Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Do we need a Infallible Interpretation of the Bible?

Roman Catholics claim that Protestant theology is deficient because one cannot have infallible certainty about doctrine from scripture because they do not have a infallible church to interpret the Bible infallibly. All they have, according to the Roman Catholic, is the fallible opinions of men. In this post I hope to show that given this line of reasoning that Roman Catholics are in the same position as Protestants and that if there reasoning were consistent then this would require a infinite regress of infallible interpreters.



Roman Catholics are in the same position as Protestants:

If the infallible church infallibly interprets a statement x then the infallible interpretation is going to be interpreted by you, a mere fallible person. In short, the Roman Catholic has to fallibly interpret the infallible church, just like the Protestant has to fallibly interpret the infallible Bible.

A Infinite Regress of Infallible Interpreters:

The Problem is that if the Roman Catholics were consistent with their claims then they would end up having a infinite regress of infallible interpreters. Here is how:

If one lays out a condition for theology that for any statement of faith and practice, that statement ought to be infallibly interpreted.

Here is how such a condition would lead to a infinite regress: For every statement x that is interpreted that interpretation becomes a statement y about a statement x. Furthermore, since that infallible interpretation is a statement y then it needs to be infallibly interpreted by another statement w and once it is infallibly interpreted then w has to be infallibly interpreted and on and on.

The Roman Catholics might object and say that "well there comes a point were you just have to interpret the statement x". But if this is true then it becomes a fallible human opinion and no longer a infallible interpretation of the Church.

The problem with this infallible interpretation principle is that it leads to a unnecessary infinite regress and thus a violation of Ockham's Razor.

Conclusion:

In conclusion we do not need a infallible interpretation of the Bible because the principles behind it lead to a unnecessary infinite regress. There is no reason to think that we cannot know the meaning of scripture without a church infallibly interpreting it. This is why I think it most reasonable to think that we interpret the Bible as fallible creatures before God, we know what it says but we know it as creatures and not as God.

65 comments:

  1. This is an issue which often gets confused.

    Often times it comes out as if Catholics believe we cannot read the "plain text of the Bible" AS IF we were looking at a document written in Chinese and need a Chinese person to read it for us. That's incorrect. Catholics believe the Bible is overall pretty clear, though there are some tricky spots. Protestants, for the most part, would agree with that.

    The real problem is not that the Bible is too hard to read, but rather who's interpretation is authoritative. A better way of saying "infallible interpretation" is to replaced it with "authoritative interpretation." This is the question Sola Scriptura cannot address and was never designed to (and a fatal flaw at that).

    The question of: "What happens when two Protestant pastors disagree on an interpretation?" is a classic stumper I toss out at Protestants. The Protestant position has no solution to this serious dilemma. The only logical answer is for one pastor to accuse the other one of not being a true Christian (i.e. not led by the Spirit), but the negative ramifications of that are obvious.

    The Catholic Church acts as a sort of Supreme Court while the Bible is the Constitution. It clears up issues it believes are important and settles them authoritatively. This keeps everyone on the same page, and allows for genuine hierarchical authority, two things which Protestantism cannot provide.


    One superb example of the Protestant conundrum is a recent blog post I made:
    http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/05/calvinists-who-deny-imputation-of.html


    Also, here is a critique of the Westminster Confession "authoritative" definition of Sola Scriptura:
    http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/westminsterch1

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nick,

    I should think that this would be obvious, but apparently it's not. What happens if we throw out your "classic stumper", but change it to a Protestant and a Catholic who disagree on some issue. How do we decide who's interpretation is authoritative then? Do we simply assume that the Catholic's interpretation is the right one because he says it's authoritative? Obviously not.

    So what happens when we simply move the question back one step and ask, how do you know that the Catholic Church has the authority you claim it does? There are two positions; the Catholic one and the non-Catholic one. Both have arguments that claim to be based in Scripture. So which position is right? By your (radically skeptical) logic, we can't know which position is right without some authoritative body to tell us. So what authoritative body is there higher than the Catholic church that can tell us that the Catholic church is authoritative? I trust you see the absurdity of this position.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David,

    Your situation doesn't work because Catholics are unregenerate according to you, so my interpretation cannot be correct because I wouldn't even be Christian at that point. The situation is very different between two Christians, especially of the same denomination.

    You can genuinely ask the question of how I know the Catholic Church is the One True Church, but that is a slightly different issue than the main topic. I would say, briefly, that the fact the CC offers such a mechanism of authoritatively settling issues, while your system merely allows for a draw, is serious points for the Catholic position.
    If all a position can offer is a draw, then obviously it's not the correct path, because there is only one Truth out there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nick,

    That conclusion hardly follows from what you've said. It's wonderful that Catholics have a mechanism for settling disputes. But that's not the issue. If that mechanism is not in fact the authoritative institution founded by Christ that you claim it to be, who cares if they can settle disputes for you? In other words, you've provided me with no reason to prefer Catholicism as a system to Protestantism, nor have you succeeded in showing that your own position does not fall prey to the same problems that you pose to Protestants.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If Christ didn't establish that mechanism, then you're very correct to say it doesn't matter how good it is. That's not the issue because that's a given.

    My comments were specifically for the purpose stating my reasoning of preferring one system over the other. The issue of two Christians disagreeing on how to authoritatively interpret something is my key example, and one which you have no solution to. The Magisterium system provides a solution to that problem.

    Your system has a Church where two Christians (esp clergy) cannot authoritatively settle a dispute, which in effect means there is no genuine hierarchy nor authority at all. This contradicts the Bible (eg clearly teaching hierarchy) and common sense (what we would expect from Jesus to not leave us in such a predicament).

    I suggest you take a look at that link I posted about Calvinists who deny imputation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello Nick,

    The real problem is not that the Bible is too hard to read, but rather who's interpretation is authoritative. A better way of saying "infallible interpretation" is to replaced it with "authoritative interpretation." This is the question Sola Scriptura cannot address and was never designed to (and a fatal flaw at that).

    Response: It will be fine that you define it as a authoritative interpretation. My arguments will follow just fine and work in the same way if you substitute that in. I would say Sola Scriptura is more reasonable than the Roman Catholic position because it avoids the problems and inconsistencies that I have mentioned in the post above that you have failed to respond to in this response.


    The question of: "What happens when two Protestant pastors disagree on an interpretation?" is a classic stumper I toss out at Protestants. The Protestant position has no solution to this serious dilemma. The only logical answer is for one pastor to accuse the other one of not being a true Christian (i.e. not led by the Spirit), but the negative ramifications of that are obvious.


    Response: I would say the Pastors will have to follow the objective rules of interpretation and exegesis. The same can be asked of the Catholic position: What do you do when two Roman Catholics disagree about the authoritative teaching and interpretation of the church? You are going to have to use you non-authoritative interpretation (your own) to understand the authoritative interpretation.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  7. My comments were specifically for the purpose stating my reasoning of preferring one system over the other. The issue of two Christians disagreeing on how to authoritatively interpret something is my key example, and one which you have no solution to. The Magisterium system provides a solution to that problem.

    Response: You have not solved the problems that I have laid out in my post against the magisterium and individual Catholics understanding it. The reason we reject your position and hold to Sola Scriptura is for the reasons in the post (individual Catholics have a non-authoritative interpretation and the infinite regress), which is something you have failed to address here in your responses.

    ReplyDelete
  8. All I'm saying is that you're confusing two issues. All documents must be read/interpreted, even the very words you're reading now. The "task" of understanding what an author is saying (or implying) is something all people must (fallibly) attempt to discern.

    The issue of infallibility/authority in interpreting is different. This situation is where the Church sees an issue which it believes needs clarification and does it's best to communicate this authoritative clarification/interpretation/etc. Could this clarification/interpretation be misunderstood by us? Sure, but that's not the same as whether an authoritative interpretation can even exist.

    So take the example of whether the Bible permits divorce and remarriage. Two pastors can be well read in Scripture, well learned, etc, and come to polar opposite conclusions. Sola Scriptura has no way of settling this. In Catholicism, the Church can come out and say "Divorce is forbidden" and all members of the Church must submit to this. Could the phrase "Divorce is forbidden" be misinterpreted by us? Sure, but that's another issue and a 'problem' in any situation whatsoever.


    You said: "I would say the Pastors will have to follow the objective rules of interpretation and exegesis."

    The problem here is that it still nowhere settles anything. If both are trained, qualified, and convinced of their position, the issue of settling the dispute in an authoritative manner is still impossible. Neither pastor could ever say "this is the correct interpretation and you must submit to it."

    Another example, take the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. A dispute arose on whether the Gentiles need to be circumcised, with each side convinced of their position. The Church said "the Gentiles don't need circumcision" and all Christians then became bound to that teaching.
    Could a Christian misunderstand the phrase "the Gentiles don't need circumcision"? Sure, but that is a separate issue of whether the Church can bind the conscience on that phrase in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello Nick,

    You said: All I'm saying is that you're confusing two issues. All documents must be read/interpreted, even the very words you're reading now. The "task" of understanding what an author is saying (or implying) is something all people must (fallibly) attempt to discern.

    Response: I do not think I am confusing two issues here because Roman Catholics use this form of argumentation. Lastly, it is pretty clear that whatever is authoritatively interpreted is also infallibly interpreted.

    You said: The issue of infallibility/authority in interpreting is different. This situation is where the Church sees an issue which it believes needs clarification and does it's best to communicate this authoritative clarification/interpretation/etc. Could this clarification/interpretation be misunderstood by us? Sure, but that's not the same as whether an authoritative interpretation can even exist.

    Response: This is what the church does. But I do not see any reason for doing and thus I do not need a infallible interpreter.

    So take the example of whether the Bible permits divorce and remarriage. Two pastors can be well read in Scripture, well learned, etc, and come to polar opposite conclusions. Sola Scriptura has no way of settling this. In Catholicism, the Church can come out and say "Divorce is forbidden" and all members of the Church must submit to this. Could the phrase "Divorce is forbidden" be misinterpreted by us? Sure, but that's another issue and a 'problem' in any situation whatsoever.

    Response: I think two well studied Roman Catholics can disagree about what the church teaches as well. They would argue on the basis of reason and objective rules of interpretation the same as the Protestants would. Sola Scriptura does have a way of settling this you just do not like my answer, that it is settled on the basis of objective rules of interpretation. If one of the pastors refuses and is being irrational then that is all you can do, but the same thing can happen to Roman Catholics.


    You said: The problem here is that it still nowhere settles anything. If both are trained, qualified, and convinced of their position, the issue of settling the dispute in an authoritative manner is still impossible. Neither pastor could ever say "this is the correct interpretation and you must submit to it."

    Response: The authority is right reason and scripture, I believe that one of the pastors will be inconsistent with either of those two, in which case he either repents or stays stubborn in his view against the authorities of right reason and scripture. Same would be true of a Roman Catholics except it would be about the church that would be the final authority.

    You said: Another example, take the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. A dispute arose on whether the Gentiles need to be circumcised, with each side convinced of their position. The Church said "the Gentiles don't need circumcision" and all Christians then became bound to that teaching.
    Could a Christian misunderstand the phrase "the Gentiles don't need circumcision"? Sure, but that is a separate issue of whether the Church can bind the conscience on that phrase in the first place.

    Response: Believe it or not people disagree about the that council and how to interpret just as they do with all of the early christian creeds and traditions and with council of Trent even.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nick,

    This is a interesting discussion and I would encourage you to continue it. But the Post I have written was a response to a actual Roman Catholic argument that is made against Protestants to show that there position is irrational and as of yet you have failed to actually address my response. So if you were writing with the intention of refuting my refutation of this Roman Catholic argument then you have not done that as of yet.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nick,

    You say that whether or not the Catholic Church truly has the authority you claim it does is not the issue. I disagree, because you have argued that the Catholic Church must be the true church because it has an authoritative body that can settle disputes. Not only is that a contentious claim that you haven't even attempted to prove, but it hardly follows that any group who claims to have an authoritative decision-making body is therefore the true church. Therefore you cannot simply offer the mere existence of the Roman Magesterium as a reason for believing that Rome is the true church, because the mere existence of such a body proves absolutely nothing. Surely you can see that.

    As to your other points, I think Nate has addressed them adequately. You still haven't succeeded in showing how an individual Catholic believer is in any better shape than an individual Protestant believer. If two Protestant denominations disagree, obviously no one can authoritatively tell me who is correct. I need to weigh their arguments and decide who's are more Biblical. But don't kid yourself into thinking that you are in a different position. You too must weigh arguments using your own reasoning abilities as an instrument to decide whether Catholics or Protestants are more Biblical. That is the point Nate and I have been attempting to drive home. You don't rely on some body higher than the Catholic church to tell you that the Catholic claims to authority are true. You don't rely on some higher body to authoritatively settle the dispute between Catholics and Protestants. You are in the exact same position as a Protestant, left with your Bible and your own reason to tell you which side is right, you simply don't want to admit it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It seems the Catholics are asking the question:

    "How can a fallible interpretation of infallible Scripture bind the conciences of men?"

    That is how can a fallible interpretation be an authoritative one such that men would be bound in agreeing with this interpretation?

    Epistemologically speaking, if an infallible Church existed which infallibly interpreted x, the fallible members of the Church could come to certain knowlege of x perfectly in line with x's objective teaching.

    It appears that a false problem has been presented, and too much effort is being spent trying to solve this false problem.

    That is to say, why can't fallible men come to firm and certain knowlege and understanding of an infallible declaration?

    Do I need to be infallible to understand an infallible statement with certainty? No of course not.

    So the issue is not whether we can epistemologically know infallible declarations as fallible men, but rather whose interpretation of Scripture is binding on the conciences of men?

    The Catholic will posit the RCC's interpretation is authoritative because it is infallible, while the Protestant will say his or her interpretation is authoritative because it mirrors objective Scriptural teaching.

    Here is where I think the Catholic loses the game.

    The only way the fallible Catholic can epistemologically know a particular interpretation given by the RCC is infallible is through the same principles and means the Protestant exegetes Scripture.

    That is, the certainty that an individual Catholic has about an interpretation given by Rome, is attained in the same way the certainty of a particular teaching of Scripture is attained by a Protestant.

    God bless

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello there,

    I agreed with everything you said above. Did you think that anything you said was different from what I wrote in my post? I hope what I said was sufficiently clear because what you said towards the ends was my part of my argument in the post.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  14. There are some misconceptions in your post.

    First, as a Catholic I don't say Protestant theology is deficient because "one cannot have infallible certainty about doctrine from scripture because they do not have a infallible church to interpret the Bible infallibly". If it's deficient, that's because it's wrong, not because Protestants can't know it infallibly. Similarly, I don't say that "we cannot know the meaning of scripture without a church infallibly interpreting it." Much if not most of the Bible is easily understood; the Church doesn't deny that.

    You write, "If one lays out a condition for theology that for any statement of faith and practice, that statement ought to be infallibly interpreted [sic]."

    I'm not aware of the Catholic Church laying out any such condition for all statements of faith and practice. Many things are taught by the Church which have not been formally defined in such a manner as to be considered infallibly taught. They are however taught authoritatively.

    As someone else said, it's not about infallibility, it's about authority. We believe the Church not because she's infallible, but because she has the authority to teach us. It's based on this authority that we believe the precise books and verses found in the Bible are in fact scripture. From there we proceed to obey scripture since we now know that it too is authoritative.

    For this reason the Catholic and the Protestant are not, as you imply, in the same place with respect to their respective acknowledged authorities. It is not a situation where the Protestant has a self-authenticating authority, the Bible, while the Catholic has a self-authenticating authority, the Church (which in turn authenticates the Bible), and thus both alike claim self-authentication. On the contrary, only one of them even attempts to authenticate itself.

    In comparing the two, we see that the Church does in fact claim that she is the one founded by Christ and given authority to teach and to act in his name. Whereas the Bible does not claim that it is the sole source and authority by which revelation is to be given and judged.

    You will immediately jump up and cite a verse or two saying that we are to judge things by the scriptures, that they are God-breathed etc. That's fine. The problem is that the Bible doesn't tell us precisely *which* books and verses belong in the Bible. A verse may say that "all scripture is God-breathed", but it doesn't identify which books fall into the category of "all scripture".

    Thus the Church is self-authenticating in a way that the Bible is not: the Church can identify who and what the Church is, whereas the Bible doesn't even attempt to identify what writings comprise the Bible. Yes, the Church may be wrong about who it claims to be -- but at least it makes the claim in the first place, and we can proceed from there to evaluate whether there are good grounds for believing it.

    The Bible, on the other hand, can't authenticate itself, because it doesn't even identify itself. It needs someone outside itself to tell people what it consists of. The only question is: who will that someone be?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just another thought: It strikes me that this is not so much about infallibility as about perspicuity.

    You seem to be arguing that if Catholics claim scripture is not perspicuous, we are precluded from arguing that the Church is perspicuous. This is fallacious in that it assumes a false dilemma: That either both are perfectly perspicuous, or neither is.

    In fact, I believe the Church is more perspicuous since it, unlike the Bible, is able to continually clarify itself in response to questions and disagreements.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hello Agellius,

    There are some misconceptions in your post.

    Response: I do not think so. Roman Catholic apologists have made these arguments before. I have heard Catholic Bishops on Catholic channels giving this line of reasoning as well.

    First, as a Catholic I don't say Protestant theology is deficient because "one cannot have infallible certainty about doctrine from scripture because they do not have a infallible church to interpret the Bible infallibly". If it's deficient, that's because it's wrong, not because Protestants can't know it infallibly. Similarly, I don't say that "we cannot know the meaning of scripture without a church infallibly interpreting it." Much if not most of the Bible is easily understood; the Church doesn't deny that.

    Response: Well, that may be true for you as Catholic, but other individual Catholics disagree.

    You write, "If one lays out a condition for theology that for any statement of faith and practice, that statement ought to be infallibly interpreted [sic]."

    I'm not aware of the Catholic Church laying out any such condition for all statements of faith and practice. Many things are taught by the Church which have not been formally defined in such a manner as to be considered infallibly taught. They are however taught authoritatively.

    Response: Individual Catholics Bishops and Apologist lay out this principle to attack the Protestant position. It is true; however, I do know any official documents that teach this. Either way, the Catholic apologist and other Catholic evangelists ought not to use this principle to attack the Protestant position anymore because of the strong refutation of it in this post. So if the church does not teach it officially that should be fine. It is just taking away another positive reason to believe the Catholic position over and against the Protestant position.

    As someone else said, it's not about infallibility, it's about authority. We believe the Church not because she's infallible, but because she has the authority to teach us. It's based on this authority that we believe the precise books and verses found in the Bible are in fact scripture. From there we proceed to obey scripture since we now know that it too is authoritative.

    Response: And as I responded to that someone else, in my post if you substituted the word infallibility with authority you would have the same philosophical problems. You as unauthorative interpreter are interpreting the authoritative interpretation. If you were to be consistent with this authoritative principle then you would have an infinite regress as well.

    ReplyDelete
  17. For this reason the Catholic and the Protestant are not, as you imply, in the same place with respect to their respective acknowledged authorities. It is not a situation where the Protestant has a self-authenticating authority, the Bible, while the Catholic has a self-authenticating authority, the Church (which in turn authenticates the Bible), and thus both alike claim self-authentication. On the contrary, only one of them even attempts to authenticate itself. In comparing the two, we see that the Church does in fact claim that she is the one founded by Christ and given authority to teach and to act in his name. Whereas the Bible does not claim that it is the sole source and authority by which revelation is to be given and judged.

    Response: I think it does;

    “16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

    This verse teaches the sufficiency of scripture for faith and practice. It also seems implicit within this text that if scripture can by itself equip every person for every good action then it seems that we would have to individually understand it. This is not the only text that teaches Sola Scriptura, there are two other texts that I believe imply this doctrine.

    1 Corinthians 4:6 6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

    Paul is teaching that the Corinthians not ought to be judgmental and puff themselves with arrogant pride rather they are to be submissive to what is written and not to go beyond it. If this holds true when Paul is saying this to a church in the first century when the Holy Apostles were alive, then how much more should we follow this principle when there is no more living apostles? This is what Reformed Theologian Michael Horton has argued in his class lectures. If Paul is arguing not to go beyond what is written then it is clear that Scripture is necessary for all things pertaining to our salvation, practicing our faith and he is also presupposing in this that we can understand what is written in Holy Scripture.


    You will immediately jump up and cite a verse or two saying that we are to judge things by the scriptures, that they are God-breathed etc. That's fine. The problem is that the Bible doesn't tell us precisely *which* books and verses belong in the Bible. A verse may say that "all scripture is God-breathed", but it doesn't identify which books fall into the category of "all scripture".

    Response: Jesus gives a identification in scripture about what is revelation and what is not (John 10:4). We know what books ought to belong in the Canon because God speaking to us is self-authenticating and we know that God speaks to us through the 66 books of the Bible. It is as a properly basic belief grounded in the work of the Holy Spirit. Now he does not have an inspired table of contents as the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church does. But why think that we need an inspired table of contents? Why is not giving a criterion for how one determines what books belong and what do not a sufficient or necessary condition?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thus the Church is self-authenticating in a way that the Bible is not: the Church can identify who and what the Church is, whereas the Bible doesn't even attempt to identify what writings comprise the Bible. Yes, the Church may be wrong about who it claims to be -- but at least it makes the claim in the first place, and we can proceed from there to evaluate whether there are good grounds for believing it.

    Response: It seems to me that the Catholic Church and the Bible are in the same position here. You have to identify what church is the true (over against Mormons, Pentacostals, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witness, and Anglicans). The Protestant also has to deal with the issue of what things truly belong in revelation. Your decision to embrace the Catholic Church is a fallible decision and my choice to affirm what Canon I embrace is a fallible decision.

    The Bible, on the other hand, can't authenticate itself, because it doesn't even identify itself. It needs someone outside itself to tell people what it consists of. The only question is: who will that someone be?

    Response: The Bible gives a criterion for identifying what books to accept and not to accept. Why think that it is necessary that it must identify each one? The problem with your reasoning is that I can ask you the similar question. The Roman Catholic Church needs something outside of itself to tell people that it is authoritatively truth indicative. The only question: who will that someone be? You might say well it just stops with the Roman Catholic Church. But then why then can’t I say it just stops with the Bible.

    Just another thought: It strikes me that this is not so much about infallibility as about perspicuity.

    Response: No. You have misunderstood me.

    You seem to be arguing that if Catholics claim scripture is not perspicuous, we are precluded from arguing that the Church is perspicuous. This is fallacious in that it assumes a false dilemma: That either both are perfectly perspicuous, or neither is.

    Response: I never made that argument once. It is true however if any individual interpretation one makes of anything is going to be fallible and possibly mistaken. We are all in the same boat here and suppose we were not…then there would be the infinite regress that one would have to embrace in the post.

    In fact, I believe the Church is more perspicuous since it, unlike the Bible, is able to continually clarify itself in response to questions and disagreements.

    Response: I am inclined to think that they are equally clear, but I will, for the sake of argument grant your point. Then the argument would look something like this.

    P1: If s were to give us more epistemological certainty than y then we have more reason to believe s over y
    P2: s would give us more epistemological certainty than y
    C: Hence, it is more reasonable to believe s over y

    I see no reason to believe P1 here. We would have more certainty about religion if we held a view point that God infallibly and authoritatively gave us a priori information in our minds and in a way that it was impossible to doubt like the proposition 1+1=2, but no one thinks that this is so, especially Catholics for that matter. So even if what you were saying was correct it would not sound argument against the Protestant position and in favor of the Catholic position. This is because you first have to ask the question: What reason do you have for believing in the Catholic Church? If one were to show that it is more reasonable to believe the Catholic church rather than not they are going to have to defeat all other view points that claim that authority (such as the Eastern, Mormon, and JW church). In which case you are going to have assess the fallible probabilities and demonstrate that. At this point, if the Catholic does have an advantage it seems to be very little and that advantage (if there is one) cannot be used as evidence for the Catholic position.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  19. My purpose in pointing out your misconceptions was to say that I'm not going to argue over them, whether put forward by you or by other Catholics. Other Catholics may have said these things, or this may be merely the manner in which you construed things that Catholics have said; I don't know. The point is that, as you state them, they are not a part of Church teaching. If you insist that they are, I would like to know in what papal encyclical or council decree they may be found.

    As to the rest, I made one main argument, which was, that a thing can't be self-authenticating when it's not even self-identifying. Al Gore can't argue "I was elected President in 2000" without identifying himself as Al Gore in the first place.

    You argue that the Bible's giving criteria for what belongs in the Bible is the same as the Bible stating what books meet those criteria. That's like saying that the Bible's giving criteria for a good wife: faithful, honest, industrious, etc., is the same as the Bible identifying my actual wife. I may know from the Bible that those are good qualities to look for in a wife, but that’s not the same as the Bible telling me which specific woman I should marry.

    Is it not ironic that you write, “they are to be submissive to what is written and not to go beyond it”, while at the same time arguing that the Bible requires us to “go beyond what is written” in determining which books belong in the Bible?

    You write, "It seems to me that the Catholic Church and the Bible are in the same position here. You have to identify what church is the true (over against Mormons, Pentacostals, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah's Witness, and Anglicans)."

    This is a red herring, since I have not got to the point of arguing which Church among the claimants to be the true one, is the true one. As I said, once the Church, or any number of churches, make their claim to be that Church, I can proceed to evaluate the grounds for believing their respective claims. But the Bible -- taken as a whole, that is, and taken on its own, without anyone speaking on its behalf -- does not even reach the point of making the claim to be the sole source and criteria of Christian faith and morals, since it doesn't identify itself in the first place. People such as yourself argue that claim on its behalf, but only by assuming that the Bible's identity and content have already been established, when they have not.

    ReplyDelete
  20. With respect to perspicuity versus infallibility: I say that perspicuity is the real issue because your argument is basically this: If Catholics argue that Protestants can’t be infallibly sure what the Bible teaches, then Protestants can argue that Catholics are in the same boat, since Catholics can’t be infallibly sure what the Church is teaching.

    But we agree that ordinary human beings are not infallible. (Of course the Pope is an ordinary human being, but infallibility inheres in his office, not in his person.) I can misunderstand the Bible as well as the Pope.

    Yet we also agree that Christians have access to infallible sources of revelation.

    Therefore there’s nothing to argue about in regard to fallibility or infallibility. We agree that we are fallible people approaching infallible sources.

    The point where I argue Catholics have an advantage over Protestants, is in the perspicuity of the Church’s teachings over the Bible’s teachings. The Bible made its statements once and cannot repeat or clarify them. But the Church can repeat and clarify itself over and over, explaining things afresh for each generation in terms they can understand.

    The Protestant churches in fact do the very same thing: Week after week, pastors get up and explicate God’s revelation, after much prayer and study, in an effort to make that revelation perspicuous to their flocks. If the Bible was perfectly perspicuous this would hardly seem necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In fact, the issue of the identity of the books of the Bible, is a good illustration of the perspecuity of the Church versus that of the Bible: It's the difference between being told outright what books belong in the Bible, versus merely being given criteria and left to gather and evaluate the books for ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hello Agellius,

    My purpose in pointing out your misconceptions was to say that I'm not going to argue over them, whether put forward by you or by other Catholics. Other Catholics may have said these things, or this may be merely the manner in which you construed things that Catholics have said; I don't know. The point is that, as you state them, they are not a part of Church teaching. If you insist that they are, I would like to know in what papal encyclical or council decree they may be found.

    Response: I have already responded that this is one of the most popular arguments that Roman Catholic Bishops and Apologist use in my experience. I have heard it argued on public Catholic television shows so it is pretty popular needless to say. But of course this does not entail anything unless it is officially stated by the magistrum and I do not know that it is. But then again my claim has never been that this argument has been officially used or endorsed by the church, so I do not need to support claims that I am simply not making.

    As to the rest, I made one main argument, which was, that a thing can't be self-authenticating when it's not even self-identifying. Al Gore can't argue "I was elected President in 2000" without identifying himself as Al Gore in the first place.

    Response: Well my view of self-authentication is that a document must verify itself without any other extrinsic authority that is simply to say that the authority is intrinsic to the document or statement that is made. This is a pretty standard
    definition of self-authentication. Now the question you are asking is about identifying the content and extent of scripture, which is a separate question from self-authentication. I do not think that a necessary or sufficient condition for self-authentication is giving a list or the content of what is or what is not in total self-authenticating. So with respect to your statement above I see no reason to believe it.

    You argue that the Bible's giving criteria for what belongs in the Bible is the same as the Bible stating what books meet those criteria. That's like saying that the Bible's giving criteria for a good wife: faithful, honest, industrious, etc., is the same as the Bible identifying my actual wife. I may know from the Bible that those are good qualities to look for in a wife, but that’s not the same as the Bible telling me which specific woman I should marry.

    Response: I do not think it is the same thing.

    Is it not ironic that you write, “they are to be submissive to what is written and not to go beyond it”, while at the same time arguing that the Bible requires us to “go beyond what is written” in determining which books belong in the Bible?

    Response: Well I think the statement that Paul is making is that we are not to go beyond what is scripture. But in Scripture it gives us a criterion for how we know what things are scripture so thus scripture gives its own definition on how to determine what things are revelations. I believe following that criterion in scripture would warrant my belief in the 66 books of the Bible, so I am using scripture to determine other parts of scripture which I think in turn is not going beyond the scriptures.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is a red herring, since I have not got to the point of arguing which Church among the claimants to be the true one, is the true one. As I said, once the Church, or any number of churches, make their claim to be that Church, I can proceed to evaluate the grounds for believing their respective claims. But the Bible -- taken as a whole, that is, and taken on its own, without anyone speaking on its behalf -- does not even reach the point of making the claim to be the sole source and criteria of Christian faith and morals, since it doesn't identify itself in the first place. People such as yourself argue that claim on its behalf, but only by assuming that the Bible's identity and content have already been established, when they have not.

    Response: I was merely pointing out that the Catholic position has similar fallibility issues as a Protestant does albeit not the exactly the same. The Bible authenticates itself and it gives a criterion for how we know what belongs in the Bible. The verses I gave previously I think sufficiently establish that the Bible and the Bible alone is the only sole authoritative, infallible, and normative for Christian faith and practice today. You have yet to respond to those verses. You have given no reason for why someone should prefer the Catholic Church over the Protestant position on the basis that it lacks a divinely inspired table of contents to the Bible. Why think we need that? And why does it show that the Roman Catholic position is true?

    With respect to perspicuity versus infallibility: I say that perspicuity is the real issue because your argument is basically this: If Catholics argue that Protestants can’t be infallibly sure what the Bible teaches, then Protestants can argue that Catholics are in the same boat, since Catholics can’t be infallibly sure what the Church is teaching.

    Response: If that is really the issue then it cannot be used as argument because in my last response I gave you an argument for how it cannot give someone good reason to be a Catholic over a Protestant. And again you have yet to interact with my argumentation meaningfully at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The point where I argue Catholics have an advantage over Protestants, is in the perspicuity of the Church’s teachings over the Bible’s teachings. The Bible made its statements once and cannot repeat or clarify them. But the Church can repeat and clarify itself over and over, explaining things afresh for each generation in terms they can understand.

    Response: That may be advantage once you make the fallible decision to embrace the Catholic Church. But my previous arguments shows that this line of reason cannot be employed to show that it is more reasonable to believe the Catholic position rather than the Protestant position. So I do not know why you totally ignored my argumentation and have refused to interact with me philosophically on these issues.
    Let me put forth the argument once again:
    “It is argued that the Roman Catholic (RC) and Eastern Orthodox Church (EO) ought to be preferred over the Protestant (P) position because these churches provide the individual believer with more certainty concerning claims of Faith and Practice. These institutions, it is argued, can infallibly and authoritatively elaborate and explain doctrine in a way that gives more epistemological certainty about theological propositions. Thus, from this the RC and EO argue that there positions are more reasonable to believe because they can provide one with more theological certainty than P.

    This is how the argument might run:

    P1: If r provides more theological certainty than p then r is more reasonable to believe than p

    P2: RC and EO provide more theological certainty than P

    C: Hence, RC and EO are more reasonable to believe than P

    It seems to me that P1 is clearly false. We can think of a counter example to P1 that renders it entirely unreasonable to believe. Let us suppose there was a Christian position where God implanted in our minds *all* infallible and authoritative revelation that could not be doubted in the same way that 1+1=2 cannot be doubted. According to this rationalistic position all theological propositions that are essential for faith and practice were revealed to us in this infallible a priori fashion. Now surely this way of God revealing himself would be far clearer than using our fallible senses that can be possibly mistaken to read or hear infallible pronouncements. But surely no one believes this position or thinks that because it offers more epistemological clarity and certainty that it ought to be preferred over P, EO, and RC.”

    The Protestant churches in fact do the very same thing: Week after week, pastors get up and explicate God’s revelation, after much prayer and study, in an effort to make that revelation perspicuous to their flocks. If the Bible was perfectly perspicuous this would hardly seem necessary.

    Response: I think Protestant pastors do this, but I do not think it has anything to do with the Bible not being clear.

    In fact, the issue of the identity of the books of the Bible, is a good illustration of the perspecuity of the Church versus that of the Bible: It's the difference between being told outright what books belong in the Bible, versus merely being given criteria and left to gather and evaluate the books for ourselves.

    Response: Yeah, that is right. And I do not for the life of me see why any of this has to do with why someone should embrace the Catholic position over the Protestant position. You have done little by way of response for thinking that the Catholic has any argument here that would give us reason to reject the Protestant position and embrace some infallible church fallibly.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  25. “It is argued that the Roman Catholic (RC) and Eastern Orthodox Church (EO) ought to be preferred over the Protestant (P) position because these churches provide the individual believer with more certainty concerning claims of Faith and Practice. These institutions, it is argued, can infallibly and authoritatively elaborate and explain doctrine in a way that gives more epistemological certainty about theological propositions. Thus, from this the RC and EO argue that there positions are more reasonable to believe because they can provide one with more theological certainty than P."

    This argument certainly encounters epistemological problems. As a Catholic concede this argument utterly fails. However, from what i've seen this argument is only employed by less than informed Catholics.

    A much better argument (and indeed the only logical argument for the RC position) is to say that utilizing fair and objective hermeneutics with Bibical texts and Historical sources vindicates RC claims, not Protestant claims.

    God bless

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hello there,

    I completely agree with everything you just said. I think that is the best way for a Catholic to argue, but as a Protestant I think that is going to still be unsuccessful. For this reason in the future I plan to give reasons why the Protestant understanding of predestination and justification are more exegetically reasonable than that of the Roman Catholic views.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  27. You write, "The verses I gave previously I think sufficiently establish that the Bible and the Bible alone is the only sole authoritative, infallible, and normative for Christian faith and practice today. You have yet to respond to those verses."

    I know, but I think I have made clear why I have not responded to those verses: In asking me to discuss whether they establish whether the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith, you're assuming, and asking me to assume, that the verses are referring to the current 66-book Protestant Bible in the first place. However I'm not willing to make that assumption. The verses don't say that that is what they are referring to, it's you who say that that is what they are referring to. This I call "going beyond what is written".

    There is no point in discussing whether those verses establish that "the Bible alone is the only sole authoritative, infallible, and normative for Christian faith and practice", when the verses do not identify what "the Bible" consists of in the first place. I submit that only people outside the Bible can make that identification. You deny this. But if people outside the Bible can't make the identification, and the Bible itself does not make the identification, then I'm at a loss as to how the books of the Bible are to be identified. You say the Bible provides the criteria: I'll grant that for the sake of argument. But it's a circular argument to say we know which books belong in the Bible because one of the books that belongs in the Bible gives us the criteria.

    You write, "You have given no reason for why someone should prefer the Catholic Church over the Protestant position on the basis that it lacks a divinely inspired table of contents to the Bible. Why think we need that? And why does it show that the Roman Catholic position is true?"

    I have not argued that "someone should prefer the Catholic Church over the Protestant position", nor that "the Roman Catholic position is true". What I have argued is that a prerequisite to self-authentication is self-identification.

    I am trying not to confuse topics. Mixing the question of self-authentication of a particular source, with the question of which of two total theological systems is more reasonable or believable, can only lead to confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  28. With respect to perspicuity:

    You write, "If [perspicuity] is really the issue then it cannot be used as argument because in my last response I gave you an argument for how it cannot give someone good reason to be a Catholic over a Protestant. And again you have yet to interact with my argumentation meaningfully at this point."

    If the topic we're discussing were "why someone should be a Catholic over a Protestant", then you would have a point here. But the current topic is perspicuity.

    You write, "[The Church's perspicuity] may be advantage once you make the fallible decision to embrace the Catholic Church. But my previous arguments shows that this line of reason cannot be employed to show that it is more reasonable to believe the Catholic position rather than the Protestant position."

    I have not argued that it is more reasonable to believe the Catholic position. I simply said that the Church, together with the Bible, has the advantage of being more perspicuous than the Bible alone. If you agree with this then I am satisfied.

    If you now want to proceed to argue whether it's more reasonable to believe in Catholicism than Protestantism, then we can tackle that topic. Although I must say it's rather a broad and wide-ranging one, and we might be better served if we broke it down into smaller pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hello Agellius,

    I know, but I think I have made clear why I have not responded to those verses: In asking me to discuss whether they establish whether the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith, you're assuming, and asking me to assume, that the verses are referring to the current 66-book Protestant Bible in the first place. However I'm not willing to make that assumption. The verses don't say that that is what they are referring to, it's you who say that that is what they are referring to. This I call "going beyond what is written".

    Response: The verses in give a general principle: such as scripture has certain characteristics and you cannot go beyond scripture. Other parts in scripture give a criterion for verifying what is scripture, once that is has been established then we ought not to go beyond whatever fulfills that criteria. Thus, the referent of these verses would be whatever fulfills that criterion. I believe what fulfills these criterion are the 66 books of the Bible. I make that assumption because it is reasonable because God speaks to me through those books (John 10). It is a properly basic belief for me.

    There is no point in discussing whether those verses establish that "the Bible alone is the only sole authoritative, infallible, and normative for Christian faith and practice", when the verses do not identify what "the Bible" consists of in the first place. I submit that only people outside the Bible can make that identification. You deny this. But if people outside the Bible can't make the identification, and the Bible itself does not make the identification, then I'm at a loss as to how the books of the Bible are to be identified. You say the Bible provides the criteria: I'll grant that for the sake of argument. But it's a circular argument to say we know which books belong in the Bible because one of the books that belongs in the Bible gives us the criteria.

    Response: Yeah and you believe that the church is the true church because you it says it is. How is the church not having the same problems epistemologically? How does it avoid this? My response would be that when I read the Gospel of John it is properly basic that God is speaking to me through that book and the Gospel of John tells me that those believers will know that God speaking to them just by hearing his voice, Protestants believe they hear the voice of God through scripture. So the belief is first made rational when one reads scripture and it rationally warranted through properly basicality which requires no inference and thus cannot be circular.

    I have not argued that "someone should prefer the Catholic Church over the Protestant position", nor that "the Roman Catholic position is true". What I have argued is that a prerequisite to self-authentication is self-identification.

    Response: I have not seen an argument for that either and you have not interacted with my thoughts on how self-authorization does not entail self-identification of all its contents.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am trying not to confuse topics. Mixing the question of self-authentication of a particular source, with the question of which of two total theological systems is more reasonable or believable, can only lead to confusion.

    Response: I thought you were trying to show that the Protestant view point is not self-authenticating thereby showing that it is not rational, and that only the Catholic position is thereby providing rational support for it. If it was not for that reason then why else are even doing this?

    If the topic we're discussing were "why someone should be a Catholic over a Protestant", then you would have a point here. But the current topic is perspicuity.

    Response: Actually the discussion is simply that. The whole context of the blog post and the series of post are arguments for Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. If this is not an argument for it then I simply see no reason for addressing it or even discussing it for that matter. Why would we need to discuss it?

    I have not argued that it is more reasonable to believe the Catholic position. I simply said that the Church, together with the Bible, has the advantage of being more perspicuous than the Bible alone. If you agree with this then I am satisfied.

    Response: It is only an advantage if it is true. Pointing this out seems sort of senseless to me if you are not even giving an argument. It’s like saying if it were true that I had a million dollars then I could do x with it, but the more valuable question is do I in fact have a million dollars.

    If you now want to proceed to argue whether it's more reasonable to believe in Catholicism than Protestantism, then we can tackle that topic. Although I must say it's rather a broad and wide-ranging one, and we might be better served if we broke it down into smaller pieces.

    Response: Yes, that will be fine. I plan on doing a post on why I am a Protestant hinging on the issue of justification by faith alone so I am sure we can just take it up on that future blog post.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  31. You write, "The whole context of the blog post and the series of post are arguments for Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. If this is not an argument for it then I simply see no reason for addressing it or even discussing it for that matter. Why would we need to discuss it?"

    Yes, of course I realize that's the over-arching purpose of discussing these issues. Nevertheless I think, and you seem to have agreed, that it's necessary to break down the over-arching topic into manageable-, or "bite-size" pieces. The bite-size piece I am working on now, is a comparison of the respective claims made by the Church and by the Bible: I assert that the Church *claims* to be the institution founded by Christ and given authority to speak and to act in his name; whereas I don't see how it can be said that the Bible, taken as a whole and complete unit, makes a similar claim for itself. That's it. Of course I know there are other issues between Catholics and Protestants, but this is the particular issue we're discussing at the moment.

    The problem, as I see it, is that you keep wanting to say, "how does that make the Church more believable," or "you have to establish that the Church really is what she claims to be", etc. Frankly, I can't help wondering if you're trying to deflect attention onto some other issue because you don't like the way the current topic is going: I'm challenging you on this point, so you try to challenge me on some other. On the other hand, you might think that I am trying to stay focused on the current topic because I'm uncomfortable discussing others. Be that as it may, I still think it's best to focus on one sub-topic at a time.

    Once I have persuaded you, or you have persuaded me, or we have agreed to disagree as to this particular bite-size piece, then we can move on to some other. Or we can do another one simultaneously, so long as we keep them separate so as to keep them manageable. I just don't want to mix them up because then it becomes far more than a mouthful, and it becomes confusing and frustrating, and we get nowhere.

    I know that even if I win this particular bite-size argument, that doesn't mean I have proven the superiority of the Catholic religion over the various Protestant ones. On the other hand, if neither of us can get a concession on even a small subset of the issues between us, such as the current one, then can we hope to get anywhere in terms of the over-arching dispute?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hello Agellius,

    Yes, of course I realize that's the over-arching purpose of discussing these issues. Nevertheless I think, and you seem to have agreed, that it's necessary to break down the over-arching topic into manageable-, or "bite-size" pieces. The bite-size piece I am working on now, is a comparison of the respective claims made by the Church and by the Bible: I assert that the Church *claims* to be the institution founded by Christ and given authority to speak and to act in his name; whereas I don't see how it can be said that the Bible, taken as a whole and complete unit, makes a similar claim for itself. That's it. Of course I know there are other issues between Catholics and Protestants, but this is the particular issue we're discussing at the moment.

    Response: Okay, so you are giving a smaller argument. I was addressing the smaller argument the entire time to show that it does not give anyone any reason to believe the claims of Rome over the Protestant position. After I refuted your thought (you still have yet to respond to my arguments) and showed that it does not give anyone any reason to think that Roman Position is more reasonable than the Protestant position you then retracted and said you are not making any arguments that would demonstrate that the Roman position is more reasonable than the Protestant issue on this score. Now that I pointed out that if that were true then this whole conversation would not make much sense. Now you are claiming that you are making arguments but they are small ones. Okay that is fine, but with respect your small arguments you have no responded to my arguments against your small arguments. So you were in the same position you were in earlier: you have not interacted with my arguments in any way shape or form. Whatever happened to your arguments from perspicuity? I have refuted them and you still have not responded. Whatever happened to your point that self-authentication necessarily implies self-identification? You just have not given me any reason to believe what you are saying and you have not interacted with me at all. With your response to your argument above: Why think that it needs to be said of the Bible? My claim has been the Bible is the word of God and I know this because it is properly basic and this attests to its self-authenticating nature. Once I have this warranted basic belief I then find that the contents of scripture gives me a criterion by which I can determine what other books are in fact scripture and once I do that I find that those that meet the criterion say that do not beyond the criterion. I have said all of this over and over again and still there has been no meaningful reason or interaction from you.

    The problem, as I see it, is that you keep wanting to say, "how does that make the Church more believable," or "you have to establish that the Church really is what she claims to be", etc. Frankly, I can't help wondering if you're trying to deflect attention onto some other issue because you don't like the way the current topic is going: I'm challenging you on this point, so you try to challenge me on some other. On the other hand, you might think that I am trying to stay focused on the current topic because I'm uncomfortable discussing others. Be that as it may, I still think it's best to focus on one sub-topic at a time.

    Response: I am not even sure what you are responding to here. What have you asked me that I have failed to answer? I have answered all of your objections and then in response I have given objections to the church or have applied the same logic you apply to the Bible and turned it on the church.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Once I have persuaded you, or you have persuaded me, or we have agreed to disagree as to this particular bite-size piece, then we can move on to some other. Or we can do another one simultaneously, so long as we keep them separate so as to keep them manageable. I just don't want to mix them up because then it becomes far more than a mouthful, and it becomes confusing and frustrating, and we get nowhere.

    Response: I have responded to all of your smaller arguments and I am waiting for your interaction which you have failed to do this entire time.

    I know that even if I win this particular bite-size argument, that doesn't mean I have proven the superiority of the Catholic religion over the various Protestant ones. On the other hand, if neither of us can get a concession on even a small subset of the issues between us, such as the current one, then can we hope to get anywhere in terms of the over-arching dispute?

    Response: Actually, if you were to prove any of your arguments then that would show that on this issue it is more reasonable to believe the Catholic claims rather than the Protestant ones. But all of your arguments have been a failure and you have not even attempted to respond to my arguments. This entire I have been showing that none of these smaller arguments give anyone any reason whatsoever to be Catholic. That is to simply say: they do not contribute to the Catholics epistemic justificatory status whatsoever. If any of the arguments were to be valid and sound then they would contribute to the Catholics justificatory status, but they do not at all as I have shown. Thus, you have to show how me challenging one of your premises is unwarranted and unreasonable and you have not done that yet.


    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  34. You know, I was referred to your blog by a Catholic who said you engaged in discussions courteously. By and large I have found that to be true: At least you don't make outright insults of your Catholic guests, unlike another well-known Reformed Protestant blog which shall remain nameless; and for that I commend you. But to be honest, I am growing tired of hearing how superior your arguments have been and how many times I have failed to give any "meaningful response".

    The only arguments I have declined to respond to have been those which I have considered irrelevant, for reasons I have explained. In my very first post I stated my topic -- that you can't have self-authentication without self-identification -- and I have stuck with it, and have answered all arguments that have borne directly on that topic. If you can name any argument I have not responded to bearing on that topic, you have only to let me know what it is, and I will either respond to it or else explain why I consider it irrelevant.

    The fact that I don't choose to follow you all over the map, responding to each and every argument you choose to throw out, no matter how tenuously related to the topic at hand, does not justify your accusing me of failing to "meaningfully engage" your arguments. I am merely trying to restrict the scope of argument so as to avoid confusion and make faster progress.

    Anyway, I hope that from here on out we can focus more on the arguments themselves, and less on each other's shortcomings.

    Maybe a re-cap would help:

    My original premise was, an authority can't be self-authenticating without being self-identifying. The Church is self-identifying -- this doesn't prove that it's self-authenticating, but at least it has cleared the first hurdle. The Bible has not cleared even the first hurdle since it does not identify itself -- it doesn't identify the books of which it is composed, nor does it identify itself as a single, complete unit.

    You argue that the Bible does identify itself, since it provides criteria for identifying all the books of the Bible. I argue this is not self-identity since it requires persons outside itself to utilize the criteria and thereby identify the books described.

    To put it another way: Your claim that the Bible identifies itself as the sole rule of faith, is actually two claims: 1) that the Bible is the sole rule; and 2) that these particular 66 books are "the Bible", and therefore these 66 books are the sole rule. One may argue that the Bible makes the first claim, but if it does not also make the second claim, then the first is meaningless since "the Bible" is undefined.

    Again you argue that providing criteria by which people can judge a thing, is the same as identifying a specific thing -- but I find this argument spurious on its face. A parallel would be, the Church claiming to be instituted by Christ to teach in his name, but making no claim as to who and what the Church consists in -- or the Church providing "criteria" for what the Church is, but not identifying the actual, living Church itself and saying "We're it!".

    I think these arguments are clear enough, and I do not agree that you have thus far defeated them.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The perspicuity argument was a separate one, which is why I always put it in a separate comment. That one too I do not agree you have defeated: I think my point was well made, that the Church can explain itself over and over again, throughout time, in response to questions and disagreements; something of which the Bible is incapable.

    Your main argument seems to have been that this only works if I assume the Church is the true one, instituted by Christ to fulfill that role: Well, of course that's true; and sola scriptura only works if you assume you know which books belong in the Bible in the first place -- but that's a separate argument. The topic under discussion at present is which is more perspicuous, not whether either of them is what it claims to be (or what people claim they are).

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hello Agellius,

    You know, I was referred to your blog by a Catholic who said you engaged in discussions courteously. By and large I have found that to be true: At least you don't make outright insults of your Catholic guests, unlike another well-known Reformed Protestant blog which shall remain nameless; and for that I commend you. But to be honest, I am growing tired of hearing how superior your arguments have been and how many times I have failed to give any "meaningful response".

    Response: Well I am sorry if I have offended you and that was not my intention at all. But I just want you to please deal with the arguments and perhaps this time you have and then we can have an intellectual interaction rather than avoiding important issues that need to be answered and dealt with.

    The only arguments I have declined to respond to have been those which I have considered irrelevant, for reasons I have explained. In my very first post I stated my topic -- that you can't have self-authentication without self-identification -- and I have stuck with it, and have answered all arguments that have borne directly on that topic. If you can name any argument I have not responded to bearing on that topic, you have only to let me know what it is, and I will either respond to it or else explain why I consider it irrelevant.

    Response: Okay, great. Then perhaps you can answer this question: Why think that self-authentication entails self-identification? Give me the premises to the argument for that position and we can take it from there. It seems pretty contentious to me and that is why I have been rejecting that statement because I simply see no reason for believing it.

    The fact that I don't choose to follow you all over the map, responding to each and every argument you choose to throw out, no matter how tenuously related to the topic at hand, does not justify your accusing me of failing to "meaningfully engage" your arguments. I am merely trying to restrict the scope of argument so as to avoid confusion and make faster progress.

    Response: I apologize, but to be honest I simply disagree. I have answered all of your arguments, but it seems clear to me that you have not answered any of the tough and difficult intellectual issues at hand. I am not saying this to be mean or to hurt your feelings I am just tell you how this conversation has been going. What is something that I have said that you have thought has been off topic?

    Anyway, I hope that from here on out we can focus more on the arguments themselves, and less on each other's shortcomings.

    Response: I have been all about the arguments from the beginning I just hope you can just answer any questions and arguments I have in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  37. My original premise was, an authority can't be self-authenticating without being self-identifying. The Church is self-identifying -- this doesn't prove that it's self-authenticating, but at least it has cleared the first hurdle. The Bible has not cleared even the first hurdle since it does not identify itself -- it doesn't identify the books of which it is composed, nor does it identify itself as a single, complete unit.

    Response: Yeah and we have been stuck on this point. I see no reason for it to be self-identifying in terms of spelling out all of its contents and I see no reason for thinking because all of its contents are not flushed out and identified that this somehow precludes that each individual book cannot be self-authenticating. Can you please give me an argument for this?

    You argue that the Bible does identify itself, since it provides criteria for identifying all the books of the Bible. I argue this is not self-identity since it requires persons outside itself to utilize the criteria and thereby identify the books described.

    Response: I do not argue that the Bible identifies its contents, but only gives a criteria for its contents. Each individual book is self-attesting in the sense that by reading it one can just see that it is God’s Authoritative Word. This is how I am using the term self-attesting. I see no reason for an additional self-attesting document that identifies all other self-attesting documents or anything of like nature. Could you please give me an argument for this?

    To put it another way: Your claim that the Bible identifies itself as the sole rule of faith, is actually two claims: 1) that the Bible is the sole rule; and 2) that these particular 66 books are "the Bible", and therefore these 66 books are the sole rule. One may argue that the Bible makes the first claim, but if it does not also make the second claim, then the first is meaningless since "the Bible" is undefined.

    Response: The Bible just means the 66 books of scripture. Christians have identified the Bible as those 66 books and thus they see them as the word of God. The term Bible is not meaningless because it has a referent namely those 66 books that are inspired. I would say that as far as my knowledge is concerned I only see those 66 books as scripture and thus to my knowledge they are only rule of faith and practice epistemologically, but metaphysically it is possibly true that there are more inspired books. Sola Scriptura has never said it is impossible that there is another inspired documents and divinely authoritative book outside of the 66 that are scripture, but at this point in time the only ones we know of are the 66, so epistemologically speaking we say that those are the only ones that we follow because they are the only ones we know to be scripture. Thus, I will conclude that the statement above is not meaningless. For more about Protestants defining Sola Scriptura as an epistemological principle see the Bahnsen vs Gerry Matatics debate on Sola Scriptura (a very helpful and interesting debate indeed).

    Again you argue that providing criteria by which people can judge a thing, is the same as identifying a specific thing -- but I find this argument spurious on its face. A parallel would be, the Church claiming to be instituted by Christ to teach in his name, but making no claim as to who and what the Church consists in -- or the Church providing "criteria" for what the Church is, but not identifying the actual, living Church itself and saying "We're it!".

    Response: Please pay attention and read my previous statements. I never said they were the same thing; they are obvious two different views of identification. One provides a criterion, whereas the other just tells you the contents. Anybody can see there is a fundamental difference here.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I think these arguments are clear enough, and I do not agree that you have thus far defeated them.

    Response: These are small arguments against the Protestant position. The arguments have not been successful because you have no proved any of the premises or shown them to be more reasonable than not. If all your arguments are defeated or inconclusive then they are not successful arguments. I have been saying this entire time I see no reason to believe them and thus they are inconclusive and not successful arguments. In that sense I have shown your argument to be unsuccessful and defeated. But I have no shown that the premises are incoherent and thus if you have other reasons to think that the church is reasonable and this entails their view of canonical process then one would be perfectly reasonable in holding that position. The problem is I have not seen any other good reasons for thinking that the Roman Catholic Church is the only infallible true church. In order for your arguments to be successful you have to show them to be more than inconclusive.

    The perspicuity argument was a separate one, which is why I always put it in a separate comment. That one too I do not agree you have defeated: I think my point was well made, that the Church can explain itself over and over again, throughout time, in response to questions and disagreements; something of which the Bible is incapable.

    Response: Right here is what I have been talking about. Why do you say this without even interacting with my argument against the perspicuity argument against Protestant as being conclusive?

    Your main argument seems to have been that this only works if I assume the Church is the true one, instituted by Christ to fulfill that role: Well, of course that's true; and sola scriptura only works if you assume you know which books belong in the Bible in the first place -- but that's a separate argument. The topic under discussion at present is which is more perspicuous, not whether either of them is what it claims to be (or what people claim they are).

    Response: The argument does not work at all whether or not you make any assumptions about the church or not, I have never said anything different. Could you please interact with my respond to your argument from perspicuity? I would really be grateful for your interaction on the important issues here.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment will be dedicated to responding to various statements and questions from your last post. The next one will deal with the topic at hand.

    You write, "I am not saying this to be mean or to hurt your feelings I am just tell you how this conversation has been going."

    Correction: You are telling me how you *perceive* the conversation has been going. You being one of the contestants in the discussion, don't also get to judge the winner. That attitude is what (I perceive) comes across as somewhat less than courteous to your guests.

    You write, "I have been all about the arguments from the beginning I just hope you can just answer any questions and arguments I have in the future."

    I will answer those that I consider relevant, but will not promise to answer any and all arguments you choose to introduce regardless of relevance.

    You write, "I do not argue that the Bible identifies its contents, but only gives a criteria for its contents. Each individual book is self-attesting in the sense that by reading it one can just see that it is God’s Authoritative Word. This is how I am using the term self-attesting."

    Ah. Your position is more clear to me now: What you mean when you say the Bible is self-authenticating is that one can "just see" that all 66 books are God's Word. In which case all I have to do to demonstrate the self-authenticating nature of the Catholic Church is to say that one can "just see" that it's the Church founded by Christ and given authority to teach in his name. And the Mormons only have to claim that one can "just see" that the Book of Mormon is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ".

    (I'm being sarcastic, I admit. But I don't intend to sound mean, I'm just making a point.)

    This kind of an assertion is not something we can argue about. You make the claim that you can "just see" these things, and I deny it, and that's the end of it. You may be right but you can't prove you are, and I can't prove you're not.

    You write, "The Bible just means the 66 books of scripture. Christians have identified the Bible as those 66 books and thus they see them as the word of God."

    Correction: *Protestants* have identified the Bible as those 66 books. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox -- by far the greater number of Christians, currently and throughout history -- have identified the Bible as more than those 66 books.

    ReplyDelete
  40. And now back to the topic:

    You write, "Why think that self-authentication entails self-identification? Give me the premises to the argument for that position and we can take it from there. It seems pretty contentious to me and that is why I have been rejecting that statement because I simply see no reason for believing it."

    As I said before, your claim that the Bible identifies itself as the sole rule of faith, is actually two claims: 1) that the Bible is the sole rule; and 2) that these particular 66 books are "the Bible", and therefore these 66 books are the sole rule. One may argue that the Bible makes the first claim, but if it does not also make the second claim, then the first is meaningless since "the Bible" is undefined.

    In response to this you wrote, "Christians have identified the Bible as those 66 books and thus they see them as the word of God. The term Bible is not meaningless because it has a referent namely those 66 books that are inspired."

    Here you've pitched me a change-up (not to say it was deliberate): Without denying your claim that the Bible identifies itself as the sole rule of faith, you then switch and say that *Christians* identify the 66 books as the sole rule of faith. In which case you have admitted my assertion that the 66 books do *not* identify themselves as the sole rule of faith, but rather *people* identify them as such.

    In other words, you encounter a verse in a particular book which says that scripture is the sole rule of faith, and then make your own judgment that this particular set of 66 books is what the verse is referring to.

    (By the way, what is the essential difference between "Christians" identifying what books belong in the Bible, and the Church doing so? Are not Christians "the Church" in Protestant theology?)

    In summary, scripture may claim that scripture is the sole rule of faith (which I consider debatable), but scripture does not claim that these 66 books are scripture -- therefore scripture does not claim that these 66 books, known as "the Bible", are the sole rule of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hello Agellius,

    Correction: You are telling me how you *perceive* the conversation has been going. You being one of the contestants in the discussion, don't also get to judge the winner. That attitude is what (I perceive) comes across as somewhat less than courteous to your guests.

    Response: I am sorry you feel that way.

    Ah. Your position is more clear to me now: What you mean when you say the Bible is self-authenticating is that one can "just see" that all 66 books are God's Word. In which case all I have to do to demonstrate the self-authenticating nature of the Catholic Church is to say that one can "just see" that it's the Church founded by Christ and given authority to teach in his name. And the Mormons only have to claim that one can "just see" that the Book of Mormon is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ".
    (I'm being sarcastic, I admit. But I don't intend to sound mean, I'm just making a point.)
    This kind of an assertion is not something we can argue about. You make the claim that you can "just see" these things, and I deny it, and that's the end of it. You may be right but you can't prove you are, and I can't prove you're not.

    Response: Yes, you are right. These sorts of beliefs are properly basic beliefs. They are non-inferentially justified. Now these sorts of beliefs can be defeated and can be doubted but there has to be evidence against them in order for that to be the case. So then if I were doing apologetics with a Mormon, JW, or Catholic I would use arguments from Romans concerning justification by faith to defeat their basic belief about their infallible church. Yes, but there is not much argument here if you do not have a defeater for my basic belief that all 66 books are God’s word and scripture. This has been my point the entire time. You too have basic beliefs about the existence of the external world, the existence of other minds, that we are not in a matrix, and that we are not brains in a vat being stimulated by a mad scientist. These beliefs you do not need arguments for they are just non-inferentially reasonable by them being formed by cognitive faculties functioning properly.

    Correction: *Protestants* have identified the Bible as those 66 books. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox -- by far the greater number of Christians, currently and throughout history -- have identified the Bible as more than those 66 books.

    Response: Well I do not really think a Catholic and Eastern Orthodox that believe all that their churches believes can be saved so technically they are not really Christian in my view. My reason: They reject the Gospel. This is not so much as an argument as it is that from worldview the statement does not need much correction.

    ReplyDelete
  42. As I said before, your claim that the Bible identifies itself as the sole rule of faith, is actually two claims: 1) that the Bible is the sole rule; and 2) that these particular 66 books are "the Bible", and therefore these 66 books are the sole rule. One may argue that the Bible makes the first claim, but if it does not also make the second claim, then the first is meaningless since "the Bible" is undefined.

    Response: I do not believe the 66 books that are scripture identifies all of its contents, so then I do not think the Bible identifies all of contents. I do think that out of the 66 books of inspired scripture that I know of it says that scripture and scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. The Bible just simply means the 66 books of scripture so that is the meaning of the term and thus it is defined.

    Here you've pitched me a change-up (not to say it was deliberate): Without denying your claim that the Bible identifies itself as the sole rule of faith, you then switch and say that *Christians* identify the 66 books as the sole rule of faith. In which case you have admitted my assertion that the 66 books do *not* identify themselves as the sole rule of faith, but rather *people* identify them as such.

    Response: Yes, of course. I have said that from the beginning. A book of scripture (John) tells Christians how to identify other scripture and God’s people do so. What is the problem with this?

    In other words, you encounter a verse in a particular book which says that scripture is the sole rule of faith, and then make your own judgment that this particular set of 66 books is what the verse is referring to.
    Response: Yes, of course. Why is that unreasonable?

    In summary, scripture may claim that scripture is the sole rule of faith (which I consider debatable), but scripture does not claim that these 66 books are scripture -- therefore scripture does not claim that these 66 books, known as "the Bible", are the sole rule of faith.

    Response: Yes, that is correct. It does not have a divinely inspired table of contents and it does not reveal the entire canon of scripture in scripture, but only gives a criterion for it. Why think that we need that?

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hey, good discussion. I just want to contribute one thing. I have to admit, I love it when Catholics compare the Magisterium to the Supreme Court and the Bible to the Constitution. There is an obvious inconsistency with this comparison: The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility. They never could, and they never will. A Supreme Court justice would be the last person to try and make that happen, but if for some odd reason they decided to declare themselves infallible, people might die.

    The basic question that Catholics typically have for Protestants looks something like this: If you aren't doing what we're doing, how do you get the job done? The answer is that we actually do something similar to what you suggest with the Supreme Court comparison- and we more closely resemble the Supreme Court in doing so.

    Of course, the Supreme Court analogy has to break down and some point- in fact, it does so at nearly every point. The Constitution, unlike the Bible, is fallible. The Supreme Court can add to the Constitution or take away amendments. The Supreme Court does have a Chief Justice, but in practice, the authority structure most closely resembles that of the EOC. Once you put it all together, the only thing about the Supreme Court comparison that really works for you is that it makes the cardinals seem more friendly to Protestants if, for a moment, they imagine that the cardinals are wearing black robes. And the only thing that really works for Protestants is that even Supreme Court justices would never think of calling themselves infallible interpreters of the Constitution, and Protestants don't do so with the Bible either.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hey there,

    Thank you for contribution. I am not well studied in the supreme court or the constitution so your insight on this matter is vital. Thanks for your time.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  45. You write, "These sorts of beliefs are properly basic beliefs. They are non-inferentially justified. Now these sorts of beliefs can be defeated and can be doubted but there has to be evidence against them in order for that to be the case. So then if I were doing apologetics with a Mormon, JW, or Catholic I would use arguments from Romans concerning justification by faith to defeat their basic belief about their infallible church."

    I think you have a misunderstanding here. If a belief is properly basic, it can neither be proven nor disproven. This is the case with respect to the reality of the external world, the existence of other minds, that we are not brains in a vat, etc. We can only assume the truth of these things. If you assert that knowledge of the canon of the Bible is of that sort, then I can't prove it's not, simply because I have no way of proving that God has not imprinted that knowledge in your mind or revealed it to you somehow -- I can't disprove it because I'm not God and I'm not you, and I have no way of reading your mind.

    The problem (if there is one) with taking this tack is that you remove the topic of how we know the canon from the realm of reasonable discussion: Since it can be neither proven nor disproven all I can say is that I believe you or I disbelieve you. Similar to the situation when discussing with a Mormon how he knows that the Book of Mormon is true.

    You write, "I do not believe the 66 books that are scripture identifies all of its contents, so then I do not think the Bible identifies all of contents. I do think that out of the 66 books of inspired scripture that I know of it says that scripture and scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. The Bible just simply means the 66 books of scripture so that is the meaning of the term and thus it is defined."

    I understand that. But "the Bible just simply means the 66 books", really means "people have judged that the 66 books are what the Bible is composed of". So the statement that the 66 books are the sole rule of faith, is not a statement that the Bible makes, it's a statement that people make about the collection of books which they have identified as "the Bible", by applying a verse within one of those books to the whole collection.

    By the way, I noticed that you left my question unanswered. I wrote, "what is the essential difference between 'Christians' identifying what books belong in the Bible, and the Church doing so? Are not Christians 'the Church' in Protestant theology?" Have you an answer to this?

    You write, "A book of scripture (John) tells Christians how to identify other scripture and God’s people do so. What is the problem with this?"

    The problem is that it leads to the question, how do you know John is scripture, which in turn tells you how to identify the other scriptures? If the answer is that you "just know" John is scripture, then you don't need John to tell you how to identify other scriptures, because you will "just know" that they are scripture too.

    You write, "[quoting me] 'In other words, you encounter a verse in a particular book which says that scripture is the sole rule of faith, and then make your own judgment that this particular set of 66 books is what the verse is referring to.' Response: Yes, of course. Why is that unreasonable?"

    I didn't say it's unreasonable. I said that people claiming the 66 books are the sole rule of faith, is not the same as the Bible claiming the 66 books are sole rule of faith. If you admit that the Bible doesn't claim that what you identify as "the Bible" is the sole rule of faith, then I'm satisfied.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anon:

    An analogy, as you say, always breaks down at some point. If the Supreme Court analogy, as you say, breaks down at a lot of points, that doesn't defeat its usefulness as an analogy. An analogy, to be useful, need only illustrate one point of similarity between the things being compared. The point of similarity between the Supreme Court and the Magisterium is that both provide an arbiter of last resort as to the binding interpretation of a document, thus helping to avoid anarchy and disarray.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hello Agellius,

    I think you have a misunderstanding here. If a belief is properly basic, it can neither be proven nor disproven. This is the case with respect to the reality of the external world, the existence of other minds, that we are not brains in a vat, etc. We can only assume the truth of these things. If you assert that knowledge of the canon of the Bible is of that sort, then I can't prove it's not, simply because I have no way of proving that God has not imprinted that knowledge in your mind or revealed it to you somehow -- I can't disprove it because I'm not God and I'm not you, and I have no way of reading your mind.

    Response: Actually, I think the misunderstanding is had by you due to lack of studies in the last 20 years of epistemological studies. Perhaps this might be true of classical foundationalism and the understanding of properly basicality entailed by classical foundationalism. But the sort of proper basicality that I am expressing is that of moderate foundationalism which states that beliefs can be properly basic but those beliefs can be strengthened or weakened by arguments and evidence. Sadly the view you express it pretty much dead in the contemporary epistemological literature.

    The problem (if there is one) with taking this tack is that you remove the topic of how we know the canon from the realm of reasonable discussion: Since it can be neither proven nor disproven all I can say is that I believe you or I disbelieve you. Similar to the situation when discussing with a Mormon how he knows that the Book of Mormon is true.

    Response: This comment comes from the lack of understanding you have of the distinction between classical and moderate foundatonalism.

    I understand that. But "the Bible just simply means the 66 books", really means "people have judged that the 66 books are what the Bible is composed of". So the statement that the 66 books are the sole rule of faith, is not a statement that the Bible makes, it's a statement that people make about the collection of books which they have identified as "the Bible", by applying a verse within one of those books to the whole collection.

    Response: Yes, that is right. What is the problem with that? This has been my position the entire time.

    By the way, I noticed that you left my question unanswered. I wrote, "what is the essential difference between 'Christians' identifying what books belong in the Bible, and the Church doing so? Are not Christians 'the Church' in Protestant theology?" Have you an answer to this?

    Response: Good question. I guess I missed this one. Well not all of the members of the church are saved in my view, but only the internal members. But, the internal members of the church identify the Bible. Well wouldn't the difference be that regular individuals have to decide and know what books are in the canon whereas in the Roman view it is the magistrum that does so?

    The problem is that it leads to the question, how do you know John is scripture, which in turn tells you how to identify the other scriptures? If the answer is that you "just know" John is scripture, then you don't need John to tell you how to identify other scriptures, because you will "just know" that they are scripture too.

    Response: Yes, that is right. I just know because it is properly basic. But of course John does lay out a criterion, but of course I do not need that criterion in order to know what books are or are not in the Bible it just happens to be so out of consistency and convenience.

    I didn't say it's unreasonable. I said that people claiming the 66 books are the sole rule of faith, is not the same as the Bible claiming the 66 books are sole rule of faith. If you admit that the Bible doesn't claim that what you identify as "the Bible" is the sole rule of faith, then I'm satisfied.

    Response: Yes, that is right. What would be the problem with that? Do you think that is unreasonable and if so why?

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  48. You write, "[quoting me] 'The problem (if there is one) with taking this tack is that you remove the topic of how we know the canon from the realm of reasonable discussion: Since it can be neither proven nor disproven all I can say is that I believe you or I disbelieve you.' Response: This comment comes from the lack of understanding you have of the distinction between classical and moderate foundatonalism."

    I am not one of those who thinks people are not qualified to discuss things unless they are experts in the latest academic fads (I'm not saying you're one either). Whatever you label it, my argument remains: If you claim to know the canon with certainty due to God's having revealed it to you directly, there is no way I can disprove it, nor any way you can prove it. It is for this reason that it is removed from the realm of reasonable discussion. Whatever distinction people want to make between one kind of "foundationalism" and another, is beside the point of my argument.

    You write, "[quoting me] 'I said that people claiming the 66 books are the sole rule of faith, is not the same as the Bible claiming the 66 books are sole rule of faith. If you admit that the Bible doesn't claim that what you identify as "the Bible" is the sole rule of faith, then I'm satisfied.'
    Response: Yes, that is right. What would be the problem with that? Do you think that is unreasonable and if so why?"

    It's only a problem for those who say the Bible claims that it (defined as the 66 books) is the sole rule of faith.

    Remember that my original argument was that between the two contestants to be the authority founded by Christ as the "rule of faith" -- the Bible alone versus the Bible plus the Catholic Church -- only the latter makes the *claim* to be that authority in the first place. The Bible, defined as the 66 books which Protestants have judged to be scripture, does not make that claim on its own behalf.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hello Agellius,

    I am not one of those who thinks people are not qualified to discuss things unless they are experts in the latest academic fads (I'm not saying you're one either). Whatever you label it, my argument remains: If you claim to know the canon with certainty due to God's having revealed it to you directly, there is no way I can disprove it, nor any way you can prove it. It is for this reason that it is removed from the realm of reasonable discussion. Whatever distinction people want to make between one kind of "foundationalism" and another, is beside the point of my argument.

    Response: Again, another major misunderstanding. I do not believe that people know the Canon with infallible certainty. Basic beliefs are not necessarily infallible in moderate foundationalism.

    It's only a problem for those who say the Bible claims that it (defined as the 66 books) is the sole rule of faith.

    Response: Okay, good.

    Remember that my original argument was that between the two contestants to be the authority founded by Christ as the "rule of faith" -- the Bible alone versus the Bible plus the Catholic Church -- only the latter makes the *claim* to be that authority in the first place. The Bible, defined as the 66 books which Protestants have judged to be scripture, does not make that claim on its own behalf.

    Response: Well I would say it does not identify it's own contents as you have stressed and I agree. But I would say that it is obvious that if something is self-authenticating from God that by definition as God as the greatest possible being that whatever he says has intrinsic authority because it is better that he have such authority rather than not when he speaks to us because he is the greatest possible being. I think from lines of argumentation like this one would think that the 66 books of the Bible is the only infallible authority that we know of because of the fact that it is properly basic that it is from God. Do you see a problem with this?

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  50. You write, "[quoting me] 'If you claim to know the canon with certainty due to God's having revealed it to you directly, there is no way I can disprove it, nor any way you can prove it.' Response: Again, another major misunderstanding. I do not believe that people know the Canon with infallible certainty. Basic beliefs are not necessarily infallible in moderate foundationalism."

    My argument remains unchanged, that it is a simple assertion, and therefore is removed from the realm of reasonable discussion. However if a direct revelation from God does not provide certainty I don't know what would.

    You write, "I think from lines of argumentation like this one would think that the 66 books of the Bible is the only infallible authority that we know of because of the fact that it is properly basic that it is from God. Do you see a problem with this?"

    Yes, my problem is that I think it is false. But again, being a simple assertion it can't be discussed. You say yes, I say no, discussion over.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Hello Agellius,

    Well if you want to be stubborn for it's own sake and not recognize the existence of moderate foundationalism in epistemology and it's view of basic beliefs can be either defeated or affirmed by argument then that is sort of your issue that you have to work through, I would encourage you to read the epistemological literature. If you are just going to continue to conduct yourself in this way on moderate foundationalism and not change no matter what I say then do not even bother bringing it up again. Why is it unreasonable in a discussion to have basic beliefs? You certainly have them. I do not think it is a direct revelation from God but rather me believing in reasonably the direct revelation of God.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  52. You write, "Well if you want to be stubborn for it's own sake . . ."

    Ah, ah, ah, let's not forget about being courteous to our guests. You catch more flies with honey, and all that. ; )

    As I said before, merely asserting that it falls under the purview of "moderate foundationalism" does not defeat what I'm saying. You said previously that using the term is not an argument, yet the term itself seems to be the main, if not the only, response you have given to my argument that it's a simple assertion and therefore not subject to reasonable discussion.

    If you have an actual argument that refutes my argument that it's not subject to reasonable discussion, I would like to hear it. One thing you might do is give an example of an argument that either supports or refutes the assertion that you can "just know" the canon. The only one you've given so far is premised on John 10:4 and is therefore a circular one.

    If you can't give a coherent argument either in support of or against the claim that you can "just know" the canon, then it's a simple assertion, a claim to have a certain ability. The claim may be true or it may be false; it may be believed or disbelieved; it may be a fact or a non-fact; but it can't be reasonably discussed. If you assert that it may be reasonably discussed, then tell me how. Give me an example of such a discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hello Agellius,

    Ah, ah, ah, let's not forget about being courteous to our guests. You catch more flies with honey, and all that. ; )

    Response: I am just stating the facts. If I am having a discussion with someone and they think that 1+1=97 even though right reason and mathematicians disagree there is not really anything you can do either that the person is stubborn or wildly mistaken and one should really just stop the discussion because it is not going anywhere. If you do not want to recognize something that is obvious among epistemologist and you have not given any reason why moderate foundationalism is flawed then that is sort of a conversation ender, at least on that subject. So I suppose we will just disagree and leave it at that unless you feel like there are some epistemological problems with moderate foundationalism or properly basic beliefs, in which case I would be glad to hear them although the only viable alternative is coherentism and they accept circular justification so taking that view point would prevent you from making any charges of circularity in a certain sense.

    As I said before, merely asserting that it falls under the purview of "moderate foundationalism" does not defeat what I'm saying. You said previously that using the term is not an argument, yet the term itself seems to be the main, if not the only, response you have given to my argument that it's a simple assertion and therefore not subject to reasonable discussion.

    Response: As I have said probably about 4 times without any response on your part it is subject to reasonable discussion because a basic belief can be defeated or you can give an argument to strengthen it. Why think that basic beliefs are not fit for reasonable discussions? It is not an argument so much as it is a reason for rejecting an argument, although you are a position to give a defeater-defeater for my response to my argument.

    If you have an actual argument that refutes my argument that it's not subject to reasonable discussion, I would like to hear it. One thing you might do is give an example of an argument that either supports or refutes the assertion that you can "just know" the canon. The only one you've given so far is premised on John 10:4 and is therefore a circular one.

    Response: I never gave John 10:4 as an argument or reason for the canon but only something that is consistent with me having a basic belief. My reason for not accepting the Roman argument for the canon is that the canon is properly basic so I can know it apart from the church. The argument is therefore uneffective on me and all Protestants. If you think the argument is sound then that is fine, but to a Protestant that thinks that every word that God speaks is properly basic and self-attesting it would not be sound at all.

    ReplyDelete
  54. If you can't give a coherent argument either in support of or against the claim that you can "just know" the canon, then it's a simple assertion, a claim to have a certain ability. The claim may be true or it may be false; it may be believed or disbelieved; it may be a fact or a non-fact; but it can't be reasonably discussed. If you assert that it may be reasonably discussed, then tell me how. Give me an example of such a discussion.

    Response: Okay fair enough. I will show you how basic beliefs can be reasonably discussed.

    If Jones says to Jon that he has a basic belief that Jane is a person with an immaterial mind Jon agrees with Jones. Let us suppose further that Jon is a great surgeon of sorts and Jane comes in to see Jon for brain surgery. Jon performs the surgery on Jane and finds that she is a terminator robot from the future; all machine and no brain or mind. Jon tells Jones and shows him physical evidence of this fact. Jones now has a defeater for his basic belief now; he has a reason to doubt that Jane has a mind because she is just a machine that acts as if she has a mind. Therefore from this counter example one can have a basic belief defeated. Thus, basic beliefs are subject to a defeater or more strength (for the strengthening of basic beliefs supposes that Jon did surgery and he finds that she does have a brain and is a biological person).

    I have two arguments that would strengthen my basic belief in the Canon. One is philosophical and the other historical. But I will move into those once we settle this issue that from a Protestant perspective the Roman canon argument is unsound against those of us who think that God’s word is self-attesting and properly basic. I do not need any arguments more for this the fact that it is basic is sufficient for me to be reasonable, but I can give arguments to show to others that it is reasonable and to strengthen the degree of reasonableness of my basic belief.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  55. You write, "If I am having a discussion with someone and they think that 1+1=97 even though right reason and mathematicians disagree there is not really anything you can do either that the person is stubborn or wildly mistaken and one should really just stop the discussion because it is not going anywhere."

    But there are other alternatives: Like perhaps you have not made yourself as clear as you think you have. If we were having the hypothetical discussion you describe, and you argued against me by saying "right reason and mathematicians disagree" with me, that would be an assertion, not an argument. There is no reason I am bound to accept your word as to the prevalence of modern scholars who agree with you, as authoritative, on pain of being branded "stubborn". But my main point is that you could, rather than making a personal remark about your opponent, give him the benefit of the doubt that he might have some reason for not swallowing what you say, just because you say it. (Alternatively, I could just be stupid, but even stupid people deserve courtesy, do they not?)

    You write, "As I have said probably about 4 times without any response on your part it is subject to reasonable discussion because a basic belief can be defeated or you can give an argument to strengthen it. Why think that basic beliefs are not fit for reasonable discussions?"

    You seem to have misconstrued me. I am not arguing that "basic beliefs" per se are not subject to reasonable discussion. What I am arguing is that your specific contention that you can "just know" the canon is not so subject.

    You write, "My reason for not accepting the Roman argument for the canon is that the canon is properly basic so I can know it apart from the church."

    I would prefer that you stop referring to the lame argument you provide in your original post as "the Roman argument". Very few Catholics, in proportion to the whole Church, live in Rome, and therefore the vast majority do not consider themselves "Romans". I realize you probably dislike the idea of using the word "Catholic" to describe Catholics and the Catholic Church, nevertheless out of courtesy could you not at least use that term to our faces, since it is the name we apply to ourselves? Use of the upper-case "C" should make it clear enough that it is being used as a proper noun to refer to a specific Church which goes by that name, and to its members, and not as the generic adjective "catholic". Second, while you may have seen "a lot" of Catholic apologists use the lame argument you give in your original post, that doesn't make it "the Catholic argument". It may be fair on that basis to call it "one of the Catholic arguments", but calling it "the Catholic argument" implies that it's "the" primary, official argument of the Catholic Church, which it is not.

    You write, "I have two arguments that would strengthen my basic belief in the Canon. One is philosophical and the other historical."

    You may have arguments that strengthen your belief that you know the canon *correctly*. But that belief is distinct from the claim that you "just know" the canon. Your own statements have made it abundantly clear that no arguments whatsoever underlie that belief. You simply read the books of the Bible (all of them? you don't say) and "just knew" that they were God's word. You don't argue that you "just know", you simply assert it. The only way to disprove that would be for me to prove that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are not God's word -- impossible -- or to prove that you don't "just know" that they are God's word -- equally impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hello Agellius,

    But there are other alternatives: Like perhaps you have not made yourself as clear as you think you have. If we were having the hypothetical discussion you describe, and you argued against me by saying "right reason and mathematicians disagree" with me, that would be an assertion, not an argument. There is no reason I am bound to accept your word as to the prevalence of modern scholars who agree with you, as authoritative, on pain of being branded "stubborn". But my main point is that you could, rather than making a personal remark about your opponent, give him the benefit of the doubt that he might have some reason for not swallowing what you say, just because you say it. (Alternatively, I could just be stupid, but even stupid people deserve courtesy, do they not?)

    Response: I am not going to waste time here. I said what I said not to hurt your feelings but to save time so we can discuss arguments, philosophy and theology that we can interact with so that we can mutually benefit from the conversation. If I happened to have hurt your feelings in the process then I am sorry that you feel that way. I can be really direct sometimes and I apologize for that. So if I judged you wrong then I am sorry, so lets forgive and forget and have a great discussion! By the way you do not have to accept my word on the issue of basicality and moderate foundationalism feel free to check it out!

    You seem to have misconstrued me. I am not arguing that "basic beliefs" per se are not subject to reasonable discussion. What I am arguing is that your specific contention that you can "just know" the canon is not so subject.

    Response: What would make that particular basic belief not subject to reasonable discussion but would make other basis beliefs subject to reasonable discussion? What sort of criterion of necessary and sufficient condition might you have for this?

    You may have arguments that strengthen your belief that you know the canon *correctly*. But that belief is distinct from the claim that you "just know" the canon. Your own statements have made it abundantly clear that no arguments whatsoever underlie that belief. You simply read the books of the Bible (all of them? you don't say) and "just knew" that they were God's word. You don't argue that you "just know", you simply assert it. The only way to disprove that would be for me to prove that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are not God's word -- impossible -- or to prove that you don't "just know" that they are God's word -- equally impossible.

    Response: Why would it be impossible? Could you not show me that there is reason to doubt historically some of the books? What sort of law of logic would it break if you were to show me my basic belief were unreasonable? However, you are right that my claim that these beliefs are basic are not in need of argument to be justified but one could give an argument to be more justified or one could give a argument so that I could not be justified in my belief. In other words my beliefs can lose their justification and they can be progressively justified for someone who holds your theological convictions I am sure you understand that just fine :) Basically what you hold about salvation I hold the same thing about epistemology ha ha ha...I am sorry I just had to say that.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  57. Agellius,

    I feel really bad about offending you over and over again! I must say in my blogging history I think I have offended you more than anyone else and your conduct has not really been offensive at all. So for now on I will make sure my good friend David N. or my girlfriend reads my response to you before I send them out. I hope you are well. By the way I was really impressed by your canon questions from the other post we are discussing. Keep the good questions coming.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  58. You write, "By the way you do not have to accept my word on the issue of basicality and moderate foundationalism feel free to check it out!"

    Since you are the one who introduced the topic, you have the burden of showing how it supports your arguments, not I.

    You write, "What would make that particular basic belief not subject to reasonable discussion but would make other basis beliefs subject to reasonable discussion? What sort of criterion of necessary and sufficient condition might you have for this?"

    Again you try to shift the burden onto me. I have asked you to give me arguments for and against your claim to "just know" the canon, since you claim that it is subject to reasonable discussion. But the only one you have offered thus far has been John 10:4, which I have shown to be circular.

    You write, "I feel really bad about offending you over and over again! I must say in my blogging history I think I have offended you more than anyone else and your conduct has not really been offensive at all."

    There is a distinction between one person saying something offensive or discourteous, and the other person actually being offended or hurt by it. I point out when you say discourteous things, not because I am hurt, but in order to try to maintain a courteous standard of behavior -- and would welcome you doing the same of course. I think that in an ideal discussion there would be no personal remarks whatsoever, except maybe kind ones, so that no time and effort need be wasted in trying to come up with snappy retorts and parrying those of our opponents, and our energies don't get redirected to the goal of shielding our egos, rather than that of pursuing truth.

    But maybe that's just my opinion. Nearly everyone to whom I say these things accuses me of being hypersensitive. Alas, perhaps I am the last surviving believer in gentlemanly courtesy between civilized opponents. ; )

    ReplyDelete
  59. Hello Agellius,


    Since you are the one who introduced the topic, you have the burden of showing how it supports your arguments, not I.

    Response: This was not really an argument so much as it was my encouragement to see that I am not making things up and that this is the reigning opinion of moderate foundationalism. But I do not see any reason for thinking that just because someone brought up something that therefore they have the burden of proof. Are there any problems with the epistemological theory of moderate foundationalism that I have described to you in the past? I have no argued that it is the only possible theory but merely that theory is coherent and there is no good reason to doubt it and as a result I can use it to defeat any sort of arguments a Roman Catholic might have against my view of the canon.

    Again you try to shift the burden onto me. I have asked you to give me arguments for and against your claim to "just know" the canon, since you claim that it is subject to reasonable discussion. But the only one you have offered thus far has been John 10:4, which I have shown to be circular.

    Response: I have brought up the fact that basic beliefs can be fallible and thus they can be defeated or give more evidence for. You have rejected this claim. I gave you an example for how basic beliefs may function. Do you think we need to give evidence that everyone we know is not a terminator robot? Or do we not need evidence for this and this is just basic until we have a reason to doubt it. And could we not do brain surgery to determine that people are not robots of this sort and thus strengthen this basic belief? My reason for accepting moderate foundationalism of the externalistic type is that it provides obvious answers to these sorts of questions. We do not need evidence for everything but certainly things that we are reasonable in holding can be in theory disproven or more proven by arguments. Now if you want to reject that view point then you are going to have to say things like we are do not know who is a robot and who is not….a very strange conclusion to embrace indeed. Do not take this entire conversation as some sort of formal debate in which the burden is being tossed back and forth...I was simply asking you questions because I wanted to know where you are coming from that is all.

    But maybe that's just my opinion. Nearly everyone to whom I say these things accuses me of being hypersensitive. Alas, perhaps I am the last surviving believer in gentlemanly courtesy between civilized opponents. ; )

    Response: Oh okay...real good.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  60. Just to clarify a couple of things:

    You write, "I have brought up the fact that basic beliefs can be fallible and thus they can be defeated or give more evidence for. You have rejected this claim."

    On the contrary, as I said before, I have not made any statement about "basic beliefs" per se, only about a particular belief of yours. You characterize that belief as "basic", but in my view that terminology is immaterial to the arguments I have made.

    You write, "We do not need evidence for everything but certainly things that we are reasonable in holding can be in theory disproven or more proven by arguments. Now if you want to reject that view point then you are going to have to say things like we are do not know who is a robot and who is not….a very strange conclusion to embrace indeed."

    I agree that we do not need proof for everything. I deny that everything that it is reasonable to believe is disprovable. For example it's reasonable to believe in God, but God's existence is not disprovable.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Hello Agellius,

    On the contrary, as I said before, I have not made any statement about "basic beliefs" per se, only about a particular belief of yours. You characterize that belief as "basic", but in my view that terminology is immaterial to the arguments I have made.

    Response: Why do you object to my particular use of basic beliefs with respect to the canon? What do you mean by immaterial? And why is it immaterial to the argument you have made (once immaterial is defined)?

    I agree that we do not need proof for everything. I deny that everything that it is reasonable to believe is disprovable. For example it's reasonable to believe in God, but God's existence is not disprovable.

    Response: So moderate foundationalism says that a basic belief could be disprovable but it does not have to be. By the way being defeated is different than disproving so in my philosophical use of the word defeated it can either mean a not believing (you are not sure if it is true or false) or disbelieving (saying a proposition is false).

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  62. I wanted to say that I have truly enjoyed following this discussion. Both sides are presenting excellent and intelligent views and I look foward to hearing more.

    I do have one thing to add (apart from the compliments) and that is that I have still not heard a good response from Mr. Taylor as to why saying you "just know" is a good justification as to why he feels his views on Sola Scriptura are accurate. Using multiple resources, historical data, expert opinions etc are one thing, but trying to prove your view of Sola Scriptura by simply saying, read it and you "just know" does not seem to me to be the best way to establish a concrete justification.

    I also find it interesting that you claim that Catholics, Orthodox, and even non "internal" members of the Protestant Church are not Christians. Sounds a bit elitist to me however I will hold judgement back until you get to your justification for such a statement.

    Pax

    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  63. Also wanted to add another quote from Martin Luther to add your own above (esp in light of your view that Catholics arent Christians)

    "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)- that they posses the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it"- Martin Luther-Commentary on St John (Chapter 16)

    Even Luther supports the idea that without the decisions of the Church we would not know which books of the Bible are inspired. As St Augustine said, "I would put no faith in the Gospels unless the authority of the Church directed me to do so."

    Anyway...back you your discussion :)

    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  64. Hello Frank,

    I wanted to say that I have truly enjoyed following this discussion. Both sides are presenting excellent and intelligent views and I look foward to hearing more.

    Response: Well thank you for reading and following our discussion Frank.

    I do have one thing to add (apart from the compliments) and that is that I have still not heard a good response from Mr. Taylor as to why saying you "just know" is a good justification as to why he feels his views on Sola Scriptura are accurate. Using multiple resources, historical data, expert opinions etc are one thing, but trying to prove your view of Sola Scriptura by simply saying, read it and you "just know" does not seem to me to be the best way to establish a concrete justification.

    Response: Interesting thoughts Frank. So then you would you say you have concrete justification for proving that everyone you encounter is not a terminator robot of sorts? Would you also have concrete justification for the existence of the external world? Or how for example you know you are not a brain in a vat being stimulated by a mad scientist? I would say all of these sort of things you know properly basically and without argument. So why have my responses have not been good on this score?

    I also find it interesting that you claim that Catholics, Orthodox, and even non "internal" members of the Protestant Church are not Christians. Sounds a bit elitist to me however I will hold judgement back until you get to your justification for such a statement.

    Response: Jesus says in John 10 that his sheep will hear his voice and if you do not hear his voice then you should probably think that you are not his sheep. Would you say Jesus is a elitist Frank when he says this?

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  65. Frank,

    It sure is a good thing that I believe in Sola Scriptura and that I do not put any intrinsic authority in anything Luther or anyone says for that matter apart from the Word of God.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete