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
Please forgive me and call uncle when I've crossed the line but Truth is, in my opinion, so fundamentally important that we must challenge even our own opinions lest we fail to find it.
In Truth, you completely missed the point of the article.
Yet in reality, by thinking that this was about Orthodoxy to the exclusion of all else, including yourself, you prove to be exclusionary.
This article is about Truth which is absolute (not to be understood that the article is Truth...that can be debated).
Pilate ask Christ "What is Truth?" not realizing that Truth was not a philisophical end but instead Truth was a person and even more true it was a person standing directly in front of Pilate and Pilate missed Him.
The article is a question of fundamental importance..."Who do you say that I am..."
Who is God? The eternal Logos according to St John. O Sophia...The Wisdom...of God. But Christ reveals more: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..." Christ is Truth.
What is important to take away from the article is not whether or not you're Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or any other faith...the importance is to ask yourself "Who is God" (a much deeper question than a name...ie Christ)
Diabolos: Lit. Slanderer
From the very beginning Diabolos has tried to twist our concept of God. "Did God really say that?" "Did God really mean that?" [paraphrased] But mostly Diabolos has desired to drive us from a loving relationship with God by making us believe deeply, in a complex labrynth, that a God that would kill His Son on the cross cannot be all that good.
This isn't about who is right and who is wrong per se. But what do you really believe? Who is the person God? All Good and Loving, Truthful? Or is He vengful. Most will answer the former when they tend like moths to churches with underlying dogma that support the latter.
You may be a rareity. I'm not judging. But have you really asked what you believe.
The article is only a beginning...I've not always been Orthodox. As a matter of fact I was born Protestant and spent most of 30 years as one. Interesting that although I was first appalled as you to read this diagnosis and thought exactly as you did..."The Papists and the Protestants are wrong; we [Orthodox] are right."
But as I began to ask ministers the dogma of the churches I attended, sure enough it was true.
I sought out RC and found the same (along with many other bags).
So as I look in many places I began to extrapolate the theology of what was discussed in this book and began to realize that any other solution to the problem of sin just didn't add up.
The question was, when confronted with a total paradigm shift in theology, was I willing to make it. Lose friends, family, and follow Christ. The answer had to be yes...otherwise I really didn't believe.
It's not a matter of arguing from Orthodox but instead finding that when pitted up against all other theology...the errors cannot lead to Truth.
Christ promised that the "Gates of Hell would not prevail" and the He would send the Spirit of Truth to "guide the Church in all Truth".
One must ask themselves...if this really exists...doesn't this Church have the right to claim absolute Truth. And won't Diabolos try to create so many false truths that it become almost impossible to see Truth when it stand directly in front of you as it did Pilate.
Knowing that it exists and giving each the right to prove it is what it is all about. That is different than starting with the premise that it does not exist and therefore I will not look.
I've given all a chance and only one has no error (not to be misunderstood with human error on a microscale, but on the macroscale in spite of human error has a church maintained the original word of God and has it managed to defend itself against all that is false).
Seek Truth (Christ) and you will find Him...
Of course the sabbath commandment is reitereated in the new testament:
Luk 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
Note that the book of Luke was written 27 years after the death of Christ. The author matter of factly states, 27 years AFTER the death of Christ, that the women rested on the sabbath because of the commandment. The women obeyed this commandment and scripture explicity says that the sabbath is a commandment of God...27 years after the death of Christ.
Reading Jeremaih, it's evident that God was addressing specifically a problem with Jerusalem and his instruction is:
Jer 17:19 Thus said the LORD unto me; Go and stand in the gate of the children of the people, whereby the kings of Judah come in, and by the which they go out, and in all the gates of Jerusalem;
Jer 17:20 And say unto them, Hear ye the word of the LORD, ye kings of Judah, and all Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that enter in by these gates:
Jer 17:21 Thus saith the LORD; Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem;
Jer 17:22 Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.
Apparently the problem WAS that the people were violating the sabbath commandment by working, carrying burdens into Jerusalem as part of working.
There is nothing in scripture that says you are prohibited from carrying anything on the sabbath. That's the type of legalistic thinking that the Pharisee's fell into.
Sorry guy. You could be mistaking that call for indigestion.
Any manjack carrying a bible can make a claim to divine inspiration and many do, funny how Christendom fell into disarray with the advent of the printing press: the devil sifts them like wheat, pride makes them disobedient and rebellious, and we get Mormons and 40,000 denominations of "Christian" and Muslims. No thanks.
x we call those "transitional figures" heretics.
Where does the doctrine of praying to Mary come from? I can't find a single scripture that supports it in the Bible...can you enlighten me?
There is no prohibition about having a fire on the sabbath. In fact, God specifically commands that there be fire on the sabbath for burnt sacrifices:
Num 28:9 And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot, and two tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and the drink offering thereof:
Num 28:10 This is the burnt offering of every sabbath, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering.
Pretty hard to have a burnt offering without a fire.
But then what does this mean:
Exo 35:3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.
Again, it's all about context:
Chapter 35 is all about Moses telling Israel how God instructed them to build the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant:
Exo 35:1 And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them.
The building of the tabernacle required quite a bit of physical labor, as well as melting and smelting of metal. The prohibition against kindling a fire probably refers to the smelting fires, industrial type working fires, that would be needed to do this. Moses is simply reminding them that they shouldn't be working on the tabernacle and the ark on the sabbath day.
Every sect challenged on authority always tries the same thing: witness the Oxford movement's attempts to prove the legitimacy of the Anglican church. It's fruit? Catholics, Roman Catholics.
Any judicious study of history will always lead you back to a Eucharist that is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, a papacy founded on Peter and an apostolic succession. And if you don't cross the Tiber, your loss.
You're kidding yourselves about the legitimacy of your sect.
Just get in your, drive down a highway and count the churches. Whether it's 10,000 or 40,000 it doesn't matter. The order of magnitude is the same. Wheat sifted by Satan.
Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless
Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Mat 12:10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
Mat 12:11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
Mat 12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
Mat 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.
Mar 1:21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
Mar 2:23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
Mar 2:24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Mar 3:2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.
Mar 3:4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
Mar 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
Mar 15:42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,
Mar 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Luk 4:31 And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days.
Luk 6:1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
Luk 6:2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days
Luk 6:5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Luk 6:6 And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.
Luk 6:7 And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.
Luk 6:9 Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?
Luk 13:10 And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.
Luk 13:14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.
Luk 13:15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?
Luk 13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?
Luk 14:1 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.
Luk 14:3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?
Luk 14:5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
Luk 23:54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
Luk 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
Joh 5:9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.
Joh 5:10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.
Joh 5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Joh 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. Joh 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
Joh 9:14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
Joh 9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
Joh 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was a high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
Act 1:12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
Act 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Act 13:27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Act 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures,
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
While the basis of your answer is correct, you avoided answering my question. Maybe you are not a SDA, but in the official SDA "Questions on Doctrine" states, "Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature...Christ took human nature and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He took our nature and its deteriorating condition." (pp. 654-656) Of course if this was true, there could have been no sinless sacrifice, no hope for sinners, no Savior.
From "Seventh Day Adventists Believe... A Biblical Excposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines copy 1988 page 46-47:
"He (Jesus) was made in the "likeness of human flesh" or "sinful human nature" (cf Rom. 8:3). This in no way indicates that Jesus Christ was sinful, or participated in sinful acts or thoughts. Though made in the form or likeness of sinful flesh, He was sinless and His sinlessness is beyond questioning."
I noticed no clear answer. SDA's believe in no assurance, because failure to "keep the law" is loss of salvation. This is salvation by works which clearly violates Eph 2:8&9
10. Experience of Salvation: In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God's grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment. (2 Cor. 5:17-21; John 3:16; Gal. 1:4; 4:4-7; Titus 3:3-7; John 16:8; Gal. 3:13, 14; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Rom. 10:17; Luke 17:5; Mark 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:5-10; Rom. 3:21-26; Col. 1:13, 14; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 8:7-12; Eze. 36:25-27; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rom. 8:1-4; 5:6-10.)
No sign of works based salvation here...
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Plus it ignores verses such as...1John 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Either Christ is sufficient or He needs our help. Which by the way, your "works salvation" is a very Catholic view.
Catholicism is not 100% wrong. That faith is very works based, but the Protestant notion of grace alone leads to abominable doctrines like, "once saved always saved". To elaborate, not stealing for your entire life will never lead to faithin Jesus Christ. Faith in Jesus Christ will most assuredly lead one to not steal, thus one's works are an outward side of their faith. The gift of salvation is free, but man will be judged by his works:
Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Mat 15:6 and in no way he honors his father or his mother. And you voided the commandment of God by your tradition. Mat 15:7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, Mat 15:8 "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Mat 15:9 But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
Jesus is saying right here that running around saying Jesus, Jesus, yet continuing in sin is folly.
Where is the NT verse that states failing to keep the Sabbath is a sin, or we are commanded to keep the Sabbath?
My Bible goes from Genesis to Revelation. But, while this NT scripture does not say the Sabbath specifically, I think you can get the picture. Besides, if Christ would have declared the Sabbath null and void, He would not have been Christ but a false prophet.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Who is this remnant in the end time keeping the Commandments and having the Testimony of Jesus Christ?
me:"The Sabbath is the foremost thing we can do to show God we love Him." you:Where is your Scriptural support for that line?
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
I regard taking a day out of the week to honor the Creator of the universe in the way He commanded us to do so rather hightly. There are only 2 Commandments out of the 10 that tell us to do something rather than to NOT do something. Both of them honor creation.
I believe you don't face up to this question because you know that you fail to keep the Sabbath by the standards laid down in Levidicus (sunset to sunset), Jerimiah (no burden carried), and Exodus (fire and cooking). If you fail to keep one of the Commands you fail them all.
I am a sinner, but you ask such questions so as to attack me. It happens almost every time I debate the Sabbath. The sunday keepers always want to license their wilfull sin by showing the sins of others. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Of course you can and should worship God every day of the week. But what is the problem with giving Him the day He commanded? Please, tell me why you guys are so incredibly adamant about not keeping the Sabbath? Do you actually believe in a Judgement and a Resurrection? What standard will Jesus use to Judge us if not the perfect Law of God?
Where does it say this? I'll tell you you where it doesn't say this. [Matthew 28:1]
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Like I said before, that is the same broad logic Catholics use to justify Mary as having special intercessory powers.
Jesus' words actually contradict the worship of Mary:
Luk 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. Luk 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
So do Pauls':
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
As I have posted earlier, the Scriptures uphold the Sabbath from Genesis to Revelation. Your likening Sabbatarians to Catholics adds nothing to the discussion.
Next, you confuse the word rest with worship. Worship went on in the Temple and Tabernacle seven days a week (except for some national religious holidays). Where is the command to worship on Saturdays for Christians?
You are correct. Keeping the Sabbath holy does not require atending services. However, the tradition of attending sevices and fellowshipping with like minded Christians on the Sabbath is scriptural and I feel very healthy.
1 Corinthians 16:1-3. This verse corresponds to Romans 15:25 and also Acts 11:28. There was a severe famine in Judea (and the entire Roman world) during the reign of Claudius and Paul and Barnabas made an effort to take collections to the poor among the Saints in Jerusalem. These verses say nothing of a religious service being conducted on the first of the week....only that everyone should make a contribution then.
1 Corinthians 16:2 in the Greek. Notice that it doesn't even say....first day of the week. It says "First of week". Since the Sabbath ended at sundown these collections for the poor saints in Jerusalem just may have been collected after Sabbath services were over. Don't know because it really doesn't say......but it also doesn't say anything about a religious service here.
"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.""
Catholics pray to Mary to "put in a good word" with Jesus. Their rationale is that because she was His earthly mother, He'll listen to her. They say they don't worship her, merely honor her, although they do pray to her and kneel before idols of her. Catholic doctrine also says she was sinless and taken into Heaven without dying.
Is that a fairly accurate summary of what Cathlolics believe?
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.