Stumbling Block for Protestants? V2

[Novocastrian]

I simply find it bemusing and peculiar that you are able to confirm that the Catholic Church was able to correctly discern the 27 book canon of the NT, and do this over and over and over again, and yet be unable to say: “Therefore, the Catholic Church has been given the charism of infallibility. At least, as it applies to this issue of the canon.”

For some reason you cannot say that, and prefer rather to say, “Let’s just agree that cows are animals that produce milk.”

Contarini’s criticisms of your argument are probably sufficient. I will however add a reductio which I hope will help you see the problem with your argument:

The Church of England has consistently, over (on your count, at least) 450 years, held to and defined the 27 book canon of the New Testament. In its official formularies, its liturgies, its public and private prayer, and its theological teaching it has done so. Why is it so hard for you to recognise that the bishops of the Church of England have been granted a special charism of infallibility, at least with regards to the canon of the New Testament.

Surely you can see now that you’re making a logical leap which others are not bound to make with you??

 

[adf417]

And yet again, you seem not to get that being right and being infallible are different things.

One can recognize that the Church got it right without positing that the Church had a special charism preventing it from getting it wrong.

Your position just isn’t logical. You are making a leap that is convenient for the point you want to prove but not supported by reason. You are confusing two different things, and you keep accusing the Lutherans of being evasive because they refuse to confuse those things.

Edwin

Edwin are you suggesting the church guessed correctly? That the church guessed correctly on 27 out of 400 books?

 

[Novocastrian]

Edwin are you suggesting the church guessed correctly? That the church guessed correctly on 27 out of 400 books?

I really do not understand how you can fail to comprehend Edwin’s point.

 

[PRmerger]

And yet again, you seem not to get that being right and being infallible are different things.

Well, yes and no. (Not to the fact that I am not getting it. Yes and no to the fact that being right and being infallible are different things.)

The Church is given the charism of infallibility, in that she is prevented from declaring as true that which is false.

However, when the Church affirms and confirms, over and over and over, a particular concept, we have the assurance that she is right in this affirmation. In this she is not only infallible but also right.

So when you believe as a non-Catholic that the canon of the NT is right, then you must logically conclude that she was prevented from erring in this decision (over and over and over again).

And thus the only logical conclusion is this: you believe that the Church was given the charism of infallibility. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

That you will not state this logical conclusion is akin to saying, “Well, I will grant you that female mammals can produce milk, and that cows do produce milk. But we will just have to agree that cows are animals that produce milk. Saying that cows are mammals is not conclusive, because some cows can’t produce milk.”

Or something like that.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure that your position is as nuanced as you think it is. What would you say that the purpose of the Bible is?

The purpose of the Bible is to tell us the salvation history of God’s people, and to proclaim the love of God to the world.

It is the written channel of the Word of God and reveals the gospel message: Christ has died for us, Christ has risen and Christ will come again.

From Dei Verbum:
Through the Written Word we see the invisible God (see Col. 1;15, 1 Tim. 1:17) out of the abundance of His love speaking to men as friends (see Ex. 33:11; John 15:14-15) and living among them (see Bar. 3:38), so that He may invite and take them into fellowship with Himself. This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation.

 

[adf417]

I really do not understand how you can fail to comprehend Edwin’s point.

My failings are not limited to Edwin’s point but this is one I would love to get more perspective on if you would like.

Peace!!!

 

[Contarini]

Edwin are you suggesting the church guessed correctly? That the church guessed correctly on 27 out of 400 books?

Actually no. I believe that the Church did and does possess the charism of infallibility. But saying that the Church got a particular thing right doesn’t necessarily imply this.

It isn’t about guessing. According to the standard Protestant account, the early Church sorted through the various books based on evidence that they were apostolic, coherence with each other and with the rule of faith, the witness of the Spirit, etc., (These criteria would be emphasized to a different degree and in different ways by different kinds of Protestants–the point is that there are various criteria and it isn’t guesswork.)

Where the Protestant position starts to unravel is

1. As PRMerger says, when Protestants affirm the early Church’s correctness over and over (on the Trinity, say), while claiming that no charism of infallibility is involved; and
2. When Protestants insist on fidelity to specific decisions by the early Church well beyond what any evidence accessible to us warrants (short of belief in a charism of infallibility).

1 does not appear entirely convincing to me, for the simple reason that Protestants do in fact disagree with the early Church on a number of issues. It seems to me that Catholics often try to have their cake and eat it too here. They argue that Protestants must be acknowledging the infallibility of the Church because they sometimes agree with the early Church, while accusing them of inconsistency in sometimes disagreeing with it. But the inconsistency is only with the position that Catholics want to ascribe to Protestants. On Protestant terms, it’s in principle quite reasonable to agree in some places and disagree in others. Specifically with regard to the canon, it seems odd to say “Protestants accept the canon from the Catholic Church” and “Protestants wrongfully reject part of the OT canon” in the same breath. If Protestants really accepted the canon on the authority of the Catholic Church, they’d accept the deuterocanonical books (that’s less relevant here, since many Lutherans do).

To my mind, 2 is the decisive consideration. For instance, I see no good reason to accept 2 Peter short of an acceptance of the infallibility of the Church. Modern scholarship tends toward the belief that 2 Peter is a late work and not by St. Peter. It’s just not true that a careful examination of the evidence without presuppositions leads with any reasonable certainty to the conclusion that the book is apostolic.

For me, the even more important consideration is that the process imagined by most intellectual Protestants is extremely rationalistic and just doesn’t fit the way the early Church actually proceeded. The witness of the Spirit was, I think, the decisive factor–but it was a witness to the whole Church and not just to individuals. Belief in Infallibility is, to my mind, not a rational deduction (as many Catholics present it) but an acceptance of the charismatic presence of the Spirit in the Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Well, yes and no. (Not to the fact that I am not getting it. Yes and no to the fact that being right and being infallible are different things.)

The Church is given the charism of infallibility, in that she is prevented from declaring as true that which is false.

However, when the Church affirms and confirms, over and over and over, a particular concept, we have the assurance that she is right in this affirmation. In this she is not only infallible but also right.

So when you believe as a non-Catholic that the canon of the NT is right, then you must logically conclude that she was prevented from erring in this decision (over and over and over again).

And thus the only logical conclusion is this: you believe that the Church was given the charism of infallibility. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

That you will not state this logical conclusion is akin to saying, “Well, I will grant you that female mammals can produce milk, and that cows do produce milk. But we will just have to agree that cows are animals that produce milk. Saying that cows are mammals is not conclusive, because some cows can’t produce milk.”

Or something like that.

No, it’s like saying, “The fact that you believe cows produce milk does not prove that you believe in a larger category called ‘mammals,’ all of which produce milk. You can logically believe that cows produce milk but goats don’t. You would be wrong, but you wouldn’t be inconsistent. Logically, producing milk could be specific to cows. We just happen to have evidence that it isn’t.”

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

No, it’s like saying, “The fact that you believe cows produce milk does not prove that you believe in a larger category called ‘mammals,’ all of which produce milk. You can logically believe that cows produce milk but goats don’t. You would be wrong, but you wouldn’t be inconsistent. Logically, producing milk could be specific to cows. We just happen to have evidence that it isn’t.”

Edwin

Again, I am not arguing for the charism of infallibility as a “larger category”.

I am merely asserting that if you believe that the Church got it right (or, if you wish, did not get it wrong) regarding the canon of the NT, then you, necessarily, believe that the Church was given the charism of infallibility. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT. Over and over and over again.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually no. I believe that the Church did and does possess the charism of infallibility. But saying that the Church got a particular thing right doesn’t necessarily imply this.

It isn’t about guessing. According to the standard Protestant account, the early Church sorted through the various books based on evidence that they were apostolic, coherence with each other and with the rule of faith, the witness of the Spirit, etc., (These criteria would be emphasized to a different degree and in different ways by different kinds of Protestants–the point is that there are various criteria and it isn’t guesswork.)

And this is nothing but a testament to their adherence to Sacred Tradition.

This is also something that will be like pulling teeth to get a Protestant to acknowledge.

He will say, “Yes, immunizations can prevent polio. And yes, polio has been practically eradicated from human society. But let’s just say that immunizations can prevent polio. We can’t really say that it is responsible for the (essentially) eradication of polio.”

 

[Contarini]

Again, I am not arguing for the charism of infallibility as a “larger category”.

But it is. By definition. Otherwise it’s just “the Holy Spirit didn’t let the Church mess up on this particular occasion,” which is not controversial.

Perhaps we mean different things by “the charism of infallibility.” But I don’t think so, because presumably you want to argue that the Church can reliably be expected to possess this charism when needed.

If the charism is simply the Holy Spirit guiding the Church, with no guarantee that it will ever happen again, then I don’t think it’s controversial.

I am merely asserting that if you believe that the Church got it right (or, if you wish, did not get it wrong) regarding the canon of the NT, then you, necessarily, believe that the Church was given the charism of infallibility. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT. Over and over and over again.

No, not really “over and over and over again,” because there were all kinds of canonical lists produced by the early Church which did not correspond to our canon today. Clearly large parts of the early Church didn’t get it right. Eventually, according to both Protestants and Catholics, the early Church got the NT right, at least.

I still don’t see how a charism of infallibility is necessarily implied, unless you simply mean that the Holy Spirit guided the Church on this particular occasion.

I think perhaps a better way to approach this is: on what basis are we confident that the Church got it right?

Catholics are confident because they (we?) believe in the charism of infallibility.

Protestants give other reasons for their confidence.

I don’t find that those reasons justify the level of confidence Protestants have. But the fact is that they do give other reasons. There’s no need to argue that they really must believe in the charism of infallibility. They don’t. That’s their problem.

If, for instance, modern scholarship confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that all the books of the canonical NT were really written by apostles and were historically accurate, then the Protestant position would make sense.

So often on this forum, my disagreement with common Catholic arguments is not with the final conclusion but with the use of a priori rather than a posteriori arguments.

Protestantism isn’t incoherent as a matter of principle. The evidence just doesn’t support it.

If Scripture really testified about itself in the way many Protestants try to claim it does; if rigorous modern scholarship had confirmed the accuracy of the Bible in the way that some Protestant apologists (and Catholics too) try to claim it does; if Protestants had for the most part been able to form an agreement on doctrine on the basis of Scripture alone; if the Protestant Reformers’ interpretations of the Church Fathers had been sound and honest; and above all, if the Catholic Church had either faded away or become more and more obviously corrupt and apostate, rather than emerging as the clearest upholder of “mere Christianity” in the modern world; if all of these things, or even most of them, had happened, then Protestantism would have a good case to make for itself. Since none of them have, it doesn’t.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

But it is. By definition. Otherwise it’s just “the Holy Spirit didn’t let the Church mess up on this particular occasion,” which is not controversial.

If this particular issue had been a one-time event in history, then I would concede your point.

However, it is an illogical conclusion to declare: the Church got it right (or, did not get it wrong) over and over and over again when it came to the canon of the NT. But this does not mean she was protected from erring here. It just means that they were able to do this on multiple occasions.

Do you see how I cannot wrap my mind around the cognitive dissonance that is being applied by people who deny the charism of infallibility, at least as it applies to discerning the canon of the NT?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

One can recognize that the Church got it right without positing that the Church had a special charism preventing it from getting it wrong.

No, Jesus’ promises ensure that charism.
But, apart from this belief in Jesus’ promises, how do you know that the Church got it right?