"On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded."
This kind of leap in logic is what is so baffling to me. The Houghton Mifflin company has produced many historically reliable books as well. It does not follow that the Houghton Mifflin company is infallible in any way.
With regard to oral tradition and the New Testament; Jesus left His Apostles (NOT "various writers") with the responsibility of spreading His good news throughout the world after His death and resurrection. From that charge we now have the Gospels and the remaining books of the New Testament. Considering they are based on the good news of Christ's death and resurrection, it would require extreme clairvoyance for the Apostles to write the books of the New Testament before Christ's death. But they did manage to squeek them out before their own deaths. I'm not sure oral tradition plays that key a role in what is essentially an autobiographical account of their own witness of the life of Christ.
"Would Jesus leave us a fallible authority to determine the canon of Scripture?"
You are assuming Jesus is incapable of influencing the actions of man without using the Catholic church. The fallible authority is Jesus Christ himself. Through Him, nothing is impossible. Even without the Catholic church.
"He tells us to take our disputes "to the Church." "
But in this passage, "the Church" is not capitalized. Jesus is referring to the local "church" or the assembled community. Obviously, there was no single church body that resembled anything like today's Roman Catholic Church. This often repeated scripture is used out of context when it is used to imply the overall dominion of "the Church". That simply is not the case. But as you infer, we once again are falling into a spiral argument.
In the final analysis, I see how you put the pieces together, but I disagree with the picture you create. But I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful explanations of the issues we've been discussing. Since this debate has raged for over 500 years, the odds of it being resolved on FreeRepublic are just about zero. But discussing the issues, in a frank, open manner is incredibly constructive toward building understanding if not consensus. I think we can both agree that is a positive step toward greater unity.
"On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded." This kind of leap in logic is what is so baffling to me. The Houghton Mifflin company has produced many historically reliable books as well. It does not follow that the Houghton Mifflin company is infallible in any way.
I think this is a summary of steps 1-10 in the argument. I think he fleshed out the rest of the steps further on. Briefly the argument goes --> Bible is a historical document --> It's historically accurate --> It records Christ's prediction that He would build a Church that would last forever and which is the "pillar and foundation of truth" --> A church exists that possesses an unbroken ecclesiastical structure and a non-contradictory body of doctrine --> No comparable earthly institution exists --> Christ's prediction true --> Christ is who He said He was --> Christ's Church is what It says It is --> Christ's Church says that the Bible is inerrant and inspired. QED.
Now this isn't a strictly logical proof, but it's a very strong argument which provides moral certainty.
With regard to oral tradition and the New Testament; Jesus left His Apostles (NOT "various writers") with the responsibility of spreading His good news throughout the world after His death and resurrection. From that charge we now have the Gospels and the remaining books of the New Testament. Considering they are based on the good news of Christ's death and resurrection, it would require extreme clairvoyance for the Apostles to write the books of the New Testament before Christ's death. But they did manage to squeek them out before their own deaths. I'm not sure oral tradition plays that key a role in what is essentially an autobiographical account of their own witness of the life of Christ.
But it plays some role. They record second-hand reports.
"Would Jesus leave us a fallible authority to determine the canon of Scripture?" You are assuming Jesus is incapable of influencing the actions of man without using the Catholic church.
No. I understand that.
The fallible authority is Jesus Christ himself. Through Him, nothing is impossible. Even without the Catholic church.
Yes, but how would we know with certainty what books constitute Scripture without an earthly authority? It took several hundred years for the Church to separate the wheat from the chaff in order to compile the NT.
"He tells us to take our disputes "to the Church." But in this passage, "the Church" is not capitalized. Jesus is referring to the local "church" or the assembled community.
Was this local church different from the one that Christ founded? If so, why would Jesus command anyone to go there? The church would have to be in communion with The Church for Jesus command to make sense.
And what if the local church's teaching is different from another church? How could any dispute be settled?
Obviously, there was no single church body that resembled anything like today's Roman Catholic Church.
How do you know that? Did Jesus found one Church with Peter as Its head, or many churches? What does Scripture say?
This often repeated scripture is used out of context when it is used to imply the overall dominion of "the Church". That simply is not the case.
Again, Jesus founded one Church, not many. Were there local churches? Of course, as there are today. But there weren't many separate Christian churches with conflicting teachings.
In the final analysis, I see how you put the pieces together, but I disagree with the picture you create. But I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful explanations of the issues we've been discussing. Since this debate has raged for over 500 years, the odds of it being resolved on FreeRepublic are just about zero. But discussing the issues, in a frank, open manner is incredibly constructive toward building understanding if not consensus. I think we can both agree that is a positive step toward greater unity.
I appreciate your tone and reasonableness. Let's pray for unity.