The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[thomat65]

Your position is either ? (Incoherent), I don’t know (agnosis/ defective knowledge)

Yes, my position is both incoherent and full of defective knowledge. I have not arrived. This is one of very few things which I do know. That’s why I want to get things straight before I open the tap.

I do not believe that having an incoherent position necessarily requires one to engage in debate with people who believe they do have a coherent position.

I also do not believe that having an incoherent position necessarily means the people are correct who do think their position is coherent. One implication of this is that I do not necessarily have to take to heart what others say.

I’m quite free to silently weigh what others are saying.

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

This.

 

[catholicray]

I do not believe that having an incoherent position necessarily requires one to engage in debate with people who believe they do have a coherent position.

It doesn’t. However you should be trying to obtain a coherent position for yourself.

My position is that to “know” (have gnosis) of God’s word authority is the only way.

My position is gnosis through the authority of God through men.

You don’t have to debate me but that is my coherent position.

 

[thomat65]

If what you are beginning your argument on the basis of is “because I said so” […]

What you quoted was not the beginning of my argument.

the fact that authority is not required in order to produce correctness

In that spot from which you quoted, I stated it as fact because it was the conclusion of something I’ve proven. I also stated it so strongly (“fact”) kind of to throw down the gauntlet, challenging you to explain how you’ve demonstrated a flaw in what I have written.

 

[Pattylt]

the fact that authority is not required in order to produce correctness

Also realizing that authority is not required to produce incorrectness, yes? So far, this is just a meaningless statement.

 

[Emeraldlady]

In that spot from which you quoted, I stated it as fact because it was the conclusion of something I’ve proven. I also stated it so strongly (“fact”) kind of to throw down the gauntlet, challenging you to explain how you’ve demonstrated a flaw in what I have written.

Ok, I’ll discuss it on your terms. You are wrong. Authority is needed to assure correct interpretation of Scripture. You are wrong.

 

[thomat65]

you should be trying to obtain a coherent position for yourself.

I can assure you I am.

I’ll just add one more thought for posterity:

Up until the past few posts I was giving two reasons for dodging “how do you know it’s correct”: (1) off-topic and (2) I’m not prepared. In the past few posts I’ve stopped invoking (1) because I think things have run a satisfactory course. I’m convinced I’ve accomplished my goal to sufficiently demonstrate that authority is not necessary to procure a correct interpretation (as trivial a conclusion as that may be!)

 

[thomat65]

So far, this is just a meaningless statement.

Meaningless in the sense of lacking any useful application? Maybe. Maybe not.

It is interesting to observe how eager everyone is to point out that authority really is required somewhere in the process. I’m not denying that. I just think it’s very… Catholic

So I’ve gotten a small bit of useful application from it.

And more indirect gain: I have learned a lot about how Catholics think, the general air of this forum, what things people are interested in discussing, etc.

 

[thomat65]

Authority is needed to assure correct interpretation of Scripture. You are wrong.

Can you quote where I said otherwise? Notice that you used the word “assure” in the phrase “assure correct interpretation”. Instead of “produce” as in “produce correct interpretation”. I believe the latter has been my consistent phrasing.

 

[Pattylt]

Check my status! I’m not saying authority is required or not. Merely that you really haven’t reached a fact yet as you haven’t ruled out the negative of the statement…so, it is meaningless.

 

[thomat65]

Check my status!

Sorry! There I go assuming I’m the only non-Catholic here.

 

[catholicray]

because I think things have run a satisfactory course. I’m convinced I’ve accomplished my goal to sufficiently demonstrate that authority is not necessary to procure a correct interpretation (as trivial a conclusion as that may be!)

Correct authority is not required to “produce” a correct interpretation. Authority is not required to “produce” an incorrect interpretation. Authority is required to have “knowledge” of the correct interpretation.

It’s not trivial you’re doing your homework.

 

[thomat65]

It’s not trivial you’re doing your homework.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Time for me to go to bed!

 

[thomat65]

Well, maybe not bedtime just yet.

you haven’t ruled out the negative of the statement

Ahh, I think I see. Let me see if I have this straight:

My statement:

1. not(correct → authority)
2. correct and not(authority)

The negation:

1. not(correct and not(authority))
2. not(correct) or not(not(authority))
3. not(correct) or authority

Well, really the negation is more complicated than that:

1. not(interpretation and correct) or (authority present and authority required)
2. not(interpretation) or not(correct) or (authority present and authority required)

Am I good so far?

So I need to prove that all these things have to be false:
a. It’s not an interpretation
b. It is not correct
c. Authority is present and required

Wow, this is a lot harder than I expected. To prove that it is an interpretation requires me to actually define something. To prove that it is correct requires me to start my argument with some assumptions. And more of the same to prove ( c).

I’m going to be honest with you. In case you can’t already tell, I think I’m going to have to work hard just to be in the running for “most improved use of logic”. Hopefully I’ll at least get a trophy for participation. If they haven’t run out of trophies by then.

I’m going to have to finish this tomorrow.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

I’m talking about the other senses.

Like what?

You’re the one who isolated one sense. You said:
"thomat65:

In one strict sense, no.

If there’s one sense which is strict, there must be others which are not. So, those are the ones’ I’m interested in hearing about.

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?

Uh, the monkey did not interpret anything. You said the monkey was randomly typing and something legible was the result. But the monkey was not technically interpreting anything, was it? Or have you changed the example?

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

I was tricked! :crazy_face:

Lol! I see our mistake. For you to say that the monkey typed out an interpretation, that is false. The monkey simply typed something which didn’t happen to be gibberish. There was no intent on the monkey’s part. If something like that were to actually happen, it would not be attributed to the wisdom of the monkey, but to a Divine miracle.

Do you agree?

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

You’re welcome.

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 . . . .

I thought I had already properly established that no authority is needed to produce a correct interpretation.

A “correct interpretation” of what?

 

[thomat65]

A “correct interpretation” of what?

Of anything! The scriptures in this case.

those are the ones’ I’m interested in hearing about.

I was just asking for an example of how the relationship between authority and producing a correct interpretation directly impacts how authority relates to recognizing a correct interpretation. I have given a sense in which it doesn’t, then you said what about the other senses, I said like what, you said surely there must be something.

So I see two options. Either I can give an unenlightening example in which there is some obtuse connection which probably does not advance your point, or you can advance your point by giving what you would consider to be an interesting connection.

I’ll go first: monkeys were authoritatively created by God. One of those monkeys is theoretically capable of producing a correct interpretation of this same God’s word. God also authoritatively created mankind. The same mankind is sometimes capable of recognizing the correctness of the interpretations produced by the same monkey. So yes, there is a connection between authority, God, men, monkeys, producing interpretations, and recognizing correctness.

But the monkey was not technically interpreting anything, was it?

Good question. I’m being sloppy and might need to define some things.

I’ve been using “interpreting” and “producing a correct interpretation” interchangeably. But that’s not right. To me, “interpreting” sounds like a more substantial activity than “producing a correct interpretation”. The former gives the mental picture of a person doing a job, while the latter sounds like a machine doing a job.

So if you have a machine which is always capable of producing a correct interpretation (as the monkey is, given enough time), then you can give this machine to any person and they will be able to do the job of interpreting. They will also produce countless incorrect bits of gibberish, so they won’t be doing the job well.

So I think “producing a correct interpretation” is a component of the process of “interpretation”… and there’s something lacking if all you’ve got is “producing”. One thing missing is probably that thing that everyone is dying to talk about: the ability to recognize and distinguish good from bad.

So I’ve been sloppy, but I think “authority is not required in order to produce a correct interpretation” is still a correct statement.

What do you think?

 

[thomat65]

you haven’t ruled out the negative of the statement

So I need to prove that all these things have to be false [for what the monkey produced]:
a. It’s not an interpretation
b. It is not correct
c. Authority is present and required

Fasten your seatbelts… here we go!

(A) is false​

1. An exact copy of an interpretation is still an interpretation
2. Therefore, (a) is false

(B) is false​

1. The attribute of “correctness” for an interpretation survives copying
2. Therefore, (b) is false

Okay, those two were easy. I did some hand-waving with the #1’s, so let me know if I need to elaborate.

But I’m having a harder time proving ( c) is false. Anyone want to help?

( C) is false?​

1. Either authority is present or it is absent
2. If it is absent then ( c) is false and we’re done
3. So assume that authority is present
4. Now I need to prove that authority is not required in what the monkey produced?
5. Alternatively, I need to prove that there is some contradiction in authority being present?

So is it necessary for there to be authority in the known-correct interpretation produced by the monkey? Or can we prove the opposite?

Or is there some logical contradiction that arises when authority is present in the known-correct interpretation produced by the monkey?

 

[MichaelP3]

authority that is infallible and is NOT explicitly Scripture in order to determine doctrine.

Okay I came back from holiday. It seems like you are very keen to explain this? Please go ahead?

Also to this. And I will keep asking “how do you know this”? At some point Catholics will realise they also need ro take that it by Faith!

 

[Emeraldlady]

So is it necessary for there to be authority in the known-correct interpretation produced by the monkey? Or can we prove the opposite?

Monkeys don’t have the faculty to interpret the written word. They could throw a dart as a number of interpretations and randomly hit the correct one. That doesn’t qualify as interpreting Scripture.

 

[MichaelP3]

I have always wondered about this. Remove this word “alone”.