John Ahern writes,

I remember, once, watching a “Journey Home” episode that some Catholic friends of ours gave us, where Marcus Grodi, in a moment of tangential, theological exuberance, explained what has often been described as the three-legged stool of Catholic infallibility – Scripture, the Holy See, and Church tradition. I’m not going to pick on that from a specifically Scriptural standpoint right here, in the sense that I won’t be providing verses and the exegesis of smart men, but a more philosophical and indirectly Scriptural argument about the messy places this position is inevitably going to get you in. Church tradition won’t be my concentration, either, as much as the inevitable tension between an infallible Bible and an infallible Church, especially as the two relate to the issue of the canon. Pushed far enough, the issue of Who Made the Canon turns out, I argue, to be a point in Protestants’ favor and puts the Catholics in the uncomfortable position of having to deal with circular reasoning (of the wrong kind).

Most of the time, the issue of the canon is one that Protestants shy away from. It makes them squirm when they can even anticipate the question “Who made the canon?” even if, as is becoming frequently more common, they have a ready answer like, “Nobody made the canon – the wording of the council is recipimus, we receive,” or something like that. But they still don’t like the general issue – it’s an uncomfortable piece of evidence that, interpreted slightly differently, could subvert the entire theory. But Protestants need to start using the philosophy of one of their greatest theologians, Cornelius Van Til, and need to ask, “Where would it lead me if I did believe the Church made the canon?”

Essentially, my argument is this – if I was presented with the various evidences that the Church made the canon of Scripture, and I decided I was in a particularly presuppositionalist mood, I would ask my Catholic friend (as, I suppose, I’m indirectly doing to our Catholic PANers now) where they knew that the Church was infallible, what proof that had, upon what authority they based this assumption. I’m assuming my Catholic friend would give me a similar answer to the one the Catholic encyclopedia gives – Matthew 16:18, I Timothy 3:14-15, etc. I’m happy that they’re citing Scripture verses. That’s what they should be doing. But, unfortunately for them, it puts them in a sticky position, because my next question, quite naturally, is “How do you know Matthew and Timothy are infallible?” Because the infallible Church said so?

Of course, I have no problem with arguing in a circle. At some point, you have to do it about your most underlying position. At some point, your epistemology will be self-authenticating. For an empiricist, it’s some method of gaining empirical evidence, a method which, interestingly, can’t be empirically proven. For most people, it’s an inconsistent slew of things, from evolution to experience to entertainment. I believe it because I heard it on the news. My sense of morality comes from intuitions I gained for self-survival when I was an ape. I believe it because I felt it. Or my Mom felt it. Or my friend felt it. How you know what you know, at some point, has to stop trying to verify itself. You’re going to have to believe something because it is, not because it’s supported by anything else. Obviously, what you heard on the news is not going to get you far. Intuition may get you farther. But it’s important to understand that it’s impossible not to have a faith-based position.

What is the presupposition for a Christian? Obvious. The Bible. If a non-believer asks you, “How do you know Christ rose from the dead?”, your answer is “Because God said so in the Bible.” Their response is, “How do you know the Bible is true?” Your response is “Because God said so in the Bible.” Many will think this is unreasonable. But, if it’s unreasonable, how do you know that Reason is reasonable? If I was to ask a rationalist skeptic this question, what would he do? He’d give me a reason. He’d be flipping open his Bible. There’s no difference.

How does this apply to the Catholics’ sticky circular mess? Does it exempt them from having to deal with their circular argument? No, it doesn’t. The problem with authenticating the Church’s infallibility by Scripture’s, and Scripture’s infallibility by the Church’s, is that you have two presuppositions. And that doesn’t work. A simple thought experiment could reduce the position to absurdity – which was infallible first, the Church or Scripture? It’s like answering the age-old question, “Who made God?” with “This other guy made him.” “Who made that guy?” “God did.” Ehh.

Now, I’m not parading this as a philosophical proof of sola Scriptura – that Scripture alone is infallible. Two (or three) things can simultaneously be infallible. If that was the problem, I couldn’t believe the book of Isaiah and the book of II Timothy were simultaneously the inspired word of God. Rather, the objection comes when Catholics introduce the issue of the canon of Scripture. You can’t validate your presupposition by another presupposition – it would destroy the point of having one in the first place.

These thoughts are not, I’ll bet, being for the first time broad-casted in this way across the theological airwaves, but I look forward to a dialectic on the topic in the comments section.