What outside claims or sources are you talking about? Are you saying that an observer of religion cannot give a report about it because his report might be biased? Then history has no value to us because we cannot trust it...
Historical evidence is a wonderful source for supporting the validity of a proposition. The problem arises when all the historians one is relying upon are already vested towards a particular bias and outcome. One is free to believe that they all are credible "anyway", but this is strictly an argument of faith, not of objectivity.
I suppose it depends where you set the bar... You are ruling out your very own Scriptures as coming from God if you continue down this path.
1 Jesus Christ existed.
2. Jesus Christ claimed to be a messenger from God.
3. Jesus Christ formed an inner body of followers.
4. Jesus Christ sent these followers from himself to continue his teachings.
5. Part of Jesus' teaching was the claim to be divine.
With this basic notion, I think we have enough to "prove" the notion that Christ established a Church to continue His teachings. If God, then you will have to answer to Him on your continued rejection. Now, if you set the bar of proof so high, what can you absolutely prove that occured before 1900 AD? Only very general things. As such, we have a relative degree of certainty that history proves the above 5 things - which leads one to see that the Catholic Church is the continuance of the Church established by Christ.
The difference would be that none of those sources would have had a personal vested interest in convincing the public that Washington was president.
How do you know that? You know I could easily invent a conspiracy theory behind why someone would want people to believe that Washington was president... It depends on how high I set the bar of proof. I used to deal with military history. Trust me. You aren't going to be able to prove ANYTHING beyond a shadow of a doubt. History is a matter of faith in the recorders.
Unsubstantiated errors will multiply exponentially.
Where is the evidence of ANY "unsubstantiated errors" among the Church Fathers and what we call "apostolic tradition"? You see, you already approach the table "KNOWING" that the Catholic Church is wrong. Rather than approaching unbiased, you come with your Reformed thoughts. So thus, what about Calvin's "unsubstantiated errors that multiply exponentially" today?
Had scripture been their base, instead of their self-proclaimed authority to be equal with scripture, then of course matters would be much different today.
And now another presumption on top of presumption. First, you presume that the Bible is the Word of God, based on its own internal word. Sorry, the Bible isn't self-authenticating. And secondly, you are presuming that YOUR interpretation of said book is correct. Thus, I hardly would consider you a person to give me a lecture about self-proclaimed authority... Your previous argument from bias rules you out - and no one I know outside of Reformed theology considers Calvin of any consequence.
Merry Christmas - and thank a Catholic for it. You'd have no "Mass of Christ" without the Church.
Regards
I interpreted your argument to be that since you relied on the "outside sources" of the Magisterium that your position was more credible because Protestants just "make it up". I was trying to say that you agree with the views of some men who went before you and so do we. IOW, we are doing the same thing, so there is no extra level of credibility in agreeing with the Fathers. They were fallible men, just as Luther and Calvin were.
In still other words, if your argument had been "I think the Fathers were right and your guys were wrong", then that would be fine. I thought you were trying to say that the Fathers somehow counted as an unbiased and independent source.
With this basic notion, I think we have enough to "prove" the notion that Christ established a Church to continue His teachings.
Yes, and I agree with your 1-5.
If God, then you will have to answer to Him on your continued rejection.
True for the non-elect.
Now, if you set the bar of proof so high, what can you absolutely prove that occurred before 1900 AD? Only very general things.
Yes, that's right. This is where faith, reason, common sense, and accepted measures of historical textual accuracy come in.
As such, we have a relative degree of certainty that history proves the above 5 things - which leads one to see that the Catholic Church is the continuance of the Church established by Christ.
If by "Catholic" you mean Roman Catholic, then I would disagree because of the differences I claim exist between the teachings of the RCC and the scriptures, using the criteria I suggest above. I do believe that Christ continued the Church He founded, but I also think that the Church is composed of all believers. Even today, on the really, really, super-important stuff you and I agree. Christ has preserved His Church.
FK: "The difference would be that none of those sources would have had a personal vested interest in convincing the public that Washington was president."
How do you know that? You know I could easily invent a conspiracy theory behind why someone would want people to believe that Washington was president...
I know that because both those who loved and hated Washington all said he was President. Those who had nothing to gain agreed.
But since I know you to be a reasonable man, I am certain that you would never do that because you would be immediately outed as a fraud. You would be the only one or among a very few. The greater weight of other accounts would be suffocating to your position. Of course, there are SOME madmen who don't care and spew idiocy anyway, such as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. You and I can easily dismiss them. A reasonable man would not put himself in that position.
Theology, OTOH, is much different from a fact like "who is President". Theology "can" be much more subjective, so bias and personal interest matter more since only those who have power can declare "facts".
You aren't going to be able to prove ANYTHING beyond a shadow of a doubt. History is a matter of faith in the recorders.
I agree.
Where is the evidence of ANY "unsubstantiated errors" among the Church Fathers and what we call "apostolic tradition"?
I am generally referring to all of these discussions across the different threads. To me, of course, "substantiation" can only mean through the scriptures. For example, I am referring to things like when the Bible talks about which of us humans are sinners and says "all" the Fathers say "most", or when the Bible says "eternal" the Fathers say "conditionally eternal", or when the Bible says "saved by grace" the Fathers say "saved by grace plus cooperation", or when the Bible says "brothers and sisters" the Fathers say "cousins". That sort of thing.
Rather than approaching unbiased, you come with your Reformed thoughts. So thus, what about Calvin's "unsubstantiated errors that multiply exponentially" today?
Yes, I am biased toward Reformed beliefs now. However, it is interesting to me that I was in fact a 90-95% Reformer before I had even heard the term before. :) I really did not know that my views were part of some "system".
I certainly do disagree with Calvin on some subjects, such as baptism and some of the Marian doctrines. But that's OK with me. He was just a human being, and not my infallible leader. And I don't mean to sound pompous. If he was around today, I KNOW that I would have a lot more to learn from him than he from me. :)
First, you presume that the Bible is the Word of God, based on its own internal word. Sorry, the Bible isn't self-authenticating.
While I do believe the Bible is self-authenticating, I also believe that God's Church recognized the validity of (what we now call) "the Bible". Many of those among God's Church who did recognize it were Roman Catholics.
And secondly, you are presuming that YOUR interpretation of said book is correct. Thus, I hardly would consider you a person to give me a lecture about self-proclaimed authority...
I say that my interpretation is correct generally, but I don't claim infallibility. But your guys DO CLAIM INFALLIBILITY. That is self-proclaimed authority that I do not claim. Big difference. :)
Your previous argument from bias rules you out - and no one I know outside of Reformed theology considers Calvin of any consequence.
As a military historian, you know of no non-Calvinist who thinks Calvin was of any consequence on history???? Yikes! Where have my tax dollars been going? :)
Merry Christmas - and thank a Catholic for it. You'd have no "Mass of Christ" without the Church.
:) Thank you, Joe. I wish you and your entire family a very merry and blessed Christmas.