How can / do non-Catholic Christians refute this???

[Ziggamafu]

Belief in a fallible collection of infallible books, moreover with no infallible method of interpretation, seems to be a logical impossibility; it seems absurd. The idea of an infallible collection of infallible books, moreover with an infallible method of interpretation seems much more reasonable and much less silly.

It took the Church a long time to write the Scriptures and a very long time to figure out what was and wasn’t divinely inspired. And the councils that did this (beginning in the fourth century, I think) listed the canon as Catholics understand it, which included the books the Protestants would reject a thousand years later…how then could the Bible be the only infallible rule of faith?

It *seems *irrefutable to me in logically assessing Christianity that to believe in the infallibility of the Bible one must necessarily believe that either a) the Church is also infallible or b) the Bible, in its entirety, was revealed by Christ or canonized by the Apostles. To believe anything other than these two options is to fall into logical absurdity, believing in a fallible collection of infallible books. It was for this reason – that an infallible Bible requires an infallible Church – more than any other that I was able to eventually trust that the Catholic Church is the house God built for all Christians. In doing so, I received more from my relationship with Christ than I could have ever dreamed possible.

While I was in the process of becoming Catholic, I presented this “Protestant puzzle” to many non-Catholic friends. Nobody could give me a solid answer. They all either dodged the question or used circular reasoning. It seems to me that our faith in the infallibility of the Bible must rest on our faith in the infallibility of the Church. The infallibility of the Church’s teaching authority rests on faith in Christ - that, according to many historical sources (including the Bible) he conveyed his own authority upon the Apostles, who in turn conveyed their authority onto other men. We even see the first council in Acts 15!

So…seriously…how do Protestants get around this? Do they just never go there? Avoid it like the plague? I simply don’t get it…I would love to at least be given the opportunity to try!

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

While was in the process of becoming Catholic, I presented this “Protestant puzzle” to many non-Catholic friends. Nobody could give me a solid answer. They all either dodged the question or used circular reasoning. The infallibility of the Church’s teaching authority rests on faith in Christ - that, according to many historical sources (including the Bible) he conveyed his own authority upon the Apostles, who in turn conveyed their authority onto other men. We even see the first council in Acts 15!

So…seriously…how do Protestants get around this? Do they just never go there? Avoid it like the plague? I simply don’t get it…I would love to at least be given the opportunity to try!

Protestants normally accept that Jesus founded a valid Church. However the medieval church bears little resemblance in externals to the insitition founded by Jesus all those years ago.

So maybe we should get back to Jesus’ oriignal idea. But how do we know what it was? Well the scriptures are good sources surviving from around that time. So why not examine current practises and see if they are supported by scripture? If not, change them.

To some extent this is legitimate. Luther was right that the Church was in need of reform. The central problem is that a lot of the scriptural scholarship is naive, so few Protestant denominations resemble 1st century Christianity either.

 

[Nita]

I’m just guessing - but I’d say for a lot of the ordinary folk, it’s just something they’ve never thought about.

Nita

 

[Ziggamafu]

I’m just guessing - but I’d say for a lot of the ordinary folk, it’s just something they’ve never thought about.

Nita

Yeah, that was my excuse…I guess it’s just so crazy to think about. I mean, I know most of the stock Catholic answers to Protestant challenges, but when non-Catholics engage me I just ask that question and it completely shuts them down.

 

[jmcrae]

I used to be Protestant, and I used to assume that, although I didn’t know the logic behind this and other puzzles, that someone out there did, and that if one were to go to “the source” then one would find an answer.

Then, I started reading Protestant theologians - and I realized that they, too, didn’t know how to explain any of this stuff in any logical way, other than “Luther said this,” or “Calvin said that,” and of course, being good Protestants, we don’t believe most of what they say, either, since “the first duty of every good Protestant is to rebel against the religion of his parents.” (James H. Nichols, A Short Primer for Protestants, published by Association Press.)

Going back to Luther and Calvin means wading through a lot of really angry rhetoric that makes one wonder whether they were actually in their right minds when they were constructing their theologies - it was probably for mental self-preservation that Nichols encouraged rebellion against all that has gone before - the unthinkable alternatives being either to recognize that Luther and Calvin were, in fact, heretics, and return to Rome, or to somehow try to submit to an illogical philosophical system.

 

[Contarini]

Belief in a fallible collection of infallible books, moreover with no infallible method of interpretation, seems to be a logical impossibility; it seems absurd.

Why? Why do you think people believe in infallibility in the first place? The whole idea that you can give yourself absolute certainty by positing an infallible authority of any kind is absurd from the start–that is not what infallibility is for. As Protestants have pointed out until they are blue in the face, you always wind up with a fallible authority recognizing an infallible one, and you always come back to personal choice. Sure, it makes a difference where you start positing infallibility and just how soon you appeal to personal choice and so on, but it’s a matter of degree. The Catholic position may be better, but if one is absurd then the other is as well.

Edwin

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jesus is infallible.

Jesus said the holy Spirit would lead the disicples into all truth–so we know that the truths the disicples were led into by the Holy Spirit had to be infallible.

We know that jesus built his church on Peter–that is infallible.

We know Peter was given keys to the kingdom of heaven so that must be infaallible.

We know that the church would prevail against the gates of Hell so that must be an infallible truth because Jesus said it.

We also know that jesus said that if anybody would not listyen to THE CHURCH then he should be treated like a publican or a sinner–since jesus said that it must be infallible.

So we have jesus establishing a visible church with Peter in charge that everyone should listen to and that that church would prevail.

It has. It’s called the Catholic Church. Apostolic Succession happened because that church said it did and that church must be believed because Jesus said to listen to THE CHURCH and there are no other possiblities for which church that can be.

So ultimately the Catholic church is INFALLIBLE because Jesus said to listen to it and that it would prevail and if it were wrong it wouldn’t prevail because evil is divided against itself and never stand trhough time united.

The Catholic church is infallible because jesus is infallible.

Protestants may choose not to believe this but that doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

 

[Ziggamafu]

Why? Why do you think people believe in infallibility in the first place? The whole idea that you can give yourself absolute certainty by positing an infallible authority of any kind is absurd from the start–that is not what infallibility is for. As Protestants have pointed out until they are blue in the face, you always wind up with a fallible authority recognizing an infallible one, and you always come back to personal choice. Sure, it makes a difference where you start positing infallibility and just how soon you appeal to personal choice and so on, but it’s a matter of degree. The Catholic position may be better, but if one is absurd then the other is as well.

Edwin

That doesn’t seem right to me…it seems like you’re saying that we can never be certain of anything. Reason can prove or disprove someone’s logic, right?

The Protestant bases his faith on the Bible alone (that is, believes the Bible is uniquely infallible).

But the Bible is a collection of books that did not descend from the heavens in the hands of Christ.

If the Protestant says the Bible is infallible, he is saying that the Bible’s collection of books is infallible.

So the Protestant must know the decision of what went into that collection of books is infallible.

But the decision came from outside the Bible.

Therefore, to maintain the “Bible alone” position, the Protestants are forced to believe in a fallible collection of infallible books - a contradiction.

How is that not absurd?

If the Protestant claimed that the New Testament was written by the Apostles and they canonized what was Scripture, fine. Then it is not absurd because, like Catholics, they lean their authority on Jesus, through the teaching authority of the Apostles, with the Bible.
But Protestants know that some of the New Testament was almost assuredly written after the Apostles died and even then, it took a long time for the Church to figure out what was and wasn’t inspired.

 

[Contarini]

That doesn’t seem right to me…it seems like you’re saying that we can never be certain of anything.

No, I’m not saying any such thing. I’m saying that the purpose of infallibility is not to give us absolute certainty. How do you get from that that we can’t be certain of anything? Aren’t you certain of all sorts of things for which you have no infallible authority? To use the old standby, I’m certain that there is a place called Japan although I’ve never been there and all my sources of information are fallible (even having been there wouldn’t give me infallible authority but we don’t need to get into the fallibility of sense experience to make my point!).

If the Protestant says the Bible is infallible, he is saying that the Bible’s collection of books is infallible.

No. He is saying that whatever is inspired by God is infallible. Period. Infallibility is a consequence of divine inspiration, not a consequence of our alleged need for absolute certainty.

But Protestants know that some of the New Testament was almost assuredly written after the Apostles died

No. Conservative Protestants do not believe this–nor do conservative Catholics. I myself am not ultra-conservative, but I think it possible that the Apostle John was still living when the Book of Revelation was written, and that Revelation was the last book of the NT to be written. Of course if you think that II Peter was written in the mid-second century or something like that, then you have a point.

and even then, it took a long time for the Church to figure out what was and wasn’t inspired.

Actually it was quite remarkably quick. II Peter–assuming that you don’t buy the second-century theory–says that Paul’s letters are Scripture. Papias, who allegedly was a disciple of St. John, wrote about the authorship of the Gospels and the implication is that he thought they were inspired. The core of the NT canon seems to have been recognized almost immediately–the argument concerned certain books only.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

Why? Why do you think people believe in infallibility in the first place?

According to the Catholic Church, the Magesterium’s infallibility comes from Jesus Christ. The Bible comes from God via the Magesterium.

According to many Protestants, the Bible’s “infallibility” (one assumes they are referring to its inerrancy) comes from fallible men who we assume got it from God, with no way to verify that assumption.

It’s not about what makes sense to me. It’s about whether the system itself follows a logical pattern.

Whether one chooses to believe it or not is independent of the logic - most people start with emotional reasons for believing what they believe.

 

[Contarini]

According to the Catholic Church, the Magesterium’s infallibility comes from Jesus Christ. The Bible comes from God via the Magesterium.

You missed the point of my question. The entire argument assumes that infallibility is necessary for epistemological reasons. This pops up regularly on these boards, and it just won’t fly. It is in fact logically inconsistent, whether in its Protestant or its Catholic versions. The Protestant version simply comes to the point of irrationality sooner!

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

To use the old standby, I’m certain that there is a place called Japan although I’ve never been there and all my sources of information are fallible (even having been there wouldn’t give me infallible authority but we don’t need to get into the fallibility of sense experience to make my point!).

Being wrong about Japan wouldn’t affect your immortal soul in any way, though. Being wrong about the Bible could make the difference between a really long time in Purgatory, and going to Hell.

Actually it was quite remarkably quick. II Peter–assuming that you don’t buy the second-century theory–says that Paul’s letters are Scripture.

Notice also that he was our first Pope - it makes perfect sense that he would infallibly recognize our first New Testament Scriptures.

 

[Contarini]

Being wrong about Japan wouldn’t affect your immortal soul in any way, though.

But that is not the point Ziggamafu made. He claimed that the Protestant position was *illogical, *not spiritually reckless.

Notice also that he was our first Pope - it makes perfect sense that he would infallibly recognize our first New Testament Scriptures.

Again, irrelevant to the point, which is that the two largest and most important groups of NT writings–the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles–were recognized very early, contrary to what you claimed.

Edwin

 

[Ziggamafu]

I suppose I should clarify that I think it is illogical within the realm of Christian theology. Of course the whole “infallibility” thing is not going to fly with someone who isn’t Christian from the start. My presumption was that I could make a statement that is presumed to be within the boundaries of Christianity.

And within the boundaries of Christianity, all authority stems from Christ.

Now, in Protestantism, the only way one may know that authority of Christ (and thus obey it) is by reading or hearing the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the only infallible authority. No other authority is infallible, save Christ, who is the source of scriptural authority.

In Catholicism, we know that authority of Christ because we have his living voice in the Magisterium - a succession of authority that traces back to Christ, himself. We only know the Scriptures to be infallible because the authority of Christ, through the Magisterium, proclaimed what the Scriptures are.

In one system we have a belief in infallible Scriptures but we cannot know what these Scriptures are. Therefore, the Scriptures we have may be infallible and they may not. We believe in the existence of an infallible rule of faith but it is forever up for grabs as to where or what that rule is.

In the second system, the primary belief in the authority of Christ (which is assumed to be carried by all) stretches through every aspect of our “rule” in that this authority is the means by which we know what the Scriptures and their proper interpretation are. We believe in the existence of an infallible rule of faith and it is Christ, throughout; we may know where and what our rule is in every present generation.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Belief in a fallible collection of infallible books, moreover with no infallible method of interpretation, seems to be a logical impossibility; it seems absurd. The idea of an infallible collection of infallible books, moreover with an infallible method of interpretation seems much more reasonable and much less silly.

If this Catholic can shove an oar in - I would answer by saying that the objection treats the Bible as if it were a document that had nothing to do with God.​

If this belief were unrelated to God, & if the argument were not God-related, & if the reasoning were not about a Divine thing, the objection would be valid. The reason it’s not, is that God is involved - & God is a God of grace, & is the God of the Cross.

That means that

• thinking about the books, however fallible it may be;
• & however fallible the thinkers;
• & however lacking in infallibility they may be -
  the results, are God-produced. No infallibility is required - the over-ruling grace of God, working through fallible & sinful men for His Glory, is needed; the same grace of the Holy Spirit Who makes the books effective in our hearts as the living & fruitful Word of God.

What seems reasonable is not the point - the Cross was not reasonable. The Cross leaves “the wise man”, “the subtle debater of this world”, completely at a loss: because “the Foolishness of God”, displayed in the Cross, “is wiser than the wisdom of men”. And because the Cross is crucial to Christianity, it is not too surprising if this same Folly should be present in the way the canon is assembled - for the assembling of the canon does not depend on human wisdom, but on God’s grace. ##

It took the Church a long time to write the Scriptures and a very long time to figure out what was and wasn’t divinely inspired. And the councils that did this (beginning in the fourth century, I think) listed the canon as Catholics understand it, which included the books the Protestants would reject a thousand years later…how then could the Bible be the only infallible rule of faith?

Because the books do not depend on man for their inspiration - they were inspired, even before there was any thought of canonising them. The fourth century was the end of a process of recognising this inspiration by canonising them - and that applies only to the NT in any case. So the Bible can be the only infallible rule (= rule that does not lead us astray), & the supremely authoritative rule, of all disputes in Faith.​

FWIW, I don’t see any need for the Bible to be infallible, or inerrant either; AFAICS, it is enough if the Bible is reliable enough not to be deceptive - it needn’t be totally without all possible error for that. It’s not clear that disbelief in the number of Exodists in Number 1 & 26 is remotely as important as belief in salvation through Christ: though St. Thomas held otherwise ##

It *seems *irrefutable to me in logically assessing Christianity that to believe in the infallibility of the Bible one must necessarily believe that either a) the Church is also infallible or b) the Bible, in its entirety, was revealed by Christ or canonized by the Apostles. To believe anything other than these two options is to fall into logical absurdity, believing in a fallible collection of infallible books. It was for this reason – that an infallible Bible requires an infallible Church – more than any other that I was able to eventually trust that the Catholic Church is the house God built for all Christians. In doing so, I received more from my relationship with Christ than I could have ever dreamed possible.

While I was in the process of becoming Catholic, I presented this “Protestant puzzle” to many non-Catholic friends. Nobody could give me a solid answer. They all either dodged the question or used circular reasoning. It seems to me that our faith in the infallibility of the Bible must rest on our faith in the infallibility of the Church. The infallibility of the Church’s teaching authority rests on faith in Christ - that, according to many historical sources (including the Bible) he conveyed his own authority upon the Apostles, who in turn conveyed their authority onto other men. We even see the first council in Acts 15!

So…seriously…how do Protestants get around this? Do they just never go there? Avoid it like the plague? I simply don’t get it…I would love to at least be given the opportunity to try!

 

[Contarini]

I suppose I should clarify that I think it is illogical within the realm of Christian theology.

I don’t think that helps you any.

And within the boundaries of Christianity, all authority stems from Christ.

Sure.

Now, in Protestantism, the only way one may know that authority of Christ (and thus obey it) is by reading or hearing the Scriptures.

Not true.

The Scriptures are the only infallible authority.

True, insofar as we can generalize about traditional Protestantism as a whole. But in fact Protestants know Christ’s authority in many other ways as well, though everything is supposed to be based on Scripture.

In Catholicism, we know that authority of Christ because we have his living voice in the Magisterium - a succession of authority that traces back to Christ, himself. We only know the Scriptures to be infallible because the authority of Christ, through the Magisterium, proclaimed what the Scriptures are.

That may be how you know them (though I think there are all sorts of problems with this way of putting it, starting with the assumption that the Magisterium can be set so sharply over against the Church as a whole). But it is not the only possible way of knowing them.

In one system we have a belief in infallible Scriptures but we cannot know what these Scriptures are.

That is not true at all. You are sneaking back into the discussion your earlier (and totally unwarranted) assumption that the only reliable knowledge we can have comes from some authority source which has been certified to be infallible (and thus raising yet again the question of infinite regress and/or circularity, since eventually you either have infallible sources vouching for each other or you have a fallible source vouching for an infallible one).

There is no reasonable doubt about most of the Scriptures. Some books (a minority and not the most central ones) can be questioned historically, but there are good reasons to trust the judgment of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church does not have to be infallible for us to trust that her historic witness is correct. And yes, that means that we should trust her witness on other things as well. But an infallible Magisterium, as opposed to a historic witness that is reliable as a whole and over the long haul, is not necessary. In fact, the councils that Catholic apologists point to were not general councils and thus not themselves infallible. The canonization of Scripture was an act of the “ordinary magisterium,” which is to say that it was an act of the whole Church working over space and time.

Therefore, the Scriptures we have may be infallible and they may not. We believe in the existence of an infallible rule of faith but it is forever up for grabs as to where or what that rule is.

No. We have a reasonable degree of certainty–the kind we have in other important matters of daily life.

In the second system, the primary belief in the authority of Christ (which is assumed to be carried by all) stretches through every aspect of our “rule” in that this authority is the means by which we know what the Scriptures and their proper interpretation are. We believe in the existence of an infallible rule of faith and it is Christ, throughout; we may know where and what our rule is in every present generation.

Well, you’ve come a long way from your earlier argument. There’s no question of absurdity or logical inconsistency at this point–you’re simply arguing that one is superior to the other, which may well be true. It would certainly be convenient to have an infallible Church of the kind you think we have. But Christ did not give us everything convenient.

Because I’ve been defending the logical consistency (as opposed to the correctness) of the classical Protestant position, I haven’t gotten into the question of just what infallibility is. I am by no means committed to rejecting infallibility. But there are many versions of ecclesial infallibility, of which the ultramontanist Vatican I version is the most extreme (held by a significant number of Christians) and hence the least defensible.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

Again, irrelevant to the point, which is that the two largest and most important groups of NT writings–the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles–were recognized very early, contrary to what you claimed.

Where did I ever claim that they weren’t recognized? I didn’t comment on that aspect of it, one way or the other. I was talking about when the final canon was officially defined.

If the canon had never been officially defined, then we wouldn’t have a Bible. Rather, the books that we now know as “Scripture” would be of the same status as the works of the Early Fathers, etc. - useful for learning Christian doctrine and history, but not worthy to be read out at Mass. That status would be reserved to the Old Testament.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Where did I ever claim that they weren’t recognized? I didn’t comment on that aspect of it, one way or the other. I was talking about when the final canon was officially defined.

If the canon had never been officially defined, then we wouldn’t have a Bible. Rather, the books that we now know as “Scripture” would be of the same status as the works of the Early Fathers, etc. - useful for learning Christian doctrine and history, but not worthy to be read out at Mass. That status would be reserved to the Old Testament.

This may be interesting - it distinguishes between books not read in the Church (church ?) at all, & hints -​

• …And therefore, though various
  rudiments (or: tendencies?) are taught in the several
  Gospel books, yet that matters
  nothing for the faith of believers, since by the one and guiding
  (original?) Spirit
  everything is declared in all…

• (though without being explicit) at a difference in status between those that are:

ntcanon.org/Muratorian_Canon.shtml

Rather unhelpfully, it has been dated in the first & fourth centuries, though the usual date is c. 200.

Whether discussions about the Canon now, would make sense to Christians then, is a question worth asking.

For more lists: [Early Lists of the Books of the New Testament (The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Early Lists of the Books of the New Testament) - & see the site ##

 

[Ziggamafu]

Well, you’ve come a long way from your earlier argument. There’s no question of absurdity or logical inconsistency at this point–you’re simply arguing that one is superior to the other, which may well be true. It would certainly be convenient to have an infallible Church of the kind you think we have. But Christ did not give us everything convenient.

Because I’ve been defending the logical consistency (as opposed to the correctness) of the classical Protestant position, I haven’t gotten into the question of just what infallibility is. I am by no means committed to rejecting infallibility. But there are many versions of ecclesial infallibility, of which the ultramontanist Vatican I version is the most extreme (held by a significant number of Christians) and hence the least defensible.

In Christ,

Edwin

I guess I’m confused…

If you judge doctrinal and moral truth by the Word of God, what do you judge the Word of God by; how do we know what God’s Word is? It seems to me that whatever you judge Scriptures by, you must assign to it the same authority as the Scriptures themselves. Otherwise, how and why could you claim the Scriptures have any kind of authority? Why wouldn’t the writings of the early Fathers have the same weight as Scripture? I guess I’m just not getting something. If that is the case, I’ll have to politely ask you to get it through my head.

 

[Contarini]

I guess I’m confused…

If you judge doctrinal and moral truth by the Word of God, what do you judge the Word of God by; how do we know what God’s Word is?

Recognizing is not judging.

It seems to me that whatever you judge Scriptures by, you must assign to it the same authority as the Scriptures themselves.

Well, it doesn’t seem that way to me. Why does it seem that way to you?

And how do you avoid infinite regress? If you need an infallible authority to “judge” Scripture, then you need another infallible authority to “judge” that one, and so on and so forth. No matter how you rephrase your argument, it fails because of this. You should simply abandon this approach–it’s entirely illogical. There are plenty of good arguments for Catholicism, but this is a very bad one.

Otherwise, how and why could you claim the Scriptures have any kind of authority?

Because I accept the testimony of the Church.

Why wouldn’t the writings of the early Fathers have the same weight as Scripture?

Because the Church has not historically given them the same authority.

I guess I’m just not getting something. If that is the case, I’ll have to politely ask you to get it through my head.

I probably can’t, because you are starting out with the assumption that there *must *be an infallible authority for us to know anything. This is an illogical assumption which I don’t see how you can possibly defend. But you aren’t really interested in discussing the basis for it–you simply assume it and then use it as a basis to declare other things “illogical.”

Edwin