High-churchmen typically claim that an authoritarian church confers an epistemic advantage over the Protestant rule of faith. But does it?
1. Are we talking about a hypothetically advantageous situation, or a live option? Hypothetically speaking, it would be advantageous if all Christians were divinely. Indeed, Pentecostals think that’s a live option. But converts to the high-church tradition don’t think that Pentecostalism is a live option. Indeed, they regard Montanism—the ancient counterpart to Pentecostalism—as a heresy.
2. As far as the high-church tradition is concerned, most prospective converts either opt for Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
Even this is rather arbitrary. Why not Oriental Orthodoxy?
3. As a practical matter, its not as if either the Catholic church or the Orthodox church has listed a 1-800-ANSWERS number where you can receive specific, timely, divine guidance in life. Neither church operates a hotline where you can receive God’s answer to such basic, personal questions as:
“Should I marry Betty or Debbie?”
“Which college should I go to?”
“What should my college major be?”
“What school should I send my kids to?”
“Where should I live?”
“How many kids should I have?”
“How long will I live, so that I can plan for the future?”
“Will I ever be diagnosed with a degenerative illness, and—if so—at what age?”
“Which form of cancer therapy should I undergo?”
“Should I put my dad in a nursing home?”
“Which stocks and bonds should I invest in?”
“What should I do in a ticking timebomb situation?”
“If my wife goes shopping this afternoon, will she be killed by a drunk driver, leaving me widowed with four kids to raise on my own?”
“Should I quit my lucrative, full-time job, take a part-time job, go to seminary, and have my wife work outside the home?”
“What can I do to keep my son from getting hooked on drugs?”
“Which candidate should I vote for?”
“I’m on a jury. Should I vote to convict or acquit the defendant?”
You can add your own queries to the questionnaire. Point being: there are ever so many morally freighted, life-changing questions for which the high-church tradition doesn’t even pretend to offer an answer.
4. There’s a tradeoff between Catholicism and Orthodox. And each tradition has its own problems:
i) Catholicism lays claim to a living teaching office in a way that Orthodoxy does not. Orthodoxy is more decentralized, tradition-bound, and backward-looking.
So, the Catholic magisterium would be closer to what some converts are looking for in terms of topical, time-sensitive answers, if they credit its grandiose claims, and ignore what I said under (3).
But this, in turn, creates a tension between the past and the present. It’s very difficult to honestly reconcile past magisterial teaching with modern magisterial teaching. So the very contemporeity of the Magisterium generates internal conflicts between modernity and antiquity.
ii) By contrast, Orthodoxy has undergone less internal development. It’s more rooted in the past. But that, in turn, means that, by definition, it doesn’t have traditional, real-time answers to modern questions. Tradition is bound to be silent on questions peculiar to modernity.
And, ironically, this leaves Orthodoxy wide open to modernism in all those situations where it doesn’t have a set of pat answers from the past. So we see that Orthodoxy is susceptible to evolutionary biology and German Bible criticism.
5. Some Evangelicals who are tempted to cross the Tiber or the Bosporus are asking good questions. I respect their questions. There are bright young men who are posing intelligent, worthwhile questions. And sometimes they don’t get good answers from the Evangelicals they happen to read or question.
What I find, however, is that those who do convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism stop asking the same questions. They don’t hold Rome or Constantinople to the same standard as they held Geneva to.
They don’t keep pressing the same tenacious questions, or demand the same rigorous answers, of their adopted, high-church tradition. They are relentless on Geneva, but easygoing on Rome or Constantinople.
Where Geneva is concerned, a facile, but fallacious answer won’t do. They can see right through that. That leaves them dissatisfied.
Mind you, the answers you get are only as good as the individuals you ask. Likewise, the answers you get are only as good as the questions you ask.
But in the end, they settle for easy answers. The past of least resistance.
They settle for a shortcut. An ecclesiastical shortcut.
And they stop asking themselves whether the ecclesiastical shortcut is does the job. Indeed, they change the job description.
They also stop asking themselves whether there is any compelling evidence for the ecclesiastical shortcut—not to mention evidence to the contrary. Convenience becomes the only criterion.
So they collapse halfway through the journey. They start out on their own two feet when they examine the Protestant rule of faith.
But then they thumb a ride on the Catholic or Orthodox bandwagon for the rest of the journey, and they hop on that vehicle before they even establish if it’s roadworthy or headed in the right direction. Instead, they simply get tired of walking and hitch a ride on whatever they see coming down the road.
Tough questions for Geneva. Go hard on Geneva. Don’t let up for a minute. Evasive answers won’t do.
Softball questions for Rome or Constantinople. Gloss over all of the historical gaps and forgeries and discontinuities and infighting.
6. Their primary question is predicated on a false expectation. The expectation of exhaustive guidance.
But consider the OT law. This was a divinely inspired code of conduct for personal and social ethics.
What did it amount to? A general set of moral norms (the Decalogue) along with a set of case-laws. The case-laws illustrated the way in which the moral norms were to be applied in some representative situations.
And that’s it, folks. It was left to the Jews to infer the rest. That’s where their duties to God and man began and ended.
It was the duty of OT Jews generally, and Jewish judges in particular, to extrapolate from general norms to specific applications—as well as extrapolate from case laws to analogous situations. And although the Decalogue and case-laws were inspired, their interpretation and application by Jewish judges was not. That’s why, in Second Temple Judaism, you had rival schools of thought (e.g. Hillel v. Shamai).
The high churchman invokes the appealing claim that an infallible revelation requires an infallible interpreter. Well, that equation has a catchy, symmetrical ring to it, but it's not the ring of truth. That’s not how God governed his people in Bible times. God’s word in tandem with God’s providence were sufficient to realize God’s purpose for his people.
And no high-church tradition even ventures to give every Christian instant, heaven-sent answers to our daily decisions in life—many of which are weighty and momentous. Not even close. By the same token, no high-church tradition presumes to offer God’s own interpretation of every verse in Scripture. Not even close.
As an atheist, I find it funny that the same people who criticize Catholics for believing that the Pope has all the answers say the exact same thing about an ancient text - the belief in which as the "word of God" is a man-made tradition. If you question certain dogmas of the evangelical community - the inspiration of the bible, a young earth, justification by faith alone - you are just as likely to experience social ostracism from the group. Evangelical Protestantism, even though it is less well defined than traditional Christianity, is a social organization that has its own self-defense mechanisms from rational inquiry.
ReplyDelete"You can add your own queries to the questionnaire. Point being: there are ever so many morally freighted, life-changing questions for which the high-church tradition doesn’t even pretend to offer an answer."
If Catholicism and Orthodoxy do not claim to answer every single question in life, and if you acknowledge they don't, and since you probably acknowledge that Sola Scriptura doesn't answer every such question, then what is your point? In defense of converts to the high churches, very few of them probably leave Protestantism because they want answers to every question in theology, but because of the grave and deep-seated ecclesial problems caused by sola scriptura.
As a theist, I find it funny that an atheist such as hung man, who surely must be aware of the atheist genocide of Mao,Stalin,Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge, the eastern bloc dictators, the North Vietnamese, the Albanian genocide,North Korea, Cuba, etc., would think that the atheist utter inability to provide answers to the list of questions asked (infra) is somehow a superior intellectual answer to the honest, if incomplete,theist effort to answer the questions. I have met many Roman Ctaholic medical missionaries, I have never in thirty years met an atheist full time poverty physician! where are they? I find it "funny" that all these atheist physicians manage to remain so well hidden, my, whatever camouflage do they employ? I wager you cannot name three of them! three? okay, how about two! good luck googling!
ReplyDeletehung man said...
ReplyDelete“As an atheist…”
More than that, you sound just like an apostate.
“Evangelical Protestantism, even though it is less well defined than traditional Christianity, is a social organization that has its own self-defense mechanisms from rational inquiry.”
Funny—I could say the exact same thing about atheism.
“If Catholicism and Orthodoxy do not claim to answer every single question in life, and if you acknowledge they don't, and since you probably acknowledge that Sola Scriptura doesn't answer every such question, then what is your point?”
i) My point was already explicit in my original post. Catholicism and Orthodoxy claim to enjoy an epistemic advantage over the Protestant rule of faith. I’m exposing the hollowness of their pretentious claim.
ii) True, I don’t think the Bible has all the answers. Rather, the Bible has answers sufficient to requite our duty to God and our fellow man.
“In defense of converts to the high churches, very few of them probably leave Protestantism because they want answers to every question in theology.”
They generally cite the quest for religious certainty as their primary reason.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI think this is an excellent and well-thought-out post. Thanks. BTW, Jay posted on his website an article called "New Testament and Patristic Citations of Deuterocanonical Books". I already have an idea of some response to it, but I know you know way more about Eastern Orthodoxy than I do, and I was wondering what your initial thoughts on the article would be.
Catholicism may not have any advantage over protestantism as regards a specific event in a particular person's life. But as far as a) theology b) moral guidelines as they apply to specifics in today's world such as contraception, Catholicism does indeed have the advantage. In these areas, it is like an interactive oracle one can ask and receive definitive answers, even if the answer may be "it's not important" (as is the case with Catholic stance on predestination).
ReplyDeleteI repeat, it's an advantage over protestantism, where theology (and what parts of theology are important) is all up for grabs, and there is no clear guidelines on how biblical principles are to be applied to today's unprecedented situations.
You may say the Catholic Magesterium is wrong to assert such authority in the first place, but then why not just stick with that argument instead of wandering here? All other things being equal, Catholicism would indeed have the epistemic advantage.
To steal an analogy from C.S. Lewis, "It doesn't make sense to say to someone who's just been saved from a man eating tiger, 'it's no good, old chap, that really hasn't done anything to cure your rheumatism'".
ReplyDeleteIf Catholicism confers any kind of epistemic advantage over protestantism, it is to be preferred, even if you are able to ferret out a few counter examples here and there where it would not. And note the moral guidelines do help people make many specific decisions (ex. on contraception and abortion). And the theological guidelines prevent many of the bizarre squabbles that arise in protestantism (and we'd both agree, all other things being equal, unity is to be preferred over 'endless disputations about genealogies, etc.').
But as far as a) theology b) moral guidelines as they apply to specifics in today's world such as contraception, Catholicism does indeed have the advantage.
ReplyDeleteHow so? Catholicism lays hold of an allegedly infallible teaching office that maintains unity.
1. Where is the infallible list of infallibly listed Scriptures upon which these teachings are based? Without that, the claim to epistemic superiority is superficial at best.
2. Catholics are deeply divided over such things as contraception and even abortion. So, again, the unity is superficial.
It is upon this claim to infallibility and unity that the claim to epistemic superiority is based. It's a sham.
So, the individual is left not in a position that is superior but at parity with that of Protestantism.
PWN'D SAID:
ReplyDelete“Catholicism may not have any advantage over protestantism as regards a specific event in a particular person's life. But as far as a) theology b) moral guidelines as they apply to specifics in today's world such as contraception, Catholicism does indeed have the advantage.”
And what about OT ethics for OT Jews (or 2nd temple Jews)? Did God fail to give them adequate resources to apply moral guidelines to the specifics in their own real world situations? Basically, all they had to go by were some general moral norms (the Decalogue) along with some case-laws.
“In these areas, it is like an interactive oracle one can ask and receive definitive answers.”
Is that a fact? I once read a Catholic who took a strikingly different position, but perhaps your opinion outranks his. This is what he said:
“But we are in fact constantly confronted with problems where it isn’t possible to find the right answer in a short time. Above all in the case of problems having to do with ethics, particularly medical ethics, but also in the area of social ethics. For example, the situation in American hospitals forced us to deal with whether it is obligatory to continue giving food and water to the very end of patients in an irreversible coma. This is certainly enormously important for those in positions of responsibility, if only because they are really concerned and because it’s necessary to find a common policy for hospitals. We finally had to say, after very long studies, ‘Answer that for now on the local level; we aren’t far enough along to have furl certainty about that’.”
“Again in the area of medical ethics, new possibilities, and with them new borderline situations, are constantly arising where it is not immediately evidence how to apply principles. We can’t simply conjure up certitude. Then we have to say, ‘Work this through for now among yourselves, so that we gradually mature to certainty from level to level within the context of experience. “
“There needn’t always be universal answers. We also have to realize our limits and to forgo answers where they aren’t possible. But, as I said, in the examples cited just now, it simply is not the case that we want to go around giving answers in every situation…”
J. Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth (Ignatius 1997), 100-101.
“I repeat, it's an advantage over protestantism, where theology (and what parts of theology are important) is all up for grabs, and there is no clear guidelines on how biblical principles are to be applied to today's unprecedented situations.”
And would you redirect that same evaluation to OT judges who applied the Mosaic law to concrete situations—even though they had no Magisterium? Would you redirect that same evaluation to 2nd temple Jews, who also muddled through without a Magisterium?
"And what about OT ethics for OT Jews (or 2nd temple Jews)? Did God fail to give them adequate resources to apply moral guidelines to the specifics in their own real world situations?"
ReplyDelete-----------------
But the situation changed in the NT. In Mt 16:19, Jesus gave explicit power to the apostles and the church to "bind and loose", ie to make these kinds of value judgments on specific situations. What to the Jews was an error prone approximation (Binding and Loosing), is given as an everlasting promise and gift to the Church (Lk 22:31-32, Mt 16:18, 1 Ti 3:15).
This change is consistent with progressive revelation - the unclear being made more clear (such as revelation of Jesus as the Prophet in Deut 18), and with God making a new covenant where people will KNOW God's truth with certainty (Jer 31:34), as opposed to the old covenant where there had to be some level of uncertainty disputations even in the priesthood.
I don’t think many would claim that the Church provides an epistemic advantage because it provides answers to EVERY question. That isn’t necessary for the argument for the Church to stand.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there is no question that we are everywhere forced to apply general principles to specific situations, but that doesn’t mean that all the general principles we need are provided in Scripture.
Didn’t OT judges have access to supernatural resources as well? What about the casting of lots and prophecy?
ReplyDeleteThe ending of Your post seems to enter in colision with its middle part. (As for the OT judges, they were called elders numerous times in Scripture, and if it's one thing that traditional Churches don't lack, it's the advice and importance of the elders, and their applying or interpreting certain rules or passages of Holy Writ: here's where the monastic elders, spiritual fathers and one's bishop intervene).
ReplyDeleteCouldn't one reasonably argue that the OT model is closer to the Catholic in that both institutionalize public modes of divine illumination, whereas Protestantism does not?
ReplyDeleteBut the situation changed in the NT. In Mt 16:19, Jesus gave explicit power to the apostles and the church to "bind and loose", ie to make these kinds of value judgments on specific situations. What to the Jews was an error prone approximation (Binding and Loosing), is given as an everlasting promise and gift to the Church (Lk 22:31-32, Mt 16:18, 1 Ti 3:15).
ReplyDeleteWhere does this entitle "the Church" to make Magisterial statements about ethical questions?
In context, it would refer to:
a. The preaching of the gospel.
b. The exercise of church discipline.
This change is consistent with progressive revelation - the unclear being made more clear (such as revelation of Jesus as the Prophet in Deut 18), and with God making a new covenant where people will KNOW God's truth with certainty (Jer 31:34), as opposed to the old covenant where there had to be some level of uncertainty disputations even in the priesthood.
Perhaps you should read through Hebrews chapter 8, where Jeremiah 31 is mentioned yet again. The New Covenant has nothing to do with "certainty" and the prevention of "disputations." Rather, these texts refer to the Law being written on the heart. The New Covenant is, unlike the Old, an internal covenant written on the heart. What was implicit in the OT (the means of salvation, like regeneration) is made explicit in the New, as such the terms of the New Covenant, unlike the Old, will not be broken. The contrast is between hearts of stone and hearts of flesh.
Indeed, you're ignoring what is explicitly stated by Paul in I Cor. 11.
aul speaks about division in the church in positive and negative light.
1 Cor. 11:18-19, "For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you."
1 Cor. 1:10, "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment."
1 Cor. 11:19 uses the Greek word "haireses" for "factions". "Heresy" is a false teaching, something that deviates from orthodoxy. If we see that the Scriptures declare something clearly (orthodoxy), and if someone teaches contrary to that clear teaching, then he or she is teaching heresy. The Scriptures teach that there is a place for division and that is when opposing teachings that are contrary to sound doctrine. But division can only occur when the truth is known and those who abide with the truth should correct those who do not. If there was one place for Paul to talk about the need for an infallible arbiter of truth, here is where it should be. It is nowhere to be found.
“If there was one place for Paul to talk about the need for an infallible arbiter of truth, here is where it should be. It is nowhere to be found.”
ReplyDeleteThis strikes me as arm chair psychology across 2 millennia, not exegesis.
Given that Paul is thoroughly silent on the need (or not) for a final arbiter after his death, why arbitrarily assume the negative?
At the time Paul made this statement, he may have just had is immediate audience in mind; these folks had immediate access to a final arbiter—Paul himself, who was available to personally disavow any heresy.
ReplyDeleteThis strikes me as arm chair psychology across 2 millennia, not exegesis.
ReplyDeleteThis strikes me as an assertion in lieu of an argument. Do you have an exegetical argument that the New Covenant promises epistemic certainty, particularly in the form of a Magisterial teaching authority? If you do, by all means present one.
Given that Paul is thoroughly silent on the need (or not) for a final arbiter after his death, why arbitrarily assume the negative?
I am not "arbitrarily" assuming anything.
What we do possess is Paul telling the Corinthian church that divisions are useful and necessary. Moreover, in the first half of the letter, he speaks of divisions in negative fashion, and notice that one of those fashions involves laying claim to a particular authority for one's teaching, like Peter, Apollos, or even Paul himself.
What we do possess is Paul commissioning Timothy and telling him that Scripture is sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.
What we do possess is 2 Thessalonians 3:15, which we just went over on this blog once again just this past week.
What we do find is that Paul corrected Peter, which thereby proves that the Apostles while speaking authoritatively themselves, unlike Christ, did not speak infallibly and without error in everything they said at all times in all situations, and they were subject to each other for correction at times. So much for Petrine primacy, which would be necessary for the claims of Rome to be true.
We are left with Scripture, Sola Scriptura by default, for their teaching in our possession is found in Scripture, not Scripture and some sort of vague, undocumented "tradition."
Nowhere, not one time, does Scripture promise that the New Covenant is a covenant that promises epistemic certainty that is to be dispensed via a Magisterial, infallible teaching office or guarantees against divisions and disputes among Christians over matters of faith and practice. Indeed, the exact opposite case is made by direct teaching and by their own example.
I think the High Church view might be less about certainty (RCism has left a lot undefined for theologians to play around with) and more about authority. What is the perspective here of church authority and obedience/schism? Presumably everyone agrees there is some concept of church authority. When is one justified in rebelling against/disregarding a pastor and breaking communion with a church/denomination - When they start saying things that don't line up with what one thinks Scripture says (on what one deems as "essential")? Or are there other criteria to be used? When is one not justified in such an act and should repent and submit?
ReplyDelete“This strikes me as an assertion in lieu of an argument. Do you have an exegetical argument that the New Covenant promises epistemic certainty, particularly in the form of a Magisterial teaching authority? If you do, by all means present one.”
ReplyDeleteLike Sola-Scripture, I don’t consider Church authority to be a matter purely of exegesis. Obviously, you can’t validly prove Sola-Scripture with scripture; that would be entail a circular argument. So you infer it on the basis of a multitude of other facts. Catholics make inferences as well to argue for their positions and they, likewise, do not limit themselves to scripture alone to make their case.
This is somewhat beside the point anyway. We’re really talking epistemology here and addressing that question by granting each side’s respective claim to a grounding authority and asking which grounding authority provides greater certainty, not arguing which side’s grounding authority is better in the first place. That is another debate.
”What we do possess is Paul telling the Corinthian church that divisions are useful and necessary. Moreover, in the first half of the letter, he speaks of divisions in negative fashion, and notice that one of those fashions involves laying claim to a particular authority for one's teaching, like Peter, Apollos, or even Paul himself.”
I don’t understand the relevance of this comment. Are you arguing along the lines that the proliferation of Protestant denominations is actually a point in its favor?
”What we do possess is Paul commissioning Timothy and telling him that Scripture is sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.”
Firstly, the scripture he had in mind is likely limited to the Old Testament and maybe a few letters. Are we to take that to mean any later writings are superfluous?
Secondly, even if we were to grant that he has the closed canon in mind, isn’t the word ‘sufficient’ better translated as profitable. That changes the meaning considerably.
”What we do possess is 2 Thessalonians 3:15, which we just went over on this blog once again just this past week.”
Wait a second. I thought both sides agreed in that thread that 2 Thes 2:15 neither confirms nor disconfirms either Sola-Scripture or Tradition. Have you read that thread?
”What we do find is that Paul corrected Peter, which thereby proves that the Apostles while speaking authoritatively themselves, unlike Christ, did not speak infallibly and without error in everything they said at all times in all situations, and they were subject to each other for correction at times. So much for Petrine primacy, which would be necessary for the claims of Rome to be true.”
That level of impeccability on the part of the Apostles is not necessary to arrive at infallible texts or infallible tradition. Protestants believe that whatever the Apostles might have gotten wrong did *not* get inscripturated and Catholics believe likewise for Tradition (in addition to scripture). Whatever machinations occurred within the circle of the Apostles, they were the one and only fountainhead of all binding truth. Neither side in this debate disputes that.
Moreover, Paul expected the Thessalonians to take him at his word, not to test his word against what the other Apostles claimed. Perhaps that meant that when he spoke of doctrinally binding matters, he was always infallible. One can only speculate.
At any rate, with the above in mind it is clearly not the case that the legitimacy of the Church necessarily depends on it being ‘without error in everything it says at all times in all situations’.
And to really get down to brass tacks: if the Church’s claim that it has epistemic parity with Apostolic authority (whatever, exactly, that entails) is true, then there can be no doubt that Catholics have the best epistemological vantage point *this* side of eternity.
”We are left with Scripture, Sola Scriptura by default, for their teaching in our possession is found in Scripture, not Scripture and some sort of vague, undocumented ‘tradition’.”
You say this with the confidence of one how has just penned the last line of a mathematical proof. All that is missing is QED:)
”Nowhere, not one time, does Scripture promise that the New Covenant is a covenant that promises epistemic certainty that is to be dispensed via a Magisterial, infallible teaching office or guarantees against divisions and disputes among Christians over matters of faith and practice. Indeed, the exact opposite case is made by direct teaching and by their own example.”
As I said at the outset, I would deny a purely scriptural case can be made for Church authority, and, moreover, requiring that such a case be made just begs the question.
Also, does the Church offer guarantees against division and disputes? I don’t think so. Would it need to?
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete---
Obviously, you can’t validly prove Sola-Scripture with scripture; that would be entail a circular argument.
---
No it's not. We start with the presuppostion that Scripture is infallible. This is what is assumed from the start (and agreed to by Orthodox and Catholic as well). From the assumption that Scripture is infallible, we reason this way:
1) Scripture is infallible.
2) Scripture never mentions any other infallible source.
3) Scripture claims to be sufficient to provide everything that the man of God needs to be spiritually perfected.
4) As such, not only is there no mention of other infallible sources but there is no need for other infallible sources.
This is the necessary conclusion of accepting the presupposition that Scripture is infallible. If you believe Scripture is infallible, then you have to believe what Scripture says about itself. You also have to agree that Scripture never points to another authority outside of itself.
Again, this is not circular reasoning--this is a necessary conclusion if you accept the premise. The only way you can deny Sola Scriptura rationally is to deny that Scripture is infallible. As soon as you accept the infalliblity of Scripture, the rest flows of logical necessity.
In that regard, it's no different than applying the Law of Non-Contradiction to a specific case. In other words, if you assume the Law of Non-Contradiction to be valid, then "The statement 'An apple is both red and not red at the same time and in the same relationship' is logically invalid" is a necessary logical deduction from that axiom. Sola Scripture is only "circular" in the same sense that applying the Law of Non-Contradiction to a specific example is "circular."
1) Scripture is infallible.
ReplyDeleteOkay
2) Scripture never mentions any other infallible source.
In the Old there was casting of lots and Prophecy alongside a text. In the New there was Apostoloc authority alongside a text. These are *outside* sources of infallible authority to which the Bible attests.
3) Scripture claims to be sufficient to provide everything that the man of God needs to be spiritually perfected.
To really cash this out we need to have a very clear understanding of just what the Bible means by 'Scriputure'. The closed canon is not likely the referent.
I'm not at all convinced a sold case has been made for Sola-Scripture from the text alone. My understanding is tht the Bible uses the word 'profitable' not 'sufficient'.
"The only way you can deny Sola Scriptura rationally is to deny that Scripture is infallible. As soon as you accept the infalliblity of Scripture, the rest flows of logical necessity."
ReplyDeleteI'll take this as hyperbole. Statements like 'Sola-Scripture is a logical necessity' will get you into trouble fast.
PWND SAID:
ReplyDelete"But the situation changed in the NT. In Mt 16:19, Jesus gave explicit power to the apostles and the church to ‘bind and loose’, ie to make these kinds of value judgments on specific situations.”
You’re equivocating over the meaning of the “church.” Can you exegete the specifics of Catholic ecclesiology from Mt 16:19 and the parallel passage in 18:17-20? No. For example, there’s no reference to church office here. No hierarchy.
“Ecclesia” is an LXX loanword used to denote the OT assembly of the Lord.
In context (cf. 18:17), “binding and loosing” would have reference to the authority and duty to excommunicate an impenitent member of the covenant community or readmit a penitent member. This would also have analogies with the OT covenant community, where impenitent offenders were cut off from the community of faith, whereas the law also made provision for penitent offenders.
You have done nothing to establish the extraordinary Magisterium from this passage.
“What to the Jews was an error prone approximation (Binding and Loosing), is given as an everlasting promise and gift to the Church (Lk 22:31-32, Mt 16:18, 1 Ti 3:15).”
All you’ve done here is to beg the question by a tendentious appeal to the traditional, Catholic interpretation of your Catholic or Petrine prooftexts.
You cannot exegete the papacy from the specifics of Mt 16:18 or Lk 22:31-32. And your appeal to 1 Tim 3:15 is contrary to the way in which Catholic commenters like Msgr. Quinn and Luke Timothy Johnson construe the passage.
“This change is consistent with progressive revelation - the unclear being made more clear (such as revelation of Jesus as the Prophet in Deut 18).”
Even under progressive revelation, people are responsible for whatever revelation they have at that stage of progressive revelation. Revelation is sufficient at every stage of progressive revelation. God held OT Jews accountable to faithfully apply the Mosaic law code to concrete situations. Do you take the position that God judged his people even though he failed to give them adequate tools?
“And with God making a new covenant where people will KNOW God's truth with certainty (Jer 31:34), as opposed to the old covenant where there had to be some level of uncertainty disputations even in the priesthood.”
But by your very own appeal, that would be a prooftext for the universal priesthood of believers, and not for the Magisterium. So you just torpedoed the case for the Catholic Magisterium.
“ANONYMOUS SAID:
I don’t think many would claim that the Church provides an epistemic advantage because it provides answers to EVERY question. That isn’t necessary for the argument for the Church to stand.”
I never said it was. I’m drawing attention to the arbitrary character of the high-church claim.
“Also, there is no question that we are everywhere forced to apply general principles to specific situations, but that doesn’t mean that all the general principles we need are provided in Scripture.”
So OT judges couldn’t do their job on the basis of what God told them?
“Didn’t OT judges have access to supernatural resources as well? What about the casting of lots and prophecy?”
Did a judge have to be a prophet to do his job? Can you document that equation?
Were the Urim and Thummim used in judicial proceedings? Can you document that correlation?
Are Catholic canon lawyers prophetic? Do they cast lots?
LUCIAN SAID:
“The ending of Your post seems to enter in colision with its middle part.”
Where’s your argument?
“(As for the OT judges, they were called elders numerous times in Scripture, and if it's one thing that traditional Churches don't lack, it's the advice and importance of the elders, and their applying or interpreting certain rules or passages of Holy Writ: here's where the monastic elders, spiritual fathers and one's bishop intervene).”
That’s a semantic fallacy. You are equating words with concepts. You’re also taking a word from an English translation of the OT and reapplying that anachronistically to traditional churches. This is incompetent. And it also disregards the actual concept of eldership in Scripture—which is a very low-church affair. Cf. R. Beckwith, Elders in Every City.
“ANONYMOUS SAID:
Couldn't one reasonably argue that the OT model is closer to the Catholic in that both institutionalize public modes of divine illumination, whereas Protestantism does not?”
i) You’re equivocating over the notion of divine “illumination.” Even Catholicism denies the continuance of public revelation.
ii) Weren’t OT prophets often at odds with the religious establishment?
ANONYMOUS SAID:
“At the time Paul made this statement, he may have just had is immediate audience in mind; these folks had immediate access to a final arbiter—Paul himself, who was available to personally disavow any heresy.”
Would you extend that same expiration date to 2 Thes 2:15 and 1 Tim 3:15?
“THE DUDE SAID:
“I think the High Church view might be less about certainty (RCism has left a lot undefined for theologians to play around with) and more about authority.”
What’s the value of authority if it fails to yield certainty—especially in a high-church context?
ANONYMOUS SAID:
“Like Sola-Scripture, I don’t consider Church authority to be a matter purely of exegesis.”
i) Except that our Catholic commenters are attempting to prooftext their ecclesiology.
ii) And how do you propose to establish church authority apart from pure exegesis? If you can interpret Scripture apart from the church, you don’t need the church to interpret Scripture.
But if you rely on the church to interpret Scripture, then it’s viciously circular to invoke the ecclesiastical interpretation of an ecclesiastical prooftext to prove the authority of the church.
Or are you claiming that you can establish the divine institution and authority of the church apart from anything that Jesus or the Apostles had to say on the subject?
“Obviously, you can’t validly prove Sola-Scripture with scripture; that would be entail a circular argument.”
That’s simplistic. One can’t prove Scripture by merely appealing to Scriptural claims. However, the Bible may contain internal evidence to validate its claims. The concept of self-evidence is not viciously circular.
“So you infer it on the basis of a multitude of other facts. Catholics make inferences as well to argue for their positions and they, likewise, do not limit themselves to scripture alone to make their case.”
This is fatally ambiguous. There’s a difference between going beyond Scripture and contradicting Scripture.
“I don’t understand the relevance of this comment. Are you arguing along the lines that the proliferation of Protestant denominations is actually a point in its favor?”
i) Well, Gene can speak for himself, but I think his point is that God wills a certain amount of internal division in the life of the church. So this is not at odds with what God intended for the church.
ii) Moreover, we could make an argument from the greater to the lesser. If there were even divisions within NT churches, overseen by apostles, then why would we not expect divisions within the (true) church after the apostles died?
“Firstly, the scripture he had in mind is likely limited to the Old Testament and maybe a few letters. Are we to take that to mean any later writings are superfluous?”
i) There’s a distinction between general sufficiency, where revelation is sufficient at every stage of progressive revelation—and the particular sufficiency of Scripture, where Scripture in toto is sufficient for God’s people in toto after the age of public revelation comes to a close.
ii) Keep in mind that Catholicism also denies the continuance of public revelation.
“And to really get down to brass tacks: if the Church’s claim that it has epistemic parity with Apostolic authority (whatever, exactly, that entails) is true, then there can be no doubt that Catholics have the best epistemological vantage point *this* side of eternity.”
Not if you judge Catholic claims by Catholic history.
“You’re equivocating over the notion of divine “illumination.” Even Catholicism denies the continuance of public revelation.”
ReplyDeleteBy public I don’t mean direct from God. I mean a publicly accessible, infallible intermediary between God and man. The OT and the NT have this Witness and Catholicism lays claim to one as well. It is disavowed in Protestantism.
”Weren’t OT prophets often at odds with the religious establishment?”
I’m not arguing for strict isomorphism between Catholicism and the OT judicial system in particular or the OT system of Revelation in general. I’m only saying one can reasonably argue that an *analogy* with the Catholicism works better than one with Protestantism (most notably, for the reason given above). Nothing in the analogy requires that the Magesterium be direct analogues of OT judges and nothing else. In the analogy there can be overlap with both judges *and* Revelation.
I said:
“At the time Paul made this statement, he may have just had is immediate audience in mind; these folks had immediate access to a final arbiter—Paul himself, who was available to personally disavow any heresy.”
You replied:
”Would you extend that same expiration date to 2 Thes 2:15 and 1 Tim 3:15?”
But I’m not imposing an expiration date. I’m simply pointing out an alternative interpretation to underscore the fact that we don’t have access to Paul’s mental states, and I’m, further, suggesting that we therefore do not have a determinate answer to the question whether he intended or would have intended to make his proscriptive apply to the Church age.
“Except that our Catholic commenters are attempting to prooftext their ecclesiology”
Lots of prooftexting goes on in the other direction too (in this very thread, for that matter). Both sides seem to stretch the evidence to the breaking point (IMO).
I said:
“Obviously, you can’t validly prove Sola-Scripture with scripture; that would be entail a circular argument.”
You replied:
”That’s simplistic. One can’t prove Scripture by merely appealing to Scriptural claims. However, the Bible may contain internal evidence to validate its claims. The concept of self-evidence is not viciously circular.”
This goes w/o saying. You’re reading subtleties into my statement which I don’t intend. I meant what you said: ‘one can’t prove Scripture by merely appealing to Scriptural claims’.
“This is fatally ambiguous. There’s a difference between going beyond Scripture and contradicting Scripture.”
Yes, certainly, *if* there is a contradiction with a clear scriptural teaching. But that is the very claim in question.
“Well, Gene can speak for himself, but I think his point is that God wills a certain amount of internal division in the life of the church. So this is not at odds with what God intended for the church."
True enough, but ‘certain amount’ is ambiguous. There will be a ‘certain amount’ of division in either case. The important thing, however, is that the Church can provide, like the Apostoles, a living witness to settle the question of who, in fact, is on the right side of the divide.
“Moreover, we could make an argument from the greater to the lesser. If there were even divisions within NT churches, overseen by apostles, then why would we not expect divisions within the (true) church after the apostles died?”
Once again, to my knowledge, Catholicism does not guarantee perfect unity, nor would it need to provide perfect unity to be legitimate. Regarding unity, I think the important factor is what I related in my last paragraph.
“There’s a distinction between general sufficiency, where revelation is sufficient at every stage of progressive revelation—and the particular sufficiency of Scripture, where Scripture in toto is sufficient for God’s people in toto after the age of public revelation comes to a close.”
But this just relates a distinction unique to Protestantism. The real issue at stake, regardless of what precisely the Bible has in mind when it refers to ‘Scripture’, is whether ‘sufficient’ (as understood by Protestants) is ever an appropriate modifier of the word ‘Scripture’.
”Not if you judge Catholic claims by Catholic history.”
I’ll grant that that is a hugely important point and one that bears further scrutiny on my part.
Where’s your argument?
ReplyDeleteIn Your post.
You’re also taking a word from an English translation of the OT and reapplying that anachronistically to traditional churches.
Hardly so since I'm Romanian. (who can also read Greek letters and has the Greek LXX on his computer in a few versions). There are the seventy elders that went up the mount with Moses, then we have the elders that were with Joshua, then we have them becoming judges later on, then during the exile in Babylon we have them ruling over the Synagogue in a holistic manner, then we have the seventy elders of the Sanhedrin replicating the number of those that went up with Moses, then we have the Holy Apostles (themselves elders) appointing elders, etc.
In the Roman world we have the Senate (council of elders) and in the Arab world the Sheikh (old man)
Lucian said:
ReplyDeleteWhere’s your argument?
In Your post.
You’re also taking a word from an English translation of the OT and reapplying that anachronistically to traditional churches.
Hardly so since I'm Romanian. (who can also read Greek letters and has the Greek LXX on his computer in a few versions). There are the seventy elders that went up the mount with Moses, then we have the elders that were with Joshua, then we have them becoming judges later on, then during the exile in Babylon we have them ruling over the Synagogue in a holistic manner, then we have the seventy elders of the Sanhedrin replicating the number of those that went up with Moses, then we have the Holy Apostles (themselves elders) appointing elders, etc.
In the Roman world we have the Senate (council of elders) and in the Arab world the Sheikh (old man)
*******************
You keep missing the point. You need to establish that the same *concept* of eldership is continuous.
And, in particular, you need to establish that the NT concept of eldership, especially as we find that job description in the Pastorals, is reproduced in "traditional churches."
I can't see how they're different. Ancient societies everywhere, and throughout their history, were lead by elders. (Judaism included).
ReplyDeleteLucian said...
ReplyDelete"I can't see how they're different. Ancient societies everywhere, and throughout their history, were lead by elders. (Judaism included)."
One problem is that you hold the Bible in such contempt that you can't be bothered to take the time to find out what it means (e.g. the Pastoral Epistles on church office).
Instead, you content yourself with generic claims about the role of elders in every traditional society, whether Christian or Hindu or Muslim or American Indian, &c.
Different duties are assigned to elders depending on the polity. Elders have very different duties depending on whether we're talking about the Pope (Catholic ecclesiology), patriarchs (Orthodox ecclesiology), or ruling and teaching elders (Presbyterian ecclesiology), to take a few examples.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“By public I don’t mean direct from God. I mean a publicly accessible, infallible intermediary between God and man. The OT and the NT have this Witness and Catholicism lays claim to one as well. It is disavowed in Protestantism.”
There is no continuous infallible office in the OT. The OT priesthood represents a continuous office, but it is not infallible; the prophets are infallible, but they don’t represent a continuous office. So there’s a fundamental disanalogy with Rome, which claims to have a continuous infallible office.
“I’m not arguing for strict isomorphism between Catholicism and the OT judicial system in particular or the OT system of Revelation in general. I’m only saying one can reasonably argue that an *analogy* with the Catholicism works better than one with Protestantism (most notably, for the reason given above). Nothing in the analogy requires that the Magesterium be direct analogues of OT judges and nothing else. In the analogy there can be overlap with both judges *and* Revelation.”
Which analogy works better? The prophets often came from outside the system, and for good reason—since the system was often corrupt, and, as such, couldn’t be reformed from within. The apostles also came from outside the system.
“Lots of prooftexting goes on in the other direction too (in this very thread, for that matter).”
I’m answering the Catholic commenters on their own grounds.
“Both sides seem to stretch the evidence to the breaking point (IMO).”
Comments like this do nothing to advance the discussion.
“This goes w/o saying. You’re reading subtleties into my statement which I don’t intend. I meant what you said: ‘one can’t prove Scripture by merely appealing to Scriptural claims’.”
I’m glad it goes without saying for you. It hardly goes without saying for many other critics of Scripture in general or sola Scriptura in particular, whether high-churchmen or infidels.
“Yes, certainly, *if* there is a contradiction with a clear scriptural teaching. But that is the very claim in question.”
And I’ve presented my own case on more than one occasion.
“True enough, but ‘certain amount’ is ambiguous. There will be a ‘certain amount’ of division in either case.”
Not true. There’s a basic tension in the Catholic tradition. In attacking Protestantism, it overemphasizes Protestant disunity and overemphasizes Catholic unity.
In responding to the Protestant counterattack, it deemphasizes the importance of Catholic unity in various ways. So you end up with an ad hoc position.
Catholicism is prized on certain presumptive a prioris about the necessity of a divine teaching office, &c. But it then has to square its idealistic justification with its tawdry historical record.
“The important thing, however, is that the Church can provide, like the Apostoles, a living witness to settle the question of who, in fact, is on the right side of the divide.”
This is like saying that if Jeane Dixon could really see into the future, then she would make a wonderful stockbroker. The conclusion no doubt follows from the hypothetical premise, but since her track-record belies the premise, the competitive advantage is wholly fictitious.
And the whole approach is misguided. It’s driven by armchair assumptions about what is necessary in the life of the church, rather than a study of God’s actual practice and promises.
“Once again, to my knowledge, Catholicism does not guarantee perfect unity, nor would it need to provide perfect unity to be legitimate. Regarding unity, I think the important factor is what I related in my last paragraph.”
No, you’re allowing the Catholic church to make very pretentious claims while also allowing her to indulge in special pleading when her a prioris collide with her a posterioris.
“But this just relates a distinction unique to Protestantism. The real issue at stake, regardless of what precisely the Bible has in mind when it refers to ‘Scripture’, is whether ‘sufficient’ (as understood by Protestants) is ever an appropriate modifier of the word ‘Scripture’.”
For reasons I’ve given, I think the Mosaic criminal code was sufficient for Jews to discharge their duties to God and their fellow man. That’s not the only example, but it makes a key point regarding the superfluity of a Magisterium.
“I’ll grant that that is a hugely important point and one that bears further scrutiny on my part.”
In scrutinizes that point, you might find the following titles to be of value:
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Rome-David-F-Wells/dp/0851113109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202686565&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/My-Struggle-Freedom-Hans-Kung/dp/0802826598
http://www.amazon.com/Priest-Bishop-Raymond-Edward-Brown/dp/1579102778/ref=cm_syf_dtl_top_1
http://www.amazon.com/Papal-Primacy-Origins-Present-Theology/dp/081465522X
http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Valentinus-Christians-First-Centuries/dp/other-editions/0800627024
Steve,
ReplyDeletewhat exactly did I say that was so wrong? (That we inherited the presbytery from the Old Testament, which [presbytery] has been present there [in the O.T.] reality since times immemorial ?). I don't understand You. :-\ I mean, I don't get it ... :-?
a name frequently used in the Old Testament as denoting a person clothed with authority, and entitled to respect and reverence (Gen. 50:7). It also denoted a political office (Num. 22:7). The "elders of Israel" held a rank among the people indicative of authority. Moses opened his commission to them (Ex. 3:16). They attended Moses on all important occasions. Seventy of them attended on him at the giving of the law (Ex. 24:1). Seventy also were selected from the whole number to bear with Moses the burden of the people (Num. 11:16, 17). The "elder" is the keystone of the social and political fabric wherever the patriarchal system exists. At the present day this is the case among the Arabs, where the sheik (i.e., "the old man") is the highest authority in the tribe. The body of the "elders" of Israel were the representatives of the people from the very first, and were recognized as such by Moses. All down through the history of the Jews we find mention made of the elders as exercising authority among the people. They appear as governors (Deut. 31:28), as local magistrates (16:18), administering justice (19:12). They were men of extensive influence (1 Sam. 30:26-31). In New Testament times they also appear taking an active part in public affairs (Matt. 16:21; 21:23; 26:59).
The Jewish eldership was transferred from the old dispensation to the new. "The creation of the office of elder is nowhere recorded in the New Testament, as in the case of deacons and apostles, because the latter offices were created to meet new and special emergencies, while the former was transmitted from the earlies times. In other words, the office of elder was the only permanent essential office of the church under either dispensation."
The "elders" of the New Testament church were the "pastors" (Eph. 4:11), "bishops or overseers" (Acts 20:28), "leaders" and "rulers" (Heb. 13:7; 1 Thess. 5:12) of the flock. Everywhere in the New Testament bishop and presbyter are titles given to one and the same officer of the Christian church. He who is called presbyter or elder on account of his age or gravity is also called bishop or overseer with reference to the duty that lay upon him (Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17-28; Phil. 1:1).
(ELDER: Easton's Bible Dictionary).
By public I don’t mean direct from God. I mean a publicly accessible, infallible intermediary between God and man.
ReplyDelete1. But our rule of faith is the public and accessible one, not yours. Scripture is public and accessible.
2. Your rule of faith is the one that historically talks about a vague "tradition" that, when we asked, no two Catholics seem able to define the same way. The Catholic rule of faith is quite private. The claim to be "publicly accessible" is superficial.
The OT and the NT have this Witness and Catholicism lays claim to one as well. It is disavowed in Protestantism.
The NT does not promise an infallible teaching office that continues in perpetuity after the death of the Apostles. Where can I find this?
This is where the Roman Catholic argument gets bogged down. On the one hand, they argue that the Apostolate is continued through the Magisterium and the Pope, on the other they say that the New Covenant includes this promise.
But the New Covenant never makes that promise, and the New Covenant is by no means restricted to the Apostolate. Rather, the promise is for all the people. So, appealing to Jeremiah 31 or Hebrews 8 proves too much. Indeed, it would be a prooftext for the priesthood of all believers, not a prooftext for a priesthood and teaching office that is infallible and conditioned on a set of valid holy orders.
We Protestants have an eldership too. We do not deny the teaching office exists, only that it is infallible.
But I’m not imposing an expiration date. I’m simply pointing out an alternative interpretation to underscore the fact that we don’t have access to Paul’s mental states, and I’m, further, suggesting that we therefore do not have a determinate answer to the question whether he intended or would have intended to make his proscriptive apply to the Church age.
Frankly, with respect to texts like 2 Thess. 3, it's Catholics who
a. Posit no expiration date, yet
b. Assume that "tradition" refers to an undocumentable set of "traditions" handed down through the teaching office of the Church.
The Orthodox do this too, just in a different way.
But in reality, it's Protestants who actually exegete the text and are true to the text. See the archives of this blog.
The important thing, however, is that the Church can provide, like the Apostoles, a living witness to settle the question of who, in fact, is on the right side of the divide.
Really?
1. Where is the list of infallibly interpreted Scripture passages?
2. Where can I find the documentation of the "traditions" that have been passed down from the Apostles? If you can document them, they are written, and if written, then why aren't they canonized? And, on top of that, if they are, indeed, written and apostolic, then this proves the sufficiency of written revelation. So, we're back to Sola Scriptura by default.
Catholicism's claims are at odds with what God has intended for the Church. It is no different that Keswickism's view of "finding God's will." It's just a high church version of Henry Blackaby's work, where you line up the signs and find "the dot."
In the Old there was casting of lots and Prophecy alongside a text. In the New there was Apostoloc authority alongside a text. These are *outside* sources of infallible authority to which the Bible attests.
ReplyDelete1. And the only way you have access to this information is how? Through Scripture.
2. You're misconstruing the Protestant rule of faith. Sola Scriptura:
a. Can account for the nature of progressive revelation, for example as taught in the discipline of biblical theology.
b. Applies not to the time of inscripturation, under which these texts to which you appeal fall, but to the normative state of the church, after the time of inscripturation.
Consequently, you should try to familiarize yourself with the opposing position.
If you wish to argue that these things are still in effect, then:
a. Do you cast losts?
b. Do you put out "fleeces?"
c. Why aren't you a Montanist?
Steve said,
ReplyDelete"What’s the value of authority if it fails to yield certainty—especially in a high-church context?"
RC authority yields certainty to some extent - a lot may be left undefined, but a lot doesn't mean everything - boundaries of orthodoxy exist. Don't you believe in some form of church authority? Does that authority yield certainty? If it doesn't, what value is it?
“But our rule of faith is the public and accessible one, not yours. Scripture is public and accessible.”
ReplyDelete“Your rule of faith is the one that historically talks about a vague "tradition" that, when we asked, no two Catholics seem able to define the same way. The Catholic rule of faith is quite private. The claim to be "publicly accessible" is superficial.”
To use your own words, these are assertions in lieu of an argument:)
“The NT does not promise an infallible teaching office that continues in perpetuity after the death of the Apostles. Where can I find this?”
With all due respect, have you even read the thread? I’ve already explained myself on this score more than once.
By the way, if an explicit avowal is necessary, then isn’t Protestantism a sham too. Where does the Bible explicitly avow the Canon? Why do Protestants get to make inferences from outside sources but Catholics need prove theirs by scripture alone?
”Where is the list of infallibly interpreted Scripture passages?”
I covered this too. I consider the requirement of *exhaustive* infallibility to be fallicious.
”Where can I find the documentation of the "traditions" that have been passed down from the Apostles? If you can document them, they are written, and if written, then why aren't they canonized? And, on top of that, if they are, indeed, written and apostolic, then this proves the sufficiency of written revelation. So, we're back to Sola Scriptura by default.”
Firstly, what kind of documentation would satisfy you? Secondly, why is that a necessary condition for a warranted belief in an oral tradition? Why expect all oral tradition to be attested in the historical record? Thirdly, this argument works against you too, since you accept the Canon without validation by an authoritative textual tradition.
”And the only way you have access to this information is how? Through Scripture. “
How is this even relevant? Scriptural infallibility isn’t in question. Sufficiency is.
"You're misconstruing the Protestant rule of faith. Sola Scriptura:
a. Can account for the nature of progressive revelation, for example as taught in the discipline of biblical theology.
b. Applies not to the time of inscripturation, under which these texts to which you appeal fall, but to the normative state of the church, after the time of inscripturation. "
---
Actually, I think you’re misconstruing the thrust of my argument. I’m not arguing against what sola Scripture claims for itself; I’m raising questions about the argument for believing it in the first place. Do you think I don’t understand that sola-Scripture, by definition, rules out certain modes of revelation?
---
"If you wish to argue that these things are still in effect, then:
a. Do you cast losts?
b. Do you put out "fleeces?"
c. Why aren't you a Montanist?"
---
Okay, that settles it. You’ve missed my point.
---
To use your own words, these are assertions in lieu of an argument:)
ReplyDeleteI've made that argument already in the archives. Look for 2 posts on 2 Thessalonians and the meaning of "tradition."
So, your cute attempt at humor fails.
1. In answer to both Orthodoxy and Rome, we reply that the time of the Apostles was not the normative state of the Church. If they wish to sustain their argument, it will require them to assert, as does Rome, that somebody or some bodies must be the successor of the Apostles today in order to state contrary to our position. The arguments have proven self-refuting and question-begging. We've seen this many times on this blog.
Indeed, we enjoy watching Rome and Constantinople assassinate each other over who is the true successor to St. Peter and the Eleven. Also, why not, by the basis of this text, are you not a member of the one true, holy, Apostolic Thessalonian Church?
2. Secondly, we reply that eite is not always disjunctive. It can and does have a conjunctive force, as in 1 Cor. 13:8. Nothing can be gathered from this particle’s usage.
3. The Fathers, like Iranaeus, testify to the antiquity of 2 Thessalonians, such that it predates, at the least, the Gospel of Matthew, if we accept the testimony that he wrote first, Mark if Mark wrote first. It is inconsequential to state that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians at that time, therefore, the “traditions” he has in view are different from those in Scripture or incomplete, as if they were not written at a later time. Such is the fallacy of the consequent in our opponents’ argument.
4. Apropos 3, to sustain the argument, our opponent would need to sustain an argument for continuing revelation as well. Are they also Pentecostals?
5. What “traditions” might Paul have in mind, assuming for a moment, that our opponents are correct? Dates of Easter and Lent? Feast days? Prayer to saints? The form and manner of sacraments like the Mass, the conferring of holy orders, marriage, etc? Marian dogmas, papal infallibility? If so, then let them produce the documentation.
6. Should they choose to argue that Paul has in mind things concerning the coming of the Man of Evil, like the date thereof, then let them produce the date and tell us to whom Paul revealed these things, and if they so produce the date, then they must admit that the tradition is not unwritten but written, proving the sufficiency of written things for faith and practice in the Church. If they cannot, then it is true that such traditions can be lost and are not, therefore, necessary for the faith and practice of the churches.
7. What if they say that these traditions are written elsewhere in other Scripture, the text does not thereby teach we are to ignore other traditions? We ask:
a. Where does this text establish the infallibility and perpetuity of those traditions?
b. What traditions might our opponents have in mind?
8. Let them:
a. Against Rome- produce an infallible teaching regarding this text.
b. Against Rome and Constantinople- show the rules by which we may adjudicate between true and false traditions and teachings. We can be true to “traditions” without the “traditions” being true.
9. The standard objection they level against our rule of faith is that it is “private” depending upon the “private interpretations” of the consciences of men, but is it not true that if they cannot produce any certain ( and infallible) rules by which to adjudicate these things, that their rule is just as private, if not moreso? We maintain that our rule of faith is public, as public as Scripture itself, and Scripture is public and clear.
Firstly, what kind of documentation would satisfy you? Secondly, why is that a necessary condition for a warranted belief in an oral tradition? Why expect all oral tradition to be attested in the historical record? Thirdly, this argument works against you too, since you accept the Canon without validation by an authoritative textual tradition.
1. Actually, the argument is a classic dilemma from which you cannot escape. Any *literary* reference to oral tradition involves a written source. Apart from this *textual* witness to oral tradition, we have no other source of information. So we ultimately depend on the primacy of textuality over orality—even to attest the existence of oral tradition.
2. The easiest way for you to show that Paul and the others taught things that are not included in Scripture is for you to produce them. So, have at it.
a. Paul taught things not in Scripture that have been passed down. Consequently, you should be able to produce them.
b. If you produce them, then they are written, which thereby overturns the assertion that these are unwritten traditions.
c. Consequently, you need to provide a reason for them not being canonized as Scripture, since one of the criterion we all accept is that what is of Apostolic authority and written should be canonized as Scripture.
In the past we've been told all sorts of things. Examples include "the liturgy." (Reply: Which one?)
One my favorites examples was "Go ask an Orthodox priest."
If you claim the existence of oral apostolic tradition, you need to document your claim. How else could you establish the existence of oral apostolic tradition?
After all, we are not immediate disciples of the apostles. So we didn’t get it by word of mouth from *them*. Hence, the only possible way of establishing the claim would be through documentation.
With all due respect, have you even read the thread? I’ve already explained myself on this score more than once.
With all due respect, we've been over this with you already. Do try to follow along.
Steve wrote:
if you rely on the church to interpret Scripture, then it’s viciously circular to invoke the ecclesiastical interpretation of an ecclesiastical prooftext to prove the authority of the church.
Appealing to Scripture's self witness is hardly a vicious circle. Do you understand the difference between virtuous and vicious circularity?
And moving the question to "the Church" only moves the question back one step for you. How do you know the Roman Church is the One True Holy Apostolic Church? Appealing to Scripture is a problem according to your own yardstick, for you can't both serve and define the same thing. So, you're forced to rely on "the Church."
Which gets us to your "explanations." As Steve said:
All you’ve done here is to beg the question by a tendentious appeal to the traditional, Catholic interpretation of your Catholic or Petrine prooftexts.
You cannot exegete the papacy from the specifics of Mt 16:18 or Lk 22:31-32. And your appeal to 1 Tim 3:15 is contrary to the way in which Catholic commenters like Msgr. Quinn and Luke Timothy Johnson construe the passage.
I guess you missed that reply.
Thirdly, this argument works against you too, since you accept the Canon without validation by an authoritative textual tradition.
1. Really? And which text type does Rome support against all others? I think you're actually trying to argue that the canon can't be known apart from Magisterial authority.
Since Wisdom is in your canon, I gather this means you believe that Rome can canonize forgeries. My theory of inspiration doesn't extend that far, does yours?
2. This is a pseudoproblem generated by your Romanism.
3. We've all made the argument for the canon many times on this blog. It includes lines of internal and external evidence.
4. But you're trapped in a vicious regress, for you can't know the canon without an infallible Magisterium, but you can't very well use Scripture to prove the Magisterium without first assuming that Rome is the one true church. So, at best, you've only moved the question back one step.
How is this even relevant? Scriptural infallibility isn’t in question. Sufficiency is.
Try to follow along. You can't appeal to the things in Scripture as Scripture depicts them without Scripture. So, you're assuming, at the very least, the material sufficiency of Scripture in order to even make this claim.
I’m not arguing against what sola Scripture claims for itself; I’m raising questions about the argument for believing it in the first place. Do you think I don’t understand that sola-Scripture, by definition, rules out certain modes of revelation?
I think your argument is intellectually confused. You're the one who invoked these other modes of revelation as analogs to support your rule of faith.
1. Romanism itself rules out continuing revelation.
2. To invoke these as analogs,
a. Is to dispute Sola Scriptura.
b. Overlooks the fact that the time of inscripturation is at an end, and this is true for either rule of faith. Your appeal is illicit. Where is the actual argument that these analogs are true analogs to your rule of faith?
Okay, that settles it. You’ve missed my point.
On the contrary, I don't think you get mine. If Scripture mentions these other infallible sources of authority alongside the text, and these are somehow analogous to the Magisterium's authority (to take just one example, or another an ecumenical creed), then why places these two restrictions on what sorts of things can count as infallible authority, why not be a Montanist?
The real issue at stake, regardless of what precisely the Bible has in mind when it refers to ‘Scripture’, is whether ‘sufficient’ (as understood by Protestants) is ever an appropriate modifier of the word ‘Scripture’.
ReplyDeleteSee Chapter 4 of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith by David T. King. The exegesis there is quite complete.