From Inerrant Canon to Infallible Church - Suan Sonna
Feb 7, 2025
auto_awesome
Suan Sonna engages in a spirited debate on the authority of biblical canon and the infallibility of the Church. He critiques Gavin Ortlund's views, arguing against a fallible list of infallible texts. The discussion delves into early Christian writings, the complexities of canon formation, and the contrasting views of different denominations. Sonna emphasizes the relationship between scriptural authority and church teaching, while challenging the validity of consensus in determining biblical texts. It's a thought-provoking exploration of faith, history, and theological responsibility.
Suan Sonna argues that the church's role in discerning the canon is crucial for establishing the infallibility of Scripture.
The podcast critiques the Protestant reliance on consensus for canon determination, highlighting its inherent instability and inconsistency.
Historical reconstructions are essential, as the speaker contends that significant top-down influences shaped canon acceptance post-Council of Nicaea.
The discussion reveals the necessity of divine assurance to confidently assert the infallibility of the concrete canon against human reasoning.
Deep dives
Introduction to the Canon Debate
The speaker introduces a discussion focusing primarily on Gavin Ortlund's video titled 'A Fallible List of Infallible Books' and the consequent objections raised by the Protestant tradition concerning the infallibility of the canon. In this context, it is emphasized that the church's role in discerning the canon is pivotal, even as Ortlund argues that the church does not need to be infallible in this process. The speaker outlines their response by categorizing the discussion into three sections: philosophical arguments, historical reconstructions, and Protestant objections with their inconsistencies. This structure aims to clarify the essence of the debate surrounding the infallibility of scripture and the church's authority in determining the canon.
Philosophical Argument on Infallibility
The speaker agrees with Ortlund's assertion that one does not need to be infallible to recognize something as infallible, highlighting the distinction between the church's infallibility and the authority of Scripture. They point out that Ortlund correctly identifies the necessity of a witness for the canon, as the Bible lacks an intrinsic table of contents, underscoring the church's historical role in affirming canonical books. However, the speaker argues that if recognizing the canon relies on a fallible mechanism, it raises concerns about whether the concrete canon aligns with the ideal platonic canon, existing solely in the divine intellect. The validity of the argument hinges on the church's ability to provide assurance of the concrete canon's accuracy, demanding a mechanism that must itself be infallible.
Historical Reconstruction of the Canon
The speaker critiques Ortlund's historical argument by distinguishing between canon formation and verification. They emphasize that while communities can form canons, the critical question revolves around the authenticity and correctness of those canons. Ortlund is noted to emphasize a bottom-up process of canon formation, but the speaker counters that there were significant top-down influences, particularly after the Council of Nicaea, which established a basis for church-wide acceptance of certain texts. Additionally, they reference Josephus' canon list and argue that it does not represent a unanimous view among Jews and that reliance on it is problematic since it potentially ignores the plurality of Jewish thought regarding scriptural texts.
Protestant Inconsistencies in Canon Defense
The speaker identifies inconsistencies within Protestant responses to the canon debate, focusing on the reliance on human reason versus the supposed authority of consensus. They argue that Protestant claims often fluctuate between asserting that consensus clearly defines the canon and acknowledging the lack of certainty inherent in this methodology. For instance, the speaker suggests that when faced with conflicts between different traditions, such as Jerome's opinion against the broader Catholic view, a selective approach is taken to align with personal or denominational beliefs. Ultimately, they assert that this leads to an arbitrary engagement with historical sources, undermining the reliability of Protestant canon assertions.
Challenges of Consensus as Authority
The speaker discusses the limitations of consensus as an authoritative basis for determining the canon, stressing that a consensus must still be underpinned by solid reasons. If any aspect of consensus is challenged scripturally or historically, such as the inclusion of certain texts, then the confidence in that consensus becomes tenuous. They contend that, unlike the Catholic Church, which has a well-defined mechanism for discerning and affirming canon, Protestant denominations often lack a unified approach, relying instead on a shifting rationale for what books are considered canonical. This discrepancy raises questions about the legitimacy and stability of the Protestant canon, prompting a reconsideration of the grounds upon which it is founded.
The Disclosure Problem Revisited
The speaker identifies the 'disclosure problem' as central to the canon debate, arguing that without infallible revelation, human reasoning cannot adequately determine which books are divinely inspired. They critique Ortlund's assertion that a fallible mechanism could lead to an infallible conclusion regarding the canon, reiterating that this contention lacks the necessary divine assurance. The challenge is articulated through the analogy of legal precedents, which can be established until circumstances lead to questioning those very bases, emphasizing that ultimately, divine providence and revelation are needed to ensure that canon aligns with divine intention. Without such assurances, the position becomes precarious and vulnerable to challenge.
Concluding Thoughts on Canon Validity
The speaker synthesizes their arguments by reinforcing the idea that a fallible list of infallible books is a misguided approach to discerning the canon. They contend that the only means to confidently assert the inerrancy of the concrete canon is to posit that the church has been infallibly guided by divine providence throughout its history. The speaker emphasizes the necessity for a robust theological framework that can account for not only the formation but also the actual verification of canonical texts, something that they argue is inherently built into the Catholic system. In contrast, they suggest that the Protestant position remains adrift amid disputes about the canon, calling for a reconsideration of where one securely grounds their faith.
Suan Sonna argues against Gavin Ortlund that not only is "a fallible list of infallible books" a disaster but that a case can be made from the canon to the infallibility of the Church on at least one occassion.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
