Sola Scriptura – An Unbiblical Recipe for Confusion

Sola scriptura was the central doctrine and foundation for all I believed when I was Protestant. On a popular level, it simply meant, “If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!” And it seemed so simple. And yet, I do not recall ever hearing a detailed teaching explicating it. It was always a given. Unchallenged. Diving deeper into its meaning, especially when I was challenged to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism, I found there to be no book specifically on the topic and no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors.

Once I got past the superficial, I had to try to answer real questions like, what role does tradition play? How explicit does a doctrine have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? How many times does it have to be mentioned in Scripture before it would be dogmatic? Where does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How do we know what the canon of Scripture is using the principle of sola scriptura? Who is authorized to write Scripture in the first place? When was the canon closed? Or, the best question of all: where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible? These questions and more were left virtually unanswered or left to the varying opinions of various Bible teachers.

The Protestant Response

In answer to this last question, “Where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible?” most Protestants will immediately respond as I did, by simply citing II Tm. 3:16:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

“How can it get any plainer than that? Doesn’t that say the Bible is all we need?” Question answered.

The fact is: II Timothy 3—or any other text of Scripture—does not even hint at sola scriptura. It says Scripture is inspired and necessary to equip “the man of God,” but never does it say Scripture alone is all anyone needs. We’ll come back to this text in particular later. But in my experience as a Protestant, it was my attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism that led me to conclude: sola scriptura is 1) unreasonable 2) unbiblical and 3) unworkable.

Sola Scriptura is Unreasonable

When defending sola scriptura, the Protestant will predictably appeal to his sole authority—Scripture. This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself. One cannot prove the inspiration of a text from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the Koran, and other books claim inspiration. This does not make them inspired. One must prove the point outside of the text itself to avoid the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Thus, the question remains: how do we know the various books of the Bible are inspired and therefore canonical? And remember: the Protestant must use the principle of sola scriptura in the process.

II Tim. 3:16 is not a valid response to the question. The problems are manifold. Beyond the fact of circular reasoning, for example, I would point out the fact that this verse says all Scripture is inspired tells us nothing of what the canon consists. Just recently, I was speaking with a Protestant inquirer about this issue and he saw my point. He then said words to the effect of, “I believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth as Jesus said in Jn. 16:13. The Holy Spirit guided the early Christians and helped them to gather the canon of Scripture and declare it to be the inspired word of God. God would not leave us without his word to guide us.”

That answer is much more Catholic than Protestant! Yes, Jn. 16:13 does say the Spirit will lead the apostles—and by allusion, the Church—into all truth. But this verse has nothing to say about sola scriptura. Nor does it say a word about the nature or number of books in the canon. Catholics certainly agree that the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to canonize the Scriptures because the Catholic Church teaches that there is an authoritative Church guided by the Holy Spirit. The obvious problem is my Protestant friend did not use sola scriptura as his guiding principle to arrive at his conclusion. How does, for example, Jn. 16:13 tell us that Hebrews was written by an apostolic writer and that it is inspired of God? We would ultimately have to rely on the infallibility of whoever “the Holy Spirit” is guiding to canonize the Bible so that they could not mishear what the Spirit was saying about which books of the Bible are truly inspired.

The fact is, the Bible does not and cannot give us the answer to this question about the canon. It is an historical fact that the Church used Sacred Tradition outside of Scripture for her criterion for the canon. And the early Christians, many of whom disagreed on the issue of the canon, also needed the Church in council to give an authoritative decree on the whole matter.

In order to put this argument of my friend into perspective, can you imagine if a Catholic made a similar claim to demonstrate, say, Mary to be the Mother of God? “We believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and guided the early Christians to declare this truth.” Would the Protestant respond with a hearty, amen? I think not! I can almost hear the response. “Show me in the Bible where Mary is the Mother of God! I don’t want to hear about God guiding the Church!” Wouldn’t the same question remain for the Protestant concerning the canon? “Show me in the Bible where the canon of Scripture is, what the criterion for the canon is, who can and cannot write Scripture, etc.”

Will the Circle be Unbroken?

The Protestant response at this point is often an attempt to use the same argument against the Catholic. “How do you know the Scriptures are inspired? Your reasoning is just as circular because you say the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so and then say the Scriptures are inspired and infallible because the Church says so!”

The Catholic Church’s position on inspiration is not circular. We do not say “the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so.” The Church was established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so. However, it is true that we know the Scriptures to be inspired because the Church has told us so. That is also an historical fact. However, this is not circular reasoning. When the Catholic approaches Scripture, he or she begins with the Bible as an historical document, not as inspired. As any reputable historian will tell you, the New Testament is the most accurate and verifiable historical document in all of ancient history. To deny the substance of the historical documents recorded therein would be absurd. However, one cannot deduce from this that they are inspired. There are many accurate historical documents that are not inspired. However, the Scriptures do give us accurate historical information whether one holds to their inspiration or not. Further, this testimony of the Bible is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christians and non-Christian writers like Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and more. It is on this basis that we can say it is an historical fact that Jesus lived, died and was reported to be resurrected from the dead by over 500 eyewitnesses. Many of these eyewitnesses went to their deaths testifying to the veracity of the Christ-event (see Lk. 1:1-4, Jn. 21:18-19, 24-25, Acts 1:1-11, I Cr. 15:1-8).

Now, what do we find when we examine the historical record? Jesus Christ—as a matter of history–established a Church, not a book, to be the foundation of the Christian Faith (see Mt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18. Cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:10,20-21; 4:11-15; I Tm. 3:15; Hb. 13:7,17, etc.). He said of his Church “He who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk. 10:16). The many books that comprise what we call the Bible never tell us crucial truths such as the fact that they are inspired, who can and cannot be the human authors of them, who authored them at all, or, as I said before, what the canon of Scripture is in the first place. And this is just to name a few examples. What is very clear historically is that Jesus established a kingdom with a hierarchy and authority to speak for him (see Lk. 20:29-32, Mt. 10:40, 28:18-20). It was members of this Kingdom—the Church—that would write the Scripture, preserve its many texts and eventually canonize it. The Scriptures cannot write or canonize themselves. To put it simply, reason clearly rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle because one cannot determine what the “scriptura” is using the principle of sola scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical

Let us now consider the most common text used by Protestants to “prove” sola scriptura, II Tm. 3:16, which I quoted above:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The problem with using this text as such is threefold: 1. Strictly speaking, it does not speak of the New Testament at all. 2. It does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. 3. The Bible teaches oral Tradition to be on a par with and just as necessary as the written Tradition, or Scripture.

1. What’s Old is Not New

Let us examine the context of the passage by reading the two preceding verses:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood (italics added) you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

In context, this passage does not refer to the New Testament at all. None of the New Testament books had been written when St. Timothy was a child! To claim this verse in order to authenticate a book, say, the book of Revelation, when it had most likely not even been written yet, is more than a stretch. That is going far beyond what the text actually claims.

2. The Trouble With Sola

As a Protestant, I was guilty of seeing more than one sola in Scripture that simply did not exist. The Bible clearly teaches justification by faith. And we Catholics believe it. However, we do not believe in justification by faith alone because, among many other reasons, the Bible says, we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24, emphasis added). Analogously, when the Bible says Scripture is inspired and profitable for “the man of God,” to be “equipped for every good work,” we Catholics believe it. However, the text of II Tim. 3:16 never says Scripture alone. There is no sola to be found here either! Even if we granted II Tm. 3:16 was talking about all of Scripture, it never claims Scripture to be the sole rule of faith. A rule of faith, to be sure! But not the sole rule of faith.

James 1:4 illustrates clearly the problem with Protestant exegesis of II Tim. 3:16:

And let steadfastness (patience) have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to II Tm. 3:16 we would have to say that all we need is patience to be perfected. We don’t need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, etc.

Of course, any Christian would immediately say this is absurd. And of course it is. But James’ emphasis on the central importance of patience is even stronger than St. Paul’s emphasis on Scripture. The key is to see that there is not a sola to be found in either text. Sola patientia would be just as much an error as is sola scriptura.

3. Traditions of Men Vs. The Tradition of God

Not only is the Bible silent when it comes to sola scriptura, but Scripture is remarkably plain in teaching oral Tradition to be just as much the word of God as is Scripture. In what most scholars believe was the first book written in the New Testament, St. Paul said:

And we also thank God… that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God… (I Thess. 2:13)

According to St. Paul, the spoken word from the apostles was just as much the word of God as was the later written word. Further, when St. Paul wrote II Thessalonians, he urged the Christians there to receive both the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are referred to as the word of God.

So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (II Thess. 2:15).

A common problem among Protestants at this point is a matter of semantics. “Tradition” is often viewed in a negative light because of Jesus’ condemnation of “the tradition of men” in Mark 7:8.

You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.

Notice, this verse makes very clear what kind of tradition it was that Jesus condemned. Jesus condemned the tradition of men, not all tradition. And obviously so; otherwise, you would have Jesus contradicting St. Paul. In fact, you would have Jesus contradicting himself in Matthew 23:2-3:

The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Jesus both refers to an oral tradition—the chair of Moses—and commands the apostles to believe and obey it.

Sola Scriptura is Unworkable

When it comes to the tradition of Protestantism—sola scriptura—the silence of the text of Scripture is deafening. When it comes to the true authority of Scripture and Tradition, the Scriptures are clear. And when it comes to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the biblical text is equally as clear:

If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone … But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you … If he refuses to listen … tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Mt. 18:15-17)

According to Scripture, the Church—not the Bible alone—is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith and discipline. But isn’t it also telling that since the Reformation of just ca. 480 years ago—a reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 denominations that have derived from it?

For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms (the Monophysites, Nestorians, the Orthodox, and a very few others). Now in just 480 years we have this? I hardly think that when Jesus prophesied there would be “one shepherd and one fold” in Jn. 10:16, this is what he had in mind. It seems quite clear to me that not only is sola scriptura unreasonable and unbiblical, but it is unworkable. The proof is in the puddin’!

But Didn’t Jesus Himself Believe Sola Scriptura?

When the Devil tempted Jesus three times in Matthew 4, Jesus always responded with Scripture. In fact, with the second of the three temptations the Devil himself began with Scripture. As an aside, I would have to say that was not very smart of the Devil. If you are going to tempt the Word of God, do you really think you are going to outsmart the Word of God with the word of God?

At any rate, in Matt. 4:6, the Devil begins, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down [from the pinnacle of the Temple]; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels charge of you’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone’ (quoting Psalm 91:11-12).”

Jesus then responded with Scripture in Matt. 4:7, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’ (quoting Deut. 6:16).” Doesn’t this prove Jesus believed in sola scriptura?

Absolutely not!

Just because someone quotes Scripture as an authority, this does not mean he believes in sola scriptura. The Catholic Church quotes Scripture all the time and teaches that Scripture is the inerrant word of God. But what does that prove?

The key here is to understand Jesus not only quoted Scripture as authoritative, but he also referred to Tradition as authoritative in texts like Luke 16:22 (ever read anywhere of “Abraham’s Bosom” in the Old Testament? No, this was Jewish Tradition), Matt. 2:23 (Jesus refers to an Oral Tradition “spoken by the prophets” that is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament), and Matt. 23:1-3, which we saw above, where he speaks of the Tradition of “the chair of Moses”).

He also refers to his own authority when he says over and over, “You have heard it said,” and he often quotes Scripture immediately thereafter, but then he says, “But I say unto you…” He then either introduces new revelation or gives an authoritative interpretation of a biblical text (see Matt. 5:21-48) or, sometimes he simply gives an authoritative interpretation of what Scripture truly means, such as in Matt: 5:10-20.

So did Jesus Christ believe in sola scriptura? By no means! Neither should his Church. And while the Church cannot give new revelation as this ended with the death of the last apostolic man (and we know that because of, you guessed it, Tradition in order to understand texts of Scripture like Jude 3), the Church employs Scripture and Tradition just like her Lord, using her teaching authority she receives from her Lord (Matt. 18:15-18).

If you like this post and you would like to learn more, click here

Actually, i had a longer reply i meant to post instead.:

Many conclusions follow from Jesus’ statement with logical necessity.

Your extrapolative effort to establish Rome as being the OTC is built upon false premises.

He chose to say, “take it to the church.” So this church must discipline, adjudicate and teach with His Authority.

Indeed, but which does not translate into a One True Church® with its perpetual infallible magisterium, which Rome infallibly decrees she is, but as Scripture nowhere promises nor requires this, no matter how much effort RCs try to extrapolate it from such texts as Mt. 18, then a church which claims this cannot be the OTC, and in fact it is cultic.

In addition, as God can raise up children unto Abraham, from stones, (Mt. 3:9) and the basis for authenticity is not historical dissent under the new covenant, but Abrahamic faith in the gospel, then God can raise up stones with the face of Peter and the divine Christ to continue to build the church, which is manifest in the world and and, various assemblies, ordaining elders, preaching the gospel, baptizing souls, exercising judgment and discipline, etc.

Rome herself is essentially one denomination, among others, for having lost her unScriptural secular power, and lacking the manifests apostolic power and character under which universal organizational unity was enabled in the New Testament — but in contrast to Rome — then she cannot exercise authority except on her own, despite her universal pretensions.

In order argue that the Roman Catholic magisterium is necessary you must establish from Scripture — that being the transcendent supreme material standard for Truth, as it is abundantly evidenced to be so — that such a magisterium was necessary for assurance of Truth, and to recognize and establish both writings as well as men of God as being so, thus those it rejects must be rejected.

Let me know when you want to try.

As regards Mt. 18:15-18, "Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning," (Rm. 15:4) and Mt. 18:15-18 follows the OT model of judgment, in which Moses took "wise men, and understanding," and charged them as judges, "Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him." (see Deuteronomy 1:13-18) Matters too hard for them went to the “supreme court.” (Dt. 17:8-13) And it also was mandated that the king be given a copy of the Law to live and judge by. (Dt. 18:18.19)

And thus in the New Testament we see apostolic instruction for the local church to choose wise men from among themselves to judge temporal matters, (1Cor. 6:1-6) and wise men full of the Holy Spirit as deacons, (Acts 6:3) and the ecumenical council for larger issues. (Acts 15) However, the ferocity of the ruling therein rested upon scriptural warrant, and neither the Old Testament for the New Testament magisterial examples required or inferred perpetual assured (conditional) infallibility of office, which Rome claims. And therefore she cannot be the one true church.

Instead, the manner in which God preserved Truth was to often raise up men from without the magisterium ("prophets, wise men, and scribes:" Mt. 23:34) to reprove it. And thus the church began in dissent from the Scribes and Pharisees, who likewise presumed of themselves a veracity above that which Scripture afforded them, while the church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. — not the premise of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, regardless of Rome defining herself as having such.

Secondly, the church could only be His church, the Church that Christ founded.

Again, this is agreed, but which does not make Rome to be that church, and the premise that it does cannot be established.

This church must be visible, since one cannot take a dispute to an invisible church.

Again, this is agreed, and this is done in fundamental evangelical type churches, beginning on the local level and which can extend to higher authorities, while on a broader scope the evangelical moment arose due to a shared commitment to core truths and contention against those who denied them.

What is missing is a a centralized universal magisterium, which I affirm should be a goal, yet again, what we see in the New Testament was enabled by the unmistakable supernatural attestation of the apostles authority and their own purity, power and probity. (1Cor. 6:1-10) When was the last time somebody died because they lied to the Holy Spirit and congregation? Paul's warning of using a sword (1Cor. 4:19-21) was a real warning, but, which was not the sword of men that Rome made such use of and and ended up seeing her greatest scope of unity under, beginning with Damascus 1 in seeking to secure his papal seat.

Today churches within the body of Christ exists with varying degrees of divisions, some of which was and is necessary, for division because of truth is better than unity at the expense of it, with Rome's increasing doctrinal aberrations, immorality, impenitence and recalcitrance necessitating the Reformation, as imperfect as that was. Yet as a former Catholic who became born-again while still Catholic, I can say that the real unity of the spirit which I've known among evangelicals transcends “tribalism,” as it is a result of a shared conversion to Christ and Scripture-based relationship with him, which fellowship I rarely found with Catholics, despite it's greater size. “Better is a living dog than a dead lion.” (Eccl. 9:4) Instead, as out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, Catholics mainly preach their church and Mary supposing this is preaching the gospel of Christ.

Meanwhile, organizational unity does not constitute validity, and in reality Catholicism exists in schism and sectarianism despite a common consent to a certain core truths, and with much disagreement both on what their church as well as what Scripture means, with the unity they do have being largely religiously institutional, and doctrinally a paper one and very limited. Multitudes of RCs, including clergy, believing differently on multitudes of things, all go to the same Mass, was perfunctory professions on basic things. And Rome treats even known public liberals as members in life and in death, thus manifesting what she really believes. (Ja. 2:18)

Moreover, the division with EOs begins with quite substantial things, no less than papal infallibility and jurisdiction, and extends to many other things besides.

Under both Sola Scriptura and sola ecclesia you have both unity and division, the difference being a matter of degrees and scope.

it must possess a unified, non-contradictory body of doctrine.

Which Rome imagines it has, despite many examples which are contrary to it, but, which is a claim to unity that is based upon the premise that Rome defines what a contradiction is.

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

Therefore, we are back to the problem that an infallible magisterium was not the basis in Scripture upon which souls had assurance of truth and upon which the church was founded. A church which claims that is a more of a cult than a church.

Otherwise, disputes would never be settled, rendering Christ’s command void.

Rome herself abounds with disputes, while what is rendered void is the premise that the promise of Christ was that of complete doctrinal conformity, which is ever been a goal not realized. It certainly was not realized in the early centuries, nor is it now. There are disputes within Rome, such as the case of Congregatio de Auxiliis which were never resolved and so the Pope called a truce, therefore, preventing the very thing you seem to see as necessary to be the one true church, that of complete doctrinal unity.

However, the unity that Christ prayed for in John 17:21-23 , was most essentially that of Christ in believers and believers in Christ. And the organizational and spiritual unity of the New Testament church was not that of comprehensive doctrinal unity, but, primarily it was unity in core salvific doctrines, whereby one taste of that essential unity with Christ. .

And which is why evangelicals came to be called evangelical. You cannot share with you do not have, while Catholics show far less, or of other evidences of regeneration. After I became born again as a Catholic, I was wanted to share the truth of salvation by grace, but I would actually tell souls to go to a evangelical type church, if you find one, as Rcs were were dead (the best I could find was within the charismatic movement). Of course, I really didn't know that difference until I became born again.

And as said, fundamental evangelical type churches became a separate movement because of commitment to such basic truths, while allowing various degrees of disagreement in other things. And in reality Catholicism does likewise. Much, or perhaps most of what Roman Catholics believe in practice does not come from the supreme magisterium, and may allow a certain degree of dissent. Which you do not see much of because Catholics in general are not not doctrine intensive. And in fact, it is among those that are (such as with the sedevacantists) that you see the most division. In addition, RCs have a great liberty to variously interpret the Bible in order to support Rome.

As regards the Holy Spirit leading the church into all Truth, this is progressive, and it is abundantly shown by the Scriptures that Rome much lead and leads souls into darkness, by presuming supremacy over the Scriptures and channeling traditions of men out of her nebulous oral tradition, being not based upon scriptural substantiation, while is also abundantly manifest that since the time of the Reformation far more light has been given.

So we know that in Christ’s lifetime, His visible Church, possessing a non-contradictory body of doctrines, existed and taught with Christ’s Authority, apart from Him.

Which actually indicts Rome because her body of doctrines includes things that the New Testament church never manifestly taught, and is a church that taught in some centuries such unScriptural things as papal sanctioned torture and killing of theological opponents (“heretics”), and that there is no salvation for those outside the bosom of the Catholic Church and in submission to the Pope, only to reinvent herself later.

Regardless, doctrinal unity is most supremely seen among cults, and Rome is one church among many, whose unity is not necessarily greater than certain others, while what she does teach critically distinguishes her from the New Testament church and disallows her from climbing to be it.

We must presume that this visible Church still exists, since history bears this out, and there is no evidence in Scripture that the gates of hell would prevail against it.

This presumes that the church is one particular entity, which it is not. The church that Christ bought with His sinless shed own blood and is His bride (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25) does not consist of one particular church body, and visibly exists inorganic bodies today, preaching the gospel of grace, baptizing souls, placing them under pastoral care, exercising discipline, contending against error, including those of Rome, against which the gates of hell has not prevailed against. In contrast, rather than presuming that Rome is the church that the gates of hell have not prevailed against, the sad and tragic reality is Rome has actually become as the gates of hell multitudes, by fostering confidence in herself impossible merit for salvation. Which usually begins with a a morally incognizant infant being sprinkled with water in recognition of proxy faith, by which such possesses interior holiness making them fit for Heaven, and usually ends with suffering an indeterminate time in the fires of purgatory and on to become good enough to actually enter glory. The religious system, versus true regeneration by personal repentant faith in the risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to save by his sinless blood the damned and destitute sinner who places all his faith in Him to save him on Bis expense and righteousness, and who thus follows Him. Thanks be to God for so great salvation at so great a price to meet so great a need.

Finally, while the Church teaches with the authority of Christ, it does not possess the Mind of Christ, but it infallibly interprets divine revelation.

That is simply another argument by assertion. Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. How can she go wrong with that? Cults do likewise.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.