Sola Scriptura, the Canon, and the Church

Introduction

One of the classical critiques of Catholic Theology by Protestant authors is that our teaching on the Rule of Faith suffers from circular reasoning. The claim is that Catholic Authors attempt to prove the Church from the Bible and the Bible from the Church. This is ordinarily done in response to the Catholic critiques of Protestant views of canonicity.

As an example of this type of argument, Richard Field wrote

[Stapleton] believeth other matters of faith, because contained in the Scripture; and the Scripture, because it is the word of God; and that it is the word of God, because the Church delivereth it to be so; and the Church, because it is led by the Spirit; and that it is led by the Spirit, because it is so contained in the Scripture and the Creed.

One of the criticisms given by many Roman Catholic authors of Sola Scriptura classically is that there is insufficient grounding in their establishment of the rule of faith. Therefore, Protestant authors wished to argue ad hominem [1] that Roman Catholic theologians suffered the same issue, i.e., in arguing via a vicious circle.

Vicious Circle: Its Nature

Before we begin, we need to be careful to correctly note the nature of a "vicious circle" when reasoning. A "vicious circle" is verified when the proof of the antecedent in a certain argument relies on the consequent of that same argument. For example, if I said "John did not see a shark because they are extinct" and then, when asked how I knew sharks were extinct, I answered that "because nobody has seen sharks." The proof of their extinction relies on the conclusion of the argument.

It is quite frequent that we see many authors, who are not sufficiently clear in their affirmations, claim that "all reasoning is circular" due to the presence of first principles that are immediately apprehended by the intellect in the apprehension of being. But, this is not the case. Rather, the claim that is brought forward by the Scholastic tradition is that these principles cannot be properly demonstrated in the first place, but only indirectly, i.e., whether by reductio ad absurdum or by an exegetical syllogism (i.e., imperfect illation). Thus, while we do not demonstrate these first principles (which would inevitably require a vicious circle), we are able to have a reasonable assent to what we immediately apprehend in the very act of intellection.

Faith and Inspiration

Before we begin, it is important to indicate the traditional articulation of dogmatic faith which is given both by Roman Catholic and Classical Protestant authors. In sum, the assent of dogmatic faith is an act of the intellect which is supernatural in its principle, material object, and formal object.

It is supernatural in its principle insofar as it is elicited by a prevenient actual grace of the supernatural order. It is supernatural in its material object insofar as the truth which is believed is a truth that is of the supernatural order. It is supernatural in its formal object insofar as the assent is on the basis of God who reveals.

Due to the necessities of the material and formal objects, this must be something that is in response to Divine Revelation. If this were not divinely revealed, then the supernatural object would not be knowable in principle and the motive of assent would be lacking, i.e., we would assent to it on the ultimate basis of some sort of historical reasoning, human witness, or reasons of fittingness.

In order to preserve the reasonableness of faith, God has united with Divine Revelation certain signs that render the messengers of revelation credible (i.e., the Divine Legates). These signs are called "motives of credibility."

It is important, as a final principle, to distinguish between the notions of "Infallibility," "Inspiration," and "Divine Revelation." Infallibility refers to a gift given by God in order to render error impossible, e.g., God can give the gift of infallibility to a historian in order that he says nothing incorrect about World War 2. Inspiration refers to the very supernatural motion of God in the intellect of an individual so that he can be truly said to say the very words of God. Inspiration renders something the "Word of God" in the true sense. Here, we must note the distinction between infallibility (lack of error) and inspiration (word of God). To be "inspired" implies infallibility, but not vice versa. Someone can be free from error and not speak the very words of God. "Divine Revelation" refers to the very communication of God's truth to men. This is the most general term and implies neither infallibility or inspiration, e.g., a Bishop is an authentic witness to Divine Revelation who, nevertheless, is fallible in his pronouncements. Therefore, there is no necessity that a Divine Legate who speaks on behalf of God will have the gifts of inspiration or infallibility. Further, it is not necessary that God grant the gift of inspiration to one who speaks infallibly.

The Argument

Now that we have the preliminaries out of the way, what is the manner in which Roman Catholic authors argue against the Protestant rule of faith?

First, they argue that the Protestant rule is wholly insufficient on intrinsic grounds. The Protestant believes that the rule of faith is found merely in the scriptures. [2] As a strict and necessary consequence of this doctrine, there is not an authentic witness (at least quoad nos) found today outside of scripture and that which somehow participates in scripture.

Yet, we must remember what was said above about the distinction between an authentic witness to Divine Revelation and the gift of inspiration. It is here that we find the most profound critique of the notion of the Protestants. Inspiration, as stated above, is an entitatively supernatural and internal act. Inspiration is, therefore, like any other entitatively supernatural object, not knowable except by the testimony of Divine Revelation. It is something that can only be grasped by the assent of faith. It would be just as absurd to claim that we could know the inspiration of the Divine Books from another means as it would be to say that we could know the Trinity from those means. It is a rank naturalism that is set in opposition to the supernatural order and the sublimity of faith.

Yet, for the Protestant who teaches that Sacred Scripture alone is the rule of faith (cf., fn. 2 before you freak out), there is no authentic witness who binds the conscience to such an assent of faith. How am I to assent to the inspiration of the Holy Books without an authentic witness? To the inevitable tu quoque, it ought to be noted that I am restricting my considerations to that which is inspired, which we do not claim for the Church. Neither does recourse to the motives of credibility save the Protestant. This confuses the notions of Inspiration and Divine Revelation. For, the motives of credibility lead us to the judgement that someone is a Divine Legate. It does not even imply his infallibility, much less his inspiration.

Second, contrary to the Protestants, the Roman Catholic solution does not fail on intrinsic grounds. We are not here concerned with the justification of each and every premise, but the general coherence of the solution given.

First, we begin by considering the Gospels as historically reliable witnesses to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. This can be authenticated by the ordinary means, as we would from the historical testimonies of any other figure.

Second, from this, we are able to apprehend that there are certain motives of credibility that authenticate Jesus Christ as a Divine Legate whose teaching is to be adhered to.

Notice, we have not even reached the question of "infallibility" or "inspiration" at this point. We are still in the realm of historical witness and authentic teaching. The teachings of Jesus Christ demand the assent of faith since He is a Divine Legate. This completely abstracts from questions of the inspiration or non-inspiration, infallibility or non-infallibility, of the particular book wherein these teachings are contained.

Third, we read in these gospels and the prophetic books that were approved by Christ that He has established a supernatural society that he has endowed with certain promises and gifts to be his authentic witnesses throughout all ages. This premise, of course, will be denied by the Protestant, but what concerns us here is coherence at the moment. The exegetical discussion is one for a different time.

Fourth, we look into the world in front of us and see that this supernatural society exists to this day as the Roman Catholic Church, who we ought to hear as we heard Christ. Again, this premise is denied as well, yet I will give the same note as I gave on the third point.

Lastly, this society tells us in an authentic way that Sacred Tradition has revealed to us that these books that we once read as historical witnesses are actually books which are inspired and therefore canonical.

If we carefully consider this line of reasoning, it is easy to see that it is completely free from the vicious circle that is implied by the Protestants. We begin with considering the gospels as historically reliable. We do not begin by supposing their inspiration to "prove the Church from the Bible and the Bible from the Church." This is a gross mischaracterization

The Protestant may forge their own reply by slightly modifying the third and fourth points. They argue from the third point that the Apostles were promised the gifts of infallibility. Therefore, if we can discover which books were written by them (i.e., step 4), then we can have our canon of inspired books.

Yet, here again they have confused the notions of infallibility and inspiration. The canon is not merely a collection of infallible books, it is a collection of inspired books. It is not sufficient for us to discover that the Apostles have infallibly written such and such a book, it is necessary for us to discover whether they have written the very words of God. Nor can one assume that all the pronouncements of the Apostles were inspired. Where am I to read this doctrine? What did St. Paul mean when he wrote that "I, not the Lord" spoke? It is not enough to simply construct dogmas out of thin air in the heat of controversy.

Besides this point, any student of the scriptures will surely know that many books of the New Testament were not even written by the Apostles. Surely, our Protestant friends would not like to interpret the promises to the Apostles in a Catholic sense.

So, we are left with perhaps some authentic and/or infallible witnesses, but never a canon of inspired books, which is exactly what they have sought to demonstrate.

Conclusion

I realize that some of my expressions may be obscure and hard to understand due to the technical nature of the subject and the fact that I wrote with haste. I apologize for that and promise something more synthetic in the future.

If you appreciated this article, please consider becoming a Patron.

ENDNOTES:

[1]: I am using ad hominem in its original sense, not as indicating a fallacy

[2]: It is important to note here that recent "Classical Protestant" authors present a deficient definition when they claim that it is the "sole infallible rule of faith, but not the sole rule of faith." By 'rule of faith,' they mean something similar to the notion of a locus theologicus. But, in the Protestant and Catholic traditions, "rule of faith" indicates much more. A rule of faith is a pronouncement that is truly authentic, i.e., binds the conscience in virtue of its own authority. Thus, it is more properly said with the Westminster Confession that "all synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both." Hence, any child learning his Larger Catechism would know that "the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience." To add "infallible" is to introduce a novelty and to corrupt the sense of the original doctrine. It would be much more helpful for these "Classical Protestants" to correctly explain the nature of a "rule of faith" rather than adding misleading qualifications to their doctrines. It is also interesting to note, as I noted above, that "infallibility" does not necessarily indicate Divine Revelation or Inspiration. It seems that, in light of this, the infallibility of scripture as a locus theologicus does not even enter into the Protestant view of the rule of faith. This is evident when one considers the claims of certain Protestant Divines of infallibility outside of scripture.