No, that does solve the issue you raised. Now you are raising two new issues.That doesn't solve the issue because there are still at least two problems I see. 1st What books are part of the Bible and how is it determined that something is infallible. 2nd Who is the normative authority that interprets scripture. It's all fine and good to say the holy spirit won't lead you astray if you are reading honestly. But the MASSIVE differences between protestants will deny this. How can we both be guided by the holy spirit if we come to two different contradictory positions. AKA polygamy is allowed vs not allowed. Child baptism is necessary vs it is a sin, etc.
In regards to 1? Well first, the new testament canon of various branches of Christianity is nearly identical in regards to what books are in canon, with Orthodox Tewahedo (a subset of the Oriental Orthodox) being the one outlier. This was set up by early church fathers maybe by the year 200. Then, guided by the new testament, which virtually all agree on, Protestants use the Old testament relied on by Jesus (i.e. your old testatment minus the apocrypha), which is where different Christian branches disagree. Jesus is the Word, so what he repeats is where the Old Testament gets its authority. Now obviously, this is going to be a fallible list of infallible books, as we fallible humans are trying to determine what books Jesus used during his time on earth. Maybe he signed off on more, but it wasn't recorded, though I doubt it.
Note that the Catholic canon has only been 'infallibly' listed out since the council of Trent in the 1500s. That's not a sign of perfection. Much better to base it off of an actually infallible source. More, that means for 1500 years, they too were using a fallible list of infallible books. And yes, there was disagreement.
I'd also note that you don't have to be infallible to notice infallibility. Moses didn't need a secondary source clarifying that yes, the burning, speaking bush was God and infallible, despite Moses himself being fallible.
As for 2: there isn't one. We are fallible humans trying our best to interpret an infallible work, so we will have differences. But the general rule is that there is triage of problems with interpretation, and unless it directly contradicts the Nicene creed (like Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons), that person's stated beliefs are still Christian. And yeah, that is giving some authority to tradition, but fallible authority, and to the right kind of tradition: tradition that was written down while the Church was still one and was still fairly close to Jesus and it wasn't advantageous to. In short, Authority shrank, from Jesus being the Word Incarnate, to the Apostles baptized in the Holy Spirit, to the gospel writers (some apostles, such as John, Peter and Paul, but not all, notably Luke was not one) writing inspired by the Holy Spirit, to church fathers and others who remembered that authority, and etc. As time goes on, more and more fallibility was mixed in with the infallibility.
How do we know? A bunch of different churches all claim infallibility in their teaching/traditions. And then they got stuff wrong, and then went in other directions. In short, claims continual infallible tradition are completely wrong, as the traditions have clearly been changing and still do. Maybe you could argue that the old church fathers may have been infallible for some of the councils, but which ones? Which councils? Etc. The only thing we know is true is the Word of God.
Last edited: