QA with TurretinFan

In an earlier posting I asked for Steve Hays and TurrentinFan to answer a few questions.  I gather that Steve Hays is not going to answer these, but TurretinFan (hereafter "TF") did, sort of.  Let us look at what and how he answered.

Questions

Scott posed the following questions:

Now, how about the significant points from my response to Mr. Hays? Agree or disagree?

1) The teaching of satis scriptura is NOT sola scriptura.

TF:  I don't agree. Sola Scriptura reduces to Satis Scriptura.

So, even though TF disagrees, he's saying that sola scriptura reduces to satis scriptura.  So, in short they are not the same thing.  It would appear that TF agrees with me here, but doesn't want to SAY he agrees with me!

2) Sola scriptura is not taught in Scripture. Some Protestants will admit to this fact, will Mr. Hays or TurretinFan do so?

TF: I don't agree. Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture.

sw: OK, so WHERE is it taught?  Let's see if TF can become the FIRST Protestant to show us the teaching of sola scriptura IN Scripture.   Keep in mind TF, we're not going to accept satis scriptura or suprema scriptura - we want to see SOLA scriptura.   

3) Nowhere in Scripture will we find the listing (canon) of what should comprise the Canon of Sacred Scripture.

TF:  The listing as such is derivable, given that we have the books in hand. However, the listing as such is not. I guess that is a "disagree" as well, since I wouldn't use Scott's wording.

sw: Well, again TF appears to really be agreeing with me but can't come out and SAY he agrees with me!   In short, the listing as such does not exist - but since we have all the books in hand that listing is derivable.  Why not just point to the table of contents then!  You have that grouping of books primarily due to the Catholic Church compiling it for you (your canon is minus a few books, but that's not the point here).  Especially concerning the New Testament, why does TF's canon not include the Epistles of Clement, Shepherd of Hermes or the Didache?

4) Interpretation of an implicit teaching in Scripture is still extra scriptura.

TF: I don't agree - at least, I don't agree if "implicit" includes things that are properly derived from Scripture but simply aren't explicit in Scripture. It's not completely clear what Scott views as "implicit."

sw: Again we see that TF does agree, but doesn't want to SAY he agrees!  The point of the question is that ANY interpretation is really extra scriptura - whether or not it is properly derived is not part of the question - and irrelevant.  Even if it is "properly derived" the interpretation itself is not Scripture and thus is extra scriptura.

5) Steve resorted to the invalid argumentum ad hominem several times (and I appreciate the fact that TurrentinFan did not).

TF:  I'll leave that one for Steve to answer.

sw:  I can understand why TF would not want to answer this, for if he did he would have to agree with me again - and this time impugn his friend and co-blogger.

6) Steve seemed to confuse the Pentateuch with the Canon of the Old Testament, and I quote: "So from the time Moses wrote the Pentateuch until the Council of Trent in the 16C, the Jews were without a canon of Scripture." The Pentateuch refers ONLY to the first 5 books of Moses, also known as the Torah.

TF:  I disagree. The Canon of the Old Testament began with (the first book of) the Pentateuch and continued to expand as the Spirit inspired more and more books. It closed with the penning of the last book of the Old Testament. (Note that I am referring to the closing of the canon not the recognition of the canon.)

 sw: Again TF disagrees, but doesn't deal with the subject at hand.  Mr. Hays stated that "from the time Moses wrote the Pentateuch until the Council of Trent in 16C, the Jews were without a canon of Scripture." Let us be clear here, the Pentateuch is PART OF the Old Testament Canon, and by and large is the ONLY part of Scripture which Jews, to this day, consider to be "canonical" on the same level as most Christians consider the entire canon.  Jews accept the Torah/Pentateuch as essentially written by God.  The Prophets are almost "as inspired" as the Torah, and the Writings/History books - though somewhat inspired are nowhere near "as inspired" as the Torah.  Any way you look at it, the Jews had a canon - but not quite what Christians call a canon.

7) Scripture remains a PART OF Catholic Tradition. No matter how much Steve or TF would like to remove that from OUR Sacred Tradition, they cannot.

I disagree. It is (for Rome) made void through human tradition, just as it was for the Jews.

Clearly I was not asking if TF agreed with Catholic Tradition, but whether or not he agrees that Scripture remains PART OF Catholic Tradition.  It's a bit ridiculous for him to in one breath "disagree" with me regarding the Jewish canon, and then in the next breath state that "it (Scriptures) is made void (for Rome), just as it was for the Jews."  It appears he's stating the Jews really had no Scripture and the Catholics really have no Scripture because Scripture is made void through human tradition.  Again, it is a ridiculous to posit such an argument.  I repeat, I am not asking TF to agree with Catholic Tradition - I realize at this point he will not, but Scripture is most definitely PART OF Catholic Tradition, and the FACT that the New Testament Canon codified BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH in the late 4th Century IS the New Testament Canon which TF accepts.  When considering the FACTS surrounding this discussion, TF's statements are rendered utterly empty.

TF: I hope those answers help Scott.

-TurretinFan

sw: I hope my responses help TF see that being evasive and diversive are not good tactics when answering direct questions.  I do want to say again though that I appreciate his ability to disagree without resorting to name-calling ad hominem silliness.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

TF has chronicled this discussion here:  http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/01/scott-windsor-index.html

Non-Rube Goldberg Response

Response to Steve Hays

Rube Goldberg Prooftexting

I actually think Rube Goldberg machines are cool!  That being said, Mr. Hays accusation of "Rube Goldberg prooftexting" is without merit.  Even if it were true, a Rube Goldberg machine may be an overly complicated means of performing a simple task, BUT IT WORKS!  Mr. Hays attempt to insult backfires on him in more than one way.   Before you continue, enjoy this Rube Goldberg Honda commercial...

sw: “It's still A definition which is used by some Protestants.”

Steve writes: i) If Scott is attacking, say, the Reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura, then, at a minimum, he should cite a formulation of the doctrine from some recognized source, like the Westminster Confession, Turretin, &c. That would at least supply a respectable starting point.

sw: That was not an attack - it was an example.  The only point in bringing that one up was that there are extremes in the interpretation of exactly what sola scriptura is.  Hays does not contest this and is making more of that quote than I did.

Steve continues: For example, the Westminster Confession doesn’t use the word “only.” Rather, it refers to the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture.

sw: Though often touted by Protestants, the Westminster Confession really doesn't speak to "sola" as in "sola scriptura."  Certainly it speaks to "satis scriptura" or "suprema scriptura" but it doesn't preach "sola scriptura."   Words mean things - if you don't MEAN "sola" then why use the word "sola?"

Steve continues:  ii) Let’s also keep in mind that 16-17C theological formulations reflect the state of the debate at the time of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.

They were not designed to address or anticipate unforeseen or unforeseeable objections which might crop up at a later date.

sw: Words still mean things - if you don't MEAN "sola" - then don't SAY "sola."

Steve posits:  It’s possible that Catholic epologists like Francis Beckwith are raising a more specialized objection than traditional formularies take into account. In which case we’re at liberty to refine the formulation–if need be.

sw: So refine it all you want, but if you're using a standard which explicitly states "sola" then be consistent.  If it's the "sole infallible source for the church on matters of faith or morals," then there is no other source.   That's what "sola" means.   Words mean things.  So let's not try to make this a Rube Goldberg argument - just explain "sola" in terms of "sola" and then let's see how it stacks up.

Steve writes:  Francis Beckwith isn’t Robert Bellarmine. Polemical theology always adapts to the challenges of the moment.

sw: And Steve Hays isn't a Dr. Francis Beckwith or Dr. Robert Bellarmine, but he certainly is polemical.  We, as Christians, should strive to be less insulting and/or polemical in our apologetics and try to be more in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15-17.

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.
(1 Peter 3:15-17 NASB)

Continuing...

“Scott earlier responded: And? Here we sit waiting for the evidence to support this threefold allegation and...??? Silence.”

I’ve produced copious documentation concerning the intratextual, intertextual, and paratextual evidence for the canon of Scripture. This is in the public domain.

I’m not obligated to give Scott a private tutorial. If he presumes to oppose my position in studied ignorance of what I’ve already written on the subject, that’s his problem, not mine.

Remember, he initiated this debate, not me. He responded to something I wrote, not vice versa.

sw:  Well, if Mr. Hays wishes to "cop out" of this without substantiating the statement he made to me, then he concedes the point.  If Mr. Hays has indeed already responded precisely to the challenge here, then at least provide a link to the document he claims he's written.  He cannot expect those who challenge him to read every jot and tiddle he's blogged or published elsewhere.  Either he has a valid argument, or he hasn't - and thus far on this point, he has no argument, just an unsupported assertion.

sw: “Sure, some books are mentioned by other books, some passages can be identified as quotes from other passages - but there is no set list - nor is it even possible to establish one based on Scripture Alone.”

Steve writes:  Long on assertion, short on argument.

sw: At least I used complete a complete sentence.  I conceded that some books mention other books, some passages refer to passages elsewhere - but there's no set list or canon within the confines of Scripture - except in the Table of Contents, which was put there by the Catholic Church, initially.

Scott had written:  “Well, I'm sure you could come up with some sort of list, but not one with precisely 66 or 73 books in it.”

Steve replies: Of course, I’ve addressed the Apocrypha on numerous occasions.

sw: The point here was not the deuterocanonicals - the point, which Mr. Hays appears to have missed entirely, there is NO LIST of EITHER 66 or 73 books.  The statement was NOT about the deuterocanonicals ("Apocrypha" is polemical and inaccurate as the 7 books in question are not and never have been "hidden" - as "apocrypah" means - and remember, "words mean things!")

Scott wrote earlier: “That statement flatly denies the ‘sola’ in sola scriptura.”

Steve retorts:  i) Of course, that’s illogical. If Scripture itself has a doctrine of providence, then it hardly violates the primacy of Scripture to consider extrascriptural data which Scripture implicitly warrants.

sw: Again Mr. Hays does not seem to grasp the concept of "words mean things!"  Does "sola" mean anything, or was it just a catchy slogan to go along with other "solas?"  It must be noted again - everytime "sola" is emphasized, Mr. Hays argues for something OTHER THAN SOLA!  In this case he's arguing for the "providence" of Scripture and the "primacy" of Scripture - neither point can be equated to "sola."  THAT is my point.  Mr. Hays could just concede this point, as a few others have, and save some face.  The more he ducks, dodges and otherwise avoids - the more he gives me the opportunity to expose the diversionary tactics.

ii) For example, Scripture takes for granted the use of logical inference and sensory perception to process and interpret Scripture.

sw:  "Long on assertion, short on argument."

It’s not as though 16-17 theologians who hammered out the formulation of sola Scriptura ever intended to exclude those “extrascriptural” factors.

Sola Scriptura involves a more restricted claim than what Catholic epologists are straining to contrive.

sw: Interesting, I thought we were restricting the claim too narrowly to actually giving the word "sola" the meaning of "sola."  It seems the Protestant argument changes with the wind.

“Scott earlier said: I'm sorry, but the fact is you don't have to interpret every statement (beyond a linguistic level of interpretation). Certainly some level of interpretation CAN take place, even in very clear statements - like ‘thou shalt not kill’ - this can be taken many ways beyond the basic, ‘don't kill.’ Jesus tells us that if we are even just angry with our brother without cause, or if we call him a fool that we've already committed the sin against him and stand in danger of hellfire (Matthew 5:22). Now does this interpretation lessen that which is originally stated?”

Steve replies:  Well, that’s an ill-chosen example to illustrate Scott’s contention since, as one leading commentator points out, Jesus’ comparison is hyperbolic. Cf. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 200-202.

sw: With all due respect, I disagree that it is hyperbolic.  Why does Mr. Hays seem to be arguing for a lesser meaning to Jesus' words here?  Regardless, the point is that not every word of Scripture needs an in-depth interpretation - "thou shalt not kill" still means "do not murder."

Earlier Scott said: “That being said, let us not be diverted here! This discussion is about sola scriptura, a statement like ‘you're no better’ than we are is not a defense of sola scriptura (even if the statement were true).”

Steve said:  i) Scott is the one who’s diverting the discussion, not me. He does a bait-and-switch as he baits the trap with the allegation that sola scriptura is logically self-refuting, then switches to the claim that if sola Scriptura is implicitly taught in Scripture, then that’s subject to interpretation.

But whether or not it’s subject to interpretation is hardly equivalent to self-contradiction.

sw: Mr. Hays missed the point - interpretation is not part of Scripture.  The interpretation is extra scriptura - and thus if sola scriptura is the rule of faith - then this interpretation is outside the rule.

Steve continues:  ii) Let’s also keep in mind that I’m not attempting to defend sola Scriptura, per se. Rather, I’m responding to the specific objections of Scott. And I’m also doing my best to keep the discussion on track. The specific point at issue is whether sola Scriptura is internally inconsistent.

sw: As am I trying to stick to the internally inconsistent point.  Mr. Hays may disagree with my conclusion - but I am not drifting from the point.  False accusations get him nowhere.

Earlier Scott wrote: “I beg to differ. Reliance upon implicit teaching (the point Mr. Hays is responding to now) also relies wholly upon interpretation, whereas if it were explicitly taught - that leaves less room for variations of implication.”

Steve replies:  i) Keep in mind that I reject his assumption that sola Scriptura is self-refuting unless Scripture itself teaches sola Scriptura. That commits a level-confusion–by conflating a criterion with the objects of a criterion.

sw:  Mr. Hays needs to consider the meaning of the word "sola" and then IF that word is used to DEFINE the "sole rule of faith" - then Scripture should indeed contain THAT RULE!  If it does not, then we're not talking "sola," rather "satis" or "suprema" scriptura.  We can understand Mr. Hays NEED to hang on to the misapplied terminology, for those who invented and/or initially supported the terminology hung the very fabric of Protestantism upon the terminology!   Thus the modern Protestant apologist is left with just a "spinning wheel" to attempt to spin new arguments from an "old pot" - but that pot was dried, cured and broken long ago.

Steve continues:  Sola Scriptura would still be valid even if the Scriptural criterion didn’t name itself as the operating criterion, for (a) our source of information regarding a norm, and (b) the norm as a source of information, are two distinct issues. Even if a given norm were the only norm, that doesn’t mean the norm must be self-referential–as if a norm is also a norm for itself.

sw: Mr. Hays is essentially conceding my point and then attempting to establish that my point is not necessary for "sola" scriptura.  Obviously THAT is the point we disagree upon.  If Mr. Hays (et al) wishes to CALL their "sole rule of faith" something which it is not, fine - I am just doing my part to expose the internal inconsistency of the terminology.  Again, if they called it "satis scruptura" or "suprema scriptura" - my argument goes away.  It is the insistence upon calling it "sola" which makes the "rule" self-refuting.  I repeat, if it is the SOLE rule to go by and that RULE does not INCLUDE the teaching of SOLA scriptura - then to go OUTSIDE the rule for an interpretation is inconsistent with the RULE itself.

Steve continues:  ii) Assuming that implicit teaching is ambiguous, that cuts against Scott’s position, not mine.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that sola Scriptura is self-refuting unless Scripture teaches sola Scriptura.

If, however, the self-witness of Scripture is ambiguous on that point, then that would vitiate Scott’s argument. A self-contradiction is a logically stringent allegation. Any ambiguity would invalidate the allegation by introducing a fatal equivocation into the syllogism. If you allege a logical self-contradiction, then you have no wiggle room.

For Scott’s argument to go through, the onus is not on the Protestant to prove that Scripture unequivocally teaches sola Scriptura. Rather, the onus lies on Scott to prove that Scripture unequivocally fails to teach sola Scriptura.

That’s the only way for him to generate a self-contradiction (assuming that we even concede his premise for the sake of argument).

sw: Again, I understand Mr. Hays need to spin this and put the onus back upon me, but my position is in the negative - MY position is that sola scriptura is NOT TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE.  Thus, no matter how much he would like to "wiggle" and turn this back to me, the onus truly lies with the person holding the positive in debate.  I am not asking Mr. Hays to concede just for the sake of argument - but to concede in general terms as folks like R.C. Sproul and D.T. King have already done (both are quoted here).  If Mr. Hays is willing to join his compadres here, then we're done.

Scott said: “But, to the point - interpretation of implicit teaching is extra scriptura, yes it is based upon the Scripture at hand, but should not be confused with the actual Scriptures themselves. In other words this alleged implicit self-witness cannot be considered part of Scripture thus it is definitely related to the matter of sola scriptura being self-refuting.”

Steve replies:  Well, that’s just plain silly. The implicit self-witness of Scripture would be a part of Scriptural teaching–rather than something apart from Scriptural teaching. There is nothing extrascriptural about the implicit teaching of Scripture–as if the implicit teaching of Scripture is actually The Martian Chronicles.

sw: I did not say "scriptural" as in "relating to Scripture" - but Scripture itself, as per the definition of sola scriptura I have been working with (as James White professes:  "Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church").  Now if Mr. Hays is denying White's definition, let him say so and I will refocus upon which ever variant of sola scriptura Mr. Hays adheres to.

Scott asked:  “Is Steve saying he's never used 2 Timothy 3:16 in an attempt to support the sola scriptura invention of the 16th century?”

Steve replies: My position was never based on discrete prooftexting.

sw: Please just answer the question Mr. Hays!  I did not ask if your position is "based" in such, but have you NEVER used 2 Timothy 3:16.  You did not answer, you responded to something I didn't ask. 

Scott posits:  “If the BIPM did claim to be the sole standard and then WITHIN the BIPM it gave another standard - then yes, it would be self-refuting.”

Steve responds:  Really? Why would a sole standard have to name itself as the sole standard in order to be the sole standard?

This confuses our knowledge of a standard with what we learn from the standard. The fact that a standard (even a sole standard) is a source of knowledge doesn’t logically entail that such a standard must also be a source (much less the only source) of our knowledge of said standard. That, once again, commits a level-confusion.

I might use a ruler to measure plywood. The ruler might be my only standard of measurement. Does that mean my knowledge of the ruler must derive from the ruler itself? Am I not allowed to use eyesight to find the ruler?

sw:  Again Mr. Hays changes the subject.  The BIPM is not merely a ruler, it is a set of rules regarding measurement.  The BIPM defines precisely what it is - an international standard.  If there was unanimous consent on the BIPM (which there is not) then it could claim to be the unanimous consent for the sole rule of measure throughout the world - and if it had such distinction, I believe the BIPM would include that in their definition to "rule out" any other "rule" from valid consideration.  But we digress on the speculation of the BIPM regarding the FACT that it does not contain within itself that it is the SOLE rule of measure.  The introduction of the BIPM to this discussion only helps MY case for it is a perfect example of a NON-SOLA rule!  Certainly it is *A* rule, but it is not the SOLE rule.

As for Mr. Hays' ruler as his only source to measure plywood - here Steve, let me loan you my tape measure and carpenter's square, there's a couple more sources of measurement for you.

Scott wrote:  “Scripture itself tells us that Jesus empowered His first bishops with infallible authority and FURTHER states that He sent those bishops out in the same way He was sent out. Since part of the way Jesus was sent included the empowering of these bishops with this authority, then in order to be obedient to His Will and Command, they too would have to select bishops and empower them similarly.”

Steve replies: Only if we cater to his Rube Goldberg “exegesis” of the Catholic spooftexts.

sw: Mr. Hays dismisses where Scripture itself exposes ANOTHER AUTHORITY, and tries to brush it off as a "Rube Goldberg exegesis."  Mr. Hays fails here for at least two reasons - 

1) Rube Goldberg devices have a purpose and do work!

2) I *like* Rube Goldberg devices!

 

Scott wrote: “…as much as I was pointing out what is lacking and what has to be added to the ‘slogan’ to make it viable.”

Steve replies:  Which begs the question of whether something must be added to make it viable.

sw: If something must be added, then even the rule itself does not stand alone!

Scott wrote:  “Then I point out that if the ‘rule’ were valid - it would be found within itself - unless, of course we're accepting that sola scriptura is a fallible rule of faith.”

i) That fails to distinguish between a fallible or infallible rule of faith and fallible or infallible knowledge of the rule. To say that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith doesn’t entail that our belief in (or knowledge) of its status as the only infallible rule of faith must, itself, be infallible.

ii) And even if, ad arguendo, the Catholic rule of faith were infallible, this doesn’t mean that Catholics infallibly know their infallible rule of faith. So Scott’s objection can only undercut the Protestant rule of faith by undercutting his Catholic alternative.

sw: Again, trying to point back to the "Catholic alternative" is not a valid response to whether or not sola scriptura is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church.  
Now, as much "fun" as this bantering back and forth may be - it is time consuming and unless Mr. Hays feels there is a significant point in the text which followed, I'm stopping here.  If there is something in particular in Mr. Hays' response that I have not included, I welcome him to bring it to my attention and will respond directly to it.  Further bantering back and forth on tangential matters is not furthering this debate for either of us.  

I will summarize my points, and if Mr. Hays wishes to respond to just the summary below rather than point by point above, I invite him to do so.

Conclusion and Challenges:
i) Mr. Hays turns to the Westminster Confession of Faith - but the WCF does not teach sola scriptura either, as Mr. Hays rightly points out, it never uses the term "only" to define its stance on the Scriptures.  His concession is accepted.

ii) Where does "sola" fit into the "sola scriptura" definition?  Keep it simple, no going Rube Goldberg on us, OK?

iii) The interpretation of Scripture, while "scriptural," cannot be considered PART OF Scripture.

iv) If Mr. Hays, et al, wishes to refer to this "rule of faith" as "satis scriptura" or "suprema scriptura" - then fine - he concedes it is not "sola scriptura.  If he wishes to continue to cling to sola scriptura - then let him present a non-Rube Goldberg definition of sola scriptura - and demonstrate how, though that definition is not found IN Scripture that it is not a contradiction to the "sola" part of "sola scriptura."

v) (added Sept. 2021) - How does Mr. Hays explain away that Scripture itself points to ANOTHER INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY? (Matt 16:18 and 18:18).

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

EO RCC Papacy Debate

The Papacy Debate between Scott (Catholic) and Chris (Orthodox) is back on and back online:

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/

NASCAR Apologetics?

Welcome to the Dirt Track!

Patrick Madrid shared an interesting article today, and I thought I'd link through to that as well.

http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2010/01/nascar-of-catholic-apologetics.html

Now I'm not necessarily looking for someone to "crash and burn" - but "if it ain't bumpin' - it ain't racin'!" Check out the article - and if you feel like leaving a comment here, please do!

Scott<<<

Pope Working Toward Unity with EO

"The Pope Is the First Among the Patriarchs"

"With Benedict XVI, for the first time in history, the Orthodox have agreed to discuss the primacy of the bishop of Rome, according to the model of the first millennium, when the Church was undivided."

See full article here.

Please also continue to the comments section here for a discussion on ethnicity and rights of the rites in other jurisdictions.

In JMJ,
Scott

Response to TurretinFan on sola scriptura

TurretinFan (I don't know his real name, hereafter "TF") posted a response to my article responding to Steve Hays. TF divided his response into numbered sections, to which I will respond in kind:

1) The definition of Sola Scriptura

As for the definition of "If it's not in the Bible, don't believe it!" TF states that I know full well it is not the standard meaning of sola scriptura. I beg to differ! There is no "standard definition!" The definition varies from camp to camp and for some, "If it's not in the Bible, don't believe it!" IS the standard definition! Now I concur that among TF's camp that likely is not the "standard definition," and TF goes on to say, "it's neither what the Reformers meant nor what the Reformed churches today mean by it." The problem we have is that TF didn't provide us with the "standard definition," and left us to assume.

2) Distinguishing between the Doctrinal and Historical Aspects of Sola Scriptura

TF states that the "sola" aspect of sola scriptura is not so much a doctrinal claim as an historical claim." He points out that my argument against Godfrey and White, that their statements are to sufficiency and not to sola is due to the fact that I perhaps was unaware of the historical nature of "sola" in sola scriptura. TF goes on to explain that "the full sense of Sola Scriptura is the application of the formal sufficiency of Scripture to a time in which there are no other sources of direct propositional revelation: for example, a time when the prophets are dead and Jesus is ascended. TF seems to be unaware of my argument that Scripture itself points us to another infallible source! The bishops! Matthew 18:18 shows us Jesus giving infallible authority to the bishops as a group - that whatsoever the bind or loose on Earth is bound or loosed in Heaven. In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus gives this same authority to Peter alone (and noting this was two chapters earlier, Peter received this authority not only alone, but in primacy).

3) You're no better than us approach

I had made a point regarding the "you're no better than us" approach which Mr. Hays was utilizing. TF tries to defend his buddy, but cannot change the facts. TF seems to be conceding that the whole ploy was to undermine, and not so much to say it was a good defense or argument - only that it was to undermine what I said. I would call that a cheap debate tactic. We should be trying to represent the Truth - and not following every "if it might hurt my opponent, I'll use it" approach. TF uses an entirely straw man example:

Scott wrote: "This discussion is about sola scriptura, a statement like 'you're no better than we are' is not a defense of sola scriptura (even if the statement were true)."


What Scott seems to miss with that comment is the fact that the argument "you're no better" (if true) undermines the significance of the criticism. It's kind of like if a "Protestant" were to argue: "clearly your (the Roman Catholic) rule of faith is wrong, since the pope isn't God." The Roman Catholic response might be to say, "OK but the Bible isn't God, either." That response doesn't actually dispute the fact that the pope isn't God, it just demonstrates that the criticism is misplaced as a criticism.

i) Catholicism doesn't teach the Pope is God (TF knows this, and I know he knows this and was just using this as an "example" - but it is a misleading and wholly inapplicable example).

ii) I have not used an "OK, but the Bible isn't God, either" approach. I simply pointed out that the "you're no better than we are" approach is not a DEFENSE of sola scriptura. I stand by what I said.

4) Canon in Flux?

Regarding my point that for the first 400 years of Christendom the Canon of the New Testament was in flux. TF responds:
a) TF states "there weren't lots and lots of debates on the canon in the first 400 years." I didn't say there were "lots and lots" I only asked "why all the debates...?" The fact of the matter is there are SEVERAL different canon lists in the first 400 years. TF concedes "even when there were some discussions about the canon, there was widespread agreement as to the bulk of the books." I do not dispute that a bulk of the books were agreed upon! The FACT is there are differing canons! Some left out books, some added books and it would not be until the latter part of the 4th century that the canon flux was stabilized. These are facts that TF cannot deny, he may try to minimize them, but he cannot deny them.
b) In this point TF, after conceding there was some "flux" states, "The Canon itself wasn't in flux." Huh? Above he states there was "discussion" on at least "some" of the books, even if not the bulk - but no he's saying there wasn't any flux at all? Methinks TF needs to get his story straight. He then in this section again affirms the "flux" in saying, "The knowledge of the canon was more or less certain (generally progressively more certain as time progressed)." The objective reader here can see that "more or less" indicates a certain amount of "flux."

5) Scripture Does Not Contain Infallible Knowledge of the Canon of Scripture

In this whole section TF undermines the value of "infallible" in the definition used by White, and I would have to assume TF as well (since he cites White three different times in this section). Let me just blockquote a large part of this section:

Steve had written: "Why does knowledge [of the canon of Scripture] have to be infallible? What’s wrong with plain old knowledge?" Scott replied: "I was going with James White's definition which includes the term "infallible.""
This is another mistake on Scott's part. White's definition says that the Scripture itself is infallible. White didn't say that we obtain an infallible knowledge from Scripture (and certainly not an infallible knowledge of the canon of Scripture). Quite to the contrary, on one occasion White wrote:

Know for sure, or infallibly? I don't know the exhaustive teachings of the Bible. I don't have infallible knowledge of what the Bible teaches on *any* subject. But I do have *sufficient* knowledge of what the Bible teaches on the *central* subjects. The difference between infallibility and sufficiency is vitally important to recognize.

So TF is conceding, apparently for both White and himself, that Scripture does not contain infallible knowledge of the canon of Scripture. That satisfies my point! The canon itself cannot be infallibly known to Protestants for their "sole infallible source" does not, by TF's admission here contain "infallible knowledge of the canon of Scripture."

6) (TF reused 5 here) Canon Closure vs. Canon Recognition

Here TF again accuses me of confusion, where I have none. He also misstates the closure of the canon as being when the last writer wrote the last book when that is not true! The canon process took centuries to "close." Books by St. Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, etc. were included in several "canons" in the Early Church, yet were excluded when the canon process finally ended in the late 4th century. Then this closed canon was made de fide by the Council of Trent in the 16th century to end the discussion once and for all since protestors against the Faith had brought it up again. Trent didn't create a new canon and explicitly states the reference to that "as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition" (source). Whereas TF thinks I am the one confused here, I am the one using the word "canon" as it was used throughout the Early Church when differing bishops published their individual "canon" lists.

7) 1611 KJV and the Deuterocanonicals (called "Apocrypha" by the ignorant, including the translators of the KJV - these books were never "hidden" which is what "apocrypha" means)

TF points out that though the KJV did not separate the Deuterocanonicals into a separate appendix (conceding my point) that they were allocated to a section between the Old and New Testament and labeled "Apocrypha." I will yield that point to him, but he should be in mind that the original 1611 KJV also contained marginal notes, well, let me quote another Protestant source:

Regarding the Apocrypha being in the 1611 KJV, there should be no question. This is fact. Dispute it if you want, but that won't change things. Furthermore, in the KJV 1611 translation, there are marginal notes from the New and Old Testaments to the Apocrypha and vice versa. That should convince anyone who is open to truth how those translators felt about the Apocrypha, (source). (emphasis is NOT mine).

I don't think TF wants to seek much refuge in the 1611 KJV, in fact I was a bit surprised he defended it at all.

Now, how about the significant points from my response to Mr. Hays? Agree or disagree?

1) The teaching of satis scriptura is NOT sola scriptura.

2) Sola scriptura is not taught in Scripture. Some Protestants will admit to this fact, will Mr. Hays or TurretinFan do so?

3) Nowhere in Scripture will we find the listing (canon) of what should comprise the Canon of Sacred Scripture.

4) Interpretation of an implicit teaching in Scripture is still extra scriptura.

5) Steve resorted to the invalid argumentum ad hominem several times (and I appreciate the fact that TurrentinFan did not).

6) Steve seemed to confuse the Pentateuch with the Canon of the Old Testament, and I quote: "So from the time Moses wrote the Pentateuch until the Council of Trent in the 16C, the Jews were without a canon of Scripture." The Pentateuch refers ONLY to the first 5 books of Moses, also known as the Torah.

7) Scripture remains a PART OF Catholic Tradition. No matter how much Steve or TF would like to remove that from OUR Sacred Tradition, they cannot.

There were other points, but these should suffice for now and I would like to know how both Steve and TurretinFan responds to them with a simple (Agree) or (Disagree) before going into an explanation of why they agree or disagree.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

PS- I do not use "labels" of pseudonyms, if TurretinFan would provide his real name, I will add that to the "labels" section to make such responses easily searched for by his name.

Sola Scriptura Answering Steve Hays

On Triablogue a recent article I posted on sola scriptura is taken to task by Steve Hays (SH), so I will respond to it here.

The Supreme Judge of All Religious

Earlier, Scott said: “The real problem with defining sola scriptura is that there is no one, single definition by which all adherents to sola scriptura accept.”

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/01/sola-scriptura-self-refuting.html

Steve said: In which case it’s incumbent on the Catholic opponent of sola Scriptura to identify which version he’s attempting to refute.

Scott replies: And in my original article I gave examples, cited my sources - and that part is only partially mentioned next:

Earlier quote from Scott: “In the example I cited above ‘If it's not in the Bible, don't believe it!’ then this objection fits!”

Steve responded: That’s a straw man definition of sola Scriptura. I believe the sun rose this morning, although I can’t find that in Scripture. Does my extrabiblical belief in the sunrise refute sola Scriptura? No, since that’s not how sola Scriptura is formulated.

Scott replies: It's still A definition which is used by some Protestants, and I cited the source. Here is that quote again with citation:

"Regarding all things that pertain to faith and practice in the Christian life, and that pertain to living a life that is pleasing to God, if something is not found in the Bible, forget it. Don't believe it! In other words if the Bible doesn't teach it, reject it. And, if something is not specifically found in the New Testament, certainly don't practice it. It's that simple."

http://www.truthguard.com/if-it%92s-not-in-the-bible-forget-it-a11.html

Here's one that is quite different by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey:

"All things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand."

(http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html)

Scott continues: Note, in Dr. Godfrey's definition - there's no "sola" here - only that he believes all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught clearly in the Bible. His position does not negate that these things could be found elsewhere. In short, he is preaching "satis scriptura."

Here's an example of someone quoting one of James White's examples:

"If I am a store owner who can fully equip a hiker to hike the Grand Canyon and if I have the resources and abilities to provide everything he needs in the way of supplies, hiking gear, shoes, maps, food, etc., does it not follow that I am a sufficient source of supply for the hiker? If he has to go next door to another shop for a few more things, and then to a third shop for some things that neither mine nor the other shop had, then none of us are sufficient to equip the hiker. But if that hiker can come to my shop alone and get everything he needs to accomplish his task, then I can rightly call myself a sufficient equipper of a hiker of the Grand Canyon. In the exact same way the Scriptures are able to fully equip the man of God so that he is able to do every good work. No one serving God has to search about for other sources. The inspired Scriptures are the sufficient source for a person's needs in ministry."

(http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/02/sola_scriptura_continued_by_pa.php)

Scott continues: Again, what White is preaching here is "satis scriptura" - the sufficiency of Scripture - NOT "sola scriptura." In order for White's bicycle shop analogy to be validly an argument for "sola" - then his shop would have to have something no other shop has AND is necessary to hike the Grand Canyon. If I can get the same thing at another shop - his is not the "sola shop."

Now even though White was using that analogy to help explain sola scriptura, he does espouse a more concise definition which does say "sola:"

"Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church."

(http://vintage.aomin.org/SS.html)
This is clear and succinct - but it remains an assertion unsupported by Scripture Alone.  

Earlier quote from Scott: “Sola scriptura is not taught in the Scriptures, the canon of Scripture is not taught BY Scripture, thus without Scripture telling us which books should be contained therein, by this standard sola scriptura is
most definitely self-refuting.”

Steve replies: i) That overlooks the textual, intertextual, and paratextual evidence for the canon of Scripture in the canon of Scripture itself.

Scott responds: And? Here we sit waiting for the evidence to support this threefold allegation and...??? Silence. The fact of the matter is the Scriptures themselves do not contain any sort of canonical list of exactly what should be called Scripture.  Sure, some books are mentioned by other books, some passages can be identified as quotes from other passages - but there is no set list - nor is it even possible to establish one based on Scripture Alone.  Well, I'm sure you could come up with some sort of list, but not one with precisely 66 or 73 books in it.

Steve continues: ii) Moreover, Scripture also has a doctrine of providence. It’s not unscriptural to consider external (as well as internal) lines of evidence.

Scott replies: That statement flatly denies the "sola" in sola scriptura. Whereas I agree it's not unscriptural to consider external sources - once you go extra scriptura (beyond Scripture) you're not talking about a doctrine of Scripture Alone.

Earlier quote from Scott: “The problem with relying on implicit teaching
is that reduces the definition to a matter of interpretation.”

Steve responded: i) Of course, one also has to interpret the church fathers, catechisms, papal encyclicals, conciliar canons and decrees, &c. So that objection either proves too much or too little.

Scott replies: I'm sorry, but the fact is you don't have to interpret every statement (beyond a linguistic level of interpretation). Certainly some level of interpretation CAN take place, even in very clear statements - like "thou shalt not kill" - this can be taken many ways beyond the basic, "don't kill." Jesus tells us that if we are even just angry with our brother without cause, or if we call him a fool that we've already committed the sin against him and stand in danger of hellfire (Matthew 5:22). Now does this interpretation lessen that which is originally stated? No, not at all! That being said, let us not be diverted here! This discussion is about sola scriptura, a statement like "you're no better" than we are is not a defense of sola scriptura (even if the statement were true).

Steve continues: ii) Moreover, Scott has strayed from the issue at hand. The question at issue is whether sola Scriptura generates an internal contradiction.  To say that if the Scriptural self-witness to sola Scriptura is implicit, this reduces the definition to a matter of interpretation is irrelevant to the claim that sola Scriptura is self-refuting. Those are two entirely different ideas.

Scott replies: I beg to differ.  Reliance upon implicit teaching (the point Mr. Hays is responding to now) also relies wholly upon interpretation, whereas if it were explicitly taught - that leaves less room for variations of implication.   But, to the point - interpretation of implicit teaching is extra scriptura, yes it is based upon the Scripture at hand, but should not be confused with the actual Scriptures themselves.  In other words this alleged implicit self-witness cannot be considered part of Scripture thus it is definitely related to the matter of sola scriptura being self-refuting.

Earlier quote from Scott:“For example, many Protestant apologists will turn to 2 Timothy 3:16.”

Steve dismisses: Since that was no part of my argument, it’s beside the point.

Scott replies:  I used that as an example, I did not say it was part of Steve's argument.  Is Steve saying he's never used 2 Timothy 3:16 in an attempt to support the sola scriptura invention of the 16th century?

Jumping to an example Steve used (which was not part of my argument, so should I be able to just dismiss it as he did?) Scott earlier replied :“The problem we'd have with this logic is that while the BIPM may be a standard of measure it is not the sole standard of measure.”

Steve replies: And suppose the BIPM was the sole standard of metrics. Would that render it self-refuting? How?

Scott responds:   The BIPM is not the sole standard, so again - the point is rather moot.  The BIPM does not claim to be the sole standard.  If the BIPM did claim to be the sole standard and then WITHIN the BIPM it gave another standard - then yes, it would be self-refuting and, drawing this back to the point, Scripture itself tells us that Jesus empowered His first bishops with infallible authority and FURTHER states that He sent those bishops out in the same way He was sent out.  Since part of the way Jesus was sent included the empowering of these bishops with this authority, then in order to be obedient to His Will and Command, they too would have to select bishops and empower them similarly.

Earlier, Scott said: “Again I would have to reiterate that when one hears ‘sola scriptura’ the next question has to be "which definition are you going by?’"

Steve replies: That’s a good question. And it’s a question that a Catholic apologist needs to answer for himself before he tries to attack sola Scriptura.

Scott responds: So, is asking a question about sola scriptura an "attack?"  That being said, that's part of why I brought up the question in this exchange.  If Steve feels I am somehow misrepresenting his particular view of sola scriptura then he is free to provide a clear and concise definition and we can proceed from there.

Earlier Scott said: “The phrase alone is not self-explanatory or self-defining.”

Steve replies: That’s because “sola scriptura” is a slogan. One of the fallacies which Catholic apologists are prone to is to generate a contradiction on the verbal basis of a slogan. But the slogan “sola Scriptura” is not a definition of “sola Scriptura.” It’s just a label.

Scott responds: Which is why I am providing examples of definitions from the sources which profess them.  I'm not making this stuff up.  Again, if Mr. Hays would like to provide HIS definition then I'd be happy to deal with his particular variation of the "slogan."

Earlier Scott said: “The other definition, that from James White ‘Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church." Again, sola scriptura, alone, doesn't teach us anything beyond "Scripture Alone’ - White needs to add ‘infallible rule of faith for the Church’ to give some sort of definition to it. Now for that rule to be valid, we should expect that that rule exists within Scripture - and for that matter - how does one even KNOW what Scripture is?”

Steve posits: A disappointed “expectation” is hardly equivalent to a logical self-contradiction. Notice the inability of some Catholic apologists to even focus on the issue at hand.

Scott responds: On this point I was not pointing out the contradiction as much as I was pointing out what is lacking and what has to be added to the "slogan" to make it viable.  Then I point out that if the "rule" were valid - it would be found within itself - unless, of course we're accepting that sola scriptura is a fallible rule of faith.   Does Mr. Hays concede that?

Earlier Scott said: “The teaching of sola scriptura does not exist in Scripture…”

Steve comments: Notice how Scott is building on tendentious premise.

Scott replies: Notice how Steve appears to be avoiding the criticism.

Scott wrote earlier: “And to KNOW what Scripture is - we have to go with some OTHER SOURCE and if we don't trust that source to have infallibly declared the Canon of Sacred Scripture, then we don't really have infallible knowledge of exactly what constitutes Scripture!”

Steve does not respond, but diverts: i) Of course, that only relocates the (alleged) problem. For we’d then need to have infallible knowledge of the one true church.

Scott replies: Continuation of the logic is not a relocation of the problem.  However, if Mr. Hays would like us to focus solely upon the matter of self-contradiction, I would be happy to do so.  However, if Mr. Hays wishes to remain so focused then I would ask he not further challenge me with follow-up questions. 

Steve continues: ii) Did OT, Intertestamental, and 2nd Temple Jews not know what Scripture was before Trent “infallibly” defined the canon in the 16C?

When Jesus, the apostles, and NT evangelists appeal to Scripture in their debates with 1C Jews, are they citing something of which 1C Jews were ignorant?

Scott responds to Steve:  I do not and have not challenged the knowledge of OT Jews and/or NT Catholic evangelists who debated with first century Jews.  This is a red herring.  I asked about how WE know what Scripture is.  For nearly the first 400 years of Christendom the Canon of the New Testament was in flux.  If it were so clear, why all the debates on the canon?

Steve continues the point with:  iii) Why does knowledge have to be infallible? What’s wrong with plain old knowledge?

Scott replies:  I was going with James White's definition which includes the term "infallible."  Do you object to White's definition?

Steve continues:  iv) Most importantly, Scott has once again drifted from the issue at hand. Whether or not we have “infallible knowledge” of the canon is completely irrelevant to the question of whether sola Scriptura is self-refuting.

Scott replies:  Mr. Hays, if you do not wish to answer the logical progression of the argument, fine - stick to what you perceive to be the only logical discussion.  When you go into asking follow-up questions to the logical progression and then criticize the progression is a bit of a double-standard.  Pick your battle.  If you wish to remain focused on a tunnel vision approach, fine - you lose because Scripture itself points to ANOTHER infallible source of teaching in the authority of the bishops to bind and loose whatsoever they choose to bind or loose.  So much for "sola."

Steve adds: Notice how consistently illogical Catholic apologists like Scott show themselves to be.  That’s in large part because they rely on pat objections to the Protestant rule of faith. They are unable to adapt to any argument that doesn’t dovetail with their pat objections.

Scott responds: Notice how Steve utilizes the illogical/invalid (common fallacy) approach of switching to ad hominem.  He's not challenging anything specific in what I said - but is attacking me personally.  Back to the point - if sola scriptura weren't so easily defeated we wouldn't have "pat objections" and one such objection is the fact that it is self-contradictory especially when we consider, as has already been pointed out, Scripture itself reveals another infallible authority in Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18.

Scott asks:  “So, if the canon is closed - who closed it?”

Steve replies:   The Bible writer who wrote the last book of the Bible closed the canon–by writing the last book of the Bible.

Scott responds: That would be fine and good - but we're missing something here, oh yes, where that writer of the last book of the Bible actually closed the canon.  It overlooks the fact that throughout the first nearly 400 years of the Church the New Testament canon was anything but closed.   Mr. Hays position is historically untenable.

Scott previously asked:  “Does Scripture itself, anywhere, list all the books which should be contained therein?”

Steve responds:  Of course, that’s a simple-minded objection. To begin with, there’s an elementary distinction between having a preexisting list, and having the raw materials to generate a list.

Scott replies: Except of course if it were true what Mr. Hays said earlier, that "the canon was closed by writer of the last book of the Bible," at that point in time all the "raw materials" would have been available to generate this list - but he (that would be St. John) never put together such a list for us.

Scott wrote earlier: “The truth of the matter is that for the first four hundred years of the Church the canon was not set…”

Steve replies:  i) Trobisch has argued on text-critical grounds that the NT canon was standardized in the mid-2C AD. For a useful summary and evaluation of his argument, see the discussion by Kellum, Quarles, and Kostenberger in their recent intro. to the NT.

Scott responds: So now Mr. Hays posits the canon was not closed when the writer wrote the last book, and does not even put forth evidence it was "closed" but that it was "standardized" in the second century A.D.  I suppose we can accept that as concession of the earlier point.

Steve continues:  ii) Freedman has argued that (except for Daniel), the OT was standardized c. 5C BC.  And Sailhamer has supplemented Freedman’s analysis by arguing for the pivotal role of Daniel in the canonization of the OT (in The Meaning of the Pentateuch).

Scott replies: So now we've extended the canon process out to the 5th century A.D., which is beyond what I have asserted (the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo toward the end of the 4th century "standardized" the canon then).

Steve continues:  iii) Scott is also confusing internal evidence for the canon with various forms of ecclesiastical recognition.

Scott replies:  Mr. Hays does not seem to understand what a "canon" is.  A "canon" is an ecclesiastical form of recognition of a standardized list.  Scripture does not provide this list.

Scott wrote earlier:  “And then when it was set that same authority which set the New Testament Canon set the Old Testament Canon with seven more books than the Protestant Bibles have.”

Steve replies:  i) So from the time Moses wrote the Pentateuch until the Council of Trent in the 16C, the Jews were without a canon of Scripture.

Scott responds:  Steve seems to think the Pentateuch (penta = 5) comprises the entire canon of the Old Testament.  The Pentateuch refers to the first 5 books of Moses.   But, as far as that goes, even to this day, the Jews would consider the Pentateuch to be at the same level of inspiration as Christians consider the entire Bible to be.  For Jews the rest of the books, though inspired are not "as inspired" as the Books of Moses.   That being said, the Jews had at least two canons at the time of Jesus and the Apostles - and didn't decide upon rejection of the Septuagint until sometime after Christendom had begun - in case you hadn't noticed, the Jews were no longer in a place to decide upon God's Word - that baton had been passed to Jesus' bishops.

Steve illogically states:  ii) What is even worse for Scott, popes, Latin Fathers, and Roman Catholic bishops didn’t even know what Scripture is until the ink was dry on text of Trent.

Scott replies:  I have already stated that the canon was established in the late 4th century by at least three local councils.   Every Catholic Bible from that time forward used the canon used by St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate.   The Council of Trent did not invent something new, it defined for the Church that which it had already accepted for the past 1100 years as canonical.  I repeat, Trent did not establish the canon - it defined the canon.

Scott wrote earlier:  “Logically speaking, if you're trusting THAT authority for the Christian New Testament, then why turn to a DIFFERENT authority for the Christian Old Testament?”

Steve replies:  i) Needless to say, that disregards Jewish evidence for the Hebrew canon. A good place to start is Roger Beckwith’s standard monograph on the subject.

Observe the consistently anachronistic perspective which Catholic apologists take in relation to the canon.

Scott replies:  But let's read just a few lines later and what do we find?   Oh, Mr. Hays is saying it was Philo, Josephus and Ben Sira, et al who were the authorities which decided upon the Jewish canon.  If anyone doesn't know - these are Jews during the Christian era.

Steve continues:  ii) Moreover, the question of who or what we “trust” is irrelevant to whether or not sola Scripture is logically self-refuting. Scott keeps advertising the inability of Catholic apologists to focus on the issue under review.

Scott replies:  Steve continues to advertise that he will continue to respond to what he considers side-topics and then criticize the continued discussion.  Again, Mr. Hays should decide ahead of time if he's going to allow for logical progression of a position and discuss it, or if he's going to restrict the discussion to just the original premise.  Again, I would have no problem with him stating he would not respond to what he considered to be side topics.  That would have shortened this response exponentially.  If Mr. Hays engages the subjects then he is giving tacit approval to the appropriateness of the discussion and has no room for complaint (which is starting to sound a lot like whining).

Scott wrote:  “Ironically, the authority Protestants turn to for the Old Testament is that of those who had Jesus put to death as an imposter and false prophet.”

Steve replied:  i) Well, you learn something new every day. I didn’t realize until now that Philo, Josephus, Ben Sira et al. were members of the Sanhedrin when Jesus was condemned to die.

Come to think of it, Freedman has argued that Ezra was instrumental in the canonization of the OT. It would be ironic if the authority that Protestants turn to for the OT is a Christ-killer like Ezra. Oh, well.

Scott responds:  It is undeniable that Jesus was put to death by the Jews as an impostor and false prophet.  It would be those who rejected the completion of the Old Covenant who would eventually decide upon the "canon" (they don't use that terminology) of Scripture.  Keep in mind, they, those who rejected the Old Testament canon used by the Christians also reject the entire New Testament.  I am content to let the objective reader consider what that is worth.

Steve continues:  ii) It’s also revealing when Catholic apologists take refuge in Jew-baiting rhetoric as their last resort. But that’s consistent with the grand tradition of Catholic anti-semiticism.

Scott chuckles:  "Last resort?!"  Mr. Hays, I've not yet begun to fight!  That being said, I am not the one who introduced anti-Semite polemical adjectives here.  I simply stated facts and Mr. Hays is using terms like "Jew-baiting" and "Christ killers."  Again, the objective reader can decide for themselves who is being antisemitic.  

Scott wrote:  “(Even) though there were some disputes on the canon, St. Jerome for example argued for the deuterocanonicals to NOT be counted as canonical - however in HIS CANON, the Latin Vulgate, those books are indeed included. Why are they included? Because he yielded to due and proper authority.”

Steve replies:  So when push comes to show, ignore the evidence and go with the papacy.

Scott responds:  When push comes to (shove), we do turn to the authority Jesus Christ left to "Feed (His) Sheep," yes.  That being said, I'm not ignoring evidence here at all.

Scott wrote earlier: “Every authorized Bible from that time forward contains the deuterocanonicals.”

Steve retorts:  Authorized by the papacy? A nice, circular appeal.

Scott responds:  It's just a statement of fact, Mr. Hays.  Even many of the earliest Protestant Bible still included them.

Earlier, Scott said:  “It would not be until the time of Protestantism in the 16th century that some translations would be published without them.”

Steve replies:i) A circular appeal to tradition to validate tradition.

ii) It also disregards dissention over the scope of the canon when Trent was convened.

Scott replies:  There is nothing circular about stating the fact that it would not be until the time of Protestantism in the 16th century that some translations would be published without the deuterocanonicals.  This also does not disregard the dissension, largely among Protestants, when Trent was convened and is precisely why Trent addressed the issue with a dogmatic definition to end the debate among faithful Catholics who may have been influenced by protesting heretics of the day.

Earlier Scott wrote: “Even the initial King James Version includes the deuterocanonicals - without putting them in a separate appendix, that would come later - and then later still they would be left out entirely.”

Steve replies: Anglican editions of the Bible were subject to whatever royal policies prevailed at the time.

Scott responds: The King James Version was "the authorized version" for nearly all of Protestantism for quite some time - and remains so by large groups.   The point remains, the original KJV included the deuterocanonicals without distinguishing them into a separate appendix or total removal of them - both of these changes did happen to the KJV, but not immediately.

Steve adds:  iii) Once again, this is all irrelevant to whether or not sola scriptura is self-contradictory.

Scott reminds the reader:  If it is something Mr. Hays wishes not to discuss, he can choose to stick to only the subject he wishes to discuss!   By engaging the discussion he nullifies his complaint.

Earlier Scott wrote:  “Hays here oversimplifies the ‘Catholic rule of faith’ and then makes it dependent upon the Protestant rule of faith for validity. His argument is flawed to the core. First off, the Catholic Faith (and thus rule) existed long before there ever was a Protestant rule of faith, and long before anyone ever heard of sola scriptura. Thus to begin with Hays assertion is wholly anachronistic. Secondly, Catholics do not base their acceptance of the authority of the Church based on the consequences of accepting the Protestant rule of faith. Catholics accept the authority of the Catholic Church because Jesus Christ established the Church Himself and even the book which Protestants hold so high affirms this truth! It must be noted as well, the Catholic Church does not receive this authority from Scripture, she received it directly from Jesus Christ - and Scripture just happens to record this granting and transfer of power.”

Steve replies:  I could comment on the specifics, but it’s sufficient to point out that this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I was responding to the aprioristic framework of Catholic apologists like Cardinal Newman and Michael Liccione. Once more, Scott is constitutionally unable to wrap his head around the actual state of the question.

Scott responds:  I can understand why Mr. Hays would avoid this point entirely because it destroys his premise.   He stated the Catholic "rule of faith" was dependent upon the Protestant "rule of faith" for validity.  His premise is so anachronistically flawed it is laughable.  I find it ironic that I responded directly to HIS POINT and now I am accused of presenting a statement "irrelevant to the issue at hand."

Earlier Scott wrote:  “Well, first off, Hays is building upon the faulty premise we've already exposed here, but the fact of the matter is - the Catholic rule of faith IS self-referential!”

Steve responds:  Even if we credit that tendentious claim for the sake of argument, it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand. The a priori argument we find in Newman and Liccione doesn’t require the Catholic rule of faith to be self-referential.

It would really behoove a Catholic apologist like Scott to acquire a modicum of mental discipline.

Scott replies:  Whether or not Newman or Liccione required the Catholic rule of faith to be self-referential is what is truly irrelevant to the overall point Mr. Hays is trying to make.   Scripture remains PART OF Catholic Tradition - so as much as he'd like to claim Scripture for his own rule of faith and eliminate it from ours - he can't do it. 

I also note Mr. Hays engaging in ad hominem again, which is irrelevant to the subject at hand and will not be dignified by a response from me beyond pointing out the common fallacy he has engaged upon.

Earlier Scott wrote:  “Scripture is PART OF the Catholic Faith and Scripture records Jesus giving His Church this infallible authority (Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:18).”

Steve retorts, but does not answer:  i) I’m well-acquainted with Catholic spooftexting. I’ve responded to that on many occasions.

Scott responds:  Whether or not Mr. Hays has responded to this before is irrelevant to this discussion/debate.   If one chooses to engage, then engage - dismissing an argument on the grounds one has responded to it before is an invalid response.   Mr. Hays and I have not directly engaged each other previously (that I am aware of) so he does not get a pass on previous responses - especially when he does not even directly cite a single one of them, which would be rather easy to do in this online environment.  

Steve continues:  ii) I appreciate Scott’s tacit endorsement of the perspicuity of Scripture. Of course, that renders the Magisterium superfluous.

Scott responds:  "The Magisterium" is not the subject of this debate.  The point was that even by Mr. Hays' "rule of faith" - his premise is exposed as self-contradicting in the fact that Scripture reveals ANOTHER infallible authority.  Ignoring this fact does not make it go away.

Earlier Scott wrote:  “Thus in Hays haste, he seems to overlook this fact which utterly destroys his comparison.”

Steve replies:  My comparison was drawn from the a priori type of argument we find in Catholic apologists like Newman and Liccione. They don’t adduce verses from Matthew to make their case.

Scott responds:   Whether or not Newman and Liccione "adduce verses from Matthew to make their case" is irrelevant to the fact that I have done so - and that the verses from Matthew utterly prove my case against Mr. Hays premise.   Sola scriptura IS self-refuting based on the FACT that Scripture itself points to another infallible authority.

Earlier Scott wrote:  “Again, the Catholic argument is not simply axiomatic nor a priori, in fact Hays himself states that Catholicism bases her argument on the consequences of accepting the Protestant argument - which by default would make his argument for Catholicism an a posteriori argument! Neither is the Catholic argument axiomatic (self evident) for as we have seen, it is supported by Scripture - the source Protestants accept as authoritative!”

Steve retorts with more ad hominem:  What is Scott’s problem, exactly? Is he just too dense to follow the argument, even when I explicitly identify the referent? I’m addressing the a priori type of argument for the Catholic rule of faith which we find in apologists like Newman and Liccione.

The whole point of an a priori argument is that it doesn’t require a posteriori supplementation. Rather, it has to stand or fall on its own terms.

Scott replies:  Again noting Mr. Hays aversion to invalid argumentation ad hominem.   I am not overly concerned with Mr. Hays "referent" of Newman and Liccione - rather the FACT, which he has yet to dispute, that Scripture itself identifies ANOTHER infallible authority thus rendering the concept of SOLA scriptura (as the SOLE infallible rule of faith for the Church) self contradictory.  So looking at the overall picture - Mr. Hays argument falls on its own terms.

Earlier Scott wrote:  “No Mr. Hays, it is not just because the Protestant rule of faith contains the word "only" and ours does not. Yes, that would be superficial and a foolish reason to base ones acceptance or rejection of a rule of faith. You present no Catholic making such an argument, you're merely inventing this argument and throwing it at the wall to see if it sticks - well, it doesn't. All you've done is establish a straw man and then proceed to knock it down.”

Steve replies:  Really? Catholics don’t regard their own rule of faith as the only true rule of faith?

Scott responds:  Mr. Hays totally ignores the fact that he's built up a straw man argument (one of the common fallacies of debate) and then proceeds to knock it down.  The FACT is that "sola scriptura" is the claim that Scripture ALONE is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, if he does not agree with this definition - then I encourage him to let us know what is the particular variation of sola scriptura he adheres to.   This debate is NOT about whether or not the Catholic Church preaches a "sola" - and the POINT here is that Catholics do not adhere to a SINGLE rule of faith unless one wishes to engage the term of "sola ecclesiam" which is NOT a single rule - but a combination of rules to lead, guide and govern God's People (the Church).

Earlier Scott wrote:  “Clearly Mr. Hays has not examined the Catholic objections objectively and the only muddleheaded verbal tricks we see are coming from his invented straw man arguments.”

Steve responds:  Scott consistently misses the target because he keeps targeting a different target than I took aim at. I specified that I was discussing the issue according to the way in which Catholic apologists like Newman and Liccione chose to frame the issue. Scott can never keep his eye on that frame of reference, even though it’s Catholic apologists who supply that frame of reference.

Scott replies:  So NOW after going through pages of responding to me, Mr. Hays claims I am "missing the target."  The "target" is the discussiong of whether or not sola scriptura is self-refuting.  I am not engaging Newman or Liccione in how THEY framed the argument.  I can understand that Mr. Hays wishes to limit the criticism to these two Catholic apologists, but the "target" is whether or not sola scriptura is self-refuting - NOT these Catholic apologists in an out-of-context reference to their works.  The ploy Mr. Hays is attempting to use here is to entirely dismiss everything said above.  Well, I am content to let the objective reader see who is attempting to dodge and divert the discussion into oblivion and who is answering point by point.  The almost comical point here to make though is the fact that Mr. Hays has gone virtually point by point himself - but the overwhelming theme of his approach is not to actually answer - but to dismiss.   I hope the objective reader is not being taken in by this tactic.

“Dr. Beckwith, you have not gone wrong in your reasoning, but another thing to consider from the statement you quoted - they claim ‘the 66 books are the supreme authority on matters of belief...’ - that would be a definition of ‘suprema scriptura,’ not ‘sola scriptura.’ Saying something has supreme authority does not give it sole authority - I submit those writing that are not true sola scripturists, at least not if that is their credo.”

i) And how is that relevant to the actual terms of my post? It isn’t.

Scott replies:  Well, perhaps Dr. Beckwith's article was not as applicable as I had originally thought, he does make a valid point with regard to sola scriptura - but perhaps is not directly related to Mr. Hays argument.  I withdraw the inclusion of Dr. Beckwith's article from THIS point - though I support the content of it on other points.

Steve continues:  ii) Moreover, sola Scriptura doesn’t mean there can be no subordinate authorities. Scott is confusing a slogan with the position denoted by that label. In fact, the Westminster Confession, to cite one representative example, even says:

“The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (WCF 1:10).

“Supreme” authority is perfectly consonant with subordinate authorities.

Scott responds:  Again, I am not arguing against suprema scriptura - but sola scriptura, that being that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church.  If Mr. Hays does not adhere to THAT definition, then all this has been for naught - as we've then been arguing about two different variations of what is labeled sola scriptura. 

Back to Scott:  “Perhaps the best objection to sola scriptura, outside of the fact that Scripture itself does not teach this rule, is that Scripture itself provides us with ANOTHER INFALLIBLE RULE! In both Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18 Jesus states that His bishops have the authority to bind or loose whatsoever they choose and whatsoever they bind or loose on Earth is bound or loosed in Heaven.”

Steve responds:  i) Scott needs to exegete the concept of the Roman episcopate from his prooftexts.

ii) He also needs to exegete the “binding and loosing” language.

iii) He also needs to demonstrate how the locus of infallibility in Catholicism corresponds to whatever “binding and loose” denote in Matthew. Where does Jesus refer to ecumenical councils or ex cathedra pronouncements by the pope? I must have missed that in the wording of his prooftexts.

iv) I do appreciate Scott’s straightforward appeal to the perspicuity of Scripture–but, of course, that negates the rationale for the Magisterium.

Scott replies: i) No, I don't need to exegete the "Roman episcopate" - my responsibility in THIS debate is to demonstrate sola scriptura is self-contradictory - and I have done this in showing Scripture itself points to ANOTHER infallible authority.  Whether or not that authority is the episcopate of the Catholic Church is another debate, one which I would obviously take the affirmative on as well, but that is not THIS debate.

ii) The binding and loosing language is that "whatsoever they bind (or loose)" is bound or loosed in Heaven.  This authority was given to a group of men, the first bishops of the Church.

iii) No, again, this is not a debate on Catholic authority - my responsibility here was simply to demonstrate that sola scriptura is self-contradictory.  If Mr. Hays would like to engage that debate as well, I would be happy to - but not within the confines of proving sola scriptura as the SOLE infallible rule of faith to be self-contradictory.  The objective reader can see that I have successfully proven my point and that Mr. Hays is the one constantly diverting, dodging and reducing his comments to invalid points of ad hominem.

iv) Again, the subject of the Magisterium is not the topic of THIS debate.

Scott wrote earlier:  “So, given that typically all Christians accept that the Bible itself is God's infallible word - then if the Bible itself points to something other than itself as also infallible then there is no ‘sola.’”

Steve concedes:  It points to the Apostolate. The period of public revelation–which came to an end.

Scott replies:  Well I am pleased to see that Mr. Hays has conceded that this authority was indeed given to the Apostles, the first bishops of the Church.  Whether or not that authority ended with the death of the last of "The Twelve" is only tangentially relevant to this point.  Again, I would be happy to engage Mr. Hays on this related debate, but it is enough here and now to accept his concession that Scripture itself points to ANOTHER infallible authority, albeit he believes that authority ended (an unscriptural even anti-scriptural assertion) but again, that is a topic for another debate.

Steve continues:  Scott’s next paragraph simply repeats something he already said, which I already addressed.

Scott adds:  That paragraph was actually my concluding statement which summarized the points.  In fact, Mr. Hays, I would invite you to deal with precisely the conclusion moreso than each individual supporting argument.  I do not deny your right to deal with each supporting argument, but to just dismiss the conclusion as "already addressed" is irresponsible.  I repeat that paragraph here and now:

Scripture does not teach sola scriptura and in fact teaches the bishops of Christ's Church have infallible authority whenever they choose to bind or loose whatsoever.  Hays' problem here is that our infallible authority is rooted in scriptural reference - which is his allegedly sole infallible authority (assuming he agrees with James White's definition).  Hays is left with an internal contradiction - a self-refuting position since his own authority refutes that it is the sole authority.

Scott concluded: “I thank you for your time and appreciate your comments.”

Steve responds:  We’ll see how appreciative he is.

Scott concludes this round:  Well Steve, I am appreciative.  Aside from the ad hominem (insults) which we can do without - and would actually help your debate style if you can refrain from such in the future, I am appreciative of the fact that Steve ultimately conceded the point I was getting at.  He admits that Scripture is not alone, or at least WAS not alone.  He admits that the Apostolate (the Twelve) were given this infallible authority - but asserts that authority ended when they died - which again, is another debate that I would happily engage him upon.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<