge, but rather to communicate it.

The quotes I posted previously look a lot more like #1 to me than #2, although there would be elements of #2 displayed in pastoral activity.

For me, saying the Magisterium are the only people who can “authentically interpret” the Scriptures undercuts the use of Reason by others to understand them. (Reason being inductive or deductive investigation and interpretation of the Scriptures in this example)

While under such a system people can study and memorize and reflect on Scripture in a devotional way-it seems that any sort of inductive or deductive exploration of them would be invalidated. I’ve seen a number of theological writings by ECF’s and such on here that varied from the typical Catholic pov dismissed with the phrase “He’s not part of the Magisterium”. (i.e. Aquinis on ensoulment rather than Origen on universal salvation which is a whole other order of magnitude)

As to the point of needing an infallible interpreter-can you tell me who the infallible interpreter is for information about the American revolution or the Constitution? And yet do we feel we have accurate information about them?

I’m not arguing the case of the Church prohibiting Bible reading-that is silly to anyone who has looked at it. I am questioning some of the key concepts that are tied up in the Catholic idea of authority-we can touch on some of them that you brought up in your previous post as well as discuss what we’ve got here.

Thanks

 

[Non_Serviam]

It’s interesting to note that your criticism here applies just as strongly (if not more so) toward the Orthodox, as it does toward Catholics – since the Orthodox, too, have never said which of their statements (e.g. statements made over the years by the various Patriarchs of Constantinople) are infallible. Eh?

Does it? I don’t recall the Orthodox having made claims about the Patriarchs’ infallibility?

I think there’s a world of different between having someone’s statements recognized as “probably right” and “potentially infallible”, don’t you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yesterday on another thread the topic of circular reasoning came up and hijacking things slightly, I posted the following:

Okay…got the argument.

I think the following article addresses your concern squarely, and please note: not only does it answer the question of proving the inspiration of the Bible, but it covers the infallibility of the Church, as well.

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.

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.

The Bible as Historical Truth

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.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

 

[PJM]

Re: Using the Church’s authority to prove the Church’s authority?

Friend, that is not a truthful or even logical question.

If I tell you I’m 9’11" tall, does that make it true? Of course not. Be specific and I /we can defend every doctrine and dogma of the RCC. If you don’r believe it, try us out? But please don’t knock what you don’t understand. It’s not nice and its not logical.

The Authority of “the church,” one assumes you mean the RCC, comes personaly and directly from God. Mt. 16:18;20 Jesus is God.

18* And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it. 19* ** I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."/**

That is clear and specific. “Binding and lossening” were and continue to be Legal, contractual Binding, specifically as complete(unlimited and uninhibited) authority to GOVERN. Not much wiggle room in these words. In fact there is none!

That is God’s mandate to His ONLY church and His form of governance, the Popes. You don’t have to like it. obey it, or share that goodnews; but dear friends, its true, its fact, its real, and it does bind all of us

But don’t take my word for it, wait until Judgement day, and you can ask the one who said these words yourself. On second thought, you may wish to do that sooner than later:thumbsup:

God bless you, and grant you intrgity, truth and enlightenment.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Okay…got the argument.

Thanks for joining in, Randy-Roman Catholic proposed this idea back in post 5 and I agreed that it was an excellent approach with one caveat

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.

There’s an awfully big jump in this step-Jesus did say He would build a church and the Catholic church claims to be that church, but that doesn’t prove it is His church.

That’s where we’re at now-using historical critical approaches to evidence to test the validity of that claim-feel free to join in.