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.
Can you explain what constitutes sufficient certainty? Can someone have sufficient certainty that the Catholic canon is correct and if not, why not?
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous,
DeleteThank you for your questions.
You ask:
“Can you explain what constitutes sufficient certainty?”
I would answer your question this way… none of us today were around in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries and none of us knows the exact people or the exact workings of how the canon was established. So we are forced to depend on someone else for that.
Although the early church fathers of that time period were not infallible, they were in a better position to recognize/ascertain the correct books. I believe that their insight, thought processes, familiarity with the available books and resources of that time give them a distinct advantage. They were much closer to the apostles, prophets and church leaders and were more familiar with all the nuances involved, and thus able to use a higher level of discernment than we have today. In fact, I think that even though the fathers were fallible, they had a better viewpoint concerning the full canon than anyone else in the history of the church. Thus, God has given us sufficient certainty.
You also asked:
“Can someone have sufficient certainty that the Catholic canon is correct and if not, why not?”
Sufficient certainty must necessarily exclude books that have historical/geographical errors, and also should exclude those that the Jews (who were given the oracles of God – Romans 3:1-2) rejected.
See this article:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html
So, a few questions. Which early church fathers supported the canon to which you subscribe. And when did the period of the early church fathers end and who decided the end date or last father, who was the last father, and who decided which church fathers were correct? Lastly, is it your belief that the Jewish person or persons that defined the Jewish canon were infallible.
DeleteTo answer your questions, it is a simple "I don't know," since I have not studied the fathers much and it is not my area of strong interest. I'll leave that up to others to study. To be honest, I think a person is much better off focusing on studying the Scriptures. Concerning your last question, God is the only one who DEFINED the canon (O.T. and N.T.), while man only recognized it. I believe that none of those Jewish fathers were infallible, except those who were writing Sacred Scripture.
DeleteIt seems part of your canon argument in your previous reply is based on the teaching of the early church fathers and now you say you do not seem to know much about what they said or taught. Perhaps a little study is in order. Then you used the Jewish canon argument to support what you believe to be the correct Old Testament canon because it was recognized as canonical. So who recognized it as canonical and how do we know they were correct?
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteYou keep asking the same types of questions. I don’t want to have to keep repeating myself. As I said, I will leave the study of the church fathers to others. Maybe you can ask THEM if you want answers on what the fathers said. Personally, I think that sometimes these controversies can be unprofitable and get us nowhere but bogged down in details.
Even if I were able to answer every single one of your questions perfectly, that STILL would not mean that I have infallible certainty. Only God has that level of certainty.
But the fact is, we can have an imperfect/fallible knowledge of the canon and still get right with God and live for Him. But unfortunately, Catholics will very often treat our knowledge of the canon as more important than our knowledge of God!
You asked:
“Who recognized it as canonical and how do we know they were correct?”
I don’t know, and I don’t think that you, or anyone else living today, knows exactly WHO the individuals were that recognized the canon. None of us were there. Concerning how we know if they were correct, I already answered that question in the response to the very first comment above.
Alright Russell, let’s cut through the fog and get to the heart of your argument. You’ve built a case against the Catholic “canon argument” with confidence, but it’s riddled with oversights, misrepresentations, and philosophical shortcuts. Let’s address your two “fatal flaws” head-on.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that Protestants don’t need infallible certainty about the canon — just “sufficient certainty.” But that’s a dodge, not a defense.
Here’s the problem you ignore: Sola Scriptura depends entirely on knowing what Scripture is. If the canon is uncertain, then your entire theological foundation is built on sand. You can’t appeal to “Scripture alone” while shrugging at whether certain books belong in Scripture.
You say Catholics didn’t infallibly define the canon until Trent in 1546 — as if that undermines their authority. But you conveniently skip the fact that regional councils (Hippo, Carthage) affirmed the same canon over a thousand years earlier. Trent didn’t invent the canon; it reaffirmed it in response to Protestant fragmentation.
And your argument that Old Testament believers didn’t need a canon? That’s irrelevant. They weren’t operating under Sola Scriptura. You are. And that means you need a clear, authoritative canon — not a vague “sufficient” one.
You dismiss Matthew 16:18 and John 16:13 as offering only “general guidance.” That’s a weak and arbitrary distinction. Scripture doesn’t say “general” or “infallible” — it says the Spirit will guide the Church into all truth and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
You cherry-pick 2 Peter 1:20–21 to claim infallibility only applies to Scripture writers. But that verse doesn’t limit the Spirit’s work to authorship. It affirms divine origin — not exclusive infallibility for individuals.
And your claim that Catholics must “assume infallibility from the outset”? That’s ironic. You assume the canon from the outset — without infallibility, without authority, and without a consistent historical process. Catholics don’t assume; they trace the canon through apostolic tradition and conciliar affirmation.
You warn of an infinite regress — needing infallible interpreters to recognize infallible sources. But Catholic theology resolves this by positing the Church as the divinely instituted interpreter. That’s not regress — that’s resolution.
You, on the other hand, are stuck in a loop of fallible individuals trying to define an infallible canon with no authority to do so. That’s not “sufficient certainty.” That’s theological roulette.
Russell, your article is clever, but it’s built on rhetorical sleight of hand. You dismiss the Catholic position without engaging its depth, and you defend Sola Scriptura while ignoring its dependence on a canon you can’t authoritatively define.
If you want to argue for Scripture alone, then you need to explain how you know what Scripture is — without borrowing from the very Church you reject.
Until then, your “fatal flaws” are just philosophical flinches dressed up as arguments.
Interesting critique. What is your response to “ Sufficient certainty must necessarily exclude books that have historical/geographical errors, and also should exclude those that the Jews (who were given the oracles of God – Romans 3:1-2) rejected.”
DeleteThat's a question that you'd be better served asking the other Russell. I'm still waiting for him to come up with a response to my refutation of his piece. He has got to be crapping his pants right now.
DeleteGreetings, (Part 1)
DeleteAlright, you said:
“You claim that Protestants don’t need infallible certainty about the canon — just ‘sufficient certainty.’ But that’s a dodge, not a defense.”
No, it’s not a dodge. I actually demonstrated in the article that for centuries, believers had no knowledge of the full canon (much less infallibly). You may not LIKE this idea, but it is a fact. They had a SUFFICIENT knowledge of their canon at that time, yet were still saved and able to serve God faithfully. Although we have the full canon today, there is STILL no need to know it infallibly.
You said:
“Here’s the problem you ignore: Sola Scriptura depends entirely on knowing what Scripture is. If the canon is uncertain, then your entire theological foundation is built on sand.”
You are ASSUMING that our canon is “uncertain.” But “sufficient certainty” does not equate to “uncertainty.” So please stop misrepresenting us.
You said:
“You say Catholics didn’t infallibly define the canon until Trent in 1546” — as if that undermines their authority.”
I never said that the fact of not having an infallible canon until Trent undermines the Catholic Church’s authority. My point is that it undermines this FALSE NEED for an infallible canon.
You said:
“But you conveniently skip the fact that regional councils (Hippo, Carthage) affirmed the same canon over a thousand years earlier.”
Actually, the canon from Hippo and Carthage was NOT the exact same one that was affirmed at Trent. See this link:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html
You said:
“And your argument that Old Testament believers didn’t need a canon? That’s irrelevant. They weren’t operating under Sola Scriptura. You are. And that means you need a clear, authoritative canon — not a vague “sufficient” one.”
To clarify, I didn’t say that the O.T. believers “didn’t need a canon.” My point was that they didn’t need an infallible knowledge of the full canon. THIS is my argument because THIS is what Catholics continually insist on.
Concerning the need for a “clear” canon, again, we have that. You are misrepresenting us again.
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteYou said:
“You dismiss Matthew 16:18 and John 16:13 as offering only “general guidance.” That’s a weak and arbitrary distinction. Scripture doesn’t say “general” or “infallible” — it says the Spirit will guide the Church into all truth and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”
You’re right – Scripture doesn’t use the specific words “general” and “infallible” in defining the type of guidance shown in Matthew 16:18 and John 16:13. But did you conveniently miss what I wrote about the fact that Matthew 16 “says nothing whatsoever about infallibility for the church, nor anything about protection against false teaching”? It seems that EVERY Catholic I’ve ever read, debated or spoke to happens to miss this important point. The truth is, Catholics seem to always read infallibility into this context, but without warrant.
Did you also miss in the above article where I stated, “And neither does John 16:13 say anything about infallible guidance”? Or did you not bother to actually go to that John 16:13 link to understand the meaning and uses of it?
Did you read what the Catholic Catechism says about this verse and how I showed that many Catholic apologists violate the Catechism by using this verse wrongly all the time?
You said:
“You cherry-pick 2 Peter 1:20–21 to claim infallibility only applies to Scripture writers. But that verse doesn’t limit the Spirit’s work to authorship. It affirms divine origin — not exclusive infallibility for individuals.”
It is the Holy Spirit (through the apostle Peter) who “cherry-picked” this verse to demonstrate that infallibility only applies to those who penned Scripture. Your argument is with them!
If you disagree, then show me anywhere else in the Bible where this kind of infallible guidance that you see here is given to the post-apostolic church. You won’t find it.
You said:
“And your claim that Catholics must ‘assume infallibility from the outset’? That’s ironic. You assume the canon from the outset — without infallibility, without authority, and without a consistent historical process. Catholics don’t assume; they trace the canon through apostolic tradition and conciliar affirmation.”
I am not just assuming the canon, but I am accepting it on the basis of the early church’s qualifications, insights, and overall better position in time, as indicated in my response to the very first commenter above.
And you say that “Catholics don’t assume [infallibility]…” Then please show all of us exactly how the Catholic Church is infallible without contradicting Scripture and without using circular arguments. I do hope that you will focus on this particular request.
Russell, I appreciate your engagement, but your reply leans heavily on rhetorical deflection rather than substantive resolution. Let’s cut through the haze.
ReplyDeleteYou insist that “sufficient certainty” is enough — but that’s not the standard you set when you invoke Sola Scriptura. This principle demands that Scripture alone be the final authority. If you can’t define what Scripture is with authoritative clarity, then your foundation is compromised. “Sufficient certainty” may comfort the conscience, but it doesn’t satisfy the theological demand for epistemic grounding. You’re not just building on sand — you’re calling the sand solid because others have walked on it before.
You claim I misrepresent you by assuming your canon is uncertain. But unless you can show how fallible individuals infallibly recognized infallible texts, the uncertainty remains. Historical consensus is not divine authority.
As for Hippo and Carthage, your link doesn’t refute the fact that they affirmed the deuterocanonicals — the same books Protestants later rejected. Trent didn’t invent the canon; it reaffirmed what had already been received and practiced. You’re trying to poke holes in a timeline while ignoring the continuity of tradition.
Your defense of Matthew 16:18 and John 16:13 is thin. You say Catholics “read infallibility into the text,” but you read fallibility into it — without warrant. The promise that the Spirit will guide the Church into “all truth” and that the gates of hell will not prevail isn’t vague encouragement. It’s ecclesiological assurance. If you want to dismiss it, you need more than “the word infallible isn’t there.”
And your appeal to 2 Peter 1:20–21? That’s not a proof-text for limiting the Spirit’s work to authorship. It affirms divine origin, not a closed pipeline. You say “the Holy Spirit cherry-picked this verse” — but that’s theological sleight of hand. If you want to argue that the Spirit stopped guiding the Church after the apostles, you’ll need more than silence.
Finally, your claim that you’re not assuming the canon but accepting it based on early Church insight is precisely what Catholics do — except we don’t pretend those insights came without divine guidance. You ask us to prove infallibility without circularity. Fine. But your own canon is built on fallible councils, fallible historians, and fallible convictions. That’s not a solution — that’s a quieter circle.
If you want to argue for Scripture alone, then show how you know what Scripture is — without borrowing from the very Church you reject. Until then, your “sufficient certainty” is just theological minimalism dressed up as confidence.
Hello Russell,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response.
It appears that I’m guilty of “rhetorical deflection,” “theological sleight of hand,” “building on the sand,” etc., etc. So, I guess that makes me a terrible debater.
Over and over and over, I’ve been told that “sufficient certainty” is just not enough. I’ve been told that I don’t have the clarity, I can’t define what Scripture is, and uncertainty remains in the Protestant canon.
Well, Russell, here’s your chance to fix all that. You can do what I specifically asked for in my last response to you, and tell us exactly how it is that the infallible Catholic Church became infallible. Maybe it was an oversight on your part, but you didn’t address that request. I’m asking you again to show us what it is that makes the Catholic Church an infallible entity and thus able to guarantee infallible certainty on the canon.
Again, without contradicting Scripture, and without using circular arguments.