No, I did not miss it. If you read the entire section, it was on infallibity.
Here is the context of his statement:
"If you do not claim to be infallibly certain that your interpretation of the whole Bible is correct, then of what value is it to have an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter? In either case, your statement crumbles (this is a statement to a Protestant who said that the Bible is the only infallible interpreter he needs). The plain fact is that an infallible Bible without an infallible living interpreter is futile. Infallibility never gets from the printed page to the one place where it is needed: the mind of the reader. The myriad divisions within Protestantism offer ample evidence of the proof of this statement."
He was illustrating the flaw in the logic of Protestants who claim the Bible is infallible but they are not.
Hmmm, and why is this a convincing argument? Let's take a quick look at it:
The plain fact is that an infallible Bible without an infallible living interpreter is futile.1. So, the Jews labored for centuries with Scripture but no infallible interpreter.This was futile. Okay.
2. How do we ascertain - infallibly - who the infallible interpreter is in the New Covenant era?
Infallibility never gets from the printed page to the one place where it is needed: the mind of the reader.This would, of course, apply equally as well to the Roman Catholic if true. Even if the interpreter is "infallible" (the Church and its teachers, who convey its teaching) it's infallibility would never get from the printed page or the audible words to where it is needed, the mind of the interpreter.
Every interpreter is a reader/hearer too, and vice versa. So, the problem isn't related to the necessity of an infallible interpreter (teaching office), it's the necessity of an infallible hearer/reader (person in the pew, reader, etc.).
The Roman Catholic solution only puts the question back one step or more. So, it's on epistemic par with the Protestant rule of faith, which is precisely our argument - and the very argument you provided here has proven it for us. Moreover, since you apparently agree with it, you have done our work for us. That's a real timesaver.
The myriad divisions within Protestantism offer ample evidence of the proof of this statement.
Of course, this is a non-sequitur. The divisions within the receivers of teaching say nothing about the fallibility or infallibility of the teaching itself or the text itself. That's a category error.
He was illustrating the flaw in the logic of Protestants who claim the Bible is infallible but they are not.And it does a miserable job of illustrating it, for if valid, it applies equally to the Roman Catholic.
I posted on both the infallibility argument and the "doctrinal chaos" argument about a week ago:
ReplyDeletehttp://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/04/infallible-knowledge-argument-common.html
http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/04/doctrinal-chaos-argument-one-of.html
It's not an epistemic par to have a living infallible interpreter. A living infallible source of knowledge is interactive. A dead tree source of infallible knowledge is not.
ReplyDeleteWhy does user Orthodox continue to violate his ban? His belligerence is a poor witness for his denomination.
ReplyDeleteIt's not an epistemic par to have a living infallible interpreter. A living infallible source of knowledge is interactive. A dead tree source of infallible knowledge is not.
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to let him post the absurdities he posts as long he's not belligerent. But if he acts out again, his ban will be quickly reinstated. Call it probation.
Why? Because this post inculpates him and his views. There's a certain amount of damage only an insider can do to himself.
1. The problem, as demonstrated above, is that it requires an infallible recipient to guarantee infallibility, according to the very argument that Roman Catholics offer. It's not enough to have an infallible interpreter. Unless the recipient is also infallible, you can't get infallibility to jump "from the page," as it were, to the recipient in an infallible manner. That's not my argument - that's the Roman Catholic argument that was quoted.
2. And the Orthodox argument is no different. How does adding layers of "tradition" simplify the problem? It doesn't. It only attenuates the problem.
3. And Orthodox has just called Scripture a "dead tree source" of infallible knowledge.
a. That's blasphemous.
b. It proves he's an Ecclesiolater.
c. And it contradicts "the plain meaning of Scripture" to which he has repeatedly appealed elsewhere: The Word of God is "living and powerful" sharper than any two edged sword.e
"a. That's blasphemous."
ReplyDeleteUh, how? What substance is your bible printed on?
"And it contradicts "the plain meaning of Scripture" to which he has repeatedly appealed elsewhere: The Word of God is "living and powerful" sharper than any two edged sword."
Living and interactive are not the same. You haven't touched on what I said.
Don't you think the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as our own infallible interpreter gives us a leg up epistemically?
ReplyDeleteThe RC is left to their own fallible choice in infallible interpreter. If they make the wrong choice, game over. We, however, have the HS always guiding us and correcting us, even though we get some things wrong along the way. Both systems can have issues with "reception", but the individual Protestant appears to have the better chance at eventually getting things correct.
Orthodox would make a great Indian cosmogonist.
ReplyDeleteTurtles all the waaaaay dooooowwwwwwwn.
Carrie,
ReplyDeleteI think there are situations in which appealing to the witness of the Spirit can be a valid argument.
But it has a limitation in apologetics: as an argument from religious experience, it only works for someone who shares your spiritual experience. It applies to insiders, but not to outsiders.
That makes it a useful argument in defensive apologetics, but not offensive apologetics.
That's why, in these debates, we focus on public evidence.
But this doesn't rule out the argument from religious experience.
Uh, how? What substance is your bible printed on?
ReplyDeleteIt's blasphemous because you called the Bible a "dead" source. If you don't understand how this is blasphemous, it's a testament to your sinfulness and pride. It certainly testifies to your idolatry of the Church.
Living and interactive are not the same. You haven't touched on what I said.
You called the Bible "dead."
I'm not commenting on what you said about "living" and "interactive," because I agree, they aren't the same. I'm commenting on the last part of what you said.
Your argument, however, is merely an assertion without argument. You're famous for that. Make an assertion like that again, and I'll gladly make you disappear permanently again. Your probation is short, very short, with me.
In fact, no argument you can offer can overcome the objection that the Romanists have themselves offered.
How does an "interactive" interpreter like a Magisterium or an amorphous body of "Tradition" make your rule of faith epistemically superior if it takes an infallible recipient to know the truth?
How do you know - infallibly- what the truth qua truth and who or what the intepreter qua intepreter is if infallibility never gets from the printed page to the one place where it is needed: the mind of the reader?
No amount of Tradition can help you, even if it is all infallible, not even if the source is "interactive," if what the argument says is true. In fact, an interactive source could just as well attenuate the problem, so your position doesn't cash out in a superior position at all. The problem is not the printed page, my obtuse friend, the problem, according to the argument itself is not the page or the teacher, but the mind of the reader, the recipient.
And this isn't my own argument, Kmerian is quoting a Roman Catholic.
"you called the Bible a "dead" source"
ReplyDeleteNo I didn't.
It is an expression that refers to printed items. Perhaps it is not a colloquialism in your circles, in which case I apologise.
"Your argument, however, is merely an assertion without argument. You're famous for that."
I don't see how. Churches consist of people which are interactive. Bibles don't answer arbitrary questions in a direct fashion like people do. Is this not clear?
"Your probation is short, very short, with me."
What probation? What I say is still being banned.
"How does an "interactive" interpreter like a Magisterium or an amorphous body of "Tradition" make your rule of faith epistemically superior if it takes an infallible recipient to know the truth? "
I did not say that it takes an infallible recipient. Non-sequitur.
I said that a living church has all the benefits of living sources of knowledge.