North Western Winds: Here a skeptic, there a skeptic

The Great Bard of the North offers deep thoughts here! He begins by quoting a defence of that cornerstone of logical thinking: the syllogism:

Here, Copelston is describing and critiquing one of the Skeptics:

Sextus Empiricus (c. A.D. 250), who is our main source for details of Skeptic doctrine, argued against the possibility of proving any conclusion syllogistically. The major premise - for instance, "All men are mortal" - can be proved only by a complete induction. But the complete induction involves a knowledge of the conclusion - "Socrates is mortal." For we cannot say, that all men are mortal unless we already know that Socrates is mortal. The Syllogism is, therefore, an instance of a vicious circle.

We may note that this objection against the syllogism, revived in the nineteenth century by John Stuart Mill, would only be valid if the Aristotelian doctrine of the specific instance essence were rejected in favour of Nominalism. It is in virtue of our perception of the essence or universal nature of man that are entitled to assert that all men are mortal and not because we lay claim to any perfect and complete enumeration of particulars through actual observation, which in the case in point would be out of the question.

The major premise is founded, therefore, on the nature of man, and does not require explicit knowledge of the conclusion of the syllogism. The conclusion is contained implicitly in the major premise, and the syllogistic process renders this implicit knowledge clear and explicit. The nominalist standpoint demands, of course, a new logic, and this Mill attempted to supply...

He has some pointed things to say about those that would espouse this nominalism--in defiance of human experience and common sense. I found it interesting that so many Reasonable people appear to hold this discredited philosophy. Why am I not surprised? Anyways, after establishing the problem of nominalism, he makes interesting observations about the role of Faith and works in salvation, as seen by Catholics and Protestants. After addressing the admittedly somewhat justified confusion many protestants have about Catholics' conception of salvation, the Bard explains:

Catholics have a different understanding of the word Faith than Protestants do; we are less willing to accept someone's claim to have faith if that person shows no outward signs of it. That does not mean that we think outward signs alone will save one single soul; it does mean we think a growing faith will reform a person in ways that are too large to miss. This is one of the ways the Catholic avoids collapsing religion into an experience that is only interior, only private. The presence of Faith can be likened to yeast that leavens the community.

There is nothing in this both / and view that contradicts the Pauline theology that man is saved by faith. Paul says, rightly, that if man can be saved by works, then Christ died for nothing. If we can save ourselves by our own action, then we do not need Grace. The "good news" of Christianity is that saving grace is freely available, because man has never been able to live up to Mosaic Laws. In fact, the Catholic Church spent a lot of time and effort fighting the Pelagian heresy that held that man's will is not so corrupt that he cannot save himself. I suppose there are some Protestants who, when they read the word "works" in Paul's letters, think of Catholic devotions instead of the ancient Jewish Law, or who hold that devotions are analogous to it. One gets the feeling that they think Catholics save themselves by taking the Eucharist, by saying the rosary, or by scrupulously following as much of the Tradition of the church as they can.

These ideas are mistaken. There is even a term for the idea that a strict following of Tradition can save a soul. It is called 'scrupulosity' and it is NOT a good thing. The online Catholic Encyclopedia describes it as "a bad habit doing harm, sometimes grievously, to body and soul." Why, then, do these accusations about Catholics and being saved through works persist?

Mark Shea has discussed the problem Evangelicals and Catholics have theologically often stem from differences in language. He gives an example of the Evangelical quality called Fruitfulness. He considers it the equivelent of the Catholic concept of merit. In other words, Evangelicals and Catholics use different words to describe the same theological concept: in this case, the transformation that occurs in one's life as a result of cooperation with God's Grace. The Bard alludes to a similar lack of mutual vocabulary here. Catholics understand that one's works are the result, not the cause, of one's salvation in God, i.e. Faith. Our works are the fruit of our Faith. As such, any thing we do manifests the relationship we have chosen to participate in by accepting God's Grace. Nothing we do has any salvific function apart from Grace. Even for the scupulous, this is true. In raising this intriguing issue, the Bard asks:

Could it be because Martin Luther suffered from scrupulosity? Is there something about Sola Scriptura that is analogous to the skepticism that I mentioned at the beginning of this too long post?

Writing on Galatians, Peter Kreeft offers up a very interesting link between the two ideas. Luther, he writes, stumbled over the faith and works issue because he did not believe there was a thing like human nature for faith to lift up. Thus, he called James - which deals with the issue specifically - an 'epistle of straw' and tried to have it dropped from the canon.

Kreeft writes:

Bad philosophy can produce bad theology. Luther was an Okhamist, that is, a Nominalist, who did not believe there were any such things as real species or universal essences like human nature. If there is no universal human nature, there can be no transformed nature.

Luther thus reduced salvation to a mental attitude on God's part, and to a legal transaction. God looks at us as if we were his children because he looks at us covered by Christ's blood, which hides our sins, and God declares us righteous even though we really aren't. This merely transfers the legalism from the human to the divine.

One could go on and view Sola Fide as an attempt at over zealous Pauline scrupulosity that does violence to the integrity of the Bible as a whole, as the issue of James' epistle points out. Sola Scriptura itself plays games with the Bible, making it to be something it was never intended to be - THE criterion of truth on earth. The very attempt to make it so demonstrates a lack of faith in God's Providence. The Bible is not the unmoved mover, the source of meaning, or the one who says "I AM." It is not a divine incarnation or an example of divine dictation. It is done by human hands inspired by God; and contained in that word is the crucial notion of the divine working though human agents.

Luther's nominalism thus made it impossible for him to believe Redemption could be an ontological event. He interpretes salvation as a legal decision that God makes in the light of Christ's redemption, rather than a restoration of the relationship that heals our wounded, yet essentially good, human nature. Since there is no universal human nature to be saved, the only salvation that occurs is in the person that decides to embrace God in Faith. This radical individualization of salvation renders authority a meaningless concept in terms of one's relationship with God. How can any one claim authority over another's decision to place his faith in God? However, there must be some locus of authority, lest people delude themselves in their sinful weakness. Martin Luther sees the Scripture as the only legitimate authority there could be. A person comes to understand God through the scripture; thus, if a person makes the decision to have Faith in God, he makes that decision based on his understanding of who God is. Since that came from Scripture, only Scripture can have any kind of an authoritative relationship to him. The bible becomes the mediator of any questions or concerns that the Faithful have.

Martin Luther's mistake of refusing to believe in universal human nature caused him to misunderstand the full meaning of Christ's redemption. Christ's saving action has transformed our essential nature. Those baptized in his name sacramentally die with him so that they rise with him. Endowed with God's sanctifying grace, they become new people in the Lord. Human nature itself has been saved; that salvation becomes open for all to receive, if we so desire. We experience this salvation by way of mediation through the Church, as Christ himself has willed it. The church herself holds fast to his revelation, preserved by Scripture and Tradition. Thus, Catholics can't truly be a sola scriptura people. we're acknowledge Scripture as God's inspired word, but authority rests in God as mediated through Tradition, in this case, the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Pope and Bishops. Thus, we recognize that Scripture and Tradition both come from God and serve distinct purposes. We could not cross those purposes and expect to remain the same people.

The Great Bard of the North has offered an rich reflection on the role that philosophy plays in ordering one's mind to the truths discerned through theology. His entire essay is worth the read. Check it out.