This will only be a brief post, but I happened to stumble across a post that was almost identical to my own criticism of the apologetic project at Called to Communion. You can take a look at the blog here
A few thoughts that I believe are worth quoting here:
the notion that “a book cannot hear the reader’s questions here and now, and answer them” is misleading. If you mean that it cannot *physically* hear them, then, obviously, that is correct. However, the text itself has illocution, and thus, intention. The text also presents a view of reality. Hence, when we look at a problem today, we look at the world of the text, and see what the text intends to communicate about that aspect of reality.
Adam goes on to say exactly what I say about Bryan’s discussion of the ability for persons to clarify their statements,
What Cross fails to realize is that with every answered question, you create another question. For example, let us say that person A says X, and person B says “I don’t mean that. I mean Y” Now, you have to assume that person B has the correct interpretation of X. Hence, if you ask a question, how do you know that the person to whom you are asking the question has understood you properly? More than that, when they give Y, how do you know you have properly understood their clarification? The fact of the matter is, if you didn’t understand the initial statement, then how do you know you understand the clarification? The problem is, the more words you give, the more questions of interpretation you have. Such is the case with clarification.
Continuing Adam notes,
The main point that Cross is missing is that the postmodern views of language upon which he is relying to say that Sola Scriptura is wrong because of the many different interpretations is the very thing that destroys intrinsic potency for interpretive self-clarification in *any* context-book or person.
His concluding point is particularly interesting and echoes other themes in my initial post,
What I find interesting is how Cross’ argument really parallels the “death of the author” position of Derrida, who would likewise treat the text of scripture in this fashion.
In just perusing Adam’s blog (which doesn’t appear to be active for nearly a year) I think he is a bright guy and so it’s encouraging to see that while I was not familiar with anything that he had written until yesterday, our assessment of Called to Communion is so similar.