Combox for:
Reply to C. Michael Patton on Sola Scriptura, Part Three (Dual-Source Theory)
[14 November 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...on-
sola_14.html
I'm loving these responses to Patton's blog articles.
I'm not understanding this part:
"Bottom line: the canon issue requires an infallible Church and sola Scriptura disallows same. So either one starts questioning that the Bible is what it is, or one qualifies the sweeping nature of sola Scriptura. If the latter, then one immediately asks how it is that the Protestant creates a principle that was always unbiblical from the outset, and not found in Scripture, and now qualifies it? By what principle of reasoning is either thing done? If it can be qualified here, why not "there" in other areas, too?"
As for Patton's argument that John alone is sufficient, that is way too much of an oversimplification and way too quick to throw out any authoritative tradition. The fact is John is a Gospel that requires the most support/tradition because it is not set up in the chronological order that the Synoptics are. John is a Gospel that requires a solid foundation and which builds upon that foundation.
Further, there are plenty of passages in John which Protestants would find 'problematic', like "who's sins you forgive," and "feed my sheep," and "eat my flesh," and "you are Cephas," and "born of water and the holy spirit," etc, etc.
Dave also mentioned the Eunuch in Acts8, but someone showed me an even more powerful example in Acts 18:
"24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."
Even this guy who was well learned in the (OT) Scriptures still required outside assistance. This denies the formal sufficiency of the OT right here.
Excellent additional example.
In the part that seemed confusing to you, I was noting how the canon issue raises further difficulties for the Protestant, with the following reasoning:
1) They assert that only the Bible is infallible.
2) Yet the determination of the canon, which is what the Bible IS, came from the Church and tradition; therefore was not infallible, by the criterion of #1.
3) Therefore, to strictly follow #1, one would have the "right" to question that the canon is accurate.
4) If that is deemed unacceptable (as most Protestants wold agree; hence the internal tension), then the alternative is to place a limit on the sweeping nature of #1, in extraordinary instances (such as the canon). The Church can be infallible in only these strictly limited circumstances.
5) I then noted that sola Scriptura was always an unbiblical concept, applied universally; now that we see that it doesn't work in the case of the canon, it has to be qualified (if one accepts the canon): which has no more rationale or justification than SS itself.
6) On what basis is SS itself or the qualification with regard to the canon done? Kevin and Mark (with whom I recently debated the general issue) claimed that SS is not found in Scripture, nor does it need to be, nor is this even possible. So where does it come from? If it is extrabiblical, why does anyone choose to adopt it in the first place?
7) Lastly, if we qualify and limit SS in the case of the canon, then what's to stop us from doing so in any number of additional areas? Then we no longer have a principles, but a convenient road map that dies the death of a thousand qualifications.
I honed and refined the above clarification a bit and added it to the original post, as of 12:45 PM EST 11-15-08.
I think I get it now. That is a bigger mess than I originally envisioned.
They are caught in their own game. A Protestant technically could deny a book of the Bible (according to the rules of SS), but once they do so their 'authority' to do so is questioned, and once they are forced to explain themself they have to explain how they determined the other 65 books. Because nobody wants to be in that position, they silently agree that the 66 are correct and that that is a universally acknowledged taboo doctrine.
As for people like Kevin and Mark (and others I have talked to), it never ceases to amaze me how they can be so open and explicit that the Bible does not claim it is the only infallible authority. What on earth are they thinking to make such a claim? It must be a mark of post-modernism or something because they affirm a self-contradition yet they are comfortable doing so.
Maybe you should pose as a Protestant and say all the books except James are not part of the canon and see how Protestants respond. Sure they will look at you as if crazy (and undoubtedly call names), but they will not be able to actually logically refute you without cutting off the very branch supporting themself.
I swear there are days when the Protestant reply to Catholic arguments is so weak and insubstantial, that I long to go back and be a Protestant for a day or a week and defend the views that present proponents are most reluctant to defend.
I think I could do a better job simply arguing as I would 20 years ago than many of these people are doing. It's truly pathetic.
OTOH I myself never saw the full extent of Catholic critiques until I read Cardinal Newman's Essay on Development. Then I realized that there was no hope for the position and it was over.
The ones who truly believe that SS can stand up to all scrutiny should be out there vigorously defending it against the tons of arguments against it. But instead we have obfuscation and insults and fleeing for the hills.
Can we blame them, though (in one sense)? Would YOU want to be in a position to defend this viciously circular stuff?
It's like they're fighting for their life out in the ocean with just a cork or a balloon to keep them afloat . . . the end result is inevitable. The defenses are gonna fail, and SS with them.
I don't blame all of them, and I can kind of understand.
When you think about the average Protestant pastor his livelihood is on the line. He has to provide for his family and all of the sudden he realizes the cornerstone of his position (SS) is bogus. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either he 'explore' the issue and lose the only job he knows of the last 20 years or he chooses not to think about it.
I would be scared to be in that position.
As for the apologetics we see today defending SS, I believe that the 'information age' has blown down all the doors removing all places to hide and obfuscate. With the dawn of the internet and such, it is 'our best' arguments versus 'their best', and once held up together there is no comparison. As it becomes more and more stripped of its Catholic roots, the Protestant position appears more and more naked and weak.
I had grown up thinking the Catholics and Protestants each had their own good arguments, but that the Catholics had it slightly better. As I began to learn I realized how huge doctrines were founded upon sand. I could not believe my eyes, and still cannot.
The real problem for the average person on the street is that the Protestant position is a facade. The Sola Scriptura principle on the surface is very appealing: "Catholics reject Sola Scriptura because the Bible doesn't support their doctrines. Don't you think we should follow what the Bible says?"
That kind of argument makes it look like the Catholics are the ones afraid of Scripture or not taking Scripture seriously. That is the battle cry of Protestants since the start that makes the average uneducated Catholic's face turn red with embarrassment that his church (supposedly) holds a 'low view' of Scripture.
That is why it is so important for Catholics to drive home just how much they look to Scripture and how they love the material sufficiency...that kind of talk throws the Protestants into confusion because it is inconceivable that Catholics would turn to Scripture and strive to be faithful to Scripture.
One thing that I cannot show enough appreciation for is that the contrast between darkness and light, truth and error, is so clear that when the Catholic Church is the reference point any error is easily exposed. That is why SS and Faith Alone and such are so easily exposed as frauds, the darkness really stands out when contrasted to light, there is no gray area.
Yes, I also think that Nick. Maybe I would put it this way; The one good thing about the protestant position is is it throws into relief the Truth of the Catholic Church.
Dave when C. Michael Patton said:"Protestants, such as myself, would respond, at least with regard to the current argument about the Gospel of John, that to suppose John assumed his readers, whomever they may be, would need an infallible interpreter in order to understand his letter is a bit presumptuous"
This statement of C. Michael Patton fails to take into consideration the art of reading and writing in those times.There were no printing press in those times and the percentage of people who could read in those times was very very low.So if John had written his gospel to a christain community(which seems to be the case here),he would expect the literate person among them to read the gospel to them in their meetings while the leader of the community explain to them the meaning of what they heard.Also,we have to remember that the Church existed before the first book of the New Testament was written.The community or individual John wrote is gospel to then must have been familar with most of the teachings and traditions in the gospel of John before John wrote the gospel to them.These teachings and traditions were related to them by the pastors of the Church(the Apostle John is one of such pastors).So John definitely will expect is readers to read his gospel and understand it inside and not outside the Church.So suggesting that John in writing his gospel ruled out the idea of a living teacher is fallicous.
Dave when answering objections such as the ones C. Michael Patton raised we must always remember that the idea of putting copies of the bible in the hands of the individual was foreign and impossible in those times.That idea would never had crossed the mind of any of the New Testament writers because
1)They were no printing press in those times.Books were copied with hands on patchment and this was an expensive and labourous endevour.
2)Only very few people could read in those times.
3)A vast amount of Christains in those times were from the uneducated class.
Brilliant Chaka, brilliant.
I totally forgot about that, the notion of writing to the INDIVIDUAL is foreign and unpractical. The Gospel of John was not put on a bookshelf for people to come off the street and read, it was read publicly by the priest among the congregation who "filled in the other details" which John doesnt mention or only alludes to in his sermon.
Nick,
You said: "A Protestant technically could deny a book of the Bible (according to the rules of SS), but once they do so their 'authority' to do so is questioned, and once they are forced to explain themself they have to explain how they determined the other 65 books."
The thing is Luther did this. He denied Apostolic Authority for the Letter of James and then backed up with the following (sorry, the original text is at home): if anyone wants to read the book as an authority, they are free to...
Luther says the INDIVIDUAL has the authority to determine canonicity of a book based on their arguments. Didn't we settle this point with Marcion????
By the way, Hobbes does something similar in Leviathan, though he gives the authority over the canon to the monarch.
Sorry, sloppy scholarship. The text is from the Preface to James and is from the end of the text.
For exact citations, see my paper:
"Luther's Outrageous Assertions About Certain Biblical Books (Protestant Scholars' Opinions and "Debate" With John Warwick Montgomery)"
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ions-
about.html
Charles,
Very good call. We cannot let that kind of stuff slide of swept under the rug by Protestants. Luther screwed around with the canon and shows the dangers of self appointed messiahs.
I have read such quotes in Protestant articles (eg Swan), so I trust them to be accurate. The stuff Luther said about some books would horrify the average Protestant.
In all fairness Nick, a certain Martin Luther would be horrified by the todays average Protestant.
Mr Patton proves too much. Assume for a moment that he is correct about the end of John's Gospel. In his defense of SS, what he truly asserts is that the material in John's Gospel and in that Gospel alone is sufficient to bring one to faith and salvation. The remaining 26 books become unnecessary. Truly, the argument he applies against Tradition can be applied against the remaining books of the NT because Patton's argument is that you only need to bring someone to salvation.
Conversely, any argument that the other 26 books include necessary material, above and beyond John's Gospel, can be applied to Tradition as well.
So he either proves something he does not believe, or he proves absolutely nothing.
In His Name,
Commenting by HaloScan
