Dr. John MacArthur
P.O. BOX 4000
Panorama City, CA 91412

Dr.MacArthur,
I have heard you on the radio criticizing with three other anti-Catholics the Evangelical and Catholics Together Pact. I have also read the book "Sola Scriptura! the Protestant position on the bible," including your chapter on the sufficiency of the written word. Being someone who used to believe in sola fide and sola scriptura I take issue with many things you pronounce as biblical truth. Since you are a foremost propounder of the Reformation I thought I would send you papers that I have personally written showing how unbiblical those concepts are. I have sent these papers to Peaceway Productions and Fellowship Tract League and they never responded to the points which show how unbiblical these Reformation principles are. I would love it if you, or as I know that you are a busy man, anybody on your staff could respond to the many things I point out. I read the whole sola scriptura book, and many of the weaknesses that I pointed out in my writing, were not addressed anywhere in that book. However, since I am writing to you, I would like to focus my attention on your chapter of the sola scriptura book.

You start off by saying that Catholic beliefs are like pagan beliefs because we put tradition on a par with scripture. Well, it is a very scriptural concept. I will critique your analysis of 2 Thess. 2:15 later, but there it says to hold fast to traditions, whether oral or written. Anyway you criticize the Catholic interpretation of this verse, here scripture is called tradition. Your own theology accepts at least this tradition as authoritative. If you want to tie us to pagan religions, you must tie yourself to them as well.

You quote Mark 7, which is comparable to Matthew 15, where Jesus condemns tradition of men. You will note that Jesus condemns traditions of men, not apostolic tradition. In fact nowhere does Jesus condemn apostolic tradition. Any tradition of man that contradicts scripture the Catholic church likewise condemns. That is why the church condemns sola scriptura. Nowhere in either the old or new testament is it taught. 2 Tim 3:16 says nothing of the sort. The belabored attempt by Robert Godfrey in the Sola Scriptura book to say that it does is actually exactly verbatim what he spoke in a CURE-CATHOLIC ANSWER Debate which was thoroughly refuted by Bob Sungenis and Bill Marshner, with no real response from Godfrey or other Protestant apologists. Some Protestants who attended the debate converted to the Catholic faith that weekend because they were shown how unbiblical both Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are.

You next wrote that the Old Testament through Moses shows Sola Scriptura in action, that traditions of men are not necessary. Well, Moses is the first author of any scripture. Before we get to Moses however, we must look at how the people of God before him knew what was true. If Sola Scriptura is true, and the only method of accurately transmitting God's word, why is there no command anywhere in all of Genesis for God's people to write down his word? Did God's people not have infallible truth passed on? Of course they did, and absolutely nothing was written down. According to Sola Scriptura, everything has to be written. Another common argument in the Sola Scriptura book is that the church has corrupted God's truth and that is why we must rely on the bible alone; however, God in the Old Testament established covenants with Adam, Noah, and Abraham, with Isaac and Jacob succeeding them. God tells none of them to write anything down. How did God's covenant people know of their prior generations? Oral tradition, and this truth had to be infallible, otherwise Moses would have access only to corrupt errors. However, apparently sola scriptura people believe in the infallibility of this oral tradition, otherwise you would not believe in the book of Genesis. Therefore sola scriptura is self contradictory even before we get to the laying down of Moses' law.

You brought up Moses as a shining example of sola scriptura in practice, because Moses wrote down the law. Let us look at the specific verses that you quoted (as well as the surrounding verses) to prove sola scriptura and see if your analysis is correct. You quote Deut. 4:2 and 12:32 to say that one should not add or take away from God's word. Of course in neither of those passages did God say that he will only reveal himself and his word in the present or succeeding generations by having his prophets write God's word. If we actually read Deut. 4 about not adding or taking away the words that I command you, it is Moses who is the one commanding. Of course he is relating what the Lord told him, but Deut. 4 shows that the "I command you" is Moses. Moses has magisterial authority. This is a far cry from sola scriptura. It is no doubt that it is God's word, but it is coming through Moses, the infallible interpreter. If you somehow misinterpret Deut. 4 to say the "I command you" is God, then when you write about not adding or taking away God's word, then we should not believe any scriptures after Deuteronomy. That would do away with 61 (66 - 5) books of the bible (or 68 (73-5), if you include the 7 books that the Protestants threw out. You write, well it does not mean that but only that God could add to his word. If that is granted to you, you find nowhere in scripture where God only reveals his truth through scripture. The Catholic church does not add to God's word. On the contrary, if you limit revelation to scripture you are taking away from God's word, likewise condemned in the very scripture quoted.

It is true that God told Moses to write down his words (Deut. 24:7, 12; 34:27); However, that is not what sola scriptura teaches. It teaches that scripture alone is authoritative. Even you will admit that faithful Jews had to follow the leader, who at that time was Moses, as he was God's prophet. According to your theory all you have to do is read scripture, ask the Holy Spirit to guide you, and no leader is of the same authority as scripture. Did Moses tell everyone to write their own law, study it personally, ask the Holy Spirit to guide them? That concept is nowhere to be found in the scriptures quoted. The Book of the Law was put beside the ark of the covenant (Deut. 31:26), the holy of holies. The common people could not just wander into the holy of holies, and privately read and interpret the book of the law. Only the high priest could enter the holy of holies, which contained the law, and enter into the Holy of Holies, only once a year (Heb. 9:6-8). This is a far cry from any concept of sola scriptura.

Moses was an authoritative leader who interpreted the law for them. All Jews were subject to the authoritative leader, Moses. In fact those who were punished by God were those who rebelled against Moses. Jude in his inspired epistle relates that God's authoritative leaders must be followed in the New Testament (which puts a death knell to sola scriptura) and relates it specifically to Moses! In the context of writing about God's judgement of evil people, Jude 11 notes that people should not follow the example of Korah's rebellion (Num. 16:1-35). Korah said we can take upon ourselves authority, (Num. 16:1-3) we do not have to follow you! (sound familiar?) He proclaimed that he was just as holy as Moses and Aaron and sought the ministerial priesthood himself (Num. 16:3, 10). This was beyond the universal priesthood given to the Jews (Exod. 19:6). They wanted to worship on their own authority and did not want to submit to Moses. God punished not only Korah, and his followers (Num 16:31-34) but also those who complained about it (16:46-49). This is not just an Old Testament incident, but Jude directly ties this rebellion to the New Testament. For this passage to have any relevance to Jude, it means that there are authoritative leaders who must be followed and there is great risk in rejecting them. Sola scriptura followers take it upon themselves to privately interpret God's word, as did Korah and his rebels, who were condemned by God. How do you explain the fact that Jude was warning the church against those who rejected the authority of the New Testament Church's hierarchy if (as Sola Scriptura preaches) the New Testament Church had no authoritative hierarchy?

Then you brought up Joshua, as another example of sola scriptura in practice. It is true that the people were told to meditate on the book of the law and follow it (Josh. 1:7-8). Likewise the Catholic church encourages us to study and meditate on the bible; however this passage in Joshua says nothing about all the people putting one's own interpretation of Moses' law as the final authority, as sola scriptura teaches. On the contrary, just as the people were bound both to what Moses spoke and wrote, so they were bound to follow Joshua as a means of keeping with God's law. You selectively quoted this important part of Joshua which actually fits in with the Catholic view of authority. Josh. 1:16-18 exclaims "All that you command us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go. Just as we heeded Moses in all things, so we will heed you. Only the Lord your God be with you, as he was with Moses. Whoever rebels against your command does not heed your words, in all that you command him, shall be put to death. Only be strong and of good courage." Joshua is an authoritative leader and the people are bound to follow him. It is a total misuse of the context to say that Josh. 1 does anything but disprove sola scriptura. Those who rebel in any way against Joshua (which includes interpreting the law in any unauthorized way) are condemned.

You refer quickly to James White claiming that many in the early church believed in sola scriptura. If one selectively quotes Church Fathers, you can have them say many things, but these same church fathers affirmed tradition alongside the utmost respect they had for the bible. All of those quoted by White also believed authoritative church teaching was binding on all believers.

The cheap shots that you take at the Catholic church on the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, etc., would take a whole biblical explanation that I do not have the time to develop. I refer you to "Refuting the Attack on Mary", from Catholic Answers, which is a short but thorough refutation of the attacks on the mother of God (Luke 1:43) who is proclaimed in scripture that all generations shall call blessed.

2 Tim. 3:15-17
This scripture is supposedly the magic scripture that proves sola scriptura. This is the only scripture that any informed Protestant with a straight face will assert that even implies sola scriptura. (By the way, 1 Cor 4:6 though it says not to go beyond what is written, has no context of scripture. Paul is writing about the book of life in regards to eternity, on those who are acquitted or condemned before God, about not being arrogant.) Remember that the main point of sola scriptura is that it is the sole authority in regards to understanding salvation. It was a magic bullet in your chapter because not only did you use it to affirm sola scriptura, but also to rebut the Catholic interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:2 and 2 Thess. 2:15. If is not sufficient to show or even be consistent with sola scriptura, it is irrelevant to the rebuttal of 1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Thess. 2:15. Let us dissect the context.

Throughout Paul's letter he talks about various things needed to equip the believer. In the immediate context he writes in v. 10 "But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith longsuffering, love, perseverance,...". Does he say in v. 10 that the only source of doctrine is scripture? No!. It is obvious that the way that Timothy primarily received Paul's doctrine was orally, also by his way of life and oral teaching. In. v. 14 it says to continue in the things that Timothy is assured of. So when we get to vv. 15-17, the conclusion that talks about being fully equipped for every good work includes this oral tradition explicated in v. 10. This is the immediate background to vv. 15-17.

v. 15 - You assert that v. 15 "affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation". It definitely says that the scripture helps to make Timothy wise for salvation. You will notice that it does not say that only scripture is the source of Timothy's teaching. After all, just back in v. 10 he said that oral teaching (i.e. tradition) is a source of this doctrine. This is confirmed in 2 Thess. 2:13-15 where before he affirms oral tradition alongside written tradition (I will rebut your analysis of this verse later) he mentions salvation (v. 13). That affirms that oral tradition also explains salvation more clearly; Next Paul writes that the scriptures that inform Timothy about salvation are the scriptures Timothy has known since childhood. James White may say in debates that Paul is not talking about the extent, but the nature of scriptures, and partly it may be true, but that does not do away with the fact that Paul is exclusively writing about the Old Testament. Sola Scriptura advocates would have to say that besides not needing oral tradition, you also do not need the New Testament, as this passage is exclusively in reference to the Old Testament. Now it is true that the Old Testament does teach on salvation (Ps. 106:31 cf., Num. 25:1-16; Prov. 24:12; Prov. 17:15, etc.) which by the way rebuts the Calvinist view of justification), but salvation is preached much more clearly in the new covenant; The other point is that nowhere does Paul even state that what he is writing is scripture! How do we know that what Paul writes is scripture? How does Timothy know that this letter is scripture? When Peter mentions Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:16), he does not mention any specific letter that Paul wrote. The church preserved these writings so you have them. That is something that even Luther acknowledged. Also, when Peter writes of the epistles that are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16) the previous verse (v. 15) shows that the things that are hard to understand have to do with salvation! This shows that the Protestant understanding of the perspicuity of scripture in regards to salvation is false; Even if I granted you or James White or Robert Godfrey's interpretation of verses 16 and 17, these points in and of themselves refute the sola scriptura interpretation of the rest of these verses.

v. 16 - You assert that "verse 16 affirms the absolute authority of scripture." There are two problems with this analysis. First this verse does not say that only Scripture is given by inspiration of God. It does not say that only scripture is needed to serve these ends. Therefore, this verse is not relevant to sola scriptura just on that point. The other fact is that scripture is termed profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. If I drink water, it is profitable but not sufficient to keep me alive. I also need food. The church likewise asserts that scripture is profitable for these four ends; however the title of your chapter is "the sufficiency of the written word". Later when it talks about being fully equipped for every good work we must remember that scripture is only termed profitable for those ends.

v. 17 - "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Does not this mean sufficiency? Does Paul ever use this kind of language about other things? In fact in the very same letter he uses the very phrase. He writes in 2:21, "If anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work." The context is about sanctification. Is Paul saying sanctification, and deliverance from youthful lusts (v. 22) is sufficient to equip Paul? Using the logic employed by Protestant apologists, to be consistent with this interpretation of 2 Tim 3:15-17, then you do not need anything else to equip you except sanctification. Another point is that in order for this scripture to be sufficient, then Timothy must be saying forget everything else I told you. "Ignore 2 Tim 2:2 (which I get to next) where he specifically tells him to pass on what I told (not wrote) you." Ignore 2:21. Ignore 2 Tim 3:8 which shows recognition of an oral tradition on the names of Pharaoh's magicians, Jannes and Jamberes (nowhere in the old testament). He does not need to argue that this is a fact, he assumes it as authoritative, showing dependency on oral tradition. Paul nowhere says in 2 Tim 3:15-17 to ignore everything else I've both told you and written to you. In order for 2 Tim 3:15-17 to mean sola scriptura he would have to tell them to do so. What Paul is writing in this section is that scripture is indeed inspired by God and is useful to equip you for every good work. However, in the immediate context (vv. 10-14) in regards to salvation, as well as areas of spiritual development in this same epistle there various things that equip, including oral tradition. I have this same love scripture as you do. However, it is only one of various things that do equip.

2 Tim 2:2
"The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also". 1) Here you write that Paul is only training Timothy for discipleship, not for apostolic succession. 2) You quote 2 Tim 3:15-17 to rebut the Catholic interpretation. 3) Assert that only scripture is to be passed on infallibly.

1) The statement that Timothy is only being trained for discipleship belies the very words themselves. The context of this statement affirms that it is oral tradition that is passed on. A few verses before (2 Tim 1:13) Paul tells Timothy "Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us." A good commentary on this verse (2 Tim 1:13) is by St. John Chrysostem in his commentary on Timothy:

Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also; which he shows, both in many other passages as where he says, "whether by word or epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15), and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou has heard of me." (2 Tim 1:13).(Homilies on Timothy, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series vol. 13, p. 484)

1 Tim. 1:14 shows us that Paul expects the bishop Timothy (1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6) to hold fast to this tradition by the Holy Spirit. This is in perfect keeping with the church teaching on infallible teaching. And this is how Paul lays down the foundation for 2 Tim 2:2. This oral teaching (tradition) is exactly what Timothy is explaining in 2 Tim 2:2. When we get to 2 Tim 2:2 we notice that three generations of Christians are told to pass on truth orally. In 2 Tim 2:1 Paul calls Timothy his son. Paul is the first generation apostle who passes on his authoritative teaching orally to Timothy, the second generation. Then he tells the second generation leader Timothy to entrust this same oral teaching to the third generation (Timothy's spiritual sons.) To say that this has nothing to do with apostolic succession ignores the very words of Paul. Paul has already shown us in 2 Tim 1:13-14 that oral tradition is in the background of this very verse. 2 Tim 2:2 on its own talks of passing on what is entrusted to Timothy. Individually these verses assert oral tradition exactly in the Catholic way. However when these verses are combined, any honest reader will see that sola scriptura is the farthest thing from Paul's mind. This is not mere discipleship, it is teaching. When the background to this verse is shown to be (2 Tim 1:13-14) Timothy holding on to Paul's oral teaching it is clear that this oral tradition is binding on not only Timothy, but his successors.

2) In this passage 2 Tim 3:15-17 is totally irrelevant because there is no message anywhere in this context (2 Tim 2) about scripture. What is relevant is that right in the middle of passing on authoritative teaching there is no mention of scripture at all. Your conclusion on 2 Tim 2 that Timothy is told that the only reliable method of passing on teaching is scripture is nowhere in the text or context. In fact 2 Tim 3:15-17 said nothing about passing scripture on whereas in 2 Tim 2:2 oral teaching is said to be passed on.

3) The fact that only scripture is called inspired ignores the fact that the Catholic Church affirms that only scripture is inspired. We do not hold that tradition that is passed on is inspired; however, the words that Paul spoke were inspired. What the 12 apostles spoke and were not written were inspired as well. For example, one of many instances in which the term Word of God is used is Acts 13:5 is when it is preached, but not recorded. I suggest you search how many times the term word of God is used in Acts and you will see that the term word of God more often refers to what the apostles spoke, and not what they wrote. That was just as inspired as what was written. This very word of God Paul teaches here in 2 Tim 2:2 is to be passed on through 3 generations and nowhere does he say that this oral tradition must be stopped.

Paul writes this epistle at the end of this life (2 Tim 4:6-8). This makes this statement even more a death knell to the idea of sola scriptura. You wrote that after the apostles die, the only thing that is binding is written tradition, and what is oral is not to be transmitted authoritatively. If he believed in sola scriptura, the time of his death would be the perfect occasion to state this. What does he specifically say must be passed on in three generations? Oral tradition. He does not say this of scripture.

Acts 2:42-
You acknowledge that this passage shows that the people were bound to the oral teaching of the apostles. You also must thus acknowledge that the church precedes the bible and the church does not derive its authority from the bible. You also write that the inerrant oral truth of the apostles was binding on the people. However your conclusion that it was binding only on those who heard it errs in an important matter: Nowhere do we find in scripture that this inerrant truth is only limited to future generations by scripture.

1 Cor 11:2
- Your analysis of this verse makes another acknowledgement that it talks of transmission of doctrine. However you make a big thing out of knocking down a Catholic argument that Catholics do not make. You write the only way that this would help the Catholic argument is if Paul is transmitting a tradition that he received from the other apostles and this is a second transmission. (You make this same argument to rebut 2 Thess. 2:15 and 3:6). Although this would help our case we do not depend on this. Paul is an apostle. If he teaches somebody either orally or by writing we term that apostolic tradition. This tradition that he is writing about in this verse is in fact apostolic tradition as he is the source. That is enough for the Catholic case. In fact however, even in this same chapter, Paul relates a tradition that he did in fact receive from the apostles. He writes of the tradition of the eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-32, specifically v. 23). He received this tradition from the apostles and he deems this tradition so authoritative that whoever eats and drinks the Lord's body in an unworthy manner are condemned. This tradition that he received from the apostles he sees as so reliable that he terms it as coming from Jesus himself.

There are in fact other examples of Paul receiving as authoritative oral tradition from the apostles, and he shows a use of it. For example, I encourage you to read Acts 20:36. Here Paul quotes Jesus himself, "It is more blessed to give than to receive". That is found nowhere in the four gospels. It is obvious that Paul heard this saying of Jesus by the apostles. He says that this is an authoritative saying of Jesus. He passes this oral teaching on to others. What about 1 Cor 15:3-7? How did he know what Jesus did after his resurrection in relation to the other apostles. In v. 3 he writes about what he received he passes on. That is a good definition of what a tradition is. Then he relates about Jesus being seen by Peter, the rest of the apostles, and then 500 brethren. Paul quotes this as authoritative fact, because he had received this tradition orally from the apostles. These examples show indeed that Paul relied on oral tradition as authoritative and he passes it on as authoritative, exactly what you denied that he did. This does not include the many instances in the New Testament shown in the accompanying article "Oral Tradition in the New Testament" which shows how Jesus, Matthew, Jude, and Paul all used oral traditions that could be traced back to Old Testament times and used these traditions as authoritative.

Back to 1 Cor 11:2, this verse also belies the total dependency of Paul on scripture. Just as in the other passages, when he is trying to pass on authoritative tradition, he makes no effort to claim that this tradition is valid only if it becomes scripture. He does not write, "Well, this is now scripture, and now you can forget these oral traditions when I die, and only follow what I write." The very fact that he uses the word tradition when he writes of the oral transmission of doctrine means that this was the means he intended for doctrine to be passed on. If he calls the visible church the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15), he does in fact believe that this transmission not only is but will be infallible.

2 Thess. 2:15
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." I agree with some of your analysis of the background to the verse. There are definitely things that unsettled the believers in regards to the Lord's coming. You even quote 2:5 which actually reinforces the Catholic position. What is to stabilize these believers? V. 5 shows that it was the things that he told them. He does not write "What I am now writing is scripture, and let that be the thing to establish you." In v. 6 he writes "now you know what is restraining,". He does not spell out what restrains the man of sin. In order to understand these verses, on the very face of it, oral tradition is necessary. This lays the foundation for a very strong positive statement on tradition.

Vv. 13-14 shows us that the tradition that Paul actually is referring to includes salvation and the gospel. (By the way, salvation is done specifically by sanctification by the Holy Spirit, not a declared righteousness, in which sanctification is only a byproduct of salvation). This exposes the fallacy that scripture is the only means to find out how one is saved.

You write that Paul understands that only scripture is to be infallible and church tradition is fallible. If Paul understands this to be true, then why does Paul never write this? You would expect him to write "Hold fast to the oral and written traditions, but since only the written tradition is infallible, when I die, only hold to the written tradition (scripture), as those who follow you are only bound to scripture. After I die, ignore all the oral tradition that I gave to you, as you are not bound to follow it." However, Paul makes no such attempt to differentiate between oral and written tradition. He commands them to hold them both. You made a big thing about only scripture being inspired (2 Tim. 3:16) and oral tradition never being termed such. Even though here oral tradition is not specifically called inspired the fact is that it is put on the same par as scripture in this very verse. This very much implies that the tradition that Paul passes orally is in fact inspired. We do not term the succeeding generations tradition as inspired. We do not hold the church fathers or popes were or are inspired in their interpretations of this original deposit of truth. We do hold that this truth has been passed on infallibly.

Since Paul uses the word tradition, which as you quoted, means to transmit, it very much implies that this is to be passed on. However, you again state that only written tradition is to be passed on, and oral tradition is not to be passed on. I just encourage you to reread the passage! It says to hold on to both. If one is to be transmitted, so is the other one to be transmitted. If one is not to be transmitted, then the other is not to be transmitted. Since you most assuredly write that the written tradition is indeed to be passed on and is authoritative, to be consistent with Paul's language, we must hold that this oral tradition is to be passed on, and is just as authoritative. If one is infallible, so is the other, using Paul's authoritative language.

St. John Chrysostem notes what can only be termed an honest interpretation of this verse:
Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the church also worth of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. (Chrysostem, Homilies on Thessalonians, NPNF, First Series, vol 13, p. 390)

The reason why I quote specifically Chrysostem here and in my analysis of 2 Tim 2:2 is because Robert Godfrey alleged that Chrysostem's analysis of 2 Tim 3:16 agreed with the Protestant concept of sola scriptura. Chrysostem's analysis of 2 Tim 3:16 obviously did not imply belief in sola scriptura. He did not agree with Sola Scriptura (of course no one had ever even thought of this concept until Wycliff, and then Luther) and showed that he saw apostolic tradition as authoritative. James White similarly selectively quoted Irenaeus and Athanasius. Of course White did not bring up that Athanasius specifically taught that the church taught infallibly and by his actions often referred to the church in Rome to settle disputes. In regards to Irenaeus, I invite you to read him (Against Heresies, book III, chapters 1 through 4, especially chapter 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 414-417).

In this critique of your chapter I have hit on the main points and I think I have shown how both your attempts to buttress sola scriptura using the bible and to attack oral tradition can not withstand true biblical scrutiny. This is only a short critique of sola scriptura per your defense of it and a response to your attack on the biblical basis of tradition. The attached article shows how Paul, Matthew, and Jude specifically rely on oral tradition and use it as authoritative.

I've read all of the sola scriptura book and many of the holes in this doctrine are not really dealt with. I would love it if you could respond to any of my writings, especially this, since it critiques your chapter in the sola scriptura. If you, any of your staff, or any students in your school can honestly deal with what I have written, I would enjoy any correspondence. I understand that you actually spoke well of "Catholicism, Crisis of Faith", an anti-Catholic film that was only a caricature of the Catholic faith in which a straw man was erected and easily knocked down. I wish you would not commend such slanted views of Catholicism.

I have written to several Protestant ministries on both sola scriptura and sola fide. I would be pleased if someone could deal with this exegesis. I would love for someone to attempt to show me that the analysis that I made was wrong.

Sincerely,
Matt

Page created by: Matt1618.
Send email with questions or comments on this writing to Matt1618 matt16182@yahoo.com

Return to Authority Page