Legalistic apologetics

Catholic Joe Heschmeyer has posted a response to another post by Turretin Fan. I’m going to comment on one plank of his post. I’m bypassing his other points, not because I think his other points are unimportant, but because I’ve already addressed these issues before, and I’ll probably address them again:

For Protestants to say authoritatively, "there are 66 books in the Bible," requires that their church speaks with binding authority. If it's simply a prayer conclusion from private examination of Scripture, they most that they can say is, "for me, there are 66 books of the Bible," or "my personal studies have lead me to conclude that 66 books of the Bible are inspired." I see no way that it can be a binding statement of orthodoxy; in fact, the Jews prior to Christ lacked a Church with this authority, and thus, had various canons. If you say, "you must believe this piece of information (that there are exactly 66 books) in addition to believing in the books of the Bible," you're adding an extra standard besides Scripture, and sola Scriptura self-destructs.

This is probably most easily proved by negation. Protestants deny that the Deuterocanon is Scripture. Upon what authority? Where does the Bible say that these books aren't Scriptural? And if it doesn't, then [Francis] Beckwith is right. To arrive at a canon of Scripture, which is needed even to rely upon the Bible, you must have a trustworthy and reliable Authority (which you can define as Tradition, the Church, or both). To the extent you can trust that Authority, to that extent -- and only that extent -- you can trust the Bible.

http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/01/beckwith-v-turretinfan-on-sola.html

1.Notice how he frames the issue of the canon. He frames the issue in terms of “authority.” Repeatedly. Indeed, he even personifies “authority” by capitalizing the noun. The only category he can think of to frame the issue is “authority.”

And that’s typical of the way Catholic apologists approach every issue.

2.Apropos (1), notice that he doesn’t cast the question in terms of, say, “you must have trustworthy and reliable evidence” for the canon, or “What evidence do you have” for your canon?

It doesn’t even occur to him that this might be or ought to be an evidentiary question. No, it can only be an authoritarian question.

3.Apropos (1-2), I don’t think it’s coincidental that he’s a law student. A number of Catholic apologists are lawyers. Indeed, a number of popes were also laywers (canon lawyers, to be precise).

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. A lawyer can bring some genuine assets to apologetics. He ought to be good at reading fine print. Have a mastery of detailed information. Be concerned with legal evidence. Forensics.

4.However, there’s a fundamental difference between law and truth. Law is inherently coercive.

Laws can be unjust. Judicial rulings can be capricious. Yet they still have the force of law. They penalize law-breakers.

Laws impose compliance under threat of legal sanctions for noncompliance.

Laws are a fundamental form of social control. The pairing of “law and order.”

Making people do things or making people desist. Do this our way or else!

It’s not about persuasion. Not about reasoning with people. The force of law doesn’t rely on whether you find the legal rationale convincing.

Laws are legally compelling, not logically compelling.

5.This legalistic, police-state mentality is hardwired into Catholic apologetics. They’re scandalized by the fact that Protestantism is so disorderly. A “blueprint for anarchy!” They want to impose law and order on these “chaotic” proceedings.

They want to “settle” issues once and for all, by a court of highest appeal (the Magisterium). Silence dissent. Send in the riot police. Restore order. Keep the restive masses in check.

But the fundamental problem with this legalistic mentality is that it doesn’t make truth the priority. Evidence takes a backseat to visible, institutional unity.