Saturday, August 16, 2008

Antecedent probabilities

JJ SAID:

"My goodness, you think this is worthy of a response?"

My goodness, you think your response is worthy of a response?

“I'll just point out a few areas of total sillyness:

Which is irrelevant because the Apostolic teaching, even for a protestant, is not limited to what is found in the OT.”

I see you lack the attention span to follow a train of reasoning. I was responding to Bryan's argument that "the Church has never existed without her teaching authority, and without the oral tradition in the form of the preaching of the Apostles."

If Catholics claim that Christians were never bereft of the Church, then Protestants can counterclaim that Christians were never bereft of the Scriptures.

"And in your world, scripture means whatever STEVE says it means. But we're not told how this is different."

Once again, you're unable to follow the bouncing ball. Parity won’t win you’re the argument. The point at issue is whether the Catholic rule of faith is superior to the Protestant rule of faith. If, in fact, our position has the same consequences as yours, and vice versa, then you lose the argument. The lack of a difference undermines your position, not ours. Try to pay attention.

I don't claim that "individualism" is a problem for my position (i.e. "scripture means whatever STEVE says it means"). That's problematic on your grounds, not mine.

It's sufficient for my apologetics purposes to construct parallel arguments. It's insufficient for your purposes to deploy the same tactic—since your position isn't making comparable claims. Rather, it's making superior claims. Are you capable of absorbing that elementary distinction?

"That's like saying that because Paul interprets Genesis, therefore Paul is a higher authority than Genesis, and Paul's teaching and interpretation was not subject to the higher court of the Law and the Prophets. Of course, that is silliness."

Now you're confusing ontology and epistemology. Even if, a la Catholicism, Scripture is the highest intrinsic authority, if the only access to Scripture is via the Magisterium, then you can't distinguish the ontological authority of Scripture from the epistemic authority of the Magisterium. At that point the Magisterium has greater functional authority than Scripture. Try not to be so slow on the uptake.

"Which makes this whole discussion irrelevant, since we cannot empart internal light or prayer via the internet."

As usual, you miss the point. Bryan Cross was attacking a straw man. He caricatured perspicuity. I merely quoted a major Reformed theologian to correct him. It's quite relevant to the discussion if Bryan is attacking sola Scriptura via the perspicuity of Scripture, but then proceeds to mischaracterize the perspicuity of Scripture. In that event he's aiming at the wrong target.

You're habitually unable to keep track of the argument. Here's a little tip for you: my comments were pegged to Bryan's comments. Try to apply yourself to keep that comparison in mind.

"Too silly to dignify with a response."

Why? In Catholic theology, the Eucharist is a means of grace. Going to Mass is a primary means by which a Catholic remains in a state of grace (as over against dying in a state of mortal sin).

"Yeah... and? Neither side is disputing scriptura. It is the sola part which is at issue."

Try not to be so terminally dense. I already addressed that claim in response to Bryan. On paper, Catholicism honors the authority of Scripture, but in practice Magisterial authority supplants and subverts Biblical authority.

“So... the Magisterium has never quoted a commentary? Quite a bold claim that needs to be proven. How is Steve different to the Magisterium again?”

Gene was responding to your claim that "in your world, scripture means whatever STEVE says"—as if the Protestant position is reducible to me and my Bible.

"All of it presumably, since they read the bible like you and me. What parts of scripture has STEVE interpreted?"

i) Once again, you miss the point. Even if the Magisterium had interpreted the whole Bible, if the Magisterium keeps that interpretation to itself, then it's not teaching the laity what Scripture means in all those cases.

ii) And you keep resorting to the tu quoque tactic, which is self-defeating when Catholicism lays claim to epistemic superiority, not epistemic parity.

"How is this a response that makes STEVE different to the Magisterium?"

My you're obtuse. Once again, parity doesn't win the argument for Catholicism. Catholicism and Protestantism are making asymmetrical claims. I construct parallel arguments because that would undermine the Catholic claim to epistemic superiority. For you to construct parallel counterarguments, on analogy with my response, only succeeds in *reinforcing* the case against Catholicism rather than *rebutting* the case against Catholicism. Thanks for constantly corroborating my objections to Roman Catholicism. That’s very accommodating of you.

"That's like saying that every possible belief system must be on an epistemological par because they all have to be filtered through one's own ears and brain. If you want to believe that, hello absolute relativism."

Bryan's whole argument for Catholicism and against Protestantism is based on interpretive authority. But if, in fact, their respective authority sources must be filtered through the private interpretation of each individual, whether Catholic or Protestant, then that epistemic parallel directly undercuts his epistemological argument. Try to remember that we're responding to Bryan's own argument. If you can't remember that for longer than 3 minutes, write it down. I should have to keep reminding you of the Catholic argument.

"How is this different to STEVE again? He defines what scripture is for STEVE and he defines what it means to STEVE. So I guess there is no hope that STEVE could be subject to scripture, right?"

Gene was responding to your earlier contention that "that's like saying that because Paul interprets Genesis, therefore Paul is a higher authority than Genesis, and Paul's teaching and interpretation was not subject to the higher court of the Law and the Prophets. Of course, that is silliness."

i) As a matter of fact, Paul was not subject to a higher, OT court of appeal. One Bible writer can't overrule another Bible writer. So, if we play along with your own logic, then you admit that the Magisterium isn't accountable to the higher court of Scripture.

ii) In addition, JJ must define what the Magisterium is for JJ and define what it means to JJ. Therefore, the right of private judgment is inescapable. That's an argument for the Protestant position, JJ. Conceding that point is a concession to the Protestant position, JJ.

Every time you try to disagree with Gene and me, you end up agreeing with Gene and me. It's very gratifying when a Catholic commenter is so eager to confirm our case against Catholicism. That's real progress. Good to know that interfaith dialogue is so productive.

"I wasn't the one who claimed that internal light is needed to interpret scripture. If its internal light that we need, shut up now and let those with internal light bask in it. But if its commentary we need, then an infallible one is on an epistemologically higher plane than protestant fallible ones. Here I guess is where you will equivocate on whether we need commentaries or not."

i) Now you're committing the very same blunder as Bryan. You're attacking a simplistic caricature of perspicuity. In the very quote you're selectively alluding to, Turretin cites several qualifications on the perspicuity of Scripture. You have arbitrarily narrowed his list of qualifications down to just one. This is what he said: “Perspicuity does not exclude the means necessary for interpretation (i.e. the internal light of the Spirit, attention of mind, the voice and ministry of the church, sermons and commentaries, prayer and watchfulness). For we hold these means not only to be useful, but also necessary ordinarily,” Turretin, Institutes, 1:144.

Notice that he specifically and explicitly includes commentaries in his definition.

ii) What's your problem, JJ? Do you suffer from short-term memory loss? Is that your problem? If so, you could refresh your faulty memory by reading the original quote. You should also book an appointment with a neurologist.

iii) Or do you find it necessary to take refuge in dissimulation when debating a Protestant? You have to misrepresent what Turretin actually said to make your case. Is that it?

iv) No doubt an infallible commentary is on an epistemologically higher plane than a fallible one. Where has the Magisterium produced an infallible commentary on the Bible?

v) BTW, the NT is an infallible commentary on the OT. So Protestants do have access to infallible commentaries. Whenever NT writers (or later OT writers) comment on the OT, that's an infallible commentary. Whenever inspired speakers within the NT narrative (or OT narrative) comment on on the OT, that’s also an infallible commentary on the OT.

"And we've yet to hear why we should care. I'm sure everyone is quite aware of the existence of the OT. But we're also aware that the oral teaching exceeded the OT. Thus the apostles were not practitioners of sola scriptura."

It's the Pharisees who believed in the oral Torah. Thus the Pharisees were not practitioners of sola scriptura. And, of course, that was a bone of contention between Jesus and the Pharisees.

So you’re admitting that you use the same theological method as the Pharisees. Fine. You're welcome to the Pharisees. I'll take Jesus.

"Much of the oral tradition is the traditional understanding of scripture. Things like what the eucharist means, who should be baptised, how the church should be run and so forth. I'm sure you know full well the Catholic position on these things."

You only know about that tradition because it was written down at some point. You also need to show that what you call oral tradition is the same thing as apostolic tradition.

"The same way you can know Genesis through to Revelation is prophetic."

That's an evasion rather than an answer. How do you trace an oral tradition back to the Apostles? How do you double-check each link in the chain?

"So who gives a rip that protestants quote commentaries?"

Catholic Bible scholars who quote Protestant commentators give a rip. Next question.

"Who claimed there is a list or we need a list?"

So you admit that you don't know what the Magisterium says about the meaning of Scripture, and—what's more—you don't even need to know what the Magisterium says. Fine. Protestants would be the first to agree with you.

"Functionally it is identical, because Steve never goes against Steve's interpretation."

Functionally it is identical, because JJ never goes against JJ's interpretation.

"If so, then a magisterium which clarifies what the bible is unclear about, would put Catholics on a higher plane than protestants."

You just admitted you don't have a list or need a list. So how does your nonexistent list of Magisterial clarifications put Catholics on a higher plane that Protestants?

"And there's a substantial agreement I would say between the Church fathers in their exegesis. Funny how you always want to play that down and play up protestant agreement."

"Substantial" agreement? Funny how you ditch the unanimous consent of the fathers for merely substantial agreement. Now you’re moving on a lower plane.

"John made a further distinction - that of a _living_ interpreter. There is a fundamental advantage of having a living teacher compared to teaching yourself. That's why we still have schools, and not just books."

You're still tumbling down the bottomless pit of an infinite regress. It's still up to you to interpret every utterance of the living teacher.

"That why the eunuch said 'how can I understand unless someone guides me?'"

i) So you're going to universalize Acts 8:31 and then apply that to the Catholic vis-à-vis the Magisterium? Does this mean every Catholic is paired off with his very own Magisterium—like having your own guardian angel or personal trainer? Do you get to interview the Magisterium whenever you have a question? Do you have the pope's cellphone number?

If Acts 8:31 is a Catholic prooftext, then it disproves Catholicism. Thanks for saving Gene and me the effort.

ii) Are you interpreting Acts 8:31 with or without the Magisterium?

iii) Apropos (ii), where can we find the infallible Magisterial interpretation of Acts 8:31?

"What have I said which would lead you to ask such a question? Would you be happy if an agnostic asked you this question because of your committment to biblical inerrency?"

So you're dodging Gene's question because you can't answer it.

"Clearly, a rule of faith with an infallible interpreter to resolve disputes is better than a rule of faith with nobody to resolve. That's why we have courts, and appellate courts, and not just everybody or every local court making up their own mind."

How does an appellate process illustrate infallibility? If the verdict was subject to appeal, then the verdict wasn't infallible, now was it?

"If you want to concede that STEVE cannot be subject to scripture, then we can proceed."

You're comparing the incomparable. Appealing to the Magisterium is an argument from authority. The Magisterium will justify its interpretation of Scripture by invoking its own unappellable authority. By contrast, a Protestant commentator will justify his interpretation of Scripture by reason and evidence—which is equally accessible to the reader.

"The Jewish priesthood (call them a magisterium if you like) must have been carrying out their basic functions correctly, since God put them in charge with the responsibility over the temple to carry out their priestly duties for the people. If you want to say that the Jews as individuals were at liberty to abandon the Levites and set up a brand new priesthood if they weren't happy with the preaching of the priests, then you would be at odds with biblical history."

i) Obviously you haven't bothered to read biblical history, where Israel commits national apostasy, including and abetted by a corrupt religious establishment.

ii) Moreover, you haven't shown us where there was an infallible teaching office in ancient Israel.

iii) Furthermore, you ducked Gene's question about how Catholics got along for all those centuries without the official canon of Scripture promulgated by Trent.

"And the way you understand this concept and apply it here makes this blog and discussion obsolete."

How does it make the discussion obsolete?

"We believe God guides his church throughout history and yet we have a low view of providence? Ha!"

You limit the way in which God is allowed to guide his church.

"I think the issue is not whether I can point to a particular commentary which is infallible, but rather that the Church is infallible and the documents it produces, as a whole, considering its various writers, can point you to the Church's infallible understanding."

Point us to the infallible list of the infallible ecclesial pronouncements.

"On the other hand a commentary of a schismatic or heretic is simply one opinion versus another, at least as likely to point one away from the truth as towards it."

Only if you assume that all opinions are equal. If so, that nullifies your own opinion about the merits of Roman Catholicism.

"We have to limit our analysis of antecedent probabilities to exclude those which are clearly not true."

Fine. The claims of the Catholic Magisterium are clearly not true. That was quick.

"It's no use saying that the antecedent probability is that God would only ever create polka-dotted dragons, when clearly we are not polka-dotted dragons. To introduce absurd possibilities to argue against potentially true probabilities, is a bad argument."

i) The idea that God would inspire every individual is not *antecedently* absurd. You've abandoned the argument from antecedent probabilities. You're now excluding certain possibilities on a posteriori grounds.

ii) You posit unity as the goal. Applied to antecedent probabilities, there are antecedently more probable methods of achieving unity than the Magisterium. The Magisterium is a very inefficient mechanism for achieving unity. It didn't prevent the Reformation. Or modernism. Or dissention over Vatican II.

"That would only seem probable if it was a system which seemed to work. However it has never worked in keeping Christians united."

i) I didn't argue whether or not private judgment was antecedently "probable." I'm posing a factual question. How can you prejudge God's will in that matter?

ii) The Magisterium hasn't succeeded in keeping Christians united. So your Catholic criterion falsifies the Catholic Magisterium.

iii) If God wants all Christians to be united, then what aren't all Christians united? If unity is God's goal, when why didn't God simply create like-minded Christians, and refrain from creating heretics or schismatics?

"So maybe there will be a Vatican III if the church considers the points of dispute significant enough to warrant clarification."

i) In which case, Vatican II failed to achieve unity. Indeed, there was far more Catholic unity before Vatican II. Vatican II generated disunity.

ii) And, of course, different Catholic theologians would also offer differing interpretations of Vatican III.

"To claim we don't need councils to clarify things, because people might misinterpret councils would be to say we don't need Paul's commentary on Genesis, because someone might misinterpret Paul. The fact is, having Paul is better than not having Paul, even though Paul can be misinterpreted. If we didn't have Paul's interpretation, Christianity would be considerably impoverished."

You constantly play into our hands. Parallel arguments don't help *your* position—they help *our* position. Bryan is the one who cast the issue in terms of interpretive authority. If Catholics can, and do, misinterpret councils, then your rule of faith confers no epistemic advantage. You must still fall back on fallible, private interpretation.

"In this highly improbable science fiction scenario…"

Thought-experiments were never meant to be "probable." Their cogency doesn't depend on their probability.

"If we assume that his memories are a valid reason for knowing his surroundings aren't real, and that his memories can't have been interfered with, then the proposition has been proven by the memories. It might be difficult to transfer the proof to someone else because of the technological problem of proving what is in your brain, but it would be adequately proven to oneself. But if the memories are not a valid reason to believe because they may have been faked, then the person can't know what they think they know at all. The normal rules of proof or evidence are as applicable as in any other scenario." So this argument is not a valid one against someone thinking their interpretation is correct but being wrong."

Irrelevant. I'm dealing with the case of someone whose interpretation was correct. The hypothetical objection that he’d believe he was right even if he was wrong has no force if, in fact, he got it right.

"Luke wasn't there to witness many events he records either, but relied on an existing ecclesiastical tradition to obtain his information."

No, he relied on the testimony of eyewitness informants. That's hardly synonymous with "ecclesiastical tradition."

"In the same way the church has always taught that the truth subsists in those ecclesiastical bodies with succession from the apostles."

i) You’re shifting from secondhand information to third, forth, fifth, sixthhand…information. That's hardly comparable to Luke's epistemic situation.

ii) Moreover, Luke is inspired. Apostolic succession is not.

"This is not an entirely historical question, just like not everything Luke wrote is entirely historical, some of it is theological. Whether the church subsists in those bodies with succession is not something an historian is likely to address."

i) Whether y succeeded x is an irreducibly historical question. Either that event took place or it didn't. Succession, if true, would involve a historical process. Where's the commensurate historical evidence?

ii) There is, indeed, more to apostolic succession than public events. There's also the claim that ordination transfers an invisible charism from one successor to the next. That renders the claim completely unverifiable, even if you could document every historical link in the chain.

"How this establishes a blinkered Catholic view of divine guidance we are not told. Given that the number of people in the world who have a generally Catholic worldview exceeds by orders of magnitude those who hold to the style of Christianity found on this blog, and given that the Catholic worldview puts great emphasis on this fact, I would think Catholics are the ones with a high regard for divine providence."

Muslims would appreciate your numerical criterion.

7 comments:

  1. Thx, Steve, I'd forgotten about JJ...I would add:

    In case JJ needs it spelled out for him:

    1. We don't claim that our rule of faith is epistemologically superior to yours. We claim it is on epistemic par. That's why ever parallel retort you make is an agreement with us. You need to show that your rule of faith is actually superior epistemically.

    2. We're concerned not with having an epistemically superior rule of faith or one that "works" (as you think what "works" should mean), rather we're concerned about having a rule of faith that is actually true.

    Much of the oral tradition is the traditional understanding of scripture. Things like what the eucharist means, who should be baptised, how the church should be run and so forth. I'm sure you know full well the Catholic position on these things."

    Yes, I know the Catholic position. I'm asking you to document these traditions. You see, JJ, if you can document them going back to the Apostles, then they are written down and not oral. That proves the primacy of written revelation over "oral tradition." And, if these really are "Apostolic" then why aren't they canonized as Scripture?

    You're also using the traditional Catholic view to underwrite the traditional Catholic view. Can we say "vicious, question-begging regress?"

    "And we've yet to hear why we should care. I'm sure everyone is quite aware of the existence of the OT. But we're also aware that the oral teaching exceeded the OT. Thus the apostles were not practitioners of sola scriptura."

    In addition to Steve's comment, I would add that, even if the Apostles did not practice Sola Scriptura (since they were in the process of writing the NT at the time), your objection is irrelevant. Sola Scriptura is actually the rule of faith for the Church in its normative state. The Church was not in it's normative state at the time the NT was being composed...or do you believe that the canon is open such that the Magisterium is, like the Benny Hinn and Jan Crouch, receiving revelations from God today?

    Who claimed there is a list or we need a list?" Well, you need a list, because the best way to rebut our argument is to produce one. Merely claiming that the Magisterium is the (infallible) guardian of "apostolic tradition" is just that - a claim - if you can't document what "tradition" actually is-specifically. Further, if your claim is that the Magisterium infallibly determines the meaning of Scripture, then you should be able to show us their infallible pronoucements on every part of Scripture.

    And, to antcipate the inevitable resort to "they don't have to, they merely need to define a dogma," then you've just stated that it is acceptable to take a dogma and read it back into Scripture. That's not exegeting Scripture, that's classic eisegesis. It also invites a vicious regress, for in that event to support something like the Catholic view on authority, you have to appeal to the tradtional Catholic interpretation in order to prove that interpretation. What a vicious circle!

    "And there's a substantial agreement I would say between the Church fathers in their exegesis. Funny how you always want to play that down and play up protestant agreement."

    Actually, there is a lot of variance between them over many things. Funny how you always want to play that up and play down Protestant agreement. Where is the infallible rulebook for adjudicating differences between the Fathers?

    John made a further distinction - that of a _living_ interpreter. There is a fundamental advantage of having a living teacher compared to teaching yourself. That's why we still have schools, and not just books."

    Yes, he did make that distinction, but since the recipient/percipient is still fallible, it doesn't matter if the interpreter is living or not. Here's how this works, try to follow along...we're talking about the epistemic question here. That means that we're not working down from the teacher to the recipient but upwards from the recipient to the teacher. If I'm fallible, and the Bible is infallible then I'm in the same position as you are with respect to your infallible Magisterium, because you're fallible too. In addition, to locate my Bible, I can look in any number of places in my bedroom, but you have to locate the Magisterium, and its address is hardly fixed spatially or temporally.

    Clearly, a rule of faith with an infallible interpreter to resolve disputes is better than a rule of faith with nobody to resolve. In addition to Steve's comments:

    You're burning a straw man. As a Reformed Baptist, I have recourse to a book of order too, like the Charleston Baptist Association's Book of Church Discipline (and order). It contains a mechanism for resolving conflicts that rise to the level of an association. It's only in recent history that Baptists have stopped using such books of order. Other Protestants have such books too.

    Further, this is just a pseudoproblem generated your rule of faith. I don't claim that disputes are always bad. They can expose heretics, they can be useful for refining understanding, and they can have the effect of driving us all to fast and pray and study the Bible together. Centuries ago, Baptists would do that if they could reach a substantial consensus. Instead of taking a quick vote and arguing later, they would fast, pray, and meet to study the Bible until they could reach agreement on a course of action or the resolution to a question passed to the Association or an internal or external dispute that affected the members of one or more local churches.

    "The Jewish priesthood (call them a magisterium if you like) must have been carrying out their basic functions correctly, since God put them in charge with the responsibility over the temple to carry out their priestly duties for the people. If you want to say that the Jews as individuals were at liberty to abandon the Levites and set up a brand new priesthood if they weren't happy with the preaching of the priests, then you would be at odds with biblical history.

    That's not the issue. If you are going to draw a parallel between the Jewish "Magisterium" and the Roman Magisterium, you need to show they were infallible. Alternatively, you need to show, from Scripture, where an infallible Magisterium is promised as a benefit of the New Covenant.

    And I'll repeat my question: How did the Jews muddle along w/o an infallibly determined canon? Did for the churches until Trent...

    That why the eunuch said 'how can I understand unless someone guides me?'"

    Funny...Catholics who use this line of argument don't exegete the text. In context...

    The Eunuch is likely a pious Jew from Ethiopia. He was reading Isaiah. Philip is sent not because the Eunuch needed an infallible interpreter, but because Philip, as an eyewitness and Apostle to Christ, had information that the Eunuch did not have about the fulfillment of the text of Isaiah. Why is this important? Because Luke's topic isn't the need for an infallible interpreter, rather it is on the spread of the Gospel outside Judea and Samaria to "the uttermost parts of the earth." Luke is following Jesus' order for the spread of the Gospel. Follow the bouncing all of Acts:

    1. The Apostles gather with the others in the Upper Room.
    2. The Holy Spirit comes upon them.
    3. Peter preaches his first sermon.
    4. Thousands are added that day.
    5. Later...The Gospel moves to Samaria. Philip is present. Notice that he baptizes a false professor.
    6. Peter comes as a witness to these events.
    7. They lay hands upon Samaritans and they receive the Spirit.
    8. Peter recognizes Simon is still in his sins.
    9. Philip is instructed to go the Eunuch.
    10.After the Eunuch is converted and baptized, Philip is taken elsewhere to preach.
    11.Saul is converted.
    12.Chapter 10, Cornelius is converted.

    The Jewish covenant community extended, in that age to: Palestine, Samaria, and Ethiopia. Also various synogogues existed among the Gentiles. Luke's focus is on that very order. For, Cornelius as a Gentile was a "God-fearer" and Paul would preach in the synagogues on his journey.

    Thank you for turning this text into something about infallible Magisterial authority...it has NOTHING to do with such Magisterial authority. The topic is the spread of the Gospel. Does everybody need infallible Magisterial authority in order to be saved? Is that the teaching of Rome? No, for according Rome, we Protestants are "separated brethren." I wasn't saved because of an infallible ecclesiastical interpreter's teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "iii) Apropos (ii), where can we find the infallible Magisterial interpretation of Acts 8:31?"

    Bingo. William Whitaker also used the same argument. Catholics looooove to site prooftexts for an interpretetive Magisterium...even though the Magisterium hasn't bothered to interpret the prooftext being offered.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "If Catholics claim that Christians were never bereft of the Church, then Protestants can counterclaim that Christians were never bereft of the Scriptures."

    Which doesn't actually help you, because Christianity is not Judaism.

    "Parity won’t win you’re the argument. The point at issue is whether the Catholic rule of faith is superior to the Protestant rule of faith."

    Once again, you're unable to follow the bouncing ball. If the Magisterium isn't subject to scripture because it decides what it is and what it means, then neither is Steve subject to it for the same reasons. Try to pay attention. You're so used to trotting out your favourite one liners that you can't seem to think clearly anymore about the issues.

    "It's sufficient for my apologetics purposes to construct parallel arguments. It's insufficient for your purposes to deploy the same tactic—since your position isn't making comparable claims."

    1. Your "parallel arguments" attack your own position as was demonstrated. Steve defines what scripture is and what it means.

    2. Your parallel arguments attack the Christian position in general, by making all revelation subjective by way of the individual's position in the process.

    3. A church needs a rule of faith as a principle of unity. The Catholic method is to continually subject oneself to the catholic understanding. It's a principle which puts the overall direction of one's understanding in a continual movement towards commonality. The limitations of the individual's understanding do not impede this fact, because his understanding is not bound to interpret what he finds in any old direction, but rather in the direction of catholicity. Thus it is a workable rule of faith. The protestant notion on the other hand has no such principle. Protestants of the 21st century are further away from agreeing about anything than they were 500 years ago. Individual protestants are just as likely to have their understand move away from that of their church than towards it, leading to continual dispute, confusion and church hopping.

    "if the only access to Scripture is via the Magisterium"

    Who said the only access to Scripture is via the Magisterium? That's like saying that because Paul makes an infallible interpretation of Genesis, the only access anybody has had to Genesis is via Paul.

    "It's quite relevant to the discussion if Bryan is attacking sola Scriptura via the perspicuity of Scripture, but then proceeds to mischaracterize the perspicuity of Scripture."

    And it's quite relevant to point out that your definition of perspicuity makes sola scripture unworkable. It's the old bait and switch. First you claim scripture is perspicuous, and then you define perspicuous so that it makes sola scripture unworkable.

    "Why? In Catholic theology, the Eucharist is a means of grace. Going to Mass is a primary means by which a Catholic remains in a state of grace (as over against dying in a state of mortal sin)."

    1. This is a different statement to saying we need to "trap Jesus in a piece of bread".

    2. Lutherans apparently need to "trap Jesus in, on or under a piece of bread", but apparently escape the same accusation.

    3. Please document any Catholic saying "God can't damn you with a piece of Jesus inside you".

    4. Since you can only receive Eucharist if you are in a state of grace, it hardly seems rational to talk about the Eucharist as primary means for remaining in a state of grace and avoiding dying in mortal sin.

    " On paper, Catholicism honors the authority of Scripture, but in practice Magisterial authority supplants and subverts Biblical authority."

    On paper, STEVE honors the authority of Scripture, but in practice STEVE's authority supplants and subverts Biblical authority.

    "Gene was responding to your claim that "in your world, scripture means whatever STEVE says"—as if the Protestant position is reducible to me and my Bible."

    And I was responding to the claim that Catholicism is reducible to me and my Magisterium.

    "i) Once again, you miss the point. Even if the Magisterium had interpreted the whole Bible, if the Magisterium keeps that interpretation to itself, then it's not teaching the laity what Scripture means in all those cases."

    1) The laity doesn't always have to know the how and why of something to benefit from it. If the Magisterium keeps good order in the church through a correct understanding of scripture, the laity benefits without knowing the details.

    2) Even without linking dogma to specific verses, the laity benefits from the correct understanding. For example, the laity benefits from the knowledge that it is correct to baptise infants without needing be told what texts might be relevant to that.

    "And you keep resorting to the tu quoque tactic, which is self-defeating when Catholicism lays claim to epistemic superiority, not epistemic parity."

    Pointing out the nonsense of your arguments about the Magisterium not being subject to scripture does not lead to parity. It just defeats your arguments.

    "Once again, parity doesn't win the argument for Catholicism. Catholicism and Protestantism are making asymmetrical claims."

    There is no parity between the Church of God defining what scripture is, compared to STEVE defining what scripture is. That should be obvious to anyone. Having a central authority make judgement can't have epistemological equivalence to every man and his dog making their own judgement.

    Again, the old bait and switch. I refuted your argument that the Magisterium is not subject to scripture, now you're using that as bait and switch to pretend epistemological equivalence. That won't wash.

    But I do note that your argument gives epistemological equivalence to atheists.

    " But if, in fact, their respective authority sources must be filtered through the private interpretation of each individual, whether Catholic or Protestant, then that epistemic parallel directly undercuts his epistemological argument."

    That's like saying that the Supreme court's interpretation is equivalent to my own, because both must be filtered through my brain. But you'll find it aint so if you try and disregard a Supreme court order.

    The fact is, institutions are needed to interpret texts. It's a fact of life and can't be refuted through some philosophical infinitely reductionist argument. Otherwise you could make the courts disappear in a puff of logic.

    "As a matter of fact, Paul was not subject to a higher, OT court of appeal. One Bible writer can't overrule another Bible writer. "

    If Paul couldn't override other bible writers then clearly he WAS subject to them, since it wasn't within his authority to override them. Case closed.

    " In addition, JJ must define what the Magisterium is for JJ and define what it means to JJ. Therefore, the right of private judgment is inescapable. That's an argument for the Protestant position, JJ. Conceding that point is a concession to the Protestant position, JJ."

    No, my private judgement is with the aim of subjecting myself to a unifying principle which is the Spirit led Church. Protestant private judgement is merely private judgement that doesn't care whether it leads you into or out of unity. If it leads you to found a new church with you as the only one in it, so be it. That is not an equivalent position.

    "This is what he said: “Perspicuity does not exclude the means necessary for interpretation (i.e. the internal light of the Spirit, attention of mind, the voice and ministry of the church, sermons and commentaries, prayer and watchfulness). For we hold these means not only to be useful, but also necessary ordinarily,”

    Yes, scripture is so perspicuous that you need commentaries, sermons, and internal light to understand it.

    But if someone else interprets differently and claims internal light, you're left with nothing objective. If someone is led astray by a bad commentary, cest la vie.

    So perspicuity becomes a meaningless catchphrase that proves nothing and helps no-one.

    "iv) No doubt an infallible commentary is on an epistemologically higher plane than a fallible one. Where has the Magisterium produced an infallible commentary on the Bible?"

    The Catholic faith itself is an infallible commentary on the bible.

    "BTW, the NT is an infallible commentary on the OT. So Protestants do have access to infallible commentaries."

    Great. So prove to me which of those books are infallible.

    "It's the Pharisees who believed in the oral Torah."

    Neatly avoiding the point that the apostles did not limit their teaching to the written Torah.

    "You only know about that tradition because it was written down at some point. "

    Nonsense. Prove to me that I wouldn't know to baptise infants unless it was written down.

    """The same way you can know Genesis through to Revelation is prophetic."

    That's an evasion rather than an answer. How do you trace an oral tradition back to the Apostles? How do you double-check each link in the chain? "

    It's not an evasion to point out that radical skepticism cuts both ways. How do you trace every link in every chain in every book back to the apostles or prophets, and then do the same for every book which you don't think came from the apostles or prophets?

    "So you admit that you don't know what the Magisterium says about the meaning of Scripture, and—what's more—you don't even need to know what the Magisterium says. Fine. Protestants would be the first to agree with you."

    Obtusely equivocating between having teachings and having a list of teachings. It's all there in the tradition, which even Luther was able to put to some use in identifying what is scripture.

    "Does this mean every Catholic is paired off with his very own Magisterium—like having your own guardian angel or personal trainer? Do you get to interview the Magisterium whenever you have a question? Do you have the pope's cellphone number? "

    What silliness. The Magisterium is in continuous contact with the rest of the church. And there is no reason to believe Philip was infallible in his dealings with the Eunuch. It seems to me it is you who is obsessed with infallibility. The point is, someone in communion with the church could give him a correct interpretation, and his own reasoning, and heretics would not have been able to do so.

    "So you're dodging Gene's question because you can't answer it."

    Pointing out your hypocrisy is very relevant here.

    "How does an appellate process illustrate infallibility? If the verdict was subject to appeal, then the verdict wasn't infallible, now was it?"

    Again the obsession with infallibility. But the court process IS authoritative.

    "You're comparing the incomparable. Appealing to the Magisterium is an argument from authority. "

    So is the protestant notion that they have the authority to interpret as individuals.

    "Obviously you haven't bothered to read biblical history, where Israel commits national apostasy, including and abetted by a corrupt religious establishment."

    And when exactly did they have the right to set up a new Levitical priesthood?

    "Moreover, you haven't shown us where there was an infallible teaching office in ancient Israel."

    Who would have interpreted the scriptures on how, where and when to carry out temple sacrifices? (a) Every man and his dog. (b) the Levitical priesthood.

    "iii) Furthermore, you ducked Gene's question about how Catholics got along for all those centuries without the official canon of Scripture promulgated by Trent. "

    I didn't duck the question, people followed the tradition as best as they could grasp it. Notice that the catholic principle of unity did pretty well even without a dogmatic proclamation.

    "You limit the way in which God is allowed to guide his church."

    As do you, but I have the higher view of providence.

    "Point us to the infallible list of the infallible ecclesial pronouncements."

    Again the obsession with infallibility.

    "i) The idea that God would inspire every individual is not *antecedently* absurd."

    It's antecedently absurd as a method for identifying truth, since people claiming inspiration disagree.

    "ii) You posit unity as the goal. Applied to antecedent probabilities, there are antecedently more probable methods of achieving unity than the Magisterium. The Magisterium is a very inefficient mechanism for achieving unity. It didn't prevent the Reformation. Or modernism. Or dissention over Vatican II. "

    The aim isn't to prevent dissension, but provide an identifiable source of unity for resolving it. What these supposedly more probably methods are we are not told.

    "How can you prejudge God's will in that matter? "

    I've seen it argued around here, in response to the question of how you know the canon isn't just completely and utterly wrong, that clearly God has a purpose for his scriptures, and therefore we can have confidence that people will know what the correct canon is because it goes to the heart of what his purpose for his word is. Great, but having the canon is worthless without understanding the canon. To go half way with this argument is absurd. We must believe that the Church both has the canon and understands it.

    "If God wants all Christians to be united, then what aren't all Christians united?"

    If God wants us to know the canon, why don't all Christians know the canon?

    If you want to nit pick around this kind of argument, then suddenly you don't have a canon. Suddenly, maybe your canon is just completely wrong. You need at some level to identify with the argument of what God is likely to do. God is likely to make his word known. God is likely to make true scriptures clearly distinguishable from false ones.

    "i) In which case, Vatican II failed to achieve unity. Indeed, there was far more Catholic unity before Vatican II. Vatican II generated disunity. "

    Perhaps. But the scriptures themselves have been occasion for both unity and division. I don't think you would therefore reject scripture as a point of unity.

    "You constantly play into our hands. Parallel arguments don't help *your* position—they help *our* position. Bryan is the one who cast the issue in terms of interpretive authority. If Catholics can, and do, misinterpret councils, then your rule of faith confers no epistemic advantage."

    Again, if you have no epistemic advantage in having Paul's infallible interpretation of Genesis, then throw out Paul. You won't, because you know it aint so.

    "The hypothetical objection that he’d believe he was right even if he was wrong has no force if, in fact, he got it right. "

    How this helps your case that people can get things right but without a valid reason to do so, I can't see.

    "No, he relied on the testimony of eyewitness informants. That's hardly synonymous with "ecclesiastical tradition."

    Luke doesn't say he received all his information directly from exclusively eyewitnesses, he says his story is "handed down to us" by eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Clearly there weren't eyewitnesses alive for everything Luke wrote. Clearly he didn't have eyewitnesses for all the facts in Ch 3 for example. But beyond that, Mt, Mk and Lk seem to have shared some written source material. Whoever compiled THAT may or may not have been direct eyewitnesses, or they may have got it passed down too.

    "ii) Moreover, Luke is inspired."

    Reference please.

    "i) Whether y succeeded x is an irreducibly historical question. Either that event took place or it didn't. Succession, if true, would involve a historical process. Where's the commensurate historical evidence?"

    In that case, apostolic succession is an historical fact.

    "ii) There is, indeed, more to apostolic succession than public events. There's also the claim that ordination transfers an invisible charism from one successor to the next. That renders the claim completely unverifiable, even if you could document every historical link in the chain. "

    It renders the claim as verifiable or unverifiable as many other theological claims.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Semper,

    You're so right.


    JJ, would you mind clicking over to that link and answering the questions? They shouldn't take long.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Which doesn't actually help you, because Christianity is not Judaism.

    That's an ignorant statement.

    1. Do you believe the Jews were graceless and unregenerate?
    2. They held an OT canon.
    3. The first churches inherited the OT canon from the Jews. The first century Christians were using the Scriptures to confute the Jews in their own synagogues. The Evangelists, Paul, Peter, etc. all quote and allude to the OT. How did they do this if the canon was not infallibly fixed until Trent?


    JJ is now equivocating between "Scriptures" and "New Testament." The NT was being written, the OT was extant. So, the churches of the Apostolic era were never w/o the Scriptures. Indeed, Roman Catholics admit this when they say that "the Scriptures" as used in the NT refers to the OT.

    You're so used to trotting out your favourite one liners that you can't seem to think clearly anymore about the issues.

    1. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God. (2LBC 1.4)

    In Romanism, the authority of Scripture depends on the Magisterium. The authority of Scripture is not simply mediated by the Magisterium it is derived from the Magisterium.

    In Protestantism, the authority of Scripture depends upon God and God only. It's authority is not mediated by another.

    The arguments are asymmetrical. I don't require myself and only myself to interpret Scripture. I don't lay claim to an ecclesiastical monopoly or to infallibility. I don't lay claim to authorize Scripture itself. I don't say that Scripture's authority is derivative of the Church. I don't say that my interpretation's authority comes from me. I don't craft doctrines like the Marian dogmas from whole cloth w/o a warrant from the Bible.

    So, tell us again how Rome serves that which it also defines and interprets.

    2. Suppose you're right about the case, so what, you've just stated we are at epistemic parity. Pay attention, JJ.

    A church needs a rule of faith as a principle of unity.

    1. Then by your own critierion Catholicism's rule of faith is falsified.
    2. This is an assertion not an argument. Where does Scripture teach this? How do you know this is the case?

    Protestants of the 21st century are further away from agreeing about anything than they were 500 years ago. Catholics of the 21st century are further away from agreeing about anything than they were 500 years ago.

    Who said the only access to Scripture is via the Magisterium?Catholicism's rule of faith, next question.

    That's like saying that because Paul makes an infallible interpretation of Genesis, the only access anybody has had to Genesis is via Paul.

    Well, since the Magisterium is your infallible interpretive authority, then the only real access you have to Genesis is via the Magisterium. Thanks for confirming what we've been saying.

    2. Your parallel arguments attack the Christian position in general, by making all revelation subjective by way of the individual's position in the process.

    JJ is now oscillating between "revelation" and "interpretation." These are not convertible concepts.

    How does having an infallible Magisterium, JJ alleviate the problem of subjectivity of the fallible individual's intepretation? How can we know the Magisterium is infallible and correct?

    "Revelation" itself does not cease to be objective. There is a subjective element to "interpretation." More on this later in the SCOTUS analogy JJ raises.

    Bible (infallible) - Steve (fallible)

    Bible (infallible but unclear) - Magisterium (infallible but apparently more clear than Scripture)- JJ

    Tell us again why these arguments aren't funcitionally equivalent?

    The revelation is objective, not subjective. I suppose you mean the interpretation of the revelation is "subjective." That's why we do grammatical-historical exegesis, for it doesn't select for any particular interpretation. The exegesis trumps the opinions of creeds and councils. These are useful, but not infallible. Protestants agree exegetically on quite a bit more than you think. Romanists, by way of contrast, read their dogmas back into the text, as we've demonstrated many times. Arminians read LFW back into text, as we've demonstrated many times. We could go on and on. The purpose of the GHM is to filter out as much of that as possible.

    1. This is a different statement to saying we need to "trap Jesus in a piece of bread".

    Actually, you venerate the wafer, so, no it's not different, for it literally turns into the body and blood. I've been to Mass at the Vatican under Pope John Paul II. I've seen this myself.

    2. Lutherans apparently need to "trap Jesus in, on or under a piece of bread", but apparently escape the same accusation.

    Because in Lutheranism, the elements don't literally transubstantiate. In Lutheranism the efficacy of the sacrament is indexed to the faith of the person in Christ alone internally and the preaching of the Word externally. It doesn't work ex operate operato.

    And I was responding to the claim that Catholicism is reducible to me and my Magisterium.

    It is, for without it you have no principled basis for making any claims about Scripture, the Church, etc. Sola Ecclesia, so, yes, it's just you and the Magisterium, and "anybody in communion with "the Church" is really "anybody in communion with Rome," and that person or persons must be subject to and in contact with the Magisterium. No matter how you cut it, it's just you and the Magisterium. Try to follow your own argumentation.

    1) The laity doesn't always have to know the how and why of something to benefit from it. If the Magisterium keeps good order in the church through a correct understanding of scripture, the laity benefits without knowing the details.

    So, as long as it looks like it's orderly all is well. Hmmm, sounds like the claims of the Pharisees.

    So, the laity benefits w/o knowing the details, because they are kept in order through a correct understanding of Scripture, and this comes by way of the Magisterium. But you said that Catholicism isn't reducible to you and your Magisterium.

    2) Even without linking dogma to specific verses, the laity benefits from the correct understanding. For example, the laity benefits from the knowledge that it is correct to baptise infants without needing be told what texts might be relevant to that. So, it doesn't matter what Scripture actually says, what matters is what the Magisterium says...but earlier you denied that your Catholicism is reducible to yourself and the Magisterium.

    Pointing out the nonsense of your arguments about the Magisterium not being subject to scripture does not lead to parity. It just defeats your arguments.

    Where is the Assumption of Mary taught in Scripture? That's a very easy way to find out if the Magisterium is subject to Scripture.

    That's a very easy way to find out if the Magisterium is subject to Scripture.

    Where does the Bible teach the veneration of the saints and prayers to/through the dead? That's an easy way to find out if the Magisterium is subject to Scripture.

    There is no parity between the Church of God defining what scripture is, compared to STEVE defining what scripture is.

    So is the Magisterium the Church?

    You said that the Magisterium is subject to Scripture, but here you've said the Church of God (I imagine the Magisterium) defines what Scripture is.

    The Magisterium makes a claim to infallibility and then makes a corresponding claim that it, and ONLY it, gets to define what the canon is and what the texts mean.

    But you are still left to interpret what the Magisterium says.

    Bible (infallible) - Steve (infallible)
    Magisterium (infallible) - JJ (fallible)

    Why again are these not on epistemic par?

    I refuted your argument that the Magisterium is not subject to scripture, now you're using that as bait and switch to pretend epistemological equivalence.

    No, that's been our argument all along. You're just to stupid to figure it out.

    But I do note that your argument gives epistemological equivalence to atheists.

    Only if you assume, without benefit of argument that all interpretations are equal.

    That's like saying that the Supreme court's interpretation is equivalent to my own, because both must be filtered through my brain. But you'll find it aint so if you try and disregard a Supreme court order.

    The fact is, institutions are needed to interpret texts. It's a fact of life and can't be refuted through some philosophical infinitely reductionist argument. Otherwise you could make the courts disappear in a puff of logic.


    If you can, by your fallible mind discern the correct interpretation of a Supreme Court decision (and I would add SCOTUS makes no claim to infallibility and expects people to understand its decisions once issued), why do you need an infallible Magisterium to tell you what Scripture means?

    I suppose you're trying to say the Bible is like the Constitution. If so, where's the supporting argument?

    And notice the disanologies: the Constitution isn't infallible. SCOTUS lays no claim to infallibility. SCOTUS publishes both a majority and minority opinion.

    What's really analogous is the fact that SCOTUS and the Magisterium expect to be understood by others, and others have to use their fallible minds to understand the text.

    So far, you're heading either toward global skepticism, which we both deny, or toward a simple fact- that it doesn't take an infallible Magisterium for you to correct discern the meaning of the Bible, for your own analogy, when you really think about it undercuts the need for an "institution" to interpret something for you if you can read the interpretation and get it correct, Bible included.

    In addition, SCOTUS does clarify itself in sometimes contradictory ways. Do you think the Magisterium contradicts itself too?


    If it takes an institution to interpret texts, then how do you discern which institution do you use to interpret what you read? Do you apply this same logic to the collected works of Mark Twain or Jane Austen? Do you go to the English Dept. at a local university to do that for you? How do you know which English Dept. is the one true English Dept? At some point, your "private opinion" is going to have to be used.

    If Paul couldn't override other bible writers then clearly he WAS subject to them, since it wasn't within his authority to override them. Case closed.

    No, Paul couldn't override other writers because Paul and those writers were both writing under the power/inspiration of the Holy Spirit Himself and they had the same authority. It has nothing to do with their relative ecclesiastical "authority." Case closed.

    No, my private judgement is with the aim of subjecting myself to a unifying principle which is the Spirit led Church.

    Notice that JJ doesn't bother to ask himself if this is even a part of a "true" rule of faith. He doesn't consult the Bible, he consults his intuition.

    Protestant private judgement is merely private judgement that doesn't care whether it leads you into or out of unity.

    This begs the question over whether visible ecclesiastical unity is a quality of a true rule of faith. Where's the supporting argument?

    . If it leads you to found a new church with you as the only one in it, so be it. That is not an equivalent position.

    JJ just glosses right over the doctrine of the priesthood of believers. That's because he doesn't care to acquaint himself with what Protestants actually teach.

    Yes, scripture is so perspicuous that you need commentaries, sermons, and internal light to understand it.

    Tell us again why an infallible Magisterium confers an epistemic advantage? Do Catholics not write commentaries, preach sermons, and claim an internal light? I guess Augustine was wrong on his 8 rules for interpreting Scripture. Where, by the way, did Augustine mention "Magisterium" in his rules?

    But if someone else interprets differently and claims internal light, you're left with nothing objective.

    Scripture itself remains objective.

    If someone is led astray by a bad commentary, cest la vie.

    It never occurs to JJ. that commentaries are part of "ordinary means," and it consequently never occurs to him that bad commentaries serve a useful purpose under the providence of God. Sometimes, they can even be used as instruments of reprobation:

    2LBC V.6:

    As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as the righteous judge, for former sin doth blind and harden; from them he not only withholdeth his grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understanding, and wrought upon their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, under those means which God useth for the softening of others.


    So perspicuity becomes a meaningless catchphrase that proves nothing and helps no-one

    1. It drives us to study Scripture better. It drives to interact, discuss, etc., and we cooperate all the time because we uphold the essentials of a credible profession of faith. We divide because we believe there is room for diversity, and we largely maintain peace. We may argue about theology and practice, but we don't say "No true Christian!"

    And notice:


    2.6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
    ( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Galatians 1:8,9; John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 2:9-12; 1 Corinthians 11:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 14:26,40)

    7._____All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them. (2BC I.6,7)

    A. We affirm that Scripture is plain enough that men may understand it and be saved. The "inner light" in that event is the effectual opening of the mind by the Holy Spirit. We see this explained in Scripture itself (1 Cor. 2).

    B. We affirm the use of ordinary means.

    C. We disaffirm that everything is that clear.

    3. And since "unity" isn't necessary in every jot and tittle, that little problem is just a pseudoproblem generated by your rule of faith, not ours. Why should we accept that criterion?

    4. Attacking "Perspicuity" is a double edged sword, JJ. If that's a problem for us, it's also a problem for you, for you're essentially saying the Magisterium is more perspicuous than Scripture.

    a. That's blasphemous.
    b. It's ecclesiolatrous.
    c. Has it done its job? Shall we trace the history of divisions and schisms prior to the Reformation and w/in Rome to the present day?

    The Catholic faith itself is an infallible commentary on the bible.

    An assertion minus the argument.

    A dodge to avoid answering the question.

    Great. So prove to me which of those books are infallible.

    It is hardly a bone of contention that the OT is infallible. Their authority is intrinsic.

    I imagine what you're really asking is the canon question. It's hardly as if we need to reinvent that argument. There are over 3500 articles in our archives. Search them.

    But considering that modern Roman Catholic scholarship believes parts of the Bible to contain error, perhaps we should prove to JJ that the text is infallible. Who is more conservative, JJ or his ecclesiastical betters?

    Nonsense. Prove to me that I wouldn't know to baptise infants unless it was written down.

    1. You only know it because it is written down.
    2. It's up to you to document the existence of oral traditions, not us.
    3. Paedobaptists, including Roman Catholics, use the Bible to justify infant baptism, so it must be written down somewhere, or do you deny the material sufficiency of the Bible? If so, then you have to prove infant baptism is an oral tradition. Document that fact.

    How do you trace every link in every chain in every book back to the apostles or prophets, and then do the same for every book which you don't think came from the apostles or prophets? Evidentiary analysis. Where's the evidentiary analysis for Apostolic Tradition?

    You're stil avoiding the question Steve asked.

    Obtusely equivocating between having teachings and having a list of teachings.

    Not at all. You claim these teachings exist, so document them.

    It's all there in the tradition, which even Luther was able to put to some use in identifying what is scripture.

    Did Luther use oral qua oral tradition?

    The Magisterium is in continuous contact with the rest of the church. Then where is the Magisterium? Dulles seems to point in several directions. How do you know which way to go, when Dulles himself says there is a lack of clarity?

    It seems to me it is you who is obsessed with infallibility No,you are, for that's your rule of faith.

    The point is, someone in communion with the church could give him a correct interpretation, and his own reasoning, and heretics would not have been able to do so.

    You aren't merely talking about the need for an interpreter, but an infallible, authoritative, intepreter. Try to follow your own argumentation. Any old fallible teacher won't do when it comes to the Scriptures, it takes an infallible one to do it, and one who is part of the Magisterium or in contact with it. That requires things like valid ordination, etc. So, "someone in communion with the Church" also requires a Magisterium in the background.

    If you didn't believe that, then you wouldn't say things like: Yes, scripture is so perspicuous that you need commentaries, sermons, and internal light to understand it. Why? Because you are casting the argument in terms of ecclesisastical authority itself, not just a historical witness or any old layperson's knowledge. That knowledge has to be from the Magisterium itself.

    The point is, someone in communion with the church could give him a correct interpretation, and his own reasoning, and heretics would not have been able to do so.

    We don't necessarily deny that. What we deny is the notion that the text is so unclear that it takes an infallible interpreter to understand it, and we affirm there are reasons why a Eunuch with only Isaiah and no knowledge of Christ and the teaching of the Gospel to that time would not understand what this means with respect to his own salvation, for he was living under the Old Covenant at that time, which also meant, there was also a veil over his spiritual understanding too. The argument for the need of an Ethiopian Eunuch for an interpreter cashes out on our side, not yours. I've already, unlike you, exegeted that text.

    Pointing out your hypocrisy is very relevant here.

    Not answering my question is what's relevant.

    And when exactly did they have the right to set up a new Levitical priesthood?

    1. The priesthood in the NT extends to all believers. They could set up a new order when the covenant changed by divine directive. The LP is dependent on the covenant itself, not "the Church."

    2. From whence do Rome's priests derive their authority as priests?
    Where does the New Covenant promise an infallible Magisterium?

    3. You've just dodged another statement. Here's what Steve was responding to:

    The Jewish priesthood (call them a magisterium if you like) must have been carrying out their basic functions correctly, since God put them in charge with the responsibility over the temple to carry out their priestly duties for the people. If you want to say that the Jews as individuals were at liberty to abandon the Levites and set up a brand new priesthood if they weren't happy with the preaching of the priests, then you would be at odds with biblical history."

    I asked you a question, answer it, JJ.

    Who would have interpreted the scriptures on how, where and when to carry out temple sacrifices? (a) Every man and his dog. (b) the Levitical priesthood.

    1. How does this select for an infallible priesthood?

    2. Can you understand how, where, and when to carry out the sacrifices from the text, or do you need an intepreter to do it? Leviticus is pretty straightforward, and would be even moreso to the original recipients who actually built the tabernacle and temple, for the whole community participated.

    3. The Jews were quite literate. They were commanded to teach their children the Law. It's not as if there were Levites roaming the land and entering every home to do this.

    I didn't duck the question, people followed the tradition as best as they could grasp it. Notice that the catholic principle of unity did pretty well even without a dogmatic proclamation.

    So, they didn't require an infallible Magisterium to define the canon. So what changed between the Old Covenant and New Covenant and the past to the present that we require it today to know what the canon is?

    As do you, but I have the higher view of providence.

    Another assertion minus the argument. Is JJ "Orthodox" posting in yet another of his aliases?

    Again the obsession with infallibility.

    Again more psychobabble. What's the matter, can't answer the question?

    Again, if you have no epistemic advantage in having Paul's infallible interpretation of Genesis, then throw out Paul. You won't, because you know it aint so. Paul is Scripture. The Magisterium isn't. I'm more than willing to say I won't throw out Paul. I'm more than happy to be rid of the apostate Roman Magiseterium. I'll gladly get that into the record for posterity.

    Luke doesn't say he received all his information directly from exclusively eyewitnesses, he says his story is "handed down to us" by eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Clearly there weren't eyewitnesses alive for everything Luke wrote. Clearly he didn't have eyewitnesses for all the facts in Ch 3 for example. But beyond that, Mt, Mk and Lk seem to have shared some written source material. Whoever compiled THAT may or may not have been direct eyewitnesses, or they may have got it passed down too.

    So how is this "apostolic tradition?" AT is a term of art in Catholic theology.

    Now you're changing your original argument (and borrowing from my response to you in the original thread).

    Reference please. Goody, two can play this game, Orth, I mean, JJ: How do you know Luke is inspired? How do you know the Magisterium was correct in declaring it so? Reference please.

    In that case, apostolic succession is an historical fact.

    Document apostolic succession then.

    I think there is reason here to think "JJ" is "Orthodox" masquerading as a Roman Catholic. This moniker is familiar, as is the content and writing style.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Great. So prove to me which of those books are infallible."

    I didn't go through all of Gene's response, but when JJ thinks that he has an epistemic advantage in the Magisterium b/c it can give an infallible list of canonical books, it should be noted that that simply takes the problem back one step since he'd have to use his fallible private judgment to determine whether the RC magisterium is truly infallible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "1. Do you believe the Jews were graceless and unregenerate?
    2. They held an OT canon.
    3. The first churches inherited the OT canon from the Jews. The first century Christians were using the Scriptures to confute the Jews in their own synagogues. The Evangelists, Paul, Peter, etc. all quote and allude to the OT. How did they do this if the canon was not infallibly fixed until Trent?"

    None of this makes Judaism = Christianity. Peter and Paul taught more than is found in the OT. Therefore the churches they founded had a rule of faith extending beyond the OT. Any pointing to the OT does nothing to help your case for sola scriptura.

    "1. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God. (2LBC 1.4)"

    Looks like you have nothing to say to those Mormon missionaries.

    "In Romanism, the authority of Scripture depends on the Magisterium. The authority of Scripture is not simply mediated by the Magisterium it is derived from the Magisterium."

    Reference please.

    " I don't lay claim to authorize Scripture itself."

    Functionally you do, since your best demonstration of showing what scripture is, is "God told me". This is no different to the Magisterium which claims to be led by the Holy Spirit. Epistemologically however, the Magisterium is an entity created by the apostles, and you aren't, so you don't get to claim epistemological equality.

    "1. Then by your own critierion Catholicism's rule of faith is falsified."

    Nonsense.

    "2. This is an assertion not an argument. Where does Scripture teach this? How do you know this is the case?"

    What's your definition of sola scripture? That scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church? But hang on, now you're claiming the church doesn't need a rule of faith for its unity and good governance. Oops, there goes sola scriptura out the window.

    "Protestants of the 21st century are further away from agreeing about anything than they were 500 years ago. Catholics of the 21st century are further away from agreeing about anything than they were 500 years ago."

    We agree enough to remain one church. Protestants don't.

    "Who said the only access to Scripture is via the Magisterium?Catholicism's rule of faith, next question."

    Sorry, you need to document your ramblings. Claiming stuff doesn't cut it.

    "Well, since the Magisterium is your infallible interpretive authority, then the only real access you have to Genesis is via the Magisterium. Thanks for confirming what we've been saying."

    Since Paul is your infallible interpretive authority, then the only real access you have to Genesis is via the Paul. Thanks for confirming what I've been saying.

    "How does having an infallible Magisterium, JJ alleviate the problem of subjectivity of the fallible individual's intepretation? How can we know the Magisterium is infallible and correct?"

    How does having an infallible Paul, alleviate the problem of subjectivity of the fallible individual's intepretation? How can we know Paul is infallible and correct?

    How does having an infallible Bible, alleviate the problem of subjectivity of the fallible individual's intepretation? How can we know the Bible is infallible and correct?

    This line of argument shakes the foundation of the church to the ground.

    But we don't allow it to be shaken to the ground, because we believe in God leading his people, such that we believe the testimony about the prophets, we believe the testimony about Paul, and we believe the testimony about the magisterium. We are just consistent in who we believe. Once we start making up for ourselves which bits we believe, we shake our epistemological foundation with our personal opinions so that the church itself topples over.

    "Bible (infallible) - Steve (fallible)

    Bible (infallible but unclear) - Magisterium (infallible but apparently more clear than Scripture)- JJ

    Tell us again why these arguments aren't funcitionally equivalent?"

    1) Because the Magisterium can react to the ongoing situation to clarify enough to retain unity in the church. So it works as a rule of faith. Are you going to claim the church doesn't need a workable rule of faith?

    2) The magisterium has an historical (and thus objective) link with the scriptures via apostolic succession. Thus STEVE's claims about what scripture is and what it means are purely subjective. in relational to someone else's claims. The magisterium on the other hand has an objective link that STEVE lacks.

    If you want to say that my assessment of that fact equates to STEVE's assessment of what scripture is, then you shake the church to the ground by making an agnostic's assessment of what truth is equivilent to a Christian's assessment of what truth is.

    In the Christian world view, revelation trumps supposition.

    Bible (infallible) - Steve (fallible)

    General revelation (infallible) - Fred the Agnostic (fallible)

    "I suppose you mean the interpretation of the revelation is "subjective." That's why we do grammatical-historical exegesis, for it doesn't select for any particular interpretation."

    Human language doesn't have the exactness of say mathematics or computer languages.

    That's compounded with the problem that we don't have access to all the circumstances both immediate and cultural that give the text its full meaning.

    Grammatical-historical exegesis at best comes up with a range of possible interpretations, and the most likely one on a grammatical-historical basis, even if one could decide such a thing objectively (which is itself a doubtful claim), is not necessarily the true one.

    What you've done is exchange truth for objectivity. An objective method isn't necessarily a true one. Picking lotto numbers using family birthdays is more objective than plucking them from thin air, but is not more likely to make you a millionaire.

    "Romanists, by way of contrast, read their dogmas back into the text"

    Even if this were true, which I find doubtful, the apostles could be accused of the same thing. And we are called to imitate Paul as he imitates Christ, who BTW also did the same thing. If we had the examples of the apostles doing gramatical/historical exegesis on a consistent basis, or even once for that matter, then maybe you'd have the kernel of an argument.

    "Actually, you venerate the wafer, so, no it's not different, for it literally turns into the body and blood."

    If it turns into his body, then he is not trapped in a piece of bread. Maybe you could aim that at Lutherans where he is "in or on" a piece of bread.

    "In Lutheranism the efficacy of the sacrament is indexed to the faith of the person in Christ alone internally"

    How sad that in Lutheranism those who need the most, get the least, but in Catholicism those who need more faith, get it. A bit of a catch-22 for Lutherans.

    "And I was responding to the claim that Catholicism is reducible to me and my Magisterium.

    It is, for without it you have no principled basis for making any claims about Scripture"

    Nonsense. While the Magisterium has special authority concerning the scriptures and tradition, both of those are the possession of the whole church. This is again like you saying that you have no principled basis for making any claims about Genesis apart from Paul.

    " No matter how you cut it, it's just you and the Magisterium."

    No matter how you cut it, it's just you and Paul.

    "So, the laity benefits w/o knowing the details, because they are kept in order through a correct understanding of Scripture, and this comes by way of the Magisterium. But you said that Catholicism isn't reducible to you and your Magisterium."

    Paul addressed his pastoral epistles to Timothy as the elder. It was Timothy's job to carry it out, whether the laity did or did not choose to read the letter themselves.

    "2) Even without linking dogma to specific verses, the laity benefits from the correct understanding. For example, the laity benefits from the knowledge that it is correct to baptise infants without needing be told what texts might be relevant to that. So, it doesn't matter what Scripture actually says, what matters is what the Magisterium says...but earlier you denied that your Catholicism is reducible to yourself and the Magisterium."

    This is the equivalent to claiming that if I learn the Gospel and believe the Gospel through Matthew, that therefore it can't matter to me what Mark, Luke and John say. With the implicit implication that Matthew contradicts Mark if only we could toss out Matthew.

    "Where is the Assumption of Mary taught in Scripture? That's a very easy way to find out if the Magisterium is subject to Scripture."

    You've quoted to me the LBC. Let's see if you are subject to scripture. Where does scripture teach:

    "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience"

    "Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:

    OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Solomen, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations,Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi"

    That's a very easy way to find out if you are subject to Scripture.

    "I suppose you're trying to say the Bible is like the Constitution. If so, where's the supporting argument?"

    If I said I'm starting my own country in my back yard, but all is well because I'm going to use the existing constitution as my constitution, except I'm going to interpret it, and not the courts, then people would think I was loopy.

    The reason is that the constitution was born into a particular country with the aim of governing it. It wasn't written so that anybody who feels like it can take it and set up their own country.

    Similarly the new testament wasn't written with the suggestion that people take it and set up churches. Rather the church was set up, and then the books written for its good governance.

    "SCOTUS publishes both a majority and minority opinion."

    And the minority opinion has zero authority.

    "What's really analogous is the fact that SCOTUS and the Magisterium expect to be understood by others, and others have to use their fallible minds to understand the text."

    Sure, but if the SCOTUS leaves questions unanswered, then they remain ready to answer more questions, but only if they feel the questions are important enough to the US.

    I haven't heard you argue that there is no need of the SCOTUS because their judgements need to be interpreted just like the legislation.

    "So far, you're heading either toward global skepticism, which we both deny, or toward a simple fact- that it doesn't take an infallible Magisterium for you to correct discern the meaning of the Bible, for your own analogy, when you really think about it undercuts the need for an "institution" to interpret something for you if you can read the interpretation and get it correct, Bible included."

    Does anybody claim that you can't understand legislation? Of course not, that is silly. But do you therefore claim there is no need for the SCOTUS?

    At least attempt to be consistent.

    "In addition, SCOTUS does clarify itself in sometimes contradictory ways. Do you think the Magisterium contradicts itself too? "

    If people bring a case to the SCOTUS attempting to exploit these supposedly contradictory positions, they will find that the SCOTUS will not leave the situation in its apparent state of contradiction.

    "Do you apply this same logic to the collected works of Mark Twain or Jane Austen?"

    I would if Mark Twain and Jane Austen were available.

    "How do you know which English Dept. is the one true English Dept?"

    There is an objective link between Mark Twain and Tom Sawyer. There is no objective link between the bible and STEVE. Yes, I have to use my judgment to realise that Mark Twain is really the author of Tom Sawyer. Thankfully this is well documented.

    "No, Paul couldn't override other writers because Paul and those writers were both writing under the power/inspiration of the Holy Spirit Himself and they had the same authority. "

    Fine if you want to play it that way:

    No, the Magisterium couldn't override scripture because the Magisterium and those writers were both writing under the power/inspiration of the Holy Spirit Himself and they had the same authority.

    "No, my private judgement is with the aim of subjecting myself to a unifying principle which is the Spirit led Church.

    Notice that JJ doesn't bother to ask himself if this is even a part of a "true" rule of faith. He doesn't consult the Bible, he consults his intuition."

    1) Notice that GENEMBRIDGES has a canon because of the principle he repudiates.

    2) Notice that the early church only had an existence and a correct canon because of the same principle.

    3) Notice that for all the talk by protestants about "rule of faith", that term isn't in the bible. What is in the bible is 1Cor. 1:10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

    Whether you want to link it to "rule of faith" which isn't in the bible, the fact is we are commanded to take this approach to unity.

    "This begs the question over whether visible ecclesiastical unity is a quality of a true rule of faith. Where's the supporting argument?"

    If it's not, then dozens of heretical groups with and without their own scriptures have equal claims to the truth. What is unique about Catholicism is historical continuity and objective link with Jesus and the apostles.

    "Tell us again why an infallible Magisterium confers an epistemic advantage? Do Catholics not write commentaries, preach sermons, and claim an internal light?"

    But Catholics also have the trump card of being objectively the apostolic church.

    "it consequently never occurs to him that bad commentaries serve a useful purpose under the providence of God. Sometimes, they can even be used as instruments of reprobation:"

    So you don't know if you're influenced by instruments of reprobation or of salvation. Quite a conundrum. I hope you luck out in the end.

    "We divide because we believe there is room for diversity,"

    1Cor. 1:10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you

    "Attacking "Perspicuity" is a double edged sword, JJ. If that's a problem for us, it's also a problem for you, for you're essentially saying the Magisterium is more perspicuous than Scripture.

    a. That's blasphemous.
    b. It's ecclesiolatrous."

    So why have commentaries? Why have the NIV study bible? a. That's blasphemous. b. It's didacholatrous."

    "1. You only know it because it is written down."

    An assertion minus the argument.

    2. "It's up to you to document the existence of oral traditions, not us."

    There are over 3500 articles on the internet. Search them.

    3. "Paedobaptists, including Roman Catholics, use the Bible to justify infant baptism, so it must be written down somewhere, or do you deny the material sufficiency of the Bible?"

    Whether it is or isn't written down, doesn't prove that it must be written down or that I learnt it from something written down.

    "Did Luther use oral qua oral tradition?"

    Yes, in his attempts to identify the canon.

    "You aren't merely talking about the need for an interpreter, but an infallible, authoritative, intepreter. Try to follow your own argumentation. Any old fallible teacher won't do when it comes to the Scriptures, it takes an infallible one to do it, and one who is part of the Magisterium or in contact with it. That requires things like valid ordination, etc."

    Do you believe Philip was infallible in everything he said? If not, then his claim to authority with the Eunuch was his valid ordination.

    "What we deny is the notion that the text is so unclear that it takes an infallible interpreter to understand it, and we affirm there are reasons why a Eunuch with only Isaiah and no knowledge of Christ and the teaching of the Gospel to that time would not understand what this means with respect to his own salvation, for he was living under the Old Covenant at that time, which also meant, there was also a veil over his spiritual understanding too."

    1) Do you admit yet that the existence of the OT in the early church doesn't help your case? This sure sounds like such an admission.

    2) There is no reason to say he was living under any covenant. He wasn't a Jew or a Christian. In terms of chronology he was living in the New covenant.

    3) Whatever veil he may have had about interpretation was lifted by oral communication with someone from the true church. Not by someone with more scriptures, not by someone who had read more scriptures, but by someone with oral teachings.

    4) As in all these early church situations, the apostles didn't practice sola scriptura. They could hardly be teaching what they didn't practice.

    "And when exactly did they have the right to set up a new Levitical priesthood?

    1. The priesthood in the NT extends to all believers. They could set up a new order when the covenant changed by divine directive. "

    In other words, all those cases of Israel going astray did not invalidate the Levitical priesthood's authority right up until a special intervention of the Messiah.

    That puts in a very high standard of intervention before we should accept the existing authority over the people of God has been invalidated.

    "From whence do Rome's priests derive their authority as priests?
    Where does the New Covenant promise an infallible Magisterium?"

    First step is first, which is acknowledging an authoritative magisterium, just like you first have to acknowledge an authoritative Levitical priesthood. First you must admit that over all those millennia through good times and bad, the Levitical priesthood remained authoritative and not subject to being turfed out because of the latest interpretation of laity.

    "I asked you a question, answer it, JJ."

    Which question would that be?

    "How does this select for an infallible priesthood?"

    Again the obsession with infallibility. Let's start with authoritative and work our way to infallibility.

    "Can you understand how, where, and when to carry out the sacrifices from the text, or do you need an intepreter to do it? "

    1) What is your Pentatuch sola scriptura proof text?

    2) The sacrificial calendar depends on Ex 12:2. Is it referring to Egyptian months (where the Jews were living at the time) or Chaldean months (from where their patriarch Abraham originated)? Give an answer without oral tradition.

    3) After King Solomon had the Temple built, he sanctified the interior of the courtyard by personally offering sacrifices [1 Kings 8:64]. How could Solomon offer these sacrifices in the Temple when every indication in the Torah is that only priests may offer sacrifices? From where did Solomon know that a non-priestly king can offer a sacrifice to sanctify the Temple if not from an oral law?

    4) Elijah offered a sacrifice on Mt. Carmel [1 Kings 18:3-38]. However, the Torah forbids bringing sacrifices outside of the Temple [Deut. 12:13-14]. From where did Elijah receive permission to violate this prohibition unless he knew from an oral law that in his case it was permitted.

    "So, they didn't require an infallible Magisterium to define the canon. So what changed between the Old Covenant and New Covenant and the past to the present that we require it today to know what the canon is?"

    I said they did quite well without a dogmatic definition, but they did need the unity of church which the Magisterium provides in order to be able to discern the tradition. If the church had split apart into hundreds of denominations in the first century, all of which had equal claim to apostolicity, then the canon of heretics, gnostics, Marcionites, Bogomils, Manichaeans all would have equal claim to defining the list of canonical books, and there would be nothing resembling a canon, even prior to a dogmatic definition.

    "How do you know Luke is inspired?"

    Through the tradition of the Catholic church and the dogmatic statement of Trent.

    "I think there is reason here to think "JJ" is "Orthodox" masquerading as a Roman Catholic. "

    huh?

    ReplyDelete