The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

Nice graphic but flawed since that is not the Catholic argument. 

Does the term "straw man" mean nothing to you?

Then let's break some of that straw down.

• Is the bible "the word of God"?
  
• Does the bible (and/or the RCC) claim it is "the word of God"?
  
• Is the bible (and/or the RCC) infallible?
  

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. The Bible is inerrant. The Catholic Church is infallible.

Now, something occurred to me a few minutes ago; namely, I've been arguing with you folks as if you were Protestants who either see the Bible as relevant or would if you understood it. But you're a god-less atheist (no offense intended), and thus, I can offer a full-throated Catholic argument without catering to the limitations that sola scriptura places upon non-Catholic Christians.

Why does that matter? Well, your argument above, for example. I simply have to say that the Catholic Church is infallible, and that's the end of it. You won't believe me, of course, but you don't believe me even if I make my arguments from scripture. So, let's take off the gloves and give you the bare-knuckled truth (and you are just going to have kittens over this, Stimbo):


"The [Catholic] position is this: there are two kinds of proofs for any dogma. The main proof, the most efficient in any way, the proof that is the real motive for every Catholic, is simply that this dogma is taught now by the Church of Christ, that Christ has given to his Church his own authority, so that we can trust the Church as we trust Christ himself. “Who heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16). The argument is the same for every dogma (that is why the Catholic position is essentially simple, in spite of apparent complexity); it can be understood by the most ignorant, as the religion of Christ must be (it is impossible for every child and peasant to make up his own Christianity for himself by his interpretation of Scripture or the Fathers…). This position admits no vagaries of private judgment for each dogma. No variety of interpretation is possible as to what the Catholic Church of today teaches, or, if such misunderstanding should occur, the Church is there to declare her mind. Even the most fundamental dogmas rest ultimately on the teaching of the Catholic Church today, even, for instance, that of the Holy Trinity. All we suppose, before we come to the Church, is that our Lord Jesus Christ was a man sent by God and whom we must follow if we wish to serve God in the proper way; that he founded one visible Church, to which his followers should belong; that this Church is, as a matter of historic fact, the communion of Rome (not, however, supposing anything about the papacy, but supposing only visible unity and historic continuity). This much must be presupposed and therefore does not rest on the authority of the Church. All else does.

"But there is another kind of argument for each dogma, taking each separately and proving that this was taught by Christ and has been believed from the beginning. This line of argument is neither so convincing nor so safe. It does now involve our private judgment as to whether the ancient texts do, or do not, really prove what we claim. It requires knowledge of the texts, of dead languages; to be efficient it requires considerable scholarship. It is impossible that our Lord should give us a religion requiring all this before you know what it is. This direct proof of each dogma can be only confirmation of the general argument for all, taken from the present teaching of the Church. But it is a most valuable confirmation, which we are always ready to offer, as long as it is understood that it is not the main reason of our belief. I am quite sure that Matthew 16:18 and the Church Fathers Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Chrysostom and Augustine all say what I believe about the Bishop of Rome. But I do not base my faith on what they say; I do not really care a jot whether convenire ad means “agree with” or “to go”. I base my faith on what the Catholic Church of today says. That alone is quite enough for all of us; in this we have an argument perfectly clear, convincing, final, the same for the student of patrology as for a peasant who can neither read nor write" (Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, [San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2008], 26-27).