Featured Sola Scriptura: The Sufficiency of Scripture

DHK,

When someone disagrees with an idea you present, the way to respond isn't to:
a. Criticize their person
b. Question or describe their intelligence
c. Discuss the state or intention of their will
d. Explain the similarities of their position to that of someone else
e. Point out how many times they've pointed out your fallacious arguments
f. Accuse him of having already made up his mind
g. Continue repeating the same (fallacious) arguments

Further, I have repeated my charges only as often as you have attempted to argue fallaciously. The way to respond to a person who says your argument is fallacious, again, isn't to point out how often he's pointed out the fact that you're arguing fallaciously. The way to respond is to demonstrate to him that you're not doing what he says you're doing. Your arguments often:

1. Contradict Scripture
2. Beg the question
3. Argue in a circle
4. Attack strawmen
5. Present non sequiturs
6. Include innacurate (unsubstantiated) historical claims

If, when one quotes Scripture, he's moved from the realm of human opinion, then why is it that you deny James 2:24? For your explanation of it represents anything but what the text actually says and is nothing other an appeal to an "understanding" of the text based upon fallible human reasoning and interpretation. In other words, your understanding of James 2:24 represents a "tradition," that is, a "received understanding" of the text's meaning and NOT the meaning of the text itself, which, incidentally, says exactly the opposite of what your traditions suggest. Yet here you are telling me that I am clinging to traditions and ignoring the Word of God.

This type of thinking represents the fallacy of "special pleading" in which you exempt yourself from the standard you're applying to me (for no principled reason).

By defining a "true believer" in such terms, your position presupposes the validity of Sola Scriptura, which, incidentally, is the very thing currently in question between us. In other words, you are begging the question.

You are begging the question by, without having demonstrated such to be the case, referring that my "premise is a fallacy." By the way, logically speaking, a premise sittling all alone doesn't exactly represent a "fallacy." It may represent a falsehood. But as far as terms of logic are concerned, only when it's combined with one or more premises as well as a conclusion does it become a true logical fallacy, for example, a non sequitur.

Apart from having argued by assertion and repetition, you have done something far more central to our disagreements once again, DHK. This is at least the third time you have done this: You have elevated Scripture above the very person of Christ. Jesus did not use the Bible as His "sole authority." He WAS and IS the sole authority. The Scriptures are intended to be understood as pointing towards Him, not the other way around.

Was it not the Pharisees who came to see Christ Himself as being in the service of various aspects of Sabbath observance? Is that not similar to what you've presented? No, He is the Lord of the Sabbath as well as the Word become Flesh.

And this is where we encounter the fundamental difference between Catholicism and Biblicism:

Catholicism (universal Christianity) has, at its Center, the Lord, Jesus Christ. From Him, moving outward we encounter the Blessed Virgin, the Sacraments, the Church, and the Created Order of our Earth... All of these things, including Scripture, are, in Him, found to be in harmony with one another and ordered towards God's work of salvation among us.

This statement begs the question. Further, it's an argument by assertion. That is, you are simply presenting this "fact" and doing nothing to provide substantiation for it.

Herbert

 

I don't usually spend too much time with syllogisms, either. It's just that from what I was drawing from our conversation, I felt that it would help to bring clarity to things. And although I formulated a syllogism based upon what you'd presented, I am sorry if I misrepresented your position, so thanks for formulating the syllogism below. I am sorry that this is a bit long. I am trying to trim things down!

This is great because it represents all the problems I've been talking about and reveals a few more. First off I'd point out the fact that this syllogism is not being used to demonstrate the truth of a particular assertion through deduction, but is instead leading to a conclusion which purports to identify where exactly the burden of proof lies through a certain inductive process. Already then, this syllogism is quite abstracted. Whereas, a syllogism which argues by means of deduction, produces fundamentally sound conclusions. Inductive syllogisms, on the other hand, produce probabilities. And determining where the burden of proof lies (or where the onus is) is itself something which is dependent upon other arguments. Allow me to speak to each premise and then I'll get to what I see as the non sequitur upon which this syllogism is built:

1. Perfect. Amen!

2. I disagree.
a. The fact that Christ regularly quoted from Scripture, referred others to Scripture, and affirmed their authority is perfectly compatible with the Catholic Faith.
b. He did endorse an "other form of revelation" (apart from Scripture) as "normative" when He introduced Himself as "The Son," who is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
c. Further, He saw it fit to confer upon the Apostles the power to bind and loose, to forgive and retain forgiveness, to be "keepers of the keys" in His absence, etc. In other words, by the promise of the Holy Spirit, He most certainly did identify the "normative" authority of His Church, born on Pentecost, which is mystically bound to Him. All of these actions are recorded for us in Scripture.
d. The "traditions" Christ condemned were unGodly traditions, not all traditions. What you're doing by condemning all tradition on account of Christ's condemnation of Pharasaical traditions is falling prey to the "fallacy of composition" which fails by understanding all of a particular thing to have, by composition, the same qualities or weaknesses as all of the things of the same "composition." In other words, by assuming what's true for some traditions (for example, the unGodly traditions of the Pharisees) is true for all tradition, you've made quite a misstep. Your position, then, seems to be based largely upon the unproven (and unBiblical) assertion that because some traditions were indeed bad, then all traditions are bad.

3. Here as we reach your conclusion we encounter a clear demonstration of the fact that your position rests upon a sweeping and fallible inference (or probability), which is itself, grounded upon a non sequitur. Your syllogism is used to demonstrate, not how a particular assertion necessarily (deductively) follows from a set of premises, but rather, where exactly the burden of proof lies. But determining where the burden of proof lies is itself something which is dependent other factors which you've, in formulating your syllogism this way, glossed over. I know I keep changing your words around. But I do so simply to pinpoint your position. And since your argument was not deductive, but inductive, I am going to draw directly from your premises and conclusion to re-formulate it in a deductive form. I realize that my re-formulation of your syllogism doesn't represent your actually position. But the presentation of this revised version below will, hopefully, shed light on our disagreement:

The syllogism I've created below draws directly from your syllogism in such a way as to reformulate your points so that they argue for the truth of a specific conclusion. In contrast, your syllogism, by speaking not to a specific conclusion but instead to the question of where the onus lies, relies upon the validity of the syllogism below in order to reach its conclusion. I would argue that this syllogism (below) is embedded in the syllogism you provided and is actually a more useful version of it. For it reveals an affirmation of something instead of a broad standard meant to be applied to someone else (the onus to which you referred). Further, rather then concluding with a probability (which cannot be proven or disproven conclusively), it ends with a conclusion which is, according to its premises, able to be determined to be sound or unsound. Ultimately, far from clarifying and simplifying the terms of our disagreement, you framed things in a manner which added a layer of abstraction to the question at hand and committed itself (through inductive reasoning) to the realm not of divine revelation but human opinion. Once again, though Scripture itself represents divine revelation, Sola Scriptura, as I've said, represents a fallible inference and not divine-revelation. By drawing from your (inductive) syllogism to present what I take to be your beliefs in a more standard deductive form (as premises affirming a specific conclusion through deduction), I believe the presence of the non sequitur I've been talking about is clearly revealed:

Premise 1: He regularly quoted from the Scriptures
Premise 2: He affirmed their authority
Premise 3: He referred others to the Scriptures
Premise 4: He never endorsed any other form of revelation (apart from Scripture) as normative (not true)
Premise 5: He specifically denounced 'tradition'
Conclusion: Therefore, Scripture is the sole and final authority for Christians (and from this conclusion it follows that anybody who claims to follow Christ while denying Sola Scriptura isn't following Christ)

As I see it, your syllogism was not grounded in the clear deductive reasoning. As a result, it had a way of masking the non sequitur I've been talking about. Whereas, the conclusion of a syllogism with separate and truthful premises inevitably renders a valid and reliable conclusion, in the case of inductive reasoning, such certainty is not as easy to come by. The author Daniel Sullivan, in his Fundamentals of Logic, p. 114, states the following: "inductive reasoning involves a transition from the sensible singular to the universal." It is there in that transition from the "sensible singular" to the "universal" that you have gone from the realm of the divinely-revealed to the realm of human opinion. Whereas, a deductive argument is only as strong as its weakest link, an inductive argument builds a case according to known factors but falls short of the certainty of a deductive argument due to the fact that other unknown factors may be lurking about which would cause a person to have to reconsider those conclusions he'd reached through induction. Hence, we arrive at the un-soundness of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Through induction, you may feel justified in shifting the burden of proof to me. But through deduction, it can be seen that no matter how you cut it, premises 1-5 do not logically (and deductively) lead to the demands you presented above. Therefore, the burden of proof does not lie with one who does not hold to Sola Scriptura. To conclude so would be to mistake that which is mere human opinion for that which has been divinely-revealed.

No, I will look for it. Thanks!

Herbert

 

Hello-

DHK stated the following: "Is it any wonder you don't believe in sola scriptura or that it is taught in the Bible. It does. If it didn't then Jesus would not use the Bible as "His sole authority" when answering others. And that has already been demonstrated to you."

Christ, being the Son of God, didn't appeal to the Scriptures as His "sole" authority. For, by virtue of the fact that He is God in the Flesh, nothing to which He referred could rightly be assigned a "sole" authority. He is, when He speaks, ipso facto, incapable of appealing to something outside of Himself as His "sole" authority. Sole means "alone." But presented by Him, the Scriptures are being presented by God Himself, the Word Incarnate. It was therefore always "Scripture + the Person of Christ" which were at work when He spoke. DHK, by arguing for the Scripture's "sole" authority, even in the hands of Christ, has overlooked the Word Incarnate for the sake of the written Scripture. I challenged DHK because he's done this before. In my view, he would be right to acknowledge the Scripture's authority and Christ's authority. In his case, though, he often seems to speak to Scripture as a "sole" authority, and thereby, in the case of Christ's references to Scripture, overlook the necessarily authoritative identity of the Speaker, the One who even commanded the wind and the waves.

Yes, and the very point of that exchange was oriented toward the authority of the Resurrected Man with whom they walked. Again, then, we're talking about the authority of Christ in His Person + the Authority of Scripture. Neither operates in such a way as to justify the application of the term "sole." To do so would be to relegate one for the sake of the other.

Thanks for chiming in! I hope you see what I'm saying. And if I missed your point, please clarify.

Herbert

 

1 of V to DHK


DHK,


As always, I appreciate this conversation. Though there are many criticisms coming from both sides of the aisle, I'd like to once again affirm the fact that from my perspective though we do have some serious areas of disagreement, much more unites us. And I feel a certain camaraderie with you as we discuss these topics together. So thank you!


I am trying to shorten my responses. But it's hard for me. I want to respond to each point you make. So I am going to try to respond in two ways. My first response will address the problem that I see as central to your position. That speaks to what I see as the heart of our disagreement. The second response, you may choose to read or ignore. Thanks again!


1st Response:


The heart of our disagreement lies in the fact that I see you as basing nearly everything you say upon something like this:


Premise 1: Sola Scriptura is true.

Premise 2: Herbert rejects Sola Scriptura.

Conclusion: Therefore, Herbert is wrong.


Until you begin discussing things according to terms which do not presuppose the legitimacy of your position, this problem will continue to prevent us from getting anywhere as far as dialogue is concerned.


2nd Response:

Thanks for the apology, DHK. It's not that I was offended. And of course it's always possible that I am misinterpreting your point. But, as I saw it, in saying "You have already made up your mind to dismiss the evidence, whatever it is, that is set in front of you." you were implying that there is some flaw in my will, my integrity, or my intelligence. Hence, as I read your post, I saw these three things:


a. a criticism of the person (instead of the argument)

b. a calling into question of my intelligence (instead of speaking to the argument)

c. a discussion of the state or intentions of my will (instead of the validity of a given argument)


For one thing, I am not a person who's presupposed the validity of the claims of the Catholic Church. I became Catholic only after recognizing the problems of my particular Protestant Traditions (Specifically, I realized that I was holding to unBiblical positions such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide). I said that it is unhelpful, also, to explain the similarities of my position "to that of someone else."


You responded, saying: "If I am guilty of "d" which is to compare or contrast one's position to another, then it is to help them to see the fallacy of their own position."


Discussing an analogous situation is often helpful to shed light on a topic. In this case, though, I'm not exercising some sort of inordinate skepticism. I am presenting a position which may either be demonstrated to be true or demonstrated to be false. Therefore, the case of an atheist who seems to be an interminable skeptic is hardly analogous to the case of a former Baptist who once believed in Sola Scriptura and who has come to acknowledge that it is not a divinely-revealed doctrine. Any talk of my unwillingness to accept your positions (which you see as "Biblical.") is not a discussion of the subject we're here to consider. Further, skepticism is not in itself a fallacy. Skepticism is a tendency one has toward an intense or even inordinate doubt. And the degree to which one exercises his tendency toward skepticism is determined by various subjective factors. In contrast, a fallacy is something, that can be revealed as mistaken through logical consideration. And that is why I am going so far as to consider syllogisms here. For they can be evaluated and determined to be true or false. Whether or not my situation is similar to that of an atheist who refuses to believe Christ was raised from the dead, that's a consideration which introduces a whole host of other things to consider.


If Sola Scriptura is to be affirmed by all Christians as a matter of the Christian Faith, it must have been revealed by a prophet, revealed in Scripture, revealed by an angel, or otherwise revealed by God Himself. Nothing anyone has said here has demonstrated such a thing.


You also said "Please remember how many times you have repeated yourself (non sequitur, straw man, etc.)." But the question at hand is not how many times I've charged you with presenting fallacious arguments but whether or not you have actually done so. I believe you have.

Notice how you began this statement with the abbreviation "IMO." This abbreviation stands for "In my opinion." And that's exactly what I'm saying here. You've built a whole system upon a fallible opinion. We could just stop here. As it is, though, I am awaiting a demonstration of the fact that Sola Scriptura is a divinely-revealed doctrine.

When the very task at hand involves determining how to go about rightly interpreting Scripture, one can't appeal to one's private interpretation of Scripture as the standard by which everything else should be judged because such a consideration is the very thing in question. Hence, to presume the validity of one's own position, when the validity of one's position is the very thing in question is to beg the question concerning the question at hand.

This is why we're running around in circles together. This very statement represents the bankruptcy of your position because it presupposes the validity of your interpretation of Scripture. In other words, it begs the question.

Neither can one "assume he has the right interpretation of Scripture" if he goes by DHK and has been preaching from the Bible for 40 years. Also, has someone here responded to a question by saying "Just because the Catechism says so." ? If not, why introduce such a notion? This type of statement, because it misrepresents another person's position, is what is called a straw man fallacy.


A quick note here: I have re-stated or attempted to reformulate Martin's positions a number of times here. But when I do so, I am trying to identify exactly what it is he's said. I am re-stating for purposes of clarification and expressly not to "put words into his mouth." I am taking what he's written and trying to lay it down in terms which are fair, accurate, and easier for me to understand. Because of that, though I may mistakenly misrepresent his position occasionally, I am not creating a straw man for two reasons: 1. I am formulating my restatements according to things he's actually shared or implied. 2. I am asking him to correct my restatements if they don't reflect him accurately.

This statement also begs the question because it presumes the validity of Sola Scriptura. You don't see me appealing to Papal decrees to argue here. For I'd be begging the question (presupposing the legitimacy of Catholicism) by doing so. By limiting yourself, and even this conversation, to Sola Scriptura, you're, once again, begging the question by presuming the legitimacy of the doctrine. Our purpose here on this thread isn't to presuppose the validity of your fallible inference. Our purpose here on this thread is to consider whether or not Sola Scriptura is a fallible inference or a divinely-revealed doctrine.

 

2 of V to DHK

I am not "making" a contradiction. I am pointing out a contradiction which already exists between the doctrine of Sola Fide and the teaching of St. James. Sola Fide states that we are saved by Faith alone. James 2:24 states that we are not saved by Faith alone. I recognize Sola Fide, a doctrine invented in the 16th Century, which is nowhere taught in Scripture, to be at odds with James 2:24. By pointing that fact out, I am not making a contradiction at all.


Further, only by falling prey to the fallacy of composition, which is "committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole (in this case what constitutes 'works') based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference," does one see a contradiction between Romans 4:1-5 and James 2:24. A Catholic does not have a problem reconciling these two portions of Scripture because she doesn't commit such a fallacy. For she sees St. Paul speaking of "works of the law" which cannot justify. And she sees St. James speaking of works done in the charity of Christ, which are, in contrast to the works of the Law, wrought by grace and necessarily meritorious having been completed in, with, and through Christ. It's not a Catholic who "makes" a contradiction here. It's an adherent to the doctrine of Sola Fide who faces such a problem and finds himself "interpreting" James 2:24 in such a way as to mean the exact opposite of what the text actually says according to his traditions.


Still, you say "...when scripture is contradicted on your part (or the part of any other poster) then the argument has been lost..." But when you are the one who gets to decide whether or not Scripture has been contradicted, your position collapses in upon itself. So it is that James 2:24 says "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." yet hold to a doctrine which says taht we are justified by Faith alone. And even though you're flatly denying what the words of that verse actually state, you get to have your cake and eat it too since you get to "interpret" it according to "...what the Bible says on any given scripture."

I never said that the Bible contradicted itself. You're presenting another straw man.

Once again you've admitted the very point I am trying to make here. We could just stop now, for you stated the following: "My opinion is based on my understanding, the Holy Spirit guiding me as I have studied this book."


Unless you're going to say:

1. That your opinion is infallible

2. That your understanding is infallible

3. That your belief that the Holy Spirit is guiding you is proof that you cannot err as far as doctrine is concerned

...then without even presenting an argument for Sola Scriptura, you've acknowledged the heart of what I'm saying here:

Sola Scriptura *practically* amounts to a sort of self-assuring Biblicist Gnosticism which affirms a man both when he's right and when he's wrong, which is, again, why BobRyan holds to SS and is still a Seventh-Day Adventist.


There's nothing objective about that position. It's completely subjective. It cannot be checked against anything outside of itself, even Scripture. Again, this is a recipe for error. It gives the illusion of being in a state of obedience to the person who holds to it, because he believes himself to be led by the Holy Spirit. But the reality of the situation is summed up well by the phrase "When I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me."

By what authority do you preach? Do you mean that you read it to people and then share your opinion about what it means? Is your opinion really worthwhile to them? What distinction, if any, is there between the Scripture itself and your opinion of it? Did you preach that Chapter 2, Verse 24, for example, means the opposite of what it says, in your opinion, because of something St. Paul wrote elsewhere?


Also, I did not mean to suggest that you're "unfamiliar" with the text. I am saying that you're misconstruing it for the sake of your traditions. I said:


"For your explanation of it represents anything but what the text actually says and is nothing other an appeal to an "understanding" of the text based upon fallible human reasoning and interpretation. In other words, your understanding of James 2:24 represents a 'tradition,' that is, a 'received understanding' of the text's meaning and NOT the meaning of the text itself, which, incidentally, says exactly the opposite of what your traditions suggest. Yet here you are telling me that I am clinging to traditions and ignoring the Word of God."


Again, what the Bible does in order to reveal the fact that Sola Fide is wrong is the same thing it does not do to demonstrate to me that Sola Scriptura is right, that is, actually say something about it. But where the Bible comes right out and says that Sola Fide is false, it fails to come right out and say that Sola Scriptura is true.

The word "tradition" within this context, means something like "received understanding." So it's not "ludicrous" to suggest that you're operating according to a "tradition." Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox and everybody else have "traditions" or "received understandings" of Scripture and the Faith in general. The word tradition suggests something which was handed down or received by predecessors. And there is nothing in the Scriptures which states that the information which has been handed down "must" come through "Sola Scriptura." In this case, you've received an interpretation of James 2:24 which is not something you came up with entirely by yourself. You received it. And you share it according to your accepted interpretation of what it means.

I don't believe that I have made unfounded accusations. In the context of that statement, the type of thinking I was referring to when I mentioned the fallacy of special pleading takes place when you "exempt yourself from the standard you're applying to me." In other words, you claim to hold everybody (including yourself) to a particular standard (with regard to Scripture) except for those times when you exempt yourself from the standard (Such as is the case with James 2:24)... In other words you claim obedience to a universal principle of authority, namely Sola Scriptura, but you don't really actually hold to it. When the going gets tough, you allow your received understanding of particular texts to trump the actual words of Scripture.

I am so very glad you asked this. For I don't have the upper hand at all. I am just another man. But there is someone who does have the upper hand over both of us, Jesus Christ. And He established the Catholic Church. So it is that I appeal to the provision established by Christ which has "much greater authority" than either of us. As people, we're on equal footing. This is why, at best, Sola Scriptura is nothing but a private belief which you think (as a matter of opinion) I should accept, also. So according to Sola Scriptura our competing traditions do nothing more than "cancel each other out." Therefore, we, just as Christ indicated in Matthew 18, take our disagreements to the Church which has the authority to bind and loose, to forgive and retain sin, and to "cast out" the unrepentant sinner.

 

3 of V to DHK

To evangelize a Catholic is to presume the superiority of your own position *as a matter of Christian doctrine.* And that, incidentally, is exactly what this conversation is supposed to be about.

Catholics, wherever they're found, are heirs to the heritage of "Western Culture." The term "Western Culture" isn't geographically-specific. In other words, when you're encountering Catholics in any part of the world, you're encountering "Western Culture."

Just as the Hebrew people saw themselves as a People, so it is appropriate for Christians to have a certain familial identity in the Faith. Sure that's not all there is to the Faith. But it is entirely appropriate that kids whose parents are Christians should see themselves as Christians. Think of St. Peter saying “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” So, again, though that's not the only thing that makes a person a Christian, it's entirely appropriate that people should understand themselves and their families as having a broader familial Christian identity. This looks to me to be a case of you demanding that others conform to your understanding of Scripture.

When you judge Biblical literacy according to your own standard for what a Christian "should be" and how a Christian should act, think, and understand things, you're attempting to hold the broader Christian world to a privately determined standard which is your received understanding of what Christianity should look like, and not by anything revealed by God. And what point are you trying to make here? Of course things are "just different." There are many languages, cultures, literacy rates, mortality rates, quality-of-life standards. These things don't represent a scandal or a problem for anybody. So many Christians have lived, served the Lord, and died in His grace without the ability to read. They've died in castles. They've died in poverty. But being able to recite the Book of James, or cite the Bible's stories chapter and verse, or share the "Roman Road" with someone, these are not things which are prerequisites for knowing Christ. So what's your point?


Also, notice what you're saying here. What you're saying here is that "most Christians" on the face of the Earth see family identity as one factor which justifies a person self-identifying as a Christian. Could it be that it's you and not them who are missing something about the Christian identity?

Notice, none of this is in the Bible. This all represents your own demographic analysis. And it all presupposes the validity of a particular Biblicist approach to the Christian Faith not taught in the Bible yet used to determine whether or not others are sufficiently "Biblical" in their approach to the Faith. Where, for example, does it say anything like "A 'true believer' is one who has trusted Jesus Christ as his Savior, has a personal relationship with Him, has been born again by His Spirit. He is not just a Christian because he is born into a 'Christian family.'" in the Bible? This type of analysis represents a synthesis of various Biblical concepts which are turned into a certain kind of "equation" by which you may put people into neat little categories. It is by this very type of unBiblical equation that you understand me as most decidedly not a "true Christian." All of it, however, is based not upon Scripture, but the fallible minds of men. Maybe your equation is missing something and it's actually the case that the Anglicans, the Catholics, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians who understand family identity rightly.

This is a false statement. "All" the Catholic posts here do not "immediately" appeal to the Early Church Fathers "instead of the Scriptures." There are many references here to Scripture written by Adonia, utilyan, and myself. I have not really appealed to the Fathers much at all, personally. And by stating that the Fathers are the "source of most errors," you're begging the question by presupposing the legitimacy of the means by which a Christian is to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion. So when Christ says "This is my body" and the Church Fathers say "Amen" and modern day Catholics say "Amen" and you read the passage to say what He really meant was "This is NOT my body," is it really fair for you to say they are wrong when all they're doing is accepting what He said and holding to that "received understanding" of what He meant when He instituted the Holy Eucharist? Again, you always hold to what the Scriptures say... except for those times you don't...

It seems as though you're suggesting that the Early Church Fathers held to Sola Scriptura. Just a moment ago, though, you said that they are the "source of most errors." Which one is it?

From grammarist.com we read:


"Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself."


That definition, rather than being some strict and narrow definition, is just the basic definition of what it means to "beg the question." Notice, it describes exactly what you've been doing for this whole conversation (and likely for the past 40 years). What you've been doing here is judging others' doctrines because they don't hold to "Sola Scriptura" without first demonstrating that anybody including yourself should be holding to the doctrine in the first place.

 

4 of V to DHK

Premise 1: "Jesus is our sole authority."


Yes. Amen. I can accept that because the Catholic Church with its Sacraments, its Faith, and its Magisterium represents the provision instituted by Christ through which He would shepherd His People before His Glorious Second Coming. And as for your appeal, wait, what happened to Sola Scriptura?


Premise 2: "Jesus revealed Himself through his word."


Yes. Amen. Jesus is the Word made Flesh, the Incarnate Son of God. But, yes, He also revealed Himself to us through Scripture.


Conclusion: "There is no other way to know Jesus except through his Word."


Wait. That conclusion does not follow from its (2) premises. In other words, this is a non sequitur. If you disagree, please explain how 3 necessarily and unavoidably follows 1 and 2. For though I can affirm 1 and 2, I most definitely need not affirm 3.

We know Jesus through Scripture, through the Church, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, through intellectual and historical study, through conversations with other Christians, through service to fellow members of the human family, through faith, through suffering... The list goes on.

You don't have "a belief system." You have Catholic truths which came from Christ through His Church, which you reject, and opinions you mistake for divine revelation. This is why BobRyan can hold to "Sola Scriptura" and suggest that Jesus and the Apostles were basically 7th Day Adventists while you see the "First Baptist Church of Jerusalem" somewhere in history. That's the interesting thing about this conversation. I could suddenly "see the light" and say "Oh, DHK, thanks for helping me to see the truth of Sola Scriptura!" and then I could go on to join BobRyan's Communion or some unique Unitarian sect or some split-off group originating with the Schwenkfeldians... or I could accept Sola Scriptura, read and study the Bible, and then come to realize that it doesn't teach the thing you helped me to see and eventually become a Catholic. So even if you were to convince me of the legitimacy of this doctrine, you'd not have drawn me over to "your side." There is no "our belief system." among Biblicists. There are accidental areas of alignment. But there is nothing essential to your "group" or people whom you identify as "us," those who hold to "our belief system." In other words, if you were to be instrumental in calling me back to Sola Scriptura you would have converted me to a way of thinking which is a recipe for schism, individualism, error, and subjectivity by which any number of insane doctrines are justified.

Jesus Christ is the Word. But He's not the Bible. He's a divine person.

I am not sure what you mean here. Though God spoke Creation into existence (Psalm 33:6-), He wasn't exactly the "spoken Word" as far as I can see it. He was the Word Incarnate, though. And He was there in the beginning and is uncreated, consubstantial with the Father. But the fact that He spoke the world into existence does not mean that He was the "spoken" Word.

 

5 of V to DHK

"True Christianity" has, as an essential component, relationship with Christ. Marriage, also, has, as one of its necessary components, mutual co-operation and relationship between spouses. Both of these things, however, are not rightly reducible to simply the "relational" components of their natures. To unnecessarily reduce either to one of many components to the exclusion of many others is to present a kind of reductive fallacy which oversimplifies a complex and multi-faceted reality for rhetoric's sake.

DHK, I am 38 and I have been with my wife just a couple week's shy of 23 years. We have had a wonderful relationship for all of this time. It is possible to have a relationship + liturgy, ritual, and ceremony. The presence of those components does not indicate the absence of relationship. This is just another example of fallacious reasoning on your part. It's as though you have jabbed a few darts in a wall and you're desperately attempting to paint targets around them as the conversation progresses.

You've presented your opinion concerning the nature of Holy Communion. Many others who hold to "Sola Scriptura" disagree with you, however. Do you have some secret knowledge apart from Scripture according to which you're able to infallibly know they're wrong? Or is it possible that all you can do is present to them your fallible human understanding of the Scriptures in an effort to get them to agree with you and thereby hold to the same tradition you've accepted (which is anything but infallible)? Also, it is possible for relationship and reception of Holy Communion in Christ's Church to both be essential to the Faith? If not, why not? By speaking in these either-or terms, you're presenting a "false dilemma" which is a fallacy which pits two compatible things against one another as if they cannot both be true (when they most certainly can). Instead of seeing things in these either-or terms, I'd recommend considering a "both-and" view which seeks to recognize Biblical truths as harmonious and compatible with one another.

Yes, and St. Paul demonstrates my point about adopting a "both-and" view beautifully when you consider Philliipians 3:10 in light of First Corinthians 10:16 where he writes: "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"

What do you mean by this? You continue (as do I) to return here for further engagement. There is no timer running. And if you see it as pertinent to the topic at hand, feel free to take weeks, even months to get back with me. As it is, this is a new fallacy for you. Maybe we should call it the Absentum Argumentum. It's the Fallacy of the Absent Proof in which you refer to a proof you've not the time to present which concerns an item of fundamental importance to the discussion in which you're engaged.


Also, I have presented evidence for the continuity of the Catholic Faith from Pentecost through the present day. One of those pieces of evidence was a Papal Succession list we've received from the Christians who went before us in the Faith... starting with St. Peter.

You are begging the question.


Thanks again for the conversation, DHK!


Herbert