The Basis for Belief in the Canon

[ofthesons]

I’ve heard it said that the Holy Spirit moving the Church to determine what should be considered the canon of Scripture is the basis for believing in the canon. And along with this, scriptures that speak of the Holy Spirit leading Jesus’ Church to all truth are quoted or referenced seemingly as if that proves the Holy Spirit is the basis for the Church’s determination/judgment/decree?.

If Scripture is appealed to in order to attest or prove that the Holy Spirit’s guidance is the basis for belief in the canon, how does one combat the Sola Scripturist who’d say that to appeal to Scripture is to admit that Sola Scriptura is true?

 

[kepha1]

Scripture ALONE is not “appealed to” to prove the Holy Spirit superintended the Church to produce the Bible. That’s like saying the Bible proves the Church therefore the Church proves the Bible. That is circular reasoning.

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels.

We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries,

We then take that and together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility.
Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility.

We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that a Church exists, namely, the Catholic Church, which is divinely protected against teaching doctrinal error. Now we are at the last premise of the argument.
This Catholic Church tells us the
(2)Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the
(1)Church is infallible.
Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—
(1)that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—
(2)that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.
I took most of the information from catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp , and reformatted for the sake of simplicity.
Dizzy? This SUMMARY of a summary should clarify:

1. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
2. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
3. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.
4. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable),
5. and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).
   What I have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.
   I took most of the information from catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

A sola scripturist must resort to circular reasoning to prove inspiration of the Bible.

 

[ofthesons]

“The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired.”

What justification is there for assuming that one cannot assume that the Bible is inspired on account of the Bible and that it must be approached as any other ancient work? If we insist that to believe what the Bible says upon the basis of the Bible is to be guilty of circular reasoning, then it cannot be circular reasoning in any truly fallacious sense and it cannot possibly be circular any more than the reasoning of literally every other thinking person in all existence. Possibly, there is a more specific way to word this, but I will say for now that basically one is guilty of a fallacious circle only when in argumentation, something that is not necessarily true or by first assuming what he is seeking to prove. In this sense, the charge of circular reasoning does not apply to all Sola Scripturists because those who are consistent proponents of Sola Scriptura do not hold what they are arguing for to be contingently true or provable. That is, they do not hold what they are arguing for to be true on account of any external fact to any degree. So the charge of circular reasoning cannot necessarily be the reason why one cannot assume the inspiration of the Bible.

Besides, even if it was circular, what epistemology would one be assuming in order to actually justifiably assert that it is “circular” without actually also being circular?

“From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.”

By what epistemology do we conclude that “textual criticism” is a valid means of judging anything about the Bible or the Church? And what basis is there to assume the validity of that epistemology if there is one? If your epistemology is faulty or unwarranted, then you can’t justifiably assert that it’s acceptable or necessary to deny Scripture alone. Note, the Sola Scripturist should hold that the Bible is the epistemic standard to which man should adhere. So his epistemology is based on the Bible. But what does the one who disagrees with Sola Scriptura -whether skeptic or Catholic- appeal to and how does he know he is right in doing so since Sola Scriptura is supposedly wrong?

“Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility.”

Why would the Church have to possess the character of doctrinal infallibility? It cannot possibly be that merely the determination as to the identity of the canon of Scripture would have to be infallible in order for the Church to do what Christ “said it would do”? And entity does not have to be infallible to say or teach what is infallible, does it? If it does, based upon what?

“…and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).”

But does not the claim of “historical reliability” simply mean that the Bible is true? Does not such a claim require that the Bible true in order to be a justified claim? Otherwise, if the Bible were not true or possibly not true, how could it really be historically reliable or how could we ascertain that it is? To say the the Bible is true, which must be implied by the claim of historical reliability, is to purport that you already have sufficient basis to believe in the canon.

Remember, I’m asking for sufficient basis for belief in the canon.

Now if I conclude that the Bible is true and I say that conclusion is based on textual criticism or external and internal historical works, then it follows, according to my view, that my belief in the canon is not based on the Catholic Church. For even the Catholic Church is measured or judged according to textual criticism.

Now, according to Catholics as well as many (if not all) Sola Scripturists, the Roman Catholic Church says true things, infallible things. To justifiably say that the sixty-six books Protestants refer to as Scripture is Scripture is to say what is true and infallible. And if Protestants are, in fact, justifiably saying that those sixty-six books are Scripture, they are also saying what is true and infallible.

Both Protestants and Catholics can say that the Roman Catholics affirm what is infallible given their worldviews. But only the Catholics affirm that the Roman Catholic Church itself is infallible. So what does that mean regarding our belief in the canon? What follows from the claim of the Catholic Church’s infallibility is that we can trust that Church’s word when it says that the Bible is inspired as it is the standard by which we know the Bible is inspired. But this means that we know on account of the word of the Catholic Church that the Bible is true. But if textual criticism is the means by which we know it’s true, then it is not ultimately on account of the Catholic Church that it’s true or inspired. And of course, this is what the notion, “We deduce from textual criticism that the Church is infallible” means. And so it seems that the “initial finding” (the Bible is historically reliable) is in fact based at least partly on the conclusion (that the Bible is inspired) and therefore that the Roman Catholic position is unjustifiably circular.

Academically speaking, I believe those who fulfilled their part at the councils of Hippo and Carthage are very much like many Sola Scripturists of today in that neither of them really see Scripture alone as basis to believe in the canon. But in spite of this, as Scripture says that the Holy Spirit would lead Jesus’ Church unto all truth, I trust that they both recognize the canon in spite of whatever epistemology they attribute that recognition to.

 

[pablope]

I’ve heard it said that the Holy Spirit moving the Church to determine what should be considered the canon of Scripture is the basis for believing in the canon. And along with this, scriptures that speak of the Holy Spirit leading Jesus’ Church to all truth are quoted or referenced seemingly as if that proves the Holy Spirit is the basis for the Church’s determination/judgment/decree?.

If Scripture is appealed to in order to attest or prove that the Holy Spirit’s guidance is the basis for belief in the canon, how does one combat the Sola Scripturist who’d say that to appeal to Scripture is to admit that Sola Scriptura is true?

If your only recourse is to appeal to Scripture…and the other person you in discussion with also appeals to Scripture…then it is your word, interpretation, against his word and interpretation.

So what is the solution? Appeal to Tradition…this is what one student did in defending his thesis…(I heard him recount the story on the Journey Home).

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

A further and particularly significant implication of this ad hoc approach to the tradition is that it undermines the basis for believing the canon of the Bible to be correct. If the Church erred in so many doctrines and practices, then we have no basis for believing that the Church got the canon right. It would be ad hoc to trust that the Church got the canon right while believing that the Church got so many other things wrong during that same period of time.9

In that case we cannot justifiably use our interpretation of Scripture to determine which traditions agree with our interpretation and which traditions do not, because we do not know which books are Scripture. Nor, for the same reason, can we use our interpretation of Scripture to determine which books of the Bible belong there, because that would be to assume at the outset precisely what we do not know, i.e., the canon. As a result, those who claim that the Church deviated from orthodoxy at an early point in history, and use Scripture to show this, undermine the very basis for their assurance that the book they hold in their hand is canonically inerrant. They must either turn to critical scholarship, or resort to some internal voice that they perceive to be from the Holy Spirit, in order to verify the canon, before they can use the canon to evaluate the tradition of the early Church.

The indefectibility of the Church is a gift from Christ to the Church by which she is preserved to the end of the age as the “institution of salvation.” She can neither perish from the world nor depart from “her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy.”38 The gift of indefectibility does not imply that the members of the Church, even members of the Magisterium, cannot sin or err. But it does entail that the Magisterium of the Church can never lose or corrupt any part of the revelation of Christ, which includes both matters theological and moral. This gift of indefectibility is essential to Christ’s purpose in establishing His Church as the means of continuing His saving work to all the nations and peoples of the world until the end of the age. Regarding this purpose, Pope Leo XIII wrote, “What did Christ the Lord achieve by the foundation of the Church; what did He wish? This: He wished to delegate to the Church the same office and the same mandate which He had Himself received from the Father in order to continue them.”39

The commission Christ gave to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19 did not end with the death of the last Apostle, because this commission was given not only to the Apostles, but to their successors and the whole Church. The task of taking the Gospel to all nations and the ends of the earth goes beyond what the Apostles could accomplish in their own lifetime. In the same way, the promises of Christ do not extend only to the Apostles, but to their successors and all in union with them. This understanding of Christ’s promise to the Church provided a basis of assurance for the Fathers that Christ would preserve and guide the Church through apostolic succession. The pattern revealed through Christ’s relation to the Father is the pattern that is to endure until Christ returns.

 

[ofthesons]

If your only recourse is to appeal to Scripture…and the other person you in discussion with also appeals to Scripture…then it is your word, interpretation, against his word and interpretation.

So what is the solution? Appeal to Tradition…this is what one student did in defending his thesis…(I heard him recount the story on the Journey Home).

But one cannot appeal to Tradition as the solution without first assuming that Sola Scriptura is false, which means I cannot appeal to Tradition without first assuming that Sola Scriptura is false…assuming that appealing to Tradition to resolve a disagreement is not what Scripture authorizes or calls us to do. As an advocate of Sola Scriptura, I see no good reason why I should do this. Roman Catholics have their reason(s) as to why they think we should do this, but I don’t share their stance to begin with and thus I wouldn’t deem their reason(s) to be valid. That is, I do not see disagreement, as real and vigorous as it gets, as indicating that we should appeal to Tradition to settle a conflict. Again, to do so is to assume at the outset that Sola Scriptura is wrong.

I and the person with whom I disagree might reference passages that we believe support our respective sides, but there really is no reason to go beyond Scripture as if it wasn’t the sole ultimate or final authority to resolve the disagreement. If Sola Scriptura is true, you must rule out one or both of the conflicting interpretations with Scripture if possible and/or the confict will have to be settled at the last day when God will bring all things to light.

A further and particularly significant implication of this ad hoc approach to the tradition is that it undermines the basis for believing the canon of the Bible to be correct. If the Church erred in so many doctrines and practices, then we have no basis for believing that the Church got the canon right. It would be ad hoc to trust that the Church got the canon right while believing that the Church got so many other things wrong during that same period of time.

To say that we have no basis for believing that the Church got the canon right is to beg the question. The notion that the canon is the basis to believe in the canon precludes that we have no basis for believing that the Church at least got the canon right if in fact they knew what constituted the canon. Sola Scriptura easily affords that those who counted the canon as the canon harbored their own errors.

In my last response on this thread, I made the comparison between the Christians who put together the sixty-six books, counting them to be canonical, and those contemporary Sola Scripturists (also Christian) who, upon the basis of textual criticism, conclude that those sixty-six books are true. In some sense (i.e. academically) they both share a significantly similar epistemology assuming that neither one sees Scripture as the sole basis to believe in it. But the bottom line is, even if it will be affirmed that they were right in that they knew what the canon was, it necessarily follows from this that they justifiably believed in the canon solely on account of the canon as other epistemic standards or axioms are inadequate to account for that belief.

Now if one is willing to argue that we don’t know what Scripture is under the assumption of Sola Scriptura, then the Sola Scripturist can objectively challenge him on that. He can ask, “How does one know that we don’t know what Scripture is?” And he can question whatever one appeals to submit an answer to that question.

As a result, those who claim that the Church deviated from orthodoxy at an early point in history, and use Scripture to show this, undermine the very basis for their assurance that the book they hold in their hand is canonically inerrant.

To be clear, I wouldn’t say the Church deviated from orthodoxy at some earlier point in history. Rather, that no one in the Church is exempt from being ignorant and that everyone in the Church harbors errors (whether academically or practically) that by their very nature give occasion to deviation.

They must either turn to critical scholarship, or resort to some internal voice that they perceive to be from the Holy Spirit, in order to verify the canon, before they can use the canon to evaluate the tradition of the early Church.

Isn’t critical scholarship and textual criticism at least essentially the same thing or do they just sound the same? If they aren’t the same, what’s the difference? Either way, Sola Scriptura precludes that either one is sufficient to assess Scripture or have/acquire justification for objectively believing in it.

As far as the concept of an “internal voice” is concerned, it might help to state what that means and show whether that would really need to be resorted to as if Sola Scripturists are so desperately scrambling for a semi-suitable basis for belief in Scripture.

In regards to the initial purpose behind this thread, which was to find out what Roman Catholicism considers to be the basis for belief in the canon, it seriously appears to me that circular reasoning rather than the reasoning of Scripture alone is what’s being exercised (since the infallibility of Rome is subject to proof as a reliance upon textual criticism indicates)…

According to Rome: Why should I believe the RCC when they say the Bible is true? In part, because the Bible indicates you should. Why should I believe the Bible? Because the RCC said so.

According to Sola Scriptura: Why should I believe the RCC when they say the Bible is true? Because the Bible indicates you should. Why should I believe the Bible? Because the Bible said so.

If one will critique the latter (saying, for example, that it’s circular), please don’t avoid critiquing the former.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Isn’t critical scholarship and textual criticism at least essentially the same thing or do they just sound the same? If they aren’t the same, what’s the difference?

Textual criticism is a subset of critical scholarship wherein the researcher compares the differences between various manuscripts of scriptural texts and attempts to come up with what he/she perceives to have been the original text. Critical scholarship in general examines the Bible using the techniques that one would use to examine any other work of literature.

Essentially, both appeals to the biblical canon and/or appeals to tradition are “because I said so” arguments, simply because no one can logically define the limits of either. What is the Bible? Where does it start and stop? Since the ancient churches never agreed to/on one form or even one theology of biblical canon, the history of the Christian canon is marked by diversity rather than uniformity. The same can be said of tradition/Tradition. What are its limits and borders? Who defines what is authentic and what is not? What are the criteria? How do you know?

The only way out of this conundrum is to claim an exclusivist interpretive tradition (we are always right by divine decree; anyone who disagrees is wrong). This of course is the explicit Roman Catholic solution, but also not so far removed from the basic approach of many other Christian groups. Christians have been at a stalemate on this issue since 431.

 

[Abu]

Things that the original spectators could easily observe and accurately report:
Fact 1: There was a man called Jesus.
Fact 2: He claimed to be a messenger sent from God.
Fact 3: He did enough to prove that He was such a messenger.
Fact 4: Crowds followed Jesus and He had an inner circle to whom he spoke much more.
Fact 5: He commissioned His followers to continue His teaching and founded His Church.
Fact 6: Jesus affirmed that God would protect that teaching.

The writings of these facts—the Gospels – are comparable with other ancient documents from writers such as Caesar, Tacitus, Thucydides and others, they are all reliable as history.

Historically, they prove that the messenger sent from God worked many miracles to support His mission and teaching to the extent of forgiving sins. God as Truth cannot provide such power to prove falsehood, so the claims of Jesus are true, culminating in the fact of His resurrection from the dead.

So from the reliability of the Gospels as history, we now know that:

1. An infallible Church was founded by the Son of God
2. That infallible Church teaches that the Bible, as She has given us, is the inspired Word of God.

Since Christ’s Church defined what historical writings are the inspired Word of God, and no others, and since no one else has that authority historically from Christ, “sola Scriptura” is a fantasy from the beginning.