James Swan and Ultimate Authorities

James Swan, in an excellent recent post, started a repeat conversation about ultimate authorities and epistemoligies [I know that epistemologies ain't a word] and all that kind of fun stuff with Roman Catholicism's claim to Tradition. I say repeat because we both have had this conversation with RCs along with the thousands of Protestants and RCs before us.

Roman Catholics claim Protestants can't know what Scripture is without Rome's infallible ability to tell us what is Scripture, and Protestants claim God is able to tell us without some infallible source equaling God's voice itself. In the comments section Gene Bridges fires both barrells at the RC arguments only to get a response (which I, amazingly enough, expected) from Orthodox. Here is his response:

GENE: What grounds the authority of the Church? If it is Scripture itself by itself, that's the Protestant rule of faith - so you're borrowing capital from us to arrive at your position. If it is the Church's "Tradition" then that is viciously circular, and if you ground it in Scripture by way of authorizing Scripture through the Church's authority, then you've only moved the question back a step. You're in a vicious regress.

ORTHODOX: It seems odd to me that an appeal to scripture would in any shape or form be borrowing capital from protestants. Quite the reverse.

How is it again that an appeal to tradition to support tradition is viciously circular, but an appeal to scripture isn't?

Is a native on a desert island with no scripture at an epistemic disadvantage in knowing if Jesus is the Christ? Apparently not, since if he had scripture it would be viciously circular. And even ignoring that problem, were he to have scripture it would only be moving the question back a step in answering the question as to what authority can tell us anything about Jesus anyways. May as well give up this religion thingy now I guess.

The response I expected was the sentence, "How is it again that an appeal to tradition to support tradition is viciously circular, but an appeal to scripture isn't?"

The answer is quite simple for those of us who see the necessity of Pressupositional Apologetics perspective. The Christian believer recognizes God's voice. He can not start at any other place in order to judge what is and is not God's truth.

For example, in the conversation at the above Blog, the RC is starting from a source outside of God to infallibly tell us what is God's Word. This, however, is circular and begs the question. For the ultimate authority becomes something other than God Himself. Although all ultimate authorities are by nature circular, they must be able to account for and be consistent with the world around us. The Roman Catholic starts with Rome and ends up at Rome. He sees Rome as the ultimate. If Rome says white is black then black turns into white.

Now I must explain that the RC will object and say that Rome is infallible because Scripture says it would be when Jesus gave the keys to Peter in Matthew 16. Again, this begs the question, for this is Rome's interpretation of Matthew 16. This is an interpretation that was not held by anyone for several hundred years (see William Webster's book, The Matthew 16 Controversy, where he demonstrates that no church father believed Rome's interpretation for at least the first several centuries). So again, Rome is telling us by her infallible and ultimate authority what the Bible means, validating herself, while an exegesis of the text allows for no such interpretation.

The Christian starts with God's Word and judges the world. The Christian is never able to prove God's Word nor does it need proving. He does demonstrate its validity and consistency. It is God's revelation that explains to us the nature of nature and is especially provoking when it reveals man's evil heart to man. The Word is able to explain our deepest evils and explain our deepest needs. It is able to authenticate itself as being God's Word. Does God really need a source equal to His own voice to authenticate His own voice? May God swear by any other Name other than His own?

Rome claims self authentication when it is convenient. When she is unable to substantiate her claims, she goes to Scripture to validate her authority, but then she is caught with her hand in the cookie jar, borrowing from the Protestant's Sola Scriptura (as Gene Bridges pointed out).

"Is a native on a desert island with no scripture at an epistemic disadvantage in knowing if Jesus is the Christ? Apparently not, since if he had scripture it would be viciously circular."

Sorry Orthodox, to put this whole thing bluntly, if Jesus were to show up in a foreign country or on a desert Island and speak to a man, who had never heard of Him, would His words be valid and ultimately authoritative, or would have to wait for Rome to send some emissary?

1 John 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.