Combox for:
Reply to a Protestant Who Claims That I Have Not Demonstrated That Protestant Authority Structures Are Ultimately Self-Defeating (vs. Kevin Davis)
[11 November 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ims-that-
i.html
Good thoughts, fellas.
The most predominant view among Protestants is still that the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. Greg Bahnsen, in his debate with Edward Tabash, alludes to this by stating that we know that the Bible is the word of God because 1) the Bible makes the claim to be the word of God; and 2) this can be proven because a rejection of the Bible leads ultimately to absurdity.
The merits of presuppositionalism aside, Bahnsen recognizes the need for the Bible to be self-attesting in order for his worldview to be coherent.
Truth is, sola Scriptura is much more than the claim that the Bible is God's inspired word. It also entails the positive assertion that there is no other final authority.
Over at Kevin's blog he commented:
It’s not that “Protestants say sola scripture is infallibly true” (your point #1); it’s that Protestant only recognize scripture (a defined record) as infallibly true. It’s not some “principle” that Protestants begin with and then try to prove. Protestants believe anything from God (i.e., revelation of God) is true and requires the assent of faith. Only scripture is determined as such, and thus “only” scripture is considered (in religious matters) infallibly true. This is a fine distinction, but a critical one — as most debates end-up hinging upon.
The Catholic also believes the Scriptures are infallibly true. The distinction seems to come down to interpretation of said infallible Scriptures. But as Kevin and most anyone with their epistemological wits about them will agree, we, as individuals, are fallible. So then how can Kevin, the fallible, say the Scriptures are infallible?
But Kevin's point is that the Catholic is in the same difficulty because how can I, the fallible, say the Church is infallible. It is obviously an article of faith, just like Kevin, the fallible, saying the Scripture is infallible. The only difference seems to be where the Protestant and Catholic put the "locus of faith". Both will make claims to the Holy Spirit and the "certainty" of faith, but the real debate comes down to how the Holy Spirit makes manifest in our world the revelation of God - Scripture or the Church (or the former through the later in Catholic teaching). Kevin nor I see why the Scriptures must explicitly teach sola scriptura (SS) if it is taken as an article of faith. Perhaps the difficulty of I Timothy 3:15 remains, but I'll leave that for the Protestant to answer.
What Kevin will need to specifically address is the crux of the argument that:
1. SS teaches the Scriptures alone are infallible in matters of faith and morals
2. The Scriptures teach no such thing
3. ergo SS is extra-biblical and violates proposition #1
I think Kevin tried to address this in the quote I provided at the beginning of this comment, and I've already hinted at the answer - #2 is not necessary. But Kevin will certainly need to fill this out for this debate to advance anywhere meaningful.
Dave,
I can't imagine anyone being able to take the time to piece by piece engage with all of your lengthy posts and dialogues. That's why I've been exhorting you to succinctly restate it. I'll take your first syllogism as your argument:
1) Sola Scriptura holds that the Bible is the only infallible authority.
2) The Bible itself, however, never makes such a claim.
No. That misses what the Protestant is doing. (As Mark correctly pointed out.) SS holds that the Bible is a record of God's revelation to his elect. The Protestant only recognizes the Bible to be such a product of God's self-revelation. There's absolutely no reason why the Bible would "say" it alone is authoritative. That's not the question. The question is what is from God and therefore authoritative. The Protestant recognizes these certain Jewish and Apostolic writings as authoritative because they are a witness to the salvation in which they are included by the Holy Spirit, not because they claim some "principle" of sola scripture. If the Protestant believed that Christ (as revealed in the NT) gave the Church conciliar or papal authority, then the Protestant would include this in her confession -- but the Protestant doesn't believe this (which is, by the way, why half of your comments above are meaningless for the issue at hand).
Thus, the circularity/self-defeating charge is off track. The Protestant claims these testaments of God's covenantal purposes to be sacred and authoritative, once again, not because they "say so" but because they "are." What they are is this revelation, just as for the Catholic what scripture and the de fide definitions of the Church are is revelation.
I don't know if I can make it any clearer. If we can't get this straight, then we're not going to get any further.
Even by following your faulty reasoning you would loose the argument:
1. SS teaches the Scriptures alone are infallible in matters of faith and morals
2. The Scriptures teaches that the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth.
3. Therefore you can not say that the Church can or has erred or even that it can not define truth.
By Scripture Alone you are told to obey the Church.
Giovanni,
I'm quite sure the Protestant would reject or interpret in another way #2 in your syllogism, but nonetheless it is a difficulty that the Protestant should address. All you did was set up a proverbial straw man.
Dave does this too in his syllogism, when his minor premise states the Bible does not teach SS. In fact, if the Bible did teach SS, the Protestant could be rightly accused of circular reasoning. (i.e. I believe in the Bible alone because the Bible tells me so).
Both you and Dave should be arguing for the correctness of your minor premises (prop. #2), rather than trying to force the Protestant into a straw man argument that he or she does not make.
I have replied to Kevin's combox comments in an addition to the post itself.
The Protestant recognizes these certain Jewish and Apostolic writings as authoritative because they are a witness to the salvation in which they are included by the Holy Spirit
But how do you know this? Catholics think you are right but believe this based on tradition and the church. What do you base this on?
You'll quickly become frustrated if you start asking relevant questions, Randy! 
An additional problem that Evangelical Protestants have is that there is no ONE definitive explanation as to exactly what sola scriptura is. I have many friends who are evangelical and have read many, many posts by others and it seems that most of the time there are differences as to the understanding. Not to mention the fact that NO ONE on the Protestant side can AUTHORITATIVELY decide as to what that exact definition should be. As is the case with all of Protestantism, opinion typically rules the day because at the end of it no one can say for sure about most anything.
I've pared down the dialogue a bit, taking out some of the polemics that have no direct bearing on the topic, and removed a few typos, as of 2:45 PM EST, 11-12-08.
Dave,
Like Giovanni, you continue to say "but the Bible itself says the Church is infallible." Seriously, this is not the debate. Everyone knows that that is the Catholic exegesis of Mt. 16, 18, etc. I guess diverting the issue to this is a popular move for your readers, but let's be a little more responsible and respectful by sticking to whether the Protestant position is self-defeating.
If you can't seriously understand and explicate my argument, then you're not giving me much incentive to read "just one" of your dialogues and engage with every point. I'm simply wanting to engage this one fundamental point, and you have failed to seriously consider it.
it is completely relevant whether or not Scripture would verify the claim, since it is a claim about Scripture.
No. It's not. I can believe in the Christ as confessed by the apostolic witness without said witness saying anything about scripture or sola scriptura. Randy does ask a good question about how the Protestant knows this witness to be true, and the answer must include a soteriological point. This is why I have couched all of my statements with "elect," "covenantal," "divine purposes," "Holy Spirit," etc., which you think is theological verbiage. The Protestant, with the Church, confesses a gospel of our salvation which is recorded by the original inheritors/receivers of this salvation, to the Jews first and then to the apostles. Without this record, there would be no salvation, because there would be nothing to confess. The preaching of the gospel is a confessing of scripture, and the receiving of the gospel ("born again") is the receiving of scripture. Ultimately how a Protestant can "trust" this has the same ultimately inscrutable foundations as faith itself.
Of course, there are statements in scripture relating its authority (e.g., "Thus saith the Lord," or 2 Tim. 3:16-17), but we don't assent because something simply claims to be from God. Does the Catholic assent to the Catholic Church because it claims to be from God, endowed with such-and-such authority? Do Catholics go around and say, "Believe what the Catholic Church binds you to believe because the Catholic Church says she has this authority"? I hope not. Rather, the Catholic should turn to scripture and argue that the apostolic witness grants her such authority. This is what the See of Rome did when asserting her Petrine authority -- she had to -- and the East dissented toward Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction, on exegetical grounds. These exegetical issues are indeed important -- obviously -- but if the Church is denied conciliar or papal infalliblity, is this Protestant position then self-defeating when confessing scripture? That's the issue at hand.
I replied to the above comments in the post itself, as of 3:30 PM EST, 11-12-08.
Dave,
First of all, Mt. 16 and 18 are key conciliar texts (certainly chapter 1
. I'm not sure why you went off on the papacy, which of course is then included by Catholics in the overall authority given to the Church.
Moving on. It's ridiculous for you to keep asserting that I'm not making any arguments. What the hell was my first comment in this combox about. I was challenging the critical point of your syllogism, but all you can do is come back with, "Oh, you're dancing around the issue." Please. If you can't understand the entailments of the Protestant recognition of divine revelation in a soteriological context (the only valid context, by the way), then that's not my fault. You can throw back your "sociological" b.s. charges all day. I'll stick with history and the organic nature of the Church.
Sorry to have to up the rhetoric on my part, but your little line by line responses are getting us nowhere.
For some reason, my 8 was turned into a smilicon. That should be "chapter eighteen."
No it isn't, because I'm not arguing about the authority of Scripture. All sides accept that, and validly so, and it is a separate argument, not under dispute between us.
What? Is this a joke? You are very much arguing about how the Protestant can claim the sole authority of scripture, while not claiming the Church to be infallible. If the Protestant position is self-defeating then they cannot really claim the authority of scripture; thus, you are arguing about the authority of scripture for Protestants.
Kevin,
You said the following:
The preaching of the gospel is a confessing of scripture, and the receiving of the gospel ("born again") is the receiving of scripture.
AND:
I'll stick with history and the organic nature of the Church.
These two statements are closly related in regards to SS in my view. Let me ask you a simple question. Where does the historic winess of the Church- especially prior to the 16th century- claim that "born again" means what you said it means, ie, and the receiving of the gospel ("born again") is the receiving of scripture.
To the best of my knowledge the continuous teaching of the Church- East and West- from the 1st century til today has been that to be born again refers to Baptismal Regeneration (Sacramental)- John 3: 5 and others.
Pat,
Even in a baptismal regeneration context, being born again is the receiving of God's covenantal work recorded in scripture and fulfilled in Christ. Anyone who claims to have been regenerated by the work of Christ (and the sending of the Holy Spirit) must receive and confess the scriptures which reveal this Christ (this God) to us. Whether you believe this new birth happens in baptism or not, my point remains.
For the love of Pete! Does anyone know what this debate is about?
Seriously, Catholics. Quit shifting the argument. You can do better than this. There is a reason serious Catholic scholars like Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar never calimed sola scriptura was illogical. They thought it wrong, but not illogical in the way that is being portrayed here. Being wrong and being illogical are different things. You know this, right?
The other topics that are being brought up here are wonderful topics for other debates, but they are topics for other debates.
Distinctions! Distinctions! Distinctions! We must make distinctions, people!
Anger and obfuscation are the surest signs that one has no rational reply.
Mark: (Neither) Kevin nor I see why the Scriptures must explicitly teach sola scriptura (SS) if it is taken as an article of faith.
Adomnan: Doesn't sola scriptura teach that nothing can be an article of faith unless it is taught n the scriptures? If so, then logically sola scriptura, understood by you and Kevin as not taught "explicitly" in the scriptures, cannot be an article of faith.
If on the other hand, the principle of SS admits articles of faith not taught in the scriptures, then it could theoretically admit any number of them, such as the articles of the Catholic faith that are not explicit in the scriptures, but are in the tradition. And this would be a contradiction, because if tradition is accepted as a channel of revelation -- articles of faith are revealed, after all -- then sola scriptura is obviously false.
I suppose one could say that SS is not explicit in scripture, but is there implicitly. However, if that is the case, then the fact remains that SS must be taught in scriptures in some form (implicit or explicit) to be logically tenable. And, given that you are a Catholic, Mark, you evidently don't think SS is taught in the scriptures either implicitly or explicitly, and so it is not merely wrong, but illogical.
Doesn't sola scriptura teach that nothing can be an article of faith unless it is taught in the scriptures? If so, then logically sola scriptura, understood by you and Kevin as not taught "explicitly" in the scriptures, cannot be an article of faith.
Adomnan,
That's a fine move, but the question, as I've repeatedly stated, is what is held as revealed from God. The Protestant holds these particular texts as revealing revelation from God. That's it. The question of "does scripture teach sola scriptura" is an abstraction -- it takes the result of the Protestant confession (of recognizing scripture alone as revelation) and tries to make it the premise, a premise which is then used to make a conclusion of the same propositional content, i.e., a circular argument. This is what I've tried to show Dave, but he either doesn't get it or doesn't want to, preferring diversions into other matters.
If the Protestant position was as easy to dispel as you, Dave, Giovanni, Randy, etc. believe it to be then Protestantism is truly idiotic. I mean, seriously, idiotic -- and all the dunces in Protestant theology, from Calvin to Barth, are the most deluded of men, unable to see the great absurdity before their very eyes. I mean, wow (!), how did they not see that scripture doesn't teach sola scriptura? You Catholic converts are soooo smart...so freakin' smart...I can't believe it.
That was sarcasm.
Adomnan,
Sorry, the sarcasm came off bad. I do appreciate your question/challenge. You stuck with the issue at hand, which is more than I can say for others.
And far more than I can say for you.
Dave,
Anger and obfuscation are the surest signs that one has no rational reply.
I don't think Kevin and I are getting angry. Frustrated, sure, but not angry. These emotions are hard to convey in text, but think animated, lively; not angry. And "no rational reply"? Seriously?
All Kevin and I are trying to say is that this syllogism, as you put "starkly, the particular self-contradiction" is a straw man argument because the (right thinking) Protestant does not believe the Bible would need to say it's the sole and infallible authority (#2 below) because of the reasons Kevin cited in his original post and in this combox:
1. Sola Scriptura holds that the Bible is the only infallible authority.
2. The Bible itself, however, never makes such a claim.
3. Therefore, sola Scriptura is an extrabiblical notion (or, "tradition of men") that is
imposed upon Scripture from preconceived notions.
4. Sola Scriptura, in other words, is an "unbiblical" doctrine.
If you wanted to stick to the debate at hand you would argue why #2 is necessary. You haven't. Instead you've gone off on the three legged stool. This is great, and sure it's related, but it's not the debate at hand. Kevin has already said the Catholic position on authority (which would be the three legged stool) is "perfectly defensible and sensible." He did not take issue with that. He took issue with the particular syllogism cited above. If you can't see that then you are the most obtuse of men.
Kevin,
Thanks for responding. The difference is formal versus material sufficiency of scripture. The Doctrine of SS is much more complex than just the fact that Scripture is the inspired word of God. We agree on this so, of course your point remains. The variable in the exchange of practicing SS is where problems occur. That variable is the humans who read and interpret scripture ( according to SS this means every professing christian). IOW, who is to say what the Truth is regarding any number of essential christian doctrines? This is why your comment on, "...history and the organic nature of the Church" is troubling. Because, only Baptismal Regeneration was taught prior to Calvin. Not even Luther believed it.
Kevn: The question of "does scripture teach sola scriptura" is an abstraction -- it takes the result of the Protestant confession (of recognizing scripture alone as revelation) and tries to make it the premise, a premise which is then used to make a conclusion of the same propositional content, i.e., a circular argument.
Adomnan: I think you're confused about what constitutes a circular argument. If someone were to say, "I believe that the Bible is God's revelation because the Bible claims it's God's revelation and I believe the Bible," that would be circular argumentation.
However, once one has accepted that the Bible is God's revelation on other grounds (whatever those might be), it is not circular to search the Bible to discover whether it claims to be the only source of revelation or posits others (e.g., unwritten traditions).
You are confusing the issue of whether the Bible is God's revelation with the issue of whether it is God's only revelation. Only the former thesis cannot be asserted without circularity merely on the basis that the Bible teaches it.
In other words, it would be possible for the Bible, once it is accepted as dvine revelation, to reveal that it is the only source of this revelation. Consequently, sola scriptura would be asserted in the Bible if it were true (given that the doctrine teaches that every article of faith is in the Bible). Since it is not asserted, it follows that it's false.
Or, to put it another way, you're claiming that the supposed truth that scripture alone is revelation cannot itself be revealed, which is absurd.
Or, perhaps your position is that the doctrine of sola scriptura could have been revealed in the Bible consistently with logic, but is not in fact revealed. But if it is not revealed, then you are violating the premise of sola scriptura by positing an artilce of faith that is not revealed in the Bible.
Anyway you look at, your position leads to contracitions.
Correction: It should be "any way" in my last sentence, two words, not "anyway."
Kevin Davis: If the Protestant position was as easy to dispel as you, Dave, Giovanni, Randy, etc. believe it to be then Protestantism is truly idiotic. I mean, seriously, idiotic -- and all the dunces in Protestant theology, from Calvin to Barth, are the most deluded of men, unable to see the great absurdity before their very eyes. I mean, wow (!), how did they not see that scripture doesn't teach sola scriptura? You Catholic converts are soooo smart...so freakin' smart...I can't believe it.
Giovanni: For the record I am not a convert, I am a cradle Catholic, as far as the merits of Protestantism as a viable alternative, how do you think Protestantism was spread in the first place? You have studied theology I am sure some history on how all these ideas were spread should have been part of your studies. If you don't know then go get books on the subject. I can tell you right now that the reformed theology was not exactly embraced.
Even the most brilliant men can be deceived just because you are smart and intelligent does not mean that you are infallable.
For the LAST time: I have offered MANY arguments for the circularity of Protestantism. I cited a dozen papers of mine, including a two-page one (when excessive length was brought up).
Kevin Davis (whom I didn't know from Adam prior to this) started coming into my comboxes and challenging my assumptions and claims, based on those papers.
He started waxing about how he would reply eventually if he could muster up the time. So he did so and started questioning my claim to have demonstrated circularity. But he never DEALT with any of those arguments of mine, as I have complained about till I am blue in the face.
Mine may be terrible arguments when it comes to this "Protestant circularity" business. They may have no strength at all. They might have as many holes as a pin cushion or Swiss cheese. They may be as "inane" as Mark claimed they are in Kevin's combox. They may be themselves self-contradictory. They may be many things, and not many others.
But whatever they are, the fact remains that they haven't been interacted with. I can hardly give up a position I hold just because Kevin Davis the grad student at the fancy school in Scotland says I should do so, sans any rational argumentation at all.
I base things on reason, grounded in faith. If I change my beliefs, as I did when I converted to Catholicism 18 years ago, it is because reasons were given that were superior to the ones I held in support of my previous views.
Now he (and Mark the Catholic, who seems to mostly argue as a Protestant does) are pretending that I have either changed the topic, don't have a clue as to what the debate is, or that I have presented only one argument for my claims. All of this is sheer nonsense, and obscurantism and obfuscation.
I was following the line of discussion as Kevin himself (who seems to be lately beset by amnesia) set it in the beginning. He says I haven't demonstrated my claims, but he (with his cohort Mark) wants to ignore all of them, and engage in unsavory, uncharitable speculations.
That doesn't cut it. I don't know why he and Mark are doing this; nor do I much care. All I know is that they have switched horses in mid-stream. I don't play these games. If serious Protestant-Catholic discussion regarding authority was desired, I was Kevin's man. I've had great discussions with many scores of educated Protestants in the past. That's a matter of record. Anyone can read those exchanges.
Kevin had his chance to take on any of my 2100 papers that he wished to critique (or the dozen on the immediate topic at hand), and make mincemeat of it (them), if the reasoning was as atrocious as he thinks. Instead, this has been a wild goose chase. He had his chance to rationally answer my rebuttal and to show some slight semblance of respect towards a critique of his views, by deigning to lower himself from his ivory tower to actually interact with it and not merely talk about it and name-drop the usual Barth, vonB, etc.
Unless something changes drastically, I'm done with this farce of a "discussion." I'm already back to C. Michael Patton's paper and onto many other projects that are ongoing. True dialogue among two confident persons is a smooth, easy, fun thing. I've done it countless times, and have immensely enjoyed it and learned a ton of things. This "discussion" has been nothing of the sort. Something is causing that to happen. Either I am an idiot, ignoramus, and imbecile, or Kevin isn't engaging and has forgotten what began all this.
Readers, you decide what has happened. But dialogue has not occurred here, whatever the reason was, and it's a waste of time and an insult to the intelligence of my readers to pursue this any further.
There is a reason serious Catholic scholars like Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar never calimed sola scriptura was illogical.
Yes, and the reason is because they were mistaken. (But then it's hardly news that de Lubac and Urs von Balthasar are hardly the gold standard in Catholic theology and apologetics.)
They thought it wrong, but not illogical in the way that is being portrayed here.
I'm amazed you don't see the logical flaws in a system that insists that the Bible alone is the sole infallible authority, but has no explanation for the fact that the Bible never claims to be the sole infallible authority. That means adherents to Sola Scriptura must admit that Sola Scriptura is neither infallible nor biblical, and yet they claim it is both.
Sounds pretty self-contradictory, I'd say.
Kevin: the question, as I've repeatedly stated, is what is held as revealed from God. The Protestant holds these particular texts as revealing revelation from God. That's it.
Me: The question is WHY the protestant holds that these particular texts as revealing revelation from God.
The obvious assumption is that they are received as such because they are revealed as such by God. Given that the protestant only accepts these texts as authoritative revelation, it seems logical that such a claim should be found within. The Catholic holds that authoritative revelation can come from scripture (all of it) and Tradition interpreted by the Magesterium.
If, as you posit, the obvious assumption is not necessary, then pray tell, what compelling reason can the protestant give for holding 'these particular texts as revealing revelation from God'
'It's Tradition' but tradition isn't authoritative so one shouldn't rely on it.
'I read the scriptures, prayed, and received a burning in my bosom' (I think I've heard that one before) again Divine indigestion is not authoritative and should not be relied upon.
'.... told me', again unless one holds that the individual or group in question is authoritative, ....
These are the reasons I can come up with, sitting here musing, and they aren't very compelling to me (I was tempted to throw aliens in the mix but decided that they could be included in the ... example) but I readily admit that I haven't spend an entire life living the protestant experience, so please if you have a compelling reason, other than scripture for believing that scripture is authoritative revelation, and further that it is the ONLY authoritative revelation from God. I'd certainly like to hear it.
Of course one needs to keep in mind, that any such compelling reason would need to justify why each individual book should be included or excluded (including the deuterocanonicals and the Lord of the Rings)
it is not circular to search the Bible to discover whether it claims to be the only source of revelation or posits others (e.g., unwritten traditions).
Adomnan,
If the scriptures posited another authority, then the Protestant would confess that as well, but the Protestant doesn't believe it does. That's it. There' s no reason why the Bible needs to say anything about scripture alone (a bizarre supposition given the nature of how these texts arose, e.g., I don't think Paul's letters to the Corinthians were written with the idea that "hey, I'm writing books of the Bible").
Dave,
Your whole circularity charge depends on the need for scripture to claim the principle of sola scriptura. I have challenged this repeatedly, and you divert to other (albeit related) issues. Your first syllogism is false...simply and utterly false. The fact that all you can do is come back and assert that I'm dancing around the issue is truly amazing. How many years have you been doing this? Pretty long time, right. Well, you're about to lose another interlocutor...another testament to your bogus "ecumenical" spirit.
Pat,
Of course there's a valid question about the value of the sufficiency of sola scriptura. But that's another issue. Whether the Protestant position is "unbiblical" or "impractical" is different from whether the Protestant position is "self-defeating" or "illogical." I'm only challenging the latter.
Giovanni,
I'm (relatively) familiar with both Reformation history and its subsequent development. I have no idea what you mean by "the reformed theology was not exactly embraced," and I certainly have no idea what this has to do with the issue at hand. For what its worth, Steven Ozment (as big a name in Reformation studies as it gets) has done a full monograph on The Reformation in the Cities: The Appeal of Protestantism to Sixteenth-Century Germany and Switzerland. But I'm also (somewhat) familiar with the important work of Eamon Duffy in The Stripping of the Altars.
If, as you posit, the obvious assumption is not necessary, then pray tell, what compelling reason can the protestant give for holding 'these particular texts as revealing revelation from God'
AussieApologist,
Maybe because they reveal the Gospel which is the very reason why they have Christian faith in the first place. Maybe because they are a unified voice of the covenanting God. Maybe because all of scripture is a proclamation of Christ and points toward Christ (a great patristic-medieval-reformation hermeneutical rule). Maybe for the same reasons that early Christians started treating these texts as scripture.
I replied to Kevin's latest volley of charges in an addition to the post.
Kevin: If the scriptures posited another authority, then the Protestant would confess that as well, but the Protestant doesn't believe it does.
Adomnan: Well, of course we Catholics do assert that the scriptures posit other authorities, as for example when Jesus tells that apostles that "he who hears you hears me" and when Paul directs the recipients of some of his letters to adhere to what they have heard (and what Paul himself has received through tradition) as well as what is written to them.
Kevin: There' s no reason why the Bible needs to say anything about scripture alone (a bizarre supposition given the nature of how these texts arose, e.g., I don't think Paul's letters to the Corinthians were written with the idea that "hey, I'm writing books of the Bible").
Adomnan: Here you appear to be contradicting what you wrote in the previous sentence, i.e., that the Bible doesn't posit "another authority," which implies that it posits some authority (in your view, the scriptures alone). However, if Paul didn't write with the idea that he was "writing books of the Bible," then he could hardly have been positing that his letters were divine revelation.
Or is it your view that the scriptures don't posit any authority at all?
Besides, I'm not the one who needs the Bible to say something about scripture alone. I don't believe in scripture alone. You do.
Once again, if your articles of faith must be found in scripture -- and this is certainly the implication of "scripture alone" -- then SS must be in scripture or else it cannot logically be an article of your faith.
Besides, I'm not the one who needs the Bible to say something about scripture alone. I don't believe in scripture alone.
What? The whole point has been whether scripture needs to say anything about scripture alone, c/o the first two points in Armstrong's syllogism.
Well, I'm done. Dave cannot or will not offer anything substantial other than to parade around about all his other great arguments, without recognizing that my post on my blog was narrowed on one thing: whether the Protestant principle is illogical, self-defeating.
I've wasted enough time already with Dave. Goodbye.
Kevin: What? The whole point has been whether scripture needs to say anything about scripture alone, c/o the first two points in Armstrong's syllogism.
Adomnan: Kevin, you're losing me here. Of course, we Catholics don't think the Bible says anything about scripture alone. We don't believe in scripture alone.
The point, which is so obvious that I hesitate to repeat it, is that you Protestants who believe in scripture alone have to show that the doctrine is in the Bible. Otherwise, it is a contradiction in terms.
Or, to put it even more simply: The Bible needs to say something about scripture alone if scripture alone is true.
Is that clear enough?
Bye, I guess.
I've wasted enough time already with Dave. Goodbye.
Promise?
Kevin: Maybe because they reveal the Gospel which is the very reason why they have Christian faith in the first place. Maybe because they are a unified voice of the covenanting God. Maybe because all of scripture is a proclamation of Christ and points toward Christ (a great patristic-medieval-reformation hermeneutical rule). Maybe for the same reasons that early Christians started treating these texts as scripture.
Me: With all due respect, Kevin, Says who? and is he/she/it infallable?
If God says it, and is infallable, then show us where God says it. (Show us where the bible teaches sola scriptura)
If someone else says it and is infallable then by that very fact, Sola Scriptura falls flat on it's face.
If someone else says it and is fallable then by that definition, they (individually and collectively) could be mistaken. Could you be mistaken in your belief in Sola Scriptura, or are you that infallable person that proves the non-existance of Sola Scriptura
Either Kevin doesn't get it or he is trying to avoid it.
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that says: Scripture must teach X in order for X to be binding on the Christian.
The key here is the part about "binding on the Christian." Here it is in logical terms:
IF: X = "Scripture Alone is infallible"
Then: Scripture must teach X.
Scripture must teach IT ALONE IS INFALLIBLE.
ELSE: X is NOT BINDING on the Christian.
As an adherent of SS it is Kevin's DUTY to show us WHERE Scripture teaches X, otherwise Kevin has no business trying to bind Christians to X.
Kevin has not shown where Scripture teaches X, and yet tries to bind the Christian. This is a violation his own doctrine of SS and thus the sin of hypocrisy and even the sin of heresy (for demanding Christians adhere to a false/unproven doctrine).
I think that is a good, succinct way of stating it, Nick. perhaps these naysayers will dialogue with YOU! Best wishes!
Yes, Dave, you are right. This has not been a discussion. For some reason you thought Kevin's post was about something other than what it was. I know you wanted to bring this into a larger discussion on authority, but that's not what Kevin was getting at. You are right, the topic of authority has been debated many times, and it is a great debate for anyone to have. However, it was obvious from the beginning that Kevin did not wish to engage in that rather ambitious topic, as I am sure he has debated this many a time before on other blogs. In his original post and elsewhere on this blog, you'll notice Kevin never even broached an argument as to why sola scriptura is true. The reason? He never cared to debate whether sola scriptura is true or not. He's probably done that enough. For the life of me I don't understand why you can't see that authority was not the debate.
So, yes, this "discussion" has largely been a waste of time, because, for whatever reason, the two sides were not in agreement on what the debate was about.
I'm a Catholic (and a happy Catholic at that), so I'm not sure why you say I argue like a Protestant. My only point (I feel like a broken record) was that the syllogism you posited was inane - and I use that word precisely, as it means "without substance." Anyone with intellectual integrity would have to point this out if that is what they believe. Me being Catholic has nothing to do with it. A bad argument is a bad argument regardless of which side it is arguing. This isn't about "teams" and hoping your side wins. The Catholic Church is full of wonderful scholars, and none would come up with such a syllogism to show why sola scriptura is wrong. It's an embarrassment to the Catholic Church and her intellectual heritage. So I said something.
If an argument seems to be so easily won, it is usually because the premise of the argument is utterly false and not held by the other side. I can annihilate any argument if I frame it in such a way that is easily dispelled. To hell with whether or not the other side actually holds the premises I've presented.
As I've said before on this blog, Catholic apologetics has a place and can serve a good purpose. But some of the arguments circulating in Catholic apologetic circles do nothing to advance the dialogue with Protestant as they completely miss the mark on what the Protestant believes. This syllogism is a perfect example. Does any reader of this blog, including the author of the blog himself, realize how many Protestants will never look at the Catholic Church with a sympathetic eye because of these unfair characterizations of their beliefs?
I'm sorry the tone of this (non) debate got so nasty. It really is a pity. Dave, I truly wish you would reflect on why you've lost so many Protestant interlocutors. I'm afraid the reasons why you think that is are far from the truth. Do you have any idea how many Protestants you've forever tu
Nick,
In your IF, THEN, ELSE statement, the (intellectually astute) Protestant firmly rejects the necessity of your THEN statement.
Kevin touched on this in his original post - I invite you to read it, if you have not already done so - and other places in this combox.
Not sure why the end of my post on 11:06 got cut off. Guess I was too verbose.
Oh well, it was near the end anyway. I was only asking Dave if he had any idea how many Protestants he has forever turned off to the Catholic Faith. But that question will seem out of context now.
Well, that is all.
The Ever Confused Catholic,
Mark
The whole point has been whether scripture needs to say anything about scripture alone, c/o the first two points in Armstrong's syllogism.
If Scripture does not need to say anything about Scripture Alone, then those who believe in Scripture Alone really do not believe in Scripture Alone -- they believe in Scripture Plus Sola Scriptura, which means they do not believe in Scripture Alone.
I was only asking Dave if he had any idea how many Protestants he has forever turned off to the Catholic Faith.
I have no idea. Do you? Do they come to you, crying on your shoulder after I'm through turning them off? Otherwise, how would you know such a thing? Very few have informed me that I caused that. But I do know of many hundreds who have credited me in part or in large part for their conversion or return to the Catholic faith, so I must be doing something right, by God's grace.
It's easy for you to make an asinine statement like this. On the other hand, I also have testimonies of many scores of Protestants who have said nice stuff about my work (some of whom later became Catholics):
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ng-
from_09.html
If you think you do a far better job at approaching Protestants than I do, and exhibit the appropriate sophistication + gentleness, sufficient so that you feel you can lecture me about it, then show me YOUR fruit. I have a record, and it is evident to one and all. It's true some people don't like what I say or how I argue. No one can please everyone.
Your picture and impression, however, of the relative numbers of each, is pure delusion; especially failing any hard evidence from where you sit.
Jordanes,
I'm afraid you misunderstand what the Protestant, or Kevin at any rate, means by sola scriptura. It only means that the scriptures are the only infallible witness to God's revelation to mankind. But most Protestants do not thereby reject God's revelation through the Church or tradition. They only think these are not infallible vehicles of God's revelation. I know Catholics reject this. Kevin knows Catholics reject this. Neither of us wanted to debate that. And I wouldn't debate this because I am Catholic, albeit confused beyond the point of helping.
It's not as if the Protestant believes the scriptures are alone infallible because it says so. At least, I've never met a thoughtful Protestant that says so. Faith comes first; Scriptures are recognized as true and infallible only after an act of faith. Only then are the scriptures recognized as infallibly attesting to the Revelation of God to mankind.
But as I say, I am Catholic, and therefore have no interest in carrying on a debate about what the Protestant believes. I'll let a Protestant correct me if I said anything wrong or if anything needs to be filled out in what I said above; that is if a Protestant is still actually following this thread, and actually cares enough to continue this conversation.
And assuming for a moment that there is some crying need to defend myself and my conduct towards Protestants, I would produce testimonies from Protestants themselves, such as the following from Michael Spencer, aka "The Internet Monk": who is nowhere near Catholic, believe me:
"Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. As someone ridiculed by the arsonists [Phil Johnson's blog], I have to have a liking for the guy. Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him."
---, on the Boar's Head Tavern site, Sep. 27, 29, 2007
"You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there."
--- Dr. Edwin Tait: Anglican church historian
"I have had many run-ins with Dave via email and he has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues."
--- Sam Shamoun, "Reformed evangelical" layman who specializes in apologetic outreach to Muslims, 7-20-03 and 12-18-03 and 1-16-04
Now, again, if you think you are doing a vastly superior job compared to my efforts, then produce testimonies such as this. You may have a few but I'd venture to guess not scores and scores like I can produce.
And you may be liked by a lot of Protestants if you don't critique them much. That's easy to do if you talk golf or movies or music. But try getting testimonies like the above AND having a track record of also playing a part in hundreds of conversions.
THAT is probably pretty rare, and it shows that -- by God's grace -- I am doing a decent job at my profession. You can put me down and condemn all you like. That has zero effect on what I do, because I know it comes from a perspective of ignorance regarding what I do and have done for many years now. If you were truly familiar with my overall work, you couldn't possibly make these dumb statements about me that you have made. They fall flat based on the demonstrable facts alone before one even gets to my papers and learns my actual opinions about Protestants as esteemed Christian brethren.
Yes, Dave. I know you have done good work. As I said, Catholic apologetics - of which you have been a big part - can serve a good purpose, like giving Catholic reasons for their faith. But some of the arguments that are made, are simply not good ones and not fair to Protestants.
And, yes, you have turned people off - badly. And, yes, they have told me. But, sure, it probably is far less than the number you have helped. I have no way of knowing. And, no, you can't please everybody. You are right, there.
Ok, I'll leave now and banish myself. I'm not helping anything and I'm really annoying Dave, which I honestly didn't intend.
Join the Ignoramus Club, Jordanes! Welcome (I'm the Chairman). I'm proud to be a member with ya! Let's go out in the world and be stupid now, so we can fulfill The Great Omission and turn off lots and lots of Protestants!
I'm afraid you misunderstand what the Protestant, or Kevin at any rate, means by sola scriptura.
I'm afraid it you who haven't the slightest idea what the Protestant means by Sola Scriptura, Mark. As a convert from Protestantism, who used to believe in Sola Scriptura, I have some degree of familiarity with this subject. (By the way, I'm one of the many former Protestants whose conversion to the Apostolic Faith was greatly aided and facilitated through Dave's internet apologetics, and, more importantly, his prayers.)
It only means that the scriptures are the only infallible witness to God's revelation to mankind.
Okay, then maybe you do know what Sola Scriptura is.
But most Protestants do not thereby reject God's revelation through the Church or tradition.
Yes, I'm well aware of their illogical and inconsistent reasoning in this matter. Of course various Protestant do take Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusions, some of them rejecting Sunday worship since it is not adequately attested in Scripture, others rejecting the Trinity for the same reason (and thereby taking themselves out of Christianity altogether), but most of them don't apply the principles of Sola Scriptura so rigorously and consistently as that.
And I wouldn't debate this because I am Catholic, albeit confused beyond the point of helping.
Yes, I noticed that.
It's not as if the Protestant believes the scriptures are alone infallible because it says so.
Er, yeah, we kind of noticed that too. Nobody here says Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura because the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura. Quite the contrary: if you'd been paying attention, you'd have seen that Dave has been pointing out the logical flaws and inconsistency of upholding the principle of Sola Scriptura in the absence of biblical attestation to the same. It seems to me that you're trying to argue that it isn't logically inconsistent to claim all the major doctrines must be biblically attested even though the major doctrine of Sola Scriptura isn't biblically attested. Good luck with that.
Kevin,
Thanks again for responding. This was your last response to me:
"Of course there's a valid question about the value of the sufficiency of sola scriptura. But that's another issue. Whether the Protestant position is "unbiblical" or "impractical" is different from whether the Protestant position is "self-defeating" or "illogical." I'm only challenging the latter."
With all due respect Kevin; this is simply a waste of time for you and everyone. This point you are trying to make is way too narrow, practically speaking. IOW, So what? Any point that you think you are proving has exactly NOTHING to do with the PRACTICE of SS. Even theoretically your points add nothing to what has already been thoroughly thought out by Protestants for centuries. You appear as though you're using this site to practice your newly learned material. The people here who discuss these matters are not new to this as if there in a college 101 class. You might consider praying for a little humility before attempting to pontificate on these things.
Mark,
Nick and Jordanes have explained clearly why sola scriptura is a contradiction in terms.
Their explanations don't seem to satisfy you. I don't know why because you haven't told us. You just say you're "confused."
Here's another way of looking at the issue that you may find helpful. Faith is assent to what God has revealed. According to believers in sola scriptura, all that God has revealed is in the scriptures.
Kevin admits that sola scriptura is not in the scriptures. Therefore, God has not revealed it. As a consequence, no one should believe it because it has not been revealed and faith is assent to what has been revealed.
I suppose you could say that someone can believe in sola scriptura even if it hasn't been revealed. Strictly speaking, however, that's not true, because only what has been revealed can be an object of religious faith.
In other words, it's impossible to believe in sola scriptura in the Christian sense of "to believe," that is, to assent to what God has revealed.
But isn't it possible (in some world) that the scriptures could just happen to be the only source of God's revelation? Yes, but unless that truth were revealed in the scriptures, it couldn't command assent.
(Even though I answered "yes" to my question here for the sake of argument, I have doubts. Perhaps it is not possible for a text alone to be divine revelation without an infalliable interpreter, given the ambiguity of language.)
Mark: In your IF, THEN, ELSE statement, the (intellectually astute) Protestant firmly rejects the necessity of your THEN statement.
Nick: You reject the necessity of a "Then" statement in general or the specific "Scripture must tech X" part? If the latter (that Scripture does not have to teach it is the only infallible authority), then you and Kevin simply don't get it. You are coming up to the fork in the road and doing a mental U-Turn every time this issue is mentioned.
Now I finally understand why Dave, Adomnan and Jordanes have a headache.
Mark: Kevin touched on this in his original post - I invite you to read it, if you have not already done so - and other places in this combox.
Nick: I have read the original post three times (once in Dave's critique, once on my own on Kevin's page, and now a third time at your request).
Kevin's logic is as follows:
1) Is Sola Scriptura illogical?
2) Armstrong et all claim Scripture does not claim exclusive authority.
3) How does a Catholic and Protestant determine revelation?
4) 'Recognizing' what writings are Scripture.
5) 'Concluding' the circularity charge is bogus.
Notice that Kevin touches the tip of the issue in #2, but then swings off in another direction. The VERY circularity charge Kevin began with in his first paragraph and first sentence of the second paragraph was not followed up in the rest of the paper. Points 3-5 do not logically follow points 1-2.
Just to cut through that fluff, a Catholic could freely admit that the Protestant canon is correct and Divine Revelation and whatever else Kevin and the Protestant want to 'recognize'. Fine. The 66 book Bible of Protestants is Divine Revelation.
NOW, where do those 66 books (which we both agree upon) teach they are the only infallible authority?
That is the question at hand this whole time, and Protestants either dont get it or think they can muddy the waters and tangle issues until the Catholic gets frustrated and leaves.
I'm telling you right now, that is not apologetics at any "intellectually astute" level. That is not looking at the facts and building a case, it is twisting, denying, and dancing around the facts.
The difference between Catholic apologetics and Protestant apologetics is practically the difference between exegesis and eisegesis, respectively.
The question from the very start was: Does THE BIBLE TEACH Sola Scriptura?
The Catholic answer is: No, no passage teaches that.
Kevin's answer is: How does one determine revelation, specifically recognizing what is Scripture?
See a problem with that logic/response Mark?
Dave et. al. In the interest of those who suggest that Kevin and Dave were talking past each other, I have attempted a critique at my own blog of Kevin's original post.
I read Aussie's blog and agree with much that he said. Maybe he - or others here - have said this and i've just missed it, but I see Kevin's defense as the following statement.
One knows the content of Scripture as a result of his faith, not because he accepts it as an article of faith. In many ways, this is adapting the Protestant vision that works are a fruit of faith, but applied to knowledge of Scripture. He then plays this out in two premises (which he describes, but never proves from a logical standpoint).
A. This is how he safely (from his vantage) side-steps Adomnan's argument. If the contents of Scripture are the result of faith and not an article of faith, then the Scripture never needs to refer to itself as a sole authority.
B. There may indeed be other (infallible) sources of authority (such as in the Catholic view), but we have no means of knowing them, so believers must fall back on the single source they can trust - the Scripture.
Please note that I subscribe to neither A nor B, but restate them for the sake of clarity (and if Kevin is arguing a different point, he - or his proxy Mark - can interact and correct them). Kevin focuses mainly on A and because of this holds that it is the Catholic, not the Protestant, who needs to prove that if Sola Scriptura is true, the the Scripture must contain the doctrine in some form. As an aside, I wonder, since he never attempts to demonstrate that Sola Scriptura is contained in the Scriptures, if such a proof is provided, will he renounce Sola Scriptura? Or will he attempt to find it in the Bible? Or (most likely) just say that the proof is incorrect w/o interacting with it?
The first thing to note, the combined weight of A and B together is that Kevin (nor any Protestant - according to him) can ever claim a closed canon. "Recognition" of something can only come after discovery. While the probability is remote, an archaeological dig could discover the Letter to the Laodiceans is not the same as Ephesians. Or it could discover the third letter to the Corinthians. After discovery, would the Spirit lead the believers to recognition? Kevin cannot answer in the negative and remain consistent. Additionally, his position under B is that the Catholic Church could be a binding authority and therefore correct with its pronouncement on the deuterocanon. He thereby admits that he may be accessing an incomplete canon of Scripture.
An incompleteness - in and of itself - of the canon is not necessarily a problem. The early Church operated successfully with varying degrees of completeness of canon (as noted by Aussie). And the vast majority of Christians come to faith long before knowing the complete Scripture (or in other words, come to believe even though they are personally operating under an incomplete canon). However, one needs go only as far as Marcion in Christian history to see how severe th
An incompleteness - in and of itself - of the canon is not necessarily a problem. The early Church operated successfully with varying degrees of completeness of canon (as noted by Aussie). And the vast majority of Christians come to faith long before knowing the complete Scripture (or in other words, come to believe even though they are personally operating under an incomplete canon). However, one needs go only as far as Marcion in Christian history to see how severe the results of an incomplete canon can be when there is no binding authority to correct the errors that come as a result of the incompleteness.
The movie Raiders of the Lost Ark illustrate this concept quite well. The German Army only had access to the inscription on one side of the medallian, while Indiana Jones had access to the inscriptions on both sides. Because of their incomplete knowledge, the Germans were digging in the wrong location in their search for the Ark of the Covenant.
Now Kevin would probably tell us that Scripture itself - the complete Scripture that is - is the binding authority which corrects the errors of Marcion. The only problem is that Kevin will contradict himself if he says this. Kevin says, All of this, of course, leaves open the possibility that a Protestant may reject a certain writing as non-scriptural .... To be fair, Kevin does say that such a rejection is not to be taken lightly and should be taken only after consideration of the collective wisdom of the Church. But he still allows it. If one must follow the "collective wisdom" of the Church, then the Church becomes a binding authority which must be acknowledged in the affirmative, not in the "don't know" of B above. Kevin rejects the Church's binding authority, so he is left with the proposition that Marcion's faith led him to his canon which is correct for Marcion and as a matter which is the result of faith, not an article of faith, cannot be argued against.
For the same reason, Kevin forfeits any argument against the Catholic deuterocanon. Against the Coptic canon. Agains the Book of Mormon. By his stated position, acknowledging them as Scripture are all valid results of the faith of the believer. His only other choice is a binding authority to declare canon where this authority resides external to the canon of Scripture. Thus, Kevin's system is unworkable to provide a canon which the Church, out of faith, proclaims to the world (the same as Aussie's showing us the mission of the Church is to teach).
But Kevin's system being unworkable does not prove that Sola Scriptura must be taught affirmatively in the Scripture. This proof is actually quite simple. Please note that B, above, is a reasoned conclusion. Each of the Protestant positions on Sola Scriptura contain the (paraphrase) of the following statement, which, in turn, leads to the conclusion in B; Men and councils can and have e
But Kevin's system being unworkable does not prove that Sola Scriptura must be taught affirmatively in the Scripture. This proof is actually quite simple. Please note that B, above, is a reasoned conclusion. Each of the Protestant positions on Sola Scriptura contain the (paraphrase) of the following statement, which, in turn, leads to the conclusion in B; Men and councils can and have erred, therefore anything they declare is subject to similar error.
As Dave has pointed out many times in the past, Peter, Paul, and the remainder of the Scripture authors were admitted sinners and subject to (frequent) error. The believe that Scriptures are inerrant requires the concept that God can, and does, protect error-prone humans from committing their errors at certain, special times - specifically when communicating His message. Their normal mode of committing errors returns when they leave this particular communication arena. This belief is a requirement if one is to accept the inerrancy of Scripture. The errors of any particular person at other times does not nullify God's protection.
Thus, to accept that "with God all things are possible," and to likewise believe that God does indeed protect some men from error at certain times means that you cannot come to the reasoned conclusion that God does not protect some men at certain times. This belief - that God "turned off" His protection - can only come as an article of faith. And like the canon of Scripture, trying to make this "turning off" a result of faith will lead to an unworkable system. Thus, as an article of faith, Sola Scriptura's basic premise means that this particular article of faith must be included in the Scriptures.
Additionally, the inclusion of this particular article - that God's protection of his Church when communicating His message is turned off - must account for the accepted statements in Scripture which give authority to the Church; such as the authority to loosen and bind in Heaven, to forgive sins, to settle disputes, and as the pillar and foundation of Truth. It would have to show how Truth in Heaven either changes to suit the will of those who have the authority to loosen and bind (thus allowing them to still err when they exercise this authority) as well as have to show that a Truth binding in Heaven is not binding on humans. Mark, that is why those arguments were indeed pertaining any counter to Kevin's position.
Another long post. Sorry.
In His Name,
If the contents of Scripture are the result of faith and not an article of faith, then the Scripture never needs to refer to itself as a sole authority.
This is a pretty complex result of faith. Faith generally helps us arrive at simple foundational truths. Things like "Jesus is Lord". For faith to cause us to arrive at a notion that these 66 books are the Word of God seems like quite a stretch. Unless, of course, you have faith in something or someone who has vouched for those 66 books. For me, it was my family and my church which caused me to beleive in God early in life and also vouched for the 66 books as the word of God. So it was a product of faith but faith in what? Faith in the Christian Reformed tradition? In some informal way, that is what it boiled down to.
Jamie Donald: One knows the content of Scripture as a result of his faith, not because he accepts it as an article of faith. In many ways, this is adapting the Protestant vision that works are a fruit of faith, but applied to knowledge of Scripture. He then plays this out in two premises (which he describes, but never proves from a logical standpoint).
A. This is how he safely (from his vantage) side-steps Adomnan's argument. If the contents of Scripture are the result of faith and not an article of faith, then the Scripture never needs to refer to itself as a sole authority.
Adomnan: I'm not sure I follow you, Jamie. Do you mean to say that recognition of scripture is a result of faith but is not itself a matter of faith or is something different from faith, as one might say that love and hope and good works are different from faith? That doesn't seem coherent to me.
How would recognizing scripture be different from an article of faith? One must believe scripture is inspired by God to recognize it. Even if belief in the inspiration of scripture is subsequent to belief in the gospel, it's still a matter of faith and an artilce of faith. Certainly an uninspired text could communicate the gospel to me; and so it does not follow that the scriptures are inspired because they communicate the gospel, as Kevin sometimes seems to suggest.
In any event, we need a defintion of faith, and I would submit that the correct definitiion is that faith is assent to what God has revealed. Again, if one asserts, as a sola scripturist does, that all that God has revealed is in the scripture and, as Kevin does, that sola scripture is not in the scripture and thus not revealed, it follows that we cannot believe in it, using the correct Christian definition of belief/faith.
Belief in sola scriptura implies that sola scriptura is taught in the scriptures, because the doctrine asserts that we can only believe what is taught in the scriptures. Therefore, if the doctrine isn't taught in the scriptures, we cannot believe in it (as a truth revealed by God).
Sorry if this is somewhat repetitious, but I'm trying to be as clear as possible (and, I admit, I don't want to take the time to make this more concise).
Randy, Adomnan, and any others I may have confused.
I must not have been clear. When I said that I do not subscribe to neither A nor B, I was trying to say that those points seem to be the thrust of Kevin's argument. Not my own. I then went on to show that this belief has way too many problems.
Before I explain how I concluded that was Kevin's formulaton of his argument, let me say that I am in complete agreement with both Randy and Adomnan. We know the contents of Scripture because we receive the canon from a source which we consider reliable, in deed infallible; and if Sola Scriptura were true, the way it is practiced would require it to be stated in the Scripture. And it is not.
If you look at Kevin's original article, specifically the section starting, The use of the term, “determination,” should perhaps be replaced with “recognition,” ... we see him clearly saying the believer receives the Scripture as a gift, but only after coming to belief or faith. This makes the reception of the canon a result of faith - in his words, not mine. Once he makes this assertion, he leaps to saying that Sola Scriptura need not be in the Scripture since the principle is not an article of faith. He re-iterates this belief in his interaction with you, Adomnan. In each of his replies (to everyone), he keeps coming back to saying that SS does not need to be in the Scripture. As you correctly point out, if it is an article of faith, it must be in them. But since he's already said this is a gift resulting from faith, not an article of faith, he refuses to acknowledge your logical construct and then says you've missed his point.
Of course, he hangs himself here, because the doctrine that the canon would be a gift resulting from faith would have to be an article of faith. But that is also not in the scripture, so that doctrine would have to be another gift which precedes the gift of knowledge of the canon. Soon we are into an infinite regression where you need an infinite number of prior gifts of faith in order to come to the point where the knowledge of the canon as a result of faith, not an article of it, is achieved. As Randy said, a very complex system indeed!
At any rate, thank you for your comments. I'll try to be less confusing in the future.
In His Name,
Thanks, Jamie. Sorry if I seemed to ascribe Kevin's views to you. I realize that you were clarifying, not endorsing, them. I was attempting to take issue with Kevin's views once again through your presentation of them.
Of course, like you, I don't think there can be a "recognition" of scripture that is not an article of faith, and so I reject Kevin's distinction -- if our description of it is accurate -- between recognizing the canon of scripture and assenting to an article of faith about the canon of scripture .
"Articles of faith" are truths that God has revealed. If God had revealed the contents of scripture or that scripture alone is divine revelation, then these would be articles of faith. God has revealed the contents of scripture through the unwritten tradition of the Church, but He has not, of course, revealed that texts are the only form that divine revelation has taken, a position that is not only false but leads to a logical contradiction.
Revelation can just as surely be passed on through unwritten traditions as through texts, and that is in fact what happened. The primary vehicle of unwritten tradition was the liturgy, but the tradition also included discrete articles of faith, such as the belief that Mary was the "New Eve" with all that this implies.
Adomnan,
I agree completely. However, assuming that I'm representing Kevin's position accurately (and it's possible I'm not), I think that he will out-right reject you pointing out that he's making a distinction w/o a difference. In fact, he's already rejected it.
So it seems to me that I (or we collectively) need to meet him where he his and show that even under his understanding of the distinction (whether it is truly there or not), his system is unworkable.
And that's what I've attempted to do. Over a couple of posts, I've shown that his system 1) requires all canons of Scripture to be held equally valid; 2) if the canon is a result of faith, rather than an article of it, you arrive at an infinite regression (which is a logical fallacy or renders the position as "illogical" even if not the same fallacy that Dave, you, and others use); 3) and demonstrated that Sola Scriptura requires a reasoned approach (not a faith approach) which is self-contradictory - namely that God both does and does not protect those he chooses to propagate his Divine Revelation to the world. So if the reasoned approach cannot be used to assent to SS, then the faith-based one is required. With all other options exhausted, SS must be presented in the Scriptures themselves if it is true. Absence makes it untrue or an illogical position to hold.
Ok, now that we've beat that horse to death ... ?
Kevin is probably not reading this by now, anyway. You guys should comment on his blog, when writing about his arguments, so that he'll see it.
IMHO he was beyond rational discussion. He just saw what he wanted to see in my reasoning the entire time. Perhaps with others it would be different, but I think it is a problem in his own approach that is causing him huge problems in comprehending his critics, and I suspect it would happen with any Catholic interlocutor.
Commenting by HaloScan
