Hello, this is Pastor Patrick Hines, and welcome to today's program, special program. Of course, they're all special to me. Program on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I got a really nasty comment that was left. It wasn't actually approved by my brother, but he sent it to me, and I like this because this is so typical of converts. At first, I wasn't sure what religion this guy was from. It could have been any number of a thousand different groups. Turns out he's a convert, was a Baptist, is a former Baptist who converted to, quote, holy orthodoxy. Here are his comments, and I'd like to spend the rest of the program kind of responding to these because they're absurd on their face. There's so many errors in what is said here that it's almost impossible to be able to get to everything, but we'll give it a shot. He says, Sola Scriptura is a very serious heresy created by Protestantism. I'm an ex-Baptist myself. The standard of interpretation of scripture is found in Christ's body, a.k.a. the Church Orthodox. You guys are nothing more than your own pope, coming up with whatever conclusions you seem to think fits. There's thousands of different denominations of Protestantism, and you guys just believe whatever you think is right instead of what is truly right. holy orthodoxy in the first few centuries of the church, canonize the scriptures you try to appeal to alone, let alone not having the correct canon, and blank away, there's profanity in this, which I have edited out, I put the comment in the description of this video, but I put other characters over his bad word, and blank away the very church, Christ's body, who gave them to you, who gave you the scriptures, and go your own way, your own way is in all caps, At the end of the day, you're getting man's interpretation, man is in all caps, instead of the Holy Spirit's, who inspired the early church fathers to canonize and bring forth the scriptures with the correct dogma, theology slash interpretation of them. Okay, so there's a lot there to respond to, I'd like to... begin by reading one of these holy church fathers, a man from whom I've learned a great deal over the years, Irenaeus of Lyon. His dates are A.D. 130-200. And you tell me if you think that these statements from his wonderful book, Against Heresies, fit with what this guy just said. We have learned from none other the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and at 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 perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. Listen, such then is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures. And to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavor to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. You see, Irenaeus dealt with the very stuff that this guy is pushing forward. Now, when I first started reading his comments, I kind of thought, maybe this guy's a Mormon, maybe he's a Jehovah's Witness, and I thought, no, he's a Roman Catholic. But then I thought, no, then he says he's Eastern Orthodox. My point is, they all are the same. They all argue exactly the same way. And for some reason, they really do think that we, Christians, we have to privately interpret scripture, but they don't have to privately interpret the pronouncements of whatever authority they have embraced. You know, it's fascinating. You can look online and see debates between Roman Catholics about what Vatican II means in certain of its documents. Apparently the infallible interpreter that's supposed to bring clarity isn't overly clear a lot. Now Irenaeus gives a lot of other quotations, many other great passages, but I wanted to put a plug in for three of my favorite books ever written. And in fact, these are so excellent that I'm looking into, have been looking into for some time, trying to find a way to get them leather bound so that they'll never fall apart. It's this, the three volume set, Holy Scripture, Actually, is that upside down? Yeah, it is. Holy Scripture, the pillar, the ground and pillar of our faith. And this is actually the order that they're in. This is green is volume one, red is volume two, blue is volume three. Volume one is the biblical case for Sola Scriptura. It is one of the best books on any subject I've ever read. Volume two is the historical case for Sola Scriptura. And volume three is nothing but quotations. Many of these quotations were translated into English for the very first time for this project. when these two guys, William Webster and David King, did this years ago. But these books have been an absolute goldmine for me personally, and I get really weary of the kind of rhetoric that comes out of the converts to Orthodoxy, converts to Mormonism, converts to Roman Catholicism, and they're all the same. One of the fallacies that this guy engages in He says there are thousands of denominations, there's thousands of groups that all claim to have the right interpretation, etc. Now, what he's doing is he's committing the fallacy of comparing apples and oranges. He's comparing a rule of faith, Sola Scriptura, with a denomination, in his particular case, Eastern Orthodoxy. What we need to do is compare rules of faith. Let's compare our rules of faith. I believe in Sola Scriptura. I believe that that is the ancient faith of the Christian church. I have never seen any evidence of any kind from any of the early church fathers that there was an extra biblical source of divine revelation that was fixed in its doctrinal content that was passed on orally outside of scripture. I have never seen any evidence of that whatsoever. And in fact, when you press Roman Catholic apologists to give evidence of this, The best they can come up with is the Canon. The Canon of Scripture was taught orally and passed on outside of Scripture. They'll cite 2 Thessalonians 2.15, See? Some of it's taught by word of mouth and some by epistle. But that's not what that's talking about, and it's certainly not talking about the canon of Scripture. I mean, are they really saying that Paul taught the Thessalonians the canon? Eventually you'll have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1st, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians... Is that what they're really saying? That that is what Paul is referring to there? Of course not! The tradition that was handed on is simply the Christian faith. Now, if they're going to say that that passage is a refutation of Sola Scriptura, that the Bible is the only source of divine revelation that we have, okay, then show us what these traditions are. What is this tradition that is essential to salvation that we don't have in the Bible? And that's what you will not hear forthcoming from these people. So let's talk for a moment about rules of faith versus denominations. He's comparing a denomination, Eastern Orthodoxy, with rules of faith, Sola Scriptura. Now, I believe in sola scriptura. That is the rule of faith that I believe. I do not believe God has spoken to His church anywhere except in Scripture. I do not believe anything has that quality of being theopneustos, God-breathed. Nothing is God-breathed outside of Scripture. And that's what the Westminster Shorter Catechism in question number two asks, what rule has God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him? Answer, the Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him. And that is an essential of the Christian faith. That is an absolutely essential doctrine of the Christian faith. There are no other sources of divine revelation. Now, I wanted to read to you a quotation from another church father. I could just spend the next month just reading quotations where really the church fathers, they all understood this. They understood that the Bible was the only source of divine revelation. That doesn't mean we don't believe in the church or that we don't believe that there is a church or anything like that. We certainly do believe that there is a church. But listen to Cyril of Jerusalem. Let me find the wider quotation of this here. It's one of the best quotations on Sola Scriptura in the early church. And listening to Catholic apologists try to explain this or Eastern Orthodox people try to explain this is really rather comical. Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Okay, I'm gonna give the longer quote. Here it is. Okay, he said in his catechetical lecture, so these are these were lectures that Cyril of Jerusalem gave to instruct people who were about to be baptized and brought into the church. So this is his instruction for catechumens who were going to be baptized and brought into the church. He said this, and you tell me if this sounds like what this guy is talking about. This, you know, Sola Scriptura is a heresy. Listen to Cyril. This is Cyril of Jerusalem. In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the holy scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments, even to me who tell you these things. Do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures. Okay, now Cyril of Jerusalem, a very important early church writer. Cyril of Jerusalem, I can't remember his dates, I think he's in the third century. excuse me, early fourth century, 313 to 386. So he's really early on there. So he's born before the first Nicene Council and dies before the close of the fourth century. So that was what he taught people. What you're supposed to believe, if I can't show it to you from scripture, you don't have to believe it. Now, how do Roman Catholic apologists respond to that? Well, he taught things that you guys don't believe. Yeah, I know. Like things like purgatory and stuff like that. Of course, probably not the full developed doctrine of it. But many other things, and I would follow Cyril's advice. I would say, if you can't show it to me from Scripture, I'm not going to give you ready assent. But you see, it's the principle that he's teaching there that you've got to lay hold of. What he's teaching is, if I can't show it to you in Scripture, do not believe it! Now with this guy, this nasty guy that sent me profanity, he's supposed to be a Christian from the one true church, and he's cursing at me in his comments. I find that rather ironic. Here, we're supposed to be the heretics and the bad guys outside the church, but these people, this is one thing I've noticed with a lot of converse orthodoxy, they are very mean. Very nasty. I have been cursed at before by others, a lot of atheists, but converse orthodoxy are in a league of their own. They can be as mean as a rattlesnake. Okay, so he says there's thousands of denominations. Let me go back to that issue. But here he's saying, soul scripture is a heresy. The standard of interpretation is found in Christ's body, the church. Not really. The church is to be a guide to help understand scripture. And just like Cyril of Jerusalem, I would say exactly what Cyril has said. The people at the church here will tell you. I have said that to them. If I can't show it to you in scripture, you don't have to believe it. You don't believe things on my authority. The authority that I have as a minister is ministerial and declarative. I don't have any intrinsic authority at all. You don't just take my word for it, but my authority is ministerial and declarative. I can declare to you what scripture says and that's it. That's where my authority is derived completely and entirely from scripture. He says there's thousands of denominations of Protestantism. Okay, so let's talk about groups that practice Sola Scriptura. Let's talk about four groups that practice that rule of faith, Sola Scriptura, versus four groups that practice Scripture plus an infallible interpreter of Scripture. Because that's the principle that this guy is enunciating. He holds to the idea that it's Scripture plus an infallible interpreter. I say it's Scripture alone. So four groups that practice Sola Scriptura. the historic Presbyterian tradition, the historic Continental Reform tradition, the historic Baptist position, that tradition, and the Lutheran tradition. We have the same God, the same doctrine of justification, same gospel, same Redeemer, same person of Jesus Christ. So four different denominations that practice Sola Scriptura, we are united on the essentials. There is the one God who is a trinity of persons. The Lord Jesus Christ is one person with two distinct, fully intact natures, human and divine. We are justified before God by the blood and righteousness of Christ that we receive and trust in by faith alone, apart from works. There you go. We're totally united. Four groups that practice Sola Scriptura, totally united with same God, same gospel, same Redeemer. Let's talk about four groups that practice scripture plus an infallible interpreter. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, and we'll say the Branch Davidians. Roman Catholics, Branch Davidians, the Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses. They all practice the same rule of faith. Scripture plus an infallible interpreter. Different God, different gospel, different redeemer, different everything. Different everything. So when people say, hey, Sola Scriptura has resulted in thousands of denominations, my response is, and the principle of scripture plus an infallible interpreter has resulted in an even greater number of religious cults. So what we really have to do is ask this guy the question, how do you know that the one you picked out of the thousands out there that make that claim, we're the true church, only we can tell you what it means, what the Bible means, how do you know you picked the right one, sir? There's thousands of groups that make that claim. Now, I betcha he had to privately interpret scripture, privately interpret writings of church fathers, privately interpret tradition, and privately interpret lectures or books that, lectures he listened to or books that he read. You can't get away from private interpretation of any form of communication. What this guy thinks he knows is based on his understanding of language. And that backs us up to an even more important issue. God believes in the adequacy of human language to communicate truth. God, let me say that again, please. God believes in the adequacy of language, of human language to communicate truth. Okay, so, sir, how do you know you've interpreted your infallible interpreter correctly? And how do you know that that interpretation of your interpretation of the scriptures given to you by your infallible interpreter is correct? One way or the other, eventually, eventually you're going to have to deal with this issue. We all have to interpret every form of communication God gives us, every form of communication that exists. When someone talks to me, I'm privately interpreting what they say. When I read scripture, I'm privately interpreting it. You know what's amazing? The Jewish people at the time of Christ, they never thought to raise this objection. When Jesus quoted scripture at them when they got things wrong, they didn't say, but Jesus, you never gave us an infallible interpreter of scripture, so we didn't know what any of this stuff meant. No, Jesus just quotes scripture and says, have you not read what was spoken to you by God? Jesus, Jesus believed that scripture was clear enough to be read and understood by anyone that read it. Now that doesn't mean that there's no church and there's no teaching authority, but what we are saying is that that teaching authority is subordinate to and under the authority of and always supportive of God speaking in scripture. He says, holy orthodoxy in the first few centuries of the church canonized the scriptures you try to appeal to. No, they didn't. No organization ever canonized scripture. No church ever defined what was in scripture. They simply declared what had already been in use for centuries. I mean, the way these people talk, well, our church canonized the Bible and then gave it to you. It's almost like they're saying, yeah, in the year 96, or in the year 150, or in the year 230, nobody knew for sure if Romans was Scripture. Nobody really knew for sure if 1 Corinthians was Scripture. No one really could tell if Luke was part of the canon or not. And I'll tell you, reading J.B. Lightfoot's translation of the Apostolic Church Fathers, and reading the writing, a lot of stuff that Cyprian wrote, I've read a lot of stuff that Tertullian wrote, we had to read a lot of that when I was in seminary, we read on the unity of the Church, we read Tertullian's treatise against idolatry, and I've read a lot of stuff among those early fathers, Irenaeus against heresies, and looking at his stuff against Gnosticism, None of these men thought that the church had to canonize Scripture for them to be able to use it as Scripture. That's the thing that blows my mind. All these claims, we canonize Scripture and give it to you as if, really, they didn't know that these books were part of the canon of Scripture? They didn't know that they were the Bible yet? Until what? Until the councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome in 397, 399, and 401? So in 220, no one knew for sure if these books were part of the canon. That's nonsense. That's nonsense. These people have such a romantic, naive view of church history. It just didn't work that way. And in fact, when they did compile lists of what had already been in use for centuries, they used the word receive. Recipemus. We receive these books. We're not giving them authority that they didn't already have. As soon as the ink dries on the Book of Romans, it's already Scripture. As soon as the ink dries on John's Gospel, it's already Scripture. So this guy, the stuff he's saying here is just pure nonsense. He says he's an ex-Baptist. So you left a true church and joined a religion that basically anathematizes the gospel. You know, there was a Protestant patriarch. It's actually a book. It's actually a book called The Protestant Patriarch about the life of Cyril Lucaris. Cyril Lucaris, fascinating individual, started reading Calvin, started reading his Bible, and he basically published a creed that was a Calvinist creed. And then eventually they formally condemn Sola Fide. They formally condemn the Gospel and reject it as false. Let me see if I can find it. I know it's on the internet. I've actually read these canons before. Let's see, the Confession. Yeah, here we go, here we go. Is it on here or not? Oh, here we go. Yeah, listen to this. Here's Orthodoxy's denial of the gospel. We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. So, they deny the Gospel, formally, they denied it, and are anathema, they're under the anathema of God. The Apostle Paul said that if he himself came back and told them something. Notice that Paul doesn't believe that he has intrinsic authority. It's the text that's inspired. It's the message that's inspired, not the man. In Galatians chapter 1, Paul said, even if I or an angel from heaven come and tell you something other than justification by faith apart from works, may I be anathema, may I be damned, let alone a church father or someone three or four centuries later. They are held to the same standard that the apostle Paul held himself to, and that is to scripture. So when I read Ephesians 2, 8 through 10, for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it's the gift of God, not by works, lest anyone should boast. Eastern Orthodoxy says you're saved by faith and works, and Paul says if it's by faith, it's not by works. So who are we gonna believe? Are we just gonna say, well, no one can interpret that. We have no idea what Paul's really saying there. God believes in the adequacy of language to communicate, and when he speaks to us, He speaks with clarity. So why do people disagree about so much in scripture? It's real easy. Sin. Why would this guy leave behind a Baptist church, if that church preached the true gospel, to embrace what? Yay, we get into heaven by good works. I mean, I've dialogued with Eastern Orthodox priests. I've dialogued online with Orthodox converts. Some of them believe in a substitutionary atonement, some of them don't. Some of them think Jesus died for our sins. Some of them don't. And you think, you know, wow, isn't that a pretty significant disagreement? Tell me again about your unified church here. Holy orthodoxy. I think not. I'll stick with what the word of God says. Or my private interpretation of what the word of God says. But the fact of the matter is, the Bible is child's play. trying to understand it in terms of how easy it is compared to sifting through all this stuff. The stuff that Rome has put out there, Vatican I, Vatican II. Good luck trying to figure that stuff out, what they're talking about. Now, one of the books I recommended here, this is a goldmine. This is a goldmine. I wanted to whet your appetite a little bit and read a little bit of this, of the introduction, because the introduction, I still remember reading this when the book was first published. I bought it because James White's ministry was promoting it, and I was having a lot of dialogue with Catholic apologists and things like that. Like I said, the issue is not sola scriptura versus denominations, it's sola scriptura versus the concept of scripture plus an infallible interpreter. He's comparing a rule of faith, sola scriptura, with a denomination, Eastern Orthodoxy. What he needs to compare is the idea of scripture plus an infallible interpreter with the idea of scripture alone. And those denominations that practice Sola Scriptura are significantly more united in their theology than any groups that practice Scripture plus an infallible interpreter. They are all over the place. Okay? And besides that, how do you know that you picked the right infallible interpreter? How did you make that decision to submit to Orthodoxy? Why not Mormonism? Why not Roman Catholicism? Why not a thousand other groups that make those claims? Well, you had to make that decision based on your own interpretation of scripture, history, tradition, and everything else. Private interpretation is as essential to communication as breathing is to talking. You have to privately interpret the pronouncements of whatever your particular infallible interpreter that you choose to submit to. You've got to interpret privately what they say. And then what happens when people disagree on that? You need a infallible interpreter of your infallible interpreter. See the buck's got to stop somewhere. And I say it stops with God. And thankfully the Bible is so much easier to understand than any infallible interpreter I've ever heard of. Okay. Listen to the introduction here from, uh, this is David King. This is from a volume one of, of Holy scripture, the ground and pillar of our faith. In a day when evangelicals are no longer referred to as heretics, but separated brethren by the communion of Rome, a subtle but dangerous ecumenism is making gains within Protestantism. This ecumenism, and by the way, ecumenism refers to brushing aside all of your doctrinal differences to unite together as Christians. This ecumenism has taken many forms, one of which has been the high profile of the ECT Accords, ECT stands for Evangelicals and Catholics Together, of 1994 and 1997, under the titles Evangelicals and Catholics Together and The Gift of Salvation, respectively. These accords are attempts by some evangelical leaders and Roman Catholics to reconcile age-old differences between the two communions. The appeal is to set aside doctrinal differences and come together in unity to fight the rapid secularization and moral decline engulfing our culture. Those who participated in their formulation firmly believe that Rome and Protestantism share a common gospel and faith based upon the ancient creeds, and therefore much more unites than divides us. In truth, however, the essential doctrinal differences that separate us cannot be so easily dismissed. The last decade has witnessed an aggressive challenge and assault by Roman apologists to the Protestant faith. In particular, these apologists have focused on two fundamental principles of the Reformation, sola fide, faith alone, justification by faith alone, and Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone. They have challenged these principles on both biblical and historical grounds. The two most notable books to date that deal with these issues are Not by Scripture Alone, edited by Robert St. Janus, and Not by Faith Alone, authored by Robert St. Janus. I have both of those books, by the way. Both published in 1997. These books clearly demonstrate that the debate between Roman evangelicals is alive and well. Historically, there have been many such exchanges, like between Rome and Protestants. We've actually, we've actually dialogued and debated these kinds of things before, even though many are not familiar with that. One remembers such reformers as Martin Luther, Martin Bucer, Ulrich Zwingli, Peter Verre, William Farrell, and John Calvin, all of whom were very capable and gifted leaders. On one occasion, now folks, tune back in if you're zoning out on me, on one occasion, Peter Vire, Pharrell and Calvin participated in a formal disputation between Roman and reformed churchmen for the purpose of facilitating the entrance of the Canton of Vaud into the evangelical alliance at Lausanne in October of 1536, the same year that saw the publication of Calvin's first edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion. It was organized by the Bernese, a Protestant constituency. Pharrell and Viret were invited to present the case for the cause for reform. Viret was already in Lausanne, and Pharrell brought with him from Geneva a young rector named John Calvin. Farrell offered ten articles, now referred to as the Lausanne Articles, in a sermon which laid out the substance and structure of the discussion. Exchange and debate ensued, and for some three days, both Farrell and Viret found the proceedings very difficult. In his biographical sketch of Calvin, Emanuel Stickelberger writes of the event, quote, for three days Calvin was silent. As often as Pharrell nodded to him, he shook his head. And in the evening, he answered the reproaches by saying, you and Viret know well how to answer all questions. Why should I interfere? Pharrell wrung his hands. It is a shame you have so much insight and knowledge, and at the same time, so much shyness, end quote. They're like, Calvin, why don't you speak up? We know that you know all this stuff. So listen, it goes on. However, on day four, The opposition made a carefully prepared speech in which they charged the reformers of holding Augustine and other ancient church fathers in contempt, particularly with respect to the real presence in the Lord's Supper. Pharrell glanced at Viret and Viret back at Pharrell. Pharrell was about to reply, but before he could speak, the young Rector John Calvin was on his feet, his gaze fixed on the face of the accuser and said, quote, listen to what Calvin says here. honor to the Holy Church Fathers. He among us who does not know them better than you, let him beware, lest he mention their names. Too bad that you are not more thoroughly read in them, otherwise certain references could be of benefit to you." Taking command of the debate, Calvin continued, quote, But the reproach which you have made concerning the Holy Doctors of Antiquity constrains me to say one word to remonstrate briefly how wrongly and groundlessly you accuse us in this connection. You charge us with condemning and wholly rejecting them, adding the reason that it is because we feel them contrary and hostile to our cause. As for condemning, we should not at all refuse to be judged by the whole world as not only audacious but beyond measure arrogant, if we held such servants of God in so great contempt as you allege as to deem them fools. If it be so, we should not at all take the trouble to read them and to use the help of their teaching when it serves and as occasion offers. So that those who make parade of according them great reference often do not hold them in such great honor as we, nor do they deign to occupy their time reading their writings as we willingly do. This could be proved not to you. but to anyone willing to take a little more trouble. But we have always held them to belong to the number of those to whom such obedience is not due, and whose authority we will not exalt, as in any way to debase the dignity of the word of our Lord, to which alone is due complete obedience in the church of Jesus Christ." End quote. Alistair McGrath notes that it was at this point that Calvin turned the tide of the debate. Without the aid of notes or manuscripts, Calvin quoted from memory the Scripture and the early Church Fathers, complete with references. On this momentous occasion, he succeeded in devastating the opposition. He quoted Cyprian that Christ should be obeyed before all. He expounded the views of Tertullian and added the testimony of Chrysostom. from the unfinished treatment of Matthew, the 11th homily, quote, about the middle, end quote, referencing as well Augustine's 23rd epistle, quote, near the end, end quote. He advanced the testimony of Augustine from his book against Adamantus, the Manichaean, about the middle, from his comments on the 98th Psalm, and from one of his homilies on the Gospel of John around the 8th or 9th section, I cannot recall exactly which. Thus he argued, and all by heart, He challenged with, quote, The whole world is easily able to understand with what audacity you reproach us with being contrary to the ancient doctors. Certainly, if you had seen some of their pages, you would not have been so foolhardy as to pass judgment as you have done, not having seen the evidence as the above witnesses present it. and one could cite others besides. But I am content with those that can be reached readily without using great subtlety in citing them." And John Calvin concluded his speech by saying, quote, If I have satisfied you about the falseness of your objections, and in my view you ought to be manifestly content, I advise and beseech you to charge us no longer with contradicting the ancient doctors in this matter with whom we are in fact in such accord, nor with corrupting Scripture at our pleasure when constrained by such vital reasons we interpret it on the analogy of faith, nor with glossing it on our own testimony when we suggest no gloss which is not self-expressed in it." Having completed his extemporaneous discourse, Calvin sat down, and a hushed silence fell on all present. Even those who understood very little of what had been said sensed that the direction of the debate had shifted. There was not a single word of rebuttal. No one wanted to expose himself, not even Mimard, who made the charge, or Blanqueros, the spokesman. History records that in the moments following, a Franciscan friar, Jean Tandy, noted as a capable preacher who had denounced the reformers from his pulpit, spoke the following with words full of emotion, quote, It seems to me that the sin against the Spirit, which the Scriptures speak of, is the stubbornness which rebels manifest against the truth. In accordance with that which I have heard, I confess to be guilty, because of ignorance I have lived in error, and I have spread the wrong teaching. I ask God's pardon for everything I have said and done against His honor, and ask the pardon of all of you for the offense which I gave with my preaching up until now. I defrock myself henceforth to follow Christ and His pure doctrine alone." End quote. So Calvin's speech defending justification by faith alone and sola scriptura from the Church Fathers was so devastating that a Roman Catholic Franciscan friar stood up and repented and defrocked himself, stripped himself of his ministerial credentials. Now, this book is wonderful. It is a wonderful book. And it opens with this great quotation here in the preface. Listen. William Chillingworth is the author of this quote. A Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism and then converted back to Protestantism, he wrote this quote. The Bible, I say, the Bible is the religion of Protestants. Whatsoever else they believe beside it, and the plain, irrefragable, indisputable consequences of it, well may those hold it as a matter of opinion. But as a matter of faith and religion, neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption. I for my part, after a long, and as I verily believe and hope, impartial search of the true way to eternal happiness, do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only. I see plainly, and with mine own eyes, that there are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers in another age, the church of one age against the church of another age. Traditive interpretations of scripture are pretended, but there are few or none to be found. No tradition, but only of scripture, can derive itself from the fountain, but may be plainly proved either to have been brought in, in such an age after Christ, or that in such an age it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only, for any considering man to build upon. This, therefore, and this only, I have reason to believe. This will I profess, according to this will I live, and for this, if there be occasion, I will not only willingly but even gladly lose my life. though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me. Proposing me anything out of this book and require whether I believe it or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this, God hath said so, and therefore it is true. And other things, I will take no man's liberty of judgment from him, neither shall any man take mine from me. I will thank no man the worst man, nor the worst Christian. I will love no man the less for differing in opinion from me, and what measure I meet to others I expect from them again. I am fully assured that God does not, and therefore that men ought not, to require any more of any man than this. to believe the scripture to be God's word, to endeavor to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it. It's so obvious and plain. There are popes against popes, councils against councils, the consent of fathers of one age against the consent of fathers of another. But the scriptures never err, and the scriptures don't contradict themselves. And as it comes to the word of God, what it teaches about salvation and how we are to be made right with God, the scriptures are so clear and so easy and so plain on that subject that even a child can understand them. Even a child can understand God's word with a due use of the ordinary means, as the great Westminster Confession of Faith said long ago. Okay, let me see who's over here. There's Jesse, there's 42 people watching live. That's good. There's the lambs are watching. Hey, there's Chris and Stacey and there's Jesse Jinks and Lapa Kamehameha. Thank you for everything Pastor Hines. You're welcome. Whoever you are. There's Paul Garvey from England from across the pond over there and Nestor Montenegro wrote something in Spanish it looks like and I don't know Spanish. So if anyone, if there's any Spanish, is Daisy on there? If Daisy's watching, maybe she could translate it. I know she speaks Spanish. Okay, let's see what else was there from this this charming comment that was sent to me. Yeah, the church never gave to scripture authority. It didn't have. They simply took down a list of what had already been received and was being used for centuries. And those early councils that address what is in the Bible, what's part of the canon of Scripture. And just remember, folks, when people say, you know, we have this one church, whether it's the Mormon Church or the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, or some version of Eastern Orthodoxy or some version of Roman Catholicism, and there's many different versions of those groups. There's Sedevacantists, Roman Catholics who don't think there's been a Pope, for quite some time, and they don't think that the last few Popes are legitimate. And there's the people that adhere to what's called the old Catholic Church, and they think mass should still be in Latin. They don't believe in the Novus Ordo, blah blah blah. Things like that. So they've got their own host of problems. Apparently the infallible interpreter hasn't brought unity over there. But as I've said many times, Those groups that practice Sola Scriptura are significantly more united in what they believe than any groups that practice scripture plus an infallible interpreter. So always remember, don't allow people to compare apples and oranges. Don't let them compare a rule of faith with a denomination. Make people compare rules of faith. Okay, so you believe in scripture plus an infallible interpreter. All right, well, which of the many, many, many, many, many infallible interpreters that make that claim, which one are we supposed to pick? Oh, well, we're supposed to pick this one, our infallible interpreter. Okay, well, how do you know that's the right one? And then you'll get a discourse on private interpretation of tradition, history, scripture, church fathers, and that's what led them to make a fallible decision as to which interpreter to follow. I say, give me Romans chapter 8. Give me John chapter 10. Give me John 6 and John 17. Give me Ephesians. Give me Philippians any day over the weird meanderings of the pronouncements of Catholic councils or Eastern Orthodox pronouncements or patriarchs. Give me that over any day of the week. I've got to figure out a way to play videos on here. when I'm doing a live program. There's got to be a way to do that. Eventually I'd like to. There was a guy I dialogued with years ago who was a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy from some form of, I think, Pentecostalism. And he was going on and on about, you know, attacking Sola Scriptura. And by the way, why do they attack Sola Scriptura so much? Because they know, as long as you are in submission to the authority of Scripture, you're never going to believe the myths and the fantasies that they believe. Anyone who believes in Sola Scriptura is not going to buy the Roman Catholic doctrines about Mary or indulgences or justification by infused righteousness or anything. They're not going to believe any of that stuff as long as they store and submission to the authority of Scripture. Okay, and so that's that's the the issue. These doctrines are not biblical and so they've got to attack the Bible and that's what they do. And thankfully the Bible is a lot easier to understand than the pronouncements of these groups. But anyway, this young guy I was dialoguing with years ago, he was talking about how biblical the service is in Eastern Orthodoxy. So I sent him a video, a link to a video of an Eastern Orthodox patriarch venerating a cross. And walking around with this cross, and a processional and there's incense and bells and smells and he then proceeds to mount this cross on this altar and bowed down to it and kissed it over and over and over again. And I said to this young guy, you're telling me I should reject Sola Scriptura to engage in this kind of idolatry? Where you prop up a wooden cross and bow down in front of it, genuflect in front of it, over and over again, kiss it, raise your hands to it, pray in front of it? How is that not a violation? the second commandment well once you've abandoned solo scriptura and have given your mind to one of one of a thousand different authoritarian groups well if they tell you that that's not idolatry then well then you're not gonna believe it's idolatry and I tried to push this guy look at the second commandment you shall not make a carved image of anything that is in heaven above, that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them." What is that video? Y'all made a carved image of a cross and are bowing to it. How is that not a violation? Well, if you don't believe in Sola Scriptura, You don't believe in Sola Scriptura and you bow to one of these so-called infallible authorities. Well, the infallible authority says it doesn't violate the commandment. Lo and behold, it doesn't. They don't think it does. Always think of Matthew 15 and Mark 7, the Corban rule. Hey, whatever, mom and dad, whatever money we were gonna give you to take care of you is a gift devoted to God. We're gonna give a little bit of money to the temple and then ignore you for the rest of your life. And I've asked my little kids about that before. Kids, don't you think it's obvious that that violates the fifth commandment, honor your father and your mother? They said, yeah, of course. And that's what Jesus pointed out to them. For the sake of this tradition, you have made void the commandment of God, honor your father and your mother. Now, when Jesus pointed that out to them, and the Pharisees did not believe in Sola Scriptura, did they go, Wow, you're right. Yeah, the Corban rule does violate solos. It does violate that commandment. How did we miss that? You see, once you've abandoned solo scriptura, God can't talk to you anymore. And this guy says he's an ex Baptist. He's, you know, jumped into the, the, the fire of Eastern Orthodoxy, a false gospel that promotes idolatry. What, what exactly have you gained from this? a false sense that I'm part of this historic church, that all the church fathers taught all this stuff. No, they didn't. Israel actually had nothing to do with giving you the Bible. God is the one who preserved the Bible through people who copied it, and the people of God that received those books received them as the Word of God. They didn't give them any authority that they didn't already have. And if God had a purpose for which He inspired those books, there's no possible way that any of them could have been left out of the canon, and there's no possible way that an uninspired book got into the canon. And you don't have to give infallibility to anyone in order for that to happen. Just as God was able to work with His people in the Old Testament without the establishment of an infallible body of teachers to bring the Old Testament people of God to a knowledge of the canon of Scripture, He does the same thing in the New Testament without establishing a so-called infallible body of teachers. And besides that, there's so many groups that make that claim, how could you possibly ever know who's right? Plus, how could you ever test anything that they said? The Scriptures tell us, test all things. Can an Eastern Orthodox convert or a Roman Catholic, can you test? Can you test what the pronouncements of the Catholic Church say? Can you test those by Scripture? Can you compare them with the Word of God and reject them if they're out of accord with Scripture? No, you can't. No, you can't. Always remember, dear ones, the Bible, or told in Scripture itself, one of its functions is correction. 2 Timothy 3.16. All Scripture is God-breathed. Pasa grafe theopneustos. All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable, useful for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God would be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. I asked a question on a Roman Catholic web forum many years ago. Just start a new thread through the question out there. Second Timothy 3.16 says that one of Scripture's functions is correction. How does Scripture correct the Roman Catholic Church? You know what they said? after insulting and attacking and being nasty, someone finally just said, you can't. Scripture doesn't correct us because we're infallible. I was like, well, okay. I pointed out to them, I'm fallible. The denomination I'm part of is fallible. I have made errors. I do make errors and I'm sure that I will make errors in the future, but I'll never make the biggest error of all. And that error would be thinking that I can't make errors. Or thinking that any group of human beings can't make errors. God is infallible. His word is infallible. And the church is reformed as it listens to the voice of her shepherd who can always correct it. You see, once you deny Sola Scriptura, God can't correct you anymore. And you'll find yourself on your knees Worshiping a wooden cross, blaspheming God, thinking that you're glorifying Him doing it. Thinking you're pleasing God while you're provoking His wrath. That's the danger. Sola Scriptura is an essential truth. It's a vital truth. It's a historical truth. And I'm so thankful to God. So thankful I hear God's voice in His word. So thankful that it's so much easier to understand than Eastern Orthodoxy, Romanism, Mormonism, or any of the thousands of groups out there that make these kinds of claims. Love y'all. Let me see if there's anything else over here. Okay. Love you all. It's good to be back. Isn't this picture nice and crisp and clear? Got a new system. I think everything is finally working. So hopefully the sound was good. I did fix the sound, I think. So anyway, love y'all. Thank y'all for watching or for listening. This is Pastor Patrick Hines of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church in Kingsport, Tennessee. You can visit us on the web at bridwellheightschurch.com, where all the sermons and podcasts are put into our sermon audio feed, which is accessible in iTunes as well as the podcast app. You are welcome to join us any Sunday morning for Sunday school for all ages at 10 a.m. and then worship for everyone at 11 a.m. If you ever have any questions about the Christian faith or the Bible, you can email me at pastor at brittleheightschurch.org. May the Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. The Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.