1. Defending Sola Scriptura: a practical example
Matthew Cserhati
Sunday school, February 3, 2019
Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church

2. QUIZ What does the sign of the beast mean?
What does the word antichrist mean?
Who are the 144,000?
How does Revelation connect to Genesis (chapters )?

3. Joel Peters, 21 reasons to reject Sola Scriptura
-Joel Peters, M.A.,
St. Joseph regional high school, Montvale, NJ
-Writer for Catholic Answers Net (CAN)

4. Peters on Sola Scriptura
The Bible – as interpreted by the individual believer – is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian’s sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. By this doctrine, which is one of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism, a Protestant denies that there is any other source of religious authority or divine Revelation to humanity.

5. Sola Scriptura
The entire Bible alone, and not our own or anyone else’s human interpretation of it, illuminated to us by the Holy Spirit is the sole highest divine authority in defining truth for all people in New Testament times in all subject matter
Bible
Science, medicine
Tradition, church

6. Peters’ definition of authority
The immediate or direct rule of faith is the teachings of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as “Tradition”. The teaching authority or “Magisterium” of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope), although not itself a source of divine Revelation, nevertheless has a God–given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian doctrine, the Christian’s remote or indirect rule of faith.

7. s
Hello Dr. Peters,
I got a copy of your tract 21 reasons not to believe sola Scriptura. I have a question for you: can you cite anything from oral tradition?
Thanks, Matthew Cserhati
Hello Matthew,
I am not clear on what you are asking. You want an example of oral tradition in terms of what?
Peace,
Joel S. Peters

8. So the apostles and Jesus supposedly preached before the Scriptures were written down. There was a great body of oral tradition out there. I'm not looking for a precise theoretical definition of what exactly oral tradition is, I just want to know if the RCC can quote anything directly from the apostles' mouths that was not written down in Scripture. Anything simple, such as "It was sunny today in Jerusalem".

9. Matthew, The biblical canon was not written down anywhere in the Scriptures. How do you know which books belong in the Bible? By the way, a Protestant Bible is seven books too short.

10. Cardinal Cajetan on the Apocrypha
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. … “
Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Gregory I also rejected the Apocrypha
Also read “question of the canon” in Refuting Rome

11. The Apocryphal books
Ecclesiasticus, Book of Wisdom – contains Protestant doctrines (e.g. predestination)
Tobias contradicts the message of salvation, other contradictions
1,2Maccabees, additions to Esther – contradictions
Baruch – Jerome, the translator states that they were later additions to Jeremiah

12. Book of Wisdom
“The potter also, tempering soft earth, with labour fashioneth every vessel for our service, and of the same clay he maketh both vessels that are for clean uses, and likewise such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of these vessels, the potter is the judge.” (Wisdom 15:7)
“Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory”. (Romans 9:21-13)

13. I think that the question of the canon is not part of the debate about Sola Scriptura. How we define what the content of the Scriptures are is separate from whether the principle of SS itself is valid. But, back to my original question, can you cite anything from oral tradition? The idea of sola scriptura maintains that everything a believer needs to know is contained in the pages of the Bible. That is demonstrably false, and I asked you a question that lies at the heart of our faith, namely what Scripture is. Before you can query me about sola scriptura, we need to know the limits of Scripture are, do we not? Do we not need to know what the very basis of the concept of sola scriptura is? I cannot answer a question based on something that is undefined.

14. In my very first asked a simple question, can you cite anything from oral tradition. This is the question, not SS, since both of us believe that the Scriptures are inspired by God. This should be very easy to do years, and so many theologians at work on compiling oral tradition, with such an abundant quantity of material to do so. I am not skirting the issue, because the issue here is oral tradition, that was my original question. The reason I ask this simple question is because if the RC principle of oral tradition is indeed valid, then you should be able to quote from it, if indeed you believe in it, and vast quantities of RC doctrine is based on it. Otherwise RC dogma is based on thin air. As to the definition of the canon, it does not have any direct bearing on SS. If the RC canon is true, then SS can still be true, and also vice-versa for the Protestant canon. Your definition of SS is actually incorrect, you are stating Solo Scriptura, which is indeed wrong (for example the Bible doesn't talk about biotechnology but we still use it). Sola Scriptura works with a hierarchy of authorities, but it claims that the Scriptures are the sole highest authority. That is the sola in Sola Scriptura. So naturally the question is, why do you as a RC attribute absolute authority to oral tradition?

15. U: The universe of all facts
The content of the Bible is determined by the process of canonization
Doctrines are extracted from the Bible via hermeneutics
Sola Scriptura is merely a principle which determines what sources we use (Scripture alone or Scripture+Tradition, or something else) for hermeneutics
With each definition of the canon, we can get potentially different sets of doctrines
The Bible (B) B3 B1 B2
U: The universe of all facts

16. Some citations of oral tradition! Finally!
The Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned in Scripture, but the idea of God being triune is not explicitly stated.
Incorrect: Genesis 1:1; John 10:10; Romans 9:6; Acts 5:3-4
Most of the Marian Dogmas.
Lacks exact citation
Jesus descent into “Limbo” after his death on the Cross. It is alluded to in scripture, but is mostly from Tradition and the Apostles Creed.
The form of the Mass is from Sacred Tradition.
Incorrect, see Mark 14:25; Acts 1:10-11; Luke 22:19

17. The word “Transubstantiation.”
They didn’t speak Latin back then, and transubstantiation did not arise until the tenth century (Paschus Radbertus), made dogma in 1215
The assumption of the Blessed Virgin and its place on the 15th of August.
This was only made official dogma in 1950, when papal infallibility was invoked for the only time in history

18. Acts 17:10-11
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
 Yes, I am familiar with the Protestant appeal to this passage. However, I submit to you that the passage doesn’t say what you want it to say for three reasons:
 (1) All it shows is that the Bereans were open to the Word in the best sense of being “open-minded” (“they received the word with all willingness”). Nowhere does this passage say that the Bible is the sole ultimate authority.
But it does imply that church authority is below the authority of the Scripture, and has to be verified/corrected by it. Paul’s words don’t stand alone.

19. Acts 17:10-11
(2) In context, “the Scriptures” meant only the Old Testament. The NT hadn’t been written yet at the time that Paul was preaching. Or at best, it had only begun to take shape. Are you prepared to defend the position that all a Christian needs as the ultimate authority is the OT?
The OT itself was enough for the salvation of the Jewish people, why isn’t it enough for us as well? Again, this verse only presents the principle of SS, and does not define the canon. The NT Scriptures are actually a bonus, which gives us even more information. Thereby the Scriptures (OT+NT) have even more authority, since it gives more details.

20. Acts 17:10-11
(3) The Bereans’ searching of the Scriptures was coupled with apostolic teaching (Paul) for the correct understanding and interpretation of them. This is essentially the Catholic position, which says that there are three authorities for believers, and they all work in harmony with one another:  Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Church’s teaching Magisterium.
But that is why we need verse 11, which says the opposite: and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. When the Bereans receive Paul’s words, they don’t know yet what he is saying is true or not, that’s why they turn to an infallible source. It is understood that tradition (confessions) and the church have authority, but they are not absolute but relative. This is nicely demonstrated in this verse.

21. The myth of the 30,000 Protestant denominations
Peters claims, as do many Roman Catholics, that SS is responsible for each man interpreting the Bible for himself, without the interjected authority of the RCC, and therefore there are some 30,000 Protestant denominations today
We have seen that this is entirely wrong, because adding what you please to the Bible is what causes new churches to form (Adventists, Mormons, charismatics, etc.)
Inversely, people can also choose whatever they want from the Bible/RCC catechism, leading to cafeteria Catholics
Peters forgets to mention the Old Catholic church, Sedevacantists, charismatic Catholics

22. The myth of the 30,000 Protestant denominations
Overwhelming majority are charismatic/non-denom, very small proportion are Reformed
References another list of only 9,000 denominations
Lists 242 Catholic denominations…
Lists Unitarians, Mormons, Adventists and Buddhists as Protestants
According to these lists, if two churches differ in minor details, they are different churches (i.e. singing acapella)
Pastor Nathan and pastor Moody?

23. Sola Ecclesia
It is evident that Peters and many RCs depend upon their church to tell them what is right and wrong, true or false
Sola Ecclesia is the antithesis of Sola Scriptura, it is sheer humanism The church replaces Christ – this is the spirit of the Antichrist!
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1Tim. 3:15)

24. Sola Ecclesia
The church is the pillar of the truth inasmuch as it holds to the truth! How can the church be the pillar of truth if it teaches falsehood?
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. (Acts 4:10-11)

25. Verses which refute the papacy
Refuting Rome lists 64 verses which refute the papacy
“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” (Ephesians 4:11)
No mention of archbishops, abbots, cardinals, or popes

26. Peter not the pope
“And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.” (1Peter 5:14)
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.” (Ephesians 5:23)
“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:” (1Peter 5:1)

27. 1Corinthians 1:12-13
“Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas [Peter]; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”
This divides the catholic church

28. The council of Jerusalem
Acts 15:1-29 takes place in Jerusalem, not Rome
Judaizers want to force circumcision on the Christians
RCs claim that since everyone kept silent at Peter’s word, he had pre-eminence (v. 12) – he just had a good argument
The apostle James presides over the council (v. 13)
“But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” (v. 20)

29. Peter and Paul
“Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.” (2Corinthians 11:28)
“But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)” (Galatians 2:7-8)

30. The rock
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. … But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (Matthew 16:16-23)

31. Matthew 16:19 & 18:18
16:19: δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. (2nd person singular)
18:18 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ. (2nd person plural)
Jesus is conferring authority to all of the apostles, not just Peter

32. The rock
Let us examine what the Bible says in its global context of who the rock is
Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. (Ex. 17:6)
Because I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect. (Deut. 32:4)
For who is God, save the Lord? and who is a rock, save our God? (2Sam. 22:32)

33. Papal succession? A historical example
Pope Celestine V (1294) was chosen as pope by the cardinals because they thought “he wouldn’t do any damage” (de Rosa, Vicars of Christ)
A humble hermit, he wasn’t accustomed to the pomp of Rome and the polished Latin of the bishops and cardinals
Boniface VIII ( ), his rival did him in: for a space of time he came to the room next to Celestine V’s sleeping quarters during the night and inserted a speaking tube into his room: “Celestine, Celestine, abdicate from the throne because the burden is too great for you”
Celestine V
<-
Boniface VII
->

34. The Holy Spirit can leave an institutional church
“And she said, The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken.” (2Samual 4:22)
“And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.” (Jeremiah 3:8)
“Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.” (Rev. 2:5)

35. Longer list of verses against papacy
Ex. 17:6; Deut. 32:3; 2Sam. 22:2-3,32,47; 2Sam. 23:3; Psalm 18:31,46; 28:1, 31;2-3, 42:9, 61:2,6-7, 71:3, 78:35, 89:26, 92:15, 94:22, 95:1, 118:22; Is 28:16, Dan. 2:34; Matthew 17:1- 2, 20:25-28; 21:44; Mark 3:16, 10:28; John 1:35-40,50; 20:3-8, 28, 14:16,26, 15:18-27, 26, 16:7 19:26-27, 20:7,20; Rom 1:11, 9:32-33; Acts 4:11-12, 8:14, 11:1-2, 12:1-3,17, 15:13-22, 19:15, 21:18; 1Cor. 1:12-13, 3:11, 9:5, 10:4, 15:9-10; Eph. 2:20, 4:11, 5:23; Gal. 2:7-8, 11-14; 1Tim. 2:5; 1Peter 2:4-9, 5:1- 4; 2Peter 3:15-16; 3John 1:9; Rev. 21:14

36. References James White, Scripture Alone Cserhati, Refuting Rome
(both on Amazon)

37. Thanks for your attention!