Why Are There So Many Different Versions Of The Bible?

• Defining The Issues: 

          -Several translations of the Bible have been produced in the English language and are in circulation today. Christians read from the King James Version, New King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, and others. Church groups often recommend specific translations over others and use them in pulpits. In fact, one may mistakenly infer that the existence of multiple editions of the Bible is a major cause of division throughout the church or that the manuscripts which underlie them are unreliable. There are different translations, which contain deviations in wording, sentence structure, and even sometimes differences in chapter verses. While it cannot be denied that some people are motivated by greed in producing them, the fact that so many exist showcases just how much the Bible has been revered and influential.

• Bible Translation Or Version? 

          -The word "version" is not necessarily the best way to describe a translation of a religious text. The science of translation works to find equivalents in one language so that different languages are able to maintain communication and understanding. Thus, the word "version" can give the misleading implication of intentional alteration or perversion with malicious motives. Generally speaking, the process of translating works to make deciphering a message in a foreign language possible to others. Creating a version of something can imply carving out wanted portions of any given text to fit one's underlying biases. In a sense, translating ancient manuscripts from different languages is no different than translating the words of a speaker from another country such as a foreign diplomat giving a news conference.

• Why There Are Many Different Bible Translations?:

          -Different translations of the Bible exist because there have been more manuscript findings over time. Different groups of scholars knowledgeable in the languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic have collaborated at different periods of time to develop them. Various words are suggested and rejected in the involved process of translating. Words have a semantic range or a variety of meanings in a group of words that are appropriate to use depending on context. For example, the word "angry" has other words with similar connotations like mad, upset, irate, vehement, furious, and enraged. Those terms differ in degrees of forcefulness and may thus not fully convey what a person intends to say in various contexts. Hebrew and Greek syntax can even be obscure in certain parts of our manuscripts. Discoveries of textual, linguistic, and archaeological nature necessitate the improvement to already existing translations or the creation of entirely new ones. The meaning of the text, when considered in its entirety, overwhelmingly remains the same. There is, therefore, still one Bible.

          -The science of translation involves explanation or interpretation, since it is a process of making something known that could not otherwise have been known to those unfamiliar with such languages. Shades of Hebrew and Greek are inevitably lost to a degree in translation (this is true of translating any text from one language to another), which is good reason for one to have at least two to three different translations of the Bible. One cannot have perfect knowledge about such, unless he knows the original languages for himself. Further, words have changed in their meaning since four hundred years ago when Elizabethan English was spoken. A good example of this would be the word "gay" which is used in the King James translation of the Bible and how that same word is used today. Another example of how words have changed with time would be how the word "suffer" used to mean allow. Further, how could Christians be required to agree on only one edition of the Bible when it needs to be translated into different languages beside English?

• Understanding Bible Translations: Types And Limitations:

          -Bible translations generally fall into three categories: word-for-word, thought-for-thought, and paraphrase. Each approach possesses its own strengths and weaknesses. Word-for-word translations (such as the ESV or NASB) aim for literal accuracy, preserving the structure and vocabulary of the original languages. Thought-for-thought versions (such as the NIV or NLT) prioritize readability and clarity, translating ideas rather than exact words. Paraphrases (such as The Living Bible) offer a highly interpretive rendering, often useful for devotional reading but less suitable for deep study.
          -Despite their differences, all translations share a common reality: they were produced by fallible human translators working from manuscripts that are themselves copies of copies. The original autographs of the biblical texts are no longer available, and therefore no manuscript or translation can be verified as perfectly inspired in the same way as the originals. This introduces unavoidable limitations. However, the remarkable consistency across reputable translations suggests that the core message of Scripture has been preserved with impressive fidelity. Still, this is a topic where disagreement is both possible and common, especially among scholars and theologians.

• Choosing The Best Bible Translation For Personal Use:

          -So, which Bible translation is the best one to read? The most honest answer is: the one that will actually be read. A translation that speaks clearly to the reader and encourages consistent engagement with Scripture is far more valuable than one that remains untouched. That said, not all translations are created equal. Some are more suitable for devotional reading, while others are better for serious study and textual analysis. For example, a paraphrase might inspire reflection, but a word-for-word translation is better suited for examining theological nuance or original language structure.
          -It is also wise to choose a primary translation—one that serves as the foundation for deeper study, memorization, and teaching. This does not mean other translations cannot be consulted; in fact, comparing multiple versions can enrich understanding. However, having a consistent base helps anchor interpretation and provides a reliable framework for exploring Scripture. Ultimately, while no translation is perfect, many are trustworthy. The key is to approach them with discernment, humility, and a sincere desire to understand the truth they aim to convey.

The Roman Catholic Church And "Sacred" Tradition

• Preliminary Points:

          -The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture alone is an insufficient guide for Christian doctrine, that Jesus Christ gave the twelve apostles infallible oral tradition to pass on to future clergy members through the Magisterium to be taught to attendees in the pews. It is claimed that we need to submit to an infallible interpreter of Scripture in order to correctly understand the text, preserving unity in the truth as Christ intended for His church. Defenders of Rome have attempted to build a biblical case for their position by citing passages such as John 20:30, 21:25, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, 2 John 12, and 3 John 13.

          -It is true that the Bible never presents itself as the only authority in the church. However, Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the final court of authority in all religious matters. The focus here shifts from whether authorities exist outside the Bible to giving it due recognition for what it is. It is the only infallible rule of faith for us to use. Therefore, people who object to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by using a faulty definition (i.e. that the Bible is the only or sole authority) are attacking a straw man argument.
          -It is self-contradictory for Roman Catholic apologists to appeal to the Bible as the ultimate standard of authority to prove that it is not the ultimate standard of authority for the church to utilize (i.e. not a reflection of the contents of their beliefs, but what takes place in practice). It is hypocritical for Roman Catholics to use Scripture as a means to justify their doctrines, but disapproving of Protestants acting in the same manner. By appealing to Scripture, defenders of Rome hurt their own cause. The implication of them doing so is that we can indeed correctly interpret Scripture without reference to an infallible teaching authority. 

          -"Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice." (James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 72)

          -"Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No, because certain things in the Bible can be misunderstood and because the Bible does not include everything God taught." (William James Cogan, A Brief Catechism for Adults: A Complete Handbook on How to Be a Good Catholic, Lesson 16: The Catholic Church is the Only True Church, Q&A #1)

• General Considerations On Church Tradition: 

          -It needs to be understood that Protestantism is not categorically opposed to tradition. An example of this would be the observance of Christmas and Easter by various churches. The caveat to be offered in this framework is that such things must be consistent with the principles of Scripture. Even the testimony of the church (meaning patristic writers) is not something to be shunned. For example, from what other sources can gather historical information? Further, the New Testament itself is apostolic tradition in written form, so how can tradition be an inherently bad thing?

          -Even if something like the resurrection of Jesus was passed on to other first century believers in the form of oral tradition, that does not mean it was passed down to us in the same way because we have Scripture. The point made here is that Christ's words carry weight because of who He is, not how His words were transmitted.

• Do John 20:30, John 21:25, 2 John 12, and 3 John 13 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?: 

          -The passages from the Gospel of John do not say that some the teachings of Jesus were not written in Scripture. Rather, all the miracles that He performed were not recorded. Scripture tells us everything that we need to know concerning salvation (John 20:31).
          -The logic employed by our critics here is self-defeating because Roman Catholic tradition does not furnish us with all the details of Jesus' life.
          -Why assume that 2 John 12 and 3 John 13 are referring to some apostolic teaching that gets passed on to posterity? None of these texts indicate specifically what the contents of John's message are. It is equally possible for the unknown details to be from other parts of the New Testament, a public rebuke of sin or heresy, or even personal details about his life or close companions such as his fellow ministers, the apostles.
          -2 John 12 and 3 John 13 simply indicate that the Apostle John decided not to write down every single detail of what he intended on saying in his epistles. He wanted to speak directly to his audience for the sake of its comfort, joy, and edification. How do we know that what John spoke of would have been different in substance than what is found in written revelation? Can Roman Catholics produce any sayings of Jesus Christ or the apostles that exist apart from Scripture?

• Does 1 Corinthians 11:2 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?: 

          -The immediate context of this passage concerns the purposes of men and women in worship and in terms authority (v. 3-16). Then, the Apostle Paul goes on to address the proper observance of the Lord's Supper (v. 17-31). Later on, he goes on to identify traditions, which he himself previously received, as the basic message of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). None of these traditions can be said to be foreign in substance to the teaching of Scripture.

• Do 2 Thessalonians 2:15 And 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?:

          -The prior context of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reveals that the Apostle Paul is speaking of traditions pertaining to the second coming of Christ. Those should be measured against apostates who pervert the truths concerning that doctrine, eternal salvation, and the gospel. These topics are addressed in elsewhere in Scripture (Daniel 7:13-14; Zechariah 14:1-9; Matthew 24:5-27; Psalm 22-23; Isaiah 53). Hence, there is no need to rely on extra-biblical oral tradition for such teachings.

          -2 Thessalonians 2:15 highlights the need to stand firm and uphold the teachings received from Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, whether by word or letter. Now that they are no longer with us, we are left with their writings as the standard. This aligns with Ephesians 3:1-5, which explains that the apostles and prophets revealed God's truth through the Holy Spirit.
          -2 Thessalonians 3:6 refers to teaching regarding working and not being idle, which can also be found in texts such as Psalm 128:2, Proverbs 21:25, and 2 Thessalonians 3:10. There is no reason to assume any need for reliance upon tradition found outside the Bible. Paul demonstrates that his message is consistent, regardless of the form in which it is given.

• Are The Traditions Of The Roman Catholic Church Equal To The Bible In Terms Of Authority?:

          -Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for placing their own traditions on par with the Old Testament in terms of authority (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13). This scenario is a mirror reflection of the modern-day Roman Catholic Church because it teaches as God-given truth its own oral traditions. Rome claims that its traditions were handed down to us from the early church fathers, just as the religious leaders whom Christ scolded claimed that their traditions were passed on to them from the elders. The Roman Catholic Church, like the scribes and Pharisees of the Law, says that its traditions are of divine origin. The scribes and Pharisees taught doctrinal error as a result of putting man-made tradition on the same level of authority as Scripture. The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church has fallen into the same grievous error for its inflated perspective of oral tradition. It has gone a step further than those Christ scolded by claiming for itself perpetual teaching infallibility, which is breathtakingly conceited.

A Scriptural Refutation Of Calvinism

• Introduction:

          -Calvinism is a movement within traditional Protestantism that was developed by John Calvin (1509–1564), a French theologian. He was influenced primarily by the writings of the theologian and philosopher Augustine of Hippo. There are five major points to this complex theological system which are known by the acronym: "T.U.L.I.P."
          -Calvinism is a soteriological system that places a heavy emphasis on the sovereignty of God, to a point at which some believe it compromises human free will. God alone is believed to be responsible for the salvation of man. Calvinists believe that God not only saves entirely on the basis of grace, but also gives man faith as a divine gift. Adherents call this system of theology the doctrines of grace.
          -The five points of Calvinism, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, were formulated in response to the teachings of Jacobus Arminius and his followers. The Synod of Dort (1618–1619) codified these doctrines as a defense of Calvinist "orthodoxy" against what was perceived as a challenge to God’s sovereignty in salvation. Each point represents a distinct aspect of how Calvinists understand the relationship between divine grace and human will.

          -While Calvinism has been embraced by many people, it has also been the subject of significant debate and controversy. Critics argue that its emphasis on predestination and election undermines human responsibility and portrays God as arbitrary in His dealings with mankind. Supporters, however, maintain that Calvinism exalts God’s glory by affirming His absolute control over all things, including the salvation of souls.

• Total Depravity:

          -A consequence of the fall of Adam and Eve is that man has been marred totally by sin. This has affected us negatively in every aspect of our being: physically, psychologically, and spiritually. We have a natural bent toward evil, and experience bears this point out in many ways. We have to teach our children to be good. It is often easier for us to tell a lie than not to tell a lie. We succumb to various temptations all of the time, things we know we ought not do. This doctrine is one that actually is empirically verifiable. The implication of man being a fallen creature is that he cannot redeem himself from his own curse. All who remain in this state and die while in it will undergo divine judgment. In fact, they already have received their sentence of eternal condemnation from God (John 3:18). Therefore, it is not something to be handed down in the future.

          -We cannot in any way change our sinful condition for the better. Our state of being is utterly hopeless, apart from the grace of God. However, the doctrine of original sin does not mean that man is born with evil manifesting itself at its worst point or that he cannot do any kind of good works whatsoever. Human beings have their own standards of goodness or what they consider to be ethical. Even if man retained but a shimmer of his former goodness and purity which he possessed in the Garden of Eden, he remains an utterly wretched creature in his own right. He is an enemy of God and his own worst enemy. Man not only shuns the things of God, but actively opposes them. The nature of his rebellion is both internal and external, covering both his thought life and his behavior. The extent of human corruption is thorough. The Law of God says what it says, despite our inability to live up to that standard. Thus, it condemns us. However, this is where grace comes into the picture of things. The mercy of God is the only hope that man has for escaping his just sentence.

          -Calvinism insists that man’s depravity is so absolute that he cannot even respond to God’s offer of grace without first being irresistibly drawn. The corruption of man is indeed thorough, but it does not obliterate his capacity to hear and to respond when God’s mercy is extended. The will of man is weakened, not annihilated. He is fallen, but not rendered a mere automaton. Grace is necessary for salvation, yet it is not forced upon him against his will. The difference lies in the fact that man, though utterly dependent upon God’s mercy, retains the responsibility to accept or reject that mercy. Thus, while Calvinism teaches irresistible grace and unconditional election, God’s grace is offered freely to all, and man’s response determines his eternal destiny.

• Unconditional Election:

          -“All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion: Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 5)
          -"The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree." (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, section 7)
          -The scriptural view of predestination is that God determined beforehand, not which individuals receive salvation and which ones receive damnation, but how we would serve Him and the means by which we are redeemed. This view is known as corporate election. It pertains to the work that believers do in the church for the glory of God. He has predestined believers to be conformed to the image of His Son Jesus Christ (Romans 8:28-30; Ephesians 1:3-6). He has prepared in advance that we do good works (Ephesians 2:10). We become a part of God's elect by hearing and believing on the gospel as it is being proclaimed (Ephesians 1:13-14). 

          -God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11-12; 1 Peter 1:17). He does not will that any perish, but all be saved (Titus 2:11; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9). God does not lead any into temptation (James 1:13-15). Sin is not from God (Jeremiah 7:24).

          -If we have already been predestined to heaven or hell, then what is the purpose of being cautious of the devil's plans of causing deception (1 Peter 5:8)? Why pray that His will be done (Matthew 6:10)?
          -If God has already meticulously predetermined everything since the foundation of the world, then it makes perfect sense for one to say that we have no free will. Why preach repent or perish?
          -Why would God sentence sinners to eternity in hell when He created them to be that way? Why would He punish people who had no control over their sinful actions in the first place?
          -If God has already meticulously predetermined everything since the foundation of the world, then there is no point in debating these issues since He created members of His elect to oppose Calvinism.
          -If God has foreordained since the beginning of time that the unbelieving and unrepentant are to perish eternally, then why did the Lord Jesus Christ claim that He was sent to seek and save that which is lost (Luke 19:9-10)? Why did God grieve over making man (Genesis 6:6)?

• Limited Atonement:

          -"It maintains that God's design and intent in sending Christ to die on the cross was to pay for the sins and secure the redemption of those whom God has predetermined to save, namely the elect." (Theopedia, "Definite Atonement")

          -According to Scripture, Jesus Christ died not only for our sins, but also the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). 
          -According to Scripture, Christ died even for false teachers (2 Peter 2:1). He has died for both the just and the unjust (1 Peter 3:18). 

          -Jesus Christ identified those who continually reject and oppose His message as being among those that He came to save (John 12:47-48).
          -If Jesus Christ was able to save the Apostle Paul who referred to himself as being the chief of sinners for persecuting the church of God in his younger days (1 Timothy 1:15-16), then would that not also imply that salvation is available to all who believe on the gospel (contrary to limited atonement)?
          -Notice how Paul included in his inspired definition of the gospel that Jesus Christ died "for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). This sounds like a personal invitation to salvation. That is literally equivalent to me saying that Christ died for you and me, which refutes limited atonement.

          -Regardless of whether one is Calvinistic in soteriology or not, there is a sense in which the atonement is limited. It is either limited in scope (i.e. whoever is specifically chosen by God from before the foundation of the world) or by application (i.e. whoever believes the gospel receives the benefits of Christ's atonement).

• Does Unlimited Atonement Necessitate Universalism?:

          -Christ's death for all men denotes divine judgment to the same extant because we have all been commanded to repent and believe on the gospel (Mark 1:15; Acts 17:26-31).
          -Just as the Jewish people had to look at the bronze serpent in order to be physically healed, so we must turn to Christ in order to have our spiritual infirmities removed (Numbers 21:9; John 3:14-16). Thus, no decision to receive salvation means no application of soteriological benefits.
          -God made atonement even for those whom He foreknew would not repent because of His love and graciousness. He blessed Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden, even though He knew beforehand that they would fall. He sent prophets to admonish the Jews, even though He knew beforehand that they would reject them.
          -God is, in the present tense, bringing about all things to His glory (Romans 8:28-30). If He specifically determined that the benefits of the cross be applied to all who repent and believe, then the gospel and His power are not undermined by belief in unlimited atonement.

• Irresistible Grace:

          -"Those who obtain the new birth do so, not because they wanted to obtain it, but because of the sovereign discriminating grace of God." (Theopedia, "Irresistible Grace")
          -If irresistible grace is a biblical doctrine, then why is it that God would "spread out His hands all day long" to His rebellious nation Israel (Isaiah 65:2)? Why would God put Himself through so much trouble when He could have instantaneously resolved that problem? Why did Jesus mourn over Israel's unwillingness to accept the prophets God had sent (Matthew 23:37)?

• Perseverance Of The Saints (Other Names For This Teaching Would Include Eternal Security And Once Saved, Always Saved):

          -"...those who are truly saved will persevere to the end and cannot lose their salvation. It doesn't mean that a person who is truly saved will never lose faith or backslide at any time..."Eternal security" is often seen as synonymous with "Perseverance of the saints." (Theopedia, "Perseverance of the Saints")

          -Warning texts directed to Christians against apostasy do not sit well with the idea that it is impossible for one to lose his salvation (Hebrews 3:12; 2 Peter 3:17; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27;1 Timothy 4:1-4; 6:20-21; Galatians 5:4-5; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 20-22; James 5:19-20). 

          -We even have a few examples of people who seem to be Christian falling away from the faith recorded in New Testament (1 Timothy 1:18-21; 5:11-15; 2 Timothy 4:10).

          -God disciplines those who He loves, just as a father does a son who is guilty of some wrongdoing (Deuteronomy 8:3-5; Proverbs 3:12). A God who is willing to lay down His life for sinners is not going to instantaneously "give up" on somebody. 

          -A person does not reach sinless perfection upon conversion. We still struggle with a sin nature, but the grace of God, which we do not deserve, transforms our hearts. How God dealt with Israel in the Old Testament is a testimony to His grace and patience. 
          -The loss of salvation is not caused by a single bad work, but is a slow, gradual process that takes place over time. We do not do bad works to "get unsaved." Bad works are the evidence, not the cause, of a declining faith or hardening heart. 

          -Our works are symptomatic of our spiritual state. God examines our hearts. We are justified by faith, apart from the merit of any good works (Romans 4:2-8). We are saved by faith in Christ. We obtain mercy from God through genuine repentance.

          -It is technically difficult for a Christian to "lose" his salvation, but not impossible. It is something that we can "walk away" from or forfeit. We are either fully a part of God's kingdom or not a member at all.

          -God is slow to anger (Psalm 145:8). He is rich in mercy (Ephesians 1:7-8). He does not will that any man perish (2 Peter 3:9). God is faithful even during our times of unfaithfulness. 

          -Christians do not lose their free will upon conversion. He certainly has the power to keep us, but will not force people into heaven. It is debatable whether that would even be considered loving. 

          -We are kept in the kingdom of God by the Holy Spirit the same way that we entered: faith (Galatians 3:1-6). In other words, we are both justified and sanctified by faith. Salvation is not analogous to some wage that we can deplete by sin. We are not saved by acting better or remaining faithful, but by trusting in the atonement of Christ.

• Does A Rejection Of Calvinism Mean That Man Takes Credit For His Own Salvation Or That God Is Not Sovereign?:

          -It is true that man in his fallen condition can never please God. He has no power in and of himself to change his state of being, but the grace of God can and does. Only God has the power to bring about a miracle such as this. His grace is an absolute necessity, if we are ever to be spared from the divine judgment we justly deserve. It is our one and only hope of being spared.

          -We absolutely need Christ's imputed righteousness. It is by faith in Him that we are saved, not our personal merit. However, we must accept the terms of forgiveness as prescribed in the gospel, which in and of itself is a gift of grace by God to man. 

          -This is analogous to a physician informing a patient of the need for a procedure such as a heart transplant and him consenting to its performance. The latter performs the work on the former. In the same vein, it is God who diagnoses our problem of sin and totally removes it from our being. The basis of the entirety of this operation is His grace.

          -We have the ability to recognize that we have a spiritual problem in light of divine revelation. The choice to accept the gift of justification is not a work, anymore than is grabbing a lifesaver while drowning or accepting a birthday gift from a loved one. To say that we take credit for accepting a free, and even undeserved, gift would be irrational in the highest degree.

          -There is no that one can deny salvation is all of God. He is both its author and finisher. It is God who gets all the credit for saving us. Our decision to approach Him in humble repentance does not merit us anything. God is not under any obligation whatsoever to save us. 

          -God is compassionate and merciful. Our decision to repent is distinguished from His decision to save us. These two ideas cannot be equated. Faith is the antithesis of works (Romans 4:4-5; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9). Faith carries with it no merit of its own. The basis of our justification before God is the righteousness of Christ given to us.

          -Atonement is applied freely to all who come to Christ by faith. It is God who regenerates us, and grace is what brings it about. The gospel itself is God's gracious offer of salvation to undeserving sinners (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:21).

The Case For Sola Scriptura: Addressing Historical Objections And Challenges

• Sola Scriptura And Charges Of Circular Reasoning:

          -This objection would hold water if, and only if, adherents to this doctrine were to argue for belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture solely on the basis of what it says about itself. That would be a fallacious claim by reason of being a viciously circular argument.

          -Arguments giving credence to the authority of the Bible:
            *One can argue for the supremacy of the moral teachings of Moses and Jesus compared to other world religions.
            *One can point to the manuscript evidence supporting the textual reliability of the New Testament.
            *One can argue for the consistency of the biblical record with world history/archaeological discoveries. If the four gospels, for instance, can be shown to be as reliable as (or even more so than) extra-biblical authors such as Plutarch, Josephus, and Tacitus, then we must accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Radical skepticism toward the biblical text would not be appropriate.

            *The fulfillment of prophecies contained in Scripture points to its supernatural origin.
          -If the Bible is truly the Word of God, then it follows from that premise everything set forth by that source must also be true. That would not be circular, but sequential, reasoning.
          -Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the usefulness of extra-biblical sources, but emphasizes the unique and divine nature of the Bible. It does not mean that we cannot consult material outside it to verify claims. 

• Sola Scriptura And Charges Of Chronological Snobbery:

          -The development of Christian doctrine over the centuries has involved careful study and interpretation of Scripture. While early church fathers made significant contributions, later theologians and scholars have also deepened our understanding of biblical teachings. The process of interpreting Scripture is ongoing and dynamic.

          -The Protestant Reformation emphasized a return to the authority of Scripture in response to perceived deviations from biblical teachings within the established church. This movement was not about disregarding the early church fathers but about aligning Christian practice with the teachings of the Bible.

          -Sola Scriptura encourages a critical examination of all teachings, including those of the early church fathers. By holding every teaching up to the standard of Scripture, believers ensure that their faith remains grounded in divine revelation rather than human tradition. This approach promotes a healthy balance between respecting historical insights and adhering to the ultimate authority of Scripture.

• On Claims Of Oral Tradition Being A Reliable Safeguard Against Apostasy:

          -Differences in interpretation are not necessarily a weakness of Sola Scriptura, but a reflection of the need for careful study and understanding of the Bible.

          -Tradition has evolved over time, with various practices and beliefs being adopted or rejected by different branches of Christianity. The early church fathers themselves often engaged in debates and disagreements, indicating that tradition is not monolithic or infallible. Sola Scriptura calls believers to return to the foundational teachings of the Bible.

          -The existence of different denominations and interpretations within Protestantism demonstrates a dynamic and living faith community. Diversity in understanding can lead to a richer and more nuanced appreciation of Scripture. Unity is not found in complete agreement on all issues, but in a shared commitment to the authority of the Bible.

          -While early church writings can be insightful, they were produced in specific historical and cultural contexts that may not always align with contemporary issues. It is important to critically examine these writings in light of Scripture and apply its timeless principles to modern challenges.

          -The Protestant Reformation emphasized the need to reform church practices that were perceived as inconsistent with biblical teachings. This movement was driven by a desire to return to the authority of Scripture and correct doctrinal errors. Sola Scriptura upholds this commitment to aligning faith with the teachings of the Bible.

• Oral Tradition Is Necessary For Understanding Biblical Commands?:

          -Sola Scriptura holds that Scripture itself is sufficient for guiding faith and practice. While tradition can provide helpful insights, the Bible contains all the necessary teachings for salvation and godly living. The principle of Sola Scriptura emphasizes that God's Word is complete and authoritative on its own.

          -While tradition can offer valuable perspectives, believers are encouraged to interpret Scripture through personal study and reflection. This approach fosters direct and personal interaction with God's Word.

          -The early church fathers provided interpretations based on their historical and cultural contexts. While their insights can be useful, it is important to critically evaluate their teachings in light of Scripture. Christians should use tradition as a supplementary resource, not a final standard of authority.

          -The understanding of biblical teachings can grow and develop over time as believers continue to study and apply Scripture. The principle of Sola Scriptura encourages ongoing exploration of God's Word, allowing for fresh insights and deeper understanding. Tradition is one tool among many that can aid in this process. It can help to enhance unity, but should not overshadow the primacy of the Bible.

• The Argument Of Tradition Versus Subjectivism:

          -The Reformation was driven by a desire to return to the authority of Scripture in response to perceived deviations from biblical teachings within the established church. The Reformers emphasized the need to align Christian practice with the teachings of the Bible, addressing issues of corruption and false doctrines that had arisen under the authority of tradition.

          -Sola Scriptura promotes a critical examination of all teachings, including those of tradition. By holding every teaching up to the standard of Scripture, believers ensure that their faith remains grounded in divine revelation rather than human traditions. This approach fosters a healthy balance between respecting historical insights and adhering to the ultimate authority of Scripture.

          -Sola Scriptura does not reject the value of community or the insights of tradition, but places them within the context of the supreme authority of the Bible. Believers are encouraged to engage in meaningful discussions and interpretations within the faith community, while remaining grounded in the authority of Scripture.

          -Yielding to tradition as equal in authority to Scripture risks elevating human interpretations and practices to the level of divine revelation. This can lead to the imposition of doctrines that are not biblically grounded. Sola Scriptura safeguards against this by ensuring that all teachings and practices are measured against the unchanging standard of Scripture.

• High Illiteracy Rates In The Early Church: 

          -Being illiterate does not necessarily mean that a person has less of an ability to understand concepts. Sola Scriptura was still possible for the early Christians because:
            *In Paul's day, literate people would read things aloud to those who could not read. That is also how the average Israelite learned Deuteronomy. It has the structure of a song that they could easily memorize. This is basic knowledge of the ancient world.

            *The early church had a practice of sharing letters and teachings among different congregations, which would have included the writings of Paul, Peter, James, and others. This practice helped to establish a unified doctrine and fostered communication between separated Christian groups.
          -The fact that persecution of Christians in the early church was problematic for the spread of the gospel did not reduce the importance of the unconverted hearing that message. In similar fashion, illiteracy rates would indeed make it harder to learn Scripture. However, that point does not lessen its authority. The Bible still testifies to who Christ is.

          -The Roman Catholic Church expected its priests to interpret the Bible for the average person. Efforts were even made to stop the Bible from being translated and circulated. This became more pronounced during the Middle Ages, particularly from the 5th to the 15th centuries. This was certainly different from the Jewish practice of public Torah readings and how the earliest Christians (coming from that background) treated Scripture.
          -If Jesus Christ passed on infallible, extra-biblical oral traditions that were meant to be heard by us, then what about the people who are deaf? If illiteracy rates disqualify Scripture from functioning as the only infallible rule of faith, then is the Roman Catholic "three-legged stool" disqualified because deaf people cannot hear oral teaching?

          -In order to refute Sola Scriptura, one has to demonstrate that this principle somehow conflicts with Scripture. The authority of Scripture is not determined by our intelligence, our health, or its availability. Scripture is inherently authoritative because it is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Its authority is not limited by personal circumstance or inconveniences.

Examining The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Purgatory

• Introduction: 

          -The Roman Catholic Church defines purgatory as "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven” and for those “who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified” (CCC 1030). It is touted as a necessity, since nothing defiled by sin can enter into the presence of God. It is further maintained that, “this final purification of the elect...is entirely different from the punishment of the damned” (CCC 1031). Therefore, it would be incorrect for one to assert that Rome teaches individuals who fail to get cleansed of all sin in this lifetime must experience a temporary sentence in a lesser degree of hell. Purgatory is said to be a separate state altogether for people who are not under eternal condemnation. The experience is marked by postmortem suffering in response to lingering sin. Despite its theological distinction from damnation, such suffering bears the unmistakable contours of punitive consequence rather than spiritual consolation.

• Purgatory Contradicts Justification By Faith Apart From The Merit Of Works:

          -Abraham was justified by faith in order that boasting be eliminated from the instance of justification before God (Romans 4:2). The one who comes to Him with a contrite spirit is accepted as righteous in His sight, not coming to Him with a list of one's own achievements. Justification is not a matter of God reimbursing us for time spent in service to Him, but given to us independently of our good works (Romans 4:4). This is where the concept of grace comes into play. God bestows a righteous status to us, despite us having done nothing to deserve it (Romans 4:5). This has all been done for us "without works" (Romans 4:6). Thus, faith stands alone as an object of consideration for being declared righteous before God. If, however, the doctrine of purgatory is true, then that would mean our goodness at least in some measure affects our entrance into heaven. Further, one must do works of penance in order to be granted an indulgence for oneself or a loved one, which are good works. But Paul's gospel of grace will not allow for any of this. A man must approach God without any sense as to his own merit. His righteousness must be received on the basis of faith, without works of righteousness.

• Purgatory Distorts The Gospel’s Promise Of Rest And Peace:

          -By introducing a framework in which forgiven individuals must endure postmortem suffering to achieve final sanctification, the doctrine of purgatory subtly redirects attention away from the sufficiency of grace and toward a model of spiritual completion through deferred purification. This shift, however unintended, places emphasis on what remains to be endured rather than what has already been secured through Christ’s atonement. The soul, though absolved, is subjected to a process marked by deprivation, longing, and pain, conditions that echo punitive consequence more than spiritual rest. In doing so, purgatory distorts the gospel’s promise of peace for the believer, replacing assurance with anticipation of suffering, and blurring the line between salvation as a gift and sanctification as a lingering obligation. The doctrine of purgatory, even when framed as a place of hopeful purification, ultimately distorts the gospel’s promise of rest and peace. By requiring postmortem suffering for already-forgiven souls, it shifts the believer’s hope from Christ’s finished work to a future of pain and longing. This reimagining of sanctification as a deferred, painful process, however “blissful” it is claimed to be, undermines the assurance of salvation and replaces grace with a lingering debt. The gospel declares, “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” yet purgatory reintroduces a form of punishment after pardon, blurring the line between mercy and merit, and turning peace into probation.

• Purgatory Denies The Sufficiency Of Christ's Sacrifice:

          -The message of the gospel is that Christ’s sacrifice is complete and final. He gave Himself for those utterly unable to make amends for sin, and His work on the cross fully settled the debt. To suggest that forgiveness leaves behind some penalty to be endured would be to diminish the efficacy of His atonement. If we are forgiven, then we are truly forgiven, not partially, not conditionally, but entirely. Any notion that suffering or restitution must follow pardon implies that God’s forgiveness is incomplete and that Christ’s work is not enough. That is an insult against God, for it indirectly declares His provision inadequate. The glory of the cross is that no punishment remains for those who are in Christ. To add even the smallest attempt at repayment is to deny the very meaning of grace. Forgiveness that still demands punishment is no forgiveness at all; but in Christ, forgiveness is full, final, and free.

• The Absence Of Purgatory From Eschatological Contexts:

          -The story of the rich man and Lazarus gives us a few insights into what the afterlife is like (Luke 16:19-31). The latter was a beggar left to the mercy of the elements. The former selfishly enjoyed his luxuries while still alive. This order of fortune was reversed after both passed away. This transition seems to have taken place immediately. Lazarus entered into Abraham's bosom, which is a state of bliss and comfort. The rich man entered a state of torment and humiliation. This narrative emphasizes the existence of two fixed destinies. It nowhere mentions a temporary state existing for the purification of souls. The great chasm between Abraham’s side and Hades implies a permanent separation. If purgatory existed, then it would suggest a bridge or connection of some sort between these realms. The rich man’s plea for Lazarus to warn his brothers indicates that there is no second chance after death. If purgatory is allowed for the expiation of sins committed in this life after death, then it would make no sense for him to utter this plea. Further, this passage may contain implications which deny the efficacy of prayers to Mary and the saints. Abraham rejected the rich man's request to send Lazarus to warn his relatives of the upcoming doom that they would face in the absence of repentance from sin. He was told that if the testimony of Moses and the prophets were not sufficient to bring about conversion, no one rising from the dead would work either. This theme here is one of the dead not having contact with the living. If heaven and hell are understood as real destinations for disembodied souls, where conscious experience, reward, or torment occur, then denying purgatory as a “place” while affirming its reality introduces a tension that undermines a coherent ontology.

• Does 2 Maccabees 12:39-46 Offer Biblical Support For Purgatory?:

          -First, the text itself says the soldiers died in idolatry, a sin that the Roman Catholic Church classifies as mortal (CCC 1857–1858). According to Catholic doctrine, mortal sin, if not repented of, leads to damnation, not purification. The idea that Judas’s offering could benefit those who died in such a state contradicts Rome' s own teaching that purgatory is only for those who die in grace with venial sins. If these men were damned, no amount of sacrifice could alter their fate. If they were not, then idolatry was not mortal, which undermines the clarity of Catholic moral theology.
          -Second, the passage reflects a pre-Christian Jewish worldview, not a developed Christian doctrine. Even if one accepts 2 Maccabees as canonical (which Protestants and Jews do not), it is a historical narrative, not a theological treatise. The act of praying for the dead shows a hope for mercy, not a defined belief in purgatory. To read a fully formed doctrine into this text is to impose later theological constructs onto an ancient context that did not share them.
          -Third, the emotional tone of the passage, marked by fear, guilt, and urgency, hardly supports the idea of purgatory as a blissful state. Judas’s actions are driven by dread of divine wrath, not serene confidence in a gentle purification. This undermines the apologetic claim that purgatory is a place of peace and hope. If anything, the passage reflects anxiety over judgment, not assurance of salvation.
          -In sum, 2 Maccabees 12 offers no reliable support for purgatory. It describes a desperate attempt to intercede for those who died in grave sin, within a theological framework that predates the gospel. To use this as a proof text for purgatory not only stretches its meaning, but also is inconsistent with Catholic soteriology itself.

• Does Matthew 5:25-26 Offer Biblical Support For Purgatory?:

          -The context is about anger and settling disputes in relationships (v. 21-24). No one can deny that this passage is speaking about hell because it is mentioned in context (v. 22). A person in hell would indeed be there "until he had paid the last cent," meaning that his stay there would be eternal, as he could never give a ransom for it.

• Does Matthew 12:31-32 Offer Biblical Support For Purgatory?:

          -The idea that Matthew 12:31–32 supports purgatory is not convincing when read in context. Jesus is warning about the seriousness of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, saying it will never be forgiven, not in this life or the next. This doesn’t suggest that other sins can be forgiven after death, but rather emphasizes that this particular sin is eternally unforgivable. The phrase “in this age or in the age to come” is a common Jewish way of saying “never,” not a hint at purgatory. The parallel passage in Mark 3:29 confirms this by stating the person is “guilty of an eternal sin,” which rules out any future forgiveness.

• Does 1 Corinthians 3:15 Offer Biblical Support For Purgatory?:

          -This text is not about punishment for sins. It talks about eternal rewards (or lack thereof). In other words, the context is about testing the quality of each believer's work which determines his heavenly rewards (v. 10-14). It is not about believers undergoing punishment after death for "venial" sins. God will evaluate the quality of each believer's work so as to bestow praise appropriately (1 Corinthians 4:5). The phrase "he shall suffer loss" in verse fifteen refers to the loss of heavenly rewards. The Roman Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition has this footnote on the text of 1 Corinthians 3:15, “The text of v. 15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.”

• Does 1 Peter 3:19 Offer Biblical Support For Purgatory?:

          -The context suggests that these "imprisoned spirits" refer to the disobedient beings from the time of Noah (Genesis 6:1-4; 1 Peter 3:20), not souls undergoing purification. The verse illustrates Christ’s declaration of victory over sin and death rather than a process of purification. The New American Bible Revised Edition has this footnote: "3, 19: The spirits in prison: It is not clear just who these spirits are. They may be the spirits of the sinners who died in the flood, or angelic powers, hostile to God, who have been overcome by Christ (ch 22; Gn 6, 4; Enoch 6-36, especially 21, 6; 2 Enoch 7, 1-5)."

• The Origin Of The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Purgatory:

          -“...The written prayers which have survived, and the evidence from the catacombs and burial inscriptions indicate that the early church believed deceased Christians to be residing in peace and happiness and the nature of the prayers offered for them were that they might have a greater experience of these. As early as Tertullian, in the late second and beginning of the third century, these prayers often used the Latin term refrigerium as a request of God on behalf of departed Christians, a term which means ‘refreshment’ or ‘to refresh’ and came to embody the concept of heavenly happiness. So even though the early Church prayed for the dead, it does not support the concept of a purgatory for the nature of the prayers themselves indicate the Church did not believe the dead to be residing in a place of suffering. The roots on the teaching on purgatory can be traced back to pagan Greek religion and philosophy in such writings as the Roman poet Virgil's Aeneid and especially through the influence of Plato, whose views were introduced into the Church primarily through Origen...He was an influential promoter of purgation through suffering after death.” (William Webster, Roman Catholic Tradition: Claims and Contradictions, p. 63-64)

Refuting The Use Of Objects In Worship

• Introduction: 

          -The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church says, "Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it” (Paragraph 2132). Roman Catholics use statues and icons as part of their worship.

          -Advocates of using images in worship regularly bow down before statues, icons, and images of Christian figures, kissing at the feet of the statues, and praying to them. Some even roll in front of statues, shower flowers on them, light candles before them, carry statues in procession, and change the clothing on them daily. In Roman Catholic churches, there are several paintings of Jesus, Mary, Peter, and canonized saints. There is an abundance of religious iconography.

          -"Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36)." (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 320)

          -Roman Catholic scholar Rachel Bundang said the following: "Christianity emerged from Judaism, which itself rejected figurative religious art as being too much like idol worship (see Ex 20:3). But once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine in the 4th century CE, it was not long before Roman practices of portraying and honoring the divine (their gods and emperors) would make their way into Christian practices as well."

          -"Moses ages before enacted expressly, that neither a graven, nor molten, nor moulded, nor painted likeness should be made; so that we may not cleave to things of sense, but pass to intellectual objects: for familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense." (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 5.5)

          -"And make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time (during which our Lord was on earth, and that they were fashioned) by Pilate." (Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies 7.20)

• The Case Against The Use Of Statues, Images, And Relics In Worship:

          -Actions such as kneeling (in religious contexts) and prayer are defined as worship according to Scripture (Exodus 20:5; Isaiah 44:17; 45:20; Matthew 4:9-10; 6:6-14; Philippians 2:10). The apostles refused to accept honor as people knelt before them (Acts 10:25-26; 14:13-15). Even the angels who served God did not want people bowing before them in reverence (Revelation 4:10; 19:10; 22:8-9). Directing such adoration and devotion to entities other than God is idolatry. It also is noteworthy that Roman Catholics sing worship psalms to various saints and wear amulets with pictures of Mary on them.
          -God clearly condemned making figures for the purpose of giving religious devotion or honor to beings other than Him (Exodus 20:4-5; Deuteronomy 4:15-24; 2 Chronicles 33:6-7). In fact, the Apostle Paul specifically said that God is not served with physical objects (Acts 17:23-25). God said that He would not give His glory to another (Isaiah 42:8). We are not to worship God like the pagans do with their gods. That kind of worship is offensive to Him.

• A Valid Practice In The New Testament?:

          -In the New Testament, we are never given permission to use statues as an aid in worship. We have no examples of such activity being approved of by God. As noted previously, the Apostle Paul affirmed Old Testament prohibitions on using material objects in worship. Idols pose a danger to our relationship with God. There are also different forms of idolatry (Ephesians 5:5-7). The only time we see people bowing before statues in Scripture are the unfaithful and unbelieving.

• Veneration Or Worship?:

          -When Roman Catholics are accused of worshiping Mary and the saints, they usually respond by saying that they are simply venerating (i.e. giving honor to) them. This claim is elaborated on by dividing this veneration into three distinct categories (using Latin): latria (God alone), hyperdulia (Mary alone), and dulia (saints and angels).
          -Even though this argument sounds good when written on paper, it is theoretical only. It does not pan out in reality. Occupying separate labels does not change the essence of what is being done. Moreover, Scripture does not provide any justification for three different classes of honor to give to three different classes of beings (i.e. God, Mary, and saints). In fact, every instance of religious veneration recorded in Scripture by a faithful person is directed to God alone. That point is not without significance. We would do well to remember that God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 4:24; Nahum 1:2). He does not take the issue of worship lightly. 

• Defining What Is Permissible:

          -We ought to give honor to the people who deserve it (Romans 13:1; Hebrews 13:7), and bowing can be a custom of respect toward authority. However, God has never ordained that a person represented by a statue be the recipient of such honor. It is also not wrong to have pieces of art for decoration and pictures that we cherish. In fact, God can use images to communicate divine truths. It is acceptable to honor Christians from the past by acknowledging their faith and following their moral example (Hebrews 11). However, building statues of such people with the intent of bowing down before them and offering prayer to them transcends honor. Such behavior is idolatrous because it belongs rightfully to God alone.

• Does The Creation Of The Bronze Serpent Support Bowing Before Statues In Worship (Numbers 21:6-9)?:

          -God commanded Moses to make the bronze serpent for a one time purpose (John 3:14-16). However, the Israelites converted it into an object of worship. It ended up getting destroyed by King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:3-4). There is no biblical evidence that the bronze serpent was ever supposed to be used as an aid in worship.

• Does The Creation Of The Two Cherubs Support Bowing Before Statues In Worship (Exodus 25:18)?:

          -God commanded the making of two golden cherubs, but the Jews were not called to bow down before them or serve them.

• Does The Creation Of The Ark Of The Covenant Support Bowing Before Statues In Worship (Joshua 7:6-7)?:

          -God ordered the Israelites to make the ark so that He could dwell in their presence and meet with the leaders (Exodus 25:8; 22). But why does the ark have two images of angels (Exodus 25:18-21)? It has them because it is a replica of God's throne in heaven (Isaiah 6:1-2). This is further evidenced by the fact that the ark of the covenant also served as a footstool for the "feet" of the Lord (1 Chronicles 28:2). Unlike the ark, the images used in Roman Catholic veneration represent alleged saints.

The Lord's Prayer (An Exegetical Analysis Of Matthew 6:6-14)

          In prayer, our principal focus is to be on God. He ought to be the object of our attention and thoughts. We are in His divine presence. God answers a man's prayer based on his sincerity and faithfulness (v. 6). Christ's words are not a condemnation of public worship itself. Rather, prayer is not to be done with the intent of impressing other people. It is more so a matter of one's heart (what a person is like in the inside) than his outward posture (what a person looks like to other people).

          We are not to pray in the manner that pagans do, like the worshipers of Baal (1 Kings 18:26). Prayer should be intelligent and coherent. Repetition itself is not a problem (Matthew 26:42–46). Prayer is not to be done boisterously or in a state of unrestrained euphoria. We are not to utter rash sayings in offering up our prayers to God (v. 7). He rejects prayer tainted with self-righteousness, which infected the religious leaders of Jesus' day.

          God knows everything, which includes our prayer requests, even before we even go to Him (v. 8). We do not know ourselves as well as He does. Only pagans think that their gods need to be told about human needs. That is not the case with the living God. Therefore, the purpose of prayer is communion with Him. Christ is our spiritual food. He is consumed by us through faith.

          We acknowledge that God is the Creator and Lord of all. It follows from that premise we are to give Him rightful honor and worship (v. 9). We must approach Him in humility and respect. Jesus Christ was giving to His disciples a proper model for prayer in contrast to the empty words of unbelievers, who only wanted temporal blessings. It would also indicate who was one of His disciples. Israel had failed to properly honor God's name (Ezekiel 36:22-23).

          We pray with knowledge beforehand that God is sovereign for His kingdom to be inaugurated (v. 10). It has no boundaries in terms of depth or extent. Our wills are to be perfectly aligned with God's will. Our desire is to be that good conquers the evils of this world. God has a plan, which cannot be thwarted. It will be fully brought to fruition when Christ returns for a second time.

          We live in a world overflowing with tragedy, poverty, war, famine, and disease. Yet in the kingdom of God, only goodness endures. We pray that He will supply our needs continually and abundantly, without end (v. 11), for He provides according to His will. This reminds us that our lives must rest in constant dependence upon Him. Prayer, then, is more than a request for material things. It is the posture of trust before the one who sustains us.

          In prayer, we humbly petition God for the forgiveness of our sins (v. 12). Sin is an offense against Him. We have repeatedly violated His perfect standard of morality, the Law. We must pray for sins committed, even after conversion. This does not mean we must approach God with a list of our misdeeds because we could not possibly remember all of them or realize the degree to which we are sinful. His mercy is greater than that, knowing no limits.

          We must follow the example of God forgiving our trespasses against Him (v. 14). We ought not hold anger or resentment toward other people. We are not to hold offenses committed against us by others in the past over their heads. We must forgive the sins of other people because that is what He has done for us. We too are sinful beings. Forgiveness is the essence of the Christian message. It eliminates human pride and boasting.

          We pray to God that He protects us from succumbing to the influences of evil in this world. This request encompasses both support against attacks by fallen angels and other human beings who seek to bring harm to us. Further, temptation is inevitable as long as we live on this earth. God will bring His purposes to pass in His own timing. He is entitled to perpetual glory (v. 13). 

Surveying The Book Of Ecclesiastes

          The Book of Ecclesiastes describes what life is like in a fallen world. It gives an account of man living out his life in temporal terms and God's control over him (Ecclesiastes 3:15; 9:1). The author of this work, traditionally ascribed to Solomon, portrays eating, drinking, and work in a positive light. He says that there is a time for everything, whether it be laughter, joy, or sorrow. These things are beneficial to man in their own way. 

          This work is distinct from other writings of the Old Testament due to its seemingly pessimistic language in regard to the continued pursuit of earthly pleasures. Taken at face value, this piece may not be an enjoyable read. However, it would be better approached with an eternal perspective in mind than with our finite human understanding. It is from the former point of view that optimism shines through in our lives. We are hereby compelled to change how we think about things.

          Ecclesiastes is similar to Philippians in that all earthly pursuits are subordinate to the surpassing worth of knowing Jesus Christ (Philippians 3:8). The author of this work uses the phrase "under the sun" more than once in writing. He made observations about the transitory nature of our life and achievements. They are as a grain of sand in a desert. All the flattery that this life has to offer is nothing in the face of the reality of spending eternity with our Creator.

          Ecclesiastes illustrates the futility of placing an over emphasis on worldly passions. It destroys the mentality of a materialist by showing him the futility of his own ways. Even if one could find satisfaction in earthly possessions and success, death lies at the door. He will meet his maker sooner than he thinks. Compare Ecclesiastes 3:19 to Genesis 3:19. We can honestly say with Abraham that we are but dust and ashes (Genesis 18:27).

          The fate of man is the same as that of a beast, death. The fate of the righteous man is the same as that of the unrighteous man, death. Our souls will return to God and our bodies will return to the earth from which they were made. The only difference lies in our eternal destinies, whether it be eternal life or eternal damnation. Man dies and is forgotten. His life is but a candle that dims upon melting. His life is forever hidden from posterity. Man no longer partakes of things in this world once he passes away (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6). 

          Ecclesiastes crushes any form of human pride by setting forth a proper perspective of life. The point being made is not that earthly pursuits as such are bad in and of themselves. Rather, it is a grave error to excessively esteem our status and achievements. We are mostly reinventing the wheel, so to speak. Life from a materialistic perspective is futile. It is vain and pointless. That is the reason for the author's usage of the phrase "vanity of vanities." He decries the futility of the ways of mankind and his lack of wisdom.

          The human heart longs for something more than this life. That is why man is instinctively religious. He has a strong desire for something that transcends this temporal order. Man wants an ultimate sense of fulfillment which he cannot find in the various forms of entertainment that the world has to offer, and is available to someone wealthy like Solomon. The human heart finds its fulfillment in God. The world and the things therein are perishing. The things of our fallen world are subject to wear and tear. The human heart can only rest content in God.

Did The Catholic Church Give The World The Bible?

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Church of Rome argues that if we did not have what it considers to be apostolic oral tradition, then we would not know what books belong in canon of Scripture. This claim is obviously an attempt by Rome to exalt itself as an infallible authority in addition to the Bible. If we cannot know which books are inspired by God, then Sola Scriptura is rendered unworkable at best.
          -It is claimed that the canon issue was settled at the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD). Then, these decisions are said to have been cemented by the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD). Therefore, we are indebted to the Roman Catholic Church and personally obligated to accept its claims to having been founded by Christ Himself.

          -Roman Catholic apologists oftentimes argue that we must embrace the traditions of their church in order to know with certainty which writings are canonical. They make the assertion that we have no ability to know for ourselves which books are authentic, apart from Rome's authoritative declarations on the matter. However, this Catholic argument is unscholarly (because it misrepresents the historical process of recognition) and ahistorical (because it projects a later ecclesiastical model back onto the biblical and early church period).

• This Claim Is A Circular Appeal:

          -It is the Roman Catholic Church that defines what the contents of the Bible are and what constitutes apostolic tradition. That same institution interprets those same sources in a way that gives credence to its claim of having been given infallible teaching authority by Christ. That is a circular position for one to embrace. For starters, we cannot know for sure whether Rome's claims are true, unless we are permitted for ourselves to evaluate the meaning of Scripture and weigh that against various oral traditions, a move denied to us at all times. If that were to be allowed, then Rome's highly skeptical approach to our ability to make sense of divine revelation without an infallible teaching office has been undermined. After all, we would be competent to assess the truthfulness of religious claims on our own, defeating the very purpose for which Rome claims to exist. This is obviously an awkward position to hold from which there is no escaping.

• What About The Councils Of Hippo And Carthage?:

          -The councils of Hippo and Carthage were only provincial. The decisions of these groups were limited to their respective regions, despite there being debates with broader implications than their associated localities like clerical discipline, baptism, and heretical practices. However, their rulings were not binding on the Christian church as a whole. Further, these were African councils, not decisions made by Rome. Neither the councils of Hippo nor Carthage were able to definitively settle any issues occurring in the church during the time in which they occurred. Most of the texts that Christians now regard as canonical were already long regarded as such, making the councils of Hippo and Carthage less relevant in the context determining the canon of Scripture.

• The Problem Of The Old Testament Canon:

          -How did the Jewish people, who lived centuries prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, correctly identify which Old Testament books were inspired by God? How did they know what writings were inspired without the assistance of an infallible teaching authority? For example, the Prophet Daniel makes mention of the Book of Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2). Moreover, Jesus cited the Prophet Isaiah by name (Matthew 15:7-9) and spoke of the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47). Peter cited Joel by name (Acts 2:16-18). Paul specifically cited Isaiah (Romans 9:27-29). The author of Hebrews quotes David from the Psalms (Hebrews 3:7-11). The author of Matthew quotes Jeremiah by name (Matthew 27:9). Recognition of inspired writings happened emergently within the biblical period itself, not centuries later by an external authority.

          -The Roman Catholic Magisterium could not have identified the inspired books of the Old Testament for the Jews because it did not exist before the birth of Christ. There is no historical evidence pointing to any sort of belief in the infallibility of the Jewish religious leaders. In fact, Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for doctrinal errors (Matthew 15; Mark 7). This undercuts any claims made by Rome that we need an infallible authority to declare which books are canonical, since the Jews did so by themselves and had no such thing available to them.

• How Can We Know Which Person Wrote Which Books Of The Bible?:

          -We must be dependent on outside sources of information in order to correctly identify the canon of Scripture. No figure from the early church can directly tell us which texts are authoritative because they are now deceased. The apostles themselves are no longer alive to be able to tell us anything. Therefore, we must resort to the extant extra-biblical writings of the early church (for the New Testament canon) as well as Jewish authorities (for the Old Testament canon). We must draw a number of our conclusions from people who lived before us.

          -As far as the New Testament canon is concerned, there was surprisingly little disagreement over its contents. Early councils only affirmed what was already widely regarded as canonical. There has been nearly unanimous consensus on that matter for over 1,500 years. This picture is contrasted with something like the apocrypha, which has always been challenged as to its reliability.

          -As far as apocryphal gospels are concerned, they contain fanciful stories of Jesus bringing deceased friends back to life, Him healing the bones of people, and turning clay birds into living ones that fly away. None of this silliness is consistent with the simplicity of the four canonical gospel accounts, which points to their authenticity. Spurious works usually were written long after the apostles were deceased, which eliminates them for consideration into the New Testament canon.

          -Canonical writings such as Job and Hebrews have unknown authors, yet the Roman Catholic Church has never officially identified who wrote those books. If "not knowing the author" automatically means a denial of the divine inspiration of a text, then would Roman Catholics be willing to discard those books of the Bible, since their authors are unknown?

• The Irony Of Affirming The Need Of Infallible Certainty Over The Canon:

          -“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, page 29, Copyright 1967; Under “Canon, Biblical”)

            *If infallible certainty over the canon is as important as Roman Catholic apologists make it sound, then why did it take Rome over 1,500 years to officially settle the issue at the Council of Trent? Why would an infallible institution wait so long to give adherents infallible certainty as to the canon of Scripture?

            *If the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically settled the issue of the canon during the fourth century, then why did other canon lists continue to get produced and circulated at much later times? Was Rome unsure of itself on this issue?

            *The claim that Rome is the custodian of the canon is absurd, for many of its own scholars no longer hold to the traditional authorship of various biblical books. Further, there is no universally recognized or explicitly defined list detailing the precise number of infallible statements made by popes throughout history. This absence invites inquiry into the practical application and scope of infallibility, especially given the Catholic insistence that infallible certainty is essential for understanding divine revelation and guiding the faithful.

• The Canon Of Scripture And Church Councils:

          -While church councils helped to make more pronounced the canon of Scripture, they did not assign to those books their authority. Further, that claim is not an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, but a popular assertion parroted by its apologists. Church councils mostly reflected what was already the popular opinion of their times. They were symptomatic of the direction which the church was headed on various issues.

          -The degree of certainty that one can possess regarding the canon is sufficient certainty. The early Christians identified inspired writings and affirmed them as such. The lists produced by church councils were not inspired, but the lists named inspired books.

          -There were already lists containing almost the entire New Testament canon by the second century. Given that our knowledge of this period is fragmentary, it is possible that there may have been earlier lists that corresponded exactly to what we have today.

          -Rome was never the sole contributor to the development of the canon or its sole possessor. Eastern churches, heretics, Jews, and even pagans possessed copies of biblical books. It would be an oversimplification to claim that any single church council decided for all time and for everybody else what books belonged in the canon of Scripture.

          -"It is a remarkable fact no early Church Council selected the books that should constitute the New Testament Canon. The books that we now have crushed out all rivals, not by any adventitious authority, but by their own weight and worth. This is in itself a strong proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the books that have survived. It is not until the close of fourth that any Council even discussed the subject." (Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 25)

Loving One's Neighbor

We all have the tendency to act selfishly toward others. In our world, people are constantly thinking of themselves and fail to recognize that it is not right or proper for them to behave in such a manner. If we can support ourselves and focus on our own desires, then what barrier is preventing us from doing the same with other people? A distinguishing characteristic of Christian piety is not simply love for one's own, but love even for enemies. We often do not live according to Christ's teaching ourselves. Why would God create us if our purpose was only to live in a dungeon of sin? Jesus Christ commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Our purpose in life is to know, love, and serve God in this world with the intent of spending eternity with Him.

We act according to God's will when we love our neighbors as ourselves. His Son gave Himself up on a cross for our sake so that we could be with God eternally in heaven. We who worship Him can give ourselves up by spreading the Gospel of Grace. We can help others to see beyond a self-serving scope which is created by the lenses on the glasses of sin. We know God through His work. We can see things clearly when we put on the glasses of godliness. What is the right decision in life? The proper decision is to demonstrate our love for God by loving our neighbor. We can do kind deeds for others such as raking lawns for the elderly, giving food to the poor, and forgiving the wrongful actions against us committed by others.

We more fully understand what it means to love God when we love our neighbors. If we do not love them, then we do not love God and cannot serve Him. Jesus said,"If you love Me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Our lives as Christians are to be lived out in obedience to Him. Human life itself has intrinsic value. God judges without showing partiality. The love of self is the natural predisposition of man. It is our assumed state of being. The challenge lies in projecting that love away from ourselves. We ought to love God and neighbor. 

We serve the Creator when we love our neighbors as we love ourselves. When we serve others, we are fulfilling His message of doing good for others. When we feed the hungry, we are serving God. When we cloth the naked and visit the prisoners, we are serving God. When we do any form of charity, we are serving God. Preaching the gospel should be our utmost way of serving Him.

We live in a world that is selfish. This is not the way that God intended things to be. That way of life is contrary to His morality. We must look beyond ourselves and our passions. We must extend a helping hand to others, especially our brethren in the church. We are fully capable of doing good works through the grace of God and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. He changes the hearts of people who repent of their sins and believe on Christ for salvation. We are to devote ourselves to the will of God with an eternal perspective.