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.  

 

USING THE CANON AS A SMOKESCREEN

Imagine two guys having a discussion about the correct way to drive a car.  After some disagreement, one of them gets frustrated and says to the other, “Your argument is wrong because you don’t even know how the engine works!  You don’t know all the parts that make up the car!  You wouldn’t know the difference between a carburetor and a catalytic converter!”

Of course, this is silly because you don’t have to know all the parts of a car in order to drive the car.  There are probably thousands of people who could not tell a catalytic converter from a carburetor.  But so what?  In spite of their lack of knowledge in this area, they would still be able to drive the vehicle.  There is a difference between properly using a car and knowing everything about the car.

Ok, most people would agree that the frustrated guy above has a very poor argument.  Yet, this is exactly the tactic that many Catholics will try to use against Protestants when debating about the Bible.  The Protestant will quote a Bible passage and the Catholic might say, “You’re quoting the Bible, but you don’t even know WHAT the Bible is!  You don’t know which books belong in it!” (i.e., the canon) – as though that somehow stops the Protestant from understanding what he is reading.   

One does not have to know the authors, the original languages, or the full canon of Scripture in order to sufficiently understand and gain useful information from it.  By reading the Bible, a person can get saved, learn to live for God, and teach others the same, without ever having an exact knowledge of the canon.  Sure, it can certainly help to know all about the background of the Bible and have a fuller knowledge of it.  If a person does know all this, then great.  But that doesn’t necessarily mean that those who don’t are unable to grasp what Scripture says. 

The point is, Catholics and Protestants are basically on equal ground when simply using / reading / interpreting the Bible.  The Catholic seems to be missing the point that they share a common source.  You see, both the Catholic and the Protestant agree that Scripture is from God.  They both agree that it is an authoritative and inspired guide.  They both agree that it is (at least part of) their rule of faith.  So, at this point, it is irrelevant if one does, or does not, have a full knowledge of how the Bible came about.  Just as in the car analogy above, there is a difference between properly using the Bible and knowing everything about the Bible. 

   

So why would anyone even use this argument?  This tactic is just a smokescreen, a distraction that just muddies the water.  Catholics usually resort to it when they are losing an argument.

If the original argument is not about the canon itself, then you don’t have to know the canon for your argument to be valid.  

There is a time for studying the origin, background, and canon of the Bible.  But using it to divert attention from a different argument is misguided, at best, and deceptive, at worst.

THE CATHOLIC MINDSET

Sometimes in discussions between Catholics and Protestants, it is interesting to see how their minds operate.  Catholics are geared to think one way, while Protestants have a different mentality.  We recently read an article that clearly demonstrated the difference between the two.  The article is titled, “Is Catholicism Biblical? That Question is Backwards!” by Dr. Jeff Mirus.  It can be found here:

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1127

The Cart Before the Horse?

In the article, Mirus recognizes the fact that Protestants (in general) see the Bible as the ultimate authority for the Christian.  According to Protestants, it is (or should be) the Rule of Faith.  But Mirus finds fault with this concept and believes that we Protestants have it all backwards.  He states:

“The key question is not whether Catholicism stands the test of Scripture, but whether Scripture stands the test of Catholicism.” 

He also says that it is “not whether the [Catholic] Church is Scriptural… [but] whether Scripture is Catholic—whether what we call ‘scripture’ is or is not part of the original Revelation which the Church received.”

And again, he says, “The Bible did not give rise to the Catholic Church; the Catholic Church gave rise to the Bible.” 

According to Mirus, this was all because “the Church came first.”  That is, the church was established before the Bible was, and it was the church that then “created the Bible by definitively proclaiming which early writers were inspired and which were not.” 

But is this true?

A Faulty Foundation

All right, notice that Mirus is operating on several false premises:

First, the Scriptures were not at all “created” by the church.  The early church simply recognized the Scriptures (the infallible writings) that God, Himself, created.  It was by His inspiration that every word was divinely spoken, recorded and preserved.  Yes, God used people as instruments to hear it, and to write it down, but He is the Creator of Divine revelation, which contains HIS thoughts and HIS plans (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21).  It is erroneous and arrogant to say that the church “created the Bible.”

Second, the church did not “come first” (i.e., before the Bible).  The Old Testament (which makes up about three-forths of the Bible) has been around for hundreds of years before the church ever existed.  Although the church started before the canon (list of inspired books) was complete, it is not true that the church pre-existed Scripture.  This claim is deceptive, at best.

Third, it seems that every time there is a controversy with Protestants, Catholics will say something like, “But the Catholic Church is right because she gave us the canon!”  This seems to be the “go to” answer in many of their arguments!  But see these links which put this false idea to rest:

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

But building upon Mirus’ first two points above, he believes that since it is the church that has recognized which of the books are actually Scripture, that this somehow means that the Bible should be subject to the church.  But recognizing or discovering something does not make you lord over it.  Sir Isaac Newton’s discovery of gravity did not give him any authority over gravity.  He discovered it, but he was still subject to its forces.  Benjamin Franklin’s discovery of electricity in no way made him master over this powerful force, either.  It is the same with the church and Scripture.  The church recognized the inspired books, but the church is still subject to those books’ authority (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The fourth false premise is the way most Catholics use the word “Church.”  Notice how Mirus uses the term in his article: 

•   “… the Church’s infallible authority.”

•   “… only the Church could identify which books were…inspired…”

•   “What is the judgment of the Church about this text?”

•   “Does the Church judge it to be inspired?”

•   “… only by the authority of the Church…”

•   “…the Tradition and teachings of the Church…”

•   “… Revelation which the Church received.”

In each of these, the Catholic assumes a reference to an infallible hierarchy of leaders within the organization.  This demonstrates the deep-rooted mindset of the devout Catholic.  Now, in contrast, notice how the Bible uses the word “church.”  Note that it is only used in two ways:  as either 1) the local assembly of believers, as a whole (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:2; Revelation chapters 1, 2, and 3), or 2) the “universal” body of Christ, including all true believers worldwide (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:17-18).  It is never used in the Bible to refer to a church leader (or leaders) only.  In the way that Mirus uses the seven examples above, none of them fit the biblical definition.  This point is very important, but seems to be missed by most people.  This subtle difference in the misuse of the term “church” is ingrained in the Catholic and it becomes a deep-seated part of his mentality. 

The next time you hear a Catholic use the term “the church,” listen closely and see if he is speaking of the leaders only (for example, “the Church teaches…”, or “the Church’s infallible authority…”)… OR, if is he using it biblically.  Substitute his use of it with the phrase “local assembly of believers,” or “the universal church worldwide” to see if his meaning actually lines up with the way the Bible uses the term.

Who Serves Who?

Catholics will officially claim that the Catholic Church serves Scripture (“Dei Verbum,” Chapter 2, paragraph 10), which would make their Church a SERVANT thereof, but it is obvious in practice that they see their Magisterium as ABOVE the Bible.  For example:

If the Bible says A about a particular topic, but the Ecumenical Councils say B, the Catholic will go with B.

If the Bible says C, but “Sacred Tradition” says D, the Catholic will choose D.

If the Bible says X, but church fathers say Y, the Catholic will say Y.

Time and time again, the Bible is put on the back burner so that the Catholic Church can be exalted.

It is hard to take the Catholic Church’s supposed “servant” status toward the Bible seriously, when Catholics like Dr. Mirus write this kind of article.

Word Games

In this next pitiful attempt to weaken the authority of Scripture, Mirus said:

“But Revelation was not given to a book but to persons. Revelation was not even given originally in and through a book. It was given by Jesus Christ to His apostles and disciples.” 

But saying that revelation is not given to a book, but to persons, is like saying that money is not given to a bank, but to tellers.  The point is, the money eventually ends up in the bank and is stored and protected there.  In the same way, infallible revelation is ultimately “stored” in the Bible, even if first given to men.

Conclusion

Yes, folks, this is the mentality of the devout Catholic.  He claims to have equal devotion to Scripture and to the Church’s Tradition (CCC #82), but in practice, the Bible often takes a back seat.

Jeff Mirus’ article is a good example of many Catholics’ condescending attitude toward the Bible.  Saying things like, “[it’s] not whether Catholicism stands the test of Scripture, but whether Scripture stands the test of Catholicism,” is not only untrue, but it also clearly demonstrates arrogance.  You can’t say things like that and still have a truly healthy respect for Scripture (See Psalm 119).  It is the Catholic Church’s great (and false) claims about itself that give rise to this type of mindset.  

DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GIVE US THE BIBLE?

You will hear it often when Catholics and Protestants are discussing their faith. The Protestant quotes a Scripture verse and points to the fact that the Bible is the final authority on faith and morals. But the Catholic will often say something like, “But without the Catholic Church’s Tradition, you Protestants would not have a Bible. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, therefore you should submit to our Church.” Quite a statement… but is this really true?

Some Questions

Before answering him, we should start off by asking the Catholic a couple of important questions. First, we should ask, “What do you mean by saying the Catholic Church ‘gave us the Bible’?” Is he suggesting that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible? If so, this certainly cannot be the case, since the Old Testament was written long before the Catholic Church existed. Neither can they claim to have written the New Testament, since that was written by the apostles and their close associates. And the apostles knew nothing of those teachings which are uniquely Catholic.

What Catholics generally mean when they say that their Church gave us the Bible is that the Catholic Church, through certain councils, was responsible for revealing to us the “canon” of the Bible, i.e., which books are inspired by God and actually belong in the Bible.

If this is indeed what they mean, then we need to ask him our second question: “When did this happen?” And they will usually say that the canon was finally settled at the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.), and it was later restated / reaffirmed at the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.).

This sounds really nice, but there are a number of problems with their claims.

Local, Not Ecumenical

Point #1 - The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were local or “provincial” councils (synods), and they could not “finally settle” the canon or any other issue that affected all the churches. They were not “ecumenical” councils, because their rulings were not binding on the whole church. The reason that this is a problem is because Catholics often stress the idea that we really “need” infallible certainty on the canon. But according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the canon of Scripture was not “infallibly” declared until the Council of Trent did so in 1546:

“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)

Likewise, the online “New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”) says:

“The Tridentine decrees [i.e., from the Council of Trent] from which the above list [of books] is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.”

So, according to this, the church existed for over 1500 years without an infallibly-pronounced canon. Why is this, if “infallible certainty” is so important?

For more on infallible certainty and the canon, see our article here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html

Wrong Canon

Point #2 - To make matters worse for Catholics, the canon given by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage does not match the canon which was given by the Council of Trent. This is because the canon of Hippo and Carthage comes from the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek – written sometime between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C.), while the Council of Trent specifically mentions using the canon of the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin translation – written 382-405 A.D.):

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Fourth Session) [Emphasis added]

The problem is that both canons contain a book called 1 Esdras, but the earlier 1 Esdras is different from the one at the Council of Trent. How do we know this? According to a chart in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the Septuagint’s 1 Esdras is equivalent to the Vulgate’s 3 Esdras. And it specifically says, “The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967, Volume II, Bible, III, pp. 396-397) [Emphasis added]

So, Trent declared 3 Esdras in the Vulgate [1 Esdras of the Septuagint] to be uncanonical (not belonging in the Bible), and it was therefore removed from the canon. So, if this book was “removed” from the canon by Trent, it must have been there in the first place sometime earlier. And that is because it was there from the earlier councils, i.e., Hippo, Carthage, etc. So, by the Catholic Church’s own admission, the earlier canon was different from Trent’s, because it had an extra book. So the idea that Trent accepted and simply reaffirmed the earlier councils’ canon is wrong.

To confirm this with another Catholic source:

“Except for Jerome’s OT from the Hebrew, all other Lat renderings of the OT and NT were made from the Greek.” (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999, page 1100)

The irony in all this is that according to the quote from Trent above, rather than affirming, this ecumenical council actually condemns with anathema the Councils of Carthage and Hippo because their canon did not match the Vulgate’s.

So, what if the Catholic says, “Ok, so the Catholic church gave us the Bible (i.e., the correct canon) at Trent instead of Carthage and Hippo, so what?” But, taking 1500 years to recognize the canon is not very reassuring, especially for a Church who insists on the need for infallible certainty. It certainly seems that Catholic “Tradition” failed to protect the early canon from error in this case.

There are a number of church historians / scholars and other sources who also point out this difference between the Septuagint’s canon and the canon of the Vulgate. See the details in this very informative article by William Webster:

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html

The Apocrypha

Point #3 – The Protestant Bible contains 66 Books (39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New). The Bible that the Catholic Church claims to have given us contains 7 more Old Testament books than the Protestant Bible (and some additional verses in the books of Daniel and Esther).

These 7 extra books Catholics call the “Deuterocanonical” books. Protestants usually refer to them as the “Apocrypha,” and they do not consider them to be inspired, but Catholics do. But there are some problems with these books that we will deal with only briefly:

1) These books were not accepted by the Jews, and it was the Jews who knew the canon best because they were the ones who wrote the Old Testament.

2) Some of these books contain historical and geographical errors. Do we really want to accept the “inspiration” of a book which is not even reliable in worldly matters?

3) Some of the books teach doctrines which contradict the rest of the Scriptures.

4) There are a number of people throughout church history who denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. One is Jerome, the very person who translated the Vulgate Bible (which the Catholic Church embraces). Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Martin Luther and his teachings, also believed that the Apocrypha should not be used to confirm matters of faith, but only for edification. We could also mention Pope Gregory the Great, Athanasius (the bishop of Alexandria) and many others who believed that (at least some of) the Apocryphal books were not canonical.

Even the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says concerning the church fathers of the Middle Ages and their attitude toward the Apocrypha:

“Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”)

For much more information on the Apocrypha, see the William Webster link that we mentioned above.

Teachings Not Biblical

Point #4 - If the Catholic Church really did give us the Bible, then why do so many of its teachings either contradict the Scriptures, or cannot be found within its pages (e.g., doctrines like confession to a priest, Mary’s sinless birth and life, Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, indulgences, Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit, the office of pope, praying to saints, etc., etc.)? Interestingly, we find none of these in the Bible they claim to have given us.

Used by God

Point #5 - When it comes to spiritual deception the most dangerous lies are the ones that contain a certain amount of truth mixed in. And that is the case here. The “certain amount of truth mixed in” is that the Catholic Church was used, to some extent, in preserving and copying the Bible. But the Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible.” GOD did. It is HIS Word given to His people… the Old Testament given through the Jewish prophets, and the New Testament given through the Apostles and their close associates. The universal church of the New Testament just recognized the inspired Scriptures… it did not create or establish them. It was simply used by God in identifying the canon.

But apparently, some Catholics believe that if God uses someone, then we must submit to them.” But this does not logically or necessarily follow because God can use anybody or anything, good or bad, to accomplish His will. But this only proves that God is sovereign. God has used a whale (Jonah 1:17), a rooster (Matthew 26:74-75), and even a donkey (Numbers 22:22-34) to do His will, but that doesn’t mean that we are to submit to whales, roosters or donkeys, does it?

God can also use evil men to prophesy (John 11:49-52), but are we expected to yield to them? Obviously not. God can even use the devil to accomplish His will (Job 1:6-12; 42:10), but does this mean that we should be obedient to Satan? Again, the point is, just because God has USED a person or group in some way to bring about His will, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we must now submit to them. We should only submit to a person or church whose teachings are biblical.

This same misguided reasoning would also require us to submit to Judaism, the religion of the Jews (including any of its un-Christian traditions), since God used the Jews to write and preserve three-fourths of the Bible which we have today (the Old Testament). After all, it was to the Jews that the oracles of God were first given (Romans 3:2). In light of this, the Jews would have more right to claim to have “given us the Bible” than the Catholic Church has.

So Where Did it Come From?

Many Catholics act as though there was nothing but utter confusion over the canon in the early church and the multitudes were desperate to find someone, an infallible authority, who could “determine” the canon for them. Then the Catholic Church stepped in with their councils and saved the day… or at least that’s what many Catholics would like us to believe. But it was not so.

Ok, so where did we get the Bible from, if it wasn’t from the Catholic Church?

Demanding an answer to questions like “Who gave us the Bible?” is actually misleading. There is no one person or group that is responsible for giving us the Bible. Just as the books of the Old Testament were, little by little, accumulated over the years by God’s people who recognized His Spirit moving in His prophets (and eventually writing it down)… it was the same with the apostles and the New Testament. It was a gradual process with many believers involved over time. And just as the Jews recognized Old Testament Scripture without an infallible authority, it was the same with the early Christians.

Although the councils did help, to a certain extent, to crystallize the canon in the minds of the early Christians, these councils, for the most part, merely affirmed the books that were already widely accepted. They were simply attempting to make it “official.”

Even though there were some doubts concerning a few of the books that would eventually end up in the canon, there was, collectively, a general consensus among Christians on most of the books. Only a few of them were actually disputed.

It is said that virtually the whole New Testament could be reproduced simply from the writings of the Ante-Nicene church fathers (those who lived before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.). So, the early church was already familiar with the canon of Scripture at this time.

In all fairness, the Catholic Church (i.e., the Church of Rome) did have a role in preserving and copying the Scriptures, as we mentioned earlier. But this doesn’t mean that “the Bible comes from them.”

Conclusion

The implications of all this are sobering and far-reaching. When Catholics say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, they are in effect saying that this Church (along with its “Tradition”) is the final authority, and that we must submit to them. They are implying that the Bible gets its authority from that Church and only they have the authority to properly interpret it. But this is certainly not true. The universal church recognized the inspired writings. However, the Scriptures are not “church-breathed,” but God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Simply recognizing something (the canon) is not the same thing as being responsible for its existence. The Bible no more owes its existence to the Catholic Church than gravity owes its existence to Sir Isaac Newton.

The idea of the Catholic Church giving the Bible to the world is yet another boastful (but empty) claim coming from the Catholic side. One has to wonder… how many of the Catholic Church’s claims need to be exposed as false, before the “lay Catholic” in the pew will see the light? How many exaggerated claims from his leaders must he endure before he breaks free of the Catholic Church’s shackles? Hopefully, very few.