Thursday, January 21, 2010

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.

7 comments:

  1. "Legalistic apologetics"

    Either Authority or Evidence.

    Both Authority and Evidence.

    .....

    Protestants, RCC, and EOC would all claim BOTH Authority AND Evidence for their truth-claims.

    The difference is the locus of the authority and the relative weights assigned to the chosen authority(ies).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Truth: Steve has framed the issue with a very telling question in the past: "what's the difference between a correct decision and an authoritative one?"

    If you look at the historical people and decisions, then it's easier to understand what he's talking about.

    Sure, there is a *claim* that the RCC follows the evidence, that they have made correct decisions. But when you look at things up close, it's easy to see why the "authority" has to be stressed by the RCC and EO.

    This is a distinction that Turretin made in the beginning pages of Volume 3 of his Institutes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. TRUTH UNITES... AND DIVIDES SAID:

    "Protestants, RCC, and EOC would all claim BOTH Authority AND Evidence for their truth-claims."

    That's irrelevant to the issue at hand. My post was framed in terms of Joe Heschmeyer's framework.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have found what a Constitutionl Scholar/Lawyer told me one day in Washington D.C. is correct.

    He said, without a doubt all "authorities" appeal to a "higher" authority for justifying their action, whether or not it was authoritative or evidentiary.

    When questioning the authority about his judgment and why there should be compliance, never ask him "upon whose authority do you require compliance?"

    Ask rather, upon "what" authority do you require compliance?

    It was just a short time later one of the Church secretaries called me and told me it was my turn to field a call from the county jail.

    A man was arrested and incarcerated for being caught with illegal drugs. While awaiting the due process he started reaching out to the Jail House Ministers who came in to conduct Sunday and Wednesday night Bible Study.

    The jailers didn't like the guy and refused to allow him the time to attend.

    He complained and they told him "sorry".

    He then called us and complained and I was tasked with finding out why he was being stopped from attending Bible Study.

    I went to the "decision" maker and asked him why?

    He said he had the authority to keep him from attending citing a bunch of stuff.

    I was quickly reminded internally of what the Constitutional Lawyer said just several weeks earlier and then proceeded to ask him "upon what authority". He started to answer and then stopped dead in his tracks and looked at me.

    He looked at his wrist watch and then said, oh, times up, I am busy, I have got to go to a meeting. I will get back to you.

    He never did, however we did get a call from the druggie that whatever happened in the meeting worked because he was now allowed to attend Bible Study.

    As you explained, Joe's framework only works when everybody is on board with the Pope's authority which circumvents God's.

    IMO Peter and John said it best:::>

    Act 4:17 But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name."
    Act 4:18 So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.
    Act 4:19 But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge,
    Act 4:20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."

    ReplyDelete
  5. I haven't heard of Joe Heschmeyer's framework.

    Anyways, it looked like you were driving a wedge between authority and evidence, and this wedge (I suspect) would most likely be decried by Catholic apologists as being a false dichotomy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. TRUTH UNITES... AND DIVIDES SAID:

    "I haven't heard of Joe Heschmeyer's framework."

    I reference him by name in the introductory sentence of this post, followed by a lengthy quote (with the URL). I then interact with *his* argument. It couldn't be more explicit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Catholics may take the concept of authority too far, but Protestants need to listen to their concerns. Evidence is open to interpretation--some evidence may be more explicit than others, some perhaps some where only a narrow interpretation makes sense, but in these cases we must use caution, because when we are the ones evaluating the evidence, *we've* set up ourselves as the 'authority'.

    It is easy for some to be so sure of their interpretation that they take it as dogma that others must follow if they are considered to be true Christians. Yes we are capable of discovering and knowing truth, but as finite, fallen beings we need to keep a realistic humility about how correct we think we are. If we are to divide ourselves from others that claim to follow Jesus, we better be sure we're doing so for valid and necessary reasons.

    ReplyDelete