The argument is (roughly) the following :
(1) If we know God’s purposes in giving the canon, then we can have certainty regarding which books belong to the canon.
(2) We know God’s purposes in giving the canon.
Therefore,
(3) We know which books belong to the canon. [from (1) and (2)]
Then the conclusion is:
(4) The 66 books of the Protestant Bible, and only those books, belong to the canon.
There are at least three problems with this argument, for a Protestant.
First, you can’t get to (3), from (1) and (2), unless you fill in more precisely what you know about God’s purposes in giving the canon. If, for example, you know that one of God’s purposes in giving the canon was to give the 66 books, and only the 66 books, found in Protestant Bibles , then you could go from (1) and (2), to (3), and from (3), to (4). But, then there would be no point of the argument, because you would have loaded the conclusion into the second premise, and so the argument would be question-begging.
If, however, you don’t know that giving the 66 books (and only those books) found in Protestant Bibles was one of God’s purposes in giving the canon, but instead know that God gave the inspired books (whichever ones those are) for the purpose of instructing His people, that does not entail (3). Nor does (4) follow.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/#comment-6305
The argument is (roughly) the following :
(1) If we know God’s purposes in giving the church, then we can have certainty regarding which church God has given.
(2) We know God’s purposes in giving the church.
Therefore,
(3) We know which church God has given. [from (1) and (2)]
Then the conclusion is:
(4) The Roman church, and only the Roman church, is the one true church.
There are at least three problems with this argument, for a Catholic.
First, you can’t get to (3), from (1) and (2), unless you fill in more precisely what you know about God’s purposes in giving the church. If, for example, you know that one of God’s purposes in giving the church was to give the Roman church, and only the Roman church, then you could go from (1) and (2), to (3), and from (3), to (4). But, then there would be no point of the argument, because you would have loaded the conclusion into the second premise, and so the argument would be question-begging.
If, however, you don’t know that giving the Roman church (and only the Roman church) was one of God’s purposes in giving the church, but instead know that God gave the church (whichever one [or ones] that is) for the purpose of instructing His people, that does not entail (3). Nor does (4) follow.
Would this be an example of a "tu quoque" counter-argument?
ReplyDeleteWell, with the kind of memory I have after many years of being sinful with my mind, will and emotions, of things I have done and the things I am not even aware of that I have done deemed to be sinful too by God, I think I can safely opine why on this one:::>
ReplyDelete(1) If we know God’s purposes in giving the canon, then we can have certainty regarding which books belong to the canon.
From an early age in recovery, remembering the Oral Word of God as Adam, Cain, Abel and many others must have gotten use too, but forgetting over time and seeing the early protesters, those Hebrews of Abram's stock didn't want to hear Our Dearly Beloved Heavenly Father's voice anymore since it was so terrifying even Moses had some time getting use to it, He thought mercifully that to have a Written record for record keeping and referral in our time was most important and that only a sufficient amount of additional writings combined would be necessary and sufficient. If they were having trouble listening to His audio direct from Heaven, I suppose we can be thankful He doesn't require it of us to listen to anything more that audio tracks on IPods or other mechanical devices if we want too? Reading the Good Book works well when I am so forgetful.
But, as for the 66 books from which to read His Words, Ok, would you turn to ? and read with me the Word of the Lord?
"Sound man", can you turn the volumn down just a bit, I have feedback in my ears!!
TUAD asked:
ReplyDelete---
Would this be an example of a "tu quoque" counter-argument?
---
There's a taste of tu quoque in it, but I also see a reductio involved.
Peter, IMHO,
ReplyDeleteOne should never fire off a laser beam that can be easily refracted and bounced back off the opponent's reflector shield and then into the unprotected foundation of one's edifice.
It leaves one looking egg-faced and rather stupid looking.
Reminds me of phrases like
"Shooting yourself in the foot."
or
"Hoist by your own petard."
Actually this is just an example of trying to understand an argument and failing miserably. Btyan's point was more along the line of the complexity of the cannon. It is a list of 66 books with many different authors and histories. God's purpose could be served by many different lists of books. The 73 book cannon comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteThe church, on the other hand, is quite a simple concept. That the church Jesus talked about exists. Not merely as a spiritual entity but as a real, physical organization. A simple binary question like that does not suffer from the same counter-reply.
Your counter-reply does not defend the cannon. It defends atheism. You only rational choice is to say all revelation is suspect. So you end up rejecting reason as somehow contrary to faith. You seem to avoid all these hard problems and simply snipe at something you mistakenly think is a flaw.
By the Authority of Article XXXI of the Westminster Confession, which overrules the Council of Carthage which is generally agreed to have been the defacto authority that selected the Books of the New Testament, we have the right to reconsider the other discarded books of the Bible, the Gnostic Gospels.
ReplyDeleteI for one would like to see the Scripture corrected to reflect the Calvinistic ideas rhat were arbitrarily excluded from the Cannon. Of course, the eventual reinstatement of the Gnostic Gospels into the Bible was Predestined anyway.
RANDY SAID:
ReplyDelete“Actually this is just an example of trying to understand an argument and failing miserably. Btyan's point was more along the line of the complexity of the cannon. It is a list of 66 books with many different authors and histories. God's purpose could be served by many different lists of books. The 73 book cannon comes to mind.”
Well, according to Catholic epologists, there are 33,000 different sects vying for the title of the one true church. I’d say that trying to find the needle of the one true church in the haystack of 33,000 straws is far more complicated than comparing a 66-book canon to a 73-book canon.
“The church, on the other hand, is quite a simple concept. That the church Jesus talked about exists. Not merely as a spiritual entity but as a real, physical organization. A simple binary question like that does not suffer from the same counter-reply.”
The OT, on the other hand, is quite a simple concept. That the OT Jesus talked about exists. Not merely as a spiritual entity but as real, physical scrolls. A simple binary question like that does not suffer from the same counter-reply.
“Your counter-reply does not defend the cannon.”
That was never the point. The point was to construct a parallel argument.
“It defends atheism.”
If my counter-reply defends atheism, then Bryan’s reply defends atheism.
“You only rational choice is to say all revelation is suspect. So you end up rejecting reason as somehow contrary to faith. You seem to avoid all these hard problems and simply snipe at something you mistakenly think is a flaw.”
To say I avoid all the hard problems given the amount of time I’d spent rebutting Catholic objections to the Protestant canon as well as presenting my positive evidence for the Protestant canon epitomizes your self-reinforcing ignorance of the other side.
It seems to me that the level of discourse at the called to communion site deserves a more thorough and exacting treatment.
ReplyDeleteRaymond,
ReplyDeleteI responded to Bryan on his own terms. That's pretty exacting.
And I've presented many thorough responses to Bryan in the past. I've also devoted a fair amount of time to other contributors or commenters at CTC.
And what have *you* been doing, besides complaining about what we've doing?
It only seems to me that called to communion is an attempt to engage us at a higher level.
ReplyDeleteSo, lets meet them at that level. We will win the day as we have the truth and they are in error.
I don't think it reflects well if our responses are mostly 'tu quoque' in nature because that charge can virtually cut any way. We are people of faith, after all.
From reading your work in general you are way more equipped than me to tackle this head on.
RAYMOND SAID:
ReplyDelete"It only seems to me that called to communion is an attempt to engage us at a higher level. So, lets meet them at that level. We will win the day as we have the truth and they are in error."
Which assumes I haven't already done that in my extensive replies to various CTC players.
"I don't think it reflects well if our responses are mostly 'tu quoque' in nature because that charge can virtually cut any way. We are people of faith, after all."
i) Which assumes that tu quoque is what I've "mostly" used. I take it that you haven't bothered to acquaint yourself with my extensive responses to CTC players.
ii) There's nothing inappropriate about answering an opponent on his own grounds. That's a perfectly respectable mode of argument. Be definition, a tu quoque argument meets the opponent on his own level.
iii) The fact that we're people of faith doesn't conflict with the use of standard argumentation, such as the tu quoque argument.