Protestants welcome… a fictional dialogue.
The following is an open ended response to a snippet from Josh which I would like to extend to all Protestants. I begin by making some points, then I embody some of those points in the beginning of a fictional dialogue which I do not conclude, but leave open. I am curious to see how a Protestant might continue the dialogue given the points which precede the open end. I know how a Catholic could respond, could conclude, and I will eventually give that conclusion; first, however, I’d like to leave it open for a week or two and see what Protestant responses may come.
::My point here was that Roman Catholics engage in the same sort of tautology in claiming infallibility of Church that protestants do in claiming inspiration of scripture, only that the Roman church shifts the emphasis from revealed Word to man.
What does Scripture's claim to inspiration rely upon in order to avoid circular reasoning (historical reliability assumed)? In other words, why should we believe it? Because Paul said so? who's Paul to say so? He may, after all, be sincerely wrong.
I'd submit that the only foundation upon which we find precedent for accepting it's otherwise circular truth claim is the same foundation upon which Catholics find precedent for accepting the equal authority of the Church's role -- through tradition and the teaching magesterium -- in interpreting and bringing into perspicuity sacred Scripture: the recorded words of the person of Jesus who speaks to our need for him in our very, fallen, nature. In other words, the extent to which we find that Jesus meets our inherent need for atonement with God is the extent to which his recorded words have binding authority upon us; we must, therefore, look first to those words and when we do I believe we find that the additional Catholic claim rests hand in hand with the -- otherwise singular -- Protestant claim.
So, let’s say a non-Christian was challenging not the historical reliability of Scripture, but, in the same way a Protestant charges that Roman Catholicism’s Tradition and Teaching Authority (interpretive authority) are man made, was challenging the divine inspiration of Scripture. He says something like this, “Jesus was a good man, and I grant that he thought he was God, but he didn’t even write a single word of Scripture; Scripture was written by men, mostly good men, to be sure, but Scripture was none the less man made not God breathed.”
“Well,” you retort, “Scripture itself claims that it was God breathed.”
“But you beg the question,” he responds, “for I say that the claim itself is a man made claim. How will you prove to me it’s not?”
“Hmm, well we both accept the historical reliability of Scripture, is that correct?”
“Yes.”
“And we both accept that Jesus said he was God, correct?”
“Yes.”
“And do you believe Jesus’ claim?”
“Well, that’s irrelevant to the question right now, for I’d be happy if you could simply reduce the claim of the Inspiration of Scripture to the person of Jesus himself, then the claim would be at least as good as Jesus’ claim to divinity. The basis for accepting his claim to divinity is another question.”
“Indeed it is another question, but, as an aside I’d like to quickly say that C.S. Lewis has almost adequately addressed this question of Christ’s claim, though he perhaps left some loose ends which Peter Kreeft has flawlessly tied off -- at least to my mind. Anyway, back to the point: what you’re saying is that we must find a basis for the divine inspiration of Scripture in the recorded words of Christ himself?”
“Well, I guess that is what I’m saying.”
“_____..."
