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.