Some Clarifications on an Argument Against the Bible Being a Fallible Collection of Infallible Books

In previous posts (HERE and HERE), I formulated the following argument against the Bible being a fallible collection of infallible books:

1. If a collection of books is fallible, then it can be the case that something that one of the books in the collection teaches is wrong (since at least one of the books could be fallible).
2. If a collection of books is a collection of infallible books, then all of the books in the collection are infallible.
3. If a book is infallible, then it cannot be the case that something it teaches is wrong.
4. Therefore, if a collection of books is a collection of infallible books, then all of the books in the collection are such that it cannot be the case that something that one of the books in the collection teaches is wrong (2, 3).
5. Therefore, if a collection of books is a collection of infallible books, then it is not the case that the collection of books is fallible (1, 4).
6. Assume for reductio that Sacred Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books.
7. Then, Sacred Scripture is not a fallible collection of infallible books (5, 6).
8. Contradiction (6, 7). Therefore, Sacred Scripture is not a fallible collection of infallible books.

After recently receiving some friendly pushback on this argument in the form of private correspondence, I would like to clarify some of the fundamental principles and assumptions at play in the argument which were left implicit in previous presentations.

Presuppositional Apologetics: Reformed vs. Catholic Approaches

The cultural moment we now find ourselves in demands, possibly more than any other time in history, a potent and spirited renewal of apologetics in the Catholic Church — Matthew Nelson

Apologists may soon find themselves in a situation where much of the culture lacks even the bare minimum of common ground necessary for rational engagement — Edward Feser

Apologetics already acknowledges the truth of revelation, for one only defends what one thinks is certain — Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange

For how does one know that the thoughts that come to us in dreams are any more false than the others, given that they are often no less vivid and explicit? And even if the best minds study this as much as they please, I do not believe they can give any reason sufficient to remove this doubt, unless they presuppose the existence of God — René Descartes

The only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything — Cornelius Van Til

Presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism — William Lane Craig

Sola Scriptura, the Canon Problem, and Reformed Epistemology

In a previous post (HERE), I laid out an argument against the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura as follows:

1. Either the canon of Sacred Scripture is known infallibly, or it is not.
2. If the canon of Sacred Scripture is not known infallibly, then Sacred Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books.
3. A fallible collection of infallible books is incoherent.
4. Therefore, Sacred Scripture is not a fallible collection of infallible books (3).
5. Therefore, the canon of Sacred Scripture is known infallibly (2, 4).
6. Either the canon of Sacred Scripture is known by Sacred Scripture itself or by Tradition.
7. The canon of Sacred Scripture is not known by Sacred Scripture itself.
8. Therefore, the canon of Sacred Scripture is known by Tradition (6, 7).
9. If the canon of Sacred Scripture is known infallibly and is known by Tradition, then there is an infallible Tradition (pertaining to the Christian faith) outside of Sacred Scripture.
10. Therefore, there is an infallible Tradition outside of Sacred Scripture (5, 8, 9).
11. If there is an infallible Tradition outside of Sacred Scripture, then sola Scriptura is false.
12. Therefore, sola Scriptura is false (10, 11).

Some Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura is the Protestant doctrine that holds that Sacred Scripture, i.e., the Bible, is the sole infallible theological authority for Christians. Consequently, a Christian is not bound to assent to a doctrine that is not deducible from Sacred Scripture alone. According to Lutheran theology, for instance:

[T]he Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine...to which everything should be subjected (Formula of Concord, "Comprehensive Summary, Foundation, Rule and Norm", par. 10).

Similarly, according to traditional Reformed theology (as expressed in the Westminster Confession):

The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture (Westminster Confession I.X).

Thus, Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church are not infallible, and the Church is consequently not capable of giving an infallible interpretation of Scripture. Rather, as the Westminster Confession declares:

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (ibid., I.IX).

What follows are a few arguments against the doctrine of sola Scriptura.