Rethinking Infallibility
Separating what is true vs what we believe to be true
In my discussions surrounding Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and Catholicism, I tend to lean toward a protestant view of church history. I think we lack confidence in which traditions can be traced directly to the apostles. Some doctrines, like Mary’s perpetual virginity, do seem to have historical attestation in the first and second centuries, whereas other doctrines, like her bodily assumption, appear later, toward the fifth and sixth. To me, this is a fair indicator in favor of Sola Scriptura, where the scriptures are the highest authority.
However, one area where I do empathize with the Catholic and Orthodox position is the idea that sacred tradition can be considered infallible, even if we don’t have absolute ontological certainty. For instance, the East and West both claim the date of Easter to be an infallible apostolic tradition, yet they disagree on what that date is. Now, you could make a case that this therefore disproves its infallibility; however, I would like to propose an alternative view of infallibility that is not rooted in its certainty but is rooted in our faith.
Typically, when we describe infallibility, we think of something as being incapable of error; however, this is a difficult bar to uphold, as even Christianity itself could be false; therefore, in theory, the scriptures could be false. However, this would not mean that Christians must reject the infallibility of scripture.
We would just say that we lack absolute confidence that they are infallible; we trust that they are. Infallibility is tied to what we hold to be infallible. They are the things we believe are absolutely true and divinely revealed.
We hold this to be scripture; however, I can understand the Catholic and Orthodox view that various traditions also fall into this category. They believe that their traditions come from the apostles. Even if we all disagree.
In this nuanced view, we are not denying that traditions are not capable of infallibility, but that the diversity of evidence causes us to lack confidence that they are.
However, one thing that still distinguishes scripture is that Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox all affirm that scripture alone is God-breathed. While traditions may be the authoritative and infallible Word of God, scripture alone is the inspired Word of God. It is ontologically unique in its very essence.
This is a thoughtful reflection. I appreciate the way you are trying to navigate the tension between what is true and what we believe to be true. That distinction alone requires a level of intellectual humility that is not always easy to sustain in conversations about authority, tradition, and infallibility.
It seems to me that much of the division between Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox has often been less about whether truth exists and more about how human beings come to recognize and receive it. Scripture, tradition, interpretation, historical continuity—all of these are attempts to wrestle with the same fundamental question: how finite people discern divine revelation.
What I find interesting in your reflection is the willingness to admit that our confidence in something and the ontological reality of that thing may not always align perfectly. Faith, in that sense, often involves trust in what we hold to be true even while recognizing the limits of our certainty. That posture alone opens the door to a different kind of conversation between traditions.
Your observation about the shared affirmation that Scripture is God-breathed is also significant. It may be one of the few places where Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox still stand on clearly common ground, even if they differ on how authority unfolds around it.
It makes me wonder if part of the work ahead for Christians is learning how to hold conviction and humility together—taking truth seriously while also recognizing the limits of our perception and understanding.
Thank you for raising these questions. Reflections like this feel less like arguments to win and more like invitations to think together, which is something our current conversations about theology could probably use more of.
I don’t think this affects your overall point, but please be careful about referencing the idea of scripture being God-breathed. It’s a beautiful phrase, and evocative. But when that line was written, it’s unlikely that the New Testament was considered by the author to be scripture.