# A Romanist claim of authority on an epistemological basis



## Aco (Apr 27, 2020)

I would like to hear from you guys what you think of the claim of a Roman Catholic, who tries to convince me that the "Church" is the "Formal" and "Efficient" cause of the Scriptures/Special revelation (whatever "Church" is in the first place, he elegantly circumvents this challenge of mine that he has to consistently establish apart from Scripture in the first place). It ends up in the silly position that you don't know Divine truths apart from Roman despotism. I think that claim is utterly absurd not only on a historical but also on a metaphysical and epistemological basis.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2020)

Aco said:


> I would like to hear from you guys what you think of the claim of a Roman Catholic, who tries to convince me that the "Church" is the "Formal" and "Efficient" cause of the Scriptures/Special revelation (whatever "Church" is in the first place, he elegantly circumvents this challenge of mine that he has to consistently establish apart from Scripture in the first place). It ends up in the silly position that you don't know Divine truths apart from Roman despotism. I think that claim is utterly absurd not only on a historical but also on a metaphysical and epistemological basis.



Vatican I actually says I can know a lot about divine truths from reason and nature. But yes, the claim, as do most EO and RCC claims on authority, reduce to skepticism why you apply it against them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Aco (Apr 27, 2020)

He argued in this fashion:

1. God (The Necessary Cause) 
2. Church Magisterium (The Formal And Efficient Cause)
3. Scripture (The Effect)

I responded:

1. God is the Necessary Cause 
2. Special Revelation is the Formal and Efficient Cause of Scripture (Divine speech)
3. Inscripturation of Special revelation is the Effect, through the Church, the Instrumental Cause


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2020)

Aco said:


> He argued in this fashion:
> 
> 1. God (The Necessary Cause)
> 2. Church Magisterium (The Formal And Efficient Cause)
> ...



Strictly speaking, he didn't argue any of this. He just asserted it. He assumed what he is trying to prove.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Aco (Apr 27, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Strictly speaking, he didn't argue any of this. He just asserted it. He assumed what he is trying to prove.



Yes, I point out to Roman Catholics (and EO) that they never substantiate what the Church is in the first place and how they now it.


----------



## DTK (Apr 27, 2020)

Aco said:


> I would like to hear from you guys what you think of the claim of a Roman Catholic, who tries to convince me that the "Church" is the "Formal" and "Efficient" cause of the Scriptures/Special revelation (whatever "Church" is in the first place, he elegantly circumvents this challenge of mine that he has to consistently establish apart from Scripture in the first place). It ends up in the silly position that you don't know Divine truths apart from Roman despotism. I think that claim is utterly absurd not only on a historical but also on a metaphysical and epistemological basis.


I do not know of a single early church writer who employed, and thus argued for that method of epistemology regarding the Scriptures. In fact, I can produce testimonies to the contrary. But the Romanist does not reckon with such evidence honestly in my opinion. For example, over and over Augustine argues that the OT Scriptures were passed on to the church from the Jews.

Moreover, as Dr. Charles E. Hill (RTS Orlando) has pointed out: "The Christian church did not so much construct a doctrine of Scripture as inherit one. It succeeded to its conception of the divinity and authority of Holy Scripture, one might say, as bequeathed to it from the broad Jewish heritage in general. . . . Yet it would also be correct to say that the church received its conception of Scripture from Scripture itself, and from Jesus and his apostles in what soon became a new body of Scripture."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Casiodoro (Apr 28, 2020)

Aco said:


> I would like to hear from you guys what you think of the claim of a Roman Catholic, who tries to convince me that the "Church" is the "Formal" and "Efficient" cause of the Scriptures/Special revelation (whatever "Church" is in the first place, he elegantly circumvents this challenge of mine that he has to consistently establish apart from Scripture in the first place). It ends up in the silly position that you don't know Divine truths apart from Roman despotism. I think that claim is utterly absurd not only on a historical but also on a metaphysical and epistemological basis.


Here is a link to an excellent testimonial that touches on these points, written by a would-be convert to Catholicism.








Catholicism Made Me Protestant | Onsi A. Kamel


Like all accounts of God’s faithfulness, mine begins with a genealogy. In the late seventeenth . . . .




www.firstthings.com




"Catholics did not gain by their magisterium a clear, living voice of divine authority. They received from the past a set of magisterial documents that had to be weighed and interpreted, often over against living prelates. The magisterium of prior ages only multiplied the texts one had to interpret for oneself, for living bishops, it turns out, are as bad at reading as the rest of us."


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 28, 2020)

Welcome to the PB. Please fix your signature (link at bottom of page) so folks know how to address you.


Casiodoro said:


> Here is a link to an excellent testimonial that touches on these points, written by a would-be convert to Catholicism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 28, 2020)

Aco said:


> He argued in this fashion:
> 
> 1. God (The Necessary Cause)
> 2. Church Magisterium (The Formal And Efficient Cause)
> ...


It's still circular reasoning, since the church is founded on scripture it can't be the "foundation" of scripture. Discussions of canon can complicate the discussion but at the end of the day it still reduces to circular reasoning.


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 28, 2020)

“It's still circular reasoning, since the church is founded on scripture it can't be the "foundation" of scripture.”

A few observations...

1. A Romanist who denies the church is founded on Scripture won’t ever find himself in that circle. 

2. If anyone were to assert: the church is founded on Scripture and Scripture is founded on the church, that wouldn’t be circular reasoning. It’s not an argument. There’s no degree of truth resting on a series of premises. 

3. More can be said about circular reasoning but for these sorts of purposes it might be best to discern what any particular Romanist is purporting. That can require pressing the Romanist actually to form a valid argument (even if it’s an unsound one). Then, pick away at the argument. Until then, it’s just assertion on their part, leaving little to interact with or critique.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

