I always wondered about this. I don't think an indirect inference like the assumption contradicts material sufficiency but it does make it much less meaningful. There are many ways to make such inferences from scripture and arrive at false conclusions. So it needs to be see as flowing from the totality of revelation. If all of that is ultimately rooted on scripture then so is what flows out of it. It just causes material sufficiency to include what is normally meant by tradition.
I don't have an issue with God giving the church new revelation as time goes on. He has said he won't give us a whole new covenant so in that sense scripture is complete. Still details like the assumption being confirmed by the Holy Spirit later in time doesn't seem out of line.
The Church teaches that there is no new public revelation since the apostles. Private revelation is another matter entirely, and Catholics as a whole are never bound to that.
I don't think an indirect inference like the assumption contradicts material sufficiency but it does make it much less meaningful.
Material sufficiency only has meaning with respect to a rule. The classic example would be whether stone is materially sufficient for a statue. You have to have the plan for the statue for that to be meaningfully assessed.
The question of material sufficiency is an internal Catholic question pertaining to how the rule of faith operates, not a justification for the rule of faith. It's more or less a hypothetical question: Could you have constructed every dogma using only the operation of the rule of faith on Scripture, or would you need to appeal to something in the practice of the Church as well? But you can't even ask the question meaningfully unless you already know what the dogmas are, meaning that you concede the rule of faith, just like you can't meaningfully ask the question of whether the stone is suitable for a statue unless you have a concept of the statue in mind. People keep talking about material sufficiency as if it is some sort of claim about Scripture apart from the rule being applied, but the only thing the claim of material sufficiency really does is to assert the formal consistency of the claim "all dogmatic conclusions can be derived by application of the formal rule to this particular matter." Of course, it goes without saying that whatever is produced by application of the rule itself becomes part of the rule, so there is no "new revelation" involved anywhere.
My grandpa from my mom's side is particulary devoted to Our Lady of Conception ("Nossa Senhora da Conceição", the One of the image). Thanks for putting this image here.
Thanks for the explaination Jonathan. That makes more sense to me. So you say you must know what the dogmas are. Does that mean you can't fully affirm material sufficiency until you have a complete list of dogmas? We don't know if the church is going to declare another dogma. I expect it will.
Does that mean you can't fully affirm material sufficiency until you have a complete list of dogmas?
It's a hypothetical question, so what is relevant is really what is in front of you. The more data you have, the more convincing is the hypothetical account. If it works as best you know, then it's a good hypothesis. If someone brings a dogma to your attention that doesn't fit (either a new dogma or one of which you were simply unaware), then it might cause you to revise or abandon the hypothesis. I guess I'm a little confused as to what you mean by "fully affirm." I "fully affirm" Maxwell's equations, but if something caused me to have to change my belief, then I would change my belief, as with any hypothesis. But if you asked me what the likelihood that such circumstances would arise was, I would say that I am as certain that it won't as I am certain of any scientific knowledge that I have. Speculation as to what might happen isn't data, and it would be irrational to form conclusions based on imagination. The best explanation for what you know is true is the correct belief.
Jonathan wrote:
"The question of material sufficiency is an internal Catholic question pertaining to how the rule of faith operates, not a justification for the rule of faith."
What is your definition of the Rule of faith?
Dave,
There is a big difference between “good and necessary consequence” of deduction from Scripture and “simply deduced from Scripture” or “mere deduction”. You seemed to water down his definition (which is from the Westminister Confession of Faith, I:6); that is, you downplayed the ideas of “good and necessary”, whereas, since the Assumption of Mary is much weaker and I would say non-existent, a zero, for even material sufficiency, you seemed to affirm that that one is “mere” or “simple” deduction. People can do simple or mere deduction and be adding and contradicting, but they are not good nor are they necessary consequences of logical deduction.
The doctrine of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ are both from “good and necessary consequence”, (thus affirming Sola Scriptura, and the definition supplied by David King, which is from the Westminster Confession of Faith); but the Assumption of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception also, I might add, are “stretches”, and “reaches” and “simply deduced”, based on silence and hypothetical theories. The Roman Catholic Dogmas cross the line of actually contradicting Scripture because the deductions are made “simply” and not allowing other parts of Scripture to control the wild deductions that you and RCs make, for example, interpreting “highly favored one” as “sinless” is a stretch; and contradictory to Romans 3:23; and calling the Assumption of Mary as necessary part of the Gospel is contradictory to all the verses on what the gospel is. (ie, I Corinthians 15:1-9, Romans 1:16-17) (Gerry Mattatics, in his debate with James White, said that the Bodily Assumption of Mary was a necessary part of the Gospel. (that is from memory, so, if pressed I would need to find it.) The CCC # 971 says that devotion to Mary and the rosary are an “epitome of the whole Gospel”. The CCC # 969 says, “. . . Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . “ This contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 10:9-10 She “ . . . is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate (contradicting I John 2:1-2 and John 14 and 16), Helper (contradicting John 14 and 16) . . . and Mediatrix.” (contradicting I Timothy 2:5)
Dave wrote: (quoting DTK)
“. . . by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture'..."
. . .
[and here Dave seems to downplay the good and necessary consequence aspect of the definition]
”simply deduced from Scripture (!!). Well, if it is the case for this "pillar of the Reformation" -- upon which all distinctively Protestant doctrines are built --, that King allows mere deduction, then we must point out that this is, of course, exactly how the Assumption can also be indicated in Scripture.’
“And above all, I must never take into consideration the context of a writer's overall thought, . . . “
I can see your point here, Dave, and there is certainly merit in seeking to discover a person’s overall view on things by studying all of their writings; however difficult and impractical sometimes it becomes (James Swan did a pretty good job of showing that Luther’s high view of Mary faded as time went on, and that the documentation you provided was from the beginning of his career.)
Nevertheless, what DTK was trying to point out was first the immediate context. This is the same principle in which Evangelicals can approach the Early Church Fathers. It is not, “don’t confuse me with the facts”, but rather this approach,
1. Recognizes that humans are not infallible
2. Human writings and works can be full of inconsistencies
3. Except for God Himself, the Scriptures are the only infallible and inerrant written documents, because they are God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). ( the autographa)
4. Therefore, only the canonical Scriptures can be consistently and equally and thoroughly harmonized as “one unity” and inherently have no contradictions in the overall context of a writer’s overall thought.
5. But humans can have contradictions, mistakes, and inconsistencies in their writings.
Ken is back!!!
If you can write all this in response, why is it that James White and David T. King cannot, or won't? King has to defend himself. I refuse to let him get off the hook by letting someone else do what is his duty to do.
James Swan did a pretty good job of showing that Luther’s high view of Mary faded as time went on, and that the documentation you provided was from the beginning of his career.
This is sheer nonsense. I blew this out of the water, showing that even the Lutheran scholars and experts on Luther do not agree with his wishful take, but he has ignored my research on that ever since (as usual) -- thus showing himself a good disciple of King James and King David. See:
James Swan vs. Lutheran Scholarship Affirming Luther's Lifelong Acceptance of the Immaculate Conception
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...cholarship.html
Did Luther Stop Believing in Mary's Immaculate Conception? + Yet More Questioning of My Luther Research (see "Question #6")
+ My Reply | James' "Counter-Reply" | My Counter-Reply
http://beggarsallreformation.blo...uther-
quiz.html
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g...76&
isPopup=true
http://beggarsallreformation.blo...aders-
bore.html
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g...93&
isPopup=true
Hi to Ken Temple,
Ken, I hope you have forgiven my unwarranted aggressiveness toward you during some previous posts. Even though it was not my intention to offend, I sense that I did.
I apologized then and I apologize now.
Friends?
Ben M,
Yes, you are forgiven. I do not even remember any of the exchange.
Thanks.
Dave wrote:
"If you can write all this in response, why is it that James White and David T. King cannot, or won't? King has to defend himself. I refuse to let him get off the hook by letting someone else do what is his duty to do."
Is that anyway to defend a position, when you put the material up on a different venue in order to provoke more discussion and comments ??
Your purpose of putting all this up on your site is to provoke more thought and comments from others, right? I pointed out something.
Your job is to answer the issue here, and not bring in personalities and question motives and why they did or did not answer according to your way you want an answer.
I have not had time to read everything in all those posts on Luther that James Swan wrote and all your lengthy rebuttals; but my point was from this point that JS made -- that Hartman Grisar's point is that in later sermons, Luther's emphasis on Mary fades as he grows. This makes sense to me; although now, because of your point, you are saying other Lutheran scholars say differently. But when I start reading all your links and rebuttals and, forgive me, it does get "tedious".
"However, Luther did not hold a lifelong belief in Mary’s immaculate conception. The Quote above from Luther’s "Sermon On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God” was brought to cyber-space via Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar. A Catholic apologist quoted Luther from Grisar’s book and disregarded both the historical context of Luther’s writings, as well as Grisar’s explanation of the quote. If one looks up the reference, Grisar states, “The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear.” The reason for their disappearance is that as Luther’s Christo-centric theology developed, aspects of Luther’s Mariology were abandoned. Grisar recognizes this. In regards to this Luther quote, Grisar says, “As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.”
I've dealt with Swan's inanities a dozen times or more. Now you will become a parrot and start repeating his refuted rhetoric, just as he does over and over? LOL Don't make me laugh . . .
King has made the comment (right in his book) that ALL the Fathers believed in sola Scriptura. This is madness and folly of the highest order, and couldn't be any further from the truth than east is from west. It's literally the exact opposite of the truth.
I made many comments on Swan's blog, that King summarily ignored, as always. His intellectual duty is to defend his ideas. He won't. And so until he does (and until White and Webster and all the rest of these cowards do so), I reserve the right to not respond to others who are doing the work that they should do, because that lets the personages mentioned off the hook.
Instead, you should join with me in the ethical-intellectual principle (that transcends the Protestant-Catholic divide) that a man ought to defend his positions, especially when they are known to be controversial ones. You should encourage your comrades to have the courage to do so, rather than do their work for them.
That said, you did make some decent arguments above, that deserve attention, but as always with you, it takes a ton of energy to reply, because you bring in a million different elements at once, and many presuppositions have to be revisited. I would hope others would interact with some of that. My original post is now from ten days ago. At the time I was hoping beyond hope that King would defend his view, but of course it wasn't to be.
I gave my reasons as to why I believe that the Assumption can be deduced from other fairly clear passages of Scripture; hence can be regarded as flowing from the principle of material sufficiency. If you want to grapple with those arguments specifically, you would have a much better chance of engaging me in argument at this time.
I fully agree that the Trinity is WAY more substantiated in Scripture than the Assumption, but I deny that the Assumption has so little suggestion in Scripture that it would fall outside the realm of material sufficiency (properly understood). But of course King misunderstood how Catholics define the parameters, which is partly what my post dealt with.
Ken,
I will make some reply to your comments (despite my protests above), because you (characteristically) put some thought and "gusto" into them:
There is a big difference between “good and necessary consequence” of deduction from Scripture and “simply deduced from Scripture” or “mere deduction”. You seemed to water down his definition (which is from the Westminister Confession of Faith, I:6)
I, of course, am not abound as a Catholic to the WCF's definitions. It is simply one Protestant statement among many contradictory ones. King's argument, remember, was a charge that the Catholic position is internally inconsistent.
As such, it is a different argument altogether than one which would compare a Catholic understanding of material sufficiency with that of the WCF. In other words, the discussion is about whether our view is self-contradictory, as opposed to fine points in what "material sufficiency" means in the first place.
; that is, you downplayed the ideas of “good and necessary”, whereas, since the Assumption of Mary is much weaker and I would say non-existent, a zero, for even material sufficiency,
From your definition, yes. But again, King's argument was of a different sort. Because he is ignorant (what else is new with him?) of how we are defining material sufficiency, he wrongly concludes that our view is incoherent.
you seemed to affirm that that one is “mere” or “simple” deduction. People can do simple or mere deduction and be adding and contradicting, but they are not good nor are they necessary consequences of logical deduction.
I have shown that there is enough material for us to hold the view we do, consistently with our conception of the concept.
However one regards the biblical data in this instance, it is certainly the case that there is more than there is for sola Scriptura, where the Bible has to be tortured, and dozens of passages deleted (Jefferson-like) in order to maintain such a ludicrous, unbiblical view.
The case for the Assumption is "biblically-weak" (I think anyone would readily agree), but the doctrine is not "unbiblical" in the sense in which it would contradict anything in the Bible. But sola Scriptura is, and the canon of Scripture, upon which sola Scriptura rests, is completely unable to be ascertained from the Bible as we have it (in whatever form).
The doctrine of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ are both from “good and necessary consequence”, (thus affirming Sola Scriptura, and the definition supplied by David King, which is from the Westminster Confession of Faith); but the Assumption of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception also, I might add, are “stretches”, and “reaches” and “simply deduced”, based on silence and hypothetical theories.
The latter is not at all. You and I had that discussion already:
Dialogue on the Exegesis of Luke 1:28 ("Full of Grace"), and the Immaculate Conception
http
(cont.)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...e-128-
full.html
The Assumption is, then, deduced from this clearer biblical data.
The Roman Catholic Dogmas cross the line of actually contradicting Scripture because the deductions are made “simply” and not allowing other parts of Scripture to control the wild deductions that you and RCs make, for example, interpreting “highly favored one” as “sinless” is a stretch; and contradictory to Romans 3:23; and calling the Assumption of Mary as necessary part of the Gospel is contradictory to all the verses on what the gospel is. (ie, I Corinthians 15:1-9, Romans 1:16-17)
I've dealt with all this many times. In the recent post and thread on Total depravity I wrote about some of these elements at extreme length:
The Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity and Romans 3:10-11 ("None is Righteous . . . No One Seeks For God"): Reply to James White (+ Discussion)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
depravity.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...1957650/
#136733
Mediatrix and Mariology in the context of the Gospel is, of course, an entirely different discussion. I can't do everything at once. You are the master of the Protestant "100 topics at once" tactic, so the Catholic will always be on the defensive. If we answer one thing well, rather than counter-reply, the Protestant then simply jumps to another topic, to present the illusory appearance of superiority.
Is that any way to defend a position, when you put the material up on a different venue in order to provoke more discussion and comments ??
He won't defend himself on friendly territory over at Jimbo Swan's, but he and anyone else is welcome to do so here. But anti-Catholics wouldn't dream of "defiling" themselves by setting foot in this place. That would be too much. They might have a heart attack or something.
Your purpose of putting all this up on your site is to provoke more thought and comments from others, right? I pointed out something.
Primarily in this instance to challenge King's facile reasoning, but secondarily for comment, yes.
Your job is to answer the issue here, and not bring in personalities and question motives and why they did or did not answer according to your way you want an answer.
It's interesting that I must answer objections to my counter-argument, whereas the purveyor of the original argument is under no such obligation to defend himself. Would you urge him to do so, or would that be too sensible and fair?
I'm not even talking about "my way" of offering an answer. I'm talking about any answer at all. This ain't about King's personality (though he has been extremely obnoxious to me and is the rudest proclaimed Christian I've ever met online, bar none). It's about the intellectual wherewithal to defend one's position when it is critiqued.
I know it must
(cont.)
. . . embarrass you that these guys on your general side continually do all they can to avoid their responsibilities in this way (I'd be embarrassed too), but you can't say so publicly because these guys are your big champions.
I think Jonathan Prejean has a great insight about their parading of ignorance proudly, just like the ancient Gnostics did. It's as good an explanation as any for their curious, odd behavior. I still say they are cowards, in any event.
Dave Armstrong wrote:
"I, of course, am not abound as a Catholic to the WCF's definitions. It is simply one Protestant statement among many contradictory ones. King's argument, remember, was a charge that the Catholic position is internally inconsistent. "
It is true that you are not bound to the WCF’s definitions.
But you are bound, or you should be, to the definition of what proper deduction is; and logic, and you and your church violate the very definitions of deduction, and “finding the author’s intended meaning”, and “interpretation in context”.
But this one (the statement from the WCF) is just a good definition of the essence of proper hermeneutics and seeking to interpret a passage based on the context and the author’s intended meaning at the time of the writing. “good and necessary consequence [that]may be deduced from Scripture” -- of the text holds the interpretation from going too far and speculating and imagining something not intended by the author or by God.
Furthermore, “good and necessary consequence” of proper deduction from the author’s intended meaning at the time he wrote it – this principle of deduction is internally consistent and makes more sense than your RCC, which allows for speculation and imaginative and mystical theology.
Keating writes: (on the issue of Mary begin Mediatrix)
“True, scriptural proofs for this are lacking. Theologians refer to a mystical interpretation of John 19:26. . . .
This is little consolation to fundamentalists [sic. His term for most all Evangelical conservative Protestants] of course, who see little fitting about it and who put little stock in speculative theology and even less in mystical theology.”
. . . this kind of doctrine . . . is accepted, ultimately, on the authority of the Church rather than on the authority of clear scriptural references.” (p. 279, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. The attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians”, Ignatius, 1988.)
It was the early church writers who were inconsistent at this point when they engaged in allegorical interpretation. And this is what was done much more later in order to justify those doctrines that Evangelical Protestants disagree with Roman Catholicism.
That seems to be line that they crossed, and at the beginning they were being inconsistent to their own principles of a nascent “Sola Scriptura” understanding, though not fully developed or consistently thought out.
Then later generations – especially in regard to Mary, just took off and went outside of the rules of interpretation of exegeting the author’s intended meaning.
Commenting by HaloScan
