Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 2
Clifton insists, “The Bible is received as the sole and fallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice,” and then immediately illustrates disagreeing with Justin Martyr’s allegorizing of David’s concubines; what does this approach require from us when a beloved early Christian teacher—or a respected modern one—handles a hard text in a way that feels morally safer?
Another way to ask: If the Bible is the main authority, what should we do when a favorite early church leader—or a trusted modern teacher—explains a hard passage in a way that feels morally safer than what the text seems to say?

Direct Answer Clifton’s approach requires us to be willing to say “no” even to admired Christian voices when their handling of Scripture softens or reshapes what the text actually says. It calls for humility toward teachers, but a stronger loyalty to the plain authority of Scripture.

Support from Transcript:

  • He states his rule clearly: “The Bible is received as the sole and fallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.”
  • He models disagreement with a favorite author: “I like Justin Martyr, but when he thinks that David’s concubines are just an allegory… I said, no, I think you’re wrong, Justin. He had concubines.”
  • The moral pressure in the example is explicit: Justin “couldn’t handle the idea of King David having concubines,” so he allegorized it.
  • Clifton repeatedly highlights what the early church relied on: “They reason and they argue from the scriptures.”
  • He says you don’t get the same “vocabulary” of divine authority for other sources as you do for Scripture (“accepted it… as what it really is, the Word of God”).
Discussion Follow-ups What kinds of texts tempt you to prefer a ‘safer’ interpretation? How can a church honor teachers without letting them become functionally untouchable?