Why Not Sola Scriptura?

I realized something in the bathtub once. It did not occur to me to shout "Eureka!" and run around the house naked. At least that's how I remember it. It's kind of weird because, while the bathtub is a great place to read, it's a terrible place to underline and highlight, and I think that in those days I must have already begun my habit of doing a lot of underlining and highlighting when reading non-fiction.

Anyway, the point is that I realized something one time while reading Bernard Ramm's Protestant Biblical Interpretation, and it's a little weird that I was apparently reading in the bathtub at the time.

What I realized was the answer to a more important puzzle. I'd been wondering whether Catholicism might be correct. I still wonder. But I still haven't found any good reason--at least not one I can understand--to think so.

The big one is Sola Scriptura. This is the essential Reformation doctrine. SS is the idea that the only infallible authority, between the death of the last Apostle (John) and the bodily return of Jesus (still to come), is the written Bible. (The Wikipedia article on SS has its absurdities, but much of it looks solid to me, and the first sentence seems a good definition of SS. Theopedia, I deem, is better.)

In this post I'm going to explain that puzzle, give my answer to the puzzle, and consider what sort of solid arguments could be made for SS.

How Do We Know What Is in the Infallible Canon?

The Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of G-d--that's pretty basic Christianity there. But just one baby step beyond that we have the issue of canonicity: Just which books are in the Bible, and isn't there also an infallible list of those books?

And since I--like everyone else--learned about that list from the church, doesn't that mean the church must have also been infallible? At least on this one thing, at least this one time?

This is the main argument I hear for Catholicism. Seems to make sense--don't we need some infallible information on canonicity on our way to knowledge of that infallible canon? How can you believe in the infallibility of the Bible without believing that there's some infallible information about what's in the Bible?

Here's arch-red-pilled-Catholic Tim Gordon making this argument:

For the too-long-didn't-watch folks, if you click it should go straight to the argument, and, it's better to watch. But here's my paraphrase of Gordon anyway:

Since the Bible is infallible, the table of its contents ought also to be infallible; but since we need someone or something to promulgate for us that list of contents, we need an infallible promulgator of it, which is the Church! Hence SS is wrong, and doesn't even make any sense!

I've heard variations of this argument a few times on Ricochet. For a while in undergrad, I thought it probably worked; it meant that there was something wrong with SS, or at least that it had an exception here—here, in the Church's ability to declare an infallible canon even if nowhere else, the Church must be infallible.

By Illumination

Reading Ramm, I found the answer. Ramm was talking about the distinction between illumination and inspiration, and I realized this applies to the above question about canonicity.

Let's start with a simpler version, the sort of thing I was thinking when I read Ramm in the bathtub:

When the church learns what the canon of scripture is--what books really are in the Bible--it's not being inspired; it's just being illuminated. If I'm being inspired, I'm doing something infallible. If I'm just being illuminated, I'm not doing anything infallible.

And why is that? Because illumination just means understanding a truth already given. When the truth from G-d was given, that took some infallibility on the part of the humans through whom G-d gave it. But when the rest of us understand that truth, we're just recognizing something infallible that has already been given.

In other words, the church, in recognizing the biblical canon, was not making the biblical canon; it was only recognizing it.

The Inspiration of the Bible Drew the Boundaries of the Bible

So who did make it? G-d, of course. The canon of the Bible was made when G-d gave us the Bible. The inspiration of the Bible is what makes the difference between what's in the Bible and what's not. G-d inspired Paul to write the letter to the Roman Christians, and did not inspire Clement to write this letter, which is a wonderful letter but not part of the Bible.

Look at it this way:

The biblical canon is the collection of books that are actually inspired by G-d. In this particular argument against SS, we must be talking about one of two things: either the making of that collection, or the recognizing of it.

And if we're talking about the making of it, then we are definitely talking about infallibility, but the church in recognizing the biblical canon some time later was not making it. G-d had already made it.

But if we're talking about the recognizing of it, then we don't need any infallibility; G-d already made the collection; all we have to do is come along and see what G-d has done.

The main point is simply this: The church, in recognizing the canon, is not making those books infallible. It couldn't be. They were infallible because they were inspired by G-d; they were infallible ever since they were written, and the church didn't affect the past to make them so. The church, in recognizing the canon, is recognizing what G-d has already done.

To make that canon requires infallibility, but the making of the canon was done when the books of the Bible were written in the first place. To know that the Word of G-d is this book and that book--but not these other books--does not take infallibility.

(In Gordon's terms, I think there is an infallible list of the Bible's table of contents. G-d has it, and we can know it. But the table of contents in the front matter of my hard-copy English Standard Version--that's not infallible.)

But Surely We Must Be Certain That These Are the Right Books!

I think one thought behind the Catholic argument is something like "If it's important to be certain that what the Bible says is true, then it must be just as important to know which books are in the Bible!"

Well, it would be nice to be sure of everything I believe. But why is it so impossible to have 99.9% odds that some book has a 100% chance of being right?

Keep in mind that we're not adding a step when we say "The Bible is inspired by G-d" and then say "The Bible is these books!" My own fallibility is not adding one layer of possible confusion (because I may have labeled the wrong book) on top of a second layer (because I may be confused about some books being infallible in the first place). All I need is the simple step of "These books are inspired by G-d"--one step, and that's enough.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of a fallible knower knowing some truth which is infallible.

The funny thing is that Protestants and Catholics already agree that this happens, in at least two places. In Reformation thinking, it happens in these two places:
--when Christians understand something taught in the Bible,
--and when Christians recognize that these books are infallible.

In Catholic thinking, it actually happens in these three places:
--when Christians understand something taught in the Bible,
--when Christians understand something the Roman Catholic Magisterium teaches them,
--and when Christians understand that the Roman Catholic Magisterium is infallible.

And that brings us to another concern I have with this particular argument against SS.

If We Need an Infallible Church To Tell Us About the Infallible Bible, Who's Telling Us About the Infallible Church?

This particular argument, as I understand it, insists that we must have an infallible teacher to tell us just what books are in the Bible. But if we need a second infallible source to tell us about the first one, why not a third? If we need an infallible Church to tell us that these particular books are infallible, don't we need an infallible source to tell us that the Church is infallible?

But if we don't need it for the Church, why do we need it for the Bible?

Of Course We Learn from the Church!

Of course, the Reformation Christian agrees that we need an infallible source to give us the Bible. That would be G-d.

And, of course, the Reformation Christian agrees that we also have an infallible source helping us know that these books are infallible: That's also G-d.

But when G-d the Holy Spirit helps us know that Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, Isaiah, and John are infallible, He's just doing what He always does: He's helping us understand, based on a combination of His own inward testimony and the objective facts, what is true. That's how He helps us understand the Bible. That's how He helps us know what books are in the Bible.

And for Heaven's sake--of course He uses the testimony of the church, both to help us know what books make up the Bible and to help us know what they say!

Maybe the Holy Spirit could teach me everything there is to know directly, but so what? Why test G-d? He has ordained means by which we know things, and it is my responsibility to use them. That includes the church.

And maybe the objective evidence is sufficient in and of itself to show which books are in the Bible, but, again, so what? Who of us is smart enough and logical enough to figure all that out, and does that lofty intellect have enough time to reinvent the wheel? Pray he writes it down clearly for the rest of us because most mere mortals don't have the time, although I daresay we could do with a review of what others have figured out.

It is often the part of wisdom simply to re-learn what has already been learned.

What Sort of Arguments Are There for Sola Scriptura?

If all the above is correct, then SS easily survives the most formidable objection against it.

That doesn't mean it's true.

Is there some reason to think it's true--some arguments against the Catholic view? Here are a few lines of reasoning I'm at least interested in--which is not to say that I can vouch for them.

There's always the Ockham's Razor argument, which works for me unless something changes in what I know:

I know of no evidence that there's any infallibility between the death of John and the bodily return of Jesus outside the written Bible, so there probably isn't any.

There's also this important argument which interests me:

1. Infallible authority includes the ability to give G-d's people the Word of G-d.

2. After the last of the Apostles died, there is no more ability to give G-d's people the Word of G-d.

3. Therefore, there is no more infallible authority.

The second premise of this argument is the doctrine that the canon of scripture is closed: Since the death of John and until the bodily return of Jesus the Messiah, there is no more verbal revelation from G-d. Nothing controversial here among orthodox Christians!

But the first premise? That's controversial.

The first premise could be concluded inductively from the Bible, where infallible authority turns up again and again in prophets, Jesus, and apostles--but in every case accompanies the ability to give us the Word of G-d.

And then there's the Gotcha! argument pattern:

The teaching of the Magisterium is wrong on justification/Eucharist/Purgatory/whatever.

Therefore, the Magisterium is fallible.

Any little thing would do, just as long as it's something definitely taught by the Roman Magisterium. (It might even be possible to argue that there is something which is definitely wrong but also has been definitely taught in the Magisterium under the current lousy Pope.)

A Gotcha! argument would need an extra argument or two to show that whatever it is really is wrong and taught by the Magisterium. So every Gotcha! argument is a whole diet--make that a whole can--of worms. I'm not sure I want to take all that on. I'm a cautious guy.

But actually I am kind of interested in this relatively obscure argument that the Magisterium got one wrong:

1. When Proverbs 8 is talking about wisdom, it's talking about G-d the Son (Jesus).

2. The Septuagint (ancient Greek) reading of Proverbs 8:22 says that wisdom was created by G-d the Father.

3. G-d the Son was fathered by G-d the Father, not created.

4. Therefore, the Septuagint is wrong.

5. The Catholic Magisterium teaches that the Septuagint is never wrong.

6. Therefore, the Catholic Magisterium got one wrong.

But I'm not entirely sure if all the premises are true.

Another thing I'm not so sure of is how to end this post. I end it here. Let discussion commence.