The Bible Alone, Being The Word Of God, Is The Sole Rule Of Faith And Practice
Or:
The Sufficiency Of The Bible Alone In All Religious Matters
A Bible Study/Workbook Examining This Fundamental Doctrine Of The Christian Faith
Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Psalm 119:104
The Bible is recognised as being the inspired, infallible and inerrant
word of God. These studies take this position for granted. There are
very few who doubt the Bible’s centrality to the Christian faith.
However not all believe it to be the sole rule of faith and practice,
but propagate the need for something else i.e. church tradition. This
is the official position of the Church of Rome:
As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of
Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all
revealed truths from the holy Scripture alone. Both Scripture and
Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of
devotion and reverence.
The writer takes the position that Scripture alone is sufficient for
us. This is in line with the various Protestant creeds i.e. Westminster
Confession of Faith (WCF) 1689 Baptist Confession, 39 Articles of the
Anglican Church etc., However, this position is taken because it is the
clear teaching of the Word of God itself.
1. HOW CAN WE KNOW THAT THE BIBLE IS INDEED THE WORD OF GOD?
THERE IS INTERNAL EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWS THE BIBLE TO BE THE VERY WORD OF GOD.
A) THE MAJESTY OF THE SCRIPTURES:
God is frequently brought in speaking to and by the Prophets. His
majesty is set forth in high expressions as are not found in any human
writings. Only God could require the duties it demands - prohibit the
sins it condemns - inflict the punishments it threatens and provide the
promises it offers. This is done in a majestic style as to make God its
author.
QUESTIONS:
What majestic language is used in Isaiah 57:15/1 Timothy 6:15-16?
What duties were commanded in Matthew
16:24/ Matthew 19:21? Note: No one else other than God has the right to
command a man to do these things. Statements like Luke 14:26 fall into
a similar category.
What is prohibited in Exodus 20:3?
Any one other than God could not issue a statement like this for such
would constitute blasphemy,
What is threatened to those who disobey the word of God? (Matthew 12:31-32/Psalm 9:17/Revelation 20:15)
What promises are given to the penitent sinner? (Acts 16:30-31)
How wide are these promises? (Matthew 28:19-20/John 3:16/Romans 10:13)
How are these promises described in 2 Peter 1:4?
How secure are the promises of God? (2 Corinthians 1:18-20)
B) THE HOLINESS AND PURITY OF THE BIBLE:
The scriptures do not savour of anything impure. It’s laws are
holy - it’s words are pure (Psalm 12:6) Only holy men who were
moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21) could
record these holy words of the holy God.
QUESTIONS:
How does the world define adultery?
How does the word of God define it? (Matthew 5:28)
Likewise with murder? (1 John 3:15)
Which has the tighter definition and is most likely to prevent it?
In those passages where dark deeds
are recorded, note how the scripture refrains from any graphic or
sensual language. In 2 Samuel 13 for instance, where Ammon entered into
an unlawful relationship with his unwilling sister, note how the
narrative describes the scene. His sensual advisor is described as
being "a very subtil man" (v2) See other verses where words like "fool"
- "shame" - "evil" etc., reveal to us how God viewed the whole sorry
incident.
C) THE CONSENT AND HARMONY OF THE BIBLE:
There is perfect harmony between the two Testaments. Although written
over 1600 years by some 40 different authors, there does not appear one
single contradiction. Any apparent contradictions can be reconciled. It
is evident that one spirit inspired these writings and He is the Spirit
of God.
QUESTIONS:
How did Amos describe himself? (1:1/7:16)
By contrast, was Ezra’s occupation ? (7:6)
How did Ezra view Haggai and Zechariah? (Ezra 1:1)
In what league did Peter put the writings of Paul? (2 Peter 15-16)
D) THE HIGH MYSTERIES WHICH ARE REVEALED:
E.g. the Trinity - the Incarnation of the Son of God - the saving union
between Christ and His church etc., These are beyond the reach of the
most learned of men. This is evident that they were taught by the
immediate inspiration of the Spirit of God.
QUESTIONS:
Where else could we read words like Luke 1:35?
What does Deuteronomy 29:29 tell us about these high mysteries? Are we encouraged to pry into the things not revealed?
What does 1 Corinthians 2:14 say about these doctrines which are revealed?
Where did Paul claim he received his teachings from? (1 Corinthians 2:9-10)
E) THE ANTIQUITY OF THE WORD OF GOD:
Written in the most part before other writings of men, they contain a
history of ancient things e.g. the creation, flood etc. These are
things revealed which only the Lord could know. "Where wast thou when I
laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding"
(Job 38:4) It is true that other religious writings make mention of a
universal flood and have their theories concerning the creation of the
world, but none of them speak as God speaks in the first person.
QUESTIONS:
Note the use of the first Person in Proverbs 8:12-36 especially in those creation verses of v22-30. Who is Wisdom? (John 1:1-3)
Some believe that the behemoth and
the leviathan in Job 40-41 possibly refer to dinosaurs type creatures.
Job lived somewhere between Noah and Abraham when these creatures
became extinct.
Why did the flood come upon the earth? (Genesis 6:1-7)
Should we be surprised when men cast doubt upon a universal flood? (2 Peter 3:3-7)
F) THE POWER AND EFFICACY OF THE SCRIPTURES:
The Bible has an effect upon those who read it. This effect is beyond
the power of nature and can only be effected by the power of God. This
shows to us that God is their author, for He would not own and honour
that which he did not originate Himself.
QUESTIONS:
What power is attributed to the word of God in Psalm 19:7
Consider Ephesians 2:1 with Isaiah 55:3 (See also Psalm 119:50) What power is attributed to the word of God in these verses?
G) THE DESIGN AND CONTRIVEMENT OF THE BIBLE:
The design of the Bible is to glorify God’s name and grace
alone and always to debase and empty all men. The contrivement of the
Bible is to reveal salvation by Jesus Christ alone. No mortal wisdom
could reveal such a thing.
QUESTIONS:
What does Jeremiah 17:5-7 say about (a) those who put their trust in men? [5 things] and (b) about those who trust in the LORD?
What room does Ephesians 2:8-9 leave for boasting?
Did Abraham have room to boast before God? (Romans 4:1-8) Why/why not?
H) THE SCRIPTURES ARE CONFIRMED BY MIRACLES:
The men who wrote the Bible often performed great miracles which
confirmed, by external means, that their doctrine was of God. Yet here
we must be careful also, for the magicians in Pharaoh’s court
could do likewise: Exodus 7:8-13 although notice the supremacy of
Aaron’s miracle (v12) However, there were genuine attesting of
the claims of the apostles when they claimed to speak for God. Truly,
we can say of them as Nicodemus said of Christ, "No man can do these
miracles that thou doest, except God be with him" (John 3:2)
QUESTIONS:
When Jesus promised that His apostles
would perform miracles, what would such miracles be closely associated
with? (Mark 16:15-18)
Was this so? (Mark 16:20)
How strong was the evidence of
miracles to the preaching of the word? (Acts 4:16) Note particularly
the descriptive words and for added force who spoke them.
What further light does Paul in Hebrews 2:3-4 throw on this subject?
(I) THE SCRIPTURE IS CONFIRMED BY THE BLOOD OF THE MARTYRS:
Whilst it is accepted that false religions also have their
martyrs and their martyrdom do not prove their faith to be right, yet
it cannot be denied that the willingness of any man to die for his
belief’s is worth noting. The fact that the apostles were ready
to suffer and die for their doctrine at least proves that they were not
con men who were willingly deceiving the people. Any doubts or deceit
would be revealed at the scaffold or martyr pyre and this has not been
the case.
QUESTIONS:
The Apostle Paul faced the
martyr’s death in 2 Timothy 4:6-7. In the light of this solemn
reflection, what did he urge young Timothy to do? (verse 2)
How is this defined? (3:14-16)
Why was the aged John exiled, far away from his family, on the dark, bleak isle of Patmos? (Revelation 1:9)
2. THE OLD TESTAMENT EVIDENCE THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE SOLE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE:
It cannot be denied that for some centuries, there was no
inspired written word for the faithful to follow. This would mean that
"word of mouth" or oral means would be used to convey spiritual truth
from one generation to another. Of course, there might have been some
things written down for no one claims that Moses invented writing, but
these writings were not inspired of God.
It ought to be remembered however that (a) The principles of religion
were relatively few (b) they passed through few hands (c) many of the
patriarchs had direct communication from God. When an increase in
communication came, these things began to be written down "in way of
remembrance" (2 Peter 3:1) and the people became scholars of a Book
(i.e. the Bible) which was brief enough to start with but which soon
grew in size to the 66 books which we have in it today. Consider the
following:
A) THE WORD OF GOD WAS TO BE TAUGHT TO THE CHILDREN AND WRITTEN DOWN:
This is seen from Deuteronomy 6:6-9. Moses (to whom these words were
addressed) became the first to write down the inspired words of God. He
goes right back to creation and records all that God wants us to know.
Whatever errors were perpetuated in oral tradition, these were omitted
when the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21) inspired the writings of Moses, so
that we have an infallible account of what happened.
QUESTIONS:
Why do you think that God changed His method?
Why is the Highway code or the laws of our land in writing? Why do we not rely on a verbal report?
What can be the danger of relying on a verbal report? Think of the children’s game "Chinese whispers"!
Does God ever vouch for the preservation of oral tradition?
B) THE WORD OF GOD WAS TO BE STUDIED AND MEDITATED UPON, DAY AND NIGHT:
The blessed man in Psalm 1:1-3 was commended for giving great study and
meditation to the word of God. The law of the Lord takes on a greater
import than just the bare injunctions of the moral or ceremonial laws.
QUESTIONS:
In Psalm 1:1-3 consider the effect that this serious and prolonged meditation had upon the man.
See how if affected his manner of life (v1) and personal prosperity (v3) which probably has a spiritual import.
Contrast this man with the Pharisees
in Christ’s day who spent much of their time in church tradition.
Consider each of the groups mentioned in verse 1: Ungodly, sinners and
especially scornful and see how such descriptions well fit religious
leaders of Christ’s day.
C) THE LONGEST CHAPTER IN THE
BIBLE (PSALM 119) IS GIVEN OVER TO THE BLESSINGS WHICH ATTEND THOSE WHO
SO READ AND MEDITATE UPON THE WORD OF GOD:
David enlarges here on the observations already made in Psalm 1. It is
particularly fitting that the longest chapter in the word of God should
be about itself. Such attention should not go unnoticed. David here is
speaking about the written word. It may be worth noting here that David
was not a ‘clergyman’ but a lay man and yet he gave himself
over to being saturated by the scriptures of truth.
QUESTIONS:
We would do well to memorise some of the verses of this great Psalm.
The writer once met an old Christian woman who had memorised them all
when a young girl! This is a remarkable feat because not only are there
so many verses (176) but they are all of a similar nature making it
difficult to commit to memory. But it does show that it can be done.
Some of the key verses are given below:
Psalm 119:9
Psalm 119:11
Psalm 119:18
Psalm 119:89
Psalm 119:105
Psalm 119:126
Psalm 119:128
Psalm 119:130
Psalm 119:162
Psalm 119:165
AN INTERESTING EXERCISE WITH A CONCORDANCE:
In Psalm 119 look up the word
"affliction" and see how David coped with it through his knowledge of
the word of God. Truly here was a man saturated with the word of God
D) THE WORD OF GOD ALONE WAS THE YARDSTICK BY WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE WAS TO BE MEASURED:
In Psalm 119:128 (mentioned above) the Psalmist said: "Therefore I
esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate
every false way." Everything was brought to the word of God and he
rejected what it rejected and accepted what it accepted. Likewise
Isaiah could say: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not
according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
(8:20) It is no coincidence that later on in his prophesy, he should
exhort the people: "Seek ye out the book of the LORD and read." (34:16)
- a clear reference to the written word.
QUESTIONS:
How prepared are we to bring every doctrine we believe to the word of God for testing? Truth does not fear examination.
Although ‘proof texts’
like any other good thing can be abused, yet ‘book, chapter and
verse’ is a good way to see whether or not we are holding to the
truth of God. If we should discover error in our doctrine, we should
[1] Thank God that it has been revealed to us. There are many others
are still being deceived [2] Quit it at once. This might be a painful
process and the writer is not unsympathetic to those who are in this
position, but it is the best interests of your soul to do so [3]
Embrace the truth as it has been revealed to us.
What does 2Thessalonians 2:10-11 say about those who received not the love of the truth?
E) THE ANSWER OF ABRAHAM TO THE RICH MAN IN HELL SHOWS HOW SUFFICIENT EVEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS ON ITS OWN.
Although an N.T. reference (Luke 16:19-31) yet it is an O.T. theme.
Read this passage for yourself. Note how the rich man wished the vital
truth of repentance to be preached to his 5 living brethren by the
appearance of Lazarus from the dead (v27-28) Abraham replied that they
had Moses and the prophets and therefore they could read for themselves
and discover truth. However the rich man in hell felt (v30) that
something else apart from the scriptures was needed (v30) Verse 31
shows that "Moses and the prophets" [the ‘Bible’ of that
day] were sufficient.
QUESTIONS:
Think of the tremendous impact that
Lazarus rising from the dead would have had! They all probably knew him
- his emaciated frame met their sight every time they visited their
rich brother. Surely, you would think, that such a great miracle of
Lazarus returning from the grave and preaching repentance and
recounting the torments which their brother was enduring would have
made an impression for the good. Not so according to Abraham. There lay
a greater power in the written word of God. In itself it ought to have
been sufficient. Where does the idea of adding to the word of God have
its origins?
What does Deuteronomy 4:2 have to say about it?
What does Proverbs 30:6 have to say about it?
3. THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE SCRIPTURE:
Jesus Christ is called distinctly in the Scriptures "that prophet"
(John 6:14/Acts 3:20-23) of whom we read "God hath in these last days
spoken unto us by his Son." (Hebrews 1:1) His infallibility of speech
is testified to in 1 Peter 2:22 "Who did no sin, neither was any guile
found in his mouth."
A/ THE LORD JESUS GAVE DILIGENT STUDY TO THE WORD OF GOD:
This is seen especially in His visit to the temple when he was but 12
years of age. There He was able to discuss with and confound the
doctors of the law and theologians (Luke 2:46-48) Certainly part of
this was on account that He was God manifest in human flesh (1 Timothy
3:16) but also there is the element of His humanity. He had been a
diligent student of the word. He attended the place where the law of
God was read "as his custom was" (Luke 4:16) and there He read that
same word to the people (v17)
QUESTIONS:
In the Jewish synagogue the word of God had central place. Does it have central place in your place of worship?
How central is the word of God in Acts 15:21?
Compare with the observation of Abraham in Luke 16:19-31 considered above.
Are they without excuse when they hear the word of God being read?
B) THE LORD JESUS SAID THAT IT WAS THE VOLUME OF THE BOOK WHICH FORETOLD HIS COMING INTO THE WORLD:
So we read in Psalm 40:7 which is quoted concerning Christ in Hebrews
10:7. Here the written word stands alone with absolutely no mention of
tradition, although there were many traditions on the go at that time.
This is a significant statement. The Jews were being pointed to the
volume of the Book to see whether or not, He was the Christ. Tradition
is conspicuous by its absence.
QUESTIONS:
How do you think the ‘traditionalists’ would have reacted to this exclusion?
Perhaps they didn’t even notice
it, although we can’t help doing so. If so, does this point out a
danger in traditionalism?
There is much that is assumed. We
might assume that tradition is a sound base on which to build, but we
need to get it to the spotlight of scripture and see whether or not it
is so.
C) CHRIST CONDEMNED THE TRADITIONS OF HIS TIME:
And did so with pretty strong language. Here He showed that the use of
tradition as a rule of faith along side the written word was deadly in
its effect. There could be no blessing there - no light or liberty - no
remedy against soul destroying sin unlike the men in Psalm 1 and Psalm
119 who used the Bible alone.
QUESTIONS:
What did Jesus in Matthew 15:6 tell us about the use of tradition alongside the word of God?
How did this affect the worship of God? (Verse 9)
What particularly was the problem? (Verse 9)
How did the Pharisees react to this expose’? (Verse 12)
How did Jesus describe them? (Verse 14)
D) JESUS WAS ALWAYS QUOTING SCRIPTURES. HE ONLY REFERRED TO TRADITION TO OPPOSE IT:
As above in Matthew 15. There were many traditions around at that time,
but He either corrected them (Matthew 5:17-48) or condemned them
outright.
QUESTIONS:
In Matthew 5:17-48 (referred to
above) do you think, in the light of His statement in verse 17, that He
was refuting the Jew’s tradition/catechism or their Scriptures?
Note His use of the phrase "Ye have heard…" not "It is
written…"
E) THE LORD DEFEAT SATAN’S TEMPTATIONS IN THE WILDERNESS BY QUOTING ONLY SCRIPTURE:
As recorded particularly in Matthew 4 and Luke 4. It was a
crucial time. Not once in 3 temptations, did He rely on the authority
of tradition. Not even when Satan Himself (mis)quoted the scripture.
Here might have been an opportune time to change tactics and quote
tradition. But 3 times, He said: "It is written…" Again,
tradition is conspicuous by its absence.
QUESTIONS:
Note the verses (all from Deuteronomy) which the Lord Jesus actually quoted.
What is the significance of the
quotation from Deuteronomy 8:3 "Man shall not live by bread alone, but
by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord"?
F) CHRIST DEFINED FOR US AT THAT TIME WHAT ACTUALLY CONSTITUTED THE WORD OF GOD:
He did so in Luke 24:44 where he referred to "The law of Moses, the
prophets and the Psalms" Note there is here no mention of the
Apocryphal books (Maccabees, Judith etc.,) The Jews did not consider
them canonical. [HISTORICAL NOTE: They were only added to the canon of
scripture by the Council of Trent in 1546.] The writer of 2 Maccabees
apologises for its defects (15:39) and none of the writers ever claimed
inspiration.
QUESTIONS:
See the context of this endorsing of
the true O.T. text of scripture. Christ is giving testimony to the
truth concerning Himself as it has appeared in His authoritative
teaching.
Is it not interesting that He limits
Himself to the written word and says that that which is found there
"written" was fulfilled?
Why no mention of Jewish tradition?
It is possible, indeed likely for it
was the work of fallen men, that there were things found there which
Christ never fulfilled?
If such tradition was the word of
God, then this would be a calamity indeed. But it wasn’t, and
therefore totally and absolutely irrelevant.
G) WHEN DEBATING WITH THE SADDUCEES, JESUS POINTED THEM TO THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD:
First of all, to answer their query (Matthew 22:23-29) and secondly to
highlight the cause of their trouble. They knew not the scriptures. If
we are ignorant of the Scriptures, then we are or will soon be in
error. When tradition competes with Scripture for our attention, then
[at the very least] we cannot give the written word our full attention
and thus remain in ignorance.
QUESTIONS:
With what does Jesus in Matthew 22:23-27 associate the power of God?
Note how in the passage. Jesus uses the very tense which the Scripture uses to make a fine but devastating theological point.
Do you think it possible that the
highly unlikely (although possible) scenario which the Sadducees spoke
of here was gleaned from some traditional story and had gained some
authority?
H) JESUS CHRIST COMMANDED THE JEWS TO SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES: (JOHN 5:39)
But no mention again of the
traditions received from their fathers. All the time it is the
Scriptures. He is speaking to unbelievers (v40) but here is the agency
through which they will receive faith (Romans 10:17) It is the
Scriptures that are able to bring about conversion (Psalm 19:7-9)
QUESTIONS:
Why do we either neglect this command of Jesus or choke it up with adding something else other than Scripture to it?
When people engage in a search, is it not true to say that they are generally looking for something in particular?
What in particular had Paul been looking for when he searched the scriptures in Acts 17:2-3?
What other themes can we take up when we search the scriptures?
4) WHAT WAS THE PRACTICE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS?
A) THE EXAMPLE OF YOUNG TIMOTHY WAS TO LEARN THE BIBLE:
See 2 Timothy 3:15. He would have known the Scriptures [O.T.] as a
child. This was the norm for any young Jewish lad. From Acts 16:3 we
learn that although Timothy’s father was a Gentile, his mother
was Jewish. In 2Timothy 1:5 his mother Eunice and grandmother Lois are
praised for their influence upon him. How wise for the Jews to teach
their young the word of God. As already seen, this is the command of
Deuteronomy 6:6-8. A similar, though more general command with an
encouraging observation, is found in Proverbs 22:6.
QUESTIONS:
There is no mention that Timothy
learned tradition. Of course, this is not to say that he didn’t.
Why does Paul not make any reference to tradition in this verse?
B) WHY WAS YOUNG TIMOTHY TO BE SO INSTRUCTED IN THE SCRIPTURES?
The answer is given in the next 2 verses. [1] The Scriptures (Lit.
Greek: writings) are given by inspiration of God. No where in the
scripture is such a claim made for tradition. If not given by immediate
inspiration of God, then they are of human origin and may be rejected
at will without any consequences. [2] These scriptures were profitable
for various purposes. If the Scriptures only constitutes half the
story, then they are only propagating half the truth. This is a
dangerous place to be in. But why then does Paul consider them to be
profitable? Furthermore, it is the Scripture alone that is profitable.
They are able (without any mention of anything else) to make the man of
God perfect. Beyond perfection you cannot go. Therefore the man who has
only the Scriptures has sufficient truth to guide him safely to heaven
and he is no loser if he ignores or rejects church tradition.
QUESTIONS:
What title is given to the word of God in Daniel 10:21?
What did Jesus say of these Scriptures in John 10:35?
Does this speak something of their perfection?
C) WHAT WAS PASTOR TIMOTHY TO DO IN THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY?
He was to "continue in the things which thou hast learned and hath been
assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them" (2 Timothy 3:14) As
seen under section (a), he had been taught the Scriptures by his mother
and grandmother. Also he was to study for himself, "rightly dividing
the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15) and also he was to "preach the
word" (2 Timothy 4:2)
QUESTIONS:
Men would not "endure sound doctrine"
- for which the Scriptures are profitable (2 Timothy 3:16 ) - and would
"turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables"
(2 Timothy 4:3-4) . Is it not fair to say that such takes place when
tradition is given equal status to the word of God?
D) WARNING IS GIVEN TO US CONCERNING MEN’S TRADITIONS:
In Colossians 2:8, we are told "Beware lest any man spoil you through
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men…and not
after Christ." Again, the warning in Titus 1:14 "Not giving heed to
Jewish [and therefore religious] fables and commandments of men, that
turn from the truth." We are not to give heed to, never mind believe
the traditions of men.
QUESTIONS:
Note that there is no neutrality on
this issue. Elevating tradition to the status of God’s
authoritative word is not a harmless exercise.
What happens when men turn from truth? What do they, by necessity, embrace? What bearing has John 8:44 on the answer?
Note the word spoil in Colossians 2:8. Link to Mark 8:36.
E) HOW WAS THE YOUNG CHRISTIAN - THE NEW CONVERT - TO GROW IN GRACE?
Peter’s exhortation did not point him away to tradition or to the
words of men, but to God’s infallible word. "As newborn babes,
desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby." (1 Peter
2:2) Such would not stunt the growth of the child, but greatly aid it.
We do not feed newborn babies junk food. No one would dream of giving a
child a few days or weeks old a bag of potato crisps or sugary candy
type sweets. We encourage the drinking of milk even to older children.
It is full of needed vitamins. It gives calcium strengthening the
bones. The word here is the written word of God.
QUESTIONS:
The word of God points us to the Lord
Jesus. He is the theme of the Sacred volume (Psalm 40:7) Do you ever
see how many church traditions actually point us away from the Lord
Jesus? They elevate church leaders or Mary - but do little to embellish
the Person of Christ. Surely this ought to be a warning to us?
F) THE TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD TO THE BEREANS:
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received
the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily,
whether those things be so." (Acts 17:11) Since this verse is a key
verse to the whole issue at hand, it might be best for us to go
straight to an extended QUESTIONS section and so discover its truth for
ourselves:
QUESTIONS:
Who was the preachers on this occasion? (Verse 10)
What could one of them say concerning his own authority? (2 Corinthians 12:11)
Would it be fair to say that he was representing the church on this occasion?
Did the Berean’s just accept his word as being the truth de facto?
What did they do?
Why the Scriptures?
Bearing Acts 17:2 in mind, why did
they not consult tradition - if such is needed to interpret the
Scriptures - as is sometimes claimed?
Did this checking out process seem to worry the preachers?
What is the comment of the Spirit of God on this particular action?
Are we in the same position to do likewise? Would it be wrong for us to do it?
Do we do it?
What if we failed to find some pet doctrine in the Bible?
Would we be prepared to surrender it up?
5) OBJECTIONS TO THIS DOCTRINE ANSWERED:
The Bible is able to bear all scrutiny. It welcomes the full blaze of
the searchlight upon it. Such attention merely shows why the Lord has
"exalted his word above his name" (Psalm 138:2)
A) DO THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES NOT SPEAK ABOUT TRADITIONS APPROVINGLY?
Yes. "Therefore brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye
have been taught, whether by word or by epistle." (2Thessalonians 2:15)
and again: "….withdraw yourselves from every brother that
walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of
us." (2 Thessalonians 3:6) That which is found in Scripture was often
taught first by mouth. A good example of this would be Peter’s
sermon on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. Remember that all
that is necessary for salvation is found in the written word - the holy
writings: 2 Timothy 3:15-16.
B) ARE WE NOT TOLD THAT THE
LORD JESUS HAD FURTHER THINGS TO SAY TO THE APOSTLES AND THAT HE SAID
AND DID THINGS THAT WERE NOT RECORDED?
Yes. The Lord Jesus promised the apostles inspiration: John 16:13 and
we believe that these things are recorded in the NT epistles along with
the gospel records etc. It is not essential that we are told everything
which Jesus said and did. Taken literally, John 21:15 shows how
impractical such a thing would be. Besides tradition cannot claim to
tell us everything that He said and did. What we do have in the Bible
is sufficient for us. We can trust the Bible. Tradition does not enjoy
such confidence. Using John 21:15 as a measure, John himself wrote very
little, but what he did write was sufficient for those who believed his
report to know that they had eternal life. (John 20:31) This is
enlarged upon in 1 John 5:10-13.
C) IS THE CHURCH NOT SAID TO BE THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH:
Yes, in 1 Timothy 3:15. Where does she get her truth? From Christ, who
is Himself the "Truth" (John 14:6) and from His word which is called
"the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15) This is the means whereby the
church herself comes into being: James 1:18. It is more logical and
Scriptural to say that the church owes its existence to the Bible than
to say that the Bible owes its existence to the church. Remember, the
"more noble Bereans" subjected the teaching of the church to the
Scriptures "whether it be so" (Acts 17:11)
D) WHAT DOES THE BIBLE MEAN WHEN IT SAYS THAT NO SCRIPTURE IS OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION? (2 PETER 1:20)
Evidently this does not mean that as individuals we cannot read and
interpret the Bible, for we are commanded to do this in John 5:39. This
verse refers to the origins of the Bible which as the next verse tells
us is not men’s opinions, but the work of the Holy Spirit moving
upon holy men of old.
6) WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES TO HAVING THE BIBLE AS THE SOLE AUTHORITY?
A) TO HAVE NO YARDSTICK OR AUTHORITY BY WHICH WE CAN MEASURE OUR RELIGION:
This would be spiritual anarchy and would be spiritual suicide - a point, I think, conceded by all.
B) TO RELY ON CHURCH TRADITION ALSO - A DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.
This point takes in also what is referred to as the ‘unanimous
consent of the Fathers’ to which all interpretation of the Bible
must agree (Article 2 of the creed of Pius iv.) However the following
difficulties are insurmountable:
[1] ORAL TRADITION IS UNTRUSTWORTHY:
See John 21:22-23 where a false report was circulated among the
brethren because they misunderstood Jesus. This was not a deliberate
hoax. Those involved had been sincere but the report was inaccurate and
those who believed it believed something that was not true. A false
teaching was formulated because the little word "if" was omitted and
this made all the difference.
[2] THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER:
Where does this leave us? Where would one Bible writer contradicting
another leave us? Disaster! Following a sham of a religion with a Book
containing error. Thankfully it is not so as regards the word of God,
but it is so concerning a faith in the writings of Church Fathers. That
many of these men were great men of faith, no one will deny. That
reading their writings can often be profitable is again beyond
reasonable dispute. That we can interpret the Bible on the strength
that they are in agreement one with another is beyond belief. St.
Augustine actually wrote a paper called "Retractions" where he takes
back some of his earlier views.
[3] CHURCH TRADITION IS INACCESSIBLE:
It has been estimated that ‘Church Tradition’ consists in
the following: Numerous volumes of the Pope’s Bulls, 10 folio
volumes of Decretals, 31 folio volumes of the Acts of Councils, 51
folio volumes of the Acta Sanctororum or the saying and doings of the
saints and 35 volumes of the Greek and Latin Fathers whose
‘unanimous consent’ is held to determine the meaning of
Scripture. It has been said humorously of church tradition: "If
we had the wealth of Croesus we could not buy it, if we to live to the
age of Methuselah we could not read it, if we had the wisdom of Solomon
we could not understand it and if we had the patience of Job, we could
not endure it." Remember much of the writings of tradition lies
buried in dead languages in far away libraries which the average man in
the street cannot get at. How many priests and Bishops etc., have read
the Fathers and Councils in the entirety?
[4] THE CHURCH OF ROME NEEDS TO PROVE THAT HER TRADITIONS ARE APOSTOLIC:
The onus is own her to do so, but this is beyond her reach.
C) TO HAVE AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH WHICH CAN INTERPRET THE BIBLE INFALLIBLY FOR US:
This is the present claim of the Church of Rome. However this too falls far short. Consider the following:
[1] ROMAN INFALLIBILITY RESTS ON A FALLIBLE FOUNDATION:
Self claims mean nothing. No competent, independent voice proclaims her
infallibility - just her own which is naturally has a vested interest.
No voice from heaven points to her. Some might point to Matthew 16:18
giving it the Roman interpretation. Whilst it is outside the scope of
this paper to deal with the doctrine of the Papacy, it must be said
that there are other interpretations of these words of Jesus to Peter
which are more in accord with Scripture than the common interpretation
of Rome.
[2] UNTIL 1870 THE CHURCH OF ROME COULD NOT TELL US WHERE HER INFALLIBILITY LAY:
Different theories sounded forth from her pulpits. Did infallibility
lie in the Pope plus the clergy or in the clergy alone or in the pope
alone, or in the cardinals alone or in the cardinals plus the Pope? In
1870 the church, although not God, decided that it lay in the Pope
alone.
[3] THE ROMAN CHURCH COUNCILS ARE NOT GENERAL:
The 1st 4 Councils had delegates from both east and west, but for Trent
and others, no such unity was witnessed. Cardinal Newman in Historical
Sketches iii. 352 said that the 4th Century Councils were "a shame to
the Christian name."
[4] CHURCH COUNCILS HAVE PROVED THEMSELVES TO BE CONTRADICTORY:
This as the charge which Martin Luther made at the Diet of Worms to the
horror of his opponent Dr. Eck. However it is a true charge. Some
Councils decreed against the use of images, others enjoined them.
[5] ROME’S INFALLIBILITY IS USELESS:
With all her claims to be the sole interpreter of truth, why has she
not produced a complete, infallible, definitive Bible commentary that
would at once clear up all the different disputes that rage, even
within her own communion, on different parts of the Bible?
[6] THE SILENCE OF SCRIPTURE DISPROVES HER CLAIMS:
We search in vain for one single verse that relates that the Roman
Church was superior to the others or was infallible. It seems strange
that this doctrine - held to be so fundamental - should not find
mention even once in a Book as exhaustive and definitive as the
Scriptures.
[7] THE TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE DENIES IT:
Paul wrote to the very church at Rome (11:18-22) warning them that
unless they continued in the faith, they would be "cut off" These would
be needless words if Rome was infallible. Likewise the 7 churches in
Asia (Revelation 2&3) were warned also. The removal of the light
from a particular church does not necessarily mean that that particular
church ceases to exist without any trace of a congregation or church
gathering. You could have all these things in place along with a
healthy looking social programme and bank book etc., but the Spirit of
God be missing from it all - the candlestick or light stand removed.
"If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that
darkness." (Matthew 6:23)
7) WHAT HAD THE CHURCH FATHERS TO SAY ABOUT ALL THIS?
It may be fairly said that the Church Fathers are like the proverbial
wax nose that can be turned in any direction or to any shape desired.
They were not inspired of God, could not claim infallibility and
frequently contradicted one another. They seem also to be a rich
picking for any who want to prove whatever doctrine they desire. The
writer has in his possession a Jehovah’s Witness magazine which
includes some prominent Church Father’s speaking of Christ as a
created being. So we should not attach too much weight to their
writings.
However, this does not mean that they are not to be consulted at all.
Some of these men were theological giants and their views are worth
considering. The writer once had it put to him that the doctrine of
Sola Scripta (Scripture alone) was unknown until Luther "invented" it.
The quotations given below will show that this is not the case.
I accept that other quotations might be produced which just goes to
prove the point made in the opening paragraph. But these quotations
cannot be ignored either. This also illustrates the difficulty of
making the interpretation of the Bible subject to the unanimous consent
of the Fathers.
Before we quote the Church Fathers, consider the following quotations
from John Henry Newman, who eventually apostatised to the Church of
Rome:
"By the bye, I am surprised more and
more to see how the Fathers insist on the Scriptures as the Rule of
Faith even in proving the most subtle parts of the doctrine of the
Incarnation." (Letter to Froude: August 9th, 1835) and again, on August
23rd, 1835 he wrote: "The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, &c,
the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of
their belief…I believe it would be extremely difficult to show
that Tradition is ever considered by them (in matters of faith) more
than interpretative of Scripture…Again, when they met together
in Council, they brought the witness of Tradition as a matter of fact,
but when they discussed the matter in Council, cleared their views,
&c, proved their power, they always went to the scriptures alone."
JOHN HENRY (CARDINAL) NEWMAN.
"The Holy and Inspired
Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the
truth." St. Athanasius (Conte. Gentes. 1,1)
"I ought neither to adduce the
council of Nice, nor you that of Ariminum, as if to prejudge the
question. I am not determined by the authority of the latter, nor you
of the former. Founding on the authority of the Scripture not peculiar
to either, but the common witness of both, fact contends with fact,
plea with plea, reason with reason." St. Augustine. (Against Maximus
the Arian: II:14:3)
"You are ever throwing in our teeth
Cyprian’s opinions, Cyprian’s letters, Cyprian’s
Council. Who knows not that the Canonical Scripture of the Old and New
Testament is contained within certain limits and that its authority is
so far to be preferred to all later letters of the Bishops, that no
question can be raised whether what is found therein is true and right?
Whereas the letters of bishops written after the settling of the canon
may be checked by the wiser language of any writer who happens to have
more knowledge of the matter question, or by the weightier authority of
the other Bishops, and the skill of learned men, or by Councils; and
particular or provincial Councils again must yield to the authority of
general councils gathered from the whole Christian world. Nay, earlier
General Councils themselves may be corrected by later." St. Augustine.
(De. Bapt. Cont. Donat. II. 4, vol. 9)
"For among all the things that are
plainly laid down in the Scripture are to be found all matters that
concern faith and manner of life."
St. Augustine. (Christian Doctrine II Ch.9)
"Those who are instructed in the
Scriptures ought to test the things that are said by their teachers,
and to receive what agrees with the Scriptures, and to reject what
disagrees." St. Basil. (Moralia. Reg. 72)
"Without doubt, it is a most manifest
fall from faith and a most certain sign of pride to introduce anything
that is not written in the Scriptures, our blessed Saviour having said
‘My sheep hear my voice and the voice of strangers they will not
hear’ and to distract from Scripture or to add anything to the
faith that is not there, is most manifestly forbidden by the Apostle,
saying, ‘If it is but a man’s testament, no man addeth
thereto.’
St. Basil (De. Faith Vol. 2)
"All things are plain and simple in the Holy Scriptures; all things necessary are evident." St. Chrysostom. (Homily 3 de. Laz.)
"That may not be considered Catholic,
which appears contrary to the statements of Scripture." St. Chrysostom
(Homily on Adam and Eve)
"You have an exact standard and rule
of all things. I beseech you, do not regard what this or that man
thinks, but enquire all things of the Scriptures." St. Chrysostom (2
Corinthians 6. Homily 13)
"It behoveth us not to deliver, no,
not so much as the least thing of the holy mysteries of the faith,
without the Holy Scripture. That is the security of our faith, not
which is of our own inventions, but from the demonstration of the Holy
Scriptures." St. Cyril. (Catechis. 5)
"I never saw anything good come out
of Councils. So far from ending the mischief, they increase it."
Gregory of Nazianius. (Letters 130 MPG 37:28)
"We must necessarily appeal to the
testimony of the Scriptures, without which our discourses are entitled
to no credit." St. Irenaeus. (Homily I on Jeremiah)
"As we accept those things that are written, so we reject those things which are not written." St. Jerome. (Adv. Helvid)
"These things which they invent, as
if by Apostolic tradition, without the authority of Scripture, the word
of God smites." St. Jerome (Prophecy of Haggai. Cap. 1. 2)
"Let heretics be left to prove their
points from Scripture alone, and they will not be able to stand." St.
Tertullian. (De. Carni Christi. C.6.)
"Let the shop of Hermogenes show that
it is written. If it is not written, let him fear that woe which is
destined for those who add or take from Scripture." St. Tertullian
(Adv. Hermog. C.22)
8) HEAR NOW THE CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE MATTER:
All that has gone before should be carefully considered. I believe that
I have shown how the Bible alone is our sole rule of faith and practice
as indicated in our title. The New Testament believers and the early
church lived and breathed the Bible. Whatever else church tradition had
to say for itself, it could not claim (as noted by Cardinal Newman) the
place of authority. This pushes us back into the place whereby we must
test all our doctrines and practices by the Scriptures alone. As the
6th Article of Religion of the Anglican Church points out, that which
cannot be read in the Bible, nor can be proved from it, is not to be
required by any man that it believed as an article of faith nor thought
requisite or necessary to salvation. As Paul wrote, "I speak to wise
men, judge ye what I say." (1 Corinthians 10:15)
THE END
Any comments on this page? Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org