Prepared to Answer Gordon Ferguson Pt. 2

    Chapter Two discusses what is perhaps the sharpest dividing line (though not the most important one) between Catholics and non-Catholics, and it is that of authority. What do Catholics and non-Catholics consider authoritative?

Catholics hold to a doctrine called Sola Dei Verbum (which I subscribe to as well), which is the doctrine that says only the direct revelation of God is ultimate and final with inerrant and infallible authority. Protestants hold to a doctrine called Sola Scriptura. This doctrine says only what God has revealed through written word is ultimate and final with inerrant and infallible authority. What is the difference between the two? Simply that the former includes, but is not limited to, the latter. The former may also include what is called Sacred Tradition. These are teachings of the church that are held to be true and on equal authority as the Bible. One example of such a doctrine is the Assumption of Mary. This is the doctrine that says Mary’s body and soul were taken up into heaven and her body was not allowed to decompose here on Earth. Ferguson incorrectly says it is the doctrine that Mary never died. Whether Mary actually died or not, Catholics remain silent. All this doctrine says is that body of Mary, whether she died or not, was taken by God. In any case, because this cannot be found in scripture, yet is held to be true nonetheless, it is called Tradition, teachings that have been passed down verbally and not in letters or have been found into the cannon of scripture.

    The question Ferguson asks is, “…are the Scriptures totally sufficient as a guide of belief and practice or is Catholic teaching correct when it says we must have ‘the living voice of the living church’?” What becomes suspicious after this statement is Ferguson’s reliance on Cardinal Gibbons. I have nothing against this choice, I have been wanting a copy of Gibbons’ “Faith Of Our Fathers”, but choosing a particular person as a point of reference is a kind of mentality that is foreign to a Catholic. Why? Basically, when one wants to investigate the claims of the Catholic church, the Magisterium has public records of these claims. They are official documents, like Cannon Law. However, you cannot do the same with Protestant sort of churches. Why? Because the Protestant churches are based off just that, protest, so you see many splinter groups, division after division. If you want to know what a particular denomination believes, the best way to do so is to look at what the founder believed and if the founder is still alive, what that person currently teaches. So what is the appropriate way to approach the claims of the Catholic Church? Not through looking at the particular theologians, but at the documents, like Vatican II. The reliance on Gibbons is suspicious because according to Catholic beliefs, Gibbons can err, but the Church, when it speaks officially on matters of faith, cannot, hence Ferguson is at risk at attacking a straw man.

    The starting point for Ferguson’s investigation begins with this dubious statement, “The Catholic position, as stated by Gibbons, begins with the assumption that the Catholic Church is infallible.” When considering proper authority, does the Catholic Church’s position begin with the assumption that the Church is infallible? Not at all, for that would be circular! However, in the context of Gibbons’ book, this may be taken for granted since, I presume, his intended audience are fellow Catholics. But if that is the case, then it is not something Gibbons intends to argue, and should therefore not be portrayed as if he was. Of course, this depends on the context of Gibbons’ book, so I am open for correction here. But, if it were the case that Ferguson is correct and Gibbons has really asserted this right from the get-go as means to establish the Catholic Church as a proper authority, then this still does nothing to Catholic doctrine since Gibbons would be in error, and no statement as such can be found in any official record of the Catholic Church. This would be the straw man I said Ferguson risked. In either case, this presents no problem for Catholicism. Now, are there reasons for the position that the Catholic Church is infallible? Of course there are, but that will be saved for later.

    Ferguson then describes Gibbon’s statement that if the Church were to change an official position on a matter of faith then that would be a death blow to Catholicism as “an amazing assertion”. There really is nothing amazing about this. If the Catholic Church claims infallibility, then any self-contradiction is a counter example to such a claim. This just follows logically. Yet, Ferguson calls this an “assumed premise”. However, I do not see how this premise is an assumption if it is an obvious logical inference. This ought not be amazing for anyone.

    Ferguson goes on to quote Gibbons saying that the Catholic Church has been entrusted to interpret scripture accurately. This is correct. Ferguson does not  argue against this proposition. It seems all he does is mock it when he writes, “As if to ensure that individuals cannot be trusted to study the Bible on their own, Gibbons seeks to undermine not only the ability of the ordinary person to read and understand the Bible, but whether the Bible can be understood at all!” Of course, Gibbons, if he is like other Catholic apologists I’ve read (and this makes one wonder, did Ferguson consider the arguments of Catholic apologists?) does not mean normal people cannot understand the basic points of the Bible. Obviously, if someone picks up a Bible, it becomes clear that there is a person named Jesus who died and resurrected. Gibbons does not mean that a person cannot understand the basic storyline. What Gibbons might do is point to various verses in the Bible and ask, “Can you give a clear and correct explanation of such a verse?” Gibbons might point to the verse that says we will judge angels. How are we to understand such a profound, and kind of random, statement? But more importantly, there seems to be assumed that a proper interpreter is needed, and this is affirmed by scripture, like when the Ethiopian eunuch is asked if he understands what he is reading and he replies, “How could I unless someone explains it to me?” Also, 2nd Peter 1:20 eliminates private interpretation. The Bible itself even says there are some parts that are difficult to understand, as in 2nd Peter 3:16. What is puzzling is that Ferguson actually recognizes that this is so a few pages later.

So what is the message that Ferguson is trying to communicate? It seems like Ferguson is saying Gibbons is wrong in saying that some passages of the Bible are difficult to interpret and hence need an anchor for interpretation, but then Ferguson also says himself that some passages are difficult to interpret, and hence need an anchor for interpretation. He denies the very thing he wants to affirm. The difference is, to be fair, that Gibbons believes that the Catholic Church, after already having established that no private interpretation is infallible, can give an infallible understanding, and Ferguson wants to say that “study” is the way to go. However, such study is still susceptible to error, and is not attractive as an infallible Church. If these are the options, I suspect most people ought to consider the claims of the Catholic church first before doing a private interpretation. And finally, Gibbons, if he is like other Catholic apologists, will simply tell Ferguson to look around. Look at all the different kind of Churches, which Ferguson recognizes that God hates, that have emerged out of “private interpretation”. If people are so well equipped to interpret scripture, why is there so much disagreements among different churches? Obviously such an empirical fact ought to throw some doubt as to whether private interpretation is an adequate method. So I think Gibbons’ concern is quite rational, though Ferguson would have us feel otherwise. Of course, all this hinges on the question, which has not been answered yet, Is it in fact the case that Church does have this authority? If so, then there is nothing amazing about the Church giving their interpretation of their scriptures.

    The conclusion of the first section of the second chapter is worrisome. Ferguson seems to portray Gibbons as someone who does not trust the Bible. Yet, any faithful Catholic will tell you that Scripture is completely trustworthy. Ferguson quotes Gibbons, “What assurance have you that the book he hand you is the inspired Word of God; for every part of the Bible is far from possessing intrinsic evidences of inspiration: It may, for ought you know, contain more than the Word of God, or it may not contain all the Word of God….but even when you are assured that the Bible contains the Word of God, and nothing but the Word of God, how do you know the translation is faithful?” Of course, this does seem to be knocking down the Bible a peg, which should never happen, hence the shock factor. However, I know exactly what Gibbons is talking about. I have made the exact same points and will continue to do so until I am persuaded to do otherwise. Put simply, I believe Ferguson is taking Gibbons way out of context. This is how Gibbons probably meant it.

    Imagine two men stranded on an island, not unlike the men in Ferguson’s original thought experiment. These two men, just like Ferguson’s men, find a Bible. These men, like Ferguson’s men, also have no religious background. After flipping over to 3rd John, the first man found nothing profound about it. He still have no idea who Jesus is. He tosses the Bible aside and continue doing whatever stranded island men do, like drink coconuts and make grass skirts. He continues in his unbelief in Jesus. The second man looks at the Bible and thinks, “Huh…this is interesting. I wonder if it is true. How could I know?” Obviously, nothing pops out from scripture and says, “This is the Word of God.” This is (probably) what Gibbons means when he says, “…for every part of the Bible is far from possessing intrinsic evidences of inspiration…”. The first man didn’t find anything in 3rd John that yelled out, “This is divine inspiration!” and neither does the second man find anything that does this. The second man then sees 2nd Timothy 3:16 claiming that this is in fact divine inspiration. However, this route is quickly shot down when he sees that such reasoning is circular. The documents they possess are inspired because the documents say that their inspired would not work for the Koran. Anyone can claim inspiration. So simply saying so does not make it so. Skepticism is reintroduced into the second man. So, how does he find out whether or not the claims are true? He can do so first through historical criticism. He figures, the people telling this story probably isn’t lying because they risked so much and they would not embarrass themselves in such a manner and…etc. So, he concludes, inductively, taking the Bible as a historical document, that there really existed a man named Jesus who was God and who died and was resurrected. He then gets baptized and calls himself a Christian. Now what? In the mind of this man, what is his view on the Bible? He still has not reached the conclusion that the documents he has are in fact divinely inspired. He knows some parts are true, while he remains agnostic on others, but they are, for the most part, reliable. But being reliable and being divinely inspired are two separate things. The Bible then is just a collection of historical documents.

    Compare this, so far, with Ferguson’s thought experiment. Ferguson’s version seems to assume that these island men accept the Bible as divinely inspired. However, having the Bible alone, or in other words, assuming Sola Scriptura, you could never come to that conclusion. There is no epistemic way to justify this. Now, lets say this one island man reads the Bible. From this, he sees that Jesus established one church and one church only. He understands that he also built it on one person, Peter. He understands that while the apostles may have died, they can be replaced, like in Acts 1:26. He also understands that Jesus said he would never leave his church, and that it would never be destroyed. He also understands that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide that one church into all truth. And if there be any kind of confusion regarding teaching, Jesus says that the apostles are well equipped to correct errors. What this means, of course, is that it can be protected from teaching error since Jesus has not left it and it has the Holy Spirit. This man concludes all of this while not accepting the Bible as the Word of God, but still as historical documents. Now, these two men, the first one now being irrelevant to our thought experiment, find themselves back to the mainland. However, the man who believes in Jesus begins looking for the church that Jesus established and finds it. What the Church then does is say to him, “Hey, so, we’re glad that you found us with the Bible and all, but it turns out, that Bible is not just a collection of historical documents. It also happens to be divine revelation. We exercise our divinely gifted authority to proclaim this truth.” It is only now that this man can accept that the Bible is the word of God, which is being told to us through a divinely established institution.

    Now, this does not mean that the Bible is inferior to the Church. Nor does this mean that the Church is inferior to the Bible. According to Catholic belief (and my own as well), the two are equal. Since the two have the same origin, a house divided cannot stand.  However, one cannot justify the Bible as divine without the Church. Therefore, if you want to accept the Bible as divine, then you must accept the Church as divine as well. You can have a Church without the Bible, but you cannot have the Bible without the church. After all, the first disciples had no Bible to use. That is why the Bible says, in 1st Timothy 3:15, that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” It is not the Bible.

    With this very common argument now in mind, does this statement by Gibbons, “What assurance have you that the book he hand you is the inspired Word of God; for every part of the Bible is far from possessing intrinsic evidences of inspiration…” sound more reasonable? It does. It no longer seems like Gibbons is discounting the Bible. His point is that only with the Church is one justified in believing the inspiration and authority of the Bible. You cannot do so with Sola Scriptura, which I believe Gibbons was attacking when he made these particular statements. I’m willing to bet Gibbons was taken out of context here because I understand and have personalized the Catholic mentality, and I know I would make those exact same statements, and I know I could so easily be taken out of context.

    When Ferguson begins his defense of Sola Scriptura, he amazingly cedes defeat when it comes to the Catholic arguments, like the one I just gave. He writes, “Gibbons may seem convincing when he uses human logic to discount the Bible as complete and trustworthy. But no matter how persuasive human reasoning may be, the real issue is what the Bible actually declares about itself, and its declarations are unmistakable!” When I read this, I thought, “What in the world did you just do!” Ferguson is really dismissing logic and reasoning, which is just so glaringly erroneous. One could think that this was just awkwardly phrased. Maybe a slip-up that an editor did not catch. But this is not the case because he does it again at the beginning of chapter three when he dismisses Gibbons, “Human logic and reason are the basis of his arguments…” As if that were a bad thing! Ferguson clearly has a deficient view of the laws of logic and metaphysics. As a philosophy major with formal training in logic and metaphysics, such statements make me cringe.

    Ferguson has this odd qualification, calling the laws of logic “human logic” or “human reasoning.” Is the adding of “human” supposed to mean anything? In my training as a philosopher, I have never seen any such qualification because it does not, in fact, mean anything. There is not a “human” logic versus a “divine” logic. It is all the same. That is because the laws of logic are metaphysically necessary. What does that mean? That means that such laws of logic, like the Law of Non-Contradiction, is always true in all places, in all times, and in all circumstances. Even before the creation, the laws of logic were still true. For example, before creation, God did exist. Such a proposition Christians recognize as true. But if that is true, then the following proposition if false: before creation, God did not exist. If the first proposition is true then it follows that its negation is false, due to the Law of Non-Contradiction. God cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Christians also recognize that even God cannot break the laws of logic. The laws of logic, like the moral law, is rooted in the nature of God, and God cannot do something that goes against God. So this shows that the laws of logic are not something that humans create or invent, rather the laws of logic are something we discover.

    Now because they are necessary, and in fact come from the nature of God himself, we cannot dismiss them. With this being the case, Ferguson is really just admitting to the force and cogency of the Catholic argument. But if that is the case, then we ought not go any further. Why should we? Ferguson’s case is lost, and he gave it up on a silver platter. The final howler of such a notion is the utter hypocrisy of Ferguson. After dismissing logic as mere human, suggesting the inference that logic is not reliable, he then goes on to use logic to make his case against Catholicism! The very next sentence after, “Human logic and reason are the basis of his arguments…” Ferguson accuses Gibbons of begging the question! He says, in the very next sentence, “Gibbons…assumes the very point to be proved.” But question begging is a logical fallacy, that “human logic” Ferguson dismissed Gibbons using. So the hypocrisy is this: Catholics cannot use logic to make their case, but Ferguson can use logic to make his. From this, we can employ the amusing logical principle of explosion. Let us say that Ferguson presents me with a Bible verse that says that Jesus died, and I say, “Yes, of course the sky is green. That follows.” Ferguson would give me a strange look, no doubt. “But I’m talking about Jesus” he would say. And I would say, “Yes, and from that, we can infer the sky is green.” If you deny the laws of logic, the principle of explosion is in play, which says from any premise you can draw any conclusion, and such silliness follows.

    Back to Ferguson’s attempt to defend Sola Scriptura. Let me repeat what Ferguson has written, “But no matter how persuasive human reasoning may be, the real issue is what the Bible actually declares about itself…” This is question begging. Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible and the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith. Ferguson says the real issues is what the Bible says. That means he is assuming that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. So he assuming from the start the truth of Sola Scriptura. He cannot go from there to prove Sola Scriptura for that would be begging the question. Or would Ferguson dismiss this problem as using “human logic?”

    The first verse cited is 2nd Timothy 3:16-17, which reads, “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” As I have mentioned before, citing this verse, in the context of being opposed to Catholicism as an attempt to justify the inspiration of Scripture, is circular. As a non-Catholic, how does Ferguson justify the inspiration of Scripture? I repeat my thesis on this subject: you cannot do so without the aid of an infallible Church.

    After describing the method and distinction between revelation and inspiration, Ferguson claims, seemingly out of nowhere, that, “…the inspired message was to be found only in the inspired book.” How does he come to this conclusion? I have no idea. Is it is citation of 2nd Timothy? If so, all that says is that scripture is inspired, not that ONLY scripture is inspired and ONLY scripture is useful for every good work. But while it has a use for these four ends, surely those four things are not the only good works. What about prayer and evangelization? Those are good works not categorized in those four activities. Besides, the same description of being God breathed, hence inspired, is in John 20:22, which means not only Scripture is inspired. Is it his citation of 2nd Thessalonians 2:1-2 in the previous sentence? If so, all that shows is that only some of the message was being recorded in writing. But as you can see in verse two, the phonies not only used letter, but prophecy and report, which, being contrasted with letters, means it was not written down. So those imposters knew that oral revelation and oral command was a legitimate form of binding power. Paul recognizes this binding power a few verses later when he writes, “So then brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings (or traditions) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” And then further, “…we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching (or tradition) you received from us.” After all, John says that not everything that Jesus did was recorded and Paul says that teaching can be passed down orally (2nd Timothy 2:2). And in Acts 2:42, the first disciples, not having anything written, found the oral teachings of the apostles as adequate. And so long as there are apostles and their successors, we must listen to what they say, or else we do not follow Jesus (Luke 10:16). Even with the power of Scripture, oral teaching still seems to have a powerful effect, as described in Romans 10:17 and 1st Peter 1:25. The oral teachings, though supplemented by the Bible, is what is going to last and this lasting power implies its authority. Now, who preaches? The leaders do. Who are the leaders? According to Ephesians 3:5, it is the apostles and prophets. And as I have cited before, these apostles and prophets, who make up the leadership of the church, are the foundation and pillar of truth, and this is echoed in Ephesians 2:20. In short, the tradition of the Church, which is basically the oral teachings of the Apostles, is on equal level with scripture. After all, Paul did cite, in Ephesians 5:14, an early Christian hymn as authoritative. The Bible itself recognizes that the Bible alone is not all that is inspired, revealed or authoritative.

    A funny little story is told about a debate with Catholic priest. Apparently, the non-Catholic was so bold and so sure of his victory that he had 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 printed on a banner and referenced it throughout the debate. He predicted the Priest would not deal with that verse, and apparently he did not. Of course, the question can be asked, Was the topic of the debate even authority, or something more important, like the most important doctrine of Catholic belief, that of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, also known as Transubstantiation? If it was about Transubstantiation, then of course talking about 2nd Timothy is completely irrelevant. We do not know what the topic of the debate was, so I remain skeptical. Besides, the majority of Catholic priests I have talked to think this is very poor attempt to justify Sola Scriptura. I think it is poor as well, and I am not a Catholic. In fact, when dealing with trained Catholic apologists, I advise no one ever use this verse, because this is, as Ferguson says, the classic verse. Therefore, it is going to be the one most familiar and easiest to dismantle. 2nd Peter 1:3 and Jude 3 are cited to support the notion of Sola Scriptura. All that these verses show is that revelation is complete. These verses do not say that all revelation is given through written word only. That would be reading into the text.

    There is a “quick reference guide” at the end of chapter two. It has a “Catholic Claim” and then, in contrast, a “Bible Truth”. The first of these Catholic claims is the claim that, “The Bible cannot be totally understood by the average person.” I have argued for this being true. The “Bible Truths” he cites are John 8:32 (I have no idea what this has to do with the subject), Acts 17:11(which does not prove that the average man can TOTALLY understand the Bible, only that they can understand some, which is not a controversial proposition as Ferguson admits), Ephesians 3:3-5, which only shows that some revelation can be understood easily, not all, as the Bible itself admits, and 1st Timothy 2:4 which falls to the same criticism as the others.

    The second “Catholic Claim” is that the “Bible plus tradition are needed for Salvation.” The “Bible Truth” cites Matthew 15:7-9, which says nothing to the subject, John 16:13, which also says nothing to the subject, 2nd Timothy 3:16-17, which has already been dealt with in some detail (and I want to take a moment here to recommend the most powerful argument [in my opinion] against Sola Scriptura, a book entitled “Not By Scripture Alone” by Catholic apologist Bob Sungenis. It is a massive book about 700 pages and written by a former member of the Boston International Church of Christ), and 2nd Peter 1:3 and Jude 3 which I have already said Ferguson was reading into. Ferguson presents this false dilemma, “If the Bible cannot be understood (which is NOT the Catholic position) then either God did not want us to understand, or he was not powerful enough to make it understandable!” Because this is a false dilemma (Ferguson follows this pattern: Either A or B, when a true dilemma follows this pattern: either A or not-A) it is therefore an invalid argument.

    Let me add one more point about authoritative interpretation. The framers of the American Constitution did not compose the Constitution and tell their country that they can interpret it any which way they want. What they did instead was found a Supreme Court which had the authority to interpret the Constitution. Why think God would create a document and leave it up to everyone to interpret it any which way they wanted? In the same way, God has established a Church and a Church can certainly give an accurate interpretation of the Scriptures. And finally, he ends the chapter with, “Without understanding and responding to the Bibles message, we cannot go to heaven.” Of course, the scriptures he uses for this hardly shows that only the Bible is revelation. Let me reiterate the doctrine of Sola Verbum Dei. This is the doctrine that only what God has revealed is final and authoritative, which includes, but is not limited to, written scripture. Ferguson has not shown why these verses could not apply to Sola Verbum Dei rather than Sola Scriptura.