O: How are we defining deducible here? While one might deduce the doctrine of the trinity from scripture, many have deduced completely different doctrines from the same data. And people have deduced from scripture that one may pray for and to the dead. Certainly those deductions are contestable from scripture alone, but so has the trinity.

Bnonn: “For one thing, how do you know that tradition constitutes the correct interpretation of Scripture, passed on over time? Not from Scripture, it would appear; rather, from tradition itself. Thus we again run into the epistemic priority problem, where the authority of tradition must be presupposed logically prior to the authority of Scripture. This is summed up quite aptly in your assertion that Scripture is a part of tradition.”

O: Yes, scripture is a part of tradition. So haven’t you quoted your own refutation? What does trying to find priorities within the body of tradition prove?

And who says that scripture doesn’t tell us that tradition holds the correct interpretations? Those holding to tradition don’t think that’s the case.

Bnonn: “However, when we look at the actual state of tradition, we do not find any evidence of it being God-breathed. It is, largely, highly heterogeneous, with a great many able theologians believing various and contradictory things on all manner of doctrines, even from the earliest times.”

O: But the opinion of individual theologians is NOT tradition. So congratulations on burning a straw man.

And what of the “actual state of scripture”? From an objective point of view, no two churches agree on what the scriptures are. By the same criteria as you judge tradition, scripture looks bad as well.

If you want to say only the true scriptures should be so judged (where true presumably is the ones YOU agree are scripture), I guess we can say only the true traditions should be so judged.

Bnonn: Even if I grant you that the decrees of councils and popes may be theopneustos, can you name for me which ones are, and which ones aren’t? If you cannot, then how can you have any confidence that what you believe is indeed the infallible interpretation of the Church; rather than merely a fallible and possibly errant one?

O: We await your infallible proof that Esther is God-breathed scriptures.

Bnonn: “Not only must you understand the passage correctly so as to exegete its full meaning, but you must also understand tradition correctly. But what confidence can you have that you are understanding either”.

O: Your epistemological navel gazing has blinded you to the obvious. What is clearer: that the bible teaches infant baptism (or believer baptism, if that is your bent) or that the tradition of the catholic or orthodox church teaches infant baptism? Any objective judge knows it is the latter.

Bnonn: “You have already made it clear that you consider Scripture to be non-perspicuous; that is, it cannot be adequately interpreted without the teaching authority of the church.”

O: No, it can’t be interpreted outside of the cultural context of the community in which it was born, i.e. the church. You should not be surprised, this is quite typical for documents written for particular communities. Go to any internet forum or community discussing a specialised area of interest and you will find the same thing.

Bnonn: “So presumably no Christian layperson is qualified to interpret Scripture directly. “

O: False conclusion.

Bnonn: “Even if you were told directly by one of the Church’s teaching authorities, it would appear you are in no better a situation to be sure you are interpreting their words correctly”.

O: A nonsense argument. The reason for problems interpreting scripture is that the apostles did not anticipate what confusions would arise. The reason tradition is clearer is that it is the result of the church (a) passing on things that the apostles didn’t explicitly think to write down and (b) sorting out in the life of the church any other likely confusions.

The only time your complaint would be valid is if you think up a brand new problem that no-one thought of before.

Bnonn: “In the New Testament churches, we see that the term bishop or overseer (episkopos) is used along with elder (presbuteros), to refer to the same people, but depending on the function in view.”

O: All you have shown is the terminology employed in the NT church. You haven’t shown anything about the actual structure of the NT church. That the terminology evolved, doesn’t show that the structure evolved.

If we look to the actual structure, we can see evidence of a different picture. That James was the sole bishop of Jerusalem for example is generally acknowledged. That Timothy was asked by Paul to appoint elders in every city also makes him look more like a bishop than just one of the gang of elders.

Bnonn: “Similarly, 1 Peter 5:1-2 speaks of elders, among whom Peter counts himself”

O: Right, but because Peter calls himself an elder, you would hardly argue that Peter’s authority was equal to all the other elders would you? You just refuted yourself.

Bnonn: “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you”

O: Great, you just refuted yourself. A super-elder called Timothy appoints other elders. That the terminology became refined, doesn’t refute the existance of the super-elder.

Bnonn: “you have one bishop to several churches, instead of several bishops to one church!”

O: You just refuted yourself with super-elder Timothy appointing elders in multiple churches.

From Ignatius writing around the end of the 1st to beginning of the 2nd century, the church has always taught having a head bishop. There is no clear evidence from antiquity that any church ever had it any other way.

Bnonn: “Apparently, they were supposed to read and understand it by themselves.”

O: And I’m sure they could understand the surface meaning by itself. But were they all as individuals able to therefore enunciate the doctrine of the trinity from it?

Bnonn: If the laity is expected by Paul to understand his letters, I wonder why a similar expectation is not held today by those who claim to have succeeded him.

O: The laity can understand it on the basic level. But can every individual understand it at the level that they can differentiate which sect of protestantism teaches the true doctrine? Obviously not or we wouldn’t have multiple sects of protestantism. Protestantism is its own refutation.

Bnonn: “A final question which occurs to me is why, if “an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,” Catholic bishops (and priests) must be unmarried.”

O: Correction: only priests in the latin rites are generally unmarried.