The Infallibility Argument

The Light Shines in the Darkness...

“This famous argument has not inaptly been termed the “Labyrinth, or Popish Circle.” “Papists commonly allege,” says Dr. Cunningham, “that it is only from the testimony of the Church that we can certainly know what is the Word of God, and what is its meaning; and thus they are inextricably involved in the sophism of reasoning in a circle; that is, they profess to prove the infallibility of the Church by the authority of Scripture; while, at the same time, they establish the authority of Scripture, and ascertain its meaning, by the testimony of the Church, which cannot err.””

-J.A. Wylie, The Papacy, Book 2 ch.7

“‘I believed the infallibility of the Church, because the Scripture said she was infallible; while I had no better proof that the Scripture said so than the assertion of the Church that she could not mistake the Scripture.’”

-A Roman Catholic, found in J.A. Wylie’s The Papacy, Book 2 ch.7

When dialoguing with Roman Catholics, one of the first arguments that a Roman Catholic uses against Evangelicalism is the ‘infallibility’ argument. The argument goes something like this:

How can one know that the Bible is from God (i.e. inspired, infallible, etc.) or which books are in the Bible (i.e. the canon) without an infallible authority? Only with an infallible authority can one know for sure that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. Therefore, the belief in scripture alone (i.e. sola scriptura) is false because we need the Roman Catholic Church to give us assurance.

At first, the argument sounds quite convincing because most evangelicals don’t know very much about the background of the Bible. They merely accept it as the Word of God and infallible because they’ve been told to do so. However, there are several logical problems with the argument, and thus, it fails at many points:

1. The argument denies the Holy Spirit His role in giving conviction to the hearts of believers of the truthfulness of God’s Word (John 14:26, 15:26).

2. The fact is that the Scriptures are “self-attesting”. That is, they bear all the proof in themselves that they are from God. Indeed, if man had never fallen into sin, then mankind would know that the Scriptures are the Word of God without proof. However, since man has fallen into sin and his wisdom darkened (Romans 1:21, Ephesians 4:17-18), there are ample proofs that confound the unbeliever (even if the unbeliever refuses to accept them). Their simple eloquence, the prophecies contained in them, and the fact that everything in them comes true all point to the fact that they are from God. However, the greatest witness to their truthfulness and the only way that a repentant sinner will ever believe in them is by the conviction of the Holy Spirit as mentioned above (in part 1).

3. The argument only places the problem of infallible authority one step backwards. One could easily reply back, “Well, how do you know that your infallible authority is indeed infallible?” In other words, the argument that was made by the Roman Catholic against the sufficiency of Scripture could be turned around and used against his infallible authority. If the Roman Catholic demands infallible knowledge in order to know for certain that the Bible is infallibly authoritative, then it follows that one would have to have infallible knowledge that the first infallible authority is indeed infallible. This would require another infallible authority. That would, in turn, require another infallible authority in order to authenticate the infallibility of the second infallible authority, and on and on it goes into an infinite regression of infallible authorities required in order to have infallible knowledge. J.A. Wylie sums it up:

“To nothing can we compare it, unless to the famous system of Indian cosmogony. The sage of Hindustan places the earth upon the back of the elephant, and the elephant upon the back of the crocodile; but when you ask him on what is the crocodile placed, you find that his philosophy can conduct him no farther. There is a yawning gulph in his system, like that which opens right beneath the feet of the sorely burdened and somewhat insufficiently supported crocodile. The great props of the Papacy, like those fabled animals which support the globe, lack foundation. The Romanist places the Church upon the Pope, and the Pope upon the infallibility; but when you ask him on what does the infallibility rest? alas! his system provides no footing for it; and if you attempt to go farther down, you are landed in a gulph across whose gloom there has never darted any ray of light, and whose profound depths no plummet has ever yet sounded. Over this gulph floats the Papacy.” -J.A. Wylie, The Papacy, ch.7

At this point, a less than logical Roman Catholic might respond, “No, Scripture proves the Papacy. That is our proof for our infallible interpreter.” This argument actually utilizes circular reasoning. The ‘Church’ proves the Bible, the Bible proves the ‘Church’, and around and around it goes. In conclusion, the Roman Catholic argument is either reduced to infinite regression or circular reasoning.

4. The argument actually assumes that God is incapable of letting His truth be known to men through Scripture without another authority to ‘authenticate’ it. If God wants to give His Word in written form without the need of another authority to authenticate it, then that is obviously within His power.

5. The conclusion of the argument is extremely faulty. Why does the Roman Catholic assume that the only alternative to sola Scriptura is the Magesterium of Rome? There are numerous “churches” that claim infallible authority and Rome is just one of them. The Eastern Orthodox, the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and every cult on the planet also claims infallibility. If the Roman Catholic here decides to appeal to history or other empirical evidences, then he has destroyed his own argument. Empirical evidences such as historical sources and prophecy are exactly the kind of things that Protestant Evangelicals appeal to in order to prove the Bible without the need for an infallible authority.

6. Just because it may be desirous to have an infallible authority, it does not necessitate the existence of one. For instance, it would be desirous for money to grow on trees, but it doesn’t!

Quotes from The Papacy by J.A. Wylie can be found at:

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/wylie/papacy.htm

Also, some helpful audio on this topic can be found at:

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/98.htm

Helpful online articles can be found here:

http://aomin.org/Porvaz.html