Though Luther did not challenge
the infallibility of Scripture he most emphatically challenged the infallibility
of the church. He allowed for the possibility that the church could even err, even
when the church ruled on the question of what books properly belonged to the
canon. (R. C. Sproul, “The Establishment of Scripture,” in Sproul, Scripture
Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine [Phillipsburg, Pa.: Presbyterian and Reformed,
2005], 11)
That the canon was originally
established by a historical selection process, undertaken by fallible human
beings and fallible institutions, is no reason to exclude from our consideration
the role of the providence of God in these affairs. Some in the Reformed tradition
have pointed to a providentia specialissima (special providence) in this
regard. (Ibid., 62)
It is one thing to say that the
church could have erred; it is another thing to say that the church did
err. (Ibid., 12)
In response to the above when it appeared in Sola Scriptura!
The Protestant Position on the Bible, one Catholic apologist responded
thusly:
Objection #52: “It is one thing to say that the church could
have erred; it is another thing to say that the church did err.
Answer: Again, we can’t help but see in this
proposition a convenient way for the apologist to “have his cake and eat it
too.” On the one hand, from a theoretical perspective, he maintains the
possibility of error in the Church so as to allow himself to be free of Church
rule on issues with which he disagrees. If he can reserve for himself the
prerogative of saying when the Church has erred, then he can dismiss the
Church’s rule when he deems it necessary. On the other hand, since he is
not comfortable with having his theoretical proposition of the canon become
fact, he disclaims that the church has, in fact, erred in its decision on the
canon. What is his basis for making this distinction? It is supported by
another theory about the “providence” of God a few pages later. He writes, “It
was also His providence that the original books of the Bible were preserved and
accorded the status of Canon” (p. 94). This is quite convenient for him. He can
simply attribute all that has occurred to the “providence of God” and out of
this convince himself that he possesses an error-free canon. This apologist has
fallen into the trap of thinking that “as long as it agrees with what I
believe, it is certainly the providence of God working in my life.” The problem
is however, that the “providence of God” can apply to all that exists.
Everything is in God’s control and plan. But this also means that very bad
things are in the “providence of God.” The rebellion of Satan, the sin of Adam,
the Bubonic plague, the Hitler regime, were all in the “providence of God,” but
that doesn’t mean at all that they were good or error-free. In fact, in basing
the argument on God’s providence, there is equal justification from the
Protestant perspective to say either the Church received a fallible canon or
that it received an infallible canon. Moreover, using the “providence”
argument, Catholics can claim that God “providentially” gave the early Church
the very doctrines with which this Reformed apologist disagrees – and there are
many of them (e.g., Baptismal Regeneration, the Real Presence, etc.).
We all want God’s providence to be on “our side” and accomplish the things we
desire, but that is not the way the real world operates. We cannot just
invoke God’s providence to judge whether a certain event in history is good or
bad, true or false. Providence means only that, whatever happens, good or bad,
all is in God’s control and he will work it out the way he sees fit. Thus, the “providence”
line of argumentation does not help this apologist escape his problem. In
actuality, it shows how very weak his position is, since its foundation is so
weak. (Robert A. Sungenis, "Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and
Catholic Answers," in Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of
the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed.;
State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2013],
254-55)
