I've opened up this thread so that all interested might discuss matters begun over at GreenBaggins.
Questions on the table:
(1) Is the vow given in the rite of initiation into the Catholic Church a formal fallacy? I affirm.
(2) Is sola scriptura distinguishable from solo scriptura? I affirm.
(3) Is the Protestant secretly relying on his own opinions rather than on Scripture? I deny.
JRC
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Open Thread - The Roman Catholic Magisterium
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
100 comments:
David Myers,
You said on GB
"All the points about conscience would be the same, so it would become a “formal falacy” (not sure I get what that even is to be honest.)"
A formal fallacy is an argument whose conclusion is not justified. The conclusion isn't wrong necessarily, but it is not justified.
This matters because of the question of certainty. Consider the difference between these two:
(1) All men are mortal
(2) Socrates is a man
(3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The conclusion (3) follows inevitably from (1) and (2): if you grant me the first two, you cannot deny the third.
By contrast, this argument is a fallacy:
(1) All men are mortal
(2) Socrates is mortal
(3) Therefore, Socrates is a man.
The conclusion is accidentally true (as a matter of history), but it isn't necessarily true. "Socrates" could refer to my fish.
For our discussion:
(1) God defines truth
(2) God says X
(3) Therefore X is true
is a logically valid argument. If you give me the first two, the conclusion must follow.
But
(1) God defines truth
(2) The church has divine authority
(3) The church says X
(4) Therefore X is true
is not logically valid. I can agree with the first three and still disagree with the last (without being irrational). Why? Because the "divine authority" of the church is not a logically necessary guarantor that the church's words are God's words.
The church might have divine authority and misuse it, for instance. Or the church might have divine authority at some times, but not at others. Or the authority of the church might not include the ability to infallibly transmit the words of God.
Does that help?
JRC
David, you asked TFan
In other words, assume you were very much convinced that some element of the creed was totally in error in the light of Scripture. In Protestantism, what mechanism is there for you to know you are off the rails?
This is the human condition. Being non-omniscient means that reality could always surprise us.
However, I think the Protestant has an answer that is better than the Catholic answer in a couple respects.
The Catholic answer is, I know whether I am correct by checking myself against the church teaching, in consultation with my priest/bishop/cardinal/pope.
And while this method has a high degree of precision -- you are very likely to come to the same conclusion as the rest of your (faithful) Catholic friends, it also has a single point of failure.
That's an engineering term that refers to the bad situation where, if one part goes down, the whole thing goes down.
Here, the single point of failure is the doctrine of dogmatic infallibility. The Catholic method places all of its eggs into that one basket.
But what if dogmatic infallibility fails at some point? Then the whole system fails.
By contrast: The Protestant answer is,
(1) I search out Scripture as thoroughly as possible, weighing all texts and placing greater weight on the ones that are clearer.
(2) I confirm my reading against the creeds and traditions of the church (in this case, you are talking about question the creed, but I'm speaking generally).
(3) If there are major discrepancies -- if I'm at odds with the entire church! -- then I treat my conclusions as extremely provisional and quite suspect.
In other words, the method relies on multiple strands of evidence, taken together to form a whole picture.
The downside of that method is a lower level of precision. I'm much less likely to agree with, even other Presbies, than Catholics are likely to agree with one another. Well, at least I imagine so -- my exposure to Catholicism is not so thorough that I know about the precision question with confidence.
But the upside is that there is not a single point of failure. All of my epistemic eggs are not riding in the dogmatic infallibility basket.
As a Protestant, I can place some space between my own opinions and the truth; my opinions don't have to be right. What is right is the Scripture.
Now, the RCC criticizes the Protestant method as the recipe for schism. "Look at all the different denominations."
I reply:
(1) Very few denominational divisions are actually over principled differences in Scriptural interpretation. I can point to some (Lutheran/Reformed); but in most cases, division is the result of personality or else a deliberate wandering away from the Scripture.
(2) Schism takes two. Had Leo X taken swift action on indulgences, Lutherans would be Catholics today. Well, OK, that's hyperbole. The point is that the Protestant method does not create schism in a vacuum. Schism is rather a complex phenomenon that includes personal elements, an unwillingness to walk the same road together, and irreconcilable differences.
In my view, the dogma of church infallibility is a tested and true recipe for schism.
(I went into a Greek church once. It had a poster on the wall showing the orthodox church continuing as the trunk of a tree, with the RCC branching off of it, and the Protestant churches branching off from that. The picture said it all: "We are the true church; the West is the schismatic church. The schismatic Rome gave birth to schismatic daughters." Obviously, there's some bias there. But the point is an interesting one.)
JRC
Hi,
I'd like to jump in here.
You said: (1) Is the vow given in the rite of initiation into the Catholic Church a formal fallacy? I affirm.
Could you be more specific here?
You said: (2) Is sola scriptura distinguishable from solo scriptura? I affirm.
Ok. This is a point of contention that will be discussed.
You said: (3) Is the Protestant secretly relying on his own opinions rather than on Scripture? I deny.
This is not as clear cut and can be taken various ways.
Is the Protestant willfully ignoring Scripture and or acting deceitfully? No.
Is the Protestant making unbiblical claims that they none the less genuinely believe to be biblical? I'd say yes.
Now regarding your first post here, where you said the 4-point syllogism regarding Church Infalliblity was invalid because:
"The church might have divine authority and misuse it, for instance. Or the church might have divine authority at some times, but not at others."
Within the very definition of Church Infallibility is the recognition that it only applies under certain conditions. Thus the 4-point syllogism is valid under those conditions. So the proposal certainly is *logically* valid, even if point #2 is not true in reality.
In your second comment you said:
"I think the Protestant has an answer that is better than the Catholic answer in a couple respects."
That might be so - but I think that before you can even proceed you must demonstrate your superior methodology is derived from Scripture - else you must concede it's a tradition of men in the same sense Protestants say Catholic methodology is a tradition of men.
Another serious problem I see in your system is the *highly dangerous* approach to *Christian* theology that (as you clearly concede) doesn't allow precision in teaching. As I said in my posts on GB, which I didn't see much direct interaction with (I see post#93 was directed at you), the issue of "This is My Body" exposes the danger in that approach.
In Protestantism, each person, without realizing it, is acting in a highly dogmatic fashion when it comes to "This is My Body" - including those who dogmatically delegate it to the "non-essential" category.
The approach you suggests turns Christianity into more of an agnostic faith than one of the ultimate revelation to mankind via the Incarnation.
Looking over your proposed approach, even though you say there is not a "single point of failure", there are still seriously dubious planks you're standing upon. A single point of failure isn't as dangerous or dubious as you make it out to be either, since doctrines like the Resurrection are "single points of failure" for Christianity as a whole.
You said: (1) I search out Scripture as thoroughly as possible, weighing all texts and placing greater weight on the ones that are clearer.
This is fine in general, but it's (a) not a methodology Scripture teaches, and (b) it breaks down very often without any resolution behind it. The saying "This is My Body" doesn't have many passages to appeal to; a lot of one's final determination comes from how they take those words - yet we know this is an important doctrine at hand.
You said: (2) I confirm my reading against the creeds and traditions of the church (in this case, you are talking about question the creed, but I'm speaking generally).
But what gives these any authority? Which Creeds and Traditions are you looking to? It seems to me you'd only look to a Creed or Tradition for "support" as long as you felt that Creed or Tradition conformed to your pre-existing understanding of Scripture. There are cases all the time of Protestants tossing out this or that Creed or Council because they don't believe it conforms to Scripture - but in that case they've made the Council subordinate to them rather than the other way around. This is seen very distinctly in the way folks like TurretinFan (and I assume yourself) put no weight in the Canons of those Councils (including Nicea).
Lastly, in actual practice, I don't believe most Protestant theology ends up matching up with historic Creeds and Councils beyond a very broad sense (e.g. belief in the Trinity).
You said: (3) If there are major discrepancies -- if I'm at odds with the entire church! -- then I treat my conclusions as extremely provisional and quite suspect.
I'd say this conforms to Catholic methodology far more closely than to Protestant. The Protestant Reformation thrived on throwing out any Councils or universal agreements that didn't conform to Protestant teaching. Luther and others made no apology to the claim their doctrines lacked testimony in councils/fathers. For example, when has a church council or ECF taught Salvation cannot be lost? I don't know of a single example - yet the Reformed branch of Protestantism boldly claims this as a core component of orthodoxy.
Like #2 above, this is a claim which I don't see much truth in when it comes to actual practice in Protestantism.
I believe I can take any number of Ecumenical Councils, starting with Nicea, and using the raw data alone come to a position that is hands down overwhelmingly more Catholic looking than Protestant looking. I simply cannot close my eyes to the 'raw historical data'.
Nick,
You're welcome to jump in. I would like to defer to David M, lest the whole conversation explode in a thousand directions. This doesn't mean I dismiss your points; just that I would like to get to them in an orderly fashion.
To clarify (1):
The "profession of faith" made in the RCIA is as follows:
I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.
Since it is the case that almost all or all individuals making this profession do not know each proposition taught by the RCC, it follows that this profession is made on the basis of authority:
(1) If the church teaches X,
(2) Then since the church has divine authority,
(3) X is true.
My point is that this is a fallacious argument from authority.
---
To clarify (3),
Bryan Cross (following the lead of Bellarmine and others) charges that sola scriptura is simply a cover for individualism. The sola scripturalist is really just an individualist.
This I deny.
That sounds like a good plan/approach. David M should be first to respond.
Hey Jeff :)
Hope it's okay to be anonymous - I'm one of Those Protestants (aka a lifelong Protestant currently trying to work my way through the morass that Catholic/Protestant debates entail, and finding the Catholic position far more compelling than not.) David hasn't yet replied (as has been mentioned by others,) but I was wondering if I might get some clarification on a point in particular you raise.
So I'm a college logic teacher, and the idea of formal fallacies themselves is nothing new to me. I'm curious about their application to the present case, however...
You wrote: (1) God defines truth
(2) The church has divine authority
(3) The church says X
(4) Therefore X is true
is not logically valid. I can agree with the first three and still disagree with the last (without being irrational). Why? Because the "divine authority" of the church is not a logically necessary guarantor that the church's words are God's words.
I find myself rather puzzled as to the last step of your argument: if a church actually has divine authority, then how can what it says be false? You provided examples ("The church might have divine authority and misuse it...", etc) but all of those seem like textbook cases where the church does not and (actually) never had authority in the first place.
Put another way, the Protestant position seems to treat authority in a strange sense - where authority can be misused, lost, etc. Maybe that's true on any number of human levels, but the point under question is one of divine authority, and hence I'm not sure the analogy holds. At least it's an assumption our Catholic bretheren wouldn't subscribe to - I'm pretty sure they would not see what you identify as a fallacy at all but as perhaps a case of the fallacy of four terms.
My apologies for the rambley nature of this comment - I'm at work and wanted to jot my thoughts down before they flit out of my head (again!) Any clarification or additional thoughts you have in relation to my own thoughts would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Me :-)
Anonymous,
I agree and made that same clarification/distinction which the Catholic Church explicitly does in this regard. Infallibility only extends to when the Church is teaching in it's official capacity, not every word this or that bishop or pope said.
This is how the syllogism should look:
(1) God defines truth
(2) The church has divine authority [when teaching doctrine]
(3) The church says X [is official doctrine]
(4) Therefore X is true
This is logically valid.
And, further, to deny this system is at least logical is to deny the Scriptures could be inspired as per the following:
(1) God defines truth
(2) St Paul has divine authority to pen Scripture
(3) St Paul says X in Scripture
(4) Therefore X is true
It's virtually IDENTICAL to the example of the Church (as Catholics see it). This is not to say everything St Paul said or did was inspired, but only in the narrow context of preaching the Gospel.
Anon.,
I appreciate the contribution. We'll have to see how the anonymous thing works out. For now, carry on.
I find myself rather puzzled as to the last step of your argument: if a church actually has divine authority, then how can what it says be false?
(1) Because the term "divine authority" is ambiguous. What exactly does it mean?
Put it this way: Elijah had divine authority as a prophet from God. Yet he was not infallible at all times.
So to say "the church has divine authority" is not sufficiently clear to get from one step to the next. It does not specify what that authority does; when it operates; and so on.
Adding additional specifications, of course, narrows the appeal of the argument. You can get agreement from me if you say "the church has divine authority." You lose me if you start saying, "Which means that when the pope speaks ex cathedra, he is infallible..." All of the sudden, by fixing the ambiguity, your burden of proof just shot way up.
(2) More importantly, because even if "having divine authority" means something like infallibility, our argument is still not a logically valid one, but an inductively strong one.
Here I actually agree with Nick.
The argument
(1) God defines truth
(2) St Paul had divine authority to pen Scripture.
(3) St Paul says X in Scripture
(4) Therefore X is true
is not logically valid either. It is inductively strong.
Why not valid? Put it into symbols and see. It's not actually a formally valid syllogism.
[Hint 1: there's no logically necessary reason to believe that "Scripture" is "the word of God." I believe it, but not because of its tautologous or self-evident truth]
[Hint 2: (2) doesn't specify whether all that Paul wrote is Scripture, or some, or whether all of Scripture was penned under divine inspiration ... you see the problem]
Why inductively strong? Because we have good reason to believe (on the universal testimony of the church) that what St. Paul wrote was in fact the words of God.
---
The key distinction here, and one that I think we ought to be able to agree to, is that God defines truth, so that His words are analytically true.
No-one else, not the church and not even St. Paul, defines truth. They receive it from God.
And that step, "they receive it from God", is not self-evident, but proven on the basis of evidence.
Which means that the argument from church authority is a probabilistic, inductive argument. It all hinges on the strength of the evidence that the church (or St. Paul) (a) possesses divine authority, (b) uses it properly, and (c) knows when she (he) is using it properly.
I think that evidence is really, really strong for Scripture; not so much for the church.
So Nick, I agree with you on two counts: First, that the argument from St. Paul is not logically valid either; Second, that the argument from St. Paul is parallel to the argument from church authority. Where we part company is on assessing the strength of the various proposition (2)s.
JRC
Jeff,
Thanks for the explaination of a formal falacy. That makes sense. Thanks for your respectful demeanor as well. It is refreshing.
Nick is hitting all the points I wanted to chime in on but doing it waaaay better than I am able with obviously more skill. If you want to answer him, know I am listening intently. I may just participate by listening as that may keep things on track more.
By the way, thank you for the admission of the "lower level of precision" in the Protestant method. (surprisingly often this is denied) This shows me that you are willing to put your cards on the table. I appreciate that.
This statement by Nick sums up my problem: "In Protestantism, each person, without realizing it, is acting in a highly dogmatic fashion when it comes to "This is My Body" - including those who dogmatically delegate it to the "non-essential" category."
Also his points about the Prot. method not being in Scripture. (not a problem per se, but does not fit sola s.)
In the interest of disclosure, I am planning to and excited about becoming Catholic. Me and my wife just met with a Priest last night to discuss the Sacrament of Reconciliation. But I am certainly open to truth. And I feel as if my issues with sola s. have really not been well answered. So I am wide open to being proven wrong. I was a hard core Reformed Calvinist as of this past February, so I think that is proof that I am open to changing my mind when presented with good reason to.
Thanks for taking time to engage these issues guys!
Hi all,
So Nick lays out three issues on the table:
(1) That I need to demonstrate that methodology is derived from Scripture.
(2) That I'm arguing for a lack of precision that leads to agnosticism.
(3) That the "This is my body" problem (not to be confused with the Three-Body Problem in physics :) ) demonstrates the problem alleged in (2).
Is that a fair summary?
While we're all ruminating on that, I have a couple of questions for the RCs in the room.
(1) How do you deal with the "eggs in one basket" problem -- that your entire dogmatic content rests on the prior assumption of church infallibility? What if you've got the wrong church? What if you've got the right church but the wrong idea of what "authority" means? etc.
(2) How do you deal with having two different standards for your faith -- Scripture on the one hand, and Tradition on the other? I understand that you believe they do not conflict. But what happens when they appear to conflict?
JRC
(#2)As far as I know, Scripture and Tradition are part of the same deposit of faith. I would say they are for you as well... (in the table of contents for your Bible). So there are not 2 different standards. As far as apparent conflicts, I can definately answer that one.
There are always apparent conflicts with Scripture also. Certainly you know this as a Reformed believer. We also know, because of inerrancy, that they cannot really in fact be conflicts.
(#1)You asked "how do you know you have the right church?" when it comes to finding the one that is infallible.
Well it is not as if the Mormons were really in the running right? But even you must admit that the Mormons COULD be right. I am guessing you are not sweating it. Why? Because their claim to authority is laughable. It does not hold up under scrutiny. So in that sense we can KNOW they are wrong. This is not the case with Catholicism or E.O. When Protestants say it is the case, it really makes me question their genuiness and motives. It is one thing to say you don't believe the case merits the Catholic conclusion, but please lets be honest and admit that the case is at least a reasonable choice. There really are only a couple choices. Catholic and E.O. No other churches have a plausible claim to being the church Christ founded. Would you agree? It is a bit hard to swallow when Protestants will make the comparison between Mormons and Catholicism being both on the table. That is when I know someone is not interested in fairness. Would you agree that there is a world of difference and that the convert such as myself has some history and Scripture on his side? And as far as "knowing", as you are aware I am sure, there are levels of knowing that cannot be reached by claimed by either of us unless we claim special, personal revelation. All I am claiming is there is ample reason in Scripture and history to look for a "seat" (as Jesus called it) of his authority. Obviously that seat, having Christ's authority, can be trusted to be infallible in the same way Jesus pointed to the seat of Moses. "Do what they say, not what they do..."
From there it comes down to credibility. And yes, I used my brain to look at historical and Scriptural evidence to come to this conclusion. (I might be wrong)There really only are those two communions that BOTH claim to have an infallible teaching authority and have reasonable proofs of it. Using Scripture to interpret Scripture, the keys given to Peter are shockingly authoritative. Isaiah 22:15-23 is simply stunning.
contunued...
"your entire dogmatic content rests on the prior assumption of church infallibility?"
Well, your assumption is book infallibility. Honestly I think it is "interpretive infallibility" ultimately. The difference for me is the interpreting is being done by someone outside of my brain who has a plausible claim to succesion from the Apostles. Also, I see in the N.T. (yes, my interpretation) authority being given to MEN to run the church. Having these men define "this is My Body" does not diminish Scripture. It enlivens Scripture. I can now enter deeper into meditating on the mystery of the incarnation. Instead, the Protestant under sola scriptura relies on his interpretation. (not that he cannot meditate on the incarnation!) But the location of interpretive authority is different for him and therefore he (I did) will question "did I get this one right?"
I was of Calvin's view on the Supper. And I am sorry to say, there is no way I could ever be sure I had it right. Can I be sure now? Not like i'm sure of 2+2, no. But in the way people are accustomed to saying "I am sure that Jesus died and rose again for my salvation" I can say "I am sure that the Catholic church has the correct interpretation of and identification of all the important doctrines of Christianity."
It is not some philosophical certainty. But it is a certainty based on the fact that if Christ is God, and if He founded a Church, that that Church is still around in 2010 and that Church is still unified in doctrine (truth) and government. If Protestants were unified in at least in doctrine, I would never have left, because I would have assumed them to be the continuation of the Church. Sadly, they have no unity without butchering the meaning of that word.
Sorry for rambling. I just had my second cup of coffee and am pretty wide eyed.
Peace,
David Meyer
Jeff,
You had two questions:
(1) How do you deal with the "eggs in one basket" problem -- that your entire dogmatic content rests on the prior assumption of church infallibility? What if you've got the wrong church? What if you've got the right church but the wrong idea of what "authority" means? etc.
This is a good question, and as a Catholic I would approach it with the following points in mind:
(a) Any church/denomination one decides to go with is going to result in an "eggs in one basket" scenario to some extent. If any one of the Articles of the Westminster Confession are wrong/false, then the entire WCF loses it's credibility.
Now some (many?) Reformed Protestants would be of the mind that they can cut and paste whatever they want from the Westminster Confession (or any similar document), but at that point they've become a magisterium unto themself and have not really escaped the "eggs in one basket" scenario.
(b) Catholics don't deny they could have gotten the wrong Church...but the catch is that this isn't a shot in the dark so to speak; it's a well informed decision. Catholics don't put their hand in a grab-bag of denominations and pull one out at random. A big factor to consider when seeking out which Church is the true Church is *credibility* - especially historical credibility. Take the first few Ecumenical Councils as one prime example. Of all the options on the table, which Christian groups most closely model the Ecumenical Councils? I'm thoroughly convinced that the only two reasonable options are Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. This is highlighted by the fact no Protestant denomination will touch any of the canons of these Councils with a 10-foot pole. In my experience, a Protestant will abandon any part of any Ecumenical Council as soon as things don't meet their presuppositions.
(c) Finding the right church but having the wrong idea of "authority" is not as serious a concern as finding the right Church. I would say this is akin to finding the right Savior, Jesus, but not fully understanding Christology.
2 of 2
(2) How do you deal with having two different standards for your faith -- Scripture on the one hand, and Tradition on the other? I understand that you believe they do not conflict. But what happens when they appear to conflict?
I deal with it without even blinking: since I've yet to see any conflict, even apparent.
I remember when I first had to come to grips that Tobit and Maccabees were inspired, since as a Protestant I was taught to radically distrust them. Ultimately, I reasoned that it wasn't up to me to determine what was inspired or not. I had to come to grips that the very collection of books was passed down by tradition, including the Titles of the books and ordering of them. I could not justify putting myself as a Lone Ranger of Christendom.
What I've come to really see is that everyone is reading Scripture with Tradition in the background - the catch is that most people cannot see it. Most people don't realize they are wearing glasses with their own Tradition coloring it. And Jeff, if you think about it, that's the only way you could even have asked me this question (i.e. you must have your own tradition-colored glasses on to be able to detect apparent "conflicts" in my position).
And the touchstone example here is "This is My Body." Nothing but Tradition answers and settles this - including the agnostic tradition which delegates the matter to "non-essential". The question becomes: who has the most credibility to address that issue?
I'll leave with the following thought: Canon 13 of Nicaea says, "Concerning the departing, the ancient canon law is still to be maintained namely that those who are departing are not to be deprived of their last, most necessary viaticum."
Do you know what Viaticum is? Viaticum is Holy Communion administered as part of the Last Rites. The most important thing the ancient Church did to a person about to pass away was administer Holy Communion to them. This notion is foreign to the great majority of Protestantism (except maybe Anglicans). This is good evidence that the symbolic view of the Eucharist was not that of the ancient Church, it also emphasizes the Eucharist gets it's power and efficacy not from being celebrated in the context of a worship service but rather in it's own essence. Protestantism confines the power and efficacy of Communion to the limits of the sanctuary, and Lutherans (who hold one of the more literal views of "This is My Body") claim after the worship service the "Body" and "Blood" turn back into Bread and Wine.
Hey Jeff/Nick/David,
I realized that I've been posting under my own name throughout the rest of the internet world - no reason for me to remain anonymous here rather than everywhere else. :-)
First off, Jeff, thanks for providing a "safe haven" for us to discuss this. Quite frankly, Green Baggins appears to me as a blog filled with individuals who aren't interested in pursuing the Truth anymore - or, rather, the posters there come across as being more interested in bludgeoning their opponents into intellectual submission rather than honestly having conversations. Less formally, I'd love to share a meal with y'all; most of them over there, I wouldn't. All of which is to say thanks very much for being willing to have an honest discussion with a couple of Catholics and a fellow considering Catholicism. :-)
By way of background, I'm at the University of Kansas getting my PhD in philosophy. Frankly, I thought theology was a waste of time prior to my joining the OPC about 3 years ago, so in that respect I owe a big debt to Reformed Theology. This stuff does matter, and it matters a lot.
Alright, now to an issue at hand. I object to your first thesis because it runs together formal and informal fallacies, which are not the same. Jeff, you wrote (way back when...) “A formal fallacy is an argument whose conclusion is not justified.” That is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an argument to contain a formal fallacy – hence, what you say isn't wrong, it's just incomplete (and it will wind up leading to confusion later, as I'll write about shortly...)
First off, I'll show that the distinction between formal and informal fallacies is not captured by the definition you offer of a formal fallacy. Consider the following:
Bob: I think the stock market will crash tomorrow.
Pat: Why?
Bob: Because my teacher told me it wouldn't crash, and he's a jerk, so I don't believe him.
This is an example of a case where the “conclusion is not justified,” but the fallacy here is not a formal fallacy - it's the informal fallacy of ad hominem. Formal fallacies, contrariwise, are cases where the conclusion is not justified because one of the steps in the argument itself is an invalid derivation. (I'm pretty sure you understood all this implicitly, Jeff, based on other things that you wrote, but I wanted to bring it all out to the fore...)
(continued...)
Assuming you're with me so far, you are probably wondering why this matters. :-p Two reasons:
1) Our two examples of syllogisms (re: St. Paul writing scripture and church teaching) need not commit formal fallacies. As you correctly note, Jeff, there are certain ambiguities in the terms used and the extent of what those terms cover. All fair and good, but those problems could be resolved by clarifying the premises themselves or adding additional premises. I think you recognize this, which is what leads you to write “Adding additional specifications, of course, narrows the appeal of the argument....All of the sudden, by fixing the ambiguity, your burden of proof just shot way up.” Fair enough, but at this point we're talking about soundness (whether the premises are true) rather than validity (whether the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion or not). And the crucial point is that formal fallacies only affect validity (that's why, say, affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy while ad hominem is an informal fallacy). All of which is to say that it seems our discussion is starting to confuse informal and formal fallacies – insofar as the two examples contain a formal fallacy, it can be fixed. While this might make the premises less plausible to you, that doesn't undermine the fact that there need not be a formal fallacy present.
2) At some point or other, we'll get back to the theses Jeff is willing to defend. He wrote, initially, “Is the vow given in the rite of initiation into the Catholic Church a formal fallacy? I affirm.” When asked for clarification, he wrote “My point is that this is a fallacious argument from authority.” The trouble is that arguments from authority are informal, not formal fallacies. Fr'example, the All-Knowing Wikipedia :-) has this to say about arguments from authority:
Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false).
The relevant difference for a Catholic, I take it, is that the Church (qua successor of the apostles pronouncing in a definitively official capacity on a matter concerning faith and morals, etc) cannot turn out to be false – it is logically impossible for a pronouncement made with full Church authority to be false. So if the Catholic Church is correct in her claims about herself, there is no appeal to authority, and no formal fallacy regardless (since appeal to authority isn't a formal fallacy in the first place). There might be an informal fallacy (the appeal to authority), but that fallacy will be present iff the Catholic Church is lying to us in the first place (and, presumably, people joining the Catholic Church don't think she is lying to them...one hopes.) :-p
Make sense? Did I explain things well? I'm sure not saying that all this means Catholicism is right, correct, or otherwise True, but I am saying that I don't think that the membership vow doesn't appear to involve a formal fallacy. Thanks once again for the good conversation, and I look forward to our mutual future interactions :-)
Sincerely,
Benjamin
Benjamin,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you -- a dinner conversation would be both enjoyable and profitable.
I do intend for this discussion to remain a "safe haven" in the sense of having a charitable discussion of differences.
Allow me to explain (1) a bit further.
The argument in question is The Argument From Divine Authority (AFDA).
(1) God defines truth
(2) The church has divine authority
(3) The church says X
(4) Therefore X is true
is a formal fallacy. I still hold that to be the case, and I'd like to explain.
First, the reason I labeled it as a "formal fallacy" was to emphasize that this argument is not a deductively valid argument, but could be inductively strong. So I wanted to separate out deductive and inductive versions of the AFDA, in order to eliminate each in turn.
Benjamin, my degree is not in philosophy (though I have some coursework in both philosophy proper and logic), so I may not label things correctly. Feel free to correct the terminology as needed.
In this case, my understanding is that a "formal fallacy" is an argument whose conclusion is not guaranteed by the premises. There is an actually error in reasoning.
And that's precisely the situation with the AFDA. It contains a fallacy of irrelevance, treating "has divine authority" as if it had some logically necessary connection to "being right."
Why? Ben(jamin?) said, revealingly,
If a church actually has divine authority, then how can what it says be false?
So this shows that we tend to associate authority with being right in our minds.
But stop and think about it more carefully for a minute: the Pope always has (on the Catholic account) divine authority. Yet he is not always (on the Catholic account) infallible.
So having divine authority does not, by itself, guarantee infallibility. The pope always has divine authority; he is only sometimes infallible.
And I think we all agree, to that last sentence, right?
It follows therefore that the AFDA is not logically valid.
Contrast, again, with the situation wrt God. Whatever God says, at all times, is truth. "God said X, X is true" is logically valid.
"The pope said X, X is true" is not -- because (even on the Catholic account) the Pope's authority does not mean that infallibility is always "on."
And one consequence of this fact is that the RCC is somewhat squishy about which doctrines and papal pronouncements are actually infallible. If authority were a logical guarantor of infallibility, then there would be no ambiguity.
More later, but can we agree so far?
JRC
Jeff,
I'm not sure about what others think, but I think you're over-complicating the situation.
Obviously, the Church only speaks with divine authority (infallibility) under certain conditions. Thus, any syllogism which attempts to place divine authority "in general" or outside the proper parameters is useless for this discussion and effectively a straw man syllogism.
When we speak of "divine authority" that should be a given that it means "guaranteed true" since we all agree that when God speaks directly or through an agent, that information is true.
When Catholics speak, they generally assume these things are understood.
So your original syllogism:
(1) God defines truth
(2) The church has divine authority
(3) The church says X
(4) Therefore X is true
by itself, is inherently flawed if this is speaking "in general".
The correct Catholic position (i.e. represented correctly) is this:
(1) God defines truth
(2) The church has divine authority UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS
(3) The church says X UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS
(4) Therefore X is true
As you already agreed, this is equivalent logically to a syllogism Protestants accept:
(1) God defines truth
(2) Saint Paul has divine authority to write inspired Scripture UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS
(3) Saint Paul writes X UNDER THOSE CERTAIN CONDITIONS
(4) Therefore X is true
Nick,
I'm glad that you don't like the argument as stated. Neither do I, and that's why I'm arguing against it. The point is not to raise up a straw man, but rather to draw attention to the fact that "divine authority" is a very inept way to describe the real argument.
What you really want, I think, is this, the Argument from Infallibility:
(1) The Pope has the gift of infallibility.
(2) When the Pope exercises his gift and says X,
(3) Then X is true.
This would be logically valid -- but it would sacrifice the ambiguous term "divine authority."
And that latter term is the one used in most of the arguments. If I were cynical, I would say that this is because more people believe that the Pope has divine authority than believe that the Pope is infallible -- so the AFDA has more appeal than a direct argument from infallibility.
But, the AFDA is also sleight-of-hand.
So, simplify away! But, be aware that you increase your burden of proof.
So can we agree that the AFDA is not logically valid, but an Argument from Infallibility is?
In other words, can we agree that it's not the Pope's *authority*, but his *infallibility* that is the real question?
JRC
Jeff,
I have no problem sacrificing an ambiguous term that we agree only clouds the matter.
You said: "can we agree that it's not the Pope's *authority*, but his *infallibility* that is the real question?"
Catholics can use the term "divine authority" as a synonym for "infallibility," so the issue shouldn't be over words as much as concepts.
Thanks, Nick.
I'm going to ask your forbearance to press this one step further, and then I'll leave it and work on the question of sola scriptura.
You mentioned above that I was overcomplicating things by distinguishing authority from infallibility, but there are two cash prizes afoot.
First, Catholics do not consistently use "authority" as a synonym for "infallibility." The resulting equivocation muddies the appeal of the RCC.
A common theme of Catholic converts from Protestantism is that once they began to consider the question of authority, it became clear to them that the Catholic church was their home.
And here, when authority is spoken of, it is the authority of the priest over the lay person, the authority of the bishop over the priest, the cardinal over the bishop, the pope over the cardinal, and Christ over the pope. The appeal, as far as I can tell, is that the authority of Christ flows downward sacramentally through the power structure, granting certain truth to the lay person by proximity to Christ. Whereas before, the individual was shepherdless and uncertain of the real truth of his doctrines, now by virtue of the authority of the church, he is certain.
But in this picture, authority is not a synonym for infallibility. The priest doesn't have a little bit of infallibility, or a lesser infallibility. (What would that mean?!). Instead, he has a lesser authority: a right to command deference. But he has no gift of infallibility.
(And that's really what authority is, yes? A right to command deference.)
So the first cash prize is this: once we understand that there is no logically necessary relationship between the right to command deference and being infallible, the appeal of Catholicism diminishes.
A judge has the right to command deference in the courtroom -- but he isn't therefore right.
Balaam's donkey had no authority, yet God granted him once the ability to speak God's words infallibly.
The priest has authority -- he is to be deferred to -- yet he has no gift of infallibility. He is always able to err, even if he is attempting to quote church teaching verbatim.
(A Catholic would say, he is in error if he conflicts with the teaching of the church. His authority does not prevent this from happening.)
So you can see that some authoritative people are always fallible; and some (one!) non-authoritative donkeys can be infallible; and there is no necessary connection between authority and infallibility.
And this means that the many Catholics who are drawn to the authority claims of the RCC are, at best, drawn to an equivocation. The clear lines of authority suggest clear lines of certain truth; yet there is no logically necessary connection there.
Second cash prize: Distinguishing between authority and infallibility sheds new light on the popular Catholic apologetic argument that everyone must have a highest authority.
Bryan Cross, among others, has a prominent argument that everyone must have a highest sacramental authority -- either the pope (or patriarchs), or else oneself.
Well, if "authority" is supposed to be a synonym for "infallibility", then this argument is done for.
For it is simply false that everyone must believe that someone has the gift of infallibility.
So the burden is this: while the argument pretties up nicely by substituting "infallibility" for "authority", it also drifts away from how the word "authority" is used in Catholic thought.
JRC
Dear Jeff & Nick,
I find myself agreeing, in part, with both of you. :-) Allow me to clarify, and perhaps we'll begin working towards something resembling a consensus (or, at least, as much of a consensus as Catholics and Protestants can come to...but as long as we're not burning each other at the stake, we've at least come somewhere in the last 500 years. :-p
While working through Jeff's AFDA argument, I found myself in serious difficulty since it's not in standard form. The basic idea is that, when arguments are in standard form, one can actually tell precisely whether or not an argument is valid. So I was having all manner of headaches deciphering AFDA since it was not in standard form. I went on ahead and put it into standard form (including subject terms, predicate terms, logical connectives, etc,) and wound up with the following:
1. If God says X then X is true
2. If Y is the church then Y has divine authority
3. If Y is the church then Y says Z
4. Therefore Z is true.
This is clearly invalid – so my agreement is had there. Actually, formalized this way, it's massively invalid. (The only other way I could come up with to construe the argument is to replace Z in line 3 with X – thus the church would be saying the same thing as God says. Even so formulated, the argument would be invalid [which is, I take it, Jeff's point] since although the church and God are saying the same thing, they are doing so in an accidental [non-essential] manner. Without some additional premises, then, what we've got here is an invalid argument.)
Nick's point, I take it, is that the above argument isn't representative of the Catholic position. (I'll repeat for emphasis: if the above-formulated argument is the Catholic argument, it's pretty crummy...) I sat around last night and gave it a few minutes thought, and here is what I came up with; it's (I think) a more representative position of the types of arguments Catholics often make. Nick and/or David, read and feel free to clarify if what I present below isn't the Catholic position. Here, then, is my attempt to formulate my understanding of the Catholic position as a logically valid argument:
1. If God speaks X, then X is true (definition)
2. If God speaks X, then the church speaks X
3. If the church speaks X, then God speaks X
4. Therefore “The church speaks X” ≡ “God speaks X” (def. of biconditional, 2,3)
5. The church speaks X (stipulation)
6. Therefore, God speaks X (def. of biconditional, 5,4)
7. Therefore, X is true (modus ponens, 6,1)
8. Therefore, if the church speaks X, then X is true (def. of biconditional, 1,4)
I think this more precisely captures what the Catholic is saying when he argues that the church has divine authority (where, I take it, divine authority means something like what is expressed in lines 2 & 3 of the proof I gave above.) More to the point, when a Catholic says that the church has divine authority, he isn't merely claiming “Both God and the church say X, so it's true”, but is instead positing some deep metaphysical relationship between the kinds of things the church teaches and the kinds of things God teaches. Moreover, this deep metaphysical relationship isn't merely an accidental relation (it's not like the Pope or the church councils are just very good at guessing divine truth,) but rather that when the Pope speaks in certain conditions or when church councils meet in a certain way, there is an essential relationship between what they teach and what God teaches. And, of course, what God teaches is true, so they posit an essential relationship between what those sources teach and what is true.
All of which is to say, Jeff, that I agree: the AFDA as you've presented it is formally invalid (I'm not sure that it contains a formal fallacy, but at this point I'm just being nitpicky about vocabulary, and would be in agreement with your fundamental point re: its invalidity.) The thing is, I think we can reword the AFDA as I did to make an essentially equivalent argument (ie, one that captures the same meanings and reaches the same conclusion) but is logically valid. It may or may not be sound (Luther in particular wrote a lot which would count as attempts to refute lines 2 & 3,) but at the very least we can reformulate AFDA to be logically valid and hence involve no formal fallacies.
Thoughts? Comments? Responses? I've read, Jeff, your reply to Nick re: the argumentative payout of drawing a distinction between divine authority and infallibility. I'm letting my thoughts, such as they are, percolate. Should they coalesce into anything worth hearing outside of my own head, I'll post as appropriate. Hope y'all have a great Saturday! =)
Sincerely,
Benjamin
Benjamin,
Your first post captures my thoughts exactly -- and I had the same difficulty putting the argument in symbolic form: there seemed to be absolutely no relationship between the first and second steps.
Hence: no logical connection.
I'll wait till Nick comments on your second post to say more.
JRC
Sorry for the delay, I wasn't really able to be online the last few days.
From what I can tell, I left off with Jeff's last post speaking on the issue of divine authority versus infallibility.
1) You said the terms "authority" and "infallibility" are not *consistently* used interchangeably, and gave the example of ecclesial hierarchy (e.g. priest over layman).
But I would say we risk equivocation if we were to proceed on this point, since this ecclesial hierarchy issue is not what is in focus.
The authority a bishop has over a priest, and a priest over a layman, etc, etc, is "divine authority" in the sense this ecclesiastic structure is ordained by God. But it is not how we're using the term "divine authority" as far as your syllogism goes.
As an example, you said: "A judge has the right to command deference in the courtroom -- but he isn't therefore right."
The problem here is that it is confusing two things (1) secular versus religious authority, (2) ecclesial authority versus infallibility.
A secular judge has no say either way in regards to a Christian matter.
A bishop can be wrong but this doesn't invalidate his real authority over his flock, just as a father who is wrong doesn't relinquish authority over his adolescent children.
The Church speaking infallibly can never be wrong by virtue of it being protected by God when proclaiming dogma, and this binds the whole church, including the Pope.
You're confusing three things in this mix. The only issue under examination is the third, that of whether the Church can speak infallibly.
As for the second issue, you said: "For it is simply false that everyone must believe that someone has the gift of infallibility."
It is only false *IF* the Protestant is open to the idea that nobody has greater interpretive authority over anyone else, at which point the Christian faith is little better than agnoisticism since everyone is ultimately guessing but acknowledges they have no real authority. The alternative is a Christianity were Truth can be contrasted to heresy and schism, since with infallibility there is a touchstone of orthodoxy for men to reference. The battle then becomes: who holds this infallibility?
Benjamin,
While I think your proposed scheme is more thorough, I dont see why the simple example I gave of Apostles writing Scripture being a parallel case of Church infallibility need be objected to on logical grounds. The main "problem" your example runs into is that Jeff will object on the grounds it doesn't distinguish between the Church speaking under certain conditions and the church speaking in general. While this distinction is a given in Catholic formulations, it isn't a given in Protestant ones.
Hi Nick,
I'm confused about whether we are agreeing violently or disagreeing tangentially.
(1) Do we agree that "authority" is not the same as "infallibility"?
(2) So that arguments that demonstrate that "the Church has authority" are not proof that the Church has infallibility?
Nick: As for the second issue, you said: "For it is simply false that everyone must believe that someone has the gift of infallibility."
It is only false *IF* the Protestant is open to the idea that nobody has greater interpretive authority over anyone else, at which point the Christian faith is little better than agnoisticism since everyone is ultimately guessing but acknowledges they have no real authority.
I hold that interpretive authorities cannot be strictly ordered. While some (elders) have authority relative to the lay person, that authority is not absolute, and elders themselves are not in a hierarchy.
BUT, I deny that the Christian faith is little better than agnosticism.
So I think there might be some options other than the two you've proffered. Lord willing, I'll try to produce one below.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
You asked: (1) Do we agree that "authority" is not the same as "infallibility"?
Infallibility is a subset of God given church authority. It depends on the context on whether the terms can be used interchangeably.
You asked: (2) So that arguments that demonstrate that "the Church has authority" are not proof that the Church has infallibility?
Again, it depends on the context being spoken. While not all authority is of the infallible sort, a Catholic would argue that without infallibility, all other Church authority would be ultimately of no genuine benefit since it becomes 'might' (Power) without any relation to 'right' (Truth).
You said: I hold that interpretive authorities cannot be strictly ordered. While some (elders) have authority relative to the lay person, that authority is not absolute, and elders themselves are not in a hierarchy.
Ok, but this ties into what I just said in regards to question #2 above: that 'might' having no attachment to 'right'. The elder can have authority, but there is no point on the authority scale in which the elder's power is directly related to Truth.
You said: BUT, I deny that the Christian faith is little better than agnosticism.
My point in using the term agnosticism was that when it came to doctrinal issues, such as "This is My Body," each Protestant would ultimately be settling upon what they felt was best, all the while admitting there is nothing authoritative about their response. The situation is shown plainly today in Protestantism, where doctrinal matters and Greek terms depend on what the current trend in Biblical Scholarship best determines them to be.
So at the end of the day, "This is My Body" is stuck ultimately undefined, with some folks even delegating it to the "non essential" category. The Christian faith cannot operate on stopping to think about what "This is My Body" really means.
OK, here's the sketch of the argument that Scripture teaches sola scriptura by good and necessary inference. I'll fill in the details in comments following.
(1) First, the definition: Sola scriptura means that The Church may only authoritatively teach what is directly taught in Scripture or is a good and necessary and inference from the direct teaching of Scripture.
(2) In Scripture, believers are to listen to the voice of the Lord above all other voices.
(3) The entirety of the early Church has uniformly identified the 66 books in the Protestant Scripture as the voice of the Lord.
(4) Therefore, the believer is to listen to the Scripture above all other voices.
(5) Therefore, if the Church authoritatively teaches something not taught by good and necessary inference in Scripture, it creates the potential for the believer to listen to the voice of the Church above other voices.
(5a) The Catholic doctrine of Tradition + Scripture cannot avoid this potential, for it makes Tradition the primary standard by which Scripture is calibrated, thus setting its voice above Scripture.
(6) Therefore, the Church must avoid this potential for conscience' sake.
(7) Thus, sola scriptura as defined above is established.
Any questions or preliminary comments before I begin?
JRC
Nick, I don't find the This is My Body problem to be nearly as troubling as you.
There are essentially five options:
(1) The Zwinglian view.
(2) The Lutheran view.
(3) The Calvinist view.
(4) The RC view.
(5) The EO view.
Of these, two -- Lutheran and RC -- can be eliminated by appeal to the council of Chalcedon.
Have you ever wondered how the substance of Jesus' human body could partake of His divine omnipresence (at the Mass) without confusing the two natures of Christ?
But even so, the main point of both views is that we partake of Christ.
The EO view is, "It's a mystery. We're eating and drinking Christ, but we don't know how."
The Calvinist view is, "It's a spiritual mystery. We are brought up to the throne of God and partake of Christ through the Spirit."
Only the Zwinglian view denies this.
So while there are technical differences, most are agreed on the main thing: that in communion, we partake of Christ in some sense or another.
Now I ask you: for this issue, in regard to salvation, are the differences more significant than the main thing, or vice-versa?
And how do you know?
JRC
Hey Jeff,
I'm reading through your argument, and I'm quite confused. For example, (4) is set off with a “therefore”, but I have no clue what premises (4) draws its conclusion from, nor how it does so in a manner at all valid (let alone sound). (4) is almost a restatement of (2), but a few terms are substituted, and generally I am utterly mystified how it is a conclusion from any of the previous three premises.
May I request that you put your argument in standard form? (that is, with subject and predicate terms, with the justification for each step in the argument clarified, and explicitly stating which logical rules, if any, you are relying upon?) I don't know how much logic training you've had, but I'm hoping to get something similar in style to the argument I presented in my last comment – since it was in standard form, we could easily see the validity of the argument. The way you've got your argument written out now, I can't even wrap my head around it to test its validity.
If you haven't done enough logic to put it into standard form, that's okay – I may have to try to put it into standard form myself, then, but you putting it into standard form would be vastly preferable (it is, after all, your argument). :-) Once we can get the argument presented in a validity-evaluable form, then we can start working through other questions - as it stands, I can't really understand it at all :-p
Sincerely,
Benjamin
Hi Jeff,
I don't want to confuse This is My Body with the other issues, so I'll split this into two posts.
You asked me: most are agreed on the main thing: that in communion, we partake of Christ in some sense or another.
For this issue, in regard to salvation, are the differences more significant than the main thing, or vice-versa?
And how do you know?
I would begin by saying there are two preliminary options here. Is the issue of This Is My Body:
(A)Essential,or (B)Non-essential?
If one were to say "non-essential," I believe they've entered the fast-track for a slippery-slope to almost total doctrinal relativism.
If one says "essential," they'd be basing that judgment on factors such as: recognizing it is one of the few things all sides agree is a "Sacrament," noting that this issue has historically been granted it's own sections in Confessions/Catechisms/etc, noting that the Gospels call attention to this 4 times, etc.
Now if it's essential, then unity of doctrine is a must. One cannot say it is purely figurative while others treat it as literal - for that's not communion of heart, mind, and sacrament!
Again, if this is essential, then saying agree that "we partake of Christ in some sense or another" gets us nowhere and is equivalent to saying "we all agree 'Jesus is Lord', but what precisely that means is not important."
So to recap: saying "non-essential" puts one on the path to doctrinal relativism, while saying "essential" puts one on the path of dogmatism.
Of the five options you give:
-The zwinglian view is the most unsupportable historically, and dogmatizes a figurative reading.
-The Calvinist view is a step above Zwinglian, but faces the problem of not reading the text literally or figuratively, essentially reading it's own interpretation. It essentially says neither of the other views fit, so we'll settle for middle ground. This also doesn't have much support in Christian history.
-The Lutheran view is closer to the historical record, wants to take the words literally, but doesn't want to sound too Catholic and doesn't have the *consistent* theological backing for why (i.e. "consubstantiation" in which Jesus and the Bread are simultaneously present, some even saying it turns back into bread after the Supper).
Regarding the historical view, while much can be said about it, one point stands out is that there is strong consensus that John 6 was speaking on the Eucharist, where as this is virtually denied by all Protestants. Clearly, if affirmed, it would lend credence to a literal view.
And it's no secret that this dispute had been the cause of bitter attacks on all sides. The charge of 'blasphemy' is tossed out against those who would reduce it to simply bread, while the same charge is tossed out against those who would suggest it's really Jesus, or going too far in one direction or the other.
One thing caught my eye was that you said the Lutheran and RC could be eliminated by appeal to Chalcedon. That's interesting, since the Council of Ephesus (right before) explicitly affirmed the Catholic view.
Your comment about Jesus' human nature 'partaking' of His "divine omnipresence" without confusing the two natures was lost on me.
In the Catholic view, the two natures are never confused, and the bread ceases to be bread in *substance*.
(Ironically, I could actually refute Lutheranism-Calvinism with a simple appeal to the Christology of Chalcedon.)
As for the EO view, there's nothing 'wrong' with it per se, any more than there is something 'wrong' with the Calvinist assuming a combination of figurative and literal.
Jeff,
You said: "OK, here's the sketch of the argument that Scripture teaches sola scriptura by good and necessary inference."
My response: This, to me, implicitly concedes the doctrine is unscriptural since you must reason your way up to SS, rather than having a plain Scriptural mandate. In other words, basing a *central* doctrine of the Christian faith on "good and necessary *inference*" goes flatly against total perspicuity (i.e. formal sufficiency).
Further, many of the propositions (if not all) are not derived from Scripture (as far as I can tell), which - at least initially - makes your proof self-refuting to your thesis.
You said: (1) Sola scriptura means that The Church may only authoritatively teach what is directly taught in Scripture or is a good and necessary and inference from the direct teaching of Scripture.
This seems to be a contradiction of your first claim the doctrine is established by inference, yet you lay down a very 'direct' definition. Further, the notion that the Church "may only teach" what Scripture teaches is a sort of a truism, since the Church can only teach from the Deposit of Faith. The only way your comment is necessary is if you assume "the Church" can fail to teach what Scripture teaches, which leaves one in the ironic situation of the possibility of a duality between Christ's Body and God's Word. The only other option is to suggest the Church is a purely man-made institution.
You said: "(2) In Scripture, believers are to listen to the voice of the Lord above all other voices."
This is ambiguous. Does this mean listen to Jesus' words above the words of mere humans like Peter or Paul? Surely not. Does it mean listen to what Scripture teaches above the "voice of the Church"? If so, that creates an interesting (if not heretical) duality between 'believers really listening to the voice of the Lord' versus 'listening to the Church' (again, unless the Church is a purely man-made voice).
You said: "(3) The entirety of the early Church has uniformly identified the 66 books in the Protestant Scripture as the voice of the Lord."
While I would vehemently deny this is a historical fact (quite the opposite), the 'real test' is whether Scripture identifies the right 66books...which is not so easy to answer. Further, this seems to be a contradiction with #1, in that the Church can only authoritatively teach what's in Scripture, not authoritatively identify Scripture. At that point, the believer would be looking to the church above Scripture.
You said: "(4) Therefore, the believer is to listen to the Scripture above all other voices."
I don't see how "therefore" follows any of this. Further, this (ironically? heretically?) subordinates the Church to the believer.
You said: "(5) Therefore, if the Church authoritatively teaches something not taught by good and necessary inference in Scripture, it creates the potential for the believer to listen to the voice of the Church above other voices."
This makes the Church subordinate to the believer, which is nonsense/impossible. Is not the Church run by believers in authority? There is no Church "authority" at this point since whatever is said is subject to the individual's *verification*. And as noted above, the notion that the Church can err but the believer cannot is a heretical dualism.
You said: "(5a) The Catholic doctrine of Tradition + Scripture cannot avoid this potential, for it makes Tradition the primary standard by which Scripture is calibrated, thus setting its voice above Scripture."
This seems like a non-sequitor. Tradition in the Catholic mind is the voice of the Lord as much as Scripture is, and thus to suggest a genuine potential dispute or some type of subordination dispute is straw-man.
You said: "(6) Therefore, the Church must avoid this potential for conscience' sake."
I don't see how this follows. It's as logically invalid as saying that the first Christians couldn't listen to the Apostles because they Apostles were teaching things not (yet?) recorded in Scripture. The problem is no proper definition of "Church" in all this.
You said: "(7) Thus, sola scriptura as defined above is established."
I'll await some clarification to your above points before I reach any further conclusions.
Benjamin,
It's a good request, and I'll do my best. I have some experience with symbolic logic -- mostly in math, so forgive my "accent."
I confess to some difficulty in properly representing things like "ought" or "potential" or "listen above all other" -- terms that are intuitive, but don't easily (to me!) lend themselves to quantifiers.
So I'll do my best, and please be patient with the roughness of it.
Define:
c(x) means "The church teaches proposition x authoritatively."
S66(x) means "x is directly taught in Scripture."
GN(S66(x)) means "x is a good and necessary consequence of the teaching of Scripture."
For convenience, we'll roll the last two together: x is "taught in Scripture" if directly taught or seen by good and necessary inference.
T(x) means S66(x) or GN(S66(x))
Already there's ambiguity, since GN is an intuitive term. Heck, so are c and S66 if we push hard on what "to teach x" means.
But let's agree that these three terms are reasonably clear, if that's OK.
Anyways, continuing with definitions:
B(x) means "one believes x."
L(x) means "the Lord says x."
(That's an even bigger can of worms!)
We can use these to represent the first four steps easily:
Sola Scriptura: c(x) ==> T(x)
"The church ought to teach only what is taught in Scripture." ~ "If the church teaches it, it is (ought to be) taught in Scripture."
This is to be proved.
(2) L(x) ==> B(x) (to be demonstrated by Scripture)
(3) T(x) ==> L(x) (by cumulative weight of evidence: universal testimony of the church, together with Scriptural self-reference)
(4) T(x)==> B(x) (2,3)
So far, this seems pretty straightforward.
The next problem is expressing the idea of authority, which is an implicit part of step (5). We can say that authorities a and b are ranked
a > b IF
a(x) ^ b(~x) ==> B(x)
That is, if a asserts x and b asserts the contrary, one believes x.
So that a consequence of (4) is that S66 > a for all a -- that is,
T(x) ^ a(~x) ==> B(x).
(since T(x) ==> B(x) outright, step (4)).
Now the problem is expressing the possibility that something might occur. Here's my shot at it:
(5) c(x) ^ ~T(x) ==> Ex? : c(x) ^ T(~x) (continued below...)
That is: If the church teaches something not taught in Scripture, then there might exist an x that the church asserts and the Scripture denies.
This possibility is a logical possibility only, in that I would have to establish reasonably that such possibility might obtain.
Nevertheless, I think we could all agree that this possibility must be entertained.
Continuing...
c(x) ^ ~T(x) ^ B(x) ==> Ex?: c(x) ^ T(~x) ^ B(x)
==> S66 ~> c.
That is, if such an x exists, and it one believes it, then one is not placing the authority of Scripture over that of the church.
[By the way: I would appeal to the real-live Catholic church as confirmation of this point -- they explicitly ground the authority of the Scripture in the authority of the church: c > S66]
(6) is hard to render, for it contains an "ought." I would have to say something like
S66 > c ==> Ax : ~T(x) ==> ~c(x)
That is, since (4) establishes that the authority of Scripture is greater than all other authorities, it follows that to avoid the possibility of teaching something contrary to Scripture, the church should only teach what is taught in Scripture: directly, or by good and necessary inference.
(7) c(x) ==> T(x) contrapositive from (6).
Any suggestions on cleaning it up or representing things better are welcome.
JRC
Comment: This is obviously not a purely deductive argument -- step (3) is certainly inductive, and step (6) is near to a slippery slope argument: "If we want to avoid the possibility of x, we ought to eliminate it."
Nick: This makes the Church subordinate to the believer, which is nonsense/impossible.
Indeed.
One of the issues that we may not ever be able to resolve satisfactorily is whether a text has a meaning, or whether a text's meaning is always subject to one's interpretation.
I hold to an inductive and non-exhaustive version of the former. In my understanding, texts have meaning (original authorial intent), which is reasonably clear given a standard methodology; and when unclear, the reason for unclarity is usually evident.
That is: in reading a text, I assume the validity of a kind of scientific method.
It appears that you hold to something much more po-mo-ish: that texts don't mean things; they are merely interpreted.
In which case, the real question is simply, Who has the right to lay down definitive interpretation?
Not being enamored of pure post-modern theories of text and reader, I simply reject the idea that everything is "just the individual's interpretation."
That approach appears to me to lead to endless regress:
Nick: "The Church teaches X"
Me: "That's just your interpretation of Church teaching."
Nick: "No, I talked it over with the priest, and he was very clear about X."
Me: "That's just your interpretation of your conversations with the priest."
Nick: "No, it's the truth, darn it!"
Me: "That's just your interpretation of the truth."
Nick: "GAAHH!"
And so on. I utterly reject the "just your interpretation" as a kind of language game whose real end is assertion of power.
(Not accusing you of being power-hungry; just saying that the origin of that argument is not so much a quest for truth as a quest for power.)
One need not be a bad Catholic to admit that the RCC has long asserted its power, and sometimes in ways that were false (Isidorian Decretals) or too expansive (Greg VII's letter to Henry IV).
(In fact, interestingly, some Catholic apologists hold that Catholics have a duty to oppose a pope when he is manifestly wrong. I guess some people worry less about individualism than others. :) )
In any event, if we cannot agree that texts have meaning, then we possibly won't be able to communicate.
JRC
Jeff,
Regarding your second to last post: LOL. That proves the saying, "be careful what you wish for," because you lost me in your "compact" symbolic approach.
As for your latest post to me, it began with:
Nick: This makes the Church subordinate to the believer, which is nonsense/impossible.
Jeff: Indeed.
Are you saying "indeed" to the idea the Church is subordinate to the believer or are you saying "indeed" to the claim that this is 'nonsense'? If the former, then I don't see how you can maintain such a view without serious problems.
You said: One of the issues that we may not ever be able to resolve satisfactorily...
Yes, seems like a tough project...but maybe not necessary for what divides us. If anything, it's a philosophical problem that affects everyone. I think, in general, both are true though at different times/passages. Really, we have to be 'content' with looking at the 'plain english' of a text and coming to a conclusion (and/or make an argument why).
I think one tragedy is the notion that only Protestatns think the Scriptures are 'plain English'. The truth is, Catholics consider the Scriptures, for the most part, 'plain English'. My apologetics work relies heavily on proving the Catholic point by appealing to the 'plain English reading' of Scripture.
You said: in reading a text, I assume the validity of a kind of scientific method.
It appears that you hold to something much more po-mo-ish: that texts don't mean things; they are merely interpreted.
Actually: in the great majority of cases, I affirm the former and deny the latter.
You said: In which case, the real question is simply, Who has the right to lay down definitive interpretation?
I'd say that comes in last, after it's clear that the situation cannot be determined by a 'plain look'. This, I believe is ultimately necessary though so that Christianity doesn't become a guessing game. For example, John Piper believes all divorce is forbidden based on a strict and careful look at Scripture...but how many Protestants would agree? Few. Yet Christians don't have all day to sit around debating on whether divorce is allowed or not.
You said: I simply reject the idea that everything is "just the individual's interpretation."
I deny this as well.
You said: One need not be a bad Catholic to admit that the RCC has long asserted its power...
Catholics don't deny the Church has abused it's power - it's made up of sinners. And when someone is manifestly sinning, it is your duty to oppose it, at least in your heart. There are limits of course.
You said: "In any event, if we cannot agree that texts have meaning, then we possibly won't be able to communicate."
Agreed, but since we're on the same page with this, we should be able to communicate. You would probably be very interested in a recent article of mine called "Are Catholics interpreting Scripture without Magisterial Authorization?"
Hey Jeff,
Just a couple of quick questions for verification:
1) Would I be correct in assuming that ==> is intended to represent if/then statements? Such that p==>q should be understood as "If p then q"?
2) ^ is intended to represent "and" (logical conjunction), correct?
3) If both of the above are true, where are you putting the parenthesis in your statement 6:
S66 > c ==> Ax : ~T(x) ==> ~c(x)
Should I read that as
S66 > c ==> [Ax : ~T(x) ==> ~c(x)]
Or as
[S66 > c ==> Ax : ~T(x)] ==> ~c(x)?
Basically, where does the if/then go?
Relatedly, I didn't realize that you were offering an inductive argument rather than a deductive one. This means, in the absence of a deductive argument, that we're basically working with our best guesses (in the murky realm of the premises' plausibility rather than their logical necessity). How plausible the premises are, of course, is contextual and always subject to revision in light of any forthcoming future data (which might make your premises more or less plausible). If Sola Scriptura itself is to be established inductively, then all scriptural claims will themselves need to be understood as inductive arguments (if only because chaining deductive arguments on inductive premises can only yield inductive arguments.)
I question the degree to which anyone in the Reformed camp (including myself) really thinks that their views of Scripture are inductive and hence revisable (or even rejectable) in light of any future data. For example, your Biblical beliefs on the morality of homosexuality are likely not held by you in a manner consistent with their being inductively-based positions derived from your/the best guess of what current scriptural data reveals, which might or might not change as further data about homosexuality or textual analysis of Paul's writings comes in. Once we take morality (indeed theology) out of the deductive realm and into the inductive, that's a poison pill with all manner of bad consequences...
(apologies if my last point is unclear - I have to teach in a few minutes and wanted to bat out my ideas before I forget them :-) Further clarification, if needed, will be gladly provided.)
Sincerely,
Benjamin
Benjamin:
(1) Yes.
(2) Yes. Those two show the "math accent" coming through. :)
(3) Sorry, the correct grouping is
[S66 > c] ==> [Ax : ~T(x) ==> ~c(x)]
That is, "The fact that the authority of Scripture is greater than the authority of the Church leads one to conclude that if it is not taught in Scripture, it should not be taught authoritatively by the Church."
About induction: Yes, I believe that ultimately we're looking at inductive arguments. Arguments from history concerning the authority of the church are grounded in evidence whose reliability is (consciously or otherwise) inductively assessed.
Likewise, interpretation of Scripture is grounded in meanings of words, grammar, structure, context, and more; these are likewise inductively known.
While there is a branch of Reformed theology that rejects induction and insists that deduction is the only possible Reformed method, that branch is relatively small (google for Gordon Clark).
More representative would be Charles Hodge, who views exegesis as an essentially scientific -- thus, inductive -- approach.
If one looks at the pattern of reasoning in the Reformed writers and Confessions, they employ a mixture of inductive and deductive methods.
I would take my own view of major doctrines as revisable in the same sense that my view of gravity is revisable. I am certain enough of the Resurrection to go to the stake. (Lord willing...)
JRC
Hey Nick,
I was saying, "Yes, that would be nonsense (and by insinuation ... I'm not saying that)."
If I understand, you're saying this:
(1) In general, texts have meanings, BUT
(2) Sometimes they are ambiguous.
(3) In the case of Scripture, there are enough serious ambiguities that either
(4a) We have to resort to agnosticism, OR
(4b) We need an additional help to interpret them.
In other words, the interpretive differences amongst various denominations demonstrate that a scientific approach is just too limited, and something else is needed.
A kind of "interpretive cheat sheet", so to speak -- direct revelation of the meaning of the text.
Is that a fair summary?
JRC
Benjamin, I would say in postscript that I am more self-consciously and comfortably inductive than some Reformed folk.
That comes about, I think, because of work in textual studies and translation, where the ambiguities are obvious and the method more definitely scientific rather than mathematical, if you catch what I mean.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
You said: "I was saying, "Yes, that would be nonsense (and by insinuation ... I'm not saying that).""
If the Church being subordinate to the believer is (agreeably) nonsense, then how can the Church come to a wrong interpretation...particularly one where a believer can 'overrule' the Church's interpretation?
You said:
If I understand, you're saying this:
(1) In general, texts have meanings, BUT
(2) Sometimes they are ambiguous.
(3) In the case of Scripture, there are enough serious ambiguities that either
(4a) We have to resort to agnosticism, OR
(4b) We need an additional help to interpret them.
In other words, the interpretive differences amongst various denominations demonstrate that a scientific approach is just too limited, and something else is needed.
A kind of "interpretive cheat sheet", so to speak -- direct revelation of the meaning of the text.
Is that a fair summary?
First of all, I would 'tone down' #3 a bit, because it gives off the impression there are lots of serious ambiguities.
Second, when I mentioned "agnosticism," I meant believers would be in a position where they would have to admit "we simply don't know for sure" on major issues.
Third, you are correct that the scientific approach 'breaks down' after a point and doesn't work every case (unless one is open to the 'agnostic' approach).
Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by "cheat sheet" since Catholics don't define infallibility in terms of 'direct revelation'.
I'd like to build upon the relation of the Church to the believer, because I think a lot hinges on this.
The most important thing is: what do you mean by "the Church"?
(I'm speaking in the context of the Church interpreting a text.)
Since the Church is not some abstract idea (an abstract idea cannot interpret), then obviously, the Church must mean believers gathered in union in some sense.
So either a select number of the believers are doing this authoritative interpreting, or all of believers are doing this authoritative interpreting.
The only way I could see all believers doing the authoritative interpreting is in a perfect world...or in a world where nobody had any more authority than another, and thus everyone's interpretation was 'final'.
The "alternative" is a select number of individuals must be doing the authoritative interpreting.
But that raises other questions, namely:
1) How do these select authoritative interpreters get selected?
2) Can these select authoritative interpreters be wrong? If yes, then that means a subordinate over-ruled "the Church," contradicting the notion of 'authoritative'. If no, then this is essentially the Catholic notion of infallibility, in which the believer is fully subordinate to the Church and there is no such 'possibility' of the Church misinterpreting Scripture.
Thoughts?
Hi Nick,
Catholics don't define infallibility in terms of 'direct revelation'.
Say more. I was under the impression that the gift of infallibility was similar to the mechanism by which Scripture was written, in Catholic theology.
If the Church being subordinate to the believer is (agreeably) nonsense, then how can the Church come to a wrong interpretation...particularly one where a believer can 'overrule' the Church's interpretation?
(and later)
Can these select authoritative interpreters be wrong? If yes, then that means a subordinate over-ruled "the Church," contradicting the notion of 'authoritative'.
This goes back to our question about whether texts have meaning.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a Church authority says that Paul's thorn in the flesh was his Corinthian super-apostle opponents.
And let's say further, for the sake of argument, that when Paul wrote about "thorn in the flesh", he meant his bad case of gout.
Then the Church authority is objectively wrong, regardless of whether any subordinate knows it or not.
Furthermore, let's say that a subordinate makes a reasonably good argument that falsifies the super-apostle interpretation.
Note that the argument, once made, no longer belongs to the subordinate. It is the argument, regardless of source, that demonstrates the falsity of the authoritative interpretation.
So I would say that there are, or plausibly could be, times when (a) the authority is wrong, but (b) the subordinate is not over-ruling authority.
Slogan: Falsification is not usurpation.
JRC
OK, whoah whoah. Hold on here. I still have about seven comments to catch up on, but I need to comment on this because it is so striking.
Jeff said:
"One of the issues that we may not ever be able to resolve satisfactorily is whether a text has a meaning, or whether a text's meaning is always subject to one's interpretation.
I hold to an inductive and non-exhaustive version of the former. In my understanding, texts have meaning (original authorial intent), which is reasonably clear given a standard methodology; and when unclear, the reason for unclarity is usually evident.
That is: in reading a text, I assume the validity of a kind of scientific method.
It appears that you hold to something much more po-mo-ish: that texts don't mean things; they are merely interpreted.
In which case, the real question is simply, Who has the right to lay down definitive interpretation?
Not being enamored of pure post-modern theories of text and reader, I simply reject the idea that everything is "just the individual's interpretation.""
First, I believe you are in a fringe minority of Reformed people in your belief that texts are not always subject to ones interpretation. Even Keith Mathison (who I corresponded with about these issues and is in the process of writing a LENGTHY response to Bryan Cross) says "all appeals to scripture are appeals to interpretations of scripture." He is right. The only person I have seen deny this fact is my KJV only, dispensationalist brother-in -law. You do agree with Keith don’t you?
Second, you set up an either/or thing between “texts having meaning” and a “text's meaning [always being] subject to one's interpretation.” It is plainly both, for the Catholic and for you. Of course the text has *A* meaning. No one denies this.
Continued...
Lets focus in on this statement:
"One of the issues that we may not ever be able to resolve satisfactorily is whether a text has a meaning, or whether a text's meaning is always subject to one's interpretation.
I hold to an inductive and non-exhaustive version of the former. In my understanding, texts have meaning (original authorial intent), which is reasonably clear given a standard methodology; and when unclear, the reason for unclarity is usually evident.”(Italics mine)
I want to gently and respectfully point out that this statement is very frustrating to me. You claim the high ground of “texts have meaning” as opposed to them needing interpretation, and then you include interpreting in your description of “texts have meaning”. Which is it!? You can’t just slip that in the back door like that! If you are going to claim texts have a meaning that is not subject to interpreting (as your dichotomy certainly does) then your interpreting is excluded along with everyone else’s.
You also say there is some “issue” that can’t be resolved when there is nothing of the sort. EVERYONE HERE agrees that texts have a meaning (original authorial intent). EVERYONE HERE (including you Jeff) agrees that texts are interpreted.
If you want to exclude yourself from the later group that kind of thinking reminds me of talking to my brother in law about the perpetual virginity of Our Lady:
Him: “Matt. 1:25 says “he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.” That means he DID know her after that!”
Me: “No it does not say that. You are making the text say something it is not saying.”
Him: “Matt. 1:25 says “he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.” That means he DID know her after that!”
Me: “The final verse of Matthew says “And surely I am with you always, UNTIL (heos, the same Greek word) the very end of the age."”
Him: “Matt. 1:25 says “he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.” That means he DID know her after that!”
Me: “Mmmm kay then.”
He would say the text has one meaning and that I am just interpreting it how I want and ignoring the truth of it. He would say he is not “interpreting” but just letting it speak. I should just “let God’s word speak for itself”. The way you say something is reasonably clear given a standard methodology” is exactly what he is doing, his is just a less complex “methodology” than you would use.
I think at the point I read your statement here Jeff, I really think the discussion went off a cliff into pomposity. You will perhaps try to qualify your words, but I think your methodology is the same as my brother in law, but cast in a much more intelligent and erudite mold. But other than a more scholarly hermeneutic and lexical analysis, and more theological knowledge, I see no difference in your method, and no more guarantee of the truth of your interpretation.
I mean no offence, and I truly appreciate your tone and willingness to engage these issues. I also appreciate your honesty (the above quote particularly). I guess I just find it hard to really take that point of view seriously because it seems so self contradictory to my mind.
-David M.
Hi Jeff,
You said: "I was under the impression that the gift of infallibility was similar to the mechanism by which Scripture was written, in Catholic theology."
Not at all! At the time of the writing of the New Testament, new Revelation was being given, but after the close of the Apostolic Age, all Divine Revelation has ceased. The Church only bases it's judgments on this pre-existing 'deposit of faith' (Jude 1:3). Infallibility introduces no new Divine Revelation, it is a 'negative' charism, meaning that God *prevents* the Magisterium from (dogmatically) teaching error (i.e. authoritatively interpreting parts of the deposit of faith).
If the Church being subordinate to the believer is (agreeably) nonsense, then how can the Church come to a wrong interpretation...particularly one where a believer can 'overrule' the Church's interpretation?
(and later)
Can these select authoritative interpreters be wrong? If yes, then that means a subordinate over-ruled "the Church," contradicting the notion of 'authoritative'.
You said: This goes back to our question about whether texts have meaning.
I dont see how this brings up that question, since my argument was a logical one, not a lexical one.
You said: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a Church authority says that Paul's thorn in the flesh was his Corinthian super-apostle opponents.
And let's say further, for the sake of argument, that when Paul wrote about "thorn in the flesh", he meant his bad case of gout.
Then the Church authority is objectively wrong, regardless of whether any subordinate knows it or not.
This is actually a different issue, and is tied to whether Truth and Divine Interprative Authority are linked or not. This logically says nothing about a subordinate over-ruling church authorities.
You said: Furthermore, let's say that a subordinate makes a reasonably good argument that falsifies the super-apostle interpretation.
At most this would suggest the church he has joined is a false church and needs to seek out the true one. In the logical scheme of things, your example is impossible.
You said: Note that the argument, once made, no longer belongs to the subordinate. It is the argument, regardless of source, that demonstrates the falsity of the authoritative interpretation.
Again, that's impossible in the logical scheme, unless you're taking the ground that the church has no authority.
You said: So I would say that there are, or plausibly could be, times when (a) the authority is wrong, but (b) the subordinate is not over-ruling authority.
This is more tied into the earlier issue of Truth linked to Divine Interprative Authority and not about over-ruling.
Again, this all goes back to how you define "the Church" - and I believe when you give your definition of "the Church" a lot of things will fall into place. As it stands now, piecing together things you've said, I'd say your definition of "the Church" is essentially that of a man-made institution, which is authority without any inseparable connection to Truth.
Hi David,
EVERYONE HERE agrees that texts have a meaning (original authorial intent). EVERYONE HERE (including you Jeff) agrees that texts are interpreted.
Yes, to both.
The difference between us is that the Catholics in the room focus on the interpretive process and the uncertainties involved. Those loom very large in the mind, so that they appear to cast doubt on whether anyone could ever read Scripture and come to a reasonably close understanding of it.
Hence, the focus is entirely on "interpretation" and "interpretive authority."
By contrast, or by way of swinging the pendulum, I'm saying, "Hang on. We don't pick up other texts and involve ourselves in endless speculation about our interpretive authority. We approach most texts with the non-iron-clad assumption that we can read them. Why not here?"
It's partly a question of balance. It's partly a question of trying to properly coordinate the Objective Truth (authorial intent) with the Subjective Measurement of Truth (our interpretation).
In my view, the Catholic apologetic here has been one-sided: all about the subjectivity, very little about the objectivity.
JRC
Nick,
So if I understand, you're telling me that Vatican II introduced no new definitions or teachings; it merely clarified the deposit of faith?
JRC
David M,
Re: Matt 1.25. My approach would be different, but not utterly different, from your brother-in-law's. With no disrespect, he appears to be engaging in "illegitimate foreclosure": that is, taking one possible meaning of the text and ignoring the other possible options.
I would say, that a study of εως in Greek reveals that εως in Matt 1.25 has two possible meanings:
(1) No union up to the birth, union after, or
(2) No union up to the birth, no union after the birth either.
We now have to examine the surrounding context ("context"), typical usage patterns ("semantics"), and possibly additional information to determine which of those is more probable.
Given typical usage patterns, the designation of James and others as Jesus' "brothers", and the simple fact that Joseph and Mary were married, so that lack of union would be rather unusual, I would have to say on the basis of the text that (1) is very probable, and (2) is not likely at all. All the available evidence appears to support (1).
So then, I would have to ask, what would support (2)?
Note that this is an objective question, and has nothing to do with whose authority, etc. If I were Pope, I would still ask these same questions. Not being Pope, these considerations are still out there for me to consider.
When I wrap all this up into a conclusion, I conclude that, objectively speaking, εως probably means (1). I recognize that my conclusion is probabilistic.
That's the nature of working with texts -- whether Scripture OR papal pronouncements.
Now, one who is so inclined might say, "The evidence in favor of (2) is direct papal teaching and church councils."
And I would say, OK, what is the probability that those are correctly known and understood by you, AND, what is the probability that those are in fact genuinely infallible?
And that creates the interesting question: on what grounds do you base infallibility?
What I'm trying to get at is that we can't escape probabilities in our lives.
Even I, as a committed Christian who would be willing to die for certain beliefs, recognize that 99.99% confidence is not the same as mathematical 100%.
And that's true here. Even if you assert infallibility, your assessment that ex cathedra teaching is infallible, is a fallible assessment.
And the chain of belief is only as good as its weakest link.
JRC
Nick:
As it stands now, piecing together things you've said, I'd say your definition of "the Church" is essentially that of a man-made institution, which is authority without any inseparable connection to Truth.
Not quite. The Church is people, God's people, gathered into one temple (Eph 2) or into one body (Eph 4). As such, it has divinely ordained but not infallible or impeccable leadership.
There's an insinuation in what you say that one must have either
(a) A man-made institution without infallibility, or
(b) A God-made institution with infallibility.
I say, No, (c): A God-made institution without infallibility.
JRC
Can't repond fully, I'm at work, but here is a quick thought Jeff:
What looks different between your proposed (C) and Nick's option (A)?
If your were doing a self check to make sure you were in (C), what would be DIFFERENT from being in (A)(something someone in group (A) could not say that you CAN say?
(Other than some subjective "bosom burning" like a Pentecostal might claim... but I doubt you want to go there.)
Hi Jeff,
You asked: "So if I understand, you're telling me that Vatican II introduced no new definitions or teachings; it merely clarified the deposit of faith?"
Correct. No new teachings were introduced, not in the sense that new revelation was being announced. All it did was clarify existing teaching and propose new angles from which to express the Faith.
You said in your next post:
Not quite. The Church is people, God's people, gathered into one temple (Eph 2) or into one body (Eph 4). As such, it has divinely ordained but not infallible or impeccable leadership.
What do you mean by "divinely ordained"? And if these leaders are not infallible, then what distinguishes their interpretations of Scripture from a purely man-made panel of Biblical experts?
You spoke of: "I say, No, (c): A God-made institution without infallibility."
I don't see how a God-made institution cannot have infallibility, since being the Body of Christ and having Christ as it's Head, it must be indefectible by nature. To be a God-made institution without infallibility means "divinely ordained" leadership can indeed be authoritatively proclaiming heresy, which is a de facto apostate defection. Without infallibility, their interpretation is no more *authoritative* than any Biblical expert, even a secular one, which overturns the notion of leadership.
Hi Nick and David,
It appears that your comments are tracking together, so I'll roll them into one. Let me know if I don't address something important.
Nick: What do you mean by "divinely ordained"?
I mean that God has commanded in Scripture (1 Tim 3, Tit 1) that there be elders and deacons who shepherd and serve the church. These are to be received as authorities, though I do not see anything in Scripture to necessitate infallibility.
Nick: And if these leaders are not infallible, then what distinguishes their interpretations of Scripture from a purely man-made panel of Biblical experts?
David, am I right that Nick is asking the same question that you did -- what's the difference between (C) and (A)?
Nick, let's do a thought experiment. Take an interpretation from the Pope. Take a different interpretation from a panel of Catholic Bible scholars. White-out the names of those who wrote them.
What distinguishes these two interpretations? Could you tell the difference?
Nick: I don't see how a God-made institution cannot have infallibility, since being the Body of Christ and having Christ as it's Head, it must be indefectible by nature.
I find this a curious and non-obvious claim. We are talking about the visible Church, right?
For one thing, the body is made up of members. And you don't claim indefectibility on the part of the members, right?
For another, Scripture demonstrates that entire local churches are quite defectible (Rev. 1 - 3).
For still another, even some popes have proven by their actions to have beyond reasonable doubt been unsaved and apostate.
So where does this idea come from, that the church must be indefectible? The sinlessness of the Head does not confer entire purity in this life to the rest of the members of the Body.
But perhaps what you have in mind is Jesus' care for His church: "My sheep know my voice ... and nothing can snatch them out of my hand"?
But that gets over into concepts like the invisible Church, which I understand is not really part of Catholic dogma.
Nick: Without infallibility, their interpretation is no more *authoritative* than any Biblical expert, even a secular one, which overturns the notion of leadership.
Remember that authority is not the same as correctness. A father is an authority figure, and to be generally obeyed, even when he is mistaken. A pastor likewise.
JRC
Nick: Correct. No new teachings were introduced, not in the sense that new revelation was being announced. All it did was clarify existing teaching and propose new angles from which to express the Faith.
Hm. I'm having a hard time putting Perpetual Virginity, or the filioque, into that category.
"what's the difference between (C) and (A)?
let's do a thought experiment. Take an interpretation from the Pope. Take a different interpretation from a panel of Catholic Bible scholars. White-out the names of those who wrote them.
What distinguishes these two interpretations? Could you tell the difference?"
According to their shared church model both groups know exactly who is infallible! No confusion. The "whiting out" caveat shows clearly that you could not tell if you were in A or C.
Between the choices:
(a) A man-made institution without infallibility.
(b) A God-made institution with infallibility.
(c) A God-made institution without infallibility...
For your Catholic example, they both agree who is infalible. And as long as I knew that one of them was the Pope (not knowing for sure between two identical documents who's was who's.. which is a bizare scenario) I could say with confidence that one is infallible and the other is inerrent.
Am I right that you are saying there is no way for someone who rejects B to tell if they are in A or C?
Where is the objectivity?
David, I'm just asking the question. Nick had asked me, "What distinguishes not-infallible leaders' interpretations from those of secular Bible scholars?"
So I wanted to know what kinds of distinguishing marks one is looking for.
So I asked, in essence, "What distinguishes infallible leaders' interpretations from those of secular Bible scholars?"
Your answer is, so far, the identity of the author. Am I correct?
Assuming so, then, I would say Nick that the marks that distinguish a church authority's answer from a secular Bible scholar's answer is the attitude of faith or otherwise evident in his writing.
If he is a church authority -- or indeed a believer of any sort -- I expect to see him treating the text as true and as the Word of God. If not, then not.
But I would not expect any distinguishing mark that would indicate to me somehow whether his interpretation is correct or not.
For that, to the best of my ability, I would look to the quality of the argument. Is it soundly reasoned? If so, then the interpretation is a live option. If not, then it is much less likely to be correct.
JRC
My post must have gotten caught in the spam comments bin, because it's not showing up. I posted it the other day.
Based on your most recent comment, it seems you deny any sort of authoritative interpretive office since ultimately it's not who says it, but how much you agree with their argument. This basically goes with my past comment on the 'option' that everyone is just as must an authoritative interpreter as the rest. But this option leads to utterly disastrous results, including the agnosticism I mentioned earlier. One superb example I point to (read to the middle of the link) is that John Piper (no slouch when it comes to conservativism or exegesis) pastors a church in which the congregation's bylaws have rules about divorce and remarriage. In their church laws it explicitly lays out that while Piper opposes divorce on (strong) Biblical exegesis, he will not force this view on the other pastors of the church, who are all free to come to their own conclusions on the matter (ie some allow divorce). If that's not moral relativism by definition, I don't know what is.
Nick,
Sorry about the comments. I don't have any control over Blogger's spam filtering, so I can't say whether your comment got "caught" or something else.
You wrote,
Based on your most recent comment, it seems you deny any sort of authoritative interpretive office since ultimately it's not who says it, but how much you agree with their argument.
Not quite. You seem to want to focus on me (Jeff) as deciding based on my preferences.
And this is half-true: I, as the person who believes, am responsible for what I believe.
But the basis for decision is not whether or not I agree. I've been dragged "kicking and screaming" by Scripture into views that I did not wish to believe. (Not often, but at least once and perhaps up to five or so times).
The correct analysis would be,
(1) There are church authorities whose voice should be heard and who should be obeyed within the bounds of Scripture.
(2) Those authorities are not infallible, but should be tested against Scripture.
(3) The test for correctness is not whether I agree with them, but rather whether their pronouncements are good and necessary inferences from Scripture.
By continuing to focus on me as the interpretive agent, you continue to misunderstand the method and also (more controversially) to overlook the subjective elements in your own method.
JRC
P.S. That's not moral relativism, so I guess you don't know what is. :)
Seriously: relativism is a much-overused term. There is a difference between saying "the Truth is relative to a particular reference frame" (relativism -- look it up) and "I believe the Truth is in fact X, but my confidence level is low enough that I do not insist that others follow me." (uncertainty).
Piper is clearly doing the latter, not the former. He does not perceive of himself as creating the truth about divorce.
JRC
I know this conversation is long dead, but there is a new subject catching fire as far as Protestantims-Catholicism goes.
Basically, it comes down to this:
1) The Covenant of Works, Adam, by his own human strength, was to render perfect obedience to God.
2) Jesus, being the Second Adam, had to pick up where Adam failed, and keep the Covenant of Works Himself.
3) The "catch" is that Jesus didn't operate by human strength alone, for (a) He was a Divine Person, and (b) texts like John 1 say He was "full of grace and truth" and that the Holy Spirit came and "remained on Him" throughout His ministry.
4) Thus, Christ's Righteousness imputed becomes a gracious-merit righteousness by infused grace, which is not at all what Adam could attain, and thus the Covenant of Works is false.
What do you think?
Hi Nick,
Yes, I don't know quite why things dribbled off. I was a bit concerned that my joke on Nov 1 might have offended you.
About the Covenant of Works argument: I find (1) to be questionable.
For one thing, while I'm happy with the Covenant of Works language in WCoF 7.2, I'm impatient with those who wish to speculate further about "conditions" or "what would have happened" or any such. (Not you, just theologians in general who want to make definitive pronouncements about the CoW)
I don't think it's necessary at all to assume that Adam's hypothetical obedience had to be without God's assistance. All that we really know from the texts of Gen 3 and Rom 4 - 5 is that (a) Adam had to obey, and (b) there were penalties for disobeying, and (c) Jesus as second Adam succeeded where Adam failed, so that (d) our justification is by God's grace through the blood of Christ, by faith and not by works.
Beyond that, I don't want to speculate.
I don't see much good from an RC point of view of trying to undermine the CoW on the basis of Jesus' divine assistance (whether of His own divine nature or of the Spirit's). For if we walk down this road:
(1) Jesus' work isn't "true merit" unless He did it on His own strength;
(2) He didn't; so
(3) His work isn't truly meritorious ...
Well, you've not only "killed the CoW", but destroyed Roman Catholic (Anselmian) understandings of Jesus' work at the same time.
No, I think all that the conclusion (4) really shows is that (1) was flawed to begin with.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
The logic behind #1 is that if Adam was operating under a grace+works situation, where Adam cooperates with grace to accomplish this obedience, then you have a situation where Protestants reject. This notion of gracious-merit is precisely what the Catholic position affirms and the Protestant position rejects. Man cooperating with God's grace is seen as a form of pelagianism for Protestants.
This isn't speculating about the Covenant of Works, it's a bedrock principle. The very 3-step reasoning you used to refute my example proves my point: to Protestants, merit is only based on what the individual is able to do on their own natural powers.
For Catholics, there is no problem with Jesus accomplishing His obedience by the aid of the Holy Spirit, since this type of merit is not only orthodox, it's the soteriological type.
Nick,
Have you found other Protestants who insist that Adam's hypothetical obedience would have to have been entirely on his own strength and without the assistance of God?
I've not read that before, anywhere.
Usually, when it is denied that "there was grace in the Garden" (the point of contention between Murray and Kline, and their spiritual heirs), the "grace" in view is not God's assistance, but God's condescension -- that is, would Adam's hypothetical obedience have been strictly meritorious (Kline) or would it have been meritorious as viewed by God's condescension (Murray).
The issue of God's assistance in the matter has not arisen.
And again, I find questions about a hypothetical that never occurred and never will occur, to be pushing on the edge of what Scripture reveals.
Nick: This notion of gracious-merit is precisely what the Catholic position affirms and the Protestant position rejects. Man cooperating with God's grace is seen as a form of pelagianism for Protestants.
No, the Protestants reject a related but different issue: Do our works contribute to the ground of our justification?
The RC position, as I understand it, is that God enables us to do good works of love, which then count towards the merit which justifies us.
The Protestant position is that one is justified in toto by faith, apart from works of the law; so that our works (which are indeed done in cooperation with the Spirit!) are post-justification works that do not contribute to the ground of our justification.
So the charge of "pelagianism" does not arise from cooperation, to which all sides agree, but rather from the alleged meritoriousness of those works. It matters not whether the works are done with or without God's help; what matters (to the Protestant) is that Jesus' work is utterly sufficient and received by faith.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
You asked: "Have you found other Protestants who insist that Adam's hypothetical obedience would have to have been entirely on his own strength and without the assistance of God?"
Yes, I have; and this makes sense given that Adam's merit was not of the sort of 'gracious merit' which Protestants reject. Grace and Works are opposed in Protestantism, since grace is strictly what God does for man rather than man doing it himself. There is no anti-thesis between the two if Adam could have kept the Commandments with God's assistance.
You said: "Usually, when it is denied that "there was grace in the Garden", the "grace" in view is not God's assistance, but God's condescension"
Correct. Grace in terms of God's assistance is out of the question, in their minds.
You said (shortened): "No, the Protestants reject a related but different issue: Do our works contribute to the ground of our justification? ... So the charge of "pelagianism" does not arise from cooperation, to which all sides agree, but rather from the alleged meritoriousness of those works."
Yes, we're dealing with the issue of Adam's justification as well as our own.
Did Adam's works contribute to the ground of his justification? The only option is 'yes'.
But did these works get done by the assistance of God's grace?
If no, then here is the dilemma I'm addressing with no grace in the garden but grace with Christ.
If yes, then Adam was meriting his justification with the help of grace, and thus the category of 'gracious merit' for justification is indeed genuine and orthodox.
Just checking in to get your thoughts, particularly the last half of my post.
FYI:
The last few comments are some kind of idiot fishing or something. do not open the link. It will no doubt be a virus or porn (pron).
Hi guys,
Sorry I've been absentee for the last month.
Nick, you said:
Did Adam's works contribute to the ground of his justification? The only option is 'yes'.
But did these works get done by the assistance of God's grace?
If no, then here is the dilemma I'm addressing with no grace in the garden but grace with Christ.
If yes, then Adam was meriting his justification with the help of grace, and thus the category of 'gracious merit' for justification is indeed genuine and orthodox.
Again, I feel uncomfortable speculating with confidence on what might have happened if Adam *had* obeyed.
But let's speculate uncomfortably. Let's presume that Adam's obedience would have been gracious merit.
That *still* doesn't get us to the RC view of condign merit.
Here's why: the parallel is not between Adam and us, but between Adam and Christ.
So even if hypothetical Adam merited life with the assistance of grace, and even if Jesus merited life with the assistance of grace, still --
our life comes NOT from our obedience but from receiving it from Him.
That's the primary difference between Adam and us. He was the actor for himself; Jesus is the actor for us.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
You said: "I feel uncomfortable speculating with confidence on what might have happened if Adam *had* obeyed."
If that's the case, that you think it's based on speculation, then you must reject the Westminster Confession teaching on the "Covenant of Works" (which also happens to be the basis for the law/gospel distinction). This also impacts how you view the Adam-Christ parallel, because if you don't know what Adam would have attained, then you cannot know what Christ was or did attain on our behalf as far as "Active obedience" goes.
You also said: "But let's speculate uncomfortably. Let's presume that Adam's obedience would have been gracious merit. That *still* doesn't get us to the RC view of condign merit."
I see your point, but you're one step ahead of the game. First, if Adam's obedience would have been gracious merit, then the category of gracious merit is orthodox. Period. This would turn any accusations of Pelagianism (either in Paul's Epistles or Catholicism) into nothing, since gracious merit (same thing as condign) is fine.
To say the problem isn't about gracious merit but rather whether it was us who graciously merited or Christ who graciously merited is really the start of a new (but related) subject. You would have to read Romans 4:1-5 totally opposite to how the Reformed tradition has.
Hi Nick,
I think there's a misunderstanding here. I don't feel uncomfortable with what the Scripture teaches: that as the second Adam, Jesus merits for his people what Adam lost for his people (Rom 5).
I feel uncomfortable going *beyond* that into speculations about
"Would Adam's first test been his only test?"
or
"What if Eve had fallen, but Adam didn't?"
or
"Would Adam's obedience have hypothetically been on his own without God's assistance, or with God's assistance?"
You see this last question as crucial because it might establish the validity of "gracious merit" as a category.
But that's neither here nor there in my view. The difference between RC and Reformed teaching on merit has to do with *who earns the merit*, not whether that merit is properly "gracious" or "ungracious."
In the Reformed view, our justification is grounded in Christ's merit imputed to us. We earn none of it; Christ earns all of it.
Whereas RC's say, if I understand, that our justification is grounded in Christ's merit infused into us, so that it becomes ours as well. Our own good works (done by the assistance of grace) then contribute to our righteous status.
That's why WCoF 16.5 was written.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
You said: The difference between RC and Reformed teaching on merit has to do with *who earns the merit*, not whether that merit is properly "gracious" or "ungracious."
I see your point, but my response is that those two issues are related, so it cannot be said it is "neither here nor there". What you are saying is that the category of merit only applies to two people, Adam and Christ, in virtue of them being "Federal Heads".
But when we turn to Scripture, the historical Protestant mantra is Paul is preaching against "works righteousness" (Pelagianism) which cannot save because each man is sinner (not because each man is not a Federal Head). But what Paul should have been saying, according to you, is that we cannot save ourselves simply because we are not Federal Heads, not because of sin.
Consider Romans 4, "if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God".
The question now is: why 'not before God'?
You would answer: Because Abraham wasn't a Federal Head and thus 'justification by works' doesn't properly apply to him.
Most Protestants would answer: Because Abe was a sinner and thus his works couldn't merit justification, not because he wasn't a Federal Head.
The Catholic answer is the works are not done in grace (gracious merit), which man as creature doesn't deserve, and man as sinner especially doesn't deserve.
Of course the actions of Adam and Christ affect the latter two responses, neither of the latter two are confined strictly to the issue of being Federal Head with gracious merit being "neither here nor there".
In short, I don't think your claim aligns with Scripture, since you're saying 'justification by works' doesn't properly apply to us, only to Federal Heads, when Paul says it does apply to man but sin is getting in the way and needs to be removed first.
Hi Nick,
What you are saying is that the category of merit only applies to two people, Adam and Christ, in virtue of them being "Federal Heads".
No, something quite different from that.
There is a category of merit that applies across the board.
But the principle of merit is the principle of the Law: "He who does these things shall live by them" (Gal 3.13). So when we ask, "Who actually keeps the Law?", the answer is "No-one is righteous, no not one."
So the concept of merit applies across the board to all; the actual earners of merit are one person only, and everyone else has received demerit.
Federal headship is then invoked to explain how it is that we, who are not meritorious, could be at peace with God. And the answer is that we are justified by being included in Christ: His merit counts as ours. This is the point where it matters *who* earns our merit.
So why does Abraham have nothing to boast about before God?
Because his justification *did not come through obeying the Law.* Rather, it came by faith (Rom 4.13).
Are we connecting here at all?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I think your claim here is what a lot of this 'merit' thesis rests on:
"But the principle of merit is the principle of the Law: "He who does these things shall live by them" (Gal 3.13). So when we ask, "Who actually keeps the Law?", the answer is "No-one is righteous, no not one."[Rom 3:10]"
Let me see if I get what you're saying: Merit only applies to one who *sinlessly* keeps the Law. The issue of gracious vs strict merit is irrelevant (at least as far as Paul is concerned).
But I don't think this claim works when you examine those Scripture texts you cited as your fundamental proof for "merit".
For one, the Law had Levitical Sacrifices built into it for when the Jews sinned, so the "sinlessness" reading doesn't make sense.
More importantly, Paul says the Law could not save even if kept perfectly, for attaching salvation to perfect Law keeping would supplant God's original promise to Abraham 430 years earlier: Gal 3:15-18. So a reading of 'merit' for Gal 3:12 simply doesn't work since the Law is a chronological problem.
This confirms Paul's point in 2:21, "if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." Notice the contrast here: keep the Law perfectly versus Christ dying. It is not about us keeping the Law versus Christ keeping the Law. If your thesis were correct, "THEN Christ died for no purpose" is non-sequitor here and rather should have said Christ kept the Law for us.
With that in mind, you see the same picture of 2:21 emerge in 3:12f: us keeping the Law versus Christ dying. But why? Verse 3:14 indicates the Law was preventing mankind from experiencing the blessing bestowed upon Abraham, and thus Christ had to abolish the Law.
So when you ask, "Who actually keeps the Law?" The fact is, Paul never asks that question since it contradicts his thesis. Romans 3:10 serves the purpose of saying the Jews are no better than Gentiles; both are sinners.
You concluded by saying:
"So why does Abraham have nothing to boast about before God?
Because his justification *did not come through obeying the Law.* Rather, it came by faith (Rom 4.13)."
I think your conclusion is correct but for the wrong reasons. The Law never applied to Abraham, since it came 430 years later, so he couldn't 'merit' under it even if he wanted to. This is precisely why Romans 4:13 is cross-referenced to Galatians 3:15-18. The issue for Paul was never about Abraham being a sinner.
This brings us back to Galatians 3:12, "But the law is not of faith, rather The one who does them shall live by them."
To read this as saying 'faith is about not meriting' while the 'law is about meriting' doesn't fit based on what was just said. Of course, obeying the Law presupposed faith in the first place, so "the law is not of faith" cannot mean "obeying the Law as an unbeliever." Thus, the "Faith" mentioned here must mean something else, as Romans 10:5f indicates:
"5For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7or "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)."
If the merit thesis were true, we'd expect to see Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5 interpreted as saying Jesus kept the Law perfectly in our place - but such is never taught in Scripture. (In fact, the very text Paul is quoting from the Law is where God says the Law is not too hard to keep.) Rather, it says the "Faith" here is in the miracle of believing in Christ's Resurrection and Ascension. Thus, the "Faith" is a radical faith, and thus the "righteousness of faith" is a soteric-righteousness the Law could never give, while the "righteousness of the Law" is a earthly-temporal righteousness that never saves even if attained: Deuteronomy 28.
Hi Nick,
Am I correct in sensing that you want to draw a distinction between "keeping the Law" and "being righteous"?
Anyway, what I don't see in your analysis is the role of original sin. Romans 4, for example, argues that lawkeeping cannot make us righteous death came to all through Adam; and life comes to all through Christ.
You say,
If the merit thesis were true, we'd expect to see Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5 interpreted as saying Jesus kept the Law perfectly in our place - but such is never taught in Scripture.
That's precisely what I see in Scripture. Heb 9 for example. Or Galatians 3.
Consider Paul's argument:
* Those who are of faith are of the sons of Abraham.
* But those who rely on the Law are under a curse.
* What is that curse? That those under the Law must obey it everything written in it.
* But Christ redeemed us from the curse of that Law.
* So that we become children of God by being in Christ.
Stop and consider the point implied in his argument. How does Christ redeem us from the curse of that Law?
By taking the curse for us. But a man cannot take the curse for someone else unless ... He is righteous. Fulfills the Law.
Or put another way: What does Paul mean when he says that we become the righteousness of God in Christ? (2 Cor 3).
The odd thing is that I thought that Catholics and Protestants agreed on this point: Christ's sacrifice was meritorious because He was righteous. Right?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I was more specifically drawing a distinction between two kinds of "being righteous," and not mutually exclusive kinds either. There is soteric[Abrahamic]-righteousness and Mosaic-righteousness. The former promises eternal rewards, the latter only temporal rewards.
I didn't explicitly mention Original sin because the "Judaizer issue" of "Do this and live" wasn't directly related to that but to the Mosaic Law. That said, Original Sin comes into the picture in regards to the 'cure' I mentioned which is soteric-righteousness that the Mosaic Law never offered. So in places like Romans 4 and Galatians 3, Paul is refuting the idea the Mosaic-Righteousness was soteric in the first place.
As for the idea Jesus kept the Law in our place, you said:
"That's precisely what I see in Scripture. Heb 9 for example. Or Galatians 3."
I'd be interested in the specific passages you have in mind, because I see nothing even close to suggesting that.
You then presented what you thought was Paul's argument and concluded with:
"Stop and consider the point implied in his argument. How does Christ redeem us from the curse of that Law? By taking the curse for us. But a man cannot take the curse for someone else unless ... He is righteous. Fulfills the Law."
I think there are a few critical assumptions being made here that you'd be hard-pressed to substantiate with Scripture.
First of all, you're arguing Christ kept the Law in our place as the epitome of meriting and yet you say this is based on what is "implied" in Paul's argument. I have a hard time believing something that significant has to be concluded from what is only "implied" in Scripture rather than clearly spelled out.
Second, I see Paul's argument as pushing the Law out of the way, not vouching for vicariously keeping it, but rather abolishing it. Paul says Christ redeemed us from the Law so that we could receive the Abrahamic promise. Could you please exegete Galatians 3:15-18 for me?
Third, Christ indeed perfectly kept the Law, and this was necessary to make Him a worthy Sacrifice, but where does this entail He kept it in our place? Such is, again, nowhere stated anywhere in Scripture. Further, keeping the Mosaic Law only entitles one to the temporal blessings of long life, health, wealth, etc, - not heaven - so keeping it perfectly in our place wouldn't save us without supplanting the chronologically earlier promise to Abraham. I would also add that the term "fulfill" does not mean "keep perfectly" in Scripture.
You asked:
"Or put another way: What does Paul mean when he says that we become the righteousness of God in Christ? (2 Cor 3)."
I'm not sure how you can equate "righteousness of God in Christ" with "keep the Law perfectly in our place" - I just don't see any exegetical basis for doing such.
The "righteousness of God [the Father]" is not a Mosaic Righteousness or even a merited righteousness, especially since the Father never had to merit this.
If you are to parallel 2 Corinthians 5:21 with Galatians 3:13 - which I think can be done - here is what we'd have to equate "righteousness of God" with:
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin,
*so that in him* we might become the righteousness of God.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us...
*so that in Christ Jesus* the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Thus, the "righteousness of God" is somehow synonymous or relates to "the blessing of Abraham" and receiving the Holy Spirit by faith.
Hi Nick,
You said: There is soteric[Abrahamic]-righteousness and Mosaic-righteousness. The former promises eternal rewards, the latter only temporal rewards.
Here, I turn the challenge to you: How do you get this from the text?
(1) And in particular, how do you account for the fact that failing to keep the Mosaic Law gives eternal punishment?
(2) And in fact, Paul specifically attributes eternal rewards to law-keeping in Rom 2.
Don't these demand that keeping of the Law is tied up with something more than temporal rewards and punishments?
So I think a clearer account of righteousness and law is needed before we can proceed effectively. I'm not convinced that there are two kinds of righteousness; what I think I'm seeing in Scripture is two approaches to the Law: Try to fulfill it (and fail); or have the requirements met in you by Another (who succeeded). Rom. 8.4.
Here's my shot at it. The Law of God, as expressed in the Law of Moses is
(A) The law of love (Matt 22.40). The 1st table of the decalogue corresponds to love for God; the 2nd, for neighbor.
(B) The rule of righteousness, the breaking of which brings a curse and the fulfillment of which brings reward (Rom 2).
(A) and (B) are not separate, but identical: we owe God obedience-(B) because we are his creatures. Genuine love leads to genuine obedience; true obedience proceeds from love.
Thus, the phrase "Jesus fulfilled the law for us" as I'm using it means
(1) That Jesus bore the curse for our disobedience (Gal 3.13), or lack of love.
(2) That Jesus' status as son is accounted to us (Gal 3.26-29), so that we also are children of God.
The fulfilling refers to his "meeting the demands of." In (1), He dies as the one condemned -- the requirement of the Law. In (2), He causes us to reap the purpose of the Law, which is to be in right relationship with God. We are God's children (viewed as righteous) because we are in Christ; He thus fulfills the Law in that sense.
That's the best I can do, I'm afraid. But see below on "merit"...
JRC
A couple of points:
Nick: Second, I see Paul's argument as pushing the Law out of the way, not vouching for vicariously keeping it, but rather abolishing it. Paul says Christ redeemed us from the Law so that we could receive the Abrahamic promise.
I think you may be partially agreeing with me without realizing it!
Not in terms of "abolishing" the Law. Christ clearly indicated that He was fulfilling, not abolishing -- Matt 5. Paul confirms that the righteousness of faith does not abolish the Law (Rom 3.31). So we don't agree there.
But in terms of our receiving the Abrahamic promise, yes, exactly. And what was that promise? "I will be your God, and you will be my people" (and the various benefits that flowed from that).
What was the obstacle to the reception of that promise? Sin.
What was the solution to the obstacle? Christ's life and death and resurrection for us.
Where does the Law figure in? NOT, says Paul, as the remedy to sin. But instead, says Paul, to bring a pointed curse on sin. "The Law was added because of transgressions", right?
---
You asked, Third, Christ indeed perfectly kept the Law, and this was necessary to make Him a worthy Sacrifice, but where does this entail He kept it in our place?
For who else's place do you have in mind?! :)
Seriously, though:
* The sacrifice was in our place;
* The Law-keeping made him a worthy sacrifice;
* Therefore, the Law-keeping was in our place. It was for our benefit, so that our failure to keep the Law would not be held against us.
---
I get the sense that you're working off of a different idea of "meriting" than I am. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think I'm seeing that for you,
"to merit" means "to accrue status points by the performance of specific actions."
Is that right?
Whereas I am using "merit" more in keeping with the equation of "righteousness = true law-keeping = love." And that is
"to merit" means "to fulfill the conditions of the relationship" (or "covenant.")
So Jesus didn't need to rack up status points on our behalf. Of course not! BUT,
* Adam's sin and ours following it had broken the conditions of relationship.
for all have sinned ...
* Our sin nature made repairing that relationship impossible.
For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
* And Jesus repaired the relationship through his obedience
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
That's what "merit" means in my book.
JRC
One final thing. I sense that where we're headed is a discussion of this question:
"Does the righteousness of Christ that saves us from God's wrath consist of Christ's righteousness granted to us as a status, OR of Christ's righteousness transforming us from sinner by nature into saint by nature?"
Is that a fair assessment of what you're thinking?
JRC
Hi Jeff, I've broken this into 3 posts, hopefully this wont get too long:
Hi Jeff,
You asked me: "How do you get this from the text?"
My 'short' answer is to appeal to Gal 3:15-18, which clearly delineates that the promise given to Abraham was not the same attached to the Law. This is why it would help if I saw your interpretation of Gal 3:15-18.
You also asked: "(1) And in particular, how do you account for the fact that failing to keep the Mosaic Law gives eternal punishment?"
I don't believe failing to keep the Law results in eternal punishment, just the opposite in fact! The Mosaic Law could only inflict physical and temporal punishments, not eternal. This is why there is no mention of Heaven/Hell in the Mosaic Law. One good passage that shows this contrast is Hebrews 10:28-29, where it says anyone violating the Mosaic Law was put to death, but anyone violating Christ will be damned.
You also asked: "(2) And in fact, Paul specifically attributes eternal rewards to law-keeping in Rom 2."
Not in virtue of keeping the Mosaic Law though, since he says Gentiles are included in this (2:10) and that circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit (a power man does not have) is what really counts (2:29).
You asked: "Don't these demand that keeping of the Law is tied up with something more than temporal rewards and punishments?"
I would say the Biblical testimony is clearly against that idea. On another theological front, the Mosaic Law was imperfect and temporary, so it cannot be an eternal and universal standard.
You said: So I think a clearer account of righteousness and law is needed before we can proceed effectively.
That sound fair to me. I'd say the three main texts I'd point to are Gal 3:15-18; Rom 10:5-7; Phil 3:3-6. These texts don't make sense when interpreted as "TWO ways to attain ONE type of righteousness," and rather as "TWO types of righteousness, each attained their own way".
You said: I'm not convinced that there are two kinds of righteousness; what I think I'm seeing in Scripture is two approaches to the Law: Try to fulfill it (and fail); or have the requirements met in you by Another (who succeeded). Rom. 8.4.
How can there be two approaches to the Law for someone who lived chronologically prior to the Law or who lives after the Law has been done away with? Further, as I've said from a few posts ago, there are no explicit texts that say Jesus kept the Law in our place. As for Romans 8:4, often this verse is truncated, resulting in a changed meaning. 8:4b shows the righteous requirements are met in us since we walk by the Spirit and thus fulfill them a la 13:8ff (which is what ch8 is all about).
(1 of 3)
You said: Here's my shot at it. The Law of God, as expressed in the Law of Moses is
(A) The law of love (Matt 22.40). The 1st table of the decalogue corresponds to love for God; the 2nd, for neighbor.
I think it's good to address what the Mosaic Law is. The "two greatest commandments" of Mt 22:40 are not taken from the 10 Commandments but from two different sections in the Torah. This helps show that the Law was a 'package deal', it had to be kept as a whole and not cherry picked. Now when we turn to the 10 Commandments, we notice that commandments such as the 4th relate to Sabbath keeping, but this never applied to non-Jews, nor does it apply today, and thus the 10 Commandments are not the perfect or eternal standard by which we're judged.
You also said: (B) The rule of righteousness, the breaking of which brings a curse and the fulfillment of which brings reward (Rom 2).
Romans 2 is talking about the final judgment, and in every text of Scripture where we see mention of being worthy of entering heaven, it's a legal context and the judgment is based upon our *own* good works, not Christ's good works in our place. This is the exact opposite of what we would expect if being worthy to enter Heaven was based on Christ's good works done in our place.
You said: "(A) and (B) are not separate, but identical: we owe God obedience-(B) because we are his creatures. Genuine love leads to genuine obedience; true obedience proceeds from love."
I sort of agree, but I think your premises are not correct.
You concluded with:
(2) That Jesus' status as son is accounted to us (Gal 3.26-29), so that we also are children of God.
The fulfilling refers to his "meeting the demands of." ... In (2), He causes us to reap the purpose of the Law, which is to be in right relationship with God. We are God's children (viewed as righteous) because we are in Christ; He thus fulfills the Law in that sense.
I'd say #2 is where the main disagreement rests. The way I interpret Gal 3 and other similar texts is that the promises given to Abraham were put on hold until Jesus came, and the Law was introduced as "our guardian until Christ came" (3:24). If you read Gal 3:19-24, it never indicates 'the purpose of the Law was to put us in a right relationship with God', just the opposite (cf Rom 4:13-15). The theme in Rom 4 and Gal 3 is becoming a child of Abraham, which has no direct connection to Law keeping.
Later you said: I think you may be partially agreeing with me without realizing it! Not in terms of "abolishing" the Law. Christ clearly indicated that He was fulfilling, not abolishing -- Matt 5. Paul confirms that the righteousness of faith does not abolish the Law (Rom 3.31). So we don't agree there.
By 'abolish' I mean 'no longer binding', hence Paul's 'abolish' language in places like Eph 2:15. I am not saying the Law is worthless, only that it served its purpose. The Mosaic Law was inherently imperfect (Mk 10:2-12), as Hebrews 8 makes abundantly clear: "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete." The talk of a New Testament doesn't make sense if the Old is still in force.
You said: "But in terms of our receiving the Abrahamic promise, yes, exactly. And what was that promise? "I will be your God, and you will be my people" (and the various benefits that flowed from that)."
I think you're either conflating promises or mixing them up. The phrase you quote is Mosaic, not Abrahamic. The promise that God would give Abraham the promised land and numerous descendants was already fulfilled by God, but the promised "Seed" (Jesus) and that spiritual Sonship is only fulfilled in light of the Gospel.
(2 of 3)
You said: "What was the obstacle to the reception of that promise? Sin.
What was the solution to the obstacle? Christ"
Agreed.
You said:
"Where does the Law figure in? NOT, says Paul, as the remedy to sin. But instead, says Paul, to bring a pointed curse on sin. 'The Law was added because of transgressions', right?"
Agreed. The Law was not introduced to provide salvation, only to expose sin. This is why it makes no sense to suggest Christ kept the Law 'in our place' or that keeping the Law saves.
You said: "For who else's place do you have in mind?! :)"
Keeping the Law in place of another doesn't follow from someone needing a Sacrifice for their sins. If I have to pay a speeding ticket, it makes no sense to say someone else kept the speed limit for me and also paid the fine for me. Paying the fine follows from my breaking, and keeping the speed limit doesn't grant a citizen any special blessings.
You said:
Seriously, though:
* The sacrifice was in our place;
* The Law-keeping made him a worthy sacrifice;
* Therefore, the Law-keeping was in our place. It was for our benefit, so that our failure to keep the Law would not be held against us.
But the Law keeping wasn't it's own component for any 'positive' blessing, so even if you want to say Jesus kept the Law in our place, that was only a condition to be a Sacrifice and thus yield forgiveness. Failure to keep the Law was Atoned for by the Sacrifice; it didn't require an additional crediting of perfect Law keeping to our account: Heb 9:15.
Lastly, you said:
for you,
"to merit" means "to accrue status points by the performance of specific actions."
Is that right?
Basically correct, I just would use the term 'status points'.
You said:
Whereas I am using "merit" more in keeping with the equation of "righteousness = true law-keeping = love." And that is
"to merit" means "to fulfill the conditions of the relationship" (or "covenant.")
So Jesus didn't need to rack up status points on our behalf.
But it is Christians who fulfill the Law in that sense without Christ doing it for us: Rom 2:29; 13:8ff
You said:
Of course not! BUT,
* Adam's sin and ours following it had broken the conditions of relationship.
* Our sin nature made repairing that relationship impossible.
* And Jesus repaired the relationship through his obedience
That's what "merit" means in my book.
I would actually largely agree with this, I would just say *The Law* wasn't the standard by which this was done. Adam didn't violate nor was he under the Law; it didn't even exist yet. The analogy I would use is that Adam introduced cancer into humanity, the Law came to expose the cancer, Jesus (in virtue of His Divinity) provided the cure. The Law didn't cure cancer nor could it.
To conclude, you asked:
One final thing. I sense that where we're headed is a discussion of this question:
"Does the righteousness of Christ that saves us from God's wrath consist of Christ's righteousness granted to us as a status, OR of Christ's righteousness transforming us from sinner by nature into saint by nature?"
Is that a fair assessment of what you're thinking?
The latter. It's basically a grand Adoption process. We go from children of Adam - those who lack the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit - to (Adopted) children of God by the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Sin doesn't have ontological existence, rather it is a 'defect' in what is ontologically good, and in this case the defect is a privation of the 'love and Spirit poured into our hearts' (Rom 5:5). This is precisely why Paul's #1 concern in Galatians was to ask: Let me ask you only this: Did you *receive the Spirit* by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
The Law never did promise nor could it give the believer the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Nick,
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm puzzling over how the discussion can proceed from here. We clearly have very different ideas of what God's Law is, how it functioned and functions, and what Jesus' obedience to the Law meant for us.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I totally understand if this is too much and/or you don't have time.
If anything, at the very least, could you exegete Galatians 3:15-18 and tell me how it harmonizes with your position.
ACK! My post disappeared.
OK, let's try again.
Galatians is addressed to a group of churches troubled by Judaizers, those who teach that to be a child of God, one must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses (cf. Acts 15).
Against this, Paul raises a powerful argument.
(1) Those who have begun by faith ought not continue by the flesh (3.1-6).
(2) Those who are in Christ are already children of Abraham and therefore have no need of circumcision (3.7-29).
(3) The Law brings slavery that cannot make one a child of the promise (ch. 4).
More could be said, but that's enough to get on with.
Paul's argument then raises a burning question: If justification comes through faith in Christ, then why did God give the Law at all? (3.19). Unspoken is this thought: if the Law does not justify, then placing Israelites under the Law from Moses to Christ seems pointless.
He answers this question in two different ways. First, the Law was given because of transgressions (3.19).
Second, in the history of redemption, the Law was given to lead us to Christ (3.23-25).
Let's take each of these in turn.
"The Law was added because of transgressions" (3.19).
In 3.10 - 3.20 Paul explains that the Law was given in order to provide a curse upon those who broke it. It was added because of transgressions. This is a difficult phrase, but it can be properly understood by comparison to Rom 2 and Rom 5.
Sin itself is a larger category than "breaking the Mosaic Law." Adam sinned by breaking God's command -- and from Adam till Moses, the guilt of sin was clearly in effect as evidenced by the existence of death (Rom 5.12ff.). But the Law was given so as to clearly mark "sin" as "transgression." Hence Rom 5.20: The law was given so that trespass might increase.
NOT, that people might sin more! But rather, that people's sin might be clearly marked as transgression. Hence, all who sin "under the Law" will be judged by the Law (Rom 2.12). And those who obey the Law will be judged righteous (Rom 2.13).
So by comparison, Gal 3.19 becomes clear: The law was added "because of the need to mark sins as transgressions."
---
A moment here to challenge you. You have stated that "the Mosaic Law provides rewards." Rom 2, 3 make this thesis impossible.
For a breaking of the Law was a sin; and the wages of sin is eternal death.
Not all sins are trespasses according to the Law; but all trespasses of the Law are sins, and therefore bring eternal punishment with them. This is the "curse of the Law" of Gal 3.10. And this is the accountability that we have before God in Rom 3.19 - 20.
Breaking of the Law is therefore of eternal import.
"So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." (3.24-25)
We have to be careful here to remember that Abraham also was justified by faith. So Paul is not saying "before Christ, justification by law; after Christ, justification by faith."
Instead, he is saying that before Christ came, the law was a tutor: It made plain our sin. This caused us to eagerly await our savior, the one who would remove the guilt of our sin.
Now that the savior has come, there is no longer a need for the Law in its tutoring function.
This does not abolish the Law utterly; it still remains as a rule of righteousness fulfilled by those who have the Spirit. But it does abolish the cursing function of the Law.
And this exposes the lie of the Judaizers. If we are in Christ, then what need is there of law-keeping as a means of righteousness? None whatsoever. Those who are in Christ have already been justified, and a return to the Law is a return to slavery.
OK, OK, but how does this explain Gal 3.15 - 18?
In this way: More basic than the Law is God's covenant relationship: I will be a God to you and to your descendants (Gen 17).
Abraham needed to be justified in order to be in that covenant relationship; he was a sinner -- a sinner not under the law, in fact -- who was justified by faith.
The fact that he (a) needed justification, and (b) received it by faith apart from law, puts the lie to the Judaizers' claim that "covenant equals law-keeping."
This is what Paul means AFAICT.
---
So how does this fit in with "Christ kept the Law for us"?
In this way. The Law symbolizes or expresses what it means to properly be righteous (namely, to love God and neighbor). It is not the keeping of the 613 commands that equals righteousness; rather, it is righteousness that entails the keeping of the 613.
When we say that "Christ kept the Law for us", we mean that (a) Christ lived righteously, as expressed in keeping the Law; and (b) that His living was on our behalf, so that He would be a blameless sacrifice.
Granted: Jesus would have lived righteously anyway! But the life that he lived, he lived SO THAT he could be the spotless offering.
AND
Because we are "in Him", we are accounted also as "righteous."
(And obviously, I'm knocking on the door of my question on 4/12 4:05.)
So we don't mean that "the Law brought justification, and Christ met the requirements, so He was first justified by law-keeping, and then signed his justification over to us."
Instead, we mean that "Christ lived righteously on our behalf, and was therefore a spotless sacrifice for us; and we are counted righteous because we are in Him."
Am I making the difference intelligible?
To qualify my comments on "Law as tutor" (4/14 4:28) -- the Law's tutoring function is gone for those in Christ.
Hi Jeff,
If a post disappears, it probably went into blogger's new COMMENTS SPAM folder, which is very annoying.
To begin with, I agree with your comments on the background of Galatians: the Judaizers sought to condition being a child of God on being circumcised a la Acts 15:5. The thing I keep in mind is that this is *not* equivalent to 'meriting' or pelagianism.
Next, I agree that the underlying question is: why the Law in the first place? As you said: to expose sin and to lead us to Christ.
As for the notion that the law "provided a curse," I think that needs it's own clarification. The Law wasn't made to make life hell, the Law was a glorious way of life in the OT and a testimony to the nations. The law emerged as a curse only in the sense that in light of Christ the Law was old, outdated, and imperfect. That is why Galatians 5:4 says if one gets circumcised they have "been severed from Christ, fallen from grace," where as before this wasn't true.
I also agree that sin is a larger category than breaking the Law, and this is why so many err in projecting or assuming the "covenant of works" is built into the Mosaic Law. Truth be told, there is no such Law-Gospel distinction, with "Law" in Paul referring to sin in the larger category.
You said:
"You have stated that 'the Mosaic Law provides rewards.' Rom 2, 3 make this thesis impossible."
This is where the temporal-vs-eternal distinction must be made. All through the Torah it says explicitly if the Law is kept God will bless with large family, long life, and wealth (e.g. Deut 28). The punishments for breaking the Law only extended to physical death penalty and expulsion from the covenant. But as I said earlier, the Torah never speaks of heaven or hell; those were outside the scope of the Law.
I don't believe the curse of the Law is or equates to eternal punishment for the above reason, but also because Paul explicitly quotes in Gal 3:10 the passage of Deuteronomy 27-28, the temporal curses on life.
(1 of 2)
(2 of 2)
I would agree with your comments on Gal 3:24f except for your claim that the Law "still remains as a rule of righteousness." The Law as a legally binding code/covenant is abolished; now it's just a historical document with foreshadowings of Christ in it.
Thus, embracing the Law is a return to slavery in light of the revealed Christ; you're choosing to live in a system that doesn't recognize Christ = Gal 5:4. For example, it's an abomination to celebrate Passover when we know the True Passover is Jesus. Living under the Law is an (implicit) affirmation that the Messiah has not come, when we know in reality He has.
In your last post, you went onto talk on Gal 3:15ff. While I agree with much of your analysis here, I didn't see you pointing out that the saving promise was given to Abraham and conditioned on Faith while there was no such promise attached to the Law and conditioned on law-keeping. So the Judaizer error was saying God attached salvation to the Mosaic Covenant, when in reality He attached salvation to the Abrahamic Covenant. This is why "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" (Rom 9:6).
Now when you said Abraham "was a sinner -- a sinner not under the law, in fact -- who was justified by faith," I don't see how this connects to the clause that "Christ kept the Law for us". If the Law never applied to Abraham, it's superfluous to say Christ kept it for him. The same can be said for the Gentiles, especially those who lived after the Mosaic Covenant ended: there wasn't even an opportunity for them to be under the Law.
And when you said: "It is not the keeping of the 613 commands that equals righteousness; rather, it is righteousness that entails the keeping of the 613." Are you saying one doesn't attain the status of 'righteous' by keeping the commandments, rather one shows they already have that status by keeping the commandments? If so, I think that's problematic.
Lastly, when you say Christ kept the Law for us to mean "He would be a blameless sacrifice," I totally agree but still fail to see how this proves or necessitates an imputation of Active Obedience and especially within a "Covenant of Works". If that Sacrifice is so that we can be "in Him" and thus righteous, great, but I wouldn't say that righteousness is to be taken as a 'positive legal righteousness' in the sense Active Obedience entails.
So when you say "we mean that Christ lived righteously on our behalf, and was therefore a spotless sacrifice for us; and we are counted righteous because we are in Him," I would agree, but now I don't see how you're defining "righteousness".
Hi Nick,
I made an important omission in reconstructing my post. What I meant to say was,
JRC (meant!): You have stated that 'the Mosaic Law provides temporal rewards.' Rom 2, 3 make this thesis impossible.
And you responded, reasonably, to my original post by explaining the temporal-eternal distinction.
But it is precisely that distinction that I believe falls apart in light of Romans 2:
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. -- Rom 2.12 - 16.
We notice:
(1) Those who keep the Law will be declared righteous in God's sight.
(2) The righteous requirements of the Law extend even to Gentiles (not "under the Law"),
(3) Those under the Law who sin will be judged by the Law, and
(4) This judgment will take place when Jesus judges the world; that is, it is an eternal judgment and not temporal.
So I think your temporal/eternal distinction needs significant modification in light of Rom 2.
In the same vein, you wrote,
Nick: I don't believe the curse of the Law is or equates to eternal punishment for the above reason, but also because Paul explicitly quotes in Gal 3:10 the passage of Deuteronomy 27-28, the temporal curses on life.
The problem with this reading is that it would make Christ's death (as discussed in Gal 3) a matter of taking on temporal punishments for us!
I think you may have overlooked another possibility: that the temporal punishments of Deut 27 - 28 are symbolic of the eternal punishment due to one who sins against God.
JRC
The larger problem is that you have presented the law as monofunctional: obedience = temporal blessings; disobedience = temporal curses.
But the law was more complex than this. It clearly *did* have temporal rewards for obedience and disobedience. We Reformed folk call this the "civil law" or the "civil aspect of the Law."
But it also contained significant amounts of typology in the sacrificial requirements and in the festivals such as Passover. That typology is obviously *not* about temporal punishments and rewards, but rather symbolizes eternal matters: specifically, the coming of Christ. We typically call this the "ceremonial law."
And finally, the Law also contained a reflection of what actual righteousness looks like. We call this the "moral law."
We can think of righteousness under these two headings: Love for God and love for neighbor.
And the decalogue, in particular, gave specific commands that spell out what love *looks* like.
You wrote: The Law as a legally binding code/covenant is abolished; now it's just a historical document with foreshadowings of Christ in it.
But significantly, the decalogue is repeated in the NT. It has not expired, but continues on, EVEN to those who are not "under the Law"!
Some might argue against the Sabbath Commandment continuing on. I would say that Heb 10.25 qualifies as a sabbath commandment. But even if I'm wrong, the larger point holds: Some of the Torah is not expired, but continues on as a rule of righteousness, an exposition of what it means to love God and neighbor.
The reason that the moral law does not expire is simple: It is grounded in the eternal character and nature of God. Loving God means not worshiping other gods, in all ages and at all times. Loving one's neighbor means not murdering him or stealing from him, in all ages and at all times.
*This* is the law that continues on as a rule of righteousness.
---
I'm guessing that you are aware of the civil/ceremonial/moral distinction and have some disagreement with it. But consider James 1.22 - 25 and 2.8 and the fact that he's referring to the OT (since the NT was mostly unwritten and almost entirely unavailable to James' audience).
JRC
Hi Jeff,
In regards to Romans 2, clearly the Law cannot be a universal standard if the Gentiles are not under the Law, hence "all who sin apart from the law will perish apart from the law". Thus at the end of the day it's not the Mosaic Law providing these eternal punishments or rewards.
And as for "doing the law" resulting in justification in 2:13, this must be understood in living out the *Fulfilled Law*, not the Law as a Covenant (2:27). This concept is something you touched upon in your second post above, and I believe is made clear in light of various factors. For example, in 2:29 Paul says it's not physical circumcision that is what God is concerned with (though physical circumcision was an important thin for the Mosaic Covenant), rather it is circumcision of the heart by the Spirit that God looks for. This also reflects the higher standards Jesus holds Christians to that surpass the standards of the Torah (Matthew 5).
Regarding the "curse of the Law" (as described in Gal 3:10), you said:
"The problem with this reading is that it would make Christ's death (as discussed in Gal 3) a matter of taking on temporal punishments for us! I think you may have overlooked another possibility: that the temporal punishments of Deut 27 - 28 are symbolic of the eternal punishment due to one who sins against God."
I think you're reading more into the Law/situation than what is warranted. Even if the temporal punishments of Deut 27-28 could be taken in a spiritual reading to be symbolic of eternal punishments, that doesn't meant it applies in this case. If it's all symbolic, then Paul warning Gentiles not to subscribe to the Mosaic Law would be nonsense since 'curse of the law' would be hanging over all men already.
Further, I don't believe Jesus took the temporal nor eternal punishments for us, so neither 'option' you describe works in the first place. Both options lead not only to theological problems (e.g. Jesus getting eternally damned) but also to exegetical problems (since Scripture never says such things).
As for when I've described the law being "monofunctional," I agree that this is a truncated view of the Law, but I only did that to emphasize the temporal nature of the Mosaic Covenant. That said, I don't know if the terminology you used makes the most sense, and I'll explain why.
To say one aspect of the law is "civil" gives me the impression only certain parts of the Law applied to day-to-day life, rather than obeying the Law as a whole. Offering sacrifices, keeping the 10 Commandments, and getting circumcised would be "civil law" in that they touched upon how society was to run and receive blessings/curses.
(1 of 2)
(2 of 2)
Next, I would agree the Law contained significant amounts of typology, and in fact I'd say almost every aspect of the Torah was typological for Christ and the Church. Christ fulfilled/transformed all of the Torah, not just parts. And I wouldn't call this the "ceremonial law," as if morality and such were not likewise fulfilled-transformed by Christ and the Church. Romans 10:6ff describes how the entire law is typological, and does this by quoting Deut 30 (a section all about 'civil law').
Lastly, you said the "moral law" is a reflection of what actual righteousness looks like. As with the previous two descriptions, this gives off the impression "righteousness" only applies to morality, but not the other statutes of the Torah. Instead, I see righteousness as a reflection of keeping all of the Law, just as Christians are to keep all of the Gospel demands.
I agree that we can think of this under two broad headings of Love of God and neighbor and that the 10 Commandments are a handy summary, but I would not equate the 10 Commandments as a legal code with Christ's new-and-improved Gospel Demands. So while I would strongly agree with you that "the decalogue is repeated in the NT," I would not say Christians are keeping the Decalogue per se. The Decalogue as legal code cannot be divorced from the Torah as a whole, especially since the Decalogue is the epitome of the Torah and since the Torah expounds upon how to properly keep the Decalogue. Given that, if you say Christians are keeping the Decalogue as a legal code, they are butchering the Torah and Decalogue to suit their own whims. On top of that, I wouldn't truncate eternal truths to 'morality', since 'other aspects' like establishing civil law and offering sacrifice apply to some degree to all peoples and times (e.g. Rom 13:1ff).
The only sense in which aspects of the Torah "continues on" is in so far as they express eternal principles like Natural Law or Christ's new-and-improved standards (this is how I interpret James 1-2). As a legal code, it has all expired: this is why when (to use the examples you gave) nobody today is put to death for idolatry or necessarily even murder, where as in the Torah if someone commits those sins they must be put to death on God's explicit orders.
So while we might actually agree with eachother but use different terminology, I think certain terms/distinctions are not accurate. As I noted earlier, the Torah is a 'package deal' that must be kept as a whole or reformed as a whole, but it cannot be half-and-half since that's effectively cherry picking.
Hi Nick,
I think I'll sign off with two thoughts.
First, you wrote:
If it's all symbolic, then Paul warning Gentiles not to subscribe to the Mosaic Law would be nonsense since 'curse of the law' would be hanging over all men already.
The second half grasps the Reformed position exactly: The curse of the law is hanging over all men.
And here, I fear, we simply must disagree. For if I've read you correctly, you seem to hold that the curse of the law has to do with boasting and deliberately attempting to use the Law as a means of justification.
But Paul doesn't go there in Gal 3. Rather, the he says that the curse applies to "all those who do not do what the law says."
And whether the Law is in written form (for the Jews) or in conscience form (for the Gentiles), *all* are judged by the righteous requirements of the law (Rom 2).
But Paul is certainly not speaking nonsense! For recall that the Judaizers were teaching that relationship with God comes through law-keeping. The Galatians -- Gentiles -- had already been freed from the curse of the Law (Gal 3.13) by Christ's death. What then was left? Nothing but to continue trusting in Christ. Deliberately going under the Law would have been deliberately entering into the curse again.
To sum up: the "curse of the Law" applies to all, to anyone who does not keep the requirements of the Law. The way out of that curse is not take on new-and-improved obligations (such a thought is foreign to Gal 3!), but to be justified by faith in Christ, who took the curse for us.
(cont...)
Second, you said,
Nick: Further, I don't believe Jesus took the temporal nor eternal punishments for us, so neither 'option' you describe works in the first place. Both options lead not only to theological problems (e.g. Jesus getting eternally damned) but also to exegetical problems (since Scripture never says such things).
I'm quite surprised at this. For your own catechism teaches,
Jesus, Israel's Messiah and therefore the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, was to fulfill the Law by keeping it in its all embracing detail - according to his own words, down to "the least of these commandments". He is in fact the only one who could keep it perfectly. On their own admission the Jews were never able to observe the Law in its entirety without violating the least of its precepts. This is why every year on the Day of Atonement the children of Israel ask God's forgiveness for their transgressions of the Law. The Law indeed makes up one inseparable whole, and St. James recalls, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."
...
Jesus fulfills the Law to the point of taking upon himself "the curse of the Law" incurred by those who do not "abide by the things written in the book of the Law, and do them", for his death took place to redeem them "from the transgressions under the first covenant." -- Cath Cat 578, 579
And,
Jesus did not abolish the Law of Sinai, but rather fulfilled it (cf. Mt 5:17-19) with such perfection (cf. Jn 8:46) that he revealed its ultimate meaning (cf.: Mt 5:33) and redeemed the transgressions against it (cf. Heb 9:15). -- Ibid 592.
And,
The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation" and teaches that "his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us." And the Church venerates his cross as she sings: "Hail, O Cross, our only hope." Ibid, 617.
Now, clearly, as a Protestant, I don't understand all of these things in the same way. But still and all, it seems to me that the CCC is arguing many of the same points I'm arguing:
(1) That the curse of the Law falls on all who do not do the Law;
(2) That Jesus' righteousness was reflected in his keeping of the Law;
(3) That His death was to bear the curse of our sins upon Himself; and even,
(4) That His death merited our justification!
(aside: I'm also surprised that you debate the moral/civil/ceremonial distinction, inasmuch as Aquinas taught it.)
The bottom line for me is that the wages of sin is death, which is the wrath of God; and that wrath was propitiated for us by Jesus' death.
This appears to me to be the united teaching of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches.
To sum up in a strong-but-friendly way: I would encourage you to reconsider the position you find yourself in. When you begin to argue that Jesus did not take eternal punishments for us, you begin to push not merely against Protestantism, but on the whole of Christianity!
The last word is yours, good sir.
JRC
Sorry, I couldn't resist a postscript: Take a look at Augustine, Contra Faustum, ch. 14, 17, and 19.
Here's a teaser:
And as both grace and truth are by Christ, it follows that He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it; not by supplying any defects in the law, but by obedience to what is written in the law. Christ’s own words declare this. For He does not say, One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till its defects are supplied, but "till all be fulfilled." -- Augustine, Contra Faustum, 19.
Post a Comment