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:
If I am guilty of f. it is because I have repeated myself many times and the poster has not given an answer to the post for it seems like he is avoiding the evidence set before him.
If "g" sometimes I repeat myself until I get a satisfactory answer.
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.
IMO, when scripture is contradicted on your part (or the part of any other poster) then the argument has been lost, whether or not he feels it is a strawman or any other fallacious argument.
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.
IOW, when the premise itself includes a contradiction of scripture why go on until the scripture is rectified.
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.
One cannot accuse me of arguing fallaciously as long as the other poster begins with a wrong interpretation of scripture.
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.
OTOH, one cannot assume he has the right interpretation of scripture, "Just because the Catechism says so."
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.
The purpose here is to find out what the Bible says on any given scripture.
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.