Confessions of a Reluctant Catholic

[Idolater]

Plus, the churches were in the habit of passing along the letters they received directly to those who had not seen them yet.

For sure. But I'm not sure all the epistles presupposed their recipients would have also read other epistles by the time they are reading the epistles they were reading. Some (one?) mention another epistle, which is proof of such presupposing, but other than that time(s?), I couldn't be confident of it.

 

[Idolater]

Presupposing is the problem. I come not but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

I'm not saying I am presupposing Catholicism when I read Scripture, I am saying that on Catholicism, Catholicism is being presupposed by the Scripture. The argument from Scripture for Catholicism is like the argument from Scripture for the Trinity, in that, it's a transcendental argument, where you try to prove that unless what is presupposed is presupposed, then the Scripture would not say what it does say. (All this means is that the Bible is not exactly a textbook or a "SOF", which I don't think is controversial.)

There is no institution of symbolism. He stated the symbolism of the Passover to them, while hiding the meaning from them.

He claimed to be the fulfillment of the Passover Lamb, and to be celebrating the fulfillment of the Passover feast, or meal, or supper—the Eucharist. We are to do likewise, in memory of Him, just as 1st Corinthians 11 also says.

Read what Paul said again about the Passover during the dispensation of grace. 1 Corinthians 11, without presupposing anything from false teachers in the third century where Paul said let them go to hell.

20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.

I know that you know that the One Church has always believed the Eucharist is more than mere symbol and memorialism. Beyond what's said straightforwardly in the Scripture, 1st Corinthians 10 and 11, John 6, Ignatius says, in like AD 107, that Christians believed in Christ's True Presence in Holy Communion.

 

[Idolater]

My parish church is packed every Sunday. And it's a very large church.

That's a good thing.

 

[Nick M]

Scripture for Catholicism is like the argument from Scripture for the Trinity

You know better. You have been shown right here dozens of times.

 

[Derf]

For sure. But I'm not sure all the epistles presupposed their recipients would have also read other epistles by the time they are reading the epistles they were reading. Some (one?) mention another epistle, which is proof of such presupposing, but other than that time(s?), I couldn't be confident of it.

And, Paul's recitation of the Lord's Supper in 1Cor 11 was not the first they had heard of it. He said in vs 23:
For I received from the Lord **what I also delivered to you**, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread...

 

[Idolater]

And, Paul's recitation of the Lord's Supper in 1Cor 11 was not the first they had heard of it. He said in vs 23:
For I received from the Lord **what I also delivered to you**, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread...

Right you are!

I'm not saying I am presupposing Catholicism when I read Scripture, I am saying that on Catholicism, Catholicism is being presupposed by the Scripture. The argument from Scripture for Catholicism is like the argument from Scripture for the Trinity, in that, it's a transcendental argument, where you try to prove that unless what is presupposed is presupposed, then the Scripture would not say what it does say. (All this means is that the Bible is not exactly a textbook or a "SOF", which I don't think is controversial.)

btw I want to add here that whatever your convictions about the theology and ecclesiology of the Scripture, you too believe the Scripture presupposes your view. It just means you think your view is correct.

My point about the Trinity Nick is just that, there's no chapter and verse which says, "God is Triune," or, "God is three Persons." The Bible's just not like that in many ways. In some ways, it is, like, for the virgin birth. The Scripture does teach that, and explicitly, but not for everything. Testing what we believe the Scripture presupposes is a transcendental or maybe a Bayesian effort, something which examines passages in light of what we think the Scripture presupposes, and asking, "Is this passage likely, unsurprising under this theology, or is it surprising?"

We should do this with anything we think the Bible presupposes, whether it's Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, MAD, Open Theism, or Enyartism (MAD + OV).