C
Confessor01
Guest
Is this an argument used by Catholics against sola Scriptura?
You could use it but couldn’t the same argument be turned around on you?Is this an argument used by Catholics against sola Scriptura?
Confessor, you might find the three-part video on the “Origin of the Bible” informative. It’s at the following link: alabamacatholicresources.com/bible.htmlIs this an argument used by Catholics against sola Scriptura?
Well, to be honest with you, in all my years of apologetics, I haven’t heard it put that way. It’s one of those statements that sounds good, and rolls off the tongue well, but I think the statement is a fallacy, because text must always be interpreted. So, to claim that there is such thing as an “infallible text” is misleading. I think that there must be an authentic, infallible interpreter, however. And Jesus provided one in the Church He founded, the Catholic Church.Scoobyshme, I am not presently interested in a full-fledged argument against all the doctrines of Protestantism, but just this specific argument. Is it the case, or is it not the case, that “an infallible text requires an infallible interpreter” is an argument used often by Catholic apologists to deny that the (e.g.) Martin Luther can properly interpret the Bible?
So – to ensure that I understand you – you would say that Scripture itself requires an infallible interpreter, but not that all infallible texts require an infallible interpreter. Is that correct?Well, to be honest with you, in all my years of apologetics, I haven’t heard it put that way. It’s one of those statements that sounds good, and rolls off the tongue well, but I think the statement is a fallacy, because text must always be interpreted. So, to claim that there is such thing as an “infallible text” is misleading. I think that there must be an authentic, infallible interpreter, however. And Jesus provided one in the Church He founded, the Catholic Church.
Partially right. I say that Scripture requires an infallible interpreter to get the correct meaning.So – to ensure that I understand you – you would say that Scripture itself requires an infallible interpreter, but not that all infallible texts require an infallible interpreter. Is that correct?
Do you think it’s possible to say that a proposition X is true or false? If so, why cannot one say that a set of propositions is true or false? And if one can say that, then can one say that a set of propositions are infallible?Partially right. I say that Scripture requires an infallible interpreter to get the correct meaning.
On the other hand, I think the term “infallible text” is wrong. I don’t think there is such a thing. Text is just words on a page. They don’t mean anything until someone reads and interprets them. And, someone can read and misinterpret them, unless that someone was infallible in doing so.
I agree with Scoobyshme, it is an oxymoron to call something “infallible text”. The Church limits the term “infallible” to teachings on faith and morals. Texts are not teachings until they are interpreted.Do you think it’s possible to say that a proposition X is true or false? If so, why cannot one say that a set of propositions is true or false? And if one can say that, then can one say that a set of propositions are infallible?
Please see my above question.I agree with Scoobyshme, it is an oxymoron to call something “infallible text”. The Church limits the term “infallible” to teachings on faith and morals. Texts are not teachings until they are interpreted.
Propositions are ideas, which may or may not be written down, and must be properly understood to be judged as true or false, yes? If you wrote the propositions down, and I read it, I could probably ask for clarification from you if you were available, right? But, what if you died? Then, I couldn’t ask for clarification…unless, perhaps, some of the folks who you personally trained and understood it all, were still around, or maybe some folks they trained were still around. Then, I could ask them what you meant, true? But what if no one was around? Would I have a better chance of understanding it just by reading what you wrote? Or would I have a better chance by asking someone who was around, or who learned from someone who was around that you trained?Do you think it’s possible to say that a proposition X is true or false? If so, why cannot one say that a set of propositions is true or false? And if one can say that, then can one say that a set of propositions are infallible?
To your specific question: No, for the reasons already provided.Please see my above question.
The explanations of the original propositions would only be by means of additional propositions. Therefore if you think that the derived propositions are interpretable, then it follows that the original propositions, if non-interpretable, are only non-interpretable as an accidental and not an essential characteristic.Propositions are ideas, which may or may not be written down, and must be properly understood to be judged as true or false, yes? If you wrote the propositions down, and I read it, I could probably ask for clarification from you if you were available, right? But, what if you died? Then, I couldn’t ask for clarification…unless, perhaps, some of the folks who you personally trained and understood it all, were still around, or maybe some folks they trained were still around. Then, I could ask them what you meant, true? But what if no one was around? Would I have a better chance of understanding it just by reading what you wrote? Or would I have a better chance by asking someone who was around, or who learned from someone who was around that you trained?
All explanations needed to convey its true meaning are not contained in the text, meaning that the text cannot stand alone.The explanations of the original propositions would only be by means of additional propositions. Therefore if you think that the derived propositions are interpretable, then it follows that the original propositions, if non-interpretable, are only non-interpretable as an accidental and not an essential characteristic.
Actually, texts are comprised of words arranged in sentences to convey information. Sometimes this information is phrased as a proposition.And in that case, it would be wrong to state that an infallible text is a category mistake. Texts are comprised of propositions just as much as interpretations of the texts are. There is nothing essential to texts that means they can’t be infallible.
Would you agree that this is an accidental characteristic for some texts, rather than an essential characteristic for all texts?All explanations needed to convey its true meaning are not contained in the text, meaning that the text cannot stand alone.
If the Bible is infallibly interpreted, and if part of this interpretation is written down, would it be then correct to say that the interpretation is infallible? If so, would it be correct to say that the interpretation is an infallible text?Actually, texts are comprised of words arranged in sentences to convey information. Sometimes this information is phrased as a proposition.
“infallible text” is a category error because its true meaning cannot be contained in the text alone.