Reads Protestant apologetics for years, blatant self contradictions...

Why do protestants believe the bible was divinely inspired? A Catholic would answer that they initially take the bible as a merely human historical documents which show Jesus establishing a divine Church which then has the authority to declare which human writings also had God is their author. How does a protestant work this out since they either believe the Church was corrupted or was never truly established in the way Catholics believe? I don't see how they can explain it in a way that isn't circular.

>A Catholic would answer that they initially take the bible as a merely human historical documents
No they would not. Despite being composed by humans the Catholic Church absolutely does not see them as simply "historical documents."

Inspired documents, but not the Literal Word of God

You misunderstand me. Of course they're inspired by God, but a Catholic doesn't intellectually know this until the Church declares that this is so. We don't know what the Church is until we the historical documents showing the son of God establishing it.

So in the process of inquiry, we look at the historical documents which show a divine Church being built. This Church then declares that those historical documents also had God as its author. That's how we know that those specific books that make up the bible are also authored by God. A protestant doesn't have this. To them the bible is inspired by God simply because it's inspired by God and this is my problem with them because it's circular reasoning.

I didn't debate your point. I think you are correct. I just wanted to clairfy your statement

You didn't clarify anything, you misread me because I didn't say that Catholics see the bible as merely human documents. I said they initially see them as human documents while exploring the origins of the bible.

Jay dyer, with his boomer antics aside, has a pretty good trove of Orthodox authors to read

I really despise that man. He used to be a member of the Dimond Brothers cult and he carries that cult mindset into his Orthodoxy. He isn't interested in conversing with people and having a dialectic, but rather he wants to dominate people and gain assent and this leads him to be a very dishonest debater. There's rarely ever a conversation that doesn't involve him insulting people.

You should be very skeptical of anyone who claims small errors will collapse entire systems of thought. He does this a lot when he talks about ABS or absolute divine simplicity. This is a strawman of the Thomist position but the more important point is that it's not asserted dogmatically by the Catholic church, yet Jay will regularly claim that ABS disproves Catholicism since he assumes it's a false dogma. Just like that. He doesn't even need to interact with the best reasons to believe Catholicism is true because that's how the cultish mind works.

>Used to be a member of the Dimond Brothers cult
At least get your criticisms right, he was never a sede. ADS is not just one separate entity, it is a whole system of though which relies on Classical foundationalism and natural theology, which the Orthodox also condemn. Also ADS is an extremely important piece of dogma, its not a "small error" whether or not we are truly deified by uncreated grace or created grace.

wait... foundationalism like epistemic foundationalism? Orthodox church denies this? Or Christian foundationalism is something different? And to think I wanted to respect the Orthodox church.

There are broadly speaking two reasonable routes to go once one gets to Christianity. Either one thinks there's something to the magisterium or one doesn't. If one accepts the magisterium of some central body (I know this is the catholic term but I know there's one for the orthodox church as well) then one needs to go down that path. But if one wholly rejects the magisterium, then one is left with quakers, anabaptists, and the restoration movement (church of Christ, disciples of Christ, Christian church). Forget about the mid and high prods, they're silly. Once you join one of these wholly congregational churches, read Plantinga, read NT Wright, and the classics (Augustine, Aquinas) etc. Reject the silly Aquinas stuff. Then you have a totally internally consistent account of theology and you're not epistemically captive to some central body who cares about preserving the institution more than God's truth.

>to some central body who cares about preserving the institution more than God's truth.
Not wanting an organization (that you fully believe to be ordained by God Himself) to meet an untimely end is bad

The problem is that it's obvious that the institution's first loyalty is to its own survival. Plus there are the numerous historic and contemporary examples of behavior that would reasonably lead one to doubt that the institution had been ordained by God himself. So the objection is twofold 1) it's hard to see how the institution could have the history it does if it was ordained by God and 2) that if an organization is more comitted to it's survival than the reason it was started, one has a good reason to abandon that institution.

Yes, epistemic classical foundationalism, the Orthodox church holds to presuppositionalism and coherence theory.

oh god... do they know that the only like half respectable (don't bring up rorty plz his arguments are so bad, but I'll give you the devestating objections if you want) coherentist, Laurence BonJour went on to reject it because even he realized how ridiculous it was.

"justification is a web" lol such a silly view, especially if they think the Christian God exists.

Haven't heard of those names, but how is the idea that all views are fundamentally circular at their core silly? Its impossible to make a purely neutral statement or have one "self-evident" maxim the way classical foundationalism wants to, any belief presupposes other beliefs.

me: I believe p
you: why?
me: in light of q, I take p to obtain.
you: Why think that q?
me: it strikes me as psychologically inescapable, and even further, I cannot imagine it otherwise. If I can't imagine not q being the case, then I guess that q has to be the case.
you: Are you sure that this is a foundational belief?
me: no, but it's not clear that I have to know that I know something. Some people call this the KK principle. So, just because I don't know that I know that q is a foundational belief, doesn't mean that I don't know q.
you: ok, well what about my bit about neutrality?
me: Here's a neutral statement: I am being appeared to screen-wise. Whether that represents anything significant about the external world is a whole nother can of worms, but that's a separate question.

Why are you two debating an agreement in theology through a disagreement in modern philosophical terms? What you are calling coherence, Catholics call fittingness, and it's often considered one of the strongest evidences for any element of theology. This of course is still dependent on divine revelation, which of course the East and West both agree on. No full truth could be known if God had not revealed certain truths to us; we can establish the potential existence of other truths through reason; our certitude in these other truths can be supported either directly through reason from those revealed truths (which is very rare), or through reason combined with other senses of truth--primarily fittingness. Why do you bother with these secularized language systems which try and speak about the fundamental reality of things through the verifiability of claims? It would be absurd for anyone to consider that any truth can be established only by thinking and measurement, except for the most ordinary sense observations. How could anyone establish a fitting system without a solid foundation? How could anyone know the foundation was solid without seeing how fitting the system was? Given this circularity, and the problem of knowledge itself, how could any fundamental truth ever be known except by revelation? I was under the impression that Catholics and Orthodox agreed on this, at least in principle; has it really gotten so bad that neither group can explain their own ideas in their own terms, but must try and justify their shared faith in the terms of contemporary society?

Also, not to be a dick, but are you familiar with any coherentists? Becuase rorty and bonJour are the big ones. Maybe you think neech and marx and them endorse views like this, but I'm not in the mood for interpretive disputes. This question is of genuine curiousty btw, not trying to be mean

lol nice try at a ap jab. Where did anyone mention verifiability? Anyway, I'm not entirely clear on your view. Do you mean: Catholics take some things not to need justification like God's existence, his nature, etc. and the way they make their theology is by seeing how other things fit with those first principles, or do you mean: there're no first principles and everything is just judged on how it fits together?

Orthodox and Catholics both agree on the idea that fundamental idea that truth is ultimately known through revelation, however Catholics don't tend to stick to it in their apologetics, often times preferring things like The Five Ways of Aquinas to try and prove divinity which presupposes classical foundationalism. Also, since Catholics belive that grace is created due to ADS, the only thing we can come to know of God in this world are his created effects (on their worldview) which we predicate about using natural theology. Catholics have whole different epistemic system, which is what we are talking about
I am familiar with Dr.Bahnsen and Dr.Jason Lisle, other than that no.
What exactly are you trying to say here? The statement "I am" already presupposes a whole worldview in which
1.YOU as a subject exist
2. You can know something
3. The word "I" is coherently followed by the word "am" therefore proving the objectivity of time
4. Your words have meaning
et cetera

What I mean is, as even Aquinas asserts, Faith must precede Reason. Both of you are looking for ways to justify your faith in systems which would doubt Faith. It is not possible. God cannot be justified, for he is the very source of justice. All things are justified in him and by him, while he alone cannot be contained, defined, measured, supported, etc. by any other quality of his own that is less than his entire being. Furthermore, while we can see many dogmas through reason, and this reason helps inform and strengthen our faith, it would be absurd to maintain that any particular thing MUST be a particular way except in that God willed it to be so, and if God willed it, it must be to our benefit, to the benefit of all creation, and most of all to his satisfaction. For example, we can discuss, especially through reason, the way in which Jesus takes our sin on himself so that we may enter heaven, and that it is in some sense true to say that it was necessary for God to enact the crucifixion in order that we may be redeemed; however, these statements and dogmas the Church holds are supported primarily on their fittingness, because it would be absurd to say that God truly needed anything to be any particular way. In that sense, it is only by the fact that things are a certain way that we can understand them as being the best way for them to be. So, what I mean is that in East and West, the thinking goes in turns, because both begin with what is revealed without reservation, and by steps sees how things fit together, and from what fits together consider what other things might also fit; the West prefers to do this in a more explicit manner, shooting out in straight lines of reasoning, and then seeing if there is support, while the East seems to prefer establishing the support and then contemplating whether this arrives at anything in particular. It is truly absurd, however, to try and explain the difference between East and West in the terms of post-Christian Western agnosticism.

so the two people you're familiar with are preachers/physicists? Some people went to school to think about this and since then have only thought about this.

Maybe you think the self is an illusion and that we don't really exist. That view makes no sense because something has to be being deceived, namely the self. So there has to be a self. I'm not "presupposing" anything. It's extraordinarily obvious that my words do have meaning, look, you responded to them in a way that made it clear they meant something! Again, I'm not supposing that I can know stuff, I have all sorts of evidence. I know I exist (see above). Time could easily be relative with what I've said 3) is dumb. What I'm trying to say is that foundationalism is obviously true and you're silly to deny it. One doesn't need objective time for there to be grammar lol.

What you're describing is literally just foundationalism, I hope you know. A distinctively Christian kind, but that's literally just classical foundationalism. The only slight change are the criteria you take to be necessary and sufficient for the bottom level of your foundation.

Like all Catholics, I will make the common defense--it is not that we do not stick to it, but rather we are more comfortable with leaving it implied. There are many places where Aquinas firmly asserts faith preceding reason. While it seems fair to me to say that this approach by the West opened the door to the secular philosophy that emerged in the Renaissance, I do not know that it is fair to say that beneficial things should be avoided just because they might also be used in harmful ways. I do not think your summaries of Catholic Theology as though these elements are all catechetical dogma is fair. And frankly, I do not think it is possible that we have different epistemic systems. Rather, I think it is the differences in Greek semantics versus Latin semantics that disrupts our ability to understand what is being said by each other. After all, a language is not simply a medium of reference, but a categorical framework. Even if the categories and effective relationships between categories is the same, the manner by which categories are referenced is fundamentally different; such a difference will inevitably lead to incredible confusion when trying to correlate these two ways of speaking about what must be fundamentally the same thing.

1)You are presupposing the validity of your existence lol, you just contradicted yourself in one sentence. You saying "something has to be decieved" is a presuppositional argument
2) You saying that words "obviously have meaning" presupposes that they actually in fact do have meaning and you are actually transmitting them from yourself to me in a coherent manner. THAT IS CIRCULAR. It is using the thing that is asked in question.
3)It is not an argument from grammar, it is essentially a statement that if time is relative, than all of our observations regarding causality are illusory, and therefore when we make sentences the particular words and letters that necessarily follow up on one another are in actuality just illusory, which renders the statements themselves meaningless and therefore self-contradictory.

The differences in opinions on epistemic systems is ultimately dependent on individuals in both churches, after all there are Thomist Orthodox people (even though we would say they are heretics) and Palamite Eastern Catholics. What is dogma however is Latin ADS and the Filioque, from which a lot of the differences proceed, even down to the Papacy.

Crudely, you could call it a kind of foundation. But it is of a kind that the Eastern church also agrees with. Without the foundation of revealed truth, which is accepted without justification, there can be no contemplation or reasoning. While the revealed truth serves as foundation, the revealed truth has no foundation except itself. When the East says that things must cohere, it is the revealed truth with which they must first cohere. When the West says that reason can inform faith, it always insists that this reason is first founded in a faith which must exist before reason. Once again, you are trying to frame Christianity in agnostic terms. This is absurd, and cannot truly be accepted by either East or West, though ironically is only possible to consider due to the Western pattern of thinking.

I won't let you get away with that. The Papacy does not follow from the filioque or the Latin expression of divine simplicity. The papacy is its own issue, with its own theological dilemmas. If we try to hold each difference as part of one great difference, of course we will never make amends.

>Simply reads the Wikipedia page on Eastern Orthodoxy
thank you for admitting the depth of your knowledge

>ADS
please stop spreading this meme, you have no idea what you're talking about

The Orthodox view is that it did, we dont arbitrarily separate these issues. The Eastern positions is that due to the filioque the Holy Spirit in Catholicism gains a lesser ontological status than the Father and the Son as it lacks a property that the other two entities possess (generation of the holy spirit). Because of this, rather than letting the Holy Spirit lead be the magisterial ecumenical body that leads the churches of the world, it is the Papacy.

How so?

Really enjoying this thread as someone who has no personal stake in the discussion (apart from some past dabbling in Catholicism during a time when I was really desperately thirsty for some kind of objective truth). Instead of shitflinging there’s all this learned epistemological discussion. Even points of view I’m predisposed to dismissing as retarded end up having something interesting inside them.

I've heard this expressed many times in a similar fashion, but I find it very difficult to believe that many serious theologians hold it in such simple form, given Romes many, many, many explanations of how this is not a fair or accurate representation of our beliefs. Also, it is historically inaccurate to say these issues are not separated, given the many prior schisms which were short lived and long running political disagreements between Rome and Constantinople. Further, originally, the disagreement was not even particularly strong over the theological implications of the filioque necessarily, but were more centered on the act of altering the creed, which Constantinople argued was impermissible and meant Rome was out of step. The theological disagreement has primarily grown out of the various attempts by Rome to justify the inclusion, and objections by Constantinople on what the change might imply to some others.

You are correct and I am aware of all the prior political intrigues, but I view the theological errors and political ones as two mistakes feeding off of one another. Just because the some political schisms had been prior to the issue of filioque does not mean my position is automatically incorrect, as the Papacy started to arise in the 9th century when the local councils of Toledo was affirmed, which held dogmatically to ADS and filioque.

“COUNCIL OF TOLEDO XVI 693

Profession of Faith concerning the Trinity *

296 Let the designation of this “holy will”-although through a comparative similitude of the Trinity, where it is called memory, intelligence, and will-refer to the person of the Holy Spirit ; according to this, however, what applies to itself, IS PREDICATED SUBSTANTIALLY. For the will is the Father, the will is the Son, the will is the Holy Spirit; just as God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit and many other similar things, which according to substance those who live as protectors of the Catholic faith do not for any reason hesitate to say. And just as it is Catholic to say: God from God, light from light, life from life, so it is a proved assertion of true faith to say the will from the will; just as wisdom from wisdom, essence from essence, and as God the Father begot God the Son, so the Will, the Father, begot the Son, the Will. Thus, although according to essence the Father is will, the Son is will and the Holy Spirit is will, we must not however believe that there is unity according to a relative sense, since one is the Father who refers to the Son, another the Son, who refers to the Father, another the Holy Spirit who, because He proceeds from the Father and the Son, refers to the Father and the Son; not the same but one in one way, one in another, because to whom there is one being in the nature of deity, to these there is a special property in the distinction of persons.”

And what would you say is the error in this?

There is many errors one could hypothetically point out, but to me the biggest problem here is the affirmation of Absolute Divine Simplicity. If you want a better list you can read Jay Dyer's essay right here, after all this whole conversation started cause of him lol
>>jaysanalysis.com/2018/09/21/a/

I appreciate the link. I need to go through deeper. First impression is that it feels like he is reading these documents much differently than Catholics read them, but I need to study his position more. Unfortunately, it is late and I still have work to do. If this is still up tomorrow or this weekend, I'll try and offer a more in depth response.

Just accept the essence energy distinction you twats. And yea a small contradiction can collapse a hole system why not, especially a contradiction on a fundamental level.