DrOakley on RC Epistemology

[py3ak]

James White said this:

"I find her entire epistemology circular and self-refuting"

in this blog post

Anyone, (DrOakley himself?) have any input on that? I would like to see how that works.

 

[Puritanhead]

I believe all reasoning is inherently circular in nature, if we wanted to be honest. I know some consider circular reasoning to be some sort of fallacy BTW.

 

[Peter]

No. You're wrong because I say you're wrong.

 

[fivepointcalvinist]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
I believe all reasoning is inherently circular in nature, if we wanted to be honest. I know some consider circular reasoning to be some sort of fallacy BTW.

i think the problem being pointed out here is that a circular argument cannot be self refuting because it relies on its own premise to prove itself. also, yes all reasoning eventually boils down to relying on circular argumentation.

[Edited on 8-7-2006 by fivepointcalvinist]

 

[py3ak]

What I meant was not how is something that is circular self-refuting. What I was asking is how RC epistemology is circular and therefore, self-refuting.

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by py3ak
What I meant was not how is something that is circular self-refuting. What I was asking is how RC epistemology is circular and therefore, self-refuting.

It's basically the same circular reasoning that Whitaker observed in controversy with the Romanists of his day. Here's a classic example...

William Whitaker (1547-1595): Our third argument stands thus: If the authority of the church in respect of us depend on the authority of scripture, then the authority of scripture in respect of us does not, on the contrary, depend upon the authority of the church. But the first is true, and therefore also the second. The consequence of the major is sufficiently strong of itself; and the assumption may be easily established. For I demand, whence it is that we learn that the church cannot err in consigning the canon the canon of Scripture? They answer, that it is governed by the Holy Spirit (for so the council of Trent assumes of itself), and therefore cannot err in its judgments and decrees. I confess indeed that, if it be always governed by the Holy Spirit so as that, in every question, the Spirit affords it the light of truth, it cannot err. But whence do we know that it is always so governed? They answer that Christ hath promised this. Be it so. But where, I pray, hath he promised it? Readily, and without delay they produce many sentences of scripture which they are always wont to have in their mouths, such as these: "œI will be with you always, even to the end of the world." Matth. Xxviii. 20. "œWhere two or three are gathered together in my name, there I will be in the midst of you." Matth. Xviii. 20. "œI will send to you the Comforter from the Father." John xv. 26. I recognise here the most lucid and certain testimonies of Scripture. But now from hence it follows not that the authority of scripture depends upon the church; but, contrariwise, that the authority of the church depends on scripture. Surely it is a notable circle in which this argument revolves! They say that they give authority to the scripture and canonical books in respect of us; and yet they confess that all their authority is derived from scripture. For if they rely upon the testimonies and sentences of these books, when they require us to believe in them; then it is plain that these books, which lend them credit, had greater authority in themselves, and were of themselves authentic. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 334-335.

As I indicated, this is a classic specimen of RC epistemology. In all these years, they haven't improved their approach.

DTK

 

[py3ak]

Thanks for pointing that out Pastor King. I had gone a bit more far afield than that, wondering about things along the lines of how we bash atheists, more than the view of Scripture.