What You Protestants Don't Seem to Get

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I can remember I've never said I'm right and some other particular denomination is wrong, though since I do think some of the doctrines I believe are in conflict with what others believe I would be willing to say it when appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

My whole point in this thread is the logical implication of not believing that any certain christian denomination possesses 100% of the truth, rather than a situation where all are faulty to a degree. If you have missed this point then you can reread my first couple posts in this thread. Also, if you think you can "pick & choose" among various interpretations of different doctrines, then doing so is bound to lead to a set of beliefs that has logical contradictions among themselves which are not necessarily a result of the axioms themselves.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

if you think you can "pick & choose" among various interpretations of different doctrines


[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh ......

I never said this.

[BluffTHIS!]

OK, you didn't say exactly that, only that no denomination's doctrinal views are perfect. This however does imply that although you might agree with a majority of one denomination's doctrinal positions, on the part where you did not, you would in fact be agreeing with those of one or more other denominations. This is what I mean about seeing the implications of various sets of beliefs.

My point here is that I respect any christian who states that their denomination is the only one possessing the totality of truth, even though I wouldn't agree that to be true. What I can't give much respect to is being comfortable with a vague notion that God would be willing to allow all to be faulty to some degree without insuring that one of them could proclaim the truth in its entireity because this means being complacent about apparent theological contradictions that are merely the result of holding various incorrect doctrinal positions, along with the implications for diminished chances of success in persuading thinking non-believers.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What I can't give much respect to is being comfortable with a vague notion that God would be willing to allow all to be faulty to some degree without insuring that one of them could proclaim the truth in its entireity because this means being complacent about apparent theological contradictions that are merely the result of holding various incorrect doctrinal positions, along with the implications for diminished chances of success in persuading thinking non-believers.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I mean by faulty human reasoning, or setting one's reasoning above Scripture. Your premise that God would not allow all institutional churches to have some error can't be defended from Scripture. Given that no institutional church that has been around for more than a few years is free from error your premise is empirically false. If you stick to it in the face of contrary evidence you are deciding absolute truth based on an unsupported premise about God.

Recognizing that all humans err and that all churches are made up of humans, rather than making me complacent, inspires me to examine Scripture even more closely and to read various interpretations of it. Complacency will surely ensue to those who believe one particular source is never wrong for then they will have no need to "test the spirits" or "examine whether these things are so". Questioning what a human says about Scripture should be second nature, especially concerning things that are not obvious and clear from Scripture, such as predesdination. The Bible is simple on one level and some doctrines are unmistakeable. Other matters are far more difficult. Paul and Peter both affirm this idea.

As for persuading unbelievers, there is no requirement to have only one human source of doctrine. The requirement is to present the Gospel and defend it. The rest is up to God for I can persuade no one.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Your premise that God would not allow all institutional churches to have some error can't be defended from Scripture. Given that no institutional church that has been around for more than a few years is free from error your premise is empirically false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your arguement here is an example of the logical fallacy of affirming a consequent from a negative premise. And your premise is false as well since I can demonstrate the "institutional" church has been around since Christ started it. He proclaimed the gospel and the Kingdom of God and commissioned his apostles to spread it and gather new believers into that church. He also gave the church structure, which made it institutional, by appointing 12 apsotles and setting up one of them, Peter, at the head of them. And I can demonstrate extremely early instances of use of papal authority and an apostolic succession from the apostles. If you buy the protestant arguement that the catholic church has only existed as an institution since approximately the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., then the logical implication is that the doctrines and practices prior to that time reflect the true primitive church and were recaptured by the reformation denominations. I challenge you, as I challenged spaminator101, to read the writings of the early christians from the 100s and 200s A.D. and see if what they believed and practiced bears much resemblance to protestant doctrine and worship.

[ QUOTE ]
As for persuading unbelievers, there is no requirement to have only one human source of doctrine. The requirement is to present the Gospel and defend it. The rest is up to God for I can persuade no one.

[/ QUOTE ]

But by your arguements, you aren't really presenting the gospel, but only a interpretation of it that you can't guarantee to be totally true to that non-believer. Thus you are asking him to accept on faith not only something that can't be conclusively proved to be true, but only an interpretation of it which itself you say is not totally true. Thus you are in fact asking that he accept an even lesser probability that the gospel is true. How convincing can that be?

Furthermore, the whole crux of this matter is that you think that God gave 100% of the truth via Christ, but then allowed it to come to pass that that truth be corrupted throughout history so that at present we here and now can not be guaranteed to be able to know the totality of truth that Jesus' disciples knew. It isn't mere human reason that makes this preposterous, but logic, since the logical implication is that it doesn't matter to God that we have the chance to possess 100% of the truth, and that furthermore our chances in being successful in our task of fulfilling the great commission are not lessened by that.

[NotReady]

I have no idea what your first paragraph has to do with anything I said.
[ QUOTE ]

But by your arguements, you aren't really presenting the gospel, but only a interpretation of it that you can't guarantee to be totally true to that non-believer.


[/ QUOTE ]

This follows from nothing I said. I haven't read the rest of your post. Perhaps tomorrow.

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, the whole crux of this matter is that you think that God gave 100% of the truth via Christ...

... It isn't mere human reason that makes this preposterous, but logic, since the logical implication is that it doesn't matter to God that we have the chance to possess 100% of the truth....

[/ QUOTE ]

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Truth is a Man. Not whatever your understanding thinks it is.

[Peter666]

"You don't really believe all arguments are sound because they are logically correct, do you?"

How would you know the difference between a sound and unsound argument if you are not certain about the initial axiom?

Likewise, how can you be certain of religious belief without an initial objective authority claiming infallibility in all matters of Faith?

You seem to maintain that there is no such thing as objective truth which man can compare his beliefs to, to know if he is right or wrong.

If that is so, all ideas about anything, let alone religion, are worthless, and have no reason to be maintained.

Any religion which does not claim 100% infallible authority on matters of Faith is garbage and has no reason to exist.

[Peter666]

But we do know the axioms. Religion teaches us the axioms. That is the point of a religion.

[David Sklansky]

This is what I have been waiting for. A Not Ready vs Peter 666 debate. (This is not the same as a Not Ready vs Bluff THIS debate because Peter 666 has stated that ONLY Cathlocism and Atheism are logically sound theories, all other religions or Christian denominations are ridiculous, and that without the "gift of faith" you must choose Atheism. BluffTHIS is not nearly so categorical about this issue.)

Please Not Ready, don't chicken out of what I see as your sternest test yet.