Tired of the Bible

"I am not ignorant, that as the Israelites loathed the manna, because that every day they saw and ate but one thing, so some there be nowadays, (who will not be holden of the worst sort) that after once reading some parcels of Scripture, so commit themselves altogether to profane authors and human lectures, because that the variety of matter therein contained doeth bring with it daily delectation, wherein contrarywise within the simple Scriptures of God the perpetual repetition of one thing is fashious and wearisome. This temptation, I confess, may enter in God’s elect for a time, but impossible is it that therein they continue to the end; for God’s election, besides other evident signs, hath this ever joined with it, that God’s elect are called from ignorance (I speak of those that are come to the years of knowledge) to some taste and feeling of God’s mercy, of which they are never so satisfied in this life, but from time to time they hunger and they thirst to eat the bread descended from heaven and to drink the water that springeth to life everlasting; which they cannot do but by the means of faith, and faith looketh ever to the will of God revealed by the Word, so that faith hath both her beginning and continuance by the Word of God. And so I say, that impossible it is that God’s chosen children can despise or reject the word of their salvation of any long continuance, neither yet loathe it to the end."

 John Knox – Letter of Wholesome Counsel

Review of William Whitaker's "A Disputation on Holy Scripture"

Imagine the most lop-sided competition you can think of - Rocky Marciano versus a 0-100 light flyweight, the 1927 Yankees versus the 1962 Mets, Garry Kasparov versus Homer Simpson - that's what this book feels like. 

Whitaker’s magnum opus is a reply to the Jesuit hero of the Counter-Reformation, Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621). As good a controversialist as Bellarmine may have been, he was so overwhelmingly outclassed by Whitaker that it was almost embarrassing. Whitaker takes on Bellarmine’s defense of the Roman Catholic “unwritten tradition,” and pounds it into cream. The reason that Whitaker’s work is so overpowering is that he takes Bellarmine apart point by point. This work is not simply a reply to any single work of Bellarmine, but against his career-long apology for Romish ‘tradition.’ 

Whitaker wastes no effort in his manhandling of Bellarmine. A key feature is that, rather than stack up countless Patristic citations against Bellarmine, Whitaker goes to the exact same Patristic sources Bellarmine cites to demonstrate that Bellarmine has both cherry-picked his citations and ignored the larger context of the actual citation. He does this so often that you feel tempted to either pity Ballarmine or simply despise his as a rank fool. 

Whitaker points out the ways in which the Fathers used the word tradition. There are 4 ways, says Whitaker, in which the word ‘tradition’ is used by the Fathers: (1) In reference to the Scriptures, (2) in reference to the doctrines of Scripture, (3) in reference to indifferent traditions, regarding which the Fathers are often at odds with each other, (4) in reference to traditions highly valued by the Fathers which Rome does not practice. Uses 1 and 2 are twisted by Bellarmine into an argument from silence in defense of unwritten tradition. This is something Whitaker shows cannot be sustained by either the immediate context of the Patristic citation in question or the overall work of the Father cited. Uses 3 and 4 are conveniently ignored by Bellarmine. Whitaker gives no quarter.

Another defense Bellarmine has recourse to is the claim that Scripture is not intended to be the rule of doctrine and practice, but merely a ‘commonitory’ i.e., a manual for good living. Whitaker mops the floor with this argument as well. First he notes how deceptive Rome is because they themselves refer to the Scriptures as the “canonical’ Scriptures. ‘Canon,’ by definition means a RULE. Plainly, Bellarmine is being duplicitous, and Whitaker wastes no time pointing this out. Secondly, Whitaker points out that if Scripture were merely meant as a rule-book or manual for good Christian living, it could stand to be a lot shorter. Anyone can see, that by this standard, Scripture contains much that is either irrelevant or superfluous. 

Bellarmine then flips and says that Scripture is indeed a rule, however, not the only rule. Whitaker shows the logical fallacy involved in this position as well. First of all, Bellarmine’s duplicity shows itself in bright colors here since he has just asserted that Scripture is not a rule. When he gets schooled on the very Patristic sources he has used (rather, abused) to promote this assertion, he then attempts to sidestep Whitaker by saying that Scripture is a rule, just not the sole rule. This is, of course, logically inconsistent. Scripture cannot serve as a rule unless it is the only rule. Bellarmine is too smart to get away with such poor reasoning, and Whitaker won’t let him.

A most amusing feature about Bellarmine's defense of 'tradition' against the sufficiency of Scripture, relegating Scripture to functioning as a ‘commonitory,’ is that this is exactly the position argued by so-called ‘Evangelicals’ today. Who would’ve thought that people who are supposedly on Whitaker’s side would be treating Scripture exactly as the Counter-Reformation Jesuit enemies of the Gospel of Whitaker’s day? The feel-good evangelical preachers of our day constantly refer to Scripture as God’s “owner’s manual” for life. I’ve heard it a million times from the popular TV preachers and their multitudinous mimics. Joel Osteen=Robert Bellarmine – who knew? Whitaker must by turning in his grave! 

This is an excellent book and worth the effort on every level. It contains a wealth of Scriptural arguments for the sufficiency of Scripture. I have tangled with a few Romish apologists who like to assert that Scripture doesn't teach our doctrine of ‘sola Scriptura.’ Five minutes with the book will explode that assertion for the idiocy that it is. If you are looking for a defense of the sufficiency of Scripture, look no further.

The Charismatic Movement And The Deformation Of The Church

The Charismatic Movement and the Deformation of the Church

Rev Dr Wayne Pearce



My subject this evening is ‘The Charismatic Movement and the de-formation of the church.’ And I wish to begin my address by quoting you the words of the Lord Jesus Christ who says:Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? [miracles] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Mt 7:21-22). Now please note the Lord Jesus is making very clear to us that what is truly fundamental and foundational is our obedience to the revealed will of God which is solely contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and not in the outward manifestations of the work of the Spirit. We read in the Book of Deuteronomy: The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law (Deut 29:29). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Illumination: He is the One who leads God’s people into all truth and testifies of and reveals Christ to us. He enables God’s elect not only to hear the word which is foolishness to the natural man but to believe and trust it unto salvation which is through faith in Jesus Christ. And then the Spirit works in us to conform us to the image and likeness of Christ through our appropriation and application of the Word.

In 2007 the Rev Maurice Roberts addressed the Northern Reformed Fellowship on the subject of Martin Luther and the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and in his introduction, if I recall correctly, he rightly informed us that, generally speaking, there had been three great periods or epochs in the history of the church leading up to and including that glorious revival of biblical Christianity in the 16th century. Firstly he reminded us that there was the formation of the New Testament church built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone (Eph 2:20). And we read of its origins and initial expansion through the preaching of the gospel and the whole council of God in the Acts of the Apostles and the New Testament epistles. And this period of formation he suggested lasted up until around the 5th and 6th centuries as the church grew numerically and established itself throughout the Western world. However this time of formation was tragically followed by a long, ever darkening, period of de-formation under the usurped authority of the papacy and the near universal establishment and hegemony of Roman Catholicism. And the thing that truly precipitated and promoted this deformation in the church I believe was her departure from the doctrine and teaching of Holy Scripture. She failed to hear and heed the word of God which is disobedience and rebellion.

To read the rest of this article click here.
To hear the audio message click here.

Another One Crosses The Tiber

There is hardly a more clearly stated and argued belief among all the Reformers than that the Pope is antichrist. Even the most cursory glance at the writings of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, (the list could go on for pages) and one will see repeated and sustained references to this belief. They all held it unwaveringly and taught it unequivocally that the Pope of Rome is in very fact Antichrist.

This is the view which obtained in all the churches of the Reformation. However this view has fallen on hard times. There are a number of reasons why this has happened, but none of them have anything to do with the facts. It is very hip in Reformed circles to speak of the need for constant theological reassessment of our positions and not relying on the Reformers as if everything they wrote was infallible. This ostensible attempt at humility, while appearing to run counter to the Romish doctrine of papal infallibility, actual produces quite Romish results.

For starters, this Reformed distinctive (that the Pope is the antichrist), falling on hard times as it has, creates a very lenient view of error in the circles of its adherents. Affirm that the Reformers were wrong, or at least unfairly biased on this count, and you have undermined much of the Reformation itself. The whole purpose in founding Reformed congregations was because Rome is a false church: an Anti-church, if you will. It is led by a man who claims to be God’s stand-in here on earth vested with all the authority of the Almighty. The title he goes by, vicar of Christ, actually means “one who is in Christ’s place.” The Greek prefix anti does not mean “against” as it does in English; it means “in the place of.” Hence the Pope’s very title means antichrist. You would have thought that someone would have suggested something a little less obvious.

As for the religion itself, it really is antichristian in the truest sense of the word. John says that a defining trait of antichrist is the denial that Christ has come in the flesh. Of course, very few (except, of course, the Jesus Seminar) are so bold as to deny the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. But denying that he came in the flesh does not necessarily mean denying that Jesus was a historical figure, nor does it have to be a retreat into Docetism. Popery denies Christ came in the flesh in a much more concrete, yet subtle way. What does that mean? Surely I can’t mean that they deny the Incarnation? No, not on paper they don’t. But in actions, they do. The entirety of their religion is a reversion to pre-Incarnation ritual and ceremony, which is in practice a denial and rejection of all that Christ accomplished. Their trademark mass is, as the Heidelberg Catechism puts it, “nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.” (Q80) Denying the sacrifice and sufferings of Christ is tantamount to denying that He came in the flesh, for these were the reasons why he came in the flesh!

No less authority than the Apostle John, (inspired by God, thus no less authority than God Himself) asserts plainly and unequivocally that to deny Christ came in the flesh is the hallmark of Antichrist.

I went into that rather verbose digression to explain why Evangelicals, like Jason Stellman are perverting to Rome. Rome denies outright the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura. We all know that. This is, in fact, one of the reasons why the Reformers held that the Pope is the Antichrist! He sits as God over the Church when he denies that the Scripture is not sufficient for doctrine and practice and then affirms on top of this that he alone is the channel through which God interacts with the Church. This is the very essence of the spirit of antichrist. Stellman’s own words betray his Romish views: "I have begun to doubt whether the Bible alone can be said to be our only infallible authority for faith and practice…”

It is quite vogue among Reformed people to deny that the pope is the antichrist. It will be affirmed, of course, that Roman Catholicism is a false religion, but let’s not lose our heads. Whatever the other contributing factors may be to this latest defection from the truth, this weakened position regarding Rome is no doubt a significant contributor.

Popish Roots of Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology

Yesterday, we annihilated Rome’s rejection of Sola Scriptura by her appeal to “Tradition”. Today I would like to show how her appeal to Tradition is almost exactly mirrored in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement. Though I realize how offensive this proposition might seem to many, as one who has labored in Gospel ministry for many years, I feel it incumbent upon me to speak the truth in this matter. Upon Augustine’s conversion to Christianity, he expended a great deal of energy refuting the Manichaeism he was once an adherent of. Likewise, as one who was formerly beguiled by the Pentecostalist arguments, I feel compelled to refute them. I do this, not to soothe my own conscience or to reassure myself as to the rightness of my rejection of said doctrines, but in the hopes that others, who were duped like I was, will see the truth and return to the position of the Reformation.

Yesterday I presented and refuted Rome’s appeals to history and Tradition. Today I will attempt to demonstrate how this appeal is mirrored in the way Pentecostals and Charismatics argue for their continuing revelation by means of Tongues and prophecies.

We noted previously that it is a mistake to think that the difference between Protestants and Rome is that we believe in the Scripture alone, while Rome believes in Scripture plus Tradition. Rome places both Scripture and Tradition under the feet of the papacy. Both are subject to the supposed infallibility of her Pope. There is no basis for this in Scripture. There is not the least suggestion in the Bible that peculiar authority of Christ’s Apostles would ever be handed on to anyone else.

In case any should suspect that I have gone too far afield in debunking the papal appeal to Tradition in an attempt to link it to the Charismatic movement, I assure I did not go off on a tangent. The Romish appeal to Tradition produces in her at least four errors which appear virtually unchanged in Pentecostal and Charismatic teaching.

1. Scripture does not even hint at a continuing Apostolate. Rome considers the Pope to be the successor of Peter, thus making, at least Peter’s apostolate, continual. Charismatics are now, like Rome, asserting a continuing ministry of Apostles. In Acts, however, when Judas Iscariot was to be replaced as an Apostle, the condition of Apostleship was physical presence with Christ from the time of His baptism until His ascension. Even at that early date, only two men fit the bill. Matthias was chosen. So unless Joseph “Barsabas” Justus is still alive, there is no living human being, now or ever, who can be added to the number of the Apostles.

2. Rome believes that the oral message originally spoken by Christ and His Apostles was far more extensive than the written message that is contained in the Bible. In actual substance, this is indistinguishable from John Wimber’s infamous refrain that God is a lot bigger than His Word. This is the whole basis undergirding for all messages of so-called prophecy or Tongues. God is allowed to expand on what He has already revealed, thus the body of revelation, to borrow Vatican II’s words, is developing. The appeal to a dream, vision, or mystical experience as a conveying instrument of God’s truth is in no significant way different than the Romish appeal to unwritten tradition.

3. Continuation of the revelatory sign gifts has always been a distinctive Papist belief. B.B. Warfield wrote, “Pretensions by any class of men to the possession and use of miraculous powers as a permanent endowment are, within the limits of the Christian Church, a specialty of Roman Catholicism. Denial of these pretensions is part of the protest by virtue of which we are called Protestants.”

Medieval Catholic mystics had visions which have been given the stamp of papal authority. Many of these visions lead to teachings that are virtually indistinguishable from Hindu pantheism. We now have Pentecostals and Charismatic having visions in which they claim to speak personally with the risen Christ. Kenneth Copeland claims to have had a vision in which Christ told him personally, “I never claimed to be God.” Benny Hinn has claimed to see Jesus’ actual footprints in the carpet of his bedroom, when Scripture definitively asserts that Christ will remain in heaven until the consummation.

4. Benny Hinn’s fascination with the grave of Kathryn Kuhlman rivals any piece of relic worship from the Middle Ages. Many Charismatic ministries send their supporters water from Galilee and other relics from the Holy Land.

I have in a previous post referred to Pentecostalism as ‘closet popery.’ I fear that the only reason that the term ‘closet’ is applicable is because most modern Christian are ignorant of the Gospel truths for which our Protestant forbearers lived and died. If the vile blasphemy of the Mass were known to the generality of Christians today, Benny Hinn would have been laughed off TV when he stated that when we take communion we are ingesting the actual body and blood of Christ.

Before I wrap this post up, I should also note that, at bottom, Rome’s theology of salvation is Pelagian. Much of what passes for Evangelical soteriology is equally Pelagian. This can be seen most clearly in all forms of Arminianism. Augustus Toplady, author of the hymn Rock of Ages, called Arminianism the “road to Rome.” The obsession with “free-will” that plagues Arminianism can be seen in Erasmus, whom Luther confuted in his Bondage of the Will. Water does not rise higher than its source. If you start out with Romish presuppositions, don’t be surprised when you come to Romish conclusions too.

Let us hold fast to Scripture and not be turned aside from the simplicity of the Gospel. Let us always “Remember the Alamo” of the Reformation. Never let our stance against apostate Rome, and all apostate churches ever soften or grow slack.

Rome's Appeal to Tradition Refuted

Rome builds her claims upon the notion that God could never have left the Church without a visible head and infallible guide on earth. Therefore we must have a Pope in Rome. Herbert Carson pointedly asks that if we take it as a proposition that to protect the purity of doctrine God could never leave His Church without a visible head and infallible guide on earth, by the same logic, would you not also have to conclude that God would never leave the Church with a visible and infallible head who would lead the Church in morality? Are we to believe that Rome’s Popes have guarded the truth of Christian doctrine undefiled when many of them were vile and reprehensible heretics, atheists, fornicators, liars, profligates, thieves, sellers of holy office and murderers? Are we to believe that God cares more that His Church’s doctrine remains protected than He is that her life reflects the teachings of such doctrines? Does God place orthodoxy of belief so far above orthodoxy of behavior that He gives us Popes to protect the purity of doctrine, even as these Pope live despicable and degenerate lives? These descriptions of the Popes are not mine; they are given by Roman Catholic historians. When Lord Acton said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, he had the power of the papacy in view. There were centuries in which the Popes of Rome were the most vile products of the moral sewers of Europe. Yet Rome asserts that Christ would never dream of leaving His Church without a head. My response is to ask whether anyone in his right mind could believe that Christ would inflict His body on earth with such a head!

Like the Romish attempt to make the Bible testify against itself, the Pentecostal/Charismatic ship has already been sunk, I think, based on what we deduced yesterday from Scripture about its own sufficiency. There is no contradiction in saying that at one time, recourse to revelatory sign gifts in the Church was good, and indeed necessary. But notice that this was all occurring at a time when the canon of the New Testament was as yet not closed. Once God closed the canon with a curse upon anyone who adds to it, no possibility is left for any further revelations from God. If it is not in Scripture, it is not important or necessary for salvation. It is one thing to say that Tongues and prophecy occur in the pages of Scripture, but quite another to say that these things are meant to continue after the close of the canon. When Agabus prophesied, he did not speak some unrecorded message about which we can only conjecture. His actual words are recorded in Scripture as part of the body of revelation which God seemed fit to bequeath to His people.

First then, let me give Rome’s position again in her own words by quoting from Vatican II. “In order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, handing over their own teaching role to them. This Sacred Tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments, are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from Whom She has received everything until She is brought finally to see Him as He is face to face. Therefore, the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast the tradition which they had learned either by word of mouth or by letters (2 Thess. 2:15). This Tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit to the successors of the Apostles. Sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s Word. And consequently, it is not from the Scripture alone draws Her certainty about everything which has been revealed.”

It is no secret that Rome make a great appeal to history. If you ever debate a Romanist, you will find that this is the first road they take. But, just as we showed yesterday that their appeal to the Bible is bogus, likewise we will show how their appeal to history is fraudulent also.

After the first sentence of paragraph of the Vatican II statement, they provide via a footnote a citation from Irenaeus’ Against Heresies to prove the antiquity of the notion that Apostolic Tradition and the teaching role of the Apostles was handed down to the bishops as their successors.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. So in Irenaeus we have an almost direct link to the Apostles themselves. And if someone is not careful enough to read his actual words, merely accepting Rome’s appeal to him, he will undoubtedly be swayed by what appears to be the voice of antiquity. Irenaeus was sent to Lyons, where he labored and died as a martyr. In his early ministry there, he was alarmed by the spread of heresy. So he felt compelled to go to Rome to raise a cry against the incursion of heretics. When he got there however, he found that bishop of Rome was patronizing the Montanist heresy. So he returned to Lyon and undertook his lifework, Against Heresies. In this work, Irenaeus, rather than supporting the notion that Rome protects the Church’s doctrine inviolate, rebukes the Roman bishops for adhering to heresy.

When one looks up what Irenaeus actually says, one sees immediately how fraudulent Rome’s appeal to him is. In the section of his work cited, Irenaeus is dealing with Gnostics. He writes, “When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For they allege that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce.” (Against Heresies 3.2.1) The view Irenaeus is refuting here is the exact same position Rome accuses him of affirming. It boggles the mind that Vatican II had the gall to cite this passage in their favor.

Irenaeus was in effect saying, “When I rout you from Scripture, you appeal to tradition. I am a disciple of Polycarp, who was taught the Gospel by John. Don’t tell me about tradition. I am in a much better position to argue tradition than you are.” But he was not setting up that tradition, as Rome does, as a counterpart to or parallel authority of Scripture. And at 3.3.2, where we are told by Romish editors of Irenaeus of the passage that is difficult to interpret, we find Irenaeus simply saying that Rome was the center of the Catholic world because it was the center of the Roman empire. And as such it was a place to which people traveled from all over the world. These people, many of whom he names, are people who have either a direct link to the Apostles or a one person gap between them and the Apostles, when coming to Rome carry the true teaching. Hence Irenaeus could point to Rome, not as the sun giving light to all the churches, but as a mirror, reflecting a picture of the entire Catholic world’s teaching. These, people, close as they were to the Apostle, could not be fooled by invented traditions. Irenaeus’ entire point is that when the Gnostics are defeated by Scriptural argument, they resort to an unwritten tradition. But Irenaeus shows that on that front, he has the advantage over them as well. So when we compare this to what he wrote in his preface to Book 3, we see that the tradition Irenaeus appeals to he uses in support of what he has already established from Scripture.

Rome argues that the Scriptures are ambiguous. She argues that since the Gospel was originally spoken, we must get past what was written to what was spoken. This was not the position of early Christians: it was the position of early Gnostics! Shame on Rome for insulting anyone's intelligence with such illogic!

Rome claims that the task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living Teaching Office of the Church of Rome. Rome claims to be the one true Mother Church and to be 2,000 years old. But in that entire 2,000 years Roman bishops have NEVER turned out an authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Rome’s Popes have never given an authoritative interpretation of Scripture, while all the while protesting that no one else has the authority to do so.

Moreover, there has often been more than one Pope. From 1309 to 1429 there were two Popes, one in Avignon and one in Rome. Which one was the infallible head then? In fact during this span, there was a time when there were three Popes. One of the dual Popes was John XXIII. When the previous Pope John was elected, they called him John XXIII, when he was actually XXIV, to expunge from history the first John XXIII, who was a legitimate Pope. These two authoritative visible and infallible heads of the Church anathematized each other, accused each other of being Anti-Christ, each damning the other and his followers to hell. Yet both professed to be the vicar of Christ. Both Popes were appointed because of political considerations. The scandalous nature of the politics of medieval Europe is well known.

Worse yet, there were times when there was a necessity for the Pope to give a definitive statement of truth, but we find the Popes dragging their feet for decades, even centuries, waiting to see how the theological battle would turn out before any statement was ever made. For example, it took the pope over 500 years to define the Immaculate Conception of Mary as a dogma that was necessary unto salvation. The debate began to rage in the 14th Century, but the Pope waited around until 1854. If the Pope was right, then Bernard, Bonaventura and Thomas Aquinas must all be in hell because they did not believe in this dogma which the Pope in 1854 claimed was an Apostolic Tradition necessary for salvation.

It took the Pope until 1870 to define his own infallibility. This dogma was not, as Romish apologist claim, something that the church had always believed and which was merely articulated at Vatican I. Prior to 1870, it was often asserted by Rome that the doctrine of papal infallibility was a Protestant invention and not a true Roman doctrine. The Apostles never defined as truth something that has been proven to be wrong, but the Pope has many times infallibly defined something to be true, only to find out later that he was wrong. In 1802, the infallible Pope canonized St. Filomena. Her bones were worshipped because she was declared to have been a martyr under Diocletian. Not long later, however, even the Pope had to admit that St. Filomena never even existed. For centuries, the infallible Popes used the Donation of Constantine and the Isodorian Decretals for his benefit, both of which have been discovered to be forgeries.

Among the supposedly infallible popes was Liberius, an Arian, who excommunicated Athanasius from the Church. Rome has the unmitigated gall to now call him St. Athanasius, totally sweeping under the rug the fact that her own Pope excommunicated a universally recognized champion of orthodoxy. Zosimus, claiming Apostolic authority, declared Pelagius and Coelestius to be absolutely orthodox in direct confrontation with Augustine, the greatest name in all of theological literature. Vigilius wavered between Eutychianism (monophysitism) and Nestorianism. When he finally made an official pronouncement, he defined Nestorianism as Biblical orthodoxy. He withdrew this statement when the Council of Constantinople in 553 condemned Nestorius as a heretic. Constantinople III declared Honorius to be a heretic in 680/1. Sixtus V gave his stamp of approval to an edition of the Vulgate, only to have it withdrawn immediately and revised for more than 3,000 crass errors that needed to be corrected. This was after officially declaring, “By the fullness of Apostolic power, we decree and declare this edition approved by the authority delivered us by the Lord, is to be received as true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned in all public and private discussion, reading, preaching and explanation.” Pope Urban VIII excommunicated Galileo for believing that Scripture is true, but that the Pope’s interpretation of Psalm 93:1 was mistaken. It was not until 1831 that Rome removed its anathema from Galileo by removing Galileo and Copernicus from the Index of Forbidden Books.

All of the above suggests two things: 1. Rome’s use of Church history is often misleading, and 2. Her theory of tradition has in fact, never worked. This leads to a further observation, namely, that Rome’s Tradition is obvious imposture. The only way to validate or authenticate that the Apostles ever said or did something is by appealing to the Bible. When one analyzes Romish tradition it becomes obvious that the whole body of it serves the Pope, his pocket and his titanic ego. How are we to believe that the selling of Indulgences was conceived to help poor souls in Purgatory, when Rome made out on them like a bandit? Rome and her popes are always the beneficiaries of the “Sacred Tradition,” and the benefit is almost always monetary. Is this not cause for suspicion?

Rome's Rejection of Sola Scriptura

First we should define what we mean by Sola Scriptura. In essence we mean that in the Bible God has graciously given His Church a sure and certain guide, a final Arbiter, a perfect vehicle of revelation that is without fault and without error. In all matters that bind the consciences of believers, in all matters that settle theological disputes, in all matters that guide us in what we are to believe and do, God has given us His revelation in the written Word of God. Scripture and Scripture only is the sure and sufficient guide and rule for all matters of doctrine and practice. As the Reformers used to say, “Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum.” What is not Biblical is not theological.

The Reformers recognized that God’s word was not always written. There was a time when it was oral. But the principle of Sola Scriptura affirms that those days are over. God has consummated the revelation by which He wishes His Church to live and definitively committed it to writing. Sola Scriptura does not deny that in matters of custom, the practice of God’s people for centuries may have weight with us, but rather it affirms that those traditions must be judged by Scripture and Scripture is never judged by those traditions. The most important feature of Sola Scriptura is that we believe that everything that is necessary for salvation will be found in the Bible. If it is not Biblical, it is not part of Christian belief. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” I ask: what else is there outside of doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness and preparation for holy living? Is this not the entirety of Christian doctrine and practice? The word rendered “perfect” is the Greek word ἄρτιος, which means complete. If no other relevant passage of Scripture existed, this would be sufficient to put the final nail in the coffin of the Romish imposture concerning Scripture and tradition.

Ever since Rome began crafting her elaborate system of apostasy, she has feared the Bible; that is why she attacked Sola Scriptura at the very outset of the Reformation. In fact, even as far back as 1229 at the Council of Valencia, Rome placed the Bible on the Index of Forbidden Books in response to minuscule attempts to get the Vulgate in the languages of the people. This was before the printing press! Why does Rome fear the Bible? Because there is not one single distinctive Roman Catholic dogma that is founded on Scripture! Every single one, from Mariolatry, to the vile blasphemy of the Mass, to the veneration of images, to the doctrine of Purgatory, to works of supererogation, to auricular confession to a priest - all of them stem from a nonexistent unwritten "Sacred Tradition."

This “Tradition” is a supposed body of oral truth passed on by the Apostles to their successors, the Bishops of the Roman church, but especially to the Bishop of Rome, which has been kept pure by them throughout the ages. In the words of Vatican II: “In order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, handing over their own teaching role to them.” Let me interject here that this in direct contradiction to the Bible! Hebrews 4:12 says that Scripture is “quick and powerful.” It does not need an oral tradition entrusted to bishops to be effectual and alive. Are we to believe that the Bishops of Rome have kept the Gospel wholly pure when we know for a fact that many of them were heretics, atheists, profligates and murderers?

Vatican II continues, “This Sacred Tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments, are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from Whom She has received everything until She is brought finally to see Him as He is face to face. Therefore, the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast the tradition which they had learned either by word of mouth or by letters (2 Thess. 2:15). This Tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit to the successors of the Apostles. Sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s Word. And consequently, it is not from the Scripture alone draws Her certainty about everything which has been revealed.”

Hence we see the utter hypocrisy and imposture of Rome when she claims to believe the Bible and that it is the word of God, for clearly she places her own “Tradition” above Scripture as its judge and interpreter. Therefore, Tradition outweighs Scripture as the source of Romish dogma. Indeed Rome’s Tradition is outranked by the Pope, since he alone decides what this Tradition contains. Every new papal bull (an accurate term if ever there was one!) asserts that what the Pope is now teaching is in accordance with this Tradition. No one could ever verify this since he claims to be the sole possessor of it. Talk about a ‘fixed fight.” When Protestants claim that the difference between us and the Roman Catholics is that we believe in Scripture alone and Catholics believe in Scripture plus tradition, they are missing the point. The fact is that Rome places herself above both Scripture and her "Tradition."

The favorite argument of Romish apologists against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is their assertion that the Bible doesn't teach it. This is the most brazen piece of two-faced nonsensical hogwash imaginable. I think I am being kind in stating it that nicely. The unspoken assumption is that if you can prove Sola Scriptura from the Bible then Rome will accept it. But once they say that they have ceded the argument. It is nothing but a diabolical, hypocritical, convoluted piece of sophistry. If Papists would be willing to accept the truth of Sola Scriptura upon the explicit teaching of the Bible, then why won't they submit their other whoredoms to the bar of Scripture? If Rome could produce Scripture for her abominations, do you think she would ever make the crass appeal to some mysterious, unwritten tradition? If the Romish apologists are willing to believe that Scriptural proof is sufficient when it comes to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, why are they not willing to hold the same position in regard to the doctrines of the Mass, Purgatory, Indulgences or Merit?

Here are Rome’s biblical “proofs” that the Bible does not claim to be sufficient. And let me just interject here that again this is horrendously blatant hypocrisy. Rome pretends to make an appeal to Scripture, and to believe that this is sufficient! Indeed she is actually trying to make Scripture testify against itself. Here are her “proofs”:

• John 21:25 – “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

Based on this Rome asks: How could the Bible be sufficient if there is so many things not written down? No Protestant in his right mind would deny that Jesus did things that are not in the Bible, nor that the Apostles knew things that are not in the Bible. What we are affirming however, is that all that the Lord has made necessary for salvation is recorded in Scripture. This passage does not give the slightest ghost of a loophole for Rome’s position. If the Magisterium of Rome is all they say it is, and if Tradition is all they say it is, why would there be a need for any authoritative written revelation from God? No Romish apologist has ever tackled that question.

Never mind the fact that oral tradition always gets corrupted. The farther one gets from the source, the worse it gets. But when an oral tradition is all one has, this tradition can get corrupted even at the very source itself. When Israel was in the wilderness, they apostatized to golden calf worship within 40 days during Moses’ absence. If Israel, with only an oral revelation, and on the heels of a miraculous deliverance from Egypt, could degenerate so quickly - would we not have to be deranged to believe that Rome has kept Tradition pure for nearly 2000 years? This is sheer idiocy! That is why God selected what was necessary for salvation and committed it to writing.

• 1 Corinthians 11:2, 34 “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you… And the rest will I set in order when I come.”

From this passage, Rome asserts that there are ordinances which are not written in Scripture. But I would ask: By what stretch of the imagination can they infer that from these verse? Who is to say that the ordinances to which Paul is referring are not the very ones he is addressing in this epistle?

• 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

Protestants would believe any Apostolic teaching. If Paul came into a church and said, “This is a truth from God,” we would believe it. But the question is: How do we know an Apostolic teaching? It is easy to identify it as such if it is written. But if someone comes along 1800 years after Paul has died and says, “This is an Apostolic tradition,” how am I to know that this is in fact true? The only way to know and verify it is to judge it by Scripture. Period!

• 2 Timothy 1:13, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.”

This, Rome says, is supposed to undermine Sola Scriptura. I defy anyone to defend a position, even in a small claims court, on such flimsy evidence, and see how far he gets!

• John 20:31, “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:”

Here again, Rome appeals to unwritten tradition. Certainly, at the beginning of the Apostolic era Gospel truth was largely in an oral format. The Apostles preached before they wrote. But the evidence indicates that the Apostles set about writing their Gospels and Epistles at a very early stage. But more to the point is John’s statement in the very next verse. John says, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” Here we have a definitive Apostolic clarification that, whatever Jesus may have done or said that is not recorded in Scripture, what is recorded is sufficient for faith and practice. Let Rome put that in her pipe and smoke it!

As I said earlier, if Rome’s apologists could establish the doctrines of Purgatory, merit, supererogation, a sacrificing priesthood and the rights and privileges of the papacy, they would not be expending so much energy on tradition. They know that if the appeal was made to Scripture alone, the whole ship of their carefully crafted system of religion would be sunk.

The Missionary "Tongues" Story

Ever since I was a child, I have often encountered a particular story. It is something of an urban legend in certain church circles.

It goes like this: There was a missionary who met up with a person, usually a tribeman of some sort in a remote jungle area, with whom he wished to share the Gospel. Unfortunately, though, they could not understand each other's languages. Somehow the missionary felt compelled to open his mouth and just speak. To his surprise, he found himself speaking the other person's language fluently, though not aware of what he was saying. The tribesman was miraculously converted.

I have heard a dozen or more incarnations of this story, but those are the central story factors that are always present. As I said earlier, in some church circles, especially Pentecostal ones, this is something of an urban legend. It is always recounted third or fourth hand. I have never spoken with someone who actually claims to have personally had this experience.

The unspoken assumption, and often very clearly spoken assumption, of this story is that egghead cessationists are wrong and the supernatural sign gift of tongues still functions in the church today. Usually, this idea is further 'established' by claiming that while much of the tongues speaking that goes on in many Pentecostal churches is fraudulent, this kind must be real because it occurs in situations that seem to replicate the condition of the 1st Century Church.

This is a problematic assumption. I am not satisfied that this situation replicates the situation of the Apostolic age. I don't think it even comes within a hundred miles of the situation that existed on the Day of Pentecost.

1. On Pentecost, there was, as yet, no New Testament.

2. Tongues did not miraculously preach the Gospel to people in need of an interpreter.

3. The 3,000 converts were converted by Peter's plain preaching of the Gospel in Aramaic, a language they all understood anyway. Peter did not preach in tongues. The witnesses, though fluent in other languages, were all Jews who understood Peter's Aramaic sermon. The elect were converted, the non-elect mocked them, in direct fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11-12.

4. Pentecost was the event wherein the New Testament Church emerged from the cocoon of the Old Testament Church. This can never be repeated.

5. Virtually the entire visible church was present - something that has not been repeated since.

6. Tongues, on the Day of Pentecost, was not a conversation between a believer and an unbeliever. It was not an evangelism tool.

In short, Tongues was not a solution of how to preach to someone whose language Peter and the Apostles did not speak. It was not a miracle to overcome the absence of an interpreter. Every one present was Jewish; they all spoke Aramaic. Peter preached to them immediately after the tongues event occurred. He did not preach in tongues; he preached in Aramaic. Furthermore when one compares 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 with Isaiah 28:11,12 one sees that the occurrence of tongues on Pentecost was a sign of God's judgment upon unbelieving Israel. This was proven on Pentecost. The elect repented upon hearing Peter's sermon. The rest, judged as unbelievers, simply mocked the Apostles.

When people interpret "sign to the unbeliever" to mean that it is something that convinces an otherwise skeptical person, they flatly misunderstand the text. The idea of a sign in Scripture is always a judgment. Besides that, God never performs miracles like as if they were tricks to convince doubters. This turns the power of the Holy Spirit to a parlor trick.

A further problem arises when we wonder about the validity of the experience itself. Assume for the sake of argument that the story is actually true. One thing is immediately clear, whatever else may be said about the situation, it is certainly unusual, and therefore not to be appealed to as the norm. Secondly, this is not how tongues functioned on Pentecost. So, even assuming the story to be true, this is still not an example of tongues in the Biblical sense. Furthermore, what do we do with experiences that seem to point to the opposite assumption? Both positions cannot be equally true.

Anyone with even slightly Reformed leanings will agree that Scripture is the rule of doctrine and practice and that experience never trumps Scripture. I am reminded of Anthony Flew. He was the foremost scholarly atheist of the past generation. Late in life, however, he recanted his atheism due to something like a near-death experience. He did not convert to Christianity, mind you. If anything, he became a deist. And when he died, he was as hardened to the Gospel of Christ as he ever was during his staunchly atheistic days. If experience determines what one believes, then we must accept the validity of Mormonism based on their "burning in the bosom." We must also accept the trance-like experiences of Hindus. Furthermore, we cannot reject the experiences of millions of Charismatics, many of whom are Papists, Unitarians, modalists and Pelagians.

Rejection of the Continuist position has always been a part of the Reformed theological tradition. When Calvin and others wrote against it, they did not have an axe to grind with Benny Hinn or some other screwball Charismatic. Their opponent was Popery. The idea that the supernatural sign gifts were to remain in active function throughout the church for all time is a distinctly papist idea. Rejection of this is one of the tenets for which our Protestant forefathers were called "Protestants." They affirmed the sufficiency of Scripture and therefore rejected the notion that Scripture needed to be supplemented by weekly messages in tongues or visions and prophecies by the mystics. If the canon is closed, these sign gifts are either superfluous to Scriptural revelation or additions to it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If a message in tongues is revelatory, then it is anathema for adding to Scripture. If it is merely confirmational, then it is not needed. Scripture tells us all we need to know. A wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign.

One last loose end needs to be tied up and that is this: Assuming again that the story is true, and the tongues speaking is neither revelatory nor confirmational, but simply proclamation of the Gospel, why is this needed in the first place? Why should we assume that God, in order to have the Gospel preached to one of His elect, would send a missionary that is not linguistically competent, or that He wouldn't send a fellow native? This is what makes me most skeptical of the story. It presupposes that God is forced to use a missionary that hasn't done his language preparation. It presupposes that God's timing in saving His elect is rushed. He can't wait until the missionary learns the language, or He can't send someone to preach who already speaks the language. 

Besides, the whole story comes off very contrived. It reminds me of the Sadducee story of the woman married to seven men. Its whole existence seems contrived simply to disprove the Reformed Cessationist position. Again, assuming for the sake of argument, that the story is true and God did actually give someone for a brief moment the supernatural ability to converse with someone in a language they did not know, this still would not be the tongues of the Day of Pentecost. It may be a wonderful providential blessing to a lost soul, but it wouldn't be the tongues of the Day of Pentecost.

Mysticism Is Not Christian Spirituality

True biblical spirituality consists of having communion with God in Christ. Whenever people lose sight of this, they tend toward natural speculation, which they imagine to be extraordinarily lofty and spiritual. So-called Christians commit an especially grievous error when they walk this path. Removing Christ from the equation and looking inward to find God is the exact philosophy of Pantheism. It is not, nor ever will be, Christianity. Hinduism and other such Pantheistic religions busy themselves in such meditation and speculation.

The Dutch theologian Wilhelmus à Brakel, writes:

“The difference between the self-denial, love, beholding of God, etc., of the mystics and of the truly godly consists in this: The mystics comprehend, say, and do everything according to their natural intellect, fantasy, and imagination, doing so without the Spirit. They do not make use of the Lord Jesus (that is, as a ransom, and righteousness unto justification and peace), as being the only way of approach unto God, and unto true and genuine sanctification. Such exercises and this way are hidden from them. Those, however, who are truly godly, regenerate, and who truly believe, live by faith and not by sight. In all things they make use of the Lord Jesus. They come to the Father by Him, accustom themselves to behold God in the face of Jesus Christ, do everything as in the presence of God, and walk before God’s countenance in humility, fear, love, and obedience. These are the old paths. From this you can observe that the difference between the mystics and the truly godly is as the difference between imagination and truth; between being natural and without the Spirit and being led by the Spirit; between worldly and heavenly; between seeking an unknown God and serving the true God; and between being engaged without, and contrary to, the Holy Scriptures (dabbling with invisible things), and living according to the written Word of God. A truly godly person remains humble and serves God in Spirit and truth, and is thus kept from the temptation of entertaining high-minded and fabricated imaginations.” (1)

After reading that paragraph, one should easily see why mysticism has such an appeal for Charismatics. The whole Charismatic movement condones and practices spiritual behaviors, often called disciplines, never once recorded, let alone commanded in Scripture.

For instance, where in Scripture are we taught all the barking and laughing nonsense of the Toronto Blessing types? Where does Scripture teach mapping out cities and binding the spiritual ‘strong men’? Nowhere! But does this fact stop people from dreaming up this stuff? No it does not. I’ve recently heard of something called “third day prayer.” I haven’t the foggiest clue what that is supposed to be, but I can tell you this: It isn’t in the Bible. Where in the Bible are we told that evil spirits are causes of everything undesirable? I am not kidding when I say that I have heard people pray against the demon of post-nasal drip!

When I was young, I remember hearing some of the mothers at church talking about how they comforted their frightened children at night. The little impressionable children who were afraid of the dark, or perhaps afraid of the numerous evil spirits their parents constantly obsessed over, were told to hold their blanket as if they holding a hand and to pretend (read: visualize) that they were holding Jesus’ hand. Not only was this considered good Christian advice, despite that fact that Scripture nowhere teaches this, but it was strengthened by the supposed testimony of some of the children that they actually felt like they were holding a real hand! Any Christian who is not troubled by such behavior needs to have his head examined. Where do these people get the notion that it is permissible to make up spiritual exercises nowhere taught in Scripture?

1. The Christian’s Reasonable Service, Vol. 2, ch. 43

Scripture Trumps Experience

Question 3 of the Westminster Larger Catechism asks, “What is the Word of God?” To which it answers: “The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God, 1 the only rule of faith and obedience.” 2

A lot of things can be said about this, but the point I wish to draw attention to is this: sola scriptura means that the Bible trumps everything, including experience.

I have known many people throughout my life that were at one point skeptical, even cynical, of Charismatic experiences, but who now believe in them – not because of explicit scriptural teaching and clear exegetical treatment of the relevant passages, but because they, or someone they know, has experienced something. I don’t know how to put this charitably, so I’ll say the only way I know how: this is pantheistic self-deifying mysticism. Harsh words? I think not.

First of all, all mysticism, regardless of its religious affiliation, is pantheistic in nature. It is a looking within oneself to find the divine spark or some other equally blasphemous term for the god within us all. The Reformers call this Enthusiasm. The word comes from the Greek words en and theos, meaning the “god within.” If your personal experience leads you to believe things contrary to Scripture then you have made your experience more authoritative than God. What else is this if not self-deification? Is it any wonder then that so many of the Word Faith heretics claim to be little gods running around on earth?

In Acts 3:21 Peter informs his audience, and us, that Christ must remain in heaven until the time of the restitution of all things. Along comes Benny Hinn claiming that Jesus appear bodily tp him and walked around the room leaving footprints in his carpet. I have every Scriptural reason to call him a liar. Peter’s statement precludes Jesus bodily appearing to anyone before His second advent. Therefore whatever left footprints in Benny Hinn’s carpet was NOT Jesus. End of story.

Actually calling Hinn a liar is the nicest thing that could be said about him, because it could be much worse. He could’ve had a real “spiritual” experience where a force masquerading as Christ walked around his room. The Charismatic world would be far better off if Hinn were simply a liar than if he were spiritually deceived and purveying this deception to millions of his viewers. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.

Scripture gives us a pretty clear idea that the dead go to their respective destinations immediately. They do not roam the earth as disembodies souls searching for justice or looking after loved ones left behind. Yet I can’t tell you how many stupid ghost stories I’ve heard. Now either the ghost in the picture is real and therefore Scripture is wrong or the Bible is right and there was no ghost. Yet people routinely place more stock in their experiences, or imagined experiences, than in Scripture.

I used to be impressed to the old saying attributed to Leonard Ravenhill that “A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.” With all due respect to the late Rev. Ravenhill, I have to state that that saying is hogwash. Truth must be objective or it is inconsequential. If my experience trumps the propositional truths of Scripture, then I might as well throw my Bible away and start attending the local Vineyard church!

1 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-21

2 Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 22:18-19; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 Timothy 3:15-16

Not EVERY Promise In The Book Is Mine.

One of the hermeneutical principles of the Reformers was the idea that we are not warranted to universalize Biblical promises without clear revelation to do so.

This is why Reformed theology has always insisted that Jesus’ promise in John 16:13 was specifically for the Apostles as a promise regarding their writing of the New Testament. (1) When one looks at the context, it is very clear that these statements were made specifically for the Apostles.

I could appeal to the general experience of the Church throughout history to back this up. Who else in the two millennia since Christ’s ascension has been able to claim perfect doctrinal accuracy and total recall of Jesus’ teaching? No one but the Apostles can claim this, and they can only claim it in regard to the canonicity of their theopneustic writings.

A more general example is the common appeal to Romans 8:28. We are gravely mistaken when we apply this verse willy-nilly as if everything will always work out fine for everyone. This promise is given specifically for the elect: those called according to God’s purpose. No one else has any business claiming this promise.

Another example is when people try to apply the Old Testament historical narratives to their own personal situations. We’ve all heard the goofy applications: We all have our own personal Goliaths to slay, etc. Pulling those stories out of their redemptive history evacuates them of all their true meaning. Understanding Scripture in any other way than in its redemptive history is to misinterpret it. The stories of Saul, David, Samson, Gideon and Joshua are not given so that we can follow their examples. Christ is our example. Christ is not one among many good characters. He is the only one that matters. All of the Old Testament narratives lead up to Him.

That is why it is wrong for people to try to get guidance from God via a “Gideon’s fleece” experiment. Scripture nowhere tells us that this is how we are to seek the Lord’s guidance. I have know many people who have devised some sort of “Gideon’s fleece” to seek answers to their questions, but I have never known anyone to actually put out a real fleece and test it with dew! Now if they were really sticklers about following Scripture, that’s what they’d have to do.

The story of Gideon shows us how God preserves His covenant people, for His own sake, despite their backslidings, in order to fulfill His ultimate purposes in Christ. Joshua teaches us this same message – not that we are to march around our problems seven times, or some other equally idiotic thing.

The story of Samson is not about how we can make Nazarite vows or grow our hair. It is about God's sovereignty and control over the plight of His covenant people even when their leader are reprobates. Samson was a very sinful man. Whether or not he was a true believer is perhaps debatable, but God overruled his lousy character for His own divine purposes.

(1) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture Pt 2

Our previous post looked at the inspiration of Scripture. We will now make some observations on the subject of Scripture’s Authority

The question of the Scripture’s authority is not in regard to the canonical authority, but to the authority attached to the writings that are acknowledged to be canonical Scriptures. The following point addresses itself to this issue: If the Scriptures have been proved to be divinely inspired, then their divine authority goes without saying. If they are His Word, they must be absolutely authoritative with regard to all the matters they treat. The Bible is the last word on doctrinal and ethical matters and all theological and moral disputes must be brought before the bar of the written Word. This is the orthodox Protestant position.

The Protestant holds the authority of Scripture to be exclusive in the sphere of religion. That is to say that there is no other authority in matters concerning the Church’s doctrine and practice. This has to be true unless it can be shown that God designed them to be restricted in the scope of their influence – in other words, that there is some other revelation of God’s will possessing the same authority as Scripture. Plenary inspiration must be proven then of this other revelation. There are several reasons why this cannot be proved:
• The Bible claims to address all men. It recognizes no rival revelation of God’s will.
• If the Bible is inspired this claim to worldwide authority must be true and exclusive. This exclusivity is unavoidable because each would limit and condition the other, which would be contradictory to the supremacy of either. Just as two sovereigns cannot reign in the political realm, so two sovereigns cannot reign in the spiritual realm.
• No other revelation has been established by clear and unimpeachable miracles.
• No other revelation provides for the redemption of man from guilt, depravity and destruction.
• The world needs a revelation that is characterized by unity, which is consistent with itself. The idea of several revelations that are incompatible with each other at certain points is completely absurd.

This principle of the exclusivity of authority of the Bible, known to the Reformers as sola Scriptura, is not new however to the Church. This principle is stated explicitly and implicitly by the Fathers.

The clearest proof token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible.
That the Fathers were firm believers in the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid fourth century. He wrote what are known as the Catechetical Lectures. This is an extensive series of lectures given to catechumens expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture and there is not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral Apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture. He states frankly that if he presented any teaching that could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it.

The following are some of his statements from the Lectures on the final authority of Scripture: “This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17)

“But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture… For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith… Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts.” (Lecture 5.12)

Notice that Cyril says that these catechumens are receiving “Tradition” and he exhorts them to hold to these traditions. Yet these traditions are not the “oral traditions” of Roman Catholicism; they are synonymous with Scripturally based doctrine. The Teaching or Tradition or Revelation of God that was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church is now accessible in Scripture alone. It is also quite significant that Cyril, who is communicating the entire faith to these catechumens as a recognized authority on the subject, did not make a single appeal to an oral Tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone.

This principle is also articulated by Gregory of Nyssa. “We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” (On the Soul And the Resurrection).

Athanasius, while speaking on other subjects makes many indirect references to the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture. In the first paragraph of his Contra Gentes, he declares, “the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth.”

Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea from 370 to 379 A.D., testifies to his belief in the all-sufficient nature of the Scriptures in these words taken from a letter he wrote to a widow: “Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.” (Letter CCLXXXIII)

These fathers are simply representative of the fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Firmilian, Augustine are just a few of the fathers that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura, in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola scriptura and it was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church.

The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:

• Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from @ 130 to 202 A.D. He quotes from 24 of the 27 books of the New Testament. He makes over 1800 quotes from the New Testament alone.

• Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 A.D. He cites all the New Testament books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2400 citations from the New Testament.

• Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 A.D. He makes over 7200 New Testament citations.

• Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 A.D. he succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.

By the end of the third century the entire New Testament (short of about 11 verses) could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church fathers. B.F. Westcott sums up the position of the New Testament Scriptures in the early Church with these words: "The first hundred years of the existence of the 27 books of the New Testament reveal that virtually every one of them was quoted as authoritative and recognized as canonical by men who were themselves the younger contemporaries of the apostolic age." (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament)

Scripture has authority as all evangelical Protestants will agree because it is the Word of God. But Scripture is not the Word of God merely because the Church says so. Scripture’s authority comes from its intrinsic nature as a communication from God to man, in other words, it has an authority independent of the Church.

The basis on which Christians accept the inspiration of Scripture is the fact already argued that the Scriptures themselves make this claim. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. Paul clearly states here that all Scripture is inspired by God. He is referring specifically to the Old Testament since the New Testament canon was not complete at the time he wrote, but the New Testament must also be covered by this statement for in 2 Peter 3:16. Peter refers to Paul’s writings (including this epistle to Timothy) as Scripture. The word used for ‘inspired’ literally means ‘God-breathed’.

The first century Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that the Hebrew canon consisted of twenty-two books and did not include the Apocrypha. Josephus categorically rejects the Apocrypha as being truly inspired. Even the Roman Catholic Church affirms the fact that the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha, in that it was not part of the Hebrew canon, and acknowledges that the Protestant Church follows the canon of the Jews. For the Old Testament, however, Protestants follow the Jewish canon; they have only the Old Testament books that are in the Hebrew Bible.

The first list of the Old Testament canon given to us by a Christian writer is from Melito of Sardis. His list is preserved in the writings of Eusebius, the Church historian. Origen also names twenty-two books in his list of the Hebrew canon. First, there is the canon of inspired Scripture of the Old and New Testaments which he enumerates. Cardinal Cajetan, the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century, in his Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, dedicated to Pope Clement VII, fully supported Jerome’s teaching in separating the Apocrypha from the Hebrew canon. The books that were considered inspired and authoritative for the establishing of doctrine held a proto-canonical status.

Augustine held a kind of two-fold canonicity. Clearly, Augustine believed that the Church held the Apocrypha to be canonical in the broad sense that these writings provided a good example and an inspiration to perseverance in the faith. However, it is equally clear from Augustine’s writings that he did hold the Apocrypha to be canonical in the same sense as the canon of the Old and New Testaments.

The Councils of Hippo and Carthage did not establish the canon of the Scriptures, for their decrees on the Old Testament were unsupported by the Church’s earlier testimony and were not accepted afterwards. It was not until the mid-sixteenth century at Trent did the Roman Catholic Church approve the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon. St Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. He refused to translate them for his Latin Vulgate, and they were only added literally over his dead body. The situation remained unclear in the following centuries.

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. Here is an authoritative Roman Catholic source affirming the fact that it was not until the sixteenth century that the Roman Catholic Church established the canon of the Old Testament. The Apocrypha was not considered to be part of the Old Testament canon. But at least it is honest enough to give an accurate picture of when the Old Testament canon was truly and authoritatively determined by the Roman Church.

The Protestant Church is continually charged with upholding dogmas which first appeared very late in the history of the Church. As we have seen, it is a ruling contrary to the testimony of the Jews to the canon of Scripture, to the general patristic witness of the Church and to the overall consensus of the Church right down to the time of the Reformation. Louis Gaussen summarizes this well when he writes, “With the single exception of Theodore of Mopsuestia [c. 400]…it has been impossible to produce, in the long course of the eight first centuries of Christianity, a single doctor who has disowned the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, unless it be in the bosom of the most violent heresies that have tormented the Christian Church.” (Theopneustia pp. 139-140)

In conclusion then, we sum up all the forgoing arguments by saying that the Bible claims to be breathed by God i.e., inspired. This inspiration is plenary, in other words, full; it applies to all of Scripture. This inspiration guarantees the accuracy and inerrancy of all of the Bible’s contents. This inspiration therefore makes the Bible authoritative in all areas of our spiritual life. Every issue we face as spiritual beings is, at bottom, a theological issue and as such is addressed and regulated by Scripture. The authority of the Scripture is the authority of God Himself. In Romans 9:17, St. Paul represents Scripture as addressing Pharaoh! Surely this is a strange way of speaking? This demonstrates that in St. Paul’s mind the authority of God and the utterances of His Word are inseparable. For the Scripture to say anything is for God to say it. David says in Psalm 138:2 that God has magnified His Word above His name! However lofty God’s name is, at least for the present state of affairs (discounting what things may be like in the Eternal State), God has made His Word, the Bible, the Supreme Authority in the universe on all spiritual, doctrinal, ethical, moral and theological issues. Not only is the Bible the supreme authority, there are no subordinate authorities to which appeal may be made. It is God’s Word and it is the Final Word.

The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture Pt 1

The Bible’s Inspiration and Authority Pt 1

In this post we will look at issues pertinent to the subject of Inspiration. Tomorrow, God permitting, we will look at the Scripture's authority. It should be fairly obvious that if the Bible is inspired by God, then it is authoritative.

The first step we should take in demonstrating the authority of Scripture is the affirmation of its inspiration. Against Pantheists and Intuitionalists, we affirm the possibility of supernatural revelation. Against Deists, we affirm the necessity of supernatural revelation. Against so-called Christian rationalists, we affirm its supreme authority. And against Mystics and Roman Catholics, we affirm its completeness.

The classical Protestant position regarding supernatural revelation affirms that the Bible, and the Bible alone – comprised of the Old and New Testaments – is the source and rule of a true theology. The Protestant Confessions are replete with declarations to this effect.

Any writing that is inspired by God is, of course, of divine origin, of infallible authority and is, ipso facto, entitled to be placed as an integral part of supernatural revelation. Before discussing the Nature, Degree and Proofs of Inspiration we should first discuss the reasons for considering the subject of Inspiration in the first place.

First of all, supernatural revelation is necessary to the religious interests of mankind. It is necessary in order to correct and reinforce the doctrines of natural religion that have been marred and obscured by sin. It is necessary to disclose the facts and truths of redemption without which there would be no deliverance from the effects of the Fall.

Secondly, the Bible asserts its own inspiration. The Bible claims to deal authoritatively with all questions of religion and morality.

Thirdly, it has been the uniform testimony of the universal Church. This has been the position of Jews and Christians. Even granting that this does not provide insurmountable proof for the inspiration of Scripture, it does merit consideration. It would be redundant to show that the Divine inspiration of the Bible has been the faith of scholars, philosophers, scientific men as well as that of countless saints from all walks of life.

Fourthly, study of this question has been necessitated by the attempts made by many to represent the Bible as of coordinate value with the sacred texts of other religions.

Fifthly and lastly, assaults upon the Scriptures have not only been made by avowed infidels. Most of these attacks have come from professing Christian scholars. This is at least true of the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration. The anti-supernaturalists have wide representation even in the institutions under the care of orthodox churches.

What is the Nature of Inspiration? To answer this, the first question we must face is what is our source of information on this subject? I embrace Dr. Hodge’s answer to this question: “The nature of inspiration is to be learnt from the Scriptures; from their didactic statements, and from their phenomena.” (Systematic Theology, Volume 1 Chapter 6, § 2)

The Old Testament claims, “Thus saith the Lord,” 413 times. There are numerous direct quotations and allusions throughout by the Old Testament authors to each other. The New Testament gives its familiar “It is written,” sixty-three times. The New Testament also cites itself on many occasions. Peter classes all of Paul’s epistles with the inspired Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Paul quotes Luke’s gospel as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18 (cf. Luke 10:7). Luke refers to his previous work (Acts 1:1). Jude cites 2 Peter 3:2-3 in verse 18 of his Epistle. John alludes to his own gospel. Paul mentions another letter he had written to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9). Some of these examples are not formal quotations, but they do illustrate the fact that within the New Testament there is recognition of one inspired book by another.

The clincher though is in Revelation 1:2, where the Word of God is identified with the testimony of Jesus Christ! This statement runs in both directions. Firstly, it means that the testimony of Jesus Christ in the New Testament in as fully God’s Word as the Old Testament. Secondly, it means that the Old Testament is equally the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The Prophets and Apostles claimed to be commissioned by God to declare His will, which is the same thing as to be inspired. This was no arbitrary claim either. It was not addressed to an implicit faith. They backed up such claims with extraordinary credentials. The inspiration was proven by miracles, if not by the author himself by another author who recognized the inspiration of the other’s work. These miracles were not random. Pay attention and you'll notice the consistency of focus and inherent unity of the Biblical miracles. The inspired messages were recorded; these records are the Scriptures.

I. What then, according to the Scriptures, is Inspiration? Inspiration is:
• It is an influence of the Holy Spirit affecting a human mind.
• It is an influence exerted by the Holy Spirit. (See Acts 1:16, Acts 2:4, Acts 28:25, Mark 12:35,36; 1 Peter 1:10,11)
• It is an influence either strictly revealing unknown truth to the mind or presenting to it known truth.
• It is an immediate influence. By this I mean to say that it is not exerted through any medium. It brings truth directly into contact with the mind.
• It is a supernatural influence; meaning to say that there are no naturalistic factors that can account for it. It is above and beyond all natural faculties of the human mind.
• It is an objective influence. It comes from outside the mind and communicates an external revelation of God’s will to it.
• It is an influence that is intended to produce teachers. It is not intended to produce saints. Both Balaam and Caiaphas were subjects of this influence when they spoke their extraordinary prophecies. Even among the true Prophets and Apostles, we see less-than-ideal behavior when they were not under this influence (Peter at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas, Moses striking the rock, etc).
• It is an influence that guarantees infallible teaching. The inspired writer, as long as he was inspired, could not err. Without this influence they could and did err (see previous point), but with it, they could do or say no wrong.
• It is an influence that guarantees the teaching of God’s will in regard to the spiritual interests of mankind. This is its main purpose. It is not a textbook on physics, math or politics. If it does address these issues, it does so incidentally, not as its primary concern
• It is an influence whose didactic inerrancy is not affected by the degree of emotional intensity that accompanies it.
• It is an influence whose exertion upon the mind of others is attested by miraculous proof. Either the announcements themselves were accompanied by miracles or they were vouched for by others whose inspiration was attested to by miracles.

So we must conclude that revelation as the product of inspiration is common to the Prophets and the Apostles on one hand, and to us on the other. Their specific difference is inspiration, ours is faith. They communicate the Scriptures; we receive them. Therefore, revelation does not come before inspiration.

II The next concern is the Relation of Revelation to the Scriptures. By this we mean to discuss the extent of the inspiration and coterminous nature of the words Special Revelation and Scripture.

Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones addressed this issue in this way, “There is no question at all that the falling away…in this country is the direct consequence of the Higher Criticism. The man in the street says, 'What do these Christians know?’ We all therefore have to face this ultimate and final question: Do we accept the Bible as the Word of God, as the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice, or do we not?…Do I accept Scripture as a revelation from God, or do I trust to speculation, human knowledge, human learning, human understanding and human reasons?…Do I pin my faith to, and subject all my thinking to, what I read in the Bible?…The Protestant position, as was the position of the early Church in the first centuries, is that the Bible is the Word of God. Not that it 'contains' it, but that it is the Word of God, uniquely inspired and inerrant. The Protestant Reformers believed not only that the Bible contained the revelation of God's truth to men, but that God safeguarded the truth by controlling the men who wrote it by the Holy Spirit, and that He kept them from error and from blemishes and from anything that was wrong…It is either this Book, or else it is ultimately the authority of the Church of Rome and her 'tradition'!” (From a sermon on Ephesians 6.14)

The error Dr. Lloyd-Jones is refuting is the belief that the Bible “contains” the Word of God but is not coterminous with it. But there is a further consideration to be made in this respect. I am referring to the extent of the inspiration, or put another way: Is the inspiration transferred to subsequent copies? Our reply is that the original manuscripts, also known as the autographs were inspired. Mistakes in copy and translation cannot make claim this original inspiration. A copy or translation is only authoritative inasmuch as it faithfully reproduces the autograph. The accuracy of the copies is a subject for further study, but it can be honestly said that although our 20th century translations do not possess original inspiration, they do possess a derived inspiration insofar as they are faithful to the original.

Critics have asserted that since the autographs are not extant, it cannot be held that the originals were inerrant. Our response is that Inerrancy is not an empirically known fact. It is a belief based upon what the Bible teaches regarding its own inspiration. Even though no infallible originals have been discovered, neither have any fallible originals been discovered. What we do have are very accurately copied manuscripts that have been adequately translated into other languages. Thus for all matters of doctrine and practice, toady’s Bible is an adequate representation of the authoritative word of God.

III What is the degree of inspiration?
There are four general theories with their own differing variations.

1. There is what is called the Mechanical theory. This theory claims that the inspired persons were involuntary, passive instruments. This has also sometimes been referred to as the Verbal Dictation method of inspiration.

2. There is a Differing Degrees of Inspiration theory. According to this theory, the degree of inspiration is greater or less depending upon the importance of the matter addressed.

3. There is the theory of spiritual insight. This is the theory of the rationalists and the so-called “higher critics.” The “inspiration” of this theory simply puts the writer into sympathy with the truth to be communicated. This does not guard him against liability to error in communication.

4. There is, lastly, the Dynamical theory. It asserts that both the thought and language are imparted by inspiring influence to the inspired author but in such a way as not to exclude or override the voluntary faculties of the human mind, which include the individual peculiarities of thought and language unique to the human authors.

As far as orthodox evangelical Protestants are concerned, the first and fourth theories are the only viable ones.

The biggest problem with the verbal dictation theory is that it seems a bit underhanded of God to let books be written in the names of authors who were really nothing more than photocopiers. On top of this there are the obvious characteristics of the individual writers’ styles. How is this to be accounted for without charging God with some sort of play-acting? The only verbal dictation theorist who has evaded this charge openly is John R. Rice. In his book Our God-Breathed Book – The Bible, he disclaims that this theory must necessarily be mechanical. Rice argues that God gave the dictation through the distinct personalities of authors, who God had providentially formed for this very purpose. God was then able, according to Rice, to give word-by-word dictation using the predetermined vocabularies of the different authors. This does not remove the above difficulty; it only hides it under a deeper layer. Proponents of this theory have appealed to recent phenomena like the so-called Bible Code. This is a weak appeal, in my opinion. The codes are necessarily arbitrary – as codes frequently are. This Code theory has been debunked by numerous scholars, many of whom are Jewish. Furthermore, if the fourth theory is correct, this appeal is not needed, even if the Bible Code theory were true.

On this fourth theory, A.H. Strong, in his Systematic Theology takes the view that is sometimes called conceptual inspiration. Strong means that God inspired the concepts, but not the particular literary expression. In other words, God provided the inspiration and the men of God gave it a verbal expression characteristic of their own styles. This resolves all the difficulties raised by the verbal dictation theory. It explains why the writings repeatedly tell us what, “saith the Lord,” while they claim to be the words of this or that prophet. Both are true. God is the Author of Scripture in the primary sense; but the human authors are true authors in a secondary sense. This does not violate the Divine or the human causality; both are real and are not contradictory to each other or exclusive of each other.

III Support for the Biblical Claim for Inspiration.

There are two lines of evidence to be considered on this question: the internal evidence and the external evidence. The internal evidence may be delineated as follows:
• Evidence of self-vindicating authority. This means that the Bible can vindicate its own authority once its voice is heard.
• Evidence of the testimony of the Holy Spirit. God’s Word is confirmed to His children by His Spirit.
• Evidence from the transforming ability of the Bible. It has the ability to convert the unbeliever and build up the believer in the faith
• Evidence of the unity of the Bible. Despite the fact that it was written by forty authors over the course of fifteen hundred years in several languages, it has an obvious unity of theme and exposition. Not a single point anywhere is contradicted by any other passage.

The external evidence may be listed as follows:
• Evidence from the historicity of the Bible. The Bible is historical and is therefore open to verification. This is done through archeological artifacts and written documents. Donald Wiseman writes, “The geography of Bible lands and visible remains of antiquity were gradually recorded until today (1958) more than 25,000 sites within this region and dating to Old Testament times, in their broadest sense, have been located.” (Revelation and the Bible). The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls makes an important point: there are more manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments than from any other book from antiquity.
• Evidence from the testimony of Christ. If Christ possesses any authority or integrity as a religious teacher, then the Scriptures are inspired. This can be demonstrated by His use of Scripture:

1. He knew the Scriptures thoroughly, even to words and verb tenses. He obviously had either memorized vast portions or knew it instinctively: John 7:15.
(Jesus need not verify every passage in the Canon or else we would find the whole Old Testament re-quoted in the New Testament, which is unnecessary. He verifies enough of it to assure us of complete approval of it all, including passages from all but a few books. Yet those also were in His Canon. He did not refute any of them.)

2. He believed every word of Scripture. All the prophecies concerning Himself were fulfilled, and He believed beforehand they would be.

3. He believed the Old Testament was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4, 5) onward. Much of what Jesus believed has long been under fire from the critics as being mere fiction. Here are some examples of historical facts from the Old Testament attested to by Jesus:
• Luke 11:51 Abel was a real individual
• Matthew. 24:37-39 Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
• John 8:56-58 Abraham
• Matthew 10:15; 11:23, 24 (Luke 10:12) Sodom and Gomorrah
• Luke 17:28-32 Lot (and wife!)
• Matthew 8:11 Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)
• John 6:31, 49, 58 Manna
• John 3:14 Serpent
• Matthew 12:39-41 Jonah (vs.42 - Sheba)
• Matthew 24:15 Daniel and Isaiah

4. He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear:
• Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 ("Book of Moses" the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44 ("Christ's Canon"); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; ("The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.")
• Isaiah wrote Isaiah: Mark 7:6-13; John 12:37-41.
• Jonah wrote Jonah: Matthew 12:39-41.
• Daniel wrote Daniel: Matthew 24:15.

5. He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit's inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.

6. He believed Scripture was more powerful than His miracles: Luke 16:29, 31.

7. He actually quoted it in overthrowing Satan! The O.T. Scriptures were the arbiter in every dispute: Matthew 4; Luke 16:29, 31.

8. He quoted Scripture as the basis for his own teaching. His ethics were the same as what we find already written in Scripture: Matthew 7:12; 19:18, 19; 22:40; Mark 7:9, 13; 10:19; 12:24,29-31; Luke 18:20.

9. He warned against replacing it with something else, or adding or subtracting from it. The Jewish leaders in His day had added to it with their Oral Traditions: Matthew 5:17; 15:1-9; 22:29; (cf. 5:43,44); Mark. 7:1-12. (Destroying faith in the Bible as God's Word will open the door today to a "new" Tradition.)

10. He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit: Matthew 25:31; John 5:22, 27; 12:48; Romans 2:16.

11. He made provision for the New Testament by sending the Holy Spirit. We must note that He Himself never wrote one word of Scripture although He is the Word of God Himself (the living Torah in flesh and blood, see John, chapter 1). He committed the task of all writing of the Word of God to fallible men guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. The apostles' words had the same authority as Christ's: Matthew 10:14, 15; Luke 10:16; John 13:20; 14:22; 15:26, 27; 16:12-14.

12. He not only was not jealous of the attention men paid to the Bible (denounced as "bibliolatry" by some), He reviled them for their ignorance of it: Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24.

13. Nor did Jesus worship Scripture. He honored it even though written by men.
The above leaves no room but to conclude that our Lord Jesus Christ considered the canon of Scripture as God's Word, written by the hand of men.

• Evidence from prophecy. Hundreds of prophecies, given hundreds of years in advance have literally been fulfilled.
• Evidence from the Bible’s influence. No book has been more widely disseminated or has more greatly influenced the events of world history. It has influenced more thought, inspired more art and motivated more discovery than any other book. It has been published in billions of copies. There are no close seconds as an all-time best seller.
• Evidence from the Bible’s apparent indestructibility. No book has sustained more violent attacks. As early as 303, Diocletian tried to exterminate it. The Bible remains strong as ever after every attack. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Mark 13:31)
• Evidence from the integrity of the human authors. There is no good evidence to doubt that the authors were honest and sincere men.
There are other possible arguments, but the weight of the case can rest on these.

Tomorrow we will deal with the Bible's authority.