![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2025\/07\/Cover-554x839-1.jpg\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n
Norman L. Geisler<\/a>\u00a0(1932 \u2013 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books<\/sup>\u00a0and hundreds of articles.<\/p>\n Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970\u201379) and Professor of Systematic Theology\u00a0at\u00a0Dallas Theological Seminary (1979\u201388) and a key figure in founding the\u00a0Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical\u00a0Thomist and considered himself a \u201cmoderate\u00a0Calvinist\u201d. He was\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn\u2019t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).<\/p>\n This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book,\u00a0Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It\u2019s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are, for the most part, impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I\u2019m now giving them).<\/p>\n I\u2019ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: \u201cAreas of Doctrinal Differences\u201d (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my\u00a0Calvinism & General Protestantism web page<\/a>, in section XVII: \u201cCatholics and Protestants\u201d (second from the end). Dr. Geisler\u2019s and Ralph MacKenzie\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Protestants, of course, believe all apostolic tradition is inscripturated in the Bible. (p. 180)<\/span><\/p>\n . . . the point of difference between Protestants and Catholics, namely, whether there exists today any authoritative normative teachings outside those revealed to apostles and prophets and inscripturated in the Bible. (p. 186)<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Geisler, again writing with Ralph MacKenzie, stated in an earlier article, \u201cA Defense of Sola Scriptura\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(Christian Research Institute<\/i>, \u00a04-8-09):<\/p>\n It is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n Since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament. . . . all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Timothy 3:15-17). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books \u2014 the inspired books of the New Testament \u2014 that they left for the church.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Inscripturation as a counter-reply to the biblical and Catholic rule of faith utterly fails, and is itself merely an unbiblical tradition of men (therefore, self-refuting, given Protestant premises of sola Scriptura<\/i>). It\u2019s simply not taught in the Bible. Rather, it\u2019s\u00a0assumed<\/i>\u00a0without any biblical indication (neither expressly stated nor even deduced).<\/p>\n The Bible never\u00a0teaches<\/i> that \u201call apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.\u201d Therefore, how could Dr. Geisler or any Protestant supposedly know<\/i>\u00a0the contrary? There is nothing whatsoever along these lines in 2 Timothy 3:15-17. It simply teaches that Scripture is great for teaching and reproof, etc. (which no one disagrees with).<\/p>\n Protestants agree that what apostles taught was binding, but they fail to see that some of that teaching wouldn\u2019t be recorded in Scripture. The Bible itself teaches us that there are<\/i> such teachings and deeds not recorded in it (Jn 20:30; 21:25; Acts 1:2-3; Lk 24:15-16, 25-27). The logic is simple:\u00a0 Apostles\u2019 teaching was authoritative and binding (i.e., for all practical purposes, \u201cinfallible\u201d). Some of that teaching was recorded in Scripture, but some was not.\u00a0The folks who heard their teaching were bound to it whether it was later \u201cinscripturated\u201d or not.\u00a0Therefore, early Christians were bound to \u201cunbiblical\u201d teachings or those not known to be \u201cbiblical\u201d (as the Bible would not yet be canonized until more than three centuries later).<\/p>\n If they were so bound, it stands to reason that\u00a0we<\/i> could and should be, also.\u00a0Scripture itself does not rule out the presence of an authoritative oral tradition, not recorded in words. Paul refers more than once to a non-written tradition (e.g., 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2). Scripture informs us that much more was taught by Jesus and apostles than what is recorded in it. Scripture nowhere teaches that it is the sole rule of faith or that what is recorded in it about early Church history has no relevance to later Christians because this was the apostolic or \u201cinscripturation\u201d period. Those are all arbitrary, unbiblical traditions of men.<\/p>\n Where in the Bible does it say that this period is absolutely unique because the Bible was being written during it? When Paul was preaching he did so authoritatively, as an apostle. Not everything he said was later included in the Bible; therefore it was not all\u00a0inspired<\/i>\u00a0(he was no walking Bible-machine any more than Jesus was). But he was an\u00a0authority<\/i>, and acted consciously upon this authority.\u00a0Inscripturation teaches that anything\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0recorded in Scripture could\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>have been passed down by Paul: a contention that is absurd on its face.<\/p>\n As an example of a Protestant who accepts the binding, infallible nature of a teaching even if it isn\u2019t taught in the Bible, I submit Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism. He wrote a letter to Albrecht (or Albert), Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, dated April 1532 by some and February or early March by others. The well-known Luther biographer Roland H. Bainton cites the following portion of it:<\/p>\n This testimony of the universal holy Christian Church, even if we had nothing else<\/b>, would be a sufficient warrant for holding this article [on the Real Presence in the Eucharist] and refusing to suffer or listen to a sectary, for it is dangerous and fearful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, belief, and teaching of the universal holy Christian churches, unanimously held in all the world from the beginning until now over fifteen hundred years. (Studies on the Reformation<\/em>, Boston: Beacon Press, 1963, p. 26; primary source: WA [Werke<\/em>, Weimar edition in German], Vol. XXX, 552; my bolding)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Protestant historian Philip Schaff, in\u00a0The Reformed Quarterly Review<\/i>, July, 1888, p. 295, cited the passage and commented:<\/p>\n Luther combined with the boldest independence a strong reverence for the historical faith. He derives from the unbroken tradition of the church an argument against the Zwinglians for the real presence in the Eucharist . . . A Roman controversialist could not lay more stress on tradition than Luther does in this passage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Augustine had taught the same 1100 years earlier:<\/p>\n As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, . . . For often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity . . . of some who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the tradition of the universal Church. (Letter to Januarius<\/i>, 54, 1, 1; 54, 2, 3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Bible teaches sola Scriptura<\/em>. Two points must be made here. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible <\/span>explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura<\/em> in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is <\/span>clearly taught in the Bible. (p. 184)<\/span><\/p>\n I agree so far. I disagree, however, that sola Scriptura<\/em> is even a deduction<\/em> from what is taught on the Bible, or an \u201cindirect\u201d teaching, etc. And I assert, moreover, that much in the Bible contradicts sola Scriptura<\/em>. I\u2019ve written three books about it, in addition to hundreds of articles<\/a>:<\/p>\n 100 Biblical Arguments Against\u00a0<\/i>Sola Scriptura<\/a> (Nov. 2011 \/ 10 May 2012 \/ slightly revised edition: Jan. 2025, 135 pages)<\/p>\n Pillars of\u00a0<\/i>Sola Scriptura:\u00a0Replies to Whitaker, Goode, & Biblical \u201cProofs\u201d for \u201cBible Alone\u201d<\/i><\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(July 2012 \/ Sep. 2012, 310 pages)<\/p>\n The Bible Tells Me So: A Catholic Apologist Challenges Protestants with Scripture<\/em><\/a> (Jan. 2019, 161 pages)<\/p>\n The Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. Scripture states that it is \u201cinspired\u201d and \u201ccompetent\u201d for a believer to be \u201cequipped for every good work\u201d (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If the Bible alone is sufficient to do this, then nothing else is needed. Also, this text teaches that the Bible alone is inspired and capable of saving, edifying, and equipping believers.\u00a0 (p. 184)<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Timothy 3:16-17<\/strong> All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Elsewhere (exegesis), St. Paul frequently espouses oral tradition (Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:1-3; Gal 1:9, 12; Col 2:8; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). The \u201cexclusivist\u201d or \u201cdichotomous\u201d form of reasoning employed by Protestant apologists here is fundamentally flawed. For example, to reason by analogy, let\u2019s examine a very similar passage:<\/p>\n Ephesians 4:11-15 <\/strong>\u00a0And his gifts were that some should be apostle, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are able to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If the Greek artios <\/em>(RSV, complete<\/em> \/ KJV, perfect<\/em>) proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture in 2 Timothy, then teleios<\/em> (RSV, mature manhood<\/em> \/ KJV, perfect<\/em>) in Ephesians would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors, teachers<\/em> and so forth for the attainment of Christian perfection. Note that in Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is equipped, built up, <\/em>brought into unity<\/em> and mature manhood, knowledge <\/em>of Jesus, the fulness of Christ, <\/em>and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting <\/em>of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn\u2019t even mention<\/em> Scripture.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too<\/em> much, since if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view.<\/p>\n Also, this text teaches that the Bible alone is inspired and capable of saving, edifying, and equipping believers. This is evident from several things stated in the text. First, only the Scriptures are \u201cinspired\u201d or God-breathed. (p. 184)<\/span><\/p>\n I used to casually assume that this as true, until recently, even as a Catholic, for many years. But then I thought about it more deeply and concluded that it wasn\u2019t<\/em>, and that the Bible itself<\/em> taught that this wasn\u2019t the case. The Bible is certainly unique, and Catholics wholeheartedly agree.\u00a0 But it\u2019s not exclusively<\/em> inspired. I shall explain why I now think that.<\/p>\n Prophets in the Old Testament are another example of infallible authorities. They were not simply \u201cwalking Bibles.\u201d They said many things that were\u00a0not recorded<\/em>\u00a0in the Bible, but were still from God, and as such, effectively inspired. So, for example, the prophet Samuel told Saul that he would \u201cmake known\u201d to him \u201cthe word of God\u201d (1 Sam 9:27). It was written that \u201cthe word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God\u201d (1 Kgs 12:22). \u201cThe Word of the LORD\u201d\u00a0appears 243 times<\/a>\u00a0in the Protestant Old Testament (RSV); mostly\u00a0coming through men<\/em>. For example:<\/p>\n Genesis 15:1<\/strong>\u00a0. . . the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision . . .<\/p>\n Numbers 3:16<\/strong>\u00a0So Moses numbered them according to\u00a0the word of the LORD, as he was commanded.<\/p>\n 1 Samuel 3:21<\/strong>\u00a0. . . the LORD revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by\u00a0the word of the LORD.<\/p>\n 2 Samuel 7:4<\/strong>\u00a0But that same night\u00a0the word of the LORD\u00a0came to Nathan,<\/p>\n 2 Samuel 24:11<\/strong>\u00a0. . . \u00a0the word of the LORD came to the prophet Gad, David\u2019s seer . . .<\/p>\n 1 Kings 6:11<\/strong>\u00a0Now\u00a0the word of the LORD\u00a0came to Solomon,<\/p>\n 1 Kings 14:18<\/strong>\u00a0. . . the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servant Ahijah the prophet.<\/p>\n 1 Kings 18:1<\/strong>\u00a0. . . the word of the LORD came to Elijah, . . .<\/p>\n 2 Kings 20:19<\/strong>\u00a0Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, \u201cThe word of the LORD which you have spoken is good.\u201d . . .<\/p>\n 2 Chronicles 36:21<\/strong>\u00a0to fulfil\u00a0the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Etc., etc. . . .<\/p>\n The prophet Ezekiel wrote down the phrase, \u201cthe word of the LORD came to me\u201d\u00a049 times<\/a>.<\/p>\n Nor is this only in the Old Testament. Prophets still exist in the New Testament, too, such as the \u201cprophetess\u201d Anna (Lk 2:36). St. Luke again wrote: \u201cNow in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world; and this took place in the days of Claudius\u201d (Acts 11:27-28; cf. 21:10-11, where he predicts Paul\u2019s captivity, prefacing his words with \u201cThus says the Holy Spirit, . . .\u201d). Luke almost casually mentions the fact that \u201cin the church at Antioch there were prophets . . \u201d (Acts 13:1) and that \u201cJudas and Silas . . . were themselves prophets\u201d (Acts 15:32).<\/p>\n St. Paul includes \u201cprophets\u201d \u2014 \u00a0whom \u201cGod has appointed in the church\u201d \u2014 as one of the Church offices (1 Cor 12:28-29; 14:29, 32, 37; Eph 4:11), and refers to \u201cprophesy[ing]\u201d (1 Cor 14:1, 3-5, 24, 31, 39) and \u201cprophecy\u201d (1 Cor 14:6, 22). Paul even wrote that \u201cthe mystery of Christ, . . . has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit\u201d (Eph 3:4-5) and noted the \u201cprophetic utterances\u201d that accompanied the ordination of Timothy (1 Tim 1:18; 4:14). Philip the evangelist \u201chad four unmarried daughters, who prophesied\u201d (Acts 21:8-9).<\/p>\n Therefore, there are many examples of infallible and virtually inspired revelation in both Testaments that are distinct from Holy Scripture itself. Whatever of\u00a0 it was\u00a0recorded<\/em>, would be part of Scripture, but of course there was a lot that\u00a0wasn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0recorded. It still had the same ontological essence nonetheless (just as Jesus\u2019 hundreds of thousands of words to His family or disciples that are unrecorded, remained inspired and infallible). And all of this disproves\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, as classically formulated, because it claims that only Scripture is infallible (let alone inspired). The \u201cword of the LORD\u201d given to a prophet is just as \u201cGod-breathed\u201d (the literal meaning of \u201cinspiration\u201d) as Scripture, because it comes straight from God, as Scripture does.<\/p>\n Prophets (including prophets after Pentecost) are inspired, and the first Christian council at Jerusalem was inspired, too, since the Holy Spirit agreed with it (Acts 15:28). The first pope, Peter, even made an infallible declaration in the council (Acts 15:7-11) that was crucial in its determination. This in turn was largely based on a \u201cvision\u201d (Acts 10:17) that God gave to Peter (Acts 10:11-16), while he was in a \u201ctrance\u201d (Acts 10:10). Peter was at first \u201cperplexed\u201d by it (10:17), but then God showed him the meaning by sending to him the Gentile centurion, Cornelius (Acts 10:25 ff.), to whom He had communicated by an angel (10:22, 30-32). The larger point is that so much of this had nothing directly to do with Scripture at all. Yet it was infallible (and arguably inspired as well).<\/p>\n Inspiration also occurs in God\u2019s communication to prophets or to others through visions and direct encounters. In other words,\u00a0it goes far beyond only Holy Scripture<\/em>. Moreover, when Jesus was talking to His disciples about future persecution, He said, \u201cdo not be anxious how or what you are to answer or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say\u201d (Lk 12:11-12). Mark in his parallel passage puts it even more strongly: \u201cit is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit\u201d (Mk 13:11). Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist \u201cwas filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied\u201d (Lk 1:67). Simeon also had a close relationship with the Holy Spirit (Lk 2:25-26).<\/p>\n Now, if the Holy Spirit can talk to Jesus\u2019 disciples in that way (and by extension possibly to any<\/em>\u00a0follower of Christ), or literally talk\u00a0through<\/em>\u00a0them,\u00a0is that, too<\/em>, \u201cdivine speech\u201d or \u201cthe words of God\u201d or inspired? Since the Holy Spirit is God, the answer must be yes<\/em>. But again, that\u2019s not Scripture. Paul also refers to two spiritual gifts that seem to involve direct communication from God to human beings: \u201cTo each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit\u201d (1 Cor 12:7-8). Here again God the Holy Spirit is communicating to persons. Is that \u201cinspired\u201d and \u201cthe words of God\u201d? It seems to me that all words that authentically come from God must be so. In other words, the words of God are \u201cGod-breathed.\u201d And they go far beyond Holy Scripture.<\/p>\n Even the prophet himself was not to add to the revelation God gave him, for prophets were not infallible whenever they spoke but only when giving God\u2019s revelation. . . . if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add their teachings to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then it follows that the Scriptures are the only infallible source of divine revelation. (p. 186)<\/span><\/p>\n Geisler is confused in his categories. As argued at length above, from Scripture, prophets were not only infallible<\/em>, but also conveyors of inspired<\/em> utterances from God \u2014 that went beyond the Bible. And that is quite contrary to sola Scriptura<\/em>. Geisler, however, discusses prophets in relation to revelation<\/em>, which is a different category.\u00a0 Yes, Catholics agree with Protestants that public<\/em> \u2014 though not private \u2014 revelation ended with the apostles (as Geisler notes on the same page, in context). But what has to be grappled with is the notion that prophets passing along the very words of God must also<\/em> be inspired. Thus, there is indeed not only infallibility, but also inspiration apart from the Bible, which is utterly contrary to sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/p>\n I did a search<\/a> of \u201cprophet\u201d and \u201crevelation\u201d occurring in proximity in the Bible, and they never do<\/em>\u00a0(at least not in RSV). So why is Geisler arguing in non-scriptural ways, according to unbiblical categories? Why does he associate those two things, when the Bible doesn\u2019t<\/em>, and not<\/em> associate prophets and prophecy with inspiration, which the Bible does<\/em> put together? Once again, the authentic \u201cword of God\u201d must always be inspired by its very nature and essence, whether it has to do with God\u2019s words in the Bible (passed through men) or through prophets.<\/p>\n The total absence of reference to any other instrument or source of authority than the written Word (Gk.<\/span> graphe<\/em>) reveals that the locus of this sufficient authority is in the written Word (= Scripture). . . . Paul repeatedly stresses the need to cling to the Scriptures (1:13; 2:15; 3:15-16; 4:2). Finally, given that this [2 Timothy) was his last book (4:6-8), if there was some other apostolic authority other than the written Word of God the apostle surely would have mentioned it. (p. 184).<\/span><\/p>\n According to the written Torah, sacrifices were not permitted anywhere but at the Tabernacle. (Lev 17:1-5) . . . After the Tabernacle was erected the written Torah does not seem to endorse the High Places at all. (Lev 17:8-9) One of the most startling proofs that an oral Torah existed is that the prophet Samuel continued to sacrifice at the High Places after the Tabernacle had been built. When Saul first met Samuel, Samuel was preparing a sacrifice at one of the High Places. (1Sam 9:12-13) Later in Israel\u2019s history, Israel would be strongly rebuked for sacrificing at such cult sites, but because the Tabernacle was not at Shiloh or Jerusalem, the text of 1 Samuel seems to defer to the oral Torah, and allows the apparent transgression to pass without comment.. . . The only explanations possible are that either a leniency existed that was not mentioned in the written text of the Pentateuch, but was ordained by God and known to Samuel; or that Samuel was spiritually severed from Israel on the same day that he met Saul. Because Samuel continued to serve God and Israel for many more years, it is doubtful that he had been spiritually cut off from his people.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n God had made the following condemnation in the Torah: \u201c. . . I will destroy your high places . . .\u201d (Lev 26:30). And it had been written a few hundred years before Samuel\u2019s time:<\/p>\n Joshua 22:29<\/b> Far be it from us that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn away this day from following the LORD by building an altar for burnt offering, cereal offering, or sacrifice, other than the altar of the LORD our God that stands before his tabernacle!\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Surprisingly enough, the written Torah never specifies that\u00a0Jerusalem<\/b> would be the central place of worship, or that a\u00a0Temple<\/b> was to be built there (neither the words \u201ctemple\u201d \u2014 in this sense \u2014 nor \u201cJerusalem\u201d ever appears in the Pentateuch or Torah: first five books of the Bible).<\/p>\n The written Torah never acknowledges Jerusalem as the proper place for worship, and only briefly mentions that the Lord will someday chose a special place for Himself. (Lev. 18:6) Only the oral Torah identifies the chosen place as Jerusalem, yet David knew where he wanted to build the Temple. The written Torah also gives detailed instructions for how to build God\u2019s sanctuary. It was to be a tent erected by the priests. . . . there is no provision in the Torah for a permanent structure to replace the Tabernacle. It was forbidden to add or detract from the commands that God gave to Moses (Duet. 4:2), and Moses never wrote down any plan for the Tabernacle to be permanently folded up and put away. If God did not pass his plan to someday have a Temple on to Moses, than all of Israel\u2019s worship from the reign of Solomon on was invalid. Because Jesus frequented the Temple, Messianic Jews, as believers in Jesus as sinless, can be sure this too was clearly not the case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Reb Yhoshua notes that Jesus was a follower of the\u00a0Pharisaical tradition<\/b>:<\/p>\n It is easy to overly simplify Jesus\u2019 relationship with Pharisaic Judaism by anachronistically projecting modern Protestant doctrine into the New Testament. . . . The fact that Jesus also had differences with the Sadducees, the virulent anti-Oral Torah sect, is often downplayed; as is the fact that whenever he disagreed with them, it was because he held to a doctrine found only in the oral Torah \u2013 resurrection from the dead.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I noted this in an old paper of mine:<\/p>\n Jesus Himself followed the Pharisaical tradition, as argued by Asher Finkel in his book\u00a0The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth<\/i>\u00a0(Cologne: E.J. Brill, 1964). He adopted the Pharisaical stand on controversial issues (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17), accepted the oral tradition of the academies, observed the proper mealtime procedures (Mark 6:56, Matthew 14:36) and the Sabbath, and priestly regulations (Matthew 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:4). This author argues that Jesus\u2019 condemnations were directed towards the Pharisees of the school of Shammai, whereas Jesus was closer to the school of Hillel.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The\u00a0Encyclopedia Judaica<\/i> (Jerusalem: 1971) backs up this contention, in its entry \u201cJesus\u201d (v. 10, 10):<\/p>\n In general, Jesus\u2019 polemical sayings against the Pharisees were far meeker than the Essene attacks and not sharper than similar utterances in the talmudic sources. This source contends that Jesus\u2019 beliefs and way of life were closer to the Pharisees than to the Essenes, though He was similar to them in many respects also (poverty, humility, purity of heart, simplicity, etc.).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Paul actually\u00a0called himself<\/i> a Pharisee twice, after his conversion to Christianity\u00a0 (Acts 23:6; 26:5). Jesus opposed the doctrine of the Sadducees (but not of the Pharisees: Matt 23:2). The Pharisees adhered to oral tradition and the Sadducees rejected it. Reb Yhoshua observes that Jesus and the early Christians (even the Jerusalem Council) \u201cheld a standard of\u00a0kashrut, proper eating<\/b>, that was consistent with the Oral Torah\u201d (his footnotes incorporated:<\/p>\n three of the four commandments that the Jerusalem Council insisted all believers observe immediately upon becoming Jesus believers dealt with food. (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) Two of these came from the oral Torah: not to eat things sacrificed to idols, [Mishnah Avodah Zorah 2:3] and not to eat things strangled. [Mishnah Chullin 1:2] The written Torah does not forbid either of these types of food, yet Jesus, in Revelation, is portrayed as strongly rebuking the communities of Pergamum and Thyatira for breaking the ban on their consumption. (Rev 2:14 and 20) The authority of the Oral Torah in the lives of early Messianic believers cannot be doubted when half of the commands the Jerusalem council required of Gentiles were from the Oral Torah.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jesus\u2019 famous teaching on\u00a0lust in the Sermon on the Mount <\/b>was derived from the oral Torah (footnote incorporated):<\/p>\n Many scholars have struggled with Jesus\u2019 teaching, \u201cYou have heard that our fathers were told, \u2018Do not commit adultery.\u2019 And I tell you that a man who even looks at a woman with the purpose of lusting after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.\u201d (Mat 5:27-28) It seems to demand something impossible of men, something the written Torah never asked. . . . Jesus was not arbitrarily adding an unnatural stringency to the Torah; he was teaching from a tradition Moses received at Sinai, \u201cNot only is he who sins with his body considered an adulterer, but he who sins with his eye is also considered one.\u201d [Leviticus Rabba 23:12]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So were His\u00a0teachings on prayer<\/b>:<\/p>\n Jesus\u2019 ideas on prayer mirror those in the oral Torah, as well. He taught his disciples not to babble when they prayed (Mat. 6:7), and advised them to never stop praying for something they really needed. (Luke 18:1-6) What Jesus called babbling, Chazal labeled calculating, purposely making one\u2019s prayers long so that they would be answered. Calculating, or babbling, was forbidden by the Oral Torah; [Babylonian Talmud, Berekhot 32b] and just as Jesus advised his disciples to continue asking God for what they wanted, the oral Torah commanded the Israelites, \u201cIf a man realizes that he has prayed and not been answered, he should pray again.\u201d [Babylonian Talmud, Berekhot 32b]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Conclusion: the oral Torah seems to be fairly conclusively established from the written biblical record. By analogy, Christian oral apostolic tradition is also upheld as valid in the new covenant, which was a direct development of the old covenant (Matthew 5:17-20).<\/p>\n Including Inscripturation; 2 Timothy 3:16; Is Only the Bible Inspired?; Oral Torah \u00a0 Norman L. Geisler\u00a0(1932 \u2013 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":92552,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31,312],"tags":[20069,20075,13234,20072,32,47],"class_list":["post-92546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bible-and-tradition","category-calvinism-general-protestantism","tag-catholic-protestant-theological-disputes","tag-critique-of-catholic-distinctive-beliefs","tag-norman-geisler","tag-roman-catholics-and-evangelicals-agreements-and-differences","tag-rule-of-faith","tag-sola-scriptura"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n