The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[catholicray]

I don’t know where you’re pulling this from lol. Could you share the post number please?

 

[MichaelP3]

Could you share the post number please?

Like the posts on this forum? Okay, tomorrow then!

 

[catholicray]

Roger that!

 

[De_Maria]

…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.

Uh, what?

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.

Agreed.

One of those monkeys is theoretically capable of producing a correct interpretation of this same God’s word.

No. Monkeys are not theoretically capable of producing any sort of interpretation. Neither correct nor incorrect. They are not conscious of what they do. They are non-intelligent creatures.

God also authoritatively created mankind. The same mankind is sometimes capable of recognizing the correctness of the interpretations produced by the same monkey.

The monkey is not capable of making interpretations. Although you whipped up a fictional what if, the fact is that it has never happened and will probably never happen, unless it happens by Divine Intervention like the day the mule spoke to Balaam.

So yes, there is a connection between authority, God, men, monkeys, producing interpretations, and recognizing correctness.

God and men. Not monkeys.

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

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d with @thomat65

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.

Not only that, but the machine is actually doing a job. Whereas, the monkey is not. The machine has the intellect of the human who programmed it as the authority for what it does.

So if you have a machine which is always capable of producing a correct interpretation (as the monkey is, given enough time),

Uh-uh. What language was the monkey interpreting from and to which language was he interpreting?

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.

Have you ever heard of Gigo? Garbage in garbage out. The machine can only be as good as its programmer.

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.

Yep.

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

I understand what you mean. For example. Luther didn’t have authority to interpret the Bible. But he produced a Bible that was 90% correct. It was the 10% that made his interpretation false.

Basically, we can also say that Luther did have authority. His own. He gave himself the authority to come up with a different interpretation of Scripture. But his was not legitimate authority.

What do you think?

I think we’re making progress.

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 . . .

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

.

Cathoholic . . . .

A “correct interpretation” of what?

.

thomat65 . . .

The scriptures in this case.

.

thomat65. What do you think “The Scriptures” are? After all.

If “no authority is needed” to interpret Scripture (I agree you don’t ALWAYS need authority by the way), but you need to know what Scripture is,
HOW do you know what “Scripture” is (without any authority)?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

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.

The important consideration to “producing” a correct interpretation is whether it should be taught. Whether a monkey can stumble upon a correct interpretation, or a Mormon or a Muslim or a Christian is not the issue with Catholics. Anyone can correctly interpret Scripture, without any training or knowledge. IOW, it is possible. But there is no way to KNOW if it is correct without the Teaching Church. That is why so much error is taught. That is the problem, not private interpretation being right or wrong.

Does your concern for correctness have to do with teaching that position? Or are you content to just rest in your correctness?

 

[thomat65]

Uh, what?

That was a summary of how you and I got to that point. I summarized it to set the stage for what I said next “so I see two options”.

The monkey is not capable of making interpretations.

The monkey is able to produce a correct interpretation.

Although you whipped up a fictional what if, the fact is that it has never happened and will probably never happen

It’s a thought experiment to highlight the principles at work.

So if you have a machine which is always capable of producing a correct interpretation (as the monkey is, given enough time),

Yuh huh. It doesn’t matter which language. Given enough time, the monkey will produce all correct interpretations in all languages. That’s the nature of random output… every once in a great while anything happens to come out.

Let me make that more clear.

First, an example from real life. Take the number “pi”. Most people say it’s 3.14. In reality, it appears to have an infinite sequence of random digits. So let’s pretend for a moment (not a stretch) that this is the case. Some people have looked for names in the digits. For example, “Matt” shows up 67 times in the first ~31M digits (according to that link). “Matt Thomas” doesn’t show up at all, but with many more digits it would. You can learn more about this kind of thing here. I’m sure you can see how this is analogous to the randomly-typing monkey.

Second, given a correct interpretation, an exact duplicate of it is still a correct interpretation. For example, let’s suppose that all the Bishops have come together and the Catholic Church has produced the statement “A”, which is a correct interpretation of some passage of scripture. The Catholic Church then duplicates “A”. Has “A” suddenly stopped being a correct interpretation just because someone photocopied it? And the monkey is capable of producing exact duplicates of “A”.

What do you think “The Scriptures” are? You need to know what Scripture is

I’ve been trying to formulate an argument that works for anything that anyone considers scripture. So if I’m correct, then to a Catholic I can say “no authority is required to produce a correct interpretation of Tobit”, and to both a Catholic and a Protestant I can say “no authority is required to produce a correct interpretation of James”.

My personal belief about the canon is typical of Protestants. But again, it’s not necessary for one to know what another would consider scripture in order for the statement to be true.

 

[thomat65]

Anyone can correctly interpret Scripture

It has taken quite some effort for me to determine this, prove it (the proof still isn’t done, btw! I’m missing a key piece, search for “( c) is false?” up above if you want), clarify this, and discover some of the missing pieces that would make this a more useful statement.

Does your concern for correctness have to do with teaching that position? Or are you content to just rest in your correctness?

Good question. I don’t want to feel smug with my little piece of polished correctness that I’ll hang on the wall in my ivory tower so that I can look at my reflection all day. So I’m sure it will tie into teaching an interpretation of scripture.

But there is no way to KNOW if it is correct without the Teaching Church.

I’m skating around the outskirts of this question. One of these days I hope to be ready to address it.

 

[catholicray]

Yuh huh. It doesn’t matter which language. Given enough time, the monkey will produce all correct interpretations in all languages.

The more I think about this the more it makes no sense. I think you can say the monkey can produce the correct text given enough time. The monkey can produce the catechism of the Catholic Church given enough time. He can produce the articles of faith given enough time. But that’s not interpretation.

We need direction even when we approach doctrine because we can read our fallen nature into anything.

Case in point Protestants approach the teaching of the Catholic Church and proceed to read their bias into it and walk away from their own bias.

So I think we’re back to square one. Sounds like you need authority. Authority to tell you that you are in fact in error and you need to correct yourself.

 

[De_Maria]

It’s a thought experiment to highlight the principles at work.

I got that part.

Yuh huh. It doesn’t matter which language. Given enough time, the monkey will produce all correct interpretations in all languages. That’s the nature of random output… every once in a great while anything happens to come out.

You don’t get it. The monkey will never “interpret” anything. Even if your example of a monkey typing out a nobel prize winning thesis ever comes true at random. It can never be described as an “interpretation”. Professor monkey will never graduate even from grade school. Even from kinder.

Let me make that more clear.

First, an example from real life. Take the number “pi”. Most people say it’s 3.14. In reality, it appears to have an infinite sequence of random digits. So let’s pretend for a moment (not a stretch) that this is the case. Some people have looked for names in the digits. For example, “Matt” shows up 67 times in the first ~31M digits (according to that link). “Matt Thomas” doesn’t show up at all, but with many more digits it would. You can learn more about this kind of thing here. I’m sure you can see how this is analogous to the randomly-typing monkey.

But not to “interpretation”. Interpreting is a specific act. In order for the monkey to interpret anything, he must be looking at something that needs to be explained to someone else. But he’s not doing that. He’s randomly typing.

Remember, those random digits are not calling your name. They are merely
accidently occasions of your name appearing in their framework.

Second, given a correct interpretation, …

Sorry. Can’t give you that. I would say, “given an accidental occurence of a page of Scripture in the random typing of a monkey”. That’s what I can give you. But not the description of “interpretation”.

Let’s say you found this monkey and noticed the piece of paper with his poundings on them. Would you interrogate the monkey to see why he did it?

And that’s our impasse. I can’t accept the random poundings of a monkey as “interpretation”. Do you see my point yet?

 

[thomat65]

I can’t accept the random poundings of a monkey as “interpretation”. Do you see my point yet?

But that’s not interpretation.

I think if I were to start over I’d start with a good definition of “interpretation” that everyone can agree on. Things are kind of muddy without it.

What would you guys say is the definition of an “interpretation”? Google says “the action of explaining the meaning of something”.

That is indeed a different idea than what I’ve been talking about. Hmm. And I see your point about the monkey not really being a satisfactory “explainer”, someone with whom you can interact and explore meanings.

I might try again to formulate something. If I do then it’ll be in a different thread for clarity.

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 (on the canon of Scripture) . . .

My personal belief about the canon is typical of Protestants.

OK.

(Remember. The “Table of Contents” are not inspired.)

But WHERE in Scripture are you told this Canon?

WHERE is the verse that says ? . . . .

In the Scriptures we see the Bible made up of the Books (letters, etc) of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc. etc. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, . . . Jude, and Revelation.

After all. If you are going to hold to Sola Scriptura,
you OUGHT to have THAT verse in the Bible SOMEWHERE.

So WHERE in Scripture, is that verse? (Or something like it?)

 

[thomat65]

WHERE is the verse that says ? . . . .

In the Scriptures we see the Bible made up of the Books (letters, etc) of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc. etc. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, . . . Jude, and Revelation.

Nowhere.

If you are going to hold to Sola Scriptura,
you OUGHT to have THAT verse in the Bible SOMEWHERE

Can you define “Sola Scriptura”? Without a definition I think our conversation will be at least as muddy as all the monkey talk.

 

[catholicray]

Can you define “Sola Scriptura”? Without a definition I think our conversation will be at least as muddy as all the monkey talk.

Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone but it is defined as Scripture being the “only infallible” authority of the Christian faith.

Now the purpose of the definition is to say that the Pope and magisterium of the Catholic Church are not infallible. However the definition has further reaching consequences.

One of the further consequences of Sola Scriptura is that it inadvertently denies the authority of the Holy Spirit as I have highlighted in this post. As Catholics we believe the infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium (you should research when we think these two structures of the Church are infallible) is the product of the Holy Spirit ultimately.

The Holy Spirit worked through fallible men like St. Peter and St. Paul to produce the Sacred Scriptures. We believe the Holy Spirit is continuously at work to this day guiding the Church to keep it free from doctrinal error. Behind the Pope and Magisterium is the Holy Spirit mightily keeping the “Faith” free from error in a constantly changing and sinful world.

 

[catholicray]

Ultimately it does not matter what is written in Scripture. It matters what God intends to say. Scripture alone is a dead letter. It is only through interpretation that it comes to life. Men on their own are subject to error in interpretation due to sin. The Church is God’s institution by which the truth is protected and what men need to know for salvation is available.

There can be only one correct interpretation. Thus there can be only one institution that is truly the Body of Christ and those bodies which agree with it are apart of the one body.

 

[thomat65]

it is defined as Scripture being the “only infallible” authority of the Christian faith.

I thought it was defined as scripture being the final authority of the Christian faith. See, we would have been talking past each other right from the get-go. But let’s run with your definition.

So now can either of you explain why the following statement is true? Or would @catholicray prefer not to be held to @Cathoholic’s statement?

If you are going to hold to [Scripture being the “only infallible” authority of the Christian faith],
you OUGHT to have THAT verse in the Bible SOMEWHERE.

 

[catholicray]

I think you’re confused but I’ll work through it with you.

If you are holding to Sola Scriptura then you should be able to find a verse in Scripture that supports it.

 

[thomat65]

If you are holding to Sola Scriptura then you should be able to find a verse in Scripture that supports it.

Ah, but that is a different statement than:

If you are going to hold to Sola Scriptura,
you OUGHT to have [the verse listing the canon] in the Bible SOMEWHERE.

…is it not? Because you said “you must be able to find a verse that supports Sola Scriptura” not “you must be able to find a verse with the table of contents”.

It’s quite easy to find verses that support the idea that scripture is the final authority on things pertaining to the faith. Here are a few: 1 Corinthians 4:6 draws a line at “what is written”. 1 Timothy 3:15 also draws a line, limiting the Church to what was written. The Bereans tested the Church’s message against scripture and were commended as being noble.

But again, what you have said and what I responded with is not about a table of contents which @Cathoholic said one must be able to find if one holds to Sola Scriptura. Why did he assert that?

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 . . .

It’s quite easy to find verses that support the idea that scripture is the final authority on things pertaining to the faith.

The problem with this “logic” is it has the built-in false presupposition that you already know what “Scripture” is.

You have no idea that 1st Corinthians or 1st Timothy is even “Scripture” to quote.

The ONLY infallible way to know what “Scripture” is thomat65, is to go OUTSIDE of Scripture to submit to that authority.

You are espousing “relativism”.
This is a subtle DENIAL of ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

And you know WHO, absolute Truth is . . . Right?