By Joshua Stevens, Faith Contributor, Valley Ag Voice
A common argument against using Sola Scriptura as a methodology for authority in the modern church is the formation of the canon. The argument goes something like this, “So Sola Scriptura ends up being self-defeating after all, just in a different way from how most people might think. The conclusion in the above reasoning—that Scripture is our only infallible rule for Christian belief and practice—blocks any sort of infallible knowledge as to whether certain books in the Christian canon of Scripture—e.g., Mark, Hebrews, and James—are inspired or not,” (Broussard, 2023). This reasoning claims that without an infallible tradition by which one can receive the canon of scripture, we cannot have assurance that the books we include in our Bibles are inspired and without error.
The position argued in this article is that each book in the Protestant canon is infallible, but the church, while undergoing a lengthy process to recognize each of those books as infallible, was capable of making mistakes in the process. This article will establish why belief in a fallible source—the church—would be able to compile a list of infallible books is coherent with a belief in Sola Scriptura.
The first point that should be clarified is that neither a Protestant nor a Catholic believes their recognition of sacred scripture is what makes it authoritative. “These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author and were as such committed to the church,” (Decrees, 1868 A.D.). Both Protestants and Catholics would also agree that the church is necessary to the discernment of the canon, as well as being a witness and keeper of the word of God. The disagreement stems from whether the church is infallible in these tasks or if it has the potential to err.
Why do Protestants believe the church is fallible? The first reason is a lack of evidence from Scripture itself. Nowhere in the Bible do we find claims that the church will be unable to err. In fact, we do see examples of priests—who are called to be witnesses to God—erring throughout the Old Testament, and Jesus warns people about the Pharisees during his time (Luke 12). If we are to believe that the church is infallible, we should see a clear promise or instruction from Christ or the apostles. No such text exists in Scripture. Furthermore, it is not necessary for the church to be infallible to recognize which is infallible — Scripture. For example, Moses at the burning bush needed no secondary confirmation that he was experiencing the true and living God, nor did he need to be infallible to make this discernment.
One might say that miracles, like those experienced by Moses or the prophets, are extraordinary testimonies to God’s will that are absent when it comes to the formation of Scripture. This is true. However, the point being made is not that the situations are identical, but that the body responsible for compiling and preserving the infallible word of God need not be infallible itself.
A second reason why a Protestant can hold to this view is that the canon was not received as infallible until late in church history—as late as the fourth century—and even today, there are discrepancies among Christians regarding the exact list of canonical books. These discrepancies exist not only between Protestants and Catholics but also between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, both of whom appeal to tradition as an infallible rule for receiving their canon. Even with these discrepancies, the 27 books of the Protestant Bible are universally accepted by Christian sects as inspired and infallible. Thus, a Protestant is simply taking that which is universally accepted and declaring this to be the word of God with certainty.
Church history shows us an ongoing process by which people discussed and debated how we are to know what is infallible and what is not. For example, Irenaeus and other church fathers appealed to standards such as apostolicity: Was a book written by an apostle? If not, was its content apostolic? Did it claim inspiration? Was it accepted by the local churches? Did it contain a “ring of genuineness” (McRay, 1996)? However, there is no evidence that they appealed to themselves as an authority or to any infallible methodology or mechanism by which they discerned these things.
The process was organic and developed from the ground up. There was no sudden ruling from an ecumenical council or ex cathedra statement that settled the matter. The historical record shows a continual process, with significant advances at the end of the fourth century, such as a letter from Athanasius in 367, the Synod of Hippo in 393, and the Council of Carthage in 397. However, all of these were local councils or letters and were not infallible. By this time, we have two separate lists containing just the 27 books of the Protestant Bible (Athanasius’ letter and the Council of Carthage) and two lists containing the same 27 books plus two others (the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus).
While some books like James, Hebrews, and Revelation were more heavily debated, they all became accepted by the universal church as inspired and infallible.
The process by which we arrived at the canon we have today took hundreds of years and generations of church fathers doing hard work to discern God’s will in these writings. They were led by the Holy Spirit but were still men capable of error. Their fallibility does not mean we need to doubt the canonicity of any particular book. If one has doubts or questions about these books, they can celebrate the availability of the writings and processes of those who diligently labored to defend the canon we have today.
A Protestant’s appeal to Sola Scriptura is not a claim that it is a perfect methodology—just the best available one. Over the next several months, we will provide a more robust defense for Sola Scriptura in the hope that this series will provide confidence to those who doubt the faith they have been given and assurance that they are part of the holy universal church, led by her groom, Christ.
Will you pray with me?
Dear Lord, as we seek after your will in these difficult and often divisive topics, we ask that you guide us in truth. May our growing knowledge draw us closer to you and conform our thinking to be more like yours. Thank you for those who came before us, who suffered and labored to preserve your word for us today. Thank you for your provision over your word and the church. As we wrestle with these discussions, fill us with your love so that we may see each other as your image-bearers. Let us not forsake our brothers and sisters in Christ but continue to unite in spreading the gospel. In Jesus’ name, I pray,
Amen.
References
Broussard, K. (2023, July 26). The Best Argument for Sola Scriptura. Catholic Answers.
Decrees of the First Vatican Council, session 3, Chapter 2.
John McRay, “Bible, Canon of The,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, electronic ed., Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 58.
