THE TWO FATAL FLAWS OF CATHOLICS WHEN USING THE “CANON ARGUMENT” AGAINST SOLA SCRIPTURA

 

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.