Before I respond to the specifics of Francis Beckwith’s latest salvo against the Protestant rule of faith, I have to say I’m struck by the dichotomy between Manhattan Declaration, with its Kumbaya rhetoric about Catholics and Protestants, over against the scorched-earth rhetoric we often encounter at Called to Communion or Return to Rome. When they want our signature, we’re all one big happy family–but you only have to turn to the Catholic blogosphere to see what they really think of us.
“What is being played-out here on this blog is the legacy of nominalism and Enlightenment epistemology, both of which focus on the thinking self as the locus and meaning of my encounter with the world (assuming there is one). Thus, short of a pure, clear and distinct idea–e.g., a sola scriptura untouched by man or church–it could all very well be a ruse of Descartes’ evil demon”
i) That’s a vicious and malicious caricature of sola Scriptura. Beckwith is a competent philosopher and bioethicist, but as Catholic apologist he’s just another rabid demagogue. It’s like seeing 28 Days Later when the Rage virus kicks in.
ii) And, of course, we’re treated to the usual trope about the “nominalist” antecedents to Protestantism. Well, wasn’t Biel a Catholic theologian? Conversely, wasn’t Calvin an opponent of the Sorbbonists?
“This is why, by the way, various versions of the Cartesian circle keep popping up in the combox. The Protestant wants his indubitable starting point, but he’s trapped in an appalling loop.”
It doesn’t have to be indubitable, although that would be a swell bonus point. It only needs to be the proper starting point.
“If he appeals to sola scriptura that requires a book consisting of over 5 dozen books. But the book appears in time, and not all at once, but incrementally.”
And a Catholic appeals to “the Church.” Yet the church appears in time, and not all at once, but incrementally. So is the Catholic also caught in a Cartesian circle or time-loop?
“And this requires someone to sift through the competing texts, to determine which of them belongs in the book…”
Notice that Beckwith is reading from the same script as Dan Brown and Bart Ehrman. At this point he becomes an enemy of the faith.
And that’s typical, isn’t it? After all, who is opposing the Dan Browns and Bart Ehrmans? It’s mainly Protestant scholars and apologists like Craig Keener, Dan Wallace, Darrell Bock, Charles Hill, Craig Evans, Nicholas Perrin, Michael Kruger, James White, William Craig Lane, Timothy Paul Jones, &c.
But while they’re carefully and laboriously correcting these calculated historical falsehoods, along comes a newbie Catholic revert like Beckwith to resuscitate the same deceptive and destructive propaganda.
…since the book itself does not yet exist as a whole.”
Not to mention the further fact that the church does not yet exist as a whole. Indeed, unlike the Bible, which was complete 2000 years ago, the church is still a work in progress.
“…the whole does not contain in any of its parts the list of what books should be in the book.”
Of course, that’s simple-minded. For one thing it overlooks the pervasive phenomenon of intertextuality in Scripture.
“But suppose you finally figure out what the whole book should look like. Where do you go from there? Numerous questions arise: Is it appropriate with the book’s purpose to translate it into various languages? After all, things get lost in translation.”
Given the fact that Bible writers frequently quote individuals in a different language than they originally spoke, that question answers itself.
“What happens when the book does not specifically address a question that pertains to Christ’s commands to love God and neighbor?”
i) It wouldn’t have to specifically address a question to implicitly address a question.
ii) And where it’s silent, we can use reason. Beckwith, perhaps through self-reinforcing ignorance, is caricaturing sola Scriptura.
“For example, what do we do with folks that deny Christ and want back into the Church.”
Read 1 John for starters.
“The Bible does not mention cloning, abortion, euthanasia, or necrophilia. Are those permitted?”
i) The Bible doesn’t mention abortion? Ever read Exod 21:22-25?
ii) In addition, the Bible gives us a combination of general norms as well as case-laws which we can apply, singly or jointly (as need be), to analogous situations.
“What about more theological doctrines? Is social trinitarianism permissible? It seems inconsistent with Nicea. But if the Arians were supported by politically motivated leaders, perhaps Constantine, who convened the first Nicean council, was just as bad. And what about Nestorianism? Chalcedon rejects it. But it does not reduce to Arianism and is not necessarily inconsistent with the Nicean creed.”
What about making NT Christology our reference point?
“And what about eternal damnation? If God was reconciling the world to himself through Christ, perhaps the whole world will eventually be saved and the ‘eternal’ in ‘eternal damnation’ is an adjective of quality and not quantity?”
Considering the fact that I’ve reviewed all the major books I know of defending universalism, as well as having debated a number of prominent universalists, that example leaves me profoundly unimpressed.
Beckwith has simply given up trying. What is worse, he’s trying to recruit others to share his defeatist view of God’s word.
“I was at ETS during the debates about the Openness of God dispute and the attempt to remove Boyd, Pinnock, and Sanders from the society. What a mess. These gentlemen all believed in sola scriptura, and so what the debate degenerated into was a proof-texting war, with each side marshaling its case against the other.”
i) You have a parallel “mess” in historical theology. Opposing sides can prooftext from their favorite traditions, church fathers, &c.
ii) What about a Catholic process philosopher like Nicholas Rescher? Why is open theism out of bounds, but process theology is not?