Is the Bible the Only Infallible Rule of Faith?

And now for the participants tonight. First and foremost on my left, a man who holds the title of a professor, director, author, minister, and when I found out of all the different things that this gentleman does, I thought, when does he have time to eat, to sleep?

Some of the normal things that we do as human beings. He will bring us the Protestant viewpoint tonight. He's a professor at Grand Canyon University College of the Christian Studies in Arizona, director of Alpha and Omega ministries for Christian apologetics and an ordained Baptist minister.

Let's welcome James White and on my right, a gentleman who has really seen both sides of the fence. I guess you could say he went from being a student at Jimmy Swaggart Bible College to being a student on the roads of the Roman Catholic priesthood.

That's a quite a different term there. He will present the Catholic viewpoint tonight. Raised a Baptist and became a youth pastor in the Assemblies of God. He's a convert to Catholicism. He's currently director of apologetics for St. Joseph Radio and a youth minister here in the Diocese of Orange.

Let's welcome Tim Staples. This evening's moderator, Father Hugh Barber, as you may guess, is a Catholic priest, and he too is a convert to Catholicism, coming over from the Episcopal Church. And I do want to ask you, Father, what possessed you to take on for the chores and what possessed you to take this on tonight?

Obedience. Father Barber is going to lead us in an opening prayer, and I just like you to give an extra warm welcome to our moderator, Father Hugh Barber. Let us pray eternal and most merciful Father.

You are true. You can neither deceive nor be deceived. All that you have revealed to us through your son is true. We ask you to hear his prayer, the prayer which the Apostle tells us he ever lives to make in your presence as our great high priest.

Hear the prayer which he makes for us at this hour. In the presence and united to all of the elect. The citizens of heaven who are looking upon us with interest. He prayed, sanctify them in your truth.

Your word is true that they may be one. Grant us, O Heavenly Father, that unity of heart and mind, which is founded upon your word, your word, which stands forever. We ask this grace for ourselves, trusting that surely you hear the prayers of those whose sole desire is to bring their brethren to eternal life.

We ask this prayer as we ask all of our prayers in the name of your son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit. God world without. So we have the opening statement twenty five minute limit, and I told the faithful that I'm going to be a little harder on him because of the obvious suspicion that might arise from my clear theological point of view, but I'd like to reassure Mr. White.

I have a cousin, dear cousin, first cousin who is a Southern Baptist minister, and I was a guest in his home just three short weeks ago in North Carolina, so I could claim the title favoritism on the other side as well.

So now we can begin and trust that everything will move smoothly, according to that providential work of God, which, of course, is what we're all about here. It is good to be with you this evening. I especially want to thank all of you local folks for importing Phoenix weather for me to make me feel very much at home.

You didn't need to do that. I was looking forward to something under ninety degrees, but I'm glad that you're here this evening and I congratulate you on making the good choice. The things that we discussed this evening are eternal thing.

They are important things. There are things that many people in our culture today do not appreciate him and do not take time to think about, and I hope that you will think very, very closely this evening about what is said.

There is very little time, unfortunately, for us to even begin to say what we want to say. You are the judges of the debate. You will need to go from here and do some work. You will need to look up passages.

You may need to do some homework. I challenge you to do so if you do not leave here this evening with things to think about, and I think both Mr. Staples and I have failed in our tasks before you this evening.

Long ago, a man named the other one, the early father of the church, wrote a book in which he presented dialogue between an Orthodox believer and one who had been led astray. At one point, the conversation important truth when you have one of the imaginary disputants under these words, the doctrine of the church should be proven not announced.

Therefore, show that the Scriptures teach the thing. I come this evening in the spirit of the ancient writer, not merely to announce to you some doctrine on my own authority, but to prove the truth of the doctrine of and to show that the Scriptures do, in fact, teach their own sufficiency to act as the sole infallible rule of faith.

The church. I contrast my position with that found in the popular Roman Catholic writer, John O 'Brien, who is written quote, Great as is our reverence for the Bible, reason and experience compel us to say that it alone is not a competent nor a safe guide as to what we are to believe and quote.

I hope Mr. Staples will tell us that he likewise use the Bible as John O 'Brien did in those words. Now, I want you to understand from the very beginning that there are two positions being presented here this evening, not just one.

There are two positions being presented. I believe in full of scriptura that the Scriptures that God breathed revelation of the almighty himself is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church. Unfortunately, many of these debates are marred by the fact that people recognize there are two positions up here this evening, and I am going to assert and prove and know that my friend, Tim, is going to take umbrage to that the other position being presented to be described as sola ecclesia that the church is the ultimate authority in all things, but I want you to think as to why I presented in this way.

The Roman Catholic position is that the church defined the extent of Scripture in the canon. The church tells you what the text means, gives you the guidelines that the role of interpretation is reserved to the church.

So what Scripture is and what Scripture says is ultimately determined by the ecclesia of the church and the church also tells you what is and what is not tradition. The church defined the tradition that is not tradition in the church tells you what tradition does and does not mean.

So if you have an entity that defined the extent of Scripture and the meaning of Scripture, the extent of tradition and the meaning of tradition that I would say that entity is, in fact, your ultimate and final authority unquestionable, and that means you have to ultimate authority being presented to you this evening.

Mine is the they are new stock. God breathed Scripture is the term the Paul uses when he writes the Timothy and says all Scripture is they are not God breathe, and then you have the assertion that the church is the final authority that you have the Bible is God breathed in a disabled believe that I appreciate that it makes the debate a whole lot easier, and he also believe the tradition from what he told me on the Bible and command show just a couple days ago is likewise inspired and yet both are defined and interpreted by one ultimate authority and that is the church and I know that my friend, Mr. Staples is going to try to say, and I know that not only believe, but I will make this assertion right now that every argument is going to be presented to say no, we don't believe in soul Ecclesia will in fact prove my point now.

It is vital to remember that throughout this debate as we start throwing things around and questions come up. It is important to remember that one must remember there are two positions here and an argument that one side uses against the other.

If it is applied to one's own position and cause the problem that is an inconsistent argument. If Mr. Staples, for example, argues that well solicitor doesn't lead to a unanimity of opinion and therefore can't be true, then I'm going to respond.

Well, so like me, it doesn't either. You have all sorts of different opinions. If the argument used used against solicitor refused it, then why doesn't refuse your own position and you cannot use argument to refute your own position against someone else's both sides need to keep that in mind.

Now the document solicitor is really rather straightforward, but in my experience, it is rarely represented accurately in most situations solicitor of briefly stated that because the Scriptures are the only example of God breathed revelation possession of the church.

They formed the only infallible rule of faith for the church. In other words, that the Bible is they are not God breathed, as Paul said in second Timothy three sixteen. It provides to us the very voice and speaking of God, just as Jesus taught in Matthew chapter twenty two verse thirty one God's voice can admit of no higher or equal authority.

It is the ultimate authority in all things for God cannot refer to any higher authority than himself to establish the truthfulness of what he said it is by definition, our absolute authority solicitor denied that there is another infallible rule of faith in the church.

There may be other rules that we utilize subordinate standard, but they are always and must be subject to the correction of the highest authority that is Scripture at the government. What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle for Holy Scripture, the rule for our doctrine left me there to be wiser than we are.

Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the teacher and again elsewhere. He put it this way, neither there won't agree with Catholic bishop, if by chance they are in anything with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.

Now, the important thing to define what solicitor is not solicitor is not a denial that God's word has at times been in oral form during those times of inscription, nor the normative situation of the church, which is where we are today, is what we're addressing regards to solicitor.

We do not have revelation coming today. Roman Catholic agrees it's not like the Mormons who have an open can of Scripture. God has revealed his word now in the situation where God has revealed his word.

What is the ultimate authority for the church is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in leading and guiding the church. In fact, it is a integral part of what Protestant have always believed to emphasize that the Holy Spirit of God must be active in a person's heart to have a proper understanding and a desire to even be obedient to the word of God.

It is not an assertion that the Bible contains all knowledge. Very, very often solicitor is misrepresented by Roman Catholic writers by referring, for example, the John twenty one twenty five saying, well, there are many things that Jesus did that are not contained in Scripture that has nothing to do what the level of solicitor solicitor is not a claim that we have all knowledge.

We do not know how the apostle dress each day we don't know what they ate at each meal. Neither do we need to know the Scriptures are sufficient for particular purposes. They're not an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge and the document of Scripture has never claimed that it is a misrepresentation and to attack it on that basis.

Furthermore, it is not an assertion that we can learn nothing from the generation that have gone before. It is not a claim that we have to go back as my opponent has alleged in the past two thousand years and reinvent the wheel with each generation.

We can learn many things from what God has done with his church over the past generation, but the ultimate authority for every generation is always the Scriptures and never the church. There are also a lot of common misunderstandings about the doctrine that we should dismiss immediately.

For example, I would say the single worst argument against all of the third of something along the line of the blueprint for anarchy. Look at what has happened there. Twenty three thousand positive denominations of solicitor is an utter failure.

Well, if solicitor claimed that by having a sufficient source revelation from God, everybody is going to become sinless, abandon all their traditions, read everything there is in Scripture be fair with it, then that might be a decent argument, but that's not what solicitor said.

You see, the misuse of a sufficient source is not a valid argument against that source. A very good friend of mine recently expressed in this way. Many of you are undoubtedly entering into the computer age, and let's say you got a new printer.

I did just recently, and you're given a printer manual, and I will follow the instructions here and everything will work fine. Well, you're a little impatient. None of you out here. I may be the only one who has this problem.

You're a little impatient, and you don't want to read through that whole thing and read all that technique and so on and so forth. So you just sort of start putting things together, and lo and behold, the strange characters are coming out of the printer won't stop and your computer screen flashing and you've got a problem and you go back to the people of the computer and they say, well, did you follow the instructions?

Well, I know I didn't really didn't really read all of that stuff, and they take your computer back and they follow the instructions and put everything together. It works just fine. Now, is there something wrong with the manual because you didn't follow it?

Of course not. The manual was sufficient for the purpose for which it was designed. The fact that you didn't read it or didn't understand it or were impatient or thought you knew more than the manual could tell you is not the fault of the manual.

In the same way, just because someone says, I believe the Bible and then goes off and teaches some strange thing has nothing to do with the sufficiency of the Bible to lead us to God's truth and.

The function of the soul and follow the rule of faith of the church.

There are people who pick up the documents of Vatican two and come up with all sorts of wacky ideas that make the documents of Vatican two somehow insufficient to see that argument to use both ways. It's not a good argument.

Most obviously, the Torah does not claim that there will be a unanimity of opinion simply because God has given us his word even in the days of the apostle. There were those who twisted the Scriptures, their own destruction even when the apostles were alive.

John had the right against Gnosticism and docetism. Paul had the right against the Judaizers in Galatia. Certainly, no one would argue that the apostles were insufficient teachers, and yet there the presence of perfectly sufficient teachers did not result in unanimity of opinion that it.

Now, historic Protestants have always asserted that there are difficult passages in the Bible, things that are hard to understand and we must apply our minds and our hearts to be diligent students of the word, the Scriptures commandment to do this.

Protestants believe that God will hold each man and woman responsible for his truth. We will not be able to say, well, such and so person told me that such a group told me to believe that the final judgment that excuse will not work, but is just here.

The battle is engaged a few days ago when Mr. Staples and I were on the Bible Answer Man show, Mr. Staples became rather animated at one point, and I'm glad that he believes in what he believes and can become animated better than those dry folks who don't seem to really care too much about what they're talking about and will be animated this evening, but at one point he said, Look, we don't just have a book.

We have a living church and later on he said, We have a man that can walk into a room and say that they have God. I don't think what Mr. Staples, not wanting to revelation, but that he can interpret the revelation that has been given.

But if that phrase we don't just have a book Mr. Staples, neither do I. He was four twelve says the word of God is alive and powerful and discern the thoughts and tense of the heart. It's not just the book.

It's God. We it's God speaking to us and Matthew twenty two chapter twenty two. Jesus holds men accountable for what the Scripture say as if God had spoken those words directly to them. Mormon Jehovah's Witnesses have an ultimate authority.

Someone who did they not say of the Lord, but you don't follow them. You see, Mr. Staples, you made a fallible decision when you chose your ultimate authority. You have choices. You could make the Mormon block you an ultimate authority.

Jehovah's Witnesses will offer you an ultimate authority, but it is your decision to choose which of the ultimate authority you're going to choose, and that is a fallible decision. And for those of you who are seeking for infallible certainty, you can never have more infallible certainty than that choice when you make a decision for what your ultimate authority to be.

I'm very straightforward, but mine is mine. The Scriptures will discuss more about what that means. We develop this subject, so I say yes, but we have the living church. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I remember reading in a book that Mr. Staples like a lot called surprised by truth. Someone saying that as a Protestant, they were shocked when they first read first in the three-fifteen, and I was shocked that he thought that could ever be shot at first in the three-fifteen.

The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. There are pillars alongside here. There's hopefully a seemingly to display to survive a lot of earthquake, a very good foundation underneath this place this evening, but one of the pillar and foundation do it holding up that roof above you both.

Aren't you glad it is the church isn't the truth. The church presents and preaches the truth. A pillar and foundation hold something else up. What does the church do the church as the obedient bride of Christ listens to the word of Christ.

It comes to her and that which is the only thought that which is God read the Scriptures. She does not replace them. She does not elevate herself to where she is in control of them, which he defined them.

He proclaims them, but only the Scriptures are the only thought the church is not God read. Mr. Staples claims the tradition, whatever that might be, and we get into that is inspired by the favorite passages I've listened to many of his those of you who are with a Joseph Catholic radio.

You'll be glad to know that you have someone who listens to you frequently on bike ride down in Phoenix, Arizona, middle of the desert. One of his favorite passages to prove this point of second Thessalonians two fifteen.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the tradition which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. See, it's right there. Hold to the tradition. There you have the two sources.

You've got the oral tradition. You've got the written Scriptures, Roman Catholicism and its doctrine of authority in all its glory right in no way. First of all, note if you have your Bible with you. What is said in the passage.

First of all, there is one body of truth in view here delivered in two ways by preaching and by letter. Remember, Paul had preached the Thessalonians, and he's referring the preaching that he delivered to them and the letter that he had written them, which we call first Thessalonians.

Notice also the entire church, not just the bishop. The entire church at Thessalonica had already been taught these items, these traditions. These are not then teaching that are limited to the bishop, but are generally known truth that every person in the church knew and believed.

And any claim that the oral component contains anything other than what is found in the written component requires the defender of such a position to prove from the writings of the early church itself that these things, these traditions were generally known and believed by the Christian people.

We will see that when we look at the doctrines that have been infallibly and clearly defined by Rome on the basis of tradition that these doctrines are uniformly utterly unknown in the early church. But all of this involves a gross misreading the text in the first place.

Paul is in no way talking about some extra scriptural revelation in this passage. Instead, when we read the passage in its own immediate context, we find he is talking about something much more easily defined than some oral traditions, whatever they might be talking about the gospel.

Paul taught the Thessalonians what the gospel, both in person as well as by his first letter to the Thessalonians. It can be seen by the fact that the term Paul uses here in second Thessalonians two fifteen when exhorting us to stand firm in the tradition is used by Paul elsewhere in first Corinthians chapter sixteen verse thirteen when he says to stand firm in the faith.

Paul is not giving up a command here to hold to oral tradition is giving up a command to hold to the gospel which he had preached to them that my time is fleeting. I want to point out my favorite example from the past.

I teach church history and I like to point out one particular individual. They're the same church history. Athanasius contramundum Athanasius against the world. The great bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, at one point in his life, found himself standing literally against the entire world.

About the year three forty between three forty and three fifty during the Arian ascendancy at the Council of Nicaea, where the Nicene faith that we would all, I would assume here this evening agree with.

The Nicene faith was under attack. In fact, the majority of the bishops in the church and the Council were being held, denied it or moderated it or compromised it. But there is one diehard guy down there in Alexandria kicked out of his church five times, one time by five thousand soldiers come in the back door when he was going out going out the other side of Athanasius.

At one point in time, I would like Mr. Staples to address the one point in time. If you could put yourself yourself in his context, he stood against the majority, the vast majority of bishops, priests, monks and church council that have ever been held.

But he said, you're all wrong. You're all wrong. When the Protestant thing to do. Why would Athanasius do that is a bishop in the church might be because he taught these words. Let this then quite loving man.

They are offering to you just for rudimentary sketch and outline in a short compass of the faith of Christ and of the divine appearing upward, but you taking occasion by this. If you light upon the text of the Scriptures by genuinely applying your mind them, you will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said, for they were spoken and written by God to men who spoke for God rather than finding O 'Brien's idea that Scripture is not a safe guide as to what we are to believe Athanasius said, for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture than from other sources.

These other sources for him included church council, but that might be which Athanasius defended so strong. He also said that since Holy Scripture is of all things most efficient for us, therefore, recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters to read the divine word.

I now hate to the set before you that which most claims attention and the sake of which principally I've written these things and then these words were indeed the holy and God read Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth.

Is that why Athanasius could stand against even the forced retraction and collapse of the bishop of Rome in his bed and stand for the truth that Jesus Christ is fully God, because he knew that all the council on earth and all the bishops on earth could not change God's truth found in his holy word.

That is why I got him to say, I don't care if all the Catholic bishops agree if their opinion against that don't follow it, and that is what I'm going to see the scriptures are God read it. Mr. Staples wants to win the debate is very easy.

The thesis is the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith for the church. He agrees the Scriptures are infallible, right? I believe that one of the one misrepresented. He believed their God breathe you have to argue about that part that we believe the Bible is God breathe infallible in the rule of faith in the church on the disabled have to do is show up another honest off.

God breathed infallible rule of faith for the church, but it obviously can't be the church itself in the church can be her own rule. There the issues before you keep them in mind clearly open your Bible that you have and take notes.

Join with us as we begin this time together of seriously consider the sufficiency of God. Thank you, and we. If we could. If we could. I would like to thank you all for coming out of the discussion. I'm really happy to see so many friendly faces here, but I want to just remind us that the issues that we're talking about this evening are very serious.

We're talking about eternal life and eternal death here. The issues are absolutely crucial, and I pray for your undivided attention on myself, but also for James. I want you to listen to what he is saying.

In fact, I recommend getting some of the books such as the Roman Catholic controversy, and I recommend you read those Catholics to hear the arguments as they are presented from the other side on this issue.

We need to be well-versed, I believe, in the arguments that are coming the other way, because there are many Catholics are being deceived or being led away from the most blessed sacrament because of slick arguments misrepresentation of church fathers as well as sacred scriptures.

So I would like to begin my my my opening talk as I took a little turn here because I was a bit taken aback at my opponent's quotation from St. Athanasius, and this is a great example of exactly what I want my students.

Those of you that are here against that is taking a quote from a father or from Scripture out of context in order to create a shoehorn, a doctrine that we cannot do. Let me quote you from St. Athanasius in his four letters to Serapion.

My opponent is just presented the novel idea that St. Athanasius, a Catholic bishop, taught solus couture. Let me quote to you St. Athanasius himself. Yes, St. Athanasius believed that the Scriptures are inspired.

They're authoritative. They are rule of faith. We believe that as Catholics, but both listen and you be the judge. What St. Athanasius teaches will be saying, and this is after Athanasius is going to a number of Scriptures when he is writing against the Aryan heritage.

These things concerning the Holy Spirit by themselves alone show that in essence, he has nothing in common with or property creatures, but distinct from things originate property and not alien from the Godhead in essence of the sun in virtue of which essence and nature is the Holy Triad.

If you stopped right there, you'd say, my, my, my St. Athanasius believes in solus couture, but if I were to do that, I would be dishonest because I would not be presenting to you St. Athanasius incompletion.

Let me read the next line, but beyond these scriptural saying, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic church from the beginning, which the Lord gave me no please get from the beginning with the Lord gave the apostles and the father's kept upon this.

The church is founded and he should fall away from it should not be a Christian and should no longer be so called. So yes, I think Athanasius taught the inspiration of Scripture as all Catholics do want to quote you from the documents of Vatican two and set the record straight.

What the Catholic church really teaches in day there will not be paragraphs nine and ten for both of them that is Scripture and tradition flowing out of the same wellspring come together in some fashion to form one thing and move toward the same goal.

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God. There you have it, folks. We Catholic believe that the word of God is that open new stuff. It is the word of God. God breathe as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit and tradition transmit in its entirety, the word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ, the Lord and the Holy Spirit sacred tradition and sacred Scripture make up one single sacred deposit of the word of God, which is entrusted to the church.

My opponent has just told you that the route Roman Catholic church teaches solar equation. I am amazed. In fact, I'm convinced that if the Holy Father Pope John Paul the second were to come in here and argue with this guy and say, excuse me, the Catholic church doesn't teach that you would be quick to correct Pope John Paul the second.

In fact, we do not teach that we teach it. I just read the Scriptures inspired and traditionally form one revelation one deposit of faith. The church is not above the Scriptures. That is not true. That is not what we teach, but we do teach the church is the bride of Christ.

She is our mother, and as such, she has authority over the children, just like in the family she has authority over the children to tell them what daddy says that is what the Catholic Church teaches. I'm going to present to you both beyond a shadow of a doubt with the evening that this in fact is the teaching of sacred Scripture.

I'm going to demonstrate that solicitor is not historical. It is not biblical, and it is not reasonable, nor is it workable. I could give more quotes where my opponent is taking fathers out of context, but I will pass for now, but somehow I think we may return to that later, and let me proceed to the second point that is not only a solicitor, not historical, no Christian taught, no Christian taught solicitor for thirteen hundred years of Christianity, but it is also not biblical, and I will begin in the Old Testament.

Clearly, folks, what we see in sacred Scripture, and I don't need to go over all the verses. Mr. White would agree with me. Deuteronomy fourteen three Deuteronomy twenty nine nineteen Deuteronomy twenty eight fifty eight Deuteronomy thirteen one Joshua one eight.

We can go over a litany of Scriptures that demonstrate that the word of God is binding on the consciences of believers in the Old Testament. We agree. However, what we also see in the Old Testament is the orally spoken word of God that is equally as binding on the consciences of believers.

Second Chronicles chapter twelve verse five. Then Shammai and I quote Shammai. The prophet came to Rehoboam and the commanders of Judah had gathered in Jerusalem and said, Thus saith the Lord. Notice the response.

The response is that well, you know, it's great that you said that novel. We have a way to look written down before we obey it. Of course not, and I don't think Mr. White is trying to say that, but what I think Mr. White is misrepresenting is when that word of God is spoken.

It is the word of God. It applies forever, and it's blind all believers, whether it is written down or not. In fact, the majority of their large number of prophets. We could go through Elijah Elijah. In fact, Shammai and that I just quoted never wrote a letter.

Yet the word they spoken word binding on the consciences of believers and we could go through this litany of Scriptures. I have the spoken word of God being equally the word of God. It is just as much the word of God as the written word of God is, but I want to get to my third point in the Old Testament.

We also see a teaching authority, not that Lord over the Scriptures of my opponent has attempted to say the Catholic Church teaches what she does not, but what we see is a magisterium in Old Testament version of a teaching authority that tells the people of God what in fact the word of God and the tradition is Deuteronomy seventeen eight through twelve.

The Scripture said very plainly, if you perceive trouble between blood and blood cause and cause, go to the Bible, get it out and start arguing passages that it says no. It says, go to the priest or the judge or the one in the Lord is placed in authority over you and notice he that will not hear the word of the priest of the judge of the one in the Lord is placed over you will be put to death.

Does that sound like full security. Exodus chapter twenty eight verse thirty. We in the breath of decision you shall put the arm and thumb and what in the world is arm and thumb of the arm and the thumb of what is that this is a Scripture talking about the high priest who had the arm and the thumb of his breath piece of decision as it's called, and what is it there for that they may be over Aaron's heart whenever he enters the presence of the Lord, but he shall always bear the decisions of the Israelites over his heart in the Lord's presence.

He had authority, the high priest to hear from God and to direct the people of God that my friends is what a magisterium is all about, and I want you to notice further that in Matthew twenty three verses one and two Jesus Christ, the son of God acknowledges this authority that he himself established as God in the Old Testament in Matthew chapter twenty three verses one and two, and I quote in Jesus spoke to the multitude of disciples and the Scribes and the Pharisees what sit in the chair of Moses.

What is that come from the material principle of twenty thirty. We have an authority established as well as Deuteronomy seventeen. However, this is a tradition preserved in the church that Jesus acknowledges as such, and that is what he said to the apostles.

He said the Scribes and Pharisees in the chair of Moses, offering therefore whatsoever they shall say observe and do do what they said that the commandment to the apostles, but according to the works do not.

I know many of my Protestant friends out there are you. You're just biting at the bit and then I can't I want that question from Matthew chapter fifteen, where Jesus condemned the tradition of men from the up from the same Pharisees and priest doesn't will notice Jesus makes a distinction that you'll do well to remember tonight because you're going to hear it again.

Jesus makes a distinction between the traditions of men and Catholics. Please remember that we have Catholic in the church. James, we have the same problem. They have the Old Testament. We have Catholic Catholics who want to exalt their own teachings, their own traditions with a small period above the traditions of the church, and that is wrong.

It's always been wrong, always will be, but notice Jesus does not condemn all tradition. He doesn't even condemn all tradition that purports to be coming from God. He condemns the traditions of men that purport to come from God, but here he acknowledges the tradition of the Old Testament church when it is spoken authoritatively from the chair of Moses in John chapter eleven verses forty seven to fifty two.

Please read the verses. If you're Protestant here, if you're Catholic, please read the verses John chapter eleven verses forty seven to fifty two. We are present at the Council of the Pharisees and priests who were gathered to decide how they were going to get rid of Jesus, and when they were gathered, Caiaphas being the high priest.