The Essential Attributes of Canonicity—Divine Authority and Infallibility
Article 7 (Series 1)
Introduction
What sets the canonical books of Scripture apart from all other writings? In Christian theology, two attributes often rise to the forefront: divine authority and infallibility. These features underpin the unique status of canonical works and shape the Church’s posture toward Scripture. Whereas non-canonical writings—even those laudable for piety or antiquity—cannot bind the conscience, canonical Scripture addresses believers with an unassailable voice that comes directly from God.
The term “infallibility” can be traced throughout the history of Christian reflection on the Bible’s truthfulness and reliability. While earlier Reformed theologians sometimes spoke interchangeably of “inerrancy” and “infallibility,” in modern parlance “infallibility” often underscores the Bible’s incapacity to mislead on matters of faith and practice, guaranteed by its divine origin. This article aims to clarify how divine authority and infallibility mark genuine Scripture, and how these marks have served as criteria for accepting or rejecting certain texts as canonical. Drawing on the writings of William Whitaker and Louis Gaussen—who each defended the Bible’s unique nature from different vantage points—we will survey how the Church has historically recognized that any text lacking these essential attributes could not rightly belong among the inspired corpus.
We begin by distinguishing the biblical concept of divine authority from lesser forms of religious influence. Next, we consider the broader theological meaning of infallibility and how it relates to the notion that Scripture speaks without leading believers astray. By examining both biblical and historical testimonies, as well as Protestant-Reformation and post-Reformation dialogues, this article underscores why confessional Protestants anchor their faith in a text that is not merely “edifying” but definitively God-breathed. Finally, we address practical implications: how the Church preaches, teaches, and lives under a canon so defined by authority and infallibility.
I. Defining Divine Authority
At its core, divine authority means that Scripture conveys the words of God Himself, rather than just the ruminations of human authors. Because God cannot lie or err, any legitimate communication from Him carries an intrinsic and binding authority over belief, conduct, and worship.
God’s Character as Truth
The Old and New Testaments alike establish that God is wholly trustworthy and cannot deceive (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2). This theological premise implies that any true revelation from Him must share in that integrity. When the prophets declare, “Thus says the Lord,” they invoke God’s own authority, which supersedes any human opinion.Scripture as God’s Speech
The Church has long taught that while Scripture emerges through human authors (Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, John, etc.), the divine authorship undergirds its power. It is thus a “double authorship,” human in composition but orchestrated by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20–21). Because of this Spirit-inspired process, Scripture holds a non-negotiable claim on believers. The commands of God in Leviticus or the teachings of Christ in the Gospels are not optional for Christian discipleship; they reflect the full weight of God’s authority.When Christians speak of canonicity, they imply that these writings stand in a different category from all other texts. A commentary by Origen or Augustine, for example, while insightful and influential, can never exert the same authority because it lacks the direct, Spirit-breathed hallmark that belongs exclusively to Scripture. Thus, from a confessional standpoint, authority is not a matter of mere veneration or tradition; it arises from the text’s divine source.
Canon and the Royal Decree Analogy
Some theologians illustrate divine authority by analogy: if a king issues an official decree, it carries binding legal force, whereas a private letter from one of his subjects does not. Likewise, canonical Scripture functions as the King’s decree. The Reformers repeatedly insisted that the Church, though blessed with teachers and pastors, does not produce this decree; rather, it receives and obeys it. Whitaker’s polemic against the Roman Church after Trent zeroed in on precisely this point: no council or papal pronouncement can add or subtract from Scripture’s authority, because Scripture’s authority comes from God alone.
II. The Doctrine of Infallibility
While divine authority points to God’s unassailable right to command and teach His people, infallibility expresses Scripture’s inability to mislead or deceive the faithful. Strictly speaking, infallibility is less about manuscript-level details (the realm in which “inerrancy” often operates when discussing textual variants) and more about the content of revelation—namely, that what God reveals through Scripture cannot fail in what it teaches about faith, morals, and God’s redemptive plan.
Biblical Roots of Infallibility
In the Bible, numerous passages highlight the perfection and trustworthiness of God’s Word:- Psalm 19:7: “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul.”
- Proverbs 30:5: “Every word of God proves true…”
- Isaiah 55:11: God’s word will not return void but accomplishes His purpose.
These references convey the sense that because God is unerring and faithful, the revelation He gives is equally true in what it affirms. Though early Christian writers did not always use the term “infallible,” they attested to a Scripture free from theological or moral deception, wholly reliable in guiding believers to salvation and holiness.
Patristic and Medieval Affirmations
The early Church Fathers, including Augustine, vigorously defended the view that Scripture cannot err in what it teaches. Augustine famously declared that if he found a seeming discrepancy in Scripture, he must assume a deficiency in the manuscript copy or his own understanding, rather than attributing error to God’s written Word. In the medieval period, scholastic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas similarly reasoned that because Scripture proceeds from the Holy Spirit, it cannot teach falsehood in its intended assertions.This continuity underscores that the post-Reformation emphasis on Scriptural infallibility was not a novelty, but a retrieval of an age-old Christian conviction. Contra modern critics who claim that inerrancy or infallibility developed only in American fundamentalism, the mainstream Christian tradition has long treated Scripture as fully reliable and divinely guaranteed in its doctrinal and moral assertions.
Reformation and Post-Reformation Refinements
With the Reformation, the principle of Scripture’s infallibility came to the forefront in debates against both Roman Catholic tradition and nascent forms of rationalistic critique. The Reformation confessions—be it the Thirty-Nine Articles (Anglican), the Belgic Confession (Reformed), the Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian)—all highlight Scripture’s complete trustworthiness. While the Westminster Confession does not use the word “infallible” in every section, it insists that Scripture is the final rule of faith and life, devoid of error in what it conveys about God, Christ, salvation, and holy living.
III. How Authority and Infallibility Ground Canonicity
Together, divine authority and infallibility characterize the nature of Scripture. Yet how do these attributes guide the Church in discerning which books are in the canon?
Books Lacking Intrinsic Authority
Historically, the Church tested proposed canonical writings for apostolic origin, doctrinal fidelity, and moral purity. If a book’s teaching contradicted previously affirmed Scripture, or if it bore no marks of divine authorship, it could not legitimately bind the conscience. This is why apocryphal or pseudepigraphal texts—though sometimes morally edifying or historically interesting—were generally set aside. They lacked the stamp of apostolic witness and, upon close inspection, sometimes contained teachings or narratives incompatible with the rest of Scripture’s message.Whitaker’s Argument for the Canon’s Infallible Witness
In A Disputation on Holy Scripture, William Whitaker directly links the canonicity of the New Testament books to the fact that they were written by apostles or their close associates, who were divinely authorized to produce Scripture for the Church. Whitaker underscores that these writings, by virtue of divine inspiration, not only hold supreme authority but cannot be theologically deceptive or erroneous. Their infallibility is part of what sets them apart from human traditions or later ecclesiastical pronouncements.Whitaker also critiques the Council of Trent’s approach to equating certain Apocryphal writings with the canonical Old Testament. For Whitaker, these Apocryphal books did not bear the same “internal coherence” with the rest of Scripture nor did they exhibit the uniform mark of God’s veracity. Hence, they could not impose doctrinal or moral obligations on believers.
Gaussen’s Perspective on Divine Authority and Infallibility
Louis Gaussen, writing in the context of nineteenth-century rationalism, staunchly defended Scripture’s total reliability. He emphasized that if the Bible indeed is “God-breathed,” then its teachings must reflect divine truth, incapable of misleading the faithful. Gaussen noted that any attempt to subject Scripture to a purely naturalistic critique fails to account for the Holy Spirit’s supernatural role in guaranteeing its infallibility. For him, one essential aspect of canonicity is that no truly canonical book can contain doctrines that betray God’s character or pollute the gospel message. Any divergence from the consistent biblical witness of salvation history hints that a text is not Spirit-inspired.
IV. Biblical and Historical Evidence for Divine Authority and Infallibility
In addition to theological argument, Scripture itself testifies to its unique quality of speaking with God’s voice, and the Church’s historical consensus underscores this recognition.
Scripture’s Self-Testimony
- 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is God-breathed,” establishing the Bible’s origin in God’s breath. Since God is infallible in all His ways, the Scripture that proceeds from Him shares in that trustworthiness.
- 2 Peter 1:20–21: No prophecy of Scripture arises from the prophet’s own interpretation; rather, the Spirit carries them along. This implies not only authority but a safeguard against deceptive or erroneous content.
Jesus Himself reinforces Scripture’s infallible authority by stating, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). In referencing the Old Testament, He implies that the words of God’s covenantal revelation stand permanently valid and coherent—unchallengeable.
Early Christian Usage and Councils
While explicit arguments for infallibility were not systematically spelled out in the earliest councils, the Church’s usage of biblical writings in preaching, catechesis, and dogmatic formulations reveals a functional understanding that these texts are the final court of appeal in theological disputes. By the time of Augustine, doctrinal controversies—like the Arian debate—were heavily anchored in the authority of canonical Scripture, which the orthodox side upheld as definitive.Later, at the Reformation, confessions repeatedly reaffirmed Scripture’s unerring authority as the basis for all church teachings—contrasting the ephemeral or uncertain nature of human traditions or new revelations. This demonstrates a cumulative historical witness to Scripture’s unique role in guiding Christendom.
V. Distinguishing Canonicity from Other Ecclesiastical Writings
Even amid high reverence for certain patristic and ecclesiastical texts, the Church has preserved a careful boundary. Church Fathers, though wise, sometimes contradict each other or deviate from biblical norms. Councils can err if they depart from Scripture (Protestants notably hold that even ecumenical councils should be tested by the Word). Thus, the unassailable authority and infallibility of canonical Scripture sets it on a level unattainable by other writings, no matter how historic or theologically rich.
The Case of the Apocrypha
Among controversies that highlight the necessity of authority and infallibility is the inclusion or exclusion of Old Testament Apocrypha. The Reformers argued that these books, while sometimes edifying, contained problematic historical claims and doctrinal statements (e.g., prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees) that contradicted or went beyond the established canonical witness. Their lesser status in the early Church, plus a lack of explicit prophetic or apostolic endorsement, flagged them as not bearing the same God-breathed quality.Whitaker’s method exemplifies how Reformation thinkers invoked biblical, historical, and theological criteria to conclude that only the recognized Hebrew canon of the Old Testament and the apostolic texts of the New Testament fully exhibit the authority and infallibility proper to Scripture.
The Role of Ecumenical Confessions
As helpful as confessional documents (e.g., the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Augsburg Confession, the Belgic Confession) can be, they remain subordinate standards. These confessions meticulously draw upon Scripture, but they never claim to be infallible in the same sense. Their value lies in summarizing biblical doctrine cohesively, not in supplanting the Scripture’s own direct authority. This principle ensures a hierarchical respect where Scripture stands alone as “the rule of faith and practice,” while confessions serve as wise but revisable testimonies to scriptural truth.
VI. Objections and Clarifications
Critics from both rationalistic and traditionalist perspectives sometimes raise objections to the notions of divine authority and infallibility.
Rationalist Challenge: Human Authorship Means Fallibility
Some argue that because humans are fallible, a text produced under human agency must contain errors. The Christian response asserts that while human authors penned Scripture in their own styles and contexts, the Holy Spirit superintended the process, ensuring that the final product teaches only what is true and necessary for faith and godliness. This synergy does not override the authors’ personalities; rather, it guarantees fidelity of message.Traditionalist Challenge: Church-Declared Infallibility
Certain Roman Catholic perspectives have taught that the Church, via its magisterium, holds an infallible interpretive authority on the text, thus effectively rendering Scripture and Church tradition equally infallible. Confessional Protestants counter that the Church’s role is ministerial, not magisterial; the Church receives God’s Word but does not create or guarantee its authority. If any tradition or ecclesiastical pronouncement contradicts Scripture’s clear teaching, it cannot be infallible.Finitude vs. The Scope of Infallibility
Occasionally, debates surface regarding whether infallibility extends to historical, geographical, or scientific details. While older theologians often used “inerrant” to cover all factual statements, many modern Reformed thinkers apply “infallible” primarily to faith and morals—emphasizing that Scripture cannot mislead believers about God’s redemptive message or ethical commands. Even so, historically the Church has avoided an easy partition between doctrinal and historical statements, wary of letting critics claim Scripture is “true in doctrine but false in events.” Ultimately, because God is the author, Scripture is seen as reliable in everything it asserts as truth, though genre, idiomatic language, and literary style must be considered.
VII. Practical Implications for the Church
Understanding that canonical Scripture carries divine authority and infallibility has manifold pastoral and ecclesial consequences.
Confidence in Preaching and Teaching
When pastors step into the pulpit, they do so with the conviction that the text they expound is not subject to human whim or speculation. They can declare, “Thus says the Lord,” precisely because Scripture is the Lord’s Word. This fosters bold, Christ-centered preaching that is not overshadowed by the doubt that “maybe the text is in error.” Gaussen in his works underscores that such boldness in proclaiming Scripture counters the weakening influence of rationalistic skepticism.Shaping Worship and Church Discipline
Liturgies historically draw heavily on Scripture—readings, Psalms, epistle and Gospel lessons—because the Bible, uniquely bearing God’s authority, forms the backbone of corporate worship. Likewise, in matters of church discipline, the instructions of Scripture carry the final say: decisions or moral guidelines built on extra-biblical sentiments alone lack the authority to bind believers’ consciences.Guidance for Christian Living
At the personal level, believers can turn to Scripture with the assurance that it will not steer them into heresy or sin. In times of ethical confusion or theological upheaval, the faithful rely on Scripture’s infallible counsel as a stable anchor. Because it stands above human distortion—conveying a coherent, God-centered worldview—Scripture continually shapes believers to walk in truth and holiness.
VIII. Conclusion
Canonically recognized books are marked by divine authority and infallibility—two attributes inseparable from the fact that God Himself speaks through these texts. While external testimonies, historical acceptance, and ecclesiastical usage can corroborate a book’s place in the canon, the ultimate ground of its right to command our faith lies in the Spirit-driven recognition that this writing, by virtue of its God-breathed origin, cannot deceive.
From the vantage point of early Church Fathers like Augustine, through the medieval scholastics, and culminating in the Reformation’s robust articulation, Christians have celebrated Scripture’s uniqueness: it alone is wholly reliable, bearing full divine weight. William Whitaker harnessed this concept in his apologetic against Roman Catholic expansions of the canon, showing that any text not matching Scripture’s divine authority and infallibility must stand outside canonical status. Meanwhile, Louis Gaussen confronted Enlightenment rationalists by reaffirming that academic scrutiny, though valuable in textual or historical analysis, cannot override the Church’s faith in Scripture’s truthfulness as guaranteed by God Himself.
Therefore, to speak of the canon is to speak of a body of writings that demands absolute allegiance and complete trust. They are “the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2), safeguarded from falsehood, and living with power to transform hearts (Hebrews 4:12). This truth not only fuels the Christian’s devotion and preaching but also cements the Church’s identity across centuries. By esteeming these essential attributes, the Church confesses that it stands not upon human speculation or tradition but upon the unwavering Word of God, anchored in the unassailable authority and infallibility of the biblical canon.
In the subsequent articles, we continue examining how these foundational convictions—rooted in Scripture’s authority and infallibility—further clarify issues of biblical inspiration, sufficiency, and the ongoing pastoral function of Scripture within the community of faith. For now, we rest on the knowledge that the same God who ordained His Word has ensured it speaks without leading astray, giving the Church a sure, stable foundation in every generation.
