Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox use the Canon argument against the Protestant position to show the necessity of an Infallible and Authoritative Church to epistemologically justify what books belong in the Canon (the books of the Bible).
The Argument is as follows:
P1: If one does not have infallible and authoritative church to determine the canon then one cannot know what books belong in the canon
P2: Protestants do not have an infallible and authoritative church to determine the canon
C: Hence, Protestants cannot know what books belong in the canon
A Rejection of the Argument:
The Protestant ought to reject P1 because one who holds to the Protestant position can say that the Bible self-authenticating and self-verifying thereby suggesting that when one reads it they just know it is God speaking to them. To use philosophical jargon: It is a properly basic belief what books are divinely inspired and belong in the Canon of scripture. A basic belief is a sort of belief that is reasonable to hold without inference and arguments, but yet these reasonable beliefs are basic or foundational for inference and arguments to start. Here are a few basic beliefs that are reasonable to hold without inference or argumentation: The existence of the external world, the fact that you have existed longer than five minutes, that you have reliable faculties, that we are not in a matrix and that we are not brains in vats. Therefore, it is a properly basic belief that God speaks to me through the 66 books of the Bible when I read them.
A Biblical Basis:
But is this idea of us being reasonable in believing that the Bible is divinely inspired independent of argument and inference itself a Biblical Idea?
It certainly seems that it is. Jesus says of himself to believers that they will know his voice:
John 10:3-6 3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." 6 This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
Jesus does not say that they will know the Shepard’s voice on the basis of arguments and inference, but merely that when they encounter it they will know it is the voice of God. This is how the Protestant knows that the 66 books in the Bible are divinely inspired by God.
Do we really need a Divinely Inspired Table of Contents?
At this point the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox might say “well you may know the 66 books of the Bible belong in the canon but you do not have a divinely inspired and authoritative table of contents to the Bible.” In short, they are objecting that in the Bible it never says what books belong and do not belong in the Bible.
How should we respond to this?
The Bible does give a criterion for what books belong as scripture in the Canon (John 10:3-6). However, Non-Protestants will be quick to point out that it does not give the content of which books fulfill that criterion. But why think that we need that? I really can think of no good reason for why that is necessary. Admittedly, it may be subjectively preferable to some, but it is hard to see why this is necessary. They might argue that it makes things clear and that thereby entails that the Non-Protestant position is more reasonable, but I have demonstrated in the last post that just because a position is clearer than another does not constitute a good reason for choosing one position over another.
Concluding Thoughts:
Thus, we have seen that the most popular Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox argument is a complete failure and cannot be used to show that Non- Protestant positions are more reasonable than the Protestant position.
Aren't the sheep who know the voice themselves fallible? Knowing the shepherd's voice doesn't eradicate the possibility or capacity for doubt, confusion, or self-deception, does it? Should we conclude that not one "sheep" that has ever lived could possibly be mistaken when answering whether this or that book is inspired?
ReplyDeleteHey there,
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to see you commenting on this blog again.
Yes, they are fallible. But one can still have knowledge and it not be infallible so long as it is more reasonable than not. Most philosophers that hold to proper basicality would say that beliefs such as these can and are in most cases fallible.
God Bless,
NPT
Again I will say at the outset that the arguments you present are not the ones I make myself, therefore I won't defend them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that P1 is false: As a general rule in life, we don't have to have infallible sources in order to know things. It's possible that a Christian could know the canon without being informed of it by an infallible source.
However I do think that in order to be sure of the canon, Christians need to be informed of it by at least an *authoritative* source. I do not agree that we can all "just know" that each of the 66 books in the Protestant canon is God's Word, notwithstanding John 10:4. I consider it a stretch to interpret Jesus' saying that his sheep will "hear his voice" as a guarantee that every Christian will unerringly and intuitively discern the canon of the scriptures. For one thing, if that were true then Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox would not have different canons.
Then again, that premise would require Protestants to define RC and EO as non-Christians since they disagree with the P canon ("John 10:4 guarantees that true Christians will know the canon; P are true Christians; the RC and EO canons disagree with the P canon; therefore RC and EO are not true Christians"). Obviously I'm not going along with that, nor do I believe John 10:4 provides sufficient grounds for doing so.
Hello Agellius,
ReplyDeleteHowever I do think that in order to be sure of the canon, Christians need to be informed of it by at least an *authoritative* source. I do not agree that we can all "just know" that each of the 66 books in the Protestant canon is God's Word, notwithstanding John 10:4. I consider it a stretch to interpret Jesus' saying that his sheep will "hear his voice" as a guarantee that every Christian will unerringly and intuitively discern the canon of the scriptures. For one thing, if that were true then Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox would not have different canons.
Response: What do you mean by sure? Do you mean like we have a higher degree of probability of reasonableness if we were to accept the Roman view or that we can have infallible epistemological certainty if we accept the Roman view?
Then again, that premise would require Protestants to define RC and EO as non-Christians since they disagree with the P canon ("John 10:4 guarantees that true Christians will know the canon; P are true Christians; the RC and EO canons disagree with the P canon; therefore RC and EO are not true Christians"). Obviously I'm not going along with that, nor do I believe John 10:4 provides sufficient grounds for doing so.
Response: I am aware of this and I do not think those groups are saved and Christian so I do not have much of a problem with that. Why does John 10:4 not provide sufficient ground?
God Bless,
NPT
You write, "What do you mean by sure?"
ReplyDeleteI just mean "sure" in its common usage. I don't think one can be sure that he has the correct canon if he has to rely on his own interpretation of the criteria purportedly provided in the scriptures. Besides which, as previously observed, it would be circular to argue that one knows what books belong in the Bible because one of the books that belongs in the Bible provides the criteria.
You write, "Why does John 10:4 not provide sufficient ground?"
I just don't think there is sufficient ground for concluding that John 10:4 guarantees that every Christian will unerringly and intuitively discern the canon of the scriptures. The verse is just not that specific about what it is that individual Christians will hear, and how often, and how certain they can be that they are hearing his voice correctly in a given circumstance, etc.
Does it mean that *all* Christians will *always* "hear his voice" unerringly? If so, then it would seem that every Christian is even more infallible than Catholics claim the Pope is.
You write, "I am aware of this and I do not think those groups are saved and Christian so I do not have much of a problem with that."
OK, but it doesn't stop there: If John 10:4 guarantees that all true Christians will hear Jesus' voice unerringly, then not just RCs and EOs, but anyone whatsoever who disagrees with you on the interpretation of any verse of scripture is also not a true Christian: Since you are guaranteed to hear Christ's voice correctly, anyone who hears something different from what you hear can't be of Christ's flock. I don't know what denomination you adhere to, but whatever it is, you must believe it's the only Protestant denomination that contains true Christians.
Hello Agellius,
ReplyDeleteI just mean "sure" in its common usage. I don't think one can be sure that he has the correct canon if he has to rely on his own interpretation of the criteria purportedly provided in the scriptures. Besides which, as previously observed, it would be circular to argue that one knows what books belong in the Bible because one of the books that belongs in the Bible provides the criteria.
Response: What is the common usage of sure? Do think it is a high degree of probability? or Perhaps is it infallible and undoubtable certainty? Once this is answered do you think we have to be sure in order to know things? If it were circular, would too also be circular to say you know what books belong in the Bible because the church says so? How would you know that the church is true and self-attesting without it saying so in a circular manner? But to answer your question more directly: I would know that the books of the Bible are the word of God without it even saying so, it just happens to conveniently give a criterion, but that criterion is not the basis by which I know but rather that it is the word of God is just properly basic and that is the reason I know it. Once it know this way then we can ask questions about if there can be arguments that support it and if it gives a criterion that already supports the original way I knew it through it's self-attesting nature causing these properly basic beliefs in me.
I just don't think there is sufficient ground for concluding that John 10:4 guarantees that every Christian will unerringly and intuitively discern the canon of the scriptures. The verse is just not that specific about what it is that individual Christians will hear, and how often, and how certain they can be that they are hearing his voice correctly in a given circumstance, etc.
Response: Well I do not think that other specific information is necessary or important in this context but I believe it can be infered from other contexts (2 tim. 3:16-17). The verse says that Christians will know God's voice and elsewhere is in scripture we find that God's voice is in scripture (2 tim. 3:16-17) so obviously the circumstances and how often the christian hears God's voice will be determined by how much the christian reads the Bible.
Does it mean that *all* Christians will *always* "hear his voice" unerringly? If so, then it would seem that every Christian is even more infallible than Catholics claim the Pope is.
Response: Well what would you mean by infallible here? Do you mean epistemologically or metaphysically? How would you define the Popes infallibility, is it epistemological or metaphysical infallibility? But it seems to me that I would say this verse does not entail that a christian need to be metaphysically or epistemologically infallible to hear God's voice. But why think that this verse would entail this?
OK, but it doesn't stop there: If John 10:4 guarantees that all true Christians will hear Jesus' voice unerringly, then not just RCs and EOs, but anyone whatsoever who disagrees with you on the interpretation of any verse of scripture is also not a true Christian: Since you are guaranteed to hear Christ's voice correctly, anyone who hears something different from what you hear can't be of Christ's flock. I don't know what denomination you adhere to, but whatever it is, you must believe it's the only Protestant denomination that contains true Christians.
Response: Well no because all other Protestant denomination agree on the 66 books of the canon. So I guess I am not seeing the problem here.
I hope that clears things up.
God Bless,
NPT
You write, "Once it know this way then we can ask questions about if there can be arguments that support it and if it gives a criterion that already supports the original way I knew it through it's self-attesting nature causing these properly basic beliefs in me."
ReplyDeleteYes, but any such arguments would appear circular to anyone who doesn't share your belief that they are self-attesting, and therefore would be ineffective except with respect to those who already agree with you. As to those there is no reason to argue with them, and as to those who don't agree your arguments would appear circular and therefore ineffective. So arguing the matter would appear to be pointless.
You write, "But it seems to me that I would say this verse does not entail that a christian need to be metaphysically or epistemologically infallible to hear God's voice. But why think that this verse would entail this?"
The premise was, that all Christians will always hear his voice unerringly. If they hear his voice, they can't err because his voice never errs, thus they can know the canon unerringly. If this is true then all Christians are infallible with respect to Christian faith and practice. If Christians are capable of making errors in that regard, that means they sometimes do not hear his voice. But all true Christians *must* hear his voice at all times, according to your interpretation of John 10:4. Therefore they're infallible as to faith and morals.
You write, "Response: Well no because all other Protestant denomination agree on the 66 books of the canon. So I guess I am not seeing the problem here."
I'm not talking about the canon alone. Your argument, if I understand it, is this: John 10:4 says "my sheep will hear my voice". Therefore everyone who is a true Christian will know the canon of the scriptures unerringly, because the scriptures are Christ's voice and they hear his voice.
But why stop at the canon? Is the canon the only thing that Christ speaks? Certainly not. He also speaks within the texts of the canon: Since the scriptures are God's Word, and Christ is God, Christ's sheep will hear that word unerringly. If they read the unerring scriptures, and hear Christ speaking through those scriptures, that means they can't make errors in hearing what Christ says. If they do make errors, they're not hearing Christ's word but are listening to the words of others, or to their own minds. But if they hear Christ's word, then they can't err since Christ can't err. Thus if they do err, that shows that they are not true sheep, i.e. true Christians.
So if you are a true Christian, and another Protestant disagrees with you on something that is in the Bible, that Protestant must be in error and therefore not a true sheep.
Hello Agellius,
ReplyDeleteYes, but any such arguments would appear circular to anyone who doesn't share your belief that they are self-attesting, and therefore would be ineffective except with respect to those who already agree with you. As to those there is no reason to argue with them, and as to those who don't agree your arguments would appear circular and therefore ineffective. So arguing the matter would appear to be pointless.
Response: The argument would not be pointless because it is showing that a Protestant can know the canon independently from the church so the point of it was to undercut the canon argument which it is effective in accomplishing. The canon argument would only work to those thinking that church is self-attesting and that the scriptures are not by themselves. I actually think you can give arguments and reasons for the Protestant canon and my belief in it is fallible so you can offer reasons for why you think it is not properly basic. As I said earlier a lot of your critiques of proper basicality comes from your misunderstanding of newer forms of foundationalism like it's moderate externalistic types. I hold to Alvin Plantinga Reformed epistemology and his externalistic proper functionalism. This form of proper basicality avoids all of the problems you mention. But lastly, it may appears circular to you but in epistemic actuality it is not because it is properly basic, it would only be circular if I were a coherentist.
The premise was, that all Christians will always hear his voice unerringly. If they hear his voice, they can't err because his voice never errs, thus they can know the canon unerringly. If this is true then all Christians are infallible with respect to Christian faith and practice. If Christians are capable of making errors in that regard, that means they sometimes do not hear his voice. But all true Christians *must* hear his voice at all times, according to your interpretation of John 10:4. Therefore they're infallible as to faith and morals.
I'm not talking about the canon alone. Your argument, if I understand it, is this: John 10:4 says "my sheep will hear my voice". Therefore everyone who is a true Christian will know the canon of the scriptures unerringly, because the scriptures are Christ's voice and they hear his voice.
Response: I would say that John 10 is only saying that Christians can know it is God speaking to them, not that when God speaks to them that they understand and interpret it infallibly. Thus, they know God is speaking to them but they do not necessarily always know the content of the speech perfectly. Thus, two Christians can be disagree on a non-essential issue and still be Christians. Lastly, John 10 says that all Christians will hear God's voice, but it does not say that they know it infallibly. You say because all will hear that therefore they know it infallibly because no christian could fail to know it. This is true but I could say that all Christians happen to know it in this actual world as a matter of a contingent fact but that they could be mistaken, but they all happen not to be. No Christian then in this actual world could fail to know it but it is possible that they could fail to know it. I believe John 10 to be teaching this rather than some sort of infallible knowledge. Peter and the Apostles fail to understand Jesus's teaching but they still know it is God's speaking to them.
God Bless,
NPT
You write, "As I said earlier a lot of your critiques of proper basicality comes from your misunderstanding of newer forms of foundationalism like it's moderate externalistic types. I hold to Alvin Plantinga Reformed epistemology and his externalistic proper functionalism. This form of proper basicality avoids all of the problems you mention. But lastly, it may appears circular to you but in epistemic actuality it is not because it is properly basic, it would only be circular if I were a coherentist."
ReplyDeleteIf one of those esoteric labels makes your argument correct, do you not need to show *how* it is made correct? Simply asserting that the latest findings of academia solve all the difficulties I raise, doesn't win the argument, since I don't accept the premise that the latest findings of academia are necessarily correct. If they were, then the "latest findings" wouldn't be changing every 10 or 20 years, because truth doesn't change. If we're to have a meaningful discussion, you're going to have to define your terms and spell out your reasoning.
You write, "The argument would not be pointless because it is showing that a Protestant can know the canon independently from the church so the point of it was to undercut the canon argument which it is effective in accomplishing."
I'll try again to explain why I think the argument is pointless:
First, circularity: Arguing that certain books belong in the Bible because they meet criteria provided by a book or books that belong in the Bible is circular: You can't know that the criteria are biblical unless you know what books are in the Bible in the first place. Your conclusion -- that certain books belong in the Bible -- is assumed in your premise, thus the argument is circular.
Now, if your argument is that you can use one of the books in the Bible as your premise without being circular, because you can "just know" that that book belongs in the Bible, your argument becomes: I "just know" this book belongs in the Bible; this book provides criteria for judging which books belong in the Bible; we know these criteria are valid because they come from the Bible; therefore they are reliable criteria for judging which books belong in the Bible; since we have judged that these books meet these biblical criteria, we can know that they belong in the Bible too. Thus you have provided an argument for the biblical canon.
But all that is pointless, if you can "just know" they belong in the Bible: If your audience grants that premise, they don't need persuading. If your audience does not grant that premise, then the argument is totally unpersuasive since the premise is denied.
The premise can be neither proven nor disproven, but only asserted. The effectiveness of your argument in persuading others will depend on whether or not they accept the premise. Those who accept it don't need persuading, and to those who reject it, your argument will not be persuasive.
For this reason I consider it pointless to try to argue in proof of the canon, if your premise is that Christians can "just know" the canon.
You write, "I would say that John 10 is only saying that Christians can know it is God speaking to them, not that when God speaks to them that they understand and interpret it infallibly."
ReplyDeleteIt can't be just that they hear his voice, with no guarantee that they understand him correctly. For you said that RCs and EOs, if they believe what their religion teaches, are not Christians. Thus, what makes them "not sheep" is the fact that they believe things that are incorrect. If believing what is incorrect makes one a non-sheep, then those who are sheep must believe only what is correct. Thus they must be hearing their shepherd correctly, for if they hear him incorrectly they are not sheep.
John 10:27: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
You write, "Thus, two Christians can be disagree on a non-essential issue and still be Christians."
Ah. Here appears to be the crux of the matter: They can disagree and still both be Christians, but only on "non-essentials". Does this not mean that at least on "essentials" (not sure how that is defined, or who defines it) they must hear his voice *and* understand it correctly, in order to be considered true sheep?
Hello Agellius,
ReplyDeleteIf one of those esoteric labels makes your argument correct, do you not need to show *how* it is made correct? Simply asserting that the latest findings of academia solve all the difficulties I raise, doesn't win the argument, since I don't accept the premise that the latest findings of academia are necessarily correct. If they were, then the "latest findings" wouldn't be changing every 10 or 20 years, because truth doesn't change. If we're to have a meaningful discussion, you're going to have to define your terms and spell out your reasoning.
Response: Well they are not so much arguments as they are showing how one can hold to be the canon without the necessity of an argument or inference and thereby undercutting the above Roman argument. My view of proper basicality is externalistic and fallible, one can provide arguments (although it is not necessary for justification) for these basic beliefs to make them more warranted and one can provide reasons to doubt that these beliefs to lessen the degrees of reasonableness one has or to even defeat such a basic belief. Why would this be a problem? The issue is me not just waving my hand in sort of a cold and academic sense, but rather when someone who just tells me that basic beliefs cannot be this way against all of the current philosophical trends better provide a pretty good argument for why he or she thinks that. Thus, the burden of proof lies in your camp to show me an epistemological incoherence with my view of basicality and the view of 90% of all epistemologists.
I'll try again to explain why I think the argument is pointless:
First, circularity: Arguing that certain books belong in the Bible because they meet criteria provided by a book or books that belong in the Bible is circular: You can't know that the criteria are biblical unless you know what books are in the Bible in the first place. Your conclusion -- that certain books belong in the Bible -- is assumed in your premise, thus the argument is circular.
Response: I do not hold that the criteria is what justifies what books belong or does not belong in the canon but rather the fact that it is just properly basic that this God speaking to me when I read it. Thus, it is not circular but properly basic that this is God speaking to me. To put more precisely: Me reading it and the belief formation that it is God speaking to me is epistemologically prior to any sort of justification that the criterion could contribute to my belief that this is God speaking to me.
Now, if your argument is that you can use one of the books in the Bible as your premise without being circular, because you can "just know" that that book belongs in the Bible, your argument becomes: I "just know" this book belongs in the Bible; this book provides criteria for judging which books belong in the Bible; we know these criteria are valid because they come from the Bible; therefore they are reliable criteria for judging which books belong in the Bible; since we have judged that these books meet these biblical criteria, we can know that they belong in the Bible too. Thus you have provided an argument for the biblical canon.
Response: My reason for knowing what books belong in the Bible or not is because it is properly basic and that is all there is to it. It is not an argument that is circular because it is not really an argument because it is properly basic.
But all that is pointless, if you can "just know" they belong in the Bible: If your audience grants that premise, they don't need persuading. If your audience does not grant that premise, then the argument is totally unpersuasive since the premise is denied.
ReplyDeleteResponse: It is not really an argument so much as it is a possible way to undercut the Roman Argument to show that it is unsound thereby rendering it uneffective. You may not agree with me that the Bible is self-authenticating and properly basic, but I do. So thus the Roman argument would not be effective against me and my response would not be effective to someone who did not think that God’s word is obviously God word. The purpose of proper basicality being introduced here is to simply show that if one is a consistent protestant that believes the Bible to be self-attesting that these Roman arguments would be entirely uneffective which has been the entire purpose of this post.
The premise can be neither proven nor disproven, but only asserted. The effectiveness of your argument in persuading others will depend on whether or not they accept the premise. Those who accept it don't need persuading, and to those who reject it, your argument will not be persuasive.
Response: It could be proven or disproven, my basic belief that the 66 books are the word of God. But I do not need to prove it in order to be justified or warranted in my basic belief because it is basic. It could be defeated and argued against as well. But as for now in this post I do not need to prove it for this to sufficiently undercut the Roman argument from a Protestant perspective, but I just need to show from a Protestant perspective the canon is utterly unpersuasive and uneffective.
For this reason I consider it pointless to try to argue in proof of the canon, if your premise is that Christians can "just know" the canon.
Response: In this post I am not trying to prove the canon. I am just trying to show how Protestants they know the canon basic fashion undercuts the Roman argument that you cannot know the canon. There is a difference between showing and knowing and the intent of this post was to going for the latter so that it renders the Roman argument unsound. Thus, it is pointless if one wants to prove that they can show the canon to you with evidence and arguments, but the post is not pointless for what it was intended to do, namely, undercut a Roman argument for the canon.
It can't be just that they hear his voice, with no guarantee that they understand him correctly. For you said that RCs and EOs, if they believe what their religion teaches, are not Christians. Thus, what makes them "not sheep" is the fact that they believe things that are incorrect. If believing what is incorrect makes one a non-sheep, then those who are sheep must believe only what is correct. Thus they must be hearing their shepherd correctly, for if they hear him incorrectly they are not sheep.
Response: Yes, they would have to hear him correctly with respect to essential issues such as the Gospel. But I think everything else it is possible that they can be mistaken about that.
John 10:27: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
Ah. Here appears to be the crux of the matter: They can disagree and still both be Christians, but only on "non-essentials". Does this not mean that at least on "essentials" (not sure how that is defined, or who defines it) they must hear his voice *and* understand it correctly, in order to be considered true sheep?
Response: Yes. Is there any theological or philosophical problem with that?
God Bless,
NPT
It's not logically incoherent or contradictory to claim that the canon is "properly basic". (Neither is it incoherent or contradictory to claim that God revealed to you that there are unicorns living on Pluto.) But if you use John 10:4 as the premise from which you argue that the canon is "properly basic", you are arguing in a circle.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes it circular is that you use one of the books of the Bible -- John -- as the premise upon which you argue that knowledge of the canon is "properly basic". But you can only base your argument on John if you already know that John is part of the canon, and you can only know that if the canon is properly basic. Thus your conclusion is assumed in your premise and your argument is circular.
If you don't aready know John to be canonical, then John 10:4's alleged statement that you can "just know" the canon carries no authoritative weight.
If you knew that you could "just know" the canon before you read John 10:4, then your assertion that you can "just know" it is not based on John 10:4, but rather on God's alleged direct revelation to yourself. Therefore, not only do you "just know" the canon, you also "just know" that you can "just know" the canon, all based on direct revelation from God to you.
Again, nothing incoherent or illogical about any of this. You just can't claim that these beliefs are based on the Bible, since in reality they are prior to anything the Bible has to say about the matter. Whereas if they are based on what the Bible has to say on the matter, then your argument is circular.
You write, "Thus, the burden of proof lies in your camp to show me an epistemological incoherence with my view of basicality and the view of 90% of all epistemologists."
I didn't say it was incoherent, I said it removes the topic from the realm of reasonable discussion since God's alleged direct communication of the canonicity of each book of the Bible can neither be proved nor disproved.
You write, "it is pointless if one wants to prove that they can show the canon to you with evidence and arguments, but the post is not pointless for what it was intended to do, namely, undercut a Roman argument for the canon."
You seem to have lost the thread of the discussion. This tends to happen, in my experience, when people "fisk" posts -- respond one paragraph at a time instead of to the post as a whole -- they overlook the forest for focusing on the trees. I was responding to your prior statement that although knowledge of the canon is "properly basic", arguments in support of the canon can still be made and are helpful. I replied that such arguments -- specifically the one that argues that the Bible provides criteria for what belongs in the Bible -- would either be circular, or would be pointless *if* they start from the premise that you can "just know" that one or more of the books of the Bible belongs in the Bible, and proceed to argue that since one of the books of the Bible provides criteria, the rest of the books can thereby by known. Such an argument is pointless because one who accepts the premise is in no need of the argument, and one who doesn't accept it would find it unpersuasive.
You write, "Yes, they would have to hear him correctly with respect to essential issues such as the Gospel. But I think everything else it is possible that they can be mistaken about that."
Where in the Bible does it say which issues are essential and which are not? And that Christians will "hear his voice" correctly with respect to the former but not the latter?
Hello Agellius,
ReplyDeleteIt's not logically incoherent or contradictory to claim that the canon is "properly basic". (Neither is it incoherent or contradictory to claim that God revealed to you that there are unicorns living on Pluto.) But if you use John 10:4 as the premise from which you argue that the canon is "properly basic", you are arguing in a circle.
Response: For me it is not justified as circular for it is properly basic. If it were circular then it wouldn't be properly basic. It is true both of those things are consistent but I would say that the Bible is properly basic and that unicorn thing is not. My saying it is properly basic is not a premise so much as it is used for rejecting a premise of a Catholic argument.
What makes it circular is that you use one of the books of the Bible -- John -- as the premise upon which you argue that knowledge of the canon is "properly basic". But you can only base your argument on John if you already know that John is part of the canon, and you can only know that if the canon is properly basic. Thus your conclusion is assumed in your premise and your argument is circular.
Response: Well everything you just wrote right there I never claimed. I never claimed that we know the Books of the Bible are inspired because one of the books tells me. I think the books of the bible are inspired because it is properly basic and the Bible is merely consistent with my belief about how my belief in the bible was justified to be begin with.
If you don't aready know John to be canonical, then John 10:4's alleged statement that you can "just know" the canon carries no authoritative weight.
Response: This is right. John 10:4 is merely consistent with me knowing it as properly basic but it is not the grounds by which I know it.
If you knew that you could "just know" the canon before you read John 10:4, then your assertion that you can "just know" it is not based on John 10:4, but rather on God's alleged direct revelation to yourself. Therefore, not only do you "just know" the canon, you also "just know" that you can "just know" the canon, all based on direct revelation from God to you.
Response: Yes, that is right. I would not say that me knowing the canon is a revelation so much as it is my recognizing and knowing a revelation.
Again, nothing incoherent or illogical about any of this. You just can't claim that these beliefs are based on the Bible, since in reality they are prior to anything the Bible has to say about the matter. Whereas if they are based on what the Bible has to say on the matter, then your argument is circular.
Response: Yes that is right. But this is not a problem and if it were you would have the same or at least sufficiently similar problem.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say it was incoherent, I said it removes the topic from the realm of reasonable discussion since God's alleged direct communication of the canonicity of each book of the Bible can neither be proved nor disproved.
Response: As I said basic beliefs can be disproven and one can give further argument to strengthen that belief. You may not be able to verify my basic beliefs that I have but you should trust my testimony, why would you doubt it? So apart from the idea of trusting my testimony that something is basic for me you have no other way of knowing that it is basic for me because after all it is basic to me and not to you. But all this is fine and perfectly sufficient to undercut the Roman argument.
You write, "it is pointless if one wants to prove that they can show the canon to you with evidence and arguments, but the post is not pointless for what it was intended to do, namely, undercut a Roman argument for the canon."
You seem to have lost the thread of the discussion. This tends to happen, in my experience, when people "fisk" posts -- respond one paragraph at a time instead of to the post as a whole -- they overlook the forest for focusing on the trees. I was responding to your prior statement that although knowledge of the canon is "properly basic", arguments in support of the canon can still be made and are helpful. I replied that such arguments -- specifically the one that argues that the Bible provides criteria for what belongs in the Bible -- would either be circular, or would be pointless *if* they start from the premise that you can "just know" that one or more of the books of the Bible belongs in the Bible, and proceed to argue that since one of the books of the Bible provides criteria, the rest of the books can thereby by known. Such an argument is pointless because one who accepts the premise is in no need of the argument, and one who doesn't accept it would find it unpersuasive.
Response: This is true. But the point of the post is to undercut the Roman argument so I think that you are too concerned with things that are not related to the post at here. So although what you said is true to a certain extent I do not think my response is pointless since it was designed to show that the Protestant position is reasonable in light of this argument.
Where in the Bible does it say which issues are essential and which are not? And that Christians will "hear his voice" correctly with respect to the former but not the latter?
Response: Well I am not going to go into an exhaustive account of the essentials here because they are many. I am not sure what the former and latter are referring to in this statement. I would rather resolve this issue first then we can move onto other issues like evidence for the Protestant canon and all the essentials.
God Bless,
NPT
You write, "It is true both of those things are consistent but I would say that the Bible is properly basic and that unicorn thing is not."
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't a revelation from God about unicorns on Pluto be properly basic? Wouldn't a revelation from God be a direct experience? Apparently your only ground for branding such a revelation "not properly basic" is the fact that you simply don't believe God would give such a revelation. You see no good reason to believe it. Other than that there's nothing to discuss. Welcome to my point of view. ; )
You write, "[quoting me] 'You just can't claim that these beliefs are based on the Bible, since in reality they are prior to anything the Bible has to say about the matter.' Response: Yes that is right. But this is not a problem and if it were you would have the same or at least sufficiently similar problem."
I think it's a problem for anyone who claims to abide by sola scriptura. But admittedly that's a side issue.
You write, "You may not be able to verify my basic beliefs that I have but you should trust my testimony, why would you doubt it?"
Why would I doubt it? Let me ask you this: When you say you can "just know" that a book belongs in the Bible, is that (a) only after having read the entire book; (b) after having read a single verse; (c) after having read a single word; or (d) after having read some other proportion of the book? Does it happen instantaneously upon picking up the book, that knowledge of its canonicity is infused into your soul? Or do you have to read a few lines first?
If the latter, what if you picked up a copy of the book (assume you have never read it before) which has the first few chapters of a genuinely canonical book, but the remainder of it contains non-canonical material under the guise of being the remainder of the genuinely canonical book. After having read the first chapter or two, will you "just know" that only a portion of the book you are holding in your hand is canonical? If not, then it would seem that you must read the entire book before knowing that it's canonical. But if that's the case, then you can't know that all 66 books are canonical unless you have read the entire Protestant Bible. Is it, then, your position that only Christians who have read the entire Protestant Bible can know that all 66 books are canonical?
What if someone has interspersed non-canonical *sentences* throughout the book, such that you get one genuine sentence followed by a non-genuine sentence, from beginning to end. Will a Christian be able to pick out and distinguish the genuine sentences from the non-genuine? If so, would we not then have an empirical test to detect whether or not someone is a genuine Christian?
You write, "But all this is fine and perfectly sufficient to undercut the Roman argument."
I'm indifferent whether you claim to have defeated the argument allegedly made by Catholics in your original post, since as I said at the start, that's not an argument I would make.
Hello Agellius,
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't a revelation from God about unicorns on Pluto be properly basic? Wouldn't a revelation from God be a direct experience? Apparently your only ground for branding such a revelation "not properly basic" is the fact that you simply don't believe God would give such a revelation. You see no good reason to believe it. Other than that there's nothing to discuss. Welcome to my point of view. ; )
Response: Well I understand what you are saying, but I do not really share your point of view. Well I suppose there is a logically possible world in which unicorns exist but I am a modal skeptic with respect to whether there is a possible world in which such a fact is included in God’s revelation. So it is epistemically possible that one have such a basic belief but none of my basic beliefs include that so I actually have no reason for believing it. But if someone did then it would be basic for them. A revelation from God can be a direct experience or at least has something to do with a direct experience, but why think that it can only be a direct experience? How would you define a direct experience? Would it not include rational belief formation and mental states?
I think it's a problem for anyone who claims to abide by sola scriptura. But admittedly that's a side issue.
Response: Why is it not a problem of for Rome? And why is it exclusively a problem for sola scriptura?
Why would I doubt it? Let me ask you this: When you say you can "just know" that a book belongs in the Bible, is that (a) only after having read the entire book; (b) after having read a single verse; (c) after having read a single word; or (d) after having read some other proportion of the book? Does it happen instantaneously upon picking up the book, that knowledge of its canonicity is infused into your soul? Or do you have to read a few lines first?
Response: These are excellent philosophical questions! I am so happy that you are thinking critically and analytically! I would say when I read each proposition (a statement) in the Bible I have the belief formation that God is speaking to me and when every proposition in a given book has this sort of belief formation then I conclude that it belongs in the canon.
If the latter, what if you picked up a copy of the book (assume you have never read it before) which has the first few chapters of a genuinely canonical book, but the remainder of it contains non-canonical material under the guise of being the remainder of the genuinely canonical book. After having read the first chapter or two, will you "just know" that only a portion of the book you are holding in your hand is canonical? If not, then it would seem that you must read the entire book before knowing that it's canonical. But if that's the case, then you can't know that all 66 books are canonical unless you have read the entire Protestant Bible. Is it, then, your position that only Christians who have read the entire Protestant Bible can know that all 66 books are canonical?
Response: Again great questions. To your first question: Well you could very well know that the rest is inspired because you trust the testimony of your pastors, teachers, and your parents, which testimony of others is taken as properly basic by which you make the inference from that basic testimony that this book is inspired. Or you could know the rest is inspired because you have good evidence for thinking so. But if all others avenues are excluded then you are right in saying that you would only know at that point in time that those portions inspired. Then of course the obvious conclusion would follow that you would have to read the whole book in order to know it is canonical. With respect to your second question: It is not my position that only Christians who have read the entire Protestant Bible can know that all 66 books are canonical. They can know on the basis of argument or perhaps in the testimony of those who told them that. I believe that personal testimonies being reliable are properly basic as well.
What if someone has interspersed non-canonical *sentences* throughout the book, such that you get one genuine sentence followed by a non-genuine sentence, from beginning to end. Will a Christian be able to pick out and distinguish the genuine sentences from the non-genuine? If so, would we not then have an empirical test to detect whether or not someone is a genuine Christian?
ReplyDeleteResponse: I like your thinking…very clever questions. I would say: perhaps not. It could very well be that the way the propositions are organized and ordered in such a way that given that they would not be in the proper order such basic belief formation may no occur. The context helps clarify and communicate each proposition forcefully so that God’s voice can be really heard in the pages of scripture.
I'm indifferent whether you claim to have defeated the argument allegedly made by Catholics in your original post, since as I said at the start, that's not an argument I would make.
Response: Okay great! This clears up a lot of things. So now we can move to other forms of conversation and disputation because you do not buy the Roman argument.
Keep asking great questions and thinking hard. You have shown to me that you have a rather sharp intellect.
God Bless,
NPT
Let me see if I can summarize your position. First I will address the following statements of yours: "... you could very well know that the rest is inspired because you trust the testimony of your pastors, teachers, and your parents, which testimony of others is taken as properly basic by which you make the inference from that basic testimony that this book is inspired. ... They can know on the basis of argument or perhaps in the testimony of those who told them that. I believe that personal testimonies being reliable are properly basic as well."
ReplyDeleteSo you believe Protestants can know the Protestant canon to be accurate based on Protestant tradition (notwithstanding that you refer to it as the "testimony of others"). Which agrees with the Catholic position that the canon is part of the Church's tradition. This same process may be described as believing something based on having been informed of it by an authority: In this case, the authority of your parents or pastor, or past generations of Christians who have subscribed to this particular canon, etc. In other words, you accept it based on the authority of persons whom you have good reason to believe are right about something.
All this is fine, however it is different from your assertion that each individual Christian can "just know" the canon without having been told it by anyone else, which is what my questions were addressing.
Using the "just know" method, you say a book may be identified as canonical only by those who have read it in its entirety. Thus, using the "just know" method, only those who have read all 66 books in their entirety may "just know" that all 66 books are canonical. Those who have not done so must -- and may -- rely on authoritative tradition to know the canon with certainty.
Having agreed on this much, our only disagreement would seem to be, which authority ought to be believed: Protestant tradition or Catholic tradition. (By the way, again I must commend you on openly admitting something which other Protestants with whom I have discussed these issues would not have admitted to save their grandmothers.)
Just curious: What proportion of Protestants would you say have read all 66 books in their entirety?
Finally you say, "I would say when I read each proposition (a statement) in the Bible I have the belief formation that God is speaking to me", but that if non-canonical sentences are interspersed throughout a book, that sort of interrupts the flow and therefore would interfere with your "just knowing" its canonicity.
But what I'm trying to get at is, how much contiguous text do you have to read before you can "just know" that you are reading God's word? What's the minimum? A chapter maybe?
Hello Agellius,
ReplyDeleteSo you believe Protestants can know the Protestant canon to be accurate based on Protestant tradition (notwithstanding that you refer to it as the "testimony of others"). Which agrees with the Catholic position that the canon is part of the Church's tradition. This same process may be described as believing something based on having been informed of it by an authority: In this case, the authority of your parents or pastor, or past generations of Christians who have subscribed to this particular canon, etc. In other words, you accept it based on the authority of persons whom you have good reason to believe are right about something.
Response: Yes, but of course.
All this is fine, however it is different from your assertion that each individual Christian can "just know" the canon without having been told it by anyone else, which is what my questions were addressing.
Response: It is different but it is not incompatible with the fact that a christian can just know it without having to been told by anyone else.
Using the "just know" method, you say a book may be identified as canonical only by those who have read it in its entirety. Thus, using the "just know" method, only those who have read all 66 books in their entirety may "just know" that all 66 books are canonical. Those who have not done so must -- and may -- rely on authoritative tradition to know the canon with certainty.
Response: Someone could read 2 Peter and just know it is the word of God and then when they are reading it they find out everything that Paul writes is also inspired by what Peter says so in this way they could be justified in believing what Paul says is inspired yet without reading Paul as of yet (2 Peter 3:15-17). So I would say no to your question. They can know it on the basis of the authority of others or by the historical evidence as well.
Having agreed on this much, our only disagreement would seem to be, which authority ought to be believed: Protestant tradition or Catholic tradition. (By the way, again I must commend you on openly admitting something which other Protestants with whom I have discussed these issues would not have admitted to save their grandmothers.)
Response: Well I believe in being intellectually honest so it's not so much of a big deal I suppose. Obviously I would say the testimony of the churches would be different with respect to a infallible authority and a fallible authority.
Just curious: What proportion of Protestants would you say have read all 66 books in their entirety?
Response: I have no way of knowing that.
But what I'm trying to get at is, how much contiguous text do you have to read before you can "just know" that you are reading God's word? What's the minimum? A chapter maybe?
Response: I would say 1 or 2 propositions into reading the book.
God Bless,
NPT
You write, "[quoting me] 'But what I'm trying to get at is, how much contiguous text do you have to read before you can "just know" that you are reading God's word? What's the minimum? A chapter maybe?' Response: I would say 1 or 2 propositions into reading the book."
ReplyDeleteIn that case there is no reason why a true Christian should not be able to distinguish between pairs of truly inspired propositions and pairs of non-inspired propositions, interspersed throughout a book. So you could go to any Protestant church and say, "Alright, we're going to separate the chaff from the wheat here, folks!", and hand out a printed Bible with non-inspired propositions interspersed throughout, and tell them to cross out the non-authentic bits and underline the inspired bits. Those who do it incorrectly are then exposed as false Christians. Eh?
As a matter of fact, since true Christians can easily tell inspired from non-inspired writing, they should be capable of writing additional scriptures. Surely you believe that every true Christian has an inspired thought once in a while. All he has to do is write down the thoughts that he recognizes as inspired, and ignore the ones that are not. All other true Christians, obviously, will recognize his inspired thoughts as being inspired as well, thus there should be no hindrance to proclaiming them to be scripture and therefore binding on all other Christians. After all, if they're inspired then they're God's word.
And since inspired thoughts are from God, obviously they are infallible. It follows therefore that all true Christians can speak and write infallibly: Since they can easily distinguish between their own thoughts which are inspired and those which are not, all they have to do is speak, or write, their inspired thoughts and ignore the rest. Or alternatively, write them all down and have another true Christian (whose genuineness you have tested using the method above) cross out the non-inspired thoughts, so that what you are left with is infallible.
Hello Agellius,
ReplyDeleteI would say that my view is probably not subject to this counter-example because as I have said elsewhere the placement of the propositions or statements in the entire books themselves have something to do with the self-attesting belief formation. Thus, what makes the propositions inspired is their context and placement in the book as well content. If you were to jumble all the verses in the Bible we would probably not have the same belief formation that we have now.
God Bless,
NPT
Except that in response to my question, "[H]ow much contiguous text do you have to read before you can 'just know' that you are reading God's word?", your answer was, "1 or 2 propositions". Thus I was not suggesting "jumbling all the verses in the Bible", but rather, interspersing pairs of non-inspired propositions between pairs of inspired propositions -- which again, according to you is the minimum amount of contiguous inspired text a Christian must read before recognizing it as inspired. But we could make it groups of three or four inspired propositions, interspersed with groups of non-inspired propositions, if you wanted to make extra sure.
ReplyDeleteYou don't address my contention that the ability to "just know" when a proposition or two is inspired, would give every true Christian the power of speaking and writing infallibly, just as the Popes have done. After all a pronouncement that a teaching is infallible, as the term is used in the Catholic Church, is nothing more than a statement that the teaching was revealed by God -- the fact that it's revealed is what makes it infallible, not the fact that it's taught by the Pope. The recognition of a proposition or two as inspired, by an individual Christian, would be the exact same thing: a statement that the proposition was revealed by God and is therefore infallible.
Hello Agellis,
ReplyDeleteExcept that in response to my question, "[H]ow much contiguous text do you have to read before you can 'just know' that you are reading God's word?", your answer was, "1 or 2 propositions". Thus I was not suggesting "jumbling all the verses in the Bible", but rather, interspersing pairs of non-inspired propositions between pairs of inspired propositions -- which again, according to you is the minimum amount of contiguous inspired text a Christian must read before recognizing it as inspired. But we could make it groups of three or four inspired propositions, interspersed with groups of non-inspired propositions, if you wanted to make extra sure.
Response: I understand. But what I am saying is the fact that those two propositions are in between and in the context of non-inspired propositions it would perhaps not have positive belief formation because the formation would only occur in the context of other arranged and inspired propositions.
You don't address my contention that the ability to "just know" when a proposition or two is inspired, would give every true Christian the power of speaking and writing infallibly, just as the Popes have done. After all a pronouncement that a teaching is infallible, as the term is used in the Catholic Church, is nothing more than a statement that the teaching was revealed by God -- the fact that it's revealed is what makes it infallible, not the fact that it's taught by the Pope. The recognition of a proposition or two as inspired, by an individual Christian, would be the exact same thing: a statement that the proposition was revealed by God and is therefore infallible.
Response: Well infallibility that the Pope (when he sits and speaks as Peter) or the councils have is such that they could not be mistaken but when individual Protestant Christians recognizes the canon they can be mistaken but in this actual world they never are. So there is something true of the Pope that are not true of individual Protestant Christians namely it is impossible that one be mistaken and the other could be mistaken.
God Bless,
NPT
You write, "... what I am saying is the fact that those two propositions are in between and in the context of non-inspired propositions it would perhaps not have positive belief formation because the formation would only occur in the context of other arranged and inspired propositions."
ReplyDeleteIn that case you're changing your prior answer that one or two propositions is enough, since you now say that the one or two propositions have to be "in the context of other" propositions. So again I ask you, what amount of contiguous inspired text does a Christian have to read before he may recognize the text as inspired? Is a chapter enough?
You write, "Well infallibility that the Pope (when he sits and speaks as Peter) or the councils have is such that they could not be mistaken but when individual Protestant Christians recognizes the canon they can be mistaken but in this actual world they never are. So there is something true of the Pope that are not true of individual Protestant Christians namely it is impossible that one be mistaken and the other could be mistaken."
What we claim is not that the Pope and councils cannot be mistaken, but rather, that the Holy Spirit protects the Church by preventing the Pope and councils from making actual mistakes when formally defining that a teaching is "de fide", i.e. part of God's revelation to the Church. There is no essential difference between this and what you claim for each individual Christian: That God prevents him from making mistakes when defining a book as being canonical, i.e. part of God's revelation.
The main difference between us is that we confine this divine protection from error to certain persons designated to fulfill that role -- the shepherds of the Church, the bishops -- whereas you assign it to every individual sheep.
Another difference is that the Catholic bishops may only base their doctrinal definitions on past revelation, whereas what you say is that any true Christian has the ability to "just know" that a statement is inspired by God, by virtue of John 10:4. Therefore logically, under your system, there is no reason teachings could not be based on new, ongoing inspired revelation recognized as such by true Christians.
There also is no logical reason why Christians' "just knowing" that something is inspired by God, need be limited to knowledge of the canon of the scriptures itself. Any time a true Christian has an inspired thought himself, or encounters one in someone else's speech or writings, on whatever subject, he, as well as other true Christians, should be able to recognize it as inspired. And of course, once recognized as inspired, it's automatically infallible since God cannot inspire error.
Hello Agellius,
ReplyDeleteIn that case you're changing your prior answer that one or two propositions is enough, since you now say that the one or two propositions have to be "in the context of other" propositions. So again I ask you, what amount of contiguous inspired text does a Christian have to read before he may recognize the text as inspired? Is a chapter enough?
Response: The belief formation occurs at minimum two propositions or so when one starts to read in the beginning of a inspired book and those propositions have to be continually confirmed by the proceeding context of the book. A chapter would be usually enough in context of the rest of the book or in the beginning of the book.
What we claim is not that the Pope and councils cannot be mistaken, but rather, that the Holy Spirit protects the Church by preventing the Pope and councils from making actual mistakes when formally defining that a teaching is "de fide", i.e. part of God's revelation to the Church. There is no essential difference between this and what you claim for each individual Christian: That God prevents him from making mistakes when defining a book as being canonical, i.e. part of God's revelation.
Response: The de fide statement could never be mistaken and thus they are infallible. But the statements of faith that a Protestant has can be mistaken (and in fact are) and they can even be mistaken on what is in the canon it is just in this actual world no one happens to be mistaken on the canon issue that is christian and thus there is no infallibility at all with Protestantism.
Another difference is that the Catholic bishops may only base their doctrinal definitions on past revelation, whereas what you say is that any true Christian has the ability to "just know" that a statement is inspired by God, by virtue of John 10:4. Therefore logically, under your system, there is no reason teachings could not be based on new, ongoing inspired revelation recognized as such by true Christians.
Response: Well I believe that 1 Cor. 13 teaches a cessation of revelation after the end of the canon when the prophets and apostles died so I am not so sure that this happens with my position.
There also is no logical reason why Christians' "just knowing" that something is inspired by God, need be limited to knowledge of the canon of the scriptures itself. Any time a true Christian has an inspired thought himself, or encounters one in someone else's speech or writings, on whatever subject, he, as well as other true Christians, should be able to recognize it as inspired. And of course, once recognized as inspired, it's automatically infallible since God cannot inspire error.
Response: Well he is fallible and he can be mistaken but just happens to be not. Secondly, I believe prophetic revelation a part from scripture is ceased. Now the normative principle for the contemporary church is sola scriptura (1. Cor. 4:6). Lastly I believe all true Christians will recognize the 66 books of the Bible and nothing more and nothing less.
God Bless,
NPT
I thought I had posted a response to your latest comment last Friday. But when I visited your blog this morning to see whether you had responded to my latest, I found my last post wasn't there. I don't know whether I just made a mistake and it never got posted. In any case, here is my response (in two parts):
ReplyDeleteYou write, "The belief formation occurs at minimum two propositions or so when one starts to read in the beginning of a inspired book and those propositions have to be continually confirmed by the proceeding context of the book. A chapter would be usually enough in context of the rest of the book or in the beginning of the book."
What if a true Christian reads a chapter printed on an otherwise blank page. Will he recognize it as being inspired?
You write, "The de fide statement could never be mistaken and thus they are infallible. But the statements of faith that a Protestant has can be mistaken (and in fact are) and they can even be mistaken on what is in the canon it is just in this actual world no one happens to be mistaken on the canon issue that is christian and thus there is no infallibility at all with Protestantism."
You are going to have to explain the essential difference between "could never be mistaken" and "in this actual world no one happens to be mistaken". "This actual world" is the only world we are talking about -- the Magisterium will not continue making de fide pronouncements in the afterlife.
If you claim to know that no true Christian has ever been mistaken about the canon, and none ever will, then clearly this is not something that "just happens". Obviously it has been planned that way, and the plan is being carried out; and furthermore you have been informed of the plan, otherwise you could not know that no true Christian will ever be mistaken about the canon from now until the end of time.
Consequently there is no essential difference between what I claim for the Magisterium making de fide pronouncements, and what you claim for true Christians knowing the canon: In both cases we are saying, respectively, that "in this actual world" they have never been, and never will be, mistaken. Magisterial infallibility claims precisely this, neither more nor less.
You write, "Well I believe that 1 Cor. 13 teaches a cessation of revelation after the end of the canon when the prophets and apostles died so I am not so sure that this happens with my position."
I find that interpretation dubious but will not sidetrack the discussion by debating the point.
You write, "Lastly I believe all true Christians will recognize the 66 books of the Bible and nothing more and nothing less."
ReplyDeleteI had no logical quarrel when you were saying simply that you as a true Christian "just know" what books belong in the Bible and which do not. This is a claim to have experienced an actual phenomenon, and since I did not witness it I can neither confirm nor deny it. But by the same token, your having experienced the phenomenon does not qualify you to make universal statements as to what other true Christians may or may not have experienced, or may experience in the future.
I also found no logical problem with your argument from John 10:4 (though neither did I find it compelling) that since true Christians will always hear their Shepherd's voice, they are able to recognize and identify that voice unerringly in the scriptures. That argument runs essentially like this:
a. Per John 10:4, true Christians will always recognize and identify the voice of their Shepherd.
b. Christ (God) speaks in the scriptures.
c. Therefore true Christians will always recognize and identify the voice of Christ (God) in the scriptures.
This is neither illogical nor contradictory. However certain consequences follow logically from it, namely that it makes true Christians infallible, since any time they, or anyone else, have an inspired thought they will recognize it as God's word, which is infallible. To speak or write infallibly they need only restrict their words to those which they have recognized as inspired.
But, apparently not liking this implication, you would like to eliminate it by restricting the occasions on which Christians can recognize the voice of their Shepherd, to those occasions when they are reading the scriptures. Thus the above argument is changed by adding an additional clause to the premise b. and to the conclusion c.:
a. Per John 10:4, true Christians will always recognize and identify the voice of their Shepherd.
b. Christ (God) speaks in the scriptures, *and only in the scriptures*.
c. Therefore true Christians will always recognize and identify the voice of Christ (God) in the scriptures, *and only in the scriptures*.
However you provide no authority for your addition to premise b. It is an externally imposed limitation on the ability of Christians to hear the voice of their Shepherd which is not called for by John 10:4. Further, since it is purported to be a universal law, it is not something you can credibly claim to "just know" by personal experience.
Hello Agellius,
ReplyDeleteWhat if a true Christian reads a chapter printed on an otherwise blank page. Will he recognize it as being inspired?
Response: If it is the first chapter in a book, then yes, it would seem so.
You are going to have to explain the essential difference between "could never be mistaken" and "in this actual world no one happens to be mistaken". "This actual world" is the only world we are talking about -- the Magisterium will not continue making de fide pronouncements in the afterlife.
Response: The point I was making is that all Christians knowing that God is speaking to them through the scriptures is a contingent fact in a world were the scriptures exist and mankind exist. However, in any possible world in which the Magisterium makes a de fide statement it is a necessary fact that it is always true. Thus, there is something true of the Magisterium de fide statement that is not true of individual Christians reading the Bible, namely that a Christian could be possibly wrong but as a matter of contingent fact is not whereas the Magisterium making a de fide statement could never be possibly wrong in any possible world. The difference is that one is fallible and the other infallible.
If you claim to know that no true Christian has ever been mistaken about the canon, and none ever will, then clearly this is not something that "just happens". Obviously it has been planned that way, and the plan is being carried out; and furthermore you have been informed of the plan, otherwise you could not know that no true Christian will ever be mistaken about the canon from now until the end of time.
Response: Yes, that is right. But I think God plan could have been different and thus I think that he could of planned it to where one of his sheep is mistaken but he did not do that. Do you think that God could have planned it to where the Magisterium De fide statements happen to be wrong? I am guessing you would not say that. But perhaps I am mistaken.
Consequently there is no essential difference between what I claim for the Magisterium making de fide pronouncements, and what you claim for true Christians knowing the canon: In both cases we are saying, respectively, that "in this actual world" they have never been, and never will be, mistaken. Magisterial infallibility claims precisely this, neither more nor less.
Response: This is interesting. So you think that there is a possible world in which the Magisterium makes a de fide statement and that statement is wrong? Now of course in this actual world this is not the case. But the questions I am asking here about necessity or the contingency of such statements. Is the Magisterium de fide statements happen to be true or do they have to be true?
I had no logical quarrel when you were saying simply that you as a true Christian "just know" what books belong in the Bible and which do not. This is a claim to have experienced an actual phenomenon, and since I did not witness it I can neither confirm nor deny it. But by the same token, your having experienced the phenomenon does not qualify you to make universal statements as to what other true Christians may or may not have experienced, or may experience in the future.
Response: Well if I think the Bible is teaching a criterion and it says that his sheep will hear his voice, is it not reasonable to think that those who do not hear it are not his sheep? Perhaps you might say well the Bible does not talk about what happens to those who do not hear his voice. And I think that this is a good point perhaps after all maybe this is not intending to say that those who do not hear are not his sheep or not saved somehow. I am open either way really on this.
This is neither illogical nor contradictory. However certain consequences follow logically from it, namely that it makes true Christians infallible, since any time they, or anyone else, have an inspired thought they will recognize it as God's word, which is infallible. To speak or write infallibly they need only restrict their words to those which they have recognized as inspired.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Well I explained previously that given my understanding of 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 2:20 people cannot have inspired thoughts or words anymore, but in the first century there were prophets and apostles and what they said was infallible. When Christians write and speak today they are not inspired, but they can only speak inspired words when they repeat the words of scripture, not even their interpretations can be inspired today.
But, apparently not liking this implication, you would like to eliminate it by restricting the occasions on which Christians can recognize the voice of their Shepherd, to those occasions when they are reading the scriptures. Thus the above argument is changed by adding an additional clause to the premise b. and to the conclusion c.:
a. Per John 10:4, true Christians will always recognize and identify the voice of their Shepherd.
b. Christ (God) speaks in the scriptures, *and only in the scriptures*.
c. Therefore true Christians will always recognize and identify the voice of Christ (God) in the scriptures, *and only in the scriptures*.
However you provide no authority for your addition to premise b. It is an externally imposed limitation on the ability of Christians to hear the voice of their Shepherd which is not called for by John 10:4. Further, since it is purported to be a universal law, it is not something you can credibly claim to "just know" by personal experience.
Response: Well this is really an issue about Sola Scriptura and the ceasing of the apostolic and prophetic offices. I believe that 1 Cor. 4:6 and 1 Cor. 13 teach these things. Oh and why think that because something is a universal law it cannot be know by personal experience?
God Bless,
NPT