2. Their objection goes as follows:
Unless Scripture teaches sola Scriptura, then sola Scriptura is self-refuting.
3. Now, there are different ways of fielding this objection. For example, Scripture could implicitly teach sola Scriptura even if it didn’t explicitly teach sola Scriptura.
4. However, I’d like to address the objection on its own grounds. The objection seems to be a special case of a more general argument:
A rule of faith is self-refuting unless the rule of faith is self-referential.
In other words, a rule of faith must include itself, and in order to do so it must designate itself as the rule of faith.
5. Despite its facile, sales-worthy appeal, it isn’t clear to me that this is logically sound. I think its true that a rule of faith is self-inclusive. But it isn’t obvious to me that a rule of faith must also be self-referential.
For that’s not the rule of faith in itself. That isn’t built into the very nature or intrinsic definition of the rule.
Rather, that’s a statement about the rule of faith. That’s a convenient way to identify the rule of faith.
But a statement about the rule of faith is not, itself, the rule of faith–although it’s possible for the rule of faith to make a statement about itself. A statement about the rule of faith can obviously come from the outside. It can also come from the within, but that isn’t inherent in what makes it a rule of faith, that I can see.
For example, consider the need to standardize weights and measures. The BIPM issues the International System of Units. Yet it would be fallacious to say the units are self-refuting unless they refer back to the BIPM.
Therefore, I think the objection is fallacious. But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it’s sound.
6. To reiterate the principle:
A rule of faith is self-refuting unless the rule of faith is self-referential.
Now, Catholics sometimes try to prooftext their rule of faith by appeal to certain Biblical or patristic statements.
7. However, there is also a popular, a priori argument for the Catholic rule of faith. Let’s take a classic statement of this argument:
Surely, then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words, is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so systematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligation? Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility.
Where then is this gift lodged, which is so necessary for the due use of the written word of God? Thus we are introduced to the second dogma in respect to Holy Scripture taught by the Catholic religion. The first is that Scripture is inspired, the second that the Church is the infallible interpreter of that inspiration.
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/miscellaneous/scripture.html
Not only is that how Newman argues, but Liccione, for one, also uses the same type of argument.
According to this form of the argument, you don’t really need to have the Catholic rule of faith asserted in Scripture or tradition. Rather, the Catholic rule of faith is treated like a necessary precondition or presupposition or self-evident truth-condition.
We should accept the Catholic rule of faith simply because the consequences of the Protestant alternative are unacceptable. So its status is axiomatic. A first principle.
8. Yet that invites a comparison. For if the Protestant rule of faith is self-refuting unless it is self-referential, then why isn’t the Catholic rule of faith self-refuting unless it is self-referential?
Conversely, if the Catholic rule of faith can be treated as simply axiomatic, then why can’t the Protestant rule of faith be treated as simply axiomatic? If an a priori type of argument is sufficient for the Catholic rule of faith, then why can’t the same reasoning be applicable to the Protestant rule of faith?
9. Is it just because the Protestant rule of faith contains the word “only,” whereas the Catholic rule of faith does not? But that’s a superficial, semantic difference–depending on how your verbally formulate the respective positions.
Yet Catholics also regard their rule of faith as the only true rule of faith, so there’s no material difference in terms of exclusivity.
From what I can tell, the Catholic objection is nothing more than a muddleheaded, verbal trick.
This post reminds me of my upper division logic course where we studied Godel and how his theorem destroyed Hilbert's program of formalism.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this excellent post, Steve. I've been having a conversation about this over at Beggars All. I've appealed to the implicit defense and your point in #8, but perhaps I will just link to this post since it does a better job of addressing the issue.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can tell, the Catholic objection is nothing more than a muddleheaded, verbal trick.
ReplyDeleteThis really is one of the several hearts of the beast that needs to have a knife plunged into it.
Even though I need two asprin after reading this, it is as John stated "one of the several hearts of the beast that needs to have a knife plunged into it." With romanists, it's always a case of "Where is Mr. Presupposition hiding? Come out come out... wherever you are..."
ReplyDeleteI think if you were to take this point and boil it down to an even more concise form, it would travel far and be quite useful to those engaged with Romanism. It is, as it stands, a perfect post to send to Romanists... but quite a number of them would unfortunately never be able to follow the argument.
By all means, read Whitaker's "Disputations on Holy Scriptures Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton," Bishop John Jewel's "Apology for the Church of England," and William Goode's "The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, Three Volumes." They are available freely and downloadably through www.books.google.com.
ReplyDeleteRome hasn't got a chance with these unanswered salvoes. Each has its own unique historical context, but they also have continuuing principles of interest for discussion and application to the modern issues: Romery, Anglo-Romery, TBN, charisholics, and other modern Gnostics and enthusiasts.
Regards.
I think if you were to take this point and boil it down to an even more concise form, it would travel far and be quite useful to those engaged with Romanism. It is, as it stands, a perfect post to send to Romanists... but quite a number of them would unfortunately never be able to follow the argument.
ReplyDeleteSteve, I think this would be fabulous if you could do this.
Whoa. Wait a second, everyone. I kinda like this Romanist way of reasoning. I wonder if we can apply it to other areas of life like civil government.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, the founding father had lots of conversations about the role of the American government that were not all recorded. We shouldn't be so shallow as to only trust in RECORDED human history should we? Why should we just limit ourselves to what has been recorded in the US Constitution, for example? Additional law has been passed down to me by oral tradition that my family does not have to pay taxes. As I recognize myself as the head of America I have the authority to interpret the Constitution in light of the tradition that has been passed down (from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc) to me by an infallible chain of leaders. If you question my leadership, you are no longer a citizen. Don't try to interpret the document for yourself, because Americans gave you the document and I am the head of America.
Why don't you provide the links to some of the venues where I make this argument? I'd be interested in reading them.
ReplyDeleteYour logic doesn't work here.
ReplyDeleteSelf-refuting isn't necessarily tied to whether something is 'self-referential', but rather whether a position is built from a standing contradiction. If a rule says "you may ONLY eat apples, but other times you may eat oranges," that rule is self-refuting in that it's a standing contradiction and thus not True.
The definition of SS states all teachings binding on Christians must be explicitly or implicitly taught in Scripture. Now, if SS isn't a teaching found in Scripture then that definition is contradictory; it's self-refuting.
Is it not a contradiction to say "All binding teachings must be taught in Scripture. SS is binding though not taught in Scripture"?
You mentioned SS could be taught implicitly rather than explicitly in Scripture. That's fine, because it's still being taught by Scripture. The only 'partial objection' I would point out is that it would be quite ironic for a foundational doctrine like SS to have to rely on implicit evidence only.
You said: "A rule of faith is self-refuting unless the rule of faith is self-referential."
That is not necessarily true (i.e. it's only true if the rule of faith demands it), so the rest of your post really doesn't work. There are many rules we turn to each day that are rules simply because external authorities impose them as such. Your example of SI (metric) units is a prime example. You don't have to accept the SI definition of a meter for example, but no business or school or judge is going to let you make up your own definition of meter and then impose it on others.
To repeat, given your flawed foundation, the rest of your post doesn't necessarily follow, and thus there is no 'double standard' by Catholics. Further, even if there were a 'double standard' by Catholics, SS doesn't depend on whether Catholicism is true, logically consistent, etc. That's a shift in topic, and not a defense of SS on it's own merits.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteYou're confounding two different propositions:
1. X is the only rule of faith
2. Only X can say that X is the only rule of faith.
#2 is a second-order condition. #1 is not contingent on a second-order condition to be the case. Rather, a second-order conditions is contingent on its first-order conditions.
Nick said:
ReplyDelete---
The definition of SS states all teachings binding on Christians must be explicitly or implicitly taught in Scripture. Now, if SS isn't a teaching found in Scripture then that definition is contradictory; it's self-refuting.
---
Your method leads to lots of infinite regress problems. To give an example, it would be like saying a dictionary must not only include all words with definitions, but must also include itself as a subset of itself. Let's limit the dictionary to just two words (Word1 and Word2) for illustration:
Dictionary = Word1 & Word2 & Dictionary.
Since it includes itself in the definition, then you're stuck with an infinite regress:
Dictionary = Word1 & Word2 & (Word1 & Word2 & Dictionary)...expands to:
Dictionary = Word1 & Word2 & (Word1 & Word2 & (Word1 & Word2 & Dictionary))... Etc.
Dictionaries don't have to include themselves as a subset. They merely have to be a list of defined words.
In the same way, Scripture doesn't have to assert (as teaching) Sola Scriptura. It merely has to be the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians. In short, Sola Scriptura is akin to epistemology, not a teaching derived from epistemology. To establish the validity of an epistemology does not require explicit didactic expressions; the mere existence of it establishes it already (e.g., the fact that we have senses establishes sensory perception as an epistemology, even if no one ever teaches you that it is an epistemology).
So if the Bible is the infallible word of God, and nothing else is, Sola Scriptura is true regardless of whether Scripture teaches it either explicitly or implicitly. Therefore, it is illogical to argue the truth of Sola Scriptura is dependent upon Scripture teaching it.
[Note: none of this is to say that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for it is certainly implicit and I believe explicit in certain passages too.]
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you're getting at.
#1 is simply an assertion. #2 is what applies to SS.
Peter,
Your dictionary example doesn't work because "dictionary" isn't defined as word1+word2...+word X. The term "dictionary" (in the very dictionary you consult) means "a book containing words and their definitions".
You said: "Dictionaries don't have to include themselves as a subset."
If by 'subset' you mean 'defined term', then sure they "don't have to" only because a dictionary doesn't have to include any term. Most dictionaries would include 'dictionary' as a term simply to be more inclusive of all popularly used English words.
You said: "In the same way, Scripture doesn't have to assert (as teaching) Sola Scriptura."
Not in the same way, for (1) your dictionary example didn't work in itself, and (2) a dictionary only is 'authoritative' in so far as men agree to use it as such.
Scripture most certainly has to teach SS for SS to be true, otherwise you've violated the very definition of SS (i.e. X is only binding if taught in Scripture).
You said: In short, Sola Scriptura is akin to epistemology, not a teaching derived from epistemology.
It doesn't have to be derived from epistemology because it itself is supposed to state it's unique function. Saying it's akin to epistemology is fine in so far as the very definition of SS is such a 'truth finding system'. The bind is that if it doesn't state it is to be used that way, you're 'truth finding system' is built on man-made principles; that's why I've said in the past SS is a form of man-centered religion by definition, because it proceeds without being instructed by God to proceed that way (i.e. lacks a Scriptural mandate).
You said: To establish the validity of an epistemology does not require explicit didactic expressions; the mere existence of it establishes it already (e.g., the fact that we have senses establishes sensory perception as an epistemology, even if no one ever teaches you that it is an epistemology).
Not in the case of SS, because by definition it cannot be 'self evident'.
You said: So if the Bible is the infallible word of God, and nothing else is, Sola Scriptura is true regardless of whether Scripture teaches it either explicitly or implicitly.
Agreed, I said this from the start. The key concept here is: Scripture would HAVE TO teach, at least implicitly, that the Bible alone is the only authority. The issue of implicit versus explicit is secondary here. If you want to build a case saying Scripture IMPLICITLY teaches SS, then we're in a totally different discussion, where the self-refuting issue doesn't apply. However, for a Protestant to make the claim "Scripture doesn't have to teach SS," they've condemned them self.
There are TWO issues here that cannot be confused:
1) Saying Scripture teaches SS, and proceeding to prove it from Scripture.
2) Saying Scripture doesn't (have to) teach SS, and sticking by SS none the less.
As far as #2 goes, that is manifest in various ways, most popularly in the form of "Scripture says it's AN authority, so I'll use it as my ONLY authority unless SOMEONE ELSE proves the existence of another divine authority."
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"I'm not sure what you're getting at."
Why doesn't that surprise me?
"#1 is simply an assertion."
I see you're incapable of following the argument. I'm not making a case for SS in my reply to you. That's not the function of #1.
Rather, #1 is a definition of SS (if we substitute "Scripture" for "X").
"#2 is what applies to SS."
#2 is not a definition SS. That's not how SS is formulated.
And that's not an implication SS, for reasons I gave.
Go back and master the rudimentary distinction between first- and second-order conditions.
"Not in the case of SS, because by definition it cannot be 'self evident'."
ReplyDeleteIf that's the case, then the same objection applies to the Catholic rule of faith.
Steve: Rather, #1 is a definition of SS (if we substitute "Scripture" for "X").
ReplyDeleteNick: I could already see that, but I wasn't going to jump to conclusions about what your intent was. #1 (as I said) is a mere assertion, even if it's the definition of SS. An assertion does nothing for you.
Steve: #2 is not a definition SS. That's not how SS is formulated.
Nick: I didn't say #2 was the definition of SS. I said #2 is where the difficulty with SS exists. An assertion on it's own doesn't do you anything (#1), rather it must be proven (#2).
Also, I think your original post needs to be scrapped, because your thesis "A rule of faith is self-refuting unless the rule of faith is self-referential" is not always true. It's true in the SS situation, precisely because the definition of SS demands it.
Steve: If that's the case, then the same objection applies to the Catholic rule of faith.
Nick: The Catholic rule of faith is expressly taught in Scripture and Tradition. Divine Revelation cannot be 'self-evident' by definition. Self-evident means for something not to be someway would result in an absurdity against reason. That's not 'positive proof', which Divine Revelation most certainly is.
To say SS is "self evident" means "SS is obviously true, else absurdity X results." At most, saying SS is self-evident is negative proof, which does you no good and in fact makes SS self-refuting.
Still no links or references of where I offered an argument for SS's self-refutation?
ReplyDeleteSince, apparently, I have been touting this argument "at every available venue," links or references to these venues should be easy to find.
Feel free to email me - fbeckwith[@]mac.com - the links and references if you don't feel comfortable posting them.
I'm curious to see in what venues I have been posting this argument.
Thank you.
Nick said:
ReplyDelete---
Your dictionary example doesn't work because "dictionary" isn't defined as word1+word2...+word X. The term "dictionary" (in the very dictionary you consult) means "a book containing words and their definitions".
---
On the contrary, my dictionary example is exactly relevant to your claim that Sola Scriptura must be presented as a teaching in the Bible or else it is self-refuting. If person A defines "insult" as "giving a compliment to someone" and person B defines it as "an offensive statement" then one can make use of the dictionary. Person B can insist that the definition of "dictionary" is "a list of the objective definitions of all words" yet person A can certainly print up a dictionary containing the word "insult" defined as "giving a compliment to someone." Thus, in order for "dictionary" to have the force Person B wishes, the very word "dictionary" needs to be amended to "a list of the objective definitions of all words such that 'insult' means 'an offensive statement'" etc. So you can see that your attempted definition--"a book containing words and their definitions"--is incapable of settling any arguments, because anyone can draw up a book containing words and definitions that are not the definitions you use. Therefore, it is a fallacious argument to suggest, "A dictionary must include within itself the teaching that it alone is the definer of words or else it is self-refuting to refer to a dictionary to define a word." Ergo, it is a fallacious argument to assert that the Bible must include within itself the teaching that it is the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians, or else Sola Scriptura is self-refuting.
Nick said:
---
Scripture most certainly has to teach SS for SS to be true, otherwise you've violated the very definition of SS (i.e. X is only binding if taught in Scripture).
---
You ought to agree already that Scripture is infallible. So suppose that Scripture is the only infallible source of teaching (that is, leave aside questions of the papacy for a moment and just assume this for the sake of argument). Does Scripture have to say "Scripture is the only infallible source of teaching" in order for it to be a fact that Scripture is the only infallible source of teaching? Obviously not. It is the only infallible source of teaching, in this example, because there are no other infallible sources of teaching. Therefore, the statement "Scripture is the only source of infallible teaching" is not needed to be said in order for it to actually be the case that Scripture IS the only infallible source of teaching. Therefore, Scripture does not have to assert Sola Scriptura anywhere in order to MAKE it suddenly become the sole infallible rule of faith. It either is or is not independently of that statement.
Nick said:
---
Agreed, I said this from the start. The key concept here is: Scripture would HAVE TO teach, at least implicitly, that the Bible alone is the only authority.
---
Well then you do NOT agree at all. And again it's because you're treating Sola Scriptura as a teaching instead of as a method.
In essence, what you are saying boils down to this:
1. Suppose Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith; there are no other infallible rules of faith anywhere.
2. Scripture doesn't say it is the only infallible rule of faith.
3. Therefore, Scripture is not the only infallible rule of faith.
That is totally absurd though. If Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and never says that it is, THAT DOES NOT CREATE ANOTHER INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH.
Dr. Beckwith,
ReplyDeleteI don't know what Steve Hays has in mind, but I've seen you make the argument that Sola Scriptura fails in some respect because Scripture does not identify the canon. Unless I've misread you and/or miscategorized your argument as a species of the "Sola Scriptura is self-refuting" approach, I can verify two examples:
But the belief that the Bible consists only of 66 books is not a claim of Scripture -- since one cannot find the list in it -- but a claim about Scripture as a whole. That is, the whole has a property -- "consisting of 66 books" -- that is not found in any of the parts. In other words, if the 66 books are the supreme authority on matters of belief, and the number of books is a belief, and one cannot find that belief in any of the books, then the belief that Scripture consists of 66 particular books is an extra-biblical belief. This would, by implication, now bring another item of revelation into the ETS orbit of inerrant beliefs that already includes the Trinity statement and the original inerrancy statement about Scripture.
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4911&Itemid=100
[vi]Because there can be no scriptural test for canonicity unless one first knows what constitutes Scripture, one must rely on extra-scriptural tests in order to know the scriptura to which sola scriptura refers. But then one is not actually relying on “Scripture alone” to determine the most fundamental standard for the Christian, the Bible. This means that sola scriptura is a first-order principle whose content must be determined by one or more second-order extra-scriptural principle(s).
http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2009/10/me-and-sola-scriptura-my-reply-to-guy.html
You also just made a blog post reiterating this argument:
http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2010/01/sola-scriptura-and-canon-of-scripture.html
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete“Nick: I could already see that, but I wasn't going to jump to conclusions about what your intent was. #1 (as I said) is a mere assertion, even if it's the definition of SS. An assertion does nothing for you.”
I see you’re not very sharp, so everything has to spelled out for you.
i) You’re the one who’s trying to generate an internal contradiction based on the very definition of SS. Therefore, defining SS is crucial to your claim. If your definition is a straw man, then your objection goes up in smoke.
ii) And there’s nothing wrong with “asserting” definitions. Theological jargon is a term of art. The meaning of the theological terms is assigned by the theological tradition, which defines its own usage.
iii) If you think #1 incorrectly defines SS, then you need to explain why.
“I didn't say #2 was the definition of SS.”
If #2 is not a defining feature of SS, then you can’t generate a self-contradiction on the basis of #2.
“I said #2 is where the difficulty with SS exists.”
All you’ve done is to posit that #2 is where the difficulty with SS resides. Now you have to give us an adequate supporting argument for your contention that #2 accurately represents SS. Try again, if you can.
“An assertion on it's own doesn't do you anything (#1), rather it must be proven (#2).”
I see that you’re unable to follow your own argument. You’re the one, not me, who thinks that #2 represents a correct formulation or implication of SS. Therefore, you’re the one, not me, who has to prove #2.
I merely distinguish between #1 & #2 to expose the fatal equivocations in your position.
“Also, I think your original post needs to be scrapped…”
Also, I think you need to be scrapped. Do you have a return address, where we can haul you back to the scrap yard?
“…because your thesis ‘A rule of faith is self-refuting unless the rule of faith is self-referential’ is not always true.”
Once again, you just can’t keep up with the argument, can you?
It doesn’t have to be true. I’m not the one who’s defining a rule of faith in those terms. I’m merely pointing out that the Catholic objection to sola Scriptura operates on that principle.
“It's true in the SS situation, precisely because the definition of SS demands it.”
Produce a definition of SS from a Reformed confession or representative Reformed theologian that “demands it.”
“The Catholic rule of faith is expressly taught in Scripture and Tradition.”
i) Whether it’s expressly taught in Scripture begs the question.
ii) And if you think the Catholic rule of faith must be enunciated in Scripture and/or tradition, then you reject the a priori arguments of Newman, Liccione, &c.
“Divine Revelation cannot be 'self-evident' by definition. Self-evident means for something not to be someway would result in an absurdity against reason. That's not 'positive proof', which Divine Revelation most certainly is.”
So you’re admitting that a priori arguments for the Catholic rule of faith are fundamentally ill-conceived. The Catholic rule of faith can’t be axiomatic. So much the worse for Newman and Liccione.
By your own admission, then, there’s nothing irrational or absurd about denying the Catholic rule of faith. Thanks for the concession.
“To say SS is ‘self evident’ means ‘SS is obviously true, else absurdity X results.’ At most, saying SS is self-evident is negative proof, which does you no good and in fact makes SS self-refuting.”
Once again, you’re unable to follow the argument. Did I argue that SS is self-evident? No.
Rather, I presented an argument from analogy. A parallel between the Catholic rule of faith and the Protestant rule of faith.
Have you always been this illogical, or did it take a lot of practice on your part to achieve this level of illogicality?
Schultz is correct.
ReplyDeleteSola Scriptura is not a base epistomology. Instead, it is derived from Scripture’s own statements implying the dependability of the written record (e.g. Isaiah 30:8) as opposed to the independability of oral tradition passed on over many decades and centuries as well as the elimination by refutation of all its contenders (i.e. tradition, councils, papal pronouncements, etc.). Thus, to argue that sola Scriptura is self-refuting one must first assume a straw-man definition of the doctrine.
ReplyDeleteMatt:
ReplyDeleteThat';s correct. But I don't argue that it is self-refuting, since it seems to me that there are a variety of different ways Protestants understand SS and defend it. This is why I am careful not to say that "SS is self-refuting" because not all versions are, as I noted in Return to Rome when I speak approvingly of the Magesterial Reformation's understanding of it (or at least my reading of that point of view).
Now, are there versions of SS that are self-refuting? Of course, there are. I think that the sort of Regular Baptist version is self-refuting (the "trail of blood" approach to church history). But the vast majority of sophisticated Protestants don't hold that view. Ultimately, I am not persuaded by the more sophisticated versions either. But I have tremendous respect for those who defend those versions and the careful sort of argument they offer.
If I may suggest the best defense of SS, it is by my former Professor, John Warwick Montgomery, in his article, "The Theologian's Craft." Now, that's a first class of piece work that continues to influence me to this day. (I love John, but I don't think he accurately describes the Catholic view).
You can find Montgomery's article here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1966/JASA9-66Montgomery.html
I think that the sort of Regular Baptist version is self-refuting (the "trail of blood" approach to church history).
ReplyDeletePlease do not confuse "Regular Baptists" with Landmark Baptists. These are not interchangeable terms.
The irony, here, however, is that in many ways, the Landmark Baptist way of thinking about ecclesiology/church history bears a striking resemblance to your own.
Peter: If person A defines "insult" as "giving a compliment to someone" and person B defines it as "an offensive statement" then one can make use of the dictionary.
ReplyDeleteNick: Provided they agree upon a given dictionary as an authority.
Peter: Person B can insist that the definition of "dictionary" is "a list of the objective definitions of all words" yet person A can certainly print up a dictionary containing the word "insult" defined as "giving a compliment to someone."
Nick: This example has no basis in this discussion. If Person 1 and Person 2 don't agree on a given dictionary, then no progress can be made.
Peter: Thus, in order for "dictionary" to have the force Person B wishes, the very word "dictionary" needs to be amended to "a list of the objective definitions of all words such that 'insult' means 'an offensive statement'" etc.
Nick: Not at all. The force of dictionary X doesn't depend on how/if the word "dictionary" is defined. What matters is whether both persons accept dictionary X. A prime example of this situation not working is when someone tries to derive theological terms of their opponent using a secular dictionary.
Peter: So you can see that your attempted definition--"a book containing words and their definitions"--is incapable of settling any arguments, because anyone can draw up a book containing words and definitions that are not the definitions you use.
Nick: Again, your argument is non-sequitor. Further, what you call my “attempted definition” is in fact the typical definition you'll find in most dictionaries; proving my point even more.
Peter: Therefore, it is a fallacious argument to suggest, "A dictionary must include within itself the teaching that it alone is the definer of words or else it is self-refuting"
Nick: I never suggested such. I repeatedly made it clear such secular rules only derive authority from the 'outside', that is whether the user accepts it as an authority.
Peter: Ergo, it is a fallacious argument to assert that the Bible must include within itself the teaching that it is the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians, or else Sola Scriptura is self-refuting.
Nick: You're mixing apples and oranges. At most you're argument could state the Bible is an authority only for those who accept it as such.
Peter: So suppose that Scripture is the only infallible source of teaching. Does Scripture have to say "Scripture is the only infallible source of teaching" in order for it to be a fact? Obviously not.
Therefore, Scripture does not have to assert Sola Scriptura anywhere in order to MAKE it suddenly become the sole infallible rule of faith. It either is or is not independently of that statement.
Nick: You're confusing some critical points here: (1) Your proposition depends on a presumption Scripture is the only authority, that's unacceptable as far as theology goes. (2) Even if it were in fact true, it would not fall into the category of divinely revealed truth but merely secular history, on the same level as what color John's eyes were. And that is because Scripture didn't reveal it.
So the SS bind still remains. You (and others) are still not recognizing the crucial need for 'positive' (Scriptural) proof for SS. Your argument is on par with me saying "Peter, just because Scripture doesn't say John's eyes were brown doesn't mean they weren't. Let's assume they were. Now, would Scripture have to say that for it to be true?"
Peter: you're treating Sola Scriptura as a teaching instead of as a method.
Nick: I don't think there is that critical of a difference. I could call SS a teaching, method, doctrine, principle, etc, and my argument would remain. Further, SS has often been referred to as a 'doctrine' by respected Protestants (e.g. James White).
Steve: i) You’re the one who’s trying to generate an internal contradiction based on the very definition of SS. Therefore, defining SS is crucial to your claim. If your definition is a straw man, then your objection goes up in smoke.
ReplyDeleteNick: Agreed. A strawman definition is not what I'm after.
Steve: ii) And there’s nothing wrong with “asserting” definitions.
Nick: Agreed. But something isn't true merely because it's asserted, even if the assertion is what doctrine X teaches.
Steve: iii) If you think #1 incorrectly defines SS, then you need to explain why.
Nick: I never said it did.
Steve: If #2 is not a defining feature of SS, then you can’t generate a self-contradiction on the basis of #2.
Nick: You seem to be playing word games. I am clearly distinguishing between (1) an assertion, and (2) proof for assertion. My argument is that your proof is where the problem rests.
Steve: All you’ve done is to posit that #2 is where the difficulty with SS resides. Now you have to give us an adequate supporting argument for your contention that #2 accurately represents SS. Try again, if you can.
Nick: Here is #2: "Only X can say that X is the only rule of faith."
Since divine truth can only come from Scripture (SS definition) - then IF SS is a divine truth, which it is - only Scripture can say 'Scripture is the only rule of faith'.
The ONLY alternative (which some freely admit to) to flatly admit Scripture doesn't have to teach SS, which means the doctrine doesn't require divine mandate to be binding.
Steve: It doesn’t have to be true. I’m not the one who’s defining a rule of faith in those terms. I’m merely pointing out that the Catholic objection to sola Scriptura operates on that principle.
Nick: You're not getting it. It HAS TO be true in SOME situations, NOT all. Your 'case' proceeded as if it either always had to be true or never had to be true, which is false. It doesn't have to be true in your SI units example. But it does have to be true in the case of SS. You were fallaciously saying since it's not true with SI units, it doesn't have to be with SS.
Steve: Produce a definition of SS from a Reformed confession or representative Reformed theologian that “demands it.”
Nick: WCF 1:6a says, paraphrased: 'all things necessary for faith and life is either expressly set down or may be deduced from Scripture."
But just using common sense: SS must demand it, else you're establishing a doctrine (SS) without Scriptural warrant. The logic is simple:
(1) SS teaches only doctrines taught in Scripture are binding.
(2) SS is a doctrine.
(3) Thus SS must be taught in Scripture.
Your only 'alternative' is affirming "SS need not be taught in Scripture to be true," but that's instant death for your apologetics ministry.
What's astonishing is that I'm finding Reformed folks who gladly affirm that proposition. What first launched this heated discussion was Turretin Fan's post where he frankly admits nowhere in Scripture is SS asserted yet the doctrine is still true:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/01/unloading-35-loaded-questions-for-bible.html
Steve: So you’re admitting that a priori arguments for the Catholic rule of faith are fundamentally ill-conceived.
Nick: Not ill-conceived, but limited in their efficacy. In short, they amount to nothing without divine mandates validating them.
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete“Agreed. But something isn't true merely because it's asserted, even if the assertion is what doctrine X teaches.”
Try to be logical and take one step at a time. If you think that sola scriptura is self-refuting by definition, then the first step is to arrive at an accurate definition. Whether or not what the thing definied is true is a separate and subsequent issue which you can’t even get to before you have a proper definition.
I’m simply responding to you on your own terms. Try to keep track of your own argument.
“I never said it did.”
So my definition of SS is accurate. At least, you don’t challenge it.
“You seem to be playing word games.”
Since your argument is essentially semantic (i.e. by definition, SS is self-refuting), then semantics are key to evaluating your argument.
You seem unable to follow your own argument. Try to pay attention.
“I am clearly distinguishing between (1) an assertion, and (2) proof for assertion.”
I see that you’re still confused.
i) #1 is not an assertion. Rather, it’s a definition. A definition is not an assertion regarding the truth of the item thus defined.
ii) Unless you contest the definition. But you just admitted that you don’t disagree with my definition.
In that event, I don’t have to prove that my definition is accurate.
A definition of SS doesn’t claim that SS is true, any more than a definition of unicorns affirms their existence. A definition carries no ontological commitment.
iii) So is your objection that I need to prove SS? If so, that wasn’t your original objection. Your original objection was that SS is self-refuting.
I don’t have to prove SS to disprove your objection. I don’t have to furnish any positive evidence that SS is true to show that your argument is unsound. I’d only have to show that your argument is unsound on its own terms, irrespective of the pros and cons of SS generally.
iv) As it’s not as if you can shift the onus onto me. You have your own burden of proof to discharge.
There’s no presumption which I have to overcome. You need to pull your own weight in this exchange.
“My argument is that your proof is where the problem rests.”
So you say. Making good on your claim is the hard part.
“Since divine truth can only come from Scripture (SS definition) - then IF SS is a divine truth, which it is - only Scripture can say 'Scripture is the only rule of faith.'”
Except that WCF 1:6a doesn’t say that divine truth can only come from Scripture. Rather, it says that “all things necessary for faith and life” come from Scripture. That’s a narrower claim. Therefore, your disproof is invalid.
Whether or not divine truth can only come from Scripture is a different issue.
“WCF 1:6a says, paraphrased: 'all things necessary for faith and life is either expressly set down or may be deduced from Scripture.’”
ReplyDeleteWhich doesn’t get you where you want to go since you’re confusing two distinct propositions:
i) Scripture is the source of all things which must be believed or obeyed to be saved.
ii) Belief in Scripture as the source of all things which must be believed or obeyed to be saved is, itself, one of the things which must be believed to be saved.
Unfortunately for you, (ii) is not inferable from (i).
Therefore, you haven’t show that sola Scriptura is self-refuting according to the Confessional definition you quote.
“The logic is simple: (1) SS teaches only doctrines taught in Scripture are binding.”
The topic of WCF 1:6a is not what makes a doctrine “binding,” but the source of whatever is necessary for “faith and life.”
Once again, your inference is fallacious.
A logical self-contradiction is a very exacting category. Your slipshod inferences keep falling short of the mark.
“Your only 'alternative' is affirming ‘SS need not be taught in Scripture to be true,’ but that's instant death for your apologetics ministry.”
I don’t need to take a position on that for purposes of this discussion since that wasn’t the question at issue. Rather, I drew a parallel between a priori arguments for the Catholic rule of faith and a priori arguments for the Protestant rule of faith.
Whether or not SS is enunciated in Scripture, and whether or not that’s a precondition of SS, is a separate question from the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a priori arguments for one’s rule of faith.
“Not ill-conceived, but limited in their efficacy. In short, they amount to nothing without divine mandates validating them.”
So you admit that a priori arguments for the Catholic rule of faith are unsound. I appreciate your concession, although I doubt that Newman or Liccione would be equally appreciative.
Mr. Hays,
ReplyDeleteI have posted a reply to this at my blog (hard to format a complex reply in a combox).
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/01/sola-scriptura-self-refuting.html
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Scott, the CathApol: "Scripture does not teach sola scriptura and in fact teaches the bishops of Christ's Church have infallible authority whenever they choose to bind or loose whatsoever."
ReplyDeleteHi Scott,
I think your claim that bishops of Christ's Church have "infallible" authority when it comes to binding or loosing whatever is problematic.
Having said that, I have no problem with your blog subtitle being "Keeping Catholics, Catholic." As long as you agree with Protestant epologists like Steve Hays, Jason Engwer and others who endeavor to "Keep Protestants, Protestant," or to be more in honest alignment with staunch Protestants, to "Keeping Christians, Christian"... which I realize may not be all that pleasing a turn of phrase to Catholics who are seeking to convert Protestants.
Steve: If you think that sola scriptura is self-refuting by definition, then the first step is to arrive at an accurate definition.
ReplyDeleteNick: The definition of Sola Scriptura, as I understand it classically taught, is basically this:
'All teachings necessary for and binding on Christians must be derived from Scripture.'
That's Sola Scriptura in a nutshell, without going into other details such as inscripturation and such.
NOW, Steve, is my definition accurate? If yes, say so. IF NO, then provide what you see as the 'true' or more accurate definition. This will hopefully settle the issue that I'm not approaching this with the correct definition of SS.
Steve: Since your argument is essentially semantic (i.e. by definition, SS is self-refuting), then semantics are key to evaluating your argument.
Nick: My comment about you playing word games was more about what seems to be you trying to wiggle out of this on technicalities.
Steve: i) #1 is not an assertion. Rather, it’s a definition. A definition is not an assertion regarding the truth of the item thus defined.
Nick: This is what I mean by word games. A Mormon could say the Word of God consists of the Bible and Book of Mormon. That's both a definition and assertion. That might be how the Mormon defines the Word of God, but that doesn't mean that is true in terms of Christian orthodoxy.
Steve: In that event, I don’t have to prove that my definition is accurate.
Nick: Your definition was never disputed.
Steve: A definition carries no ontological commitment.
Nick: In our context it does, else you're playing word games. The dispute is whether SS is self refuting, and a definition of SS is required for determining whether it is self-refuting or not.
Steve: iii) So is your objection that I need to prove SS?
Nick: My objection from the start has been that without proof of a divine mandate for SS, it is self refuting.
Steve: So you say. Making good on your claim is the hard part.
Nick: My argument and logic is plain for anyone to read and see where I'm coming from. You seem to be trying to avoid dealing directly with it on the basis of technicalities.
Nick: “Since divine truth can only come from Scripture (SS definition) - then IF SS is a divine truth, which it is - only Scripture can say 'Scripture is the only rule of faith.'”
Steve: Except that WCF 1:6a doesn’t say that divine truth can only come from Scripture. Rather, it says that “all things necessary for faith and life” come from Scripture. That’s a narrower claim. Therefore, your disproof is invalid.
Nick: Total semantics on your part. Sola Scriptura certainly falls in the category of "things necessary for faith and life." And things necessary for Christian faith are certainly divine truths.
Steve: Whether or not divine truth can only come from Scripture is a different issue.
Nick: No it is not, it goes along with all we've been saying. The whole point of SS is that divine truth is confined to Scripture and nowhere else.
Steve: Which doesn’t get you where you want to go since you’re confusing two distinct propositions:
ReplyDeletei) Scripture is the source of all things which must be believed or obeyed to be saved.
ii) Belief in Scripture as the source of all things which must be believed or obeyed to be saved is, itself, one of the things which must be believed to be saved.
Unfortunately for you, (ii) is not inferable from (i).
Nick: Nobody would say you must believe in SS "to be saved," but it is certainly a critical doctrine for Christian 'faith and life'. If 2 is not inferable from 1, then you have a problem, for it means you're going about doing theology in a way not mandated by the very source of truth you look to.
The topic of WCF 1:6a is not what makes a doctrine “binding,” but the source of whatever is necessary for “faith and life.”
Nick: Word games. You're trying to spin the argument on technicalities rather than address the substance.
“Your only 'alternative' is affirming ‘SS need not be taught in Scripture to be true,’ but that's instant death for your apologetics ministry.”
Steve: I don’t need to take a position on that for purposes of this discussion since that wasn’t the question at issue. Rather, I drew a parallel between a priori arguments for the Catholic rule of faith and a priori arguments for the Protestant rule of faith.
Nick: LOL, it certainly was the issue at hand, now your trying to take us off in the a priori argument direction (which was a secondary issue and one not truly relevant).
It's not you "don't need to," but rather you cannot without serious ramifications either way. SS being self-refuting relies on that exact question.
Steve: Whether or not SS is enunciated in Scripture, and whether or not that’s a precondition of SS, is a separate question from the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a priori arguments for one’s rule of faith.
Nick: Let me remind you the substance of your original blog post was in paragraphs 1-6, the a priori argument was an appendage to the self-refuting subject discussed in 1-6. You appear to be retreating away from your original thesis, which I've repeatedly noted needs to be retracted due to it's fallacious reasoning.
“Not ill-conceived, but limited in their efficacy. In short, they amount to nothing without divine mandates validating them.”
Steve: So you admit that a priori arguments for the Catholic rule of faith are unsound. I appreciate your concession, although I doubt that Newman or Liccione would be equally appreciative.
Nick: I didn't say 'unsound', I said limited. Further, the a priori argument you made is pure appendage, and that's why I deliberately avoided it, it was not relevant to the meat of your original blog post and title "Is Sola Scriptura self-refuting". The Catholic position could be 100% wrong and fallacious and whatever...but that doesn't give you a pass to build your own position on bogus foundations yourself.
Well "Truth Unites...and Divides" - as your pseudonym explicitly states, the Truth does not only unite, it divides. It divides us.
ReplyDeleteFACT (Truth) - Jesus told His bishops, "whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew 18:18).
FACT (Truth) - Error cannot be bound or loosed in Heaven.
FACT (Truth) - Jesus gave to His bishops infallible authority.
FACT (Truth) - Jesus was sent by the Father in His ministry, and part of that ministry was to select bishops and grant them this authority.
FACT (Truth) - Jesus said to His bishops: "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you" (John 20:21).
FACT (Truth) - If the bishops did anything less than described above, they would not be doing what Jesus sent them to do.
Thus, your statement to me: "I think your claim that bishops of Christ's Church have "infallible" authority when it comes to binding or loosing whatever is problematic" is a problematic statement in itself - for it denies the Truth.
To Mr. Swan, I followed Hays' argument quite well and answered it point by point. I certainly accept Mr. Hays article "to Catholics" as it gives us Catholics the opportunity, yet again, to show the fatal flaws of sola scriptura.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/01/sola-scriptura-self-refuting.html
FACT (Truth) - Jesus told His bishops, "whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew 18:18).
ReplyDeleteAre you claiming that all the Apostles were bishops?
FACT (Truth) - Jesus gave to His bishops infallible authority.
Begging the question.
FACT (Truth) - Jesus was sent by the Father in His ministry, and part of that ministry was to select bishops and grant them this authority.
Are you claiming that all the Apostles were bishops?
FACT (Truth) - Jesus said to His bishops: "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you" (John 20:21).
Are you claiming that all the Apostles were bishops?
FACT (Truth) - If the bishops did anything less than described above, they would not be doing what Jesus sent them to do.
Are you claiming that all the Apostles were bishops?
Cath Apologist Scott, a series of unsubstantiated assertions and claims do not make up a sound argument.
Let's say that you argue that all the Apostles were bishops too? What's your evidence and where is it? Let's see it for all 12 Apostles. Furthermore, do you draw a distinction between Apostle and a bishop? Or do you think they're equivalent and interchangeable terms?
TUAD: Are you claiming that all the Apostles were bishops?
ReplyDeletesw: Yes.
TUAD: Cath Apologist Scott, a series of unsubstantiated assertions and claims do not make up a sound argument.
sw: 1) I posted a series of FACTS. If you have evidence that these FACTS are not true - present valid argumentation to that end otherwise the FACTS stand.
sw: 2) You left out an important part of the series, namely it is a FACT (Truth) that error cannot be bound or loosed in Heaven. Do you agree with this fact? Yes or no. If no, present valid argumentation to support your denial; if yes - why did you omit it in your response?
sw: 3) I included a couple scriptural references supporting key elements of that series of FACTS. My assertions were not unsupported, please have the integrity to retract that false statement.
TUAD: Let's say that you argue that all the Apostles were bishops too? What's your evidence and where is it? Let's see it for all 12 Apostles.
sw: The Apostles held an office, this is made clear when they had to fill Judas' office - which is called a "bishopric."
And his bishopric let another take. Acts 1:20
sw: Do you think Judas held a lesser or greater office than the rest of the Apostles?
TUAD: Furthermore, do you draw a distinction between Apostle and a bishop? Or do you think they're equivalent and interchangeable terms?
sw: The Apostles held the office of bishop, this is a fact already proven. That would make the office of bishop an apostolic office. Today's bishops hold an apostolic office. St. Paul is also called an Apostle - though he is not one of the 12. St. Barnabas is also called an Apostle in Acts 14:14. An apostle literally means one "sent out" and in Luke 10:1-16 we find that Jesus "sent out" 70 others, two by two.
The name "Apostle" is not limited to "The Twelve."
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
http://cathapol.blogspot.com
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete“NOW, Steve, is my definition accurate? If yes, say so. IF NO, then provide what you see as the 'true' or more accurate definition. This will hopefully settle the issue that I'm not approaching this with the correct definition of SS.”
A rule of faith is not the same sort of thing as the things *of which* it is a rule. Catholics who try to generate a self-contradiction from sola Scriptura are equivocating.
“My comment about you playing word games was more about what seems to be you trying to wiggle out of this on technicalities.”
If you presume to mount an argument against sola scriptura, then you must define your terms, your definition must be accurate, and you must stick to the terms of the argument. Those are not “technicalities.”
“In our context it does, else you're playing word games. The dispute is whether SS is self refuting, and a definition of SS is required for determining whether it is self-refuting or not.”
Which doesn’t mean a definition qua definition asserts that the thing thus defined is real or true. Are unicorns true by definition?
“My objection from the start has been that without proof of a divine mandate for SS, it is self refuting.”
That’s a non-sequitur. To say it’s self-refuting is to allege some internal inconsistency.
Yet, in principle, SS could enjoy some extrinsic proof of divine mandate. God could arrange the clouds to spell out: “The 66 books of the Protestant canon are the true canon.”
If the Protestant canon had that extrinsic proof of divine validation, would SS cease to be self-refuting? But if you think any proof of divine mandate is consistent with SS, then in what sense is SS self-refuting?
You’re clearly in over your head.
“My argument and logic is plain for anyone to read and see where I'm coming from.”
Your slipshod argument and fallacious logic are plain for anyone to read and see where you’re coming from.
“Total semantics on your part.”
The semantics are yours. I’m holding you to the terms you use. That’s a simply matter of accuracy and honesty. You don’t get to be an intellectual slacker here.
“Sola Scriptura certainly falls in the category of ‘things necessary for faith and life.’”
Belief in sola Scriptura isn’t necessary for salvation. Rather, what’s necessary for salvation is taught in Scripture. You keep committing a rudimentary level-confusion.
Cont. “No it is not, it goes along with all we've been saying. The whole point of SS is that divine truth is confined to Scripture and nowhere else.”
ReplyDeleteYou’re not actually getting that from the article in the Westminster Confession which you quoted.
“Nobody would say you must believe in SS ‘to be saved,’ but it is certainly a critical doctrine for Christian 'faith and life.’”
You keep confusing the necessity and sufficiency of Scripture with the necessity of believing in the necessity and sufficiency of Scripture. That’s a level-confusion. That second-order condition isn’t built into the definition of sola scriptura.
“If 2 is not inferable from 1, then you have a problem, for it means you're going about doing theology in a way not mandated by the very source of truth you look to.”
i) It’s a simple question of logic. Your conclusion is invalid because your conclusion (2) exceeds the terms of your premise (1).
ii) You also confound a mandate with a logical contradiction. You continue to rack up non-sequiturs like that.
“Word games. You're trying to spin the argument on technicalities rather than address the substance.”
You’re the one who keeps resorting to tendentious rhetoric by screaming “Semantics!”, “Word games!”, or “Technicalities!” rather than offering a counterargument.
“LOL, it certainly was the issue at hand, now your trying to take us off in the a priori argument direction (which was a secondary issue and one not truly relevant).”
Are you just dull-witted? I made myself repeatedly and explicitly clear about that in the body of the post.
“It's not you ‘don't need to,’ but rather you cannot without serious ramifications either way.”
Try to concentrate that furry little brain of yours on my actual argument. It involved an argument from analogy concerning a priori arguments for the Catholic and Protestant rules of faith respectively. Either both are licit or both are illicit.
So, no, for purposes of an argument from analogy, I don’t have to go into positive evidence for sola Scriptura. And it’s not as if I haven’t done that on other occasions. But you don’t get to engage in diversionary tactics just because you keep losing the argument.
“Let me remind you the substance of your original blog post was in paragraphs 1-6, the a priori argument was an appendage to the self-refuting subject discussed in 1-6.”
Wrong again! I was cutting the underbrush as a preparatory move.
“You appear to be retreating away from your original thesis, which I've repeatedly noted needs to be retracted due to it's fallacious reasoning.”
To the contrary, I’ve reiterated the distinctions I drew in 1-6. Try to follow the bouncing ball.
“I didn't say 'unsound', I said limited.”
An a priori argument has to stand or fall on a priori grounds. It can’t be shored up with a posteriori scaffolding.
“Further, the a priori argument you made is pure appendage.”
Once again, I see that you’re slow on the uptake. 1-6 are a lead-in to what follows. That doesn’t make what follows an “appendage.” To the contrary, that’s what 1-6 are leading up to. Arguments can have various steps or stages. Sorry if that’s a novel concept to you.
“And that's why I deliberately avoided it.”
You don’t get to avoid my arguments whenever it suits your purpose.
“It was not relevant to the meat of your original blog post.”
You obviously consume too much intellectual junk food. Sorry if you can’t digest that much meat at one sitting. Lay off the Cheetos.
“The Catholic position could be 100% wrong and fallacious…”
I see that we’re finally making progress.
Steve: A rule of faith is not the same sort of thing as the things *of which* it is a rule.
ReplyDeleteNick: In some cases it is, including this one. You cannot just assume SS is the way to go. You'd have to be commanded, from God, to do that (else SS is a tradition of men by definition).
Steve: Yet, in principle, SS could enjoy some extrinsic proof of divine mandate. God could arrange the clouds to spell out: “The 66 books of the Protestant canon are the true canon.”
Nick: God writing in the clouds is an extra-biblical Tradition. That would only work if it happened during a time SS didn't exist (yet) and also later came to be recorded in Scripture.
Steve: If the Protestant canon had that extrinsic proof of divine validation, would SS cease to be self-refuting?
Nick: No. The mandate to engage in SS in the FIRST PLACE must be recorded in Scripture, else you're submitting to a co-existing Tradition alongside Scripture.
“Sola Scriptura certainly falls in the category of ‘things necessary for faith and life.’”
Steve: Belief in sola Scriptura isn’t necessary for salvation. Rather, what’s necessary for salvation is taught in Scripture.
Nick: You're fallaciously inserting in "necessary for salvation" where the actual phrase is "necessary for faith and life." That includes things such as sacraments, worship, leadership, etc, etc. Belief in SS is the gateway for belief in a whole host of other Christian things which while STRICTLY might not be "necessary for salvation" are certainly a central part of Christian "faith and life." The WCF has 33 chapters of various topics related to Christian faith and living (only a few of which are strictly necessary for salvation)...and SS is the FIRST chapter.
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete“You cannot just assume SS is the way to go.”
As usual, you’re incapable of following your own argument. In this thread I haven’t made any assumptions regarding the veracity of SS. That’s so not the issue.
The question at issue is not the veracity of SS, but the coherence of SS. Is it internally consistent or inconsistent? That’s the point in dispute. And that’s a logical question, not an alethic question. A logical syllogism can be invalid, yet the major premise, minor premise, and conclusion all be true.
So try, just for once in your life, to think logically–especially when you’re the one who is presuming to mount a logical challenge to SS.
“God writing in the clouds is an extra-biblical Tradition. That would only work if it happened during a time SS didn't exist (yet) and also later came to be recorded in Scripture.”
Once again, you’re incapable of following your own argument. I was responding to you on your own grounds, remember? Evidently not.
You said: “My objection from the start has been that without proof of a divine mandate for SS, it is self refuting.”
So you were the one who set it up in those terms. I merely responded in kind.
“No. The mandate to engage in SS in the FIRST PLACE must be recorded in Scripture, else you're submitting to a co-existing Tradition alongside Scripture.”
i) That simply begs the question of whether a rule of faith is the same type of thing as other things over which it supplies the criterion.
If I use a tape measure to measure plywood, is my tape measure the same sort of thing as the plywood? Does it have the same purpose as the plywood? I think not.
i) On a related note, there’s a basic difference between the grounds for believing X, and the grounds for believing whatever is grounded in X?
My belief in X might be my grounds for believing in Y. But that doesn't mean my grounds for believing X must be the same as my grounds for believing Y.
Catholics might try to say that sola Scriptura has to be self-referential if Scripture is the only ground for believing Y (i.e. sola Scriptura).
But that’s illogical. To say that Scripture is my only sufficient reason to believe in the Virgin Birth doesn't mean (i.e. entail) that Scripture is my only sufficient reason to believe in Scripture.
“You're fallaciously inserting in "necessary for salvation" where the actual phrase is "necessary for faith and life."
Did I now? We’ll see about that. You said you were quoting WCF 1:6a, right? Well, the “actual phrasing” is “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”
i) So, no, I didn’t “fallaciously insert” the phrase “necessary for salvation” when, in fact, that very wording is explicitly given in the text which you yourself were allegedly quoting.
ii) You’re also assuming that the Westminster Divines oppose “faith and life” to things “necessary for man’s salvation”–rather than treating “faith and life” as epexegetical of things “necessary for salvation.”
Steve: The question at issue is not the veracity of SS, but the coherence of SS. Is it internally consistent or inconsistent? That’s the point in dispute. And that’s a logical question, not an alethic question. A logical syllogism can be invalid, yet the major premise, minor premise, and conclusion all be true.
ReplyDeleteNick: The title and original point was whether SS was self-refuting, as Catholics like I claimed. You then proceeded to write a post attacking what was in fact a strawman version of the "SS is self-refuting" argument. My argument against SS very much is a logical one, using the 3 point logical syllogism I've repeated a few times already:
(1) SS teaches only doctrines taught in Scripture are binding.
(2) SS is a doctrine.
(3) Thus SS must be taught in Scripture.
If you don't address that, which you've yet to do, you're not dealing with the true "SS is self-refuting" argument but rather a straw man version.
“My objection from the start has been that without proof of a divine mandate for SS, it is self refuting.”
Steve: So you were the one who set it up in those terms. I merely responded in kind.
Nick: I "set it up in those terms" because that's the true "SS is self-refuting" argument, anything else is a straw man. To run away from that “set up” is running from the true understanding of SS.
Your thesis ("A rule of faith is self-refuting unless the rule of faith is self-referential") was bogus, because it incorrectly assumed the Claim was either universally true or universally false.
Your logic was as follows:
(a) Since the Claim doesn't fit in Metric example, you said "the objection is fallacious"...but that's a straw man you tore down given SI (metric) isn't "God Breathed" nor does it mean just because one thing isn't self referential then nothing can be.
(b) You then said let's assume the Claim is true, though again fallaciously assuming 'universally true', BUT then shifting over to a non-sequitor evaluation of a Catholic claim on an a priori comparison basis rather than the original topic of self-referential. You should have been comparing self-referential to self-referential, else your "for the sake of argument lets assume claim is true" is fallacious (non-sequitor).
“The mandate to engage in SS in the FIRST PLACE must be recorded in Scripture, else you're submitting to a co-existing Tradition”
Steve: That simply begs the question of whether a rule of faith is the same type of thing as other things over which it supplies the criterion.
If I use a tape measure to measure plywood, is my tape measure the same sort of thing as the plywood? Does it have the same purpose as the plywood? I think not.
Nick: That argument is bogus.
Fact: Not all rules of faith are self-referential.
Fact: SOME rules of faith are (and some even MUST BE).
You're not distinguishing between those two facts. Of the various commands of Scripture, at least one of them must be to use Scripture as your only divine standard to 'measure'.
Steve: Catholics might try to say that sola Scriptura has to be self-referential if Scripture is the only ground for believing Y (i.e. sola Scriptura).
But that’s illogical. To say that Scripture is my only sufficient reason to believe in the Virgin Birth doesn't mean (i.e. entail) that Scripture is my only sufficient reason to believe in Scripture.
Nick: Your “alternative” is your doctrine of "only believe what Scripture teaches" is a man-made doctrine. If I mentioned ANY uniquely Catholic doctrine, you as a Protestant could ONLY object on the grounds "Scripture doesn't teach that; it's a tradition of men." Well, you're bound by your own standards. How do you know "scripture must teach doctrine X, else it's a tradition of men"? Your only answer is because Scripture instructs you to proceed that way.
2of2
ReplyDelete“You're fallaciously inserting in "necessary for salvation" where the actual phrase is "necessary for faith and life."
Steve: Did I now? We’ll see about that. You said you were quoting WCF 1:6a, right? Well, the “actual phrasing” is “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is ... set down in Scripture”
i) So, no, I didn’t “fallaciously insert” the phrase “necessary for salvation”
Nick: You're messing with the wording, equivocating with "salvation" and "faith and life". It DIVIDES things into categories. Things necessary for: (a) God's Glory; (b) man's salvation; (c) faith and life.
Category (c) includes things like Baptism, Church Leadership, etc, etc, which while not STRICTLY necessary for "man's salvation" are very necessary for Christian daily living. Again, as I pointed out, the WCF has 33 CHAPTERS, only a few of which are absolutely necessary for salvation...so what does that make the rest? Fire starter? Unbiblical? No, rather it makes the other chapters apply to daily Christian living.
You keep trying to hide under technicalities and such, which I don't consider fair nor genuine truth seeking. Either you're out to defend and/or present the best argument, or you're out to "win" on technicalities.