Combox for:
Reply to C. Michael Patton on Sola Scriptura, Part One (Definitions & Introduction)
[19 October 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...on-on-
sola.html
Dave, I appreciate both what Mr. Patton is trying to do, and your interaction with it. There is a minor quibble I have with Mr. Patton that may point to some further presuppositions of the Protestant position. Mr. Patton describes Sola Scriptura as: "Belief that Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures."
My concern is with calling the scriptures "infallible." I do not think this is an accurate description of Sola Scriptura. Properly, Sola Scriptura holds that the scriptures are "inerrant," (as do Catholics) not "infallible." The reason is that the word fallible (or infallible) relates to contingency, while "errant" and "inerrant" relate to absolutes.
In other words, "fallible" relates to the future: There may occur some condition in the future under which this source will err. "Inerrant" refers to the past (since the beginning of the source), present, and future: "This source contains no errors." In this sense, the truths contained in scripture are true for all time, hence "inerrant." The truth doesn't change. It is the understanding of those truths by human beings, or the teaching about those truths, that may develop over time as human understanding of the world develops. By saying something is "infallible," its teaching about the truth of scripture will always be correct as human understanding develops.
The distinction may seem subtle, but when precision in wording is achieved, it is clear that Protestantism has no source for infallible teaching, it has only the inerrant source.
Interesting comment. Perhaps the word is used to emphasize that the Bible has replaced Church and tradition, which were described as infallible.
I hope Mr. Patton will respond to your post. Thanks Dave
I enjoyed this critique, some parts might have come across kind of harsh, but this is no time to mince words.
I agree with Dave that they use the term "infallible" primarily to replace the Church and Tradition carrying that title. The fact is, putting Scripture and infallible Church at odds is ridiculous, logically. It would be like debating what is more important, the paint or the artist when it comes to a painting. To confuse the paint and the artist, or (worse yet) to put them at odds is a category mistake (logical fallacy).
The value of this critique is diminished by its claims for logical necessity, as if an infallible church could be proved from the evidences of scripture or as if the Protestant position is contradictory. It does not necessarily follow that because the apostles had authority to convene and bind on matters of faith therefore the successors of the apostles likewise have this authority. Nor does this necessarily follow because the Holy Spirit was given to the church to lead Christians to truth, which could just as easily be taken as a promise to individuals who follow the Holy Spirit (as those who are taught of the Father -- John 6). Protestants believe the apostles were given a unique authority as direct witnesses to the Son's revelation, hence the binding authority given to the NT as apostolic teaching, which does not necessarily extend beyond the apostolic age to those not given this unmediated witness.
Of course, there are worthy arguments for the Catholic position, namely its ability to preserve unity (though also causing disunity with those who reject Rome's claims, as seen with the Eastern sees separation), but these arguments are more according to "fittingness," not syllogism. This is why so many Protestants get frustrated with Catholic apologetics (and vice-versa) -- the claims are too strong and need to be moderated.
I don't know how much I can engage with Dave on this. I don't have the time to read thousands of words in combox replies or links to dozens of past posts or essays. If Dave believes the Catholic claims to ecclesial authority are a matter of logical necessity vs. logical fallacy, then we simply have a fundamental difference of understanding, which won't be conceded by either.
I'm not sure I made as strong of a claim for logical necessity as you claim. Without your direct interaction with my argument, it's difficult to know exactly what you mean.
The Protestant position, closely examined, is certainly profoundly self-defeating. No one has yet shown me how it is not. When I start asking these basic and fundamental questions, Protestants generally disappear and the discussion ends.
Kevin,
Your claims regarding the "apostolic age" and binding authority shutting off and Sola Scriptura turning on are not in Scripture, they are a tradition of men.
Nick, I think you exactly make my point. It is a category error to assign "infallibility" to scriptures. The reason this category error is made is because as soon as you make an effort to avoid it, you realize that in throwing out the teaching authority of the church, you are left with nothing to replace her. You are left with pots of paint and no brush for the artist to paint with.
I'm not sure I made as strong of a claim for logical necessity as you claim.
Interesting, since I make no such claim. I believe neither the Protestant nor the Catholic (or Orthodox) position is one of syllogistic proof. Whether the apostolic authority ends with the apostles or extends beyond with the Church -- neither are provable, neither are contradictory of any other position within their respective systems.
Nick can call the Protestant position a tradition of men; Catholics can call the Protestant position a tradition of men. This goes without saying.
Faith is an assent to a total system, a total perceived coherence with the scriptural witness and a coherence with reality as a whole. Attempts to deconstruct this into nice, little proofs fails to comprehend the grounds for which we assent to a metaphysic -- which religion most certainly is -- much less to a revelation given by God.
Oh, I just realized that you seem to be saying that you are not claiming as strong a logical necessity as I claim you are. I misread this. I thought "as you claim" referred to my own claims.
But Protestants would have us believe that now there are no longer such councils, let alone ones that reach binding decisions in an infallible manner.
You use the Jerusalem council here and later, and in past posts, as evidence for the binding authority of later councils convened by bishops (Nicaea, etc.). This is the sort of "we're following the evidence logically, and you guys are not" thinking that I think is dubious.
Kevin,
What is your alternative? Catholics are always interested in a BETTER case, so if you have one please show it.
If you are going to by the claim that nobody can really prove anything so "faith" is the deciding factor of whatever system you go with, then you have made Christianity no better than any other system. A Mormon could and would argue on similar grounds.
St Paul didn't debate for a draw/stalemate (which is almost what you are doing, no offense), he debated because he knew he had a better case, and that is how you act when you have the Truth on your side. The same can be said of the Early Church Fathers defending orthodoxy, they never played for a draw.
As I have looked into the issue I am convinced that the further you move away from the Catholic Church the more ahistorical and illogical one's position becomes. This is not to be mean, it is just the realization I have come to see from my Catholic perspective.
Absolute mathematic or "syllogistic proof" is one thing. But even if that is not attainable (which I freely grant, because that has always been my epistemology, speaking strictly philosophically), one can still draw a distinction between a self-consistent position and one that is not, and is viciously self-defeating.
The Catholic view of authority is self-consistent (one may still attempt to cast doubt on the premises, of course); but the Protestant view is massively inconsistent and self-defeating. I've shown this a score of times in various papers, and am in the process of doing so again now. No one ever tries to answer it. Simply denying that the demonstration has been made is not an argument; it is a bald unsubstantiated proclamation, which impresses no one.
I want to see a Protestant take on my strong critiques of SS point-by-point and try to overthrow them. I say it can't be done. That's not because I am so good at argumentation, but because the case for SS is so abominably weak. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Nick,
I think it is obvious that nobody can "prove" anything, which is precisely why we still have Mormons, as well as agnostics, atheists, and all manner of pagans. If I could "demonstrate" that Christianity (or any particular church thereof) is true, then I wouldn't need faith. Mind you, I'm not pitting faith against reason; I'm just recognizing their respective spheres. The assent of faith is an assent toward a proposition believed to be logical/rational but is not "known" by logic. These are distinctions, by the way, which you can readily find in Newman, namely his University Sermons and Grammar. Newman was accused of fideism by his neo-scholastic counterparts, but he was simply countering the excesses of their rationalism. Thankfully, the Catholic Church has decidedly shifted away from these pseudo-Thomists and toward the Augustinian Thomists (Newman, Gilson, de Lubac, von Balthasar, Ratzinger, etc.)
Dave,
If you could lay out, in as succinct a manner as possible, the protestant position, demonstrating its logical fallacy, then I would appreciate it. You can presuppose that I have a great familiarity with both the Catholic and Protestant positions (so, for example, you don't need to give quotations from councils, reformers, etc.).
Always felt that myself-something wrong with the notion of 'infallible' scriptures.
They subconsciously use it because the Church defined what is infallible. So, without thinking, as a knee-jerk reaction, they just said 'no, the only thing which is infallible is scripture'.
There's something wrong grammatically, semantically with those two words together.
An infallible church, yes, inerrant scripture, yes. They sound ok together. But not 'infallible scripture' it just doesn't sound right. There's something wrong with it either gramatically or semantically.
From this link is one argument:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...on-of-
sola.html
10. Sola Scriptura is a Radically Circular Position
When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola Scriptura as their Rule of Faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to the "Bible's clear teaching" and oftentimes act as if they have no tradition which guides their own interpretation.
This is similar to people on two sides of a legal, constitutional debate both saying, "well, we go by what is constitutional, whereas you guys don't." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future Supreme Court or by constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal which settles the matter.
But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book (which must always be interpreted by human beings). Obviously (given the divisions in Protestantism) simply "going to the Bible" hasn't worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or they adopt a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or where the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don't matter."
But the Bible doesn't teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians can freely and joyfully disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.
I went to buy a train ticket yesterday. A helpful person gave me an information leaflet. It told me the train departure time, what platform it would leave from, what time it would arrive.
I got my ticket. The departure time the same, the platform number, but...much to my annoyance( because it's already a very long journey) I found that the arrival time was an hour later than what it said in the leaflet.
Which one was right? The leaflet or the time on my newly-bought ticket. Now, the point here is that to make sure what time the train arrived I couldn't ask the leaflet, I had to ask the ticket office man.
His answer was, or the the reason (bear with me) was because my train will run for 24 from here in Bangkok to Penang, Malaysia. So by the time I get to Malaysia the clocks won't be the same.
So no, the leaflet wasn't wrong, it was just calculating from one time zone.
Is that a valid contribution? Maybe some could explain.
Hi Kevin,
If you could lay out, in as succinct a manner as possible, the protestant position, demonstrating its logical fallacy, then I would appreciate it. You can presuppose that I have a great familiarity with both the Catholic and Protestant positions (so, for example, you don't need to give quotations from councils, reformers, etc.).
I've done this many times, I think, so here are the relevant papers, as I listed them in a recent dialogue with "Interlocutor":
--------------------
Why Sola Scriptura is Self-Defeating and False if it Isn't in the Bible (vs. Kevin Johnson)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
defeating.html
How Different (In Nature and Ultimate Effect) Are SolO Scriptura and SolA Scriptura? (+ Part II) (vs. Keith Mathison)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...ltimate_01.html
Protestant Ecclesiology and Epistemology is Always Ultimately Self-Defeating
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...iology-
and.html
400 Million "Popes": Protestant First Principles on Authority Are Inevitably Arbitrary, Unbiblical, and Viciously Self-Contradictory (+ Discussion) (vs. Ken Temple)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...tant-
first.html
Reflections on the Problematic Protestant System of Private Judgment and the Vast Difference in Catholic Epistemology
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...protestant.html
The Problem of Authority: Luther, Calvin, and Protestantism (+ Part II) (vs. Kevin Johnson and Tim Enloe)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...her-
calvin.html
The Logical Circularity and Hidden Premises of Sola Scriptura and Private Judgment (with Brent Arias)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...and-
hidden.html
Fictional Dialogue on Sola Scriptura ("Bible Alone")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
scriptura.html
[shortest, most succinct treatment]
Refutation of the Common Protestant Polemical Charge That Catholics Inconsistently & Arbitrarily Apply Private Judgment in Accepting Catholicism (+ Discussion)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...protestant.html
The Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
scripture.html
Dialogue on the Alleged "Perspicuous Apostolic Message" as a Proof of the Quasi-Protestantism of the Early Church (vs. Eric "the Yellow" Svendsen and Bishop James White)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...erspicuous.html
If the Church Fathers Can Be Remarkably Transformed Into "Sola Scriptura Protestants" by "Bible Prooftexts", Why Not Me, Too?!!
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
amazingly.html
Commenting by HaloScan
