Wednesday, May 18, 2011

A fallible list of infallible books


i) Catholics are fond of quoting Sproul’s adage about how the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. They make a big deal about how the Bible doesn’t list its contents.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, this is misleading, so I won’t repeat myself here. Now I wish to make a different point.

ii) Suppose the Bible came with a table of contents. An infallible list of the books comprising the Bible. How would a Catholic apologist respond? Would he withdraw his objection? I doubt it.

I imagine that he’d simply shift the goalpost. For he could always say, “How do you know the books listed in the table of contents correspond to the books in your edition of the Bible? How do you know those two go together?”

He’d then say that just goes to show that having an infallible book is useless unless you have infallible church to infallibly identify the book.

iii) However, this merely pushes back the problem which the Catholic posed for himself.

a) Trent has a list of books. Even if (arguendo) the list is infallible, how do we know what the list refers to? How do we infallibly match the books on the list with a corresponding set of books to which the list ostensibly refers? The list itself doesn’t single out a physical book.

After all, different books can go by the same title. Moreover, what if the title is spurious?

b) Trent also mentions the Vulgate, but was there a uniform edition of the Vulgate? No. Was there an official, infallible edition of the Vulgate? No.

So to what edition of the Vulgate was Trent referring?

iv) One traditional line of evidence for the NT canon are patristic attributions. Church fathers attribute certain books to certain authors.

But the Catholic objection to the Protestant canon undercuts that appeal. Before we know that Irenaeus attributed a certain book to the Apostle John, we must know if the book attributed to Irenaeus is authentic. Is there an infallible list of which church fathers wrote which books?

Even assuming the writing attributed to a church father is authentic, how do we know the book he named in his writing denotes a book in our edition of the Bible?

v) And it’s not just the canon. Catholics also try to prooftext the papacy (among other things) from the church fathers. But where’s the infallible list of church fathers?

vi) Likewise, is there an infallible list of papal encyclicals? And even if there were, how do we know that the listed encyclicals refer to the same encyclicals that happen to go by that name? What if some encyclical by that name is misattributed?

Same thing with church councils. Is there an infallible list of church councils? And even if there were, how do we know what historical gathering that list refers to? How do we connect names on a piece of paper with historical events? The list itself doesn’t pick out the corresponding event.

vii) Catholic apologists fondly claim the canon depends on the church. Yet when they try to prove the church, they act as if the church depends on the canon.

For instance, they try to prooftext the papacy from Mt 16. But if the church must first vouch for the canon, then how can a canonical book vouch for the church? If the church must establish the canon, then the same church can’t very well quote from a canonical book to establish the claims of the church.

Unless it already had a canon, independent of the church, it can’t use Mt 16 to prooftext the papacy. For the canon is supposedly a product of the very church that authorizes the canon. How can the church authorize the canon if the canon must authorize the church?

Catholics like to question the Protestant canon. But questions beget additional questions. They start asking questions, but they prematurely stop asking question. Yet answering the question by reference to the church doesn’t logically terminate the interrogative process. Questions don’t suddenly halt where Catholics come to a halt. Once you begin, the questions continue. The questions circle back on yourself. 

17 comments:

  1. "Catholics like to question the Protestant canon. But questions beget additional questions. They start asking questions, but they prematurely stop asking question. Yet answering the question by reference to the church doesn’t logically terminate the interrogative process. Questions don’t suddenly halt where Catholics come to a halt. Once you begin, the questions continue. The questions circle back on yourself."

    That's a very powerful closing paragraph.

    Well-reasoned!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think any of this would matter to them at all. After all, they can simply dial up the infallible living Magisterium who can give them the "infallible answer du jour," and thus the Roman Catholic may always be infallibly assured of the correct answer to any of those questions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John hit the nail on the head.

    Perhaps if the RCC would produce transcripts of binding "oral tradition" we'd get somewhere, but apparently that information is suspiciously unavailable.

    It's like the old analogy of the man who was convinced that he was dead, and after irrefutable and copious medical evidence was provided to the man which fully and finally convinced him of the fact that dead men don't bleed, his counselor suddenly pricked him with a pin, causing him to bleed.

    After a moment's cortortion and blanching he cried out; "So dead men DO bleed after all!"

    CD

    ReplyDelete
  4. JOHN BUGAY SAID:

    "I don't think any of this would matter to them at all. After all, they can simply dial up the infallible living Magisterium who can give them the 'infallible answer du jour,' and thus the Roman Catholic may always be infallibly assured of the correct answer to any of those questions."

    i) On paper, yes. But in practice that's not how the magisterium actually operates. The magisterium either leaves many questions unanswered, or answers most questions according to the ordinarily (fallible) magisterium rather than the extraordinary (infallible) magisterium, or simply leaves it up in the air whether or not it's speaking fallibly or infallibly.

    ii) Moreover, that doesn't address the dilemma I posed under #vii of my post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Catholics have a mental block against this type of reasoning. They love the canon argument because they think it undermines the Protestant's belief in the authority of scripture but refuse to see that the same type of questioning undermines their own position (as you said). I find it fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  6. i) On paper, yes. But in practice that's not how the magisterium actually operates. The magisterium either leaves many questions unanswered, or answers most questions according to the ordinarily (fallible) magisterium rather than the extraordinary (infallible) magisterium, or simply leaves it up in the air whether or not it's speaking fallibly or infallibly.

    That's true, they don't necessarily get an "infallible" answer, but they always get an "authoritative" answer. Either way, the devout Roman Catholic is relieved of the necessity to actually think about the question in question.

    ii) Moreover, that doesn't address the dilemma I posed under #vii of my post.

    That's true, too, and that's why I've thought for a long time that the only place to really disconnect the Roman Catholic from his belief in "the Church" is right at the beginning, where that connection is [not] made.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "So dead men DO bleed after all!"

    Even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary ...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Exactly John!

    As VanTil, Bahnsen, et al have demonstrated, it turns out there's something that naturally presides over and in many (most?) cases actually stands over and against "the evidence"; i.e. a sinful individual's presuppositional grid - his "autonomous reason", through which all data ("evidence") is filtered and interpreted.

    This explains why dead man can bleed, and Romanists can adhere to their religion.

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  9. Carrie:

    "Catholics have a mental block against this type of reasoning. ..."

    Let's not just focus on Catholics now? I suppose all pious practicing fellows, male or female, would find this type of reasoning difficult?

    To understand Steve Hays, one needs the assistance of someone far smarter than he! Fortunately for us and him, he has that someone far smarter than he assisting him and us! :)

    Where we go from here is of concern seeing the end is coming!

    1Ch 16:31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice, and let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns!"
    1Ch 16:32 Let the sea roar, and all that fills it; let the field exult, and everything in it!
    1Ch 16:33 Then shall the trees of the forest sing for joy before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth.

    ...

    Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
    Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.


    I suppose the best we can do is simply to continue raising up the simplicity of the Gospel to those who work hard at being righteous before God!

    ReplyDelete
  10. JOHN BUGAY SAID:

    “That's true, they don't necessarily get an ‘infallible’ answer, but they always get an ‘authoritative’ answer.”

    In which case they hold themselves to a lower standard than they hold us to. They fault Protestants unless we have an *infallible* list of infallible books. So they hold us to the standard of infallibility. Nothing less will do.

    But they don’t require infallible answers for themselves. Merely *authoritative* answers suffice. But that’s a weasel word. A euphemism for fallible answers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But that’s a weasel word.

    Well, yeah ... :-)

    Business as usual for the "one true Church".

    ReplyDelete
  12. Suppose the Bible came with a table of contents. An infallible list of the books comprising the Bible. How would a Catholic apologist respond? Would he withdraw his objection? I doubt it.

    Is this what passes as a good apologetic these days?

    You take a real scenario: There is no table of contents in the bible.

    You imagine a what if: What if there was a table of contents?

    You put words into what a Catholic would say: They would 'shift the goal post'

    And then you criticize that imagined response?

    Really? This is apologetics?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Is this what passes as a good apologetic these days?

    Read the whole post.

    ReplyDelete
  14. OK, why should I believe that the canon is a "fallible collection of infallible books?"

    ReplyDelete
  15. KRISTEN SAID:

    “Is this what passes as a good apologetic these days?”

    Is this what passes for good feedback these days?

    “Is this what passes as a good apologetic these days? You take a real scenario: There is no table of contents in the bible. You imagine a what if: What if there was a table of contents? You put words into what a Catholic would say: They would 'shift the goal post' And then you criticize that imagined response? Really? This is apologetics?”

    Among other things, good apologetics involves anticipating possible fallback positions of your opponent. It also involves drawing parallel objections to the opposiing position.

    Sorry you know so little about good apologetics. Anything else we can help you with today?

    ReplyDelete
  16. “That's true, they don't necessarily get an ‘infallible’ answer, but they always get an ‘authoritative’ answer.”

    The overwhelming majority of Catholics cannot "ask the Magesterium" anything. They must either sift through Councilar pronouncements, encyclicals and the like using their own dangerous private judgment or they could ask their parish priest, bishop, or cardinal, but none of those individuals is protected by the chrism of infallibility. So what most Catholics do is that either do not ask questions or they resort to the "lay magesterium" represented by Keating, Armstrong, Sippo, Akin, etc...

    Where's that certainty when you really need it?

    ReplyDelete
  17. or they could ask their parish priest, bishop, or cardinal, but none of those individuals is protected by the chrism of infallibility.

    That's what Steve was saying.

    Where's that certainty when you really need it?

    "Oh, it's there all right ... somewhere ... not really accessible, but we gots it and you ain't. That's the important thing."

    ReplyDelete