Dr Greg Bahnsen - Sola Scriptura: Is Sola Scriptura Sufficient for Today? (Part 1)

This evening, we're going to be taking up the question, is scripture alone sufficient for us today? That is, is the Reformation slogan of Sola Scriptura sufficient for our Christian lives today? And to get into that topic, I can think of no more appropriate way to start than to make reference to the fact that perhaps the most significant religious event to have taken place in this country in this century, perhaps the most significant event to take place religiously, at least in this decade and certainly in this year, has been the visit of the Roman Catholic Pope to the United States of America. In fact, I think Time magazine caught the spirit of the Pope's visit very well. On the COVID of time magazine for October 15th this year, we see a really beautiful full color picture of the Pope decked out in his white and gold robes and his mitre upon his head, saluting his papal benediction in the direction of the camera. And over the picture is the caption, john Paul Superstar. This has been hailed as the most spectacular religious event of this year, if not this decade. About this century, Time magazine said he was a man for all seasons, all situations, all faiths, a beguilingly modest superstar of the church. And the response that was given to him around the country, which was, whether you like it or not, absolutely thundering. That response, the magazine goes on to say, made John Paul seem less a religious figure than a Hollywood celebrity. And I want to suggest to you tonight there are many reasons why we probably would be inclined to get caught up in enthusiasm for this particular Pope. There are, in fact, many reasons to admire this man. I want you just to consider for a moment his personality. I mean, this is no medieval Pope, no man that rides around on a little cart and crushing peasants underneath. He leads an exemplary life. He leads the Church by means of his personal example. He's a man of humility, of evident affection for children. He can even express humor during the most somber Roman Mass. Okay, so he's a man with a personality that's quite unique. And of course, he does appeal to all faiths. Time magazine is right about that. When the Pope spoke to Jews, he reminded them of the Holocaust and how he himself suffered in that as well. When he spoke to Protestants in Boston, he had, in a certain sense, audacity. Given past Roman popes. To quote John Winthrop, of all people and of all things, the words of Winthrop when he was on the Arabella in 1630, fleeing the influence of Rome through the Anglican Church, this is a Pope who can come right into the White House, something that would have been unheard of 10 years ago and kisses a Southern Baptist President of the United States, only to have the President reply that the people of America return your love. I mean, this was a spectacular event. He appeals to all people. Even Billy Graham, perhaps the most well known evangelist of our day, said, quote, no other man in the world today could attract as much attention on moral and spiritual subjects is John Paul. He is articulating what Catholic and Protestant churches have traditionally held. The Pope has reached millions of Protestants. Ecumenicity is now taking place where Roman Catholics and Protestants share beliefs. And it's more than just the fact that he has really an outstanding personality. It's more than the fact that he has enough public relations sense to appeal to all people, whatever the circumstances may be. But we have to admire this man for his evident doctrinal conservatism as well. We live in a day of just, appalling doctrinal concessiveness, theological concessiveness, where doctrine after doctrine after doctrine, which is crucial to the Christian faith, is falling by the wayside as liberal and modernist theologians and neo orthodox theologians are willing to give them up. We also live in a day of really alarming moral laxity. And in the midst of our ungodly moral climate, in the midst of a concessive theological environment, here we find a Pope who is against the ordination of women. A Pope who sees homosexuality as a perversion is willing to say so publicly. A Pope who says he's willing to face down repressive communist regimes around the world. A Pope who believes in the revival of morality and personal dignity and concern for the poor. A Pope who is against the murderous practice of abortion. I tell you, on all sides there's reason to be attracted to this man, John Paul. Look at his personality, look at his appeal to all people. Look at his evident conservatism. And just about the time we're all ready to say amen to this Pope. However, let's remember why he takes the stance that he does. When John Paul was speaking in Philadelphia, he asserted that he would never permit the ordination of women because it is contrary to tradition. It is contrary to tradition. He made it clear that his worldwide imposing pulpit and that enormous tradition bound Roman Catholic Church was going to be used in an unbudging way by one who considered himself the occupant of the chair of St. Peter. He expressed his concern that church discipline be restored and particularly obedience and reverence for the institution of the Church. Let's test your Latin here. How many of you know what was being sung at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. When the choir sang Ecce Sacerdas Magnus, Behold the great priest. Behold the great priest, one onlooker there said, it's beautiful. It's as if this man is God to me. Which, by the way, is one of the claims. Traditionally, the Roman Catholic papacy. Answering voices of dissent within the Church from the Ukrainian rite Catholics John Paul insisted that he could have no dialogue with them until they first accepted, without reserve, his own personal authority. The Pope said at a Chicago seminary that the Church has a special mission to guard and transmit intact the deposit of Christian doctrine, which in Roman Catholic terms means the deposit of the tradition of Christian doctrine. And when he spoke against the use of sexual freedom in our day, he spoke against a freedom that is no longer consonant with the true moral order. And he adds the teachings of the Church. And so I think Time magazine was really on target when it suggested at one point that the appeal of this Pope is really the nostalgic tug of traditionalism that we find in people today. Now, I dare say the Reformation attitude toward the Pope starkly contrasts with that of Time magazine and Billy Graham and the rest of those who were asked to comment upon this superstar visiting America just recently. Probably if John Calvin or Martin Luther had been asked their opinion of the Pope, you wouldn't have been able to print it in our day and age. In 1539, Calvin wrote a reply to Cardinal Satelet in which he is really giving an answer to the cardinal's appeal to the people of Geneva to really reverse the Reformation and come back into the Roman fold. And in 1547, Calvin wrote an antidote to the Council of Trent, which was obviously a refutation of the decrees of Trent, Trent being an effort of the Roman Catholic Church, of course, to take a stand against the tide of the Reformation. And in these two doctrines, I just want to give you a few examples of what Calvin had to say about the Pope. Calvin said, this man is an ape, though he be adorned with purple robes. He is in fact the Roman Antichrist, whose yoke of tyranny is exercised with dissolute and unbridled license. Calvin said that the appolition of a universal bishop, that is what the Pope is. The appolition of universal bishop is blasphemous, it's nefarious, accursed, and the forerunner of Antichrist. Calvin pointed out that the Pope held a primacy among the bishops only like that of the devil among his angels. And he said as well, we maintain that the Roman Pontiff, with his whole herd Of Pseudo bishops are ravening wolves whose only study has heretofore been to scatter and trample upon the kingdom of Christ, filling it with ruin and devastation. Calvin said that the Pope was the declared enemy of Christ and of the Church and of the Bishop that introduced the resolves of Trent, who at one point had given his vavat, you'll recall, in Latin means the long live, long lived the Pope. The Bishop's. To this Calvin said, o good Father, how much better were it for you to be a man of sense than to sing out your vavat in favor not only of a dead man, but of a fatal pestiferous monster. As to your proclaiming him worthy of heaven, I don't know if you are aware of the universal belief that he is quite unworthy of the earth. Oh, he's not done here. You certainly made a most grievous mistake. You ought to have assigned him a station far removed from heaven, which was tongue in cheek for saying you could send him right to hell for all I care. Now, why such hostility? I mean, in our day and age, in a day of laxity, concessiveness and certainly tolerance, why in our day and age would we be willing to accept such an archaic, almost bumptious attitude? Why this hostility of Calvin toward the Roman Catholic Pope? And I want to suggest to you tonight that while the personalities may have changed in the Popes through the years, the issues have remained quite the same. And until you can have the same kind of righteous moral indignation against the Roman Catholic Pope that stirred John Calvin, I dare say you haven't understood one of the most primal features of scriptural authority and certainly the thrust of the Protestant Reformation. You see, to counter the Roman Catholic view of tradition, which had reduced and undermined the authority of God's word, the Reformation came to affirm the slogan of sola scriptura. Scripture, according to the Reformers, is alone our final authority in any theological dispute. And I trust you're aware of the fact that there's very good scriptural background for this doctrine of sola scriptura. I mean, if every doctrine is to be tested by Scripture, it only makes sense that the Reformation slogan of sola scriptura would be tested by what authority? Scripture. And so in Matthew 15:6, notice how Jesus deals with the traditions of the religious leaders of his day. He says, and you have made void the word of God because of your tradition. See, it isn't as though by adding traditions to the word of God, the Roman Catholic, excuse me, the Pharisaical church of Jesus day Freudian slip there. It isn't as though that by adding these things to the Word of God, they had really protected it, which was their announced desire to hedge the Word of God. It isn't as though they were simply adding a harmless accretion to Scripture. Jesus said by following their traditions, they were emptying Scripture of its authority and meaning. You make void the Word of God because of your tradition. And what that points out to us is that it's not possible, you see, to take any human tradition and say that it's simply going to be put side by side to the Scriptures. For you see, the minute you put Scripture on the same plane with the human tradition, you are in fact lowering the rights and the prerogatives of Scripture, and you are elevating human tradition to a position it can't hold. In time, it's only inevitable that, spiritually speaking, that tradition will take precedence over the Word. And in the Roman Catholic Church, that found expression in the fact that Church tradition, which was supposed to be side by side with Scripture, really becomes the authoritative interpreter of the Word. And therefore, to violate the interpretation of the Word is to violate the Word. And so anybody who violates anything that is taught by the institutional Church is to be deemed outside of the pale of the church. In Colossians 2, 8, Paul says something about tradition as well. He contrasts tradition here to that philosophy which is according to Christ, that way of thinking which is rooted in Jesus Christ. In his Revelation. Paul says, take heed, lest there shall be anyone who makes spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, which is after the tradition of men, after the elementary principles of the world, and not after Christ. You see, to be after worldly tradition is to be contrary to Christ. And so the Roman Catholic Church, by declaring that there were two sources of authority in the church, I.e. tradition. And Scripture, was violating the Word of God. And the Reformation took a decided stand against that, declaring sola scriptura only Scripture as our final authority. The fourth session at the Council of Trent in 1546, the Romanist view was declared. In these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions. The the Church receives and venerates with the feeling of piety and reverence all the books, both of the Old and New Testaments, also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession. And so there you have it, very plain and simply in that one short paragraph. Two sources of authority. Unwritten tradition not only stands alongside the Word of God, it comes to take precedence over the word of God because it becomes the authoritative interpreter, the Word of God. And just so that you'll know what's at stake here when we're talking about tradition, let me give you some examples of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches on the basis of tradition, not on the basis of the word of God. The priesthood is taught on the basis of tradition, as is the Roman Mass, the doctrine of purgatory, the practice of penance, prayers for the dead, the worshipful use of images, the worship of Mary, the use of holy water, prayer with rosaries, the celibacy of priests and nuns, and lo and behold, the papal office itself. All of these you see, are documented and supported authoritatively within the Church on the basis of unbroken tradition and not on the basis of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. So you can see quite a bit that we stand opposed to as Protestants is in fact rooted exactly in the tradition against which I'm speaking tonight. Now, by contrast to the Council of Trent, hear these words of John Calvin. Calvin says in his commentary on John, chapter 17, the Son of God does not approve of any other faith than that which is drawn from the doctrine of the apostles. And sure information of that doctrine will be found nowhere else than in their writings. He goes on, whatever authority is exercised in the Church ought to be subjected to this rule that God's law is to retain its own preeminence and that men blend nothing of their own, but only to find what is right according to the word of the Lord. Now, in the 17th century, an Anglican scholar whose name is William Chillingworth, wrote a well known book in which he declared, the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants. And that quotation appears over and over and over again in the treatises of Reformed theologians, expressing in one short line the attitude toward authority that has always held preeminence in the Reformed churches. The Bible alone is the religion of Protestants. I think the fascinating thing about that is that William Chillingworth, the man who declared it, was originally a Protestant who debated a Roman Catholic priest on the question of authority. And he lost the debate. And I mean he lost the debate not simply because the people would have voted against him if it was going to be a popularity contest. He lost it because he was convinced that the other guy was right. And so he became a Roman Catholic. And for six or seven years, as I recall, Chillingworth studied and studied and studied this issue. And finally he renounced the Roman Catholic Church and became a Protestant again. Then to go on to write this famous work in which he said, the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants. See, there's a man who had been in the fire and he knew better. Now, now let's explain what sola scriptura does not mean. I think there's an awful lot of misconception that gets mixed in with this slogan in many reformed localities. That doesn't mean that all extra biblical knowledge is somehow unnecessary. Sola scriptura doesn't mean that if you're going to have open heart surgery, you turn to the Bible to find out how to do it. And it doesn't mean you learn how to cook a meal by reading the Bible. Sola scriptura doesn't mean that we're just Bible only fanatics that do not read anything and don't care to know anything outside of the Bible. Now, there are very few people who will crassly say that, but often enough our opponents portray certain excesses as coming to that conclusion. Moreover, sola scriptura doesn't mean that there is no need for textual study and a historical understanding of the Scripture for a person to say, well, I only follow the Bible and therefore I don't need commentaries, or I don't need historical background, or I don't need to understand the culture of the day, or I don't need to understand even the history of the textual study of the Bible is really to be an obscurantist and to be captured by the traditions and opinions of men unwittingly. No one does have to study historical background in the text of Scripture to know what God only has said in His Word. It doesn't mean that theology is merely a matter of proof texting either. Although I think you all know I'm not against proof texting. I believe we have to show where in the Bible our teaching comes from. But theology is more than just running from text to text to text. It is driving home the word of God to the heart of one's hearers. And that means there are changing cultural situations, changing ethical problems, changing spiritual and scriptural questions that need to be answered. Let me add also that sola scriptura doesn't mean that a Christian life was impossible prior to the printing press. Now, a lot of people who have the idea that Scripture alone means that I've got to have my own personal copy of the Bible in my hand. I praise the Lord for the printing press and for the advances that have been made. So there is probably, at least in this country, not a Christian to be found who wouldn't have access to a Bible, perhaps owning his own and for many of us, owning many Bibles. But you see, prior to the printing press, Scripture alone was still the standard, even though the way people came to know Scripture was through the faithful preaching of the Word through, through perhaps the liturgy of the Church or what have you. When we say sola scriptura, we don't mean that God has failed to reveal himself elsewhere than in the Bible, for instance, God reveals himself in nature. But what we are saying is that only the Bible is canonical. Only the Bible is the authoritative standard and rule for the Church. And of course, when we say sola scriptura, nor do we mean that we only study the Bible and never look at the works of theologians, doesn't mean that we despise church tradition. I think perhaps Calvin himself says it best when it comes to church tradition. Calvin says, moreover, they unjustly set the ancient Fathers against us. He's explaining in his prefatory address to King Francis in the Institution how their opponents have maligned them. He says they unjustly set the ancient Fathers against us. I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the Church, as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory, to put it very modestly, would turn to our side. Now these fathers have written many wise and excellent things. Still, what commonly happens to men has befallen them too, in some instances. For these so called pious children of theirs, with all their sharpness of wit and judgment and spirit, worship only the faults and errors of the Fathers. The good things that these fathers have written, they either do not notice or misrepresent and pervert. You might say that their only care is to gather dung amid not a man for our age. Obviously, Calvin goes on then, with a frightful to do they overwhelm us as despisers and adversaries of the Fathers. But we do not despise them. In fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets with their approval. Yet we are so versed in their writings as to remember always that all things are ours, to serve us, not to lord it over us, and that we all belong to one Christ, whom we must obey in all things without exception. He who does not observe this distinction will have nothing certain in religion, inasmuch as these holy men were ignorant of many things, often disagreed among themselves, and sometimes even contradicted themselves. But if they love to allegorize so much, speaking of his opponents, Calvin says, why do they not accept the apostles, rather than anyone else, as the Fathers who have set the landmarks that it is unlawful to remove? He says later, they forget this limit when they establish so many constitutions, canons and doctrinal decisions without any word from God. All the Fathers with one heart have abhorred and with one voice have detested the fact that God's holy word has been contaminated by the subtleties of sophists and involved in the quabbles of dialecticians. But granting public error a place in the society of men, still in the kingdom of God, his eternal truth must alone be listened to and observed. A truth that cannot be dictated to by length of time, by long standing custom, or by the conspiracy of men. What Calvin is saying here is, look, we respect tradition, we don't despise the Church Fathers. We're more than glad to profit from their works, but we fully recognize that they too make mistakes. And therefore we must test their opinions, as we test all opinions, finally by the word of God. In fact, Calvin can say very clearly, if you want to have a battle on the basis of tradition, then you see, the tide of victory is already swung in our direction because we can easily prove our doctrine from the Church Fathers, whereas the Roman Catholics can. So he wasn't against Tradition per se. That is, he didn't despise all tradition. He simply said that tradition had to be kept in its place. Even though Calvin could appeal to the patristics and to the Church Councils, he said only Scripture is irreformable. We may have to reform the Fathers, we may have to reform some of the Councils, but we never have to reform Scripture. All Church traditions, all human opinions, are open to critique and to correction, unlike the Word of God. And so what that means is that for the Reformers, Scripture is the source of all of our theology and Scripture is the judge of all of our theology. Henrik Heffe puts this well in his Reformed Dogmatics. The very first line in his chapter on Holy Scripture is the only source and norm of all Christian knowledge is the Holy Scripture. Please notice that what we have here is the source, and we have the norm, the only source of our theology, the only norm or standard or judge of our theology is Scripture. And Scripture, according to the Reformation, has an absolute authority. And by that I mean it is not qualified by an authoritative interpretation. The authority of Scripture is antecedent to all interpretation. That is to say that the Reformed doctrine is whatever is being said in that text is authoritative, even if I don't yet Understand it. Now, obviously you can't obey it, understand it properly, until you get it sorted out and interpret it correctly. But the point is, after it's interpreted, I'm not going to fudge, you see. I'm not going to even change my interpretation to try to make it conform with modern opinion or popular ideas. Antecedent to all interpretation, the Scripture is absolutely authoritative. There is no qualification to be made of its truth. Why then did the Reformers hold to sola scriptura over against Roman tradition? Let me put it simply. It's because men can err. Men make mistakes. God doesn't. Calvin put it this way. I heard from thy mouth, speaking to God. I heard from thy mouth that there was no other light of truth which could direct our souls into the way of life than that which was kindled by Thy Word. I heard that whatever human minds of themselves conceived concerning Thy majesty, the worship of Thy deity and the mysteries of thy religion, was vanity. I heard that their introducing into the Church instead of Thy word doctrine sprung from the human brain was sacrilegious presumption. The idea that even when it came to worshiping the majesty of God, anything that sprung from the human brain could be introduced into the Church, he said, was sacrilege. It was presumption. He also said, we hold that the word of God alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgment, and that fathers and councils are of authority only insofar as they accord with the rule of the Word. Our faith, instead of rashly subscribing to the naked decisions of men, must submit to God alone. Men make mistakes. That which springs from the human brain comes strictly from the human mind, can have no authority in the Church and must come from the word of God. And that's why, you see, Luther, before he went to debate Cajetan 1518, and Eck in 1518, sat down and thought through the course of the upcoming debates and realized that he would be challenged one, as to the source of his doctrine. Luther, where do you get these novel ideas? And secondly, Luther recognized that he would be challenged as to the norm by which his doctrine would be judged. That would be a crucial question. By what standard will Luther's doctrine be judged? I think it's a shame that because we've enjoyed long centuries of Reformed teaching that we fail to remember and emotionally live through the drama of those early days when Luther was debating for the life of the Church of Jesus Christ, in a very real sense. And so in his debate with Cajetan in 1518, you notice that Luther makes quite a point that it's just because popes can make mistakes and have made mistakes, that Luther cannot submit to the Pope, but must submit alone to God's Word. And in the next year, 1519, when he debated act, he took it a step further and he said, it's just because councils can make mistakes and have made mistakes that he cannot submit even to the word of councils, but could submit only to God's Word. Luther expressed himself in these words, but everyone indeed knows that at times even the Fathers have erred as men will. Therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, because it has never erred. What I'm getting at here is that the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura, which I find so crucial, the Reformation distinctive of sola scriptura over against the traditionalism of the Roman Catholic Church, carries with it the concomitant doctrine of the inerrancy of God's holy Word. For you see, if God's Word can make mistakes, then there's no reason to exalt it as your sole source and norm of theology over against erring fathers and councils. But it's just because Tradition makes mistakes and God's Word can't make mistakes that the Reformers said that it was their only foundation. In 1536, the Geneva Confession of Faith therefore said, we affirm that we desire to follow Scripture alone as a rule of faith and religion, without mixing with it any other things which might be devised by the opinion of men apart from the word of God, and without wishing to accept for our spiritual government any other doctrine than what is conveyed to us by the same word, without addition or diminution, according to the command of the Lord. The French confession of 1559 takes it a step further when it adds, it follows that no authority, whether of antiquity or custom or numbers, or human wisdom or judgments or proclamations or edicts or decrees or councils or visions or miracles, should be opposed to these Holy Scriptures. But on the contrary, all things should be examined, regulated and reformed according to them. And then finally, the belgic confession of 1561, in one short sentence, therefore, we reject with all our hearts whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule. You see, unless the Scripture is infallible, unless the Scripture is inerrant, then there is no ground for holding to sola scriptura. And that's why I'm asking, is sola scriptura sufficient for us today? Can we, in a day in which the inerrancy of God's Word is being challenged on all sides really be content with the old Reformation slogan of sola scriptura. Is it really enough for us now? Just stop and think of the challenges that have come to the inerrancy of God's Word early in the century, the challenge to cosmology that was raised by the evolutionists throughout this century, the debates that have been held about the reliability of Old Testament, New Testament history. Even in our own day, there are men who are challenging the ethics of Scripture by teaching that homosexuality is really not a perversion against nature and against the character of God in itself. Indeed, even homosexuals can be ordained to the ministry. Many denominations, modern theology has taught the church of Jesus Christ. This whole idea of a wrathful God, a God that is angry at sin and needs to be placated by the shed blood of his only son, is a primitive idea, tribal conception. We Certainly, as enlightened 20th century men, can't follow such an old fashioned idea today. And so there you have it, from all sides, cosmology, history, ethics, the theology, whatever it is, the Bible is being challenged. Can we really trust it today? Indeed, modern theology has told us that the equation of the Bible with God's word to say that the Bible equals God's Word is really an unscientific equation. William Temple said there may be truths about revelation, but there are no revealed truths. In other words, there may be things we can say quite accurately about the subject of revelation, but that there are revealed truths that we can speak beyond question. Rudolf Bultmann says that any modern man who uses a refrigerator cannot believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Karl Barth of course, is well known as a neo orthodox theologian who makes the whole idea of an internal experience the subjective fulcrum for God revealing himself to man. The Bible may be a pointer to God's revelation, the Bible may be a springboard to that revelation. The Bible may occasion God's revelation, but it is idolatry, says Barth, for us to equate the Bible with God's revelation. God's revelation is what he does inside of us. When we encounter the Word in the midst of a crisis, well, it would be easy for us tonight to have spent our time knocking the Roman Catholic Church and knocking modern theology and knocking new orthodox views of the Word of God. But the problem that is grieving me goes much further than that. Because you see, even within our own more confined circles of evangelical conviction, even within our more confined circle than that of the Reformed churches in our day, we find those who are challenging the idea of the inerrancy of God's word and maintaining doctrines having to do allegedly with the limited inerrancy of Scripture. There are those who tell us that Scripture is flawed in scientific or historical and as I've said, even ethical details. However, the Bible is infallible and will not lead us astray when it comes to religious areas like faith and practice. My own salvation, I'm not willing to question as being taught in the word of God, but a lot of embarrassing details can fall along the wayside. Now, what I want to explain to you tonight, I'm going to take you through some bumps of philosophy, but I don't think we're going to lose any of you along the way. What I'd like to explain to you is that those who give up the inerrancy of scripture cannot simultaneously hold to sola scriptura. And to make that clear, let me begin by noting that Scripture often speaks of knowledge, Christian knowledge. Some examples 1 Timothy 2:4. When men repent and are saved, they are said to come to a knowledge of the truth. John 8:32. Christ says, if we abide in his Word, we shall know the truth, and and it shall set us free. Proverbs 22:21. By listening to God's revelation, we know the certainty of the words of truth. Acts 2:36 is an example of what we know. Peter says, let the house of Israel know for certain that Christ has been raised as Lord. Okay, so the Bible continually emphasizes knowledge, a knowledge of the truth, knowledge of such things as the resurrection. And of course, we have that well known children's song that is so simple and yet so profound. Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. However, if the Bible speaks of knowledge, we have to ask ourselves, what are the conditions of knowledge? What does it mean to know something? You know, to believe something is not necessarily to know something. There's quite a difference between belief and knowledge. Not all beliefs qualify as knowledgeable beliefs. Note there are degrees of conviction in our beliefs. I mean, you may be a little bit uncertain as to the number of ants to be found in Ethiopia right now, but you probably have no question in your heart that you cannot leap to the moon. So there are two different beliefs, degrees of conviction, and there are diversity of sources. I mean, some people believe whatever they happen to see in the supermarket trash rack. Anything that is said in any kind of tabloid is good enough for them. And yet there are other people who are so skeptical that even the Encyclopedia Britannica will not convince them there are differences in subject matter. We hold Beliefs about our cars. We hold beliefs about our mates. We hold beliefs about our favorite football team. We hold beliefs about what is good for us to eat. We hold beliefs about our eternal destiny. And so you see, the range of things we have beliefs about and the sources of our beliefs and the degrees of conviction that we hold with respect to our beliefs are very much different. So it's not enough to say that belief is simple. Excuse me, that knowledge is simply belief. Not all beliefs are knowledgeable in the first place. Not all beliefs are true. And it doesn't make much sense, does it, to say that something which is untrue can be known. I mean, how can you know something that is false? You may believe something that is false, but you cannot know something that is false. And so we must at least say that knowledge is a true belief. But of course, it's not enough to say that knowledge is true belief either. Because you see, some true beliefs are drawn from invalid means. Some true beliefs are based upon false premises. Let us say that we have somebody come in tonight and he believes that the President of the United States has a name that begins with C. He believes it. Is that true? It's true. Okay. Then we say, well, then you know that the President's name begins with C. Only to find out at coffee break later on that because the fellow thinks that Charles Colson's the President, he came to that belief. Now does he know that the President's name begins with C? If he has a true belief based upon a false premise or a faulty means of reasoning, we wouldn't say so. Let's say that we look at a clock that unknown to us is really not functioning. It's not plugged in, it's not working. And yet we look at the clock at just the right time. I mean, at just the time that we look at the clock, what is showing on the face of the clock is the time. And so somebody says, well, Bud, what time is it? And you look at the clock and you say, well, it is 10:05. And the person says, thanks. And he goes on his way and it's 10:05, no problem. Did that man who gave the answer know that it was 10:05? No, he didn't know it, but he truly believed it. That isn't to say he sincerely believed it. He believed it and it was true, but he didn't know it because it was based on a faulty premise. Or just stop and think for a minute. What if you believe the testimony of a liar but because of a faulty memory, you Reverse what he said. Okay, the liar tells you xyz. But because you don't remember it right, you think he said no xyz and it turns out that no XYZ is true. Now, do you know that that is true? One would say you believe it, but you have a faulty premise in your reasoning. Indeed, some true beliefs have no reason at all. If I were to tell you, as a matter of fact, There are tonight 10,427 ants in Ethiopia. That would be a haphazard guess. And if it turned out to be true, by no stretch of the imagination would you credit me with knowing that. I may have believed it. I may even have staked my life on it. And it may have been true, but it doesn't mean that I knew it. Okay, what do you have to add to belief? What do you have to add to true belief in order to gain knowledge? Then, very simply, you have to add proper justification. A true belief that is justified is knowledge. Justified true belief. That's what we call knowledge. True beliefs which are warranted by good evidence are beliefs which are knowledgeable. What happens, however, if the warranting pattern, the justification pattern that you use for your beliefs is imperfect? What if it sometimes lets you down? Well, that will entail that that pattern of justification is insufficient. And there must be an external additional authority that is added to it. Now, there are a lot of sources of belief warrant for us. Sometimes we warrant our beliefs on the basis of perception. Because we see things on the basis of somebody's testimony, the basis of our memory, on the basis of our reasoning procedures. But now, if one of those ways of justifying our beliefs is insufficient and imperfect. Notice we have to add another one to it. Give you an illustration here. We want to know what Charles phone number is. Somebody says, well, I remember that in Sam's phone book, his little black phone book. Charles number was. Then you give the number. Are you satisfied with that warranting procedure? You see, Sam saw. Excuse me. The person answering saw Sam's phone book 10 years ago. What's the problem with this warranting pattern? First of all, memory is faulty. More importantly, perception is faulty. I mean, he could have looked at it wrong to begin with, but the lighting may have been awkward, the handwriting may have been unclear. And besides, how do we know that Sam wrote it down right in the book to begin with? You see how many loose or weak links there are in that chain of reasoning? You have first to depend upon Sam's ability to know the right number to write it clearly for you to have seen it properly. And for your memory to be infallible. And because your memory is not infallible, and because your perception is not infallible and because Sam, your friend's not infallible, what you usually do is you employ a screening procedure. Somebody says, Well I remember 10 years ago I saw that number in the book. Then you say, well, okay, we'll start with that. But because you also remember certain things which are not true, we want to screen out the not true beliefs and keep the good beliefs, the true ones. And so to screen them out, we're going to check what you think his number is of course to the directory or you say we're going to dial it pragmatically and see if it really works and then we'll believe that you knew it, or we're going to have some other further warrant or screening device. But once you start multiplying authorities for justifying your beliefs, then you've got to put them into a certain hierarchy, don't you? Well, I think I can guess that nobody here has done a lot of thinking about what the hierarchy of your justification patterns is. You haven't reflected on it. But that only is to say you haven't done your philosophy self consciously and well, that isn't to say you haven't done it. I'll give you an example. You've all been out in a rowboat, right? As you're rowing along, you look down in the water and lo and behold, the oar looks like it is what, crooked or bent. But you run your hand down the oar, down into the water and back up, it feels straight. Alright, what do you believe? Do you believe that it's straight or do you believe that it's bent? Every time you look at it it's going to look bent, but every time you touch it it's going to feel straight. You see, you didn't think about it. But since you all believe that the aura is straight, what that indicates is that you trust your sense of touch more than you trust your sense or your ability to see things visually. In like manner, when you have a faulty justification justification pattern, or if you have multiple justifying authorities, you're going to have to rank them in a scale of priorities. Conflicting authorities are going to have to be ranked. And what if a friend comes along and says, you know what I, your most trusted friend, the one you think to be most intelligent about all. I don't believe a thing that's ever written in the papers and I wish you'd never read anything in the Papers again. Now, at that point, you see, you have your trusted, intelligent friend saying one thing and the paper saying another. And you're going to have to make some kind of decision. You're going to have to rank the authority here. Either the paper takes precedence over your friend or your friend takes precedence over the paper. Well, I've been giving you an awful lot of easy and rather obvious examples. Why? I'm trying to demonstrate that if the way you justify your beliefs is faulty, then you have to have an additional authority. And that authority is going to have to be ranked in a scale of priorities. Now, what is the Protestant warranting pattern for theological knowledge? We all should have it down by now. Sola Scriptura, as the song says, Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Or if you want a little more sophisticated theological way of putting the same truth, the Westminster Confession of Faith, Section 10 of Chapter 1, says the Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men in private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. So why do you believe this theological doctrine or that theological doctrine? You believe these things because they're taught in the Bible. And if what the Bible says is wholly true and without error, then you are justified in what you believe. But if the Bible makes mistakes, then to use it as a warrant for your knowledge is not sufficient in itself. The the Bible cannot be sufficient if it makes mistakes. You must add to the Bible a screening authority that will get all the muck you see out of there. All the bad things the Bible says, all the erroneous things the Bible says can be screened out by this secondary authority. Also, some external authority must be necessary to warrant what the Bible says. The Bible says it. That's good as far as it goes, but it may be wrong. And so we have to have something to confirm the Bible. The Bible can continue to be a presumptive authority in your life. You can say, I'll believe it on the presumption that it's true, unless it's contradicted. The Bible may be the source of your theological hypotheses. You may say, the only thing we'll believe is to be found in the Bible, although we won't believe everything that's found in the Bible. But the Bible cannot be your sole norm for Christian knowledge if it makes mistakes. You see, you cannot deem a claim to be true simply because it's included in the Bible. For the Bible is thought to have made some mistakes. Consequently, you may be depending upon a mistaken assumption. Something's got to be added to your theological pattern of justification. You've got to screen the Bible, you've got got to give a further warrant to the Bible. And in the end, I suggest you're going to do precisely what the Roman Catholic Church did, precisely what the Pharisees did, and precisely what the modernist theologians of our day are doing. You're going to subordinate the Bible's authority to something outside of the Bible, to some human thought pattern. And so what I'm getting at is that an inerrant Bible is the only way you can consistently maintain science sola scriptura, external sources and authorities will be taken as more dependable as the Bible itself if you don't think the Bible is without error. Moreover, you cannot know what the Bible says to be true without a corrective authority that you add to the Bible. It's at that point that I'd like for us to turn this evening in closing to second Timothy 3. At verse 10, I'd like to read through chapter 4, verse 5. Often enough in Reformed discussions of the doctrine of Scripture, we turn to 2 Timothy 3, and we look very particularly verses 16 and 17. But tonight I'd like to read the broader context because I think it speaks to the problem that we've been dealing with tonight. Basically, what Paul is trying to tell Timothy in 2 Timothy 3 is that the word of God must take precedence over all the contradictions of men. I'll begin reading at verse 10. Paul says, but you, you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, long suffering, love, steadfastness, persecution, sufferings. What things befell me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra, what persecutions I endured? And out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yes, and all that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and imposters shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you abide in the things which you have learned, and you have been assured of knowing of whom you have learned them, and that from a child you have known the sacred writings which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every scripture is inspired of God, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfectly furnished unto every good work. I charge you in the sight of God and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing in his glory, kingdom, preach the word, be urgent in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears will heap to themselves teachers after their own lust, and will turn away their ears from the truth and turn aside unto fables. But you be sober in all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist fulfill your ministry. The theme of this passage that we have read here very simply is that resisting challenges to its authority, Timothy is to stick solely to the all sufficient word of God in Scripture, resisting all challenges to the authority of the Bible. Note the context. Paul says you're living in times when the Word is being challenged. In verse seven of chapter three, Paul speaks of men who are learning and learning and learning, but never gaining knowledge. Ever known anybody like that? Constantly being schooled, but never seeming to come to a knowledge of the truth. Verses 8 and 9, he speaks of men who challenge sound doctrine as having corrupt minds engaging in Folly. In verse 12 he says that persecution will arise for from one's resolve to follow the Word of God amidst all contradictions of men on all sides. Indeed, in chapter four, verse three, he says that the time is going to come when men will not endure sound doctrine, but they're going to seek teaching that suits their own fancies. At this point, let me just inject one moralistic application. Notice that Paul makes it very clear that doctrinal decline in the church is the fault of the people and not of the poor shepherds. Now God will hold false teachers accountable. Don't think I'm trying to get them off the hook. But what Paul says in verse three here, the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears will heap to themselves teachers after their own desires. You see, it's because the people want the teaching from the pulpit to conform to their preconceived ideas, to their own desires, to their own wants, that they're going to encourage pastors that are going to water down the word of God or contradict the Word of God, or add something to the Word of God. Paul says, you will be to blame if you have evil teachers come to you. Because what that indicates is that your itching ears are desirous of this sort of thing. And then he goes on to characterize these teachers as having a deliberate refusal to hear God's word. He says they turn away from sound doctrine and they turn aside rather to superior fascination with outside fables. I'm reminded of First Timothy, chapter 6, verses 20 and 21, where Paul says here to Timothy, guard that which is committed unto you, turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of that which is knowledge falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith. See, there is a knowledge falsely so called, that can destroy one's faith. Timothy, you're living in a day in which on all sides, then here are these challenges to the word of God. And over against that. The strong contrast is, Timothy, you fully know what I have taught you. You have investigated it. You have modeled your life and your beliefs on it. Verse 14, Paul says to Timothy, against the militant challenges of these deceivers, you stand firm in what you know to be the truth, just like a rock resisting the increasing fury of the waves. Continue, he says, with firm belief and assurance. But why should he continue in that way? Why should he take that stand against the challenges of men? Verse 15. Because you have known the holy writings from your youth, Timothy. It's because you know the Scripture that you can take that stand against the opposition of men. And this scripture is called holy or sacred Scripture. It is said to be empowered to the specific end of giving saving wisdom to Timothy. And then in verse 16, Paul says every bit of that sacred Scripture, every separate passage, passage is as though it's breathed from God's own mouth. And indeed every bit of it is profitable for teaching and for guidance in the Christian life. But verse 17, you see, is really the climax. And it's a shame that when we talk about this, we often stop at verse 16 because Paul says, you continue in what you've learned against all the oppositions of men. Why? Because you've learned the Scripture, and the Scripture is God breathed, and the Scripture can do all these things for you. It's profitable. But then verse 17 says, in order that why has God made the Scripture to have this character? In order that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto every good work. The purpose of the profitableness of Scripture is that it will be completely sufficient. That's amazing. See, what Paul is saying is God didn't just give you a book that does some good things, but also some bad things. God gave you a book that is profitable, that is his own word, precisely so that it will be sufficient in all things for you. You'll never have to go outside of the Scripture to find correction for its guidance and for its doctrine. So in view of the sinister false teachers who are turning away from God's word, Timothy is told to abide in Sound doctrine with its most reliable foundation, the all sufficient Scripture, he is told to herald the Word over against those who are not enduring sound doctrine, those who are deluded, deceiving others and being themselves deceived. And in this way, Timothy is said to fulfill his ministry. So why is it so important that we hold to sola scriptura today? Why is it so important that we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture today? Well, Paul's given us the answer here because God has made his Bible, God has made His Word profitable to the very end that we'll need nothing else. Just consider who God is. God's not ignorant of anything and God never lies. So if everything that we find in the Bible is God's Word, it can't ever be mistaken. Just consider who we are. When we attribute perfection to the Bible, we are not simply saying something about the Bible, we're saying something about ourselves as well. When we say this is a perfect book, we're saying we take our position beneath this book. We are subject to its Word. After all, who has been God's counselor? Who can correct him? And finally, it's important that we hold to sola scriptura, to the inerrancy of Scripture, to today, because Christ is confessed to be our Savior and our Lord. How can Christ lord it over our lives if His Word is subject to challenge? How can Christ be our Savior if we can't be sure that his promise of salvation will hold true? You see an inspired, infallible, inerrant Bible, a Bible that can be, as the Reformers said, sola scriptura, the standard of my theology. Life is in fact my only lifeline to Christ. Modern theology, by contrast, is not worshiping God, but is worshipping an unknown God on the basis of human wisdom. And that, very simply put, is idolatry. Modern theology does not offer salvation, but really only a vague kind of salvation based on wishful thinking. There is no genuine hope in modern theology. There's only idolatry and a lack of hope. That's why we dare not say we love Christ while disowning the Bible. For, you see, if we disown the Bible, we become idolaters and we lose our hope of salvation. Jesus put it very well in John 12:48 when he said that if you judge His Word, His Word would judge you. On the final day. This evening, I'd like to call you to a continuation of the Protestant Reformation. Despite all the hoopla for this new Roman Catholic Pope, despite all the challenges on every side to the truth of God's, word, despite the rejection of inerrancy even within evangelical and reformed circles. If we don't have an inerrant Bible so that we can say sola scriptura of, then the result is that we are left as hopeless idolaters as all other men. Thank you. Would you like to ask any questions about tonight's lesson? Yes. Okay.

Say you're grappling with a theological question.

Or issue.

To begin with, the presupposition.

That the Bible is infallible and that.

Every other justification is somehow sufficient in.

Interpreting that in comparison to the Bible. To that. Yeah.

And then you have to return to the Scriptures themselves. Isn't that going to the Scriptures, the actual words of Scriptures also, you know, to justify your. As your authority, to justify your position also somehow an interpretation. You read those, read the words, you are perceiving those words, you are interpreting them.

Sure.

So is that not dependent on your authority then?

No. Because you see, if you pursue the line that your question suggests, what you're really doing is putting some kind of curtain or veil between me and the Scripture, saying that there is an objective, inerrant, authoritative, absolutely authoritative word out there, but nobody can know for sure what it is saying because we have to go through this veil of our interpretation. Consequently, since our interpretation is always intruded in this process, we never can be quite sure that we've gotten to that sure word. That is, although it's not intended and I know it's not your motivation, that is in fact Kantian in its outlook. That is to say, there is this noumenal word, there is this absolute authority. But since we live in a phenomenal world where we have to use our minds after all, and we're caught in the trap of our own thinking, we never know what that word says. We can never be quite sure over against that God says, no, I made your mind, I've regenerated your heart. I've given you the Scriptures which are infallible, and the Spirit which will enlighten your mind so that you can come to know the certainty of the words of truth. Now, see, the problem is that we recognize we're all fallible. We recognize it from time to time. We correct our interpretation. And so we sometimes can take that to the extreme and say, well, maybe I'm mistaken about everything that I've read there. Well, it doesn't follow. It doesn't follow from the fact that God is sanctifying us and correcting and refining our understanding of Scripture, that we can't read the Scripture and come to a proper interpretation of it with the help of God's Spirit. It just means that we have to be teachable. Right.

So it's not the actual words themselves. It is the one that's communicated to you by the Spirit that they are truth that is practical in your life.

No, they are truth in and of themselves. And we can know the truth and it will set us free. So you're asking now if I go and interpret those words, haven't they lost something of their truth and authority? And I'm saying, no, they haven't. That we have to be teachable. Sometimes we're wrong in our most basic convictions. We have to hold to what is called the perspicuity of Scripture. That it is so clear that even a child can believe it and understand the way of salvation, and yet so profound that Those who have PhDs and philosophies continue to be puzzled from details here and there and have to have the thinking corrected and reflect, oh, yes. Oh, yeah, yes. Second Corinthians, chapter two says, you see, we must compare spiritual things with spiritual things or spiritual words for spiritual things. However you want to interpret that, the Spirit has got to help us understand his word. The carnal man, the man who is not after the Spirit, the fleshly man, you see, is unable to understand the scriptures.

As you go back to scriptures over and over and over to deal with an issue, yeah. You are yet going back to the same words that many theologians have read over and over and over. And so the only way that you will, that you will know that you finally come up with something worthful is that if the Spirit tells you, you know, if the Spirit communicates you through the word, this is what you have worked.

Well, the Spirit does communicate conviction to us with respect to our interpretation and handling of the Word. But you can often know, I mean, there are ways that the Spirit shows this. For instance, let's say in reading Calvin and working through his doctrine, I come to some kind of real anomaly or contradiction, and that by interpreting a particular passage in a way different than Calvin did, I'm able to iron that out. Well, I should say that's a positive advance in my theological understanding. Not that I often do that with Calvin, I mean, who's a very good theologian. But the fact is that I may be able to recognize that the Spirit may communicate that conviction by demonstrating that there's more consistency in the system of thought when I make that slight alteration at that point. So there are. I'm not. See, it's not this mystical thing that well, who knows? Calvin may be right, I may be right, and I just sit around hoping the Spirit tells me I am. You know, I vote one way, Calvin votes another. And we're waiting for the Spirit to vote and find out who's right. That isn't what you're suggesting, but oftentimes we fall into that. And what I want to say is. Thank you. What I want to say to you though is that although you need the Spirit's conviction, that conviction is not communicated simply by something being whispered inside your head, but it's communicated by your recognizing a greater fidelity to more passages of Scripture, a greater fit, if you will, into the pattern of truth, a greater applicability to your life. Sometimes maybe I should say, although I dare not get too involved in this at this late hour, that there's even a place, I think, for one's emotions being considered when it comes to testing various doctrines. That isn't to say that one's emotions take precedence over the word of God. But what I'm getting at is that, you see, it's the whole person that's doing this interpretation. Not as we often in reform circles think, the person with his mind, you know, this isolated ghost of a brain that's doing the work totally apart from the desires of my body or the needs of my emotions and stuff like that, but in terms of my needs in life, in terms of who I am and the pattern of sound words and health giving doctrine. The Spirit does communicate conviction about a better understanding of the word of God. That's a self correcting process. And we all get on the train, if you will, at a certain point. Point there's an elementary understanding of the scripture that everybody begins with. And then you kind of work your way around the circle and every time you go around the circle you understand just a little bit more and correct a little bit more. But it's on the basis of your previous learning that you can go about and have that growth pattern and refining pattern. You don't start new all over again. You start with a rough and ready understanding. Most people understand there is this Creator and I'm guilty before him. He sent his son who shed blood, somehow saves me and I'm going to be answerable to him. Okay. So I mean you begin with a very primitive and elementary understanding of Christianity. But then you see things start getting filled in and as they get filled in, you understand better and you can correct and refine. Dave, what the justification would be for. Let's say we wanted to grill somebody who wanted to come here and teach. And he insisted that he was biblical in his viewpoints, but we demanded that he assent to, say, the Nicene definition or calcification. Definition of the Trinity or Christ or something like that. What would be the justification in doing that rather than just letting them approach the. Well, the justification in that case is going to be the same justification that you offer for creeds being written in the first place. Now, if you believe there is a justification, then that's the reason why you demand people come in and submit to your creed. But if you don't think there's a place for creeds, no creed but the Bible, right? Then you say, no, go ahead and quote the Bible. The reason we have creeds is because, you see, there are a lot of different things people do with the Bible. And in applying the Bible to particular theological questions, in particular problems of the day, creeds have formulated the pattern of sound words, given the vocabulary, conceptions and intellectual conundrums of that day. And so a man who comes in and says, well, yeah, I know what the Chalcedonian Creed says about the person of Christ, but there are better ways of putting that then I'd like to say, all right, but do you understand what its function was in its day? Do you understand the problems of that day and why it says what it does? And do you, in terms of that terminology, instead of problems, affirm it? Well, yes, it's just that today we've got to go beyond that and say more. And I say, well, fine, put your hand to it. But I'd like to know whether he affirms it and goes beyond it, refining it, or whether he says, ah, well, that's not right. Even then, on what basis would we make the Chalcedonian definition. Authoritative? I guess in the Reformed churches, no creed is authoritative without being first designated a secondary standard in the church. That's quite a thing we got going here. New cup and everything. Thank you. A secondary standard, in virtue of the fact that it's said to be secondary, stands under the primary standard of Scripture. So that a man who differs with the secondary standard, if he can make his case on the basis of the primary standard, should be in good stead with the church. But then again, the church may not be convinced that he's made his case and will stick to its secondary standard. The man will think that they're sticking to the secondary standard against Scripture, but they will think because Scripture supports the secondary standard, that they are really leaving the secondary standard as secondary, which may sound very confusing to those of you who are falling asleep by this time. But that is the human condition. That's just the way, way it is. We have creeds because when you ask a man what he believes, he's got to summarize. You say, now wait a minute, I don't have to summarize, I'll just quote the Bible. But you see, even the passages he chooses to quote amount to a summary. See, the only way you can get away from a creed, if you really want to be honest, is that whenever you ask a man what he believes, he starts in the beginning. God created. And he reads till he gets to the last line of revelation. He says, I have no creed but Christ, no creed but the Bible. I mean, and this is it, this is what I believe. But you see, that's unworkable. And so we've got a question. Does God save men or do men save themselves? Does the law save men or does grace save men? Well, at that point, you see, you're going to have to start summarizing lines of thought in the Bible. And I don't care whether you write it down and get a lot of people to vote for it or not, you've got a creed. Some people do their creed self consciously and well, and some people do them unwittingly and sloppily. But we all have creeds. And for my money, I prefer to have a self conscious creed than one that's just adopted without recognizing that I'm doing so. So that's the justification for creeds. We got to have a way of summarizing what God's word says to the particular questions that are coming crucial to our day. Now there are questions that are crucial to every day too. That isn't to say that we're going to have always changing, but it does seem to me that there are certain things in the Westminster Confession that if it were being written today, would not get the prominence that they do. The confession gives as one example a whole chapter to lawful oaths and vows. Well, I mean, I believe everything that says in that chapter as far as I know. But I don't think that it deserves a whole chapter in our day and age. It did in that day because of the just the deplorable plight that Christians found them in making these vows to the church or to a priest or a vow of perpetual celibacy or something. And the Reformers had to say something to that. So they went into great length about why you're not bound by a vow that is contrary to Scripture, that sort of thing. But in our day, when that's not as big a problem, I'm not sure I'd give a whole chapter to that question. It would be a secondary point in a chapter somewhere. So that's what I'm getting at. The confession may change, you know, points like that, but I think we need confessions and I think that what confessions have said will always be in the main valid throughout the history of the Church. You spoke on Canada. Could you just briefly run down why we hold that the canon Scripture is closed as opposed to other supposed revelations, either in ways or in say, charismatic events without regular prophecies? Well, we believe that the canon of Scripture is closed because. Because Paul taught that in giving inspired Scripture, all things had been given to the Church, making it sufficient for its life and doctrine. And the question comes up, well, at what exact point were all those things in? At what point did God stop authoring Scripture so that everything was present? Well, it's clearly within the lifetime of the apostles, because the apostles are defined in the New Testament as the authoritative spokesman for the Christ and they don't pass on that to somebody else. When Christ invested them with that apostolic authority, he didn't also say, and by the way, this is kind of like an apple, you can pass it to somebody else. No, they were the foundations of the Church and therefore it's got to be their word that defines the Church. And so we know that the giving of canonical Scripture has to cease in the Apostles day. And then there's a question of, well, what of the. These ancient documents is apostolic and has been imposed by the apostles as law on the church and that sort of thing. But anybody who thinks that beyond the lifetime of the apostles God was giving Scripture is contradicting what the New Testament itself teaches. Are you following all that? Secondly, when somebody wants to offer a new revelation, it's good to remember that Deuteronomy lays down this rule that any new revelation is going to be consistent with the previous one. So when Joseph Smith offers a new revelation and you can find contradictions between that revelation and the previous one, what that demonstrates is that this may be a revelation, but it's not from the living and true God. Probably not a revelation either, but it's certainly not from God because he would have contradicted himself. Looks like everybody's ready to quit. We'll leave it at that. I'm going to come back in a few weeks. Dave and I will set up a time and address a difficult philosophical and theological subject. And I, I hope that we can get started early and we'll all be bright and alert for that, because it's going to be hard row to hoe, and that's going to be the theological foundations of logic. And how does this Christian use logic and what qualification is made on it and what application it has and all that. Thank you very much.