Objections to the Primacy of the Scriptures                                                                           2012 by Jack Kettler

In this article which concludes my series of studies on the reliability of the Scriptures, it is necessary to comment on several objections that have been raised against the historic Protestant view of Scripture. My comments are to objections that have been made in public forums and advanced by various organized religious groups. I have encountered these arguments when discussing the Protestant view of Scripture with the followers of Joseph Smith Jr., Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and those in the Charismatic tongue speaking, word of knowledge prophesy movement. I in turn will raise a number of questions that the opponents of Sola Scriptura should consider. It is not my intention to engage in an extensive interaction with the opponents of Sola Scriptura since Protestant theologians have done so on many occasions. A number of different "straw man" arguments could be raised against the view of Scripture covered in my previous articles. Fallacious arguments collapse because of their misstating their opponent's position and then attacking the misstated position which does nothing to refute the position under consideration in my articles on the reliability of Scripture.

First off, someone may cite passages like Deuteronomy 4:2 which forbids the adding to or the diminishing from Scripture and claim that this verse teaches the closing of the canon at this point in redemptive history. This is a cute trick attempting to demonstrate the Protestant view of Scripture just does not work. Passages of this nature simply refer to the prohibiting of man from adding to Scripture. Another may cite a passage like John 21:25 referring to the potential of Christ's teaching fill the whole world with books in an attempt to distort the meaning of a passage like John 14:26 dealing with Christ's message to the apostles. Hence, an interpretation or spin like this would seek to open the door for continued revelation by leading people to believe that there is still more to the "all things."

John 14:26 certainly does not mean that Jesus taught his apostles all about the occult and deviant sexual practices. There is clearly a limitation in the passage. John 14:26 is understood in relation to passages like II Peter 1:3 and II Timothy 3:16, 17. Is it true that not every word of Christ and the apostles is recorded in the Bible? Yes, and John even says this in John 20:30. John follows up this statement in verse 20:30 with an important conclusion that: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name" John 20:312. The phrase in the first part of the verse "are written" is expressing the same truth as "it is written." If "it is written," it is Scripture and has been canonized. If it is not recorded in the Bible it is not Scripture.

Secondly, it may be objected that passages like John 10:35 and II Timothy 3:16, 17 refer only to the Old Testament and cannot be used to prove the completion of New Testament Scripture.

It is admitted that these passages do primarily refer to the Old Testament. The New Testament is also Scripture, so the passages in question include the New Testament within their scope. It should be obvious to the reader that these passages were not the only ones used to support the completion of the Scriptures.

There are several different manifestations of theological systems of contending authority that are opposed to the Scriptures alone as being the infallible final court of appeal for life and truth. I will touch upon some of them briefly. When someone rejects the Scriptures as the final infallible authority they open themselves up to all kinds of deception. They are not rejecting authority per se, just the infallible Scriptures as the final court of appeal, or Sola Scriptura. As mentioned in previous articles, rather than hold to the sufficiency of God's Word, some have followed leaders; their own vanity, traditions, or experience are lifted up as supreme. False and misguided religious leaders attack the reliability of the Bible in order to subordinate people to their own authority. The pattern is always the same; the claim is "the Bible is not sufficient." The following three categories are examples of this pattern, but by no means exhaust the number of examples of aberrations that could be cited.

1. Groups that follow Joseph Smith Jr.

The various expressions of the followers of Joseph Smith Jr. have a vested interest in undermining the authority of Scripture. If the Biblical authority is called into question, then the case is made (fallaciously) for dependence upon an additional authority structure. Where is the authority of Joseph Smith's followers found? In their case, the authority is located in the church hierarchy and doctrines which are found in additional books that they call scripture and in the pronouncements of their leaders in official church publications and general conference meetings. This means that there are many, many volumes of alleged authoritative writings. There are two main groups that are adherents to Joseph Smith or restoration theology and a number of smaller groups. All of these groups believe in continued ongoing revelations, which add to the Bible. It is a fact that Utah followers of Joseph Smith and the Reorganized Church disagree with each other as to exactly what the new revelations are. The latter group believes that some of the former group’s revelations are false. The Utah followers of Joseph Smith are polytheistic, whereas, the Reorganized Church is not (no small difference).

All of these groups that adhere to the theology of Joseph Smith have more than one man claiming to be the only prophet on earth. This is somewhat reminiscent of a period in church history where more than one individual at the same time claimed to be the Pope. In addition, the these followers of Joseph Smith or Smithite groups have between themselves many more than twelve men who claim to be apostles. Obviously, something is wrong. Since both the Utah followers of Joseph Smith and their separate Reorganized brethren assert I need their revelations, which are not found in the Bible, they need to explain what exactly these new revelations are and why I need them for salvation? How do we know if the alleged new revelations are accurate? How can the contradictory revelations given by the various Joseph Smith styled prophets be explained? Are these new alleged revelations being properly interpreted? How do we know? In the case of all Smithite groups, they claim the Bible is insufficient, so you have to take someone's (their leaders) word for it. Supposedly their leaders who interpret the new revelations are infallible and sufficient. This particular claim is not only unacceptable, it is ridiculous and fails to overthrow the infallibility of the Christian Scriptures.

2. Oral Sacred Tradition Groups

In particular, it has been alleged by some Roman Catholics that the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura. Is this so? The Roman Catholic should show where the Bible contradicts this doctrine properly defined? Some have said that Sola Scriptura means "the Bible plus nothing else." This is a straw-man argument and will be shown below to be false. To the Roman Catholic we ask, where does the Bible direct God's people to an outside authority structure such as an "oral sacred tradition?" The force of this question should not be dismissed. As demonstrated in my preceding articles on Scripture, we see that Sola Scriptura is taught all over the face of Scripture the traditions of men are condemned by Christ repeatedly. In essence, the critics of Sola Scriptura are saying that the Protestant must accept as the final authority, the word as stated by the Roman or Eastern Orthodox Church, end of debate.

If the church is always correct, why did Christ attack the religious authorities of the Old Testament Church? Christ did this using the strongest terminology, such as hypocrites and vipers. The facts are, sometimes even the church will err in its doctrine. If the Old Testament Church erred why should anyone deny the fact that the church in gospel age can and has fallen into error as well? What happens when the church misinterprets the Bible? Can the believer challenge the misinterpretation? As Protestants we say yes, but this does not mean by doing so we are disregarding or repudiating the church. It means that we have to test all things in light of Scripture. This includes even the rulings and doctrine of the church. If this is necessary, it should be done in humility. The faithful church sees that the Scriptures always stand as the final infallible authority above it. Christ is the head of the church. He speaks through the Scriptures. The faithful church should always be reforming and checking itself in light of Scripture.

How can error creep into the church? The leaders in the Old Testament covenant nation did not want the people to misinterpret and break God's law. This sounds like a worthy goal. Who would want that to happen? To prevent this, the elders Of Israel built walls and fences made out of man made regulations to go around God's law. These man-made laws are found in the Talmud. These additional laws would allegedly keep the people from even getting close to actually breaking one of God's laws. Did this work? What were the consequences of this? These man made laws actually produced ignorance in Israel regarding God's law. The traditions of the elders became confused with the word of God. It in fact became a great burden for God's people. Not only were these traditions of men a burden, it also made the commandments of God of none effect. See Mark 7:13 for proof of this.

Likewise, the Roman Church did not want people to misinterpret the Scriptures because it is God's word. This ostensibly sounds good since it is wrong and sinful to misinterpret God's word thus bringing judgment upon those whom do this. What was the Roman Church's attempted solution to this possibility of misinterpretation? The Roman Church placed the Bible on the list of forbidden books. If the people did not have the Bible to read then they would not be able to misinterpret it. The logic may be correct, but it is perverse. Eventually, the people in the Roman Churches were not able to recognize the difference between the church law, traditions, superstitions, heresy, and the Word of God. In fact, these strategies by ancient Israel and Rome produced ignorance of the law of God and the Scriptures. These strategies to keep the people of God from breaking God's law or misinterpreting the Bible were noble on the surface but in reality are evil since they produce ignorance among the people of God.

Moving on, does the theory of " oral sacred tradition" invalidate the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura? The distinctive doctrines of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are all based upon sources outside of the Bible. In the case of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy the distinctive doctrines are found in what is referred to as "oral sacred tradition" interpreted by the church. How do we know if alleged "sacred traditions" are true? Is it because the church says so? How do we know the word of the church regarding a particular "sacred tradition" is true? Is it because it is in agreement with "sacred tradition?" If this is the case, then we would seem to be going in a circle. In Orthodoxy and Rome, tradition is elevated on a par equal with Scripture. It needs to be asked: has God revealed all his revelation now? Or is the body of revelation, i.e., "sacred tradition" still expanding? If still expanding, how long will these alleged traditions continue to expand or grow? If the sacred oral traditions are written down, what becomes of them? Are they now considered to be equivalent to the Old and New Testament writings? If so, why not revise the Scriptures by adding them to the Bible? Is there a sacred book of traditions? Are there commentaries that explain these "sacred traditions?" If so, are these commentaries inspired? Can every day men read them? Or, do we need a special leaders to decipher the meaning?

Does this alleged expanding body of revelations or traditions ever contradict each other? It should be noted that Roman Catholic theology is still evolving because of the influence of these so called traditions. The development of Mariology is an example of this. To deny that there are contradictions between the different traditions one would have to be dishonest. For example, Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic have traditions that contradict each other at various points. The role of "feasts," "fasts," "festivals," the "filoque," "papal claims," "original sin," "purgatory," the "immaculate conception" and the use of "Icons" are examples of divergent contradictory traditions. And furthermore, there is much debate and disagreement upon exactly what some traditions mean. It should be noted that the Eastern Orthodox Churches first acted on a basic principle of Protestantism by breaking with the Roman Church in 1054 over the filoque controversy. The filoque controversy is where a Roman Catholic Pope, outside of a church council changed the Nicene Creed. The facts are, there are serious theological differences within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, which includes divisions or factions among themselves, new age mysticism, liberalism and outright humanism manifesting itself in a variety of ways.

In defense of Protestantism, it needs to be explained how someone may look at the Reformation doctrine of Sola fide (by faith alone) and say this in not what the Bible teaches. They might say, "the Bible says we are saved by grace." This Latin phrase that highlights Protestant doctrine does not even mention grace, it only speaks of faith. Such statements would reveal an appalling amount of ignorance. Sola Fide, or "by faith alone" must be understood in its historical context. The debate that was raging at the time concerned how a person was saved or justified. Both positions had the doctrine of grace in their formulas. Although Rome uses the word grace in its formulation of justification, Rome's sacramental system has subverted the Biblical doctrine of grace and turned it into a system of works. The Protestant battle cry was "by faith alone" in contrast to the Roman Church, which was essentially saying "faith plus works." Understanding the historical circumstances of the debate clears up any misconception about the Protestant use of the formula "by faith alone" which did not leave out grace at all. Sola gratia or by grace alone went right along with Sola fide.

1 Sola scriptura (by Scripture alone)

2 Sola fide (by faith alone)

3 Sola gratia (by grace alone)

4 Solo Christo (Christ alone)

5 Soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone)

The Roman position essentially said that faith plus works produced justification, which placed man in a tenuous state of grace. In the Roman view man could fall from this state of grace. The Protestant position in contrast to this said that is was "faith alone" (the result of God's imputing grace) produced justification, thus saving man. If Sola fide is taken out of its historical context it can be made appear to be in conflict with Scripture. The Latin formula is a phrase drawing attention to the difference between the Protestant and Roman positions on justification. The Protestant position did not reduce to "faith only" minus grace as the surface meaning of the Latin might appear. It should be noted that an objection like this is a clever straw-man fallacy that capitalizes on the ignorance of modern man.

Likewise, the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura if taken out of its historical context can be made to appear to be unconvincing. The debate surrounding Sola Scriptura was a debate on ultimate authority. The Roman Church claims that it, the church was the infallible final court of appeal. If time is taken to study the debate during the Reformation, it is clearly seen that the Protestants were claiming that the Bible the only infallible rule of faith and is the final court of appeal. They were not saying "the Bible plus nothing else." An ignorant person in the Twentieth Century looking at the Latin formula just on the surface may get this impression. If they believe this is the Protestant position, it the result of their own ignorance. To properly understand the Latin formula used by the men of the reformation you must understand the context of the debate at the time. The Protestants were not claiming that you were forbidden to use commentaries or refer to church history, or have church synods and assemblies to help settle disputes. To illustrate, John Calvin produced a commentary set on the Bible that is still the standard against which all others are measured. Philip Schaff, a noteworthy Protestant historian wrote a valuable eight volume church history, a three volume work on the creeds of Christendom, and edited the thirty eight volume church fathers set.

It is beyond dispute that Protestantism has produced a rich tradition of scholarship. Does this violate its own stated position? Of course not! The Protestant position is not some kind of simplistic "the Bible plus nothing" theory. Those who allege this are dishonest or ignorant. Since the Scriptures are the Word of God, Protestants have always maintained that there could be no higher authority to appeal to. It should be noted that Protestants are not against traditions. Reformation Protestants are against traditions that are contrary to Scripture. Protestants believe strongly in the church's role in the interpretation of Scripture. The Regula fidei or what is known at the rule of faith guards against the danger of the individual setting himself up as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture. Radical individualism in the area of interpretation of Scripture is akin to anarchy. It should be noted that the Reformation Protestants strongly condemned the radical individualism of the Anabaptists of their day, which sought to overthrow all authority. The ecumenical creeds serve an important role in the understanding the rule of faith. In Protestantism debates on the meaning of Scripture takes place in the church. In Reformed Churches in particular there are courts of appeal to guard against the possibility of error at any level of the debate. Protestants claim that the Bible is the infallible final court of appeal in settling debates. This is the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

It is well to remember that the Roman Church had placed the Bible on the list of forbidden books. The Roman Church during this time would not allow their people to be like the Berean Church in the book of Acts. It should be remembered that this church was commended for searching the Scriptures. How can you search the Bible if it is forbidden? In reality, the reason for this ban on the Scriptures was that the Roman Church did not want any challenges to its authority. Thus, the Roman Church had set itself up as the infallible final court of appeal. It tolerated and perpetuated spiritual abuse and corruption, which led up to the events surrounding the Protestant Reformation. Is the church the infallible final court of appeal or the Scriptures? Again, the question is one of authority. What is the ultimate authority? Since the church is made up of fallible men we must answer the question in favor of the Scriptures as the final authority.

In another line of attack, some Roman Catholics have said that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is responsible for all the numerous denominations that interpret the Bible differently. It is true that a number of Protestants interpret the Bible differently. Sin, not Protestant theology in the human condition is responsible for this problem. Some Roman Catholics believe that factions or divisions within Protestantism are evidence of the correctness of their view. This is a fallacious assumption. The falsity of your opponent's position does not necessarily guarantee the correctness of your own position. For Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox to pretend that their theologians and church members are in agreement on everything is dishonest. As already mentioned, it should be again noted that there are numerous factions within both of these groups. Unless your own house is free from different interpretations and factions it is hypocritical to raise an objection like this.

Roman Catholics believe that men cannot understand and interpret the Bible properly on their own. That is why you need the church. This is an epistemological objection. Does looking to the church rather than the Scriptures solve this alleged problem? If we cannot understand the Word of God written down and preserved in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, how can there be certainty that the word of the church will be any clearer? If the individual cannot understand properly the Word of God in the Scriptures, then surely, the individual will not be able to understand the word of the church either. If this epistemological objection were valid, it cuts against anyone understanding the word of the church as well and therefore is of no help to Catholics arguing against the Protestant view. It is an epistemological objection that proves too much for the Roman Catholic.

3. Charismatic Experience Oriented Groups

The modern day charismatic movement is notorious for allowing experiences to influence their interpretation of Scripture. Adherents of the charismatic movement believe that God still speaks through the continued presence of revelatory gifts in the church. Do the Charismatic revelatory gifts convey authoritative knowledge? If so, how is this revelatory knowledge fundamentally different from revelation given by the followers of Joseph Smith, which also claims to be authoritative? If they are not authoritative, what is the purpose of these revelations since these same revelations in substance may already be in the Scriptures? Revelation if real, is authoritative. Non-authoritative revelation is a contradiction of terms. God's revelation cannot be separated from His authority. In fairness, charismatic followers usually do not believe that modern day revelatory knowledge contradicts the Bible. However, it is interesting to note that the Smithites also believe that their revelations do not contradict the Bible either. Simply believing something is no guarantee of the truth or reality of the belief.

If the charismatic revelatory gifts are imparting new revelation, then this is a dangerous movement away from the authority of Scripture. In many cases, unwittingly the charismatic is accepting an authority other than the Bible, namely the new revelation. In addition, rather than Sola Scriptura being the guiding principle of the charismatic movement, many adherents of this movement have adopted a "just let the spirit lead or move" approach to arriving at truth for life decisions. In fact, this "just letting the spirit lead or move" seems to be the modus operandi of much of the charismatic movement.

Sometimes this claim of "letting the spirit lead or move" has been used as a pretext for doctrinal abuse and public sins such as men running off with the wive of another man. This writer personally knows cases where people believing that they received words of prophetic knowledge actually sold their homes and moved away at great financial loss only to find out later that such a move accomplished nothing at all beneficial. Claims to the contrary, this movement has spawned unbelievable abuses in practice and doctrine, which is the very fruit of a non-Biblical system of authority.

Many followers of the charismatic movement pay lip service to the principle of Sola Scriptura. This is undermined however when so called spiritual experiences actually influence the interpretation of the Scriptures. In light of this flawed hermeneutic, namely, letting the alleged spiritual experience (tongue speaking, words of knowledge, and prophecy) influence an understanding of the Scripture it is not surprising that sound doctrine gives way to interpretations of Scripture that are influenced by these self-same experiences. The astute reader sees the circular reasoning that plagues this approach. Since the charismatic has either allegedly witnessed or spoke in tongues, the Bible is interpreted in such a fashion as to support the charismatic interpretations of the Bible. Thus, the charismatic assumes this must be what the Bible teaches since they have witnessed or experienced it. This is nothing more than a dangerous subjectivist circle of interpretation. The role of Scripture and experience are reversed, experience gaining the upper hand in this system. As already mentioned, the fruit of this in addition to producing faulty theology, has led to practices contrary to the Bible.

In fact, it is not too strong to say that many of the modern day charismatic abuses rival the abuses that were produced by the medieval Roman Church. When experience is lifted up, as the guiding interpretive principle, objectivity is lost. Experience is in the realm of subjectivity. In essence, the theology of the charismatic movement subverts in principle the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and can end up supporting something other than the Scriptures being the infallible final court of appeal. Does the charismatic believer want to establish alleged revelatory gifts as an additional source of authority? If so, how this be fundamentally different than Rome's "sacred tradition?" Both are sources of authority that stand outside of Scripture. This analysis may be painful for the charismatic to accept but it is true.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy reject Sola Scriptura in favor of "sacred tradition." It should be remembered that both of these religious bodies disagree strongly on a number of traditions and Eastern Orthodoxy in particular has numerous factions. Various followers of Joseph Smith reject it in favor of continued on-going revelation which come from their apostles and prophets. The charismatic churches in principle subvert Sola Scriptura because of their belief that modern revelation allegedly found in tongues and prophecy provides authoritative knowledge. If authoritative revelatory knowledge is ongoing whatever the form, (sacred tradition, new revelation) then the authority of Scriptures would now have a pretended equal. The facts are thus, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments have no equal. And furthermore, these other sources end up resulting in sectarianism and outright false interpretations of Scriptures.

Whose authority or word do I have to accept if the Scriptures are unreliable? Why should I believe one claim over against another? Do the new revelations in the charismatic movement or the "sacred traditions" of Roman result in unique interpretations of the Bible? These non-Biblical sources actually influence the interpretation of God's Word. The Biblical pattern for interpreting Scripture which is seen in the New Testament is to always refer to the Old Testament or other New Testament writers. This establishes the norm for using the Scripture to interpret other Scriptures. This was the practice of the Berean believers in the book of Acts. In addition, and as a safe guard, we need to be careful not to cut our-selves off from the past Regula fidei, or rule of faith. We should find out how other believers in church history interpreted the Scriptures and why. It is possible that believers in times past may have insights into the grammar or historical setting that has been lost to modern interpreters. This is one reason why the church is important because of the preservation of the history of interpretation in commentaries.

However, to accept older interpreters or commentators uncritically as divinely inspired interpreters is completely unwarranted. This is the error of the " oral sacred tradition" churches. They have set up traditions and certain (only the fathers that agree with them) early church fathers as divinely inspired interpreters and authorities on the Word of God. Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome then summon this tradition as proof of their own authority when challenged. In this regard, both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy engage extensively in the fallacy of circular reasoning. The facts are, many of the early church fathers had not completely broken free from the paganism of their day which is one reason they should not be given infallible status as interpreters. With elements of pagan thinking clouding their minds, this caused many misinterpretations of the Scriptures. Some of the early church fathers in essence interpreted the Scriptures through the interpretive grid of pagan thinking. Origen is a prime example of this. He used Hellenistic philosophy to interpret the Scriptures. He tried to interpret Scriptures in such a way as to be harmonious with Greek Philosophy. Other examples of early church fathers using pagan ideas could be cited. I doubt that anyone would seriously question this assertion.

In contrast, it should be noted that many church fathers were in agreement with the Protestant position on Sola Scriptura. Out of many things said on the Scriptures, I will reference fours quotes by three church fathers. Many more could be given:

For example, "For doctrine." For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us. "That the man of God may be perfect." For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us! "Thoroughly furnished unto all good works"; not merely taking part in them, he means, but "thoroughly furnished." - (John Chrysostom, Homily 9, commentary on 2 Tim 3:16-17) (underlining emphasis mine)

Knowledge of the Bible protects us and ignorance of it results in a multitude of evils. "This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how are we to come off safe?" (Hom. IX On Colossians) "But if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule." - St. John Chrysostom, (Homily 33 in Acts of the Apostles

"What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all. They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Basil, Letter 189, 3)

"This is no unsupported statement of his own, which might lead to error, but a warning to us to confess that Christ died and rose after a real manner, not a nominal, since the tact is certified by the full weight of Scripture authority; and that we must understand His death in that exact sense in which Scripture declares it. In his regard for the perplexities and scruples of the weak and sensitive believer, he adds these solemn concluding words, according to the Scriptures, to his proclamation of the death and the resurrection. He would not have us grow weaker, driven about by every wind of vain doctrine, or vexed by empty subtleties and false doubts: he would summon faith to return, before it were shipwrecked, to the haven of piety, believing and confessing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Son of Man and Son of God, according to the Scriptures, this being the safeguard of reverence against the attack of the adversary, so to understand the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as it was written of Him. There is no danger in faith: the reverent confession of the hidden mystery of God is always safe. Christ was born of the Virgin, but conceived of the Holy Ghost according to the Scriptures. Christ wept, but according to the Scriptures: that which made Him weep was also a cause of joy. Christ hungered; but according to the Scriptures, He used His power as God against the tree which bore no fruit, when He had no loath Christ suffered: but according to the Scriptures, He was about to sit at the right hand of Power. He complained that He was abandoned to die: but according to the Scriptures, at the same moment He received in His kingdom in Paradise the thief who confessed Him. He died: but according to the Scriptures, He rose again and sits at the right hand of God. In the belief of this mystery there is life: this confession resists all attack." (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 10, 67)

In summary, if the Scriptures are unreliable how could any other source be reliable? Discrediting the Bible would prove more than the critics of the Bible intend. It would in essence prove too much, namely, that no knowledge is possible. If God is incapable of preserving His Word you certainly cannot have confidence in the word of men. If God has not spoken reliably in history then mankind is left in the quicksand of subjectivity. If God has not spoken reliably in history it is preposterous for a church to claim to speak infallibly. The Smithites and charismatics may claim that their revelations are reliable today. This is nonsense. If God has not spoken reliably in the past He certainly cannot speak reliably in the present.

Who has more authority on earth, God or the church? The answer is obvious to this rhetorical question. The Scriptures declare God to be Sovereign or the absolute ruler over all. As stated in a previous study, God has either preserved His Word from corruption or He has not. These are the only two choices. It is self-evident from the Scriptures that God has sovereignly preserved His Word from corruption as evidenced by the testimony of the Scriptures themselves. As shown, the believer can have confidence that he has the complete and sufficient Word of God to rest and base his life upon. Rome Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox use traditions, The followers of Joseph Smith have their new revelations, and the charismatics indulge in their experiences, all of which causes misinterpretation of the Scriptures and out-and-out doctrinal perversion. "Sacred tradition," new revelations, revelatory gifts all take away from the written Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which Jesus said, testify of Him.

As my previous studies have shown, the Scriptures declare themselves to be the Word of God in no uncertain terms. Their authority and sufficiency is seen throughout the whole of Scripture. God ceased giving divine revelation and closed the canon of Scripture in the First Century. The canon of Scripture is what God has preserved for His Church. No doubt, Jesus said many words that are not recorded in Scripture. Jesus probably talked about the weather and thanked his mother for a good meal. Providentially God did not preserve every last word Jesus uttered. Why? That is a question that rests with the secret counsel of God Deuteronomy 29:29. We can be sure that with God's perfect control of all things we can know that we have "all things" (II Peter 1:3) that God has commanded us for life and doctrine. The view of Scripture outlined in this article does not invalidate the use of historical information, tradition, commentaries, confessions, creeds and teachers. Scripture however, is the infallible final court of appeal, and Scripture should test all things. If we are obedient to Christ we likewise will appeal to what "is written."

Previous studies in this series can be found at the following links:

Scriptural Authority and Old Testament Considerations
New Testament Considerations
God's Word to be Written Down
The Sufficiency of the Scriptures
The Closing of the Canon of Scripture

Recommended Reading

1. Keith A. Mathison, The Shape Of Sola Scriptura, Volume 1, (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press,

2001). This work explains the regula fidei or rule of faith in light of the creeds and answers Roman Catholic challenges to Protestantism in the area of the Sola Scriptura debate.

2. David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, (Battle Ground, WA, Christian Resources Inc., 2001).

3. William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 2 (Battle Ground, WA, Christian Resources Inc., 2001).

4. David T. King and William Webster, Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 3 (Battle Ground, WA, Christian Resources Inc., 2001).

5. Beckwith J. Francis, Mosser Carl, Owen Paul, Editors, The New Mormon Challenge, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 2002).