The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[thomat65]

I’ll do that and I’ll report my findings to you. I posted the question on an anti-Catholic forum. They generally bite right away. So, I’ll give you a smattering of the responses tomorrow.

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Edit: you know, now that we’ve gotten to this point, I think this whole thing has become circular: I imagine that you’ll find similar responses as to the OP in this thread.

 

[thomat65]

so what’s the point in that?

I guess there’s not much point, except that authority is not required to produce a correct interpretation

 

[De_Maria]

It will be interesting, anyway.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

What do you understand by “in accord with good doctrine” in testing faith?

I was attempting to summarize 1 John. I won’t defend my summary because it’s not important. My point was simply that 1 John details some tests by which one can determine if one is “lying and not practicing the truth” or if “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin”. 1 John isn’t the only part of scripture that enables this testing, just the first that came to mind.

Are you acknowledging that there is a source outside ourselves which we measure our faith by? If so what is that source?

This sounds like a quick exit into the weeds. I’m not prepared to discuss the Rule of Faith (I’m just a programmer! sob!), and I also think that branches away from what I’ve been trying to focus on: the role of authority in creating correct interpretations. So I hope you don’t mind if I dodge this question

No offense but I do mind. Sounds like you have blindly accepted some propaganda and aren’t able to answer basic questions in faith formation. Dodge/weave and changing the subject are huge red flags for insincere dialogue.

 

[thomat65]

Dodge/weave and changing the subject are huge red flags for insincere dialogue.

In this thread I’m on a mission to settle the relationship between authority and producing a correct interpretation. If you can show that your question directly relates to this then I’ll engage. But if it instead relates to the similar (but different!) question of how authority relates to recognizing a correct interpretation then I’ll dodge and refocus the subject

Sounds like you have blindly accepted some propaganda and aren’t able to answer basic questions in faith formation.

Blind and indoctrinated or not, I have already admitted that I am not prepared to discuss even such basic things. That is another reason why I’d rather not enter that debate now, but would prefer to first formulate what I believe and why. Even if this is a terrible reason, I believe my first reason above is sufficient.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

In this thread I’m on a mission to settle the relationship between authority and producing a correct interpretation

No offense meant, but I feel like this isn’t a big deal, or a surprise at all. Everyone knows it’s possible to be right. It just doesn’t mean anything, since the only way to know if you are right is by comparing your conclusion to the Churches…So I’m wondering if this point is leading up to something else?

 

[De_Maria]

In this thread I’m on a mission to settle the relationship between authority and producing a correct interpretation. … But (not to address the) question of how authority relates to recognizing a correct interpretation .

I sort of paraphrased what you responded to

Emeraldlady.

I just wondered what difference you see in those questions?

Doesn’t the relationship between authority and producing a correct interpretation directly impact how authority relates to recognizing a correct interpretation?

How do you search for a correct interpretation? Oh, I think I see the difference. What you’re saying epitomizes the quintessential Protestant stance. That is, “I must understand before I believe.”

Whereas the quintessential Catholic stance vis a vis the Word of God is, “I must believe before God grants me understanding.”

That means that for a Protestant, you are the judge of whether a doctrine is correct. Whereas, for a Catholic, we have set our judgment aside and accept with faith that which the Magisterium Teaches.

This is why Protestants frequently chide us with the sarcastic, “you have checked your brains at the door of the Catholic Church”.

Does that make sense? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 . . .

Why is any authority at all required to interpret Scripture?

The same question could be asked of . . .

Why is any authority at all required to interpret oral Tradition?

Because Jesus wants humanity and especially Christians united. And He leads us into all truths. And this is the WAY, He leads us into all truths is via a chain of authority that comes from Him.

 

[Juvenal]

If there’s a fly in your soup when you get it, does it matter whether it was put there by the chef or the waiter?

I’m open to hearing arguments about the functional difference between a fallible text (which evangelicals tend to reject) … and an infallible text paired with a fallible interpretation (which evangelicals tend to accept).

Meaning no disrespect to anyone’s religious beliefs, it seems clear to me that the unreasonable evangelical promotion of the authority of scripture was motivated solely by theological necessity. An ultimate trusted authority is necessary, and having rejected the authority of the pope, a substitute had to be found.

 

[thomat65]

So I’m wondering if this point is leading up to something else?

Perhaps nothing significant. I did put some thoughts in the oven to bake, but I am not totally certain what will come out.

Doesn’t the relationship between authority and producing a correct interpretation directly impact how authority relates to recognizing a correct interpretation?

In one strict sense, no. I’m being pedantic now, so please bear with me, but: the relationship between authority and producing a correct interpretation is precisely that no authority is needed to produce a correct interpretation. So in that sense it impacts authority’s relationship to recognizing correctness as much as knowing the count of dust particles on the moon.

How do you search for a correct interpretation?

I’m not prepared to answer this question. But everyone keeps pressing, so I’ll let you peek into my mind for a moment, although I will not defend any of the following–my thoughts aren’t ready to be poured out on the internet in a mindless fashion that will certainly require me to make absurd defenses–although I will continue reading and considering whatever anyone wants to say. With those disclaimers out of the way, the range of things I’m thinking about includes questions like “does scripture require one specific hermeneutic”, “is a question like that circular”, and “how do the Apostles’ methods of interpreting the OT relate to today”.

What you’re saying epitomizes the quintessential Protestant stance. That is, “I must understand before I believe.” Whereas [Catholics do something more nobel, and Protestants frequently chide us].

I’m sure some Protestants and Catholics are bone-headed, lack faith in God, and are always callous. But surely not all of them. After all, everyone knows that Jesus is a Protestant

 

[thomat65]

If there’s a fly in your soup when you get it, does it matter whether it was put there by the chef or the waiter?

Good question. It depends on what significance will be placed on the fly’s presence. If I’m the king then it would obviously be a criminal offense, yet it wouldn’t be right to toss both the chef and the waiter into prison when only one of them did it.

Anyone want to take a stab at making me contradict myself? Here I’m saying the fly does matter, and over yonder I’m saying authority doesn’t matter. I can rephrase it to make my difficult situation more clear: “if there’s correctness in the interpretation, does it matter whether it was placed there by God or by Satan?”

And you might suppose the analogous response would be “it depends on what significance will be placed on source of the correctness. It wouldn’t be right to obey Satan instead of God.” If so, then I’d really be in a tight spot.

But that’s not the correct analogy. The presence of the fly corresponds to the presence, not the source, of correctness. So the correct analogy would be “it depends on what significance will be placed on the presence of the correctness. It wouldn’t be right to congratulate Satan if God procured the correctness.” See the difference?

I’m not sure if that’s where you expected that to go, @Juvenal, but here we are

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Doesn’t the relationship between authority and producing a correct interpretation directly impact how authority relates to recognizing a correct interpretation?

In one strict sense, no.

I’m talking about the other senses.

I’m being pedantic now, so please bear with me, but: the relationship between authority and producing a correct interpretation is precisely that no authority is needed to produce a correct interpretation.

Hm. That sounds like a personal preference. In other words, that is what you choose to believe. That gives you the freedom to declare to be correct that which you decide to be correct. In other words, that makes every individual the authority over what is correct and gives way to chaos.

So in that sense it impacts authority’s relationship to recognizing correctness as much as knowing the count of dust particles on the moon.

Not if we have an authority who is privy to the number of dust particles on the moon.

How do you search for a correct interpretation?

I’m not prepared to answer this question. … “does scripture require one specific hermeneutic”,

Not necessarily, but the best one is the one provided by the Catholic Church.

“is a question like that circular”,

Both Catholics and Protestants use a basically circular reasoning based upon reliance on authority.

Protestants rely upon the authority of the Bible alone. Which is really a mirage since it boils down to their own private interpretation. That is, to their personal authority.

Catholics rely upon the authority of the Church. But that is broader than it sounds since the Church herself uses a comparison of Sacred Tradition against the interpretations of Scripture by the Church Councils and Fathers through the centuries.

and “how do the Apostles’ methods of interpreting the OT relate to today”.

The Apostles used the same methodology as the Church uses today. A review of the Berean episode will reveal that the Church was present and Teaching in the person of the Apostles. The Apostles compared their Teaching to the Scriptures. And the Bereans independently compared the Teaching to Scripture, as well. See Acts 17.

What you’re saying epitomizes the quintessential Protestant stance. That is, “I must understand before I believe.” Whereas [Catholics do something more nobel, and Protestants frequently chide us].

I’m sure some Protestants and Catholics are bone-headed, lack faith in God, and are always callous. But surely not all of them.

Too few. As you’ll find out on that other forum.

After all, everyone knows that Jesus is a Protestant

That’s what they want you to think. But all indicators show that He was the very first Catholic.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Juvenal:

If there’s a fly in your soup when you get it, does it matter whether it was put there by the chef or the waiter?

Good question. It depends on what significance will be placed on the fly’s presence. If I’m the king then it would obviously be a criminal offense, yet it wouldn’t be right to toss both the chef and the waiter into prison when only one of them did it.

Anyone want to take a stab at making me contradict myself? Here I’m saying the fly does matter, and over yonder I’m saying authority doesn’t matter. I can rephrase it to make my difficult situation more clear: “if there’s correctness in the interpretation, does it matter whether it was placed there by God or by Satan?”

And you might suppose the analogous response would be “it depends on what significance will be placed on source of the correctness. It wouldn’t be right to obey Satan instead of God.” If so, then I’d really be in a tight spot.

But that’s not the correct analogy. The presence of the fly corresponds to the presence, not the source, of correctness. So the correct analogy would be “it depends on what significance will be placed on the presence of the correctness. It wouldn’t be right to congratulate Satan if God procured the correctness.” See the difference?

I’m not sure if that’s where you expected that to go, @Juvenal, but here we are

But the one big black hole in this is that just like a fly is something quantifiable and knowable, so is correctness. If someone sees a mosquito and calls it a fly, we have reason and method to definitively correct that statement. Similarly we know that something is correct because we have reason and method to confidently quantify it. In all the disciplines that deal with universal truths, we seek universality by practical unity. Collegiality among experts.

I feel like breaking into Katy Perry right now. “I stood for nothing, so fell for everything”.

 

[thomat65]

I’m talking about the other senses.

Like what?

I’m being pedantic now, so please bear with me, but: the relationship between authority and producing a correct interpretation is precisely that no authority is needed to produce a correct interpretation.

I thought I had already properly established that no authority is needed to produce a correct interpretation. You know, the randomly typing monkey. Unless I’m not right, you even rightly said “right” right up there, right?

The monkey has produced a correct interpretation in spite of his lack of authority.

Not necessarily, but the best one is the one provided by the Catholic Church. […] See Acts 17.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I’ll try to keep these things in mind.

 

[thomat65]

But the one big black hole in this is […]

I’m not following how that demonstrates a flaw in what I have written.

I have purposely avoided making statements about how to determine correctness. What you have written concerns that, not the fact that authority is not required in order to produce correctness which is what I have been addressing.

 

[catholicray]

Yes right interpretation is possible without authority but you can never “know” if you have the right interpretation. You’re welcome to hold your position but it is a position of agnosis.

 

[thomat65]

You’re welcome to hold your position but it is a position of agnosis.

I have not stated what my position is regarding how to determine correctness. Refusing to state a position because of ill-preparedness is not agnosis. There is no basis for saying this because I haven’t stated anything.

I will not bite the hook.

 

[catholicray]

Your position is either ? (Incoherent), I don’t know (agnosis/ defective knowledge), or nothing. There’s no hook to bite that’s your position.

 

[catholicray]

Doesn’t mean you can’t change your position but that is your current position.

 

[Emeraldlady]

authority is not required in order to produce correctness

If what you are beginning your argument on the basis of is “because I said so”, there is no possibility of going forward in a reasoned, dialectical way. In the world of discussion and debate that is referred to as an Ipse dixit. An assertion without proof. Merely a dogmatic expression of personal opinion.