Sermons
Listen to sermons from Christ Covenant Church in Charlotte, NC and Pastor Kevin DeYoung.
Sermons
Dr. Kevin DeYoung | Two Different Foundations: Does Scripture Really Teach Sola Scriptura?
Sunday Evening, November 16, 2025
Given by Dr. Kevin DeYoung | Senior Pastor, Christ Covenant Church
Session 5
Faithful Conference at Christ Covenant Church
Two Different Foundations: Does Scripture Really Teach Sola Scriptura?
Let me give a one-sentence summary of the doctrine of sola scriptura – Scripture alone. It comes from Westminster Confession of Faith 110:
“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined and whose sentence we are to rest can be no other than the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.”
Notice the Confession does not say Scripture is the only witness to which we can appeal. Notice it uses the language of judge, and I commend this distinction to you. When we talk about Scripture alone, we don't mean that the Bible is the only thing we could ever talk about or the only thing we could bring to bear upon theological discussion. After all, I just started with a man-made confession of faith. The reformers took great pains to show that the things they were teaching were not new or novel – perhaps forgotten, but not entirely new. And they, too, respected the church fathers. So, the distinction here is between a witness and a judge. We bring traditions. We bring theologians. We bring creeds and councils. We bring church fathers. We would bring reformers to the witness stand, and we take seriously their witness. But there is only one supreme judge, sola scriptura teaches us, and that is Scripture.
The confession lists four kinds of testimony. So, think about four witnesses that you might bring before the stand when you of some religious controversy – four kinds of witnesses over which Scripture is supreme. One, councils. Two, ancient writers. Three, human doctrines. And four, private spirits. That means feelings, experiences, claims of divine prompting, or revelation. Those things are not irrelevant. You may bring them to the bar to be a witness, but Scripture is a judge over each of them as they give testimony. In every matter of faith and practice, Scripture gets the last word. Now, you may say, isn't that what all branches of the church believe? It is not, however, what the Roman Catholic Church believes. The Catholic Catechism – I forgot to bring a copy, but it's a big, thick book – teaches that the deposit of faith includes two things: sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition. And they put that in capital letters. This is tradition with a capital T. This means that Scripture is not the supreme judge, but rather an equally authoritative source of doctrine along with the official teaching of the church. So, Scripture’s authority – it has authority, let's be fair – in Catholic doctrine, Scripture is authoritative. However, its authority is not alone. It stands alongside capital T Tradition. Roman Catholic theology affirms an inspired Bible. If you read the Catechism, it affirms an infallible Bible. What it does not believe is in a Bible with unique and final authority.
Let me quote from the Catholic Catechism: “The church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” So, take what the Catholic Catechism says, put it next to what the Westminster Confession says, and you see what this debate is about. Westminster Confession says Scripture is the supreme judge. Catholic Catechism says Scripture and Tradition must be “accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” So, when we, as Protestants – and if you're not a Protestant here, we're glad that you're here to listen and learn – we may scratch our heads and say, "Where do these doctrines come from? They're nowhere to be found in the Bible." A Catholic theologian might say, "Well, if you look at a mighty oak tree, and it comes from an acorn, you don't question when you're staring at the acorn that it might grow into something much more expansive and magnificent. And so are the doctrines of the Catholic Church, because Scripture and Tradition stand side by side.”
Peter Kreeft – maybe some of you have read his books – he's a prolific, popular Catholic author, well into his 80s now. I've read a number of his books. He's a very good author. Catholic. He grew up in the Reformed Church in America like I did. He has a new autobiography out called From Calvinist to Catholic. You can look it up. I did a brief review of the book for First Things, which is a Catholic journal. They asked me to do it. It was nice. I said, "I'll be friendly, but I'm going to be clear, because my story is from Calvinist to more Calvinist." Peter Kreeft has an earlier book, which I've consulted often, called Catholic Christianity, and it's really a devotional explanatory commentary on the Catholic Catechism. What Chad Van Dixhoorn does for the Westminster Confession, Peter Kreeft has done for the Catholic Catechism. It's a helpful entry point. Here's what he says: “Most Protestants reject all the Catholic doctrines they cannot find explicitly in Scripture – for example, Mary's assumption into heaven – because they believe sola scriptura, that Scripture alone is the infallible authority. This is the fundamental reason behind all the differences between Protestant and Catholic theology.” I agree with him. The primary disagreement, and the one on which the others depend, is this question: whether Scripture is the authority on all matters of faith and practice, or whether Scripture is an authority, on par with the dogmatic tradition of the church and the authoritative pronouncements of the pope.
Let me give you a Latin phrase perhaps you haven't heard, along with all these other Latin phrases from the Reformation. As Protestants, we believe that the Bible is the norma normans. So, if you are here and you're a Norma or a Norman, this is a special night for you. You know what that means – a Latin term – a norm, a rule. So, the Bible is the norma normans. That means “the rule that rules,” while creeds and councils and church fathers ought to be considered the norma normata – that is, “the rule that is ruled.” You see the difference. Scripture is a rule, which is ruled by none. Creeds, councils – we've celebrated the Nicene Creed, we recite the Apostles’ Creed, we appeal to ancient and modern authorities. But those are always rules that are to be ruled by Scripture. Here's what I want to do with our brief time is lay out, quickly, some reasons from the Bible for sola scriptura. Now you may say, well that's a circular argument, but remember Catholics affirm that the Bible is a source of authority and that it is an infallible source. So upon that logic, if we can show from Scripture that the Bible teaches Scripture alone, then both Protestants and Catholics should accept it. Go through five reasons quickly and then deal with a few objections.
Reason number one: the perfection of Scripture. You know 2 Timothy 3:16 – “all Scripture is breathed out by God” – you're used to that as a classic text on the authority and the inspiration of Scripture. But that's not really the debate, at least with conservative Catholics. They, too, affirm the authority and the inspiration of Scripture. But 2 Timothy 3:15, 16, and 17 say something else that is key. Verse 15: “Scripture is able to make you wise for salvation.” So, the Bible – if you just have the Bible – it will make you wise for salvation. You would not need something else. And more importantly, verse 17 says, Scripture makes us competent, “equipped for every good work.” Now, yes, Paul is referring most immediately to the Old Testament, but we know that the early church counted the apostolic writings as Scripture. Peter said Paul's writings were Scripture. So, we can apply this to all of Scripture, old and new. The important point is this: Paul considers Scripture perfect – by that I mean lacking in nothing, able by itself to save and to make us competent for every good deed. The Bible doesn't tell us everything we want to know about everything. It doesn't tell you how to change oil in your car. I still don't know how to do that. I know, turn in my man card. But there are good people that I am happy to pay money to do such things. The Bible, however, tells us everything we need to know in order to be saved and to be competent for every good work, life and godliness – the perfection of Scripture.
Reason number two: the example of God's people in the Old Testament. You know the constant refrain in the Old Testament is that God's people must do all things according to what is written. When God's people entered the Promised Land in Joshua's day, they were told over and over, commit themselves not to any tradition, but – Joshua 1:8 – to the book of the law, and they ought to be careful to do according to all that is written in it. They were reminded of this throughout the conquest, once again, when they entered the land. And when God's people fell away, it was because they had disregarded what was written. In Josiah's day, when reform and revival comes, what sparks it? But they find the book of the law, and they read it and say we ought to be doing what is in this book. We just got done with the book of Ezra. When the exiles returned, over and over we read, they did what was written according to the law of Moses. Now, yes, there were scribes and priests to teach the law. There were prophets who came along, and they corrected the people when they disobeyed the word. But the final measure by which the people were measured, the measure for all the prophets, priests, and kings, was whether they had been careful to do according to what had been written. So, we have the example in the Old Testament.
Third, we have the example of Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament. So, like good Jews would do, Jesus and the apostles appeal to Scripture as the final arbiter in controversies of faith. Remember in Matthew 4, tempted in the wilderness, three times Jesus quotes Deuteronomy to the devil saying, "It is written.” Jesus told the Sadducees they were wrong because they did not know the Scriptures, implying that the Scriptures would never lead them astray, even though the Sadducees had been led astray by their various oral traditions. When Paul preached Christ, he refuted the Jews according to the Scriptures. You remember in Acts 17, the Jews in Berea were considered more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica because they tested everything against the Scriptures. They were those saying, "Let's see if these things are so. How shall we determine if what Paul is telling us is true? We will look in the book."
Reason number four: the way Jesus talks about Scripture and tradition. Now, let's be careful here, lest we leave and think that we are anti-tradition. We sometimes speak about the reformed tradition. We are absolutely a part of that tradition. So that's not a bad word. Paul passes on to the Corinthians what he had received from the Lord. He reminds the Corinthians of the gospel they received – you might say the tradition in which they stood. He tells Timothy, "Guard the good deposit entrusted to him." Protestants, sometimes, have made the mistake of going all the way over in a wrong direction to be anti-tradition, as if we could just somehow, magically, teleport to the first century, as if we didn't have the whole history of the church. Well, we can't do that. It wouldn't be wise to do that. No, we learn from the saints who have gone before. The point is that tradition is authoritative only insofar as it accords with Scripture. And this is the example we see from Jesus. Jesus shows us over and over that Scripture sits in judgment over tradition. John 10:35, Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken. But he often criticized the traditions of the Jews, most famously in the Sermon on the Mount. “You have heard it said,” referring to their traditions, “but I say to you…” If we wanted an example of appealing to tradition as equal to the authority of Scripture, we would find it not from Jesus, but from his opponents. Matthew 15:16, Jesus tells the scribes and Pharisees, “For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.” This was the perennial mistake Jesus found in many of the Jewish leaders. Matthew 15:9, “They were teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” In other words, for Jesus the written word of God always took precedence over the traditions of men. The two were not put on equal footing, but Scripture sat in judgment over those traditions.
Fifth reason – this is one that's often overlooked, and it is an important theological consideration – and that is to remember the covenantal nature of Scripture. Covenants come with certain patterns. They come with stipulations, with warnings, with blessings and curses. By their very nature, they cannot be added to or subtracted from. Deuteronomy 4:2, with the Mosaic covenant, gives that warning. You don't add anything to this covenant. You do not subtract anything from this covenant. So, when you have the written documents placed in a holy, sacred place, as covenants they are not to be augmented. They are not in any way to be diminished. But we have not only an old covenant but a new covenant. And, quite striking, the very end of the Bible ends with that same covenantal formula that we find in Deuteronomy 4:2. Now, was the apostle John – was he sitting there on Patmos going, “Today I finished the Bible”? Likely not quite like that. But, would he have had an awareness, depending on your dates of Revelation, that maybe the last living apostle – that the time of the apostles was coming to an end, and therefore the time of this revelation was coming to an end? I certainly think he did. And so, it's striking what he says in Revelation 22: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city which are described in this book.” I would argue that when the Catholic church adds new doctrines that cannot be found either explicitly or by good and necessary consequence in Scripture that it is dishonoring the Bible as a covenantal book. We’re not to add to the old covenant, not to add to the new covenant. It is the sort of book that is the norming norm. It is the rule that rules, and you do not add to it or subtract from it. There is nothing equal to it in its norming authority. Those are five quick reasons.
Let me deal with some objections. I have three or four. We'll see if we do three or four. Here's objection number one. And I've tried to not cherry-pick objections, but these are objections I have found in Catholic writers. Number one: no one taught the doctrine of sola scriptura before Martin Luther. Okay, you have this idea, and Martin Luther and John Calvin and you can go to your confessions, but this was not the position of the early church. That's the argument. That is simply not the case. The church fathers, and here we're thinking of those Latin-speaking church fathers, Greek-speaking church fathers – really in the time after the apostles through maybe the sixth century, depending on how you detail it. These church fathers, they used the Bible differently from any other sources of authority. They explicitly taught that the canonical Scriptures – that word canonical just means what's in the canon – the canonical Scriptures alone were unerring and were to be followed unreservedly. The Council of Trent – you’ve heard that a few times this weekend – that's the Catholic Council in the 1540s that is responding to these new Reformation ideas. Council of Trent 1546 taught “the traditions of the fathers pertaining to both faith and practice should be received with an equal affection of piety with the Old and New Testaments.” That's what the Council of Trent says. Church fathers ought to be received with an equal affection and piety as the Old and New Testaments. However, that is not what the church fathers themselves demonstrated or taught. Time permits me to only give you two examples.
First, here is Basil of Caesarea, fourth century church father. He's writing to a physician named Eustathius, and listen to what he says. So they're arguing. Basil says, “They are charging me with innovation and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases (persons in the Trinity) and blame me for asserting one goodness, one power, one godhead. In this, they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint” – now listen carefully – “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 that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in 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.” Here's his conclusion: “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.” It would be hard to have a clearer articulation of sola scriptura. You have a custom that you appeal to; I could have a custom. What's the deciding vote? Scripture.
Second example: Augustine (354-430 AD) – he wrote to Jerome, another church father, “I have learned to give this reverence and honor to those books of Scripture alone which are called canonical.” He further wrote, “I do not suppose that you wish your books to be read as if they were the writings of the prophets or apostles,” – notice the distinction – “which beyond a doubt are free from any error.” Elsewhere, Augustine said, "We ought not to consider the disputations of any men, though they be Catholic and praiseworthy men, as canonical Scriptures." Or, I'll give you a paragraph as he's arguing about Manichean philosophy. He says, "In the innumerable books that have been written lately, we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books, the reader may form his own opinion and, perhaps from not understanding the writer, may differ from him and may pronounce in faith of what pleases him or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet or apostle or evangelist.” Do you hear the distinction Augustine is making? Yes, there are many true things that are said, and they sometimes comport with Scripture, but when other writers present to us, we are free to say, well, I agree or I disagree. But we would never approach the Scriptures in that way. One verse, one word, one apostle, one prophet we must receive as totally trustworthy.
Or, here's another statement: he's writing against the donatists – not people who like donuts, but a different controversy – and they are trying to use Cyprian. He is a theologian from the third century. Here's what Augustine says: “I am not bound by the authority of this letter, since I do not consider Cyprian's letters to be canonical, but I weigh them against the canonical writings, and what agrees in them with the authority of the divine Scriptures, I accept in his praise, but what does not agree, I reject in his peace.” That's what we ought to do, and Augustine lays it out very clearly. He says, "You're quoting to me Cyprian." He basically says, "Well, I like Cyprian, too." But if I read something from Cyprian and it agrees with Scripture, I say, "Praise be to Cyprian." And if I read it and it doesn't agree with Scripture, then I say Cyprian is wrong. Earlier in the same work, Augustine stated this principle with regard to Scripture: “We dare not judge them in any way; rather, we use them to judge freely concerning other writings whether of believers or unbelievers.” We would be hard pressed to find a clearer articulation of Scripture as the supreme, unique, peculiar, final authority than these quotations here, from Basil and from Augustine.
Objection number two: without an authoritative magisterium – you heard that language last night, so that is the pope, and the bishops when they act in union with the pope, making official pronouncements, interpretation – that's the magisterium. Without an authoritative magisterium, the argument goes, the Protestant church has divided into thousands of denominations. This is the problem of Protestantism. Maybe the Catholic church has problems, but it's one church. You have 20,000 denominations. How do we respond to that?
Five quick responses. One: yes, there have been schismatic Protestant churches. Some divisions have been needless and dishonoring to Christ, and that is to our shame. Number two: not every division, however, is the sin of schism. 1 Corinthians 11:19 says, "There must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." And the whole history of the Catholic church, the reason why “catholic,” meaning universal – and one of the points I would make is that Roman Catholic is a way of undermining the catholicity of the church – to say, “to be a part of the church, you have to be under the bishop of Rome” is not a very catholic statement. Small c. But in the early centuries when there were Gnostics and other heretics, it was those on the side of orthodoxy who called themselves Catholics. Not at this time fully developed Roman Catholicism, but they were meaning that we are those who hold to what the church believes and the Scriptures teach. They did not think they were committing the sin of schism. They thought the others were, because they had departed from truth. They were the ones who were schismatics. And so not every division is the sin of schism. It may be that there was falsehood and there needed to be separation.
Third, there is a fundamental unity shared by many, many Bible-believing Protestant churches and denominations. We could go down 51 and we would share, I think, the core doctrines of the faith, and you would hear the gospel preached at Carmel Baptist, and you'd hear it at Calvary, and you could hear it up the road at Oakhurst. You could hear it at all of the PCA churches. There may be different denominations numbered among them, but that doesn't mean that there isn't still a shared sense of unity. And sometimes the number of Protestant denominations is owing to different languages, different regions, different countries, different traditions. It's not always that the split peas just couldn't get along.
Four, there is just as much division within the Roman Catholic Church as there is among Protestant churches. James made this point last night. The presence of an authoritative magisterium has not ensured that every Catholic bishop or diocese or priest or believer believes and practices the same things. Catholics supposedly believe that they are opposed to artificial means of contraception. I would put our nine kids up against most of them. Many Catholics do not believe the things or practice the things that are taught, and in many churches, they disagree. Just this week, a few days ago, People magazine had this headline: “Gio Benitez, openly gay ABC News Weekend anchor, joins Catholic church and reaffirms faith with his husband by his side.” Lovely picture of this majestic cathedral, and there with the priest welcoming him into the Catholic church. And in the article, Benitez explains he was inspired to join the Catholic church because Pope Francis was so welcoming and affirming of LGBTQ persons. Oh, official Catholic doctrine has not changed on that. But it was very confusing as the pope gave very many mixed messages. So, does the Catholic church support gay marriage or not? Well, in that church they did. Now there are these same problems in the Protestant church. The point is that there are the same problems in the Catholic church. They have not established a uniformity of faith and practice.
And then five, while it is true that Protestants disagree in many places on how to interpret the Bible, this is not a problem that goes away with a Catholic magisterium. Again, James made this point very well last night. There's a phrase that I came across in a book by Christian Smith. He's a sociologist, and I think it was telling that this was during a time when he became Catholic, and one of his criticisms of the evangelical church is they can't agree on anything the Bible says. And he has this phrase “pervasive interpretive pluralism” – meaning Protestants are constantly disagreeing on what the Bible says. Their interpretations are pervasive and different. Well, many of the examples he gave, I think, were really differences of application or emphasis than really differences of interpretation. But even setting that aside, you know who else has the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism? Everyone. Everyone. If you follow college football and you care about who's going to be in the playoff and what they say, whatever they do that this week, you will find pervasive interpretive pluralism. If you have a PhD, in humanities especially – you got a PhD in something because a whole lot of people weren't sure how to interpret something. And in the Catholic church, they do not agree. You read Catholic theology, if you read Catholic journals, you will see that they have just as many differences of interpretation, except often it moves up from the level of disagreeing about the interpretation of Scripture to disagreeing about the interpretation of papal encyclicals, Catholic social teaching. The problem of manifold interpretations is not erased.
Let me deal with just one more objection. If the Bible is infallible, then the church must be infallible, because the church gave us the canon of Scripture. Sometimes it's put like this from Catholic apologists: you stand up, and you say you have this infallible book, but where did you get the infallible table of contents? You needed the church. The church's authority gave you this book. You may have an inspired Bible, but how did you know what books are in the Bible? I can only give a brief response to that. That argument misunderstands the nature of biblical authority and the historical process that gave us the canon. Scripture never gives the impression its authority is derivative. Think of the Old Testament. There's no reason to think Israel had an infallible revelation from God that helped the Jews select the Hebrew scriptures, but they had it. And Jesus accepted it and considered it divine. Why? Because the writings proved themselves to be authoritative and inspired. Here's the good term to remember – the books of the Bible are self-authenticating. They authenticate themselves. We accept the books of the canon, and there is a disagreement between Protestant and Catholic canons. We accept the 27 books of the New Testament, the 66 books of the Old Testament because the church, yes, handed down a tradition. But let's understand what the church handed down. It is not as if the pope made this pronouncement in the fourth century. In fact, the first time is really a letter from Athanasius, it's all put together in one place. Nor should we think that the canon came together like some sort of canonical Shark Tank – that the church councils were there and the bishops and say, “Alright, Jude? Somebody put in a good word for Jude. Well, it’s short – maybe too short. Well, somebody, Shepherd of Hermas, what do you think about that?” And they all just sort of took notes and then went back into a room and kind of voted on which books of the Bible they thought were in there, and we trusted the church. That's not how the process took place.
When the canon develops, various lists – it's instructive that they are called the recognized or the received books. It's important, because it didn't take any counsel to tell the early church to start using Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Didn't take a council to tell them that the epistles of Paul were to be treated as authoritative and scriptural. So, the church was not sort of just pulling off various options and taking a vote. In an organic process, they did establish which ones were already recognized. Already. J.I. Packer puts it well: “The church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity.” God gave us gravity. Newton did not create it, but he recognized it. Think of a quick analogy. Suppose a child is separated from his family and it's for quite some time, small child, and he barely remembers all of them. And when he returns and there's a reunion with the family, there's various members. It's quite a hodgepodge of people. And he has to recognize who the family members are. And most of them he can recognize very quickly – oh, mom, dad, my brothers and sisters – and some of them he dismisses very quickly. Well, you don't look anything like me, and your hair and your eyes, and you don't even speak the same language I speak, and so he sends them away. And perhaps there are a few younger siblings or cousins he isn't sure about. But eventually, he spends time with everyone, and it becomes clear who belongs in the family and who does not. Now, when he goes home with all of the family. Would you say that he made his family? He created his family? You would not. You would say he learned to recognize who was truly in the family. The family was not created by the child. The family members were self-authenticating, and over time, the child came to recognize who the real family members are. That's something akin to the process of the canon – never that the church sat in judgment over the Bible. In fact, it is a pattern throughout the Bible. The people of God never form or create the word of God. The word of God always forms the people of God and is a judge over them. The word that called Abram when he was an idolator, the word that called Moses, the word that summoned the people on Mount Sinai, the word that spoke through the prophets, the word that called them back from Babylon, the word then made flesh. The people of God do not form or create the word of God, but the word of God always forms the people of God.
Let me finish here. The Catholic church does say many true things about the Bible. Their official teaching demonstrates that the Scriptures are an essential and indispensable source of authority. However, is it not proper to consider the long-term fruit? I want to be fair, but I think this is a fair judgment – the long-term fruit of denying sola scriptura. Even most Catholics would admit that they do not know the Bible very well and that priestly homilies – very short, not focused on depth of exposition. Let me mention, one more time, Peter Kreeft. He went from Calvinist to Catholic, and his book is a very robust defense of Catholicism. But he says at one point – he says that Protestants are superior to Catholics in three things – this is what he admits as a Catholic convert: sermons, hymns, and familiarity with the Bible. This is why, when evangelicals convert to Catholicism, they almost always comment on the lack of in-depth Bible teaching in the Catholic church. Sometimes I've heard of those who become Catholic and then they send their kids to a Baptist church to continue to get Awana, or they have to be in a Bible study because there is so little Scripture that is taught. So even if the official Catholic doctrine says Scripture and Tradition, has it not been the case that in the rejection of sola scriptura, it has not so much elevated tradition to be equal with it, but it has sidelined, so that the Catholic church, you might say, now has modica scriptura – that is, a modicum, a small amount, a little bit of Scripture. Because what is at stake with sola scriptura is not only the question of who or what gets the final say in matters of faith or practice, but whether in our churches and in our lives, Scripture will get much of a say at all. Let's pray.
Our Father in heaven, we trust that you have been with us in these lectures, these expositions, and we want to be fair. We also want to have the courage to be Protestant. May it never be so of us that we would pat ourselves on the back, thinking that we are better than other men, or say, "Thank God I'm not like other people," for such would be the sin of the Pharisees. But yet, we do believe that you have entrusted this gospel and your word and these precious truths, and we want to defend them. And so, help us to do so. Thank you for your word, which sanctifies us, guides us, which never errs, and thank you for the word made flesh, in whose name we pray. Amen.