Posted on 08/14/2006 11:19:14 AM PDT by Gamecock
Sola Scriptura is a latin phrase which was coined by the Reformed Church during the 1500's. It means 'scripture solely' or, 'scripture alone.' By these words the faithful Christians of this era were standing up for the Biblical principle that the Holy Scriptures were God's inspired Word, and as such were the sole infallible rule of faith. By definition the Word of God had to be the ultimate authority for the Church, and not (as some had supposed) the Roman catholic church, it's pope, and magisterium. Since the position of the Roman church was mutually exclusive to that of those faithful Christians who protested it (and thus were labled, protestants), both obviously could not be correct. If the faithful Christian Church was going to stand on God's Word as the ultimate or supreme authority, then there would have to be a 'reforming' of that Church. A restoring of faith in the laws of God which the Church had fallen away from. Much like when a criminal reforms himself to now obey the laws which were always there, but which he had previously neglected. Likewise, these faithful Christians understood that they had erred and must return to the former obedience and reliance upon God's law. A good analogy is in the Old Testament when the Priest Hilkiah brought the law of God (that had been previously neglected) to the faithful King Josiah and He, reading God's law, understood this principle of being reformed from breaking the law.
2nd Kings 22:10-13
Likewise these faithful Reformers read God's law and understood that their fathers had not harkened unto the Words of the Book. Thus, on October 31, 1517, for all intents and purposes the Reformation began when a German Monk by the name of Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Roman Catholic Church door in Wittenberg Germany. The faithful would no longer forsake the laws of God's book in favor of tradition, and would return to the Biblical precepts of not leaning unto their own understanding or that of their Church leaders, but upon the Scriptures alone (Sola Scriptura) as their ultimate authority.
Actually, calling it 'Sola Scriptura' might be contrued as a bit of a misnomer, because it is not a doctrine which teaches that we believe that there are not other authorities, nor that they have no value or place. Rather, it means that all other authorities must be subordinate to the Word of God. Thus the phrase 'Sola scriptura' implies several things. First, that the scriptures are a direct revelation from God, and as such are His authoritative Word. It is also a term which illustrates that the scriptures are all that is necessary for Christian faith and practice today. Not only that the scriptures are sufficient, but that they also are the ultimate and final court of appeal on all doctrinal matters. Because however good and faithful Church fathers may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, pastors, teachers, popes, and councils, are still fallible. The only infallible 'source' for truth is God. And besides God Himself, only His Holy Words (the Scriptures alone) are infallible.
The Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura ultimately pointed to a most basic concern of the faithful Church of that day, which was expressed in their cry of Soli Deo Gloria, or, 'to God alone be the Glory.' This expresses the true Christian perspective that God should receive all the Glory, and that this is done by man keeping His Word as their supreme authority. The infallible head of the Church is Christ, and not a fallible man. And so the Authority of the Church must likewise be His infallible Word, and not the words of men. No matter how faithful they might appear, they are still the word of men and thus subordinate to God's word. What is called Sola Scriptura both was, and is, essential to true Christianity. For it is the difference between God's traditions and ordinances, and man's traditions and ordinances.
What some call the oral traditions of the Church are subject to change, development, degeneration, and deviation. There is absolutely no guarantee given by God or by Scripture (His Word) that such an oral tradition would be either preserved, or needed. Indeed, 2nd Timothy chapter 3 strongly implies such was not needed.
2nd Timothy 3:16-17
The Old Testament 'scriptures' thoroughly furnished man of that day unto all good works, and Christ continually referenced it to prove truths. Jesus and others read and quoted Scripture (never any oral traditions, except to condemn them). That's not an insignificant fact. Likewise, when Satan tested Jesus, the Lord made reference to 'the authority of scripture' to prove the devil wrong.
Matthew 4:3-4
What proceeds out of the mouth of God is His Holy, and this is 'written in the Bible.' That is what Jesus says man lives by, and it is what we are to live by. The Word of God, and not the words of men. No matter how faithful Christians may appear, their word is subordinate to God's Word. Jesus could have answered Satan any way that He wanted, for He is God and an original and perfect answer He could have spoken afresh at any moment. But instead, Christ pointed to what was already written in the scriptures as the reply to the adversary. i.e., that was the perfect answer! What God had inspired to be written, not the oral tradition of the day, but what had proceedeth from God's mouth and had been written in His Holy book. And this deferral to what was written in the scriptures is a lesson for all faithful Christians in what authority we should seek to prove Biblical truths. And Jesus did this not only in answering un-biblical assertions, but also when presented with scripture that was taken out of context. Jesus again defers 'to other scriptures' which qualifies the scripture in question. For example:
Matthew 4:5-11
In other words, Jesus replies to scripture taken out of context with an additional scripture which clarifies it (not denies it). In doing this, He makes sure we see the meaning of that first scripture was that, 'Yes, God will watch over us, but that doesn't mean that we can test/tempt the Lord God.' This is just another pertinent example God illustrating the authority of Scripture, even in the face of those who present other scriptures taken out of context. The Perfect answer by Christ to combat erroneous understanding of scripture, was for Him to quote 'additional Scripture' which shed more light on it's true meaning. i.e., scripture was 'still authoritative' over whatever scripture that anyone would attempt to misuse or misapply.
Matthew 4:8
Again, Jesus presents scripture, God's Word, to counter Satan's ideas and visions of glory. He says, 'It is Written!' In other words, Jesus says God's Word declares thus and thus. He never says, the Priests say, or our leaders say, or oral tradition says. Jesus, our example, says, 'it is written.' This is a representative sample or model of the posture we are to take in order to try or test the Spirits to see whether they be of God. We compare their words to God's Word, countering their tradition with the authority of God's Word. The same can be said about any debate of the doctrines of the Church. The correct principle in faithful Hermeneutics is to always defer to sound and ordered exegesis of scripture, and not to traditions or the heads of the Church. This is precisely as Jesus demonstrated in His debates with the religious leaders of His day. He appealed to the Scriptures, not to these congregational leaders, traditions, or any ecclesiastical body. The authority He appealed to, was scripture.
Matthew 21:42
There are some Roman catholic church apologists that declare this doctrine was not even heard of until 'the reformation' of the 16th century. This of course is an inaccurate and self serving claim, which can be proven false quite easily (even apart from scripture). Read this quote from the 5th century, 1100 years before the Reformation and see if you can guess who wrote it:
This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has Paramount Authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
Do you know who authored this affirmation of the principle of Sola Scriptura, the doctrine of ultimate or paramount authority of the scriptures? The author is saint Augustine of Hippo. It's a quote taken directly from his book 'City of God' (book 11, Chapter 3). This unambiguous declaration by Augustine is about as definitive a statement for Sola Scriptura as any Protestant declaration I've read. So this argument, by Biblical and historical proofs, fails miserably. The Word of God both is, and was the Supreme authority of the Church. The phrase Sola scriptura is a latin term, but obviously that doesn't mean that what it delineates was not Church doctrine from the beginning. The faithful fathers, Christ Himself, and the Apostles, all deferred to authority of scripture.
Can the scriptures contradict what some allege is 'oral apostolic tradition,' and yet that tradition still be of God? The answer of course is a resounding, No! God is not the author of confusion. The undeniable fact is, two infallible God-breathed sources cannot contradict each other. Else, at least one of them is not infallible. That is a fact. Yet God's Word and Roman catholic church traditions constantly contradict each other. This should alert any faithful student of scripture that one is neither infallible, nor of God. And these are just a few of the myriad of examples..
- The Word of God teaches that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23; Ezekiel 18:4,20), and that all sin is purged and we were purified in Christ, by the cross. Roman catholic traditions teach that sin can be purged later, in a place called Purgatory (place of purifying). This is Heresy!
- The Word of God teaches that the office of bishop and presbyter are the same office (Titus 1) but Roman tradition says they are different offices.
- The Scriptures of God teaches that Christ offered His sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:28, 10:10), while Roman catholic tradition corrects this, claiming that the Priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at mass.
- The Word of God teaches that we should not use vain repetitions in prayers (Matthew 6:7) thinking that we will be heard for our much speaking, while the Roman catholic traditions teach repeating Hail Mary in prayer as penitence 'as if' God indeed will hear us for our much repetition.
- The Word of God teach that all have sinned except Jesus (Romans 3:10-12, Hebrews 4:15), while Roman catholic traditions claim that's not true, as Mary was also sinless.
- The Holy scriptures teaches that all Christians are Saints and Priests (Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9), but Roman Catholic tradition has made Saints and Priests special cases and offices within the Christian community, dealt out by their Church leadership.
- The Word of God says that we are not to bow down to statues (Exodus 20:4-5), but the Roman catholic tradition makes no such claim, nor rebukes Christians for this practice.
- The Word of God says that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but Roman catholic tradition claims Mary is co-mediator with Christ.
- The Word of God says that Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the Church rests, the foundation stone, and the Head of the Church (Luke 6:48, 1st Peter 2:7-8, Matthew 16:18), But Roman catholic tradition claims that the foundation Rock of the Church is Pope Peter, and that the pontiff is the head of the Church, an aberration which in effect makes God's Church, a two headed Church, with multiple authorities and starting foundation.
- The Word of God says that all Christians can and should know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13), but Roman catholic tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life.
The Reformers understood clearly that the words of our Saviour Jesus Christ to the Pharisees, applied equally to those of their day:
"..thus you have made the commandment of God of non effect by your traditions!" -Matthew 15:6
Comparing these traditions with God's Word, sadly we also understand that this practice of unrighteousness continues today. You simply cannot have tradition and scripture contradicting each other, while claiming both are the infallible teachings of God. It is blatant confusion. Any oral traditions passed down in the church is subject to the written Word of God, as it has always been. As it was for the Scribes and Pharisees. To deny this is tortuous of scripture and of authority.
Moreover, if there was an ongoing oral tradition (which there is not), it still would require a standard point of reference to check itself against, such as God speaking from the Mountain, or the scriptures. True Christians (under God's direction), realize the danger of Church tradition becoming corrupted by fallible men (as had been the case with the Pharisees, and throughout Biblical history), and so faithfulness requires an infallible scriptural check book. Christians led by the Spirit of God understood the need for a supreme final authoritative checkpoint to which every person must be subject. Thus the importance of maintaining the Apostles' and God's authoritative Word became of very great concern to them, even as it had previously with the scribes maintaining the Old Testament books. If we were to totally ignore the facts of history, that there was no Roman church nor Pope making the claims they now do during the first three or four centuries (as the foremost Church historians overwhelmingly attest), then we might fathom this. And if we were to wrongly assume there was such a Church headed by an infallible pope as the Roman church does, then this would not even begin to explain the importance believers placed on maintaining the texts of the New Testament. For indeed there would have been no need to maintain them at all. One would only need to consult the infallible Pope, who, being under God's guidance would know the truth more certainly and accurately than the Apostle's written word. In 2nd Peter 1:19, where Peter said, 'we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it,' that would be worthless.
But of course, true Christians do realize that doctrine and oral tradition are indeed subject to change, development, degeneration, and deviation, and 'therefore' require a standard point of God breathed reference to check itself against. Scripture supplied and continues to supply this check. By this only we can try (test) the spirits to know whether they be of God or not (1st John 4:1). How would we do this without the authority of scripture? How would have the Priest Hilkiah? Tradition which proclaims what is non-scriptural cannot have absolute authority; It may have the authority of age, antiquity, or large consent, but it does not have ultimate compulsion or necessity. In short, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any church, any tradition, any pope or minister, is equal to Scripture. Therefore, scripture is the final authority which we try the spirits with.
Since the Bible 'is' the Word of God (as even Roman catholics whole heartily agree), then it's only rational, Biblical, and logical to profess that any other authority, cannot either contradict it, be on a par with it, nor be above it. i.e., there is no authority higher than God (what Word supersedes God's?) and no word on a par with it (what word is as good as God's?) Therefore (again logically, Biblically, and rationally speaking), in order for someone's word to be on a par with God's Word, the one speaking it would have to be God, or at the very least equal to God, or have God speak verbally to him in a voice. The Only other alternative is to be 'quoting' God from His Word. Neither the Pope, a Priest, nor anyone else is equal to God to have his word be on a par with God's Word, nor is God speaking to anyone from the smoke on the mountain or the burning Bush today, or creating new oral scriptures. The Bible is Complete, not incomplete. It needs no further additions, and condemns those who dare to add to it.
This of course is the tangled web in which the Roman church finds itself by placing tradition on a par with God's Word. For unless something is God's Word, then it cannot be equal to God's Word. And simply saying God gave it, is not sufficient for anyone to claim tradition is the Word, just as it wouldn't be for the traditions that the Pharisees held and Jesus condemned, saying, it made the Word of God of non effect.
True, God breathed His Word through the apostles that their words became the 'Word of God,' just as He did Old Testament scripture. But unless God is continuing to write his book (the scriptures) through the Roman church, then that giving of the law through those who penned scripture has ended. If it has not ended, then the Pope must rip out the page of Revelation where God says don't add to His word and throw it away. He must then proclaim the Bible incomplete, and write down every infallible Word that he (supposedly) receives of God, and place it on the pages of the Bible uncondemned for it, as it is the Word of God. ..'if' what he claims is true. If tradition was on a par with God's Word, then it would be God's Word. In fact, then there would 'again' be no oral tradition, as it would join the written Word of God 'as' the Word of God. God's Word is something God wants us to hear and obey. This is the tangled web that is woven by this un-biblical dogma of the old Roman church.
More than that, tradition can become corrupt in the congregation of God (even as it certainly had with the Pharisees in Jesus' day -mark 7:9, and in King Josiah's day), and so common sense dictates that it simply cannot and must not be trusted as the ultimate authority as the Word of God is. The words and doctrines of men are often unjustifiable by scripture, and even contradictory to it. Not surprisingly, scripture bears out the truth that any tradition or ordinance must be subordinate to the Word. Jesus made it quite clear that we simply cannot hold to any traditions which are not subordinate to scripture, and that teaching such doctrines are contrary to the gospel of Christ. Consider wisely:
Mark 7:6-8
This was no slap on the wrist, it was the worst of judgments upon them for setting aside the Word of God in order that they could keep their traditions. The exact same error of the Roman church today. The error of the religious leaders was that they had put tradition on a par with the written Word of God. In fact, they had made it superior to Scripture, as the commandments were interpreted 'by their tradition,' which makes scripture subject to it instead of vice versa. Christ rebuked them in the strongest of terms illustrating that the tradition of their congregation was subject to the scriptures, and scripture not to their tradition. Any argument which denies this (considering scriptures such as this one), is indefensible. Jesus would not have condemned them for their traditions if the tradition of God's chosen people was on a par with scripture. It made no biblical sense then, and it makes no biblical sense now.
Proverbs 30:5-6
This is a solemn declaration that every word of God is tried and pure and that we are not to add to His words, lest we be found liars. This law of God is an enduring restriction on God's revelation. Holy men of old who spake as they were inspired of God, wrote scripture. Those scriptures are now finished or complete. This is not an ongoing book. As God's people, under God's care, we have the authority of God's Word. No other supreme authorities, or institution, or object, is so circumscribed. Note that in Ecclesiastes, after reflecting on the vanity of life, the Preacher summarizes our basic duty as to, 'fear God and keep His commandments (Eccl. 12:13). We must not add to God's Word by claiming traditions are God's Word. Those who love God keep His Word alone as the authority.
Understanding this, we therefore know that those who reject the scripture today as the only 'infallible' rule of faith and practice, ultimately are subordinating the Word of God to tradition by making congregational tradition and leadership the interpreter of God's Word. It sets the words of men in the Church (no matter how faithful they may be) on a par with God's Word, and this is a dangerous and un-biblical thing to do. Every individual is ultimately responsible for what he believes, not the Church, not his Priest, and not his leader. Each man is judged for his own sin. We are all responsible to study the Bible, not leave that for others to do for us. And indeed Jesus Himself said,
John 12:48
No one practicing the Roman church doctrine of Church authority, will be able to stand before God at the judgment and plead, "..the Pope and the Magisterium, or my Priest told me to believe in this or that." There is no such 'excuse' available to man. We are to listen to God's Word rather than their word, and neglecting this, we will be judged for it. We therefore should carefully consider which authority is really infallible, and which we should follow. God's Word (a given), or our church tradition.
John 10;27
What is the voice of Christ? Is it Church leadership, a Priest, the Magisterium, or is it the Word of God? Certainly this is the crux of the matter. The truth is, it is God's Word alone that should be the final authority in matters of faith, practice, and doctrine of the Church (not the only authority, but the final, supreme and ultimate Authority).
The Lord Jesus Christ, replete with examples, taught us this principle. As when the Pharisees argued with Jesus the points of the law of God concerning the Sabbath. Did Jesus petition tradition to speak concerning it? Did He lean to ecumenical counsels? Did He say check with the High Priest? No, He showed that we are to lean upon the written Word.
Matthew 12:3-5
Matthew 19:4-5
Matthew 22:31-32
Luke 10:26
Matthew 22:29
Matthew 26:24
John 5:39
Most Roman catholics object to Sola Scriptura from two distinct positions. They argue that:
(#1) The New Testament references to oral "tradition" (II Thess. 2:15; II Tim. 2:2; II Cor. 11:2) illustrate the unbiblicalness of this teaching, and that(#2) The Scripture nowhere teaches the doctrine.
Isn't it ironic that in both cases 'they appeal to scripture' (though unjustifiably) as the final proof or authority that their traditions are correct? When it suits their purpose, they can always appeal to scripture (as in the keys of the kingdom, Peter the Rock, translations of words describing Mary's other Children, etc.) as the final say, but when it doesn't suit their purpose, curiously, scripture isn't really the final authority on doctrine.
Nevertheless, the first argument is based upon a simplistic and naive understanding of Sola Scriptura in that it presupposes the doctrine means there was never any oral tradition or teaching done. This of course would be ludicrous, as much of the New Testament was oral tradition or teaching of God before it was written down (see the Study on 'Traditions of men vs. Traditions of God'). I have yet to find anyone except catholics themselves who believes Sola Scriptura means what they purport. So this argument is the proverbial "Straw Man" argument. Things revealed to Peter, and which he was inspired of God to say (oral tradition or ordinances) became the written 'Word of God' as they were penned, just as the Old Testament was. But the Bible is complete today. i.e., there is no New Newer Testament book of Pope John, or Pope this or that, as there is a book of Peter, or John, or jude, etc. Because the Word of God is finished, complete, and not to be added to.
In so far as the second argument is concerned, as I've been demonstrating throughout this document, scripture clearly teaches what has been labled 'Sola Scriptura,' from the beginning of it to the end. But it requires the Holy Spirit of God to discern this, just as any doctrine of scripture does. To simply say scripture doesn't teach it, despite the mountain of scriptures supporting it, is to stick ones head in the proverbial sand. With Jesus proving that what He says is true by directing us to the scriptures, it would seem that the Roman church and Pope would likewise direct all to the scriptures. Instead, they claim an infallible authority 'over' the scripture itself, alleging that only they can interpret it. What arrogance and vanity is this?
It would seem to me that given the abundance of examples and illustrations of God, the onus is on the Roman church to 'disprove' the sufficiency of scripture, rather than on the Church to prove it's insufficiency. Because both sides agree scripture 'is' the Word of God, and no other authority is above God. How then is it insufficient? But saying this, the Roman church has a mystery that is a riddle inside an enigma. How is no other authority above God's, while God's Word is subject to church teachings? It makes no sense. How is scripture not sufficient, and yet God declare that there cannot be added anything else to it?
In order to disprove sufficiency of scripture, one would need to show us exactly where oral tradition differs from Scripture. If it doesn't differ, then what is the need of oral tradition, and why does God say scripture thoroughly furnished them unto all good works? And If oral tradition is not found taught in the scriptures (because it presumably differs from), one must then prove that the 'oral revelation' which was not found in scripture, is apostolic and of divine origin. Despite claims of such proof by some, no such proof exists. Therefore, they cannot prove any oral tradition handed down through tradition of a church, is of God. While scripture proves itself, interprets itself, and defines itself, in our comparing it with itself.
The fact is, the reason that the early Churches of the second century were so diligent in collecting and preserving the New Testament writings of Paul, John, Peter, and others in the first place, was to guard against oral teachings which could not be checked for accuracy once the apostles had all died. i.e., it's God himself inspiring them to preserve His Holy Word, as He did with the Old Testament Scriptures before the first advent of Christ. Sola Scriptura does not mean the rejection of every tradition, Sola Scriptura means that any form of tradition must be tested by the higher authority, and that authority can only be God (and thus God's inspired Holy Word, the Bible).
The Roman church error in the dogma of Church traditions lies in creating a dichotomy between two things that cannot be separated, and then using that false dichotomy to deny Sola Scriptura.
1st Corinthians 11:2
There is simply nothing in these passages to support the idea of a separate oral tradition different from what was written. In order to deny Sola Scriptura, we must make the erroneous 'assumption' that what Paul taught in the presence of many witnesses is different from what he wrote to entire Church. Is such an idea founded in reality? Of course not. It is rationalization of oral tradition, not proof of it.
1st Thessalonians. 2:13
There is nothing future about this passage at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that 'will be' delivered? Does Paul say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? No, this oral teaching which he refers to has already been delivered to the entire Church at Thessalonica. ..Now, what does oral refer to? We first note that the context of the passage is the Gospel and its work among the Thessalonians. The traditions Paul speaks of are not traditions about Mary, Purgatory, Repetitions of hail Mary, or Papal Infallibility. Instead, the traditions Paul refers to have to do with a single topic. One that is close to his heart. He is encouraging these believers to stand firm--in what? Was it in oral traditions about subjects not found in the New Testament? No, he is exhorting them to stand firm in what he has orally taught them of what is in the gospel. The Old Testament concealed is the New Testament revealed. There is simply nothing in these passages to support the theory of a separate oral tradition different from what was written or what Paul taught. It says what Paul taught whether by word, or our epistle or letter. Likewise note that in passages like 2nd Peter 3:2, Peter stresses the consistency of his teaching with that of the prophets, and of the other apostles. The unity of the Old Testament with the apostolic writings is illustrated in passages such as 1st Peter 1:10-12, and 2nd Peter 1:19-21.
One example of what is known as Sola Scriptura is made plain in the Abrahamic covenant. God again reveals Himself, apart from a divine expositor, and pledges Himself to fulfill His covenant (Gen. 15). When Abram seeks confirmation of God's Glorious Promises, the Lord confirms His divine Word by His divine Word.
Hebrews 6:13
No Pontiff or magisterium or sacred tradition is invoked to verify God's Word. That's an important point not to be missed. The supreme authority is the Lord's 'own testimony' to His Word. No further appeal is possible. He didn't swear by the Priests, He swore by Himself. Nothing else could confirm God's own Word but God Alone. Other than Himself, His Holy Word stands alone as the supreme authority. Truly, what other authority is on a par? ..Higher? ..Better? ..from a better platform? ..more Trustworthy? ..infallible? ..the answer is None! Which is why Jesus always directed those with questions and objections to His teachings in the scriptures. Both ancient theology endorses this, as well as the New Testament Church. As in the past, God's people may discern truth by going directly to the scriptures. As God explained in the parable when confronted with the question of how they would believe.
Luke 16:29
And likewise, Christ did not direct anyone to secondary explications or extra-Biblical Hebrew traditions (though plentiful) as authoritative norms, but He directed them continually to examine the Word of God itself. He alternately declares, 'read the scriptures, it is written, search the scriptures, have ye not read, as saith the scriptures, that the scriptures might be fulfilled, as saith Isaiah, etc., etc." And in the New testament, the exhortation to the authority of scripture continues, (Rom. 15:4; Eph. 6:17; II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1:3). Scripture commends those who examine the written revelation of God (as open minded, and more noble -Acts 17:11) and illustrates that Christians have the ability to rightly divide and interpret scripture apart from any (supposed) infallible interpreter whether Church or pontiff (II Tim. 2:15; Acts 17:11). Interpretation must come from the Word of God. As a little child humbly, honestly and simplistically asked:
And all God's people said, ...A M E N ! Out of the mouth of babes!
For knowing the nature of man, that indeed is a good question. Again, note the manner in which Christ refuted error. It was, 'God said thus, but you say..' (Matt. 15:4-5; 10-11). That was the manner in which He drew a clear, concise contrast between the written Word of God and the traditions of men. Let that be a lesson unto us.
1st Peter 2:21
We can readily understand the frustration of those who are indoctrinated and thus think Christians should listen to the Roman church instead of God, and how it's annoying to them when we won't bow to that church authority. But there is a very clear warning about making man the authority in the Church in 2nd Thessalonians 2. Man must never sit to 'rule' in the Temple of God 'as if' he was God. Only God can rule (have ultimate authority) over the Church. And God's Word is the Bible. And so really, what's to debate?
The fact is, the only way that man is going to stand with the righteous, overcoming in Christ, is if he has 'kept' the Word of God as truth, and the word of man as error. Belief in the Word of God over man's words of tradition is what separates true believers from false ones. It's what separates those who can and will be deceived, from the Elect who can never be deceived into false Gospels. We know what the truth is because we know 'where' the truth is. It's in the Word from God alone, not in the men who lead the Church. The faithful Church is the witness of God's truth. It bears testimony to God's truth, and that's what makes it the Pillar and ground of this truth. Faithfulness to truth (which is God's Word, not man's word) makes us as a tree planted by the rivers of life. God's Word is true. As it is written,
Romans 3:3
The truth is in God's Word, not in the words of Pontiff J., or Pastor Brown, or Church tradition 88, or Tony Warren. The Truth is in God's Word. And if we don't read it in God's Word, then it's not God's Word. In determining which word has the authority, let God be true, and every man a Liar.
Let us therefore remember that scripture declares that if we build upon a foundation that is not the Word of God, and will not hear God's Word, then we build on a foundation which will crumble when the winds blow and the rains come (luke 6:47-49). God likens us then to a foolish man. The wise in Christ will build upon God's Word alone as the supreme authority. Sola Scriptura! A firm foundation on the Word of God, which will never fall.
May the Lord who is Gracious and merciful above all, give us the wisdom and understanding to come to the truth of His most Holy Word.
A m e n !
Copyright ©1998 Tony Warren
For other studies free for the Receiving, Visit our web Site
The Mountain Retreat! http://members.aol.com/twarren10/
-------------------------*---------------------------
Feel free to copy, duplicate, display or distribute this publication to anyone who would like a copy, as long as the above copyright notice remains intact and there are no changes made to the article. This publication can be distributed only in it's original form, unedited, and without cost.
Created 8/3/98 / Last Modified 3/23/02
bookmark
That is an unfounded assumption on your part. The passages in question do not mention children. Therefore, you have a pure argument from silence in this regard, and it is not helpful.
Worse, there is mentioned in some manner in each household baptism story a note about those baptized coming to faith. This would not be reportable if those households included infants.
A better approach to justifying infant baptism is to recognize it as a probationary sign developed as a tradition to demonstrate a child's place within the household of God, for the certainly are set apart (sanctified) in the eyes of the Lord. "Otherwise your children would be unholy, but as it is they are holy."
This all holds until they "accept for themselves the gift of faith."
Just my 2 cents worth.
Actually, there is both a spiritual lineage and an ordination lineage that should be recognized.
In my opinion, a member of the PCA can trace his faith through his doctrines back to the earliest Christian teachings.
Also, a member of the PCA can trace his faith through faithful men back to the earliest Christian teachings. Their history goes back to the Reformation, through those transitional figures to the same historic church that Roman Catholics accept, to the early fathers, and from those fathers to the early church.
Probably not, since Ru'ach HaKodesh sounds like a Hebrew word, and the people who selected the books to include in the Christian bible spoke Greek. But, then, I suppose, if you really expected an answer, you'd be a mensch and use English translations , rather than having fun showing off, "ooo! I know some Hebrew phrases!"
117 posted on 08/15/2006 12:08:32 PM MDT by dangus
I'm not sure about Dios or Theos or Got. My Redeemer is "YHvH is my salvation" or Yahu'shua as He was named by His mother Miriam.My L-rd and Master is YHvH I know He is King of the Universe , Creator of All.
b'shem Yahu'shua
"Actually, calling it 'Sola Scriptura' might be contrued as a bit of a misnomer, because it is not a doctrine which teaches that we believe that there are not other authorities, nor that they have no value or place. Rather, it means that all other authorities must be subordinate to the Word of God."
The above quote is very important in understanding the Reformers idea of "sola scriptura" in that it really meant SUPREME OR FINAL UNQUESTIONABLE AUTHORITY rather than no other authorities in the life of a Christian. Common sense and tradition, as a part of what may be termed "general revelation" have a place in guiding a Christian, where direction cannot be clearly discerned from the bible...we get advice from other Christians (call it "tradition" if they are from the past) and intelligence/education all the time--which is fine, in fact the best attitude, as long as we put these authorities under the supreme authority of scripture. This counters too the common Roman assumption of hyper-individualism of Protestants... a "bible alone and I" way of looking at things...which surely leads to schism and error.
All and all an excellent post, well argued.
WHAT!!! God is a heretic. Say it ain't so. Actually, WriteOn, since Gamecock and I are a part of the same group, I can speak on this. We are a part of those entrusted by God to hold the very doctrines of the truth of Scripture and we don't merely trace our church back a mere 2000 years, as if Christ the Eternal King could reign without subjects. No, we trace our church back to the beginning.
Peter and his successors, as you put it, are made out by some in the church to be johnny come lately given that the church had been in existence for at least 4000 years prior Peter's day.
What's your pastor's pedigree? :) ~ WriteOn
Not a johnny come lately. ;)
We believe and confess one single catholic or universal church... This church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as appears from the fact that Christ is eternal King who cannot be without subjects. ~ Belgic Confession.
post tenebras lux,
Bump for a great post!
I think there is danger when the New Covenant is interpreted so broadly as to erase one of the 10 Commandments, espcially in light of all the warnings against lawlessness.
But the point of my post is that Protestantism is supposed to be Biblical. If an educated un-religious man, say an old Soviet or a Cuban, read a Bible cover to cover, what day would he keep holy?
Au contrare', monfraire. The Catholic Church boldly professes that it changed the day of worship. I did not come to my belief lightly. I searched that Bible for 4 years trying to prove Sunday. NIV, KJV, Red Letter Catholic, you name it. No dice.
29 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "From this same Catholic Church you have accepted your Sunday, and that Sunday, as the Lord's day, she had handed down as a tradition; and the entire Protestant world has accepted it as tradition, for you have not an iota of Scripture to establish it. Therefore that which you have accepted as your rule of faith, inadequate as it of course it is, as well as your Sunday, you have accepted on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church." D. B. Ray, The Papal Controversy, 1892, page 179 30 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "I have repeatedly offered $1000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' The Catholic Church says: 'No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.' And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in a reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church. Priest Thomas Enright, CSSR, President of Redemptorist College, Kansas City, Missouri, in a lecture at Hartford, Kansas, and printed in the American Sentinel, June 1883, a New York Roman Catholic journal. 31 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her Divine mission, changed the day [of worship] from Saturday to Sunday. ... The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church, as Spouse of the Holy Ghost, without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant world." Editorial, The Catholic Mirror (Baltimore), September 23, 1893. 32 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify." Cardinal Gibbons (for many years head of the Catholic Church in America), The Faith of Our Fathers (92d ed., rev.; Baltimore: John Murphy Company), p.89. 33 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible." James Cardinal Gibbons, Catholic Mirror, Dec. 23, 1893. 34 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "Nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Catholic] Church outside the Bible." "To Tell You the Truth," The Catholic Virginian, 22 (October 3, 1947), 9. 35 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "The Divine institution of a day of rest from ordinary occupations and of religious worship, transferred by the authority of the [Catholic] Church from the Sabbath, the last day, to Sunday the first day of the week, ... is one of the most patent signs that we are a Christian people." James Cardinal Gibbons, The Cross and the Flag, Our Church and Country (New York: The Catholic Historical League of America, 1899), pp. 24, 25. 36 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "Sunday is founded, not on Scripture, but on tradition, and is distinctly a Catholic institution. As there is no Scripture for the transfer of the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week, Protestants ought to keep their Sabbath on Saturday and thus leave Catholics in full possession of Sunday." Catholic Record, Sept. 17, 1893 37 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "They (the Protestants) deem it their duty to keep the Sunday Holy. Why? Because the Catholic Church tells them to do so. They have no other reason... The observance of Sunday thus comes to be an ecclesiastical law entirely distinct from the divine law of Sabbath observance... The author of the Sunday law... is the Catholic Church." Ecclesiastical Review, Feb. 1914. 38 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "Q. Which is the Sabbath Day? "A. Saturday is the Sabbath day. "Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? "A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." Peter Guierman, The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957 ed.), p.50. Copyright 1930 by B. Herder Book Co., St.Louis. 39 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday." Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About (New York: P. J. Kennedy & Sons) p. 136. 40 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "Q. Have you any other way of proving that the [Catholic] Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; ... she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3rd American ed., rev.; New York: T. W. Strong, late Edward Dunigan & Bro., 1876), p. 174. 41 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "But the Protestant says: How can I receive the teachings of an apostate Church? How, we ask, have you managed to receive her teachings all your life, in direct opposition to your recognized teacher, the Bible, on the Sabbath question?" The Christian Sabbath (2nd ed.; Baltimore: The Catholic Mirror, 1893), p. 29, 30. 42 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church." Albert Smith (Chancellor of the Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore), replying for the Cardinal in a letter of February 10, 1920.) 43 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of JESUS CHRIST, has transferred this [Sabbath] rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church." Louis Gaston de Segur, Plain Talk About The Protestantism of To-day (Boston: Patrick Donahoe, 1868), p. 225. 44 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the [Catholic] Church, has no good reason for its Sunday theory, and ought, logically, to keep Saturday as the Sabbath. ..." John Gilmary Shae, "The Observance of Sunday and Civil Laws for Its Enforcement," The American Catholic Quarterly Review, 8 (January, 1883), 152. 45 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "The (Catholic) Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her Founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant, claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh Day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant." "The Question Box," The Catholic Universe Bulletin, 69 (August 14, 1942), 4. 46 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "The Israelite respects the authority of the Old Testament only, but the [Seventh-day] Adventist, who is a Christian, accepts the New Testament on the same ground as the Old, viz: an inspired record also. He finds that the Bible, his teacher, is consistent in both parts, that the Redeemer, during His mortal life never kept any other day than Saturday. The Gospels plainly evince to Him this fact; whilst, in the pages of the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and the Apocalypse, not the vestige of an act canceling the Saturday arrangement can be found." Editorial, The Catholic Mirror (Baltimore), September 2, 1893. 47 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "If the Bible is the only guide for the Christian, then the Seventh Day Adventist is right in observing the Saturday with the Jew." Bertrand L. Conway, The Question Box Answers (New York: The Columbus Press, 1910), p. 254. 48 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "If you follow the Bible alone there can be no question that you are obliged to keep Saturday holy, since that is the day especially prescribed by Almighty God to be kept holy to the Lord." F. G. Lentz, The Question Box (New York: Christian Press Association, 1900), p. 98. 49 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "The Sabbath was Saturday, not Sunday. The Church altered the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of Sunday. Protestants must be rather puzzled by the keeping of Sunday when God distinctly said, 'Keep holy the Sabbath Day.' The word Sunday does not come anywhere in the Bible, so, without knowing it they are obeying the authority of the Catholic Church." Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Explained, p. 89. 50 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! Father Conway: "If the Bible is the only guide for the Christian then the Seventh-day Adventist is right in observing the Saturday with the Jew. But Catholics learn what to believe and do from the Catholic Church, which in Apostolic times made Sunday the day of rest. ... Is it not strange that those who make the Bible their only teacher should inconsistently follow in this matter the tradition of the Church." Question Box Answers, an official publication of the Catholic Church. 51 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! Plain Talk: "The observance of Sunday by Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the (Catholic) Church." Plain Talk about Protestantism of Today, by Msgr. Segur (RC). 52 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! John O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D.: "But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible, and not the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made about 15 centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom, even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away - like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair." Faith of Millions, pp. 543 and 544. 53 Candid Confessions of the Catholic Church! "Hence, the conclusion is inevitable; namely that of those who follow the Bible as their guide, the Israelites and the Seventh-day Adventists have the exclusive weight of evidence on their side, whilst the Biblical Protestant has not a word in self defense for his substitution of Sunday for Saturday." Catholic Mirror.
1. Yeah, I read that the other 652,059 times you posted it.
2. If you haven't figured it out by now, printing unnecessarily in really large fonts is generally considered a sign of mental instability on the internet. Or at least extreme obnoxiousness.
3. In no way do I deny that the Roman Catholic church established Sunday as the holy day of the week. What I was asserting is that the Catholic Church had a biblical reason for doing so, since Christ resurrected on a Sunday.
Did you have anything to say, or are you just having fun throwing around foreign language words? Here's a tip: Using "G-d" is one thing. Using "L-rd" is downright silly. The Ancient Jews used "Adonai" (Lord) precisely to avoid writing YHVH. Avoiding writing "Lord," and then using the tetragrammaticon is about as sensible as a vegetarian smack addict.
I pray your name will be found in the book of Life.
2. The font comes from the page I got it from. I realize I have a problem with fonts. I'm seeking a 12 step to get me through.
3. The Bible doesn't say Jesus was resurrected on Sunday. But if it did, what of it? If Jesus was resurrected on Mardi Gras, would the priest toss out beads during communion?
I wonder if you can give a complete and accurate account of the doctrine of praying to Mary in such a way that a Catholic schooled in theology would say,"Yes. That's what we believe and teach."
ping
Well, at least you still have a sense of humor :^D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.