Catholic apologist Trent Horn has a running commentary on Mike Winger's critique of Catholic authority:
Horn is one of the best younger-generation Catholic apologists, so he's a good foil. I'm going to selectively comment on Horn's responses. For several reasons I won't comment on everything Trent says. The arguments of Catholic apologists are repetitious. I've been over this ground many times before. I wrote a partial review of Horn's book (The Case for Catholicism). Winger sometimes frames issues in ways I don't.
1. Like Catholic apologists and theologians generally, Horn commits the fallacy of casting the fundamental issue in terms of authority. But it just isn't possible, in principle or practice, always to begin with authority for what you believe, because the logic is regressive. Horn is a convert to Catholicism. Catholic authority wasn't and couldn't be the starting-point at that stage of the argument, because that is what needed to be established. Given Catholic authority, he can say this is my authority for what I believe, but that only pushes the question back step: by what authority does he believe in Catholic authority? If you always require some authority to justify what you believe, then the requirement extends backwards ad infinitum. It's self-refuting for Catholic apologists to insist that every interpretation of Scripture, or the case for the canon of Scripture, must be backed up by authority. That's a condition which the Catholic apologist will be unable to consistently meet. It's necessary that we be able to establish some positions independent of authority to make any progress at all. The warrant for these positions isn't authority but reason and evidence. Positions based on argument rather than authority. That can include an argument for authority, but you can't always fall back on authority and argue from authority, because what you take to be your authority is in itself a key issue in dispute.
2. Apropos (1), he says the special divine guidance which Rome enjoys is negative rather than positive protection (53-54 min.). God doesn't inform the Magisterium to interpret the whole Bible but to shield it from disastrous misinterpretations. In his response to Winger, Horn frequently corrects what he takes to be Winger's misinterpretations or invalid inferences from Scripture. But by his own admission, Horn has no authority for his own interpretations. His alternative interpretations of Winger's prooftexts aren't superior because they are authoritative interpretations. Rather, Horn appeals to the wording of the text, and the context–as he understands it. In addition, he accuses Winger of inconsistency. So most of this debate falls outside the framework of authority.
As such, it's confused for Horn to accuse Winger of making himself his own authority when he interprets the Bible. That accusation backfires. Protestants aren't guilty of doing the same thing they accuse Rome of doing. If you're going to act like every time a reader interprets the Bible, he is making himself an authority, then that will sabotage any attempt by the Catholic apologist to correct a perceived misinterpretation or make his own case for Catholicism. Interpretation is not inherently an exercise of authority, and authority isn't necessary to validate the interpretation.
3. Apropos (2), the demand for authority is bound up with the demand for certainty. But even if that's ideal, it's unobtainable by falling back on authority all the time, since that reflex just relocates the same demand: what makes you certain of your authority source? So the whole strategy is self-stultifying. That doesn't mean certainty is necessarily unattainable, but not by acting like you must invariably start with authority.
4. "historical pedigree in connection with apostles"
That's a Catholic criterion. It's understandable that a Catholic apologist will appeal to a Catholic criterion, but it begs the question when debating Protestants inasmuch as we operate with a different theological paradigm. We don't need to have historical pedigree in connection with the apostles. Historical pedigree is irrelevant. We just need to be faithful to apostolic teaching.
In fairness, I'm not suggesting a Catholic apologist shoulders the sole burden of proof. It begs the question if a Protestant simply asserts his alternative paradigm when debating Catholics. Both sides have a burden of proof. It's incumbent on both sides to argue for their respective positions.
4. "When did sola scriptura come into effect? Give me a date. The doctrine has never been in effect."
i) That's loaded question. A fallacious way to frame the issue because it runs afoul of the sorites paradox. It's unreasonable and unrealistic to demand dates for many historical developments. History is a continuum with transitional phases.
Indeed, Horn's demand is self-destructive given the doctrine of development. Many of these doctrinal innovations evolved over time. They gradually went into effect. The process was incremental.
ii) Horn fails to appreciate the underlying principle of sola scriptura, which is the supremacy of divine revelation. Scripture is the mode or medium of divine revelation. During the era of public revelation, divine revelation had an oral as well as written mode, but that stage of redemptive history is behind us.
In response to Winger, Horn raises stock objections to sola Scriptura which, among other places, I recently addressed:
5. 2 Thes 2:15
Horn accuse Winger of construing this passage too narrowly:
i) To begin with, if you're going to use this as a prooftext, then you ought to restrict yourself to what Paul actually says. Now, what he says here may be consistent with other things he doesn't say. But you can't use it to prooftext things he doesn't say.
ii) It's possible to derive more general principle from what Paul says, but that will have to operate at the same level. If you sat under the feet of St. John, the same principle would apply. You can't expand what Paul says to a different principle.
iii) Paul isn't appealing to apostolic tradition, in the customary sense of tradition. The concept of tradition connotes a chain of transmission with links in the chain. But that's not what Paul is describing. He's explicitly referring to direct oral teaching, from Paul to his immediate audience. There are no intervening links. Not what Paul taught a second person who passed it along to a third person who passed it along to a fourth person. That's not what Paul has in view. Rather, hold fast to what Paul taught you in person. Face-to-face transmission from an apostle to a Christian. The principle is restricted to Christians with firsthand knowledge of Paul's oral teaching.
iv) That doesn't necessarily invalidate a chain of custody. Some historical traditions are reliable. But 2 Thes 2:15 isn't making that claim.
6. Mt 18:15-18
Where does the Bible say that the church is just all the people who love Jesus? That is the church in one sense, but when you read through Scripture it is very clear that the church has an authoritative hierarchy composed of a three-tiered system of deacons, presbyters–from which we get the word priests–and bishops, the overseers, the episcopate. So when you look for example in Mt 18:15-18…then he says to the apostles whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Bring it to the church, not to your church, because it's not like oh okay well if that church disagrees with me and condemns me I'm going to join this other church over here. No, rather, when you look in the NT it's very clear that it talks about the church in Rome, the church in Antioch, the church in Jerusalem…It refers to the fact that there is one church and that church has to have authority, and you're going up the chain of authority–especially if you bring two or three with you, what does it mean to take it to the church? Do you just get every other Christian around and you're like a mob of thousands of people? No, you're going to something authoritative that has apostolic succession behind it in order to resolve the dispute. That's the highest level for you to do to (27-29 min).
1. It's a semantic fallacy to suggest that because the word priest derives from presbyter, therefore 1C church presbyters were priests in the sacerdotal sense. In Catholicism, it acquires a technical sense according to Catholic ecclesiology. But it's anachronistic to read that back into NT polity and usage.
2. He assumes that "bishop" and "presbyter" are separate church offices, with the episcopate as the higher office. Which disregards the arguments of Bible scholars that NT usage is fluid and interchangeable. These are variant designations for the same church office. NT polity hadn't hardened into the more specialized usage and hierarchical structure of Roman Catholic eccesiology.
3. Horn acts as though Mt 18:15-18 envisions an appellate process like the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. But in context the setting is a local church, and a judgment of excommunication is rendered by the congregation, not higher clergy in particular.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteExcellent write up, and biblically addressed. Thanks. I can't bare ro listen to Hirn and Scott Hahn, who literally makes things up, where there is no hint of such things in scripture anywhere. It's sad so many follow and praise them, believing all they claim. Often to lazy to study themselves, so trust these men and others to tell them what to believe. It's sickening, sad and simply disgusting.
ReplyDelete