Sola Scriptura and Tradition

As a Protestant, I hold to the conviction that scripture is the only infallible authority for church and practice. This principle is commonly known as sola scriptura.

Scott Swain and Michael Allen say in their Reformed Catholicity that sola scriptura means that scripture “is the norm that norms all other norms and that is not itself normed” (p 42). They explain further, saying, “the process of receiving and transmitting apostolic truth has a terminus a quo, Holy Scripture, from which it flows and to which it is accountable.” (p 43)

What sola scriptura means, is that scripture is the only source of authority that is both infallible and unchangeable. It is the unique “norm” of churchly authority in that it is the only infallible authority.

The necessary corollary of sola scriptura is that the articulation of theology, creeds, ecclesial tradition, liturgy, et al, is necessarily not infallible. In other words, fallible men are attempting to express the truths found in the infallible scriptures. Swain and Allen explain this:

The various products and processes of church tradition are certainly fallible, and their existence and exercise are certainly accountable to their prophetic and apostolic foundation. (p 45-46)

In other words, because tradition or theological exercise is fallible, it is always subject to “chapter and verse” to validate their point. The Bible must be at the foundation.

Swain and Allen go on to explain that because the Spirit dwells in the church, she can and does have renewed reason to interpret scripture. Through the act of regeneration, the

‘gracious, sovereign movement of Word and Spirit outbids the fall.’ In its rescue and renewal by God, reason is raised and restored to its proper function within the economy of divine teaching. In terms of the present discussion, this means that everything that the Spirit does in us to illumine Holy Scripture, he does by us, by the instrumentality of created reason in its social and historical expression (p 37)

So theology and tradition is not a wasted effort. The Spirit does enable the church to interpret and explain the scriptures. However,

because [the church] has not yet received… the beatific vision (glorification), reason’s vocation is “inseparable from ongoing enquiry, from reformulating old questions, testing established beliefs, asking new questions, and so providing new resources for teaching.” Reason’s vocation is inseparable from a lively tradition of debate about what does and does not count as the faithful extension of tradition toward its goal, the knowledge and love of the Triune God (p 38)

What Swain and Allen are meaning to communicate here, is that the Spirit, as the church’s aid, produces real and meaningful tradition rooted in the scriptures. However, because the church is not yet glorified, not yet experiencing the beatific vision, the activity of the church in theologizing and traditioning is an ongoing, fallible process, as she grows up into maturity by the ongoing help of the Spirit.

Suffice to say, Protestants are pro-tradition. We see this in the articulation of creeds and confessions from the time of the church’s conception. However, we realize that the church has yet to experience her fulness, and is in the process of sanctification. Insomuch as she submits to the Spirit, she is able to articulate the theology of scripture in an accurate manner. Although, theology and tradition are subject to error because of the reality of sin.

Sola scriptura is this attempt to “ride the line” in an appreciation of historic creeds and tradition, while at the same time realizing that scripture alone is infallible, and that the church at times can “get it wrong”.

Unfortunately, there are two common reaction to the principle of sola scriptura. First, many reject sola scriptura because of its affirmation that scripture alone is infallible. The Roman and Eastern church chide sola scriptura because they feel it undermines historic tradition. Still others — usually from the evangelical side — misapply sola scriptura, and reject tradition or theology in any form, thinking it unhelpful and distraction.

Swain and Allen explain these two overreactions to the principle of sola scriptura:

We will suggest that two classic errors are evident in sola Scriptura as described by [many]. We might identify these targets as a theology at once both Donatist and deist.

First, there is a Donatist shift… [I]n the fourth and fifth centuries the Donatists believed that the church was pure, and, therefore, they opposed the return of those who had caved in to pressure during periods of persecution. They insisted that such disloyal church members could not be restored to good standing, precisely because they had a very elevated sense of the church’s holiness. A Donatist tendency can be seen in purist approaches to the church’s faith and practice. Here theological reflection cannot be helped by a flawed and fallen church. The church is divided, sinful, and marred by deformities. Thus, the call is to reflect critically and individually upon the practices of the church from outside those practices, rather than from within them… [Many] certainly describe a sola Scriptura Protestantism that is Donatist in style—wherein tradition can only be valid if perfectly aligned and generated by the Holy Scriptures. In so doing, zeal for biblical purity may well lead to overlooking the fullness of God’s involvements in ecclesial history and even his providential and spiritual leading of an imperfect but genuine church; her traditions, creeds, liturgies, practices, and spiritual authority may be dismissed because they are not hand-delivered in immaculate and resplendent glory.

Second, the modern era also births a deistic approach. Here theological practice is entirely and exclusively human activity with divine agency bracketed off to the past. Mark Bowald has argued that “most contemporary accounts of biblical hermeneutics are deistic.” 20 Nothing remains but a divine deposit left for the pious Christian or, perhaps, the objective scholar, to unearth and appreciate. The involvement of God is entirely described in the past tense: God did reveal, God did speak, God did give us an inscripturated Word. The present tense is entirely immanent, however, and involves only our own activities: receiving, reading, studying, questioning, critiquing, and so on. Method becomes important—whether historical or practical, hermeneutical or rhetorical. Because God is presumed not to be involved in the present horizon of communication, everything hangs on negotiating the text wisely and objectively. (p 56-57)

This explanation is incredibly helpful. On “donatist” side (usually an argument from Roman or Eastern churches), if tradition is fallible in any way, it is to be rejected. Tradition must either be infallibly declared, or rejected altogether. On the “deist” side, God has spoken, and does not speak any longer. And so traditioning or theologizing is a wasted effort. The only way to engage God is to “objectively” interpret the Bible. “No creed but Christ” mentality.

Both misunderstand sola scriptura. As Swain and Allen explain, sola scriptura

was not intended by its original advocates in the time of the Reformation as an absolute rebuke to tradition or a denial of genuine ecclesial authority. It was a spiritual characterization of the nature of that authority and the role of that tradition. (p 49)

Sola scriptura places a context to tradition and scripture, and how they relate together. Put simply, tradition, while good and important in regards to the maturity and growth of the church, is not infallible and always subject to the authority of scripture.

52 thoughts on “Sola Scriptura and Tradition

  1. I enjoyed reading this post. If you do not mind I would like to give you a Scripture. 1Tim. 3:15 If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

    Scripture tells us it is the Church which is the “pillar and foundation of the truth.” The Bible did not come for some 300 years later. We are also told in Scripture to “hang onto the traditions which were taught.”

    I do believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, but I also believe it is the Church that is the “pillar and foundation of the truth of it.” If one is Sola Scriptura to me, one has to hang on to the traditions which were handed down by the Apostles, as we are commanded to do so. To me there is just no other way to see it, according to Scripture.

    Good post and enjoyed reading. God Bless, SR

  2. Two comments:
    1. Responding to “The involvement of God is entirely described in the past tense: God did reveal, God did speak, God did give us an inscripturated Word. The present tense is entirely immanent, however, and involves only our own activities: receiving, reading, studying, questioning, critiquing, and so on. Method becomes important—whether historical or practical, hermeneutical or rhetorical. Because God is presumed not to be involved in the present horizon of communication, everything hangs on negotiating the text wisely and objectively. (p 56-57)”
    The author makes quite an overstatement–who says God is not presently at all involved in what happens today? How can God not be involved if His word is involved?!?! On the other hand, is the author implying God is still communicating today, as He did with Paul and Peter? Is God still: revealing things not revealed in past ages (Eph. 3:5)? still [literally] speaking (Heb. 1:1-2)? still giving an inscripturated Word (2 Tim. 3:16)?
    When we encounter and interact with what He spoke, revealed, and inscripturated, we are encountering God for when His word “works in you” God is therein working (1 Thess. 2:13). When man hears and does what God has spoken/revealed/inscripturated (James 1:23-25), God is therein involved “in the present horizon of communication” and is responsible for the results (Heb. 4:12 word living and powerful; 1 John 2:3 we know Him, if we keep His commandments.). Another example is when sinners are baptized into Christ, it is by faith in the “working” (present tense) of God (Col. 2:12), who works to remove our sins by the blood of Christ Matt. 26:28; Acts 2:38).

  3. 2. Replying to “And so traditioning or theologizing is a wasted effort. The only way to engage God is to “objectively” interpret the Bible. “Me and my Bible” mentality.”
    Eph. 3:3-4 “how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),”. 2Ti 2:2 “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” 2Ti 2:15 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
    Me, and other people I know and can trust, helping me to understand my Bible. That is directly from Scripture. That’s a far cry from the Westminster Confession, creeds, or man-made traditions taught as doctrine.
    (I’ll send a few other comments privately—as always, not intending to bombard your blog. Thanks for providing a forum where such things can be discussed and sorted through—a far more worthy use of our time than many lesser pursuits that I am easily drawn to)

  4. Correction on 2 (I was reading the first edition of this corrected post) Where I cite “Me and my Bible” mentality”—that should now be “No creed but Christ” mentality.” That does not alter the substance of my reply. My apology though for citing the wrong edition.

  5. Hey, you’re supposed to be the one answering questions, not me (haha, kidding).
    Dwell: If you are asking for a simple “Yes” or “No,” then the Scriptures say that the Spirit is in the believer (Rom. 8:9) and that is my creed. Of course the subject cannot end there. When “in” the prophets, He testified to them and moved them, and because that is not ongoing (I suspect we agree), we must investigate the diverse ways the Spirit has identified Himself as being ‘in’ man (1 Pet. 1:11; 2 Pet. 1:23). Also, God dwells in the believer (2 Cor. 6:16), as does Christ (2 Jn. 9b).
    Helps them: What I have read (Westminster Confession and modern teachers like Sproul*) of so-called “illumination,” I do not find in Scripture. What the Scripture does say is that the Holy Spirit “witnesses to us” (present tense) by what “He had said before” (Heb. 10:15). Communication does not require miraculous intervention in order to be understood. When God speaks to His creation, He knows how to speak so as to be understood (see Adam/Eve, Israel, Jesus, etc). When the Holy Spirit spoke to the apostles and prophets and they wrote His words, He spoke so that what was spoken and written could be understood by the common process of hearing (Eph. 3:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:15).

    *”11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
    12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
    13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, – Ephesians 4:11-13Though the Scriptures are themselves light for us, there is need for additional illumination so that we may clearly perceive the light. The same Holy Spirit who inspires the Scripture, works to illumine the Scripture for our benefit. He sheds more light on the original light.” (Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by R C Sproul, p119)

    • Doctrine of illumination. Correct. Here’s a good proof text for he doctrine: Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. – 1 Corinthians 2:12

      The basic thought from the above passage is that no man can 1) understand or 2) accept the things of God. This is a classical doctrine affirmed throughout history.

      In my estimation, it seems youre conflating inspiration and illumination. Illumination is the ongoing work of the Spirrit in the church now to help us understand apostolic teaching

      A good text for this is actually Ephesians 4:11-13!

      Because what’s assumed in this passage is that the church is maturing even now. We have to “grow up”. This means we have to understand the apostolic teaching even now. That takes theology. This is a function of the Spirit in the church. He illumines our minds to “get it” and then pass it on. As Paul told Timothy in 2 tim 2:2. This is tradition.

  6. The rich young ruler understood Jesus’ words. Likewise, The officers answered, “No man ever spoke like this Man!” (John 7:46). The stiff-necked Jews understood Stephen in Acts 7. Were they illuminated? May modern Jews understand Stephen’s sermon?
    Learning starts with “first principles” (milk, easily understood; Heb. 5:12) which equip us for “second” principles (meat). That’s how you learn about people, a skill, a sport, etc. Read and study until you understand (Eph. 3:3-4; 2 Tim. 2:15), do what you understand (James 1:23-25), tell others what you have learned (2 Tim. 2:2), and never stop learning and doing what you learn (Heb. 5:12-14). Sports enthusiasts, school teachers, and auto mechanics do this in their fields—it is the nature of learning. From the Garden, to the Flood, to the Mount of Sinai or Calvary God has spoken (Heb. 1:1). Man can understand what God says (Gen. 2:16; Ex. 19:8; Mt. 7:28). Man must decide whom he will serve: self or God (Mt. 16:24-26 deny himself; 23:37 you were not willing).
    Regarding theology. What Scripture says or implies that theology is God’s means for understanding apostolic teaching? Apostolic teaching is theology (1 Cor. 2:11-13). 1 Cor. 2 is a proof text for revelation, not “illumination,” per verse 10. Compare Eph. 3:5.

    • I understand the point you’re making, but it doesn’t really prove your point. I could cite the same verses on my side. Your argument is that man can and dies understand God truly without aid by the holy spirit. I’d encourage you to re read 1 Corinthians 2 passage I cited. It explicitly proves my point.

      Regarding acts 7, Stephen says in 7:51 that the Jews always resist the Holy Spirit. that puts the passage in my favor

  7. I’m only saying that they (both saint and sinner) understood what the Holy Spirit said without the Holy Spirit having to explain what He was saying—He has spoken with sufficient clarity. Scripture records God’s history of speaking in a way that all are able to understand (Adam/Eve understood, Israel understood, and when Christ and the gospel fully came some of the lost understood and rejected what they heard while some of the lost understood and accepted what they heard). Once truth is revealed, it does not require a miracle to understand what was said—that’s the nature of communication.

  8. Westminster Confession Ch. I
    7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
    —You know my convictions on a man-made document of “official doctrine,” but do you agree with this?

    • Ur still not understanding my point. Of course I agree w the WCF. Perspectuity is not the issue. It is the moral ability of man to accept the things of God

  9. I overlooked #6 (Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word.”)–my mistake. But now I must ask how a “sufficient understanding” is available “in a due use of ordinary means” if a sufficient understanding is impossible without a miraculous enlightenment? Miraculous enlightenment is not the “use of ordinary means.”
    In your comment at 8:43 PM you said “The basic thought from the above passage [1 Cor. 2, dh] is that no man can 1) understand . . .the things of God”. It is one thing to say they cannot accept the things of God (which is true if they do not want to understand), but to say they do not have the capacity to understand what God has said means: 1) God chose to speak in a way that man did not have the capacity to understand and 2)God holds people accountable to truths they do not have the capacity to understand. To the contrary “And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matt. 7:28-29). “Then, all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath” (Luke 4:28). Didn’t Jesus’ friends and enemies understand what He said? If they could, why not also today?

    • I think ur misunderstanding the context of the perspecuity doctrine. The thought is that Christians don’t need an infallible papal authority above them to interpret for them. It is clear enough for Christian to get the clear meaning of the text. *christians* is the context, in contrast to papal infallibility

  10. The controversy of papal infallibility is not directly related to our discussion. We aren’t discussing the historical perspicuity idea, but your statement that 1 Cor. 2 teaches that sinners cannot understand the things God has revealed. In that context, my questions remain:
    1. How a “sufficient understanding” of Scripture is available “in a due use of ordinary means” if a sufficient understanding is impossible without a miraculous enlightenment?
    2. Since sinners understood what Jesus taught (Lk. 4:28), why do you claim sinners today cannot understand what Jesus taught, as recorded by the Holy Spirit in Scripture?

    • I’m saying that the perspicuity doctrine you quoted from WCF is addressing papal infallibility. I am NOT saying that sinner cannot understand biblical teaching. I’m saying that they cannot understand/accept biblical teaching WITHOUT the Spirit’s aid. The fallen mans mind does not have the moral capacity to receive and obey the teaching. We are talking about moral ability, which fallen man does not have because of the corruption of original sin.

  11. On May 24 at 8:43AM you said “The basic thought from the above passage is that no man can 1) understand or 2) accept the things of God.” Because you used the word “or” you said that sinners cannot understand the things of God. Now you say “I am NOT saying that sinner cannot understand biblical teaching”. If “the things of God” = “biblical teaching” then please explain yourself. (Right now we are not talking about accepting God’s word–only understanding what God says)
    In Luke 4:28, did sinners understand what Jesus said? Can you answer “Yes” or “No”?

  12. Please re-read what I’m asking. Not “accepts”–understands. In Luke 4:28, did sinners understand what Jesus said? Clearly they did not accept it. I’m asking if they understood. Can you answer “Yes” or “No”?

  13. Someone once wrote “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.” I guess I’ll have to look at the WCF to find out if only a miraculously illuminated person could reach the same conclusion from Scripture. [I don’t say that with bitterness or a growl…just trying to reason together]
    If you won’t answer the question (In Luke 4:28, did sinners understand what Jesus said?), then, yes, that ends this thread. I understand that you have a limited amount of time for these things, so thanks for the time you’ve given. Talk to you later.

    • David. Ur response is puzzling. So u don’t want help from the WCF but ull get help from a children’s song? yes, I’ve given this discussion a lot of time. Hope u can appreciate that

  14. But if the Bible is the only infallible source, then how do we know infallibly that the Bible is infallible? If it’s because the Bible itself tells us, that’s circular reasoning is it not? Or do you admit that we can’t know it infallibly?

      • I answered ur injection w an equal objection. U believe the Catholic Church is infallible because the Catholic Church says so. Isn’t that circular reasoning?

      • Yes, if I believed the Catholic Church was infallible only on the basis that the Catholic Church says it’s infallible, that would be circular reasoning. Now will you answer my question?

      • I’m addressing ur question: My point here is that we are in the same level. U believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church based on its self-attestation. I believe the bible is infallible because of its self attestation. How is that different?

  15. My question was whether you believed the Bible was infallible because of self-attestation. This is the first time you have answered that question since I asked it.

    By the way, for purposes of this discussion I’m assuming that “the Bible” is defined as the 66 books contained in the Protestant Bible.

    Next question:

    Where does the Bible say that the Bible is infallible?

  16. Do you always make people explain their beliefs before you will explain yours? It gives the impression that the best you can say about your own doctrine is that it’s no worse than other people’s. : )

    Yes, I believe in the infallibility of the scriptures.

    • Ha, well I dont understand your objection. I’m trying to get how my belief in infallibility is different from yours. I’m guessing you’re going the route of “the church defines the scriptures as infallible”. Please, give me your point Agellius. This makes the process much faster :). Not trying to be rude, I promise. As the owner of this “house”, I only “shut down” conversations when they’ve run their course 😉 (I’m being facetious of course)

  17. See, that’s the problem (from my point of view). You’re assuming that my questions have some point beyond the questions themselves. You made an argument about sola scriptura, including a rejection of what you take to the be the “Roman” attitude toward it, and i’m challenging it with questions. If your position can withstand the challenge, then you should have no fear of answering questions directly. That is what would make the process much faster.

    So far my question from 4 comments ago remains unanswered, whereas none of your direct questions to me remains unanswered.

    • If your questions dont have a point to them, then why are you commenting? Why would I respond to pointless questions? If you have a counter argument, and if you can do it in a cordial manner, then fine, I’ll be more than happy to respond.

      Thus far, your comments have been a sort of “bait and switch” like the homosexuality marriage one on my Catholicism post. That is not an argument. You’re trying to corner me in a logical contradiction. That’s not playing fair. That’s just being tricky. Comment with the substance of your objection, and we can jump right into the argument. Thus far I still have no clue where you’re going with the question: is the Bible infallible?

      I believe that Bible clearly attests to its own infallibility. But what is your issue with that? You havent said. You still refuse to show your cards.

  18. I refuse to show my cards? When I’ve answered every question put to me directly and without delay?

    I choose to discuss the issue via question and answer. This gives you a chance to state what your position actually is, rather than me assuming that I know what it is. (It’s also known as the Socratic method, which I believe has a long and respectable history as an effective way of getting at the truth.) But if you refuse to answer my questions, so be it.

    I don’t know what “homosexuality marriage” post you’re talking about. I have only commented on two of your posts, this one and the one titled “Why I Won’t Convert to Roman Catholicism”. I think you have me confused with someone else.

  19. You did comment about marriage and homosexuality. Go check the other post.

    Besides that, I do believe in the Bible’s infallibility because it says so. Here is the logical thought behind it: The Bible is inspired of God > God is perfect (infallible) > therefore, what God writes is infallible.

    The Bible may not use the word “infallible”, but it certainly gives other wording which easily leads to that conclusion, just from reading it.

  20. I thought you were referring to a post on the subject of homosexual marriage. Sorry.

    I’m baffled that you think my gay marriage illustration was a trap or a trick. What did I trick you into doing or saying? What contradiction did I try to corner you into?

    It was an illustration, the point of which was to show that having standards for participation in something is not necessarily for the purpose of excluding people from that thing. Authentic marriage has standards and anyone who meets those standards can participate in it; and the same goes for Communion in the Catholic Church. In neither case are people excluded due to prejudice or a mere desire to exclude, but only because they choose not to meet the requirements for participation. Is it not an apt illustration?

    “Thus far I still have no clue where you’re going with the question: is the Bible infallible?”

    Where I’m going with the questions depends entirely on your answers to the questions. If you answer one way, then the conversation will go in one direction; and if you answer in another way, it will go somewhere else. Whether I trap you in a contradiction depends solely on whether or not you contradict yourself. I assure you that you’re in control. I can’t make you say anything you don’t want to say. But the discussion obviously will go nowhere if I’m viewed with suspicion from the outset, merely on the ground that I proceed via questions.

    My question was not “Is the Bible infallible”. I already knew that you considered it infallible based on statements in your post. The latest unanswered question was “Where does the Bible say that the Bible is infallible?”

  21. Well, that explains why I get cut off so often. : ) Feel free to stop at any time if you have time constraints or other things to do. You’re under no obligation to entertain me.

    I don’t see your answer as responsive to my question. To put it another way:

    Either an infallible source tells you that the Bible is infallible, or you have no infallible source for that belief. Do you have an infallible source for that belief, or not?

    If you have an infallible source, then it must be the Bible itself, since according to sola scriptura there is no other. Therefore my question is, “Where does the Bible say that the Bible is infallible?”

  22. Maybe you missed this response? –“Here is the logical thought behind it: The Bible is inspired of God > God is perfect (infallible) > therefore, what God writes is infallible.”

    Do you want me to list a bunch of verses? What are you wanting me to say?

    Regarding you statement: “Either an infallible source tells you that the Bible is infallible, or you have no infallible source for that belief”. I’ve heard this before. The basic thought is that you need an infallible church totell you the Bible is infallible. Besides the above post negating this, my response to this would be this: You believe the church is infallible, why? If it is because the church tells you it’s infallible, then you are no better than protestants.

    Your logic is the same: the church is infallible because they tells its infallible. That is no better than me saying: the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so. It amounts to the same thing.

    You need a better argument.

  23. I saw the “logical thought behind it”, but I wasn’t asking for a logical thought, I was asking what infallible source tells you that the Bible is infallible, if any.

    I didn’t say the infallible source needed to be outside the Bible. If the source if the Bible, then I asked (for the third time) where the Bible says that the Bible is infallible.

    • Watch ur wording. Don’t be rude. Fine. Ill give u one instance: 2 Peter 1:19. Peter compares biblical revelation to the revelation of Christ in the transfiguration. The prophetic word is “more fully confirmed” than God himself speaking. This implies that the bible is just as reliable as Christ himself.

  24. Typo in the last sentence. It should read, “If the source is the Bible, then I asked (for the third time) where the Bible says that the Bible is infallible.”

  25. I read 2 Pet. 1:19 (and surrounding verses) as meaning that due to having seen Christ in the Transfiguration, they have the “prophetic word” confirmed more fully, that is, more fully than someone who didn’t witness the Transfiguration. In other words, the Transfiguration was confirmation that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

    In any event, I don’t see how 2 Pet. 1:19 verifies that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are infallible.

    • My guess is that any text I give will be insufficient for my case. May I refer u to a book called “sola scriptura” by James white and rc sprout if u want to get an extended discussion on this stance. Thanks

  26. Well, of course I can read books, but I was hoping for a little one-on-one persuasion. : )

    Anyway, thanks again for the conversation.

  27. Pingback: How do we know the scriptures are infallible? | Agellius's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s