Combox for:
Catholic Scholars (E.g., Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Henri de Lubac) on the Illogical Nature of Sola Scriptura
[13 November 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
ratzinger.html
Of course de Lubac etc. believe it is "unCatholic." Of course they believe it is insufficient. Of course they believe it runs afoul of good (=Catholic) exegesis. Of course they believe in the need for the episcopal office. Of course, of course. But they don't say that it's a self-defeating principle. They don't pooh-pooh Protestant theology because scripture doesn't claim "scripture alone"; they reject Protestant theology because scripture does claim (in their view) apostolic-episcopal succession.
Take the Ratzinger passage you quoted as showing SS to be "illogical":
And this again means that there can be no such thing as pure sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"), because an essential element of Scripture is the Church as understanding subject, and with this the fundamental sense of tradition is already given.
Of course. All Protestants agree. This is the whole "solo" vs. "sola" scriptura debate, i.e., Protestants don't abstract scripture from its context in a Christian community and tradition. Thus, there is no pure (=Church-less) sola scriptura.
I'm not out to convince you that scripture doesn't teach the Catholic principle of apostolic ecclesial and papal succession. Rather, I've only wanted to demonstrate that the Protestant principle is not self-defeating. Of course you (and all the theologians above) believe it is unbiblical; otherwise, you (and they) wouldn't be Catholic.
They go beyond that, as I showed. But of course you're beyond all rational argument on this and of course now have personal hostility towards me, to boot. But of course that's beyond my control. But of course others can read what has gone down, which is, of course, the beauty of the Internet.
And don't even start with the sola vs. solo thing. I've acknowledged that at least a dozen times in papers also, and in books, and understood and fully accept the distinction as a Protestant and thus in my complete time as a Catholic too.
You're a fish in water. You can't grasp that you are IN water on this issue. I've seen it lots of times. It's especially manifest in Reformed circles because of the presuppositionalism which is itself logically circular (Van Til freely admits it himself).
Oops. One more thing.
All Protestants agree. This is the whole "solo" vs. "sola" scriptura debate, i.e., Protestants don't abstract scripture from its context in a Christian community and tradition.
Wrong again. SOME Protestants obviously do NOT agree because SOME Protestants accept SOLO Scriptura, which is precisely WHY there is a debate on it. So you contradict yourself. This is an in-house Protestant fight. The more sophisticated Reformed types like Tim Enloe and the so-called "Reformed Catholics" (such as on the blog Evangelical Catholicity) are always (rightly) running down Baptists like James White for adopting SOLO Scriptura. White is very much a Protestant. Or do you wish to assert that Baptists and fundamentalist types are not Protestants?
Kevin you say:
"They don't pooh-pooh Protestant theology because scripture doesn't claim "scripture alone"; they reject Protestant theology because scripture does claim (in their view) apostolic-episcopal succession."
Let me preface by saying I am not a Catholic. That being said, Doesn't your statement break down as "A does not argue X but instead argues Y implyiing therefore X is true?" That doesn't seem to follow the rules of logic.
It seems to me there is ample evidence for scripture, church, and tradition but none what so ever for Sola Scriptura.
The solO versus solA distinction is ULTIMATELY a false distinction. When a Protestant retains the right to reject a Church Council or something like that, they have ultimately gone solO.
The distinction was invented because a Protestant knows they cannot openly dump on Tradition and Scripture, but in practice it is solO all the way. I dont think there is a single doctrine by which one Protestant appeals to Scripture and tradition while an objecting Protestant appeals to Scripture only claiming tradition does not bind. A perfect example of this is Baptism and how groups like Baptists hold Baptism from purely symbolic to not even necessary, all in spite of Christian history.
I largely agree. The difference lies in one side showing considerable respect for Christian history and continuity -- albeit in a non-infallible way and without being able to substantiate supposed strands of continuity between the fathers and any form of Protestantism -- and the other not giving a damn about pre-16h c. Christian history.
In the final analysis, however (as I have argued), the two produce similar fruit and epistemological and logical confusion, and that is because the greater radical change is to deny a binding tradition and church. That has far more logical ramifications than the distinction between solO and solA, so that they both reduce to the same thing in the end. To that extent, I am in agreement with you.
But try to make that point and see how popular you become. Lots of folks are hanging their hats on this distinction and think it is the salvation of the whole rotten-to-the-core SS concept. But it is not. It's better than "Bible Only" extreme individualism and ahistoricism but it doesn't resolve the insuperable problem of ultimate authority and epistemology at all.
It just makes it a little bit longer of a logical process to get to the emptiness that is inside the peeled-down sola Scriptura "onion."
I sure wouldn't want to defend SS. Note the ludicrosity of Kevin now stating outright that Scripture never speaks of another authority outside itself (he didn't even qualify it as "infallible authority"). Huh??? He sees nothing of bishops in there, nothing of Petrine primacy or apostolic succession or an authoritative Church or Tradition or of the Jerusalem council? That is many scores of passages that he utterly ignores.
Good grief. Blindness of this staggering degree is like the guy who looks all over the sky at high noon on a cloudless day in summer and can't find the sun.
Catholic philosophy professor Philip Blosser makes an argument from circularity also:
------------
Fifth, sola scriptura assumes that the Bible can be understood apart from tradition. It assumes no ultimate need for the larger context of the Church’s tradition and teaching. However, not only is the canon of Scripture incapable of being identified apart from tradition, as we have seen, but the meaning of Scripture cannot be fully grasped. Protestants argue that Scripture is clear, but they disagree even among themselves as to what it means. If they admit that parts of Scripture are unclear, they argue that the essentials are clear and that the unclear parts can be interpreted in light of the clear. But their disagreements are not merely over unclear passages, but over the clear ones—about the very meaning of precisely those things that Jesus commanded us to do in His name: “Take, eat; this is my body ... do this in remembrance of me.... Go ... baptize ... teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.” If they admit that Scripture is not expressly clear on an essential subject, they argue that it can “by good an necessary consequence” be deduced from Scripture. But they disagree over what can be deduced from Scripture.[71] If they admit that Church tradition can help, they annul this help by the circular argument that it can be trusted only where it agrees with (their interpretation of) Scripture. . . .
Here the Protestant finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. What does he do if his beliefs conflict with those of his denomination? Does he go looking for one that agrees with him? Does he start his own? Such options would seem to open a Pandora’s box full of abuses. Indeed. But “abuses” by whose standards? His? His denomination’s? What does it mean for him to “submit” to his spiritual leaders? Clearly the Bible enjoins him to do so. But to which leaders? And what does it mean for him to submit, if his spiritual leaders are to be submitted to only in so far as their leadership and teaching agree with (his own interpretation of) Scripture? What would we think of someone who said: “I will accept and respect the words of Jesus and follow them whenever I agree with them”? The question, of course, is: How do we know whether these spiritual leaders are instructing us as Jesus intended? But the effect is logically the same, for the question likewise redounds back upon the private judgment of the individual. In principle, the problem is one of logical circularity. In practice, it may be true that the matter does not always work out so arbitrarily as this suggests for many Protestants, because of a variety of historical and traditional restraints that ameliorate the viciousness of this circle, usually in inverse proportion to a denomination’s historical drift and distance from its sources in Catholic tradition. But in principle the circle is vicious, and this poses a tremendous theoretical problem for the Protestant.
http://www.lrc.edu/rel/blosser/Sola.htm
Dave,
I'm flattered you've taken my comment as a challenge and graced it with a full post, but my only point was that serious Catholics scholars, particularly Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar, would never say that, based on the Protestant principle, the Bible would need to acknowledge itself to be the sole authority of truth. They would not use that in the argument because they are, in fact, real scholars, not muddled thinkers. And in all the quotes you've shown they do not use that argument as a reason why the Protestant is wrong. If they do, please show me. (psst.... that's a challenge).
My mistake was using the word, "illogical". When you think someone is wrong, you think that means they are illogical. You've argued this before and I should have known better. You just define the word differently than I do, and that's fine. It's not important.
But my point remains, that these serious scholars do not say that the principle of sola scriptura means that scripture would need to acknowledge its own authority. Even Dr. Blosser does not do this in the comment you posted above. His charge of circularity is based on the individual determining what scripture means outside the Church. He manifestly does not use, as part of the argument, that sola scriptura necessitates the scriptures to proclaim its own authority; as if the scriptures would be able to do such a thing, given the historicity of how the scriptures came together.
So, again the debate was focused on one thing, and you failed to engage the debate at hand. Perhaps the topic was too myopic for you, but I, with sincere intentions, enjoined this debate because I was hoping you would actually engage Kevin's point that revolved around that silly syllogism that is often used to show how dumb Protestants are. Again, I should have known better.
I guess I'll go to the original post and read the comments I missed today while I was at work. As always, I expect they will make me smile.
Sincerely,
Confused Catholic
But my point remains, that these serious scholars do not say that the principle of sola scriptura means that scripture would need to acknowledge its own authority. Even Dr. Blosser does not do this in the comment you posted above.
So what? I wasn't arguing that they did. I was showing that they thought SS was illogical and had severe internal difficulties. You guys keep getting stuck on this one plane and can't comprehend anything else. That was only one of many many similar arguments, as I made clear in the post itself, when I introduced it.
He manifestly does not use, as part of the argument, that sola scriptura necessitates the scriptures to proclaim its own authority
Again, so what? It's flabbergasting how you and Kevin can miss the point of what I am doing again and again. You just see what you want to see, I guess. That's what happens when people miss the forest for the trees. It happens when one is inadequately aware of one's own premises.
as if the scriptures would be able to do such a thing, given the historicity of how the scriptures came together.
Of course it can. Have you never heard of 2 Timothy 3:16, that is constantly used by SS proponents, as a supposed proof of SS? That passage is about Scripture. It doesn't prove SS by any stretch of the imagination, but it is certainly about Scripture, which is contrary to your assertion that the Bible can never make statements about itself (i.e., about "Scripture").
Jesus refers to fulfilled prophecies in Scripture (Mt 26:56; Mk 14:49; Lk 4:21; 22:37). He said that Scripture bears witness to Him (Jn 5:39; cf. Acts 18:28; 1 Cor 15:3-4). Scripture "cannot be broken" (Jn 10:35). Scripture should be read in public (1 Tim 4:13). We're informed that biblical prophecies are not of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20) and that some relatively difficult passages in Scripture are twisted by the ignorant to their detriment (2 Peter 3:16).
Yet you would have us all believe that an omnipotent God Who oversaw all of Scripture and inspired it is unable to see to it that a simple Bible passage gets included in His revelation that says something to the effect of, "there is no other authority besides Holy Scripture; nor any above it" or suchlike, that would decisively resolve the issue.
If the Bible can say that Scripture is inspired, why cannot it say that it is the only binding, final, infallible authority, in so many words? One thing is every bit as likely or simple for God to do (through men) as the other. I see no reason why God would not do so if in fact SS were true.
It's precisely the fact that it is NOT true that explains why such a simple and supremely important clarification (were the thing actually true) does not appear.
THAT makes sense. But you're saying that it is impossible for the Bible to contain such a thing makes no sense and has no plausibility.
"the historicity of how the scriptures came together" has nothing whatever to do with that, but rather, with the canon issue, which is another tricky ones for Protestants, that they have never been able to completely harmonize with their novel rule of faith.
So, again the debate was focused on one thing, and you failed to engage the debate at hand. Perhaps the topic was too myopic for you, but I, with sincere intentions, enjoined this debate because I was hoping you would actually engage Kevin's point that revolved around that silly syllogism that is often used to show how dumb Protestants are. Again, I should have known better.
You should indeed know better than this know-nothingism you and Kevin both have been displaying throughout this thing. When a person makes little effort to understand the opposing argument, dialogue is absolutely impossible. That is what happened here. In the rush (on both your parts) to show how supposedly stupid and clueless I am, you made yourself look ridiculous: accusing me in the end of the very things you are doing.
I know this topic up and down. I know both sides of it. I have been on both sides. I was passionately defending SS as a Protestant apologist 25 years ago. I've dialogued with all kinds of proponents of SS. Neither of you has shown that you understand the issues at hand. Not even close. Yet you want to make out that I am some kind of dumbbell.
I've never claimed that Protestants are "dumb." I don't believe that. There are very sharp, thoughtful Protestants and less thoughtful ones, just as there are in any group. What I've argued is that everyone has some things here and there which are illogical and which have to be examined via the scrutiny of someone who disagrees. That doesn't entail people being dumb and stupid. it means only that they have to do more self-examination than they have done.
That's true of ALL of us. I believe that as a socratic. It is part and parcel of my fundamental beliefs about ideas and truth, and of my methodology. It's why I dialogue, for heaven's sake, because I believe people can learn and grow in truth, not that they are too stupid to do so. But dialogue requires certain prerequisites: openness, understanding the other side, stepping outside of one's own paradigm for a moment, to get inside the critic's head, good will, friendliness, mutual respect, not feeling that one knows everything already or that the other guy is an imbecile.
You guys didn't do that because you came into it hostile to me, and distorting what I supposedly believe. That was the mentality behind your remark that my arguments were "inane." It's a haughtiness and arrogance; and in some cases (perhaps in play here) an intellectual snobbery and condescension. That's what ruins dialogues, even more than any stupidity: real or alleged.
You guys are the ones putting words in my mouth and making out that I hold opinions that I do not hold.
I guess I'll go to the original post and read the comments I missed today while I was at work. As always, I expect they will make me smile.
Great. I'm delighted to bring some levity and entertainment to your day. If at some distant point in the future I attain to the level of your brilliance, then look me up and we'll have a real dialogue, since I'll be up to your speed and then maybe it'll work.
I do understand what you were getting at. You wanted to debate authority. I know that and I know you know the authority debate inside and out. But why would I debate you on that? I'm Catholic for cryin' outloud! I agree with you that SS is wrong.
Once again, the only issue I ever took was with the syllogism because its premises are not accepted by Protestants. That's why I was utterly, and to your apparent bewilderment, consistent on referring back to that syllogism. But I guess that's neither here nor there. It's been exhausted.
I'm sorry you think I tried to make you out to be "stupid" and "clueless". I was not trying to do so. I was only trying to stay on the specific topic Kevin and I were trying to engage. As I said, I wouldn't engage you on authority, as I am Catholic. That would put me in a rather awkward position, wouldn't you say? You must think me the most liberal of Catholics. Ha! 
If at some distant point in the future I attain to the level of your brilliance, then look me up and we'll have a real dialogue, since I'll be up to your speed and then maybe it'll work.
Oh, now you're just being peevish.
Until next time...
'But my point remains, that these serious scholars '
'serious scholars ' that wouldn't be you Dave, that's right
'do not say that the principle of sola scriptura means that scripture would need to acknowledge its own authority.'
It's such a preposterous idea that I don't think du Labac et all ever considered such a notion.
If it's not acknowledged how do people know it is in Authority?
The very nature of Authority is that it IS acknowledged. The very essence of Authority is an acknowledgement; the acknowledgement by people of the Authority ruling over them, guiding them. If there is no agreed acknowledgement of what is/who is in Authority, how can there be an understanding of what is in Authority and who is being ruled, guided?
It's such a ludicrous, preposterous position.
Hi Mark,
Oh, now you're just being peevish.
Wrong again. It's the biblical approach of "answer the fool according to his folly."
Note that it doesn't follow (since we seem to be having all these logical disputes) that I think you are a fool, period. Rather, your recent arguments and attitude were foolish, and so I acted accordingly, since it ceased to be on an objective, logical plane.
Once that happens, I usually resort to humor or flippancy, since I don't know where else to go with it (and hey, I'm a fun-loving guy to begin with, who especially loves satire and irony).
Kevin chose anger and insults and condescension (you have since backed away from that, and have been moderating your tone, to your credit). All that shows me is that he had no answer, If I've seen this dynamic once, I've seen it a hundred times.
You and he think it is because I refused to answer him and didn't understand the logic, and (seemingly) because of a glaring fault in my methodology, that turns many (an undisclosed number of) Protestants off. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, but you are dead wrong. I am the world's greatest expert on my own opinions and motivations and actions, and it simply ain't so.
It's a very complex topic to begin with, so it doesn't help to have gratuitous charges of ignorance thrown around. That was the attitude from the beginning (at least how I perceived it) coming from both you and Kevin. And I would say that this was the primary reason why the "dialogue" never went anywhere, because it never does with that baggage weighing it down from the outset. Constructive dialogue requires mutual good will.
Add the complex, multi-faceted nature of the discussion on authority to the negativity coming in, and it was doomed from the start.
I know for certain that Kevin never understood either the nature or the depth of my many many arguments on this score.
And I know for sure that he diverted the discussion to where he wanted it to go, rather than its natural course, as would be analyzed from a purely logical, philosophical perspective.
See also Cardinal Newman's reflections in his essay "Private Judgment" (section 4):
http://books.google.com/books?
id...brr=0#PPA355,M1
And again in another lecture:
http://books.google.com/books?id...0#PRA1-
PA145,M1
I also find it highly ironic and humorous that I was, in effect, accused of belittling Protestants and regarding them as "stupid" and of being anti-Protestant, and of turning off many Protestants forever, merely by arguing that sola Scriptura entails circular reasoning and self-defeating propositions.
Yet when we go to one of the very best defenses of sola Scriptura, entitled The Shape of Sola Scriptura, by Keith A. Mathison (which I have responded to in part), we find the following language, which clearly belittles both Catholics and Orthodox far more than I ever supposedly ridiculed Protestants or indicated that their ranks are massively populated by dumbbells and imbeciles because they accept sola Scriptura:
"The mystical concept of Scripture, Church, and tradition advocated by the eastern Orthodox church does not fare any better. It results in numerous ambiguities and much circular reasoning.. . . In both cases the supreme Lordship of Christ the King is compromised as the Church assumes the place of supreme authority."
(p. 235)
http://books.google.com/books?
id...brr=0#PPA235,M1
That's not all he says:
"Of course, Rome claims that this naturally impossible process has been possible because of the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. . . . Of course, this argument is circular . . . Once more, Rome finds herself arguing in a vicious logical circle."
(p. 212)
http://books.google.com/books?
id...brr=0#PPA212,M1
"Once again, however, we encounter a circular argument . . ."
(p. 213)
http://books.google.com/books?
id...brr=0#PPA213,M1
"Her doctrine of ecumenical councils is simply self-defeating . . . Historically considered, the doctrine of papal infallibility is impossible to maintain."
(p. 219)
http://books.google.com/books?
id...brr=0#PPA219,M1
"It is not logically possible, however, that both Unam Sanctam and Vatican II are correct."
(p. 221)
http://books.google.com/books?
id...brr=0#PPA221,M1
"It simply cannot be maintained that the pope, or the Roman Catholic church, is infallible without ignoring or revising history . . . In other words, church history as seen through the eyes of Rome is fictional. It simply did not happen the way Rome claims it happened . . . Rome becomes a law unto herself."
(p. 223)
http://books.google.com/books?
id...brr=0#PPA223,M1
"This is autonomy and a rejection of submission to Christ . . . Every biblical warning and prediction of false Christs, false apostles, and apostasy is a denial of the doctrine of infallibility."
(p. 224)
"Not only is the doctrine of infallibility in direct contradiction with the express teaching of Scripture, it is disproven by history."
(p. 225)
http://books.google.com/books?
id...brr=0#PPA225,M1
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/...ation-
sola.html
DOCTOR Carson calls SS illogical in short easy to understand words.
I did not follow the link to Fr. Kimmel's site so cannot directly attest to his words. But then I'm not sure he's a "doctor" either. just another internet apologist ya' know.
Martin,
I rejected SS being called illogical, because of how I use and define the word "illogical". If it is taken to mean what Dave and others here mean, then I don't have a problem with SS being called an illogical doctrine. Although, I might still object to the liberal use of the word.
My problem is with one particular argument that is used to show its inherent illogical nature. I deny that the principle of SS necessitates that scriptures should assert their own authority. Even Scott mentions in the comment below why if scripture were to assert such a thing, it would still be illogical.
But even if there were some textual evidence for your claim, you can't point to a scriptural passage in defense of the sola scriptura principle without begging the question. It would be like asking a man on the witness stand, "How do I know if you're telling the truth" and getting the answer "Because I always tell the truth."
So the one who holds SS is illogical either way. If SS is not asserted in scriptures, it is self-defeating. If SS is asserted in scriptures, it is a circular argument. The Protestant obviously holds that this is a false dilemma, and that the scriptures are accepted as authentic witnesses to the revelation of God, not because they say so, but because they are. Just as a Catholic will hold that the Church is the primary vehicle of God's Revelation; not because the Church says so (this would be circular reasoning), but because we believe it is (for various reasons - many of which Dave aptly points out), and as such it is an object of our faith.
Unlike all of the scholars Dave cites, Scott, regrettably does touch on the argument with which I take objection. But the thrust of his argument is centered on scriptural interpretation without the Church. This is an analysis with which I heartily agree, and is largely why I reject SS.
And yes, I know Scott Carson is a DOCTOR. I read his blog posts more regularly than perhaps any other blog author on the internet. I'm not sure I needed it, but thanks for pointing out his scholarly credentials, anyway.
I've read Fr. Kimel quite a bit too. Unfortunately, he is not an active blogger anymore. He has more priestly duties these days (fortunate for his flock). I consider his Pontifications blog one of the best to have ever been.
I do think it would be great if somebody who was good with internet archives dug up a bunch of Fr Kimmel's old papers and put them on a blog somewhere. Scot Carson really makes me want to read the paper he refers to. I know it is possible but sadly it is not easy.
Fr. Kimel does have several of his posts on important topics (such as Sola Scriptura) archived here:
http://pontifications.wordpress.com/
See the pages tab to the right. He even posts new items here every once in a blue moon; the last one being April 2008.
Regarding Fr. Kimel's remnants of a blog - I should note that the first article to show up under SS mentions a post by Dave Armstrong. This was back in 2004.
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but the nerve Dave struck (Fr. Kimel was then still Anglican) was the authoritative interpretation of scriptures. These are arguments that Dave makes with which I wholly agree.
Unlike all of the scholars Dave cites, Scott, regrettably does touch on the argument with which I take objection.
This is untrue, as I have already noted, to no avail. The present pope wrote:
"And this again means that there can be no such thing as pure sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"), because an essential element of Scripture is the Church as understanding subject, and with this the fundamental sense of tradition is already given."
This means it is logically impossible, which is exactly the same thing as saying that something is self-defeating: it contains within itself two completely antithetical propositions.
And again:
"Luther did not contest the validity of the ancient Christian creeds and thereby left behind an inner tension that became the fundamental problem in the history of the Reformation . . . With the radicalization of the historical-critical method, it has become very clear today that the sola scriptura principle cannot provide a foundation for the Church and the commonality of her faith. Scripture is Scripture only when it lives within the living subject that is the Church."
Scripture is not even Scripture without the Church, so sez Pope Benedict.
Scripture is not even Scripture without the Church, so sez Pope Benedict.
I agree with this, Dave, completely. But I still don't see where the Pope, or any of the other scholars cited, say that SS is illogical because the scriptures themselves do not profess the doctrine of SS. I agree that it is illogical (in your definition) for any number of other reasons, like the ones cited by the scholars above.
Mark, MARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. For the billionth time: that was only one of MANY arguments I make. Why are you so obsessed about that?
The question at hand -- what it has always been -- is whether SS is self-defeating.
This whole episode has been so ridiculous that I have been inspired to devote my next book to Sola Scriptura: something to the effect of "501 Arguments Against SS".
You may get frustrated with me, but I'm being consistent - or perhaps obsessed.
And I quote myself from the comment earlier today:
My problem is with one particular argument that is used to show its inherent illogical nature.
Not the word "one" in the above sentence.
I know that's only one argument you make among many. I only took issue with that ONE argument. And I said the scholars in question do not make THAT argument, because it is a bad argument. Your other arguments are great, man.
Good. Then maybe you can take on one or more of my dozen papers having to do with the self-defeating nature of SS that Kevin refused to ever deal with: not even the two-page one. if you insist that no aspect of SS is self-defeating, then defeat the defeaters in those papers. No Protestant will, so you can take a shot.
At first, you were ripping me up and down, saying how many Protestants I turn off and so forth. Now you have honed down to one argument among about 200 that I have made, and say the rest of mine are great?
You're wrong on this one (as I think I and many others in these threads have shown); I think your arguments (if you make any) wouldn't stand with the others, either, because SS has more holes than a pin cushion, and I have pointed out many of those (which is one reason why the anti-Catholics love me so much).
FIVE HUNDRED and One reasons against SS...LOL!
The truth is, the argument about Scripture having to teach SS is ONLY ONE of MANY arguments, but it is still ONE VERY POWERFUL AND VALID argument which clearly and elegantly shows the self-defeating nature of SS.
Mark, Here are some problems I have with your thoughts.
1. Sola Scriptura is illogical because on one hand it accepts the authority of the Church to recognize its canon, but on the other, rejects it authority to interpret it. What is the distinction? Using this logic, explain to me why I should not accept Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Didache as part of the canon when they are cited to all the time to support various Christian notions, both Catholic and Protestant. Most of these documents are older than the other books of the NT. The Epistle of Barnabas actually refers to other books of the Scriptures and defines them to be canonical along with it. Yet, none of these books are part of the canon.
2. While it is true that to break the circularity argument one has to resort to an assent of faith, Catholics merely have to assent to believing that the Church was established by Christ as His successor and that it is the final arbiter of doctrines. In order to believe in sola scriptura, unless one has an intimate familiarity with all of the original languages that they were written in, have an infallible understanding of history, culture, and theology of the times and places that they were written and has read every single account calling itself to be scripture and discerned which were inspired and which were not, there is no way that one can actually say that they believe in it. People who claim to believe in sola scriptura that have not done all of these things can not claim to believe in it because they are relying on the authority of someone else who claims to have a post-college degree and sits on the editorial board of the NASB, etc. to interpret scripture for them. In short, 99.99% of people who claim to believe in sola scriptura actually do not practice it as they rely on someone upon who Christ did not establish His Church or otherwise repose His authority to teach.
Cont.
3. Assuming that one does acknowledges that the Church does have a role in things as Mr. Davis professes, why should one accept his opinion on what to accept or reject of what the Church teaches. Why should I accept his view of the canon if he rejects what the Church teaches about transubstantiation or the "Communion of Saints?"
4. Protestants reject apostolic succession. Why then did the apostles go through the rigormarole of picking Matthias? He is not mentioned anywhere in Acts or elsewhere after his selection but yet the Apostles thought it important to replace Judas.
For that matter, where did the Apostles get the idea to call a Council as described in Acts 15? Why did Paul feel it important to submit his mandate to teach to the authority of the Apostles?
There is nothing in the Gospels or Acts that describe Jesus or the apostles having an organizational meeting to establish "Church Incorporated" yet there is definitely an hierarchial structure in the early Church with processes, procedures, rules, chains of command and communications. Is it because this is something that is a part of Sacred Tradition, a notion that Protestants for the most part reject?
Protestants reject the papacy, but yet the need to write the Scriptures down came from the same impetus. Just as the Church grew and the need for a authoritative magisterium grew, likewise, there was a need to write scripture down.
We can argue that there is a scriptural mandate for a papacy; however, nowhere in the NT do you find a single command either by Christ or the apostles to write the Gospel down, or that such writings were to be treated as divinely inspired, etc. No sir. If the Scriptures are inspired it is only because they were written in furtherance of the divine inspiration and mandate of God for His divinely inspired Church to authoritatively and infallibly teach. If one is not inspired then the other isn't either.
Mark: The Protestant obviously holds that this is a false dilemma, and that the scriptures are accepted as authentic witnesses to the revelation of God, not because they say so, but because they are.
Martin: But again. No one is disputing that the scriptures are "authentic witnesses to God". We are disputing whether anyone can claim them to be the "sole witness" to God. (sola scriptura)
Mark: My problem is with one particular argument that is used to show its inherent illogical nature. I deny that the principle of SS necessitates that scriptures should assert their own authority. Even Scott mentions in the comment below why if scripture were to assert such a thing, it would still be illogical.
Martin: So Dr. Carson appears to assert that SS is illogical. It is illogical if it lacks the claim of SS -and- it is illogical if it contains a claim to SS. But the syllogism remains true.
Commenting by HaloScan
