William Tyndale – Criminal or Christian martyr?



 

A Tyndale Bible, displayed at the Bodleian Library in June 2014, photo by Steve Bennett (stevage)

A Tyndale Bible, displayed at the Bodleian Library in June 2014, photo by Steve Bennett (stevage), Wikimedia Commons.


.

Answering The Catholic Thinker

William Tyndale: Victim or Criminal?

In reality, Tyndale was a criminal, a breaker of the law. He knew very well that it was illegal to make an unauthorized translation. A look at the facts behind Tyndale’s death should scatter the notion that Catholics murdered him for simply translating the Bible, just another fanciful “history” of the Catholic Church.

Patrick E. Devens

 

File:Foxe's Book of Martyrs - Tyndale.jpg

Preparations to burn the body of William Tyndale. John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, 1563. Tyndale was strangled and then his body was burned.

 

 

With other readers I tried to defend Tyndale to Patrick. Patrick wasn’t convinced and could only see Tyndale as a criminal. Having thought this over, I’m learning at last that Protestants and Evangelicals – Bible believers – cannot win The Argument with Rome or its followers, but in spite of this fact must answer from the Word of God. Catholics will answer back with “Who gave you the Bible? We did!”, but we will have honored the Lord Jesus Christ – praise Him forever!

So here is a Biblical answer to Patrick who maintains that as a lawbreaker Tyndale deserved to be punished; and that it was the State that executed him and that the Church of Rome didn’t have much to do with this. 

Acts 5

17 But the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. 18 They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the gates of the prison, and taking them out he said, 20 “Go, stand and speak to the people in the temple the whole message of this Life.” 21 Upon hearing this, they entered into the temple about daybreak and began to teach.

Now when the high priest and his associates came, they called the Council together, even all the Senate of the sons of Israel, and sent orders to the prison house for them to be brought. 22 But the officers who came did not find them in the prison; and they returned and reported back, 23 saying, “We found the prison house locked quite securely and the guards standing at the doors; but when we had opened up, we found no one inside.” 24 Now when the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests heard these words, they were greatly perplexed about them as to what would come of this. 25 But someone came and reported to them, “The men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people!” 26 Then the captain went along with the officers and proceeded to bring them back without violence (for they were afraid of the people, that they might be stoned).

27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

33 But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them.

34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time.

35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. 38 So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”

40 They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them. 41 So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. 42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.


.

Resources for studying William Tyndale, Christian Martyr

William Tyndale’s Life and Work

The History of Protestantism by ‘James Aitken Wylie, Book 23 — Protestantism in England From the Times of Henry VIII, Chapter 4 — Tyndale’s New Testament arrives in England

Read The Tyndale Bible, at Bible Study Tools

 


 

 

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “William Tyndale – Criminal or Christian martyr?

  1. Thanks, Maria. Yes, ongoing debate with committed Catholics is often futile. May the Lord open their eyes! I think it’s ironic that Catholics tout Thomas More as a champion of religious freedom because he was killed by Henry VIII but it was More who pushed for the arrest and execution of Tyndale.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Hi, Tom! The words you wrote are nearly the same as William Tyndale’s before he died – “Lord open the King of England’s eyes!”
    I’m trying to find additional material on Sir Thomas More’s part in this history. Thanks for taking time to read this!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Thanks, Maria! I think I may have commented with something close to the same words when you posted something else on Tyndale not too long ago. Argh! My brain’s accumulating more cobwebs as the years go bye. I’m looking forward to studying more of the English Reformation after retirement. Yesterday on the car radio I heard the Catholic talk show host say the Reformation was MOSTLY a political power grab. Not to the millions who trusted in Christ! Well, we know for certain that Roman Catholicism was MOSTLY about ecclesiastical, political, and economic control.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Maria, the basis of my belief is that Tyndale was a heretic, and his doctrine cannot be thought of as what the Apostles did when confronted by “authority”. They are two polar opposites. Do you not agree that there can only be one truth? Unless Tyndale taught everything the Apostles did, then he was heretical and “untrue”.

    Like

  5. Amen! Jesus told His disciples not to “lord it over” each other the way the Gentiles (Romans) did, but the Catholic church created an authoritarian structure that put the pagan Romans to shame. I’ve said many times that the Holy Spirit has done His work not within grandiose religious institutionalism where men seek their own glory but within the rag-tag, patchwork of evangelicalism, with its tent revivals and humble store-front churches.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Catholics will answer back with “Who gave you the Bible? We did!”

    You know when they do say that it is such a false statement that it isn’t funny.

    They did not give us the Bible, the scripture was already in circulation and all they did is to compile them and say that this is holy scripture but they did that through letters that were deemed inspirational based on the churches (not Catholic Church) who knew and accepted those letters as written by the apostles including Paul’s letters, Jude and etc.

    The Catholic Church actually did the reverse by taking holy scripture from the people so they won’t know God’s Word. They gave us nothing but took it away. Those died Catholics in those times are answering what they did as we speak.

    Liked by 6 people

  7. Hi, Alix! Good analysis of the way the Bible came to us. I believe Paul’s statement in Romans applies to the suppression of the Bible:
    Romans 1
    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Tom, I agree that this is the Lord’s way of humbling human pride. Thank you so much for your insight!
    1 Corinthians 1
    26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Patrick, I appreciate your weighing in here, and willingness to be part of this discussion, truly. But I can’t agree with your statement that the passage from Acts isn’t relevant to Tyndale’s actions, or your statement that he was a heretic. He taught the New Testament, translated it, honoring God, so he taught the Apostle’s doctrine.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Verse 18 applies both for those that heard the gospel and for those that haven’t.

    1. For those that either read the Bible or heard it read to them know better and to live a life contrary shows their rejection of Jesus Christ.

    2. For those that never heard it are the one’s that through their conscience they know the basic truth of scripture like: 1. The existence of God through creation which their conscience affirms by visual proof (Psalms 19:1-4). 3. The law is written in their hearts so when they go against God’s laws their conscience condemns them (Romans 2:15).

    Romans 1:18 basically declares that people sinful lifestyles show that they have rejected Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Thanks for this Maria. I think a civil discussion on matters of faith is important. David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi who was Muslim at the time often debated which God used to soften the heart of Nabeel as David brought arguments for him to examine the scriptures which brought him to a quest to really know the truth which God honored and gave Nabeel a scriptural dream eventually leading to his conversion. Excellent post and Acts 5:29 makes for an awesome collective motto for Christians.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Hi, Caeli! Yes, we must be gracious when we speak. This is interesting, Caeli, about Acts 5:29 making an awesome motto for Christians. So true!
    About Nabeel Qureshi, I know from watching a video of his that he has been very ill – we need to pray for him. I think you probably are.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Yes. Agreed and sometimes, even when we do try that route, we cannot avoid the sting that truth often produces in people.

    Regarding Nabeel, it is heartbreaking to hear him talk about the possibility of him leaving his young daughter soon and he has been in our prayers and will keep praying for him.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Right, Caeli. We can’t make people like our message (or us), only the Lord can convince people of the truth of the Gospel and of sound doctrine. We must carry our cross.
    I’m glad you and your husband are praying for Nabeel! I want to remember to do this.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Excerpt from Catholic Answers article “Catholics and the Bible” https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/catholics-and-the-bible

    “At one time Bible translations were falsified in the interest of certain heresies. William Tyndale, for example, always substituted the word ‘congregation’ for ‘Church’ and ‘ordinance’ for “tradition” because of the Catholic connotation attached to these words. He also translated ‘Little children, keep yourselves from images’; instead of using the more accurate rendering ‘ idols.’ ”

    Is this not heresy? Misrepresentation of Scripture?

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Patrick, this is probably more complicated than a quick answer can settle. Which words do the Douay and the NABRE use? Douay 1899 uses “church” in the Old and New Testament; NABRE uses “church” in the New Testament only.

    Douay – church

    https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=church&qs_version=DRA

    NABRE – church

    https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=church&qs_version=DRA

    Just a place to begin a discussion on this.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus mentioned in their letters, back in the 2nd century that the Christian communities were reading the writings of the four gospels before the Catholic Church ever existed.

    The Catholic which means universal that lives up to that name, grabbing the practices from all other pagan religion and prostitute themselves by copying the worships of pagans through idolatry.

    The Catholic Church mixed in the old testament with the new testament. That’s why they still have priests and rituals to this day.

    Jesus fulfilled the old testament so there is no need to go to a priest and ask for one’s sins to be forgiven, that’s something that was done with a sacrifice, the priest would ask on your behalf to God to forgive your sins. Now, the Lord said that we can go to the Father directly and pray to Him and in Jesus name ask Him to forgive us of our debt while you Catholics are still stuck in the old testament because you do not have the Holy Spirit who reveals God’s Word to the individual.

    John 16:23
    In that day you will no longer ask Me anything. Truly, truly, I tell you, whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you.

    Liked by 4 people

  18. Patrick, here are the instances of the use of “tradition” and “ordinance” in two Catholic versions.

    Douay-Rheims 1899 – “tradition” (New Testament only)

    https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=tradition&qs_version=DRA

    NABRE – “tradition” (one instance each in 2 Maccabees and Ben Sira; and the New Testament)

    https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=tradition&qs_version=NABRE

    Duoay-Rheims 1899 – “ordinance” (Old Testament and two New Testament instance)

    https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=ordinance&qs_version=DRA

    NABRE – “ordinance” (Old Testament and one New Testament instances)

    https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=ordinance&qs_version=NABRE

    Liked by 1 person

  19. When do you think the Catholic Church started then? And of course the early Christians read the Apostles epistles and Gospels. But the RCC was the first to compile the Bible in the sense we have it today. Catholic Church put it all together in one book.

    Like

  20. Just because the Catholic Church brought all the letters and put them together doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is sound because it’s far far from that.

    In Numbers 22 Balak summoned Balaam who was into witchcraft to put a curse on Israel but God used that man instead, to bless Israel and at the end since Balaam didn’t repent and told Balak how to make Israel sin through sexual enticement God put him to death.

    What am I saying then, I’m saying that the Catholic Church has left the teachings of the Bible and incorporated foreign doctrines that are not found in the scripture which you have to plead to your traditions to justify them because of their void from God’s Word?

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Patrick, first, about 1 John 5:21, your source is correct that William Tyndale translated this as: “Babes kepe youre selves from ymages [images]. Amen.” Here’s what I found about the word used in 1 John 5:21. Looking at this, do you have the knowledge and ability to maintain that his translation of this verse is misrepresentation and heresy?

    1497. eidólon ►
    Strong’s Concordance
    eidólon: an image (i.e. for worship), by impl. a false god
    Original Word: εἴδωλον, ου, τό
    Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
    Transliteration: eidólon
    Phonetic Spelling: (i’-do-lon)
    Short Definition: an idol, false god
    Definition: an idol, false god.
    NAS Exhaustive Concordance
    Word Origin
    from eidos
    Definition
    an image (i.e. for worship), by impl. a false god
    NASB Translation
    idol (4), idols (7).

    Thayer’s Greek Lexicon
    STRONGS NT 1497: εἴδωλον

    εἴδωλον, εἰδώλου, τό (εἶδος (cf. Winers Grammar, 96 (91); Etym. Magn. 296, 9)), in Greek writings from Homer down, an image, likeness, i. e. whatever represents the form of an object, either real or imaginary; used of the shades of the departed (in Homer), of apparitions, spectres, phantoms of the mind, etc.; in Biblical writings (an idol, i. e.):
    1. the image of a heathen god: Acts 7:41; 1 Corinthians 12:2; Revelation 9:20 (Isaiah 30:22; 2 Chronicles 23:17, etc.; θεῶν ἤ δαιμον´ων εἴδωλα, Polybius 31, 3, 13);
    2. a false god: Acts 15:20 (on which see ἀλίσγημα); Romans 2:22; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 7; 1 Corinthians 10:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:9 (often in the Sept.); φυλάσσειν ἑαυτόν ἀπό τῶν εἰδώλων, to guard oneself from all manner of fellowship with heathen worship, 1 John 5:21.

    Moving on to the other points, in discussing particulars of the Douay-Rheims and Tyndale Bibles, it must be noted that the Douay was a translation of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, while Tyndale’s was not. This can account for some of the differences at the very least. (It’s just best to bring all the facts into view.) Here is a quote from Wikipedia about Tyndale’s sources – I’m just learning too. Wiki:

    “Tyndale used a number of sources when carrying out his translations of both the New and Old Testaments. When translating the New Testament, he referred to the third edition (1522) of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, often referred to as the Received Text. Tyndale also used Erasmus’ Latin New Testament, as well as Luther’s German version and the Vulgate.
    “Scholars believe that Tyndale stayed away from using Wycliffe’s Bible as a source because he didn’t want his English to reflect that which was used prior to the Renaissance. The sources Tyndale used for his translation of the Pentateuch however are not known for sure. Scholars believe that Tyndale used either the Hebrew Pentateuch or the Polyglot Bible, and may have referred to the Septuagint. It is suspected that his other Old Testament works were translated directly from a copy of the Hebrew Bible. He also made abundant use of Greek and Hebrew grammars.”

    Moving on from there to particulars, Tyndale didn’t always translate “tradition” as “ordinaunce” but also as “tradicion” and “institucio”.

    (Duoay-Rheims – “tradition” – Appears in the New Testament only: https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=tradition&qs_version=DRA)

    “tradition” versus “ordinaunce”

    Douay
    2 Thess. 2:14   Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
    Tyndale
    2 Thess. 2:15  Therfore brethren stonde fast and kepe ye ordinaunces which ye have learned: whether it were by oure preachynge or by pistle.                            

    Douay
    2 Thess. 3:6  And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.
    Tyndale
    2 Thess. 3:6  We requyre you brethren in the name of oure lorde Iesu Christ yt ye with drawe youre selves from every brother that walketh inordinatly and not after the institucio which ye receaved of vs. 

    Douay
    1 Peter 1:18  Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers:
    Tyndale
    1 Peter 1:18  For as moche as ye know how that ye were not redemed with corruptible sylver and golde from youre vayne conversacion which ye receaved by the tradicions of the fathers:

    Douay
    Colossians 2:8  Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ:
    Tyndale
    Colossians 2:8  Beware lest eny ma come and spoyle you thorow philosophy and disceatfull vanitie thorow the tradicions of me and ordinaunces after the worlde and not after christ.

    Douay
    Galatians 1:14   And I made progress in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation, being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
    Tyndale
    Galatians 1:14  and prevayled in the Iewes laye above many of my companions which were of myne awne nacio and was a moche more fervet mayntener of the tradicions of the elders.

    “church” versus “congregation”

    Of the Old Testament books, Tyndale translated only the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Jonah. Of these, “church” appears in the Douay version only in Deuteronomy 23:1-8; Numbers 19:20; and Numbers 20:4. And yes, in the Tyndale version “congregacion” “congregacyon” are used in these places.

    It’s only just to speak about particulars and look at as much of the picture as possible. Also, you start from the position that William Tyndale was a heretic but I don’t. Let’s go to the Lord Jesus Christ and ask Him about Tyndale.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Concerning 1 John 5:21, a more correct word for an image of “worship” would be “idol”. The text is misleading. Any translator who publishes a Bible with error and does not recant it is automatically heretical.

    Does it not beg the question that Tyndale did not use the word “tradition” when he could because of the importance the RCC puts on Tradition?

    And there is a big difference between the usage of “congregation” and “church”. The use of congregation loosens the meaning of Christ’s church.

    While I may not agree with your view of Tyndale, thanks for taking the time to get all this and make a counter argument. I always have more respect for an opponent who explains their ideas with reasoning, than one who does not.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Negative. Jesus Christ gave us His Word like we have it today regardless how He did it. The Catholic Church was a tool in God’s hand to put the letters together, that’s all they did but God’s Word was already there. After the Roman Catholic Church put the letters together it was used by Satan to take away from the people so they can’t learn about God and get saved. Your RCC put it together just to take it away, how convenient. They did that so they could control the people for greed and power, that’s the type of religion you serve, not from God I can assure you.

    Satan used the Catholic Church because they gave themselves to idolatry and worshiped demons (Revelation 9:20) rather than the Living God.

    Liked by 3 people

  24. The Bible came from the Lord, just like He used Balaam a sorcerer to bless Israel so in the same way God used a false Church “The Roman Catholic Church” to compile what was already in circulation. God can use whomever and whatever He wants, all for His glory.

    Liked by 3 people

  25. Oh ok bud. I hope that you do some research and read up on history on the RCC. I hope you aren’t a Jack Chick follower. He’ll put some crazy ideas in your head.

    God used his church, the RCC to give the world the Bible. There was no Bible before the RCC put it together. There were just epistles and Gospels floating around the churches.

    It was the RCC who, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, decided on what books belong in the Bible.

    Like

  26. Patrick, these verses come to remembrance in defense of William Tyndale:

    2 Timothy 2:19 But the foundation of God remaineth sure, and hath this seal, The Lord knoweth who are his: and, Let everyone that calleth on the Name of Christ, depart from iniquity.

    Revelation 3
    8 I know thy works: behold I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my Name.
    9 Behold, I will make them of the Synagogue of Satan, which call themselves Jews, and are not, but do lie: behold, I say, I will make them that they shall come and worship before thy feet, and shall know that I have loved thee.

    John 16:2. They shall excommunicate you: yea the time shall come, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doeth God service.

    Matthew 5:10-12
    10 Blessed are they which suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    11 Blessed shall ye be when men revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you for my sake, falsely.
    12 Rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the Prophets which were before you.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. I’m not a “Jack Chick” follower but a follower of Jesus Christ. Yes “bud” I have done my research that’s why I’m not in your position. I would suggest to you to put aside Catholic traditions and just read the Bible, maybe who knows, the Holy Spirit might convict you of worshipping idols, repent and put your trust in Jesus alone and get saved.

    Liked by 3 people

  28. As I have been reading these comments a verse of scripture came to me. One that I have to admit was me when I fought the truth that some one had so lovingly wanted to share with me for my own good:
    Proverbs 1:7
    7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
    Before we are ready to accept and acknowledge God’s wisdom we must “fear” Him. Religion puts a “veil” over our eyes and until we ask the Lord to remove it and show us the truth we sit in our “religion” defending it not knowing that at the same time we are going completely against what God has done for us through His Only Begotten Son~Jesus The Messiah~ John 14:6 there is only ONE way…HIS WAY <3
    GOD IS ABLE!
    Amen?

    Liked by 4 people

  29. You said-“I do read the Bible. I just don’t follow your man-made traditions of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.”

    WOW! What a contradiction, you said that you read the Bible but at the same time you reject it by saying it’s man-made. That makes absolutely no sense. That’s why a Catholic person stays in darkness because like you, Satan keeps you from scripture even though you say you read which by your statement above means either you are lying or you read the Bible with zero faith which is like not reading it at all.

    Matthew 4:3-4

    3 Then the tempter approached Him and said, “If You are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
    4 But He answered, “It is written:
    Man must not live on bread alone
    but on every word that comes
    from the mouth of God.”

    No Christian can survive spiritually without holy scripture, it is our spiritual food that keeps our faith healthy. In your case, you are very sickly since you have rejected God’s Word as the only means to eternal life (which brings you to faith in Jesus) as seen in Romans 10:17 which says, “17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

    The difference between you and I is that I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ of scripture while you have given your life to the Catholic Church as your savior through their rituals practices and the worship of your goddess Mary which by the way, in no way does it reflect the Mary of holy scripture since you have elevated her to Jesus’ nature.

    Unless you repent and believe in Jesus Christ of holy scripture that He did it all on the cross, you don’t have to bring your works and add it to Jesus’ because all your works are like dirty rags like we see in Isaiah 64:6 which says, “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.”

    It doesn’t matter how many good works you do if you don’t believe in Jesus alone for salvation all of your so-called good deeds are filthy in God’s eyes. You need you be washed by the blood of the Lamb first and be made right in God’s eyes through faith in Jesus Christ so that you can be ready to be used by God to do His will. Sin has to be dealt with first before God can use you. Unless you stop your idolatry you will not enter the kingdom of heaven Patrick.

    Liked by 4 people

  30. I deal with your man-made tradition in my article on Sola Scriptura:

    Sola Scriptura is the Bible ALONE. True Christians do not rely on solely the Bible, as the Bible tells them otherwise. Matthew 4:3-4 does not say anything about the Bible alone being sufficient.

    Please, don’t start telling me that I’m an idolater bud. I worship the Trinity, not the saints.

    Like

  31. Pat, please don’t use the expression “bud” – it’s demeaning. Spaniardviii is a mature man, a Christian husband and father, and deserves respect.

    It’s hard not to jump in here – though you’re addressing Spaniardviii – first, to remind you that simply because you’ve addressed a topic at your blog doesn’t mean that you’ve dealt with it. Also, the verses you’re quoting show that Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God DID rely on Scripture which was sufficient to rebuke Satan.

    Matthew 4:3-4 1599 Geneva Bible
    3 Then came to him the tempter, and said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
    4 But he answering, said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    Liked by 4 people

  32. Revelation 19:13
    13 He wore a robe stained with blood, and His name is the Word of God.

    Point#1-Jesus is only found in holy scripture.

    Point#2-Any other Biblical sources that contradict scripture is to be discarded.

    Point#3-Jesus in the gospels only quoted from scripture and we should do the same.

    Point#4-Jesus defeated Satan through scripture alone, not extra-biblical sources.

    Point#5-Only and I mean only, saving faith is achieved through the hearing of the Word of God, no other sources.

    Point#6-To keep a Christians faith strong is only done through scripture.

    You said-“True Christians do not rely on solely the Bible”

    Sorry man but I truly don’t know how else to say it but that statement is not from God but from the adversary of our souls.

    Jesus said completely the opposite in Matthew 7:24-27 which says, 24 “Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them will be like a sensible man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain fell, the rivers rose, and the winds blew and pounded that house. Yet it didn’t collapse, because its foundation was on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of Mine and doesn’t act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, the rivers rose, the winds blew and pounded that house, and it collapsed. And its collapse was great!”

    Islam, Mormons, and all other cults say the same thing of scripture not being sufficient or that it has been corrupted so they, in turn, grab extra unBiblical sources that take them into a dark path. That’s why they can’t get saved because they have rejected scripture as the only way to truly know the Savior of the world.

    You said-“Matthew 4:3-4 does not say anything about the Bible alone being sufficient.”

    Of course, you say that because the love for God’s Word is non-existing in your heart and shows a rejection of Jesus as your Lord and Savior since Jesus and the scripture are two sides of the same coin. John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13

    In Matthew 4:3-4, I don’t understand how those verses are not clear to you. Jesus plainly said that men should live on every word that comes from the mouth of God…that is the Word of God. The Word of God or scripture which refers to every word in the Bible came from the mouth of God I mean that’s a very basic understanding but how can a person truly grasp the spiritual meaning without the Holy Spirit dwelling in their heart.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. I will not use any demeaning expressions as long as I am not accused of being an idol worshipper. Fair enough.

    Does a manner of dealing with Satan prove the sufficiency of Scripture?

    Like

  34. Okay, Patrick.

    How the Lord dealt with Satan is part of His testimony to the Word of God’s sufficiency for us. Also, in His prayer to the Father He showed that the written Word of God also sanctifies believers. I’ve mentioned this to you before but it is hugely worth repeating:

    John 17
    13 But now I come to You [Father]; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

    So then, the Lord Jesus quoted Scripture when faced with temptation and so should we. He prayed for our sanctification by the Word of God. Romans 10:17 teaches that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, so it brings salvation to us in the Word about Christ. Also, The Bible is full of testimony about itself. Psalm 119 testifies to its perfections (the Lord used this chapter to bring me to Him); Psalm 19 also testifies to its perfections (completeness, sufficiency) and again to its role in conversion:

    “7 The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, and giveth wisdom unto the simple.
    8 The statutes of the Lord are right, and rejoice the heart, the commandment of the Lord is pure, and giveth light unto the eyes.

    The Word of God had to be written down and not trusted to word of mouth transmission. When King Jehoiakim burned the scroll of the prophet Jeremiah, the LORD commanded Jeremiah to dictate it again and so it was preserved.

    How much testimony from Jesus and The Bible do we need before we believe that The Bible is our life? Pat, man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Patrick, by the Word of God I mean the Bible here, and of course the Lord Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Oral tradition isn’t the Word of God. But please if we haven’t shown you the sufficiency of the Bible, we never will – only the Lord by His Spirit can convince and convict you.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. How is oral tradition not the Word of God when the Apostles (in the Bible no less) command us to adhere to oral tradition?

    The Bible came from oral tradition, did it not? The teaching were given orally before they were written down correct?

    Like

  37. Everything found written in the Bible (N.T.) was orally transmitted through the preaching of the Apostles and Paul (even though Paul wrote some of what he preached to the churches in the beginning). In Galatians 1:8-9 Paul said to the church there: 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! 9 As we have said before, I now say again: If anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him!

    We know that the early church not only got God’s Word in written form but also orally but the oral and the written letters which are considered holy scripture cannot contradict each other as seen in Galatians 1. The oral was the same message as the letters written by Paul and the Apostles. Eventually, all that was WRITTEN was gathered up and considered God’s Word. The reason it was written was so that the future generation can have God’s Word since all of the Apostles were dying off at that time.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. No no no, I think you misunderstood my explanation and if I wasn’t clear my apology.

    Oral tradition like you call it, I personally like to call it orally transmitted but anyways, oral tradition was pass down before the N.T. was put together or written. The oral tradition is what you see today as the Bible.

    Basically, the Bible we have today was what the Apostles and Paul preached orally which was written down in paper called the Bible. There’s no other document like scripture that’s also inspired. The Bible alone is God’s Word and apart from it you cannot get what God has said.

    That’s my position as well as what all protestant affirm.

    You cannot be fed spiritually apart from the Bible.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. When it says to keep the tradition I’m assuming you are referring to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which says, Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, either by our message or by our letter.

    All churches (believers) had the same message some in word and others in ink (letters). Eventually, it was all put in paper (the Bible).

    If you connect that verse above with Galatians 1:8 which says, But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him!

    Basically, he is saying to keep the tradition which is the gospel that was presented to them from the beginning from the Apostles and Paul which eventually was written down and the evidence is the Bible we own today. Paul couldn’t have preached something different because he would have been under God’s wrath according to the Greek word anathema which he used in Galatians.

    Here are two verses below that give us an example why the Word of God was written down for us and the New Testament is no different.

    Romans 15:4
    For whatever was written in the past was written for our instruction, so that we may have hope through endurance and through the encouragement from the Scriptures.

    1 Corinthians 10:11
    Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written as a warning to us, on whom the ends of the ages have come.

    I just remembered another one (below).

    Joshua 1:8
    This book of instruction must not depart from your mouth; you are to recite it day and night so that you may carefully observe everything written in it. For then you will prosper and succeed in whatever you do.

    The people before Christ had His written Word to help them seek the Lord and in the same way, today God has preserved for us His written Word so we won’t be lead astray.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. But does the Bible say that all we need is contained in it? And it no where gives authority to anything or anyone besides itself?

    And who is to say that the oral message included some things left out of the written message (in response to your comment on 2 Thessalonians 2:15).

    Like

  41. 1 Corinthians 4:6
    Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the saying: “Nothing beyond what is written.” The purpose is that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over another.

    That passage is very clear that we cannot believe in anything else that’s not written in scripture.

    I don’t know how much more clearer do you want me to get Patrick.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Logical explanation taken from:

    Paul does not mention “scripture” or “the Bible” in this passage. So on a purely literal reading, to not go beyond “what is written” would seem to apply to anything that is not written down – scripture or not. No one takes this view, of course, as the results of doing so would be absurd. Further, the context of Paul’s writings reveals that he almost certainly did not mean the command to apply to just anything. Every time Paul uses the Greek word translated “written” here, he is referring to the Old Testament. This might save us from the absurdity of not believing anything until it is on paper, but limiting it to the Old Testament would mean that 1 Corinthians 4:6 did not apply to itself since it is not in the Old Testament (neither, in fact, is most of the New Testament!).

    Like

  43. Now, while generalizing “what is written” to include both the Old and New Testament writings would avoid the above incoherency, it would be contrary to Paul’s command to “stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2 Thess. 2:15).This verse seems to support anti-sola-scriptura every bit as clearly as 1 Corinthians 4:6 appears (on the surface) to be pro-sola-scriptura. Moreover, this is not the only verse to do so. Paul praises the Corinthians for holding to the traditions just as he had handed them on to them before he wrote 1 Corinthians (i.e., orally – 1 Cor. 11:2) just as he commands the Thessalonians to do concerning the oral teachings he gave them (1 Thess. 2:13 cf. 2 Thess. 3:6). A similar issue arises when we realize that in 1 Cor. 5:9-11 Paul speaks of a prior letter he wrote to the Corinthians that he expected to be taken authoritatively – yet this letter is lost and not part of Scripture.

    Moreover, the idea that everything an apostle taught orally was eventually reduced to writing is itself an extra-biblical idea. And what of the apostles who never wrote any Scripture? Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. What about Jesus himself who left behind no writing – nor any command to write? Matthew 28:20 says that the apostles were to “observe all I have commanded,” but we are told that not all Jesus did and said is in Scripture (Jn. 20:30 and 21:25)! And what of apostolic teachings that seem to have never been written down? The apostle John said, “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3 Jn. 13). Paul said likewise in 1 Thess. 3:10. Paul “proclaimed the entire plan of God” in Ephesus for over at least two years (Acts 20:27), yet his letter to them is only 5 short chapters. What else might he have taught them? In 1 Corinthians itself (11:34) Paul says he has more to teach them but he would do it when he arrived – but we are never told what “these other things” were (and have another lost letter in between 1 and 2 Corinthians that probably contained such material if any of his letters did – 2 Cor. 2:4 cf. 7:8).

    Further, the apostles themselves taught from sources outside the Bible. In Acts 17:28, Paul quotes the writings of a pagan poet. In Acts 7:53 Stephen cites an oral tradition that angels gave Moses the Law – one which Paul also taught in Galatians 3:19. Jude 9 and 14-15 both contain material concerning the archangel Michael and Enoch which is taken from extra-biblical sources. In Ephesians 5:14 Paul seems to quote some authoritative source as saying, “Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you” – but this is found nowhere else in the Bible. Matthew goes beyond “what is written” in the Old Testament when he lists prophetic evidence of Jesus (2:23). Jesus Himself quotes a pagan playwright when he blinded Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:14).

    Finally, the Early Church had to go well beyond “what is written” when they developed orthodox doctrines (often using pagan philosophical terms to explicate their theology), and of course they went completely beyond “what is written” when they determined Canon of Scripture itself!

    Like

  44. Pat, I checked your claim about Acts 26:14, and here is one explanation:

    https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5509/does-the-new-testament-quote-extrabiblical-writers

    “The phrase ‘kick against the pricks’ comes from Aeschylus (525–456 B.C.), Agamemnon, line 1624–or lines 2341 & 2342 at (see Stewart Custer, Witness to Christ, BJU Press, p.164). We do not readily think of the risen Christ quoting a Greek playwright (in Hebrew, no less!), but since Paul’s educational background likely included the study of the ‘Greek classics,’ Jesus used Paul’s familiarity with the work of Aeschylus to reveal to Paul the futility of resisting His grace.”

    We’ve gone far from discussing Tyndale’s martyrdom. I want to return to “Sacred Tradition.” You must defend this, for every time Jesus’ spoke of tradition, He spoke of it as something men clung to instead of obeying His Word, that is, in a rebuke. Defend tradition if you can! The tradition that, for example, enforces celibacy in its priesthood, when Paul taught (God’s Word):

    1 Corinthians 7:2 “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

    If the Church of Rome had walked in the light of this instruction, a lot of heartbreak and sin would have been avoided.

    About The Canon, the word to use would be “recognized” the Canon, not “determined”. “Determined” puts humans above the Lord.

    I truly believe that when Paul speaks of tradition in the Epistles it is evident what he is referring to, not something that was only kept through Tradition.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. I have this 1926 book, The Formation of the New Testament by Edgar Goodspeed, and it gives the history of how our New Testament came to be. It was Catholics (not the Roman Catholics-before their existence) who got the ball rolling and decided that a book needed to be put together for the sake of unity and to expose the cults, thanks, finally, to the Montanists. Prior, the canons were up to the heads of the churches. From John the Apostle to Eusebius, these heads had their canons of their preferred gospels and letters from which to teach their brethren. It was quite a bit more of a process than saying patly, “Who gave you the Bible? The Catholics.”
    https://www.amazon.com/Formation-New-Testament-Edgar-Goodspeed/dp/1258047802

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Patrick said-“Paul does not mention “scripture” or “the Bible” in this passage.” Patrick is referring to 1 Corinthians 4:6

    Oh yes he did, that’s why it’s very important to read it’s full context to understand what Paul meant by “what is written.” In verses 1&2 of 1 Corinthians which says, A person should consider us in this way: as servants of Christ and managers of God’s mysteries. 2 In this regard, it is expected of managers that each one of them be found faithful.

    The phrase God’s mysteries refers to holy scripture according to Matthew 13:11 which says, And He answered and said to them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.

    When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:6 the phrase “Nothing beyond what is written.” it’s very obvious that it is the gospel because he clearly states in 1 Corinthians 2:2 which says, For I didn’t think it was a good idea to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

    And also in 1 Corinthians 1:23 which says, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles.

    So Paul only adheres to holy scripture (the gospel of Jesus Christ) and will not go beyond what is written period.

    Patrick said-“So on a purely literal reading, to not go beyond “what is written” would seem to apply to anything that is not written down – scripture or not. No one takes this view, of course, as the results of doing so would be absurd.”

    The only one who is absurd here with their interpretation is the Catholics who go against what is written.

    In 1 Thess. 2:13 the gospel was considered the Word of God which just means scripture which means the words that came from the mouth of God.

    In Galatians 1:8-9 clearly says that if anyone preaches something contrary to holy scripture (the gospel) he is under God’s wrath. Which the Catholic Church preaches another gospel (goddess and saints worship)

    It’s very clear that the Bible claims of itself not to go beyond of itself in 1 Corinthians 4:6.

    You want to keep your tradition which goes against the Bible so you can worship Mary and pray to dead people (saints) which by the way is a form of witchcraft according to Deuteronomy 18:11 which says, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.

    Without you even knowing it Patrick, if you do pray to dead people like the Catholics do then you are engaging in witchcraft believe it or not. I’m not saying that you pray to dead saints (people) but if you do that’s the implication (something to think about).

    Patrick said-“Every time Paul uses the Greek word translated “written” here, he is referring to the Old Testament.”

    Patrick, your statement is ridiculous because I just proved to you that Paul preached the gospel of Jesus Christ which is considered scripture.

    The reason why you scream tradition is because a lot of the Catholics have weird and demonic teachings that are not in the Bible so you have to try very very hard to say that the Bible agrees with your tradition but you know what’s the funniest part with your false assertions, is that even though you believe in your tradition and claim that the Bible supports it, the scripture doesn’t say what they are so your false Church can make up any unBiblical doctrine and say it’s tradition with no support of its teachings in holy scripture.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Ugh…why do links never show up when I attempt to post a comment? As for that part, Maria, I did not mean to post that. I did attempt to post the link in the first comment. I meant to cut out that part about the “pagan playwright”, as I know nothing about such.

    Like

  48. It didn’t go to my spam file – I don’t know. You have been able to post links here before. By the way, WordPress does have glitches as you’ve seen.

    People have linked Jesus’ words to Aeschylus but it may not be so. I don’t know. It seems strange. For Paul to quote a pagan source in his preaching at Athens – I get that.

    Liked by 1 person

  49. Pat, I’m trying not to ridicule, learning not to, as it gets people nowhere; and also:

    Psalm 1 New American Standard Bible
    BOOK 1


    How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
    Nor stand in the path of sinners,
    Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!

    But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
    And in His law he meditates day and night.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. Answer on Saintly Intercession

    First, it should be made clear that prayer is not always worship. One problem for some Protestants is that when they hear the phrase “prayer to the saints” they incorrectly regard it as synonymous to “worshipping the saints”. This is one of the biggest misunderstandings of the subject.

    The verb “to pray” means “to ask”. It originally held this meaning in old English, and was used in phrases such as “I pray thee, do tell…”. It is originally just another word phrase for “ask”. The usage began to change meaning during the Protestant Revolt. The head of the Church of England did not warm up to the practice of prayer to the saints, and the term became solely associated with prayer to God. As the English monarchy took over many churches and universities of England, this Protestant word usage became the norm among non-Catholics. Catholics however, did not take to the new meaning, and from then till now “prayer to the saints” has strictly meant asking for saintly intercession.

    Secondly, the bible exhorts Christians to constantly pray for one another, and it does not restrict the Christians of Heaven to do so.

    “I beseech you therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God” (Romans 15:30)
    “By all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints: And for me, that speech may be given me, that I may open my mouth with confidence, to make known the mystery of the gospel.” (Ephesians 6:18-19)

    “You helping withal in prayer for us: that for this gift obtained for us, by the means of many persons, thanks may be given by many in our behalf.” (2 Corinthians 1:11)

    And perhaps the most explicit passage on intercession for one another:

    “I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

    Asking the saints in Heaven to pray and intercede for us to God is the same exact concept as asking other Christians on earth to pray for us.

    The saints in Heaven are perfectly suited for interceding for us to God, as they are nearer to Him than we are, and have their attention focused on him. Furthermore, the saints in Heaven are free from earthly distractions, and better yet, are completely free from sin and perfectly sanctified, unlike the people of earth. James 5:16 states that the “prayer of a righteous man is powerful”. Think of how the saints of Heaven are truly righteous, and how this makes their prayer more efficacious than that of Christians on earth.

    The Bible depicts the people of Heaven being aware of our prayers in Revelation 5:8.

    “And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.”

    This passage depicts the saints in Heaven offering our prayers to God. They are very much aware of our petitions and present them to God. Some may argue that the prayers in this passage are not explicitly directed solely to the saints, but to God. Even so, this passage strengthens the fact that the saints are aware of our prayers, even if they are not directed to them.

    But, it is clear that the saints in Heaven are actively interceding for us, as John, in this passage tells us that the saints offered the vials of odours (incense) that are in fact, the prayers of the saints.

    I was once told by a non-Catholic challenger that God forbids any contact with the dead, and this means that we should not pray to the saints. He cited Deuteronomy 18:10-11 as proof of his allegation.

    “Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead.”

    These verses do not condemn contact with the dead, but rather the conjuring of spirits. God is condemning necromancy, not contact with the Heavenly Court. A prime example of what God is condemning is found in 1 Samuel 28:7-25, where King Saul visits the Witch of Endor, imploring her to conjure the spirit of the deceased prophet Samuel.

    Praying to the saints, asking them to pray for us to God has nothing to do with necromancy, the conjuring of spirits. Nowhere does God prohibit contact with his “dead” saints. The saints, when one thinks about it, aren’t exactly just “dead”. They are more alive than we are now. They are in the presence of God, a sanctified, glorious soul. Consider:

    “And as concerning the dead that they rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke to him, saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You therefore do greatly err.” (Mark 12:26-27)

    All the people named in this passage were “dead”(Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), and yet God is their God; the God of the LIVING. The dead saints are all alive and well in Heaven. They are only physically dead.

    God explicitly allowed contact with the dead in Scripture. Consider the scene of the Transfiguration, in Matthew 17:1-5:

    “And after six days Jesus taketh unto him Peter and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart: And he was transfigured before them. And his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow. And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him. And Peter answering, said to Jesus: Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.”

    If God commands us not to have any contact with the dead, then he would not have allowed several of the Apostles to witness apparitions of dead saints.

    The saints themselves are all quite alive and well, and aware of the happenings on earth (to the extent that God allows).

    “And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given to every one of them one; and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants, and their brethren, who are to be slain, even as they, should be filled up.” (Revelation 6:9-11)

    The saints mentioned in Revelation are fully aware of the happenings on earth, concerning those that have wronged them and the Lord. This passage exhibits the fact that the saints are aware of us on earth, and previous passages (Revelation 5:8) have shown that also offer our prayers to God, and that contact with them is most certainly not prohibited (Matthew 17:1-5).

    I’m not entirely certain why asking the saints intercession triggers Protestants the way it does. The saints in Heaven are no less part of the Mystical Body of Christ than Christians like you and me. St. Patrick or St. Peter or St Francis are no less members of the Body of Christ than when they were physically on earth.

    Answer on Sola Scriptura

    It is very interesting to note that in I Timothy 3:15 we see, not the Bible, but the Church – that is, the living community of believers founded upon St. Peter and the Apostles and headed by their successors – called “the pillar and ground of the truth.” Of course, this passage is not meant in any way to diminish the importance of the Bible, but it is intending to show that Jesus Christ did establish an authoritative and teaching Church which was commissioned to teach “all nations.” (Matt. 28:19). Elsewhere this same Church received Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), that He would always be with it (Matt. 28:20), and that He would give it the Holy Spirit to teach it all truth. (John 16:13). To the visible head of His Church, St. Peter, Our Lord said: “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matt. 16:19). It is plainly evident from these passages that Our Lord emphasized the authority of His Church and the role it would have in safeguarding and defining the Deposit of Faith.

    It is also evident from these passages that this same Church would be infallible, for if at any time in its history it would definitively teach error to the Church as a whole in matters of faith or morals – even temporarily – it would cease being this “pillar and ground of the truth.” Since a “ground” or foundation by its very nature is meant to be a permanent support, and since the above-mentioned passages do not allow fro the possibility of the Church ever definitively teaching doctrinal or moral error, the only plausible conclusion is that Our Lord was very deliberate in establishing His Church and that He was referring to its infallibility when He called it the “pillar and ground of the truth.”

    The Protestant, however, has a dilemma here by asserting the Bible to be the sole rule of faith for believers. In what capacity, then, is the Church the “pillar and ground of the truth” if it is not to serve as an infallible authority established by Christ? How can the Church be this “pillar and ground” if it has no tangible, practical ability to serve as an authority in the life of a Christian? The Protestant would effectively deny that the Church is the “pillar and ground of the truth” by denying that the Church has the authority to teach.

    Also, some Protestants understand the term “church” to mean something different from what the Catholic Church understands it to mean. Some Protestants see “the church” as an invisible entity, and for them it refers collectively to all Christian believers around the world who are united by faith in Christ, despite major variations in doctrine and denominational allegiance. Catholics, on the other hand, understand it to mean not only those true believers who are united as Christ’s Mystical Body, but we simultaneously understand it to refer to a visible, historical entity as well, namely, that one – and only that one – organization which can trace its lineage in an unbroken line back to the Apostles themselves: the Catholic Church. It is this Church and this Church alone which was established by Christ and which has maintained an absolute consistency in doctrine throughout its existence, and it is therefore this Church alone which can claim to be that very “pillar and ground of the truth.”

    One historical fact which proves extremely convenient for the Protestant is the fact that the canon of the Bible – the authoritative list of exactly which books are part of inspired Scripture – was not settled and fixed until the end of the 4th century. Until that time, there was much disagreement over which Biblical writings were considered inspired and Apostolic in origin. The Biblical canon varied from place to place: some lists contained books that were later defined as non-canonical, while other lists failed to include books which were later defined as canonical. For example, there were Early Christian writings which were considered by some to be inspired and Apostolic and which were actually read in Christian public worship, but which were later omitted from the New Testament canon. These include The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Didache, among others.

    It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later.

    Once again, there are two fundamental questions for which one cannot provide answers that are consonant with Sola Scriptura: A) Who or what served as the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testament’s canon was identified? B) And if there was a final authority that the Protestant recognizes before the establishment of the canon, on what basis did that authority cease being final once the Bible’s canon was established?

    Like

  51. Your interpretations are not only false but damning. You clearly have rejected holy scripture for your false church’s doctrine. There’s nothing else I can show you in scripture, that what you believe is in error. Continue praying to dead people and worship your gods of idols but as for me and my family we will worship the Lord Jesus Christ and solely pray to the Father in Jesus’ name. I will never bow down or kiss an image, for my heart and soul is dedicated to Jesus alone. Jesus is my love, my heart, my strength and my everything.

    For I worship Him who gave up His life for me and He alone deserves my devotion and worship.

    For you Jesus do I live and hold on to Your Word so that my heart may not go to another but to You alone in Jesus’ name Amen

    I’m done with this discussion Patrick, you have a wonderful weekend.

    Liked by 1 person

  52. Pat, Christians don’t pray to their brothers and sisters who “have fallen asleep” because the Lord did not tell us to. He instructed us to pray to the Father in His Name.

    John 16:23  In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you.

    Catholics can pound away at Scripture Alone forever but it won’t change it. It was revealed to His little flock, true Christians.

    Luke 10
    21 At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 22 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

    How can the Roman Catholic Church be the “pillar and ground of the truth” when the Pope, its head, usurps the Name of God, “Holy Father”?

    Like

Please share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s