Whitaker's Circularity Charge

William Whitaker's circularity argument is cited in this post on Beggars All:

Beggars All : The Vicious Circle
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/vicious-circle.html

I am adding spaces to the text to improve the reading of the imagined dialogue. The blogger is citing from William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 334-335.

For I demand, whence it is that we learn that the church cannot err in consigning the canon of scripture?

They answer, that it is governed by the Holy Spirit (for so the council of Trent assumes of itself), and therefore cannot err in its judgments and decrees.

I confess indeed that, if it be always governed by the Holy Spirit so as that, in every question, the Spirit affords it the light of truth, it cannot err. But whence do we know that it is always so governed?

They answer that Christ hath promised this.

Be it so. But where, I pray, hath he promised it?

Readily, and without delay, they produce many sentences of scripture which they are always wont to have in their mouths, such as these: "I will be with you always, even to the end of the world." Matth. xxviii. 20. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I will be in the midst of you." Matth. xviii. 20." I will send to you the Comforter from the Father." John xv. 26. "Who, when he is come, will lead you into all truth." Johnxvi. 13.

I recognise here the most lucid and certain testimonies of scripture. But now from hence it follows not that the authority of scripture depends upon the church; but, contrariwise, that the authority of the church depends on scripture. Surely it is a notable circle in which this argument revolves! They say that they give authority to the scripture and canonical books in respect of us; and yet they confess that all their authority is derived from scripture. For if they rely upon the testimonies and sentences of these books, when they require us to believe in them; then it is plain that these books, which lend them credit, had greater authority in themselves, and were of themselves authentic.

Has it occurred to Whitaker, that the Church can claim authority from the FACT of Christ giving the promise, and this before St. Matthew somewhat later recorded the promise? And that the Church to which St Matthew belonged therefore already had authority to decide His Gospel was canonic?

And, if so, was Whitaker setting up the order of questions in order to be able to make a circularity charge dishonestly?

Has it occurred to Whitaker, and to James Swan citing him, that from this moment on, the cessation of a Church having the right to define as Scripture is a contradiction in terms, whether the claim of continuation be circular or not?

Say, Whitaker actually had a point about circularity - I don't think he had, but I am supposing - then it would follow that both Church and Scripture were uncertain. And thence that Christianity is so itself.

This is why Whitaker's false charge of ciruclarity has resurfaced in another form, the charge of the penny-dime Atheist against the Fundie.

Ever heard this one?

"The Fundie says the Bible is true bc it is the word of God, and then that the Bible is the word of God bc it says so, which presupposes that the Bible is true, which was what needed proof"

It is in fact the Church which takes us out of this circle.

Now, Swan quoted Salsa on what is now a dead link, so I'll quote Salsa via Swan:

John Salza, "Relevant Answers Transcripts," Scripture Catholic.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/rradiotran.html (accessed July 19, 2010).
[dead link]

When Catholics explain that we believe in the Bible on the authority of the Catholic Church, Protestants accuse us of circular reasoning. They say we get this information from the Bible and so the Bible, not the Church, is the final authority. This argument, while clever, is incorrect. The Catholic argument is what we would call spiral, not circular.

First, the Catholic approaches the Scriptures as historical books only, but not inspired. Based on the historical evidence, the Catholic establishes the Scriptures are authentic and accurate documents.

Second, the historically accurate Scriptures reveal that Jesus established an infallible Church based on texts like Matthew 16:18 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] and 1 Timothy 3:15 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] . Third, this infallible Church has determined which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not. Based on the authority of the infallible Church, the Catholic believes in the inspired Scriptures. This is the only logical and rational approach to accepting the inspiration of the Scriptures, and this is John Salza with Relevant Answers.

I'll contradict him on one thing.

"First, the Catholic approaches the Scriptures as historical books only, but not inspired."

Was there ever a time when either the Church or its Jewish predecessor did so to a book now in the Bible?

"Based on the historical evidence, the Catholic establishes the Scriptures are authentic and accurate documents."

The reception of the Catholic Church itself (whether RC or EO, whichever be the right continuation) is the best historic evidence there is.

What is the evidence for Lord of the Rings NOT being a historic document from the III Age of the Middle-Earth also called "Old World" or "Eurasia with Africa" (this being the geography of an imagined past where Tolkien set the novel)?

The evidence is, there is a LOT of reception of it since 1954 and 1955, saying that Tolkien, far from translating a document found in an old Adûnaic tongue which he also discovered, wrote the book to honour a contract with the publisher who had published another book which had started out as a musing on what one could make of "once in a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit", a sentence which came to him like a daydream.

So, we are using tradition of the community of reception as evidence against historicity of Frodo and Sam making it to Mordor.

Therefore, we are right in using tradition of the community of reception as evidence for historicity of Jesus - or Mohammed - or Joseph Smith.

Now, Swan resumes Salza as saying this, in essence:

historically accurate Scriptures --> infallible Magisterium --> inspired Scriptures

Note, it does not follow from historically accurate either Corans or Hadiths that God revealed Himself to Mohammed. When I say the Coran is not from God, I am not in the least saying this in a tit for tat charge of Muslims changing the Coran after it was revealed. It may have been changed or not changed, but I am basically saying it is mostly as MOhammed spoke it Aya for Aya to a community memorising and therefore recording.

Mohammed made no miracles, and there are no "scientific miracles" in the Coran.

And same applies to Joseph Smith - he alone testified to his running with heavy gold plates, he alone testified to seeing them and getting the miraculous power to translate them (H/T Kent Hovind for this info, forgot which video)

It does follow from Christ's historicity that He was more than just a man. Because, miracles.

And it follows from the last words before He was visibly taken up into the Sky, that His Church was more than a club. This is also confirmed, again, because, miracles.

Now, here are Swan's problematisations of this reasoning, each followed by my reply:

i) There's nothing intrinsic to historical cases for the historical accuracy of Scripture that limits such an appeal to Catholics only; Protestants are free to make the same historical case as well.

And the better they make it, the better they see it depends on Tradition of early Church.

Which tradition cannot be seen as at any point disapearing, leaving as real successors of early Church only such communions as claim to be there since Ascension and Pentecost, excluding those claiming to be there since any reformation, unless they simply are new local groups to an already pre-existing and in their time still existing Church.

ii) Apropos, the move from historical accuracy to inspiration is exceptionally short. The difficult components of any external demonstration of inspiration are in establishing the historical accuracy of the New Testament documents. But once that is accomplished, it is a much simpler matter to move from the historical fact of the Resurrection, which establishes Jesus as God, to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, which gives inspiration to the Scriptures. If the Magisterium isn't needed to demonstrate the much harder case of historical accuracy, it's hardly required to demonstrate the much easier case of inspiration.

First, we have the historical facts from the tradition. Of which NT writings are one part.

Second, the historical facts as known outside and inside NT writings are not clear as to whether the Holy Ghost actually inspired ANY book after the OT.

Indeed, inspiration, while sometimes clear from historic facts, remains in itself a factor above history revealed through, but not so to speak in history. Human eyewitnesses may testify to several factors showing a revelation from God, but that it was so is their conclusion, not the exact physical thing they saw. Though sometimes these leave no reasonable room for doubt.

Third, supposing some books were written and recognised as inspired, both the recognition back then and our knowledge of it know, as to these particular books, demands a magisterium.

iii) I don't even know how, in principle, you can divorce historical accuracy from inspiration. A good deal of the data contained in Scripture cannot be both accurate and uninspired, e.g. various prophecies, knowledge impossible to discern in any natural method (what someone or some group was thinking in their hearts at one time or another), what God was doing, thinking or intending, etc. And some data, even if they are knowable through natural methods, carry a certain theological significance that could not be accurately known (as truth) by the authors of Scripture without inspiration.

This is also why there is generally a correlation between denying historical accuracy and denying inspiration. The two go hand-in-hand.

A good deal of the data cannot be both historical and uninspired (unlike, for instance, the claim for Islam or - let's balance a bit - Mormonism, in both cases real miracles are lacking); true.

But we can however have knowledge of historical accuracy before from this principle and from this known accuracy we conclude for inspired.

Also, the historicity of what Pharisees thought in their hearts or what God was doing where no man saw it and a few more is NOT so much part and parcel of "historical case" or "historical part of the case", it is part of the conclusion made by the Magisterium.

Reciting:

And some data, even if they are knowable through natural methods, carry a certain theological significance that could not be accurately known (as truth) by the authors of Scripture without inspiration.

Those data only (and a previously existing prophecy meeting what someone then considers to fulfil it is among these) constitute the "first step" of Salza's spiral.

Mohammed and Jesus both claimed to speak for God, this is a historical datum for both.

Mohammed did not do miracles that are well attested or especially even confirmed from outside his community. This is a historical datum for Mohammed.

Jesus did. This is a historical datum for Jesus.

The Church can based on this argue today that Jesus did speak for God (even when he claimed He was God) and that Mohammed did not speak for God (especially not with that pretense that Jesus had made any disclaimer against being God).

iv) How can Salza establish the Scriptures as authentic and accurate documents if we need the Magisterium to interpret those very documents for us? If the Scriptures are unclear or difficult to understand, as Catholics often assert, this would apply whether or not they were inspired.

• historical part is where there is least leeway
• doctrinal and disciplinary part gives more
• and it is principally here that the Church claims to be needed as interpreter.

v) If we can properly interpret all of the passages required to make a case for the historicity of Scripture (e.g. the Resurrection being supported by 1 Corinthians 15) before we establish the Magisterium as authoritative, why do we need the Magisterium to properly interpret all of Scripture once we learn that it is inspired? If we were competent enough to interpret the Scriptures before we discovered their historical accuracy, we should be competent enough to interpret them afterward.

I think any bloke is competent to interpret without too much difficulty the historic parts of Scripture.

If he didn't know of the transmission through the Church considering them as historical, he might be in doubt as to accuracy, but usually he would be mainly right about the historical sequence of events.

It is the doctrinal part which needs - authority.

Now, both Catholics and Protestants agree (with Josephus, whose Antiquitates and Bellum Judaicum, forgot whcih is most relevant here) are not considered as inspired, that there was a period when Maccabees resisted Antiochus Epiphanes and men enumerated here : "Then Lysias chose Ptolemee the son of Dorymenus, and Nicanor, and Gorgias, mighty men of the king's friends."

Both Catholics and Protestants also agree I and II Maccabees do not claim to be prophetic like Nahum or Isaiah, indeed explicitly states at outset to be written after prophecy ceased.

Both Catholics and Protestants also agree that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and all Oriental Churches except Orthodox Tewahedo of Ethiopia and Erythrea consider I Maccabees and II Maccabees as canonic, while Jews do not include them as to Biblia Hebraica.

And note, the inclusion and exclusion of texts in Jewish canon depends on two factors:

• Priests having the magisterial authority to say what is canon and say for a book it is canon
• Pharisees deciding at Jamnia to accept the list Ezra gave of 22 books (some of which are split in more than one in Christian Bibles).

This means, if Protestants were right to follow the Jewish canon then neither was there a more complete cohenic OT canon after Ezra nor did Churches (local ones) use the authority invested in them to add what additions Church universal much later accepted as valid, but instead mistakes spread all over Christianity and therefore Christianity would be false, as well as OT canon remaining with the Jews.

So, this is not proof for Protestantism, if accepted it is disproof of Christianity and if not, either there was a real authority of Churches or there had been BC a real addition from a cohen after Ezra. Even if Pharisees did not accept it.

vi) His appeal to Matthew 16:18 ... and 1 Timothy 3:15 ... is dubious (see here for a short, but devastating critique of appealing to 1 Timothy 3:15 ... ; the comments section also contains links to discussions of Matthew 16:18 ...

And "here" is:

Triablogue : "The church, the pillar & foundation of truth"
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/church-pillar-foundation-of-truth.html

One of the prooftexts for Catholicism is 1 Tim 3:15. Unfortunately for Catholics, this verse isn’t referring to the church of Rome. In context, it’s referring to the church of Ephesus (cf. 1:3).

This would have been the case if St Paul had spoken of "your Church", but when he said "the Church" it refers to the universal Church. Not to one local Church, but to all that remain in the unity of faith and charity.

Note, Trent was not deciding as per local bishop of Trent as delegate of local bishop of Rome, Trent was deciding as per local bishops from everywhere (everywhere in communion with Rome) gathering in a place where they could debate, and then all local bishops settling this together.

If you ask the bishop of Ephesus - the last known one in Greek hierarchy came from Turkey to Greece and became bishop of Athens till he retired, he died in 1968 when I was born, I named Chrysostomos II of Athens, it undoubtedly does not mean the local Church of Ephesus, but the Universal Church, with all local Churches.

There is a kind of parallel Latin hierarchy, where a Catholic bishop not so of a see of his own will be named bishop of a place in the hands of "Greeks" or "Turks" and the last one so named for Ephesus, whoever that was, or is, would also say the same.

They would have disagreed on whether the real universal Church in 1922 was the one which was in communion with Rome or the one which had been separate from Rome since 1053. But they would have agreed, St Paul meant the Universal Church and they would have agreed it exercised a continued magisterium that remained infallible in post-Apostolic times.

Now, the point made on Triablogue is a perfect example of someone being competent enough about the history recorded in NT and incompetent of what a certain rule (or phrase close to constituting a rule or alluding to a rule) meant.

This was foreseen, II Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Note, it is neither said here, nor defined in any Catholic Church document, that all of Scripture is so hard to understand that the magisterium is needed on that account. We don't pretend Flood could have occurred in AD years or Christ have lived close to the time of Moses. This is really not hard to understand with even some little attention.

But it is said that the Scriptures can be twisted and therefore we conclude they need an interpreter with authority, to denounce and condemn the false interpretations. Which Matthew 28:20 identifies as existing to the end of the world, not just during redaction of NT books.

Now, I missed the point that Triablogue had tried to establish his twisting by referring to I Tim 1:3 as "context".

Here is the verse:

As I desired thee to remain at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some not to teach otherwise,

So, this means (thinks Triablogue) that I Tim 3:15 refers to Church of Ephesus only? Here is the verse itself:

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Obviously, while the Church of God in which St Timothy was conducting himself was concretely the Church of Ephesus, the knowledge of how to do it is applicable anywhere.

Also, while St Paul left the local Church of Ephesus, when he went to Macedonia, he remained in the Church universal when going there. How could he otherwise have been remaining a teacher on how to conduct oneself in the household of God?

3 So even if the circularity is avoided by this argument, the Scriptures still do not establish an infallible, authoritative Catholic Magisterium.

Whether local or universal, Roman or Constantinopolitan, if Christianity is at all true, in some version of "Catholic Magisterium" they do so establish it.

In fact, Swan actually missed out on Whitaker admitting that on the Catholic quotes he analysed, Catholics are more saying "Scriptures establish the Magisterium" than "Magisterium establishes Scripture". Fine, even so, Scriptures are saying Church interprets and therefore in that sense establishes Scriptures.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
All Souls' Day
2.XI.2018