Canonicity of Catholicity

As a follow up to the previous study on the canon I felt it necessary to give more attention to the Catholic argument for the inspiration and canonization of scripture, lest it be claimed that they were misrepresented. I summarized their argument that “it is a one-dimensional circular fallacy. Jesus authorized the Popes and Bishops to tell us what Jesus said. How do we know Jesus said this? Because the Popes and Bishops say. Final authority is a non-self-authenticating Magisterium in the Roman Catholic church traditionally enforced by the power of the state; spiritual tyranny.” To try to be fair to them I want to present their argument with more meat on it.

We can agree with Catholics that only books inspired by the Spirit of God are scripture: “Dei Verbum 11 – For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” (Inspiration of Scripture in the Catholic Tradition)

But the question here is how do we know the bible is inspired, and its corollary how do we know which books belong in the canon?

To represent their argument, you can hear Karl Keating in this debate starting at 12:46. Also, duplicated here in this article that we will reference. First, take the bible as a non-inspired ancient book (possibly fallible). Through textual criticism we realize the bible is generally reliable as accurate history (possibly fallible), that it hasn’t fundamentally been changed and the manuscripts are close to the time they are written and not contradicted by other established history (but still possibly fallible). Then to account for the empty tomb is most reasonably explained in that Jesus rose again. (The minimal facts argument.) “The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility.” This would not necessarily follow, I.e. could possibly be fallible. Perhaps Jesus rose as a random unlikely event that is otherwise meaningless and fame and deification arose around him decades and centuries later; similar to apparitions of Mary in recent times.

Note also in the rest of this argument, that Jesus saying he would build his church is from scripture, his resurrection in prophecy and in history indicating that he is God incarnate is also from scripture. So, again their argument is that the church based on the bible as possibly fallible history tells us Jesus rose again according to the scriptures. Why should we believe the church? The scriptures as possibly fallible history say Jesus probably founded it. How do we know this? The church is infallible and says so. How do we know the church is infallible in this claim? The probability that Jesus rose means he is infallibly God. This is like transubstantiation; probability which is possible fallibility transforms into infallibility, apparently through the Roman priesthood. It still looks like a circular, question begging argument even with their adding of more data, because infallibility is assumed and inserted, not proven.

“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, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.” (Proving Inspiration)

Recognizing the appearance of circularity, the writer quickly counters- “Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible.” The claim that this is a ‘spiral argument’ means that it is moving through more dimensionality of reason. But is adding more points in a straight line altering its dimensionality? I trow not.

The author continues “On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. 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), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.”

The last line of the quote is laughable... to be kind. Those familiar with presuppositional apologetics understand a spiral argument being a transcendental worldview argument. But to answer the claim “without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired”, we point you to the bible, to sola scriptura. You can pick up a bible (even a Catholic bible) and consider its doctrines for objective morality, causation, uniformity in nature, validity of sense perception, existence of immaterial laws of logic and math, our capacity to apprehend them mentally, teleology of history, design in nature, etc. That they necessarily depend upon the God of scripture; the triune, volitional, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immaterial, immutable, eternal, transcendent JEHOVAH; the self-existent I AM THAT I AM. (Ex.3:14, 6:3)

The Catholic argument is basing the inspiration of the bible upon the church's infallibility and the church’s infallibility on the probability that Jesus rose and most likely is God. Is this historical probability that the church is infallible? Infallibility cannot arise from probability any more than mathematical certainty can derive from random matter in motion. To claim infallibility from probability is to run into the same dualistic brick wall that Plato found. If you do not start with the bible, how do you account for accidental, contingent, particular, material realities corresponding with necessary, universal, immaterial realities such as laws, ideas, or values? (The ‘one and the many’ dilemma.)

In conclusion, the canon is not a historical question, it is a theological one. Does that God revealed in its pages exist? We conclude it must be so because the contrary is impossible, and the bible authenticates itself. The Catholic church does not.