Circular Reasoning

I've found the circular reasoning outside the Church to be more obvious. For example when you ask about the justification for 'Scripture alone' and Scripture is quoted back at you. You ask but how did the Scriptures come into being and there is some deflection and then scripture is quoted back at you. Classic circular reasoning.
 
I've found the circular reasoning outside the Church to be more obvious. For example when you ask about the justification for 'Scripture alone' and Scripture is quoted back at you. You ask but how did the Scriptures come into being and there is some deflection and then scripture is quoted back at you. Classic circular reasoning.
Quoting scripture is never circular since the bible isn't one book but 66 books. God is the author so that's how they came into being. Nothing circular in any of that.
 
I've found the circular reasoning outside the Church to be more obvious. For example when you ask about the justification for 'Scripture alone' and Scripture is quoted back at you. You ask but how did the Scriptures come into being and there is some deflection and then scripture is quoted back at you. Classic circular reasoning.
Jesus often retorted to questions using Scripture. Was He using circular reasoning too?
 
I've found the circular reasoning outside the Church to be more obvious. For example when you ask about the justification for 'Scripture alone' and Scripture is quoted back at you. You ask but how did the Scriptures come into being and there is some deflection and then scripture is quoted back at you. Classic circular reasoning.

I love how this is the "Roman Catholicism" forum, but every time RC is challenged, the Romanists ALWAYS deflect discussion to attack Protestantism.

There couldn't be a clearer admission that they KNOW Romanism is indefensible.
 
Quoting scripture is never circular since the bible isn't one book but 66 books. God is the author so that's how they came into being. Nothing circular in any of that.
What's so obvious is that in Roman Catholicism's mixture of claims they say that they have the final say in interpreting the Bible, yet it circles back and also points to Bible passages as being the basis of its authority. 🙄
 
I've found the circular reasoning outside the Church to be more obvious. For example when you ask about the justification for 'Scripture alone' and Scripture is quoted back at you.

I guess you better throw out all the ECF's:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and,at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (AD 180)


“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.”
Clement of Alexandria (AD 180)

“But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing.” [...] “The Scripture says nothing of this, although it is not in other instances silent” [...] “I do not admit what you advance of your own apart from Scripture.”
Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, Ch. 6, Ch. 7 (AD 200)

“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn.
Hippolytus, Against Noetus, Ch. 9 (AD 200)

Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done.”
Cyprian, Epistle 73:2 (AD 250)

“... the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth.”
Athanasius, Against the Heathen, 1:1:3 (AD 325)

”Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since Holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, read the Divine word, [...]”
Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, Ch. 1, 4 (AD 325)


“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures, nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifacts of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4,17 (AD 360)



“I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us;and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.”
Basil, Letter 189, 3 (AD 370)

“But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.”
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and Resurrection (AD 375)

"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast."
-- John Chrysostom, Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC.

“Men of the world give many further rules about the way to speak, which I think we may pass over; as, for instance, the way jesting should be conducted. For though at times jests may be proper and pleasant, yet they are unsuited to the clerical life. For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?
-- Ambrose, On the Duties of the Clergy, 1.23.102 (397)


“For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things;”
John Chrysostom, Homily 13 (AD 405)

“Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than we we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behoveth to be wise”; but be wise, as himself saith, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith.” “
Augustine, On the Good of Widowhood (AD 425)
 
I've found the circular reasoning outside the Church to be more obvious. For example when you ask about the justification for 'Scripture alone' and Scripture is quoted back at you. You ask but how did the Scriptures come into being and there is some deflection and then scripture is quoted back at you. Classic circular reasoning.
Would you feel any better if I said "Scripture alone is true because my many-times-great-grandfather said that it was revealed to him by God that it was true"?
Or that his grandfather wrote the Scriptures as he they should be? If not, then why not? They both said that God had told them this. Why don't you believe them?

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 
I've found the circular reasoning outside the Church to be more obvious. For example when you ask about the justification for 'Scripture alone' and Scripture is quoted back at you. You ask but how did the Scriptures come into being and there is some deflection and then scripture is quoted back at you. Classic circular reasoning.
Roman Catholics seem to love circular reasoning and that's why they use it consistently because it gets them the result they want when they know they are backed into a corner and confronted with the truths of Scripture. Roman Catholics only defense is to use circular reasoning because they know it causes great confusion when Protestants and Roman Catholics come together to discuss such things as the gospel.
 
I've found the circular reasoning outside the Church to be more obvious. For example when you ask about the justification for 'Scripture alone' and Scripture is quoted back at you. You ask but how did the Scriptures come into being and there is some deflection and then scripture is quoted back at you. Classic circular reasoning.
Really I find RCs will always refer to the authority of their institution. No evidence of it having any authority outside what it gives itself. I mean the RC is the final authority, why because the magisterium says so.
 
Really I find RCs will always refer to the authority of their institution. No evidence of it having any authority outside what it gives itself. I mean the RC is the final authority, why because the magisterium says so.
Yep! Well said! And another thing the RC's pull out of their pope's fish hat, is that no matter how deeply we delve into the exegesis of Scripture, eventually the issue of authority will arise. As non-RC's we would be told by the Roman Catholics that our interpretation is not possible because it goes against the "unanimous consent of the Fathers" (i.e., it goes against the traditional interpretation of a passage as found in the writings of the early church leaders like Irenaeus or Tertullian or Augustine), or that we are in error because we lack the insight provided by the "oral tradition" that is in the possession of the "Teaching Magisterium" of the holy Roman Catholic Church. In either case the issue will not be what the actual text of Scripture says, but what the Roman Catholic Church, claiming Christ's special empowerment, says it says.
 
Yep! Well said! And another thing the RC's pull out of their pope's fish hat, is that no matter how deeply we delve into the exegesis of Scripture, eventually the issue of authority will arise. As non-RC's we would be told by the Roman Catholics that our interpretation is not possible because it goes against the "unanimous consent of the Fathers" (i.e., it goes against the traditional interpretation of a passage as found in the writings of the early church leaders like Irenaeus or Tertullian or Augustine), or that we are in error because we lack the insight provided by the "oral tradition" that is in the possession of the "Teaching Magisterium" of the holy Roman Catholic Church. In either case the issue will not be what the actual text of Scripture says, but what the Roman Catholic Church, claiming Christ's special empowerment, says it says.
My language tutorial was moderated by a Christian Brother (the same who make those delicious alcoholic beverages). When asked why the grammatical structure of the sentence (Matthew 16:18) is in direct conflict with the teachings of the church, his response was, "This isn't a theology class."

At first glance this was not something I found all that satisfactory. However, on closer examination, I began to see that he was correct. I also saw that Catholicism was an impeccable farce.
 
Quoting scripture is never circular since the bible isn't one book but 66 books. God is the author so that's how they came into being. Nothing circular in any of that.
The justification of sola scriptura is the circular reasoning. The Canon was the product of the inspired Church. Without the Church it would not be. The Canon didn't just appear like the 10 Commandments out of heaven with Gods voice. There was no suggestion that its creation set it apart from the living Church that it came through.
 
Stella1000 said:
I've found the circular reasoning outside the Church to be more obvious. For example when you ask about the justification for 'Scripture alone' and Scripture is quoted back at you. You ask but how did the Scriptures come into being and there is some deflection and then scripture is quoted back at you. Classic circular reasoning.
Jesus often retorted to questions using Scripture. Was He using circular reasoning too?
Well no because Jesus wasn't claiming sola scriptura. Judaism was a living faith from the beginning. A tradition of prophets, Priests and scribes who documented that tradition in the Jewish Scriptures. But the Scriptures were never set apart from the living tradition of the Jews.
 
I guess you better throw out all the ECF's:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and,at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (AD 180)


“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.”
Clement of Alexandria (AD 180)

“But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing.” [...] “The Scripture says nothing of this, although it is not in other instances silent” [...] “I do not admit what you advance of your own apart from Scripture.”
Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, Ch. 6, Ch. 7 (AD 200)

“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn.
Hippolytus, Against Noetus, Ch. 9 (AD 200)

Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done.”
Cyprian, Epistle 73:2 (AD 250)

“... the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth.”
Athanasius, Against the Heathen, 1:1:3 (AD 325)

”Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since Holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, read the Divine word, [...]”
Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, Ch. 1, 4 (AD 325)


“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures, nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifacts of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4,17 (AD 360)



“I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us;and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.”
Basil, Letter 189, 3 (AD 370)

“But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.”
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and Resurrection (AD 375)

"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast."
-- John Chrysostom, Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC.

“Men of the world give many further rules about the way to speak, which I think we may pass over; as, for instance, the way jesting should be conducted. For though at times jests may be proper and pleasant, yet they are unsuited to the clerical life. For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?
-- Ambrose, On the Duties of the Clergy, 1.23.102 (397)


“For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things;”
John Chrysostom, Homily 13 (AD 405)

“Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than we we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behoveth to be wise”; but be wise, as himself saith, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith.” “
Augustine, On the Good of Widowhood (AD 425)
None of those citations support sola scriptura though. The early fathers were themselves part of the living tradition that continues today.
 
Well no because Jesus wasn't claiming sola scriptura. Judaism was a living faith from the beginning. A tradition of prophets, Priests and scribes who documented that tradition in the Jewish Scriptures. But the Scriptures were never set apart from the living tradition of the Jews.
Jesus was the claiming sola scriptura, He is the word of God. John makes that point from the first chapter:

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it...

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
 
RayneBeau said:
Jesus often retorted to questions using Scripture. Was He using circular reasoning too?
Well no because Jesus wasn't claiming sola scriptura.
what did He quote that wasn't scripture? what does scripture say about His word? use a topical bible.

Judaism was a living faith from the beginning.
from the beginning of what? when?

A tradition of prophets, Priests and scribes who documented that tradition in the Jewish Scriptures. But the Scriptures were never set apart from the living tradition of the Jews.
so all of scripture includes the living tradition of the Jews?

were those carried over into the NC for believers?
 
Back
Top