Jump to content

cksalmon

Contributor
  • Content Count

    1,351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

3 Followers

About cksalmon

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land
  • Birthday 05/22/1975

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    elsewhere
  • Interests
    sunshine

Recent Profile Visitors

2,250 profile views
  1. cksalmon

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    "The problem with the Mormon world it that as a whole they are 'tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive', mostly for the prospect of ruling their own creations." (1) Does that seem like a fair assessment to you, Vance? I happen to think my Mormon neighbors are just trying to get by and do the best they can in life, but to each his own. --- (1)
  2. cksalmon

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    Can't speak for Lutherans, but I'm a so-called Calvinist (with regard to soteriology) and a Presbyterian (with regard to ecclesiology), and I don't accept Calvin as a binding arbiter for scriptural interpretation. He wrote some insightful works, but he was far from infallible. So, no.
  3. cksalmon

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    Until a teaching/interpretation becomes irreformable. I don't accept that characterization, but you're right in the sense that there is more of an onus on the individual to search diligently for truth. More later, perhaps, as time allows. This appears to be a foundational assumption. If I don't accept your premise here, the rest of the argument falls flat and "damn the torpedoes," as they say. Yes, there are obstacles and dangers, but if the foundational premise just isn't true ... Not to psychologize you, but I'll admit that makes a certain amount of sense to me given your LDS background. I'm glad you didn't go with atheism, which seems to me be the most common final landing spot for ex-LDS. Likewise. Thanks.
  4. cksalmon

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    So, to rephrase, you make make a subjective decision to treat the subjective interpretations of others as an objective standard based on your personal subjective belief that their interpretations are God-sourced. That just moves the subjectivity upstream one step. Yes, voluntarily submitting without question to the subjective (but somehow iron-clad and irreformable) interpretations of other humans would be the end of sola scriptura. You're right about that, Spammer! 😄 Mind you, I don't have any problem submitting to the biblical interpretations of others, even Catholic biblical scholars (that's a separate issue). Heck, maklelan, an erstwhile LDS poster here even changed my mind on the interpretation of something in Genesis one time. The problem I have is with submitting to a subjective interpretation that has no possibility of being questioned, interrogated, investigated, or, when necessary (dare I say it?), reformed. But I guess that's one reason I'm not a Roman Catholic. To each his own. Ecclesia semper reformanda. Cheers.
  5. cksalmon

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    I think there might be a lesson in here somewhere. I quoted Spammer labeling himself "an orthodox, Catholic Christian" as proof that he was, in fact, Roman Catholic. But he intended no such meaning. Authorial intent matters after all. 😄
  6. Well, naturally, as a Protestant, I take exception to your characterization. 😄 The belief that the Roman Catholic Church "gave" the canon to the Christian community is, of course, widespread. From my interactions with LDS, it seems that this belief is accepted, for the most part, uncritically and without hesitation. My faithful Mormon friends here can correct me if I'm overstating the case. But this ignores an entire thought world and body of scholarship arguing, to quote Michael Kruger, and particularly with reference to NT: "They [the canonical books] are not canon because the church receives them; the church receives them because they are already canon by virtue of their apostolic authority." Or, to phrase it another way, the church didn't establish the canon so much as recognize the apostolic authority inherent in what we collectively refer to as the New Testament scriptures. Yes, there is a nuanced discussion to be had; yes, there was a historical corporate reception process. I suspect my Roman Catholic friends here will disagree with that assessment, but, to be honest, I don't understand why LDS would. I have no doubt someone here will enlighten me. 🖖
  7. cksalmon

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    Sure. I wouldn't expect anything else. I agree. It appears that we agree to the following set of statements: (7) X is true (8) X is true even if the Magisterium doesn't make an official pronouncement that X is true (9) In the absence of the Magisterium, X is true So, I guess the sticky wicket is our our knowing that X is true. That's a big if, to my Protestant mind. We've already established (to our own satisfaction, at least) that objective truth exists without any necessary reference to the Magisterium. Or, to put it another way, we are able to utter true propositions without reference to the Magisterium. But what assurance do we have that our utterance that X constitutes knowledge that X? Maybe our utterances constitute a true belief, but not a justified true belief. Maybe they're just accidentally true. You appear to interpose a very subjective step to justify your knowledge that X. How does your admittedly subjective personal choice to accept, let's say, the Magisterium as your authority regarding X, get you to objective knowledge that X? Or, does it? How does a subjective determination on your part lead to justified true belief that X? I don't see how your solution provides any surer footing than any other paradigm. It seems as if you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong), well, at least I can point to something external to myself. But, arguably, I can, too (the Bible). And LDS claim to as well (revelation). All the attendant polemics aside, this is a fascinating discussion. Thanks for contributing, Spammer.
  8. cksalmon

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    Great question. Hmm. Let me think about that.
  9. cksalmon

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    Did believing it make it true for you, M? 😎🚬
  10. cksalmon

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    So, again, not to be pedantic, you're inferring that the John 6 passage has been infallibly interpreted rather than having been told such explicitly by the Magisterium? Spammer, some things you've written seem to strongly suggest that the Magisterium confers the property of X's being objectively true (whatever that is) by fiat. Consider the following: (1) At time t, RCC declares that X is true for everyone, everywhere, at all times Prior to time t, is X objectively true? Or, consider this: (2) At time t1, cksalmon asserts that Y is objectively true (3) At time t2, RCC asserts that Y is objectively true Is cksalmon's assertion at t1 correct? Or, what about this? (4) cksalmon rejects the authority of the Roman Catholic Magisterium (5) cksalmon believes and claims to know that Z (6) Spammer defers to RCC's assertion that Z and only consequently believes and claims to know that Z In what respect does the belief that Z differ between cksalmon and Spammer? In what respect does the claim to know that Z differ between cksalmon and Spammer?
  11. cksalmon

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    Thought-provoking, MosiahFree. 👍
  12. cksalmon

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    See thread title. Ha.
  13. cksalmon

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    Fair enough. To come at an earlier question again from a slightly different direction, without intending to be pedantic... Granting ex hypothesi that the Real Presence is an infallible doctrine, where specifically does the Magisterium infallibly declare the interpretation of John 6? You say one won't find a chapter-and-verse list of infallibly-interpreted scriptures (fair enough -- although some Catholics have been brave enough to try), but you claim that the interpretation of this particular passage of scripture (presumably John 6.48-58-ish) has been infallibly declared. Again, fair enough. But, specifically, where can one find this infallible declaration of meaning regarding John 6? Where does RCC state that this passage has an infallible definition? You seem to be suggesting that you know the verse has been infallibly interpreted just insofar as competing interpretations would be imcompossible with the irreformable teaching of the Real Presence. In other words, the belief that John 6 has an infallible interpretation is merely a corollary of the belief that the Real Presence is an infallible dogma. Is that a fair assessment? If not, how would you phrase the justification for your knowledge that John 6, in particular, has been infallibly interpreted by the Magisterium? What's the line of reasoning that leads necessarily to that conclusion? Cheers!
  14. cksalmon

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    What would an example be of a correct, contextualized interpretation of a scripture by the Magisterium?
×