Well, folks,
it looks like we Protestants, who love having Bible discussions, cannot
possibly win any kind of debate or have any kind of meaningful discussion with
Catholics, simply because we don’t know the canon (official list of books) of
Scripture. Because knowing the canon is
a “must” for all believers, right? If we
happen to use the wrong books, we could possibly be in danger and end up
believing false doctrine! Too bad no
Protestant can really know the canon, though, since (according to Catholics) we
don’t have the certainty on the canon
that they enjoy. Apparently, God just
doesn’t allow “sufficient certainty” for anyone on the canon.
What we need
is what all Catholics have on the canon – INFALLIBLE certainty! You see, they have an infallible Church that
has infallibly declared the full
canon for them. According to the
following Catholic source:
“Only the
Church, the infallible bearer of tradition, can furnish us invincible certainty
as to the number of the
Divinely inspired books of both the Old and the New Testament.” (Online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under
“Scripture”)
Because of
this, Catholics can have absolute certainty, and never need to worry about that
issue again. They simply submit to their
infallible Magisterium and all is well.
But
according to this paradigm, it seems that we Protestants can’t even use the
contents found in any supposed Bible
book, since we don’t know if this material is actually part of the true canon,
right? Any doubt about its contents
would seem to neutralize any argument we Protestants can put forward. The Catholic can say, “Hey, you Protestants
don’t have the right canon and you don’t even realize it. It was the Catholic Church who determined the
books of the Bible for you!”
So it looks
like Protestants are kept at a major disadvantage here, doesn’t it? Apparently, the Catholic’s “infallible
certainty” is the coup de grace that
allows them to prevail in all apologetics with us…
But of
course, all this is absurd.
Fatal Flaw #1
In case you
missed it, Protestants DO NOT agree with the Catholic Church’s concept of “infallible
certainty” on the canon. Catholics use
this “canon argument” to try and disprove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura
(Scripture Alone).
This is how
the argument unfolds: 1) Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura (i.e., only
Scripture is infallible), 2) But the Bible does not contain an infallible list
of its canon, 3) So, Catholics believe that the canon MUST be found in some other infallible source (like
the Catholic Church), and 4) Therefore, the Catholic Church becomes that source
and provides the needed infallible certainty on the canon.
But the
first fatal flaw in this argument is this:
· THERE WAS NEVER ANY NEED FOR
“INFALLIBLE CERTAINTY” ON THE CANON
The truth is
that the Catholic must always ASSUME infallibility from the outset. They bear the burden of PROVING that they
have this gift of infallibility in the church today – something they cannot do.
Some Catholics
act as though the knowledge of the canon is a requirement for salvation!
But the fact is that millions of people in the Old Testament era have
been saved and lived for God without ever knowing the full canon – and they did
this long before the “infallible” Catholic Church ever existed!
So, there
was never a need for this level of certainty – “sufficient” certainty has
always been sufficient in God’s eyes.
And for the
record, even if we believed that they
did have an infallible canon, Catholics didn’t get it until 1546 during the Council of Trent:
“According to
Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the
infallible decision of the Church. This
decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the
Council of Trent). Before that time
there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e.,
about their belonging to the canon.” (The
New Catholic Encyclopedia, McGraw Hill, Copyright 1967, Volume 3, Canon,
Biblical,” p. 29)
If there was
such a “need” for infallible certainty on the canon this whole time, then why
did the Catholic Church wait 1500 years before “infallibly” determining said
canon?
Here are
some related links on this canon issue:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/08/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-8.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/12/using-canon-as-smokescreen.html
Fatal Flaw #2
· THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OR PROMISE IN
SCRIPTURE THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP IN THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH WOULD HAVE
THE GIFT OF INFALLIBILITY – EITHER IN HIS DOCTRINE OR IN DISCERNING THE CANON
Of course,
Catholics will try to argue that the Catholic Church does indeed have the gift
of infallibility. They will say that
Jesus built a church (Matthew 16:18) and promised that
the Holy Spirit would be directing and guiding that church (John 16:13). And they believe that since the infallible
Holy Spirit is guiding the church, this has to mean that the church can never
fall into false teaching.
But Matthew
16:18 says nothing whatsoever about infallibility for the
church nor anything about protection against false teaching. And neither does John 16:13 say anything
about infallible guidance.
But there is
a difference between receiving 1) general/indirect guidance from the Holy
Spirit (e.g., John 16:13) and 2) receiving direct/infallible guidance from the Holy Spirit – which has only
been offered to those individuals writing Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21). It was the former guidance that the church
received, not the latter.
See this
article on John 16:13:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2025/05/catholic-apologists-abuse-john-1613.html
Conclusion
Catholics really
seem to have issues with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and they sometimes
offer the “canon argument” as one of their best arguments. So that’s why I wanted to focus in on this
argument for this particular article.
Hopefully, the
two fatal flaws mentioned above should put this particular Catholic argument to
rest. There’s nothing wrong with having “only”
sufficient certainty on the canon of
the Bible. We’re all fallible humans and
everything we do, even our greatest
endeavors, stems from our fallible mind/understanding/faculties. But “fallible” does not necessarily mean
“wrong.”
Insisting on
infallibility on our part only drives us into an infinite regress: “A” is
infallible and can only be recognized/interpreted by an infallible entity. So we must press infallible “B” into service
to recognize/interpret “A”. But for us
to deal with “B”, we must now turn to infallible “C”, etc., etc. We need to recognize that at some point, the
fallible must meet the infallible. As I said before, if the infallible (God) cannot
intersect with the fallible (us), then we could never know anything about Him!
Since we, as
humans, cannot have infallibility, sufficient
certainty of the canon is enough.
