The Roman Catholic Controversy Part 9

The Scope of *Sola Scriptura* and the Reformed View of Tradition

So we left off kind of in the middle of, I really don't know if things to talk about or if we'll have time to go over chapter eight before we leave, this is late. Now, just to recap where we've been, we're all in a kind of extended conversation on the merits of solus scriptura.

Nowhere in the Bible are you gonna find that phrase, solus scriptura. Does that make sense?

Nowhere else does it point to any source of information, and it's the very words of God. Right. Is this a problem there, because we don't have the word treaty in the Bible?

Right, no. Now, there are a lot of people who would say that that's a problem. Do you know what position that's called, people who deny any doctrine that's almost violated, that's not specifically spelled out in scripture?

It starts with B. Biblicist. Now, biblicist sounds kind of funny. It's like a publicist or something. Biblicist is someone who wrongly believes the notion that if it's not word for word spelled out in the Bible, then you don't accept it.

But if all of a sudden you have to find the word biblicist, then I believe that you're right. And so, just on the alternate periods and phases, it kind of falls flat immediately. But it's an interesting notion.

Jehovah's Witnesses, don't use that term, for instance, a biblicist. But they essentially are a biblicist, it would be great, because they claim to adhere strictly to the Bible. They say that, but they don't believe in anything that's not specifically spelled out in the Bible.

So, I believe in the trinity. This is why I don't believe in certain things. But they don't believe in other weird things, like in Jesus' return, that there's been a forelocking, even though that's not spelled out in the Bible.

But groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and others who are biblicists, will say, if it's not spelled out in scripture, then it shouldn't have that distinction. However, thanks to our reformed background and our reformed tradition, and the way in which that's turned into tradition, we do adhere to something called the soul scripture, lack of reform.

Well, scripture alone, right?

So, we believe in the authority of scripture alone. So, when we talk about soul scripture, understand how we're framing that discussion. We're framing it in this way. Scripture alone is our final authority for all things related to faith practice.

Which means that we don't have posts and councils which determine things that are extra-biblical, that are afforded at least in the same way as scripture is. Scripture always is present over all other forms of tradition.

The way we ourselves do adhere to certain traditions. We adhere to the 689 Confession, that same reformed tradition. We do certain things in our liturgy that are a form of tradition. Think about pointing out our tradition in our church, maybe.

Maybe in our liturgy. Remember that the word liturgy means an order of service. Maybe point out to the liturgy, or our tradition in our liturgy in particular. The word of soul is a tradition. We do it every week.

The word of church doesn't necessarily give us a positive plan to do what we've got to do. I'd say it's a lie. There's no positive plan that we necessarily do every week. We have five psalms.

I find them every time. Less psalms, more preaching.

And they keep saying more psalms. So you want more psalms or less psalms? I want less psalms. Less psalms. You don't like to sing, that's why. But making noise in the church is important. But there's no weird description as to whether it's five psalms or four psalms or three psalms or two psalms, right?

Can I correct you on a joke? What if it's only the two psalms? What if it's only the two psalms? But we are singing people. We are joyful, joy-making people. So I don't mind having more than two psalms.

But that's true. There's no more tradition. There's no more tradition. Unless you point out anywhere else in our liturgy or church that you see a tradition being, that is specifically spelled out as a tradition.

Clothed with meditations. All the principles are kind of clothed with some form of meditations. So it's not necessarily a, it's not a long-windedly, regular, positive command that you have to do. So really, the whole service, the whole service is a call for tradition.

Because in the scripture, it gives us, so one of the things about the writing of Episcopal worship, which we're here to, is that there are positive commands that are kind of overarching. So for instance, public reading of scripture, prayer, spiritual salvation is first human order, okay?

It's sort of kind of the positive commands that we're told to do, or we're not told to do in any certain order.

Well, Sunday school started as a regular school for the minors' children in Welsh, and developed into our Sunday school. There you go.

Very good. Sunday school is another kind of tradition. So it's not something that is positively commanded in the scripture. But again, the elements are there. So why don't we talk about this? We're bringing this up in the context that tradition itself is not a, necessarily, that part of the Reformed tradition, in fact, dictates that we do certain things, and include certain elements in our worship.

But where do those traditions derive from? Do they receive their source from? I would argue, of course, it would be the scriptures. I can just indicate to you the positive commands of scripture in regard to regular worship.

These things that we have to have, these elements. But then there's tradition, which gives us flexibility on how we order and structure in such a positive way. So for instance, we go to the 169 Baptist Church, elsewhere in the country, it's gonna be a little bit different.

And when we think about our churches, and we've had folks from different churches. We just had Kevin, who was here for several months working kind of on, I think it was Apples, he was doing a temporary assignment here.

But his church in Texas is a Reformed 169 church, too. And he was remarking to me how, you know, we're very similar, yet we do things a little bit differently. And that's to be expected when you have even very similar cultures of churches, like we share with others.

There should be some differences, right? Which is to show you again that there's a flexibility in the way of how we interpret the positive commands of regular worship, right? As long as you have these elements, that's what really matters.

Everything else is tradition, how we order and structure such things. So we don't wanna have a logic reaction to tradition from first day to once you've had it in its right place, right?

There are bad traditions, like the altar call.

Certainly, we can argue that there are lots of traditions that are not biblical that should be steered away from. Altar calls may be a concern in one of them, and I would agree with that. Although I would argue that there's probably a good way of doing it, but it's usually ignored, and particularly amongst charismatic and baptist circles.

There are a lot of baptists who do altar calls, for instance, but it's usually the SCC. And the reason that, ever since its own results, and I've seen, and I've been a part of the SCC for seven years, I remember most pastors just want that number of these concerns to be handled right.

And so we had 17 people who raised their hand in church and gave the hearts of the Lord to them. There's 25 people at the youth group at this meeting. It's really, there's no follow-up. There's no discipleship, 17 lives, we're recording them, and that's it.

And there's usually very little follow-up. It's just easy believism, and I think that meets a lot of bad things. But I also don't think it's unbearable to press someone to a decision. I think that we should be pressing people, as evangelists, preachers, Christians, we ought to be pressing, not trusting, but pressing for a decision for the Lord Jesus Christ, which is what Romans 10 talks about, that was present at the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ, when He had not yet come to God, and it's written in Deuteronomy, say, you wanna help confirm that positive response in faith, that confession of love and belief in the heart.

And so, I think there's probably a good way for people to call this, 99 of people don't do it. So, and I wouldn't call it, I wouldn't call it either. Call it, I'm a surrenderer. I'm an idiot and surrenderer on the Lord of Jesus.

So, we talk about this in the context, again, of tradition, and social return. Social return does not say that we cannot have tradition. It's not the exclusion of tradition. It's just filtering tradition through the blood of the scripture, you understand?

So, we're not anti-tradition, because then we'd be pretty critical, and then we'd answer ourselves at 6 a .m. in church. You know, that's the tradition. How we learn the structure of our service is really all interpretive tradition.

There's nothing wrong with those things. So, then, what gives us the right to look at the Roman Catholics and say, hey, your tradition's not bad. Our traditions are good. What gives us that right? Or do we have that right?

The Limits of Roman Catholic Tradition: Pope, Purgatory, and the Rosary

Yes. Say again? They go way beyond what is written. I like how you brought that phrase from last week. Do not go beyond what is written, 1 Corinthians chapter four, right? And they go far beyond, not just a little bit.

You know, Christians, we always take liberty. Christians take a lot of liberty. Too much liberty, I would say. But Christians take a lot of liberty in things that are kind of ambiguous in scripture. So, where there's an ambiguity in scripture, most people will take an inch here and an inch there.

But every kind of church, when there's an ambiguity, they build a model. A perfect example of that would be what? What would be an example of a kind of church taking something that's ambiguous in scripture and making a model of it?

The Pope. The Pope. The Pope. That's a perfect example. Are there any popes in scripture? They are, you see, Peter was one, but you're not gonna find that narrative in any kind of doctrine in Holy Scripture itself.

That's gonna be derived from church tradition that comes far after the second century, after that. Give me another example. My favorite example, so to speak. Purgatory. Purgatory in the scriptures. If you study the doctrine of purgatory in the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholics only had a well-defined doctrine of purgatory for the last 100 years.

You don't realize that. Most of Roman Catholic history, purgatory, as you can see, has developed over centuries in how it kind of arose from some interesting means in history, for instance, really extended all the way back to infants dying in Catholicism, and then what do we do with those who have to have medial sins, what do we do with people who have certain types of, essentially, it really just evolves over time.

From the 11th century to the 14th century, you really see the idea of purgatory taking shape, and that all comes from a very ambiguous verse of scripture. One of the things in the scripture is actually from Baptist love, and then you have another one in Luke 16 when Jesus talks about this place called Gazies, and it tickles two verses, and they say, okay, we don't really know how to understand this stuff.

It's really, really stretching, and we're in this huge, new compartment of the afterlife to place all these people in there so that, if you'd ask me, it's actually in Luke 16, because the Roman Catholic Church profited hugely from purgatory, because they were able to sell indulgences, which should be the only time.

One of the things that Roman Luther refused to work out in church for was their settlement of indulgences, so that people who were supposed to be in purgatory could come out of purgatory, and the Roman Catholic Church had made so much money from it.

They still, don't think this is something that's happening to people all the time. They're still making lots of money with indulgences and with this constant purgatory. They're really money-making that amount of option for them, but it doesn't have any basis whatsoever in scripture.

So, here's an example where they take something that's ambiguous in scripture, and they take a lie about it, and it returns into something that really just has no basis in scripture.

Yes, yes. Well, I think in a transubstantiation, but the rosary, where does that come from? Where's the what come from? Rosary.

Rosary, okay, rosary. Has anyone ever used a rosary before? I'm a Catholic. You serve rosary, how many beads does it have? I can't remember. You can't remember? You don't remember how many beads a rosary has?

Everything? No, there's a particular amount of beads that it has. Let me make sure I get this right. I think that should be like around 60. All right, there are 59 beads in the rosary. Okay, thank you.

And do you know why there's 59? There are some that have smaller beads. There's ones that have 50 degrees, but it's usually about 59. Anyone know why there's 59 beads?

The 10 times that you, five 10 times that you have to pray the Hail Mary. That's right, that's right. And then the five times that you have to pray the.

Yeah, so it's a reminder of how many times you have to pray. And part of it is because you have to, it's essential to remember, the Roman Catholicism teaches justification by words. It's a words-based religion.

And so you have to have a certain amount of prayers in a day in order to fulfill your obligations. Where does that come from in Scripture? That's right, don't worry. It's not in the Bible. These are all based upon really negative.

If you look at the ancient pagan religions of the Romero era, you'll find that groceries were a thing that they would use. And some of them would be dedicated to Jupiter, some of them would be dedicated to other gods and deities, and they would be reminders of penance that you had to do.

Back in the time of Christ in the Roman world, there were altars set up everywhere. Every public square had altars set up to certain gods. And you'd have to go there and bow before the statue and do a form of grocery prayer.

And what the Roman Catholics do today, they will go before statues and do the same thing, grocery prayers. These are all ancient paganism. So there's no basis for it in Scripture whatsoever. And it really demonstrates that much of Roman Catholicism today is borrowed from ancient paganism.

There are so many things that they do that have no resemblance of biblical Christianity, but actually in fact, comes from an ancient pagan worldview. So pretty interesting stuff. There's a lot of examples of that, not just some of the groceries, not just some of the outward practices, even when it comes to things like vacancy and the roles of the pope and even the garments of the pope, all set in front of ancient paganism as well.

So, yeah, any other thoughts or questions out there?

Mariology and the Misreading of Revelation 12

Yeah. Yeah. How about how they treat Mary?

Yeah, so Mary worship, or Mariology, that's also very pagan. In the ancient pagan world, we had a lot of goddesses, like Iris, Isis. We had goddesses that were essentially mother deities, and they'd have a maternal deity, and then you'd have the maternal son, and then Horus, the Isis sibling, and then the Egyptian mythology, and then the worship and veneration of Mary very much shares that same name of ancient paganism.

So pretty much all the major ancient pagan religions had what was called a matriarch, a matriarchal deity, which was a primary female mother type deity who nurtures a son, and that relationship, usually, always was a strong political point.

It was really not a church deity, though they obviously looked at Christ, and they rightly believed that Saul was the successor of Jesus as God, coming to be a flesh, that was correct. But then they'd make the error and say that Jesus' mother, Mary, is now the mother of God.

Therefore, she takes upon herself a deification, or a personification of the ancient pagan deities that came before her. So they really become enmeshed together. The Mariology really takes a turn and becomes something totally unbiblical, that Mary herself never desired nor should she know what she'd want.

So she rightly believes, the Christ thought not that she was a deity to herself. I was actually speaking to her in the conference last week. We were talking about this issue of Mariology, actually. And she pointed out to me Revelation 12.

She said, no, Mary's really important. She's a matriarch of heaven, because in Revelation 12, she is inherent, and she is decked out with a crown, and she's basically, she's, in a sense, a goddess. And she came to that conclusion based upon Revelation 12.

Does anyone know Revelation 12? Kafka talks about it. Revelation 12 starts with a vision of heaven, where you have this woman who is just dazzling, and beautiful, and from her comes a man-child, for her father, right?

She's Ithiel, and then she's got the 12 stars,.

And then she has a man-child, and then the serpent tries to get the child, and the child goes into the wilderness, and the man's arrested, and then he's taken out to heaven. So those first six verses of Revelation 12.

So they interpreted that sort of right. They didn't say that's scary. Here's my interpretation of that. One day, hopefully, I'd love to share my whole series of Revelation with you guys. Revelation 12 is actually, there's three, it's an analogy of three persons or offices or those things.

It's a picture of biblical Israel, so faithful Israel. Romans 9 says, Romans 9, 5 talks about how it was patriarchs of Israel that Christ came forth. So it's a picture of Israel, but then that will get sent away as the 12 stars, representing elsewhere in the world in relation to the four tribes of Israel.

It's also a representation of Eve, okay? Going back to the garden in Revelation chapter three, where Eve was the one who was promised that Hersey would trust as her servant, who's the main child fighting against in Revelation 12, it's her servant.

This was pointing to Eve. It's also pointing to Mary. Well, obviously, Mary is the one who literally gave her birth to Jesus. But it's not like this is Mary somehow glorified in Heaven. This is not talking about a heavily glorification of God.

Rather, it's looking at the fulfillment of the promise made in Genesis, and that this woman is really a representation of God's kingdom, that God's kingdom referred to earthly and heavenly is the one who brings forth Jesus Christ.

He's the king of God's kingdom. And so a little bit in Revelation 12 is a picture of God's kingdom. How do we know this? Because elsewhere in Revelation, we see that Jerusalem, the heavenly bride of Christ, is also described by a manner in Revelation 12, in Numbers 1 -12.

So it's really talking about the people of God's church, Old and New Testament church, that woman is what brings forth Christ. And so that would be a more homogeneous interpretation of Revelation 12 than saying, no, that's Mary, and she's the God of heaven.

That's a pretty big stretch. And so I was talking to her in Catholic about that just last week, which is a really appropriate timing. So in the context of the Sola Scriptura, again, we're kind of in the chapters, chapter six, where he broke up, page 95.

And then we'll look at the scriptural argument that's presented here. But it's also cited to defend the Roman Catholic dogma of sacred tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 15. So what he does here is, in page 96, he goes, he reads the proceeding verses, chapter two, verses 15.

So we're gonna read that in there, page 96. We should always give thanks to God, based upon our first Thessalonians, chapter two, starting with verse 15. We should always give thanks to God for you, brethren, beloved one of the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning, for salvation, through sanctification, by the Spirit, and faith in the truth.

It was for this he called you, for our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm, hold to the traditions which you taught, whether by word, or by mouth, or by letter, or from us.

So there is a text of the Roman Catholic saying, hey, sacred tradition. It says, hold firm to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by mouth, or by letter, or from us. So you have the great word, then you have the verbal word, things that were written down, that were passed down from the apostles.

There you have the Constantinian sacred tradition. Kind of compelling on the outside, on the outside, right? Okay, there's a good point there. There's clearly things that were said that were not written.

Do we, and if we have that, if it goes in Constantin, then those who've been waiting will know nothing. If we knew the apostle Paul, or the apostle Peter, or James, Timothy, or David's church or tradition, would we not want to follow in that same vein?

So the reasoning there is not, quote-unquote, awful, it's actually pretty compelling on the outside. But what about the context of that verse helps us kind of maybe look at things a little differently?

What does this context of that verse point to in the end?

It's referring to, when they're saying, either by word or by mouth, does that mean that not all of the New Testament was written down yet?

Well, clearly, the rest of the New Testament was completely written down, because Paul dies around 64 A .D., and you have letters that come after him. Some, I think, Peter might be after Paul's letters, but definitely John's epistles, definitely relations, which of all things are written after Paul's demise in the year 62 to 64.

Yes?

In the middle, he's talking about, talking about the gospel, that he's calling to our gospel. They've only heard the gospel via words, because it's not been written down, like he mentioned, the gospels themselves, and they came after the letters.

They've only heard the gospel. That's right. That's right. You know, what he points out here is that the underlying assumption of Harvard is that the oral tradition of some level differ separate from the written tradition.

That's a really important thing to note. The assumption that there's gonna be two separate, you know, that Paul's gonna say one thing, right from the ear, is gonna say something totally different on the ear through the verbal witness.

That would be an incorrect assumption, and so the interpreter makes this, and of course, as Paul is writing this, the New Testament canon isn't yet complete. Paul himself wrote letters after Thessalonians, and so clearly, there's gonna be an element of verbal communication, but there's also a wrong assumption that the Roman Catholics make, is that they assume that the traditions that they have come directly from this New Testament witness, and that the verbal proof to prove that is very difficult, because how are you gonna prove that Paul taught verbally?

You can't. How are you gonna prove that Peter had a high view of Mary, where she should be exalted in the matrix of heaven? You're not gonna find that, so there's so many assumptions that are made in the sacred tradition view that just isn't tenable, and ultimately, because we don't have a recording, a voice recording of Paul, Peter, John, on certain things, these things are mostly been lost in time, so what do we have left?

What do we have left? It's scripture. Scripture is a sufficient witness, then, to determine all things in a certain way, like in practice, and we should not hold to a view where tradition becomes a part, or where verbal tradition becomes a part.

Why? Because it is so easy to tamper with, because we don't have the voice recording. We don't have that impartation. We have to assume that the church has been a good steward of these traditions, and we know when we look at the history of Catholicism, these are the people who burned people at the stake for having the Bible, not the place I want to go for the authority on the traditions of the church.

Let's just keep it real. Is that where you want to go, is the people who burned Christians alive? You know, the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for more martyrs than any other organization on the face of the earth.

More Christians have died as a result of the Roman Catholic Church than any other institution, so think about that for a moment, throughout the history. So clearly, we don't want to misinterpret what Paul's saying here as to say that there's another vein of tradition that is as weighty or authoritative as Scripture, because notice again what he's saying here, if we were to read that verse, we should always give thanks to God for you, brother, beloved brother of the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

What truth? Faith in what truth? Faith in the Gospel truth, faith in the Scriptural witness. Notice that when even Paul talks about the Gospel elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 13, he says that Christ, and it's fascinating what Paul does in 1 Corinthians 13, verses one to four, when he lays out his Gospel, he says, for according to the Scriptures, Christ died.

He was buried and he arose again according to the what? Scriptures. So what was he pointing to? He wasn't pointing to just a verbal message of the Gospel, which was the prevailing, obviously, form of communication at the time, prior to the writing of the New Testament, but rather he points to the Scriptures as the foundation, not just the eyewitnesses, because that eyewitness testimony comes after that fact that he says there were 500 eyewitnesses at one time, but he says, well, even the eyewitness accounts, the verbal accounts, is the Scriptural account.

That's the whole Scriptural. Christ died according to the Scriptures. Buried, arose again, according to the Scriptures. That's his Gospel, okay?

Yes. Doesn't the Scriptures at that point refer to the Old Testament? Yes. And in fact, this letter wasn't considered Scripture, and that isn't the whole Bible a tradition?

You said that letter wasn't considered Scripture?

Well, in the terms that the Bible wasn't,.

Said this is Scripture, until Mike Lee viewed Peter, he said Peter talked about Paul. He says, when he take Paul's words, he basically misinterpreted them as he viewed the rest of the Scriptures. He equates Paul's letters with the Scriptures.

So the New Testament writers, Paul, Lee, and Luther, Peter talked about it, Paul talks about it, said Peter. John writes about the truth of the lives of us. He is, in 1 John chapter one, that the word that was spoken, the word which was not given you, given you, also the New Testament work, these are all indications that the New Testament writers themselves viewed the order of the generations.

Also, was he referring to the prophetic, because didn't Paul go and argue with the Jewish, saying that, you know, this is how the Messiah was supposed to die, like maybe Isaiah 53, or something. He was taking the Old Testament and showing that this is the Christ.

Correct.

Acts chapter 17, where he reads the Scriptures, that Jesus was raised from the dead. And so again, the Scriptures were the primary authority that Paul was appealing to, that the New Testament writers were appealing to.

And when they even appealed to their own writings, you know, their opinion of the Scripture, they knew that they were under the inspiration of the Spirit for the development of the Scripture. Which is why he even uses the word here, to hold firm to that which they received, even by letter.

Why hold firm to that? Because it is Scripture. He says he called, it was, where he was firm was for this, that he called you through our Gospel. Again, the idea of the Gospel, having its basis back in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, is according to the Scriptures.

The Scriptures were the authority. And in fact, by that, excuse me, by that statement in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul's totally pointing to the Old Testament, primarily as the source, but also the New Testament writings.

And the tricky part about it is that Paul was likely the first New Testament writer, by all accounts. And 1 Corinthians was about maybe the second letter. So pretty early on, we have, I would actually argue that Luke's Gospel, well that probably, that Mark and Luke were written before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.

My argument for that would be, and it's a very long argument, because most people, scholars, would put Paul's writings in the 50s, late 40s, early 50s, and then they would put the Gospels, all the Gospels, around 70 to 90.

I would say that's ridiculous, that's totally wrong. And I would say, I would actually take the Gospels to around the same time Paul's writing the letters. The reason for that is because Luke, well Paul quotes from the Gospels to Luke verbatim, but you didn't know that.

1 Corinthians chapter 11, when he talked about the Lord's Supper. And he says, for that which I give to you, for that which I receive, and then he quotes the Lord's Supper, it's an exact quotation from Luke chapter 26.

Exact, word for word. It's a word for word quotation. So the Greek word there for receive, gives the connotation of receiving a book. They received some construction, something that's worth it. And so, I would say that that's my indication that, and then the fact that Luke and Paul knew each other, is a huge indication of that.

Luke wrote, so we can see kind of a second Thessalonians, this was for second Thessalonians, yeah, second Thessalonians chapter two. Luke doesn't teach sacred tradition as where we have a church would like it to be.

But instead, it's really teaching to hold firm to the instruction, the witness of the apostles as in either verbally or in a scripture. And it obviously will appear verbally but it will come to an ultimate in writing.

Which is why Paul's very concerned with this with the Corinthians, for instance, and he tells them, again, don't go beyond the things that are written. Because if you do, you're outside the scope. You're outside the scope.

So everything that's given verbally would only affirm that which is written, or written scripturally, right? So you wouldn't have two competing structures or lines of inspiration. These things would be fully accepted and comprehended within the bounds that we have here in the New Testament scripture.

Oh, yes, and there is a reference here in this very, in page 972, the thing I just spoke about in terms of the book of Ephesians 11. For I received from the Lord that which I deliver to you, the Lord Jesus, the night in which he was portrayed as the bread.

And that's a direct quotation from the book of Ephesians. Absolutely. And the phrase, and he uses that idea that I just spoke of here, interestingly enough, in a very different fashion. The phrase delivered to you speaks of the passing on a tradition, in this case, the words of the Lord Jesus are of the Last Supper.

Now, if you look more into that word, that phrase that's used in the New Testament, the delivering, part of it is the delivering of a letter. It's the delivering of a book. And so I will say, I don't think James Barber would agree with me.

Maybe he would now, but he's more of a preterist than he was before. But certainly, I would argue that that's not just a verbal tradition, but it's actually the handing down of Scripture through the New Testament.

So I put Luke, written probably late 40s, early 50s, which is around the time I would call the right first phrase, which is around somewhere between 29 and 52. That's pretty right, first phrase is. So, any thoughts or questions so far?

Pretty interesting stuff, huh? Yeah, one day I'd like to go more deeper into the New Testament why the New, the whole New Testament was written before 70. I, most people believe that the New Testament was written to be late 40s, early 50s.

Late 40s, early 50s. Do we know what was the first letter of Paul wrote? I would guess. 50th? I'm not sure if you're wrong. I'm not sure if you're wrong. 50G. Galatians. Galatians. Galatians. His first letter that he wrote, and then most likely for 1 Corinthians, and then the Lord version, so, yeah.

When you say most people believe, the Gospels are between 70 and 90, who are the most Christian, the most secular scholars? Scholars. Scholars, so, and most Christians by virtue. So one of the weird experiences is that we don't have like, datings on the New Testament books.

We don't have the witness, and this is where tradition comes in. We have tradition which kind of tells us when the scripture was written. But I would say that there's two ways in which you can come to a dating with the New Testament writing.

One is the eternal witness of scripture itself, which I would say is mostly my way to go about it. Then there's the critical scholastic way of approaching the writing of scripture, which would be to look at some of the other historical events and try to pinpoint time, and also part of dating some of the namescripts that we have.

So we only have about two fragments of first century namescripts, you know that? We have two fragments. Now, a fragment is not a namescript, it's actually just a piece, right? A piece of the scripture.

This piece of New Testament we have is actually from the Gospel of John. It dates from around 94, 94 AD. This little piece, I think it's from John chapter 16, actually, really interesting. Little piece of the Bible.

Now, that all, that is what tells me that John was reserved way earlier, because most people would put John right around 90 to 96, and the fact that we have a fragment from 96 itself that's dated around 96 tells me that John's Gospel's far younger, or far sooner than that time frame.

And so this scholastic way of approaching it is saying, well, it's what's called the critical approach. The critical approach being that, well, we're not gonna take the New Testament to Faith Valley, because they were, they embellished and did all these things.

So that would be one philosophy, my philosophy on scriptural authority, scripture's true, scripture's visionary, let the eternal witness of scripture dictate when these things were written. I'll give you an example, some of the Revelation, multiple books of Revelation around around 70, no, I'm sorry, 96 AD.