The question of how Roman Catholicism defines and applies its rule of faith has held a place of profound importance in Christian theology for centuries. This issue touches on the sources of religious truth, the function of Scripture, the role of tradition, and the Church’s authority in interpreting what believers must receive as the revelation of God. Individuals who hold to a conservative and literal reading of the Scriptures have often found themselves at odds with Roman Catholic teaching on this matter. The debate revolves around whether there is a single standard of authority—the Bible alone—or whether the Church’s unwritten traditions must be added to that standard, alongside an alleged divine power that invests ecclesial leadership with infallible interpretive authority. Many controversies in Christian history hinge on this debate, including discussions of doctrine, biblical interpretation, and the believer’s freedom before God. It is crucial to explore the Roman Catholic perspective on the rule of faith, the biblical evidence often cited in its favor, and the traditional claims that shape that perspective, before contrasting it with a biblical-historical viewpoint that insists on the supreme authority of Scripture. In a world where many voices clamor for our allegiance, we must consider the foundation for Christian beliefs and the manner in which those beliefs are guarded, taught, and transmitted.

Defining the Rule of Faith in Roman Catholic Thought

Roman Catholic theology affirms that God is the ultimate source of all religious truth. It rejects purely rationalist approaches that attempt to discover truth without reference to a divine revelation. It also rejects views that locate God’s primary revelation in the individual experience of the Holy Spirit apart from any external standard. Instead, Roman Catholic doctrine asserts that divine revelation is partly written (in the canonical Scriptures) and partly unwritten (in what is called sacred tradition). Tradition, it is said, includes teachings handed down orally by the Apostles, never set down in any final form in the Bible, but preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Roman Catholicism contends that because the ordinary layperson cannot always discern which books rightfully belong to Scripture, nor reliably interpret those books, God has established the Church as an infallible teacher with the task of clarifying doctrine and guiding believers. This teaching office, referred to as the magisterium, finds its summit in the bishop of Rome when he speaks in his official capacity. Although certain nuances of Roman Catholic doctrine must be studied in detail to be fully understood, the central idea is that Scripture and tradition constitute two distinct sources of divine truth, both of which are ultimately understood and proclaimed under the authoritative guidance of the Church.

Underlying this understanding is the premise that the original Apostles held an infallible authority to teach, and that this authority has continued within the bishops—their successors—across the centuries. Special emphasis falls on the bishop of Rome as the successor of the Apostle Peter, whom Roman Catholic doctrine sees as invested with primacy over the universal Church. From that perspective, no single believer has the right to interpret Scripture or tradition privately in a way that departs from the magisterium’s doctrinal judgments.

Scripture as Part of the Written Revelation

Roman Catholic and Protestant believers share a foundation in Scripture as the inspired written Word of God. According to the Council of Trent, God is the Author of these sacred books, written under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. Roman Catholic theology, just like conservative Protestant theology, holds that the Scriptures are trustworthy and of divine origin. However, the two traditions begin to diverge when discussing whether Scripture is a complete and wholly sufficient rule of faith, or whether it stands in need of additional and equally authoritative testimony in the form of sacred tradition.

Roman Catholicism teaches that there are truths necessary for salvation and the Christian life that are only implicitly or incompletely set forth in the Bible, or not set forth there at all. According to this view, some teachings—while derived from apostolic revelation—do not appear explicitly in Scripture, yet have been preserved by tradition. Examples cited by Roman Catholic theologians often include concepts they believe demand or rely on tradition for clarity, such as the precise canon of Scripture itself, the full doctrine of the Trinity, the practice of infant baptism, and other matters. Protestants counter that doctrines essential for salvation are clearly taught in Scripture, and that although the Church has grown in her comprehension of the divine revelation, no external tradition can be treated as equal in authority to the Bible itself.

Roman Catholicism’s acceptance of several books traditionally labeled “deuterocanonical” by the medieval Latin Church, but which Protestants classify as apocryphal, is tied to this question of the Church’s teaching authority. Roman Catholic authorities point to the Church as the arbiter of the canon. They believe that the Church’s universal acceptance of these books in many centuries past, combined with authoritative decisions, grants them equal standing with the other scriptural books. Protestants, on the other hand, follow the Jewish canon for the Old Testament, which excludes the books and portions of books in question.

Roman Catholicism also asserts that Scripture is not always sufficiently clear to be interpreted reliably by individuals, especially regarding complex or disputed points. The Church’s pronouncements are regarded as necessary to illuminate and interpret biblical teaching. Opponents of that position, drawing from passages like John 5:39 where Jesus states, “Search the Scriptures,” or the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11 who were commended for testing all doctrine against the Scriptures, hold that the Word of God is comprehensible to ordinary believers and must be carefully studied under God’s guidance, but does not require an external infallible human authority to resolve each dispute.

Tradition as the Complementary Unwritten Revelation

Roman Catholic doctrine distinguishes between what is called the written Word of God and the unwritten Word of God. This unwritten Word is what Roman Catholic authorities label “sacred tradition.” In essence, it is said that Christ and the Apostles revealed more than what Scripture records. These additional revelations are believed to have been faithfully preserved in the practice, customs, and oral teachings of the Church, even though they were never reduced to an inspired text. The Council of Trent declared that believers must receive these traditions with the same reverence with which Scripture is received. The logic of this stance is that these traditions, if truly apostolic in their origin, carry the same divine authority as the canonical Scriptures, since both sets of teachings come from Christ via the Apostles.

Critics of the Roman Catholic system point to the natural limitations of human memory and transmission. They argue that once one concedes there is more divine revelation floating outside Scripture, one is confronted with the near-impossible task of verifying which teachings truly stem from Jesus or the original Apostles, across so many centuries and so many different regions, especially when external evidence is scant or contradictory. Opponents cite the absence of any clear biblical statement to preserve or transmit additional unwritten truths, and they note how prone human tradition is to error. They add that the biblical warnings against exalting human traditions over the commandments of God (Mark 7:9-13) ought to make believers wary of assigning final authority to tradition. Roman Catholicism replies that sacred tradition is not merely human opinion, but the faithful transmission of divine teaching through the continuous work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

When Roman Catholic theologians are asked how to distinguish genuine apostolic traditions from later inventions, they often refer to antiquity and universal acceptance. Some cite the axiom that true doctrine must be found everywhere, always, and by all, referencing the early writer Vincent of Lerins. However, if one compares the historical data of the first three or four centuries, it becomes clear that numerous beliefs claimed as apostolic by the Church of Rome—such as the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the shape later recognized—have scant or ambiguous testimonies in the extant literature. Historians find it difficult to discern any unanimous acceptance of certain teachings that modern Roman Catholicism puts forth as ancient and universal. Protestants argue that the criterion “what has been believed everywhere, always, by all” cannot be reliably applied, since the historical record is fragmentary, contradictory, and susceptible to forging, manipulation, or local variation.

Roman Catholic Doctrine Concerning the Church

Central to Roman Catholicism’s doctrine of the rule of faith is the concept of the Church as a visible, hierarchical institution, composed of the faithful who profess the same creed, celebrate the same sacraments, and submit to bishops, who in turn are under the primacy of the pope. A profound claim follows: to this external and organized body God has granted the Holy Spirit’s guidance in such a manner that what the Church officially teaches regarding faith and morals cannot be in error. The Roman Catholic Catechism, centuries of official papal statements, and councils speak of the Church as governed by the successor of the Apostle Peter, with the promise of infallibility in its solemn definitions.

The basis for that claim is the argument that the Apostles possessed infallible teaching authority as a gift from the risen Christ (John 16:13 was spoken specifically to those men, but in Roman Catholic teaching it is generalized). Roman Catholic theology asserts that because Christ intended to maintain unity and truth in his Church, that same apostolic authority, including the guarantee of infallibility, must endure through the bishops and the pope. However, if the original Apostles were eyewitnesses of the risen Savior (Acts 1:21-22) and directly commissioned by Him, if they performed miracles to confirm their authority (2 Corinthians 12:12), and if they had a special promise of inspiration in their writings (1 Corinthians 14:37), Protestants note that these characteristics do not simply transfer to later bishops who neither received revelation directly from Christ nor could confirm their teaching with miraculous signs.

Roman Catholic doctrine has debated how precisely the Church’s infallibility is exercised. Two schools of thought historically existed: the idea that an ecumenical council of bishops, approved by the pope, is infallible in its decrees on doctrine; and the stricter teaching that the pope himself, when speaking “ex cathedra” (from the seat of supreme authority), is an infallible teacher of the universal Church. The First Vatican Council in 1870 formally declared papal infallibility. The final decision bound Catholics to the belief that whenever the pontiff proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals in his supreme official capacity, it must be received by all the faithful as infallibly true. This teaching was reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council, and the authority of the pope was further clarified in modern Roman Catholicism as a visible sign of unity under a single head.

Many non-Roman Christians vigorously dispute this claim, maintaining that it leads to abuses of power, fosters blind submission, and cannot be squared with biblical passages indicating that church leaders, even in the apostolic era, were not beyond rebuke (Galatians 2:11-14, where Paul rebukes Peter). They argue that if the biblical Peter himself could err in practice, it is hardly logical to invest a bishop of Rome with absolute immunity from doctrinal error. Roman Catholic defenders reply that Peter’s error was not in a solemn definition of doctrine but in his personal conduct, showing that infallibility does not confer impeccability. Still, the historical events in which popes have approved doctrinal formulas later deemed heretical, or where popes have contradicted each other on questions of faith, complicate the idea of an unbroken, unerring tradition in the Roman see.

Origins of the Doctrine of Infallibility

One of the essential building blocks of the Roman Catholic stance on infallibility is the assumption of the perpetuity of the apostolic office. The premise is that just as the Apostles had binding authority to speak God’s truth, so too bishops who claim apostolic succession inherit the same authority. The question arises whether the biblical data show that the apostolic office was intended to continue. Passages like Acts 1:21-22 depict the requirements of an Apostle as someone who had personally accompanied the ministry of Christ and witnessed His resurrection. The Apostle Paul defends his apostleship by emphasizing that he also saw the risen Lord (1 Corinthians 9:1), that his gospel was revealed directly by Christ rather than learned from any man (Galatians 1:11-12), and that he performed the “signs of an apostle” (2 Corinthians 12:12). Bishops after the first generation of Christians do not meet these criteria, nor are they recorded in Scripture as having performed similar “signs of an apostle.” Even in the New Testament, local congregations were led by elders (overseers) who did not claim the full authority invested in the Apostles.

Historically, the first centuries of the Church do not show a developed consciousness that a particular office was continuing the office of the Apostles themselves. Early writers use words like “apostle” in various senses, at times simply meaning “messenger” or “missionary.” Over subsequent centuries, as bishops gained more organizational power, they looked to the Apostles as models of authority, yet the uniqueness of apostolic credentials was ordinarily recognized. By the medieval period, it became common to speak of bishops as succeeding the Apostles in a certain capacity, ensuring the preservation of apostolic teaching and unity. The bishop of Rome claimed to stand in Peter’s place especially. Protestants see that as a later historical development without genuine biblical support, making an eventual claim of absolute infallibility possible only once the notion of a perpetual apostolic office and monarchical papacy had become widely accepted.

Critiques of the Doctrine of Infallibility from Scripture

Opponents maintain that there is no textual basis in the New Testament suggesting that an unerring magisterium would be installed as a permanent fixture of Christian history. Although Jesus promised His followers that the Holy Spirit would guide them (John 16:13), He was addressing those chosen men who would found the Church through their inspired teaching. Nothing in the text indicates that the same infallible authority would transfer to a later generation of church leaders. Indeed, Paul’s admonitions and warnings presuppose the possibility that even church overseers might lead believers astray (Acts 20:28-31). In passages such as 2 Timothy 4:3-4, he warns that a time will come when professing Christians will gather around them teachers who say what they want to hear. This hardly aligns with an unbroken infallibility in the Church.

The New Testament also shows multiple instances where believers are exhorted to test teachings themselves, comparing them with what was delivered by Christ and the Apostles (1 John 4:1, Galatians 1:8). The famous example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11 illustrates the principle: they are commended for testing even the Apostle Paul’s words by the standard of Scripture. Protestants hold that this pattern is normative for all times. If an allegedly infallible authority had existed in the early Church in the shape Roman Catholicism claims, one might wonder why the Bereans or other believers would be testing the words of an Apostle against Scripture, rather than passively receiving them. Critics note that the “teaching of the Spirit” promised in the New Testament (1 John 2:20) is not an institutional prerogative but a gift to the entire body of believers. Although order, discipline, and faithful pastoral oversight are thoroughly biblical, the notion of a final, unerring tribunal does not find clear textual support.

Historical Challenges to the Claim of Infallibility

Another dimension of the debate focuses on what critics describe as the observable fact that the Church—particularly as an external institution—has taught error in various epochs. Ancient Israel was called God’s covenant people, yet entire generations fell into rebellion, idolatry, and rejection of true worship (Judges 2:10-13). If the New Testament Church is simply the continuation of God’s people under a new covenant, there should be no surprise that large segments of the visible Church can deviate at times from pure doctrine.

In the early centuries, various theological controversies broke out, most famously Arianism. At certain points during the ascendancy of Arianism in the fourth century, it appeared that the majority of bishops in the eastern half of the Roman Empire were inclined toward some form of Arian or semi-Arian christology, eventually culminating in councils (Seleucia in the East, Ariminum in the West) where the creed of Nicea (which declared that Jesus is of one substance with the Father) was effectively minimized or repudiated. Even the bishop of Rome, Liberius, was reportedly pressured into signing a formula that avoided the Nicene language. Despite nuanced debates over the exact formulations used, it is widely acknowledged that the defenders of Nicene orthodoxy, such as Athanasius, felt isolated when many bishops went along with the Arian-leaning imperial court. Roman Catholic theology today insists that the Church never formally defected from the true faith, perhaps claiming that no fully binding universal pronouncement was made. However, the plain historical record suggests that for some period a significant portion of the episcopate, including many authoritative leaders, endorsed teaching that was later condemned as heretical.

A second example involves Augustine’s doctrines of grace, widely revered throughout Roman Catholic theology even now. In the early fifth century, Augustine championed teachings on divine sovereignty, the nature of sin, and the necessity of grace that were approved in local councils and widely hailed in Latin Christianity. While Augustine’s position was never officially canonized in a single ecumenical council, it influenced centuries of theological development. The same broad Church that affirmed many of his positions in the post-Pelagian controversies eventually shifted toward semi-Pelagian or moderate positions on grace and free will. By the time the Council of Trent convened in the sixteenth century, much of the strongest Augustinianism was effectively repudiated or recast by official Roman Catholic definitions. This indicates a major change in doctrinal posture on a matter of no small importance, revealing that the Church’s teaching body can appear to contradict itself through time.

Modern Roman Catholic Teaching Considered from a Biblical Perspective

For those who accept Scripture as the uniquely infallible Word of God, several Roman Catholic doctrines stand in tension with biblical teachings. For instance, the idea that men or women cannot ordinarily find salvation unless they are in full outward communion with the bishop of Rome does not appear consistent with passages like John 14:6, which teach that faith in Christ is the unique condition for salvation. The system of sacramental mediation, in which grace is said to be dispensed primarily through the sacraments administered by the priesthood, is at odds with the New Testament descriptions of direct access to God through Christ alone (Hebrews 4:14-16). Further, the idea that the Roman Church’s priests can grant or withhold absolution for sins as an act of judicial power extends far beyond the scriptural references to declaring God’s forgiveness based on Christ’s atoning work (1 John 1:9; 2:1-2).

The extension of tradition beyond Scripture has also supported practices like the veneration of images, relics, or saints in a manner that many believers see as contradicting Exodus 20:4-5, where Jehovah explicitly forbade bowing down to or serving images. Roman Catholic teaching distinguishes different types of veneration—latria for God alone, dulia for saints, hyperdulia for Mary—yet the end result, in the mind of critics, looks like idolatry. They point to John’s vision in Revelation 19:10, where the Apostle is rebuked for attempting to show undue reverence to an angel, underscoring the Bible’s warning against misdirected devotion.

In a similar way, the adoration of the consecrated host in the Eucharist emerges directly from transubstantiation, the idea that the entire substance of the bread is changed into the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. To many who read John 6:63, “The words that I speak to you are spirit and life,” the Roman Catholic concept appears deeply problematic. Critics emphasize that the scriptural Last Supper, while certainly a momentous occasion, nowhere teaches that the disciples worshiped the bread as God. From a biblical standpoint, the entire practice seems to conflate the sign with the thing signified, turning an act of symbolic or spiritual communion into a physical re-presentation of the cross.

While Roman Catholicism affirms the authority of Scripture, the necessity of grace, and many vital truths about Jesus Christ, the system’s view of an ongoing, infallible interpretive structure accompanied by unrecorded apostolic teaching leads to multiple doctrines that do not appear in Scripture or that some find plainly contrary to it. Critics see the result as a religion in which the Word of God is eclipsed by human authority, so that centuries of additions overshadow the simple biblical message.

Why Some Still Embrace the Roman Catholic Position

Despite the critiques advanced, millions of sincere Roman Catholic believers embrace the Church’s claims regarding tradition and ecclesial infallibility. One reason lies in the powerful reassurance that an infallible Church can provide to those who yearn for certainty. Instead of struggling personally with interpretive dilemmas, they can rest in the official declarations of the Church. Others find spiritual satisfaction in the continuity and sense of unity that Roman Catholicism fosters: the idea of connecting with a community stretching back across the centuries, guided by leaders who, it is believed, stand in direct succession from the Apostles. Roman Catholic worship practices, sacramental rites, and an unbroken chain of episcopal leadership can appear compelling as an outward sign of stability.

Catholics often point to the fragmentation in the Protestant world, where many denominations hold different interpretations of Scripture, as evidence that Scripture alone cannot serve as a unifying standard of truth. From the Roman Catholic vantage point, a living authority, vested with divine assistance, is necessary to decide controversies. Romans 15:6 speaks of believers glorifying God with “one mind and one voice,” and this unity is cited in favor of an authoritative earthly center. Critics retort that the Apostle Paul exhorted believers to avoid divisions by rallying around the truth taught by Christ and recorded in Scripture, but he never established a single bishop or group with unassailable interpretive powers.

How a Biblical Understanding Contrasts with the Roman Catholic Teaching

A more literal, historical-grammatical view contends that Scripture itself, being breathed out by God, is able to make believers “wise for salvation” and to equip them “for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15-17). That explicit biblical statement places Scripture in the position of a fully adequate rule of faith. Passages instruct believers to remain faithful to “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Because the deposit of revelation was completed in the era of Christ and His Apostles (Hebrews 1:1-2), there is no divine authority in ongoing traditions or in pronouncements of church leaders unless grounded solidly in what was recorded by the inspired writers.

In addition, Jesus severely reproved the Pharisees for transgressing the command of God by their traditions (Mark 7:9). That stands as a sobering reminder that religious traditions can readily nullify or overshadow the revealed Word. Galatians 1:8 issues a warning that even if an angel from heaven preached a different gospel than what had already been delivered, that angel would be accursed. Taken at face value, that verse means the standard or measuring rod of the gospel is permanent and not subject to subsequent additions or clarifications with equal or greater authority than the apostolic writings.

These considerations lead conservative biblical readers to affirm that God preserves a faithful witness to His truth in the body of true believers. Christ’s flock hears His voice (John 10:27). The Holy Spirit indwells believers, enabling them to recognize essential doctrines of the faith (1 John 2:20). Even so, the New Testament never promises that any external, hierarchical structure, or even the majority of professed Christian leaders in a given era, would be preserved from error. Instead, Jesus taught that the wheat and the weeds would grow together (Matthew 13:24-30). Paul foretold that even among church elders some would arise speaking twisted things (Acts 20:30). The safeguard, from a biblical perspective, is not an infallible magistrate but the power of the Spirit and the objective truth of the written Word.

Consequences for Christian Theology

If the Roman Catholic understanding of the rule of faith is correct, then tradition and ecclesiastical authority are on equal footing with Scripture, and believers are obligated to submit whenever the Church—represented most fully by the pope and the bishops in communion with him—defines a dogma. The faithful lack the right to disagree, even if their conscience, guided by Scripture, arrives at a contrary conclusion. This principle leads directly to the possibility of excommunications, interdicts, and the condemnation of alleged heretics, as historically practiced by Rome. Individuals who declined to accept certain Roman dogmas were told that they were departing from the one ark of salvation. Such an arrangement affords the magisterium enormous power.

If, however, the Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith, then the Church’s authority is ministerial rather than magisterial. Church leaders can teach and guide based on the Word of God, but may not add to it or override it. They can judge the orthodoxy of teachers who challenge biblical truths, but their decisions are subject to verification by whether they conform to the written revelation. The central question remains whether the believer’s conscience stands or falls before the Word of God, or before a church structure claiming to be God’s appointed voice.

The gospel itself is at stake here, for if men are taught to look to an external institution for salvation, or to trust in the pronouncements of a hierarchy that claims power to remit sins, they may be misled from the final sufficiency of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Galatians 2:16 teaches that a person is justified “not by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” If any extra conditions or authorities are imposed, the liberty of the gospel can be overshadowed by the pronouncements of human leaders.

A Historical Moment: The Reformation and Sola Scriptura

The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century sprang largely from this issue. Leaders like Martin Luther argued that only Scripture carried absolute authority as God’s Word, while councils and popes had contradicted each other in history and thus could not claim infallibility. At the Diet of Worms (1521), Luther stood firm, insisting he was bound by Scripture and plain reason, not by contradictory ecclesiastical declarations.

The Roman Church responded with anathemas at the Council of Trent. It upheld the necessity of tradition, the validity of the additional Old Testament books that Protestants rejected, and the supreme authority of the Church in interpreting both Scripture and tradition. These issues remain the most enduring lines of division between the Roman Catholic Church and those who hold to the Reformation principle of “Scripture alone.”

Even now, after centuries of theological discussion, ecumenical dialogues have not resolved this fundamental difference in worldview. Roman Catholic statements from modern popes reaffirm the belief that tradition and the living magisterium have an authority no single Christian may lawfully question. Protestant traditions continue to emphasize personal and congregational responsibility to verify all teaching by the Bible, seeing the right and duty of believers to do so as indispensable.

Concluding Thoughts on the Catholic Doctrine of the Rule of Faith

The Roman Catholic position contends that God has provided two complementary channels of revelation, Scripture and tradition, which the Church in its infallible authority interprets and transmits. In Roman Catholic teaching, the faithful must submit to ecclesiastical pronouncements on faith and morals. This perspective places the Church in a position of supreme interpretive power, requiring the assent of believers to whatever is deemed apostolic tradition, even when it is not written explicitly in the Bible.

Critics maintain that Scripture neither teaches nor necessitates such an approach. In their view, the biblical record speaks instead of God’s Word written as the unique standard and calls believers to test every doctrine, even those given by revered teachers, by the scriptural witness. The absence of any clear statement concerning an ongoing, infallible human teacher leads such believers to see the Roman claims as historically and biblically unsupported. The controversies over Arianism, the significant shifts around Augustine’s teachings, and even the widely recognized historical misjudgments of certain medieval popes, are evidence that no portion of the visible Church has escaped error.

Amid these questions, the promise that Jehovah preserves His people and keeps them in His truth resonates with those who trust that Christ’s “little flock” (Luke 12:32) will never entirely vanish, yet never be guaranteed freedom from all error by reliance on a centralized institution. The sure promise of guidance in John 16:13 was for the inspired Apostles themselves. That same Spirit continues to illuminate the hearts of believers through the Word, directing them to the true gospel of the risen Christ. Since the Roman Catholic doctrine of the rule of faith ties salvation to membership in a single external institution, invests that institution with allegedly unerring authority, and upholds teachings which many find contrary to Scripture, it has been subject to questions from the earliest centuries to the present day.

The question “How can we understand the Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the rule of faith?” thus remains open and contested. Roman Catholicism insists that a loving God would not leave believers in confusion and division, therefore establishing one visible and infallible teacher on earth. Others respond that God indeed has not left believers in darkness, but has graciously provided Scripture as the all-sufficient revelation, inspired, clear in essential truths, and powerful to bring about salvation and spiritual growth in those who embrace it by faith. The conversation will inevitably continue, shaping how Christians read and interpret the Bible, how they practice their faith in the community of believers, and how they relate to an institution claiming to speak on God’s behalf with unfailing authority.

You May Also Enjoy

Is There a True Foundation for Morality Apart from God?

About the Author

Online Guided Bible Study Courses

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION