Apostolic Antiquity

Both Roman Catholics and Orthodox reject the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or Scripture alone, as the sole infallible source of authority for the Christian faith. Catholics instead hold the view that Scripture, alongside Sacred Tradition affirmed by the Magisterium, is infallible. They believe that Scripture cannot, by itself, guide the Church to a proper understanding of God, but must be interpreted and defined by the infallible Magisterium  and councils. While the Orthodox Church does not recognize a centralized Magisterium, they too hold the councils and tradition of the Church to be infallible. Protestants and Evangelicals, of course, reject the idea that the Church is in any way infallible while maintaining that the Scriptures alone are. One argument Catholics often use to try to disprove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura essentially goes as follows:

Without another infallible source of authority, we cannot possibly know the canon of the Bible. If we are relying on a fallible source to compile the Bible, we have the possibility of either excluding inspired Scripture or including non-inspired books into our Bible. However, if the Catholic Church is, in fact, infallible, then we need not worry about the possibility of its error in defining and compiling the biblical canon.

This may seem like a clever critique of Sola Scriptura at first, until you realize the inconsistency.

My argument against this critique is that, in order to be consistent with this logic, you would have to say that there needs to be a source external from the Church herself that defines infallibly what the Church is, as well as its ability to speak infallibly. Why apply this standard to them? Because it is the exact standard they put on Scripture.

Now, the immediate question this initiates is to find out whether this source actually exists within their paradigm and whether or not it is valid. In exploring some of our potential options for this external source, we have to apply certain criteria that would qualify the Church as an external, infallible source alongside Scripture. (1) This source must be external and distinct from the Church itself, or else this would become the fallacy of circular reasoning. (2) This source must be infallible. This is essentially the same criteria that Roman Catholics claim the Church has to meet in order to justify the canon. Now that a criterion has been established, what sources possess these particular criteria within their paradigm?

(1) Scripture (infallible)

(2) The apostles (infallible in their divinely inspired teachings and writings)

(3) Jesus Christ (infallible)

1. First, let’s explore Scripture as being this source. Is it infallible? Yes. Is it external to the Church? Also yes. But this still poses the huge issue of circular reasoning. The argument would essentially be, “The Bible is infallible, and it affirms the infallibility of the Church as true (assuming it did); therefore, the Church has the ability to define what the Bible is.” It is basically saying, “If A, then B, and if B, then A.” This sort of claim would be fallacious.
2. Now, let’s explore the option of the apostles being this infallible source. This, too, would pose an issue no matter how you look at it. Now, within the Catholic paradigm, the apostles were considered infallible in their divinely inspired teachings and writings, but not in their personal conduct, so their infallibility is delegated to either or both their written words and/or their oral teaching. Firstly, we have already established that it cannot be their infallible written words because this would be defined as Scripture, which we have already established leads to circular reasoning. What about oral tradition? This, too, doesn’t work because, within the Catholic paradigm, they categorize oral tradition as part of the Church’s infallibility, not a distinct one. The Church teaches that Sacred Tradition is the whole deposit of the Word of God entrusted by Christ to the apostles and preserved by them and their successors, thus making the apostles not a distinct authority from the Church but a part of it. As we have already established, this source must be external to the Church; therefore, the apostles cannot be that external source that confirms the Church’s infallibility.
3. Lastly, we must examine the possibility of Jesus Christ Himself being that source who defined and ascribed infallibility to the Church. Now, keep in mind that no one denies that Jesus founded His Church and defined what it is, but this is not necessarily the question. Everyone affirms that Christ founded the Church in the general sense, but we need to explore whether He did so in a way that equates to how the Church apparently defined the Bible. Out of all the options we could explore, Christ Himself would be the ultimate and necessary foundation to this epistemic issue because, even if we concluded that the apostles were that external source of authority, we would have to ask, “What infallible source justifies them as an infallible authority?” and on and on we could go. But we cannot ask what infallible source justifies Christ as the infallible authority because He is the sovereign God and the foundation of all truth (John 14:6). Therefore, if Christ is not the source of their authority, then they have none.

Now, if Christ is proposed as the ultimate external authority establishing the Church’s infallibility, then we have to ask how we know what Christ established. The only historical record of Christ’s teachings available to Christians is contained in the apostolic writings of the New Testament. But I’ve already argued that appealing to those writings to establish the Church’s authority would be circular because the very question is what establishes the Church’s authority to identify and define those writings as Scripture.

Some may object, however, by saying that Christ’s teachings are also contained orally in Sacred Tradition. But we must ask how we identify which alleged oral traditions actually came from Christ and which did not. Also, what makes the Church’s identification of those traditions infallible? If the answer is “because the Church is infallible,” you’ve essentially assumed the conclusion.

The Church Fathers never quote or appeal to the words of Christ or the apostles apart from quotations or concepts that can be found in the Bible, and when they speak of tradition, it’s never thoroughly defined as to what that tradition consists of but usually refers to it in a very general sense. Tradition in general is very different from tradition as a basis for doctrine and faith. Even the apostles depend heavily on the Scriptures of the Old Testament.

Roman Catholics often assume tradition defined the Scriptures; however, it was actually the Scriptures that defined the tradition. Acts 17:11 says, “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” They were not rebuked for believing in the Scriptures more than “Sacred Tradition”; they were actually commended for it. This verse undermines the idea that apostolic teaching must be accepted merely because an ecclesiastical authority declares it and shows, rather, that a tradition is sufficiently validated by the standard of Scripture alone.

So then, if no infallible external source is seen to have endowed the Catholic and Orthodox Churches with the ability to speak infallibly, where does their epistemic justification come from? Ultimately, their data comes from what they believe to be the historical witnesses. But historical witness is not infallible, even within their paradigm. What does this all mean? Catholics and Orthodox ultimately must appeal to fallible historical evidence to justify their belief in an infallible Church, meaning they are no different from the Protestants who trust that God has used fallible men to recognize and preserve the infallible books of the Bible.

I am not stating that we both share the same “problem”; this would be a tu quoque fallacy. However, in my paradigm, it is not a problem to say God used fallible men to accomplish the preservation of His infallible Word. I am simply showing that when Roman Catholics and Orthodox are held to the same standard in regard to their Churches, the hypocrisy becomes clear.

Now that I have established that Rome, too, falls short of this standard they try to impose on Protestants, I will now demonstrate how God used fallible men to accomplish His will and the epistemic justification of that position.

Firstly, I want to make a distinction between different types of revelation. First, there is private revelation. Private revelation refers to supernatural messages or guidance given to an individual by God, meant to aid their spiritual life or guide the faithful, but not adding to the whole of the Christian faith. And secondly, there is public revelation. Public revelation is the way God has made Himself known to humanity in a way that is complete, binding for all people, and preserved in Scripture. These two concepts are largely popularized in Roman Catholic circles, but I believe they do a good job at conceptualizing the distinct ways that God speaks.

I actually want to propose a third category, and that is public revelation but not fully revealed. To articulate this position, I would like to use the story of Noah. When God spoke personally to Noah, He was not presently speaking to all generations. But if we define God speaking to Noah as private revelation, we would have to say that this was not binding on the whole world at that time. Yet we know that this cannot be true because that revelation was used as a means of public judgment upon those who did not accept it. So this could not have been private revelation.

Since this revelation was not private in the sense that it was for Noah alone, while also not yet being in the written form of Scripture, it could not have qualified as fully public either. Therefore, I would qualify this particular instance in time as a public revelation not fully revealed.

But it’s important to note that this narrative example made it into the text of Scripture, thereby becoming fully revealed public revelation to all succeeding generations. This is the highest form of revelation. I think this also helps in our case for the argument of the canon because we see that unwritten public revelation (for the time of Noah) eventually became full disclosure through the written words of Scripture.

The case may be the same when it comes to the canon. It was public revelation to the initial churches and audiences, who received the epistles directly from the apostles and the Gospels directly from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and it gradually became widely recognized by all.

So the pattern goes God → revelation → initial recipients → written Scripture → recognition by succeeding generations. Now its important to realize that this full recognition of the canon could have taken some time to fully circulate. Therefore, just because the earliest Christians did not have a complete New Testament the moment each book was written does not undermine the inspired and intended purpose of the canon.

But how did they know who the authors were? It’s simple: the early Church received the text directly from apostolic witnesses, and the information about their authorship was transmitted down through the centuries. Irenaeus of Lyons, writing around 185 CE in his work Against Heresies, explicitly identified the four Gospels by name and attributed them to their traditional authors. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who had apparently been discipled by the apostle John. We have clear historical evidence that provides insight into the authenticity and apostolic affirmation of the four Gospels.

Furthermore, if the infallible decree of the Church was a necessary component for finalizing the canon of Scripture, we would have to admit that for nearly 1,500 years there was no biblical canon because this formal infallible statement regarding the canon was not made until the Council of Trent in 1546. A decree, De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council’s fourth session (of 8 April 1546), issued an anathema on those who disagreed with the decree affirmed at Trent.

What’s important to note is that the very canon affirmed by Trent contains six historically controversial books known as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanon that are found in Catholic Bibles today under the Old Testament canon. These books were never a part of the Hebrew Bible but only came into conversation when the Greek translation known as the Septuagint was being made, and they added these Deuterocanonical books as a part of this Greek translation.

It is essential to know that these books have never been unanimously affirmed as Scripture alongside the sixty-six other books of the Bible, especially before the fifth and sixth centuries.

In 363 A.D., the Synod of Laodicea (Canon 59.1) forbids the reading of any non-canonical books in the Church and allows only the “canonical books of the Old and New Testaments” to be used for that purpose. Many early Church Fathers have been cited as also rejecting the Apocryphal books as inspired Scripture, which include Melito of Sardis, Epiphanius, Athanasius of Alexandria, Rufinus, John of Damascus, and Pope Gregory the Great. And most notably, Jerome (347–420 A.D.) was the one who wrote the Latin Vulgate, the first Latin translation of the Bible (the primary Bible the Catholic Church used for centuries), and also rejected these books as canonical.

What is the main basis behind the exclusion of these books as recognized inspired Scripture? There are many reasons that modern scholars reject these books as not only inspired Scripture but also as inherently flawed due to some historical inaccuracies. However, this was not the primary reason the early Church rejected these books. The primary reason was because the Jews themselves rejected them as a part of their Old Testament.

Many Christians then realized that just as the Church was entrusted with the responsibility of preserving the text of the Bible, so were the Jews during the time of the Old Covenant. In Romans 3:2, Paul explicitly states that the Jews were entrusted with the very words, or oracles, of God; therefore, we can trust that the Old Testament canon that has been affirmed by the Jews for millennia is the true one.

In conclusion, the knowledge and justification of our sixty-six-book canon is not dependent upon some external infallible source, but in faith that God used and still uses imperfect vessels to accomplish His divine and perfect will.