Further discussion of Protestant conversions to Rome and Jason Stellman’s views over at Green Baggins have set me thinking about a curious feature of the Called To Communion paradigm (how do you like them apples?). Jason is trying to give a biblical account for Bryan Cross’ understanding of agape and he has challenged Reformed Protestants to show where Calvinism’s idea of imputation is found in the gospels or Christ’s own teaching. His point is that if Paul’s teaching on justification were so basic, you’d expect to see it in the accounts of Christ’s teaching and ministry.
My counter to this is that if Paul’s teaching is consistent with Christ’s, then Paul’s views of justification may very well be what he learned from Christ. Doctrinal development being what it is, you surely wouldn’t want to imply that Paul was making this stuff up. Jason says he’s not positing a red-letter edition of the Bible, or Jesus against Paul, but the tensions are there in his view. He can read Jesus through the lens of Paul or he can read Paul through the lens of Jesus. (Or you try to harmonize.)
Either way, this discussion has made me wonder if CTCers are guilty of their own form of deism. According to Cross’ idea of ecclesiastical deism, Protestants have no way to explain convincingly how the true church popped up after 1,000 years. So to counter the Protestant and Mormon view of church history, he doubles down and insists that the church was there all along. And to do this, CTCers put great emphasis on the early church fathers as a body of teaching that reflects what the apostles handed down to the church from Christ. Hence the continuity, authority, and infallibility of Rome’s teaching in the CTC paradigm.
But there is a gap here that is quite startling when you think about it. Consider three important Roman Catholics beliefs, the primacy of Peter, the status of the virgin Mary, and the authority of the papacy. You may be able to find biblical support for these in the gospels. But where do you find in Acts or the epistles a stress upon Peter, belief in the import of Mary, or signs of the bishop of Rome? The New Testament after the gospels is virtually silent on these matters.
So how do CTCer’s account for the gap between Christ and the Early Church Fathers? Do they suffer from a deism of their own? Did the Early Church Fathers all of a sudden pop up with the teachings found in the gospels after the New Testament epistle writers neglected them? Of course, CTCers will deny any gap exists. But two can play this game.
Old Life 
D.G.
Just seventeen days previous, you wrote:
When you want there to be interpretations, then “everything is an interpretation.” And when you don’t want to have to worry about interpretations, you just appeal directly to “Christ’s Word.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, huh? I still say Christ’s word needs to be interpreted and that it is infallible and authoritative. I don’t need to beam it up to the land of More’s Utopia for it to remain the infallible rule of faith.
LikeLike
Roman apologists seem often to assume that without an infallible church to offer infallible interpretations of an infallible Scripture and infallible Tradition, one is left in position of interpretational chaos and hopeless skepticism. Such a view is problematic not only because it falls into line nicely with postmodernist hyper-skepticism, but also because it is ultimately self-defeating. Even our Roman friends acknowledge that interpretations of Scripture can be fallible yet true, since they allow for various interpretations of various Scripture passages by Roman exegetes and will cite Roman exegetes whose interpretations of Scripture have not been declared infallible ex cathedra. Furthermore, even when it comes to the supposedly infallible interpretations of their infallible church, the Roman faithful cannot avoid exercising their fallible judgment in interpreting the supposedly infallible interpretations of their supposedly infallible church.
Scripture is the only infallible rule for faith and practice. An interpretation of the infallible Scriptures may be fallible (i.e., subject to the possibility of error) and yet completely correct and true. (The “possibility” of error does not guarantee the “certainty” of error.) Every day we fallibly yet correctly interpret many things, whether a newspaper article or historical document or set of directions for putting together a new bookshelf, etc. The fact that we must interpret Scripture, and that we are nowhere guaranteed infallibility in our interpretations of Scripture, does not thereby leave us in a position of hopeless skepticism without a supposedly infallible church to guide us. Our Roman friends do not solve the problem of fallible interpretation by relying on their “infallible” church. They only add the complicating factor that now they must exercise their fallible judgment in interpreting the supposedly infallible teachings of their supposedly infallible church.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: Roman apologists seem often to assume that without an infallible church to offer infallible interpretations of an infallible Scripture and infallible Tradition, one is left in position of interpretational chaos and hopeless skepticism. Such a view is problematic not only because it falls into line nicely with postmodernist hyper-skepticism, but also because it is ultimately self-defeating.
RS: It also replaces the work of Christ as Prophet by His Spirit with the work of men in the Church. We don’t have to have an infallible Church, we have an infallible Christ. We don’t need the infallible interpretations of men because we have the Spirit to teach us. We don’t need an infallible tradition of men because we continue to have the author of infallible Scripture (the Spirit) to teach us. While what you say (Geoff) is true, it is also true that Rome wants to walk by sight rather than by faith. It wants an infallible faith resting on an infallible certainty produced by infallible men rather than the work of the Spirit that God actually gives to those with faith. Rome’s way of infallibilty wants to lead men to trust in it rather than God. It wants the power to bind the conscience and to give grace as it sees fit rather than leave those things in the hands of God.
LikeLike
D.G.
Here’s the recap. In my initial comment in this thread, I pointed out that your “where’s that doctrine in these particular books of the NT?” question to Catholics presupposes the Protestant paradigm. You responded by asserting that the Protestant paradigm is superior [to the Catholic paradigm]. So I asked you “superior according to what standard?” And you replied, “according to the standard of Christ’s Word.”
So, here’s the dilemma. As your standard by which paradigms are judged to be superior or inferior, either you were appealing to the Word of God as uninterpreted, or you were appealing to the Word of God as interpreted through your Protestant paradigm. If for your standard of superiority you were appealing to the Word of God as uninterpreted, this contradicts your statements that “Everything is interpreted” and ” I still say Christ’s word needs to be interpreted.” But if for your standard of superiority you were appealing to the Word of God as interpreted through your Protestant paradigm, then you were using the standards of the Protestant paradigm to argue that the Protestant paradigm is superior to the Catholic paradigm, which simply presupposes precisely what is in question.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Dunno, Bryan. We only have Christ’s ascension described in Luke and Acts and his birth in Matthew and Luke, all the while Mr. Stellman pooh poohs Romans and Galatians on imputation/ justification by faith alone.
Oh, he’s not an official CtC understudy? The “I Fought the Church” was premature?
OK. Then I guess you are not responsible or answerable.
IOW those of us with inquiring minds and suffer from the effects of a completely fallible private judgement still goof up every once in awhile.
Thank you.
LikeLike
In Bryan’s piece on the “Tu Quoque” he has argued that Catholicism is true because the Holy Spirit has shown him that it is the church that Jesus Christ Himself has founded. We can’t say we Protestants have chosen in the same manner as he has because the Holy Spirit has shown him the true church.
To which I respond that the Holy Spirit has shown me the true gospel in Scripture which is best reflected in conservative Presbyterian & Reformed Churches. “30,000 denominations” is irrelevant to me because most of them can be wrong just as I believe Rome is wrong, just in different ways. Rome has a greater numbers of adherents than conservative P&R churches do but that doesn’t prove anything. A lot more Americans probably appreciate the music of Lady Gaga over that of Steely Dan but that doesn’t mean Lady Gaga’s music is better (it’s way worse).
If the criteria for who is right is what the Holy Spirit has shown us and not the Biblical text, history, and logic we will never really get anywhere going back and forth.
LikeLike
Bryan – You argue logic when it suits you and you argue “The Holy Spirit has shown me” when logic, the Bible, and history come up short defending Rome. Just admit you’ve made a leap of faith. That’s a humble admission we can respect even if we disagree with your conclusion.
LikeLike
Erik,
I would use your earlier response to Bryan to respond to Bryan’s circular statements and paradigms in this thread…it sounds like a cult.
I am still waiting for Bryan to respond to the example of the Barean’s receiving the spoken word from an apostle in Acts 17 but I am expecting an answer similar to the following…
“Ben, your reading of the passage in Acts 17 is an interpretation of the Scripture and therefore presupposes that you are able to interpret Scripture which proof I do not recognize as it simply presupposes what is in question. The church that Christ found here in Rome through the magisterium is the only infallible interpreter of Scripture and they have not interpreted this passage as the ability of Christians to interpret Scripture through the work of the Holy Spirit in them and so your interpretation of this passage is not true and therefore not one I can submit to or support…lots of other philosophical terms…Peace in…Bryan”
Are we still in the “Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceit” portion of Proverbs 26? If so, at what point do we move to, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him”?
LikeLike
Bryan, you may want to argue that my argument is circular, but then again that it the pot calling the kettle black. Still, I would rather be arguing in a circular fashion with books that even before your church (as if the Eastern Orthodox didn’t have some say in this) that the apostles and church fathers recognized as the word of God. In other words, I’d rather figure out the correct interpretation of Scripture than the correct interpretation of which interpretation of which dogma is or may not be infallible. If you think the Bible sits under the authority of church officers, you have a strange view of the Bible.
LikeLike
D.G.
Where, exactly, have I presented a circular argument?
None of this resolves the dilemma I presented above.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
No, Bryan, but the Holy Spirit does, which is exactly what has been left out in all the sloganeering about Ecclesial Deism etc. God can and does speaks authoritatively, infallibly and immediately in his word rather than being restricted to mediately in the infallible Roman pronouncements and sacraments apart from his word.
LikeLike
Bryan, I still have a dilemma. Granted. I don’t have epistemological or spiritual certainty. That is the nature of faith. But in your quest for philosophical comprehension, you don’t notice your own dilemma — which is that you too have to decide which church to believe and you have to interpret which church’s teachings are correct according to your judgment.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart wrote: “I don’t have epistemological or spiritual certainty. That is the nature of faith.”
GW: Careful about making too sharp a distinction between faith and certainty. After all, there is a legitimate certainty connected to saving faith, for that faith rests upon historical certainties. “Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us…that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.” (Luke 1:1, 4, NKJV)
LikeLike
Darryl,
That’s not a dilemma. You do know what a dilemma is, don’t you?
Of course I am aware that I have to decide where is the Church Christ founded. But subsequently, in determining the Church’s teaching, I’m not left only to my own judgment, picking and choosing that which fits my interpretation of Scripture, and rejecting the rest. Rather, the Church herself, having a living Magisterium, provides the criteria by which the respective authority of her various statements can be known.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, please tell me what a dilemma is.
Funny how you describe the church — the one who provides the critera by which the respective authority of her various statements can be known — we Protestants reserve that role for the Holy Spirit speaking through the Word. Once again, for you the church trumps the Word, and you put your trust more in the church than Scripture.
No straw man back talk please. Remember the peace of Christ.
LikeLike
Darryl,
A dilemma is a choice between two options, each with undesirable results.
<blockquote we Protestants reserve that role for the Holy Spirit speaking through the Word.
I addressed that in “Play church.”
No, that’s a straw man. Here’s my position: The divinely authorized interpretation [of the deposit] provided by the divinely authorized magisterium trumps all unauthorized interpretations of the deposit.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
A dilemma for the Prince of the Exegetes, who somehow couldn’t be bothered to do his thing when discussion of 2 Tim.3:15-17 came up over at the Bilbo the Environmentalist’s blog on the Argument for Popery.
If we are made in God’s image and he can’t speak to us perspicuously, than neither can we speak to each other intelligibly at all, never mind about God.
If we are made in God’s image and he can speak to us perspicuously than we can speak intelligibly to each other also.
Which means in either case the pundits over at CtC are out of work. For while one, they deny perspicuity to God’s written revelation in the Scriptures, they two, assume it for themselves. (And boy do they assume it, if you ever have tried to wade through some of the articles over there. That is, if you can stand all the sentimental cloying kitschy religious “art” and pictures of Jesus.)
IOW Romanism is epistemologically compromised. If God’s “Revelation” in Scripture is not perspicuous, then man lives in a permanent and terminal state of Babel and cannot even communicate with himself. We really wouldn’t be here hashing things out in a combox. It would be far worse, no matter how bad folks think it is with all the logic chopping and story telling by the Artful dodger hisself.
Two, Rome claims to believe the Scripture and accept it as an authority, only to turn around and contradict it in many places. That is, three, while Scripture is the only infallible, as well as sufficient and perspicuous authority, one of the ordinary perspicuous means is the medium of preaching of the word by one of the mediate authorities – the church – recognized by Scripture. The problem for Rome, is she wants to usurp her master and claim infallibility for herself, not Scripture. If as JI Packer put it, the Holy Spirit can be likened to a spotlight focused upon Christ, Rome puts the focus on herself and as infallible, externally doles out Christ, the Spirit and grace in ex opere operato sacraments, all the while mistaking the external and carnal for the spiritual and internal.
Oops, stay on topic.
The divinely authorized interpretation [of the deposit] provided by the divinely authorized magisterium trumps all unauthorized interpretations of the deposit.
How about the divinely authorized interpretation of the divinely authorized Scripture trumps all unauthorized and subordinate interpretations of Scripture.
Thus 2 Tim.3:15-17.
But that’s protestant question begging.
As if we aren’t seeing in all these arguments Rome’s private version of a round room where heresy can’t and doesn’t exist because there is no corner for it to sit in with its dunce cap?
ciao.
LikeLike
The dilemma, Bryan, is that you must either resort to private judgments; or else, you cannot choose which church is the true one.
Clearly the latter is unacceptable to you, but the former invalidates your whole edifice of criticism.
Clearly, you choose the third option: Resort to private judgments AND give yourself an exemption.
For you write, Of course I am aware that I have to decide where is the Church Christ founded. But subsequently, in determining the Church’s teaching, I’m not left only to my own judgment, picking and choosing that which fits my interpretation of Scripture, and rejecting the rest.
But you’re not out of the woods yet. For every single time that you run across a challenge to church teaching — perhaps you encounter a moral challenge to church teaching on birth control, or perhaps you read about “James, the brother of the Lord” and get annoyed that those translators still haven’t figured out that James was a cousin — every single challenge to church teaching has to be resolved by appealing to your own interpretations.
For either (a), you must interpret Scripture for yourself and decide that the church is correct; or (b), you must rehearse the arguments for the authority of the church and decide that church authority trumps the challenge.
The first relies on your own private reading of Scripture. The second relies on your own private reading of history and tradition. Either way, you are relying on your own private judgments again.
—
There’s an easier way to see all this. Your belief that the RC church is the true church is a fallible belief, because it rests on your own interpretation of history and tradition. It follows therefore that your knowledge of true doctrine can be no more certain than your fallible belief. You cannot bootstrap your certainty to any higher value than your weakest proposition.
LikeLike
Bryan, how is it a straw man when you don’t even mention Scripture in your denial?
I know, I need to learn logic from the divinely authorized magisterium.
LikeLike
Jeff,
That’s not a dilemma for me, because as I pointed out above, a dilemma is a choice between two options, each with undesirable results. Regarding the choice you present, I have explained repeatedly in many places, including both the “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority” and “The Tu Quoque” articles that determining where is the Church Christ founded depends upon private judgment, and cannot but do so. So my position fully embraces the first option, and therefore what you present is not a dilemma for me.
Darryl,
Because what makes a description of a position a straw man is that it is a weaker version of one’s interlocutor’s position than he actually holds, not whether or not he mentions Scripture in his description of his position.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
D.G. – “No straw man back talk please”
Bryan (in the next post): “No, that’s a straw man”
Nice…
LikeLike
Bryan is invincible. I propose him for pope.
But he’s not much of interlocutor, which sort of undermines that book versus person idea.
LikeLike
Oh heck to the no Darryl,
The Cradle Catholics are already cynical about the ‘magisterium’ can you imagine what they’d do to a Gestapo logician?! The Vatican would be broke within a month. Oh wait………
LikeLike
Bryan, perhaps you missed the second part of my post. Your first option is not as you portray it, a once-and-done use of your own reason, after which you may ride on the coattails of Church infallibility.
Rather, if you take the first option, you must continue to use your own private judgment either to interpret Scripture or to interpret history. You therefore really are in the same epistemic position as the Protestant.
Here’s the math.
How do I know P?
(1) The Church teaches P.
(2) The teachings of the Church are infallible.
(3) Therefore, P.
However, since (2) is not infallibly known, it is still possible that ~P. And if ~P, then ~(1) or ~(2).
You must therefore decide, on your own private judgment, whether (2) or P or ~P is correct. You cannot use (2) to affirm P in the face of the possibility that (2) is incorrect, else you are reasoning in a circle.
If you reaffirm (2), then you are resting on your private judgment of history and tradition.
If you decide independently of (2) that P OR ~P is correct, then you are resting on your private judgment of Scripture (This is where Jason currently is).
The bottom line is that “once-and-done” is not a realistic epistemic option. Or as the Confession puts it, to demand an implicit faith … is to destroy reason. Your first option is illusory.
LikeLike
Jeff,
And there’s the non sequitur, because you are equivocating on the term ‘private judgment.’ Making use of our own reason is something we must do throughout our lives, no matter what our religion or tradition. But from the fact that one must operate apart from a higher magisterial authority when first determining the identity and authority of that magisterial authority, it does not follow that one remains in the same epistemic position after one submits to that higher authority. For example, once one discovers that Jesus is the Son of God, and submits to Him, then one’s epistemic condition is not the same as those who have not yet discovered who Jesus is. After discovering and submitting to Jesus, one is no longer one’s own highest authority. There is one higher, to whom one submits, even when one does not understand why He says what He says. Again, I’ve explained this in much more detail in the articles referred to above.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
Actually, Bryan, a dilemma can also be any difficult or perplexing situation or problem. So yes, that was—and is—a dilemma for you, in that sense.
But this error of yours raises related, important questions:
You are aware that not everyone is a logician who uses words only in their original or technical sense, aren’t you?
You are familiar with the concept of the development of language, aren’t you?
LikeLike
………………………now as it regards ‘religious claims’, all valuation of the truth or veracity of such claims NECESSARILY, for you, has to be filtered through an infallible interpreter and even where it is found lacking or late in developing, it is according to your scheme, not an absence of answer, but a lack of need at the time, for formal development of a now contested doctrine but the ‘religous truth’ was ALWAYS there even if just in nascent form. In common parlance, we call this ‘convenient’ truth and memory. You call it an expression of faith.
LikeLike
RL Keener,
I’m well aware of the looser sense of the term, but what DGH described was not even a dilemma [in that sense of the term] for my position, because it is part of my position.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
You are one of the privaledged ones Rich Keener. Bryan actually answered your inquiry. Keep it going- are you well exercised in the logical exercises? Can you point out fallacies from the top of your head? Can this argument about a churches infallibility really be settled by logic? It seems like it can be but it is a highly charged and emotional argument with lots of consequences attached to it- like what is the Gospel? That is a pretty important issue.
Reformation and confessional (mostly) theology (Prots) rules until proven otherwise,
John Y
LikeLike
Bryan: Making use of our own reason is something we must do throughout our lives, no matter what our religion or tradition.
Exactly so. And the entire problem for your argument that sola and solo are one and the same is that you fault Protestants for using their reason.
We hold that Scripture is the authority. How do we determine what Scripture means? We don’t appeal to an authority, not even our own. Rather, we make use of rules of evidence (just as we do with other documents) and make our best effort at reading the Scripture. The end.
You take this process and say, “A-ha! By using your own reason, you are acting as your own highest interpretive authority.”
If the fact of using one’s own reason, of simply letting the neurons fire, is to be counted as “being one’s own highest interpretive authority”, then you are equally guilty.
Or if you are not guilty, then neither are we.
LikeLike
If the Catholics are right I will go out and have a good time for the rest of my life and take my chances that purgatory will be better than the Catholic church- If I even make it to purgatory.
LikeLike
Jeff,
True. But surely you know that that has never been our claim or a premise in any of our arguments.
No, that’s never what we have said. What we have actually said is readily available in our articles. My recommendation for avoiding straw men is to quote what I’ve actually written.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, just to follow up with Jeff’s point, you’d get a little further with Prots when you say “I came to see that the RCC is the church Jesus Christ founded” if you allowed us the use of our faculties you clearly allow for yourself. It’s almost as if you are saying “We RCs may use our faculties because we’re us, but you Prots can’t because you’re you.” If you want to say we’ve concluded wrongly, fine. But to tie our minds up and throw them into the unauthorized and illegit bin just because we don’t conclude the way you do seems like a great example of rigging the game.
LikeLike
It’s sort of a fascinating DILEMMA. We have a pre-commitment on the RC side to subordinate it’s reasoning, as it regards sacred tradition and scripture , to the deposit that’s already codified and superintended by the magisterium. And the Magesterium has officially ‘cut off’ it’s biblical theologians as an official arm of the magisterium and are in, what amounts to an ecumenical dialogue, with it’s BT’s to see if they can bridge the gap between their conclusions over the past 40 years and it’s confliction with the deposit. But, we want CTC to argue and exegete the scriptures with us. Bryan, I’d run if I were you.
LikeLike
While you guys keep trying to persuade Bryan I’m going to go out and evangelize the stray dog I see running around the parking lot. Same experience…
LikeLike
I think that’s his strategy — to keep us interacting with him instead of unbelievers, evangelicals, mainline Protestants, other Catholics, etc.
LikeLike
Actually, scratch that. If the Catholics and the Baptists leave all we will have to argue about is 2K, Theonomy, and the Federal Vision.
LikeLike
Sean, I know you have mentioned the problem of RC biblical scholarship before, but do you have any sources through which to follow the discussions?
LikeLike
Bryan: But surely you know that that has never been our claim or a premise in any of our arguments.
Do you allow for any other way to come to an understanding of Scripture, other than being one’s own highest authority, OR submitting to a highest sacramental magisterial authority?
If so, I’ve never heard you speak of it. If not, then the premise that “use of one’s own reason is equivalent to being one’s own highest authority” is a hidden premise in your argument.
LikeLike
Darryl,
The most recent stuff I’ve seen is from Andrew over at CTC. It tracks along what my experience was in seminary on the BT stuff
Here’s his link;
http://liturgyandlager.blogspot.com/2010/03/sacred-scripture-and-catholic-church.html
The higher-critical truck was driven through the VAT II provision for exegetes to ‘explore’ the influence of the apostolic author’s personal styles of writing and personalities themselves in evaluating their writings. Plus the positing of transcription even up to 200 years from the historical Jesus allowed for a robust RC sacred tradition and positing of ‘enthusiastic’ interlopers in the writings, all of which allowed for the ‘community of faith’ and the sacred tradition to actually trump sacred revelation. The CTC guys seem to reject the radical, Jesus Seminar types of HC, but are going to abide the robust ‘sacred tradition’ much less ‘community of faith’ now in the form of the magisterium to continue to guide and bound their understanding of sacred revelation.
LikeLike
Darryl,
The way this works on the ground now that you have 40 years of this fight, actually more, is they don’t crackdown on the conclusions of individual profs or priests or orders that are ‘contrary to what’s already in the deposit’ or even contrary to the magisterium so long as those conclusions are not made public. Obviously they want, sincere acquiescence to the deposit, but again Rome is a political animal as much as a religious one, so you have varying degrees of detente. Plus, the magisterium can’t turn over all the religious with one blow they gotta weed them out and try to raise up a new generation more in line with the magisterium.
LikeLike
Jeff,
That conclusion does not follow from your premises. Just because one must either be one’s own highest interpretive authority with respect to a text, or be subordinate to another interpretive authority with respect to that text, it does not follow that use of one’s own reason is equivalent to being one’s own highest interpretive authority.
Reason isn’t turned off when understanding and following the Father through submitting to the Person and teaching of Jesus. Nor is reason turned off when understanding and following Christ through submitting to His Apostles. Nor is reason turned off when understanding and following the Apostles through submitting to the bishops whom they appointed. So the use of one’s own reason does not entail that one is one’s own highest interpretive authority. But if one is subordinate to no other interpretive authority, then one is one’s own highest interpretive authority.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, you and I both know that I have never, once, appealed to my own authority as the ground of my beliefs.
Rather, I present evidence and argue from it. Sometimes my arguments are good, sometimes not, but the quality of those arguments has nothing to do with the fact that *I* am the one putting them forward. The quality of the argument is blind to authorship.
Now, we also both know that you characterize my position and method as ‘solo scriptura’, and have explicitly charged me with being ‘an individualist’ and ‘having myself as my own interpretive authority.’
I have presented to you only the exercises of reason (sometimes good, sometimes bad). You have characterized it as ‘having myself as my own highest authority.’
So yes, in the case of our conversations, you confuse the exercise of reason with ‘having oneself as one’s own highest authority.’
Please don’t dissemble here. It is clear that whenever someone exercises reason in any manner other than
(1) The Church teaches X
(2) Therefore X
(which itself is fallacious)
you characterize their arguments as ‘their own private interpretation.’
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’ll try one more time, and if I fail, I’ll give up.
I have never characterized the exercise of reason as having oneself as one’s own highest interpretive authority. I gave you multiple examples in my previous comment, in which persons are exercising reason, but are not their own highest interpretive authority. So, once again, my position is not that the exercise of reason entails having oneself as one’s own highest interpretive authority.
Rather, only those having no higher interpretive authority with respect to a text are their own highest interpretive authority with respect to that text.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, it’s true that “if one is subordinate to no other interpretive authority, then one is one’s own highest interpretive authority.” But how do you get that Reformed Protestants are guilty of this from a membership vow like this:
“Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government and discipline of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?”
Or officers who pledge the following:
“We promise further that if in the future we come to have any difficulty with these doctrines or reach views differing from them, we will not propose, defend, preach, or teach such views, either publicly or privately, until we have first disclosed them to the council, classis, or synod for examination.
We are prepared moreover to submit to the judgment of the council, classis, or synod, realizing that the consequence of refusal to do so is suspension from office.
We promise in addition that if, to maintain unity and purity in doctrine, the council, classis, or synod considers it proper at any time—on sufficient grounds of concern—to require a fuller explanation of our views concerning any article in the three confessions mentioned above, we are always willing and ready to comply with such a request, realizing here also that the consequence of refusal to do so is suspension from office. Should we consider ourselves wronged, however, by the judgment of the council or classis, we reserve for ourselves the right of appeal; but until a decision is made on such an appeal, we will acquiesce in the determination and judgment already made.”
Do these statements really look like those that conceive themselves as “subordinate to no other interpretive authority”?
LikeLike
Sean, thanks.
LikeLike
Bryan, please note: Jeff is trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. No snark, no personal attacks. And all he gets is the same response. His conclusions don’t follow from his premises (and this is a guy who knows math and probably has had to teach logic).
You’re not winning anyone over here.
LikeLike
As Reformed men we submit to the authority of our churches, to the authority of our creeds & confessions, and ultimately to the authority of Scripture. These are not enough for Bryan, however, because our creeds, confessions, and churches are invalid because they come from “unordained men” and our interpretation of Scripture is not enough because it is our interpretation. Without Apostolic authority which passes from Pope to Pope it’s no good. At some point, however, I think he needs to examine the evidence, historical and otherwise about Rome’s claims that Apostolic authority has been passed down. I would judge those claims based on historical evidence and the fruit that the church has produced. I am not an expert on the historical evidence so I can’t comment on it (although I think D.G. and others have done this). I would say that the main reason that the Reformation took place is that the fruit wasn’t very good. Tetzel, indulgences, nepotism, Priests having mistresses, and on and on. It’s not enough to say that Rome has authority because Rome says it has authority and has been saying it for a long time.
LikeLike
Darryl,
If in these cases you think his conclusions do follow from his premises, please show how they do so.
I do agree with you that he doesn’t lace his comments with ‘snark’ or personal attacks. And for that I am grateful.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike