Scott Alt

The Program’s Topic and the Question of Sola Scriptura

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon a beautiful Thursday afternoon here in the Valley of the Sun. We shipped all of that wonderful cold frigid air back to you folks where it belongs in the east.

So if you're shoveling out from underneath stuff right now That's what we had for four days. It's a Slow-moving System and so you all will I'm really hoping that it settles right over, Washington DC for the for the inauguration.

Hey global warm in there. Yeah, it's great. Because I we haven't had we haven't had a cold snap like that since 1988 which Amazingly, I was thinking about 1988 at then sound like that long ago. Then I realized that was 25 years ago.

And I realized my daughter will be 24 in a couple days and it's like oh man, I am over 50. Yikes. But 1988 was last time we had that long a time below freezing 25 years ago a quarter of a century. But anyways, welcome to the program here.

We are going to be Looking at an article that I Don't even know how I I do not my my apologies to the author a Roman Catholic by name of Scott alt I I don't Subscribe to his blog. I I'm not familiar with him.

But someone either on Twitter or in the channel, I I don't remember how now referred me to a blog article that he posted on the 15th of January and It's questions for a reformed apologist and since there's a nice big picture of me in the in the blog article and Reference is made to myself and to turrets and fan Then the and to John Begay as well then I Thought well, let's let's examine this.

It is always important to be dealing with attacks upon sola scriptura. I will before we bring turrets and fan on who is going to be joining with me in just a moment. Point out that I do find it somewhat odd that The end of the blog article says answers to these questions will certainly help me greatly in My ongoing look at the issues of sola scriptura the canon of scripture and ecclesiology.

The reason I find that odd and strange is that earlier in the post You you have the assertion that Sola scriptura is a false doctrine. So if you already have the assertion on Mr. Alts part That sola scriptura is a false doctrine.

Then what do you mean that you are looking at these issues you've already made up your mind on the issues. This isn't some unbiased examination I Think it's important to go there. But anyways, I am joined now by the redoubtable the anonymous and yet the frequently cited Turrets and fan.

Hello turrets and fan. How are you, sir? Fine. Thanks. How are you? I'm doing just fine I'm looking at at this article here and I'll have to admit I am looking at the right now just the thing caught my eye was the The picture of the 38 volume set from now Hendrickson, but originally had the darker covers on them which is what I have anyways in my library the Erdman's 38 volume set and Was just having as soon as I saw it The first thing it crossed my mind was is this kind of guy gonna do the same thing The Jason Stellman did and and pretty much limit the early church fathers to that one primarily Protestant 19th 20th century Translation and that is sort of what happened.

And I just I just sort of chuckle at that. But that was something you also noted in in a blog article that have you posted it yet? Or will it be posting or what?

Well, I was going to try to simul post it with this but then I realized if we do that There's a chance that someone will go rush off to the blog during the live Show and rather than do that after the show is done I'll go ahead and post it with any corrections that we need to make during the you know based on our discussions.

Are you insinuating that our audience might have a shiny object a problem going on? It's possible. Happens to the best of us. Unfortunately, that is the the reality of the modern human mind. Well, there's something to go read.

Okay I'll go with that and then they end up reading something on Facebook and then they're watching YouTube about time to get done. We're done and they haven't listened to a word we had to say. So anyways questions for a reformed apologist.

Um. Started off with a quotation that left me confused at first. I I didn't really have any question about who had said it the the quotation is given the novelty of biblical revelation consists in the fact that God becomes known to us through the dialogue which he desires to have with us and.

Then the question is asked does the author believe in sola scriptura? What do you think for after all he describes the Bible as novel that is to say it is unique. It is different from anything else further.

The author describes the Bible as the means by which God becomes known to us. He refers to it as God's dialogue with us. He points no other source of knowledge or dialogue with God and this becomes an example of how you can Misunderstand someone read something into their words, but I'll have to be honest with you I would not have ever read into those words a belief in solo scriptura in the first place.

Would you have found anything along those lines, of course, these are the words of Pope Benedict the 16th or Cardinal Ratzinger, however, you want to refer to him. I found it a strange quotation to begin with.

Yeah, I thought it was an odd choice. There's other things he's he said that actually sound if you take them out of the context more like an Endorsement of solo scriptura at one point. He says that there's a if you go to the Vatican website.

You can you can find a place where he's quoted as saying that the Word of Scripture is not an inert Deposit within the church, but the supreme rule of faith and power of life and the supreme rule of faith.

That that sounds quite a lot like solo scriptura. But of course if you start, you know applying context you look around and dig into more detail. He says that about tradition as well scripture and tradition together are the supreme rule of faith and.

That prevents him from being strictly speaking. The solo scriptura advocate, of course doesn't prevent him from being inconsistent, right? You'll see it. He affirms that Christ is the one ahead of the church but then he claims to be the Pope and.

You know that he claims an earthly headship over the church and he doesn't claim the church has two heads so there's this inconsistency and we shouldn't necessarily assume just because someone says one thing in one place that they necessarily are consistent, but.

So in other words, mr. Alt has highlighted a potential problem of sometimes the fathers were inconsistent as well. Right, but you know that just pushes that just kicks the can down the road a little bit farther.

He needs to now go into these fathers if he thinks that we and I say we but people like Webster and King Who have done a lot of detailed work on this if if he wants to accuse them of having done that well then he needs to go and dig into their works and find out where they say things like what Benedict 16 would say in terms of.

Which which is which is what I found rather odd is that you know If I were to do some ways in fact one of the things I've I haven't just haven't gotten around to it I haven't had time to but one of the tabs in my dividing line materials is a 2005 article by Tim Challey's on Pope Benedict 16th on sola scriptura and it was from his book Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith the Church's Communion which I obtained the book so as to make sure to have the full context and I was going to do some interaction with Some things that Ratzinger has said on this particular subject.

But it would never cross my mind To assert that on the basis of a statement such as the one cited that Ratzinger believed in sola scriptura but what's interesting is One of the primary citations found later on in this blog article from Athanasius from his Against the heathen is the translation contra gentis in in Latin but against the heathen is is I think how the I'm looking at the Erdman's set here renders it anyways an extensive discussion of that text appears in a book that I said I contributed to way back in What was this? 1995 Titled sola scriptura the proposition in the Bible on page 49.

I begin my discussion of that and In going through Athanasius I Provided a number of pages and then there were numerous pages of notes on that particular discussion including numerous references to The Greek original language, etc, etc.

He doesn't provide any of that he just References someone else someone else's citation of this particular text a dr. Mitzi And Goes on from there. So I I found it odd because if you actually you know the issue is going in depth into these patristic sources and into what these early church fathers said and all of this goes back to the fact that it struck me and just sort of approaching this a blog article from an overall perspective.

That there's mr. Alt even though he claims to be a convert. I don't know his story. Again, I wasn't really familiar with him hasn't a fundamentally flawed view of the subject of solo scriptura once again, and I think this comes out in the way that the questions are asked.

So before we dive into each of the citations that he gives let's just tell folks what the questions are and do our best. Try to get to them and I guess sort of by dealing with the citations that appear we sort of answer the question, but Here are the questions there there are three questions that are asked it says so with all that said I have three basic questions.

Dr. White or turds or fan of John Begay or any other reformed apologists would like to answer first who is the first person to articulate a defense of solo scriptura by speaking of it as a Normative condition of the church who first defines solo scriptura in these terms and I believe he's using the term normative condition there.

From something that I said in the debate or I simply pointed out That when we're talking about solo scriptura, we can only talk about it in any meaningful fashion. When the church exists and possesses God-breathed revelation.

And there's not other God-breathed revelation being given in other words. It's it's not during a period of inscripturation which Roman Catholics and Protestants agree. We are not in a period of inscripturation.

There there aren't any Apostles walking the earth that are receiving direct revelation from God. That's something you can argue with the Mormons about and so on and so forth. But that was the context of the comments to Jerry Matta ticks back in 9697 whatever it was.

Second who is first person to articulate the doctrine of solo scriptura itself and I'm not talking about church fathers use the Bible to Prove a theological point or who speak highly of the scriptures.

I'm talking about a church father or anyone who credibly and demonstrably speaks of the scriptures in terms of Exclusivity as a rule of soul rule of faith one might want to look at my previous article here for full discussion.

What I mean by exclusivity and third a soul scripture is not to be found the Bible and is not to be found in the church Fathers then how outside of an appeal to tradition or normative conditions. Is it to be defended and how is that not self-contradictory?

So there are the the the statements and it just struck me That especially in that second question We have a real good example of The primary approach of Roman Catholic apologists, which is to assume what they have yet to prove that is they they want us to prove the non-existence of Something rather than their undertaking to prove the existence of something and every time I bring this up They're saying all you're just trying to dodge the burden of proof and all resist up and yet They're the ones making the claim our side.

Our guy is infallible. We have this stuff. That you have to have to really be a true Christian. But we're not going to prove it. You've got to prove it doesn't exist. Which just amazes me, but there's nothing new about it.

I that was the problem when I first started listening to Roman Catholic apologists back with Karl Keating and Patrick Madrid and Scott Hahn and Jerry Matitix. At the end of the 80s and it seems to continue to be the issue even with the call to communion folks and everything else today is we get to do we get to be the default position and You get to try to deny our positive claims.

We don't have to prove them and that just just struck me as a rather rather Important thing to note right off right off the top. As we as we dive into that if you want to comment on that you just want to dive into some of the first.

Citations he gives the the other thing I would I would just add to that is that we are consistent on this point. We you use this approach of saying the scriptures are the Word of God. And if you want to assert that the Roman Catholic Magisterium is also the Word of God in some form or some shape It's on you to prove that it's on us to kind of find in the Bible where it says the Roman Catholic the Roman Catholic Pope is not.

Thus and such the same way. We don't have to find in the Bible that Joseph Smith is not a true prophet or that Muhammad is not a true prophet each when Muhammad shows up. He wants to assert. He's a true prophet.

It's on him and his followers to to show that we don't have to find in the Bible Someplace that says Muhammad is not a true prophet. And the same thing applies as well to to Rome's Teaching. We apply the same, you know the same principle in an even-handed way to all comers and We are we have this conclusion of Scripture alone because we've eliminated all the other Options there isn't.

We don't believe that Jesus has already have come and he's walking around the earth teaching people. If he were we would give his teachings divine authority as they deserve and they would they he is just as divine as the Holy Spirit and So his words and teachings are equal authority to the scripture.

But Rome's teachings are not of equal authority to the scripture. Muhammad's teachings are not of equal authority to the scripture. Joseph Smith's not of equal authority to the scripture, but it isn't.

It's because we have we have what we have and that there's not some we're not trying to prove a negative or Although we can to a certain extent prove that negative and I guess that we kind of render into that as we go through.

Yeah, yeah, and I think people need to understand, you know The Roman Catholic tries to get around that by saying well You know The Bible speaks positively of tradition and then making the huge leap to the identification of the tradition that they claim As being the same tradition that is referred to in Scripture but that's why and this is I can always tell when when someone really does know that this is a ruse on their part when I go to the dogmas that have been defined by Rome on the basis of tradition.

They cry foul. Well, we should be we shouldn't be you just always are focused upon these Marian dogmas. Look, I It would seem to me that you look at the at the teachings Roman Catholic Church over the past couple hundred years.

And you want to do something that's somewhat Contemporary and somewhat up-to-date. What has Rome shown the greatest? Willingness to define on the basis of tradition. It has been the Marian dogmas and of course the power of the papacy.

So you have 1854 you have the Immaculate Conception 1870 infallibility the Pope and 1950 the bodily assumption of Mary. So Let's look at them and let's test them and let's see what this tradition is and and it becomes self evident at that point.

Without question and I I can honestly say I can honestly say That every debate where this has come up. We've won the debate. It's not even close I mean, I would direct anyone to the debate that I did with Roberts and Janice on this subject it is not even close that the the Historical material and the biblical material is Firmly against any kind of Roman Catholic victory in that particular debate.

Which is why it's next to impossible to get any of these folks to debate those subjects. That's you know, I mentioned Robertson Janice. But at least he was willing the vast majority of Roman Catholic apologists are smart enough to realize and I'm not that's not meant to Be in a slap at Bob's Janice, but they they recognize that's a no-win position.

There isn't any way that they can they can possibly win that one. And so they're gonna try to avoid it. And so You look at that that that argumentation and it just simply doesn't work. So let's let's dive into it because we're already 20 minutes in the program and that's just how it goes.

Yes paragraph two That's a good introduction. He quotes Hippolytus as saying there is brethren one God the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and from no other source, that's the that's the form of the quotation he provides and We can we could find the context and so forth.

But his characterization is that this This is all he's saying is that Our sole source of the knowledge of God is from Scripture and he thinks that Benedict 16 would be okay with that.

With that doctrine. Yeah, I doubt that he I doubt that he would. Actually I'm not okay with that statement because My Bible says otherwise. In the sense that that's not even solo scriptura, which again raises the issue of a mr also understanding of what soul scripture actually is.

Because my Bible says that that a man who's never cracked the bindings of a Bible knows that God exists and is suppressing that knowledge. That there is a revelation of God's existence in general revelation and that that makes man culpable for certain things, etc, etc.

Which is which is fascinating, but he does try to parallel that citation with what? Benedict said and and I don't see a parallel there at all personally, but be that as it as it may. Did you want to expand on that citation or?

Very briefly if you if you go into the we don't have time to read through the whole context here I will post it afterwards. But if you go into the context he's responding to heresies of a particular heretic.

And he's not making that claim on its face seems too broad. It seems to exclude the light of nature conscience and so forth. But in context what he's really saying is that his heretical opponent can't have some other source Aside from scripture for his heel for his theology there isn't any other there's no other place to go no legitimate place to go besides the scriptures to get your theology and.

Therefore he's challenging this heretic on the grounds of what the scripture teach. He's using scripture as the standard and he's saying that the heretic fails the standard because his teachings don't line up with scripture and they don't come from scripture and.

And ultimately they do contradict scripture, but that isn't his whole point. His point is actually broader than that. It's that they you have. They have to come from your teachings have to come from this source the source of scriptures exactly.

Exactly, right and then then we have the picture of the 38 volume set and I will read this because I seem to be reading Very quickly today anyways. Not sure why but that's all right. The difficulty one encounters the passages like these often used by reformed apologists and other Protestants to to prop up the false Doctrine of sola scriptura.

There's the citation. I was returning to earlier is that they are so seemingly convincing. They speak so highly of the scripture. One struggles with how to respond part of the trouble is the fact that unless you've memorized and have an encyclopedic knowledge of all 38 volumes of the fathers There is no way you could know off the top of your head the context of quotation or whether you're Protestant interlocutor is Playing fast and loose with accuracy.

I have an example this below in a quotation from st Athanasius the best you can do is say oh, I don't know. I'll have to look that up. But then you come off as Uneducated and bumbling. Dr. James White is no stranger to using this tactic in debate.

The first quotation st. Benedict's is a case in point with benton 16th. You know, you're not dealing with someone who supports sola scriptura. But let's assume that the quotation really did come from a church father unless you had a working knowledge of the context of passage.

Now the entirety of the work itself, you'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate how it does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura well, once again, I would challenge mr. Alt to Examine what I've written on this subject when I do go into the context of the original languages using means and other sources such as both patrilogia Latina and patrilogia greco and Go from there.

It seems like he is somewhat backhandingly accusing me of abusing the father's buddy then does not demonstrate that. Even though I have cited the same passage she did just in more depth Itself but It is is there just a problem over on the other side of Rome Outside of the Tiber.

I mean you and I know of a whole lot more than the Erdman set there's there's entire sets of Material outside of Erdman's but these guys these converts especially just seem to know about the 38 volumes.

Isn't that a little bit weird?

Yeah, I guess it's weird in in one sense in I guess it's to be expected there's not there is kind of a shallowness to the The approach that we're seeing and it's actually illustrated in the way He characterizes it as though the only way you can respond to people is by what you happen to already know.

You can't hear them say it ask for the citation then go and look at it. See if what they're saying is true, and if it is believe it and if it's not don't believe it. But for some reason, you know, the only way is you have to Memorize the whole set in order to deal in patristics, and I don't I don't know of anybody who's Seriously interested in studying what the fathers have to say that he thinks you have to have it all memorized.

It's not it's nice to actually have good working knowledge of these guys and so say that doesn't sound like something Athanasius would say. Because you've read enough of these works, but you know to have a memorized. It's not a realistic standard.

So well, I think part of a part of the context there though is in a debate you you are Limited in the amount of time you have you you can't say okay. We have a 20-minute timeout while I you know Go online and read this that that that would be nice to do debates that way, but that's not how they work but the fact the matter is I.

You know, it does strike me that a lot of these guys even though they're converts have never read Whitaker or Salmon or good? Or any of these these classic works from From the past even you know Lutheran works like Cheminists even though it's hard to find the references in Cheminists, but It's it's like they haven't even read these works.

So as to be familiar with with the sources and the materials that they probably are gonna be running up against I mean, especially the Athanasian quote. That that's that's one of the best known of all of the citations I've been writing about Athanasius since the 90s.

I see a picture of mr. Ault. He doesn't look like he's 147 years old. He's but I think his conversion has been since that time. So I I find it somewhat odd that there would be this this this this concern about quoting these materials.

Because it's not like we haven't we're not the first generation to be dealing with these things. I mean, I'll sadly say that for most Protestants today. They've never even given it a second thought but then again the vast majority of Roman Catholics haven't either.

So that's that's that's a little bit strange. But anyways. Then he gets into this in this concept of exclusivity. No other source and he wants us To and we've already mentioned this I was mentioned again.

He wants us to prove the non-existence of another inspired source rather than demonstrating that the traditions that he has are the Anustos and therefore of equal validity and authority that the view of his his view of tradition is actually taught in Scripture, whatever else it might be and Certainly we've looked at every possible text over the years that could be used.

You know Paul's exhortation to the Thessalonians about holding to the tradition whether by word of mouth or by letter and we've we've we've taken these texts apart and They recognize I think Roman Catholics recognize Roman Catholic apologists.

Anyways recognize they simply cannot Substantiate the idea that their tradition is actually apostolic in origin and I think if you actually read more modern stuff, especially since the definition of the Immaculate Conception bodily assumption Mary Roman Catholic Theologians themselves recognize that there needs to be a different way of looking at tradition.

It needs to be a living thing sort of like how people are dealing with the Constitution these days to to get around. What Rome has actually done in? Defining these things as dogmas. You have to redefine what tradition means.

And remove it from the realm of ancient history To to substantiate these things in in any way shape or form. So I think that's that's important. I Imagine you're looking at the same material. I am was there something you want to do to add there?

No, no, let's let's continue on. Let's just go to let's get to a basil then and the hearers taught in the scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees to the scriptures but reject that which is foreign.

Obviously a a text that is cited very regularly and One that I think is vitally important, especially in light of the context of the times in which it was written. You've got some material on that. Go ahead.

Yeah, so he he his first comment there was that this isn't from that 38 volume set which is true. That set isn't complete then it's far from complete and. One nice thing about the set is it mentions the work lets you know that it's one of basil's ascetic works and there is there are translations of it out there at least one translation is easily available and that particular chance.

That translation actually does provide you with some context which he wanted the I guess the bad news for him is that this context is. First of all, there's a preface a general preface to this book of morals the The Moralia is the name of the book that he provides, but you know in English we would just say the morals.

The Basil provided a preface that described what he what he's trying to do and in that preface. You see what what he's trying to do is provide you with. Here's what here's how you should live your life and in proof of the fact that you should live your life this way I'm going to provide you with.

Of course scripture not, you know, not human. He's not going to provide human tradition or anything like that. Just scripture and he would like to provide old and New Testament scripture for every single thing.

But isn't isn't one scripture enough and he doesn't have a lot of time. So sometimes he's only gonna provide one or two scriptures or only from one Testament or something like that. So rule 72 is the one that he's quoting from here.

Rule 72 says concerning the hearers that those hearers who are instructed in the scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers receiving what is in conformity with the scriptures and Rejecting what is opposed to them and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided so The way it was expressed in terms of foreign and the original quotation kind of left it open about whether that just means outside of scripture or contrary to scripture, but if you the problem With his analysis is he's kind of ignoring this rule requires these hearers.

And if you look in the overall context of who the morals are written to they're written to ordinary Christians so They're not written, you know to councils of bishops or something like that so it's not this is not just for ecumenical councils or Roman bishops, but for ordinary Christians that They are supposed to judge teachers by scripture which you know is possible if We are we have that authority to do so to judge scripture and to judge teachers by scripture but if we don't have that interpretive authority then These his those comments don't make much sense and he even cites in support of his position Despise not prophecies prove all things hold fast that which is good.

From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves and then he goes is after this side. That's one of several verses he quotes and then he says the day that That they who possess little knowledge of the scriptures should recognize the distinctive mark of the Saints by the fruits of the Spirit.

Receiving those who bear this mark and avoiding those who do not so he's even making allowance for Christians who have less knowledge of scripture. So people who have we know what the scriptures teach should examine teachers by scripture.

Those who don't know much about scripture should at least examine them by their fruits. Are they living holy lives? But again, you know you apply that standard of the fruits of the Spirit to Roman bishops in the in the late medieval period.

This is one of the arguments that the Reformers ended up using was look at how Wicked the Borgia's and and other and other Italian Families who possessed the papacy for a time how wicked they were now, you know, John Paul II Benedict XVI.

He seemed like kindly older gentlemen, but not all Roman bishops Have had such, you know good press and even even these ones are there. Benedict XVI's Tainted by a number of different scandals. Including this, you know the cover-ups that he's been engaged in and so forth and the point isn't so much that therefore all his theology Is wrong, but if you're going to follow what Basil's teaching here about how you judge teachers Use you don't arrive at a Roman Catholic position.

No. Because you can't you can't judge the papacy based on whether or not they have the fruits of the Spirit according to you know Modern Roman Catholic dogma you you're not allowed to interpret the scripture any way contrary to the way that Rome interprets it.

Therefore you can never arrive at a contrary View of the scriptures and therefore you could never use this to judge the teachers.

At least not any of these supposedly infallible teachers. I would think it would be relevant for mr Alt to likewise recognize that in light of his own assertion that you need to look at what else someone has said.

I pointed out a citation from Basil in his letter to Eustatius Where he said their complaint is that their custom does not accept this and that scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair at the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy.

If custom is to be taken and proof of what is right. Then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here if they reject this we are clearly Not bound to follow them therefore let God inspired scripture decide between us and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth and interestingly enough that is in the context of.

You can also look at other other texts. This is in Again, and this what this this he can look up himself. He wants in the very set that he cites in Series 2 volume 8 page 229. You can also look up pages 137 to 141 Where in his defense the Trinity and his reliance upon God inspired scripture not oral tradition.

It will be found there as well. So in other words, it's not just one citation. It's For example, we get down to Athanasius. I didn't just give that one citation of Athanasius. I gave many citations of Athanasius that say the same things and it would seem That would be the first thing that you would be doing is going well if if I don't have the context here, did he say anything similar to this where I do have context and When you do you do find things where he has that that very context in in mind and in his teachings.

You're listening to the dividing line turrets and fan and I are discussing an article from the logos and Muse comm website Questions for a reformed apologist and we are examining the assertions regards the early church.

I realize this is a little bit different than what you might have tuned in expecting a discussion of whatever the most current promotion of homosexuality was or anything else along those lines, but This is really a topic that we've been dealing with for many years.

It's vitally important and it has to do with the authority of scripture and the doctrine of what is called solo scriptura. That scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith of the church it is the only example of the Anustos revelation in possession of the church and In obedience to Jesus teaching in Matthew chapter 15.

We are taught that we are to test any tradition even traditions where men claim It comes from God outside of scripture as the Corban rule was claimed to be from God outside of scripture. I've come from Moses directly According to tractate of both of the Mishnah that we are to test these things by what is found in scripture.

That is the highest authority. That is the only way to allow God truly to speak. This is something denied by Roman Catholicism and mr. Alt the author of the article we're looking at is by his own Confession here.

I am a first-time blogger and Protestant to atheist to Protestant to Catholic convert. So that's an interesting path that he is has followed there so then We go from Basil to He mentions. I guess these these are citations from dr. Mitzi's just for Catholics website.