Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Camaalbakrius]

Yes. It's called Catholic Doctrine

Now now, no need to get snarky

You're right. My apologies.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

In other Latin American countries, of course, the urban poor have been flocking towards prosperity gospel Pentecostal churches - in Mexico, Santa Muerte is taking a lot of that constituency. Both phenomena originate in the same failings of the Catholic hierarchy.

It doesn't really help when your churches take "narcolimosnas" (lit: narco-tithes), which is basically drug lords and gang members giving tithes to the church from illicit gains.

But sure, we'll obey the Catholic Church, after all, they're not known to just want money in Latin America from tithing and then they pretty much leave us alone to do our thing. Nope, not at all.

Never change, Latin American Catholic Church. You're doing real well over there.

That's not exactly a fair criticism. The Church has pledged to reject nadcolimosnas, however at the same time the church doesn't actively investigate the donations it receives. I mean they don't ask me where my tithing comes from, they ask anyone, they just pass the basket

[Urran]

Protestant revivals are occurring across the world. Don't be surprised that that includes Latin American countries

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It doesn't really help when your churches take "narcolimosnas" (lit: narco-tithes), which is basically drug lords and gang members giving tithes to the church from illicit gains.

But sure, we'll obey the Catholic Church, after all, they're not known to just want money in Latin America from tithing and then they pretty much leave us alone to do our thing. Nope, not at all.

Never change, Latin American Catholic Church. You're doing real well over there.

That's not exactly a fair criticism. The Church has pledged to reject nadcolimosnas, however at the same time the church doesn't actively investigate the donations it receives. I mean they don't ask me where my tithing comes from, they ask anyone, they just pass the basket

Which is why I didn't aim the criticism at the entire Catholic Church, I aimed it specifically at their issues in the Latin American region.

I won't deny Pope Francis tries, as well as the Vatican. Its local churches in Mexico and other drug lord, and gang member areas don't do so well on that regard. And I'm not blaming them on this specific regard, they have to play along with the narcos and the gang members because they've gotten so powerful down there. Public restoration projects in Mexico are done by the most part by people with money. People with money in 2016 Mexico usually means either politicians or narcos. So the Mexican Catholic Church has no choice but to collude and play along with them or find themselves at the end of a gun barrel. Not that they minded it before anyways when criminals gave money to them for public projects or did a public project with the blessing of the church, but this time they are more scared of the consequences from defying the drug lords.

Also, the fact that the Latin American Churches have been money hungry is not a new revelation, nor an unfair criticism. That's the main reason why, even though Catholicism is strong in numbers down there, many people pretty much tend to look at it as a cultural thing anyways down there, and not as a serious commitment. Because historically, Latin American Churches simply have not given that much of a shit in general about their populace as long as they've either had land, or money. Mexican Churches being the most egregious at this and where the whole "the Catholic Church only cares about money" meme that has propelled the Episcopalian movement in Latin America comes from.

Did the Vatican created that? No, I am not saying that. But the local church authorities did create monsters for the sake of their ambitions (and the money).

As much as I like Pope Francis and he's changing the overall views of the church around the world to finally address the issues of the poor, I feel he came a tad too late into the fray of popes who either did nothing about the issue, or simply did not care enough to do or say anything about the issues in Latin America as loudly as he has during the 19th and 20th centuries.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

What changes is the time in purgatory
Jk, that only applies to sin

So you do believe in purgatory? That's certainly interesting.

Theologically speaking, there's nothing in an branch of Protestantism that precludes purgatory.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Protestant revivals are occurring across the world. Don't be surprised that that includes Latin American countries

Are you saying Santa Muerte is a Protestant revival?.... cause you don't want to give me that sort of ammunition.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Protestant revivals are occurring across the world. Don't be surprised that that includes Latin American countries

Santa Muerte is more of a disenfranchised Christian thing and less of a protestant revival thing.

Now, when it comes to Episcopalian churches and other protestant revival churches, I tend to agree. But that isn't new. It's been going on since the 90s. It just was a smaller issue back then.

[Urran]

Protestant revivals are occurring across the world. Don't be surprised that that includes Latin American countries

Are you saying Santa Muerte is a Protestant revival?.... cause you don't want to give me that sort of ammunition.

Crap no. You mentioned Pentecostal churches becoming more popular. I was simply pointing out that is a global trend.

I'm not Pentecostal, I'm Full Gospel, but the two are similar. We just don't have as strict of a dress code and believe women can be pastors. Certain Pentecostal groups don't believe that

[Salus Maior]

Its not exactly just violence that's causing this. General cultural Catholicism and superstition also plays a big role.

>Muslim defending veneration of saints
Nice

Well, what can really be done about cultural Catholicism? One can't force one to have genuine faith.

Actually, I think there are Muslim sects that have some kind of veneration of Saints, so it's not too outlandish.

[Reverend Norv]

The inward guidance of the Holy Spirit upon the redeemed soul, expressed through the continuing and ever-changing revelation provided by the sacred Scriptures.

And which, of the 3000 different versions of the truth, is the one the Holy Spirit is dictating?

Probably different ones for different people and at different times, since God's whole truth excels the capacity of any human mind to grasp entirely. To borrow Michael Cameron's paraphrase of Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram, "since Moses was aware that his words would teach so many different people across so many generations, should we not expect him to make his words allow as many true meanings as possible?” The idea that Scripture has multiple true meanings, which God's grace reveals in time as and when they are needed, is hardly new in Christian thought.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

And which, of the 3000 different versions of the truth, is the one the Holy Spirit is dictating?

Probably different ones for different people and at different times, since God's whole truth excels the capacity of any human mind to grasp entirely. To borrow Michael Cameron's paraphrase of Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram, "since Moses was aware that his words would teach so many different people across so many generations, should we not expect him to make his words allow as many true meanings as possible?” The idea that Scripture has multiple true meanings, which God's grace reveals in time as and when they are needed, is hardly new in Christian thought.

No, polivalence isn't new, but you're sourcing it incorrectly. Acknowledging that Scripture has multiple meanings beyond just the surface is different than what we're discussing here. We're talking about uniformity of doctrine. So the question remains when two groups both interpret doctrine and/or scripture to come to mutually exclusive conclusions, Who's right? And how about when everyone does it? This post modernist "it means what ever you need it to mean" is insufficient. You say the Holy Spirit working in the heart of the redeemed soul but even that requires doctrinal support: what does it mean to be redeemed,what are the qualities required to be considered a redeemed soul, are we redeemed in life or at death or purpetually or not. Is redemption permanent? Etc etc.


While God's truth is vast, it still remains singular. There is but one truth.

[Reverend Norv]

Probably different ones for different people and at different times, since God's whole truth excels the capacity of any human mind to grasp entirely. To borrow Michael Cameron's paraphrase of Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram, "since Moses was aware that his words would teach so many different people across so many generations, should we not expect him to make his words allow as many true meanings as possible?” The idea that Scripture has multiple true meanings, which God's grace reveals in time as and when they are needed, is hardly new in Christian thought.

No, polivalence isn't new, but you're sourcing it incorrectly. Acknowledging that Scripture has multiple meanings beyond just the surface is different than what we're discussing here. We're talking about uniformity of doctrine. So the question remains when two groups both interpret doctrine and/or scripture to come to mutually exclusive conclusions, Who's right? And how about when everyone does it? This post modernist "it means what ever you need it to mean" is insufficient. You say the Holy Spirit working in the heart of the redeemed soul but even that requires doctrinal support: what does it mean to be redeemed,what are the qualities required to be considered a redeemed soul, are we redeemed in life or at death or purpetually or not. Is redemption permanent? Etc etc.


While God's truth is vast, it still remains singular. There is but one truth.

I see two criticisms of my point here. One involves inconsistency: if different people come to mutually exclusive conclusions, how do we know who is right? The second involves the role of doctrine in contextualizing scriptural revelation - in my example, the nature of redemption. To you, I think, these points may be closely related: the contextualizing power of doctrine defines truth, and therefore allows us to exclude certain viewpoints from orthodoxy. I don't share this view.

First, inconsistency, provided that it is rooted in an honest approach to the Scriptures, genuinely does not bother me. It seems entirely plausible to me that God uses the Scriptures to reveal meanings to others that are hidden to me. Christianity is rooted in paradoxes: the Eucharist is body and blood, Christ is god and man, God is three and one. Based on conventional logic, all of these are mutually exclusive statements. But God does not play by our logical rules. So when it comes to God, it's only natural that readers of Scripture will come to believe mutually exclusive things - but it does not automatically follow that God did not inspire all of these beliefs.

Second, if the Bible is self-authenticating through the power of the Holy Spirit, then any doctrine used to contextualize Scripture must itself be proven from Scripture: the Bible does not require outside context or sanction. If you are interested in seeing the relevant scriptural proofs for my idea of redemption, I can certainly direct you to them - though it would probably be simpler just to read the relevant sections of the Institutes.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No, polivalence isn't new, but you're sourcing it incorrectly. Acknowledging that Scripture has multiple meanings beyond just the surface is different than what we're discussing here. We're talking about uniformity of doctrine. So the question remains when two groups both interpret doctrine and/or scripture to come to mutually exclusive conclusions, Who's right? And how about when everyone does it? This post modernist "it means what ever you need it to mean" is insufficient. You say the Holy Spirit working in the heart of the redeemed soul but even that requires doctrinal support: what does it mean to be redeemed,what are the qualities required to be considered a redeemed soul, are we redeemed in life or at death or purpetually or not. Is redemption permanent? Etc etc.


While God's truth is vast, it still remains singular. There is but one truth.

I see two criticisms of my point here. One involves inconsistency: if different people come to mutually exclusive conclusions, how do we know who is right? The second involves the role of doctrine in contextualizing scriptural revelation - in my example, the nature of redemption. To you, I think, these points may be closely related: the contextualizing power of doctrine defines truth, and therefore allows us to exclude certain viewpoints from orthodoxy. I don't share this view.

First, inconsistency, provided that it is rooted in an honest approach to the Scriptures, genuinely does not bother me. It seems entirely plausible to me that God uses the Scriptures to reveal meanings to others that are hidden to me. Christianity is rooted in paradoxes: the Eucharist is body and blood, Christ is god and man, God is three and one. Based on conventional logic, all of these are mutually exclusive statements. But God does not play by our logical rules. So when it comes to God, it's only natural that readers of Scripture will come to believe mutually exclusive things - but it does not automatically follow that God did not inspire all of these beliefs.

Second, if the Bible is self-authenticating through the power of the Holy Spirit, then any doctrine used to contextualize Scripture must itself be proven from Scripture: the Bible does not require outside context or sanction. If you are interested in seeing the relevant scriptural proofs for my idea of redemption, I can certainly direct you to them - though it would probably be simpler just to read the relevant sections of the Institutes.

That's an interesting take, however it has and creates several problem: the most poignant being universalism(I'll get to this later). It's also wildly inconsistent, even within your own evidence. For instance:

1. While your point about the Trinity as to God being incomprehensible is a fair one, Doctrine of Trinity isn't expressly scriptural. It's a Doctrine, developed through teachings and deductions, not an outright Scriptural claim. So you reject the power of doctrine as a divining point of truth, yet cling to a Doctrine in order to do so.

2. Logical incomprehinsibility is often used to explain away Calvin's contradictions, or really what I would just refer to as pisspoor thinking. Appeal to inconprehensibility doesn't work when a logical explanation exists. Case in point how is the Eucharist bread and wine but also blood and wine. The Dogma of Transubstantion explains this, logically,, and if you believe in such things, this doctrine is confirmed by the Eucharistic miracles.

3. Scripture is not self authenticating. The argument that the Holy Spirit authenticates scripture, and that the Holy Spirit authenticates it differently for different people, does not hold up the Bible as canon, rather it opens the door for the legitimizing the Koran, or the Dharma. After all if seemingly contradicting truths are revealed to people, then there is no legitimate claim for them to any truth, and that means all religions can be true, simultaneously. Your view is predicated on the assumption that the Bible is exclusively true, but you provide no justification for this assertion that can be assessed. An assumption is invalid, the sole authenticity of scripture must first be proven, not assumed. Your doctrine doesn't do this.

Doctrines of Apostolic Authority, do.

[Camaalbakrius]

I see two criticisms of my point here. One involves inconsistency: if different people come to mutually exclusive conclusions, how do we know who is right? The second involves the role of doctrine in contextualizing scriptural revelation - in my example, the nature of redemption. To you, I think, these points may be closely related: the contextualizing power of doctrine defines truth, and therefore allows us to exclude certain viewpoints from orthodoxy. I don't share this view.

First, inconsistency, provided that it is rooted in an honest approach to the Scriptures, genuinely does not bother me. It seems entirely plausible to me that God uses the Scriptures to reveal meanings to others that are hidden to me. Christianity is rooted in paradoxes: the Eucharist is body and blood, Christ is god and man, God is three and one. Based on conventional logic, all of these are mutually exclusive statements. But God does not play by our logical rules. So when it comes to God, it's only natural that readers of Scripture will come to believe mutually exclusive things - but it does not automatically follow that God did not inspire all of these beliefs.

Second, if the Bible is self-authenticating through the power of the Holy Spirit, then any doctrine used to contextualize Scripture must itself be proven from Scripture: the Bible does not require outside context or sanction. If you are interested in seeing the relevant scriptural proofs for my idea of redemption, I can certainly direct you to them - though it would probably be simpler just to read the relevant sections of the Institutes.

That's an interesting take, however it has and creates several problem: the most poignant being universalism(I'll get to this later). It's also wildly inconsistent, even within your own evidence. For instance:

1. While your point about the Trinity as to God being incomprehensible is a fair one, Doctrine of Trinity isn't expressly scriptural. It's a Doctrine, developed through teachings and deductions, not an outright Scriptural claim. So you reject the power of doctrine as a divining point of truth, yet cling to a Doctrine in order to do so.

2. Logical incomprehinsibility is often used to explain away Calvin's contradictions, or really what I would just refer to as pisspoor thinking. Appeal to inconprehensibility doesn't work when a logical explanation exists. Case in point how is the Eucharist bread and wine but also blood and wine. The Dogma of Transubstantion explains this, logically,, and if you believe in such things, this doctrine is confirmed by the Eucharistic miracles.

3. Scripture is not self authenticating. The argument that the Holy Spirit authenticates scripture, and that the Holy Spirit authenticates it differently for different people, does not hold up the Bible as canon, rather it opens the door for the legitimizing the Koran, or the Dharma. After all if seemingly contradicting truths are revealed to people, then there is no legitimate claim for them to any truth, and that means all religions can be true, simultaneously. Your view is predicated on the assumption that the Bible is exclusively true, but you provide no justification for this assertion that can be assessed. An assumption is invalid, the sole authenticity of scripture must first be proven, not assumed. Your doctrine doesn't do this.

Doctrines of Apostolic Authority, do.

I guess I really don't need to say anything after that

[Tarsonis Survivors]

That's an interesting take, however it has and creates several problem: the most poignant being universalism(I'll get to this later). It's also wildly inconsistent, even within your own evidence. For instance:

1. While your point about the Trinity as to God being incomprehensible is a fair one, Doctrine of Trinity isn't expressly scriptural. It's a Doctrine, developed through teachings and deductions, not an outright Scriptural claim. So you reject the power of doctrine as a divining point of truth, yet cling to a Doctrine in order to do so.

2. Logical incomprehinsibility is often used to explain away Calvin's contradictions, or really what I would just refer to as pisspoor thinking. Appeal to inconprehensibility doesn't work when a logical explanation exists. Case in point how is the Eucharist bread and wine but also blood and wine. The Dogma of Transubstantion explains this, logically,, and if you believe in such things, this doctrine is confirmed by the Eucharistic miracles.

3. Scripture is not self authenticating. The argument that the Holy Spirit authenticates scripture, and that the Holy Spirit authenticates it differently for different people, does not hold up the Bible as canon, rather it opens the door for the legitimizing the Koran, or the Dharma. After all if seemingly contradicting truths are revealed to people, then there is no legitimate claim for them to any truth, and that means all religions can be true, simultaneously. Your view is predicated on the assumption that the Bible is exclusively true, but you provide no justification for this assertion that can be assessed. An assumption is invalid, the sole authenticity of scripture must first be proven, not assumed. Your doctrine doesn't do this.

Doctrines of Apostolic Authority, do.

I guess I really don't need to say anything after that

This might get me into trouble but Calvin really is the Ed Wood of Christian Theology.

[Camaalbakrius]

I guess I really don't need to say anything after that

This might get me into trouble but Calvin really is the Ed Wood of Christian Theology.

A Calvinist is never late. Nor is he early. He arrives Precisely when he was predestined to!

(Joke, please do not get mad)

[The Princes of the Universe]

This might get me into trouble but Calvin really is the Ed Wood of Christian Theology.

I'm afraid I don't understand the reference.

[Reverend Norv]

I see two criticisms of my point here. One involves inconsistency: if different people come to mutually exclusive conclusions, how do we know who is right? The second involves the role of doctrine in contextualizing scriptural revelation - in my example, the nature of redemption. To you, I think, these points may be closely related: the contextualizing power of doctrine defines truth, and therefore allows us to exclude certain viewpoints from orthodoxy. I don't share this view.

First, inconsistency, provided that it is rooted in an honest approach to the Scriptures, genuinely does not bother me. It seems entirely plausible to me that God uses the Scriptures to reveal meanings to others that are hidden to me. Christianity is rooted in paradoxes: the Eucharist is body and blood, Christ is god and man, God is three and one. Based on conventional logic, all of these are mutually exclusive statements. But God does not play by our logical rules. So when it comes to God, it's only natural that readers of Scripture will come to believe mutually exclusive things - but it does not automatically follow that God did not inspire all of these beliefs.

Second, if the Bible is self-authenticating through the power of the Holy Spirit, then any doctrine used to contextualize Scripture must itself be proven from Scripture: the Bible does not require outside context or sanction. If you are interested in seeing the relevant scriptural proofs for my idea of redemption, I can certainly direct you to them - though it would probably be simpler just to read the relevant sections of the Institutes.

That's an interesting take, however it has and creates several problem: the most poignant being universalism(I'll get to this later). It's also wildly inconsistent, even within your own evidence. For instance:

1. While your point about the Trinity as to God being incomprehensible is a fair one, Doctrine of Trinity isn't expressly scriptural. It's a Doctrine, developed through teachings and deductions, not an outright Scriptural claim. So you reject the power of doctrine as a divining point of truth, yet cling to a Doctrine in order to do so.

2. Logical incomprehinsibility is often used to explain away Calvin's contradictions, or really what I would just refer to as pisspoor thinking. Appeal to inconprehensibility doesn't work when a logical explanation exists. Case in point how is the Eucharist bread and wine but also blood and wine. The Dogma of Transubstantion explains this, logically,, and if you believe in such things, this doctrine is confirmed by the Eucharistic miracles.

3. Scripture is not self authenticating. The argument that the Holy Spirit authenticates scripture, and that the Holy Spirit authenticates it differently for different people, does not hold up the Bible as canon, rather it opens the door for the legitimizing the Koran, or the Dharma. After all if seemingly contradicting truths are revealed to people, then there is no legitimate claim for them to any truth, and that means all religions can be true, simultaneously. Your view is predicated on the assumption that the Bible is exclusively true, but you provide no justification for this assertion that can be assessed. An assumption is invalid, the sole authenticity of scripture must first be proven, not assumed. Your doctrine doesn't do this.

Doctrines of Apostolic Authority, do.

I don't "cling" to the doctrine of the Trinity. It's an example, one of several. The idea of Christ's dual nature is explicitly Scriptural, and is also a sacred mystery rooted in contradiction. Moreover, even without all of these examples, the very idea of an omnipotent God is rooted in paradox: the famous problem of whether God can create a stone too heavy for Him to lift comes to mind, for example. The role of paradox as a sign of sacred mystery seems obvious.

Nor, by the way, do I accept the idea that transubstantiation is a logical explanation. By the logic of transubstantiation, I could argue that my computer is incidentally a laptop but essentially a Shakespeare first folio - but nobody would let me auction it to Sotheby's on that basis. The whole argument is Platonist gobbledygook; it only works if you already believe in its conclusions. If our apologetics are presuppositional, we should at least admit as much.

The question of the self-authenticating nature of Scripture, though, is where the rubber really meets the road, and where you and I part ways.

First, you suggest that this perspective opens the door to accepting the possible validity of other holy texts and religions. You're right: it does. Now, I know that my faith - my relationship with and understanding of God - is valid and sufficient for salvation. I know this because I know that the Bible is self-authenticating, and I find that truth (the sufficiency of faith) in Scripture. So I do not need to look to other faiths to meet my spiritual needs. But I feel no need on that account to reject all other religions as false. My beliefs are sufficient for my purposes, but wholly incomplete in relation to the infinitude of God. How should I know whether any other religion is divinely inspired, or just human vanity?

This line of argument hides a deeper issue, though. You are correct that I do assume - rather than prove - the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. You are also correct that "Doctrines of Apostolic Authority" do not do this. But the apostolic churches make similar assumptions of their own: the decisions of the institutional church - in its authorization of the canon, in its formulation of dogma, and (for Catholics) in the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra - are all assumed, not proven. These ecclesiastical decisions are accepted as self-authenticating by the power of the Holy Spirit; their sacred character must be self-evident, because it cannot be proved or disproved by any external logic.

So if we accept that both of us - like all religious people - base our beliefs upon assumptions, then the question is why we make those assumptions in the first place. I genuinely don't know why people assume that the institutional church is divinely inspired - sure, there's scriptural evidence to suggest as much, but your whole argument is that the authority of the church precedes the scriptural canon. You'll have to explain your reasons for yourself.

I can tell you, though, why I assume the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures. I assume it because when I read the Bible, I hear the Word of God. When I read the Bible, my fear is soothed, and I find strength and wisdom for the day, and guidance for the trials before me, and I feel my heart drawn irresistibly from its day-to-day concerns to turn to God in joy and gratitude and peace. I assume the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures because the Scriptures have, beyond all doubt, authenticated themselves to me. I know that God works through the Bible because God has used the Bible to work in me. The very existence of my faith is all the proof I need.

So that's the basis for my assumptions. What is the basis for yours?

[Diopolis]

Its not exactly just violence that's causing this. General cultural Catholicism and superstition also plays a big role.

>Muslim defending veneration of saints
Nice

Well, what can really be done about cultural Catholicism? One can't force one to have genuine faith.

The church can get their head out of their ass and stop trying to pretend to be episcopalian.

[Luminesa]

That's an interesting take, however it has and creates several problem: the most poignant being universalism(I'll get to this later). It's also wildly inconsistent, even within your own evidence. For instance:

1. While your point about the Trinity as to God being incomprehensible is a fair one, Doctrine of Trinity isn't expressly scriptural. It's a Doctrine, developed through teachings and deductions, not an outright Scriptural claim. So you reject the power of doctrine as a divining point of truth, yet cling to a Doctrine in order to do so.

2. Logical incomprehinsibility is often used to explain away Calvin's contradictions, or really what I would just refer to as pisspoor thinking. Appeal to inconprehensibility doesn't work when a logical explanation exists. Case in point how is the Eucharist bread and wine but also blood and wine. The Dogma of Transubstantion explains this, logically,, and if you believe in such things, this doctrine is confirmed by the Eucharistic miracles.

3. Scripture is not self authenticating. The argument that the Holy Spirit authenticates scripture, and that the Holy Spirit authenticates it differently for different people, does not hold up the Bible as canon, rather it opens the door for the legitimizing the Koran, or the Dharma. After all if seemingly contradicting truths are revealed to people, then there is no legitimate claim for them to any truth, and that means all religions can be true, simultaneously. Your view is predicated on the assumption that the Bible is exclusively true, but you provide no justification for this assertion that can be assessed. An assumption is invalid, the sole authenticity of scripture must first be proven, not assumed. Your doctrine doesn't do this.

Doctrines of Apostolic Authority, do.

I don't "cling" to the doctrine of the Trinity. It's an example, one of several. The idea of Christ's dual nature is explicitly Scriptural, and is also a sacred mystery rooted in contradiction. Moreover, even without all of these examples, the very idea of an omnipotent God is rooted in paradox: the famous problem of whether God can create a stone too heavy for Him to lift comes to mind, for example. The role of paradox as a sign of sacred mystery seems obvious.

Nor, by the way, do I accept the idea that transubstantiation is a logical explanation. By the logic of transubstantiation, I could argue that my computer is incidentally a laptop but essentially a Shakespeare first folio - but nobody would let me auction it to Sotheby's on that basis. The whole argument is Platonist gobbledygook; it only works if you already believe in its conclusions. If our apologetics are presuppositional, we should at least admit as much.

The question of the self-authenticating nature of Scripture, though, is where the rubber really meets the road, and where you and I part ways.

First, you suggest that this perspective opens the door to accepting the possible validity of other holy texts and religions. You're right: it does. Now, I know that my faith - my relationship with and understanding of God - is valid and sufficient for salvation. I know this because I know that the Bible is self-authenticating, and I find that truth in Scripture. So I do not need to look to other faiths to meet my spiritual needs. But I feel no need on that account to reject all other religions as false. My beliefs are sufficient for my purposes, but wholly incomplete in relation to the infinitude of God. How should I know whether any other religion is divinely inspired, or just human vanity?

This line of argument hides a deeper issue, though. You are correct that I do assume - rather than prove - the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. You are also correct that "Doctrines of Apostolic Authority" do not do this. But the apostolic churches make similar assumptions of their own: the decisions of the institutional church - in its authorization of the canon, in its formulation of dogma, and (for Catholics) in the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra - are all assumed, not proven. These ecclesiastical decisions are accepted as self-authenticating by the power of the Holy Spirit; their sacred character must be self-evident, because it cannot be proved or disproved by any external logic.

So if we accept that both of us - like all religious people - base our beliefs upon assumptions, then the question is why we make those assumptions in the first place. I genuinely don't know why people assume that the institutional church is divinely inspired - sure, there's scriptural evidence to suggest as much, but your whole argument is that the authority of the church precedes the scriptural canon. You'll have to explain your reasons for yourself.

I can tell you, though, why I assume the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures. I assume it because when I read the Bible, I hear the Word of God. When I read the Bible, my fear is soothed, and I find strength and wisdom for the day, and guidance for the trials before me, and I feel my heart drawn irresistibly from its day-to-day concerns to turn to God in joy and gratitude and peace. I assume the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures because the Scriptures have, beyond all doubt, authenticated themselves to me. I know that God works through the Bible because God has used the Bible to work in me. The very existence of my faith is all the proof I need.

So that's the basis for my assumptions. What is the basis for yours?

I mean, if we're going to go by personal experiences, once I went to Holy Communion during a school-related Mass and I was incredibly aggravated and depressed before I went to Communion. When I received Communion, I suddenly felt a sort of overwhelming peace, as though God had lifted all of the lead in my stomach and all of the noise out of my head. I felt it had to be the power of God Himself inside of me. The one Mass I did not receive Communion-the Mass of the Epiphany last year-I was an emotional wreck, and I cried after Mass like a baby. Thus I know that Christ indeed does become the Eucharist during the Eucharistic Rite. I know that Christ is the Eucharist because He works in me during Holy Communion, and gives me a peace which nothing else can give, the strength I need to get through the week.

[Reverend Norv]

I don't "cling" to the doctrine of the Trinity. It's an example, one of several. The idea of Christ's dual nature is explicitly Scriptural, and is also a sacred mystery rooted in contradiction. Moreover, even without all of these examples, the very idea of an omnipotent God is rooted in paradox: the famous problem of whether God can create a stone too heavy for Him to lift comes to mind, for example. The role of paradox as a sign of sacred mystery seems obvious.

Nor, by the way, do I accept the idea that transubstantiation is a logical explanation. By the logic of transubstantiation, I could argue that my computer is incidentally a laptop but essentially a Shakespeare first folio - but nobody would let me auction it to Sotheby's on that basis. The whole argument is Platonist gobbledygook; it only works if you already believe in its conclusions. If our apologetics are presuppositional, we should at least admit as much.

The question of the self-authenticating nature of Scripture, though, is where the rubber really meets the road, and where you and I part ways.

First, you suggest that this perspective opens the door to accepting the possible validity of other holy texts and religions. You're right: it does. Now, I know that my faith - my relationship with and understanding of God - is valid and sufficient for salvation. I know this because I know that the Bible is self-authenticating, and I find that truth in Scripture. So I do not need to look to other faiths to meet my spiritual needs. But I feel no need on that account to reject all other religions as false. My beliefs are sufficient for my purposes, but wholly incomplete in relation to the infinitude of God. How should I know whether any other religion is divinely inspired, or just human vanity?

This line of argument hides a deeper issue, though. You are correct that I do assume - rather than prove - the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. You are also correct that "Doctrines of Apostolic Authority" do not do this. But the apostolic churches make similar assumptions of their own: the decisions of the institutional church - in its authorization of the canon, in its formulation of dogma, and (for Catholics) in the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra - are all assumed, not proven. These ecclesiastical decisions are accepted as self-authenticating by the power of the Holy Spirit; their sacred character must be self-evident, because it cannot be proved or disproved by any external logic.

So if we accept that both of us - like all religious people - base our beliefs upon assumptions, then the question is why we make those assumptions in the first place. I genuinely don't know why people assume that the institutional church is divinely inspired - sure, there's scriptural evidence to suggest as much, but your whole argument is that the authority of the church precedes the scriptural canon. You'll have to explain your reasons for yourself.

I can tell you, though, why I assume the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures. I assume it because when I read the Bible, I hear the Word of God. When I read the Bible, my fear is soothed, and I find strength and wisdom for the day, and guidance for the trials before me, and I feel my heart drawn irresistibly from its day-to-day concerns to turn to God in joy and gratitude and peace. I assume the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures because the Scriptures have, beyond all doubt, authenticated themselves to me. I know that God works through the Bible because God has used the Bible to work in me. The very existence of my faith is all the proof I need.

So that's the basis for my assumptions. What is the basis for yours?

I mean, if we're going to go by personal experiences, once I went to Holy Communion during a school-related Mass and I was incredibly aggravated and depressed before I went to Communion. When I received Communion, I suddenly felt a sort of overwhelming peace, as though God had lifted all of the lead in my stomach and all of the noise out of my head. I felt it had to be the power of God Himself inside of me. The one Mass I did not receive Communion-the Mass of the Epiphany last year-I was an emotional wreck, and I cried after Mass like a baby. Thus I know that Christ indeed does become the Eucharist during the Eucharistic Rite. I know that Christ is the Eucharist because He works in me during Holy Communion, and gives me a peace which nothing else can give, the strength I need to get through the week.

Works for me. It's stories like this that convinced me that God is present in some way in the Eucharist. I don't pretend to understand it or to be able to explain it, but I trust that you are telling the truth, and I can recognize the work of the Holy Spirit when it's described to me.

[Luminesa]

I mean, if we're going to go by personal experiences, once I went to Holy Communion during a school-related Mass and I was incredibly aggravated and depressed before I went to Communion. When I received Communion, I suddenly felt a sort of overwhelming peace, as though God had lifted all of the lead in my stomach and all of the noise out of my head. I felt it had to be the power of God Himself inside of me. The one Mass I did not receive Communion-the Mass of the Epiphany last year-I was an emotional wreck, and I cried after Mass like a baby. Thus I know that Christ indeed does become the Eucharist during the Eucharistic Rite. I know that Christ is the Eucharist because He works in me during Holy Communion, and gives me a peace which nothing else can give, the strength I need to get through the week.

Works for me. It's stories like this that convinced me that God is present in some way in the Eucharist. I don't pretend to understand it or to be able to explain it, but I trust that you are telling the truth, and I can recognize the work of the Holy Spirit when it's described to me.

I would not lie about this either. I don't always remember what I ate yesterday morning (actually I do, I ate a gingerbread cookie), but I always know how Communion makes me feel. ^^

[Salus Maior]

Well, what can really be done about cultural Catholicism? One can't force one to have genuine faith.

The church can get their head out of their ass and stop trying to pretend to be episcopalian.

True. But in Mexico in particular that issue tends to be tied to the gang wars, right?

[Communist Guatemala]

Why are Latin American socialists such as Luis Guillermo Solis, Danilo Medina, Rafael Correa, Salvador Sanchez Ceren, Daniel Ortega, Tabare Vazquez, and Nicolas Maduro Christian? I thought that Christianity was a reactionary bourgeois religion that is incompatible with socialism. The Catholic Church opposes socialism. Socialism itself is inherently materialistic. How can one be a Christian and a socialist?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why are Latin American socialists such as Luis Guillermo Solis, Danilo Medina, Rafael Correa, Salvador Sanchez Ceren, Daniel Ortega, Tabare Vazquez, and Nicolas Maduro Christian? I thought that Christianity was a reactionary bourgeois religion that is incompatible with socialism. The Catholic Church opposes socialism. Socialism itself is inherently materialistic. How can one be a Christian and a socialist?

Well, Christianity has always been for the poor, and by the poor.

Christianity actually is a religion started by a carpenter and some fishermen from Judaea (Before anyone pounces at me: I know I should address Jesus and his apostles more defferently, but for the purposes of the materialistic argument this will have to do).

The Catholic Church doesn't oppose socialism in their concepts of aiding the poor and equality for all. What they are against is the fact that socialists see the church as opposed to the poor. Take that away and you can comfortably agree with socialists, and even be a socialist in practice but still defer to the church.

What you might be referring to is Liberation Theology, which is a bunch of fathers actually taking theology and socialism/Marxism and going way too far with it. Most popes have come in defense of Liberation Theology's focus on the poor. But at the same time they have condemned it by the implications they make about the Church.