Sola Scriptura

[JM]

I find that many who give up on sola scriptura and the Reformed faith never really understood the doctrine, the place of scripture and therefore get lost in the argument from antiquity. I can understand how that happens. Another reason people doubt the validity of the argument for sola scriptura has to do with the perceived lack of preservation. A guy I know loves the Lord deeply but read Ehrman and listened to James White, even took the day off work and drove for hours to ask Dr White questions, only to come away with doubt in the ability of scripture to function as a rule of faith. He now believes the Roman magisterium is authoritative.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So I guess it's not a position to say God the Holy Spirit is the final interpretive authority? I know that counter argument, nevertheless, if God be not our final authority we shall ever be lost in subjective interpretation of man, whether individual, or councils of individual men.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

So I guess it's not a position to say God the Holy Spirit is the final interpretive authority? I know that counter argument, nevertheless, if God be not our final authority we shall ever be lost in subjective interpretation of man, whether individual, or councils of individual men.

The Catholics place that in the category of "Your own personal interpretation".

Of course i find it funny that they do the same thing except third (or more) hand when some group of Catholic scholars interpret the writings of earlier scholars to determine which pronouncements of whatever Popes throughout history were ex Cathedra and therefore infallible.

 

[JM]

2 Pet 1.20 has been misused by RC'S and we need to call them on it. Even the Haydock Bible acknowledges the Prot understanding.

 

[moonbeam]

No i do not agree. For the most part i believe scripture to be self-interpreting limited only by the parameters of the whole. Where conflict does exist, Somebody, --maybe both parties to the conflict-- is or are wrong. While this does not exclude the study of the original languages and how they were used by the people speaking them at that time, the translations we have are pretty reflective of those times, at least as much as it is possible for a translation to be. (And therein lies your third alternative).

The middle position I had in view [denied by the Romanist statement] as being the unassailable authoritative interpreter was Christ Himself who is the Head of the Body (Church) and Head of each individual Christian.

That the Romanist place the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ) in the category of “your own personal interpreter” to bolster their heretical claims is irrelevant to the substance of the argument.
.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

The middle position I had in view [denied by the Romanist statement] as being the unassailable authoritative interpreter was Christ Himself who is the Head of the Body (Church) and Head of each individual Christian.

That the Romanist place the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ) in the category of “your own personal interpreter” to bolster their heretical claims is irrelevant to the substance of the argument.
.

Actually, their claim of "your own personal interpretation" is question begging. The critic is still obligated to show the error of the interpretation. As for interpretative schemes, i am more than a little concerned with the Catholic interpretative scheme which presumes authority to interpret --some would say to the point of denying the scripture-- the very scripture that defines and governs the church. This is circular reasoning.

 

[JM]

When you appeal to any ultimate authority it is circular in nature.

The Haydock (Pre-Vat 2 Bible) comments on 2 Pet. 1:20, “is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) --- The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written,”

I believe most Protestants would agree with the above, it sounds a lot like the analogy of faith and probably wouldn’t disagree too strongly if the last portion were given a scriptural context….

“which is resident in the Church.”

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

When you appeal to any ultimate authority it is circular in nature.

The Haydock (Pre-Vat 2 Bible) comments on 2 Pet. 1:20, “is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) --- The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written,”

I believe most Protestants would agree with the above, it sounds a lot like the analogy of faith and probably wouldn’t disagree too strongly if the last portion were given a scriptural context….

“which is resident in the Church.”

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Respectfully brother, that is utter nonsense. Circular reasoning is always indicative of nonsense. Either the premise or the reasoning process of the individual is flawed. The God Who Ordained Logic and Reason does not deal in nonsense. The Quote you cited above appeals to an Ultimate Authority beyond scripture, that is to say The God Who Breathed the scriptures to the human authors. The first quote refers to "private spirit", which is decidedly not of God.

i can tell you that THIS Reformed Protestant does not disagree with the last clause, and the last portion does have scriptural context. In Particular, John 16:13-15 comes to mind.

 

[JM]

Dark Lord, you're a lot smarter than I...did I misundestand VanTil?

Van Til recognized presuppositionalism is circular in nature and since Christianity finds it authority in revealed religion, presuppositions, our basis is circular. For a better definition read Van Til who marks a difference between Christian reasoning and pagan reasoning.

"...false circular reasoning stands over against true circular reasoning.” – Cornelius Van Til, Christianity in Conflict, Chapter 9

"To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting-point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another.” – Cornelius Van Til, Apologetics, Chapter 4 The Problem of Method

"And this brings up the point of circular reasoning. The charge is constantly made that if matters stand thus with Christianity, it has written its own death warrant as far as intelligent men are concerned. Who wishes to make such a simple blunder in elementary logic, as to say that we believe something to be true because it is in the Bible? Our answer to this is briefly that we prefer to reason in a circle to not reasoning at all. We hold it to be true that circular reasoning is the only reasoning that is possible to finite man. The method of implication as outlined above is circular reasoning. Or we may call it spiral reasoning. We must go round and round a thing to see more of its dimensions and to know more about it, in general, unless we are larger than that which we are investigating. Unless we are larger than God we cannot reason about him any other way, than by a transcendental or circular argument. The refusal to admit the necessity of circular reasoning is itself an evident token of opposition to Christianity. Reasoning in a vicious circle is the only alternative to reasoning in a circle as discussed above.” – Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, Chapter 1, 11 Transcendental

 

[hedrick]

The Haydock (Pre-Vat 2 Bible) comments on 2 Pet. 1:20, “is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) --- The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written,”

I believe most Protestants would agree with the above, it sounds a lot like the analogy of faith and probably wouldn’t disagree too strongly if the last portion were given a scriptural context….

This is not the unanimous opinion of Protestant interpreters. Looking at the Word Commentary (by Bauckham), it suggests that there are two major approaches to this passage. One understands it to be about interpretation of prophecy — and by extension Scripture in general. The other understands it speaking about the origin of prophecy.

21 says “no prophecy even came from human will,” which makes one inclined to ask whether 20 is speaking about where prophecy came from. Could 20 be saying “no prophecy came from the prophet’s personal understandings?” In fact it could.

“However, it is relevant to notice that ἴδιος is used in a series of Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian statements which deny the human origin of prophecy, and seems to have been virtually a technical term in such assertions:” followed by examples.

“there seems to be no instance of ἐπίλυσις or ἐπιλύειν used of the interpretation of Scripture (though cf. Clem. Alex. Paed. 2.1.14).” “In Aquila’s version ἐπίλυσις and ἐπιλύειν are used of Joseph’s interpretations of the baker’s and the butler’s dreams (Gen 40:8; 41:8, 12), which are explicitly said to be God-given interpretations (Gen 40:8). Probably the Greek version of 4 Ezra 10:43 (Latin absolutio) used ἐπίλυσις of the interpretation of the seer’s vision, given him by the angel.” followed by other examples of the same usage.

The context is:
* before: we’re not following myths, but a voice from heaven
* after: false prophets will arise

Interpreters don’t agree, but Bauckham’s preference is to see the passage as about the origin of prophecy rather than the interpretation of Scripture, and I would agree. The point in context would be part of an appeal to his readers to believe prophecy and other information from God, and not what comes from the human imagination.

 

[JM]

Hedrick, I looked the passage up in a handful of commentaries and they were in agreement. I understood Haydock to say pretty much what you posted.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Concerning circular reasoning, I recommend reading BETWEEN SCYLLA AND CHARYBDIS: PRESUPPOSITIONALISM, CIRCULAR REASONING, AND THE CHARGE OF FIDEISM by Joseph E. Torres

Also recommend COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF VAN TIL'S APOLOGETIC Part 2 of 2 by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr.

Misconception #6 specifically but the whole article is relevant and useful.

As I understand, there are two kinds of circular reasoning, fallacious and necessary, or false and true, or false and "properly basic" as Plantinga might say. I say this as a former "classical" apologist, who did not see the circularity of reasoning itself, or perhaps I should say, the necessary circularity of reasoning itself.

 

[JM]

AW, you are another fella that is a whole lot smarter than I. Are you saying all reason is circular, Christian reasoning is good, pagan is bad?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I forgot to post a link to this article by John M Frame "Presuppositional Apologetics" which also addresses the problem of circularity. Scroll on down to section 2.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

AW, you are another fella that is a whole lot smarter than I. Are you saying all reason is circular, Christian reasoning is good, pagan is bad?

Dear brother I really do not see myself as smarter...it's not how I think, and I really do not see how, you're by far more the reader than I. We are what we are by the grace of God, and in my case God uses "foolish things".

Yes all reasoning is circular, I agree with Van Til, he say's;

"To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case,circular reasoning. The starting-point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another.” – Cornelius Van Til, Apologetics, Chapter 4 The Problem of Method

and he say's:

"Is this circular reasoning and must the Christian seek to escape circular reasoning? It is circular reasoning if by that is meant that it returns to its starting-point without ever having left it. Christ says I am. Christians prove that this is true by pointing out that the very idea of proof not based upon this I am of Christ amounts to an operation in the void on the part of would-be autonomous man. The only alternative to starting with the I am of Christ is to start with the I am of man in some such way as is done by Kant. Thus false circular reasoning stands over against true circular reasoning.” – Cornelius Van Til, Christianity in Conflict, Chapter 9

 

[JM]

I just assumed we reason from what we presuppose to be truth. I think that Van Til fella is growing on me.

 

[moonbeam]

Actually, their claim of "your own personal interpretation" is question begging. The critic is still obligated to show the error of the interpretation. As for interpretative schemes, i am more than a little concerned with the Catholic interpretative scheme which presumes authority to interpret --some would say to the point of denying the scripture-- the very scripture that defines and governs the church. This is circular reasoning.

There is no doubt that the Romanist "presumes authority to interpret" and that their basis for that presumption has led them to "the point of denying the scripture".

I agree with you that the scripture "defines and governs the church"

The word of God, holy scripture, is alive and effectual, authored by the Spirit of Christ, and effectually wielded by Him, according to the Fathers purpose.

Every individual Christian has Christ as his Head and is necessarily, and irrevocably, under that headship, which is effectually administered by the Holy Spirit...according to the ordained purpose of the Father...basically that ship (the individual) will steer its appointed course, that plotted, and that allotted, by the Father.

Because this is true of each individual, it is equally true for those appointed to office in the Church, the corporate entity and Body of Christ.

The entire system is designed to be self-regulating in regards to both the individual and corporate entities...and those, both, regulated by the Head via the Spirit of Christ in accordance with the Fathers ordained purpose.
.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Dark Lord, you're a lot smarter than I...did I misundestand VanTil?

Van Til recognized presuppositionalism is circular in nature and since Christianity finds it authority in revealed religion, presuppositions, our basis is circular. For a better definition read Van Til who marks a difference between Christian reasoning and pagan reasoning.

"...false circular reasoning stands over against true circular reasoning.” – Cornelius Van Til, Christianity in Conflict, Chapter 9

"To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting-point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another.” – Cornelius Van Til, Apologetics, Chapter 4 The Problem of Method

"And this brings up the point of circular reasoning. The charge is constantly made that if matters stand thus with Christianity, it has written its own death warrant as far as intelligent men are concerned. Who wishes to make such a simple blunder in elementary logic, as to say that we believe something to be true because it is in the Bible? Our answer to this is briefly that we prefer to reason in a circle to not reasoning at all. We hold it to be true that circular reasoning is the only reasoning that is possible to finite man. The method of implication as outlined above is circular reasoning. Or we may call it spiral reasoning. We must go round and round a thing to see more of its dimensions and to know more about it, in general, unless we are larger than that which we are investigating. Unless we are larger than God we cannot reason about him any other way, than by a transcendental or circular argument. The refusal to admit the necessity of circular reasoning is itself an evident token of opposition to Christianity. Reasoning in a vicious circle is the only alternative to reasoning in a circle as discussed above.” – Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, Chapter 1, 11 Transcendental

Herein my friend lies the source of whatever conflicts we may have: i'm NOT a Van Tilian!

i'm actually what is known as an Evidentualist or Classicalist. My views are articulated in the book Classical Apologetics. One of the co-authors, the late Dr. John Gerstner was a student of Van Til and dedicated the book to him.

That said, i have to make some disclaimers.

1) ALL apologetics are presuppositional. The difference between the classical/evidential method and the 'presuppositional' method is where those presuppositions are located. Van Til would have criticised the classical method for it's starting point.

2) While the existence of God and proof that the bible is the word of God can be made without presumption, it does not follow that such proof will be accepted by the unregenerate. It is a problem of will not ability.

3) The classical apologists, like the presuppositional apologist is still subject to the effects of the curse of creation and his or her falleness. We will make mistakes and have to depend on the grace of God for both an accurate presentation and acceptance by the hearer.

4) i am lazy. If i don't have to 're-invent the wheel' then i'm not going to re-invent the wheel. The standard presuppositional apologetic will work fine for me in almost all of the cases i've encountered.

5) This is also going to affect my view of the preservation of scripture. i can strongly hold to the Reformed position as stated in the WCF and reject the Catholic presumption that the church has the power to determine what is and is not scripture without objective evidence (unequivocal extant Greek or Hebrew Manuscripts!)--which involves some of our other discussions as of late.



i must say that i do find it interesting that we can start from two different points and end up with essentially the same conclusions. It is an area where i will have to spend some thought to determine how such a thing can be.

So, i continue to see circular reasoning as indicative of nonsense with either a bad premise (read "starting point") or bad reasoning process.

In the case of the article before us, we have enough bad logic and bad premises to engage ourselves with. No real need for us to be going after each other.

Smarter?

i don't think so. More likely, we have experience in different areas of life. i dealt with formal debate on the high school and college level a lifetime ago, and can probably still spot a logical fallacy from a mile off when i'm not having a day where my brain feels it's age...unless of course i'm the one who commits the fallacy!

Nonsense is nonsense no matter if it is a poor logical fallacy or a poor exegesis of God-breathed scripture.

 

[JM]

I can dig it.

 

[South Bound]

In addition to the fine resources Cush offered, you might also want to check out the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.