Scripture Alone: What is Reformed Theology? with R.C. Sproul

, , 37 Comments


The Bible says that all men are liars,
and I’m afraid that I verified the truth of that at least in terms of its
application to myself in our last session; because I concluded our last session by
saying from now on we were going to only consider the distinctives of Reformed
theology. And the next two sessions we’re going to be studying the doctrine of Sola
Scriptura and Sola Fide, which I’ve already told you are critical doctrines
held in common by evangelicals in their traditions. And so I lied. And I didn’t
lie intentionally, but I was mistaken. I don’t want to leave you with the
impression that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a distinctly or uniquely
Reformed theological principle. It is part of that body of truth that we share in
common with historical evangelicalism. But having said that let’s look then at this
principle that historians call the Formal Principle of the Protestant Reformation,
Sola Scriptura. In one sense this concept was born publicly in Luther’s famous
confrontation with the rulers of the state and the church at the Diet of Worms,
whereupon Luther was called to recant of his teaching, and you recall on that
occasion when he stood at this solemn place he said, “Unless I am convinced by
sacred Scripture or by evident reason I cannot recant for my conscience is held
captive by the word of God. And to act against conscience, ” said Luther, “is
neither right nor safe. Here I stand. God help me. ” Now that’s been memorialized in
motion picture lore and in the history books and so on. But though this was the
public debut in a historic sense at Worms, it was not a new concept with Luther.
Luther had been more or less forced to say this in earlier debates with some of the
theologians that were trying to persuade him to change his views where he earlier
said that it was possible for Popes to err, to make mistakes, and even for church
councils to make mistakes that the only absolutely authoritative written source of
Divine revelation is the Scripture itself. And so we get this word sola that we place
before the word Scriptura and the phrase simply means by the Scripture alone. Now
what does this mean? What is the vantage point that we’re concerned about here with
the use of this term “alone. ” Well actually there’s more than one
consideration though they’re all inter-related. In the first instance, one
of the disputes at the 16th Century level was the question of the source of divine
revelation. All Christians in the 16th Century believed that Christianity is a
revealed faith that its content comes from God, and both sides of the dispute–Rome
and Protestantism–in the 16th Century agree that there were at least two
distinct places where God gives revelation of Himself. One is in nature, which is
called natural revelation or general revelation whereby the heavens declare the
glory of God; and the other, of course, is the Bible. Now both sides agreed that the
Bible was revelation. And both sides agreed that nature is also revelatory. But
the dispute over the “alone” was whether there was more than one source of what we
call special revelation. And the Protestant movement said there is only one
source of what is called special or written revelation, and that is Scripture;
where Rome confessed its confidence in two sources of special revelation–Scripture
and tradition. I’ve gone over this in other courses, but
I want to review the bidding on it now for the context of this study of the essence
of Reformed theology. At the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, which was the
Roman Catholic church’s response to Luther and to Protestantism, the Council was held
in different sessions at different times spread out over a few years, and at the
fourth session of the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic church declared that
the truths of God are found in the Scripture and in tradition. And the Latin
word that is in the final text of the Council of Trent that links Scripture and
tradition is the somewhat innocuous, simple Latin word et. It is simply the
Latin word for and. Well, this is a complicated discussion because an Anglican
scholar in the 20th Century was doing his research for his doctoral dissertation,
and he was focusing on the fourth session of the Council of Trent, which session
ended unexpectedly and abruptly because of the outbreak of war on the Continent and
there were some loose ends left dangling, and some difficult things to explain from
the discussions that went on at that time. And what this Anglican scholar noted was
that in the first draft of the fourth session of the Council of Trent the
statement was made in Latin that the truth of God is contained partly, partim, partly
in Scripture and partly in tradition, which would indicate clearly that there
were two separate distinct sources for the church’s doctrine–one from the Bible, and
the other from the historic tradition of the church. Now when that first draft was
presented to the Council two priests who were delegates to the Council stood up and
protested the language. I don’t know why I remember their names, but their names were
Bonuccio and Noccianti. These two Italian priests protested this language saying
that it undermined the sufficiency of Scripture. And there the record stops, and
we don’t know what then transpired in the further debates about their objection. All
we know is that the final draft exhibited a change. And the words partim, partim,
which clearly taught a dual source of special revelation were crossed out and in
their place was the word et, which may or may not mean two separate sources. The
word “and” here is a little bit ambiguous, isn’t it? Because if you said to me where
would you find the Reformed faith, I would say well you can find it two places. You
can find it in the Bible, or you can look at the confessions that appear in church
history that try to give a summary of the Reformed doctrine. As insofar as those
creeds are consistent with the Bible, they are repeating it, and it’s just another
place that you can go to find it. And so the church may have meant simply to say
that we find the truth of God first of all in Scripture and then as it is
re-presented to us in the historic councils or the decrees of the church;
that’s the other place you can look, which would … which somebody could say and
still hold to Sola Scriptura. And now that debate continues to this day among
contemporary Roman Catholic scholars as to whether their church is committed to two
sources or one. Unfortunately, there are those conservatives in the church who said
that the change from partim to partim … from partim, partim to et was not a
substantive change but merely a stylistic change and that the church clearly was
meaning to affirm in the 16th Century two sources of written revelation. Now that debate, though it continues, was
more or less settled by a Papal encyclical in the 20th Century, which unambiguously
refers to the two sources of revelation, and that has been the mainstream of
thinking within the Roman Church since the 16th Century that truths that are founded
in the tradition of the church are just as binding upon the consciences of believers
as the truths of Scripture. Whereas in Protestant heritage the principle of
semper reformanda is embraced by virtually all Protestants that is the church is
always called to undergo reformation and always called to check her own creeds and
confessions to make sure that they are in conformity to sacred Scripture. And
virtually every Protestant church that has a creed or confession that is unique to
their communion will go to great pains to say that their own confessions are not
infallible and do not carry the weight of Scripture except insofar as they
faithfully reproduce the doctrines of the Scripture because the overarching
principle is affirmed; namely, that the Bible alone is that written source that
has the authority of God Himself, the authority to bind our consciences
absolutely. And though we are called to be submissive to lesser authorities and
respectful of other authorities. In my own church I’m called to submit to the
authority of the Presbytery or to the Session of the local church. There are all
kinds of levels of authority, and I’m told that if I find in conscience I can no
longer genuinely submit then it is my duty to withdraw from that communion peaceably.
But otherwise I’m not to disturb the peace of the church by acting in direct conflict
to the confessions or the government of the church. And yet at the same time the
church says we know our confessions could be wrong and some of the ordinances of our
church are possibly incorrect, but this is what we believe to be the true and as long
as you’re going to serve here you have this obligation to submit. There’s nothing
sola Scriptura eliminates other authorities, but what it says is there’s
only one authority that can absolutely bind the conscience, and that authority is
sacred Scripture and that all controversies over doctrine and theology
must be settled in the final analysis by Scripture. Now there are other aspects, as
I said, about this sola besides the business of being the only source of
written revelation and second the only authority that can bind absolutely but not
the only authority at all, but also involved in this affirmation in the 16th
Century was a clear affirmation that the Bible is the vox Dei or the verbum Dei the
word of God or the voice of God being infallible and inerrant because it comes
to us by the superintendence of God the Holy Spirit that the Bible is inspired in
the sense that its author ultimately is God. Even though it is transmitted through
human writers, the ultimate source of its truth and of its content comes from God,
and God, of course, is infallible. Human writers in and of themselves are fallible,
but the view of historic Protestantism was that God so assisted the weaknesses of our
fallen humanity as to preserve the Bible from the corruption that one would
normally expect to find from the writings of human beings by His divine
superintendence and by the special ministry of the Holy Spirit. And so that
even though the Bible comes to us in human words, and by human authors it is
considered to be of divine origin. Now I realize that in light of the dispute in
our own day over the infallibility of the Scripture and the inspiration of the
Scripture and the inerrancy of the Scripture, words that have engendered all
kinds of theological controversy, there have been those who have protested
loudly that the very idea of infallible or inerrant Scripture was not something that
was taught and embraced by the magisterial reformers of the 16th Century but was the
result of the intrusion of a kind of Protestant scholasticism that came to pass
in the 17th Century which is called the Age of Reason where these rationalists
were so concerned about certainty that they had almost a psychological or
emotional need for certainty to such a degree that they invented this concept of
inerrancy and infallibility. Well now that question directly is not a question of
whether the Bible is infallible, it’s a question of where the doctrine came from.
It’s a historical question. Is this is something that was invented in the 17th
Century or in the 16th Century. Let me take a few moments to just read a few
quotes to you from the magisterial reformers of the 16th Century and let you
decide for yourself. Here are a few observations that I’ve included in my book
that come from the pen of Martin Luther. Luther says this: Quote “The Holy Spirit
Himself and God, the Creator of all things is the author of this book. ” Another
quote: “Scripture, although also written of men is not of men nor from men but from
God. ” Again, “He who would not read these stories in vain must firmly hold that Holy
Scripture is not human but divine wisdom. ” Again, “The word must stand, for God
cannot lie. And heaven and earth must go to ruins before the most insignificant
letter or tittle of His word remains unfulfilled. ” And then he cites
Augustine. “St. Augustine says in his letter to St. Jerome, quote, ‘I have
learned to hold only the Holy Scripture inerrant. ‘” Now that’s not Luther quoting
a 17th Century scholar. That’s Luther quoting Augustine from the end of the 4th
Century where Augustine says, “I’ve learned to hold only the Scripture
inerrant. ” Again he says, “In the books of St. Augustine one finds many passages
which flesh and blood have spoken. And concerning myself I must also confess that
when I talk apart from the ministry at home at table or elsewhere I speak many
words that are not God’s words. That is why St. Augustine in a letter to Jerome
has put down a fine axiom that only Holy Scripture is to be considered inerrant. ”
So we see that Luther hardly hedges. Another passage I could quote from Luther
in which he says, “The Scriptures never err. ” Now I don’t know that Luther ever
used the word inerrancy. He just used the word inerrant. And said that the Bible
never errs, which is the very essence of the concept of inerrancy. So I think it’s
a fool’s errand to try to argue that the reformers of the 16th Century were
strangers and foreigners to the idea of the inspiration and the authority and
infallibility and the inerrancy of sacred Scripture. But one of the other important points of Sola Scriptura in the 16th
Century which has become a very important principle for the historic evangelicalism
was a hermeneutical principle. The Scriptures … And the reformers not only
confessed their view of what the Scriptures are and where they came from,
but they also expressed their views on how the Bible is to be interpreted and who has
the right and responsibility to read it. One of the radical things that happened in
the Reformation was the translation of the Bible into the vernacular taking it out of the hands of those who
were able to read Latin and/or Greek or Hebrew and putting it in the hands of
people who could only read in their native tongues. As Luther translated the Bible
into German and Wycliffe translated the Bible into England… English and so on,
and in some cases the people who did that paid for it with their lives, because the principle that was asserted in
historic evangelicalism was the principle first of all of private interpretation,
meaning that every Christian has the right and the responsibility to read the Bible
for themselves. And they have the right to interpret it for themselves. Now that was
heard by Rome as witnessed in the fourth session of Trent to mean that the
Protestants were giving license to the rank and file church member not only to
read the Bible for themselves but to distort it at will. And, of course, the
reformers were horrified at that idea. They said every Christian has the right to
interpret the Bible for themselves, but no Christian ever has the right to
misinterpret it or to distort it according to their own whims or their own
prejudices. But the principle was of private interpretation was based upon
another principle which was the principle of the perspicuity of Scripture, which is
a three dollar word for clarity. Now Luther said there are many parts of
Scripture that are difficult to handle and that’s why we need teachers in the church
and commentaries and all of that, but that the basic message, that message that is
necessary for a person to understand and grasp is plain for any person to see it.
And when Luther talked about getting the Bible to the laity the church said if you
do that that will open up a flood gate of iniquity, because people will start
creating all kinds of horrible distortions which is exactly what happened, but Luther
said, “If that is the case, and if a floodgate of iniquity is opened by opening
the pages of the Bible to people, so be it. ” But the message that is clear is so
important. It contains the message of our salvation. It is so important and so clear
that we’ll take the risks of all of the distortions and all of the heresies that
go with that to make sure that the central message of Scripture is heard. And as a
result of this affirmation of Sola Scriptura the Bible was put into the
church and the reading of the Scriptures and preaching from the Scriptures became
central to the liturgy and to the worship of historic Protestantism.

 

37 Responses

  1. Milton Rivas

    March 21, 2015 2:18 am

    Scripture alone, amen! I join with Peter who said …Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.

    Reply
  2. La Fe de la Iglesia

    January 5, 2017 12:42 am

    At 20:51 "Every Christian has the right to interpret the Scriptures for themselves, but no Christian ever has the right to misinterpret the Scriptures" , How can you tell the difference? How do you know when somebody is misinterpreting the Scriptures? Who is to decide what is a "right interpretation", and what is a "misinterpretation"? This is why we need an infallible teaching office (Magisterium of the Catholic Church).

    Reply
  3. Christopher Freeman

    June 9, 2017 5:27 pm

    Only one source of special revelation? And it's the bible? It's not Jesus Christ and his body, that is – the Church?

    Reply
  4. Christopher Freeman

    June 9, 2017 5:28 pm

    Every appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture. The Bible sitting on the table does not interpret itself.

    Reply
  5. The Fantastic Ms Rose

    July 23, 2017 5:35 pm

    The people of the early church that was founded 2000 years ago were illiterate and the church existed 4 centuries before there was a written bible. Even centuries later illiterate people learned the gospel story through stained glass windows, statues and paintings. The CHURCH was the authority which guided the people. solascriptur was invented by martin Luther to rebel against the CHURCH & is an invalid doctrine. Protestantism is a rebellion against the CHURCH that Jesus founded

    Reply
  6. Jay Gigidy

    August 18, 2017 12:53 pm

    The problem with SA is that it assumes 2 things.
    1. God will make scripture affirm itself.
    2. God will guide His people to confirm what is and what isn't scripture.

    The protestant contention is that you don't need an infallible rule to determine scripture. It can determine itself. This is tantamount to saying the universe was created by itself and it had no need for God. There were many scriptures in early christian times how would anyone know which book is inspired or not? It is ridiculous to assume that the bible protestants use today basically just happened by itself. As if the councils and all of Cristendom with the Magisterium had nothing to do with it.

    Reply
  7. Jay Gigidy

    November 7, 2017 5:03 pm

    The rule of SS is that there is no rule. The hallmark of SS is private interpretation. The end product of SS is denominations. It is theological relativism and anarchy at its finest.

    Reply
  8. J Good

    November 15, 2017 9:07 pm

    The Protestant idea of the "Bible alone" (sola scriptura) is, ironically, nowhere in the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible speaks of an infallible Sacred Tradition and an infallible Church that has authority to interpret Scripture. The Bible even warns against sola scriptura. In the Old Testament God gave authority to his priests to interpret his laws and issue binding teaching based on those interpretations, even with regard to criminal and civil issues — both of which were dealt with by divine revelation (d. Lev. 20:1-27, 25:1-55). In the New Testament, he endowed the Church with infallibility in teaching.   Ref Blog; Sola Scriptura Is Unscriptural
      June 01, 1995 Catholic Answers.

    Reply
  9. Ggeg0000

    December 8, 2017 3:48 pm

    For those of you who do not agree with Sola Scriptura please provide us with the other source of infallible truth. 2 Tim 3:16 is enough to establish SS. But for those of you who do not accept it please tell me where the other source of infallible truth is
    ANd I would say this to Christians: Don't let the fact that Catholics don't agree that 2 Tim 3:16 estanblishes SS diminish the truth of the verse

    Reply
  10. Ggeg0000

    December 21, 2017 12:51 pm

    Praise God for the life of RC Sprouls who stood unwaveringly for the five solas of the Reformation throughout his whole life

    Reply
  11. Mike Hamlin

    December 23, 2017 3:29 am

    Jesus, and some of the apostles in their writings warned us time and again about those who would bring false teachings into the church.  As we see in the New Testament this was already happening while the Apostles were still living, and they rebuked them in their writings of Scripture.

     

    Galatians 1:6-9 KJV  I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

     

    How much more so would false teachings surface after the Apostles were no longer on the scene? Therefore, God had to give us a standard to test everything against and that standard is the written word of the apostles which is Scripture.

     

    When you deviate from Scripture as the sole authority, you are opening yourself up for anything. It is deviating from Scripture that EVERY cult is built upon.

     

    John 8:32-33 ESV  So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

     

    1 John 5:11-13 NASB  And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have WRITTEN to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.

     

    John 3:36 KJV  Jesus said: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

     

    John 20:30-31 KJV   And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 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.

     

     

    The word translated believe in the book of John is not a mental or intellectual assent to Jesus or His death on the cross.

     

    The Greek word means to trust in, to completely rely on.

     

    So, to believe on Jesus is to trust completely in His death on the cross for the payment of your sins.

    Jesus took your sins upon Himself, paid the penalty for them, and now you can stand justified before the Father.

     

    1 Peter 3:18 ESV  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

     

    2 Corinthians 5:21 NASB He (God) made Him (Jesus) who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

     

    The RCC has pronounced many dogmas no where to be found in the Bible, and tells you that you must believe them in order to be saved. If you reject them, you will go to hell.

     

    After telling us in His written Word how to be saved, God would be very unjust to later on down through the centuries to give us other conditions through word of mouth that became traditions.

     

    I dare not trust the eternal destiny of my soul to any person or church, but to the written Scriptures alone.

    Reply
  12. Jesus My Savior

    February 6, 2018 11:55 am

    Church plays a role in our Interpretation of Scripture 💐
    https://youtu.be/LrMCOK3cjD8
    Even though we Scripture Alone😊

    Reply
  13. Danny Collier

    February 27, 2018 4:38 am

    Sola Scriptura sounds like a high view of Scripture, until you step outside that fog of subjectivity into the clear light of day. Then you will be amazed at your super-high view of Scripture. I know from first-hand experience:

    https://withmyowneyes.blog/2018/02/05/the-bible-alone-is-it-your-pillar-and-foundation-of-truth/

    Blessings

    Reply
  14. So-And-So

    March 13, 2018 5:39 pm

    Mark 16: 9-19 is not considered Canon anymore. If that was a mistake, what else in the Bible is wrongly considered canon? Was Paul right to tell women to save their questions about God for their husbands when they got home and not bother the pastor with their curiosity? There is strong historical evidence that Revelations was not written by John but by a Gnostic heretic.

    Reply
  15. Danny Collier

    April 30, 2018 12:53 pm

    With My Own Eyes
    I will behold Him

    Straining gnats and swallowing camels
    Beware of sudden and foreign novelties

    Beware friend.  The one rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, holding fast to a Bible-alone scheme, strains a gnat but swallows a camel. (Mat. 23:24).
    https://withmyowneyes.blog/2018/04/30/straining-gnats-and-swallowing-camels/

    Reply
  16. Danny Collier

    May 10, 2018 7:20 pm

    Stop. Don’t assume it’s true. Don’t assume it’s in the Bible.

    https://withmyowneyes.blog/2018/02/12/after-sola-scriptura-truth-and-goodness-and-beauty/

    Reply
  17. Villie Stephanov

    August 15, 2018 3:02 am

    First and foremost you must understand what the word revelation means : it is a sentence crying out with loud voice. When the Word became flesh and dwelled among them, it is named : " the Testimony", which was given 2 Timothy 3:16 to put all against Isaiah's 8:20, which is the Rock, Jesus had in mind. That is all and that is that : a council !!

    Reply
  18. Danny Collier

    August 20, 2018 12:16 am

    Protestants are coming home to Rome. The pieces start coming together when sola Scriptura is seen for what it is: an erroneous assumption undergirding the heresy of Protestantism. https://withmyowneyes.blog/2018/04/30/straining-gnats-and-swallowing-camels/

    Reply
  19. john mizak

    September 24, 2018 3:55 pm

    You really only need a couple examples to show that Sola Scriptura is not a legitimate teaching.

    “I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Timothy 3:14-15)

    Paul doesn't mention the Scriptures here for questions of faith, but "to the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." Some of the NT Scriptures had been written already when Paul wrote 1 Timothy, but he still claims the Church itself as the authority and source of truth.

    Same goes for the issue of circumcision of Gentile believers in Acts 15. The question was brought before the Council of the Jerusalem Church, and they debated among themselves. The answer that they came up with was:

    "It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities,
    namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right."(Acts 15:28)

    Notice that they did not consult the Scriptures for the answer, because the answer was not to be found there, but the Church made the decision in combination with the Holy Spirit.

    The Bible is not the Church, it's not a complete instruction manual for Christians, and Jesus never commanded the NT Scriptures be written. But what Jesus did do is found a Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth, and did give authority to the Church to teach the faith.

    Reply
  20. Weeper Man

    December 12, 2018 12:58 pm

    In 1 Corinthians 11:2 Paul writes "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." Since this is the first letter from Paul to them, he is obviously referring to oral teaching.
    2 Thessalonians 2:15– Paul writes "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." This sentence clearly establishes the practice of the early church to place equal authority to both oral teaching and written. This is Paul's direct order and expectation.
    2 Thessalonians 3:6- "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." Since this is in the same letter as the earlier phrase, it is reasonable to assume that Paul here also means whether by oral or written teaching, why would he feel the need to repeat himself about that.
    These are 3 texts that point to a very important truth- Christianity was primarily an orally transmitted truth; indeed there are numerous proofs in the words of Jesus himself, for example Mt 24:14– "And this gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come."
    It is clear after only a quick examination of biblical texts that the gospel was initially spread by word of mouth, and the teaching of the apostles was transmitted orally. Writing came along much later, and mostly from Paul. Usually, he wrote to churches that he had established himself, with a view to addressing pastoral problems that he was informed about from others who had visited these places. Many of the issues he writes about are practical ones, and in the process of teaching and correcting he refers to Old Testament passages to back up his arguments. However, there is one instance in Titus where he quotes a Cretan considered a prophet by the pagans (not necessarily by Paul) who said "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." Then Paul states that he agrees with this assessment, and counsels Titus to rebuke the members sharply to keep them faithful to the gospel.
    Paul, being a man of learning and student of philosophy both Jewish and Greek, was known for writing lengthy epistles, and mentions this in 2 Cor 10:9. 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter also refers to Paul's letters, noting that some of Paul's teachings, because of the depth of the concepts involved, are sometimes having their meaning twisted with destructive consequences. Unfortunately, this situation has, if anything, become even more pronounced.
    Sola scriptura is a tradition of men, not from Jesus or the apostolic tradition. Were it not for the invention of the printing press, this would not even be an issue. I believe Luther went too far when he decided he could not submit to the authority of Rome. History shows that there were many others who hated the corrupt practices going on in the church; if he had been willing to work with them, wait and organize a more united front, things could have gone quite differently. The sad fact is, he was a deeply troubled, impatient man who ended up in a state of rebellion, probably needlessly. The fruit of these actions is, in my opinion, of the worst possible kind. Unqualified "teachers" are rampant in the world today; in fact, Luther complained about this IN HIS OWN LIFETIME. He opened a Pandora's box onto the theological world, and we are all paying for it. The present church is now in the same state that Israel was in prior to the time of Samuel and David- "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.' I hope and pray that this is a sign that Jesus, the Son of David, will soon return and establish His righteous reign on earth. Maranatha!

    Reply
  21. jotun man

    February 25, 2019 1:26 pm

    Logic and simple reasoning will say that Sola Scriptura is false – do you think that Jesus would just have left us a book and left us among ourselves to figure it out? what a crock – even this complicated book was compiled only after 400 years after His death and was only widely circulated around the 1800, when printing was widely available – this is just a means to water down the teachings of Christ, so that they can interpret this book to suit themselves – God is all knowing and you cannot fool Him

    Reply
  22. Cole Christ

    July 4, 2019 6:21 am

    Haha misquote Augustine to make your lies seem true. Here is also what St. Augustine said: “"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius (54) 1,1).

    Read this website to see the full response to RC’s misuse of the Quote he stated in the video: http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/86-contra-protestantism/79-did-st-augustine-believe-in-sola-scriptura.html

    Reply
  23. Biblical Christianity

    August 1, 2019 12:53 pm

    Roman Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, even though Scripture teaches this in general, that God's Word is perfect, therefore sufficient 2 Tim 3:16-17. So when you reject Scripture alone as final authority, what is NOW your infallible guide? The Roman Catholic church? Well now it's your turn to prove that the church is infallible, where does the Scriptures teach this? No Roman Catholic has given me clear passages from Scripture. They appeal to the traditions found in the letters of Thessalonians, but those traditions are referring to the Gospel, the Gospel is the tradition as St. Irenaeus referred to in his books which was later to be the Apostles creed.

    Roman Catholics many time ask us where does the Scriptures teach Sola Scriptura, that they forget they must prove their infallible church from Scripture, which always comes up short.

    Reply
  24. N B

    September 16, 2019 11:33 pm

    Calvinists (including most denominations called Presbyterians) clearly don’t believe in scripture alone as they also rely on catechisms and creeds and various traditions inherited directly from the RC church not to mention the voluminous philosophical treaties of “Saint” John Calvin.

    Reply

Leave a Reply