Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Nay nay to JJ

JJ SAID:

“Which doesn't actually help you, because Christianity is not Judaism.”

i) Irrelevant unless you’re a Catholic Marcionite. The OT is part of the Christian canon. Christians were never bereft of Scripture.

ii) I’d add that Christianity is the true Judaism. Jesus was Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. All the NT writers were Jewish (Luke was probably a proselyte.)

However, your anti-Semitism is characteristic of traditional Catholicism (as well as Orthodoxy). Consider yourself a true son of Rome.

“Once again, you're unable to follow the bouncing ball. If the Magisterium isn't subject to scripture because it decides what it is and what it means, then neither is Steve subject to it for the same reasons. Try to pay attention. You're so used to trotting out your favourite one liners that you can't seem to think clearly anymore about the issues.”

i) Once again, you’re unable to follow the bouncing ball. You fail to distinguish between a cognitive starting point and a criterional starting point. In Catholicism, the Magisterium performs a criterional function. Hence, there is no higher court of appeal.

In Protestantism, by contrast, the individual is not his own criterion. Scripture is the criterion.

ii) In both Catholicism and Protestantism, the individual is the cognitive starting point.

iii) Apropos (i)-(ii), the multiplication tables illustrate the criterional starting point while a mathematician, in using the multiplication tables, illustrates the cognitive starting point. When a mathematician applies the multiplication tables to a particular problem, the application depends on his subjective interpretation, but that doesn’t make him his own criterion of what 2x2 equals. He is answerable to the multiplication tables, not vice versa.

iv) Catholics must also apply their subjective judgment in the choice of a criterion.

Try to pay attention next time. You're so used to trotting out your Catholic one-liners that you can't seem to think clearly anymore about the issues.

“1. Your "parallel arguments" attack your own position as was demonstrated. Steve defines what scripture is and what it means.”

Your parallel arguments attack your own position as was just demonstrated. You keep failing to distinguish between a cognitive starting point and a criterional starting point.

“2. Your parallel arguments attack the Christian position in general, by making all revelation subjective by way of the individual's position in the process.”

i) You continue to repeat the same mistake (see above).

ii) You, as an individual, have applied your subjective judgment in judging Christian revelation to be true, rather than, say, the Koran or the Vedas or the Book of Mormon.

“3. A church needs a rule of faith as a principle of unity.”

i) You assert what you need to prove.

ii) The Catholic rule of faith has failed to achieve unity. There is no unity on the interpretation of Vatican II. There is no unity on Humanae Vitae. You didn’t prevent the Reformation. Or the rise of Modernism. So, if we measure your own church by your own yardstick, it comes up short.

“The Catholic method is to continually subject oneself to the catholic understanding.”

Your subjective understanding of the Catholic understanding. Your alternative does nothing to escape your own subjectivity.

“It's a principle which puts the overall direction of one's understanding in a continual movement towards commonality.”

Groupthink is no index of truth. If Muslims think alike, does that make Islam true?

“The limitations of the individual's understanding do not impede this fact, because his understanding is not bound to interpret what he finds in any old direction, but rather in the direction of catholicity.”

i) You subjectively interpret what you find in the direction of catholicity.

ii) The fact that you make catholicity your goal is, itself, a subjective value judgment.

“Thus it is a workable rule of faith.”

i) You haven’t begun to show that a rule of faith is supposed to be “workable” as you define it. Did 2nd temple Jews have a “workable” rule of faith? Were 2nd temple Jews unified?

The first condition for a rule of faith is that it be true, not that it be “workable” (as you define it).

ii) The Catholic rule of faith isn’t “workable.” Look at disputes over Vatican II or Humanae Vitae.

iii) Achieving unity is not the only possible function for a rule of faith. Truth is divisive as well as unitive.

“Protestants of the 21st century are further away from agreeing about anything than they were 500 years ago.”

Traditionalist Catholics would say the Vatican has moved away from what it agreed on 500 years ago.

“Individual protestants are just as likely to have their understand move away from that of their church than towards it, leading to continual dispute, confusion and church hopping.”

There are Catholic critics of modern Catholicism on both the left (e.g. Kung) and the right (e.g. Lefebvre).

“Who said the only access to Scripture is via the Magisterium?”

You make the Magisterium the official interpreter and gatekeeper. You can’t get past that checkpoint without Magisterial permission.

“That's like saying that because Paul makes an infallible interpretation of Genesis, the only access anybody has had to Genesis is via Paul.”

Now you’re comparing one Bible writer with another Bible writer. That’s disanalogous to an extrascriptural Magisterium. One Bible writer isn’t accountable to another Bible writer. Both are directly accountable to God.

“And it's quite relevant to point out that your definition of perspicuity makes sola scripture unworkable. It's the old bait and switch.”

i) You’re the one who’s playing the bait-and-switch. Bryan presumed to attack the Protestant doctrine of perspicuity. But he misrepresented the position attacking.

Before Bryan (or you) can attack the doctrine as “unworkable,” he must begin with an accurate definition of the doctrine he’s attacking. This he failed to do.

You are now changing the subject. Classic bait-and-switch.

ii) You also beg the question by saying that perspicuity is unworkable according to the Catholic definition of what a rule of faith is supposed to accomplish.

“First you claim scripture is perspicuous, and then you define perspicuous so that it makes sola scripture unworkable.”

i) It was never first…then.” That’s how perspicuity was defined all along. Read classic definitions in Turretin or the WCF.

ii) It’s only unworkable as you tendentiously define feasibility. And you have yet to defend your utilitarian definition in the first place.

“1. This is a different statement to saying we need to "trap Jesus in a piece of bread".”

I wouldn’t expect you to be that candid. It would expose the crudity of Catholic piety.

“2. Lutherans apparently need to "trap Jesus in, on or under a piece of bread", but apparently escape the same accusation.”

Since I’m not a Lutheran, that’s a dumb charge for you to make. Lutheranism doesn’t escape the same accusation. I’ve criticized Lutheran sacramentology in the past. Spare me your ignorant imputations of what I do and do not censure.

“3. Please document any Catholic saying "God can't damn you with a piece of Jesus inside you".”

Once again, I wouldn’t expect a Catholic to be that candid. I’m merely pointing out the implications of his faith and practice.

“4. Since you can only receive Eucharist if you are in a state of grace, it hardly seems rational to talk about the Eucharist as primary means for remaining in a state of grace and avoiding dying in mortal sin.”

i) A priest only administers the sacrament to communicants he knows to be in a state of grace? I don’t think so.

ii) Naturally a communicant will think he’s in a state of grace, and view the Mass as a maintenance program which is instrumental in preserving him in a state of grace. Why do Catholics go to Mass? To receive the means of grace. Grace channeled through the Eucharist.

“On paper, STEVE honors the authority of Scripture, but in practice STEVE's authority supplants and subverts Biblical authority.”

You need to prove that this is an issue of “authority” in both cases. You’ve given us an argument from analogy minus the argument.

“And I was responding to the claim that Catholicism is reducible to me and my Magisterium.”

If that was your objective, then you fell short.

“1) The laity doesn't always have to know the how and why of something to benefit from it. If the Magisterium keeps good order in the church through a correct understanding of scripture, the laity benefits without knowing the details.”

So the Magisterial interpretation of “the whole Bible” is classified? Only available on a need-to-know basis?

“2) Even without linking dogma to specific verses, the laity benefits from the correct understanding. For example, the laity benefits from the knowledge that it is correct to baptise infants without needing be told what texts might be relevant to that.”

Beneficial if true. Where is the supporting argument for the conditional?

“Pointing out the nonsense of your arguments about the Magisterium not being subject to scripture does not lead to parity. It just defeats your arguments.”

You keep ducking your distinctive burden of proof: the superiority of the Magisterium to sola Scriptura.

“There is no parity between the Church of God defining what scripture is, compared to STEVE defining what scripture is. That should be obvious to anyone.”

i) You haven’t given us any good reason to believe that God has conferred that prerogative on “the Church.”

ii) And even if he had, it comes down to your subjective interpretation of Magisterial teaching. So you’re stuck with parity.

“Having a central authority make judgement can't have epistemological equivalence to every man and his dog making their own judgement.”

There was no “central authority” in the OT. And there’s no “central authority” in the NT.

“Again, the old bait and switch. I refuted your argument that the Magisterium is not subject to scripture, now you're using that as bait and switch to pretend epistemological equivalence. That won't wash.”

You failed to refute my argument (see above). And my argument wasn’t a fallback argument. I’ve been using that all along. Try again.

“But I do note that your argument gives epistemological equivalence to atheists.”

Mistaken on a couple of counts:

i) Atheists use the wrong criterional starting point.

ii) Atheists also use the wrong cognitive starting point since the reprobate and unregenerate are disqualified by the noetic effects of sin from.

“That's like saying that the Supreme court's interpretation is equivalent to my own, because both must be filtered through my brain. But you'll find it aint so if you try and disregard a Supreme court order.__The fact is, institutions are needed to interpret texts. It's a fact of life and can't be refuted through some philosophical infinitely reductionist argument. Otherwise you could make the courts disappear in a puff of logic.”

That’s a very damaging analogy to draw in relation to Catholicism. A judicial ruling is binding, not because it’s true, but because it enjoys the coercive force of law.

Both lower and higher courts are quite capable of misinterpreting the law as well as mistaking the facts of the case. They are both fallible and authoritative.

Nazi judges were a fact of life under the Third Reich. And to judge by your totalitarian appeal, you would have made a good German.

By contrast, the Bible authorizes civil disobedience under certain circumstances.

“If Paul couldn't override other bible writers then clearly he WAS subject to them, since it wasn't within his authority to override them. Case closed.”

Are you playing dumb, or are you just plain dumb? This is what I originally said: "As a matter of fact, Paul was not subject to a higher, OT court of appeal. One Bible writer can't overrule another Bible writer. "

I made a claim about the symmetrical authority of Bible writers which you turn into a claim about the asymmetrical authority of Bible writers. You deduce a conclusion which follows, not from what I said, but from your misrepresentation of what I said.

Paul can’t override Isaiah, and Isaiah can’t override Paul. One isn’t subject to the other, or vice versa. Bible writers are equally inspired, infallible, and authoritative.

“No, my private judgement is with the aim of subjecting myself to a unifying principle which is the Spirit led Church.”

The choice of what authority to submit yourself to is a subjective value-judgment. And your interpretation of Magisterial teaching is equally subjective.

“Protestant private judgement is merely private judgement that doesn't care whether it leads you into or out of unity.

i) Unity doesn’t select for truth. Many cults are far more unified than Catholicism.

ii) Protestant private judgment cares about a correspondence between what I believe and God reveals.

“If it leads you to found a new church with you as the only one in it, so be it. That is not an equivalent position.”

You’re equivocating. The point at issue is not whether the Catholic rule of faith and the Protestant rule of faith have equivalent consequences. That was never the argument.

The point, rather, is that individual interpretation is an unavoidable and irreducible condition of both positions.

“Yes, scripture is so perspicuous that you need commentaries, sermons, and internal light to understand it.”

You’re simply acting petulant because the actual formulation of perspicuity in Protestant theology doesn’t give you an easy target.

The contrast is not between teaching and non-teaching. The contrast is between teaching which appeals to reason and evidence to justify its interpretation, and teaching which appeals to its own authority because its interpretation is unreasonable and counterevidential.

“But if someone else interprets differently and claims internal light, you're left with nothing objective. If someone is led astray by a bad commentary, cest la vie.”

I’m not responsible for someone who willfully misinterprets the Bible. And that also serves the purpose of God. For example, God knew that the message of the OT prophets would generally fall on deaf ears. Yet he sent them to preach anyway. Jesus knew that many Jews would reject his message. Yet he proclaimed himself to the Jews anyway. God knew that the message of the Apostles would be rejected by many Jewish listeners. Yet the Apostles were supposed to preach to Jew and Gentile alike.

Do you think the word of God failed in all these cases? Did it fail to achieve God’s appointed purpose?

Like all high churchmen, you disregard the actual purpose of God’s word, and substitute the purpose you think it should serve.

“So perspicuity becomes a meaningless catchphrase that proves nothing and helps no-one.”

It’s only “meaningless” according to your Catholic assignment, which you assert rather than defend.

“The Catholic faith itself is an infallible commentary on the bible.”

i) You’re being mendacious. Where is the Magisterial commentary on Chronicles, to take one example?

ii) And what residual of Catholic theology even claims to be infallible?

“Great. So prove to me which of those books are infallible.”

Does this mean you deny the plenary inspiration of Scripture?

Evangelical apologetics has presented many lines of evidence for the inspiration of Scripture. I don’t need to reinvent the wheel in response to you.

“Neatly avoiding the point that the apostles did not limit their teaching to the written Torah.”

You’re behind the curve. I’ve already addressed that appeal in response to Jay Dyer, among others.

“Nonsense. Prove to me that I wouldn't know to baptise infants unless it was written down.”

Which Apostle personally told JJ to baptize infants? Did you hold a séance recently?

“It's not an evasion to point out that radical skepticism cuts both ways.”

To say that it cuts both ways does nothing to salvage your own position. Since you’ve surrendered you own position, you have spared me the effort.

“How do you trace every link in every chain in every book back to the apostles or prophets, and then do the same for every book which you don't think came from the apostles or prophets?”

i) I’ve made my case for the Bible on many occasions. I don’t have to repeat myself for your benefit.

ii) You, by contrast, haven’t begun to make a case for your alternative.

iii) And, once again, you’re resorting to the tu quoque tactic, which fails to establish the superiority of the Magisterium over sola Scriptura.

“Obtusely equivocating between having teachings and having a list of teachings.”

You don’t have what you can’t point to.

“It's all there in the tradition.”

“Tradition” isn’t neatly catalogued and indexed. You need to specify what particular traditions (plural) count as Sacred Tradition (singular).

“What silliness. The Magisterium is in continuous contact with the rest of the church.”

Now you’ve abandoned your prooftext for a very different argument. You back down very quickly. Unfortunately, you don’t learn from your mistakes. You simply make different mistakes.

“And there is no reason to believe Philip was infallible in his dealings with the Eunuch.”

So even if your analogy between the teaching of Philip and the teaching of the Magisterium held, that would only illustrate fallible ecclesial teaching. And how is fallible Catholic teaching any improvement over fallible Protestant teaching?

“It seems to me it is you who is obsessed with infallibility.”

The Catholic argument for the Magisterium is that the perpetuity of the church is grounded in the indefectibility of the church, which is, in turn, grounded in the infallibility of the church insofar as is immune to heresy. For example, Cardinal Dulles uses that precise argument as the Catholic rationale for the Magisterium—in his recent book on the subject (64-65).

You’re either ignorant of basic Catholic theology or else you don’t believe it.

“The point is, someone in communion with the church could give him a correct interpretation.”

One doesn’t need to be in communion with the church to correctly interpret a passage of Scripture. A secular Hebraist can correctly interpret a passage from the OT. A secular Classicist can correctly interpret a passage from the NT.

“Pointing out your hypocrisy is very relevant here.”

Pointing out “hypocrisy,” even if the charge were true, does nothing to salvage your own position. When you keep resorting to this tu quoque tactic you tacitly admit that your own position is indefensible. You can try to attack my position, but you can’t defend your own. Disproving mine, even if successful, wouldn’t begin to prove your own.

“Again the obsession with infallibility.”

That’s a Catholic obsession.

“But the court process IS authoritative.”

So is Fascism. And Maoism. And Stalinism. Sharia courts are authoritative for Muslims.

“So is the protestant notion that they have the authority to interpret as individuals.”

i) Once again, you can’t keep track of the argument. In my reply to Bryan Cross, I denied that interpretation presupposes authority. And I argued for my position. Where’s your counterargument?

ii) I’d add that it’s self-refuting for you to play the authority card since you yourself are not an authority-figure. You don’t belong to Magisterium. You have no authority card to play. If interpretation is contingent on authority, then you’ve disqualified yourself from having anything worthwhile to say on the subject.

“And when exactly did they have the right to set up a new Levitical priesthood?”

i) Once again, you’re changing the subject. Every time you do that it’s a backdoor admission that you lost the argument.

You had argued for the antecedent probability of the Magisterium. But the force of that argument would apply retroactively to the old covenant community as well as the new covenant community. However, the old covenant community had no infallible teaching office.

ii) When you shift grounds to the issue of schism, you abandon your original argument. If you have so little faith in your argument, why should anyone else?

iii) In order for your analogy to work, which you’re substituting for the your failed, opening move, you would need to show that the Church of Rome is the NT counterpart to the OT priesthood. I’m waiting for you to present your argument, although I don’t harbor high expectations that you’ll rise to the challenge which you posed for yourself.

“Who would have interpreted the scriptures on how, where and when to carry out temple sacrifices? (a) Every man and his dog. (b) the Levitical priesthood.”

Once again, I already addressed that objection in my review of Dulles’ book. You’re behind the curve.

You’re doing another bait-and-switch. The question at issue is not whether OT priests would have occasion to interpret OT law. Rather, the question is whether there was an infallible teaching office in the OT.

“People followed the tradition as best as they could grasp it.”

“As best as they could grasp”? You think that’s an improvement over the right of private judgment?

“Notice that the catholic principle of unity did pretty well even without a dogmatic proclamation.”

In which case unity doesn’t depend on ecumenical councils or infallible papal pronouncements. Congratulations! You just torpedoed your case for the necessity of the Magisterium. The only remaining question is whether you’d rather become a Baptist or Plymouth Brethren.

“As do you, but I have the higher view of providence.”

No, you have a lower view of providence since you think that God can only guide his people by telling them what to do.

“Again the obsession with infallibility.”

Look, you nitwit, infallibility is a *Catholic* obsession. Pius IX is a case in point.

“It's antecedently absurd as a method for identifying truth, since people claiming inspiration disagree.”

Another obtuse comment. The fact that people disagree doesn’t make it *antecedently* absurd. Try to screw your head on straight.

That outcome would only make it ex post facto absurd. You don’t even grasp the concepts you deploy.

People claiming inspiration disagree because everyone is not, in fact, inspired. Remember, an argument for the Magisterium based on antecedent probabilities is, in the first instance, an *a priori* argument based on the *hypothetical* advantages of the Magisterium.

Universal private inspiration is a counterfactual scenario. So, of course, in the real world, people claiming inspiration disagree.

But that doesn’t render the proposition *antecedently* improbable. And if your argument for the antecedent probability of the Magisterium is that Magisterial guidance is a means of achieving the aim of Christian unity, then there are antecedently more probable mechanisms of achieving that goal since there are more efficient hypothetical means of achieving Christian unity.

I’m responding to you on your own grounds. Have the grace to remember your own argument, pitiful as that may be.

“The aim isn't to prevent dissension, but provide an identifiable source of unity for resolving it.”

Once again you’re too dense to follow your own argument. A way of achieving unity is to prevent dissension. If the aim is to achieve unity, then preventing dissention is a necessary means to that end.

Instead, you’ve abandoned the *practicality* of the goal, and are now taking refuge in a rule of faith which can, in *principle*, resolve conflict even though, in a real world situation, it fails to *effect* unity by the resolution of conflict. So your rule of faith is a paper theory which doesn’t “work” in real life. An abstract and purely formalisic principle of unity that doesn’t effect unity fails to actually solve the problem (disunity) which you posed for yourself.

“What these supposedly more probably methods are we are not told.”

I told you quite specifically. Were you drunk at the time?

Innate knowledge would accomplish that aim. So would universal private inspiration.

“Having the canon is worthless without understanding the canon. To go half way with this argument is absurd. We must believe that the Church both has the canon and understands it.”

i) Which begs the question of whether we need a Magisterium to interpret the Bible.

ii) And you yourself have undermined your own case by belittling the issue of infallible guidance. If the Magisterium offers us fallible interpretations of Scripture, then how is that supposed to confer any advantage over fallible individual interpretations?

“If God wants us to know the canon, why don't all Christians know the canon?”

i) As usual, you’re impotent to defend your own position. All you can do is to throw the question back into the lap of your Protestant opponent.

ii) I don’t think it’s God’s will that every professing believer know the canon. It’s God’s will to leave some people in error. Just as he consigns liberal members of apostate denominations to damnable heresies.

It’s not essential to my position that John Spong know the canon. Or Swedenborg. Or Marcion. Or Pope Benedict XVI.

“If you want to nit pick around this kind of argument, then suddenly you don't have a canon. Suddenly, maybe your canon is just completely wrong.”

Based on what? Cartesian demons? Cartesian demons are more than happy to bedevil whatever Catholic alternative you propose. Floating purely hypothetical defeaters is not a rational basis for doubting anything. You need some concrete evidence that the hypothetical true. Otherwise, you’re like moviegoers who make themselves psychotic by taking The Matrix too seriously.

“You need at some level to identify with the argument of what God is likely to do. God is likely to make his word known.”

Such a generic argument (which you haven’t even furnished) doesn’t begin to yield the Catholic Magisterium.

“God is likely to make true scriptures clearly distinguishable from false ones.”

I don’t deny that God has made true scriptures clearly distinguishable from false ones.

“Perhaps. But the scriptures themselves have been occasion for both unity and division. I don't think you would therefore reject scripture as a point of unity.”

i) I’m not the one whose treating unity as a criterion.

ii) The scriptures have been more than an “occasion” for division. That’s one of the purposes of Scripture. It’s meant to have a winnowing effect on the audience.

“Again, if you have no epistemic advantage in having Paul's infallible interpretation of Genesis, then throw out Paul. You won't, because you know it aint so.”

Did I say there’s no epistemic advantage in having *Paul’s* infallible interpretation of Genesis? No.

“How this helps your case that people can get things right but without a valid reason to do so, I can't see.”

Did I say people can get things right without a valid reason? No.

“Luke doesn't say he received all his information directly from exclusively eyewitnesses, he says his story is "handed down to us" by eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Clearly there weren't eyewitnesses alive for everything Luke wrote. Clearly he didn't have eyewitnesses for all the facts in Ch 3 for example.”

There were no living witnesses to the ministry of John the Baptist?

And what makes you think he clearly didn’t get his genealogy of Jesus from a member of Jesus’ family (e.g. James, Jude)?

“Reference please.”

a) All scripture is inspired (2 Tim 3:16)
b) Luke is Scripture (1 Tim 5:18; cf. Lk 10:7).
c) Therefore, Luke is inspired.

And spare me the objection that 2 Tim 3:16 is referring to the OT. 2 Tim 3:16 is making a categorical statement about Scripture qua Scripture.

“In that case, apostolic succession is an historical fact.”

No, in that case, apostolic succession is a historical *claim*. Present your evidence.

You can’t fall back on the authority of your church since the authority of your church is contingent on apostolic succession. You must verify the institution before the institution can verify anything else.

“It renders the claim as verifiable or unverifiable as many other theological claims.”

So verify it. It’s your dogma. The onus lies on you to verify your own dogma.

“Epistemologically however, the Magisterium is an entity created by the apostles, and you aren't, so you don't get to claim epistemological equality.”

i) You don’t get to claim the Magisterium is an entity created by the apostles. Give us something resembling an actual argument to bolster your contention.

ii) And, I, for one, have argued for the alternative (sola scriptura, private judgment).

“What's your definition of sola scripture? That scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church? But hang on, now you're claiming the church doesn't need a rule of faith for its unity and good governance. Oops, there goes sola scriptura out the window.”

JJ is blind to his own Catholic presuppositions. He begins with a definition. Then he says sola Scripture would go out the widow if sola Scriptura is not a unifying principle. But that doesn’t follow from his own definition. Rather, he has assigned that function to a rule of faith based on his Catholic priorities.

“We agree enough to remain one church.”

That begs the question of how much discontinuity with the past is permissible and still call yourself the same church.

“Sorry, you need to document your ramblings. Claiming stuff doesn't cut it.”

You might begin by applying that yardstick to your own assertions, for which you offer no supporting arguments.

“Since Paul is your infallible interpretive authority, then the only real access you have to Genesis is via the Paul. Thanks for confirming what I've been saying.”

i) To begin with, Paul is not the only Bible writer or inspired speaker within a Biblical narrative who interprets Genesis.

ii) One of the problems with the Magisterium is that it does, indeed, presume to speak with the same interpretive authority as an Apostle. So there is, in fact, a putative parallel, and that’s the problem. The Magisterium is not entitled to claim the same interpretive authority.

You have this mindless, mechanical tu quoque response to everything we say without bothering to consider that parity or equivalence doesn’t vindicate your own position.

“How does having an infallible Bible, alleviate the problem of subjectivity of the fallible individual's intepretation?”

Once again, JJ falls back on his brainless tu quoque response as if that salvages his own position.

i) He begs the question by assuming that subjectivity is a problem for Protestant theology. That is not a problem for Calvinism. Human subjectivity is not autonomous. God is the Lord of our subjectivity. He made it.

ii) And even if, ex hypothesi, this were a problem for the Protestant rule of faith, to say we suffer from the same problem is no way of defending the Catholic rule of faith.

Notice that JJ can never defend his own position. He can only attack the opposing position. He leaves objections to his own position intact. He’s giving the reader reasons to reject Protestantism, but he’s not giving the reader reasons to accept Catholicism. To say that Protestantism is wrong doesn’t make Catholicism is right.

Yet this is JJ’s modus operandi, as if that were an adequate apologetic for Catholicism.

“But we don't allow it to be shaken to the ground, because we believe in God leading his people, such that we believe the testimony about the prophets, we believe the testimony about Paul, and we believe the testimony about the magisterium.”

All he’s done here is to assert his belief. A Muslim or Mormon or Hindu or Scientologist could do the same.

“We are just consistent in who we believe.”

Even if you were consistent, you can be consistently wrong.

“Once we start making up for ourselves which bits we believe, we shake our epistemological foundation with our personal opinions so that the church itself topples over.”

i) This sidesteps the crucial question of whether you laid a firm foundation to begin with. You can also lay a firm foundation in the wrong location. You need to lay the correct foundation.

ii) And, of course, JJ is very selective about what he’s prepared to believe. He’s not a Gnostic or an Arian or a Bogomile or a Mormon.

iii) As a matter of fact, Christians are supposed to exercise discernment. The NT frequently warns us to be on guard against false teachers.

“1) Because the Magisterium can react to the ongoing situation to clarify enough to retain unity in the church. So it works as a rule of faith. Are you going to claim the church doesn't need a workable rule of faith?”

i) As usual, he merely stipulates what a rule of faith is supposed to accomplish. He never presents an argument for his crucial claim.

ii) Assuming, for the same of argument, that he is correct, then the Magisterium has failed to retain unity. Is there a unified interpretation of Vatican II? Is Catholic opinion united behind Humane Vitae?

In fact, these are two examples where the Magisterium generated disunity. It achieved the very opposite of what JJ says a rule of faith is supposed to achieve.

“2) The magisterium has an historical (and thus objective) link with the scriptures via apostolic succession.”

Notice how he constantly assumes what he needs to prove. He substitutes his make-believe for evidence and reason.

Not only does he fail to furnish any evidence for apostolic succession, but he also fails to address the counterevidence. What about the Great Schism (1378-1417)? What about ecclesiastical impediments to valid ordination? What about rigged papal elections?

“Thus STEVE's claims about what scripture is and what it means are purely subjective. in relational to someone else's claims.”

How does he define “subjectivity”? The mere fact that two men may disagree? But Catholics disagree with each other. Protestants disagree with Catholics. Eastern Orthodox disagree with Catholics. Oriental Orthodox disagree with Catholics. Marxists disagree with Catholics.

If two people disagree, we should listen to their arguments. Which side has the best argument?

If JJ is going to object that this evaluation is subjective, then he can’t argue for Catholicism.

“That's compounded with the problem that we don't have access to all the circumstances both immediate and cultural that give the text its full meaning.__Grammatical-historical exegesis at best comes up with a range of possible interpretations, and the most likely one on a grammatical-historical basis, even if one could decide such a thing objectively (which is itself a doubtful claim), is not necessarily the true one.”

i) JJ, like Catholics generally, simply stipulates what he thinks should be the case, then picks a theological just-so story to illustrate his stipulation.

The proper question we should ask ourselves is what does God require of us? Does God demand that we come up with a necessarily correct interpretation? Does God hold us to apodictic proof? No.

Because JJ thinks in armchair terms rather than historical terms, he doesn’t bother to look at the actual record. Consider 1C Jews in relation to the Torah. Did 1C Jews have “access to all the circumstances both immediate and cultural that give the text its full meaning”?

No, the Torah was written over a millennium before their time. Despite that epistemic limitation, were 1C Jews responsible for their adherence to the Torah? Yes.

Did God expect them to come up with a “necessarily true” interpretation of every Mosaic injunction? No.

Were OT judges infallible? No. Many OT judges were worse than fallible—they were corrupt. They deliberately misapplied the law.

ii) BTW, notice that JJ, on the one hand, says that I’m “obsessed with infallibility” while, on the other hand, he sets the bar at a “necessarily true” interpretation. Isn’t that synonymous with infallibility?

iii) Can JJ point us to his “necessarily true” interpretation of Magisterial teachings?

“If we had the examples of the apostles doing gramatical/historical exegesis on a consistent basis, or even once for that matter, then maybe you'd have the kernel of an argument.”

JJ exhibits his self-reinforcing ignorance. There’s a whole book on that subject: Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, G. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds.

“There is no objective link between the bible and STEVE.”

You don’t need a “link” to correctly interpret a statement. When Jesus and the Apostles debate the Jews, they don’t appeal to a “link.”

If I read the Tale of Genji, I can correctly interpret many statements without my having a “link” to the imperial court of 11C Japan.

“No, the Magisterium couldn't override scripture because the Magisterium and those writers were both writing under the power/inspiration of the Holy Spirit Himself and they had the same authority.”

i) All assertion, no argument.

ii) Even on its own grounds, it fails to distinguish between the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium.

iii) Why is JJ appealing to the inspiration of the Magisterium? Doesn’t that betray an “obsession” with infallibility?

“1) Notice that GENEMBRIDGES has a canon because of the principle he repudiates.”

This assumes that we cannot argue for the canon apart from the Magisterium. I, for one, have done that in detail.

“2) Notice that the early church only had an existence and a correct canon because of the same principle.”

JJ’s church didn’t have an official canon until the 16C. And there was intense debate among the Tridentine Fathers over the identity of the canon. It simply came down to a vote. Which side had more votes. Is that any way to settle a factual question.

“3) Notice that for all the talk by protestants about "rule of faith", that term isn't in the bible.”

Now he’s talking like a Jehovah’s Witness.

“What is in the bible is 1Cor. 1:10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. __Whether you want to link it to "rule of faith" which isn't in the bible, the fact is we are commanded to take this approach to unity.”

i) How is that supposed to help JJ’s case? The Corinthians had a living, infallible teacher in the person of the Apostle Paul. He was their “pope,” speaking ex cathedra. So Paul embodied the rule of faith.

Did that Pauline rule of faith effect unity among the Corinthians? No. They were fragmented into various factions. And some of them openly challenged his authority.

So, by JJ’s yardstick, the Pauline rule of faith was a failure. It didn’t work. It wasn’t workable since it failed to “retain unity.”

ii) Evangelicals don’t deny that we ought to agree with the Apostles. Unity with apostolic doctrine.

But as the church of Corinth vividly illustrates, a rule of faith is not a recipe for ecclesiastical unity. A rule of faith sets the standard. Whether individuals comply with the standard is irrelevant to the rule of faith. If they defy the standard, they will incur divine judgment. That’s one function of a rule of faith.

JJ’s prooftext undercuts his thesis.

iii) Point us to the infallible Magisterial interpretation of 1 Cor 1:10.

“If it's not, then dozens of heretical groups with and without their own scriptures have equal claims to the truth.”

Truth-claims are only equal if they’re equally true—or equally false.

“What is unique about Catholicism is historical continuity and objective link with Jesus and the apostles.”

Of course, that’s just another truth-claim. Unless we’re permitted to “subjectively” evaluate competing truth-claims, JJ’s radical scepticism vitiates his own position.

“But Catholics also have the trump card of being objectively the apostolic church.”

Notice that JJ never gets beyond the bare assertion of his belief. Like a two-year old who affirms his faith in Santa.

“So you don't know if you're influenced by instruments of reprobation or of salvation. Quite a conundrum. I hope you luck out in the end.”

JJ’s the one who’s trapped in the conundrum since he never evaluates his tradition.

“There are over 3500 articles on the internet. Search them.”

So the Internet is JJ’s magisterium. Pope Wikipedia I?

“Do you believe Philip was infallible in everything he said?”

i) Does JJ think Philip was fallible in what he taught the eunuch? If so, how would his fallible interpretation of Isaiah guide the eunuch into the truth? How would it point him to Christ?

ii) Why does JJ fault the right of private interpretation because it fails to yield a “necessarily true” interpretation when he also denies the necessary truth (or even incidental truth) of Philip’s interpretation?

iii) And how is the analogy between Philip and the Magisterium advantageous if, according to this comparison, the Magisterium is fallible? Even if we accept the parallel for the sake of argument, then that would be a prooftext for a fallible Magisterium (since JJ denies the infallibility of Philip).

“If not, then his claim to authority with the Eunuch was his valid ordination.”

How is fallible authority an improvement over sola scriptura or private judgment?

“2) There is no reason to say he was living under any covenant. He wasn't a Jew or a Christian.”

A good example of JJ’s self-reinforcing ignorance. As a Catholic, he doesn’t bother to study the Bible. Yes, the eunuch was a Jew. That’s why he was making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Acts 8:27). That’s why he had a copy of Isaiah.

He wasn’t an ethnic Jew. But he was a convert to the Jewish faith. A worshipper of the true God. A “God-fearer” from the Diaspora.

JJ trotted out this text as his prooftext for the Magisterium. Yet he lacks an elementary grasp of his own prooftext.

“Whatever veil he may have had about interpretation was lifted by oral communication with someone from the true church.”

*Fallible* oral communication (according to JJ).

“Not by someone with more scriptures, not by someone who had read more scriptures, but by someone with oral teachings.”

That’s because he only had the OT. He didn’t have one of the Synoptic Gospels, or John, or Romans, or Hebrews, &c.

Does JJ think that if the eunuch read Matthew, he still wouldn’t know who the Messiah was?

“As in all these early church situations, the apostles didn't practice sola scriptura. They could hardly be teaching what they didn't practice.”

A dumb statement. No one is arguing that sola Scriptura is the rule of faith during the age of public revelation. And the Apostles did practice writing down what they said.

“In other words, all those cases of Israel going astray did not invalidate the Levitical priesthood's authority right up until a special intervention of the Messiah.”

i) The Levitical priesthood was dynastic. That’s why it’s called “Levitical.” Church office is not dynastic.

ii) You’re also assuming what you need to prove, i.e. the church of Rome is a divine institution on par with the Levitical priesthood. If the church of Rome is just another denomination, then we don’t have to overcome some presumptive ecclesiastical authority to break with Rome.

“That puts in a very high standard of intervention before we should accept the existing authority over the people of God has been invalidated.”

No, the Pastoral Epistles supply the qualifications for church office and—by implication—the conditions which would disqualify a church officer or ordinand. Have you ever attempted to apply those qualifications to the papacy or the episcopate?

“First step is first, which is acknowledging an authoritative magisterium, just like you first have to acknowledge an authoritative Levitical priesthood.”

An argument from analogy minus the argument.

“Again the obsession with infallibility. Let's start with authoritative and work our way to infallibility.”

Is a falsehood authoritative? It can be authoritative in the coercive sense that it might force you to do something at gunpoint, but isn’t Christian theology supposed to be true? Does falsehood bind the conscience?

7 comments:

  1. I didn't read the entire fisk, but what I skimmed it does look like JJ got a thorough fisking.

    At least JJ can be grateful that someone read his stuff and responded to it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Boy, that looked like it really hurt.

    Good night, JJ.

    Steve,

    Once again, excellent work.

    I'm impressed with the number of Catholic e-pologists the "Magesterium" permits to go down as cannon fodder in these engagements.

    ReplyDelete
  3. None of this makes Judaism = Christianity. Peter and Paul taught more than is found in the OT. Therefore the churches they founded had a rule of faith extending beyond the OT. Any pointing to the OT does nothing to help your case for sola scriptura.

    We're not making a statement about Sola Scriptura here, we are responding to Cross who stated the Church has never been w/o apostolic tradition by reminding him the Church has never been w/o Scripture, since the OT was extant when the New Covenant era began.

    Looks like you have nothing to say to those Mormon missionaries.

    Another dodge.

    Reference please.

    See the archives on Dulles' book.

    Functionally you do, since your best demonstration of showing what scripture is, is "God told me". This is no different to the Magisterium which claims to be led by the Holy Spirit.

    1. Where have we argued "God told me?" JJ has to resort to dishonesty, but that's not a surprise given his current track record.

    Epistemologically however, the Magisterium is an entity created by the apostles

    That's a historical question, not an epistemological question.

    Demonstrate this is true.

    , and you aren't, so you don't get to claim epistemological equality.
    Been there, done that.

    But let's make a comparison:

    The Bible is infallible. I'm not.

    The Magisterium is infallible. You aren't.

    We're on epistemic par you and I.

    You're now shifting your argument to:

    The Bible is infallible, I'm not.
    The Bible is infallible, the Magisterium is too.

    Ergo, they are epistemically superior to me. I agree, IF they are infallible, but there's one problem, you've made no effort to demonstrate the infallibility of the Magisterium or that it was created by the Apostles, etc., nor have you demonstrated that this alleviates you and I with respect to what you call "private judgment." The issue isn't the infallibility of the mediating teaching authority, its the hearer or reader at the end of the chain.

    Nonsense.

    If "unity" is your goal, Catholicism is quite disunited. Did the Nicene Creed stop Arianism? No Did the Catholic rule of faith prevent the Great Schism? No. The Reformation? No. The rise of Liberation theology? No. We could go on and on.

    What's your definition of sola scripture? That scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church? But hang on, now you're claiming the church doesn't need a rule of faith for its unity and good governance. Oops, there goes sola scriptura out the window.

    A dodge. Here we're talking about the utility of the rule of faith, not what the rule actually is. Where does Scripture say the goal of a rule of faith is unity and good governance? This is a high church argument for ecclesiatical authority in lieu of a biblical argument. Where does Scripture teach the rule of faith necessarily carries this utilitarian component?

    We agree enough to remain one church. Protestants don't.

    A pseudoproblem generated by your rule of faith. In addition, the Bible talks about visible unity within the LOCAL church. 1 Corinthians, which you cite later, is directed to a LOCAL church. Where does the Bible say that the local churches are to be absolute lock step on everything? Where does Scripture promise an infallible Magisterium? Where does Scripture license Rome qua Rome to be that Magisterial authority? You've not begun to make a case for any of this.

    Sorry, you need to document your ramblings. Claiming stuff doesn't cut it. Actually I argued it for you. In addition, Steve has reviewed - and quoted - Dulles' own book.

    Since Paul is your infallible interpretive authority, then the only real access you have to Genesis is via the Paul. Thanks for confirming what I've been saying.

    Nice try, but it doesn't defeat what I stated, and we've already addressed that. That fact that you keep repeating it after we've answered you doesn't bode well for your tenure here.

    Oh, and one more thing, Genesis is intertextual to the rest of Scripture. The OT is a commentary on Genesis. Jesus comments on it. Paul does, etc. So, my infallible grid is the Bible as a whole as it comments on Genesis.

    How does having an infallible Paul, alleviate the problem of subjectivity of the fallible individual's interpretation? How can we know Paul is infallible and correct?

    How does having an infallible Bible, alleviate the problem of subjectivity of the fallible individual's intepretation? How can we know the Bible is infallible and correct?

    This line of argument shakes the foundation of the church to the ground.


    This doesn't answer my question. It's yet another dodge. You're a dishonest opponent. Either start interacting with us, or you'll be banned.

    What is the foundation of the church? According to the Bible, Christ. This is revealed through the Gospel. The Gospel is abundantly clear, or do you believe we need an infallible Magisterium to understand the Gospel?

    According to Rome the church is the foundation and pillar of the truth - unfortunately that's reference to the local church, not the Roman Catholic communion.

    Calvinism has a robust doctrine of providence. We affirm God does, in fact, lead us when we study. He created our eyes and ears, and that's just for starters.

    So, all JJ is doing is playing Post-Modern games as if the meaning of a text can't be known because the interpretation contains a subjective element. But if, that's true, it's as much a problem for him as it is for the Protestant, for JJ is still not in a better position. He still has to filter the Magisterium's teachings and clarifications and clarifications of clarifications, etc. through his own subjectivity.


    But we don't allow it to be shaken to the ground, because we believe in God leading his people, such that we believe the testimony about the prophets, we believe the testimony about Paul, and we believe the testimony about the magisterium. We are just consistent in who we believe. Once we start making up for ourselves which bits we believe, we shake our epistemological foundation with our personal opinions so that the church itself topples over.

    Verify the infallibility of the Magisterium. Oh, and before your sassy retort that I need to do it for Scripture...I don't. The infallibility of Scripture is a given here since both Rome and we stipulate to it. You're the one making claims about the Magisterium that you need to document, punting back to us is an admission you're too incompentent to do it.

    (1) Because the Magisterium can react to the ongoing situation to clarify enough to retain unity in the church.

    Doesn't answer the question with respect to epistemic superiority.

    The Magisterium didn't prevent the rise of Arianism, the Great Schism, etc. Indeed, sometimes it takes years for the Magisterium to react. The Magisterium has been slow to react to Paedophile priests. The Magisterium has yet to withold the Eucharist from abortionists. The Magisterium has not maintained unity between many factions in Catholicism. If your goal is "unity" then the Magisterium fails your own test. Indeed, as was already pointed out to you, Vatian 2 created disunity and attenuated it.

    So it works as a rule of faith. Are you going to claim the church doesn't need a workable rule of faith

    I don't need to make that argument, because "workability" isn't my criterion for a true rule of faith.

    I claim it needs a true rule of faith. The OT rule of faith was intact, yet the Jews apostatized. Does this mean the rule of faith was unworkable or false?

    (2) The magisterium has an historical (and thus objective) link with the scriptures via apostolic succession. Thus STEVE's claims about what scripture is and what it means are purely subjective. in relational to someone else's claims. The magisterium on the other hand has an objective link that STEVE lacks.

    You've done nothing to verify apostolic succession.

    You've done nothing to verify Magisterial infallibility.

    Bible (infallible) - Steve (fallible)

    General revelation (infallible) - Fred the Agnostic (fallible)


    The Bible is special revelation.

    General revelation is natural law/theology, etc. Where is the argument that it is infallible?

    In the Christian world view, revelation trumps supposition.

    The revelation is still intact even if Steve and Fred are incorrect.

    Human language doesn't have the exactness of say mathematics or computer languages.

    I didn't say it did.

    That's compounded with the problem that we don't have access to all the circumstances both immediate and cultural that give the text its full meaning.

    Grammatical-historical exegesis at best comes up with a range of possible interpretations, and the most likely one on a grammatical-historical basis, even if one could decide such a thing objectively (which is itself a doubtful claim), is not necessarily the true one.


    1. So what's your alternative? Allegory? The Quadriga?
    2. You use the GHM to understand the Magisterium, so you're in the same boat.
    3. The GHM is the preferred method of Catholic commentators today. You might want to check with your Magisterium on that.

    Even if this were true, which I find doubtful, the apostles could be accused of the same thing

    You're not an Apostle inspired by the Spirit in writing, taught by Jesus.

    And we are called to imitate Paul as he imitates Christ, who BTW also did the same thing. If we had the examples of the apostles doing gramatical/historical exegesis on a consistent basis, or even once for that matter, then maybe you'd have the kernel of an argument.

    Lvka tried that argument...We do actually have such examples. Why don't you read Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period by Longenecker and Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, then get back to us instead of making these ignorant, easily refutable comments.

    Nonsense. While the Magisterium has special authority concerning the scriptures and tradition, both of those are the possession of the whole church. This is again like you saying that you have no principled basis for making any claims about Genesis apart from Paul.

    Wrong, for "the whole Church" is dependent on the Magisterium for the Scriputures and tradition, so you've only moved the question back one step. As Steve said, the Magsisterium is the gatekeeper. You must all pass through it.

    Paul is not analogous the Magisterium for Paul was an Apostle writing under the inspiration of the Spirit and therefore on par with Moses and every other writer of Scripture. The Magisterium doesn't claim to be inspired, it claims to be "guided" indefectibly. These aren't the same.

    Paul addressed his pastoral epistles to Timothy as the elder. It was Timothy's job to carry it out, whether the laity did or did not choose to read the letter themselves.

    Where is the full set of commentaries on the Bible the Magisterium has produced?

    This is the equivalent to claiming that if I learn the Gospel and believe the Gospel through Matthew, that therefore it can't matter to me what Mark, Luke and John say. With the implicit implication that Matthew contradicts Mark if only we could toss out Matthew. How does this relate to anything I said? It doesn't. This is just another example of your rhetorical evasiveness.

    This is equivalent to saying "I will dodge what you just said yet again." One warning. Want to go for two?

    That's a very easy way to find out if you are subject to Scripture Another dodge. Do you deny the canonicity of these texts? No, and in Protestant theology, we don't DETERMINE what is in the canon; the authority of the books is intrinsic, not extrinsic, mediated through a Magisterium.

    You're now conflating the issue, between canoncity and the authority of Scripture itself. That's a level confusion.

    If I said I'm starting my own country in my back yard, but all is well because I'm going to use the existing constitution as my constitution, except I'm going to interpret it, and not the courts, then people would think I was loopy.

    If you had the same authority as SCOTUS, that problem is alleviated.

    The reason is that the constitution was born into a particular country with the aim of governing it. It wasn't written so that anybody who feels like it can take it and set up their own country.

    Does Protestant theology teach that just anybody can set up their own local church? No. You may want to read a monograph on the priesthood of all believers before trading on such a straw man.

    Similarly the new testament wasn't written with the suggestion that people take it and set up churches.

    Actually, it was, for the visible churches are the product of the Gospel, which has been inscripturated, and we were commanded to set up local churches.

    Rather the church was set up,

    No, a local church was set up, which in turn planted more local churches, and the OT Scriptures were already in place and the NT was written down in the rest of the Apostolic era.

    You're begging the question that there is such a thing as "the Church" defined as a single ecclesiastical organization. The Bible never says that. The Bible speaks of the universal church, all believers everywhere in spiritual union w/each other and our Lord and local churches, not local churches in aggregate. The Bible says very little about the organizational relationship between the local churches.


    And the minority opinion has zero authority.

    In Scripture, the faithful are often (and usually) the minority. So, yes, their opinion has a great deal of "authority." Who had more real authority, Jeremiah or the wicked priesthood and monarchy?

    Thanks for bringing that up, for that's yet another point of disanalogy.

    I haven't heard you argue that there is no need of the SCOTUS because their judgements need to be interpreted just like the legislation.

    I haven't heard you deny that you must individually interpret a SCOTUS opinion.

    Protestant theology does not deny the utility of theologies, confessions, traditions, teachers, etc. We deny, rather, the infallibility of those items for reasons I've already stated by pointing you our confessions and Steve via Turretin. The fact that you continue to miss that betrays your dishonestly.

    Does anybody claim that you can't understand legislation? You did actually, for you said that institutions are necessary for understanding them.

    Of course not, that is silly.

    Yes, your argument is silly.

    But do you therefore claim there is no need for the SCOTUS?

    At least attempt to be consistent.


    A false analogy. SCOTUS is not it infallble. SCOTUS must still be interpreted by you. I'm being very consistent.

    If people bring a case to the SCOTUS attempting to exploit these supposedly contradictory positions, they will find that the SCOTUS will not leave the situation in its apparent state of contradiction.

    So, the Magisterium is more clear than Scripture but leaves matters unclear, clarifies, then clarifies that, and so on....Hmmm

    I would if Mark Twain and Jane Austen were available.

    So, you can't understand the text of Mark Twain and Jane Austen apart from an English Dept.

    There is an objective link between Mark Twain and Tom Sawyer.

    Below ou say that you have to use your own judgment, so there is no link here. Why would you need a "link" (an institution) to tell you that Mark Twain wrote TS?

    There is no objective link between the bible and STEVE.

    Sure there is, the Bible itself is the source, the Providence of God (who created our senses) and the superintendance of the Holy Spirit Himself is that link.

    When I read "Kata Lukan" is this not clear enough to be understood? Is that not objective in itself? You need no "link" (defined as a human institution) to understand that.

    Yes, I have to use my judgment to realise that Mark Twain is really the author of Tom Sawyer. Thankfully this is well documented.

    So, you don't need an English Dept for this after all. Hmmm, then I don't need a Magisterium to tell me who authored Luke.

    No, the Magisterium couldn't override scripture because the Magisterium and those writers were both writing under the power/inspiration of the Holy Spirit Himself and they had the same authority.

    You've done nothing to demonstrate the Magisterium is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    1) Notice that GENEMBRIDGES has a canon because of the principle he repudiates.

    Wrong. I don't rely on Magisterial authority to determine the canon. I don't require a rule of faith to generate visible ecclesiatical unity. I don't begin with that concept. I begin with asking what Scripture says first, not my intuition. I don't repudiate all tradition. I repudiate the infallibility of said tradition.


    2) Notice that the early church only had an existence and a correct canon because of the same principle. The early church isn't my rule of faith. You've done nothing to demonstrate that they believed a rule of faith should serve this purpose and that such a purpose is necessary and, if they did, that this is a necessary component of a true rule of faith. I'm actually waiting for an argument from the Bible.

    3) Notice that for all the talk by protestants about "rule of faith", that term isn't in the bible. Notice that for all the talk about Catholics about the Pope, "the term isn't in the Bible. Notice that for all the talk about the primacy of Rome, that's not in the Bible. Notice for all the talk about the Assumption of the BVM, that's not in the Bible.

    JJ argues like an Arian.

    What is in the bible is 1Cor. 1:10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

    JJ doesn't bother to exegete the text or read further. Here Paul is talking about personality "cults" in a single, local church. How do we get from that to all the churches in aggregate?

    Later, Paul writes, "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (I Cor. 11: 19, King James Translation).

    If it's not, then dozens of heretical groups with and without their own scriptures have equal claims to the truth.

    For the 3rd time now...only if you assume w/o benefit of argument all claims are equally valid.

    What is unique about Catholicism is historical continuity and objective link with Jesus and the apostles.

    You can be true to tradition w/o tradition being true. People can all hold hands and go straight to hell too.

    You've done nothing to demonstrate "historical continuity."

    But Catholics also have the trump card of being objectively the apostolic church. You've done nothing to demonstrate this. Indeed the Orthodox would deny this. Why believe you over them?

    So you don't know if you're influenced by instruments of reprobation or of salvation. Quite a conundrum. I hope you luck out in the end

    Calvinism has a robust doctrine of perseverance of the saints and assurance. And Catholicism isn't exactly amenable to assuring anybody they'll make it to heaven. Hope you luck out in the end.

    1Cor. 1:10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you

    JJ is citing a text, not exegeting a text. Try again.

    So why have commentaries? Why have the NIV study bible? a. That's blasphemous. b. It's didacholatrous."

    No, for your rule of faith is Sola Ecclesia. These are merely ordinary means, and, unlike you don't require them to ascertain the meaning of Scripture in the way you must rely on the Magisterium. Try again.

    An assertion minus the argument.

    Wrong: How do you know how to baptize infants? Is it not written down? Is it merely oral tradition? Did you interview Bartholemew to find this out?

    There are over 3500 articles on the internet. Search them.

    So, you can't answer this question after all. Thank you for admitting it.

    Whether it is or isn't written down, doesn't prove that it must be written down or that I learnt it from something written down.

    Then from where did you learn it? Go ahead, tell us.

    Modern Catholicism claims material sufficiency. Do you deny material sufficiency? In case you can't figure it out, JJ, I'm taking modern Catholicism's standard on sufficiency here as my jumping off point. Now, if you want to differ with this view, you need to argue for partim-partim. If you believe there are oral traditions that differ from Scripture or are not contained therein, you need to document what they are. If you can document them, then they are written, and if truly apostolic, then why aren't the canonized as Scripture?

    Yes, in his attempts to identify the canon.

    What exclusively oral traditions did he use?

    Do you believe Philip was infallible in everything he said?

    The issue isn't the infallibility of Phillip but the Magisterium.

    If not, then his claim to authority with the Eunuch was his valid ordination. I believe Luke is inspired and therefore the text is accurate. His "ordination" came from Christ. I affirm the Gospels. But is valid ordination a requirement to understand and explain the Scriptures? No.

    1) Do you admit yet that the existence of the OT in the early church doesn't help your case? See above

    There is no reason to say he was living under any covenant. Sure he was, the Covenant of Grace.

    He wasn't a Jew or a Christian. Being from Ethiopia, he was most likely a Jew.

    In terms of chronology he was living in the New covenant. In terms of his religion he was a Jew perceiving himself under the OC. THe NC is an admin of the COG.

    Whatever veil he may have had about interpretation was lifted by oral communication with someone from the true church.

    No, by the Holy Spirit working through the proclamation of the Gospel. That's not quite the same.

    Not by someone with more scriptures, not by someone who had read more scriptures, but by someone with oral teachings. Straw man, I have never claimed that Sola Scriptura is the rule of faith in the period of inscripturation. Wha I've said is that the Church had Scripture all along in the OT. Try again. What if the Eunuch had one of the Gospels, would he have required Phillip to understad Isaiah?

    4) As in all these early church situations, the apostles didn't practice sola scriptura. They could hardly be teaching what they didn't practice.

    Sure they could, on the knowledge they would pass on and the Church would not have them with them.

    In other words, all those cases of Israel going astray did not invalidate the Levitical priesthood's authority right up until a special intervention of the Messiah.

    You've done nothing to link the Levitical Priesthood with the Magisterium or show they were infallible.

    That puts in a very high standard of intervention before we should accept the existing authority over the people of God has been invalidated.

    Actually, the Prophets often contradicted the Levitial priesthood, and there was no centralized teaching "authority." Read your OT.

    But, for sake of argument, I'll accept your argument that the LP had such "authority." Now, let's look at the NT itself in that light. According to the NT, the New Covenant abolishes a specific class called a "priesthood" by way of extending "priesthood" to every single believer. So, if you're going to invoke the Levitical priesthood's authority, every believer has it already. If we are going to parallel it with the Magisterium, all believers are part of the Magisterium.

    That, therefore, if we follow your argument, means we are quite free to start a new local church. We are not free, however, to preach a different Gospel. Presbyterians and Baptists, to take two denominations, are not preaching different gospels. We may hold differing views on ecclesiology, and some Baptists are Arminians, but we both maintain that each of us gives the other a credible profession of faith. So, we have unity - spiritual unity, without ecclesiastical unity. Indeed, in SBC history, you'll find none other than John L. Dagg, in his manual of church order teaching that Paedobaptist ministers are true Christians and true ministers and should be recongnized as such and even allowing for pulpit exchange.

    Also, the OT provides for dealing with false prophets, priests, etc. The NT deals with what to do about false teachers, elders, etc. Even Cyprian lays down criterion for rejecting a bishop at the local church level.

    First step is first, which is acknowledging an authoritative magisterium, just like you first have to acknowledge an authoritative Levitical priesthood. Oh analogy, where's the argument?

    It is precisely there that the analogy falls apart, for the Bible abolishes an ecclesiastical class called priests in favor of the priesthood of EVERY believer, and the LP was not infallible.

    First you must admit that over all those millennia through good times and bad, the Levitical priesthood remained authoritative and not subject to being turfed out because of the latest interpretation of laity.

    The Bible does not draw a distinction between "clergy" and "laity." The Bible teaches the elders are drawn from the congregation.

    Indeed,to take your own standards, none other than Cyprian stated a local church may reject a bishop.

    The laity followed the LP directly to apostasy. So "authority" doesn't select for "true" any more than "Unity" selects for "true."

    Which question would that be?

    Follow the threads.

    Again the obsession with infallibility. Let's start with authoritative and work our way to infallibility.

    Why should we accept casting the terms in that manner?

    What is your Pentatuch sola scriptura proof text?

    I don't need one. I'm asking you to read the text.

    ) The sacrificial calendar depends on Ex 12:2. Is it referring to Egyptian months (where the Jews were living at the time) or Chaldean months (from where their patriarch Abraham originated)? Give an answer without oral tradition.

    Verify that there is oral tradition today on this and which one is to be preferred and why.

    It would have been self-evident to the original recipients. You're forgetting that the Bible was not written to us, it was written for us. It doesn't matter to us what sort of months these are. Rather what matters is whether the original recipients would have known. Are you going to argue that they would not have been able to understand this on their own apart from an infallible teacher? Where's the supporting argument?

    The only access we have to "oral tradition" at this point is by what is written down. There are arguments for both.

    After King Solomon had the Temple built, he sanctified the interior of the courtyard by personally offering sacrifices [1 Kings 8:64]. How could Solomon offer these sacrifices in the Temple when every indication in the Torah is that only priests may offer sacrifices? From where did Solomon know that a non-priestly king can offer a sacrifice to sanctify the Temple if not from an oral law?

    Actually, the Penteteuch discusses the monarchy in Deut 17. Given the way Scripture speaks of Solomon at this time, he knew this well.

    The sacrifices in the Temple were 5: Burnt, sin, guilt, fellowship, and grain. These are to be made by the priests only.

    However, Solomon is following the example of Moses who dedicated the Tabernacle, yet Aaron was the High Priest. Read Leviticus 8. Moses slaughtered the animals and dedicated/consecrated the priests and Tabernacle before Aaron ever offered an animal in it. Solomon is taking Moses' role. Moses was not a priest or the High Priest. There is no need for oral law here, for the parallel is self-evident, such that these particular sacrifices could be performed by others than the priests themselves. In this narrative, this is done when the ark, without which the Temple was complete, was being taken inside. Solomon and the people are consecrating the Temple just as Moses consecrated the Tabernacle. It's likely the priests are getting soaked in blood too, just as they were touched w/it in Lev. 8.

    It's a testament to Romanist ignorance of Scripture that you even brought that one up. Good job.

    Elijah offered a sacrifice on Mt. Carmel [1 Kings 18:3-38]. However, the Torah forbids bringing sacrifices outside of the Temple [Deut. 12:13-14]. From where did Elijah receive permission to violate this prohibition unless he knew from an oral law that in his case it was permitted.

    The sacrifices in Deut. are particular sorts of sacrifices. Which sort did Elijah offer? Was he making offerings on behalf of Israel? NO

    Try again.


    I said they did quite well without a dogmatic definition, but they did need the unity of church which the Magisterium provides in order to be able to discern the tradition. But that's a main component of the Protestant argument for the canon. The Church has never been unified on the Apocryha's canonicity, yet Rome includes them.


    Through the tradition of the Catholic church and the dogmatic statement of Trent.

    Now verify that these sources are accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The OT is part of the Christian canon. Christians were never bereft of Scripture. I’d add that Christianity is the true Judaism."

    Christianity is not Judaism. Christians are not subject to follow the Law. Jews are. That one is a fulfilment of the other does not alter the fact that the OT scriptures do not teach one to do he same things as the NT.

    "A dumb statement. No one is arguing that sola Scriptura is the rule of faith during the age of public revelation. And the Apostles did practice writing down what they said."

    1) If it's not the rule of faith during the apostolic age, the the apostles didn't teach it. If they didn't teach it, then they didn't write it. If they didn't write it then you admit it is extra-scriptural. If it is extra-scriptural you hold dogmatic to that which is extra-scriptural, denying sola scriptura.

    2) As I pointed out before, they didn't practice sola scriptura in the OT..... The sacrificial calendar depends on Ex 12:2. Is it referring to Egyptian months (where the Jews were living at the time) or Chaldean months (from where their patriarch Abraham originated)? Give an answer without oral tradition..... After King Solomon had the Temple built, he sanctified the interior of the courtyard by personally offering sacrifices [1 Kings 8:64]. How could Solomon offer these sacrifices in the Temple when every indication in the Torah is that only priests may offer sacrifices? From where did Solomon know that a non-priestly king can offer a sacrifice to sanctify the Temple if not from an oral law?..... Elijah offered a sacrifice on Mt. Carmel [1 Kings 18:3-38]. However, the Torah forbids bringing sacrifices outside of the Temple [Deut. 12:13-14]. From where did Elijah receive permission to violate this prohibition unless he knew from an oral law that in his case it was permitted.

    3) No one apostle wrote down the whole of revelation. No apostle shows evidence of being aware of the whole NT. Not even close. So no apostle could know if all revelation was written. Thus no apostle could have advocated sola scriptura.

    4) Most of the apostles wrote nothing. If their imperative was to write scripture, most of them botched it.

    "In Protestantism, by contrast, the individual is not his own criterion. Scripture is the criterion."

    A fancy sounding distinction that adds nothing to your case. The limitations of the individual effectively form part of the criteria, because individuals all start from different knowledge and suppositions. That protestants won't admit the significant place these internal criteria effect the outcome behind the scenes, doesn't mean they don't exist. Protestants judge by the criteria of their own world view, even though they won't admit it.

    "You, as an individual, have applied your subjective judgment in judging Christian revelation to be true, rather than, say, the Koran or the Vedas or the Book of Mormon."

    Right. So do you grant Christianity an epistemologically superior position to those following the Koran or Vedas? If so, it must be surely because of the objective nature of Christian revelation in comparison to the other claims. Therefore, the objective nature of what the Church says is canon trumps what STEVE says is canon. If you don't grant Christianity a superior position, you level the church to the ground, as I said.

    "The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of sound doctrine is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors, — of course bona fide debtors. — they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers." - St Basil, on the Spirit.

    "“3. A church needs a rule of faith as a principle of unity.”
    i) You assert what you need to prove. "

    Why do I need to prove what is already admitted around here? Let's repeat again the sola scriptura definition - "the sole infallible rule of faith for the church". Why do you need a rule of faith FOR THE CHURCH? Why not just a rule of faith for individuals? The answer is obvious.

    "ii) The Catholic rule of faith has failed to achieve unity. There is no unity on the interpretation of Vatican II."

    You confuse disagreement with disunity. The bishops define who is in unity and communion. The unity is manifest in the shared Eucharist.

    "The Catholic method is to continually subject oneself to the catholic understanding.”
    Your subjective understanding of the Catholic understanding. Your alternative does nothing to escape your own subjectivity."

    Wrong, because the catholic understanding is an objective reality. That catholicity may have fuzzy boundaries like protestantism, does not mean I have "done nothing" to escape subjectivity. Baptising infants is objectively Catholic. It is not objectively protestant. Thus you are wrong.

    "Groupthink is no index of truth. If Muslims think alike, does that make Islam true?"

    Objectivity is no index of truth. Picking lotto numbers from family birthdays if objective, but not likely to make you a millionaire.

    "ii) The fact that you make catholicity your goal is, itself, a subjective value judgment."

    I know of no other criteria that would result in a religion short of a direct revelation from God. If I have to start at square one from "I think therefore I am", it would take me decades and I'd probably end up in a religion of one.

    "Did 2nd temple Jews have a “workable” rule of faith? Were 2nd temple Jews unified? "

    They must have been unified since there was only one temple. Otherwise we'd be talking about 5027th temple protestant Judaism.

    "The first condition for a rule of faith is that it be true, not that it be “workable” (as you define it)."

    What is passed down over the centuries is what was found workable and true. Not one or the other. You're in no position 2000 years later to distinguish which is which. You can't communicate with God directly to find out what he inspired.

    "iii) Achieving unity is not the only possible function for a rule of faith. Truth is divisive as well as unitive."

    It's only divisive for sorting the wheat from the chaff, and the chaff are not part of the unity anyway. Unity may not be the only function, but it is clearly _a_ function since scripture lists that as a goal for the church.

    "“Who said the only access to Scripture is via the Magisterium?
    You make the Magisterium the official interpreter and gatekeeper. You can’t get past that checkpoint without Magisterial permission."

    Nonsense. I don't ask permission from the Magisterium before buying a bible.

    "Now you’re comparing one Bible writer with another Bible writer. That’s disanalogous to an extrascriptural Magisterium. One Bible writer isn’t accountable to another Bible writer. Both are directly accountable to God."

    I could say the same of the Magisterium. That of course is the point of issue.

    "You also beg the question by saying that perspicuity is unworkable according to the Catholic definition of what a rule of faith is supposed to accomplish."

    Have you told us what a rule of faith is supposed to accomplish so we can take a look at it? One would think one of the points would be an objective source of truth. But since you've admitted the necessity of subjective internal light, and commentaries some of which may be heretical and reprobational, your definition of "perspicuous" ends up meaning "I don't know if I'm being saved or reprobated by what I think this means. That's Orwellian 'Perspicuity'.

    "How is fallible authority an improvement over sola scriptura or private judgment? "

    In the same way that if I met the apostle Paul, and told you what he said, it would be an improvement over you privately interpreting Genesis on your own. Despite my fallibility in conveying it to you.

    If you could interview 100 people who could relate to you what Paul said, you'd be in a better position still. The more you care to take in from the Spirit led church, the better you would be, even though individual parts could be fallible.

    And if the 100 people compare notes and agree that the truth is around the centre of their collective memory, the fallibility of the trees does not hurt the sufficiency of the forest in establishing truth. And the objectivity of 100 people comparing notes is far in excess of 1 person with their bible under a tree, or even 1 person under a tree with a possibly reprobational commentary.

    "He wasn’t an ethnic Jew. But he was a convert to the Jewish faith."

    We don't know that he was a fully fledged convert. There were a lot of hangers on to the outskirts of Judaism. He may have been a convert.

    "Yet he lacks an elementary grasp of his own prooftext."

    A classic example of how you treat your own interpretation as functionally infallible.

    "Whatever veil he may have had about interpretation was lifted by oral communication with someone from the true church.”
    *Fallible* oral communication (according to JJ)."

    But fallible oral communication that was informed by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

    "That’s because he only had the OT. He didn’t have one of the Synoptic Gospels, or John, or Romans, or Hebrews, &c."

    He didn't have the gospels or Romans because they didn't exist. So at least one Ethiopian went home informed by a non-sola scriptura hermeneutic.

    "i) The Levitical priesthood was dynastic. That’s why it’s called “Levitical.” Church office is not dynastic."

    Church office is not dynastic by blood, but by succession. Very similar.

    "“That puts in a very high standard of intervention before we should accept the existing authority over the people of God has been invalidated.”

    No, the Pastoral Epistles supply the qualifications for church office and—by implication—the conditions which would disqualify a church officer or ordinand. Have you ever attempted to apply those qualifications to the papacy or the episcopate?"

    You're confusing qualification with facts and authority. Just because I'm " irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach" doesn't make me an elder. It just makes be qualified to be one. Just because I'm from the tribe of Levi, of the right age and gender, didn't give me the right to overthrow the Levitical priesthood and temple and start a new cult.

    What I said stands. It took a special intervention by the messiah to overthrow the authority structure.

    "Is a falsehood authoritative? It can be authoritative in the coercive sense that it might force you to do something at gunpoint, but isn’t Christian theology supposed to be true? Does falsehood bind the conscience?"

    You're trying to split the hair between true and infallibly true. If I relate to you what Paul said, it is true, but not infallible, because I related it to you. But it is authoritative. Otherwise Paul left his churches en route, at least the ones prior to his writing spree, without an authority. Which would be unworkable.

    "Having the canon is worthless without understanding the canon. To go half way with this argument is absurd. We must believe that the Church both has the canon and understands it.”

    i) Which begs the question of whether we need a Magisterium to interpret the Bible. "

    Do we need it? Since you've already admitted the necessity of commentaries, but you can't be sure if they are reprobational, then clearly we need something. I'd prefer something guaranteed to be correct than that which may or may not be reprobational. But we both agree we need something.

    And again, back to your presupposition that the canon should be widely known because of the purpose God has for his word. The same supposition says that interpretation should be widely known. But your world view says for a thousand years it was not known, even though you accept the decision about the canon from those whose interpretation you reject.

    "“If God wants us to know the canon, why don't all Christians know the canon?”

    i) As usual, you’re impotent to defend your own position. All you can do is to throw the question back into the lap of your Protestant opponent."

    Any list of books can be defended. But individuals will all have their own cut of probabilities of what to include. Thus the need for some kind of authority, whether it be Trent or tradition. By casting out both you cast away your hermeneutical foundation. The Catholic Church is objectively the one the apostles founded, but no book is objectively inspired by God. That's why your epistemological position must be inferior.

    "Reference please.”
    a) All scripture is inspired (2 Tim 3:16)
    b) Luke is Scripture (1 Tim 5:18; cf. Lk 10:7)."

    1) You assume apriori that 1Tim and 2Tim are inspired.

    2) You assume Paul isn't quoting some other now lost writing.

    3) You assume Paul wrote it.

    4) The words to write, or writings are not always used of scriptures. e.g. John 8:6 "Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground " The underlying Hebrew word, in the literature of Pharisaic Judaism kāṯaḇ and its derivatives are frequently used of the writing of testaments, bills of divorce, and other documents.

    You've just shown your epistemological foundation is viciously regressive. What you regard as inspired cannot have the objective foundation as the historical fact that the apostles founded the Catholic Church.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The bishops define who is in unity and communion. The unity is manifest in the shared Eucharist.

    Oh, okay. Earlier you said that those who take the Eucharist are in a state of grace. So, when an abortionist like John Kerry takes the Eucharist, he's in a state of grace. Yet murder is a mortal sin. That's Catholic unity for you.


    Nonsense. I don't ask permission from the Magisterium before buying a bible.


    You can't interpret it w/o the Magisterium. Try to follow along.

    But fallible oral communication that was informed by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

    Where was the Roman Catholic Church that day?

    Church office is not dynastic by blood, but by succession. Very similar.

    Not the same. Now you're trying to fill in gaps.

    Thus the need for some kind of authority, whether it be Trent or tradition.

    Trent canonized Wisdom of Solomon. Does your theory of inspiration include pious frauds like Wisdom?

    By casting out both you cast away your hermeneutical foundation.

    Only if we assume your standard.

    The Catholic Church is objectively the one the apostles founded

    You've not shown this to be true.

    but no book is objectively inspired by God. All Scripture is inspired.

    1) You assume apriori that 1Tim and 2Tim are inspired.

    1. Pauline authorship would select for this, or do you believe that Apostolic authorship doesn't select for canonicity?

    2) You assume Paul isn't quoting some other now lost writing.

    What's your alternative?

    3) You assume Paul wrote it.

    1. No we've argued for Pauline authorship on the blog before.
    2. Interestingly Cardinal Dulles has problems with Pauline authorship.

    You've just shown your epistemological foundation is viciously regressive. What you regard as inspired cannot have the objective foundation as the historical fact that the apostles founded the Catholic Church.

    So, tell us again how exactly the Jews muddled along without Trent to define the OT and the Subapostolic Church and Medieval Church muddled along without Trent?

    You have never demonstrated that the Apostles founded the Catholic Church. Here's a thought, why don't you document that assertion before making it again.

    Oh, and second warning for repeating that assertion numerous times w/o supporting argument. Three is the magic number for a permaban.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Oh, okay. Earlier you said that those who take the Eucharist are in a state of grace. So, when an abortionist like John Kerry takes the Eucharist, he's in a state of grace. Yet murder is a mortal sin. That's Catholic unity for you."

    What's this diversion? You are supposed to be in a state of grace. If people defy the church's rules, it's not an argument against the rules. Do you allow unrepentant sinners to partake? If not, why be such a hypocrite?

    "You can't interpret it w/o the Magisterium. Try to follow along."

    That's like saying I can't interpret Genesis apart from Paul. The obvious silliness of the accusation is apparent to all.

    "Where was the Roman Catholic Church that day?"

    Where was the Catholic Church? What sort of a question is that?

    "Trent canonized Wisdom of Solomon. Does your theory of inspiration include pious frauds like Wisdom?"

    You mean because of the title? I await your proof that the book contains nothing at all passed down from Solomon. (Good luck proving a negative). And that assumes I need to regard the title as part of the inspired text. Or that the title isn't an idiom.

    "1. Pauline authorship would select for this, or do you believe that Apostolic authorship doesn't select for canonicity?"

    You're the one tasked with manufacturing a rule of faith out of whole cloth. You need to prove whether apostolic authorship makes something inspired, irrespective of what I believe.

    "What's your alternative?"

    Irrelevant. Unless you can produce every non-extant ancient document to do an exhaustive search in, then you're making a supposition.

    "1. No we've argued for Pauline authorship on the blog before."

    An argument? Give me a witness at least, if you don't accept tradition as an argument.

    "So, tell us again how exactly the Jews muddled along without Trent to define the OT and the Subapostolic Church and Medieval Church muddled along without Trent?"

    What's Trent got to do with anything? Before Trent we had the Tradition and customs of the Catholic Church. Same as the Jews had.

    If I asked you to prove the OT canon, you'd start talking about what such and such a Jew had to say. That's an appeal to tradition. That's an appeal that assumes a recognisable body of Jews existed who held a unified tradition, and that the person quoted was a member of said group. In short, you'd be forced to fall back to a tradition-based canon.

    "You have never demonstrated that the Apostles founded the Catholic Church. Here's a thought, why don't you document that assertion before making it again."

    Document a widely known historical fact? There's 2000 years of witnesses and continuity, where would one even begin?

    "“The Holy Church.” God is pointed out, and His temple. “For the temple of God is holy,” says the Apostle, “which (temple) are ye.” This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church" - Augustine, on the Creed.

    "Oh, and second warning for repeating that assertion numerous times w/o supporting argument. Three is the magic number for a permaban."

    Pity you don't apply the criteria to yourselves and perma-ban the whole blog.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What's this diversion? You are supposed to be in a state of grace. If people defy the church's rules, it's not an argument against the rules. Do you allow unrepentant sinners to partake? If not, why be such a hypocrite?

    Now you have added a caveat not in your original statement. Earlier you said:

    That's like saying I can't interpret Genesis apart from Paul. The obvious silliness of the accusation is apparent to all.

    You keep offering that retort without an argument. We've aleady answered several times.

    In Roman Catholic theology, the Magisterium is the gatekeeper. It defines the canon. You can't begin to know what your Bible contains without the Magisterium to tell you. Not only does it define the canon it claims it and only it has the right to interpret it. Any interpretation outside of their viewpoint is off limits. I guess I have to show you the Council of Trent itself:

    DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

    The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,--keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

    DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS

    Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

    Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.b

    And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.

    Besides the above, wishing to repress that temerity, by which the words and sentences of sacred Scripture are turned and [Page 21] twisted to all sorts of profane uses, to wit, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, impious and diabolical incantations, sorceries, and defamatory libels; (the Synod) commands and enjoins, for the doing away with this kind of irreverence and contempt, and that no one may hence forth dare in any way to apply the words of sacred Scripture to these and such like purposes; that all men of this description, profaners and violators of the word of God, be by the bishops restrained by the penalties of law, and others of their own appointment.

    So, if you've got a problem with our reply, JJ, we're just taking what Trent says seriously.

    Where was the Catholic Church? What sort of a question is that?

    Where was the ROMAN Catholic Church that day? It's a simple question. So, in relation to the Ethiopian Eunuch, where was the Roman Church the day he was converted. What fallible oral traditions were involved.

    You're making the claim that such tradition existed, so support your assertions. It begs the question to point to the Apostles, for you've not established that there is such a thing as Apostolic Tradition going from the Apostles to the Roman Magisterium or that there was a Catholic Church. I too affirm there was catholic (small c) church, but I deny that we can get from there to Rome.

    You mean because of the title? I await your proof that the book contains nothing at all passed down from Solomon. (Good luck proving a negative). And that assumes I need to regard the title as part of the inspired text. Or that the title isn't an idiom.

    Nooo, problem.

    “Thus the author of Wisd is quite capable of constructing sentences in true period style (12:27; 13:11-15), and his fondness for compound words is almost Aeschylean. His manner at times has the light tough of Greek lyric poetry (17:17-19; 2:6-9; 5:9-13), and occasionally his words fall into an iambic or hexameter rhythm. He employs…Greek philosophical terminology,” D. Winston, the Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Doubleday 1979), 15-16.

    “These characteristics, in addition to the author’s many favorite ‘theme words and expressions which recur throughout the work, argue for unity of authorship, and make the hypothesis that Wisd is a translation of a Hebrew original virtually untenable,” ibid. 16-17.

    “No consensus has thus far emerged regarding the date of Wisd, and various scholars have place it anywhere between 220 BCE and 50 CE,” ibid 20.

    “There are further considerations, however, which point to the reign of Gaius ‘Caligula’ (37:41 CE) as the likeliest setting for Wisd,” ibid. 23.

    Yet book intimates Solomonic authorship. This would make Wisdom a pious fraud.

    You're the one tasked with manufacturing a rule of faith out of whole cloth. You need to prove whether apostolic authorship makes something inspired, irrespective of what I believe.

    Punting back to us won't help you since we've made a case for the canon and the authorship of many books in the archives.

    Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox agree that apostolic authorship selects for canonicity. Ergo, I have no such burden of proof to discharge if we share this common ground.

    "What's your alternative?"

    Quite relevant. If you can't come up with an alternative, why should we. Again, punting back to us won't help you.

    1. No we've argued for Pauline authorship on the blog before."

    We've argued Pauline authorship with Jon Curry. You can see plenty in the archives relating to the authorship of several gospels.

    It's not that we don't accept "tradition" as an argument. Rather, we deny the infallibility of tradition. External attestation is one source.

    What's Trent got to do with anything? Before Trent we had the Tradition and customs of the Catholic Church. Same as the Jews had

    1. See above.
    2. You earlier claimed that you knew the authorship of Luke by Trent's decree.
    3. Your last statement is a case for my rule of faith, not yours.

    If I asked you to prove the OT canon, you'd start talking about what such and such a Jew had to say. That's an appeal to tradition. That's an appeal that assumes a recognisable body of Jews existed who held a unified tradition, and that the person quoted was a member of said group. In short, you'd be forced to fall back to a tradition-based canon.

    And how is that a problem for us, exactly? It's not. We call that external attestation. We also can do so via lines of internal evidence. We've done this many times, particularly with the Orthodox (Orthodox, Jay Dyer, etc.). The fact that you have yet to actually examine our archives betrays what a dishonest opponent you are.

    Document a widely known historical fact? There's 2000 years of witnesses and continuity, where would one even begin?

    That's up to you. If it's a historical fact, then you should be able to document it. The fact that you haven't, your attitude, and the way you spell certain words, Orth..I mean JJ, is leading us to think that you aren't simply "JJ," rather you are one of our former banned commenters.

    “The Holy Church.” God is pointed out, and His temple. “For the temple of God is holy,” says the Apostle, “which (temple) are ye.” This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church" - Augustine, on the Creed.

    The Orthodox would disagree that this is a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. You need to prove that the Roman Catholic Church actually goes back to the First Century.

    Pity you don't apply the criteria to yourselves and perma-ban the whole blog.

    1. We peg our responses to nitwits like you. If you repeat yourself, we have to repeat ourselves.
    2. And you don't get to tell us what to do in our own house, JJ.
    3. In fact, that's warning number 3.

    Survey Says....GOODBYE!

    My suggestion for you if you want to actually interact with this blog again is that you start your own blog. However, I strongly suspect you have one already under a different name.

    ReplyDelete