| Not unlike many of my other
promises, I have been quite slack in making good on my vow to finish this
series on Van Til and his belief that presuppositionalism was philosophically
and theologically at enmity with Catholicism. Thus far we have seen that he was
wrong on a number of counts. In some areas he appears to be ignorant, in others
disingenuous. In any case, my final contribution to this matter concerns
authority, and I will be particularly dealing with his contention that Sola
Scriptura is an essential component of presuppositionalism.
In Defense of the Faith,
Van Til states:
“Rome
knows of no absolute authority such as Protestantism has in its doctrine of
Scripture.”
This doctrine he is speaking of
would, of course, be none other than Sola Scriptura.
In Christian Apologetics
he says much the same:
“Rome
simply has not the materials with which to build a really Christian concept of
authority. A truly Christian concept of authority presupposes that in all he
does man is face to face with the requirements of God.”
While I have other entries
dealing with the general concept of authority, God’s determinative will, and
His control over the affairs of man, I will confine myself to the passages
pertaining to his steadfast contention that Sola Scriptura is a necessary
precondition for the presuppositional method, as it alone can provide for a
truly Christian concept of authority.
The novel doctrine of Sola
Scriptura, born at the time of the Protestant Revolution, has shown itself to
be riddled with problems, all of which have serious ramifications on the
Protestant (if I may speak of them as a single body) notion of authority. Listing
them off would do us well.
1. The canon. On the one
hand, Protestant scholars cannot declare with any force that the canon is
infallible. In fact, in the book entitled Sola Scriptura! The Protestant
Position on the Bible, a collection of essays from notables such as R.C.
Sproul, James White, John Armstrong, Sinclair Ferguson, and Joel Beeke, the
concession was made that the canon was fallible! Yet on the other hand they
wish to say that this admittedly fallible collection of no more and no less
than the 66 books is the ultimate authority for all faith and practice, and
that it is absolutely unacceptable for anyone to question it, much less add or
subtract from it. That is, in essence, paramount to saying that one cannot cross
a boundary marker that may or may not be wrongfully drawn up.
Consequently, the Protestant is
unable to explain how his or her view of the canon is in any way binding on the
conscience of another. A good friend recently reminded me of a remark I used to
make in regards to this dilemma. I would say that Protestants are fallible men
fallibly interpreting a fallible collection of what they hope and pray are
infallible books. This is true to a fault.
At issue here is whether or not a
Protestant can impose the canon of 66 upon the conscience of another. They
admit that it is a fallible collection, their having already ripped out a
number of books from its binding seems indicative of the idea that men have
within themselves the ability and right to disregard those books they believe
to be short of inspired or contradictory to their understanding of various
doctrines. But as with many other things, Luther and Co.
were able to invoke privileges no other Protestant has been permitted to invoke
ever since. Any attempt at such insubordination is reason for expulsion.
2. The MSS. When dealing with
manuscripts, searching for the most ancient and reliable, one cannot but laugh
at the irony. While Protestants may love to lambast Catholics for hatred of the
Scripture, and most of them believe it abandoned the faith a few hundred years
after the death of St. John (and I am being generous here), the MSS they rely
upon were written, by and large, during the period where apostasy ran rampant.
On what grounds does the Protestant believe that the priests, monks, and
hermits handling the transmission of the texts didn’t tamper with them? Protestants
are forced to rely on the honest scholarship of “Bible hating, Pope honoring,
Mary adoring” apostates.
3. Interpretation. Aside from the
canon and the manuscripts, interpretation causes a serious problem for both the
Protestant and the presuppositionalist. While their may generally recognize the
authority of Scripture Alone, they lack any internal mechanism by which to
interpret its contents in any universally binding fashion. They may, and do,
come to what they believe are accurate conclusions. They believe they are
staying true to the intent of the author. They would, by necessity, believe
what they believe to be not only true, but the main or only way any given issue
can or should be believed. The problem is that every Protestant with a
differing view on any given matter believes the same thing. While these would be
too numerous to count, their being as numerous as the sands of the sea, a
simple look in a Church directory would give us a sound indicator as to how far
the ecclesiological pluralism and hermeneutical relativism has spread. Suffice
it to say that such a query is disheartening even for the most starry-eyed
ecumenist.
4. Will the real Sola Scriptura
please stand up? There has been much debate over the years as to what exactly
Sola Scriptura is, what role (if any) the ecclesial body plays, the role of
catechisms and creeds, etc. We have also seen the advent of the term Solo
Scriptura to distinguish one school of thought from another. Either way,
confusion runs wild. Some go as far as to deny that they have ever properly understood Sola Scriptura, and only recently are they beginning to really grasp the true meaning of this doctrine. Worse yet, one is at a loss as to how, once Sola Scriptura is given a satisfactory definition, any Protestant will then declare his understanding to be the one and only (or even best) understanding over against rival positions. For to treat Protestantism as a single entity would be absurd.
Let us return again to the issue
of whether or not Sola Scriptura is an essential component of
presuppositionalism. Let us also ignore but for a moment the difficulties posed
by the above reflections. For the sake of the argument, let us concede that
this is what they believe and that they shall not budge. Now let’s play the
part of the devil’s advocate.
The Protestant
presuppositionalist presses the atheist against the intellectual ropes. He asks
time and again whether or not the atheist can account for X, Y, or Z from their
espoused worldview. They prove effectually that the atheist cannot. Then what?
They insist that the Christian worldview and it alone can account for X, Y, and
Z. The atheist could, and should, ask on what authority that Protestant’s take
on “the Christian worldview” in binding. The reason being that “the Christian
worldview” as defined by the Protestant presuppositionalist is derived, by and
large, from his interpretation of the Scripture. As such, it faces the
difficulties mentioned above. In the end, the Protestant presuppositionalist is
forced to say that it is his understanding of the Christian worldview is based
upon a fallible man’s fallible interpretation of an admittedly fallible
collection of what he hopes and prays are infallible books.
The burning question is whether or not the Catholic is in the same leaky boat. I dare to answer in the negative. Catholicism has within itself the means by which to resolve these difficulties. Thanks to our position on the infallibility of the Church, we can rest assured that the canon is as infallible as the text is inerrant. Our knowledge of how meticulous the priests, monks, and hermits were in translation and transmitting the manuscripts, coupled with our belief in the divine providence of God, leads us to trust in the integrity of the documents. And our dogmatic appeals court along with the doctrine of the Church's infallibility provides us with a knowledge of what can authoritatively and universally be said to be the Christian worldview. In short, Catholicism, not Protestantism, has the preconditions necessary for answering the every powerful "By what standard?"
In conclusion, Van Til was wrong. He was wrong on many counts. His understanding of the Catholic faith was shoddy, and the scholarship in his printed material is evidence of this. But worst of all is that he had a mistaken understanding of the very school of apologetic thought he is espoused to have championed. His not being able to see the achilles heel of Sola Scriptura and the way that doctrine would (and does) paralyze his entire method is remarkable.
Do I believe that presuppositionalists will buy my arguments hook, line, and sinker? No, not at all. In fact, I readily accept that many of them have chosen, for one reason or another, to ignore this matter altogether. But it is my prayer that some of them will see that, as Sarah Hodges righfully pointed out, presuppositionalism finds its home in the Holy Catholic Church, and that outside of her walls the method is unable to account for the necessary preconditions of its own utility.
|
