Taylor D Barrett stated:
A recent debate between Trent Horn and Gavin Ortlund has once again demonstrated that my fellow Catholics continue to fail to realize why epistemic arguments against Sola Scriptura fail and are guilty of the Tu Quoque deficiency.
Let me be clear: there is a good argument against Sola Scriptura. It is the fact of Jesus giving the Church infallible authority. But this is the only argument against Sola Scriptura. The entire debate surrounding Sola Scriptura has absolutely nothing to do with epistemics, the Canon, divisions among Christians, Patristic testimony, whether Scripture is sufficient, whether Scripture is unique, etc. It is solely and entirely about one thing and one thing only: whether Christ gave the Church infallibility.
That being said, let’s move on to this oft-repeated Catholic argument that Sola Scriptura is intrinsically untenable due to epistemic problems.
The argument takes many forms.
(1) You cannot know what books are Scripture unless the Church tells you, therefore Scripture alone cannot be infallible.
(2) You cannot know what Scripture means unless the Church tells you, therefore Scripture alone cannot be infallible.
(3) It is a fact of history that Christians disagreed about the Canon and needed a Church council to issue a proclamation on the issue, therefore Scripture alone cannot be infallible.
(4) Protestants disagree about what Scripture means, therefore you need an infallible interpreter in addition to the infallible Scriptures.
(5) Without an infallible interpreter you merely have you own fallible opinions and every man is their own Pope.
(6) Without an infallible Canon one cannot take the Scriptures to be infallible because any given passage could be wrongly assumed as part of the Canon but not actually be.
Etc etc
These supposed epistemic problems with Sola Scriptura, and other variants of this same epistemic line of argument, are constantly marshalled by Catholics like Trent Horn – Catholic Apologist et al as proof that Sola Scriptura is untenable and that there is a logical and epistemic necessity for the Church to possess infallibility. At the very least, it’s a scare tactic to rile Protestants up and make them think they are depending on fallible human opinions rather than the word of God.
In reality, all of these arguments backfire on the Catholic position when it is held to the same scrutiny. For example,
(1) You cannot know that the Church is infallible unless you have something outside the Church to tell you it is.
(2) You cannot know what Church teaching means unless you have an infallible interpreter of Church teaching.
(3) It is a fact of history that Christians have disagrees amongst themselves about which Church is the true Church, therefore we need something outside the Church to determine for us which of the competing groups (Catholics vs. Orthodox, for example) is the correct group.
(4) Catholics disagree amongst themselves about what Catholic teaching means, therefore you need an infallible interpreter outside of the Church to interpret the Church.
(5) Without an infallible interpretation of Church teaching, you merely have your own fallible opinions about what the Church teaches, and every Catholic is their own Pope.
(6) Without an infallible list of which teachings are infallible, you cannot take any Church teaching to get infallible, since it may be wrongly assumed to be part of infallible teaching but not actually be so. And if you have a Church declaration on which teachings are infallible, you may still be guilty of inaccurately understanding the clarification, ad infinitum, such that no matter how many infallible clarifications are offered, you are never in the position of not being a fallible human interpreter of infallible teaching. Which leaves you ultimately in the same exact position as the Protestant.
Footnotes…
-It is not true that we cannot know what books are Scripture unless the Church infallibly tells us. This is easily proved by reference to the OT period when the Jewish people knew which books were Scripture although they didn’t have a Church infallibly telling them which were. In fact every supposed problem with Sola Scriptura can be refuted by reference to the OT period when Scripture alone was infallible and the people of God did not possess an infallible Church Magisterium. Except of course the problem related to Christ giving the Church such an authority.
-Disagreement among Christians about the Canon, the meaning of Scriptures, etc, are irrelevant, especially since Catholics disagree about which teachings are infallible, what teachings mean, etc. But the extent of such disagreements are exaggerated, among both Protestants and Catholics there has been widespread agreement about the essentials of the faith, prior to and without any Councils.
Taylor is a Catholic, but it isn’t hard to see the flaw in the low-level Catholic apologetics. Many Catholics think they have a slam dunk argument but in reality, are grasping an illusion.
The Council 