I did not know that. All right, well, good morning, everybody. Good morning. I hope you guys are all in good hands last week, those of you who are here. Brad filling in for me. Even though it's just been two weeks, it seems like forever if you miss a week in between classes. It feels like, what was I talking about? What did you guys talk about? I forgot to ask. I talked about you. Yeah. Very good. Very good. All right. Well, let's jump back into talking about Sola Scriptura. Let's begin with prayer. Heavenly Father, Lord, we thank you so much for your grace and for your mercy in our lives. We thank you, Lord, for this day that you've made. We thank you for this place and this time that you have given to us and gathered us here together that we may learn more of you and of your word. I pray that you would strengthen us by your spirit to do just that for your honor and for your glory and for our edification. We ask these things in Christ's name, amen. All right, where I believe we left off, we were in the middle of listening to Dr. Robert Godfrey's argument for Sola Scriptura against some of the Roman Catholic arguments that came about at the time of the Reformation and have been around with us ever since. We're looking at his argument focusing on 2 Timothy 3. Why don't we just read that passage real quickly here. Okay, so from the passage in 2 Timothy 3, verses 12 through 4, verse 5, Paul writes, Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them. and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Which again is a really striking passage of Scripture because again, Paul's still writing the New Testament. A lot of it would have been written around this time. This is 2 Timothy. This was towards the end of his ministry, but there wasn't a complete canon. There wasn't a full canon of New Testament. And there certainly wasn't a New Testament around when Timothy would have been a young man who was learning, what was he learning? He was learning the scriptures. And that tells us something extremely important about how the apostles, how Christ viewed the Old Testament, viewed it as scriptures. And it says in this passage, he says, those scriptures are able to make you wise to salvation and salvation is in Jesus Christ. He goes on, "...all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." This is another important aspect of Sola Scriptura, because it speaks to us of the sufficiency of Scripture. Again, when we think about Sola Scriptura, we're not saying that the Bible is the only authority. that there is in the church, but we're saying that the Bible is the ultimate authority for what we believe and how we're to live, because it's the only inerrant authority. It's the only Word of God that we have, the only written Word of God that we have. But that also primarily important to this notion of Sola Scriptura, the Bible as the ultimate authority, is the idea that the Bible is sufficient. It doesn't tell us everything. It's not a science textbook. There's a lot of history in it. There's lots of different genres of literature in the Scriptures. It doesn't tell us everything that we might even would like to know. But it's sufficient. It's sufficient for us to know God, to have a true and living relationship and to know how it is that he wants us to live. Boy, that door's just gonna do whatever it wants. It's sufficient to tell us how God wants us to know him, to understand him, and what we're to believe and how we're to live. All right, and that's an important aspect, and that comes to us from scripture. The scriptures tell us it is actually sufficient. As Dr. Goffey writes, you see, Paul reminds Timothy that the scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus. He teaches that the scriptures are useful for teaching, reproof, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Because the scriptures have this character, they thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work. So Paul tells Timothy that he must preach the word, even though the time is coming when people will not want to hear it, preferring teachers to suit their fancy, that is, teachers who will instruct them in myths, rather than the truth of the word. Boy, wasn't that true 2,000 years ago, and isn't that true today? You can pack a stadium on Sunday of people with, you get a charismatic guy, or in some cases, gal up there who claims to speak for God and speaks well, you can fill a basketball stadium, and some places do. But what you don't find in a lot of those, you know, these gigantic mega sort of charismatic kind of churches, you don't find a lot of preaching. You find a lot of good talk, and when I say good talk, not in the content, but in people who are effective communicators, and they're telling people kind of just what people want to hear. It's been, you know, dubbed moralistic therapeutic deism. It was Christian Smith who coined that term, where there's all kinds of things going on, There might be a rock and roll band playing or something like that and people are getting excited, but you have to ask the question, what is actually going on? Cause it's not worship. It's not worship directed according to God's word. It's not, you're not hearing the word preached. You're hearing a lot of times people being told what they want to hear. It's a, it's a lot of positive thinking. Psychology is a lot of what you're hearing in places like that. And apparently, It hasn't changed in 2,000 years. Dr. Godfrey goes on, I've listened to several recorded debates on this topic. Protestant apologists often have cited 2 Timothy 3 against Roman Catholic opponents. I think this is about where we left off. The usual response of Roman Catholic apologists is to assert repeatedly that 2 Timothy 3 does not teach sufficiency. Sometimes they refer to James 1.4, Matthew 19.21, or Colossians 1.28 and 4.12 as parallel texts, claiming that the word complete in 2 Timothy 3.17 doesn't mean sufficient. But such passages are not parallel. A completely different Greek word is used. where 2 Timothy 3.17 uses exortizo, which has to do with being fitted for a task. These other passages use the Greek word teleos, which has a reference to maturity or having reached a desired end or purpose. So you've got to, if you're going to talk with your Roman Catholic friends and you bring out the sufficiency of scripture for a passage like we just read from 2 Timothy, if they pay attention, if they're a Roman Catholic who pays attention, they might know an argument like this. Now you can answer that argument. I do. I mean, I was raised a Roman Catholic. I went to Catholic school through sixth grade, and it makes me by no means an expert on Roman Catholicism, but I know a bit about it. There was one issue in the family, and I said, you know, I'd like to send you something and tell it to First Peter that put us into this week with my health care situation. He's like, no, no, no. He doesn't really want to go there. It's just almost like that thought of it. He put up a- You know, interestingly enough, I found that same response. I don't know. It's almost as if like you're Professor Van Helsing bringing out a crucifix in front of Dracula, and he doesn't want to have anything to do with it, you know? I don't know why that is. But again, as always, I just want to make it clear, there are many fine and wonderful people who are Roman Catholics. Some of them are in my family, and they are truly wonderful people. When I criticize Roman Catholicism, I'm not criticizing Roman Catholic people per se. I'm criticizing the ism. I'm talking about the arguments and the debates that have come down to us over the last 500 years that were born out of the Protestant Reformation. which really was a turning point in history. A big change happened because of the Protestant Reformation. However many things we might agree with, even theologically with Roman Catholicism, and be indebted to Roman Catholic scholarship. I don't know if you guys remember, or if many of you guys were here when we went through the Nicene Creed, The majority of the studying I did was from the Roman Catholics, from Roman Catholic scholars like Louis Ayres and J.N.D. Kelly. They're really considered the expert on that period of the Nicene Creed and the Council of Nicaea. And even theologically, many things, doctrine of God, we would agree with. But when it comes to the most important things, When it comes to the gospel, there's serious disagreement. And in accordance with what Paul says in the book of Galatians, if anyone comes to you preaching another gospel, let him be anathema. We have to toe that line and remember the important question of how it is that we are made right with God. And it's by grace alone, through faith alone, we are justified and counted righteous in Jesus Christ. solely on the basis of God's grace, apart from works. Yeah? Well, the main argument, like say, someone from our perspective, from a Protestant perspective, we're arguing for the sufficiency of the Scriptures. And we would point to a passage like we just read from 2 Timothy 3, where Paul's talking to Timothy about the importance of preaching the word and the sufficiency for it. And a Roman Catholic apologist might say, well, Paul's not really talking about sufficiency in that passage. And he uses a similar passage referring to James 1, 4, where the language sounds similar, but the words actually that were written are different. And the passage that Paul writes in 2 Timothy does actually mean sufficient. All right? And he's just making a point that just because it gets translated in a similar manner, there are, in fact, two different words. And the word exertizo that Paul uses in 2 Timothy 3, actually it means sufficient. It means fit. It's you've got what you need. It means being fitted for a task. It's basically what he's saying to Timothy. You've got everything you need in the scriptures. They're profitable for training, for doctrine, for teaching. Preach the word. Be ready in season, out of season. He's talking about central to the task of the pastor and central to Timothy's task of a pastor is to be thoroughly immersed in the Word and to be consistently and constantly preaching it to God's people because it is sufficient and it is profitable for doctrine, for training, for approval, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped. So he's putting the emphasis upon the Word of God as that which makes Timothy, that which will make Timothy sufficient for the task that he has of being a pastor. Yeah, we'll go on. Well, and that scriptures that they had completed at that time, but when he makes reference to Timothy, knowing from a child, the scriptures, yes, he would have been referring to the Old Testament. Also to what Paul's saying right there, because that's a scripture too, right? Yeah. Now him saying that is scripture. So he has that to go off to. And that goes back to what we talked about when we talked about the issue of canon and the apostolic nature of scripture as being something that would have been expected of the people of God, that when a new covenant is established, it comes with writings, it comes with covenant documents, and would have expected and understood and recognized the authority of the apostles speaking to them in the Word of God that they were writing for them. Which Peter, which we see clearly from Peter, when he makes reference, he quotes Luke, he makes a reference to the Old Testament, and he also refers to Paul's writings as scripture. So there was that self-conscious awareness of the authority with which the apostles spoke and wrote All right, any other comments or questions? You kind of look like I've just made it like even clear as mud for you. Okay. All right, Dr. Godfrey goes on. Rome usually tries to clarify its position by saying that its authority is scripture, tradition, and church together. Vatican II declared it is clear, and this is a quote from Vatican II, so this is from their authoritative documents. It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, and that's a big phrase right there, the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together, and each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, contribute effectively to the salvation of the souls." In fact, however, if you listen carefully, you will notice that the real authority for Rome is neither scripture nor tradition, but the church. What is scripture and what does it teach? Only the church can tell you. What is tradition and what does it teach? Only the church can tell you. As Roman theologian John X said, quote, the scriptures are not authentic except by the authority of the church, unquote. So I argue against this stuff. I'm not just making this up. All right, as Pope Pius IX said at the time of the first Vatican Council in 1870, quote, I am tradition. All right, I kind of like a bouchee, I am the science. Yeah. I think it's what we talk about when we're talking about sola scriptura, what we're arguing against and coming from arguing against the Roman Catholic position is that their position boils down to what we would call sola ecclesia, the church alone, because it's the church that decides, the church who decides what the Word of God is, the church that decides what tradition is. And when we say church in this aspect, what we really mean are the popes and the cardinals and the teaching offices of the church. Dr. Graffi goes on, Protestantism arose in the 16th century in reaction to such claims and teachings of the Roman church. In the Middle Ages, most within the church believed that the Bible and the tradition of the church taught the same or at least complementary doctrines. But as Martin Luther and others studied the Bible with greater care and depth than the church had done in centuries, they began to discover that tradition actually contradicted the Bible. They discovered that, for example, the Bible teaches that the offices of bishop and presbyter are the same office, but tradition says they are different offices. The Bible teaches that all have sinned except Jesus, but tradition says that Mary was also sinless. And when you hear that phrase, immaculate conception. It's not talking about Jesus, it's talking about Mary being preserved from original sin. A lot of Catholics don't even understand that. A lot of them don't. Mary, godly, wonderful woman, though she was, was a sinner like us. The Bible teaches that Christ offered his sacrifice once for all. but tradition says that the priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at Mass. The Bible says that we are not to bow down to statues, but tradition says that we should bow to certain statues. The Bible says that all Christians are saints and priests, but tradition says that saints and priests are special castes within the Christian community. The Bible says that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man, but tradition says Mary is co-mediator with Christ. A lot of times if you talk to some Roman Catholic friends and talk to them about praying, offering prayers to saints and to angels and things of that nature, one of the responses that you'll get is they try to make it be like, you know, if I ask Sean for prayer, will you ask your brothers and sisters in Christ for prayer? Why wouldn't you ask? But the problem with that is, is if I walk out of this door, and go stand in the middle of a parking lot and start praying to Sean, he can't hear me, because we're in two different places. Prayer in the scripture is very, very clearly an act of worship. No saint, no perfectly sanctified saint, believer in heaven would want you to do that, would want you to do that. We see the Apostle John in his vision of the Revelation. He's so astonished by what he's seen, he gets down in front of the angel who's showing him the Revelation. The angel says, do not do that. He rebukes him. I'm your fellow servant. Pray only to God. Worship only God. Yeah. Yeah. He just can't hear you. Yeah, he's going to be asking for us for prayer. Dr. Godfrey goes on the Bible says that all Christians can and should know that they have eternal life first John 5 13 But tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life So I found many interesting quotations on that back if you did that series earlier in the year on Sunday evenings on assurance and that Many Roman Catholic theologians have said since the time of the product Reformation that the doctrine of assurance is one of the biggest heresies that that Protestants brought into the world, that God would want you to know that he loves you and you are secured in him. But you see, if all it is is grace alone through faith alone, there's a whole lot of things that the church does that you don't need them for anymore. The Reformers saw that the words of Jesus to the Pharisees applied equally in their day. You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. The Reformers also discovered that tradition contradicted tradition. For example, the tradition of the Roman church teaches that the pope is the head of the church, a bishop over all bishops. But Gregory the Great, a pope at the end of the ancient church period, and eventually a saint, said that such a teaching came from the spirit of Antichrist. So it's a pope saying that. I confidently affirm that whosoever calls himself sacerdos universalis, or desires to be so-called by others, is in his pride a forerunner of Antichrist." More directly, related to our discussion is the evident tension in tradition about the value of reading the Bible. The Index of Forbidden Books of Pope Pius IV in 1559 said, Since experience teaches that, if the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is permitted generally without discrimination, more damage than advantage will result because of the boldness of men. The judgment of the bishops and inquisitors is to serve as a guide in this regard. Bishops and inquisitors may, in accord with the counsel of the local priest and confessor, allow Catholic translations of the Bible to be read by those of whom they realize that such reading will not lead them to the detriment but to the increase of faith and piety, the permission is to be given in writing. Whoever reads or has such a translation in his possession, without this permission, cannot be absolved from sins until he has turned in these Bibles. I've heard that since 1951 that reading the Scriptures by a Catholic is considered a sin. I'm not aware of that. Well, I do know that in Vatican II they there was a switch. So there's, what's one of his arguments here is that there's a switch in tradition, that they were publishing Bibles more promiscuously and wanted to make it easier to get Catholic Bibles into the hands of people. But this is, again, this is Pope Pius in 1559, clearly did not want people reading the Bible. 1559, so this is the Reformation started, the Reformation's going. When the Gutenberg printing press got going, they did not want people being able to read the Bible or hear the Bible in their own language, because guess what? That list of things that we just went through, they would start to realize that. They would start to realize what Martin Luther and their formers were saying. Look, you're doing all these things that's not in the Word of God. Now, if I have to decide between Pope or the church or priest or the Word of God, which one am I going to choose? And again, it comes down to the idea that there's only one inerrant authority in the church, and that is the Word of God. That's why they were such a resistance against the prince. They made the Bible made the Bible available, made all those tracts that Luther and the Reformers were writing widely available. It really was a turning point in history. The Reformation really, really was. Sure. Somebody can show you wrong. I can't come to that sometimes. Yeah, but what happened is she's got a little web study in a safe city, Kansas Within her church will be her home. Mm-hmm. It got said it started grow. So the priest felt like he had to interject himself He kind of felt like hey somebody's happy over here. Mm-hmm, and they should be doing that without his infant didn't fight him, but he started showing up and when my mom died that was Yeah, did you want to say something? I was a Catholic Church. Yes But I guess that's probably just and something a feeling they've inherited from the beginning that In marked contrast, Vatican II stated, quote, easy access to sacred scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. Since the word of God should be available at all times, the church with maternal concern sees to it, excuse me, that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original text of the sacred books. So does tradition believe that the Bible is dangerous or helpful? The Bible did prove dangerous to Roman Catholicism in the 16th century, Most who read it carefully became Protestants. Such discoveries about tradition led the Reformers back to the Bible. There they learned that the scriptures must stand as the judge of all teaching. Scripture teaches that it is the revelation of God, and is therefore true in all that it teaches. But nowhere does scripture say that the church is true in all it says. Rather, although the church as a whole will be preserved in the faith, wolves will arise from within the church. Acts 2, 29 through 30. And even the man of lawlessness will sit at the heart of the church teaching lies." 2 Thessalonians 2, 4. So... The Catholic church was omnipotent. Yeah, because it still is a church state. That's not what they're supposed to be talking about. How many churches did the Catholics build in the 12th century? From all these poor people? Yeah. That's one of the things that anchored Martin Luther, frankly. That they're building churches, you're saying? What? You're saying that God wants them building churches? Yeah, that they would issue indulgences. 200 foot tall churches that marble, all marble, intricate detail, and really that you want to go in the word of God, and you want him not to spend all of your money, don't even have to deteriorate now. The truth became all hell. Yeah, and they would do so, oftentimes raise money for these building projects through the issuance of indulgences that if you pay certain money, your time in purgatory would be lessened, which is a blasphemous thing to say that you could, one that you could, purge yourself of your sin somehow, but to purchase that with money? No. It's imposing, and many of the buildings are beautiful, beautiful buildings, aside from all the idolatrous and blasphemous things that they're often adorned with. It's simple faith in Christ. It's Christ and Christ alone. We will wrap up in just a few more minutes. Roman Catholics use the word church repeatedly. We Protestants normally interpret their use of church as referring to the body of the faithful, but that is not typically the way they use the word. When they refer to the authority of the church, they mean the infallible teaching authority of councils and popes. They draw this view of the church from the Middle Ages and in a romantic way read back into the ancient church period. So it is important to note carefully how they use the word church and to remember that neither the scriptures nor the great majority of the fathers from the ancient church period understood the authority of the church in the way that Roman Catholics do. Two statements of Augustine, or St. Augustine, but however you choose to say it, are quoted against the Protestant position on the authority of the Church. First, at one point in his debate with the Pelagians, a bishop of Rome sided with Augustine, and Augustine declared, Rome has spoken, the matter is settled. Later, however, another Pope opposed Augustine on this subject, and Augustine responded by saying, Christ has spoken, the matter is settled. In that instance, Augustine did not bow to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, but turned to the word of Christ to evaluate the teaching of Rome. We'll close here. Second, Augustine said, I would not have believed had not the authority of the Catholic Church moved me. That seems very strong and persuasive. However, in another place, Augustine wrote, I would never have understood Plotinus had not the authority of my Neoplatonic teachers moved me. This parallel shows that Augustine was not talking about some absolute and fallible authority in the church, but rather about the ministerial work of the church and about teachers who help students understand. That's a good enough place for us to close here this morning. Are there any last comments or questions before we move on? All right, let's close in prayer. Father, we thank you so much for your grace and for your mercy. Thank you again for your Word, for preserving it for us, and for enlightening our minds and understanding, giving us teachers to help us to understand your Word. We do pray, Father, that you would please bless the ministry of your Word this morning as it is read out loud and it is heard, that it would be received in faith, and that you would sanctify us and draw us closer to you. In Christ's name we pray.