Is the Bible the Only Infallible Rule of Faith? (Staples)

The Protestant Case for *Sola Scriptura*

On my left, a man who holds the titles 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, a college of Christian studies, and that's 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 road to the Roman Catholic priesthood.

That's quite a different turn 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 is currently director of Apologetics for St. Joseph Radio and a youth.

Minister here in the Diocese of Orange. Let's welcome Tim Staples. And I'd just like you to give an extra warm welcome to our moderator, Father Hugh Barber. We have the opening statements, 25-minute limit.

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 sort of looking forward to something under 90 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 things. They are important things. They are things that many people in our culture today do not appreciate 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 this 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, then I think both Mr. Staples and I have failed in our tasks before you this evening.

Long ago, a man named Theodoret, one of the early fathers of the church, wrote a book in which he presented a dialogue between an Orthodox believer and one who had been led astray. At one point in the conversation, Theodoret gives us an important truth when he has one of his imaginary disputants utter these words.

The doctrine of the church should be proven, not announced. Therefore, show that the scriptures teach these things. I come this evening in the spirit of this ancient writer, not merely to announce to you some doctrine on my own authority, but to prove the truth of the doctrine of sola scriptura and to show that the scriptures do, in fact, teach their own sufficiency to act as the sole infallible rule of faith of the church.

I contrast my position with that found in the popular Roman Catholic writer, John O 'Brien, who has 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, end quote.

I hope Mr. Staples will tell us if he likewise views 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 sola scriptura, that the scriptures, the God-breathed revelation of the Almighty himself is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church. But unfortunately, many of these debates are marred by the fact that people don't 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 this, that the other position being presented could be described as sola ecclesiae, that the church is the ultimate authority in all things.

But I want you to think as to why I present it in this way. The Roman Catholic position is that the church defines the extent of scripture in the canon. The church tells you what the text means, gives you the guidelines, is that the role of interpretation is reserved to the church.

So what scripture is and what scripture says is ultimately determined by the ecclesiae, the church. And the church also tells you what is and what is not tradition. The church defines this is tradition, this is not tradition.

And then the church tells you what tradition does and does not mean. So if you have an entity that defines the extent of scripture and the meaning of scripture, the extent of tradition and the meaning of tradition, then I would say that entity is in fact your ultimate and final authority, unquestionable.

And that means you have two ultimate authorities being presented to you this evening. Mine is the theanoustos, God-breathed scriptures, the term that Paul uses when he writes to Timothy and says all scripture is theanoustos, God-breathed.

And then you have the assertion that the church is the final authority, that yes, the Bible is God-breathed, Mr. Staples believes that, and I appreciate that, it makes the debate a whole lot easier. And he also believes that tradition, from what he told me on the Bible Answer Man 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, no, that's not what we believe, but I will make this assertion right now, that every argument that is going to be presented to say, no, we don't believe in sola ecclesia, will in fact prove my point.

Now, it is vital to remember this throughout this debate, as we start throwing things around, and as 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 causes a problem, that is an inconsistent argument.

If Mr. Staples, for example, argues that, well, sola scriptura doesn't lead to a unanimity of opinion, and therefore it can't be true, then I'm going to respond, well, sola ecclesia doesn't either. You have all sorts of different opinions.

If the argument used against sola scriptura refutes it, then why doesn't it refute your own position? And you cannot use arguments that would refute your own position against someone else's. Both sides need to keep that in mind.

Now, the doctrine of sola scriptura is really rather straightforward, but in my experience, it is rarely represented accurately in most situations. Sola scriptura, briefly stated, is simply this. Because the scriptures are the only example of God-breathed revelation, the possession of the church, they form the only infallible rule of faith for the church.

In other words, since the Bible is theanustos, God-breathed, as Paul says in 2nd Timothy 3 .16, it provides to us the very voice and speaking of God, just as Jesus taught in Matthew chapter 22, verse 31.

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 says.

It is, by definition, our absolute authority. Sola scriptura denies that there is another infallible rule of faith in the church. There may be other rules that we utilize, subordinate standards, but they are always and must be subject to the correction of the highest authority, that is, scripture.

As Augustine put it, what more shall I teach you than what we read in the Apostle? For holy scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought. 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 dare one agree with Catholic bishops, if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical scriptures of God. Now it's important I think to define what sola scriptura is not.

Sola scriptura is not a denial that God's word has at times been in oral form during those times of inscripturation. The normative situation of the church, which is where we are today, is what we're addressing in regards to sola scriptura.

We do not have revelation coming today. The Roman Catholic agrees, it's not like the Mormons who have an open canon 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?

It is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in leading and guiding the church. In fact it is an integral part of what Protestants 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 sola scriptura is misrepresented by Roman Catholic writers by referring for example to John 21 -25 saying, well there are many things that Jesus did that are not contained in scripture.

That has nothing to do whatsoever with sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not a claim that we have all knowledge. We do not know how the apostles dressed 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 since the doctrine of sola scriptura has never claimed that, it is a misrepresentation to attack it on that basis.

Furthermore, it is not an assertion that we can learn nothing from the generations that have gone before. It is not a claim that we have to go back, as my opponent has alleged in the past, 2 ,000 years and reinvent the wheel with each generation.

We can learn many things from what God has done with his church over the past generations, 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 sola scriptura goes something along these lines. Sola scriptura is the blueprint for anarchy. Look at what has happened. There are 23 ,000 denominations.

Sola scriptura is an utter failure. Well, if sola scriptura 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 sola scriptura says.

You see, the misuse of a sufficient source is not a valid argument against that source. A very good friend of mine recently expressed it 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 the guy says, well, 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 technese and so on and so forth, so you just sort of start putting things together and lo and behold, strange characters start coming out of your printer.

It won't stop and your computer screen is flashing and you've got a problem. And you go back to the people who sold you the computer and they say, well, did you follow the instructions? Well, no, I didn't really read all of that stuff there.

And they take your computer back and they follow the instructions and put everything together and 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 is the sole infallible rule of faith of the church.

There are people who pick up the documents of Vatican II and come up with all sorts of wacky ideas. Does that make the documents of Vatican II somehow bad, insufficient? You see if that argument could be used both ways, it's not a good argument.

Most obviously, sola scriptura 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 apostles, there were those who twisted the scriptures to their own destruction.

Even when the apostles were alive, John had to write against Gnosticism and Docetism. Paul had to write against the Judaizers in Galatia. Certainly no one would argue that these apostles were insufficient as teachers.

And yet the presence of perfectly sufficient teachers did not result in a unanimity of opinion, did it? No, it didn't. Now, historic Protestants have always asserted that there are difficult passages in the Bible.

Things that are hard to understand and that we must apply our minds and our hearts to be diligent students of the word. The scriptures command us 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 a person told me or such a group told me to believe this. In the final judgment that excuse will not work. But as 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. It's better than those dry folks that don't seem to really care too much about what they're talking about. And we'll be animated this evening.

But at one point he said, look, we don't just have a book, we have a living church. Later on he said, we have a man that can walk into a room and say, thus saith God. Now I don't think what Mr. Staples meant was he can give revelation.

But that he can interpret the revelation that has been given. But it's that phrase, we don't just have a book. Mr. Staples, neither do I. Hebrews 4 .12 says the word of God is alive and powerful. It can discern the thoughts and tents of the heart.

It's not just a book. It's God breathed. It's God speaking to us. And in Matthew chapter 22, Jesus holds men accountable for what the scriptures say as if God had spoken those words directly to them. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have an ultimate authority.

Someone who can say, thus saith the Lord, but you don't follow them. You see, Mr. Staples, you made a fallible decision when you chose your ultimate authority. You had choices you could make. The Mormons will offer you an ultimate authority.

Jehovah's Witnesses will offer you an ultimate authority. But it is your decision to choose which of these ultimate authorities 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 that decision for what your ultimate authority is going to be.

I'm very straightforward with what mine is. Mine's the scriptures. And we'll discuss more about what that means as we develop this subject. Well, someone might 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 likes a lot called Surprised by Truth, someone saying that as a Protestant, they were shocked when they first read 1 Timothy 3 .15.

And I was shocked that any Protestant could ever be shocked at 1 Timothy 3 .15. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. There are pillars alongside here. There is hopefully, seemingly since this place has survived a lot of earthquakes, a very good foundation underneath this place this evening.

But what does a pillar and foundation do? It's holding up that roof above you, folks. Aren't you glad it is? The church isn't the truth. The church presents and preaches the truth. A pillar and a foundation holds something else up.

And what does the church do? The church as the obedient bride of Christ listens to the word of Christ that comes to her and that which is theanoustos, that which is God-breathed, the scriptures. She does not replace them.

She does not elevate herself to where she is in control of them, where she defines them. She proclaims them. But only the scriptures are theanoustos. The church is not God-breathed. And Mr. Staples claims that tradition, whatever that might be, and we'll need to get into that, is inspired.

And one of his favorite passages, I've listened to many of his, those of you who are with St. Joseph Catholic Radio, you'll be glad to know that you have someone who listens to you frequently on bike rides out in Phoenix, Arizona, out in the middle of the desert.

One of his favorite passages to prove this point is 2 Thessalonians 2 .15. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

See, it's right there. Hold to the traditions. There you have the two sources. You've got the oral traditions. You've got the written scriptures, Roman Catholicism and its doctrine of authority in all its glory, right?

No. In no way. First of all, note if you have your Bibles 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 to the preaching that he had delivered to them and the letter that he had written to them, which we call 1 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 teachings that are limited to the bishops, but are generally known truths that every person in the church knew and believed.

Hence, 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 of 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.

He's talking about the gospel. Paul taught the Thessalonians what? The gospel. Both in person, as well as by his first letter to the Thessalonians. This can be seen by the fact that the term Paul uses here in 2 Thessalonians 2 .15, when exhorting us to stand firm in these traditions, is used by Paul elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 16, verse 13, when he says to stand firm in the faith.

Paul is not giving us a command here to hold to oral traditions. He is giving us a command to hold to the gospel, which he had preached to them. But as 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. There is a saying from 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 340, between 340 and 350, during the Arian ascendancy after 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 councils that were being held denied it or moderated it or compromised it. But there was this one die-hard guy down there in Alexandria, kicked out of his church five times.

One time by 5 ,000 soldiers coming in the back door while he was going out, going out the other side. His name was Athanasius. At one point in time, and I would like Mr. Staples to address this, at one point in time, if you could put yourself in his context, he stood against the majority, the vast majority, of bishops, priests, monks, and church councils that had ever been held.

But he said, you're all wrong. You're all wrong. Tremendously Protestant thing to do, I would say. Why would Athanasius do that? He's a bishop in the church. Might it be because he taught these words?

Let this then Christ-loving man be our offering to you just for a rudimentary sketch and an outline and a short compass of the faith of Christ and of his divine appearing usward. But you taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to 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 through 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, quote, for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from scripture than from other sources, end quote.

These other sources for him included church councils such as that of Nicaea, which Athanasius defended so strongly. He also said, but since holy scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters to read the divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention and for the sake of which principally I have written these things and then these words, for indeed the holy and God-breathed 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 day and stand for the truth that Jesus Christ is fully God? Because he knew that all the councils on earth and all the bishops on earth could not change God's truth found in his holy word.

That is why Augustine could say, I don't care if all the Catholic bishops agree, if their opinion is against this, don't follow it. And that is what I'm presenting to you this evening. The scriptures are God-breathed.

If Mr. Staples wants to win this debate, it's 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's what he said.

I don't want to misrepresent him. He believes they're God-breathed. We don't have to argue about that part. So we believe the Bible is God-breathed, it's infallible, it's a rule of faith of the church.

All Mr. Staples has to do is show us another theanoustos, God-breathed, infallible rule of faith for the church. But it obviously can't be the church itself, can it? The church can't be her own rule.

There are the issues before you. Keep them in mind clearly. Open your Bibles if you have them, take notes, join with us as we begin this time together of seriously considering.

The sufficiency of God's word. Thank you. And please, if we could, please,.

If we could withhold applause. I would like to thank you all for coming out to our 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. These issues are absolutely crucial and I pray for your undivided attention, not only for myself but also for James. I want you to listen to what he is saying.

In fact, I recommend getting some of his 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 who are being deceived, who are being led away from the most blessed sacrament because of slick arguments, misrepresentations of church fathers as well as sacred scriptures.

So I would like to begin my opening talk. Actually, I took a little turn here because I was a bit taken aback at my opponent's quotation from Saint Athanasius. And this is a great example, folks, of exactly what I warn 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 or shoehorn a doctrine. That's what we cannot do. Let me quote to you from Saint Athanasius and his four letters to Serapion.

My opponent has just presented the novel idea that Saint Athanasius, a Catholic bishop, taught sola scriptura. Let me quote to you Saint Athanasius himself. Yes, Saint Athanasius believed that the scriptures are inspired, they're authoritative, they are a rule of faith.

We believe that as Catholics. But folks, listen, and you be the judge what Saint Athanasius teaches. Listen, these sayings, and this is after Athanasius has gone through a number of scriptures when he is writing against the Arian heresy.

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

Now, if you stopped right there, you'd say, my, my, my, Saint Athanasius believes in sola scriptura. But if I were to do that, I would be dishonest because I would not be presenting to you Saint Athanasius in completion.

Let me read the next line. But beyond these scriptural sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, please, no, please, gave from the beginning was the Lord gave the apostles preached and the fathers kept upon this.

The church is founded and he who should fall away from it should not be a Christian and should no longer be so called. So yes, Saint Athanasius taught the inspiration of scripture as all Catholics do.

Let me quote to you from the documents of Vatican two and set the record straight, what the Catholic church really teaches in day variable. I'll read paragraphs nine and 10 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 towards the same goal. Sacred scripture is the speech of God. There you have it folks. We Catholics believe that the word of God is that open new styles.

It is the word of God. God breathe as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy spirit and tradition transmits 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 faith of the word of God, which is entrusted to the church.

My opponent has just told you that the Roman Catholic church teaches sola ecclesia. 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 he would be quick to correct Pope John Paul the second.

In fact, we do not teach that we teach as I have just read. The scripture is inspired as his tradition. They 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. And I'm going to present to you folks proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's the evening that this in fact is the teaching of sacred scripture. I'm going to demonstrate that solar scripture is not historical.

It is not biblical and it is not reasonable, nor is it workable. Now I could give more quotes where my opponent has taken 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 solar script and not historical, no Christian taught, no Christian taught solar scripture for the first 1300 years of Christianity, but it is also not biblical.

And I will begin in the old Testament. Now, clearly folks, what we see in sacred scripture, and I don't need to go over all of these verses. Mr. White would agree with me. Deuteronomy 4 .2, Deuteronomy 29 .19, Deuteronomy 28 .58, Deuteronomy 13 .1, Joshua 1 .8.

We could 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.

Excuse me if I do get a little animated. 2 Chronicles 12 .5, then Shemiah, and I quote, Shemiah the prophet came to Rehoboam and the commanders of Judah had gathered at Jerusalem and said, thus saith the Lord.

Notice the response. The response isn't, well, you know, it's great that you said that and all, but we got to wait until it's 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 abides forever and it binds all believers, whether it is written down or not. In fact, the majority of, there are a large number of prophets.

We could go through Elijah, Elijah, in fact, Shemiah that I just quoted, who never wrote a lick. Yet the word they spoken was binding on the consciences of believers. And we could go through this litany of scriptures I have for 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's over the scriptures as my opponent has attempted to say the Catholic church teaches, which 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 17, 8 -12. The scripture says very plainly, if you perceive trouble between blood and blood, cause and cause, go to the Bible, get it out and start arguing passages.

Is that what it says? No. It says go to the priest or the judge or the one whom the Lord has placed in authority over you. And notice, he that will not hear the word of the priest or the judge or the one whom the Lord has placed over you will be put to death.

Does that sound like Sola Scriptura to you? Exodus chapter 28 verse 30. We read, in the breast piece of decision you shall put the Urim and Thummim. Now what in the world is Urim and Thummim? Is that something you eat?

The Urim and the Thummim. What is that? This is a scripture talking about the high priest who had the Urim and the Thummim in his breast 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.

Thus 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 23 verses 1 and 2, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, acknowledges this authority that he himself established as God in the Old Testament. In Matthew chapter 23 verses 1 and 2.

And I quote,. Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees what? Sit in the chair of Moses. Where does that come from? Well, the material principle is Exodus 28 30.

We have an authority established as well as Deuteronomy 17. However, this is a tradition preserved in the church that Jesus acknowledges as such. And notice what he says to the apostles. He says, The scribes and Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses.

All things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say, observe and do. Do what they say. That's a commandment to the apostles. But according to their works, do not. I know many of my Protestant friends out there are you're just biting at the bit and you're saying, Man, I can't wait.

I want that question from Matthew chapter 15, where Jesus condemns the traditions of men from the from the same Pharisees and priests, doesn't he? Well, 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 this. We have Catholics in the church, James. We have the same problem they had in the Old Testament. We have Catholics who want to exalt their own teachings, their own traditions with a small t above the traditions of the church.