Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 2
How does the lesson’s insistence that Scripture is the “sole infallible source of authority” function as a critique of later dogmatic claims (e.g., mandated image veneration, Mary’s sinlessness/assumption), and what would it force us to do with doctrines we hold that feel “obvious” but are hard to demonstrate from Scripture?
Another way to ask: If Scripture is the only source that cannot be wrong, how does that challenge later teachings like required image veneration or Mary’s sinlessness/assumption? What should we do with beliefs that feel “obvious” but we can’t clearly prove from Scripture?

Direct Answer Dean’s point is that when later churches elevate non-biblical practices into binding dogma, Scripture critiques them because it remains the “sole infallible source” for faith and practice. That principle would force us to re-check even “obvious” doctrines and refuse to treat them as required if we cannot actually ground them in the Word.

Support from Transcript:

  • He defines Scripture as “received as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.”
  • He gives the Orthodox example: in the 700s “if you don’t venerate images, you’re not a Christian,” and he replies, “I don’t see that in the Word of God.”
  • He gives Roman Catholic examples as “dogmatic statements”: “Mary was sinless” and “she actually floated to heaven.”
  • He contrasts “dogmatic statements” with “opinions of the fathers,” implying dogma must be accountable to Scripture.
  • He notes later points (Antiquity/Real) get “fluffy,” but Scripture remains the concrete top priority.
Discussion Follow-ups What doctrines in our own circles function like “tests” of being Christian? If Scripture is the sole infallible authority, what should we do when we realize we’ve treated a tradition as mandatory?

Jumpstarter 2 of 10
Back Questions Next