According to Catholic apologist and philosopher Michael Liccione:
[B]efore we can determine the truth of any given doctrine–be it the Catholic doctrine of the papacy or any other–we must consider the question by what means theological claims are to be evaluated so that we can distinguish the propositional content of divine revelation from mere human opinions about the data taken as sources. Academic research, on the Bible or anything else, is never going to answer that question definitively. All it can do is clarify what data there are to be interpreted–and even that matter is often more speculative than partisans are willing to admit.Notice the direction of the argument: Before we can determine the truth of the papacy, we must appeal to the final authority of the papacy.
When the question is what I’ve said it is, the answer must appeal to a final authority as one divinely empowered to settle disputes about applying the distinction in question.
"Before we can determine the truth of the papacy, we must appeal to the final authority of the papacy."
ReplyDeleteSo you'd say: "Before we can determine the falsehood of the papacy, we must appeal to the final authority of Scripture on this matter as interpreted by ____ ".
How you would fill in the blank? No matter what you use, it begs the question of how one knows that the person or institution providing that interpretation is authoritative.
Either way, it seems one is forced to resort to circular logic.
i) That's hardly analogous, for your attempted parallel doesn't use the same (implicit) referent at both ends–unlike Liccione's argument.
ReplyDeleteii) And you beg the question by assuming that we need an "authoritative" interpretation (whatever that means).
Is the principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture" a circular argument?
ReplyDeletei) Not really circular since that slogan breaks down into one part of Scripture interpreting another part of Scripture. So it's not the same referent in both terms.
ReplyDeleteii) Moreover, there's a difference between interpretation and validation.
"And you beg the question by assuming that we need an "authoritative" interpretation (whatever that means)."
ReplyDeleteIt means there should be some way of validating your subjective interpretation of Scripture. Even if passage A interprets passage B, you still have the problem of knowing whether your understanding of 'A' is correct to begin with.
I assume the general practice is to simply confirm one's ideas with other respected Christians who have come before. John Piper (who I actually think is an excellent pastor) probably confirms his thoughts with Calvin and Spurgeon among many others. This, in itself, isn't a bad thing: after all, those in the natural sciences attempt to validate their findings and conclusions with other respected members of their field, no?
Do you need an authoritative interpretation of what I wrote to know what I wrote in my post? Do I need to validate my interpretation of your statement by some confirmation process?
ReplyDeleteWhile that may sometimes be useful, it's like pulling a piece of yarn on knitted fabric if you get carried away with that demand. Pretty soon the whole thing steadily unravels since there is no end to the process.
I compare my interpretation of Scripture with the best available commentaries (or articles/monographs), and go with whoever has the best argument.
So you'd say: "Before we can determine the falsehood of the papacy, we must appeal to the final authority of Scripture on this matter as interpreted by ____ ".
ReplyDeleteHow you would fill in the blank? No matter what you use, it begs the question of how one knows that the person or institution providing that interpretation is authoritative.
James,
1. Why is an "authoritative" interpreter required? Would an accurate interpreter not be sufficient? After all, if the interpretation is accurate, it is ipso facto authoritative, is it not?
2. Assuming there is an authoritative interpreter, how do you know it is authoritative? Presumably it isn't just because it claimed to be.
3. If a special authority is required to interpret Scripture, then the Catholic position seems to boil down to the claim that God does not speak to Christians in the Bible. He only speaks to the Magisterium. So God only speaks to Christians through the Magisterium. That seems consistent with the Catholic Church's position in the middle ages re who should be allowed to own or read a Bible. But it seems inconsistent with the tendency of modern Catholics to all own Bibles. What do you think?