[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by Sean

How do you have an ultimate standard without presupposing it?

THAT IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ALL ABOUT!! AND THAT IS WHAT NOBODY IS DISCUSSING!!

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

THAT IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ALL ABOUT!! AND THAT IS WHAT NOBODY IS DISCUSSING!!

Because its a philosophy question and this is the Roman Catholic forum.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by Sean

Because its a philosophy question and this is the Roman Catholic forum.

good point.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

That's not what I'm saying at all. I would never deny the authority of the Bible. But it's important to realize that the reason I believe in the Bible in the first place is because I first believe in the authority of the Church whence it came. I've said it before... the Bible didn't fall out of the sky intact the way we have it today. The canon of scripture is totally dependant on an external source... the Church. ... hence why the Church is my final authority. It's not as though I believe in two contradicting authorities, since the Church and the Bible do not contradict one another. Rather, the Bible is a part of the revelation which is the deposit of faith given to the Church. And the Church is the guardian and interpreter of that revelation, a part of which is the Bible. I'll say it again, Jesus Christ establish a Church and that CHURCH established the Bible 300 YEARS LATER. Jesus gave authority to the Church, not to every individual interpreter of Scripture.



WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER MY ORIGINAL POST? CATHOLICPRIEST, ANYONE?! This thread is getting so off-topic. I did not want this to be a debate between Catholics and Protestants. We can start a Sola Scriptura thread for that. I want feedback (especially from Catholics) as to what it means to have a final authority and what it means to have faith and whether or not faith can ever been 100% sure.

You base your belief that the church is the final authority in part because of a verse of the Bible. As goldenchild stated the RCC uses the verses in 1 Timothy 3:14-16 14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. to say that the church is the pillar of truth and therefore the final authority. Don't you see the problem there? If the Bible isn't the final authority, then why do you believe it when it says that the church is the pillar and ground of truth? The church didn't say that, the Bible did. It appears that the church even puts the final authority on the Bible, they just don't realize they have done it. Any authority that the church has came from God's word.

If not for the final authority of the Bible, the church would not even know it is to be the pillar and ground of truth.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

You base your belief that the church is the final authority in part because of a verse of the Bible. As goldenchild stated the RCC uses the verses in 1 Timothy 3:14-16 14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. to say that the church is the pillar of truth and therefore the final authority. Don't you see the problem there? If the Bible isn't the final authority, then why do you believe it when it says that the church is the pillar and ground of truth? The church didn't say that, the Bible did. It appears that the church even puts the final authority on the Bible, they just don't realize they have done it. Any authority that the church has came from God's word.

If not for the final authority of the Bible, the church would not even know it is to be the pillar and ground of truth.

I'll respond to your post in the appropriate thread that I made in order to discuss this separate issue with Protestants

[goldenchild]

Reed, it doesn't seem this thread you intended to be about SS. Maybe you could reclarify what exactly you're looking for? Cause I'm just a little confused.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I, on the other hand, consider the Church to be my ultimate authority, and the Church authenticates the Bible, not vice versa. But someone in the other forum brought up an interesting point: I am presupposing the Church to be my ultimate authority. So really all I am doing is moving from one presumption to another.

In the end, our final authority will have to authenticate itself, right? Because if we look back to something else to authenticate our final authority, then it's not a final authority anymore. So our final authority has to be self-authenticating. Right? No matter what our final authority is, we will have to presuppose that it is infallible in order for it to be our final authority. We will always be resting on a presumption no matter what. Right?

My thinking is that it makes more sense to presuppose the Church as our final authority, because at least the Church claims to be the final authority. The Bible makes no such claim about itself, nor is it self-authenticating, nor are the books contained in the Bible mutually inclusive of one another. The canon of the Bible relies on an external source, right? Does it make more sense to presuppose the Church as our final authority than to presuppose the Bible as our final authority?

I think it does, but in the end we have to presuppose something, don't we?

I would like to hear some comments on what it means to presuppose something as our final authority, and what it means to have faith. Because ultimately I think it all comes down to faith.

And that would lead to another question... what exactly does it mean to have faith?

This is really interesting to me.... I need comments, please!

read that, and ignore the first half of my original post.

[Reedolo]

Basically what I'm saying is... our final authority, whether it be the Church, as in the case of Catholics, or the Bible, as in the case of Protestants, has to authenticate itself. It has to be self-authenticating. Because if we look for something else to authenticate it then it's no longer our final authority.

So we Catholics presuppose the Church to be our final authority. Protestants presuppose the Bible. I think it makes more sense to presuppose the Church, but either way you have to rest on a presumption. That's what faith is all about, right? Believing without proof, believing without seeing. In the end, it all comes down to faith. We have to have faith that what we believe is true. There is no proof. Or if there is we can't rely on it because it's not revealed to everyone.

So what does it mean to have faith? Can we ever be positive about anything? What is faith? What does it mean to have a final authority?


This is a very philosophical quesiton. It's not the debate over sola scriptura that everyone has turned it into. I already don't believe in sola scriptura, I think it's an unbiblical doctrine... that's one of the big reasons I converted to Catholicism.. that and the Eucharist were the biggies. This question deals with more than sola scriptura. That's why i created another thread for the sola scriptura debate.

Take care.

Reed

[catholicpriest]

Originally Posted by flip815

You admit that the Bible is God-breathed, so how can you deny its authority? Are you saying that God's words have no authority?

The Bible is God-breathed, but there would be no way of knowing that if it were not for the infallible teaching authority of the Church which tells us that the Bible is God-breathed. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Jesus Christ founded a Church, not a Bible. He gave authority to His Apostles to preach and teach the faith, and the Apostles handed that authority on to their successors. Jesus never wrote a single word. Instead, He trusted that the Apostles and their successors would be able to preach and transmit an oral Gospel, which the Catholic Church refers to as Tradition.

[goldenchild]

I think I know what you're saying now. And not really sure what to say about it. However, while it gets into other subject areas I think essentially we don't HAVE to have an presumption.

I personally believe Catholicism can be proven from the very ground up starting with proving that God exists, then proving Christ exists, then proving the Catholic Church is Christ's Church. If done altogether one does not need to presuppose anything at all.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

I think I know what you're saying now. And not really sure what to say about it. However, while it gets into other subject areas I think essentially we don't HAVE to have an presumption.

I personally believe Catholicism can be proven from the very ground up starting with proving that God exists, then proving Christ exists, then proving the Catholic Church is Christ's Church. If done altogether one does not need to presuppose anything at all.

That's interesting. i'd like to know how that all plays out. Do you know of any books written about it? It seems like St. Augustine material, he may have touched on that subject.

[goldenchild]

The way I see that it has to play out without presumptions no not really. I am not aware of a book that goes through the whole thing of how I am seeing it right now. I am working on putting it all together in a paper and will have it on my website at some point. Not really sure when it'll be done. But C.S. Lewis basically gets things started by showing us that some objective morality exists, that right and wrong are objective realities. Right here at the very beginning we have a starting point and he shows us this without a precedent. Basically I think the only precedent we really need is that truth exists, and there may even be a way at arriving at that without presupposing it. But I will be putting it all together in a paper sometime. Nothing original, mostly just combining the works of a whole bunch of different people and putting it together in a way so that if fills all the gaps without leaving any questions, without leaving anything that a person has to "assume" in order to arrive at the next point. As only makes sense in order to get to number 5 when counting in order we have to go through 1 2 3 and 4 first. We can't skip. If we went from 2 to 5 people would rightly ask how we did this logically, and how would we answer? Same with proving our faith. We can't just think that others will make the same leap of faith that we do. While faith is necessary I believe we must also have a logical faith one that makes sense to unbelievers. Christ did ask us to believe, but He didn't ask us to be stupid .

[Sean]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

The way I see that it has to play out without presumptions no not really. I am not aware of a book that goes through the whole thing of how I am seeing it right now. I am working on putting it all together in a paper and will have it on my website at some point. Not really sure when it'll be done. But C.S. Lewis basically gets things started by showing us that some objective morality exists, that right and wrong are objective realities. Right here at the very beginning we have a starting point and he shows us this without a precedent. Basically I think the only precedent we really need is that truth exists, and there may even be a way at arriving at that without presupposing it. But I will be putting it all together in a paper sometime. Nothing original, mostly just combining the works of a whole bunch of different people and putting it together in a way so that if fills all the gaps without leaving any questions, without leaving anything that a person has to "assume" in order to arrive at the next point. As only makes sense in order to get to number 5 when counting in order we have to go through 1 2 3 and 4 first. We can't skip. If we went from 2 to 5 people would rightly ask how we did this logically, and how would we answer? Same with proving our faith. We can't just think that others will make the same leap of faith that we do. While faith is necessary I believe we must also have a logical faith one that makes sense to unbelievers. Christ did ask us to believe, but He didn't ask us to be stupid .

So then you assume logic and presuppose that the human brain is concerned with accurately computing information?

[goldenchild]

Maybe. I don't necessarily have to presuppose logic, I don't see why that can't be proven as necessary also, but the second one I don't have any background in medical science or whatnot to know what goes on in the brain. But the fact that medicine has shown the brain to be concerned with computing evidence and putting it together yes I believe that is something that has already been proven as commonly accepted. This is something that is accepted already by the vast majority. If a great amount of the people believed the brain was for pumping blood or something else, than this is something else that would have to be proven. But it is something that is medically accepted that the purpose of the brain is to sort through information and use it. Along with sending INFORMATIONAL messages to the nerves to make the rest of the body work. Yes it's focus is certainly on information.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Maybe. I don't necessarily have to presuppose logic, I don't see why that can't be proven as necessary also.

To "prove" logic you have to presupose logic because you're "proving" is part of logic. Its the language of logic.

the second one I don't have any background in medical science or whatnot to know what goes on in the brain. But the fact that medicine has shown the brain to be concerned with computing evidence and putting it together yes I believe that is something that has already been proven as commonly accepted. This is something that is accepted already by the vast majority. If a great amount of the people believed the brain was for pumping blood or something else, than this is something else that would have to be proven. But it is something that is medically accepted that the purpose of the brain is to sort through information and use it. Along with sending INFORMATIONAL messages to the nerves to make the rest of the body work. Yes it's focus is certainly on information.

They have shown that the brain is our storate center. They have not shown that chemicals are concerned with accurately transmitting information. For all you know, you aren't really reading my words. This could be just the chemcials in your brain presenting random nonsense to you. You assume your brain is working properly, but it might not be. The issue isn't medical so much as philosophical.