Monday, June 06, 2011

A fallible collection of fallible books


Catholic epologists are fond of quoting John Gerstner’s adage, popularized by his famous protégé, R. C. Sproul, that the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. Catholic epologists then contrast this with the alleged Catholic alternative:

The Catholic canon of Scripture is an infallible collection of infallible books.

But there are two basic problems with that alternative:

i) Gerstner’s formulation overlooks the degree of cross-attestation in Scripture. Hence, to say the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books is a deeply misleading statement.

ii) Conversely, the Catholic alternative is a false dichotomy, for what the church of Rome actually gives us is not an infallible collection of infallible books. Rather, it gives us a fallible collection of fallible books.

a) Since Trent was not actually infallible, the Tridentine canon is not infallible. Indeed, it’s not even inerrant. Rather, it’s both fallible and errant.

b) Moreover, the apocrypha are not infallible. Rather, they are both fallible and errant.

c) Furthermore, even if we bracket the apocrypha, Vatican II gave up on the plenary inspiration of Scripture. In fact, this generates a paradoxical dilemma:

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Trent and Vatican II were both infallible, what they give us is, at best, an infallible collection of fallible books! 

13 comments:

  1. How and where did they give up on plenary inspiration?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Steve.

    When you say that Gerstner overlooks the cross-attestation in Script...may I ask what you are referring to?

    Thanks.

    In Him,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/06/turning-points-in-catholic-dogma.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Joe,

    My ebook documents pervasive cross-attestation in Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Steve.

    Hate to be a pain, but I do not have an ipad, ipod touch, nook or kindle.

    I have a classic ipod, but it appears this type of apple product will not work.

    Is there any other way to download it?

    Thanks.

    -Joe

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joe,

    We're working on alternatives. Stay tuned.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Joe, I've just responded to your ebook question here. Hope it helps. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Joe, you can get Kindle for PC for free. I used it long before I had a device for reading Kindle books.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve wrote:
    i) Gerstner’s formulation overlooks the degree of cross-attestation in Scripture. Hence, to say the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books is a deeply misleading statement.

    I agree.

    ii) Conversely, the Catholic alternative is a false dichotomy, for what the church of Rome actually gives us is not an infallible collection of infallible books. Rather, it gives us a fallible collection of fallible books.

    * Upon what authority do you declare the Catholic declaration of the Canon of Sacred Scripture to be fallible?

    ** Why do the books themselves suddenly become fallible?


    a) Since Trent was not actually infallible, the Tridentine canon is not infallible. Indeed, it’s not even inerrant. Rather, it’s both fallible and errant.

    You base your opinion upon what? And if Jesus gave His Church infallible authority (which he DID!) then when would this charism of infallibility be utilized if not through an ecumenical council of all the bishops?

    b) Moreover, the apocrypha are not infallible. Rather, they are both fallible and errant.

    Upon what authority do you declare the deuterocanonicals to be "fallible and errant?"

    c) Furthermore, even if we bracket the apocrypha, Vatican II gave up on the plenary inspiration of Scripture. In fact, this generates a paradoxical dilemma:

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Trent and Vatican II were both infallible, what they give us is, at best, an infallible collection of fallible books!


    You only say that because you cannot accept that Jesus did indeed give His Church the charism of infallibility - which is quite scriptural.

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'd also add that since a list of infallible papal pronouncements has never been published, then at best we have a fallible list of infallible pronouncements.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Scott Windsor said:
    ---
    Upon what authority do you declare the Catholic declaration of the Canon of Sacred Scripture to be fallible?
    ---

    And:

    ---
    Upon what authority do you declare the deuterocanonicals to be "fallible and errant?"
    ---

    Upon what authority do you declare that Steve is wrong? Has the guy with the pointy hat actually TOLD you that? Did the Magesterium come by and say, "By the way, that Steve Hays guy is wrong."

    Pretty much would have to be that way, right? I mean, otherwise, you're using your private judgment and interpreting things, and God knows He would never allow THAT for His followers...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Scott,

    You can also put it this way.

    Upon what authority do you discover that you need someone's authority in order to make an argument? Who exactly told you that you need this authority? Can we examine his credentials for ourselves?

    You know...this could be a fun way to argue, the Catholic Apologetic Method (TM).

    So, before you get around to the above questions: by what authority do you use the English language? By what authority did you log on to blogger and post comments to this blog site? By what authority did you read this response to you? By what authority did you think of a mouse when I asked you "By what authority did you think of a mouse?" just now?

    By what authority does "X is not ~X at the same time and in the same relationship" become true? By what authority do thoughts and concepts arise in your brain?

    I could go on and on and never address actual arguments, just like you!

    ReplyDelete
  13. SCOTT WINDSOR SAID:

    “Upon what authority do you declare the Catholic declaration of the Canon of Sacred Scripture to be fallible?”

    Irrelevant. One doesn’t need authority to state a fact. I don’t need authority to say a weather forecast was false.

    Yesterday it either rained in Seattle or it didn’t. Truth, not authority, is the only salient consideration.

    “Why do the books themselves suddenly become fallible.”

    The apocrypha were always fallible.

    “You base your opinion upon what? And if Jesus gave His Church infallible authority (which he DID!) then when would this charism of infallibility be utilized if not through an ecumenical council of all the bishops?”

    I base my opinion on extensive evidence I’ve presented on multiple occasions.

    “Upon what authority do you declare the deuterocanonicals to be ‘fallible and errant?’”

    Authority is irrelevant. One doesn’t need authority to make true statements.

    “You only say that because you cannot accept that Jesus did indeed give His Church the charism of infallibility - which is quite scriptural.”

    I can’t accept Catholic propaganda.

    ReplyDelete