Canon Series Clarification

Before moving forward with a series of posts on the canon of scripture, I want to quickly convey my purpose with this series.

It is not my intent to try and prove that Protestants have the correct canon even though that is what I believe. All I want to show is that the Catholic assertion that the Roman Catholic Church “gave the world the bible back in 397AD” and that it was “Luther who removed books from the canon” is incorrect. History is not in the favor of the Catholic e-pologist argument that the canon ratified by Trent was the same canon that was always held by the Church.

As I said before, my faith does not hinge on the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the canonization of scripture. But the faulty information and arguments of Catholic e-pologists need to be corrected.

Catholic Myths: Canon and Authority

Below is an excerpt from Catholic Answers which provides a fictitious conversation between a Catholic and a Protestant - a training tool for Catholics. This article displays the true intent behind the whole canon argument for the Catholic apologetists/e-pologists (as I mentioned previously, it is all about bringing you under submission to Rome) and is why so many Catholic e-pologists won't let this one go.

Here the missionary will fumble around awhile, perhaps repeating his earlier statements. Then you say:

"Look, the fact is, the only reason you and I have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon."

"...Furthermore, the reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!"

"The question you have to ask yourself is this: ‘Where did we get the Bible?’ Until you can give a satisfactory answer, you aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it."

"After you answer that question—and there’s really only one answer that can be given—you have some other important questions to ask: ‘If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?’ And ‘Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?’" Catholic Answers

I will try to address the breakdown in this argument in a future post.

The Canon - Getting the Facts Correct

I want to get back to the discussion on the canon of scripture since this is an area were Catholic’s often get their facts wrong. Here are the type of assertions that Catholic e-pologists like to make:

"The Church finished writing the bible in about 100 AD, and the Church finally decided which books belonged in about 397AD." source

"When I look at Church history I find councils of Bishops at Hippo and Ephesus deciding these matters." source

I addressed these two claims in an earlier post with excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia which stated that the canon of the Catholic Church was not ratified until Trent. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that there were doubts about the exact nature of the canon between the time of the Hippo/Carthage Councils (which were ecumenical councils and not binding) and the final decision of the Council of Trent in 1546 (which was the first binding/infallible ruling by the RCC).

In response I received additional comments:

"Just because the church didn't dogmatically declare the canon until Trent doesn't mean it didn't teach that same canon or give that canon to the world." source

"Sure there was discussion [about the OT canon], but do not characterize this as if the issue was not ruled upon. Give me the name and publisher of one bible between Carthage and Trent that did not have the OT deuterocanon in it." source

"Wrong. I'm not sure where you are getting that. Check out New Advent on St. Jerome: He never either categorically acknowledged or rejected the deuterocanonical books as part of the Canon of Scripture, and he repeatedly made use of them." source

"The fact remains that the bible the Catholic Church gave the world in 397 is the exact same one it gives today, with the exception of the 7 books which Luther removed." source

This resistance to the facts presented are not unique to the commenters on this blog. The claim that the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible (and therefore, to Protestants) is one of the cornerstones of Catholic apologetics. In their minds, to have assurance that our Bible actually contains the inspired Words of God (and not spurious material) we must rely on the authority of the Catholic Church. It is a silly argument on many levels, but it remains in the public forum nonetheless.

The fact is, the Catholic Church did not conclusively define HER canon until the Council of Trent in 1546. And the backup argument that the Trent canon is the same canon that had always been taught since the earlier non-binding ecumenical councils is misleading also.

So I would like to spend a few posts addressing these false claims by Roman Catholics on the canon. In the end, even if the Catholic Church had been involved in compiling the canon of scripture it wouldn’t matter one iota as it is God who ultimately decided the canon and he can use whatever means he wishes to accomplish his will. But the claims concerning the canon perpetuated by Catholic e-pologists are often misleading and sometimes completely erroneous and need to be addressed.

Another Survey on Catholic Unity

(larger view of table above)

A 1999 survey by National Catholic Reporter on American Catholic Beliefs (note, some of the beliefs are required dogma).

"The purpose of inquiring into Catholic identity is to describe more precisely this aspect of the actual lived faith of Catholics, which may or may not fit exactly with official teachings. All religious groups have elements of popular religion that develop among the faithful. The Second Vatican Council reaffirmed that the sensus fidelium -- the sense of the faithful -- is important.

Anyone investigating Catholic identity soon finds that being a Catholic has many possible facets. The Catholic tradition is old, rich, variegated, and for some, bewildering. There are saints, social reformers, relics, mystics, spiritual virtuosi, devotions, obligations, art forms, institutional rules and hundreds of moral teachings. What are the most central and the most important facets? What most defines what being a Catholic really means?"

"The table also shows attitudes broken down in three levels of education. Catholics with different levels of education differ on only two of the six ratings. On the fourth, concerning Mary, the Mother of God, the most educated Catholics have a lower rating than the others; the difference between the most and least educated groups is 16 percentage points. And on the sixth, concerning the teaching authority claimed by the Vatican, the most educated Catholics have a much lower rating than the others. The three groups vary by 21 percentage points.

Here is an indication of trends in the future. Since educational levels among American Catholics are steadily increasing, we may expect future Catholics to resemble the more educated Catholics today. Probably future Catholics will attach less importance to devotion to Mary and to church authority."

(23% of Catholics polled believe a person could be a good Catholic and not believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. 38% of Catholics polled believe a person could be a good Catholic and not believe in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist)

So, if the existence of many different Protestant denominations shows that Sola Scriptura is unworkable, then what do these surveys about the variety of lay Catholic beliefs on church doctrines say about the RCCs infallibility?

"The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity." Catholic Encyclopedia

Surveys on Catholic Unity

In the comment section of Sampling Catholic Unity, a Catholic commenter made the following comment:

“We are unified in that there is a core set of beliefs (dogmas) that all catholics believe. There will always be people who disagree on this aspect or that one. But, our beliefs on these dogmas are resolute. Protestants, on the other hand, cannot agree on any aspect or teaching. They all claim Sola Scriptura, but that is all.”


In response I provided the following excerpts from surveys published on Catholic websites (see the comment section for full quotes):


Catholic beliefs and practices: the challenge ahead for Australia

-Only 6.8 per cent of 20-24-year-olds attended regularly (down from 7.2 per cent in 1996) and 5.6 per cent of 25-29-year-olds (down from 7.0 per cent) attended [Mass].

-Acceptance of the virgin birth among Mass attenders ranged from 73 per cent for 18-24-year-olds to 81 per cent for those aged 56 or over.

-In the case of belief in the Eucharist truly being the Body and Blood of Christ. Only 46 per cent of 15-17-year-old Mass attenders accepted this doctrine, whereas 81 per cent of those aged over 56 did so. In between these groups the level of belief rose with age.

-Belief in God as the Holy Trinity again reflected age differences, with 51 per cent of 15-17-year olds accepting it, increasing to 78 per cent for over 56-year-olds.


Young adults’ lack of participation problem for U.S. Catholic Church, study says

-One of the main results of the new survey was to confirm and reinforce earlier findings that younger adult Catholics tend to have a looser, more tenuous relationship with the church than their older counterparts.

-The younger Catholics are less likely to accept church teachings on issues of sex and marriage or to consider the church's teaching role important in such matters, for example, and they are less likely to attend Mass regularly or to consider Mass attendance important for being a good Catholic

-Only one-fourth go to Mass on a weekly basis.

-Less than half believe that the teaching authority claimed by the Vatican is very important. A majority disagree with church teachings related to sexual and reproductive issues.

-And if a sizable number of young adults report that they do not understand their faith well enough to explain it to their own children, they have a problem, and so does the church.

The Cara Catholic Poll

-Seventy percent of Catholics believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist while 30 percent believe bread and wine are only symbols of Jesus.


Clearly all Catholics do not agree on the essential dogmas (and very clearly they don’t agree on general teachings like prohibition of birth control). This is not unity.

Getting Unity Correct

Phil Johnson wrote a great article for Pulpit Magazine about the Wrong Kind of Unity as it applies to Catholicism. I like that he not only dealt with the disunity in Roman Catholicism, but whether organizational unity is a quality to be desired in the first place.

“When Jesus prayed that we all might be one, He was describing a spiritual unity. In John 17:11, He prayed “that they may be one, even as We are.” Verse 21 continues: “that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us” (emphasis added).

That describes a very specific kind of spiritual unity that proceeds from our union with Christ. Christ Himself likens it to the unity between Father and Son. It is certainly not something as mundane and superficial as the homogenization of all churches under one earthly hierarchy of bishops in Rome or Constantinople.”

Catholics tend to use the verse above to bolster their argument that Jesus wanted organizational unity and that the “splintering” of Protestant groups goes against the desires of Christ for his church. Not only is this argument flawed in its premise, but it is an argument that works against the Catholic Church itself.

“Organizational unity cannot guarantee true spiritual unity, and the proof is seen in the Church of Rome herself. Despite all the Catholic finger-wagging about the lack of unity reflected in Protestant denominationalism, there may well be more disharmony within the Roman Catholic Church than there is in the typical Protestant denomination.”

From here, Phil goes on to give examples of disharmony among some more well-known Catholic apologists like Keating against Matatics and Sugenis against Keating, citing online documents of these battles and other battles amongst the members of the Roman Catholic Church. Phil makes the point that the Roman Catholic Church is certainly a far cry from the unity seen within the Trinity that Jesus spoke about.

Finally, Phil describes the type of unity that Christians should strive for:

“But the unity Scripture calls us to is a unity in truth. Paul wrote, “Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). He did not counsel the Corinthians to grasp for a superficial unity by setting truth aside and embracing an organizational unity without regard to sound doctrine. Nor did Paul order them to abandon their differences and simply place a blind and implicit trust in his apostolic magisterium. He was urging them to work through their differences and strive to achieve unity in both heart and mind. Such unity is possible only when people are themselves in union with Christ. “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).”

We should strive for truth and sound doctrines, not organizational unity. If we are truly in Christ, then we are truly unified.

Luther on Sola Scriptura

In the comment section of the post Catholic Fallacies: Private Interpretation, John (jswranch) made the following comment:

We Catholics are not the only ones claiming this chaos in Sola Scriptura. Just look at the words of Luther:

“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”

I wasn’t buying John’s use of this quote so I searched around for the original quote in context but was unsuccessful. I asked James Swan of Beggars All Reformation, who is the online Luther expert, if he was familiar with the quote.

With his usual excellence in getting quotes and context correct, James has posted an in-depth look at this quote. I am including just some excerpts here, you really must read James’ post in it’s entirety:

“When checking these obscure Luther quotes used by Roman Catholics, the first thing to remember, most often, they didn’t get them by reading Luther in context. Often, they’ve pulled these quotes from secondary sources.”

James was able to track down the actual quote in context in a letter by Luther:

“We believed, during the reign of the pope, that the spirits which make a noise and disturbance in the night, were those of the souls of men, who after death, return and wander about in expiation of their sins. This error, thank God, has been discovered by the Gospel, and it is known at present, that they are not the souls of men, but nothing else than those malicious devils who used to deceive men by false answers. It is they that have brought so much idolatry into the world.

The devil seeing that this sort of disturbance could not last, has devised a new one; and begins to rage in his members, I mean in the ungodly, through whom he makes his way in all sorts of chimerical follies and extravagant doctrines. This won't have baptism, that denies the efficacy of the Lord's supper; a third, puts a world between this and the last judgment ; others teach that Jesus Christ is not God ; some say this, others that ; and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads.” - Letter of doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp.

Finally, James notes:

“First, it should be obvious the quote is being used out of context. Luther isn’t talking about the devastating effect of sola scriptura. He’s talking about the devastating effect of the devil, who, Luther says, was at peace in his papal fortress, but now with the gospel being loudly proclaimed, must find a different way to keep men enslaved to sin and darkness.”

The rest of James' article goes on to make some excellent points about the need for an infallible interpreter of scripture (as Catholics claim). As this topic was also brought up in the comment section of the post on private revelation, I hope to address this topic more thoroughly in a future post. Again, make sure you read James' full post as he has alot of interesting information there.

John (jswranch), I know how much you love to quote Luther but unfortunately you will have to cross this particular quote out of your play book. And while you are updating your playbook, you may also want to check out James’ “Luther Myths” posts listed in my sidebar.

The 30,000 Protestant Denomination Myth

I actually heard the Catholic correspondent on Fox News mention that there are 28,000 Protestant denominations (the exact number bounces around 30,000) so I went to find the article that debunked that myth. I sent an email to the Fox correspondent - nothing worse that getting your facts wrong on national TV. He emailed back and said he would look in to it. Somehow I doubt I will get a public retraction.

Svendsen checked the original source for this erroneous number in his article 30,000 Protestant Denominations?

"As we have shown, the larger figures mentioned earlier (8,196 Protestant denominations and perhaps as many as 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations) are based on jurisdiction rather than differing beliefs and practice. Obviously, neither of those figures represents a true denominational distinction. Hence, Barrett’s broader category (which we have labeled true denominations) of twenty-one Protestant denominations and sixteen Roman Catholic denominations represents a much more realistic calculation."

"If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition)."

"In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result, irresponsibly—glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed. The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument will come about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this error—and correct it—each time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum."