![\"Pillars](\"https:\/\/davearmstrongbooks.store\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/II.2_Pillars_of_Sola_Scriptura-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a>\nDave Armstrong takes on the two most respected classical defenders of sola Scriptura \u2014 William Whitaker (1548\u20131595) and William Goode (1801\u20131868) \u2014 chapter by chapter, plus modern champions. A book-length case that the biblical defense of \u201cScripture Alone\u201d fails on its own terms.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Sola Scriptura<\/i> (literally, \u201cScripture Alone\u201d) is the Protestant rule of faith; that is, the only supreme, final, and infallible authority for all matters related to the Christian faith. It follows logically that both an infallible Church and an infallible apostolic tradition are thus rejected and ruled out.<\/p>\n The concept of sola Scriptura<\/i> is not, however, inexorably opposed in every way to the importance and validity of Church history, tradition, ecumenical councils, or the authority of Church fathers and prominent theologians. The difference lies in the relative position of authority<\/i> held by Scripture and Church institutions and proclamations. For the Protestant, the Bible alone is infallible and the Church, popes, and councils are not.<\/p>\n Sola Scriptura<\/i> is considered one of the two \u201cpillars\u201d \u2014 along with sola fide<\/i>, or \u201cfaith alone\u201d \u2014 of the Protestant \u201cReformation\u201d (or more accurately, Revolt) of the sixteenth century. It\u2019s fundamental and essential in Protestant thinking with regard to the all-important issue of Christian authority and determination of true theology.<\/p>\n Whereas Protestantism takes an \u201ceither\/or\u201d approach with regard to these issues, Catholicism has a \u201cboth\/and\u201d perspective. Thus, Scripture and Tradition are inextricably linked: twin fonts of the one spring of revelation (a word-picture that the Catholic Church has often used). Tradition is the handing on of true beliefs and practices by oral as well as written means.<\/p>\n The Bible, though uniquely inspired, is part of a Tradition larger than itself, of which it is an encapsulation or crystallization. Scripture, Tradition, and the Church, in the Catholic view, have been described as a \u201cthree-legged stool.\u201d<\/p>\n If sola Scriptura<\/i> is a doctrine about the authority of the Bible, which makes the Bible alone infallible, does it follow that the same Bible should be fully expected to expressly, plainly teach<\/i> it in its pages, or stronger yet, that it necessarily<\/i> would have to do so? Or is it plausibly true without<\/i> the Bible ever asserting it (not even indirectly)?<\/p>\n Most Protestant defenders of Scripture Alone<\/i> contend that it is<\/i> taught in the Bible. I maintain that their alleged prooftexts are invariably logically circular and fatally weak (and I hope to prove that in this book). Other Protestants argue that it is a true and a solid principle, without having to be directly taught in the Bible; that it isn\u2019t logically necessary<\/i> for that to be the case in order to adhere to sola Scriptura<\/i>.<\/p>\n I have made many and varied elaborate arguments through the years against both of these positions, and many will be presented in this book, as I respond to the arguments of some of the most able and renowned champions of sola Scriptura<\/i> over the last 500 years.<\/p>\n I will offer up rebuttals in this book to significant biblical arguments that actually deal with the heart and stated definition or essence of sola Scriptura<\/i>: the notion that only Scripture is the sole infallible guide for the Christian: to the exclusion of an infallible tradition or infallible Church. I won\u2019t be responding to arguments for inspiration or material sufficiency or other relative side issues, because Catholics already agree with those.<\/p>\n My purpose is to demonstrate that the defenses of sola Scriptura<\/i> (particularly from the Bible itself) are inadequate, and indeed, utterly fail in their task. I argue, moreover, that if indisputable biblical<\/i> evidences for the position can\u2019t be found, it collapses in a heap of self-contradiction and logically self-defeating propositions (even before one analyzes other aspects of it).<\/p>\n In other words, the foregoing is a fancy way of saying that sola Scriptura<\/i> (fully and closely examined) simply doesn\u2019t make sense, and often reduces to literal nonsense. I mean no disrespect whatever to my Protestant brethren in asserting this, but it is my conclusion based on a long and serious study of the topic. A person is not the same as his opinions and ideas, and every person ought to subject his or her own opinions to logical scrutiny, and be willing to forsake them if they are found seriously wanting.<\/p>\n William Whitaker (1548-1595) was a Calvinist Anglican apologist and Master of St. John\u2019s College, Cambridge. His masterwork was Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton<\/i>, published in 1588. I have utilized an online copy<\/a> published in 1849 by the University Press of Cambridge.<\/p>\n James R. White, a zealous Reformed Baptist apologist and prominent defender of sola Scriptura<\/i>, has sold the book on his website, and wrote about it in one such ad in 2007<\/a>:<\/p>\n Since the Reformation, only a few godly servants of the truth have invested the time and effort necessary to produce for God\u2019s people a full-orbed defense of Scriptural sufficiency against those who would subject Scripture to external authorities. William Whitaker was one of those servants, and his work should be carefully studied by all concerned shepherds of Christ\u2019s flock.<\/p>\n William Goode (1801-1868) was an English evangelical Anglican, a priest, and Dean of Ripon after 1860. He wrote The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice<\/i>, originally two volumes in 1842, and then revised and enlarged to three volumes in a second edition in 1853: published in London by John Henry Jackson (vol. 1) and Hatchard & Co. (vol. 2).<\/p>\n It is considered by many Protestants to be the best defense of sola Scriptura<\/i> ever penned. For example, Pastor David T. King, an active Presbyterian apologist, wrote in his own similar book, A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura<\/i> (Battle Ground, Washington: Christian Resources, Inc., 2001):<\/p>\n . . . of all the treatments dealing with sola Scriptura<\/i>, the work of William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice<\/i>, has never been surpassed. (p. 17)<\/p>\n I have utilized online versions of the first two volumes [one<\/a> \/ two<\/a>] (the third not presenting any purely biblical argumentation).<\/p>\n Classic Protestant apologists like Whitaker and Goode believed in their doctrines strongly enough to defend them at great length and in fine details, rather than merely accept truths in blind faith, sans any significant argument, like so many Protestants today, or to assume that no one can be certain enough of theological truths to vigorously defend them.<\/p>\n Like these \u201cold guys\u201d or not, we can heartily respect them in this<\/i> respect. They stood<\/i> for something, and zealously fought<\/i> for it. There is nothing wrong with placing very high confidence in Scripture: it is only the unbiblical notion of sola Scriptura<\/i> that causes problems.<\/p>\n I shall also reply in this volume to additional Protestant arguments (mostly biblical ones) in favor of sola Scriptura<\/i>, from various sources. May the reader judge the validity of the various positions pro and con. This is the beauty of dialogue, in which each person\u2019s views are fully presented, rather than opposing views being described by opponents (with all of the usual bias \u2013 intended or not \u2014 inherent in that).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n William Whitaker (1548-1595)<\/b><\/p>\n 1. General View of Patristics; Tertullian, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine; St. Athanasius on the Old Testament Canon (p. 13)<\/p>\n 2. Relation of Church and Scripture, and the Practical Necessity of an Authoritatively Declared Canon (p. 29)<\/p>\n 3. Is Scripture Completely Self-Authenticating and Self-Evidently Inspired in All its Books, so that Each Individual Can Discover the Canon in Isolation from Church Pronouncements? (p. 45)<\/p>\n 4. The Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture (p. 59)<\/p>\n 5. Church Fathers on the Rule of Faith \/ Prooftext for Perspicuity (Eisegesis of Deuteronomy 30:11-14) Refuted from Scripture (p. 75)<\/p>\n 6. Biblical Refutation of Whitaker\u2019s Eisegetical \u201cProoftexts\u201d for Perspicuity from the Scriptural Metaphor of \u201cLight\u201d (p. 87)<\/p>\n 7. \u201cPlain\u201d Gospel and Easily Understood Biblical Christology?; Typology and Analogies to Moses, Joshua, and the Judges (p. 95)<\/p>\n 8. Moses\u2019 Seat, Pharisaical Authority, the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), and Whitaker\u2019s Irrational, Radically Individualist Subjectivism (p. 115)<\/p>\n 9. Church Councils, St. Irenaeus\u2019 Rule of Faith, and St. John Chrysostom on St. Peter and His Successors (p. 121)<\/p>\n 10. More Logically Circular Subjectivism and \u201cCo-Opting\u201d the Holy Spirit as the Supposed \u201cFinal Judge\u201d for All Interpretation Disputes (p. 131)<\/p>\n 11. The Nature of Tradition(s), the Immaculate Conception; Gregory the Great and Nicaea II on Images (p. 135)<\/p>\n 12. Is All of Jesus\u2019 Teaching and Apostolic Tradition in Scripture?; Authoritative \u201cNecessary\u201d Extra-Biblical Tradition (p. 145)<\/p>\n 13. The Protestant Perspective on the Church Fathers (p. 157)<\/p>\n 14. Oral Tradition \/ Desperate Anti-Traditional Exegetical Arguments \/ St. John Chrysostom on Tradition \/ Whitaker\u2019s Near-Bibliolatry (p. 161)<\/p>\n 15. Further Rebuttals of Whitaker\u2019s Absurd Attempted Biblical Arguments Against Apostolic Tradition or Any Tradition Whatsoever (p. 173)<\/p>\n William Goode (1801-1868)<\/b><\/p>\n 16. Definitions and Premises; Ezekiel 3 (p. 187)<\/p>\n 17. Goode Concedes: The Bible Contains No Precise Statement of Sola Scriptura<\/i>; the Rule of Faith of the Old Testament Jews; Jesus and Tradition (p. 201)<\/p>\n 18. Oral Tradition in the New Testament; Church Fathers and Tradition (p. 215)<\/p>\n 19. Goode Denies the Infallibility of the Church; Is the Bible Its Own Judge, Minus the Church? (p. 225)<\/p>\n 20. Perspicuity (Clearness) and the Self-Defeating Nature of Goode\u2019s Logic and Standards for All Doctrines (p. 231)<\/p>\n Various Other Scriptural Arguments for Sola Scriptura<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n 21. Reply to David T. King\u2019s Defense of Sola Scriptura<\/i> from Romans 16:15-16 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (p. 237) [read online<\/a>]<\/p>\n 22. Reply to the Arguments of a Book Review on Amazon (Regarding Galatians 1:6-9, 2 Timothy 3:14-17, and John 20:30-31) (p. 249) [read online<\/a>]<\/p>\n 23. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 and \u201cCatholic\u201d Implications of the Phrases \u201cMan of God,\u201d \u201cProfitable for Teaching,\u201d Etc. (p. 259) [read online<\/a>]<\/p>\n 24. How Different (In Nature and Ultimate Effect) Are \u201cSolo\u201d Scriptura<\/i> and Sola Scriptura<\/i>? (Reply to Keith A. Mathison) (p. 267)<\/p>\n 25. The Bereans \u201cSearching the Scriptures\u201d (Acts 17:10-11): Proof of Sola Scriptura<\/i>? (p. 297)<\/p>\n 26. No Theological Certainty?: The Biblical Understanding of \u201cTruth\u201d vs. \u201cEssential\u201d and \u201cSecondary\u201d Doctrines (p. 301)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\nContinue reading (20 more)<\/summary>\n
Continue reading (28 more)<\/summary>\n
![\"Dave](\"https:\/\/davearmstrongbooks.store\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/wordmark_3_cropped.png\")
<\/span><\/a>\n