For Theo. If you would like to grasp a little bit of why I believe what I believe, I have uploaded a debate between an atheist, Stein and a Presbyterian, Greg Bahnsen. Bahnsen debates from a presuppositionalist viewpoint. I think if you will listen carefully, you will see my presuppositions a little clearer.
Here is the link.
God Bless
A La Carte (April 18)
18 hours ago
3 comments:
Theo,
I bring this up since you keep referring to an infallible magesterium and that I must use Gnosticism to know which books of the bible belong in the canon of Scripture.
The problem with your position is that it can not avoid the same charge by your own logic.
On Tiber's Blog it was mentioned again that the church is not using circular reasoning but simply using the Bible as a human history book to show that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church.
The problems with this are these:
1) If a Protestant uses that form of argumentation, arguing from simple historical facts, he is said to use Gnosticism since there is no infallible certainty. Yet, isn't that your own method of arriving at the infallibility of the church?
I agree that this method's presuppositions are backwards, yet consistency would require you to reject Rome's position too.
2) RCs do start with Rome's ultimate authority to interpret history. Therefore the idea that they are just looking at the Bible as historical to support its position is simply naive.
3) Rome's position is to look for the infallible fuzzies. There is no infallible knowledge in any magesterium. Even if there were, you still have to make a private judgment. Therefore you must at some point have a Gnostic understanding of Rome's authority.
4) To start with a source as just being historical and not necessarily God-breathed in order to gain ultimate authority for infallible knowledge is completely backwards. We as Christians don't work up for our source of knowledge. God works down to reveal Himself. We know God's Word is god's Word because ultimately He says so. We must start with that presupposition or we will always work in circular reasoning.
5) This last point may be circular, but every ultimate starting point is circular in nature. But how can we appeal to any higher authority than God?
It is from that this starting point that we "DEMONSTRATE" the Scriptures, not prove them.
In other words, I don't prove God's Word to be God's Word; I demonstrate them to be so. For me to attempt to prove otherwise is to appeal to something higher than God. In your case that would be Rome.
God Bless
Howard, my brother:
First, thanks for posting the link to the debate. I won't be where I can listen to it until sometime on Monday; however, I will be sure to listen with as open a mind and heart as grace and my human limits allow.
---
Regarding your comments above, I must point out that I do not require an *infallible* Magesterium to know what is and is not scripture--as I do not assert or believe that Scripture Alone is my only authority; also, please note that the Church did not *dogmatically* rule on the Canon until the Council of Florence.
Rather, my brother, it is you who requires an infallible Magesterium. Now if you doubt this assertion, honestly ask yourself whether you believe it is an *infallible truth* that all of the books that you say are in the Bible belong there and *only those books* belong there.
If you answer "No, I do not know this infallibly," then you might consider dropping the Epistle of James and adding your own web postings to the cannon, just to be sure you're in line.
If you answer, "Yes, I know *infallibly* that that these books and these books ALONE (nothing added) are scripture and my sole authority," then you must explain how you came by the list, as it is not in any of the books.
In contrast, I understand that the Church functioned in God's authority since before even one book of the new testament was written.
Now, you might attempt to claim that the time of Apostolic authority and teaching ended and the time of "Sola Scriptura" began when the Bible was completed; but then you still are left with the problem of answering when and how *anyone* knew that happened.
In contrast, I merely cite the record of events as recorded both in the very documents that you claim as your only authority *and* as recorded in other documents dating from the same time and onward.
You could contend that I'm simply mistaken about the veracity of the entire Christian testimony of the ages; and at least that argument would have logical merit--but to say that this testimony is circular is simply false.
With prayers for your blessing,
--Theo
"In contrast, I merely cite the record of events as recorded both in the very documents that you claim as your only authority *and* as recorded in other documents dating from the same time and onward."
Since you are able to say this after all this time, I am either not able to communicate well (probably is the case) or your presuppositions interpret what I say.
I am not denying the authority of the church. I have made this clear in responding to Tiber's mischaracterization of Sola Scriptura.
You keep asking how we know what books belong in the bible without the church's dogmatic list. Again, your position assumes things that are not necessary for knowledge.
"If you answer "No, I do not know this infallibly," then you might consider dropping the Epistle of James and adding your own web postings to the cannon, just to be sure you're in line."
Again, based on your understanding, I would have to make a private judgment as to which ultimate authority I will believe. I now think I will go with Mormonism and accept the Book of Mormon.
You have missed my point entirely. I realize that you "think" you believe the Bible is only one authority along with the church and Traditions. You can not have more than one ultimate authority. When God speaks, that settles it.
So again, I could ask using your reasoning and logic, if I were to hear the Gospel from Peter for the first time in say AD 55, why should I believe him? If he were to quote from Luke's Gospel as Scripture, why should I believe it was Scripture? Florence isn't around to tell me so.
Perhaps I might hear Jesus preach. Is it the Word of God, or do I have to wait for Florence or some church to tell me it is the Word of God? Jesus is just one Prophet among many...right?
The truth is, Sir, Jesus' Words is the Word of God. I do not need God to prove it. God doesn't need to prove it. God doesn't need a council to make me accountable to it.
The council of Florence didn't just get a Gnostic knowledge, they believed as you do that they would be led by the Holy Spirit in their deliberations. Councils have erred in the past though. William Whittacker more than answered this question more than 400 years ago.
God Bless
Post a Comment