In objection to sola Scriptura, a Catholic apologist says, "By what authority do you justify your interpretation?" (or words to that effect). Catholic apologists routinely frame the issue in terms of authority. Unless your interpretation is authoritative, it's just fallible private opinion.
It's striking how many Catholics find that gambit persuasive. But that's why they're Catholic.
i) Appeals to authority are used to settle disputes. But for that very reason, an argument from authority can't settle a dispute in the case of competing authorities. If the legitimacy of the authority source is the very issue in dispute, it is viciously circular for one side to appeal to his authority source to trump the opposing side.
Rather, he must first present an argument for the legitimacy of his authority source. He can't deploy an argument from authority to justify the authority source he's appealing to.
The dispute between Catholics and Protestants is in part a dispute over legitimate authority. You have two competing claimants: Scripture alone or the Roman Magisterium. It's premature and question-begging at that stage of the argument for the Catholic to mount an argument from authority based on the Magisterium, for that has yet to be established.
ii) Moreover, by attacking unaided reason, a Catholic apologist disarms himself from arguing for his authority source. His objection generates an infinite regress. If you always need some authority source to warrant your beliefs, then by what authority do you belief in the Magisterium? The Catholic objection just pushes the demand back a step, creating a dilemma for the Catholic apologist. By what authority does he trust in his authority source? What authorizes the Magisterium?
If it's illicit in principle to argue for your position by using unaided reason, then a Catholic apologist has preemptively invalidated any arguments for the Magisterium. If he makes a case for the Magisterium, that's just his fallible private opinion. There's no referee to say which side is right. Unwittingly, Catholic apologists who takes this approach neutralize Catholic apologetics. They can never get started.
Given the Magisterium, he can appeal to the authority of the Magisterium, yet he needs a preliminary argument independent of the Magisterium to legitimate the Magisterium in the first place. But by his skepticism and relativism concerning unaided reason, he forfeits the ability to give a Protestant compelling reasons to believe in the Magisterium. His apologetic strategy is self-defeating.
It's funny how many Catholic apologists are blind to the quandary they've made for themselves. They locked themselves in a cage and thrown away the key.
Comment has been blocked.
"You argue that I make a fallible argument for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and thus I'm allegedly in the same boat as you."
DeleteUm, no you're hardly in the same boat as the Protestant because your boat is riddled with holes and already at the bottom of the ocean, as Steve already said: "If it's illicit in principle to argue for your position by using unaided reason, then a Catholic apologist has preemptively invalidated any arguments for the Magisterium." That's a problem Protestants don't have to face.
"But, an atheist will say that you make a fallible private judgment regarding the existence of God..."
So? Are you suggesting Protestant just tell atheists, "You should believe in God based on the authority of my private fallible judgment"? If so, you have a lot to learn about apologetics. Catholics (and Mormons) are the only people I've run into who whine on and on about *AUTHORITY*.
"Second, even if taken your argument to its logical conclusion, the assertion that I rely on my private judgment does not answer the question whether the claims of the Catholic Church are actually true or not."
So you agree that truth is independent of authority. Now replace "Catholic Church" with "Bible" and refute thyself.
"As I said in my reply under your earlier post, you basically use tu quoque argument here."
DeleteAnd if it was, so what?
"First, it is invalid, because it dissolves any authority whatsoever. You argue that I make a fallible argument for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and thus I'm allegedly in the same boat as you. But, an atheist will say that you make a fallible private judgment regarding the existence of God, and a Jew will tell you that you make a private fallible judgment that the New Testament is the Word of God. Thus, 'tu quoque' argument taken to its logical conclusion means that there is no authority which can be verified as actually authoritative with absolute certainty, that includes the Bible and existence of God. Thus, the argument is invalid."
i) You have an illogical notion of invalidity. Even if (ex hypothesi) my position was subject to problems that parallel your own position, you haven't begun to demonstrate that those consequences don't follow for either position or both positions.
ii) But your comparison is vitiated by disanalogy, since I don't buy into your assumption that unaided reason must be unreliable. And I don't buy into your assumption that we need an external authority to verify everything we believe.
"Second, even if taken your argument to its logical conclusion, the assertion that I rely on my private judgment does not answer the question whether the claims of the Catholic Church are actually true or not. If the claims of the Catholic Church are true, than its Magisterium is indeed infallible whether I used my private judgment and arguments to figure it out or not."
But that's just hypothetical. How do you demonstrate that the claims of the Catholic church are true? The Magisterium is true because the Magisterium says it's true? According to your own framework, you need a higher authority to verify the claims of Rome.
"Your doctrines and interpretations will always be fallible because you have no higher authority than fallible interpretation of an individual Protestant or a denomination."
The important question is not whether an interpretation is fallible, but whether it's correct, and recognizably correct.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Arvinger "Perhaps I should clarify - when I wrote that your argument is invalid I took as a given that you would never concede (and neither would I) that the authority of the Bible is merely a matter of your private judgment. But in order for your argument from the above post to be consistent, you would have to concede that your belief in the inspiration of the Bible and existence of God is fallible (since you claim that I base my belief in the Magisterium on my private judgment and thus I could be wrong)."
Deletei) Although you classify my argument as a tu quoque argument, you don't grasp the nature of that argument. In a tu quoque argument, your interlocutor raises that comparison for discussion purposes. He doesn't actually concede your assumptions. He simply adopts them for the sake of argument, as a pressure point for your own position.
ii) Private fallible judgment is unavoidable. Your Catholicism is based on your personal fallible perception of where the truth lies. Your personal fallible perception of the evidence. Your personal fallible perception of which side has better supporting arguments. What seems to you to be true. You can't eliminate yourself from the evaluation process.
iii) Whether I could actually be wrong is ultimately up to God.
"But since Protestantism produces a doctrinal chaos where each interpretation of the Bible has exactly the same level of authority (i.e. fallible private judgment) from epistemological point of view, external authority is necessary."
i) You have one explanatory category which you repeat ad nauseum: your authoritarian paradigm. Since I don't classify exegetical interpretations on an authoritarian scale in the first place, I don't grant your assumption. Hence, the conclusion won't follow.
ii) Competing interpretations are not of equal merit unless they have equal evidence. Unless the supporting arguments are equally good.
"which would be able to verify truthfulness of that doctrine with absolute certainty"
By what "higher authority" do you verify the claims of the Roman Magisterium? You've set into motion a steamroller that crushes your own position.
"The same way I can provide Biblical and historical arguments for the truthfulness of the Catholic Church, nevertheless it is still an axiomatic belief."
You've indicated that the mere existence of two (or more) sides to a given issue (e.g. Christian v. Muslim v. Jew v. atheist) cancels out the respective arguments which each side presents. Since all they have to offer are "private fallible" arguments, the arguments on each side cancel out the arguments on the other side. But by that logic, your arguments for Rome are canceled out by counterarguments for evangelicalism.
How do you know with "absolute certainty" that Vatican City isn't a computer simulation in the Matrix?
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Arvinger "So, is it possible that you are wrong about the existence of God and inspiration of the Bible? Yes or no?"
DeleteYou need to redirect that question to yourself inasmuch as you're the one who claims we need an authority source to verify our beliefs. So how do you verify the authority you use to verify your beliefs?
That's you're regress, not mine.
"You can't consistently say no and at the same time argue that my argument for the Catholic Church is invalid because I use my private judgment, because your argument taken to its logical conclusion works not only against the Catholic Church, but also against your position on the authority of Scripture and existence of God - if my claim that the Catholic Church is true is nothing more than a private judgment, so is your claim that the Bible is inspired and that God exists. All three claims could be wrong. In other words, we can't know anything."
You're the one who's indulges in Cartesian skepticism about private judgment, not me. The "logical conclusion" isn't derived from my premise, but your self-refuting skepticism about private judgment. You keep imputing to me a gratuitous assumption about the logical consequences of private judgment that I explicitly repudiate.
Since I don't accept your authoritarian paradigm as the standard of comparison, it's fallacious of you to keep acting as if my position will be parallel to yours. Minimally, if you're going to use an authoritarian paradigm as the standard of comparison, then as a preliminary step you need to present an argument for your standard of comparison. You're not entitled to foist that gratuitous assertion onto me.
"Do you know with absolute certainty that God exists? Could you be wrong about that? Do you need a higher authority to verify the existence of God?"
One of your problems is that you arbitrarily exempt some beliefs from your general requirement that beliefs must be verified by an authority source. So where do you draw the line?
"Presuppositionalists like Sye Ten Bruggencate…"
He's incompetent.
"and in my argument the truthfulness of the Catholic Church falls into the same category. Could I be wrong about the Catholic Church being true? No."
DeleteThat's very convenient and very ad hoc. And unfortunately for you, you've forfeited the right to argue for the Catholic church since any arguments you offer are merely private fallible arguments which, by your own admission, are neutralized by private fallible arguments to the contrary.
"I clearly indicated that there are beliefs which are axiomatic, such as belief in existence of God, authority of Scripture and truthfulness of the Catholic Church."
You have an arbitrary stipulation that you compartmentalize from your general demand that beliefs must be warranted by a higher authority. Why should anyone take that seriously?
"I derive it from a real life situation - hundreds of Protestant denominations with contradicting interpretations of Scripture (including on salvation issues)…"
And the Catholic church adds yet another contradictory package of interpretations. Another denomination with another set of contradictory interpretations.
"and with no way to verify with absolute certainty which interpretation is right. The best assurance you can have is a *hope* that *most* of your doctrines are *likely to be* correct. But, since all of them are based on fallible interpretations, from epistemological viewpoint all of them could be wrong, because a fallible individual is the highest authority…"
i) You have no solution to what you find so unacceptable. Your alternative is to declare that your own position is axiomatically true. That's not a philosophically serious contention.
ii) If you really want to play the Cartesian skeptic, let's go all the way. I'll raise you the Cartesian demon. How do you know with "absolute certainty" that your belief in the Catholic church isn't caused by the Cartesian demon? You don't.
iii) I don't erect an inhumane, artificial standard of demonstrative certainty that no one can satisfy, least of all Catholic apologists. I'm not scandalized by probabilities. That's the world God has put us in.
"1) In terms of authority in Protestantism they have equal merit, i.e. they are not binding on the universal Church. James White's interpretation of Romans 1 doesn't have any authority that James Brownson's interpretation of Romans 1 doesn't. Even though we agree that White is right and Brownson is wrong, these are just private opinions which are not binding on anyone. Even if someone denomination accepts one or another, it is just a fallible, non-binding decision of this specific denomination. In modern Protestantism you can't call an Ecumenical Council to excommunicate James Brownson or Matthew Vines authoritatively like Ephesus did with Nestorius, because you have no authority to do so."
Deletei) You keep recasting the issue in terms of "authority", which begs the question.
ii) Truth is binding. The salient distinction isn't between private and official or fallible and infallible, but true and false.
"But all of them are fallible, so all you have is difference in probabilities."
And a probable interpretation trumps an improbable interpretation.
"If there is no infallible authority declaring that the doctrine of Trinity is true, than automatically that doctrine is fallible (since it is based on private interpretation of Scripture). Yes, there are good arguments to support it, but there is no way to verify it with absolute certainty."
i) You're demanding an authority higher than divine revelation.
ii) God gave us a "privately" or individually interpretable Bible. That's not a defect. That's the way it's supposed to be.
iii) By what infallible authority do you verify that the Roman Magisterium is an infallible authority? What's the higher authority that certifies the Roman Magisterium?
"I don't verify them, because they are infallible"
You merely assert that they are infallible.
"this is an axiomatic belief "
Slapping an "axiomatic" label onto your cherished beliefs doesn't make them true, much less infallible. That's you positing that they are axiomatic, based on your "private fallible" judgment.
"Not in case of axiomatic beliefs which we presuppose, such as existence of God. I agree with a presuppositionalist who, asked whether he could be wrong about the existence of God, says 'no.'"
And how would you respond to a Muslim who posits the Koran as axiomatic?
It's not enough to *say* he can't be wrong: the question is whether he can *show* it.
"It falls into the category of beliefs which are axiomatic."
That's just your buzzword.
"If there are no axioms, there is no way you can know anything about the world - hard solipsism is all that remains."
That doesn't mean you're entitled to stipulate "axioms" willy nilly.
"Because there are certain things which I presuppose and don't verify by any higher authority, , such as existence of God and reality of the world which surrounds me."
To say you *presuppose* something to be the case hardly entails that you *know* it to be true. You careen between Cartesian skepticism and fideism.
You have an idiosyncratic position that isn't even representative of standard Catholic apologetics, viz. Aquinas, Bellarmine, Newman.
Comment has been blocked.
"But authority is necessary to figure out what is true and what is not." -- Do you know that because of an authority? If so, please feel free to quote it. Then when you're done, feel free to demonstrate why I should care.
ReplyDelete"You may have truth on a specific point but without authority you can't verify whether it is actually truth." -- What authority verified this statement? Quote it. Then explain why I should care what it says again.
Please do not stop quoting your authority and telling me why I should care while quoting your authority and telling me why I should care, lest you refute your house of cards when you hit infinity.
Or you can learn to meta and reject your system when you recognize how you don't even believe it, since it's impossible to actually follow. I'll wait for you here.
Peter, LOL
DeleteComment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
"No, I know this because of the fact that if something (in this case your interpretation of the Bible) is fallible, it could be wrong."
DeleteThat statement is made by a fallible person. Therefore it could be wrong. Therefore, I have no way of verifying the truthfulness of what you say. Therefore, from an epistemological viewpoint, I don't know anything about what you've said with absolute certainty. Therefore, the Magisterium is infallible.
I can see why logic isn't your strong suit.
Also, try this:
Delete"I know this because of the fact that if something (in this case your interpretation of the Magisterium) is fallible, it could be wrong."
Are you sure you heard the Magisterium correctly when it claimed to be infallible? Your senses are fallible. People have had visual and audible hallucinations. They have had fugues and delusions. Some people even believe themselves to be Napoleon. Nothing that we gain by our senses is infallible. Every single thing is subject to personal interpretation and flaws in thinking.
Congratulations. You know nothing and are proud of it. Go you!
Comment has been blocked.
Of course you could be be wrong about the truthfulness of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. They are not infallible i.e. incapable of erring. No human being is except the Lord Christ.
DeleteAll right, I presuppose as axiom that I am infallible. I don`t need to argue why I am infallible just as you don`t argue why the Roman Magisterium is infallible. All that I say is infallible by definition. The Roman Magisterium is a hoax. Could I be wrong? No. Remember I am infallible, you don`t. :)
Delete1) Steve hasn't couched anything in terms of private interpretation--that's your horse that you're flogging. Steve's merely pointed out that *IF* a Protestant only has private interpretation of Scripture, the RCC is on *NO BETTER GROUND*. Thus, if you claim that Protestants have only private interpretation, it is *YOU* who are reduced to mere solipsism.
Delete2) You can't logically assert the Magisterium as an axiom. For one thing, axioms have to be logically *necessary*, and the Magisterium is not. How do we know? Because the Magisterium did not exist until Rome invented it. This is radically different from the axiom, "God exists", which is necessarily true and cannot be otherwise. There was never a time when "God exists" was false; but there were THOUSANDS of years when "The Magisterium does not exist" was true. So to assert the Magisterium as an axiom is boneheaded and foolish, not logical at all.
3) If the Magisterium was an axiom, at bare minimum it would be *useful*. Tell me where the Magisterium has interpreted whether Genesis 1:1 is talking about six-day creationism or what it says on Darwinism. Tell me where the Magisterium helps us to interpret whether or not Revelation is speaking of postmillenialism or amillinialism? Show me where the Magisterium has ruled on how we are to interpret the conquest of Canaan.
What's that? It doesn't? Well, what purpose does it serve to have a neutered infallible interpreter who says nothing and makes you use your own private judgement to figure out how to understand the Bible?
Arvinger
Delete"We have a living Church authority which can do that and clarify things, you just have the Bible which cannot interpret itself."
Test case: what's the infallible interpretation of Amoris Laetitia on the admission of divorced and remarried Catholics to communion?
Bonus point: what's the infallible interpretation of Rome's position on capital punishment?
Arvinger's apologetic suffers from multiple-personality disorder. When attacking evangelicalism, the Cartesian skeptic surfaces. When defending Rome, the fideist surfaces. He needs to see a psychiatrist to get that sorted out.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Arvinger
Delete"Of course I don't agree with it, I believe that we see infallible Magisterium in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), but here is where discussion moves away from epistemology onto Biblical ground, which we have not touched upon so far."
1. I'd like to see you make a case for the Magisterium in Acts 15.
2. In fact, I'd like to see you make a case for the Magisterium in the Old Testament (OT).
"It is very telling that nobody can answer a simple question "could you be wrong about inspiration of the Bible?". If you argue that I have just fallible private opinion about truthfulness of the Magisterium, then you are in the same boat with your belief about inspiration of the Bible - its just your private opinion."
1. No, these claims do not parallel one another. For one, the inspiration of the Bible is ultimately based on objective qualities of the Bible itself, not on personal experience or private judgment. Although that's not to say Jesus' sheep do not hear his voice and follow him (John 10:27).
2. You could say the Magisterium is ultimately based on the objective qualities of the Magisterium itself, not on personal experience or private judgment. We presumably agree the Bible is God's word and therefore don't further arguments about the Bible as such. So the question is, does the Magisterium have objective qualities on par with the Bible? For example, how internally consistent is the Magisterium with itself and how externally consistent is the Magisterium with the Bible? It seems to me the Magisterium is riddled with tension and conflict in ways the Bible is not.
"I have infallible interpretation of the Catholic Church" -- Ipse dixit.
Delete"Inspiration of the Bible is not logically necessary from epistemological viewpoint - does that mean that we could be wrong about it?" -- So you are claiming that only logically necessary things are infallible? Because *I* haven't made that claim.
"The New Testament did not exist for thousands of years - does it mean that the belief in its inspiration is not axiomatic and that we could be wrong about it?" -- Yes, the inspiration of the New Testament is *NOT* axiomatic. No, that doesn't mean it's not infallible.
"Why would the Magisterium need to interpret everything in order to be authoritative?" -- EVERYTHING? How about *ANYTHING*?
Look, Arvinger, it's obvious that you don't have a clue about philosophy or logic. Someone needs to knock you off your pedestal before you die of hypoxia, so I'll explain this as easily as I can (although honestly I wish you were part of the Magisterium because fewer people would fall for the lies of Catholicism after hearing you, which frankly will save more children from abuse).
God's existence can be established as an axiom. All it takes is perception, which you have direct access to already. If you perceive anything, then necessarily you are not perceiving its contradiction. This establishes the law of non-contradiction and the basis for logic. The validity of logic presupposes the existence of a self-existent, eternal, omnipotent, personal being, all the attributes of classical theism.
Notice what's missing from the above? Any requirement of infallibility! You can imagine your perceptions, and the rest of the chain still follows. You can be oppressed by the Cartesian demon, and the rest of the chain still follows. You can be high on pot and think that your priest really does have the authority to touch you there, and the rest of this chain still follows.
Ergo, your desire for some kind of "authority" to salve your fears that you might be mistaken is just stupid. Grow up.
While you're at it, please tell me why I should give up my golden foundation that is true no matter what (hey, look, a definition of an axiom) for some claims of a group of guys too busy playing "hide the pedophile in another diocese before we get sued" to answer questions about the Bible? You said it yourself: "[T]he Magisterium simply did not interpret them infallibly, because there is no need to."
Exactly. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE MAGISTERIUM.
Repeat that until it sinks in. There is no need for the Magisterium because it's not axiomatic, it's not logically necessary, it's useless, it serves no purpose. While you're at it, reject ANY system that is based on "authority" instead of truth, because every system based on authority inevitably results in abuse. Just like Catholicism has.
Arvinger "I am the one who presses you for consistency. Your tu quoque argument claims that I'm on no better ground than you because I have just a fallible, private opinion than the Catholic Church is true. If that is the case, epistemologically you are on no better ground than a Muslim which your belief in inspiration of the Bible vs. his belief in inspiration of the Quran (two private opinions), and you are on no better ground than an atheist regarding existence of God (two private opinions). Of course we don't consider inspiration of the Bible and existence of God to be just private opinions, but it is a logical conclusion of your tu quoque argument against my belief in the truthfulness of the Catholic Church."
DeleteYou keep swinging and you keep missing the ball because you keep imputing your assumptions and conclusions to me. I don't concede that if two people have "fallible private" options, then each is on no better ground than the other. That's hopelessly simplistic. It's not reducible to the generic comparison between "fallible private" opinions, but the specific comparison between the quality of evidence and reasoning. If a conspiracy theorist and I disagree on whether the lunar landings were fake, it doesn't imply that I'm on no better ground than he just because we both have "fallible private" opinions on the matter.
I'm responding to you on your own terms. Given your assumptions, it follows that your belief in Catholicism is on no better ground than belief in evangelicalism. A tu quoque argument doesn't commit me to your assumptions and your conclusions.
Arvinger,
ReplyDeleteDidn't Jesus, during his earthly ministry, hold men accountable for knowing (i) the extent of Scripture and (ii) the meaning of certain passages therein?
(1) What evidence is there that they knew these things *only* by means of an infallible teaching authority?
(2) What infallible authority provided you the answer to that question such that you know beyond mere opinion?
Having an alleged infallible starting point hardly means you're immune to defeaters. To the extent that you insist on the necessity of an infallible authority to know anything, it seems that you supply your own defeater. Scripture claims to be the very words of God with full authority therefrom. Do you believe the same of RC Magisterium (RCM)?
Suppose RCM is, in fact, an infallible teaching authority. Suppose also that the extent of the NT canon is limited to the 27 books you and I accept. Presumably, you would say that I only know that to be the case by means of an infallible declaration. So at this point, would you agree that a book's *being* canonical and my *knowing* it to be canonical are distinct issues?
My point thus far is that the RCM could *be* infallible without your *knowing* it to be infallible. So, how do you *know* it to be infallible? Isn't this the same maneuver that RC apologists pull often when it comes to *knowing* the canon of the NT? Some say it's self-authenticating, and in some bizarre way, I suspect (after reading your comments) you would say that it is both (i) self-authenticating and (ii) requires validation from an independent authority. I don't think you can have it both ways.
You beat me to the dilemma :-)
DeleteSo, I don't understand at least two things about you:
ReplyDelete(1) Why are you allowed to stipulate two axiomatic authorities (scripture and RCM), but I can't stipulate just one of them?
(2) Would you not press the Protestant for an account of how he knows the NT canon? If you would, why does the "axiomatic" knowledge of the authority of RCM get a pass but the "axiomatic" knowledge of the authority of a *specific set of scriptures* NOT get a pass?
(You're the one who said that "...there are beliefs which are axiomatic, such as belief in the existence of God, the authority of scripture, and...")
Comment has been blocked.
Arvinger said, "If Protestantism had just one denomination with one authoritative doctrine and some sort of authority higher than private judgment which would be able to verify truthfulness of that doctrine with absolute certainty, it would be a different matter."
ReplyDeleteSo if Protestantism just so happened to be whittled down to a uniform view with a uniform set of ruling elders, would you be in trouble as to how to adjudicate the claims of RCM and uniform-Protestantism? Would it become a contender for infallible authority merely by becoming uniform?
What about the Mormon church? What about Watchtower Society? Are either of them approaching sufficient uniformity?
Comment has been blocked.
BTW, what authority gave you permission to go off and bastardize presupp material? Do you know if you're in safe waters?
ReplyDeleteComment has been blocked.
To merely stipulate that the Roman Magisterium is "axiomatic" hardly confers "absolute certainty" on your posit. It's just your assertion that that's axiomatic. So it doesn't begin to satisfy your own criterion of "absolute certainty". Your claim that x is axiomatic doesn't make the claim absolutely certain. Not even close.
DeleteNow, it's possible to *argue* for certain axioms or presuppositions, but you relegate that to mere "fallible private" opinion, where (according to you) one side is on no better ground than the other. So your position dissolves into alethic relativism, which is self-referentially incoherent.
"But you are not doing that. When you say "Scripture", what you really mean is your private interpretation of Scripture (or that of your denomination), which makes you or your denomination the final authority, which is fallible. There is no such thing as Scripture alone, it is always Scripture + interpretation."
ReplyDeleteThere's no such thing as RCM alone, it is always RCM + interpretation.
"When it comes to canon, I would simply demand to know by what authority does Protestant know that his canon is correct..."
Ok, so Scripture is "axiomatic" and RCM is "axiomatic", but knowledge of any claim *about* Scripture must be validated from an independent and infallible authority (viz., RCM) whereas knowledge of any claim *about* RCM does not... got it. Sola Ecclesia.
Just be honest with everyone and quit including Scripture in your axiom. The best interpretation of you I can see here is, again, some bastardized presupp stuff. I'm all for being eclectic, but you don't have that luxury with your restrictive and self-defeating criterion for knowledge.
"...such as historical continuity and biblical truthfulness..."
That's rich. And you know this how? By appeal to RCM? So, RCM can make claims for itself that don't require independent and infallible validation, but scriputure *can't*? Got it. Sola Ecclesia.
Or, maybe you think you can investigate those claims of historical continuity and biblical fidelity on your own, apart from the RCM., so you don't look like a dupe, just blindly accepting RCM claims without the slightest bit of independent, infallible authorization... got it, "axiomatic" + private interpretation.
Just to recap: some axioms need independent and infallible validation (e.g., Scripture), and some axioms do NOT need independent and infallible validation (e.g., RCM).
I find the Tu Quoque charge interesting. The argument presented against the Catholic apologists seems to be more like a reductio ad absurdum.
ReplyDeleteGood point!
Delete