Sola Scriptura

, we are going to, move into a spin off of some of the stuff that we've been looking at in the book of Galatians. We've been hitting the doctrine of justification by faith alone quite a bit, as it's a huge theme in the book of Galatians, and Milton asked if we could take some time to hit some of the other related themes. And if you're familiar with the Reformation solas, we're going to start an intermittent series on the five solas. What by intermittent is we're not going to do it consecutively.

We'll hit sola scriptura, scripture alone this morning, and then we'll hit some of the other ones, sola kristos, Christ alone, grace alone, faith alone, and to God's glory alone. We're going to hit those over the next couple of months, probably whenever I get a chance to be up here. So, so Solar Scripture is going to be the one that we're going to start with this morning, Scripture alone, and that's the title of the message. The subtitle could be Is Scripture Enough.

Is Scripture enough? 1 Corinthians 4:6 says, Do not go beyond what is written. But there are those that would say that scripture is not. Enough.

There are those that would say scripture alone, and then there are those who would say Scripture plus something. Scripture plus tradition is the way that we ought to approach our authority base in our Constitution Article 3A. Under the section that says holy scriptures, that's the first section in our doctrinal statement. We say, we believe the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be verbally inspired, the verbally inspired word of God, the final authority for faith in life.

And so, at Cornerstone, we affirm the doctrine of sola scriptura, scripture alone. And before we continue with this, I just want to ask AV team up there to show a little clip. from Martin Luther's life. This is at the Diet of Worms or the assembly at this particular city called Worms, where Martin Luther has been asked to recant all of his writings and teachings, and he asked for one day to think and pray about it.

So they give him 24 hours and he goes and prays and thinks. And so what you're going to see is a dramatization of him coming back and, and reporting back to the king and to the councils. his response to their request for him to recant of his writings. Let's just take a look at this momentarily.

I am prepared to respect. That's positive I James. And these writings. They're a different kind.

No. anxiety not others. I attacked well I How about these? I, I Jesus Christ.

I say now, if I have spoken evil. I You. Yeah. Last last.

There it is. That, OK. All right. And not by who have often contradicted each other.

Unless I am so convinced that I am wrong, I am bound to my beliefs by the text of the Bible. My Captive to the word of God. God Not at all. I, I Not.

All right. OK, that is the famous here I stand speech. Am I coming through? OK, or?

OK. in another place, Martin Luther says actually a couple of years before this in a debate with John Eck. A council may sometimes err. Neither the church nor the pope can establish articles of faith.

These must come from Scripture. So is this just the stuff of a good movie? Or is there something to what Luther said, that is crucial to what it means to be a Christian, and crucial to the purity of the gospel? There are those that would take issue with Luther and say that this doctrine is merely a concoction of the Protestant Reformation.

A couple of quotes here from others on the other side of the debate. John O'Brien, a Catholic scholar says, great as is our reverence for the Bible, reason and experience compel us to say that it alone is not a competent nor a safe guide as to what we are to believe. This is the Scripture plus something viewpoint. Henry Graham in the Bible in the book, Where We Got the Bible says this, Venerable and inspired as Catholics regard the Bible, great as is their devotion to it for spiritual reading and support of doctrine, we yet do not pretend to lean upon it alone as the rule of faith and morals.

Along with it, we take that great word that was never written, tradition. And hold by both the one and the other interpreted by the living voice of the Catholic Church speaking through her supreme head, the infallible Vicar of Christ. And so you have two diametrically opposed viewpoints. Scripture alone, Scripture is enough.

Scripture is not enough. Let me define what do we mean first of all, what do we not mean by Scripture alone. When we or when the reformers were resurrecting or renaissancing as it were, this doctrine, resurrecting it from the early church, what did they mean by it? Well, first of all, they did not mean that the Bible is the only place where truth can be found.

It's not like you're going to find how to plant your your garden in the Bible. That's not what the reformers were saying. We do not mean that the Bible is equally clear to all people. It doesn't mean that every single scripture is as clear to everyone as any other scripture.

It does not mean that the instruction of the church is not helpful and authoritative. In fact, the Bible itself is what gives the church authority. In fact, one of the critiques that those of us in Western evangelicalism would readily admit, or we should readily admit, is that we tend to be too independent of our leaders and the authority that is established in the local church. And sometimes take it upon ourselves to decide all matters rather than coming to the community and submitting to our elders, as it were, as Hebrews 13 says.

But here's what solar scriptura does mean. The scriptures are our only ultimate and infallible authority for faith in practice. And this raises a number of questions. There's a number of questions that surround this doctrine of solo scriptura.

Well, first of all, do we serve a paper pope? Those that would be on the other side would say, well, we have the living pope, you have the paper Pope. Some would say if so of scripture is so important, why isn't it even mentioned in the Bible? Is there any place in the Bible where the Bible says Scripture alone?

If tradition is a source of authority, whose tradition is to be accepted Catholic traditions, Orthodox traditions, Mormon traditions, Coptic traditions? And which versions of those traditions? It's not as if you have unified traditions in each one of those scripture plus viewpoints. If we give up solar scripture scriptura, will we give up sola gracia as well?

Salvation by grace alone. And so with that introduction, I want to propose 5 developments of this doctrine, the sola again that was not invented at the time of the Reformation, the Protestant Reformation. But it was renaissance. It was born again at the time of the Reformation.

5 developments of this doctrine that will help us get our minds around it and help us realize that this is not some concoction of the Protestant Reformation, but we find it in the Bible itself by good reason from Scripture. First of all, let's look at the first development. And that is God has revealed Himself. Children, this is where you can fill in your outline.

God has revealed Himself. 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 arbitrated? Well, God has revealed Himself. The Bible teaches that our faith is based upon God's own self-revelation rather than the conflicting opinions or untrustworthy speculations of men.

This does not mean that human wisdom is always wrong. However, it does mean that human wisdom is fallible. It is not a sufficient foundation for believing anything about God, since God alone is adequate to witness to Himself. So God has revealed Himself.

We see in 1 Corinthians chapter 2, Paul writing to the Corinthians, he says, my message in my preaching, we're not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power. So that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom but on God's power. But God has revealed it to us by the Spirit's revelation of Himself, the power of the Spirit coming and revealing the gospel by revelation to Paul. Verse 13, this is what we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths and spiritual words.

We know from earlier in the book that when Paul uses the word power, that's basically synonymous for the Gospels. It says in 1 Corinthians 1:18, from the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved, it is the power of God. And so we see Paul and others, speaking of the self-revelation that has come powerfully supernaturally to them by the Holy Spirit. Also, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, we see this revelation, as Paul says, and we also thank God continually because when you receive the Word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the Word of men.

But is it as it actually is, the word of God. Paul knew when he was speaking, Paul knew when he was writing that he was delivering the very revealed Word of God. Paul spoke of the sacred writings, which make us wise unto salvation and said that every one of them is God breathed, it's breathed out by the Holy Spirit. And so God's people must not submit to words that do not come from God's mouth, as Jeremiah says in chapter 23.

Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you. They fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth. Of the Lord.

So passages like Jeremiah 23, we see it's possible and it's been happening since the beginning until today for people to speak as if they're speaking from God, but in actually, in actuality to be speaking merely for themselves. It's not as though human wisdom never gets anything right. We're not saying that nobody can ever speak anything correctly outside of the Bible, but we cannot rest secure in anything that does not come from the mouth of Jehovah Himself. And that's why Paul can say in Colossians 2:8, see to it that no one takes you captive to hollow.

And deceptive philosophy which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Jesus says in Matthew 15, Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. So we know that God has revealed Himself and He is the initiation initiator of the self-revelation, and He alone has the prerogative to add to or fulfill his own self-revelation. And so we see it's, it's a very serious thing to subtract from God's word or to add anything to it.

A couple of passages. Deuteronomy 4:2, Moses says, or talking, speaking from the Lord, do not add to the words which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord which I command you. In Revelation 22:18, we see John say, I testify to you, everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone adds them, God shall add in the plagues that are written in this book.

Or if anyone takes away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part in the tree of life. Now while this may be just speaking of the book of Revelation, you see that it's God's prerogative to add to and take away from his own self-revelation. even the early church fathers Cyril of Jerusalem concurs with this. Notice what he says, for concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not even the casual statement must be delivered without the holy scriptures.

Nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech, even to me. An early church father who tell the these things give not absolute credence unless thou receive the proof of these things which I have announced from the divine scriptures. For this salvation, which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning but on demonstration of the holy scriptures 360 AD. Therefore, this, this debate between Scripture alone or Scripture plus tradition.

There is no meaningless debate between theologians. It's not something that you can just sit around and say, what, it really doesn't matter. Let's let the theologians battle it out as they've been battling it out for 2000 years now. Either Protestants, those of us in this room from a Protestant background, have taken away from God's word and not accepting various traditions, or Catholics, Orthodox, or others who have a Scripture plus viewpoint.

have added to God's word in adding their respective traditions to Scripture. And so the questions need to be asked, are we under the curse of God? Have we subtracted from his revelation? Have we presumed in our own wisdom to add to his word?

And so the first demonstration, the first development of this doctrine of solar scriptura is realized that God has revealed Himself. The second development to get our minds around the scriptural basis for this doctrine, and that God has revealed Himself in Christ. The epitome of God's revelation is found in Christ, as Hebrews 1:1 says, God, after he spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets, in many portions, in many ways, that's Old Testament prophecy, in these last days has spoken to us.

In His Son, notice the finality of the statement of that phrase in these last days have spoken to us in His Son Jesus is spoken of as being the Word of God.

However, how do we know about Christ today? How is it that we have any information about our Lord? How is it that we know one piece of data about our Christ that takes us to our third development of this doctrine, that is Christ has revealed Himself through The apostles, and you might write in margin there, and the prophets, the prophets that are connected to the apostles, he's revealed Himself through the apostles. How do we know about Jesus?

Well, we are dependent upon the written word of the Gospels. Without the written word of the Gospels, you and I do not have any sure source of Jesus Christ. Jesus commissioned certain men to have the right to speak and write for Him. We see in John 14:26 that Jesus begins to set this whole thing up.

He says, But the helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I've said to you. The Holy Spirit was going to bring instant recall back to the apostles as they begin to write out what their experiences that they had with the Lord Jesus Christ. And then John 16:13, but when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. Jesus would actually guide the apostles and their prophetic associates into all truth.

Brothers and sisters, you and I are not guided into all truth. The apostles and prophets in your church were guided into all truth when they were speaking by revelation and when they were writing by revelation. The apostles were not to pass on their own wisdom, but God's own word. The apostles actually had the power of attorney, as it were.

The apostle of a man was considered the man himself in a court of law, as we see like in Matthew 10:40 where Jesus says, He who receives you receives me. He who receives me receives him who sent me again. In summary, again, the apostles were commissioned as Christ's spokesmen and received the promise of divine revelation. And so we see Peter, for instance, in Matthew 16:17, Jesus answered and said, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven, has revealed these truths to Peter.

Galatians 1:11, for Paul says, I would have, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man, for I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ Himself. This is stuff that was going on with the apostles in the early church that brothers and sisters, you and I have never had that experience, direct divine revelation that can be spoken and written with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself.

Peter, Paul, these apostles had the power of attorney to speak for Paul to stand up and speak by revelation was as if Jesus Christ Himself was speaking and writing. So upon what does Jesus build the church?

Matthew 16:18 says, And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. the one of the lines of reasoning is that Christ is building his church on Peter, who would be the future pope. There are those that would say no, he's building his church on Christ who is the rock. Is Jesus speaking of Peter as an individual here?

How could Jesus be building his church on Peter when a few verses later, he's going to call Peter Satan? Is the church being built upon the foundation of Satan? Peter was speaking, not merely for himself, but for all the apostles. Jesus said when he begins this dialogue, but who do you plural, say that I am?

Not who do you singular Peter say that I am? And Peter stands up and answers for the 12. So Bonson says, I believe this is an excellent summary, 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 received the rebuke from Jesus.

So Jesus built His church upon the confessing apostles, those that were being guided into all truth, those that were being guided by the Holy Spirit and given perfect recall, insofar as they were confessing truth from the Holy Spirit, the church was being built upon the apostles and prophets writing insofar as they departed from the, the very things that they spoke and wrote, insofar as they departed from those things, they could be rebuked and called Satan. And called on the carpet for not obeying what they themselves were prophesying.

Support for this view is found in Ephesians 2:20, where Paul says, Having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, that's New Testament apostles apostles and New Testament prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone. It's the apostles and prophets that lay this foundation.

The church is being built upon their self-revelation of Jesus Christ Himself in their preaching and their writing. So there is a sense in which the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles as they confess Christ truly. And faithfully, The apostles received a body of truth which was a criteria for doctrine and for life in the early church. Now up to this point, We have not mentioned really anything that contradicts those that reject solo cripura, those that hold the Scripture plus viewpoint.

But how did the church come into contact with Christ's revelation of himself through the apostles? That 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. Which brings us to our 4th development of this doctrine.

Number 4. The apostles have handed down this revelation. God revealed himself, God revealed Himself in Christ. Christ has revealed himself to the apostles, and the apostles have handed down this revelation to the church.

In your English translations of your scriptures, you will find that the New Testament, often speaks about tradition as authoritative, the word tradition. And those who deny solo scripture appeal to these passages, taking for granted that when the New Testament speaks of tradition, it means tradition in the sense of their particular version of church tradition. Now mind you, all these variant traditions go to these New Testament passages trying to support their support for Scripture Plus.

If they're from a Roman Catholic tradition, they go there.

If they're from Orthodox, if they're from a Mormon background, Coptic, what have you, they all try to go back and find their tradition. In these English words being translated in our Bibles as tradition. But how did the church learn of the apostolic truth? We need to ask, what is, what is the New Testament, these New Testament verses really mean when they use the word tradition?

How did the church learn from apostolic truth, the apostolic truth from God, this body of dogma, the apostles had the authority to communicate to God's people, it was passed down. And because it was passed down from the apostles, it is called the deposit. So what is, let's just look for a second, what does the Bible mean when it uses the word tradition? Well, the Greek words, there's several Greek words that come behind this English term.

They all emanate from the Greek verb paraididymi. And when you look at the various noun versions and and and verb versions of this word, you have the idea of a handing down, the handing over to another to transmit anything entrusted to one, a deposit, that which is communicated from one person to another, translated as the deposit, that which is given over, the tradition. So tradition is the truth that the apostles teach or hand down. As a revelation from God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

That's all tradition means. It's that which is handed down and in the technical sense it's that which is handed down and delivered from the apostles. So what does the New Testament teach about this tradition? What do we find about this apostolic tradition from the words of Scripture?

Do we find that there's this oral tradition that's totally different from the New Testament times, totally different from what's revealed in Scripture? There's this oral thing that's very different from the written thing. Let's see what the scriptures say. 2 Timothy 1:13.

Paul says, hold, he's talking to Timothy, 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. That's our word tradition or traditioned unto thee, guard through the Holy Spirit. Paul has handed down teaching, he's handed down words to Timothy. First Timothy 6, Timothy, he says, Oh, Timothy, guard, what has been entrusted to you.

That's our word tradition, avoiding worldly and empty chatter, and opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. There's those that will come and raise up some false knowledge that they'll claim is tradition, but you, Timothy, need to listen to the traditions that I have passed down to you as an authoritative apostle. Not these words of wisdom from mere men. The apostolic deposit, this pattern of sound words passed down to the church by the apostles, was to be guarded, he tells Timothy.

Furthermore, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Paul says, now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition, which you have received. That merely means the things that have been passed down. The things I've written you about, the things I wrote about in First Thessalonians, the things you heard me say when I was there in Thessalonica, those are the things that have been passed down, the words that have emanated from the authoritative apostle Paul.

2 Peter 2:21, Peter says, for it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than, having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them.

That's the same word traditioned to them. So this pattern of sound words is to be guarded as the standard for all future teaching in the church as well. Notice Paul says to Timothy and the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust a faithful man who will be able to teach others also. Paul, the apostles passing on to Timothy.

Timothy is not supposed to make up his own thing. He's supposed to take the apostles' words and pass it on to the next guy and keep that train rolling. And so what is this tradition in summary? What is this tradition?

It is not, I would propose to you, papal traditions or other church traditions, but the deposit which is handed over or delivered is the pattern of sound words taught by the apostles, as is clear in the scriptures, and they taught it on the basis of revelation from God. Thus we know what the truth is. It's the deposit. And why it is called tradition because it is passed down.

That's what the Bible means when it speaks of tradition. Let's ask a final question in this section, which is a very important question because this is where those that deny solo scriptura depart severely from us. In what form was it passed down to the church? Well, Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions, hold the things I've handed down to you which were taught, whether by word or epistle.

There you go. This is the key passage that those who believe in scripture plus something point to to say that you have those things that are taught orally and those things that are passed down by writing, and these are two. A lines that run throughout church history. You have oral tradition.

You have written tradition. They're two totally different bodies of information that we need to bring together in stereo in order to have the complete revelation of God. If you don't have the oral and the written, you don't have the complete revelation of God. Is that what Paul is meaning to lead to when he talks about word or epistle?

We'll notice in verse 2 of the same chapter, that the Thessalonians had been shaken. Paul says, Do not be soon shaken in mind or or troubled either by spirit, or by word, or by letter, as if from us as though the day of Christ had come. The implication here is the Thessalonians had received both oral word and written letters that indicated that the day of the Lord was already there. And so in response to that, Paul says, Don't you guys remember what I taught you?

I taught you orally when I was there in Thessalonica. I wrote you First Thessalonians about the day of the Lord. So are you getting confused now about this, this, this word and this writing? Listen to what I have said and what I have written.

Is Paul speaking here of one thing that comes to the church in two ways, or two totally polar opposite things or two different bodies of truth that come to the church? I would propose that the one deposit came through two means written when he wrote 1 Thessalonians and spoken when he was in Thessalonica in Acts 17. But notice what the Council of Trent does with verses like this. The Council of Trent says this.

It also clearly perceived now the Council of Trent is a council of those in the actual reformed period in response to the Reformation. This is the Counter-Reformation movement of the Roman Catholic Church responding to teachings like Solar Scripura. It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books, and in the unwritten traditions, which received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself or the apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand.

Following then the examples of the Orthodox Fathers.

It receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence for all the books, both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both. That's so far so good as far as what they say about the Old New Testament. Also, the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession, two different bodies of truth, oral and written, that must come together, otherwise you do not have the complete revelation of God.

In other traditions you would have this construction on the next slide.

Holy tradition is made up of both scripture, councils, creeds, church fathers, liturgical custom, canon law, and icons. All of these make up what is necessary to have enough of what is needed to know Christ properly. Bonsson, in response to 2 Thessalonians and to these types of statements, says this, Greg Bonson, 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.

Paul doesn't suggest that one or the other supplements the opposite. He simply says guard the traditions, and you have received them in writing and you received them orally. So if instruction comes in summary from one pretending to be Paul, as seems to be the case in 2 Thessalonians, either by word or mouth or by letter, it's to be rejected. If instruction comes from the apostle Paul himself either verbally or written, then it is to be held onto and guarded.

The issue here is apostolic source and authority. If you have it in either form, you have the word of God, because when an apostle dispenses the word of Christ, that word binds the church. So what do we say then to those who argue that we are bound to follow their oral traditions as well as the written? What do we say to those who say the scripture is not enough?

Well, first of all, oral and written communications are two conduits in the early church for the same apostolic deposit. If we're looking at what the scriptures are saying, we're not talking about two different bodies of data. We're talking about the same body of data that's coming in two different ways. I am under obligation to listen to the oral teaching of the apostles, and by the way, they are not around anymore.

The apostles don't instruct us orally anymore. The only way we now receive that deposit is in writing. The office of apostle is not a continuing office. This is proved by a number of different facts and scripture.

To be an apostle, it was required to be a witness of the resurrection of Christ. Notice in Acts 1:22, when they need to find a replacement apostle, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:1, Am I not an apostle? Am I not free?

And have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? To be an apostle, one must be personally commissioned. Secondly, by the Lord Himself. They have to have seen the resurrected Christ, and they have to be personally commissioned by the Lord Himself.

Paul says, Paul in first in Galatians 1:1, Paul, an apostle, not for men, nor through men, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. So the apostolic office was restricted to the first generation of the church. Notice that Paul's personal successor Timothy is never given an apostolic title in the New Testament. If anybody was to be given the succession of apostolic title, it should have been Timothy, and he's never called an apostle.

The foundation, once been laid, does not need to be laid again. In Ephesians 2:20, we have this foundation that's laid down. We don't need a continual laying of the foundation. Jude in his own day, could begin to speak of the faith that was once for all traditioned, delivered to the saints.

In his own in the writing of Jude, he's already beginning to speak of the, of the settled tradition, this tradition that is becoming settled and established as the apostles and prophets prophets finish their writing. FF Bruce says this, 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 extrabiblical traditions which are promulgated as dogma by ecclesiastical authority.

It's an excellent summary of the Protestant position from FF Bruce. Bonsson says it is not a growing tradition.

It is not a living tradition by which we mean something that the Pope or others can add to. It is simply the body of truth that the apostles, having received by divine revelation, pass on to the church, whether orally in their own day or by writing. That's a great summary of the doctrine of soul of Scripture. But let's, let's hit a final and crucial development of this doctrine.

God has revealed Himself. God has revealed Himself in Christ. God, Christ has revealed Himself through the apostles, and the apostles have handed down this revelation. But fifthly, this revelation has been necessarily inscripturated by the Holy Spirit.

When we say necessarily, we mean it was a must. It was a sovereign need for revelation to be inscripturated. What governs the church? What is to govern the church today?

What is to govern the church of all ages? Well, follow me with some lines of reasoning here. Throughout redemptive history, God has spoken directly to some people. God spoke directly to Adam.

He spoke directly to Moses. He spoke directly to Abraham. God was heard in the inspired preaching of Jonah. Amos, Ezekiel, Christ and the apostles engaged in oral instruction.

They did go from city to city and deliver orally authoritative revelation. And God also gave His word in written form in the tablets of the law in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Paul. Now here's the rub. How was oral instruction Given to an individual going to benefit God's people as a whole.

Ezekiel is out there prophesying. How is that going to benefit Israel for the rest of their ages? Jeremiah's prophesying, how is that going to benefit. Israel for the rest of it, Paul is out preaching.

How is his preaching going to benefit the church of all ages? Any oral instruction as authoritative as it was in itself. If it was meant to be a standard for all God's people, needed to be reduced to writing so there would be an objective standard that governed all of God's people. And this is for a number of different reasons, we can prove this from the Bible itself.

It was to test the prophets and later Revelation. To propagate the truth and guard against corruption. Even to test the apostles themselves. In Acts 17:11, while the apostles had authority through their oral instruction to deliver the deposit, when there was any question about what they taught, the apostles who had the authority of Christ nevertheless appealed to in scripture revelation as the basis for what they taught.

Even the apostles themselves are submitting themselves to the written word. In the Old Testament, false prophets, how are you to test false prophets, they were exposed by the previously inscribed law. Even Jesus, when not appealing to his own authority, clinched his arguments, not by appealing to oral tradition, but by saying what it is written. Have you not read?

Paul in his day, 1 Corinthians 4:6 says, Now brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, Do not go beyond what is written. And this is a very interesting verse because a number of commentators note. That this saying that's in quotations, do not go beyond what is written, was an early recitation. It was something that the early church would have said in their meetings to one another.

Just as we sing and recite songs and reciting the gospel in part of the early church service, they would have said to themselves, Do not go beyond what is written. As part of the early church service. Calvin says, now daily oracles are not sent from heaven, for it pleased the Lord to hallow his truth and everlasting remembrance in the scriptures alone. And so these are, I think, 5 developments.

That help us establish the doctrine of solar scripture that the Bible is enough, not merely from the Reformation. We're not looking to establish this from the Reformation on. We're looking at what the Bible says itself about things like revelation, apostles, tradition, inscripturation. And I believe this can be established from the Bible.

And so that's the biblical case. Yet there is value in looking at some of the words from church history, and I want to give you some quotes here over the next few minutes from first some early church fathers and then also from some pre-Reformation teachers and then from some reformed guys during the Reformation. Let me give you some, some, a grid to and how to think through, especially the early church fathers, first of all, in, in reading early church history, it's important to remember that And I don't have this on the outline, but first of all, church history is not the Bible, right?

We believe that the scriptures themselves are the final source of authority, and we view all of church history through the grid, through the glasses of the Bible.

So when we come to things in church history from beginning to to today, It's not surprising to us to find things in church history that contradict the scriptures because you have fallible people making fallible statements. Nevertheless, when we do come to the church, we need to remember and ask the question, which of the eight meanings of the word tradition is used? A lot of times when the early church fathers are quoted as supporting oral tradition as on par in addition to written tradition.

There's no distinction of which tradition is being used in the context, and it would behoove you to to look at what the context is and how is that word tradition being used.

Secondly, the fathers talked about the scriptures in a way that is very different from scripture plus tradition proponents. You're not going to find the early church fathers promoting doctrines like the infallibility of the Pope, like, The purity of the sinlessness of Mary, Treasury of merits. You're not going to find those things being propagated in these early church quotes about tradition. Thirdly, while the apostolic fathers did discuss apostolic tradition in distinction from the scripture, it is clear that this apostolic tradition was considered as an exact echo of the scripture and did not include doctrines that Scripture was silent about.

it would make sense that in the development of the canon, before the canon is developed that there would be access to the written but also still a lot of access to just things that people still remember. heck, you've got Polycarp who was a disciple of John, right, and Polycarp at times no doubt was saying, oh, I remember when John was telling me such and such. And so it's, it's not surprising that you do have people remembering things that were spoken. Fourthly, the Apostolic fathers viewed oral tradition between 30 and 100 AD as a duplicate of Scripture.

They also stated that Scripture replaced oral tradition. In other words, there was nothing in oral tradition that was lacking in Scripture. We also need to remember that all the early creeds were based directly upon A scripture on a clause by clause basis. And then fifthly, when the Apostolic fathers did speak of traditions, they're not found in Scripture.

They're normally minor local customs like not taking a bath the week after baptism or something like that. so let's look at just a couple of things. We'll skip a slide here and look at Clement of Alexandria. Just hit the title of one of his chapters is this.

This is 180 AD, mind you. The title of his chapter is Scripture The Criterion by which Truth and Heresy Are Distinguished. That's the title of his chapter. And then he goes on to discuss how the Scripture.

is the basis by which we refute heretics. Irenaeus 180 AD says this We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us. That's the idea of tradition, which they did at one time proclaim in public. In a later period by the will of God handed down to us in the scriptures to be the ground and pillar of our faith, for it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed.

They possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. That's Irenaeus 180 AD, exulting in scripturation, Cyprian. in 250 AD. But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles.

Anyone may know also from the fact that concerning the celebration of Easter, concerning many, many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them and that all things are not observed among them alike which are observed at Jerusalem. His argument is. The oral tradition is contradictory. He's saying this in 250 AD.

You see we've got Athanasius. For the sake of time, we'll skip him. Augustine has some really great stuff to say. I want to skip the Jerome, lest you think that everybody in the early church was just all about solo scriptura.

By the time you get to Jerome, he is echoing a Scripture plus mentality. Notice he says, Do you not know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the churches? Do you, do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles, and even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture, the consensus of the whole world and respect in this respect would have the force of a command.

For many other observances of the churches which are due to tradition have acquired the authority of the written laws, and the quote goes on, By the time of Jerome, you do have people speaking of oral tradition as being on par with scripture. If we had time, we could read John Casian, who says the same types of stuff, but let's skip to the Waldenses. Actually, let's skip to Wycliffe. A pre-Reformer.

This is about 100 years before the Reformation, actually 150 years before the Reformation gets kicked off. Notice what he says about Augustine, which has some great stuff to say about the scriptures. Jerome, which has some bummer things to say about inscripturation. Wycliffe says neither the testimony of Augustine nor Jerome, nor any other saint should be accepted, except insofar as it was.

Based on scripture, Christ's law is best and enough, and other laws men should not take, but as branches of God's law. This is Wickliffe is writing almost 200 years, 150 years before Luther. Huss told the Council of Constances, I am humbly ready to retract anything. That shall be proved erroneous to me according to the scriptures.

Calvin, in one of the titles of the institutes, has this title for his chapter Scripture must be confirmed by the witness of the Spirit. Thus may its authority be established as certain, and it is a wicked falsehood that its credibility depends on the judgment of the church. I wish these guys would speak more clearly and be more straight to the point. That's a joke.

a few closing, questions and observations before we pray. That's a survey of just some of the things that you see in church history. Again, church history is not authoritative, but we see ample demonstration that while there is, people who begin to depart from the, the truth of the early church, it does get resurrected. It does get renaissanced.

before the Reformation and then really comes to life at the time of the Reformation. A couple of closing questions and observations. What is it exactly that some feel we need in addition to the scriptures? Is there some oral tradition that goes all the way back to the apostles, that's not in the Bible?

Why wasn't it written down? Is it what the church has generated through papal decree or councils? How do you properly identify tradition? Not all tradition is authoritative tradition.

What are the proper bounds of authoritative tradition? Can they give us an example of some doctrinal or ethical principle that is not already in Scripture, not contrary to Scripture, based upon what is properly identified as tradition that has been passed down from the apostles, is necessary in some sense to Christian life for the church, and could not have been revealed during the days of the apostles? Some questions to be asked. Is an oral tradition unreliable by nature?

Notice even in John 21:23, John says this, because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. That's John. but Jesus did not say that he would not die. he only said, if I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?

This is the disciple who testifies to these things, who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Even in John's own day, people are getting oral tradition wrong. Have you ever played the telephone game?

has to be inscripturated of necessity by the Holy Spirit. And so what is a believer to do with traditions that contradict each other, the tradition of a universal pope or not? Rome or Constantinople? Should we use images and worship, three dimensional or two?

Which pope had the keys during the papal schism when there were 3 popes? What is the foundation of the most distinctive and controversial doctrines and practices of the Scripture plus tradition advocates? Scripture or tradition? Things like purgatory, is that the Bible or tradition, the mass, transubstantiation, indulgences, treasury of merit, penance, the rosary, prayers to Mary and the saints, holy water, the papacy.

Time and time again you're going to see that tradition is where these things come from, not from the Bible. And lastly, what are the consequences of giving up solar scriptura as some in Protestantism are prone to do these days? There are those these days that are saying it is not a big deal. This is not something to divide over.

These are minor issues. What do we lose if we give up solar scriptura? Well, the Bible teaches that the office of bishop, bishop, and presbyter are the same office, but tradition says they're different offices. The Bible teaches that all have sinned except Jesus, but tradition says Mary was sinless.

The Bible teaches that Christ offered his sacrifice once for all, but tradition says that the priest sacrifices Christ on an altar at the mass. The Bible says that we are not to bow down to statues, but tradition says that we should bow down to statues and venerate icons. The Bible says that all Christians are saints and priests, but tradition says that saints and priests are special castes within the Christian community. The Bible says that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man.

But tradition says Mary is the co-medior with Christ. The Bible says that all Christians can know that they have eternal life. But tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life. What do we lose?

We lose a lot Are we willing to give up on these doctrines? The reformers saw that the words of Jesus to the Pharisees applied equally to their day, you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. And we need to look in our own hearts and ask ourselves, are we nullifying the Word of God for the sake of our own personal traditions? Are there things in the Bible and the Word of God, that we will not accept, because it does not match our own personal tradition?

Are there things that God has revealed through the apostles that we, we keep God at an arm's distance because it does not agree with our own personal Belief system. Let me just, before we pray, recommend to you an excellent book that is called Solar Scriptura. The Protestant position on the Bible. And it's written by it, there's a number of contributors to the book Godfrey, James White, Archie Sproll, MacArthur, Sinclair Ferguson.

It's published by Solada Gloria Publications in 1995. Great book that goes into much more detail than we can possibly get into in an hour's message. Let's bow in prayer. Lord, we thank you that you have given us This once for all delivered to the saints faith.

We thank you that you are the one who has chosen to reveal yourself. And you have not left us in darkness. We thank you that you are the one that has sent Jesus Christ, that ultimate revelation of yourself, that light of the world, and you have not left us in darkness. And Jesus, we thank you that you commissioned your apostles to go out and be your power of eternity, attorney, and you have not left us in darkness.

And we thank You, Lord, that those apostles have handed down, have passed down. This revelation And we thank you, Holy Spirit, that You have chosen to inscriptorate. These teachings so that your children of all ages could have a sure and firm foundation without wavering. We pray this in Christ's name.

Amen.