Dr Greg Bahnsen - Sola Scriptura: Is Sola Scriptura a Protestant Concoction (Part 3)

Well, I'm grateful for so many of you being here this evening to hear the word of God proclaimed, and I trust God will bless you in it. It's been my pleasure to be in your midst. You've taken very good care of me, and I appreciate you all very much. I hope this won't be the only time we do this sort of thing. Someone must have given an advance word about what I enjoy eating because that dinner was great tonight. Love that kind of food. So, again, thank you for having me. Tonight I'm going to depart a little bit from the specific apologetical theme that I've been pursuing during the day to talk about a matter that really divides professing Christians as to the foundation of their faith and what defines their faith. And that is the issue of Scripture. And Scripture alone are what Protestants have come to call the principle of sola scriptura. Back in the days of the Reformation, when there were men who felt that the Gospel of Jesus Christ had been not only corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church, but had virtually disappeared under the mass of human traditions and rituals and things that kept people from actually hearing the good news of Jesus Christ. In order to reform the Church and in order to have the grace of God more clearly proclaimed to people, Protestants realized they had to take a stand not only for sola gratia, that is in Latin, grace alone, as the basis of our salvation, but that had to be proclaimed on the basis of sola scriptura, scripture alone, because the Roman Catholic Church used its appeal to human tradition in the Church, or to what they consider divine tradition in the Church as a basis for its most distinctive doctrines. When Martin Luther was called before the Diet of Worms and there told that he had to recant his teaching about justification by faith alone, you may know the story very well. Luther, which was the better part of valor, asked for a day or a night actually to think it over before he give his answer to the council. And then on the next day, in appearing before that tribunal which was demanding that he recant of this teaching which really amounted to the purity of the Gospel, Luther responded with those famous words, here I stand, I can do no other, unless I am convinced by Scripture or evident reason. It is neither safe nor glorifying to God that he should give up the convictions that he had promulgated. Now, what do we make of that? Was that just the stuff of which dramatic movies can be made? Or is there something about what Luther said that is crucial to what it is to be a Christian, crucial to the purity of the gospel and the truth of the Scriptures themselves. The response of Roman Catholics to Luther's dramatic stand that he would not recant unless he could be shown to be wrong from the Bible. The response of Roman Catholics for years has been, well, Protestants simply have their paper pope, the Bible. In fact, when I was a seminary student, I had a student in my class in seminary who was very antagonistic to the conservatism and theology of the school where I was studying. And he used to make that point over and over again in debates with other students that when you Protestants simply have your paper pope, we have our living pope. You have your paper Pope. Of course, in saying that, it seemed to me that he was really demonstrating why it is Protestants have to hold out for sola scriptura, because when he pits the paper pope of the Bible against the living pope who sits in Rome, what he is telling us is that finally that person who sits on the papal chair in Rome is more authoritative than the Bible itself. And that's exactly what Luther was concerned about, that that's what the Protestant Reformers were concerned about. And frankly, that's what I'm concerned about tonight, because we have, in our day and age, something of a mini movement. It's not big enough to be considered even a trickle, but a mini movement of former Protestants going into the Roman Catholic communion. And they are being convinced that it's an appropriate thing for them to do. And they are being told that the doctrine of sola scriptura, the principle, the formative principle of theology presented in the Reformation known as sola scriptura, is not itself authoritative and in fact is not even itself taught in the Bible. If sola scriptura is so important, they tell us, then why isn't it taught in the Bible alone? Why do Presbyterians prove their doctrine of sola scriptura by going to the Westminster Confession of Faith rather than to the Bible? And so with rhetoric like this, they convince the minds of, I think, weak and unstable people and convince them that really Roman Catholicism is not that big a threat after all. Everybody has their traditions. We have to live with tradition as well as Scripture. Well, there was a humorous P.S. it seems to me to all of this in that a number of other people who formerly had been in the Reformed churches, not a whole lot of people, but some, some with reputations and therefore a great deal of media attention is given to them. They have left the Protestant fold and have gone into the Eastern Orthodox Church. And one of these people that I've had some contact with with has written a paper on sola scriptura in which he lays out all the reasons why sola scriptura is not an acceptable principle of theology, and it's illogical and unhistorical. And on and on and on. And throughout the paper, he uses exactly the same rhetoric, exactly the same polemic, as do Roman Catholics against Protestants with respect to sola scriptura. And throughout the paper promotes the idea of scripture plus holy tradition. Well, as I started reading this paper, I just started laughing out loud. Not really, not in disrespect of the person himself, but in what I saw as the irony of the situation. Roman Catholics present these very same arguments to argue in favor of Roman tradition, papal tradition, and then you turn around and you find out that Eastern Orthodox polemicists use exactly the same arguments in favor of what they call their holy tradition, which is contrary to papal tradition. And so here you have two august Christian bodies, professedly Christian bodies, claiming the authority of tradition, and yet their authorities conflict with each other, their traditions conflict with each other, and yet they laugh at Protestants for their paper. POPE but what I'd like to do in our short time this evening is offer a Protestant defense of the doctrine of sola scriptura. I am not embarrassed by that doctrine. I believe that it is absolutely necessary to the health of the church. And I am convinced, as Luther was convinced, that if we give up sola scriptura, we will inevitably give up sola gratia as well, because the giving up of the Protestant authority, the principle of sola scriptura simply opens the door for other ways of pleasing God to enter in that are not based upon his own revelation. And it's a very short step from thinking that I can follow a religious tradition that cannot be verified objectively by the word of God, to the idea that I can please God by something that he has not provided. It is a very short step from the denial of sola scriptura to the denial of sola gratia when it comes to salvation. So I will try to keep you up to date on where I am in my board as well. Tonight, I'm going to begin by asking, what does the Bible itself tell us about the authority for our doctrinal convictions? When two people who profess to be Christians disagree with each other over some premise or dogma, how does the Bible tell us these disagreements should be adjudicated? And the first step, which I hope will be an obvious one, but becomes crucial as we move ahead, the first step is for us to recognize that the Bible teaches that our convictions are not to be based upon human wisdom. Human wisdom isn't always wrong. Sometimes people use their intellect and their independent ability to research and find facts and come to truths which are very valuable. The problem is not that human wisdom is always wrong. The problem is that human wisdom is 1 fallible and 2 not a sufficient foundation for believing anything about God because only God is adequate to witness to himself. Therefore, our doctrinal convictions are not based upon human wisdom. The Christian faith is rather based upon God's own self revelation rather than the conflicting, conflicting opinions of men or the untrustworthy speculations of men. You have your Bibles with you tonight. Turn to First Corinthians 2:5 and notice the burden of the Apostle Paul as to how to control the beliefs of the Christians there in Corinth, First Corinthians 2:5:5, In verse four, he says, my speech and preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. Why? Why is Paul making that point? Why is this necessary to emphasize in order that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God? Think about Paul's conceptual scheme here. As you read this verse, notice how he puts the power of God over here on one side and the wisdom of men on the other. And he says not only is the power of God and the wisdom of men in two different categories, he says your faith should not stand in the wisdom men. In First Corinthians, chapter 2, verses 10 and 13, you'll notice while you're right there that Paul draws draws a sharp pardon me contrast between the words which man's wisdom teaches and those which God reveals unto us through the Spirit. On the one hand you have words taught by the wisdom of man. On the other hand you have words revealed through the Spirit. Those are contrasted in Paul's theology. He makes the point in verse four of chapter two that the apostolic message did not originate in persuasive words of human wisdom or insight, but rather the apostolic message rests in the power of God and comes through the the wisdom of God's own Spirit. Paul thanked God in 1st Thessalonians 2:13. Paul thanked God that the Thessalonians received his message. And now I'm using his words not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God. All I'm trying to get across at this fundamental level tonight's lecture is that Paul contrasts the words of God to the words of men, the wisdom of God to the wisdom of men. These are set apart from each other. He says I praise God that you received my preaching not as the words of men. Of course, he is a man. He did use words. They were human words. But Paul says that you received it rather as the word of God himself. In second Timothy 3, verses 15 to 17, Paul spoke of the sacred writings which make us wise unto salvation. And he said that every one of them is God breathed is inspired by God. The Bible would have us beware of the uninspired words of me men. God's people must not submit to the uninspired words of men. Jeremiah 23:16 the prophet says, thus saith Jehovah of hosts, hearken not unto the word of the prophets and speak a vision of their own heart and not out of the mouth of Jehovah. There again we see in the Old Testament this contrast between a message that comes out of the heart of a man and that which comes from the mouth of Jehovah. It's not as though the heart of man can't ever speak the truth. It's not as though human wisdom never gets anything right. But God's people cannot rest secure in anything that does not come from the mouth of Jehovah himself. In the New Testament and called Colossians 2, verse 8, as you know from earlier lectures today, Paul warns God's people not to allow their faith to be compromised by any philosophy which he says is after the tradition of men and not after Christ. There you have it again, the contrast between man's authority and Christ's authority. The tradition of men on the one hand and the authority of consciousness Christ on the other. Not this, but that your faith stands in the power of God, in the breathed out word of God, in a philosophy that is after Christ and not after human tradition. Not after the wisdom of men, not after the tradition of men. Indeed, in the 15th chapter of Matthew's gospel, verse six, our Lord Jesus condemned those who he says make void the word of God because of their tradition. One other thing about human wisdom we read in the Bible that God forbids us to subtract anything from His Word, and as well forbids us to add anything to His Word. Look at Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 4:2. You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God, which I command you. And it's a very serious thing to violate this principle. It's a very serious thing for any human in his or her wisdom to subtract from the word of God. God or in his or her wisdom to add anything to the word of God. I'll tell you how serious it is. In Revelation 22:18 and 19, John says of this revelation that he is giving that if any man dares to add to it, God will add to that person the curses of the book. And if any man dares to take away from that revelation that God will take take away the blessings of that book from the individual. This is not some kind of minor, trivial point of theological dispute. God over and over and over again says, your faith is not to rest in human wisdom. You are not to use human wisdom to tamper with my word. You are not to add your own thoughts. Hearken not to the prophets who don't speak from the mouth of Jehovah. You are not in your wisdom to correct or subtract from my thoughts. And if you dare do so, then I will punish you with the curses of the covenant. I will withdraw the blessings. I will impose the curses if you tamper with my word. Well, I trust at this point we can say that this dispute between Roman Catholics and Protestants, whoever happens to be right, is not some meaningless point of idle theological debate. Are we under the curse of God? Have we violated His Word? Have we presumed in our own human wisdom to add to his own words? Let's take our discussion a step further now by talking about the apostles and the issue of tradition. The reason it's necessary to do this is that many of the contemporary polemicists for returning to Rome, I think, have confused the people of God by appealing to passages in the New Testament that speak about tradition and then just letting it be assumed, or wanting people to take for granted that when the New Testament speaks of tradition, it means tradition in the sense of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, whichever you want to pick way of understanding tradition, there will be found in your English translations in the New Testament verses that talk about tradition as authoritative. And I'd like to now take a look at that so you understand it properly and especially that you see it in light of our first premise that we are not in our Christian faith to follow the dogmas that are rooted in human wisdom. The New Testament approach to traditional is not the approach to tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. So where should we begin? How about with Hebrews 1, verses 1 and 2? For the author of that epistle tells us that in the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets many times and in various ways. But in these last days he has spoken to us by His Son the author of Hebrews makes it clear that the epitome of God's revelation is found in the person of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He has spoken to us in these last days by his Son. That is the high point, the apex of all of God's revelatory manners and means. Jesus Christ is the highest revelation, the clearest revelation of God, because obviously Jesus is God himself. The grandest expression of God's word is found in the very person of Jesus, who, John the apostle in first. Excuse me, in John 1, verse 1, and in Revelation 19 calls the word of God. Jesus is the word of God. He is the highest expression, the clearest, fullest expression of who God is to us as men. Now, how do we know about Jesus? Jesus isn't on earth now, revealing himself to men in the way that he did to Matthew and John and the others. How do we know about Jesus today? Well, what we know of Christ is dependent upon the written word of the Gospels, the Gospels that were written by men like Matthew and Luke and Mark. John, Jesus commissioned certain men to act as his authorized representatives. That is, Jesus delegated to certain men the right to speak for him. They had his power of attorney. I could use the legal expression. In fact, that is very close to what the word apostle meant. In the days of the New Testament, the apostle of a man was considered the man himself. In a court of law, the apostle could speak for that man. And the word spoken by the apostle was legally accounted to be the word of the one that commissioned him. Now in John 14:26, we see that Jesus inspired the apostles with his word. John 14, verse 26. But the comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will be given so that the apostles will have brought to their remembrance all that Jesus taught, as Jesus wants to pass on to the world through the apostles. Not their wisdom, not their insight, but his own. Word. Jesus, remember, is the high point of God's revelation. Jesus turns to the apostles and says, the Spirit will bring to your mind everything that I have taught. In Matthew 10:40, Jesus explains the concept of an apostle known well in that day when he said, he who receives you receives me, and him who sent me, Jesus was sent by the Father. And Jesus turns and sends the apostles into the world. And he says, the person who receives you as my apostle, in fact receives me and in so doing receives the Father who sent me. So you see, that the apostles were spokesmen for Christ, authorized to speak his word, not their own, but that brought to the remembrance what he had taught. The Bible tells us that what the apostles spoke, they did not speak by flesh and blood. They did not speak according to human instruction, but rather they spoke by the revelation of the Father and the Son. Think of Peter's magnificent testimony to Jesus in Matthew 16:17. Jesus says, who do you say that I am? He's heard the Gallup Poll results of what people in the culture are saying, but he wants to know about his most intimate followers. Who do you say that I am? And Peter, speaking for the apostles, says, you are the Christ. You're the Messiah, the Son of the living God. To which Jesus responds with the commendation, peter, flesh and blood did not reveal this to you. But my Father, who is in heaven, you know this not by human wisdom, not by human reasoning. You know this by the revelation of God the Father. Or if you look at Galatians 1:11 and 12, you will see that Paul himself is jealous for the truth of the gospel and what he has taught, precisely because it is not his word, but the word of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11. For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. Boy, we just see this everywhere in the New Testament. Not man, but God. Not man, but God. Paul says, this is not a revelation that came to me from man, but it came to me from Jesus Christ to himself, the Father. And Jesus Christ revealed the Word to apostles, and they are taught by the Holy spirit, as John 14:26 tells us, that Jesus would give the Spirit to lead them into all truth and remind them what he had taught. And the Bible tells us that it's in virtue of this revelatory work of the the apostles as they reveal the Father and the Son and the power of the Spirit. It's in virtue of this revelatory work that Christ builds his church upon the foundation of the apostles. When Peter makes his grand confession that Jesus is the Messiah, he is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus then names him Peter. And he says, upon this rock I will build my church. Upon the rock. What rock? Well, I know that it is popular among some Protestants to teach that Jesus was referring to himself. And there's some reason to think that because God is considered the rock. And in the Bible Jesus is taught that the wise man builds his house upon the rock, which are the very words of Jesus. There would be some New Testaments support for that kind of imagery, but there is not much support for that in the text itself. If Jesus says, you are Peter, masculine form of rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, where this rock refers to Jesus, you almost have to be there to understand it, because there you have Jesus saying, and you are Peter, you are rock. And upon this rock, now pointing back to him himself, I will build my church. And that's just too much exegetical gymnastics, I think, to be a satisfactory interpretation. Jesus does build the church upon. Well, shall we say Peter? Because that sounds like it's personal. It can't be Peter as a person. How do you know that? Because if you read on in just a few verses, Jesus calls Peter Satan. He says, get thee behind me, Satan. So if Roman Catholics want to interpret that passage as referring to Peter personally, and they're going to take the whole paragraph into account where Jesus later calls Peter Satan, then I guess we're left with the conclusion that the church is built upon the foundation of Satan. Now, that isn't going to work either. Well, then what is the rock upon which the church is built? Well, I think it's one important that you realize that Peter was speaking for all of the apostles. This wasn't just one man's opinion. Jesus said, but who do you plural say that I am? Not who do you singular Peter say that I am. And Peter now speaks for the you plural and gives the answer, you are the Messiah, the son of the living God. As Peter represents the confessing apostles, Jesus builds his church upon Peter and the others. But Peter as a person can just as much be Satan when he departs from the word of God and later receives the rebuke from Jesus. And so Jesus builds his church upon the confessing apostles. I think that support for that interpretation will be found in Ephesians 2:20.

Where.

Paul says, speaking of the household of God, that it's built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone. There's a sense in which the church then is built upon the foundation of the apostles. And as they confess Christ truly and faithfully, as they bring the word of God, as they are the authorized spokesman for Jesus, then they provide the foundation for the church. And now this teaching of the apostles was received as a body of truth, which was a criteria for doctrine and for life in the church of Jesus Christ. The teaching of the apostles was received as a body of truth that Was the standard for doctrine and for life. To make my point here, let me just refer to what the apostles had as the truth. Now, this truth comes from God. We've already seen that. It's a revelation of the Father and the Son and the power of the Spirit. This truth from God, I'm saying, was the standard of doctrine and life in the early days of the church. I don't think anybody has any problem with that at this point. But the question is, how did the church come to know this truth? How did the church in its earliest days learn of the apostolic truth from God? How did they come into contact with this body of dogma that the apostles had every right and authority to communicate to God's people? Well, we know that the body of truth was passed down to the church and through the church. And because it was passed down from the apostles, it was often called that which was delivered or the deposit. See, the truth gets passed down to the church. And because it's passed down or handed over. The Greek word paradosan is used, which means to hand over. It can be translated the deposit. That which is given by hand, that which is communicated from one person to another. And that is translated into English often as the tradition. The tradition. That which is entrusted, that which is deposited, that which is delivered or as I've said, handed over or committed to another. The tradition. The apostles have the truth from God and they hand it over to the church. They deliver it to the church and that comes to be called the tradition. The tradition is just the truth that the apostles teach as a revelation from God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Now, what does the New Testament tell us about this tradition? Let's look at a few verses together here for a few moments. Turn in your bibles, please, to second Timothy, chapter one, verses 13 and 14. 2 Timothy 1. At the 13th verse, Paul says, hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me in faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee. Guard through the Holy Spirit which dwells in us. Here Paul speaks of the deposit, that which has been committed unto him. The deposit that he has received is he passes on and he says is to be guarded. The apostolic deposit then is the pattern of sound words for the church. Notice that. Hold to the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me in faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to me. That deposit, that pattern of sound words. That is the system of doctrine, pattern of sound words that that system or network of healthy truth and teaching. The pattern of sound words is the apostolic deposit. In First Timothy 6, verses 20 and 21 we learn that this is to be guarded, O Timothy, guard that which is committed unto thee, turning away from the profane babblings and opposition of knowledge which is falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith. The pattern of sound words. The deposit of the deposit of the apostles is to be guarded. People put their faith in jeopardy when they do not. Timothy is warned by Paul that some people professing to know the truth have erred concerning the faith because the they haven't guarded the apostolic deposit. Indeed, the apostolic deposit. The pattern of sound words passed to the Church by the apostles was the standard for Christian Life. Look at 2nd Thessalonians 3:6. 2nd Thessalonians 3 6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us. Here the English word tradition is used that which was delivered from us and you received. If any brother departs from that, then you're to withdraw yourselves from him. That is the standard for Christian living. The pattern of sound words delivered by the apostles to the church and received by the church. Look at 2 Peter 2:21. Second Peter 2:21. For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them. To turn away from that which has been delivered by the apostles is a horrible thing to do. It would be better that you never knew the truth than that you should reject it after the apostolic deposit has been received. And moreover, this pattern of sound words, which is to be guarded as the standard for Christian living, is to be the standard for all future teaching in the church. 2nd Timothy 2:2 Timothy 2 and the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also. The apostles have a truth, a body of truth, a pattern of sound words received from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They pass it on to the Church. And the Church is to guard that apostolic pattern of sound words. They are to mark off as heretics those who depart from it. They are to use that as the standard for all future teachers in the Church. What is this tradition? Is it the holy tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Is it the tradition of the popes in the Roman Catholic Church? No. It is the traditional apostolic tradition. That truth which they have received from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Can you not see that it shouldn't be obvious in the reading of Scripture unless you go to the Bible trying to make it prove some preconceived idea. The tradition, the deposit, that which is handed over or delivered is not Church tradition, papal tradition. It's rather the pattern of sound words taught by the apostles. And they teach that on the basis of revelation from God the Father. Now we have to ask the next question. We know what the truth is, the deposit. We know why it's called tradition because it's passed on to the Church and through the Church. Now the question is, how was it passed? In what form was it passed to the Church? And to answer that, let's turn in our Bibles to 2nd Thessalonians 2:15. 2nd Thessalonians 2 15. Paul says, so then, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by epistle of ours. Paul says, stand fast in the traditions. That is what the apostles have delivered handed over to the Church. Stand fast by that pattern of sound words, the truth, the deposit that they have from God to give to God's people. Stand fast by it. And how did the Church learn about this deposit? How did the apostles hand it over or deliver it? Well, Paul tells us right here, they did it not only by word, but by epistle, by letter, by writing, if you will. So then, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught well, whether by word or by epistle of ours. And so what I want to say is the truth was passed to the Church. Orally and in writing, In two ways. That same deposit or pattern of sound words came to the Church. Is there any hint at all in this verse that what Paul means is part of the tradition came orally and part of the tradition came in writing. So make sure you keep the two of them together so you get everything. Is there any hint of that? It's just the traditions, it's just the deposit. It's just the pattern of sound words that is communicated in two different ways. Paul doesn't suggest that one or the other supplements the opposite. He simply says, guard the traditions. And you've received them in writing and you receive them orally. Now why am I stressing this point? Because, you see, Roman Catholics maintain that if you only keep to the written apostolic tradition, you haven't got the whole word of God. You've got to have the oral apostolic tradition as well. Well, there's just a huge logical fallacy involved in that. Thinking as Paul doesn't say, make sure you hold on to the oral traditions and to the written traditions, does he? He says, hold fast to the traditions, whether you heard them orally or in writing. Can you see the difference there? Do you have one thing that comes to the Church in two ways, or do you have two things that come to the Church? I might schematize the two different positions here. And what I've been arguing is that Paul says the apostolic traditions are the pattern of sound words that govern the Church, and the Church in that day learned of them both orally and in writing. But there's no suggestion when Paul says that there's an oral aspect to the teaching and a written aspect. And you got to make sure you keep the two together. And I'm emphasizing this because this is the favorite verse of contemporary Roman Catholic apologists where they try to prove that God's people today must have oral tradition as well, because it says right here that you're to hold fast to those traditions, whether by word or by epistle of ours. And now the answer to that is, well, first of all, if you have it in either form, you've got the pattern of sound words. But more than that, why is it that the truth could be passed to the Church orally and that would be binding on the Church? It's because the one who was speaking this word had apostolic authority. Remember, Jesus says, he who receives you, receives me. And so when the apostles went to various congregations and taught that was to be received as the very word of Jesus Christ himself. When the apostles speak the word of Christ, then that binds the church. But how about other teachers? Is their oral teaching authoritative? In virtue of it being oral, do they carry apostolic authority? How about Dr. Bonson? Many of you, I'm happy to say, have some regard for my teaching. You want to learn, and you invite me here to have this nice conference and dinner with you and so forth. How about if I were to stand up and say, I want you to believe what I'm teaching you because I say it. Do I have the right to do that? God forbid. And you wouldn't flatter me if you say, you know, I think you're right because you're so smart, or you're Greg Bonson or whatever it is, or you're a minister in the OPC or whatever it is, therefore I'm going to believe it. That's not flattery. I have no right and you are not under any obligation to receive my oral teaching just because it's me speaking. I don't have apostolic authority. Paul, on the other hand, did. John, on the other hand, did. And when they taught orally, that was the truth passed down from God to the Church. Now, when contemporary Roman Catholic apologists look at 2 Thessalonians 2, 15 and say, we're bound to follow the traditions, oral as well as written, my response to that is not only are oral and written two different ways of saying the same thing, but my response to that is simply, I'm under obligation to listen to the oral teaching of the apostles. You're absolutely right. And they're not around anymore. And, you know, catch up with what's happening in the Church. Friends, we don't have apostles today. Where do you get the idea, even on your misreading of this verse, where do you get idea that the authority of the apostles in oral instruction has passed on to other people? Well, of course, you, those who are familiar with Roman Catholic Church know that they have something of an answer to that. However, I've never known a Roman Catholic to think that their answer to that question was based on biblical exegesis. They believe that the tradition of the apostles or the authority of the apostles can be passed through the office particularly of the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Pope. And the Pope has been ordained by previous popes, ordained by previous popes, the Vicar of Christ, the deputy of Christ on earth. The problem is that's not biblically founded, but that's the closest they would come to being able to show that the authority of the apostles continues in the Church. But you see, the authority of the apostles continues in the Church, not by their oral instruction. That should be obvious. The apostles are dead. The authority of the apostles continues in the Church through their teaching, through the deposit that they have passed to the Church. And the only way in which we now receive that deposit is in writing. The apostles are dead. They don't orally instruct us, but what they taught continues in their writings in the Scriptures which we take as the standard of our faith. Indeed, in the New Testament, what the apostles wrote was to be accounted as the very word of God. Look at First Corinthians 14:37, First Corinthians 14:37. If any man thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. And indeed, what the apostles wrote was not only accounted as the very word of God. Their written epistles came to have for the Church the same authority as what Peter called the other scriptures. Look at second Peter 3:16 second Peter 3, 16th verse. Peter's talking about our beloved brother Paul, and he says, as also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of those things wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsteadfast rest as they do also the other Scriptures under their own destruction. Peter puts the writings of Paul in the same category as the other Scriptures. That would be the Old Testament. Paul and what he writes has the same authority as did the Old Testament Testament for God's people in that day. There is no continuing supply of new apostolic oral instruction. But in the Scriptures written by the apostles, we find the same authority, the same inspired word of God as the Old Testament for us beyond the first generation of the Church. After the apostles passed away, the authority of the apostles was found in their written word, in the objective testimony that they left the Church, not in their subjective personal instruction. Because the office of apostle and the gifts which accompanied the ministry of the apostles were intended to be temporary, they were confined to the founding of the Church. The office of apostle is not a continuing office in the Church. To be an apostle, it was required to be a witness of the resurrected Christ, as we see in Acts 1:22, also reflected in Paul's defense of his apostolic credentials in First Corinthians 9:1. Moreover, it was required that you be personally commissioned by the Lord himself, which is what Paul claims in Galatians 1:1, that he is an apostle not by the word of men, but by a revelation of Jesus Christ. The apostles were those who were witnesses of the resurrected Christ and personally commissioned by him. And thus the apostolic office was restricted to the first generation of the Church. Paul considered himself the least, least perhaps translated the last of the apostles in First Corinthians 15. And Paul's personal successor, Timothy, is never given that title in the New Testament. So in the very nature of the case, apostolic revelation did not extend beyond the apostolic generation. It never extended beyond the foundational days of the church. Ephesians 2:20 says, the church is founded upon the apostles and prophets, Christ being the chief cornerstone. And beyond the foundational days of the Church, the foundation laying days of the Church, there is no apostolic revelation. And that's why when you look at Jude the third verse, you see the author in his own day, when apostolic instruction was still current. By the way, Jude in his own day could speak of the faith as once for all delivered to the saints. The faith. Here is the teaching content of the Christian faith. It is the dogma, if you will, that truth given by the apostles through revelation of The Father, Son and Spirit. Jude says, the faith has once for all been delivered to the saints. About that verse, FF Bruce wrote these words. Therefore, all claims to convey an additional revelation are false claims. Whether these claims are embodied in books which aim at superseding or supplementing the Bible, or take the form of extra biblical traditions which are promulgated as dogmas by ecclesiastical authority. The faith, the deposit, the tradition has once and for all been delivered to the Church, and that was accomplished in the generation of the apostles. It is not a growing tradition, it is not a living tradition by which we mean something the Pope or others can add to. It is simply the body of truth that the apostles, having received by divine revelation, passed on to the Church, whether orally, in their own day or in writing. Now, what governs the Church today? Is it the oral teaching of the apostles? Well, that couldn't very easily be true. The apostles are dead, just to rep. Repeat that point. And so it has to be the teaching of the apostles in some objective form. That means it would be the written word of the apostles. So thirdly, we need to look at the need for inscripturation, The need for God's Word to be committed to writing. God verbally revealed Himself in many ways from the beginning of redemptive history. God was not restricted to writing. Throughout the development of redemptive history and the growth of God's people, God revealed himself not only in writing, but through personal messengers, sometimes by personal address and appearing to people. God spoke directly to Adam, he spoke directly to Abraham. God was heard in the inspired preaching of Jonah, Amos and Ezekiel. Christ and the apostles engaged in oral instruction. We've already granted that that the apostolic tradition came both in written form and in oral instruction. But that's not the only way God has communicated with his people throughout history. He's also sent His Word in writing to them. From the tablets of the Mosaic Law to the written messages of Isaiah or Jeremiah, as well as the epistles of Paul, God has revealed himself in writing, in scripturated form. Now this is the step I want you to pick up on here. The Word of God, which was originally delivered orally, needed to be reduced to writing in order for the rest of God's people to know about it and for it to function as an objective standard for faith and obedience, where God had spoken by personal address orally. If that was going to be a standard for the Church at large, for all of God's people, that oral instruction, as authoritative as it was in itself, needed to be reduced to writing. So there would be an objective standard that governed all of God's people. An objective standard to test the prophets who proclaimed these words. An objective standard to test later claims to revelation. To have a standard by which to compare what other alleged prophets prophets would say. An objective standard for the establishment of a corporate body as the church and by which it could be defined in all generations. An objective standard for the better preserving and propagating of that truth. An objective standard to guard against corruption and the malice of Satan in the world who would love to foul up the lines of communication if we're to going to depend upon oral instruction. An objective standard to communicate assurance of salvation to people against human opinion in the way in which even their preacher or their priest might communicate God's word to them. God's word needed to be inscripturated to govern his people through all generations. And so it's not surprising that this written scripture became the standard for testing even the prophets. And this is the amazing thing and the standard for testing the apostles. Now in my second point up here, I've already granted that the apostles had authority in their oral instruction to deliver the deposit of God to the church. But now I'm adding another dimension which is very, I think, important that the apostles, when there was any question about what they taught, the apostles who had the authority of Christ nevertheless appealed to inscripturated revelation. Revelation as the basis for what they taught. In the Old Testament, the word of false prophets was exposed by the previously inscribed law. Deuteronomy 13, verses 1 to 5 says that if any prophet comes and teaches contrary to what's been revealed before, that that prophet is to be executed. That prophet presumes to speak for himself and he says something contrary to what is already written down down in the law. In Isaiah 8:20 we read to the law and to the testimony. That didn't mean to the oral testimony, it meant to the written inscribed testimony of God's prophets and the law which was already there in writing. Even our Lord Jesus Christ, when not appealing to his own inherent authority, clenched his arguments with his opponents by saying it stands written or have you not read in the Bible. He said, you search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life. And these are what bear witness of me in Jesus day. Jesus acknowledges that the appropriate approach to salvation was to search for it in the Scriptures. And you know that in Jesus day the scribes had about as much authority as has ever been given to any human tradition. And yet Jesus pointed men to the scriptures, not to the oral tradition. Not to the authority of the scribes, but to the traditions. And then he said, the Scriptures bear witness of me. In the New Testament, the Spirit of error was to be identified by comparing whatever the prophets are saying to the teaching of the apostles. In first John 4. 6, the apostle John says, he who knows God hears us. That's the standard, what we have taught. First Corinthians 14:37, Paul says, if anyone thinks he's a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are the commandment of the Lord. And yet even the apostles called for the Church to test their own instruction according to the written revelation of God, according to the Scriptures which were in hand. Why did Paul commend the Bereans? What were the Bereans doing in Acts 17:11? You'll read of his commendation because he says, they examined the Scriptures daily. Whether these things were so, that is the things taught by Paul. Paul commends that. And he's an apostle. He's got power of attorney from the Lord Jesus Christ. He speaks with the authority of the Savior himself. And yet, even with that apostolic authority, Paul commends them because when they wanted to test what he was saying, they went to the written Scriptures to see if these things were so. In First Corinthians 4, verse 6, we have what amounts to a virtual declaration of the Protestant doctrine or principle of Sola Scriptura. First Corinthians 4, verse 6. Paul says, now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to go beyond the things which are written, that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other. Paul says, brothers, I have applied. I've used a figure of speech. I've applied, applied these things. I think he's referring here, these things about pride in men or in their ministries. I've applied these things to myself and to Apollos for your benefit, in order that you might learn by us the saying, not to go beyond the things which are written. And amazing. Here's Paul, long before Luther, long before Calvin, long before the controversy in the late 20th century, saying, I want you to learn the meaning of this, not to go beyond the things which are written, that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, do not go beyond what is written. That's the niv. The RSV says that you may learn by us to live according to Scripture. Or in the Tyndale commentary on this verse, Lee and Mor Morris says that what Paul is Referring to is a catch cry familiar to Paul and his readers, directing attention to the need for conformity to Scripture. A catch cry, a popular slogan not to go beyond the things written. And Paul says, I want you to learn the meaning of that. That is an important principle for you. It is very simply the Protestant principle of sola scriptura. I'm going to end here by asking three, maybe four pointed questions or making three or four pointed observations rhetorically about the Roman Catholic Church and its appeal to tradition over and above the words of the Old and New Testament. The first question is this. What is it precisely that Rome accepts as a source of doctrinal truth and authority in addition to the Scriptures? What is it that they accept? As you see, when you talk to some Roman Catholics, they'll tell you, we accept the tradition of the Church because it stems from the apostles, as though the apostles orally taught something. And in every generation, that teaching has been passed on orally. I don't know why it would never be, you know, put down in writing, but it never was put down in writing. It comes down to us only in oral form. Other Roman Catholics will tell you that they are committed to tradition, not only from the original teaching of the apostles allegedly, but also ecclesiastical tradition. That is what the Church itself has generated through papal decree or the councils, whether the apostles originally said it or not. And so you need to be clear when you're talking to a Roman Catholic, what is it they would add to the Scripture? What do they mean by tradition? And then after they answer that question, we have to ask, well, how do you properly identify tradition? After all, not all traditions are tradition to the Roman Catholic. There are some things which were done traditionally in the church, Church which Roman Catholics would say should not have been done or which they do not consider authoritative. Not all traditions count then as authoritative tradition. Well, how do you properly identify authoritative tradition? And then another question. What are the proper bounds of authoritative tradition? Has all oral tradition now been divulged? Has everything the apostles Paul thought now been given to the Church? That has to be answered by Roman Catholics? Or are we still waiting for this to build and build and build? Is tradition limited to what was orally taught by the apostles? Is every tradition allegedly something that traces back to them? And then by what warrant, theological or epistemological? By what warrant does Rome accept this additional source of doctrine or ethical truth? So let me focus all of this in a challenge. This is still part of number one here. In conclusion, my challenge is to my Roman Catholic friends, give me a convincing example of some doctrinal or ethical principle which meets the following five criteria. Give me an example of some doctrinal or ethical principle that is 1 not already in Scripture, 2 not contrary to Scripture, 3 based upon what is properly identified as Tradition. That's what all these introductory questions were about.4 is necessary in some sense to the Christian life or Church necessary and five could not have been revealed during the days of the apostles. If the Roman Catholic Church intends to be taken seriously when it tells us that Tradition supplements Scripture, then it should be able to offer an example of something that is not in the Bible, is not contrary to the Bible, is part of what is properly considered Tradition is necessary for the Church, but could not be revealed in the the days of the apostles. We have to understand why it couldn't have been revealed in the days of the apostles. That's the first problem that I would give to my Roman Catholic friends. Can you even give me a convincing illustration of something that matches all these criteria? Secondly, I want you to notice the problem with the oral nature of tradition, and it's found right in the pages of the New Testament at itself in John, chapter 21 John 21 at the 23rd verse. This follows the words of our Lord Jesus to Peter about being girded about and taken where he does not wish to go. Verse 19 says, now, now this he spake, signifying by what manner of death he should glorify God. Verse 20. Peter turning about, sees the disciple whom Jesus loved following John, who also leaned back on his breast at the supper, and he said, lord, who is he that betrayeth thee? Peter? Therefore seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me now. Verse 23. This saying therefore went forth among the brethren that that disciple should not die. Yet Jesus said not unto him that he should not die. But if I will that he, Peter, tarry till I come, what is that to thee? If he, John, tarry until I come, what is that to thee? In verse 23 we already have an indication in the New Testament of the unreliability of oral tradition. Right there it's called down. That is not what Jesus was trying to communicate. And so secondly, you have to understand that Roman Catholics who think they're relying upon what orally traces all the way back to the apostles, all already in the days of the New Testament, what was orally taught was being corrupted and testimony is given to it. Thirdly, what is a believer to do when church traditions contradict each other? You know, there are many traditions in the Church and they are not all harmonious. Some traditions in the Church support the office of a universal bishop. Other traditions denounce the office of a universal bishop. Read Gregory the Great in Cyprian, for instance. What are we to do with the tradition that was alive in the early Church that said Christ would shortly return and establish an earthly kingdom? Other traditions contradict it. What do we do about the use of images as a help to worship or a help to prayer? Some traditions include the Church endorse the use of images. Other traditions in the Church condemn the use of images. If tradition is authoritative, what are we to do with conflicting traditions? And then finally, fourth, I would just make this observation that the distinctive and the controversial doctrines or practices of the Roman Catholic Church, the distinctive and controversial doctrines and practices of the Roman Church are all founded solely upon alleged tradition. Purgatory, the mass transubstantiation, indulgences, the treasury of merit, penance, the rosary, prayers to Mary, holy water, the papacy, and on and on. Those things which are distinctive to the Roman Catholic Church. You will find when you get into debates with Roman Catholics, they appeal not to biblical exegesis to support, but they appeal to this alleged apostolic oral tradition that is supposed to still be alive in the Church. And I think that's just asking a bit too much of anybody to expect that those heavy and controversial points could be founded not upon an objective word from God in the way that we've seen in the beginning of tonight's lecture, but to be founded on an unverifiable, subjectively adduced tradition that is said to be apostolic. Now, I think once you think about this and what the Bible has to say about authority in our doctrinal convictions and our practices, when you think about the abuses that arise and the confusion that arises from trying to follow oral tradition, when you see that even the apostles tested or were tested by the written word of God, I don't know. I think tonight I would still like to stand with Martin Luther. I'm not willing to recant or to affirm any doctrine unless it can be shown to be taught on the basis of Scripture and Scripture alone. That's not a Protestant concoction that you see is just honing very closely to the very teaching of God's Word itself. We should all learn this principle not to go beyond the things which are written. Let's close in a word of prayer. Our Lord Jesus, we come to you tonight and bow before you and honor you and glorify your exalted name, acknowledging that you truly are the great and final climactic revelation of God. For you are God himself. We acknowledge you to be such. You are our Lord and our God. And we wish to be submissive to you and to your word. We wish not to be misled by the opinions of men. We wish to be founded upon the truth of the Scriptures. We wish to know you in all of your truth and not to found our faith in the wisdom of men, not to listen to prophets who do not speak the voice of God, but rather we want to be founded upon those who spoke for you, the apostles themselves. So we ask you tonight that you would make us more faithful and diligent to defend, to study and know, and to obey the Scriptures themselves, Lord. We pray especially that you would show us the necessity of this, that your name would be glorified and your church kept pure. We do pray that you would bring understanding and conviction to those who have been misled by the unfounded and subjective claims of men to the effect that they represent the oral tradition of the apostles. Would you ask, Lord, that you might return such to a more objective and faithful and historical standard that they might know you as you present yourself in the written word? We do pray that you would give us winsomeness and persuasiveness as we set forth the truth of your word and its sole authority and its supreme authority among men. We pray that these things would be done, that the Lord Jesus Christ would be lifted up and exalted, for it's in his most blessed name we pray. Amen. All right, we have time for a few questions here. We'll begin back here. The issue. Now, which comment? Luther's comment. Yeah. Well, when Luther said that to Erasmus, he said, we're finally getting to the heart of the matter here. You have to remember that the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is the formal principle of reformation that forms our doctrines. But the doctrine that we're trying to protect and to see purely presented to men is the doctrine which is involved when Luther defends the freedom, excuse me, the bondage of man's will over against the idea that man is free to cooperate with the grace of God or to turn away from the grace of God and in order to reinforce the Augustinian and what is really Pauline and New Testament view that salvation is solely by God's grace because men are helpless to do anything for themselves. Luther said the bondage of the will is the real issue here. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that man is able in some way to present, condign and congruent merit before God, by which it is appropriate that God would grace man with salvation. And therefore, in a sense, the Roman Catholic of salvation in that day was that we must merit the merit of Christ for our salvation. And so Luther was arguing, even as Calvin would go on in the Institutes to argue, that you have to understand that man can merit nothing and everything must be of grace. And that is what the issue is all about. So by teaching the bondage of the will, that was the other side of the coin from saying that it's all of God's will, grace. And that's why Luther made that point. Ma'. Am. No, wait. Wait a minute. How much. Wait, no, no, no, you can't. No, you can't. How much of this are you claiming to be the author authorized tradition of the Church. And how much of this is. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Wait, wait. What you said is it's an established medical fact that. Now, that's not based upon scripture. You're saying that's medical evidence. That's fine. No, no, you haven't answered my question yet. When are you going to begin to tell me the authorized tradition of the Church in your illustration? I don't want to be lost in this because I see what. What is developing here is a different kind of argument altogether. Where is the tradition of the Church begin and end in what you are saying? How much of that is the tradition of the Church that is authorized. No, no, no, no, no, no. How much of it is the authorized tradition of the Church? Just. That's very simple. Does it begin with this word or that word? Where are we? Have you started yet to give me the authorized tradition of the Church? No, I'm asking the authorized tradition of the church. That's fine. I don't have any problem with you writing out your question. I want to understand your question. Where is the tradition of the Church being mentioned? Have you mentioned it yet? Okay. I ask you to give me an illustration of a tradition in the Church. Authorized tradition in the Church, not found in Scripture, not contrary to Scripture, necessary to Christian life. And what I'm saying is what. What is the tradition that we're testing here? What about it? Oh, it is. No, no, no. How did you find out that that was an authorized tradition of the. Okay, Okay. Now, one of the conditions I laid down. See, I don't happen to agree with what you are saying, but just. Just given what you are saying from your own Perspective. I ask you for something which is not found in Scripture, and you're telling me it is found in Scripture? Has God revealed this in the tradition of the church or through medical science, on your view? I don't agree with any of the premises, but go ahead. When did God reveal. Well, but that's a. Ma', am, I'm sorry, that's a false issue. We all know God's the source of all truth. Did he reveal that artificial methods of birth control, whichever those might be, were something that takes innocent human life? Did he reveal that prior to the 20th century and prior to what you consider medical findings? Okay, okay. Well, I don't believe that has anything to do with the issue. But. But if you do, you're still appealing to Scripture when you say that. Now, let me refine the question, see if we can get beyond the rhetoric here and just calmly. Does the Church, at any point from the end of the inscripturation of the New Testament up until what you consider the supporting work of medical science today, has the Church at any point considered it part of its authorized tradition that artificial means of birth control is revealed to be contrary to God's will? Okay, where, when and how. How was that established to be the authorized. What's. Talk about what. So we're being far too general. Yeah, I'm familiar with the issue, and I don't believe the Church fathers talk about that. But if you'll just tell me how the Church determined that that is the tradition of the apostles, then we'll have something to talk about. You see, this is a great illustration of what I think takes place in. I don't know whether you like or not, but in the Roman Catholic Church, we come up with something that we want to dignify as being God's will. And the way we do that is we. We put it under the rubric, under the title of apostolic tradition. But then everyone has the legitimate right to ask, how do you know that's apostolic tradition? How do we know that that wasn't just there. Denominated apostolic tradition to give it authority? And so this is what we're pursuing here. When I ask these questions. I'm not trying to keep you from expressing your point of view. I think that's rather clear already. I'm simply trying to find out whether that's an example that I asked for or not. Certainly you can.

Okay, okay. So what I'm saying here.

That. Talks about the critical oral issue and.

Why isn't there an objective answer on this issue?

And now do you understand Why I interrupted you. If you're asking a question, that's fine. I'll be trying. I'll try to answer it. But you have not offered me an example of what I was asking for. An authorized tradition not based upon Scripture. In fact, you make continuing allusion to Scripture, whether rightly or wrongly. But the point is you attempt to support this on the basis of Scripture and then you go on to ask a question. And so that's why I was trying to make sure we would stay on the subject. And I apologize for interrupting you in that way. But now that we're done with that, let me answer your question. First of all, all. All moral instruction that is necessary for God's people, according to Protestant instruction, is found in the Bible. In fact, Paul tells us that all Scripture being inspired by God is profitable for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfectly furnished to every good work. There is nothing lacking in the Scripture when it comes to doing the good work that God wants us to do. Consequently, if with you call artificial birth control is contrary to God's will, that would be provable from the Scriptures themselves. Now, you need perhaps to be informed that not all Protestants are agreed as to what the Scriptures actually teach about that. I have a very strong view of that. Others have a contrary view that they hold strongly. But the difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants, you see, is that Protestants will keep debating with each other by going to the Scripture looking for exegetical support to prove or disprove, whereas Roman Catholics will be content that the universal bishop decrees that something is the case, even though it cannot be founded upon the objective word of God. And the point of tonight's lecture was precisely illustrate that difference, which is crucial, it seems to me, to the religious life of God's people. We are not to be held captive to the wisdom of men, but rather to the word of God. And so unless the Pope of Rome, the alleged Pope of Rome, can prove his opinions from Scripture, then we're under no obligation to believe what he says or to obey him. That would be the Protestant perspective. Now you ask why is it the Protestant Church, I forget the exact way you put it at the end, why the Protestant Church doesn't have a clear word on this. Well, I think there is. Yeah, there is. There is an objective position on this. And the position is whatever is not forbidden is allowed. That is taught in the. No, that's right. And many Protestants do not agree with your premise, which you assert just on your own say so to be medical fact. It is not that all artificial birth control kills innocent human life. Now, if we disagree, though, please understand this is not a lecture tonight on birth control. That's what I've been trying to keep us away from. But if you want to know the nature of the dispute, I've said something that you apparently don't agree with. You said something. Something I don't agree with. But we are disputing over what will be a biological or a medical fact. We are not disputing the authorized tradition of the church or the exegesis of God's Word. Okay. I think it'd be best out of courtesy to let you have the last word on this. What do you want to say.

So I clarify that it's not. I'm not saying that all contraceptions. He can reveal in medical science, you know, not the science of the last word of it. He can't reveal his science. I mean, we know about life that people back in the 1500s, three hundreds, did not know. I'm saying that I feel God holds us responsible in light of His Word for the knowledge that he has.

For you and I agree on that. That's not. If there is anything that separates us, that's not it. I agree with you that everything we know about the world we're to apply the word of God to. But I really think. Okay, now you put that in the form of a question. I promised you the last word. If I honor you as asking a question, I'll get the last word. Do you want to leave it at that or you want me to answer?