Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Salus Maior]

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?

We actually have a good few Christian Communists on this thread.

[Aelex]

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?

We actually have a good few Christian Communists on this thread.

Yep, Const would be of big help right now as I think he would explain his politics better than we could hope to.

[Salus Maior]

We actually have a good few Christian Communists on this thread.

Yep, Const would be of big help right now as I think he would explain his politics better than we could hope to.

Well, it's basically that Christians are called to help the poor therefore Christians and Communists have a common goal.

That's it in a nutshell.

[Camaalbakrius]

Yep, Const would be of big help right now as I think he would explain his politics better than we could hope to.

Well, it's basically that Christians are called to help the poor therefore Christians and Communists have a common goal.

That's it in a nutshell.

Everything else we hate each other on

[Salus Maior]

Well, it's basically that Christians are called to help the poor therefore Christians and Communists have a common goal.

That's it in a nutshell.

Everything else we hate each other on

Not necessarily. But if you mean the whole Communists hate religion thing, Const believes that can be changed.

[Urran]

It's the job of the church, not the job of the government to help the poor.

[Nordengrund]

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 wouldn't dismiss all of Calvin's teachings. You may not agree with Calvinism, but that does not excuse anyone from dismissing all points raised by someone who disagrees with you. I'm an evangelical Protestant, and I listen to Roman Catholic and Orthodox sides, and there are things I admire in those traditions and there are some things I believe they got right, even though I am still an evangelical. We're human, so naturally, all Christian sects are bound to get some things right and some things wrong.

Calvin did use Augustine as a basis for his defense of predestination and he at least believed in the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.

It's human nature to focus on our differences, but ecumenicalism can only be achieved through setting aside our differences and focus on what we have in common. I think all the sects are guilty for the great number of divisions we have in Christianity, and honestly, that could be a hindrance to saving souls as an outsider will ponder which church or denomination is right, how do they know which one it is, and if Christianity is true, then why are there so many divisions?

[Salus Maior]

It's the job of the church, not the job of the government to help the poor.

Why can't they cooperate together on the effort?

[Camaalbakrius]

It's the job of the church, not the job of the government to help the poor.

Why can't they cooperate together on the effort?

Church and state can have the same goals, but they shouldn't intertwine with each other. That has had bad effects in the past

[Serenvia]

Just a little something for any church choir individuals in this thread <3

[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 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.

But you do. Christ bares a duel nature, but that second nature while divine, is not expressly God. However, you would no doubt reject an Arian reading of the text, even though from a purely scriptural standpoint Arianism is a valid interpretation. So, you cannot say Doctrine does not hold any determinism on separating true readings from false readings, and attest the necessity of a belief in a Triune God.

Secondly, the duel nature of Christ is not a paradox. Christ being Fully Human and Fully God, is not paradoxical but an admitted incomprehensibility because the logical reason requires that Christ be both. In brief, if Christ is of one nature, or half and half, the sacrifice is insufficient. Early Christians knew he must be fully both, in order to be the Lamb and redeem mankind. Thus while the methodology is understood, the concurrent natures of being both simultaneously is chalked up to being fully within the realm of God's power even if beyond the scope of human perception. It's extremely akin to Transubstantiation.

Lastly, The Paradox of the Stone, is not a true paradox but rather just an appeal to logical absurdism, using misconstrued definitions of omnipotence taken to their most absurd conclusion. It's about as logical as asking if God can create a four sided circle. Never mind the fallacious logic atheists then use to deny the antecedent and proclaim God doesn't exist.

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.

Not true, Transubstantiation is actually an intersection of Logic, Faith and Obedience. It's not a secret that our perception of the world is limited by our senses. Our interaction with any object is characterized by two aspects, its own unchanging substance, and our limited, varying senses. For instance, person A is colorblind to the color red, while Person B isn't, and they both examine a rose. The substance of the Rose does not change, but because of limitations of senses, Person a and person B experience said rose differently. It is from an acknowledgement of this, that the grounds of Transubstantiation is validated. It's not "gobbledygook" it's reasoning from empiricism. We adopt the Aristotelian terminology of Accidents and Substance, because it's effective at describing these two things.

As to the changing of the Substance, this flows from two faith based claims, 1. Christ said "this is my blood, this is my body" and 2. God has the power to change the substance and not the accidents. It is then entirely possible to be holding something that bares the accidents of bread, that my senses perceive entirely as bread, but bears the substance of Christ's flesh (Specifically is heart because Catholicism is metal) Thus transubstantiation isn't nonsense, nor does it need to be presupposed, but can be argued logically, and faithfully. I have reason to believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, because God himself declared it to be so. I have no such assurances from Shakespeare about your laptop.

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?

Following that logic, how do you know whether your own opinion is divinely inspired or just human vanity? You claim that you know that your relationship and understanding is valid, but how do you know? You've read a book, (probably several) and accepted your interpretation of said book(s) is true and divinely inspired, but there is equal chance that it's not inspired, it's just your own thoughts, reasoning and presuppositions staring back at you. While there is something to be said for human reasoning, there's no guarantee that God shares in your conclusions. By holding up your opinion of said book, and claiming it to be divinely inspired, without proof of inspiration, you are in effect holding yourself up as an authority. Now while that may work for you personally, the boundary of your own belief, is in effect where that functionality ceases to be relevant.

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.

That is somewhat, and for the purposes of this discussion, correct, (there are finer parts where you're wrong but it's not important just yet.) There is however one fundamental difference between you, and the Church: Authority. Apostolic Churches do not make a claim of authority from the Holy Spirit, like you are, but from Christ himself. Christ, picked his disciples who became the Apostles. And whether or not you believe the position of Apostle can be passed down, it is still from these Apostles that such teachings we're received. The institution, consists of those who have received and preserve the Truth as professed by the Apostles through Sacred Tradition, Scripture is thus not a monolithic text, but rather a part of said Sacred Tradition. It is through the authority of the Church, who inherit said authority and doctrine from Christ himself, who substantiate the Bible as being authentic to the teachings of Christ.

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 explained the reasons above, as a simple logical deduction. The Church itself as an Institution, as disjointed as it was back in the day, precedes the existence of the New Testament Canon. It was the Church itself, through a series of Councils, that codified the Canon of Scripture. (And canonization is necessary, without a canon, any scripture like say the Gospel of Thomas, Judas, and/or Mary Magdalene could be said to be authoritative.) Therefor it is a logical progression, that the Church's authority does not precede from scripture, but rather Scripture's authority precedes from the Church.

Now this is not to say that the Canonized Scripture is not Divinely Inspired, but rather that the Church is the inspired instrument through which the Scripture was Canonized.

Thus the formula would look like this : Father-->Jesus--> Holy Spirit --> Church-->Scripture. And by the transitive property, we can assert in shorthand that Scripture is divinely inspired. The Apostolic Churches preserve this formula, in its entirety. It is Protestant Denominations that seek to remove the Church aspect from the formula, which Is simply illogical. You cannot embrace when God does something, but then reject the means by which God does it.

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.

And as I said, that works, and is functional for you. But at the border of your belief, that stance loses all functionality, and does not adequately contribute the necessary basis for a sustainable system of theology. In other words, A proclamation that "I believe x is true" is an unassailable position, and sufficient for a closed system. The problem is faith itself is not a closed system, but a two way interaction between Created Being and Creator. So not only do you have to believe that X is true, but so must God believe X is true. And that doesn't even begin to cover the necessity of convincing others that x is true. The second your belief transgresses the boundary of your own belief, it requires validation and sources cannot self validate, without authority.

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

I'm not trying to come off as condescending, but I would argue that Logic and an extensive education in Christian Theology, are the basis for my assumptions.
but perhaps I misunderstand your question...

[United Marxist Nations]

Just a little something for any church choir individuals in this thread <3

This reminds me, I have only watched Eva 8 times this year, and not in a few months.

[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 wouldn't dismiss all of Calvin's teachings. You may not agree with Calvinism, but that does not excuse anyone from dismissing all points raised by someone who disagrees with you. I'm an evangelical Protestant, and I listen to Roman Catholic and Orthodox sides, and there are things I admire in those traditions and there are some things I believe they got right, even though I am still an evangelical. We're human, so naturally, all Christian sects are bound to get some things right and some things wrong.

Calvin did use Augustine as a basis for his defense of predestination and he at least believed in the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.

It's human nature to focus on our differences, but ecumenicalism can only be achieved through setting aside our differences and focus on what we have in common. I think all the sects are guilty for the great number of divisions we have in Christianity, and honestly, that could be a hindrance to saving souls as an outsider will ponder which church or denomination is right, how do they know which one it is, and if Christianity is true, then why are there so many divisions?

I clearly don't take umbrage with Calvin when he preserves orthodox doctrine. I take umbrage when he asserts doctrine he believes to be true, that is often short sighted and conflicting. And considering how much shade Calvin throws in his writings, he's due to take a little on the chin.

[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.

But you do. Christ bares a duel nature, but that second nature while divine, is not expressly God. However, you would no doubt reject an Arian reading of the text, even though from a purely scriptural standpoint Arianism is a valid interpretation. So, you cannot say Doctrine does not hold any determinism on separating true readings from false readings, and attest the necessity of a belief in a Triune God.

Secondly, the duel nature of Christ is not a paradox. Christ being Fully Human and Fully God, is not paradoxical but an admitted incomprehensibility because the logical reason requires that Christ be both. In brief, if Christ is of one nature, or half and half, the sacrifice is insufficient. Early Christians knew he must be fully both, in order to be the Lamb and redeem mankind. Thus while the methodology is understood, the concurrent natures of being both simultaneously is chalked up to being fully within the realm of God's power even if beyond the scope of human perception. It's extremely akin to Transubstantiation.

Lastly, The Paradox of the Stone, is not a true paradox but rather just an appeal to logical absurdism, using misconstrued definitions of omnipotence taken to their most absurd conclusion. It's about as logical as asking if God can create a four sided circle. Never mind the fallacious logic atheists then use to deny the antecedent and proclaim God doesn't exist.

First of all, I would not necessarily reject an Arian reading of the text. I would say that Arianism is not what God is communicating to me through the text. But I do not limit either the incomprehensibility of God, or God's power to express multiple meanings, to my own poor understanding.

Second, though, I think you are drawing a false distinction between logical "methodology" and logic itself. Regardless of how we come to the conclusion of Christ's dual nature, whether it is through Aquinian reasoning or through direct Scriptural inspiration, the fact remains that to be simultaneously wholly human and wholly God is a logical paradox; the whole point in being wholly one thing is that one cannot be anything else. Similarly, all the famous atheist arguments are not just appeals to logical absurdism; they illustrate the fact that, if human definitions have any meaning at all, omnipotence is a logically inconsistent concept. It is totally appropriate to ask whether God can create a four-sided circle, and it is appropriate to realize that the answer must be both yes and no - because God does not work by our definitions or play by our rules. Hence the role of paradox as a sign of divine mystery.

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.

Not true, Transubstantiation is actually an intersection of Logic, Faith and Obedience. It's not a secret that our perception of the world is limited by our senses. Our interaction with any object is characterized by two aspects, its own unchanging substance, and our limited, varying senses. For instance, person A is colorblind to the color red, while Person B isn't, and they both examine a rose. The substance of the Rose does not change, but because of limitations of senses, Person a and person B experience said rose differently. It is from an acknowledgement of this, that the grounds of Transubstantiation is validated. It's not "gobbledygook" it's reasoning from empiricism. We adopt the Aristotelian terminology of Accidents and Substance, because it's effective at describing these two things.

As to the changing of the Substance, this flows from two faith based claims, 1. Christ said "this is my blood, this is my body" and 2. God has the power to change the substance and not the accidents. It is then entirely possible to be holding something that bares the accidents of bread, that my senses perceive entirely as bread, but bears the substance of Christ's flesh (Specifically is heart because Catholicism is metal) Thus transubstantiation isn't nonsense, nor does it need to be presupposed, but can be argued logically, and faithfully. I have reason to believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, because God himself declared it to be so. I have no such assurances from Shakespeare about your laptop.

No, transubstantiation is not reasoning from empiricism. It's reasoning from authority. In your example about the rose, we take it on faith that the Person B is 1) not colorblind and 2) telling the truth about what he sees. Similarly, you take it on faith that the church teaches transubstantiation because 1) it knows what God intended by this sacrament and 2) it is telling the truth about what it knows. In other words, this argument is not empirical in the ordinary sense; it relies upon what the church sees, not what I see.

This means that the doctrine of transubstantiation rests on the same foundation as your doctrine of Scripture: it is reliant upon the assumption that the magisterium of the institutional church is valid and truthful. If you wanted to convince me of Real Presence, you would be better advised to join Lumi in describing how you experience God at the altar, not in telling me to submit and obey the men in funny hats.

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?

Following that logic, how do you know whether your own opinion is divinely inspired or just human vanity? You claim that you know that your relationship and understanding is valid, but how do you know? You've read a book, (probably several) and accepted your interpretation of said book(s) is true and divinely inspired, but there is equal chance that it's not inspired, it's just your own thoughts, reasoning and presuppositions staring back at you. While there is something to be said for human reasoning, there's no guarantee that God shares in your conclusions. By holding up your opinion of said book, and claiming it to be divinely inspired, without proof of inspiration, you are in effect holding yourself up as an authority. Now while that may work for you personally, the boundary of your own belief, is in effect where that functionality ceases to be relevant.

There's a pretty simple answer to this one. Within my own experience, I have no doubt as to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Bible, because I have felt that presence myself. To others, that may seem delusional. But the opinion of others is not particularly important to me on this score. Faith is the gift of God and the seal of grace; it is not something I can harangue others into sharing. Persuasion is God's job, not mine. So outside the boundary of my own belief, my approach is simple: I ask others to read the Bible for themselves. If God has anything to say to them, through the Scriptures, then they will feel as I do. If not, then not. That's God's will. Either way, I don't need their validation; as Frederick Douglass once said, "One and God constitute a majority."

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.

That is somewhat, and for the purposes of this discussion, correct, (there are finer parts where you're wrong but it's not important just yet.) There is however one fundamental difference between you, and the Church: Authority. Apostolic Churches do not make a claim of authority from the Holy Spirit, like you are, but from Christ himself. Christ, picked his disciples who became the Apostles. And whether or not you believe the position of Apostle can be passed down, it is still from these Apostles that such teachings we're received. The institution, consists of those who have received and preserve the Truth as professed by the Apostles through Sacred Tradition, Scripture is thus not a monolithic text, but rather a part of said Sacred Tradition. It is through the authority of the Church, who inherit said authority and doctrine from Christ himself, who substantiate the Bible as being authentic to the teachings of Christ.

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 explained the reasons above, as a simple logical deduction. The Church itself as an Institution, as disjointed as it was back in the day, precedes the existence of the New Testament Canon. It was the Church itself, through a series of Councils, that codified the Canon of Scripture. (And canonization is necessary, without a canon, any scripture like say the Gospel of Thomas, Judas, and/or Mary Magdalene could be said to be authoritative.) Therefor it is a logical progression, that the Church's authority does not precede from scripture, but rather Scripture's authority precedes from the Church.

Now this is not to say that the Canonized Scripture is not Divinely Inspired, but rather that the Church is the inspired instrument through which the Scripture was Canonized.

Thus the formula would look like this : Father-->Jesus--> Holy Spirit --> Church-->Scripture. And by the transitive property, we can assert in shorthand that Scripture is divinely inspired. The Apostolic Churches preserve this formula, in its entirety. It is Protestant Denominations that seek to remove the Church aspect from the formula, which Is simply illogical. You cannot embrace when God does something, but then reject the means by which God does it.

But there is a core assumption here that remains undefended, which is that the inspiration of the Scriptures is a historical event. In other words, you assume that God inspired the writers of the Bible and the church councils which assembled the canon, all those centuries ago, and that the church has preserved the Scriptures intact ever since as one part of a larger sacred tradition.

I do not assume that the inspiration of the Scriptures is a historical event. I assert that it is a contemporary, continuing reality. The Bible is not a historical tome; it is a conduit of the Holy Spirit. God is working through the Bible right now, using it as his instrument to bring new truths to light in every passing generation. When I read the Bible, I do not hear the teachings of the Apostles - I hear the living Word of God Almighty, speaking through the text to me in particular and uniquely. Scripture is not a historical relic, an authoritative corpus of doctrine fixed centuries ago. It is an ongoing revelation, of and for our times. Its origins are not what make it sacred; the presence of the Holy Spirit in it, right now, today, is what makes it sacred.

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.

And as I said, that works, and is functional for you. But at the border of your belief, that stance loses all functionality, and does not adequately contribute the necessary basis for a sustainable system of theology. In other words, A proclamation that "I believe x is true" is an unassailable position, and sufficient for a closed system. The problem is faith itself is not a closed system, but a two way interaction between Created Being and Creator. So not only do you have to believe that X is true, but so must God believe X is true. And that doesn't even begin to cover the necessity of convincing others that x is true. The second your belief transgresses the boundary of your own belief, it requires validation and sources cannot self validate, without authority.

Oh, come on. Sources cannot self-validate with authority either, unless you accept that the authority itself is either externally validated or self-validating. When you assert that the historical connection of the Church going all the way back to the Apostles is the proof of its magisterium, you ask us to accept a claim that no rational historian would accept about any institution.

Folklorists have established that oral tradition changes with every passing generation; by the time of the Council of Nicaea, the bishops of the Church would have had access not to the remembered words of the Apostles, but to a garbled game of telephone involving figures who were already quasi-mythical. You ask us to accept that in councils that were called and chaired by Roman Emperors, the practical politics of the day were outweighed by the concern to represent exactly what the bishops remembered (or thought they remembered) about Jesus. You ask us to accept that these remembered traditions were preserved without the slightest alteration through a millennium in which most Western knowledge was lost, and in which the church blatantly forged historical documents like the Donation of Constantine. You ask us to accept that, to this day, the Bishop of Rome has a unique individual understanding of the whole of this miraculously preserved tradition, such that when he speaks ex cathedra, he becomes literally infallible.

As with transubstantiation, these are not rational, empirical, historical claims. They would not survive academic peer-review. They treat the authority of the church as a source of empirical information, but they don't provide the detailed historical documentation necessary to prove the direct flow of knowledge from Jesus forward to the present day. In other words, they ask us to accept on faith that the church has preserved the oral knowledge of the early church undistorted and uninterrupted for two millennia. That leap of faith is no more empirically valid outside the boundary of your own belief than my faith in the ongoing revelation of Scripture. And at least my leap of faith is grounded in the personal experience of the Word of God, not in the claims of men.

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

I'm not trying to come off as condescending, but I would argue that Logic and an extensive education in Christian Theology, are the basis for my assumptions.
but perhaps I misunderstand your question...

And I would argue that neither logic nor the teachings of the church are a valid basis for knowing God, because God is not a philosophical idea or a social construct. We know God when we meet God, when we personally feel God's grace and love and power. For Lumi, that happens during the Eucharist. For me, it happens when I read the Bible. When does it happen for you?

[Diopolis]

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 would imagine because the area is something like ninety percent Catholic.

I thought that Christianity was a reactionary bourgeois religion

Pick one.

that is incompatible with socialism. The Catholic Church opposes socialism. Socialism itself is inherently materialistic.

Bingo.

How can one be a Christian and a socialist?

It's very difficult.

[Camaalbakrius]

I am quite disappointed in Tim Kaine. I never liked him, I never supported him. He calls himself Catholic yet he openly praises Hillary Clinton, who is against nearly everything Catholics hold dear. If he cared about his faith, why would he support Clinton, who definitely does not take her "faith" seriously (I use quotes because I don't even know if she is truly Christian, at this point I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she lied about that as well), and is devoutly pro-abortion. I know Kaine is not pro-abortion, but think about when SAINT Theresa (God bless her) made a wonderful speech against abortion during Hillary's large rally for helping children all over the world. After she gave her speech, Hillary did not clap, she did not even stand. She can believe what she wants, but if Kaine respects her so much, then he must not have too much respect for SAINT Theresa. I'm ranting here, and I'm sorry, but I felt like I needed to speak my mind.

There's more reasons that Hillary is anti-Catholic values, but I don't want to banter more than I already have.

[Salus Maior]

I am quite disappointed in Tim Kaine. I never liked him, I never supported him. He calls himself Catholic yet he openly praises Hillary Clinton, who is against nearly everything Catholics hold dear. If he cared about his faith, why would he support Clinton, who definitely does not take her "faith" seriously (I use quotes because I don't even know if she is truly Christian, at this point I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she lied about that as well), and is devoutly pro-abortion. I know Kaine is not pro-abortion, but think about when SAINT Theresa (God bless her) made a wonderful speech against abortion during Hillary's large rally for helping children all over the world. After she gave her speech, Hillary did not clap, she did not even stand. She can believe what she wants, but if Kaine respects her so much, then he must not have too much respect for SAINT Theresa. I'm ranting here, and I'm sorry, but I felt like I needed to speak my mind.

There's more reasons that Hillary is anti-Catholic values, but I don't want to banter more than I already have.

Tim Kaine is a nominal Catholic at the very least.

[Camaalbakrius]

I am quite disappointed in Tim Kaine. I never liked him, I never supported him. He calls himself Catholic yet he openly praises Hillary Clinton, who is against nearly everything Catholics hold dear. If he cared about his faith, why would he support Clinton, who definitely does not take her "faith" seriously (I use quotes because I don't even know if she is truly Christian, at this point I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she lied about that as well), and is devoutly pro-abortion. I know Kaine is not pro-abortion, but think about when SAINT Theresa (God bless her) made a wonderful speech against abortion during Hillary's large rally for helping children all over the world. After she gave her speech, Hillary did not clap, she did not even stand. She can believe what she wants, but if Kaine respects her so much, then he must not have too much respect for SAINT Theresa. I'm ranting here, and I'm sorry, but I felt like I needed to speak my mind.

There's more reasons that Hillary is anti-Catholic values, but I don't want to banter more than I already have.

Tim Kaine is a nominal Catholic at the very least.

That's what leads me to believe he doesn't take his faith seriously.

[Urran]

God doesn't like lukewarm

[Nordengrund]

I am quite disappointed in Tim Kaine. I never liked him, I never supported him. He calls himself Catholic yet he openly praises Hillary Clinton, who is against nearly everything Catholics hold dear. If he cared about his faith, why would he support Clinton, who definitely does not take her "faith" seriously (I use quotes because I don't even know if she is truly Christian, at this point I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she lied about that as well), and is devoutly pro-abortion. I know Kaine is not pro-abortion, but think about when SAINT Theresa (God bless her) made a wonderful speech against abortion during Hillary's large rally for helping children all over the world. After she gave her speech, Hillary did not clap, she did not even stand. She can believe what she wants, but if Kaine respects her so much, then he must not have too much respect for SAINT Theresa. I'm ranting here, and I'm sorry, but I felt like I needed to speak my mind.

There's more reasons that Hillary is anti-Catholic values, but I don't want to banter more than I already have.

Saint Theresa? Isn't she dead? (I mean that in a non-disrespectful way.) How does she give a speech?

[Camaalbakrius]

I am quite disappointed in Tim Kaine. I never liked him, I never supported him. He calls himself Catholic yet he openly praises Hillary Clinton, who is against nearly everything Catholics hold dear. If he cared about his faith, why would he support Clinton, who definitely does not take her "faith" seriously (I use quotes because I don't even know if she is truly Christian, at this point I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she lied about that as well), and is devoutly pro-abortion. I know Kaine is not pro-abortion, but think about when SAINT Theresa (God bless her) made a wonderful speech against abortion during Hillary's large rally for helping children all over the world. After she gave her speech, Hillary did not clap, she did not even stand. She can believe what she wants, but if Kaine respects her so much, then he must not have too much respect for SAINT Theresa. I'm ranting here, and I'm sorry, but I felt like I needed to speak my mind.

There's more reasons that Hillary is anti-Catholic values, but I don't want to banter more than I already have.

Saint Theresa? Isn't she dead? (I mean that in a non-disrespectful way.) How does she give a speech?

Yes. She is. I meant Mother Theresa, who was canonized as a saint earlier this year. She gave that speech before she died

[Nordengrund]

Saint Theresa? Isn't she dead? (I mean that in a non-disrespectful way.) How does she give a speech?

Yes. She is. I meant Mother Theresa, who was canonized as a saint earlier this year. She gave that speech before she died

Oh, ok. I was just confused for a moment.

[Diopolis]

I am quite disappointed in Tim Kaine. I never liked him, I never supported him. He calls himself Catholic yet he openly praises Hillary Clinton, who is against nearly everything Catholics hold dear. If he cared about his faith, why would he support Clinton, who definitely does not take her "faith" seriously (I use quotes because I don't even know if she is truly Christian, at this point I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she lied about that as well), and is devoutly pro-abortion. I know Kaine is not pro-abortion, but think about when SAINT Theresa (God bless her) made a wonderful speech against abortion during Hillary's large rally for helping children all over the world. After she gave her speech, Hillary did not clap, she did not even stand. She can believe what she wants, but if Kaine respects her so much, then he must not have too much respect for SAINT Theresa. I'm ranting here, and I'm sorry, but I felt like I needed to speak my mind.

There's more reasons that Hillary is anti-Catholic values, but I don't want to banter more than I already have.

Tim Kaine isn't really a Catholic at all. He is openly heretical and pro-abortion. The recent wikileaks have even revealed calls(behind closed doors, of course) for the church to be kicked out of the country until they tow his party line on the alphabet soup of perversion.
His excommunication cannot come soon enough.

[-Fahrong-]

I am quite disappointed in Tim Kaine. I never liked him, I never supported him. He calls himself Catholic yet he openly praises Hillary Clinton, who is against nearly everything Catholics hold dear. If he cared about his faith, why would he support Clinton, who definitely does not take her "faith" seriously (I use quotes because I don't even know if she is truly Christian, at this point I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she lied about that as well), and is devoutly pro-abortion. I know Kaine is not pro-abortion, but think about when SAINT Theresa (God bless her) made a wonderful speech against abortion during Hillary's large rally for helping children all over the world. After she gave her speech, Hillary did not clap, she did not even stand. She can believe what she wants, but if Kaine respects her so much, then he must not have too much respect for SAINT Theresa. I'm ranting here, and I'm sorry, but I felt like I needed to speak my mind.

There's more reasons that Hillary is anti-Catholic values, but I don't want to banter more than I already have.

Tim Kaine isn't really a Catholic at all. He is openly heretical and pro-abortion. The recent wikileaks have even revealed calls(behind closed doors, of course) for the church to be kicked out of the country until they tow his party line on the alphabet soup of perversion.
His excommunication cannot come soon enough.

Can you source that please?

[Lady Scylla]

I am quite disappointed in Tim Kaine. I never liked him, I never supported him. He calls himself Catholic yet he openly praises Hillary Clinton, who is against nearly everything Catholics hold dear. If he cared about his faith, why would he support Clinton, who definitely does not take her "faith" seriously (I use quotes because I don't even know if she is truly Christian, at this point I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she lied about that as well), and is devoutly pro-abortion. I know Kaine is not pro-abortion, but think about when SAINT Theresa (God bless her) made a wonderful speech against abortion during Hillary's large rally for helping children all over the world. After she gave her speech, Hillary did not clap, she did not even stand. She can believe what she wants, but if Kaine respects her so much, then he must not have too much respect for SAINT Theresa. I'm ranting here, and I'm sorry, but I felt like I needed to speak my mind.

There's more reasons that Hillary is anti-Catholic values, but I don't want to banter more than I already have.

Tim Kaine is a nominal Catholic at the very least.

I think he's a model Catholic.