{"id":5577,"date":"2016-01-13T20:11:58","date_gmt":"2016-01-14T00:11:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=5577"},"modified":"2017-03-29T15:06:24","modified_gmt":"2017-03-29T19:06:24","slug":"biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html","title":{"rendered":"Biblical Argumentation is NOT “Sola Scriptura”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>
\"BibleChurch\"<\/a><\/div>\n
\n

[from Public Domain Images<\/em><\/a>]***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

(5-28-12)***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

This was on a\u00a0public Facebook discussion thread<\/a>\u00a0on a friend\u2019s Facebook page, underneath mention of a\u00a0review of the above book of mine<\/a>\u00a0by Devin Rose.\u00a0Greg Still\u00a0<\/a>describes himself as a \u201c\u201dskeptical Pentecostal\u201d and is a former Catholic. His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

* * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

I have a Lutheran \u201cfriend\u201d who insists that The Church (meaning his church) is the ultimate interpreter of scripture. He thinks that an individual cannot properly read\/understand scripture without the aid of The Church and its creeds.<\/span><\/div>\n

Oddly, he also believes in\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/i>. (He cannot be accused of being consistent)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

This is perfectly consistent. Most Protestants don\u2019t deny the usefulness; even necessity of the Church and creeds. They only deny that any church or tradition is\u00a0infallible<\/i>. Only the Bible is that. This is what\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0means: \u201cthe Bible is the only\u00a0infallible<\/i><\/b>\u00a0and\u00a0final\u00a0<\/i><\/b>authority.\u201d But of course in practice that means: \u201cI<\/i>\u00a0am the final authority, since I ultimately interpret the infallible Bible as I see fit and can dissent against any church if necessary to preserve truth as I see it.\u201d That is filled with difficulties and self-contradictions, as I show in my book.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Luther himself appealed to Church tradition and authority. The only problem is that he reserved the right to disagree with what the Church says. Protestantism is always [in the final analysis] a self-defeating proposition, in terms of authority, anyway you slice it.<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
When dealing with Tradition, I must point out that the RCC uses \u201d bait and switch\u201d. Yes, the Bible speaks of the \u201ctraditions\u201d of the apostles and elders. But the RCC adds to these the accumulated traditions of 2000 years, some of which I find to be simply distracting, and some I find to be anti-biblical. So here\u2019s the \u201crub\u201d. Someone might respond to this post attempting to use the Bible to prove that the traditions of the RCC are reliable reflections of apostolic faith<\/a>. They will expect me, an individual, to be able to discern from scripture the truth of the RCC \u2013 which brings us back to the same argument \u2013 whether or not an individual can discern from scripture which teachings and\/or traditions are an accurate reflection of apostolic doctrine.<\/div>\n

We do, after all, have the words of the Apostles. It seems that their letters should be given the most weight over any ecclesiastical tradition.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lots of issues here I don\u2019t have time [at the moment] to delve into fully. My specialty is \u201cbiblical evidence for Catholicism\u201d and I have writings on my blog (over 1600 posts) about all the major bones of contention. Nothing is \u201canti-biblical.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>For example, Mary\u2019s Assumption is not\u00a0directly asserted<\/i>\u00a0in Scripture. Yet it is not\u00a0contrary<\/i>\u00a0to anything in Scripture, and indeed there are\u00a0parallels in some respects<\/i>: Enoch being translated to heaven; Elijah going to heaven in a chariot, Apostle Paul being taken up to the third heaven; possibly in body. In other words, an assumption (or a bodily resurrection after death) is entirely possible and consistent with what we know in Scripture.<\/span><\/div>\n

But\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0is directly contradicted in Scripture, and there are things (like the canon of Scripture) that are not present in the Bible at all. Zip, zero, zilch, nada.<\/span><\/p>\n

Strictly speaking,<\/span> this book of mine<\/a> is not doing \u201cbiblical evidence for Catholicism\u201d. Rather, it is critiquing one of the pillars of Protestantism:\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, and showing how\u00a0it<\/i><\/b>\u00a0is not biblical. I make reference to tradition and so forth, but within this larger context and purpose. Several other books of mine show how Catholic tradition is completely harmonious with, and usually (not always) directly or explicitly supported by the Bible.\u00a0<\/span>In other words, this book is saying, \u201cwe don\u2019t believe\u00a0your<\/i><\/b>\u00a0system of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i><\/span><\/span>\u00a0because it is unbiblical, and we\u2019re showing you why.\u201d It\u2019s purpose is not, \u201cwe believe in x, y, z Catholic doctrines because of biblical passages a, b, c, etc.\u201d Other books of mine do the latter.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

The irony of your book is that you use the Bible as your ultimate authority to defend the Catholic teaching that the Church, not the Bible, is the ultimate authority.<\/span>

Do you see the problem here?<\/span><\/span>
\n\u00a0<\/span>
\n<\/span>Yes: in\u00a0your<\/i>\u00a0comment, which is neither factual, nor logical. First of all, I\u2019m not using the Bible as the \u201cultimate authority\u201d; only as an authority that Protestants and Catholics agree upon. It is smart in dialogue to start with a common premise and then move on to disagreements. I do that here, and often elsewhere. I show that the Bible does not teach\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>. I could do that if I were an atheist. My own beliefs have no necessary connection to the logic of that at all. I could argue that \u201cthe Koran doesn\u2019t teach that elephants fly through the air.\u201d To say that shows nothing [necessarily] about what\u00a0I<\/i>\u00a0believe.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Nor is \u201cCatholic teaching\u201d what might be called\u00a0sola ecclesia<\/i>. It is not at all. Our view is that Bible-Church-Tradition are all of a piece: a \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d of authority. But the Bible is inspired, whereas Church and tradition are infallible, so in that sense the Bible is \u201chigher\u201d; but in terms of authority all three are in play, and harmonious. You simply miscomprehend the Catholic view of the Bible and authority. You\u2019re not alone; many millions do so.<\/span>
\n
\nI was raised Catholic \u2013 went to parochial\u00a0<\/span>school, and considered being a priest. Sorry, but I know Catholicism, and it cannot be supported Biblically. It must rely on the supposed \u201cauthority\u201d or \u201cinfallibility\u201d of the Church.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/span>Sorry, you clearly\u00a0don\u2019t<\/i>: at least not in\u00a0these<\/i>\u00a0respects, because you have made a number of factual errors. Of course it can be supported biblically. I show that again and again in my writings. Not only can it be shown, but it can be demonstrated that Catholicism is far more in harmony with all of Scripture than any form of Protestantism.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The whole \u201cauthority\/infallibility\u201d argument fails with two words, WHICH CHURCH?<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n\u00a0<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span>I agree that one must ask \u201cwhich Church is the one true Church mentioned in the Bible?\u201d We can demonstrate that the Catholic Church goes historically back to Christ, and has consistently espoused true Christian doctrine. We\u2019re the ones who keep apostolic morality: things like no divorce and no contraception. No other major body has done so. If you want apostolic morality and doctrine, you have one choice. That\u2019s a major reason why I became a Catholic, by the way. I was sick of Protestant compromise on crucial moral issues.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Or let us address your argument (in your book) that Peter had authority over Paul at the Jerusalem council. It NEVER says anything like that. This is made of whole cloth. Both Peter and Paul gave testimony, but it was James who stood and gave the final word, not Peter.<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

You want to bring up one of the arguments in my book. Very well, then. Rather than cynically portray what I said, and denying it with no substance, let\u2019s let readers see what I\u00a0actually wrote<\/i>. Here is the entire argument #74 (a few minor differences from the book since this is from my last manuscript):<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

74.\u00a0Paul\u2019s Apostolic Calling Was Subordinated to the Larger Church and Was in Harmony with Peter<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Paul\u2019s ministry was not \u201cself-validating.\u201d He was initially commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles. After his conversion, he went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter (Gal 1:18). In Acts 15:2-3 we are told that \u201cPaul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent their way by the church,\u201d they went off on their assignment.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That is hardly consistent with the idea of Paul being the \u201cpope\u201d or leading figure in the hierarchy of authority; he was directed by others, as one under orders. When we see Paul and Peter together in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-29), we observe that Peter wields an authority that Paul doesn\u2019t possess.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We learn that \u201cafter there was much debate, Peter rose\u201d to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that \u201call the assembly kept silence\u201d (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter\u2019s exposition, speaking about \u201csigns and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles\u201d (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what \u201cSimeon [Peter] has related\u201d (15:14). Why did James skip right over Paul\u2019s comments and go back to what Peter said? Paul and his associates are subsequently \u201csent off\u201d by the Council, and they \u201cdelivered the letter\u201d (15:30; cf. 16:4).<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

None of this seems consistent with the notion that Paul was above or even equal to Peter in authority. But it\u2019s perfectly consistent with Peter\u2019s having a preeminent authority. Paul was under the authority of the council, and Peter (along with James, as the Bishop of Jerusalem) presided over it. Paul and Barnabas were sent by \u201cthe church\u201d (of Antioch: see 14:26). Then they were sent by the Jerusalem Council (15:25, 30) which was guided by the Holy Spirit (15:28), back to Antioch (15:30).<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You make bald statements of denial; I make solid biblical arguments.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

You, of course, know that Paul withstood Peter to his face for his hypocrisy on this very issue. Obviously Paul did not recognize Peter as having \u201cpapal\u201d authority over him.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Peter vs. Paul hypocrisy argument proves nothing because it is irrelevant (hypocrisy being distinct from authority). A person can have full authority and be a flaming hypocrite. For example, Republican ads against President Obama show him to be a hypocrite in a number of ways regarding what he has promised and what he has done. Assuming their correctness, they show he is a hypocrite, but they have no effect on his authority. He remains the President, and has that authority till we vote\u00a0him out of office (or his term expires). Apples and oranges.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I note in this paper that Jesus upheld the authority of the Pharisees, even though they were hypocrites (Matthew 23:2). This flimsy, misguided objection proves nothing whatever regarding Peter\u2019s primacy or supposed lack thereof.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u200eCertainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

By Protestant reasoning, \u201ccertainly, if\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0were true, the Bible would have mentioned something about\u00a0it<\/i>\u201c. But it never does, which is the\u00a0topic of my book. That doesn\u2019t stop Protestants from making an entirely non-biblical, anti-biblical concept the very foundation and bedrock and pillar of their authority structure. They do it anyway. Then, having done that, they demand that we adopt the same illogical reasoning with regard to Catholic distinctives like Mary\u2019s Assumption.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

We never claimed that absolutely everything has to be explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches this. That is\u00a0your<\/i>\u00a0game, and thus your burden to defend, not ours.<\/span><\/p>\n

Your statement above is classic. You believe this firmly, yet the Bible never states such a thing. Thus, you supposedly appeal to the Bible itself with a completely non-biblical idea that can\u2019t be found there. Then you try to bind Catholics to this silly notion: so now you are arbitrarily applying an arbitrary tradition of men to us, as if we have to play by those rules . . . We think logically and biblically, so no dice!<\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[from Public Domain Images]*** (5-28-12)*** This was on a\u00a0public Facebook discussion thread\u00a0on a friend\u2019s Facebook page, underneath mention of a\u00a0review of the above book of mine\u00a0by Devin Rose.\u00a0Greg Still\u00a0describes himself as a \u201c\u201dskeptical Pentecostal\u201d and is a former Catholic. His words will be in\u00a0blue. * * * I have a Lutheran \u201cfriend\u201d who insists that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":5578,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31,3],"tags":[514,1879,1878,33,1387,1386,535,1877,32,536,35,47],"class_list":["post-5577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bible-and-tradition","category-catholic-apologetics","tag-bible-only","tag-biblical-prooftexts","tag-biblical-theology","tag-christian-authority","tag-exegesis","tag-hermeneutics","tag-holy-bible","tag-infallible-authority","tag-rule-of-faith","tag-sacred-scripture","tag-scripture-alone","tag-sola-scriptura"],"yoast_head":"\nBiblical Argumentation is NOT "Sola Scriptura"<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Biblical Argumentation is not everything being explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches it (sola Scripura).\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Biblical Argumentation is NOT "Sola Scriptura"\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Biblical Argumentation is not everything being explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches it (sola Scripura).\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-01-14T00:11:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-29T19:06:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/BibleChurch.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"480\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html\",\"name\":\"Biblical Argumentation is NOT \\\"Sola Scriptura\\\"\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-01-14T00:11:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-29T19:06:24+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Biblical Argumentation is not everything being explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches it (sola Scripura).\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Biblical Argumentation is NOT “Sola Scriptura”\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Biblical Argumentation is NOT \"Sola Scriptura\"","description":"Biblical Argumentation is not everything being explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches it (sola Scripura).","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Biblical Argumentation is NOT \"Sola Scriptura\"","og_description":"Biblical Argumentation is not everything being explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches it (sola Scripura).","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2016-01-14T00:11:58+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-29T19:06:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":480,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/BibleChurch.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html","name":"Biblical Argumentation is NOT \"Sola Scriptura\"","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-01-14T00:11:58+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-29T19:06:24+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Biblical Argumentation is not everything being explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches it (sola Scripura).","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/biblical-argumentation-is-not-sola-scriptura.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Biblical Argumentation is NOT “Sola Scriptura”"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5577","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5577\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5578"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}