{"id":95535,"date":"2025-12-26T15:15:19","date_gmt":"2025-12-26T19:15:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=95535"},"modified":"2025-12-26T15:15:19","modified_gmt":"2025-12-26T19:15:19","slug":"defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html","title":{"rendered":"Defense of Sola Scriptura Critique, Part II"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"<\/a>
Photo credit<\/strong>: cover of the new edition of my book, originally published in 2012; now published by Bridge Builders Press.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>\n

See Part I<\/a> for background. Words of the Protestant Reformed critic, \u201c@RJPatten\u201d will be in blue<\/span>; words of the three men (Ortund, Cooper, and Horton) in the video we critiqued, in green<\/span>. See the original exchanges in the combox under our video<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

On Sola Scriptura<\/em>, Implicit Proofs, and the Real Point of Dispute\u2026 <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Dave, thank you for the substantive engagement. Let me respond carefully, because this exchange actually clarifies where the true fault line lies. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I. First Clarification (and Partial Concession). You are correct on one important point: Your position is not that doctrines must be explicitly stated in Scripture in propositional form. Your citations demonstrate\u2014clearly and repeatedly\u2014that you affirm: \u2014implicit doctrines \u2014deductive reasoning \u2014indirect biblical warrant <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
On that point, I withdraw the claim that your argument depends on explicit-only proof. That would indeed be a straw man, and you have shown it is not your view.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Thanks very much for the retraction. That\u2019s rare, anymore, and it reflects very well upon you. So I genuinely, happily accept it, but I do wonder why you made the two claims you have now retracted\u00a0 in the first<\/em> place: on what were they based?: was it simply because many people don\u2019t properly understand the definition and nature of\u00a0 sola Scriptura<\/em> is, and\/or what constitutes biblical support for a position, and you simply assumed that this would also<\/em> be the case with me<\/em>? I ask because nothing in the video itself suggested that I held these erroneous views. You clearly had not read much else of my writing on the general topic, either (perhaps nothing at all). As you can see, folks better be very well prepared<\/em> if they want to wrangle with me.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
This illustrates why it is so supremely important to document<\/em> an opponent\u2019s view that one is critiquing, so we don\u2019t get mistakes like this, and straw men. It\u2019s something that all apologists and all who dialogue need to constantly keep in mind. I\u2019ve done it myself sometimes and have retracted it when corrected, just as you did.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Can I learn anything about you at all<\/em>, or will you remain anonymous? If the latter, can you at least tell me if you are a professor or otherwise an expert on the topic, and what credentials and experience you have?<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
So let\u2019s reset the discussion properly.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
II. The Real Dispute (Now Clearly Identified). The disagreement is not about whether doctrines may be implicit. It is about what counts as a legitimate biblical deduction, and what level of biblical data is required to ground a doctrine of authority. Your claim is: Sola Scriptura<\/em> is absent altogether from Scripture\u2014explicitly, implicitly, deductively, structurally, or functionally\u2014and is contradicted by contrary biblical data. The Reformed claim is: Sola Scriptura<\/em> is necessarily entailed by the way Scripture describes itself, functions in redemptive history, and relates to all other authorities.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Good! I have concentrated on one element in particular that you mention: \u201cthe way Scripture describes itself, . . . and relates to all other authorities.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
That is the issue. Everything else is noise.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Delighted to \u201chear\u201d you say that. The question then becomes: why did our three friends skirt around it the whole time in their video? And why<\/em> haven\u2019t we gotten<\/em> to that yet? I hold out hope that you will at least make an attempt to present a positive apologetic for sola Scriptura<\/em> from Scripture alone. You\u2019re one of the very few Protestants who are even willing to discuss it with a catholic at all, and put up any sort of vigorous case. But, based on long experience, I won\u2019t hold my breath, because I like being alive.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
III. Why Descriptive Categories Are Not \u201cHand-Waving.\u201d <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n
You object that categories like pattern, function, divine logic, etc., are merely \u201cdescriptive words\u201d unless concretely demonstrated. That\u2019s fair. So here are clear biblical instantiations, tied directly to Sola Scriptura<\/em>.\u00a0 <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
IV. Pattern: Scripture as the Supreme Norm that Judges All Else Biblical Pattern: \u2014Prophets repeatedly appeal to prior revelation as the test of later claims (Deut. 13; Isa. 8:20<\/span>) \u2014Jesus adjudicates disputes with \u201cIt is written,\u201d even against recognized authorities (Matt. 22:29) \u2014Apostolic preaching is examined and tested by Scripture (Acts 17:11) <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
All of that can be \u2014 and is \u2014 true, without entailing the absence or prohibition of other infallible authorities, because infallibility is a lesser thing and much wider category than inspiration. I do this all the time myself, as a Catholic and strong critics of sola Scriptura<\/em>. One could say that my entire career (24 years, full-time) centers around \u201cbiblical evidence for Catholicism\u201d (my blog name). I\u2019m doing it again now: arguing from the Bible, and providing much more<\/em> of it than my Protestant opponents are bringing to the table. Protestants simply wrongly assume that the opposite is the case (that no non-Bible infallible authority exists), without truly establishing<\/em> it. They draw the wrong conclusions to bolster up what is, from our perspective, arbitrary and unbiblical traditions of men.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Deduction: A pattern emerges in which: \u2014God\u2019s written word norms \u2014God\u2019s spoken or institutional authorities are normed \u2014No text presents a parallel pattern in which an infallible extra-scriptural authority judges Scripture. That asymmetry is decisive.\u00a0 <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
It\u2019s not at all. Again, our claim is not that anything else \u201cjudges\u201d Scripture (more straw men being created . . .), but rather, that other things (tradition \/ Church) are infallible, as Scripture is; just not inspired. The debate is over whether other infallible<\/em> sources of authority exist and are sanctioned by the Bible. So the debate is not over \u201cjudging Scripture\u201d but whether anyone is bound by infallible authorities besides, and in harmony with, Scripture.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
V. Function: What Scripture Is Said to Do (Uniquely). 2 Timothy 3:16\u201317 Scripture: \u2014 is God-breathed \u2014 equips the man of God for every good work This is not merely inspiration language\u2014it is functional sufficiency language. No council, bishop, or tradition is ever said to: \u2014 proceed from God\u2019s breath \u2014 equip for every good work \u2014 function as the final written norm If Scripture performs the full equipping function, then any additional infallible rule is, by definition, unnecessary and redundant. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I have replied to this already, citing the counter-example of Ephesians 4 and other arguments showing that this passage does nothing that is claimed for it, regarding sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
VI. Divine Logic: Infallibility Cannot Multiply Without Collapse. This is not rhetoric; it is epistemology. If there are: \u2013multiple infallible authorities \u2013that are materially distinguishable \u2013that require interpretation, then one of two things follows: * A higher infallible arbiter must exist (leading to regress), or * Conflicts are resolved fallibly (nullifying infallibility in practice). Rome resolves this by asserting magisterial self-authentication\u2014but Scripture nowhere teaches such a mechanism. Sola Scriptura avoids the regress by grounding infallibility in a fixed, completed, God-breathed deposit.\u00a0 <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I\u2019m still waiting for the biblical proofs for such a position. We can go round and round the mulberry bush endlessly, but the emperor is still naked . . .<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
VII. Negative Exclusion: What Scripture Never Grants. Your own method accepts negative argumentation (you use it constantly against Protestant doctrines). So note what Scripture never does: \u2014 Never attributes God-breathed status to tradition \u2014 <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
That\u2019s false: Acts 15:28, where the Holy Spirit ratified the decree of the Jerusalem Council, does that, making that council inspired in its conclusions, as well as infallible (thus destroying sola Scriptura<\/em> in one fell swoop). Tough to hear and grasp, I\u2019m sure, but I didn\u2019t write the Bible.\u00a0 I simply report what it teaches and defend it.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Never calls the Church the source of revelation \u2014 <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
We don\u2019t, either, so that\u2019s a red herring.
\n*<\/div>\n
Never teaches an indefectible teaching office with guaranteed infallibility \u2014 <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Sure it does:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Indefectibility of the One True Church (vs. Calvin #9)<\/a> [5-16-09]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Indefectibility & Apostolic Succession (vs. Calvin #10)<\/a> [5-18-09]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
St. Francis de Sales: Bible vs.\u00a0Total Depravity (+ Biblical Evidence for the Indefectibility of the Church, from the Psalms)\u00a0<\/a> [11-24-11]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The Bible on the Indefectibility of the Church<\/a> [2013]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Salesian Apologetics #1: Indefectibility of the Church<\/a> [2-4-20]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
1 Timothy 3:15 = Church Infallibility<\/a> (vs. Steve Hays) [5-14-20]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Vs. Turretin #9: Church #2 (Indefectibility)<\/a> [1-9-24]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Jesus\u2019 Prayer for Peter (Luke 22) & Indefectibility<\/a>\u00a0[8-5-25]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Never describes doctrinal development as a mechanism of new dogma <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Nonsense. See: Doctrinal Development: 80 Bible Passages<\/a>\u00a0[12-10-24]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
These absences matter \u2014 especially when contrasted with Scripture\u2019s positive self-claims. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Ah, but they are not<\/em> absent, as shown, except for the \u201cnew revelation\u201d schtick, which misrepresents our view, and is a non sequitur<\/em>.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
VIII. Redemptive-Historical Structure: Apostles Are Foundational, Not Perpetual. * Ephesians 2:20 The Church is built on the apostles and prophets\u2014not continually ruled by successors of equal authority. * Revelation 21:14 The New Jerusalem has twelve foundation stones, not an ongoing foundation-laying process. Once the apostolic witness is inscripturated, the Church inherits: \u2014 the teaching \u2014 not the office \u2014 not the infallibility This is precisely why Scripture becomes the permanent norm.\u00a0 \u2018 <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
See my many articles about biblical proof for apostolic succession in section III of my Church web page<\/a>.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
IX. Where the Catholic Argument Ultimately Fails. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
See how it works<\/em>? You have yet to establish your view from Scripture, but you are already onto the \u201cCatholic argument\u201d<\/span> (or caricatures of it, that I have been easily knocking down). That\u2019s exactly why we did the video that you critique, that is, to the extent that you are even doing<\/em> that; it\u2019s more like the usual Protestant \u201cGish gallop\u201d<\/a> or what has been called in online terminology, \u201cBrandolini\u2019s Law\u201d: which can be stated as follows: \u201cThe amount of energy needed to refute misinformation or disinformation is an\u00a0order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.\u201d<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
You argue that sola Scriptura<\/em> is contradicted by \u201ccontrary biblical statements.\u201d But the passages typically cited: \u2014 affirm apostolic authority \u2014 affirm tradition (in the sense of teaching) \u2014affirm the Church\u2019s ministerial role None of them: \u2014 assert infallibility beyond the apostolic era \u2014 grant Scripture-equal authority to later institutions \u2014 establish a living magisterium as a rule of faith In short: they establish authority, not infallible parity. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
This is untrue, as I demonstrate in many in-depth papers. I still await your positive defense of sola Scriptura<\/em> from the Bible alone. Will it ever come, or will we keep playing this game of deflection till kingdom come?<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
X. The Core Impasse. We are not talking past each other anymore. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Only in relation to the two elements that you retracted; and even one of those<\/em> you have already brought up again, as if you hadn\u2019t retracted it. In my opinion, you are still avoiding or \u201ctalking past\u201d the premise that you need to establish. Since no Protestant I\u2019ve ever found has done that yet, I highly doubt that you will be the first. Your constant avoidance of doing it suggests that you are firing blanks and obfuscating.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The issue is this: You require Scripture to positively teach a plural, hierarchical infallibility model. Scripture never does. The Reformed position follows from Scripture\u2019s self-presentation and exclusive attributes. Sola Scriptura<\/em> is not a verse hunt. It is a doctrine of biblical ontology and epistemology. Closing Statement Dave, you are right about one thing: If Sola Scriptura<\/em> were merely a Protestant slogan, it would fail. But it is not. It is the unavoidable conclusion drawn from: \u2014 what Scripture is \u2014 what Scripture does \u2014 and what Scripture never grants to anything else That is the argument\u2014now fully on the table.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I still await your knockdown argument that overcomes our strong objection. At this point, I\u2019m starting to suspect that you will never produce it or even any possible biblical argument that you mistakenly think does what is required for sola Scriptura<\/em> to stand as a biblical teaching.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
***<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
On Straw Men, Agreements, and Where the Dispute Actually Lies <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Dave, this exchange has now clarified something important, and I want to acknowledge it explicitly before moving forward. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I. Retraction Where Retraction Is Due You are correct to object to the implication that you \u2018personally\u2019 attribute to Protestants the following claims: \u2013 that Scripture is the only authority \u2013 that tradition has no value \u2013 that teachers, councils, or interpretation are unnecessary \u2013 that interpretation is effortless or uniform You have consistently denied these caricatures for decades, including in the very citations you provide from your first book and elsewhere. On that point, you are right, and any suggestion otherwise should be withdrawn. So let\u2019s be clear: you and I are now operating with the same definition of sola Scriptura<\/em>, and we both acknowledge that.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Again, I thank you and admire the humility and class required to retract but truly wonder what the basis<\/em> was, upon which you accused me of these things in the first pace. Was it based on anything besides a false assumption that I might be \u201clike so many others\u201d? If we don\u2019t learn why<\/em> we made mistakes \u2014 what flaws of thinking, logic, and\/or botching of facts brought them about \u2014 we\u2019ll repeat them. This is not solely a \u201cProtestant problem\u201d of course. It\u2019s a widespread human shortcoming.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
[I passed over reiterated areas where we agree]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
V. Why Appealing to \u201cThe Video Didn\u2019t Defend It\u201d Is Insufficient <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n
You continue to emphasize that the specific video under review failed to give a positive defense of sola Scriptura<\/em>. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Yes, and now I have proven it all the more strongly (below), by debunking your specific examples form the video that you think refute what I am saying. They didn\u2019t<\/em>: to put it mildly and matter-of-factly. It\u2019s not arguable. You need to give this up.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Even if we grant that point for the sake of argument, it does not advance the substantive question: Is sola Scriptura<\/em> biblically true? A failure of presentation does not establish a failure of doctrine. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I never said that it did<\/em>, so that\u2019s neither here nor there. You want to make this a general discussion about sola Scriptura<\/em>, that I\u2019m always glad to enter into; but don\u2019t try to pretend that your reply is directly related to what the video from the three men did. At least you have made some sustained, substantive arguments (albeit none, successfully), which they never did on the main topic. They simply mentioned a few Bible passages, much as folks drop names, thinking that is impressive and proves anything.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The question before us is not whether Ortlund, Cooper, or Horton argued perfectly, but whether Scripture itself supports the principle they affirm.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Yeah; again, that is your<\/em> question, that you have turned this debate into, for your own purpose. But you posted it underneath this particular video<\/em> of ours. Presumably, then, it has some relation<\/em> to the video. Our overwhelming purpose in our reply-video was simply to show that they never proved what they had to prove (just as you<\/em> haven\u2019t, either, despite enormously more effort and labor), and simply moved into Catholic-bashing. It was a critique of their utterly<\/em><\/strong> inadequate method<\/em><\/strong>: not<\/em> of their arguments for sola Scriptura<\/em>, because they never presented any<\/em>. No one ever proves what\u2019s needed to be proved in order for sola Scriptura<\/em> to be a biblically supported principle, and that\u2019s because \u2014 I submit \u2014 it doesn\u2019t exist<\/em>. It\u2019s like the core of an onion<\/em>: which is nothing; it has<\/em> no core like an apple does.
\n*
\nThe emperor [sola Scriptura<\/em>] is naked [devoid of the necessary scriptural proof]. If I have to be unpopular for simply pointing that out, so be it.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
[the next three sections again reiterate and need not be addressed. I take a dim view of repeating myself unnecessarily. Time is valuable, and there are lots of errors to be confronted. I do, however, want to preserve for the record your statement: \u201cAt this point, Dave, the debate is no longer about whether you \u2018understand\u2019 sola Scriptura<\/em>. You plainly do.\u201d<\/span>]<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
***<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I will reply to everything: at least to what remains on the original topic. I will continue to concentrate on that: did these three men ever prove sola Scriptura<\/em> from the Bible, or even come close<\/em> to doing so? That\u2019s what our video was about: a searing and semi-humorous criticism of very common Protestant evasive techniques, that attempt to switch the topic, in the effort to avoid having to prove initial premises and foundations of sand. If you claim that you<\/em><\/strong> can establish the actual position of sola Scriptura<\/em> from the Bible, then make the attempt, but I\u2019m not gonna argue about everything under the sun.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
You \u2014 and all Protestants \u2014 need to establish the premise upon which this entire outlook is based. If you don\u2019t \/ can\u2019t do that, then I won\u2019t be led down a hundred rabbit trails, which amount to the same failed evasive technique in the video. The \u201ctechnique\u201d never works with me, and it shouldn\u2019t with any<\/em> Catholic, which is what we\u2019re trying to achieve in our video: to help Catholics know how to counter the \u201cuglier dad\u201d \/ \u201cwoogity boogity Big Bad Catholicism\u201d attempt to deflect the topic away from where it must go: the Bible itself; and to challenge Protestants to ponder why these tactics are so often employed if in fact, sola Scriptura<\/em> is so profoundly biblical, as is claimed. On this point I am as \u201csocratic\u201d as I am biblical: \u201claser-focused\u201d!<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n
One clarification matters here. You keep saying Ortlund \/ Cooper \/ Horton \u201cnever defended sola Scriptura<\/em>, only attacked Catholic doctrines.\u201d But the video doesn\u2019t support that claim. From 1:43<\/span>\u20133:52<\/span>, they explicitly define sola Scriptura<\/em> positively as: <\/span><\/div>\n

\u2013 an issue of infallible authority <\/span><\/p>\n

\u2013 Scripture as uniquely infallible by nature and character <\/span><\/p>\n

\u2013 sufficient for faith and practice <\/span><\/p>\n

\u2013 with other authorities real but fallible.<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s a doctrinal definition, not a Catholic critique. They then argue from Scripture\u2019s nature (2 Tim 3:16<\/span>\u201317; Jesus\u2019 doctrine of Scripture; 2 Pet 1:20<\/span>\u201321) and only afterward test Rome\u2019s alternative authority claims to show the practical consequences. <\/span><\/p>\n

You may disagree with their conclusions \u2014 fair enough \u2014 but it\u2019s simply not accurate to say no positive defense was offered. The disagreement is over whether the argument succeeds, not whether it was made.<\/span><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s take a look at what you reference. First, let\u2019s revisit what I claimed in my original transcript and in our video:<\/p>\n

It seems to me the most self-evident thing in the world that if the Bible were in fact the only infallible authority in the Christian faith (that\u2019s what sola Scriptura<\/em> means), the Bible itself would make this clear beyond all dispute. Yet we find again and again, that when Protestant apologists attempt to defend sola Scriptura<\/em>: . . . they often wind up presenting either irrelevant Bible passages that prove no such thing.<\/p>\n

It does nothing whatever to prove that no infallible authorities exist other than the Bible.<\/p>\n

. . . three Protestant professors and Bible experts have given us zero evidence from the Bible that it\u2019s the only infallible authority.<\/p>\n

. . . not a word about how Holy Scripture supposedly teaches that it only is infallible and nothing else is.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I made all of this crystal clear and unable to be misunderstood. In other words, to prove sola Scriptura<\/em>, one must show that the Bible<\/em> teaches that it \u2014 and it ONLY<\/strong><\/em> \u2014 is the infallible authority in the Christian life. We reply that it never teaches this, and that it DOES<\/em><\/strong> present the Church and tradition as also<\/em> possessing infallible authority: which means that sola Scriptura<\/em> can\u2019t be maintained if one accepts all of the Bible as inspired revelation. It collapses as an unbiblical, even an anti-biblical falsehood.<\/p>\n

But you claim that the three men did<\/em><\/strong> do this, at least for a few minutes in a 40-minute video (which itself<\/em> is clearly silly: it should have been attempted the entire time<\/em>). Defining<\/em> a thing is not the same as defending<\/em> it and showing why<\/strong> it ought to be believed<\/em>. That\u2019s all they did from from 1:43 to 3:52. Not a single Bible verse is even presented there, so obviously they couldn\u2019t possibly be doing what we claim they never did: prove from the Bible that no infallible authorities exist other than the Bible.<\/p>\n

2 Timothy 3:16 is mentioned once at 22:05. But they don\u2019t even get into<\/em> that: the one passage used ALWAYS<\/em><\/strong> to defend sola Scriptura<\/em>, but which in fact does no such thing. It never asserts that only the Bible is infallible. All it does is say a bunch of things about Scripture that are fully accepted by all observant, serious, informed Christians, and which do not<\/em> prove sola Scriptur<\/em>a or disprove the Catholic \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d rule of faith.<\/p>\n

In the same sentence they say that this has to do with \u201cthe nature of scripture.\u201d<\/span> Again, what Scripture is<\/em>, is a different proposition from saying, \u201cScripture forbids any infallible authority or formal rule of faith besides itself.\u201d It\u2019s not within a million miles of proving sola Scriptura<\/em> from Scripture. Yet it\u2019s casually assumed to be compelling in and of itself, which is the amazing thing. It\u2019s sort of a mass delusion or declaration that logic and the meanings of words aren\u2019t what they are.<\/p>\n

At 22:12 they say, \u201csecond Peter 1:20 and 21 is an important one.\u201d<\/span> That\u2019s it<\/em>! They don\u2019t go any further. All Peter says is that \u201cno prophecy of scripture is a matter of one\u2019s own interpretation.\u201d How that supposedly proves sola Scriptura<\/em>, or addresses it at all<\/em>, is, I confess, utterly beyond my powers of comprehension. It\u2019s as if we live in different universes.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s what they say about Jesus:<\/p>\n

15:46 I think one of the strongest is to go to Jesus himself and his ways of uh describing the Old Testament<\/span><\/p>\n

17:59 Jesus, you know, says thy word is truth, right? <\/span><\/p>\n

22:18 Jesus\u2019s language for scripture is important one <\/span><\/p>\n

39:26 if Jesus himself works on that principle with the Old Testament, it seems perfectly sensible to say that we could do the same thing with the New Testament. Yeah, the way Jesus\u2019s attitude toward the Old Testament is a great starting point for for us on this question if we want to keep working on this. So uh I wish we could keep talking about this. <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

They never actually explain<\/em> what the argument is there (three professors!). They just throw it out. It\u2019s lousy teaching. It has little content, and what little may be there underneath is not explained to the poor, pitiable viewers, so they can learn<\/em> anything. Contrast that with my reply to you about Jesus\u2019 view of the Bible and tradition. I gave many concrete examples from the Bible and also a lot of indications that He was expressly citing Jewish oral tradition from (ultimately) the oral Torah. I gave substance and biblical examples. The three men do almost none of that.<\/p>\n

In any event, what they did present about Jesus\u2019 views does NOT<\/em><\/strong> prove that only the Bible is an infallible and binding authority. So our point stands, completely unaffected, let alone refuted, by these flimsy little arguments presented by them, and regurgitated by you. They offered viewers nothing but the usual Protestant platitudes and slogans, in-between the 90% of the video that was taken up with Catholic bashing, and mostly \u2014 as always \u2014 bashing caricatures of Catholicism, not the real thing, like, e.g., Dr. Horton\u2019s ludicrous claim that popes presume to be offering new \u201crevelations\u201d: that even Gavin Ortlund had to jump in and clarify: that it was an inaccurate understanding of Catholicism.<\/p>\n

You gave it the old college try but it\u2019s an impossible hill to climb. You\u2019re just making it look all the more ridiculous, the more closely we examine what they did here; especially given the stated purpose of the video, as given by Gavin at 1:26: \u201cThe focus here is on scripture and the Protestant emphasis upon scripture, specifically the doctrine of sola Scriptura<\/em>.\u201d<\/span> It\u2019s embarrassing and laughable, and Catholics are sick and tired of this tactic being used over and over. It\u2019s an insult to everyone\u2019s intelligence, and it must be exposed and refuted for what it is, which is exactly why I chose this video to critique.<\/p>\n

Lastly, why is it that you are here defending their<\/em> video? Why aren\u2019t they willing to do so themselves<\/em>? You see the effort I am putting into defending our<\/em> video and replying to your critiques (I\u2019m sitting here the day after Christmas, doing this, with a terrible cold, too). But of course this is nothing new. Gavin has replied (semi-completely) ONE<\/em><\/strong> time in 3 1\/2 years, to 36 of my written and video critiques of his work. Jordan has NEVER<\/em><\/strong> replied to any<\/em> of my 22 lengthy, substantive rebuttals of his work over the same time-period. So I have no expectations at all that they are willing to defend their work (at least against me), but of course I keep replying for the sake of my readers and our viewers at the YouTube channel with Kenny Burchard. I want them<\/em> to know why efforts such as these are spectacular failures and exponentially less biblical than the replies we are providing.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Dave \u2014 you\u2019re trying to turn this into \u201cfind a verse that says \u2018only\u2019 or SS fails.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

But you yourself accept implicit\/deductive doctrine. <\/span><\/p>\n

We\u2019ve already been through that and you conceded the point. So why do you bring up the same tired objection again?<\/p>\n

So the real question is whether Scripture\u2019s unique God-breathed, fixed, normative role entails that no post-apostolic authority shares Scripture\u2019s infallible status. <\/span><\/p>\n

Acts 15:28 doesn\u2019t refute SS. SS never denies Spirit-guided, even infallible apostolic decisions\/prophecy in the apostolic era. It denies a continuing magisterial infallibility after the apostolic foundation. Acts 15 contains apostles\/prophets (Acts 15:2,6; 15:32). <\/span>You still have to prove institutional perpetuity.<\/span><\/p>\n

See my article from two weeks ago: \u201cJerusalem Council & Ecclesial Infallibility: 50 Proofs\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Eph 4 vs 2 Tim 3 is a category error. Eph 4 teaches Christ gives teachers as means of ministry; it never grants them God-breathed\/infallible status or a conscience-binding rule independent of Scripture. <\/span><\/p>\n

2 Tim 3 speaks to Scripture\u2019s nature and norming function. Matt 23 (Moses\u2019 seat) establishes a teaching office, not an infallible one; Jesus repeatedly judges them by Scripture (\u201cHave you not read\u2026?\u201d) and condemns their leadership in the same chapter. Bereans: the point isn\u2019t \u201cthey had no rabbi,\u201d but that they\u2019re praised for testing even apostolic preaching by Scripture (Acts 17:11). That supports Scripture as court of appeal. If your thesis is that a perpetual infallible magisterium exists, you need a text that gives the post-apostolic Church what Scripture gives Scripture: God-breathed, indefectible, conscience-binding infallibility.<\/span><\/p>\n

You\u2019re already trying to deflect to our arguments before having established your own premise. So \u2014 apart from my two short replies above \u2014 I ain\u2019t taking this bait. I\u2019ve already written at great length about all these topics anyway. See my Bible & Tradition web page<\/a> and four books on sola Scriptura<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
***<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
Practical Matters<\/strong><\/em>:\u00a0 I run the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site:\u00a0rated #1\u00a0for Christian sites<\/a>\u00a0by leading AI tool, ChatGPT \u2014 endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or\u00a0fifty-six books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become a Catholic\u00a0<\/a>or to\u00a0return to the Catholic Church<\/a>, or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0Catholics believe them<\/a>. If you believe\u00a0my\u00a0full-time apostolate<\/a>\u00a0is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).<\/div>\n
\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address:\u00a0apologistdave@gmail.com. Here\u2019s also a\u00a0second page to get to PayPal<\/a>. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including\u00a0Zelle<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0100% tax-deductible donations<\/strong>\u00a0if desired), see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two\u00a0YouTube\u00a0channels,\u00a0Catholic Bible Highlights<\/em><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Lux Veritatis<\/em><\/a>, in partnership with Kenny Burchard (see\u00a0my own videos<\/a>), and\/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, \u201cSign Me Up!\u201d\u00a0Thanks a million!<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
***<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
\n

Photo credit<\/strong>: cover of the new edition of my book [purchase link<\/a>], originally published in 2012; now published by Bridge Builders Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

Summary: I respond to a lengthy critique of our video from a Reformed Protestant. To his credit, he later retracted two major points of his critique, and I\u2019ve responded accordingly in Part II.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 See Part I for background. Words of the Protestant Reformed critic, \u201c@RJPatten\u201d will be in blue; words of the three men (Ortund, Cooper, and Horton) in the video we critiqued, in green. See the original exchanges in the combox under our video. ***** On Sola Scriptura, Implicit Proofs, and the Real Point of Dispute\u2026 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":95547,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[514,16075,32,35,47,932],"class_list":["post-95535","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bible-and-tradition","tag-bible-only","tag-gavin-ortlund","tag-rule-of-faith","tag-scripture-alone","tag-sola-scriptura","tag-tradition"],"yoast_head":"\nDefense of Sola Scriptura Critique, Part II<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"I respond to a lengthy critique of our video from a Reformed Protestant. To his credit, he later retracted two major points of his critique, and I've responded accordingly in Part II.\" \/>\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\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Defense of Sola Scriptura Critique, Part II\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"I respond to a lengthy critique of our video from a Reformed Protestant. To his credit, he later retracted two major points of his critique, and I've responded accordingly in Part II.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.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=\"2025-12-26T19:15:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2025\/12\/2025-Cover-964-x-1524.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"964\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1524\" \/>\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=\"21 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\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html\",\"name\":\"Defense of Sola Scriptura Critique, Part II\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-26T19:15:19+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-12-26T19:15:19+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"I respond to a lengthy critique of our video from a Reformed Protestant. To his credit, he later retracted two major points of his critique, and I've responded accordingly in Part II.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Defense of Sola Scriptura Critique, Part II\"}]},{\"@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":"Defense of Sola Scriptura Critique, Part II","description":"I respond to a lengthy critique of our video from a Reformed Protestant. To his credit, he later retracted two major points of his critique, and I've responded accordingly in Part II.","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\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Defense of Sola Scriptura Critique, Part II","og_description":"I respond to a lengthy critique of our video from a Reformed Protestant. To his credit, he later retracted two major points of his critique, and I've responded accordingly in Part II.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2025-12-26T19:15:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":964,"height":1524,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2025\/12\/2025-Cover-964-x-1524.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html","name":"Defense of Sola Scriptura Critique, Part II","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-12-26T19:15:19+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-26T19:15:19+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"I respond to a lengthy critique of our video from a Reformed Protestant. To his credit, he later retracted two major points of his critique, and I've responded accordingly in Part II.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/12\/defense-of-sola-scriptura-critique-part-ii.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Defense of Sola Scriptura Critique, Part II"}]},{"@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\/95535","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=95535"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95535\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/95547"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95535"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}