![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/02\/Cover-554x839.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
[see book and purchase information<\/a>]<\/p>\n According to Wikipedia<\/a>:<\/p>\n Greg L. Bahnsen<\/b>\u00a0(September 17, 1948\u00a0\u2013 December 11, 1995) was an American\u00a0Calvinist philosopher,\u00a0apologist, and debater. He was a\u00a0minister\u00a0in the\u00a0Orthodox Presbyterian Church<\/a>\u00a0and a full-time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies (SCCCS). He is also considered a contributor to the field of Christian apologetics, as he popularized the\u00a0presuppositional<\/a>\u00a0method of\u00a0Cornelius Van Til<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I am replying to an article, \u201cIs\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0a Protestant Concoction?:\u00a0<\/a>A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u201c<\/a> by Dr. Bahnsen; transcribed by David T. King. I ran across it by perusing Bishop \u201cDr.\u201d [???] James White\u2019s blog. Dr. Bahnsen\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n The issue of Scripture and Scripture Alone (or what Protestants have come to call the principle of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>) is a matter that divides professing Christians as to the foundation of their faith and what defines their faith. Back in the days of the Reformation when there were men who felt that the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ had been not only corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church, but had virtually disappeared under the mask of human traditions and rituals and things that kept people from actually hearing the good news of Jesus Christ, in order to reform the Church, in order to have the grace of God more clearly proclaimed to people, Protestants realized they had to take a stand not only for \u2018Sola Gratia\u2019 (i.e., in Latin, \u2018By Grace Alone\u2019 for our salvation), but that had to be proclaimed on the basis of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0(\u2018Scripture Alone\u2019) because the Roman Catholic Church used its appeal to human tradition in the Church (or what they considered divine tradition in the Church) as a basis for its most distinctive doctrines.<\/span><\/p>\n I can\u2019t deal with every falsehood thrown out in this article (i.e., Catholics supposedly buried the gospel<\/a> and denied grace alone<\/a>), so I will stick to sola Scriptura<\/em>. What is notable, right off the bat, is that Bahnsen never clearly defines even what he is defending (probably because he was \u201cpreaching to the choir\u201d and assumed that they knew it). For a very clear definition of sola Scriptura<\/em> from three Protestants who vigorously defend it (a definition I fully agree with), see:\u00a0Definition of\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0(Get it Right!)<\/a>.<\/p>\n When Martin Luther was called before the \u2018Diet of Worms\u2019 and there told that he had to recant his teaching about \u2018Justification by Faith Alone\u2019 (you may know the story very well), Luther (which was the better part of valor) asked for a night to think it over before he gave his answer to the Council. And then on the next day in appearing before that tribunal which was demanding that he recant of this teaching which really amounted to the purity of the Gospel, Luther responded with those famous words: \u201cHere I stand, I can do no other!\u201d Now what do we make of that? Is that just the stuff of which dramatic movies can be made? Or is there something about what Luther said that is crucial to what it is to be a Christian, crucial to the purity of the Gospel and the truth of the Scriptures themselves?<\/span><\/p>\n The backdrop to that scene (that I have written about<\/a>) and the origin of sola Scriptura<\/em> was a bit more complex. Luther had already proclaimed in the Leipzig Disputation of July 1519, a year and a half before the Diet of Worms (January to May 1521):<\/p>\n I assert that a council has sometimes erred and may sometimes err. Nor has a council authority to establish new articles of faith. . . . Councils have contradicted each other, . . . A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it. . . . I say that neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject pope and councils.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But Luther in (always the vacillating and self-contradictory one), in 1532 virtually accepted the infallibility of apostolic Church tradition, writing with regard to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist:<\/p>\n Moreover, this article has been unanimously believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to the present hour, as may be shown from the books and writings of the dear fathers, both in the Greek and Latin languages, \u2014 which testimony of the entire holy Christian Church ought to be sufficient for us, even if we had nothing more.\u00a0For it is dangerous and dreadful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine of the entire holy Christian Church, as it has been held unanimously in all the world up to this year 1500<\/em>. Whoever now doubts of this, he does just as much as if he believed in no Christian Church, and condemns not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but Christ Himself, and all the Apostles and Prophets, who founded this article, when we say, \u2018I believe in a holy Christian Church,\u2019 to which Christ bears powerful testimony in Matt. 28.20: \u2018Lo, I am with you alway, to the end of the world,\u2019 and Paul, in 1 Tim. 3.15: \u2018The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.\u2019\u00a0\u00a0(Letter to Albrecht (or Albert), Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, dated April 1532 by some and February or early March by others; italics are Protestant historian Philip Schaff\u2019s own; see further background and bibliographical information<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This gets us back to the question of the definition of sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0(that Bahnsen never clearly references). It refers to Scripture as the only infallible<\/em> norm or final authority for Christians<\/strong>. Logically, then, if only<\/em> Scripture is infallible, then the Church and councils and tradition are not<\/em> infallible. Thus, Luther denied the infallibility<\/em> of non-scriptural authority in 1519 and 1521, but contradictorily asserted<\/em> it in 1532. Take your pick of which \u201cLuther\u201d you like best.<\/p>\n The response of Roman Catholics to Luther\u2019s dramatic stand that he would not recant unless he could be shown to be wrong from the Bible\u2026the response of Roman Catholics (for years) has been, \u201cWell, Protestants simply have their \u2018paper\u2019 pope (the Bible)!\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n That may be. For myself, I have documented how Luther had rejected 50 doctrines of received Catholic tradition<\/a> by 1520: before the Diet of Worms even began. He was (overall) no \u201creformer\u201d of what originally was; he was a radical and a revolutionary. As for the Bible being the standard of all things, that wasn\u2019t the case \u2014 for Luther or anyone ever<\/em> in the history of Christianity \u2014\u00a0 in the case of the canon of the Bible (i.e., which books are included in it). The Bible never lists its own books; therefore the Church \u2014 interpreting existing tradition \u2014 had to declare which ones were canonical and inspired. This is only one of numerous undoubted internal contradictions of sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/p>\n Back when I was a seminary student, I had a student in my class who was very antagonistic to the conservatism and theology of the school where I was studying. And he used to make that point over and over again in debates with other students that \u201cYou Protestants simply have your paper pope; we have our \u2018living\u2019 pope; you have your \u2018paper\u2019 pope!\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Of course in saying that, it seemed to me that he was really demonstrating why it is Protestants have to hold out for\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, because when he pits the \u2018paper\u2019 pope of the Bible against the \u2018living\u2019 pope who sits in Rome, what he is telling us is that finally that person who sits on the papal chair in Rome is more authoritative than the Bible itself!\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n That doesn\u2019t follow at all. All it\u2019s saying is that the pope is also<\/em> infallible (though not inspired). His authority need not be in opposition<\/em> to Scripture at all, but rather, in complete harmony<\/em> with it, just as the canon (determined by the Church and tradition) is in harmony with the Bible. This unbiblical and logically unnecessary \u201ceither\/or\u201d mentality<\/a> is altogether typical of Protestant thought.<\/p>\n And that\u2019s exactly what Luther was concerned about. That\u2019s what the Protestant Reformers were concerned about. And frankly, that\u2019s what I\u2019m concerned about tonight! Because we have in our day and age something of a mini-movement (it\u2019s not big enough to be considered even a trickle), but a mini-movement of former Protestants going into the Roman Catholic communion. And they are being convinced that it\u2019s an appropriate thing for them to do, and they are being told that the doctrine of\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/i>(the formative principle of theology presented in the Reformation, namely that the Bible alone is sufficient) is not itself authoritative, and in fact is not even itself taught in the Bible! \u201cIf\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0is so important,\u201d they tell us, \u201cthen why isn\u2019t it taught in the Bible alone? Why do Presbyterians prove their doctrine of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0by going to the\u00a0Westminster Confession of Faith<\/i>, rather than to the Bible?\u201d And so with rhetoric like this, they convince the minds (I think) of weak and unstable people that really Roman Catholicism is not that big a threat. After all, everybody has their traditions; we have to live with traditions as well as Scripture!<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed, it is not<\/em> found in Scripture (not even indirectly or by deduction), which it must<\/em> be in order to not be a viciously circular concept. And contrary<\/em> concepts are found in many<\/em> places in the Bible. I will demonstrate this and the illegitimacy and empty essence of the sola Scriptura<\/em> and Dr. Bahnsen\u2019s argumentation as we go along, just as I have in three books on the topic [one<\/a> \/ two<\/a> \/ three<\/a>] and innumerable articles<\/a>.<\/p>\n Well, what I\u2019d like to do in our short time this evening is offer a defense of the Protestant doctrine of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>. I\u2019m not embarrassed by that doctrine. I believe it is absolutely necessary to the health of the Church, and I am convinced (as Luther was convinced) that if we give up\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, we will inevitably give up\u00a0sola Gratia<\/i>\u00a0as well. Because the giving up of the Protestant authority (the principle of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>) simply opens the door for other ways of pleasing God to enter in that are not based upon His own revelation.<\/span><\/p>\n The canon of Scripture already is an example of that, which has existed (authoritatively) since the late 4th century. There are a host of Protestant concepts that are also not found in Scripture. I wrote way back in May 1995<\/a> about some of these:<\/p>\n \u00a0The Bible doesn\u2019t say a lot of things Protestants do now and accept as gospel truth. . . .<\/p>\n (Evangelical) Keith Green wrote a tract in 1981 in which he criticized elements that he thought were added to the gospel by Protestants, such as: the Altar call, sinner\u2019s prayer, \u201c1-2-3 steps to salvation\u201d booklets (Campus Crusade), the \u201cPoor Jesus\u201d syndrome, bumper stickers, \u201cChristian\u201d slogans, and the \u201cfollow-up\u201d program. I could add many more, e.g., mandatory tithing, fund-raising letters, \u201cprayer cloths,\u201d church buildings, public relations schemes, numerical church growth (over against individual spiritual growth), the biblical Canon, denominations, tongues for every believer, congregational government, \u201cself-help\u201d Christian psychology, the word \u201cTrinity,\u201d missionary and TV evangelist pleas for financial support, \u201caccepting Jesus as your personal Savior,\u201d\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, and evangelistic tracts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And it\u2019s a very short step from thinking that I can follow a religious tradition that cannot be verified objectively by the Word of God to the idea that I can please God by something that He has not provided. It is a very short step from the denial of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0to the denial of\u00a0sola Gratia<\/i>\u00a0when it comes to salvation.<\/span><\/p>\n And it\u2019s a very short step from sola Scriptura to accepting sola fide<\/em> (faith alone<\/a>), which (like sola Scriptura<\/em>) is also utterly absent from Holy Scripture<\/a>; whereas sola gratia<\/em> (grace alone<\/a>) is<\/em> biblical, which is why Catholics fully agree with Protestants about that.<\/p>\n So I will try to keep you up to date on where I am in presenting this case, and I am going to begin by asking: What does the Bible itself tell us about the authority for our doctrinal convictions? When two people who profess to be Christians disagree with each other over some premise or dogma, how does the Bible tell us these disagreements should be adjudicated?<\/span><\/p>\n Well, the Bible records one such huge disagreement in the early Church, regarding the necessity of circumcision or not, for Gentile Christians (Acts 15:1-5). As a result, a council was called at Jerusalem (Acts 15:6), which included St. Peter, St. Paul, St. James, and other apostles and early Church leaders (\u201celders\u201d). The men in this council claimed to be led directly by the Holy Spirit (\u201cit has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us\u201d: 15:28, RSV [as throughout]) and issued a binding decree so authoritative that St. Paul went around to various cities proclaiming it (\u201cAs they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem\u201d: 16:4).<\/p>\n That is infallible <\/em>conciliar authority<\/strong>: expressly contradictory to sola Scriptura<\/em>, which denies that anything other than Scripture is finally authoritative or binding upon the entire mass of Christians.<\/p>\n Secondly, St. Paul in his letters refers in a multitude of ways to Church authority and tradition, rather than some \u201crule of faith\u201d of always consulting the Bible alone. He states, for example:<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 2:15\u00a0<\/strong>So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul constantly asserts and presupposes a received tradition, which he calls by that name (in the above passage and 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6) and by synonymous words such as \u201cthe faith\u201d, \u201cthe truth\u201d, \u201cthe commandment\u201d, \u201cthe doctrine\u201d, \u201cthe teaching\u201d, \u201cthe message\u201d and \u201cthe gospel.\u201d This body of existing teaching or tradition is \u201cdelivered\u201d and \u201creceived\u201d (apostolic succession) and anyone who dissents against it is outside the fold (Paul urges separation from them in obstinate cases). All of this is far more consistent with the Catholic rule of faith than Protestant sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/p>\n Thirdly, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah and Philip didn\u2019t assume that simply reading it was sufficient to \u201csolve any problem.\u201d When he heard him reading, he asked, \u201cDo you understand<\/em> <\/strong>what you are reading?\u201d (Acts 8:30). Even the eunuch comprehended that the Bible needed authoritative interpretation, since he replied: \u201cHow can I, unless some one guides me?\u201d (8:31). It turned out to be a messianic passage about Jesus (Isaiah 53), which the eunuch inquired about<\/em> (8:34) and Philip explained<\/em> (8:35), sharing the gospel in the process. That\u2019s not \u201cBible alone<\/em>\u201c. It\u2019s Bible with authoritative interpretation<\/em>: precisely as in Catholicism. And it\u2019s completely consistent with Old Testament practice of authoritative teaching and interpretation<\/a> from the Levites and others.<\/p>\n Fourthly, St. Peter notes that some difficult passages in St. Paul are twisted:<\/p>\n 2 Peter 3:16<\/strong> . . .\u00a0There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He is obviously assuming the need for authoritative interpretation<\/em>, to avoid such eventualities. The prophet Hosea in the 8th century BC lamented such things: \u201cMy people are destroyed for lack of knowledge\u201d (Hosea 4:6). Some things never change.<\/p>\n I. And the first step, which I hope is an obvious one but becomes crucial as we move ahead, the first step is for us to recognize that the Bible teaches that our convictions are not to be based upon human wisdom! Human wisdom isn\u2019t always wrong; sometimes people used their intellect and their independent ability to research, and find facts and come to truths which are very valuable. The problem is not that human wisdom is always wrong. The problem is that human wisdom is (1) fallible, and (2) not a sufficient foundation for believing anything about God. Because only God is adequate to witness to Himself!<\/span><\/p>\n If this were the case, how could the early Christians meet in Jerusalem and decide that circumcision was no longer required for Gentile Christians? Were they fallible? There was not a single verse in the existing Scripture (Old Testament at that time) that would indicate such a thing. Even Paul had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3), at the same time he was preaching against its necessity. How could Philip help the Ethiopian eunuch understand Scripture, being merely human? How could the Levites in the Old Testament do the same thing? Dr. Bahnsen himself is doing this in this very talk. Why accept his<\/em> word? He\u2019s interpreting the Bible a certain way (wrongly, as it were). Thus he contradicts himself as well as the Bible. Everyone<\/em> has interpretation and tradition of some sort. The only question is \u201cwhich one<\/em>?\u201d<\/p>\n Therefore our doctrinal convictions are not (should not) based upon human wisdom. The Christian faith is rather based upon God\u2019s own self-revelation rather than the conflicting opinions of men or the untrustworthy speculations of men.<\/span><\/p>\n You mean, like denominations<\/em><\/a>?<\/p>\n Therefore our doctrinal convictions are not (should not) based upon human wisdom. The Christian faith is rather based upon God\u2019s own self-revelation rather than the conflicting opinions of men or the untrustworthy speculations of men. If you have your Bibles with you tonight, turn to I Corinthians 2:5, and notice the burden of the Apostle Paul as to how to control the beliefs of the Christians there in Corinth. I Corinthians 2:5, in verse 4 he says, \u201cAnd my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power\u2026\u201d Why?\u2026 Why is Paul making that point? Why is this necessary to emphasize? Verse 5: \u201c\u2026that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.\u201d (ASV)<\/span><\/p>\n Yes: accept God\u2019s inspired revelation, but also<\/em> accept authoritative interpretation of it, which Paul was providing at that time before anyone knew he was actually writing Scripture, too. After all, he said it was \u201cmy<\/em> speech and my<\/em> preaching\u201d. It was also his in the same way that he wrote elsewhere:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:10<\/strong>\u00a0But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 3:9-10<\/strong>\u00a0For we are God\u2019s fellow workers; you are God\u2019s field, God\u2019s building. [10] According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise\u00a0master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But\u00a0each man must be careful how he builds on it.<\/p>\n Philippians 2:12-13<\/b>\u00a0Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.<\/p>\n Mark 16:20\u00a0<\/strong>And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s all by God\u2019s grace; we decide in our free will (enabled by His grace) to participate or cooperate with God<\/a> and His plan or not. The Calvinist draws an unbiblical dichotomy between our works and the works of God in us.<\/p>\n Think about Paul\u2019s conceptual scheme here as you read this verse. Notice how he puts the power of God over here on one side, and the wisdom of men on the other. And not only is the power of God and the wisdom of men in two different categories, he said, \u201cYour faith should not stand in the wisdom of men.\u201d In I Corinthians 2, verses 10 and 13 (you\u2019ll notice while you\u2019re right there) that Paul draws a sharp contrast between the words which man\u2019s wisdom teaches and those which God reveals unto us through the Spirit. On the one hand, you have words taught by the wisdom of men, and on the other hand you have words revealed through the Spirit. Those are contrasted in Paul\u2019s theology. And he makes the point in verse 4 of chapter 2 that the apostolic message did not originate in words of human wisdom or insight; but rather the apostolic message rests in the power of God and comes through the wisdom of God\u2019s own Spirit!<\/span><\/p>\n There is a sense in which that is true, but also a sense in which God and man work together in harmony and synergy, as in my passages above. Dr. Bahnsen deliberately ignores those<\/em> passages.<\/p>\n The Bible would have us beware of the uninspired words of men. God\u2019s people must not submit to the uninspired words of men. Jeremiah 23:16, the prophet says, \u201cThus saith Jehovah of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they teach you vanity; they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Jehovah.\u201d (ASV) There again we see in the Old Testament this contrast between a message that comes out of the heart of a man and that which comes from the mouth of Jehovah!<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, because Jeremiah was referring to the false<\/em> prophets. It\u2019s not a matter of \u201cinspired vs. uninspired\u201d but true vs. false messages. Jeremiah preached for sixty years (and with no \u201csuccess\u201d at all). Not all of his preaching was inspired and\/or later recorded in Scripture. He would have preached at a bare minimum as much text as the length of a hundred Bibles. All of his preaching was infallible and true, but not all inspired. Therefore, the existence of a prophet like Jeremiah is proof that authoritative, non-scriptural traditions do in fact exist. The same applies to the Apostle Paul. One long teaching from him on one evening would contain many more words than all his epistles put together and they were just as authoritative as the words that made it into the New Testament. His words didn\u2019t have to wait to get into the Bible to be authoritative (the false Protestant notion of \u201cinscripturation\u201d<\/a>).<\/p>\n It\u2019s not as though the heart of man can\u2019t ever speak the truth; it\u2019s not as though human wisdom never gets anything right, but God\u2019s people cannot rest secure in anything that does not come from the mouth of Jehovah Himself.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s simply not true as a blanket statement. The canon of the Bible immediately contradicts it.<\/p>\n In the New Testament, in Colossians 2 and verse 8, Paul warns God\u2019s people not to allow their faith to be compromised by any philosophy which he says is \u201cafter the tradition of men\u2026 and not after Christ!\u201d There you have it again, the contrast between man\u2019s authority and Christ\u2019s authority, the tradition of men on the one hand, and the authority of Christ on the other.<\/span><\/p>\n This is the contrast between good and bad traditions. It\u2019s not condemning all tradition whatever<\/em>. See my paper:\u00a0\u201cTradition\u201d Isn\u2019t a Dirty Word<\/a>\u00a0[late 90s; rev. 8-16-16].<\/p>\n The Father and Jesus Christ revealed the Word to Apostles \u2014 and they are taught by the Holy Spirit (as John 14:26 tells us) that Jesus would give the Spirit to lead them into all truth and remind them what He had taught. And the Bible tells us it\u2019s in virtue of this revelatory work of the Apostles \u2014 as they reveal the Father and the Son in the power of the Spirit \u2014 it\u2019s in virtue of this revelatory work that Christ builds His Church upon the foundation of the Apostles.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not just the apostles. The Holy Spirit led the men at the council of Jerusalem, who were not all apostles; it included also plain \u201celders\u201d (Acts 15:6; 16:4) who participated in the decision process (precisely as in ecumenical councils): 15:22-23.<\/p>\n And now this teaching of the Apostles was received as a body of truth which was a criteria for doctrine and for life in the Church of Jesus Christ. The teaching of the Apostles was received as a body of truth that was the standard for doctrine and for life.\u00a0To make my point here, let me just refer to what the Apostles had as the truth. Now this truth comes from God (we\u2019ve already seen that it\u2019s a revelation of the Father and the Son and the power of the Spirit) \u2014 this truth from God (I\u2019m saying) was the standard for doctrine and life in the early days of the Church.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t think anyone has any problem with that, at this point. But the question is: how did the Church come to know this Truth? How did the Church, in its earliest days, learn of the apostolic truth from God? How did they come into contact with this body of dogma that the Apostles had every right and authority to communicate to God\u2019s people? Well, we know that the body of truth was \u2018passed down\u2019 to the Church and through the Church. And because it was \u2018passed down\u2019 from the Apostles, it was often called \u201cthat which was delivered\u201d or \u201cthe deposit\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n See, the truth gets \u2018passed down\u2019 to the Church! And because it\u2019s \u201cpassed down\u201d or \u201chanded over\u201d \u2014 the Greek word\u00a0paradosis<\/i>\u00a0is used which means \u201cto hand over\u201d \u2014 it can be translated \u201cthe deposit,\u201d \u201cthat which is given by hand,\u201d that which is communicated from one person to another. And that is translated into English often as \u201cthe tradition,\u201d that which is entrusted, that which is deposited, that which is delivered. Or as I\u2019ve said, handed over or committed to another, the tradition. The Apostles have the truth from God and they hand it over to the Church. They deliver it to the Church. And that comes to be called the \u2018tradition\u2019! The \u2018tradition\u2019 is just the truth that the Apostles teach as a revelation from God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n This apostolic deposit extended beyond<\/em> just Scripture. Neither Dr. Bahnsen nor anyone else can prove that it did not<\/em>. St. Paul presupposes this in how he talks about this received teaching. He scarcely even mentions Scripture when doing so.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Now what does the New Testament tell us about this \u2018tradition\u2019? Let\u2019s look at a few verses together here for a few moments. Turn in your Bibles please to II Timothy 1:13 and 14. II Timothy 1:13, Paul says, \u201cHold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us.\u201d (ASV) Here Paul speaks of the \u2018deposit\u2019 \u2014 that which has been committed unto him \u2014 the \u2018deposit\u2019 that he has received, he passes on and he says is to be guarded! The Apostolic \u2018deposit\u2019 then is the pattern of sound words for the Church. Notice that? \u201cHold the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee\u201d \u2014 that \u2018deposit\u2019, that \u2018pattern of sound words\u2019 that is the system of doctrine (\u2018pattern of sound words\u2019), that system or network of healthy truth and teaching, the \u2018pattern of sound words\u2019, is the Apostolic deposit.<\/span><\/p>\n In I Timothy 6:20-21, we learn that this is to be guarded: \u201cO Timothy, guard that which is committed unto thee, turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of the knowledge which is falsely so called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith.\u201d (ASV) The pattern of sound words, the deposit of the Apostles, is to be guarded. People put their faith in jeopardy when they do not! Timothy is warned by Paul that some people professing to know the truth have erred concerning the faith because they haven\u2019t guarded the Apostolic deposit.<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed, the Apostolic deposit, \u201cthe pattern of sound words,\u201d passed to the Church by the Apostles was the standard for Christian life \u2014 look at II Thessalonians 3:6 \u2014 \u201cNow we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us.\u201d (ASV) Here the English word \u2018tradition\u2019 is used \u2014 \u201cthat which was delivered from us and you received\u201d \u2014 if any brother departs from that, then you\u2019re to withdraw yourselves from him! That is the standard for Christian living: \u201cthe pattern of sound words\u201d delivered by the Apostles to the Church and received by the Church.<\/span><\/p>\n Look at II Peter 2:21, \u201cFor it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them.\u201d To turn away from that which has been delivered by the Apostles is a horrible thing to do! It\u2019d be better that you never knew the truth than you should reject it after the Apostolic deposit has been received.<\/span><\/p>\n And moreover this \u2018pattern of sound words\u2019 which is to be guarded as the standard for Christian living is to be the standard for all future teaching in the Church \u2014 II Timothy 2:2, \u201cAnd the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.\u201d The Apostles have a truth (a body of truth, a \u2018pattern of sound words\u2019) received from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit \u2014 they pass it on to the Church. And the Church is to guard that Apostolic pattern of sound words \u2014 they are to mark off as heretics those who depart from it! They are to use that as the standard for all future teachers in the Church.<\/span><\/p>\n This is all true, and he is arguing precisely as Catholics argue about the apostolic deposit or tradition. He\u2019s going to have to appeal to \u201cinscripturation\u201d eventually, in order to differentiate the Protestant view (I am answering as I read, so this is in effect, my prediction<\/em> of where he is headed). But this is precisely what he can\u2019t consistently do<\/em>, because the Bible never states<\/em> it. Therefore, by his own criterion, \u201cinscripturation\u201d is merely an undocumented tradition of men and carries no particular authority at all. It\u2019s an unproven Protestant \u201ctradition of men.\u201d<\/p>\n What is this tradition? Is it the holy tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Is it the tradition of the popes in the Roman Catholic Church? No, it is the Apostolic tradition that truth which they have received from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Can you not see that? It should be obvious in the reading of Scripture unless you go to the Bible trying to make it prove some preconceived idea! That tradition, the deposit, that which is handed over or delivered is not Church tradition, papal tradition \u2014 it\u2019s rather the pattern of sound words taught by the Apostles. And they teach that on the basis of revelation from God the Father.<\/span><\/p>\n The Bible never dichotomizes<\/em> this tradition \/ deposit over against the Church or popes as the human leaders of same. Peter, as the prototype pope and first pope, exhibits all kinds of leadership<\/a>.\u00a0Peter alone<\/em><\/strong> among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his \u201cfaith may not fail\u201d (Lk 22:32).\u00a0Peter alone<\/strong><\/em> among the apostles (not the collective<\/strong><\/em>) is exhorted by Jesus to \u201cstrengthen your brethren\u201d (Lk 22:32). His two epistles are written to the Church at large, like papal encyclicals (see 1 Pet 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1), and partially to elders and bishops (1 Pet 5:1-4) rather than to individuals or single congregations, like Paul\u2019s letters.<\/p>\n Paul places the custodianship of the apostolic deposit squarely on the Church:<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:15<\/strong> . . .\u00a0the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I wrote about the clear logical and ecclesiological implications of this in my book,\u00a0100 Biblical Arguments Against\u00a0<\/i>Sola Scriptura<\/a>\u00a0(2012, pp. 104-107, #82):<\/p>\n Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a \u201cbulwark\u201d of the truth, means to be a \u201csafety net\u201d against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God\u2019s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus\u2019 parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err \u2014 it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:<\/p>\n Ephesians 2:19-21<\/strong>\u00a0. . . you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:15 defines \u201chousehold of God\u201d as \u201cthe church of the living God.\u201d Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church\u2019s own \u201cfoundation\u201d is \u201cthe apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.\u201d The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.<\/p>\n Prophets spoke \u201cin the name of the Lord\u201d (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with \u201cthus says the Lord\u201d (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the \u201cword of the Lord\u201d (Is 1:10; 38:4; Jer 1:2; 13:3, 8; 14:1; Ezek 13:1-2; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon 1:1; Mic 1:1, et cetera). These communications cannot contain any untruths insofar as they truly originate from God, with the prophet serving as a spokesman or intermediary of God (Jer 2:2; 26:8; Ezek 11:5; Zech 1:6; and many more). Likewise, apostles proclaimed truth unmixed with error (1 Cor 2:7-13; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11-14; 2 Pet 1:12-21).<\/p>\n Does this foundation have any faults or cracks? Since Jesus is the cornerstone, he can hardly be a faulty foundation. Neither can the apostles or prophets err when teaching the inspired gospel message or proclaiming God\u2019s word. In the way that apostles and prophets are infallible, so is the Church set up by our Lord Jesus Christ. We ourselves (all Christians) are incorporated into the Church (following the metaphor), on top of the foundation.<\/p>\n 1 Peter 2:4-9<\/strong>\u00a0Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God\u2019s sight chosen and precious; [5] and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [6] For it stands in scripture: \u201cBehold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.\u201d [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, \u201cThe very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,\u201d [8] and \u201cA stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall\u201d; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. [9] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God\u2019s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (cf. Isa 28:16)<\/p>\n Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even\u00a0identified with Jesus himself<\/em>, by being called his \u201cBody\u201d (Acts 9:5 cf. with 22:4 and 26:11; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:23, 30; Col 1:24). That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, who is infallible, is itself a strong argument that the Church is also infallible and without error.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Church is built on the foundation of Jesus (perfect in all knowledge), and the prophets and apostles (who spoke infallible truth, often recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture). Moreover, it is the very \u201cBody of Christ.\u201d It stands to reason that the Church herself is infallible, by the same token. In the Bible, nowhere is truth presented as anything less than\u00a0pure<\/em>\u00a0truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own \u201ctradition\u201d that he received and passed down.<\/p>\n Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something\u00a0less<\/em>\u00a0than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)? It cannot. It is impossible. It is a straightforward matter of logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source. What is built upon a foundation cannot be\u00a0greater<\/em>\u00a0than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.<\/p>\n If an elephant stood on the shoulders of a man as its foundation, that foundation would collapse. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support that bridge.<\/p>\n Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the\u00a0foundation\u00a0<\/em>of truth, the Church\u00a0must<\/em>\u00a0be\u00a0infallible<\/em>, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser\u00a0than that which is built upon it. And since\u00a0there is another infallible authority\u00a0<\/em>apart from Scripture,\u00a0sola scriptura<\/em>\u00a0must be false.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, we have to ask the next question. We know what the truth is (it\u2019s the deposit). We know why it\u2019s called tradition (because it\u2019s \u2018passed on\u2019 to the Church and through the Church). Now the question is: how was it passed? In what form was it passed to the Church? And to answer that let\u2019s turn in our Bibles to II Thessalonians 2:15. Paul says, \u201cSo then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.\u201d Paul says, \u201cStand fast in the traditions,\u201d that is, what the Apostles have delivered, handed over to the Church! Stand fast by that pattern of sound words, the truth, the deposit that they have from God to give to God\u2019s people. Stand fast by it! And how did the Church learn about this deposit? How did the Apostles hand it over or deliver it? Well, Paul tells us right here. They did it not only by word but by epistle, by letter, by writing (if you will). \u201cSo then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n And so what I want to say is the truth was passed to the Church orally and in writing. In two ways that same deposit (or pattern of sound words) came to the Church. Is there any hint at all in this verse that what Paul means is part of the tradition came orally and part of the tradition came in writing \u2014 so make sure you keep the two of them together so you get everything? Is there any hint of that? It\u2019s just the traditions; it\u2019s just the deposit; it\u2019s just the pattern of sound words that is communicated in two different ways! Paul doesn\u2019t suggest that one or the other supplement the opposite. He simply says guard the traditions \u2014 and you received them in writing and you received them orally!<\/span><\/p>\n Now why am I stressing this point? Because, you see, Roman Catholics maintain that if you only keep to the Written Apostolic Tradition, you haven\u2019t got the whole Word of God! You\u2019ve got to have the Oral Apostolic Tradition as well. Well, there\u2019s just a huge logical fallacy involved in that thinking! Because Paul doesn\u2019t say, \u201cMake sure you hold on to the oral traditions and to the written traditions,\u201d does he? He says, \u201cHold fast to the traditions whether you heard them orally or in writing.\u201d Can you see the difference there? Do you have one thing that comes to the Church in two ways? Or do you have two things that come to the Church?<\/span><\/p>\n I see no essential difference. I think Dr. Bahnsen is trying to create a difference with no distinction at all. He\u2019s just seeing what he wants to see: \u201coral\u201d or \u201cby mouth\u201d or \u201cheard\u201d and \u201cwritten\u201d are there together, with no distinction made. And there is much about authoritative written and<\/em> oral tradition in the Bible: including going back to Moses on Mt. Sinai:<\/p>\n \u201cMoses\u2019 Seat\u201d & Jesus vs.\u00a0<\/a>Sola Scriptura<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(vs. James White) [12-27-03]<\/p>\n Binding, Authoritative Tradition According to St. Paul<\/a>\u00a0[2004]<\/p>\n James White\u2019s Critique of My Book,\u00a0The Catholic Verses<\/em>: Part I: The Binding Authority of Tradition<\/a>\u00a0[12-30-04]<\/p>\n Refutation of James White: Moses\u2019 Seat, the Bible, and Tradition\u00a0(Introduction: #1)<\/a>\u00a0(+Part II\u00a0<\/a>|\u00a0Part III<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part IV<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part V<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part VI<\/a>) [5-12-05]<\/p>\n Biblical Evidence for Apostolic Oral Tradition<\/a>\u00a0[2-20-09]<\/p>\n 25 Brief Arguments for Binding Catholic Tradition\u00a0<\/a>[2009]<\/p>\n Tradition, Succession, Apostolic Deposit (vs. Calvin #25)<\/a>\u00a0[7-1-09]<\/p>\n Tradition, Church, & the Rule of Faith (vs. Calvin #27)<\/a>\u00a0[7-6-09]<\/p>\n Bible on Submission to Church & Apostolic Tradition + Biblical Condemnation of the Rebellious & Schismatic Aspects of the Protestant Revolt<\/a>\u00a0[8-27-11]<\/p>\n Biblical Evidence for the Oral Torah<\/a>\u00a0[10-18-11]<\/p>\n Dialogue on Oral Tradition & Apostolic Succession<\/a>\u00a0(vs. John E. Taylor) [5-17-17]<\/p>\n The Bereans and Searching the Scriptures:\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>?<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 5-5-19]<\/p>\n Anglican Newman on Oral & Written Apostolic Tradition<\/a>\u00a0[10-12-19]<\/p>\n