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 and clarity 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 and clarity 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 propositions. 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.
Another Problem is that I can find no good reason for even affirming P1, so even if the previous argument were to fail it still seems we have no positive reason for affirming P1. Thus, at best we ought to be agnostic with respect to P1.
Therefore, it seems that this argument is unsound and ought to be rejected when it is used for positive support for RC and EO against P. If one were to accept RC and EO they would have to offer independent reasons for doing so rather than pointing out that if one where to accept it they would have more epistemological certainty concerning doctrine.
You write, "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 and clarity concerning claims of Faith and Practice."
ReplyDeleteLet me say at the outset that it is not *my* argument that it is more reasonable to believe RC because it provides more certainty and clarity. Rather, I would argue something like this:
That, all other things being equal, it would be advantageous to have a living authoritative teacher in addition to a non-living, written authoritative source for Christian belief and practice, since a living authoritative teacher can provide ongoing clarification in response to questions and disagrements.
Please note that whether such an authority exists, and whether RC is that authority, are separate questions.
Hello Agellius,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying all things being equal that it is better to have a teaching authority like this or that it makes one who has church such as this more reasonable than someone who lacks a teaching authority such as you describe?
God Bless,
NPT
I'm saying that Bible plus a guaranteed living teaching authority is necessarily better than Bible plus nothing. How could a living teaching authority not be a good thing?
ReplyDeleteAgain, that leaves the question of identifying the right living teaching authority -- obviously I would not advocate going along with any old teacher who claims to have authority.
As far as which is more reasonable: I would say that a living authority would not be more reasonable per se, if the contents of the Bible could be known without one, and if the Bible were perfectly perspicuous. But I don't consider the idea of a self-identifying Bible to be logically tenable, nor do I believe the Bible is perfectly perspicuous; therefore I must say I believe some kind of living authority is necessary.
Hello Agellius,
ReplyDeleteAlright if is not more reasonable per se then it is not really a argument that is sound. As for it being a better thing: perhaps it is, but then again I think that the possible christian position that 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 propositions. 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.
This I think is the most preferable but I do not think it is true and you as Roman Catholic probably do not think it is true either, but there is not doubt that it is better because thinks would be clear and more certain this way. Thus, as I have argued in my post, if this line of thinking were used in terms of a argument then the argument would be wildly unsound so far as I can see.
Thanks for your time.
God Bless,
NPT
You make a good point. I think we agree, but will state it just for the sake of clarity: That the fact that one religious group makes a claim of greater certainty, does not make it more reasonable to join that particular group. If you join it, you do so because you believe it is true and right and correct and is what God wills, not for reasons of practical advantage.
ReplyDeleteAlso I'm glad you are able to agree that in theory, a living teaching authority would be advantageous. I have argued for weeks with another Reformed Protestant -- Rhology in fact -- who could not bring himself to accept that proposition. It seemed he was unable to distinguish between something being advantageous in theory, and the thing being actually true: Since he could not admit the latter, he also refused to admit the former.
You have shown yourself able to make the distinction, and that you are not so bound and determined to refute Catholicism that you won't even grant the advantages the Catholic system might have in theory, assuming for the sake of argument that it were true. Well done.
I, for example, could admit that having a living prophet, as the Mormons do, could well be advantageous and helpful if that were the way God willed his Church to be constituted. I reject the Mormon prophet not because it could not possibly provide any advantage, but because (among other reasons) it contradicts the Catholic faith, which I believe is the true one.
Anyway I'm glad we were able to come to an agreement on something. Maybe our discussions are not a complete waste of time. : )
Agellius,
ReplyDeleteWell I am glad we can agree. I think any discussion where true and mutual understanding is the goal it can never be a waste of time. I hope you are well. Feel free in the future comment on any post you wish. I am open to any position that offers good arguments and reasons.
God Bless,
NPT
Hey Nate,
ReplyDeleteon one of the boards (don't remember which one) there used to be a guy who applied presuppositionalism to cult theologies (Mormons, JW's, etc.). do you remember that? if so, know what his website is or how i could contact him?
Hey Guy,
ReplyDeleteTo be honest: I do not remember that at all, but I do not remember much to be honest....it is a good thing I remember your name.
God Bless,
NPT