"Let us look at the church further by raising a related issue: the canon of Scripture. Romanists will try to make much of the issue of the canon. They will tell you that the Bible alone cannot be our authority because the Bible does not tell us what books are in the Bible. They will argue that the church must tell us what books are in the Bible. When they say the church tells us, they mean popes and councils must tell us. This implies that we did not have a Bible until Pope Damasus offered a list of the canon in 382, or, perhaps, until 1546 when the Council of Trent became the first “ecumenical”council to define the canon. But of course the people of God had the Bible before 1546 and before 382."
- Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, from Chapter One in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, Edited by Don Kistler. Published by Soli Deo Gloria Publications. (Click the link at the right for more info, or to purchase the book).
This chapter can be found online here.
Regarding your opening quote, there are only two options: Either the individual ultimately decides what is canonical, or the magisterium does. The latter is the only acceptable option, thus Dr Godfrey is in a tangle. Worse yet, he fallaciously equates having the Bible with a formally closed canon, when the two are not the same.
ReplyDeleteGlancing over that link, there are numerous errors and presuppositions, for example:
-When quoting 2 Tim 4, he mistakenly thinks "word" in "preach the word" means preach from the Bible alone, where as that phrase is referring to preaching the Gospel. It's a popular Protestant fallacy to assume the use of the term "word" is speaking of the Bible.
-He says he has listened to several debates on 2 Tim 3:16f and says Catholics incorrectly quote texts like James 1:4 because two different words are used. However, he as missed the point, the point isn't that the same word is being used, but rather that saying X leads to "completion" (regardless of the term used) in Y doesn't demand only X is necessary.
-He goes onto suggest Paul and Jesus practiced Sola Scriptura, which is manifestly false.
-He really gets into a bind when he says things such as the following: "The question before us is whether *today* anything other than the Scriptures is necessary to know the truth of God for salvation." He has fallen into the fallacy of anachronism, for *today* (i.e. the post Apostolic age) didn't apply to the Apostles and Apostolic Christians to which the first Scriptures were originally written.
-He shifts away from proving SS from scripture to making various irrelevant (and often inaccurate) claims about Catholic teachings (what he calls "traditions").
-His "answers" on the canon issue are problematic. For example, he gives no way of telling what the canon is other than "because the canonical books are self-authenticating." That's purely subjective, and little different than Mormonism. On top of that, there were strong doubts about various (now widely accepted as canonical) books by the foremost Christian of all time, Luther!
-Dr Godfrey totally embarrasses himself when he points to Augustine's On Christian Doctrine regarding how one determines the Canonical Books, when in the same context Augustine includes the Deutero-Canon! He also forgets Augustine led local councils in authoritatively addressing the canon issue, again including the Deutero Canon.
-He makes a fallacious (and inaccurate) comparison between Catholic unity and Protestant unity. First and foremost, in Catholicism, issues can be authoritatively settled (e.g. infant baptism), in Protestantism, no such authoritative decrees are possible (e.g. Baptists and Lutherans both appeal to Scripture, but come to polar opposite conclusions regarding stuff like infant baptism).
-Look at this laughable (non-sequitor) remark: "Roman opponents usually object to an appeal to Psalm 119 on the grounds that it speaks of the Word of God, not of the Bible, and therefore could include in its praise tradition as well as Scripture. But their argument is irrelevant to our use of Psalm 119, because we are using it to prove the clarity, not the sufficiency of Scripture!"
He shifts the argument to clarity-sufficiency, when the actual objection was that "Word" didn't necessitate "written word".
-He incorrectly appeals to the Bereans as an example of Sola Scriptura in practice, when that's not what was going on.
Any informed Catholic can easily cut through erroneous arguments and reasoning like this. That's why Sola Scriptura debates against seasoned Catholics usually prove quite embarrassing for the Protestant! I (sadly) get a glimpse of this quite often when I speak to Protestants online about SS.
Hello Nick,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your appealing response. Although I strongly disagree with you, I am very grateful that you continue to keep me sharp on issues that are of eternal importance. I have responded below. I hope you are well.
Regarding your opening quote, there are only two options: Either the individual ultimately decides what is canonical, or the magisterium does. The latter is the only acceptable option, thus Dr Godfrey is in a tangle. Worse yet, he fallaciously equates having the Bible with a formally closed canon, when the two are not the same.
Response: I would say it is reasonable to believe in the 66 books of the Bible without in the magisterium. I see no reason to believe it. Do you think you make a subjective choice on what infallible church you choose to follow? I reject the classic Roman Catholic Canon argument which goes like this:
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
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.
ReplyDeleteDo 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.
I noticed you actually did not really interact with the thrust of his quote. So then are you agreeing with him that no one knew what the Bible was until 382? So then prior to Jesus coming did the Old Testament Jews know what books belong in the OT Canon?
Glancing over that link, there are numerous errors and presuppositions, for example:
Response: Dr. Godfrey is a church historian not a theologian so I do not endorse every single theological argument he puts forth. So the things I did not respond to I do not agree with and so I did not feel any obligation to defend them. Godfrey is one of my Professors; I respect him greatly as a Christian and a thinker. But we obviously disagree on a variety of small and non-essential issues concerning the Reformed Faith. However, I did find his article on Sola Scriptura interesting and engaging.
-He goes onto suggest Paul and Jesus practiced Sola Scriptura, which is manifestly false.
Paul taught sola scriptura: 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.
-His "answers" on the canon issue are problematic. For example, he gives no way of telling what the canon is other than "because the canonical books are self-authenticating." That's purely subjective, and little different than Mormonism. On top of that, there were strong doubts about various (now widely accepted as canonical) books by the foremost Christian of all time, Luther!
ReplyDeleteResponse: It is not subjective; it is a properly basic belief. Is your belief that we are not in the Matrix subjective? You cannot give me an argument against the proposition that we are all in the matrix but certainly it is reasonable to believe that we are not in the matrix on the grounds that it is properly basic. If Mormons say they have a basic belief in their scriptures I would offer reasons to defeat that basic belief, but I do not think such a defeater exists for the 66 books of the Bible.
-He makes a fallacious (and inaccurate) comparison between Catholic unity and Protestant unity. First and foremost, in Catholicism, issues can be authoritatively settled (e.g. infant baptism), in Protestantism, no such authoritative decrees are possible (e.g. Baptists and Lutherans both appeal to Scripture, but come to polar opposite conclusions regarding stuff like infant baptism).
Response: I would say that Catholics and Protestants both have infallible sources the only difference is that Catholics have more infallible propositions (since they have more than the Bible). Catholics appeal to the Catholic Church whether or not to settle issues on who to vote for and whether or not deterministic predestination is true. So it seems like the same is true of Catholics since we are both fallible human beings interpreting infallible revelation.
-He incorrectly appeals to the Bereans as an example of Sola Scriptura in practice, when that's not what was going on.
Response: I think something like Sola Scriptura is going on there, why do you think it is not sola scriptura in practice?
God Bless,
NPT
Late response by me (as has become too common these days).
ReplyDeleteResponse: I would say it is reasonable to believe in the 66 books of the Bible without in the magisterium. I see no reason to believe it.
N: But one would need some guide beyond the 'Holy Spirit just tells me' approach. I don't believe any convert ever began their conversion by starting in a library and praying for the Holy Spirit to 'tell them' which writings are inspired, and eventually came across the 'correct' 66 books. Rather, they encountered a Protestant, who handed them the Bible and told them, and the convert accepted everything between the covers.
Response (cont):... Do you think you make a subjective choice on what infallible church you choose to follow?
N: I make a subjective choice in what Church to follow, just as everyone must. But not all choices are equal, for not all churches can make the same claims nor offer the same level of proofs.
Response (cont):... I reject the classic Roman Catholic Canon argument which goes like this:
P1: If one does not have infallible and authoritative church to determine the canon then one cannot know what books belong in the canon
N: That's only partially correct. It's not that one is hopelessly lost without an authoritative decree, an authoritative decree is used to clear up confusion/disputes/error. Christians have always accepted their canon (more or less) based on what was passed onto them. Nobody started off in a room of 100 random letters and had to discern the correct 66 books. Your P1 should be rephrased to say without an authoritative infallible church, canonical disputes cannot be settled. The Protestant argument is in a terrible bind by the very fact their own canon gives no instructions on forming a canon, settling disputes on the canon, discerning the canon, etc.
Response (cont):... P2: Protestants do not have an infallible and authoritative church to determine the canon
N: Correct, unless they are acting infallibly on the individual level and not realizing it. Without that, one cannot impose their canon on anyone else, for everyone's view on any given book is of equal weight.
Response (cont):... C: Hence, Protestants cannot know what books belong in the canon
N: There was too much wrong with the original claims for the conclusion to be valid. The only valid conclusion is that Protestants cannot authoritatively settle canonical disputes, and without infallibility their canon cannot even be technically closed.
Response: 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.
N: Then they are applying infallibility to the individual level (which is technically impossible in Calvinism because Total Depravity taints all one's thoughts by sin to one degree or another). Further, should they deny infallibility, they make their claim of no more weight than the next guy who claims a different canon. This means that when someone rejects Romans, you have nothing substantial to respond with other than "the Holy Spirit told me otherwise."
Response (cont):... 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.
ReplyDeleteN: That's quite a leap of logic. I could make the same argument but insert any number I want of books. Worse yet, your examples could be verified via objective and tangible characteristics - where as the canon question is more or less subjective.
Response: 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?
N: You might want to change the term "reasonable" to something else, for you are not properly using 'reason' if argument/inference are not in the equation.
Response: It certainly seems that it is. Jesus says of himself to believers that they will know his voice: John 10:3-6
N: Is Jesus speaking of discerning the canon here? Is Jesus speaking of a private/mini divine revelation in which He whispers in their ear everything they need to know? These types of questions expose the danger and utter subjectivity of that approach, for anyone can claim a whole host of things with that line of reasoning. If it was about Jesus whispering in your ear, then that makes the written Scriptures incidental to Christian living.
Response (cont):... 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.
N: Again, this is ultimately subjective, and more akin to a purely gnostic outlook where the true believers "just know". On top of that, nowhere does this text or anywhere else instruct the Christian to discern the canon in this way. To say it's assumed/implied is instant death for Sola Scriptura.
Response: Do we really need a Divinely Inspired Table of Contents?
N: If disputes arise, we certainly do. And the fact that folks like the mighty Luther had doubts about various books is a pretty disturbing thought if one embraces your argument.
Response (cont):... The Bible does give a criterion for what books belong as scripture in the Canon (John 10:3-6).
N: That's a huge stretch to read that into John 10:3-6. Where is objective exegesis in such a claim? I could use that text, with your logic, to validate a whole host of things.
Response (cont):... 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?
N: You need that if you want to embrace a non-gnostic religion. The Bible is incidental at that point, for what's the point in it being given to 'clearly tell us the important stuff', when important stuff like this is left up to you 'hearing His voice' independent of express written guidelines? You're reading into the text whatever you want at that point, pulling answers out of thin air and arbitrarily making yourself immune from genuine objections. It's arguments like these which make the Catholic position the one that truly looks to Scripture.
Response (cont):... 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.
ReplyDeleteN: I cannot believe that. If a position is stronger than another, it should automatically be given preference, else you're arguing Christianity is not about the fullness of Truth. You responding to change minds and or instruct is for the very purpose of presenting a better argument.
Response: are you agreeing with him that no one knew what the Bible was until 382? So then prior to Jesus coming did the Old Testament Jews know what books belong in the OT Canon?
N: I never said that. It could be said there was no formally defined canon until such and such date, but that's not to say nobody knew anything about genuine canonical books. What the OT Jews did or did not know about the canon is an answer neither side can fully address. What we do know is that nowhere in the OT is a canon given. The Catholic side would say oral tradition was one of the most important manners of a Jew knowing what was canonical. That is the most reasonable answer.
Response: Paul taught sola scriptura: 1 Corinthians 4:6.
N: We've been discussing this over at my blog, so I wont repost the same stuff.
Response: It is not subjective; it is a properly basic belief.
N: One can "validate" virtually anything they want with that reasoning. It's a defeatist attitude more than anything, for it formally throws out arguments and inferences.
Response: Is your belief that we are not in the Matrix subjective? You cannot give me an argument against the proposition that we are all in the matrix but certainly it is reasonable to believe that we are not in the matrix on the grounds that it is properly basic.
N: You're abusing the term "properly basic". Properly basic should apply to things all parties (or at least most people) would agree upon as 'foundational' (such as axioms like 'truth cannot contain contradictions'). My rejection of the Matrix is subjective, but using reason, arguments, etc, I can build a case supporting my conclusions.
If Mormons say they have a basic belief in their scriptures I would offer reasons to defeat that basic belief, but I do not think such a defeater exists for the 66 books of the Bible.
N: Basic belief cannot be refuted; they are building blocks assumed true apart from argument and inference (per your definition); that's the problem.
Response: I would say that Catholics and Protestants both have infallible sources the only difference is that Catholics have more infallible propositions (since they have more than the Bible).
N: That's a confusion of categories. First of all, "more than the Bible" doesn't entail more propositions. Second, the issue is authoritatively settling disputes, which cannot be done without authoritative *interpretation* of the sources. Infallibility doesn't properly apply to Scriptures, the more accurate term is 'inerrant'.
Response: I think something like Sola Scriptura is going on there, why do you think it is not sola scriptura in practice?
N: Because the context shows exactly what was going on:
"2As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."
There was nothing of the nature of turning to Scripture alone for all things necessary for salvation here, rather a more narrow appeal, to help prove the man named "Jesus" was the Christ. There was no specific mention of the name "Jesus" and other details in the OT, that came purely from Paul.
Hello Nick,
ReplyDeleteI have really learned a lot of our discussion. So I am glad that you have responded again. I hope we can continue in peaceful and charitable discussion so we can learn more about the most important issues in life. I have responded below.
N: But one would need some guide beyond the 'Holy Spirit just tells me' approach. I don't believe any convert ever began their conversion by starting in a library and praying for the Holy Spirit to 'tell them' which writings are inspired, and eventually came across the 'correct' 66 books. Rather, they encountered a Protestant, who handed them the Bible and told them, and the convert accepted everything between the covers.
Response: I do not believe that happens often either and to my recollection I do not think that I ever gave any indication that I did. I believe that we a cognitive faculty that produces beliefs about the Divine that is caused by the Holy Spirit. I would know for example that the Bible is God’s word not because of an additional word from God but rather from God causing in me the belief that something or other is scripture and hence God’s word. I would say most people because Christian because they read the Bible and they just know its God’s word. Or perhaps someone communicates the truths of the Bible and they just knew the person had received that from God’s revelation (the Bible). I still do not see any reason to believe in the magisterium in light of what you just said.
N: I make a subjective choice in what Church to follow, just as everyone must. But not all choices are equal, for not all churches can make the same claims nor offer the same level of proofs.
Response: Well then it seems to me that on your own view that if the basis of your faith is subjective then everything that your faith teaches is then subjective (because all that it teaches is grounded in subjectivism on your view). So in the end even on your own terms it seems like the only difference is that you have one subjective belief that grounds all of Rome’s teaching claims and I have many subjective beliefs that ground various Protestant beliefs about the books and teachings of the Bible. Of course I am being careful here and I am saying “on your own terms” because I do not accept a lot of your philosophical assumptions about epistemic justification and what makes a belief subjective or objective. It seems then that you make a fallible decision to follow an infallible church, and I make a fallible decision on a group of infallible documents.
N: That's only partially correct. It's not that one is hopelessly lost without an authoritative decree, an authoritative decree is used to clear up confusion/disputes/error. Christians have always accepted their canon (more or less) based on what was passed onto them. Nobody started off in a room of 100 random letters and had to discern the correct 66 books. Your P1 should be rephrased to say without an authoritative infallible church, canonical disputes cannot be settled. The Protestant argument is in a terrible bind by the very fact their own canon gives no instructions on forming a canon, settling disputes on the canon, discerning the canon, etc.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Okay so you do not think the Roman Catholic canon argument works. Thank you for that honest concession. But you go a different route and say I am in a terrible bind because of the facts that the Bible does not say what books belong in the Bible. But I will respond to that below.
N: Correct, unless they are acting infallibly on the individual level and not realizing it. Without that, one cannot impose their canon on anyone else, for everyone's view on any given book is of equal weight.
Response: Protestants establish the canon using fallible basic beliefs and arguments just like you would do to determine what church is correct. The difference between us is that I do it with individual books of the Bible and you do it with individual churches that determine what books of the Bible belong to the canon. Well if one person gives better arguments and they have a basic belief that this is God speaking to them through words in a document then that book would have more weight than books that lack that and hence the ones with more epistemic weight would make one morally obligated to follow them. I am not really sure how you are using imposed here. But I would say from an epistemological perspective whatever is more reasonable to believe in ought to be conscious binding and on Protestantism you would have such a epistemologically fallible binding authority. I believe the Bible teaches us that we need to use reason (1 Peter 3:15) and immediate knowledge we have when God speaks to us (John 10) to epistemologically determine what books belong in the canon.
N: There was too much wrong with the original claims for the conclusion to be valid. The only valid conclusion is that Protestants cannot authoritatively settle canonical disputes, and without infallibility their canon cannot even be technically closed.
Response: I agree the argument is bad and I am glad you do too. I believe that 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 2:20 demonstrate a closed canon. We are given an authoritative criterion for settling canon disputes, namely the fact that we will know that God is speaking to us when we read his word. But the canon we have is a fallible collection of infallible writings. The canon is fallible authoritative collection of infallibly authoritative books. Everyone is going to fallibility in their view in some way or another so I do not really see a problem with this. In your view you have fallibly chosen to follow a infallible church.
N: Then they are applying infallibility to the individual level (which is technically impossible in Calvinism because Total Depravity taints all one's thoughts by sin to one degree or another). Further, should they deny infallibility, they make their claim of no more weight than the next guy who claims a different canon. This means that when someone rejects Romans, you have nothing substantial to respond with other than "the Holy Spirit told me otherwise."
ReplyDeleteResponse: Total depravity affects the cognitive faculties not metaphysically (making people stupid and unreasonable) rather it affects it ethically. That is to say it makes someone not accept the truth because they hate the truth not because they have become stupid. Total depravity does not apply to believer either so I do not see the relevance of this point here. The decision to choose which books belong in the canon is a fallible decision so I would not say it is infallible. But if someone did not accept the book of Romans I would give them historical arguments for thinking it belonged in the canon. But as you are aware: if someone rejects the law of non-contradiction all you can really say is well reason tells me otherwise. This argument is not a problem with my position but any position because people can reject any rational position.
N: That's quite a leap of logic. I could make the same argument but insert any number I want of books. Worse yet, your examples could be verified via objective and tangible characteristics - where as the canon question is more or less subjective.
Response: I am unclear what you are even talking about in your second sentence. If you claimed other books then I would give you reasons for doubting those as canonical. But if I could not then we would have different basic beliefs and one of us would be mistaken and the other would not be.
N: You might want to change the term "reasonable" to something else, for you are not properly using 'reason' if argument/inference are not in the equation.
Response: I do not think I need to change anything in what I said because I would side with the externalist in thinking that a person can be reasonable without inference or argument.
N: Is Jesus speaking of discerning the canon here? Is Jesus speaking of a private/mini divine revelation in which He whispers in their ear everything they need to know? These types of questions expose the danger and utter subjectivity of that approach, for anyone can claim a whole host of things with that line of reasoning. If it was about Jesus whispering in your ear, then that makes the written Scriptures incidental to Christian living.
Response: Well we know Jesus longer speaks to us verbally since the foundation has been laid, but we know that Jesus speaks to us through the Bible. So Jesus’ statement in John 10 then is a statement about any way in which Jesus wants to communicate to us whether through written word or verbal communication. We know that Jesus no longer exists on earth in the flesh and his prophets are no longer communicating so the only way we can know Jesus today through scripture and that is how we know his voice today. But then my point here is that Jesus is speaking generally here about how we know it is him communicating to us and one of these forms of communication would presumably exist in what he has divinely told us through his prophets and Apostles.
N: Again, this is ultimately subjective, and more akin to a purely gnostic outlook where the true believers "just know". On top of that, nowhere does this text or anywhere else instruct the Christian to discern the canon in this way. To say it's assumed/implied is instant death for Sola Scriptura.
ReplyDeleteResponse: So is our basic belief that there is an external world, that we have existed longer than 5 minutes and that we are not in the matrix a Gnostic perspective? I think you are stretching the definition of Gnosticism here. Sola Scriptura allows one to go by scripture alone and what we can infer from scripture alone. So to say we can infer truths from scripture alone are not a death of scripture alone but only a misunderstanding of it. I would say we can make clear and necessary inferences from scripture and not be going beyond it, but rather living out the logical implications of scripture.
N: If disputes arise, we certainly do. And the fact that folks like the mighty Luther had doubts about various books is a pretty disturbing thought if one embraces your argument.
Response: People could dispute the interpretation of the Table Contents so it would not be 100% way to solve all disputes. And if others were to give a divinely inspired interpretation of the table of contents it would still be up to you to privately interpret that. Luther could be wrong just like anyone else. I obviously do not agree with everything he said since I am Reformed.
N: That's a huge stretch to read that into John 10:3-6. Where is objective exegesis in such a claim? I could use that text, with your logic, to validate a whole host of things.
Response: Jesus says that we will know his voice because we are his sheep and when I read the Bible I know it is the voice and teaching of Jesus throughout because I am one of his sheep. John 10 clearly teaches that, why think it does not? What other whole host of things could you validate? I am really interested in critical arguments here rather than convictions here.
N: You need that if you want to embrace a non-gnostic religion. The Bible is incidental at that point, for what's the point in it being given to 'clearly tell us the important stuff', when important stuff like this is left up to you 'hearing His voice' independent of express written guidelines? You're reading into the text whatever you want at that point, pulling answers out of thin air and arbitrarily making yourself immune from genuine objections. It's arguments like these which make the Catholic position the one that truly looks to Scripture.
Response: I do not know if all this rhetoric is going to be helpful for our dialogue here. This position is not Gnostic because all people could know it and true believers in Jesus Christ do know it. This is not something that is hidden but something that should be shared and proclaimed to all nations. In all this I still see no good reason for a divinely inspired table of contents.
N: I cannot believe that. If a position is stronger than another, it should automatically be given preference, else you're arguing Christianity is not about the fullness of Truth. You responding to change minds and or instruct is for the very purpose of presenting a better argument.
ReplyDeleteResponse: I am not saying that if a position is stronger it not be preferred, what I am arguing that if a position were true then we would have more epistemic clarity on other issues does not make a position true. The argument you would be endorsing if it is true would go something like this:
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.
N: I never said that. It could be said there was no formally defined canon until such and such date, but that's not to say nobody knew anything about genuine canonical books. What the OT Jews did or did not know about the canon is an answer neither side can fully address. What we do know is that nowhere in the OT is a canon given. The Catholic side would say oral tradition was one of the most important manners of a Jew knowing what was canonical. That is the most reasonable answer.
Response: I never said that you did. I was merely asking a question. I am glad you agree. I am glad you are willing to concede that a person can know the canon apart from the church. I do not know why you felt obligated to respond to this post then in the first place since you disagree with the Roman Catholics that give this argument. So it seems that in terms of the topic of this specific blog post this discussion is settled.
N: One can "validate" virtually anything they want with that reasoning. It's a defeatist attitude more than anything, for it formally throws out arguments and inferences.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Not really because you can offer a reason to doubt that belief and hence if the doubt is sufficient then such a belief would be unreasonable to hold. But on the other hand it is not an argument it is just a reason for thinking that premise 1 is false in the Roman Catholic canon argument. People can know the canon without the church on the basis of that God has hard wired us to know him and his message and that we know this epistemologically through reliable basic belief formation. On any epistemological view point people can claim to have knowledge of anything, so the issue you are mentioning is a problem plagued of both modern rationalistic internalistic view of knowledge and more contemporary externalistic view of knowledge.
N: You're abusing the term "properly basic". Properly basic should apply to things all parties (or at least most people) would agree upon as 'foundational' (such as axioms like 'truth cannot contain contradictions'). My rejection of the Matrix is subjective, but using reason, arguments, etc, I can build a case supporting my conclusions.
Response: So if you met a person who thought that there could be Married Bachelors would that belief that bachelors are an unmarried male be no longer basic? It seems strange to think so. I would also venture to say that I see no reason for thinking that just because someone disagrees with a basic belief that it is no longer basic. Alvin Plantinga and other philosophers have argued that we can have basic beliefs that others do not share such as the existence of God. I would say to reject the existence of God is even self-contradictory, but atheists disagree with that (I accept a version of the ontological argument). Does that mean that belief is no longer basic for me even though it is self-contradictory but some individuals reject it? Lastly, if you have arguments for why you are not in the matrix I would be glad to hear and if you did have such arguments it does not seem to me that your belief that we are not in the matrix is subjective. Subjective is usually associated with mere feelings that do not have factual states of affairs outside of the individual person. But perhaps if one were a modernistic rationalist they might disagree with such a statement. All that to say: It is hard to see how am abusing basic beliefs.
N: Basic belief cannot be refuted; they are building blocks assumed true apart from argument and inference (per your definition); that's the problem.
Response: I do not see any reason for thinking that basic beliefs cannot be refuted. This is what Descartes assumed this but the majority of epistemologist today do not think so (Alvin Plantinga is one fine example). Such a view leads to skepticism because you can doubt or refute the proposition that we are not in the matrix, but no one can give an argument for that, but it seems reasonable and basic that we are not in the matrix.
N: That's a confusion of categories. First of all, "more than the Bible" doesn't entail more propositions. Second, the issue is authoritatively settling disputes, which cannot be done without authoritative *interpretation* of the sources. Infallibility doesn't properly apply to Scriptures, the more accurate term is 'inerrant'.
ReplyDeleteResponse: How could it not entail more propositions? If it does not entail more propositions then it is sola scriptura so far as I can see. Does the scripture tell us the name of the present Pope? Or that Mary was a perpetual virgin? Where does the Bible speak of indulgences? Or that there exists presently a treasury of Merit? Or that Mary ascended into heaven? Or not to eat mean on Friday? Does the scripture talk about the office of cardinal? All these seem to be additional statements of fact not found in scripture. Infallible is included in the term inerrant. It seems that both of the terms infallibility and inerrant mean without error. I would say that there cannot be an authoritative interpretation that can settle disputes because you have to as a fallible human being interpret the infallible interpretation of some scriptural proposition X. There could never be an authoritative interpretation because it would go on to infinite regression.
Response: I think something like Sola Scriptura is going on there, why do you think it is not sola scriptura in practice?
N: Because the context shows exactly what was going on:
"2As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."
There was nothing of the nature of turning to Scripture alone for all things necessary for salvation here, rather a more narrow appeal, to help prove the man named "Jesus" was the Christ. There was no specific mention of the name "Jesus" and other details in the OT, that came purely from Paul.
Response: I think that this at least shows that if an Apostle comes giving you theology that you have right to confirm or disconfirm his message by scripture. It certainly shows that the word of an Apostle can be questioned by the written scripture. But again I just said something like sola scriptura is going on here; I never said this definitely and clearly teaches the doctrine of sola scriptura. Paul is trying to show this: The person of Jesus is the person is the Christ of the Old Testament using the Old Testament, so if they went to check it out in the Old Testament they would find that the person of Jesus is the Christ. The name is not used in the OT but the person behind the name is.
Thank you so much for your time Nick. I pray that we continue to have a discussion that fosters charity and mutual understanding. Although we radically disagree on the Gospel and on Christianity I hope we can still continue to have open hearts and open minds. I hope all is well with you.
God Bless,
NPT