Fallible Books: Interaction with The Janitor

I’m not familiar with what you’re referring to here. Could you explain what you have in mind and why this is “important to note”?

It is important to note because I was always given the impression Catholics were the biblical version of a redheaded stepchild, when in fact it is the Protestants.

It is also relevant because it points to the context of Trent. Trent was directly called to deal with the novel Reformation tenants — part of which being dismissal of the deuterocanonicals as doctrinally useful, not to mention Luther’s public distaste for a few New Testament documents as well. So, when it was called cannot be teased away from why it was called, just like when Nicea was called cannot be teased away from why it was called. Similarly, Nicea was called to deal with the aberrant teaching of Arius. Though Christ’s divinity, an absolutely central orthodox doctrine, was not clearly defined until a whopping 300 years after his earthly life, the historical and theological context makes sense of such a “late” doctrinal definition. A non-Christian may retort, “See… Christians didn’t even think Jesus was divine until the fourth century. How can you trust Nicea since it is so far removed from the historical life of Jesus?” We know that is an absurd way to see Nicea. Same goes for Trent’s seemingly “late” definition.

Basically… noting context.

You don’t explain why that fact would not make it startling... It looks like you’re saying that because Catholics have “Sacred Tradition” that, therefore, it’s not startling for them to not have an infallible canon. But why?

If automobiles alone were the only allowable way to get from from point A to point B, ever, then it would be quite startling to discover needing to get from point A to point B while not having, and never able to have, an automobile. If such an odd restriction wasn’t arbitrarily assumed a priori, then, clearly seeing people were getting from point A to point B in the past, one wouldn’t be startled, as travel is still possible without an automobile (e.g., walking, being carried, etc.). Having an automobile just makes the trek more efficient.

Infallibly? And where can I find this list of infallible teachings stretching back to the foundation? For instance, the bodily assumption of Mary?

Yes… if. If Jesus was and is infallible, which is where I make my major fallible move, then what he proclaims is infallible. We have a document handed down to us from the first century claiming to have the essence of his Word. In this document, the man who was later resurrected and affirmed by God — a conclusion I have fallibly come to based on personal study and experience — founded a real Church on a real person and gave him a real promise — another conclusion I have fallibly come to based on personal study. So, I fallibly sink into this person I trust is infallible, Christ, and accept the authority he provided with an infallible promise attached. His infallible promise isn’t some abstraction either. His promise is concretely visible today. I can point it out. More reason to suppose Jesus was who he strangely claimed to be.

If you’re curious about the biblical and historical basis for Marian doctrines, this book may be of interest to you: Behold Your Mother … Like a new Reformed fella may not be able to weave the landmines of Calvin’s biblical and theological schemas, I do not think I am at the point to deeply engage and defend the immaculate conception or bodily assumption of Mary. Hopefully soon. I keep meaning to purchase that book, but work, school and other topics of interest have caused it to be pushed back.

I’m finding your language a bit hard to follow. “Liturgical context”? Could you state you point more simply please?

I’m referring to the context of religious worship playing a major historical role in shaping the New Testament itself. Here are two short videos which will do better than I can in a brief reply:

This is claiming that Catholicism has prima facie plausibility over Protestantism, correct?

Yes. I think Catholicism has more historical and philosophical prima facie plausibility than Protestantism. Evidence can overcome any prima facie probability of course, but Protestantism has more persuasive “catch up” work to do when attempting to prove its case.

I could baptize my own opinions as infallible axioms. What advantage does that give me?

Do you really think your own personal systematic theology or dogmas are a contextually viable apples to apples comparison? I am not sure why I should think that is a good comparison.

I’ll happily divulge an assumption of mine which flows from Christ’s promise to Peter, the resurrection, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I assume we, as Christians, would be able to do better than opinions. Of course, that means God would have to provide some way to transcend mere subjective opinion.

To be honest, I’m fairly convinced the sola scriptura position ironically locks adherents in such “ my own opinions as infallible axioms” dilemma. I don’t have time here to develop the argument, but consider this Modus Ponens:

P1: If all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture (P), then either one’s interpretation of Scripture is the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice, or Scripture itself cannot be the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice (QvR).
P2: P
C: QvR

That is the ultimate twist of fate for sola scriptura if P1 is true, and the case is quite strong.

It seems like you’re confusing an objective state (fallibility or infallibility) with a subjective state (being sure or unsure). My understanding of what books belong to the canon is fallible. Yours is too, right? If I’m more sure of my understanding than you are of yours… so what? …Suppose Jones and Smith disagree about whether Napoleon spit in a puddle on a certain day. Given the evidence, there is a 50/50 chance for both, then are you suggesting that Jones can get the upper-hand on Smith by claiming infallibility?

I don’t think I am. I think you have forgotten the distinction between external and internal. Both traditions, Catholic and Protestant, have extra-biblical theological prescriptions one must affirm (externally fallible affirmation) to proceed forward. Think of these prescriptions as different math axioms. Are we infallibly sure 2+2=4? Yes, internally. Why? Because the axiom provides the internal means to clearly define terms and logical relationships as necessary. 2+2 cannot equal anything other than 4, but only because the axiom can dogmatically specify what each symbol means. The Catholic axiom is analogous to this situation.

Affirming the Protestant axiom is just the opposite. Once one has made the fallible move into the axiom, there exists no means to clearly and definitively define terms and logical relationships so as to provide internally infallible results. Why? Because the system allows each individual equal authority to define terms and relationships as they see fit, causing internal contradictions, and thereby creating a situation where 2+2 may equal 4, or 2 may be a defined term, or a 6 may be a 9.

Translate those contradictory numbers into theological propositions and one has a good working concept of the internal logic of Protestant epistemology. If an axiom, or prescriptive theology, is attempting to correspond with what is actually true, internal contradictions are a massive point against its plausibility as a potential explanatory framework.

If my apprehension of the external evidence for truth correspondence was 50/50, which internal system to choose is a relatively simple dilemma. A fallible decision, to be sure, but a more epistemically reasonable option than the alternative.

At best, in most cases this will only tell us what the passage does not mean.

The result is still that you’re left with an allegedly infallible canon that hasn’t been infallibly interpreted. And you don’t have infallible access to anything allegedly infallible.

Well, the Bible is a big book which makes all sorts of assertions. If one holds the canon to be internally consistent (another prescriptive assumption both Catholics and Protestants share), then it seems to me what a passage doesn’t mean, in conjunction with Church dogma, can extract functionally infallible interpretations from a bevy of texts.

Take the Shema as an example. Church dogma, not the Bible, says God is trinitarian unity, not unitarian unity. So, we know infallibly — again in the internal sense — the passage in Deuteronomy 6 does not mean to say God is unitarian unity. The Father is clearly defined as the first person of the Trinity, so anytime the Father is referred to in Scripture, we can be sure each text is referring to God. Since Jesus is clearly defined as the second person of the Trinity, we can be sure the prologue of John, for example, is referring to God. And the Holy Spirit is clearly defined as the third person of the Trinity, so the same rule applies. We can now apply these “truths” to Deuteronomy 6 and extract positive information implicitly.

P1. Deuteronomy 6 refers to God and does not mean God’s unity is non-trinitarian.
P2. God is the single divine being which consists of three co-equal persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

So, if (P1 • P2) → C.

C. Therefore, Deuteronomy 6 refers to the single divine being which consists of three co-equal persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

I see no reason to think 100% of Sacred Scripture need to be infallibly interpreted to make the existence of an infallible canon useful. Point is, the means exist and can be used when necessary, explicitly or implicitly. In the end, one is still better than none.

How does having fallible access to an infallible source fix things for you? If you’re really striving for certainty regarding an eternally vital divine message, why not just take it as an axiom that your theological beliefs are infallible?

I believe I answered this in the “opinion” section above.

P.S. I’m not trying to “help” the Protestant position since I don’t see that it needs any help :)

It definitely needs help, from what I see. ;)