God's Word: the FINAL Authority!NO Tradition is  EQUAL to This Book!

Sola Scriptura!

What's On This Page

Page13.html: Revised 05/09/2000

Go to Table of Contents

On this page: [How This Page was Born][What Sola Scriptura is NOT] [Catholic Objection to Sola Scriptura] [What Is Sola Scriptura?][Scriptural Evidence for Sola Scriptura] [Contrary Dogma, Doctrine, Traditions] [Fathers of the church on Sola Scriptura][Catholic Apologists on Sola Scriptura] [Proof that Scripture is Inspired]

Sola Scriptura! Battle Cry of all Christians

A share of the credit for this page goes to a Roman Catholic email friend, M.B. In our email exchanges, he kept pushing to discuss the concept of Sola Scriptura. He seemed obsessed by the idea that Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), the battle cry of the Reformers, could easily be shot down, and, in fact, had been decisively shot down by Catholic apologists. As I studied the concept in depth, it occurred to me that he was not the only Catholic who had been blind-sided by baseless, and at times almost humorous attack on the Scriptures. I also learned that many Protestants are as unprepared to defend their faith as are most Roman Catholics. Thus this page came into being.

I hear some Catholics speak the words Sola Scriptura as if spitting out a mouthful of sour milk. The term itself seems to raise Catholic hackles, at least of those Catholics who have bothered to read what their apologists have to say. The are convinced that Sola Scriptura is the Latin equivalent of "Down with the pope! Down with the Magisterium! Down with many Catholic doctrines!" It would be more accurate to say that Sola Scriptura is the Latin equivalent of "Up with the Word of God!" If you discover that the Word of God (and not me) is the equivalent of "Down with many Catholic doctrines," please don't blame me! Take up your argument with God, ok?

Be you a sincere Roman Catholic or a sincere Protestant, it is important that you understand the principle of Sola Scriptura for what it is. I trust your intelligence, whoever you are! Once you understand the simple definition of Sola Scriptura, I believe you are able enough to make a comparison with this principle and what the Church of Rome teaches. Unlike the Magisterium of Rome, I strive not to tell you what to believe (and curse you for disagreeing), but to lay out the facts and let you decide for yourself. Naturally, I will give you my opinion, my belief in the matter. But I will still love you in the name of Christ, even if you come to a different conclusion. I shall not lay an anathema (curse) upon you, as does Rome. Rather will I pray for you, and ask that the Lord our God will give you the eyes, the vision, the wisdom of His Holy Spirit. This is what Christ tells me to do; I shall obey him.

What Sola Scriptura Is NOT!

Before defining what the principle of Sola Scriptura is, we need first to identify what it is not. Many, Catholics and Protestants alike, have some strange and false impressions about it. For the following list of what Sola Scriptura is not, I am indebted to James R. White and his book, The Roman Catholic Controversy.

Catholic Objection to Sola Scriptura

A common Catholic objection to Sola Scriptura is that Scripture itself denies that it is the complete rule of faith (citing, for example, John 21:25 Timothy 2:2). This objection is misleading because of the term, "complete." But Sola Scriptura does not say that the Bible is the complete rule of faith, only that it is the sufficient rule of faith.

The logical error in this Roman Catholic objection is the implied assumption that if the Scripture is not totally complete and exhaustive, then Scripture alone is inadequate as the rule of faith. Here an analogy may help (at least it will help if you drive a car!). Do you drive a car? Good. Now, can you tell me the theory of your car's internal combustion engine, and of it's catalytic converter system, and it's hydraulic and fuel injection systems? Can you explain why some of your car's electrical circuits use 1-amp fuses, while others use 2-amp, 3-amp, 10-amp, 15-amp and 20-amp fuses? Can you explain why some of its fuses are "slow-blow" while others are "immediate-blow?" Can you identify the traditional design elements that emerged over the years of testing and development of your car?

You can't?! Oh, my goodness! Then you certainly should not be driving that car because you don't have a complete knowledge of how it works, of how it's designed! How on earth did you ever get your license to drive?

Sounds a bit absurd, doesn't it? Of course it does, because it is absurd. To drive your car, all you need to know is how to turn it on and off, how to start and stop safely, how to use the operator controls, and the rules of the road as offered by your local registry of motor vehicles. In other words, to drive your car you need a sufficient knowledge, not a complete, total knowledge. Equally true with salvation and living your faith: you need a source (the Scriptures) that is sufficient as your rule of faith, not that is complete and total.

Alright. Now that you know what Sola Scriptura is not, let's take a look at what it is.

| Top of Page | What's on this page | Table of Contents | Comments? |

What Is Sola Scriptura?

Sola Scriptura is the Protestant principle that the dogmas and doctrines found in Scripture are adequate, or sufficient for attaining salvation. No dogma or doctrine that is not found in the Scriptures is needed for salvation. Here is a summary of the definition of Sola Scriptura:

This is not to say that all Scriptures are so simple that God's Truth is immediately self-evident upon a cursory reading. Rather is it to say that the things necessary for salvation are self-evident to anyone who can read with only a modicum of understanding; one need not be a graduate student or highly educated to understand what God wants us to understand in this matter. To this end, consider the words of St. Paul:

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." [2 Timothy 3: 14-17]

Notice that Paul reminds Timothy of his knowledge of the Scriptures. Notice also that Paul states that the Scriptures "are able to make thee wise unto salvation. . ." Finally, notice that Paul says that Scripture is sufficient to "make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

In contradiction, Rome teaches that Scripture is not sufficient, but that an extra-Biblical source which she calls "the Magisterium" is necessary too. Even more necessary, in fact, because Rome says that we cannot really understand Scriptures without the intervention, interpretation and additions of said "Magisterium." ("Magisterium" is really just another word for "The Roman Catholic Church" or "The Pope.") Thus does Rome teach that she, herself, is more necessary than God, who inspired the infallible Scriptures to begin with.

Now back to Paul and Timothy, with a few questions for you to consider.
QUESTION: Did Paul tell Timothy that Tim's own knowledge of Scripture was sufficient for his salvation? Yes No
QUESTION: How could Paul tell Timothy that his own knowledge of Scriptures was sufficient for his (Timothy's) salvation - when no Roman Catholic Magisterium yet existed? Your answer?
QUESTION: How could Paul tell Timothy that his own knowledge of Scriptures was sufficient for his (Timothy's) salvation - when the Roman Catholic Church explicitly denies such sufficiency of Scripture? Your answer?
QUESTION: Did Paul tell Timothy that Scripture is sufficient to make one perfect (mature) and thoroughly furnished (prepared, able to do) all good works? Yes No
QUESTION: Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that Scripture is NOT sufficient in this area, but that her own Magesterium (Pope, Pope+Bishops) MUST be added to Scripture instead? Yes No
QUESTION: Since these are contradictory teachings, both cannot be correct. Either Scripture is sufficient (Paul) or it is not sufficient (Rome). Which do you choose to believe: Saint Paul or the Roman Catholic Church? Your answer?

| Top of Page | What's on this page | Table of Contents | Comments? |

More Scriptural Evidence for Sola Scriptura

Consider the Bereans

10And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11These 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. 12Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. 13But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. (Acts 17: 10-13)

Here we see Paul and Silas preaching the Word of God, the Gospel, in Berea. What do you see those Bereans doing? Checking up on Paul and Silas by studying the Scriptures! Those "sola scriptura" Bereans were not about to believe Paul and Silas unless what they said lined up with the written Word of God! Did Paul criticize them, or tell them that their oral teaching was something separate from, or different than what was already written in Scripture (as the Roman Catholic Church does)? No, he didn't. Rather did he commend them! And don't forget that, as an Apostle, Paul had the authority to speak for Jesus Christ.
QUESTION: Did the Bereans use Scripture to check up on Paul and Silas? Yes No
QUESTION: Did Paul correct or commend them for it? Correct Commend
QUESTION: Picture yourself listening to someone teaching about salvation. Where will you go to find out if you heard the truth or not? My Church Scripture
QUESTION: If the Bereans checked the great Apostle Paul's spiritual teaching against Scripture, what should you do when considering anyone's spiritual teaching, be they priest, minister or rabbi? Your Answer?

A Warning From Paul

6And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1 Corinthians 4:6)

Paul is telling the Corinthians in plain terms, that they (and therefore you and I) must not go beyond what is written. And what is it that Paul refers to? Scripture; it is the basis of all his teachings. Paul is setting a limit here, and that limit is what is written in Scripture.

1Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 4And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. 5But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, (Acts 17: 1-5)

Paul appealed to the authority of Scripture as the sufficient guide by which we can judge for ourselves if Jesus of Nazareth is really the Messiah, the Christ, the promised redeemer. Excuse me? Did you say "judge for ourselves?" Yes, I did. And that is exactly what Paul expected his listeners to do. He pointed them to the Scriptures so that they could confirm that his teaching was valid - the same thing he commended the Bereans for doing.

And what did the unbelieving Jews do? Did they too check Christ out by Scripture? No indeed. Their traditions were more important to them than the Scriptures. Acting on the basis of their own traditions, not on Scripture, they diligently worked to stop that "Scripture only" Apostle from winning souls for Christ, from showing what is necessary for salvation. Sound vaguely familiar?

From the Prophet Isaiah

So why are you trying to find out the future by consulting witches and mediums? Don't listen to their whisperings and mutterings. Can the living find out the future from the dead? Why not ask your God? Check these witches' words against the Word of God!" (Isaiah 8: 19-20: from The Catholic Living Bible )

Here we have a great prophet of God telling the people to check what is said against the Word of God, the Scriptures. Does Isaiah mention any traditions here? Does he even hint that folks need to stick with such traditions? No, he does not. Rather is Isaiah holding up the Scripture as the final authority regarding spiritual matters. How plain can it get?

John Says Scripture is Sufficient for Salvation

30And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

Could John have written a lot more? Certainly. That is not the point. The point that John makes is that what has been written is sufficient for salvation. If you are drowning thirty feet from shore, how long a rope do I need to save you? Fifty feet would be sufficient. Would it matter to you if my rope was two hundred feet long? Would it matter to you if I had a few more ropes back in my van? Hardly. Equally true, if what is written, Scripture, is sufficient (as John says it is) to save you, anything that is not written is not necessary. So we have another Apostle who seems to be a "Scripture is sufficient" person.

Paul and Sola Scriptura

14Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Corinthians 2:14-15)

This is a Scripture used by Rome to prove that what the Apostles taught was two separate things: written Scripture and oral tradition. But is there any indication in this passage that its author was speaking of two separate, and supposedly different things? No, it is clear he is speaking of a single thing, which he terms "tradition," and which he taught them in two ways: by speaking and by writing. If, in fact, he had taught them separate and different things, is it not fair to ask, "Exactly what are those hidden things that were for some mysterious reason withheld from the Scripture?" And we must also ask, "Why would Paul keep certain things a secret to be shared only orally, and never to be written into Scripture? What possible reason could he have had? And again, if any of those hidden traditions is essential to one's salvation, can you think of a single reason why they were withheld by the Roman Catholic Church, sometimes for centuries?
QUESTION: If Rome is correct in teaching that oral tradition is separate and distinct from written Scripture, can you tell me exactly what all those oral traditions are? Yes No
QUESTION: Again, if Rome is correct, can you tell me whether or not all such oral traditions have now been revealed to us? If not, why not? Yes No

Paul Says Scripture Sufficient

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." (1 Corinthians 4:6)

What does Paul refer to when he says "above that which is written?" Clearly he refers to written Scripture. Paul is telling folks to avoid divisive factions based on this or that teacher. It is a warning to avoid doctrines that go beyond, or are not readily provable from written Scripture.

Additional Scriptures to Consider

You should also consider the following Scriptures vis-a-vis Sola Scriptura, and for the reasons given.

Matthew 15:4-5, 7-9; Mark 7:5-8, 10-11. Reason: Shows Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for adding to and subverting the written Scriptures.

Matthew 12:3,5; 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:19, 31; Luke 10:26, 16:29; John 5:39; Romans 4:3; 2 Timothy 3:15. Reason: Shows that Jesus and his Apostles regularly appeal to the written Scriptures as the primary authority. Never do you find them appealing to any other source.

A Matter of Judgement

One final Scriptural perspective deserves consideration. . . the question of how we shall be judged. Consider the words of Paul to the Romans:
"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Romans 2:16)

Paul says that we shall be judged by Christ according to the Gospel. The Gospel is fully contained in the written word of Scripture. It is the written Word that we shall be held accountable for, not whether we were Roman Catholic or Protestant. Our church will not stand beside us in our day of judgement, and no appeal can be made to our church at that time. Its a sobering thought. Perhaps that is why the Psalmist wrote that:

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." (Psalm 119:105)
"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night." (Psalm 1:1-2)

| Top of Page | What's on this page | Table of Contents | Comments? |

Contrary Dogmas, Doctrines and Traditions

Any dogma or doctrine that contradicts, or is contradicted by Scripture is considered part of 'another gospel' and is not to be believed or followed:
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:6-9)

This basic principle is cited by an authority that the Roman Catholic Church cannot deny, Father of the Church Basil of Caesarea (c. 330-379) where he says,

"If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." [Basil of Caesarea, Letter CLXXXIX; A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), Page 229]

Clearly this Father of the Church believed in Sola Scriptura as it is properly defined and understood. Now, to check on what we have learned thus far, let's try a few questions.
QUESTION: What does the Bible say we should think of anyone who teaches a Gospel (sic. Dogma or Doctrine) that is different in any way from what the Bible itself teaches? Your answer?
QUESTION: Does Father of the Church St. Basil say that Scripture alone must be the final judge of matters of tradition, doctrine, etc., and that traditions and doctrines that are not found in Scripture are false? Yes No

QUESTION: Is the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception (of Mary) part of the Gospel? Yes No
QUESTION: Is the Doctrine of an Infallible Pope part of the Gospel? Yes No
QUESTION: Is the Doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity part of the Gospel? Yes No
QUESTION: Is the Doctrine of Purgatory part of the Gospel? Yes No
QUESTION: Is the Doctrine of auricular confession part of the Gospel? Yes No
QUESTION: Is the Doctrine of Penance part of the Gospel? Yes No
QUESTION: Did the Apostles teach any of these doctrines? Yes No

These are, of course, rhetorical questions. That is, the answer to all these questions is an unqualified, provable-from-the-Gospel NO! Does the Roman Catholic Church offer Scriptural evidence for these doctrines? Again, the answer is no. Rather does the Roman Catholic church find it necessary to fall back upon her own 'tradition' to justify her unbiblical doctrines.

Please, please get out your Bible and read the Gospel for yourself! Actually, the Gospels, for there are four of them in the Bible. Then read the rest of the New Testament.

Search diligently for any sign that Jesus or the Apostles believed in or taught us to believe in these six dogmas/doctrines. As you are reading, also be alert to things that may, in fact, contradict them. You will definitely be blessed by the reading itself. Your church now encourages you to read the Bible where not so long ago it ordered Catholics to not read it. After your have read through your Catholic Bible, answer the above questions for yourself.
Question: Now that you know these teachings of Rome are false, are not found in the Gospel at all, and, in fact, contradict the Gospel, what shall you do about it?

Your Answer?

| Top of Page | What's on this page | Table of Contents | Comments? |

Catholic Fathers on Sola Scriptura

Some Roman Catholic apologists write that the principle of Sola Scriptura did not exist until the time of the Reformation. They claim that Luther and other Reformers invented the idea to subvert the church of Rome. To this claim, I offer the following statements by the esteemed Father of the Church St. Augustine.

St. Augustine on Sola Scriptura

"This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and asfterwards by the Apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called cannonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves." [St. Augustine, City of God, Book XI, Chapter 3.]
"what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostles? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not "be wise more than it behoveth to be wise;" [St. Augustine, City of God, Book XI, Chapter 3.]

From the words of Saint Augustine, a most respected Father of the Church, we have proof that the principle of Sola Scriptura existed as early as the fifth century, more than a millennium earlier than the Protestant Reformation! According to St. Augustine, Scripture is the paramount, or supreme authority, and it must be used as the rule to teaching. Sure sounds like the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura to me!
QUESTION: According to the words of Saint Augustine, did he believe in the principle of "Sola Scriptura?" Yes No

A number of Fathers of the church believed in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Rather than repeat all the information here, Click on Fathers of The Church to read them for yourself.

Catholic Apologists on Sola Scriptura

Catholic Apologist Karl Keating

My email friend, M.B., wrote to me that the Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating, had 'demolished' the Sola Scriptura principle. When he indicated his gratitude to some Roman Catholic apologists for sending him running back to the Roman Catholic church (and away from us spiritually ignorant, separated brethren), I asked M.B. for the identity of the books that had done the job for him. Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians" was one such book. I immediately ordered it from AMAZON.COM (a great source for books) and devoured it during a vacation by a remote Maine lake. Let's hear what Mr. Keating says about Sola Scriptura!
"Yet there is perhaps no greater frustration, in dealing with fundamentalists, than in trying to pin them down on why the Bible should be taken as a rule of faith at all, let alone as the sole rule of faith. It all reduces to the question of why fundamentalists accept the Bible as inspired, because the Bible can be taken as a rule of faith only if it first held to be inspired and thus inerrant. Now this is a problem that does not keep most Christians awake at night. Most have never given it serious thought." (Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Page 122-123)

It is sad but true, that all too many Christians are not prepared to explain their reasons for accepting Scripture as being the inspired Word of God. All too many are content to quote the following Scripture as their reason for accepting it:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Mr. Keating makes the argument that just because a book claims to be inspired is not sufficient reason to believe that it is inspired. In this he is correct. Thus, to simply cite this verse appears as a circular argument. Yet any Christian who has a good foundation in Scripture does have at his or her disposal several lucid and acceptable arguments in favor of an inspired book. Click here to see these arguments for yourself.

"In fact, fundamentalists begin with the fact of inspiration - just as they take other doctrines of fundamentalism as givens, not as deductions - and then they find things in the Bible that seem to support inspiration, claiming, with circular reasoning, that the Bible confirms its inspiration, which they knew all along. The man who wrestles with the fundamentalist approach to inspiration at length is unsatisfied because he knows he has no good grounds for his belief. The Catholic position is the only one, ultimately, that can satisfy the intellect." (Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Page 124)

While I don't know who Mr. Keating did interview, it certainly wasn't me! I find it insulting that he pretends to represent me in such a manner too! I am, in fact, a 'man who wrestled with the fundamentalist approach to inspiration.' I am not unsatisfied, and I know that I do have 'good grounds for my belief.' Where, Mr. Keating, do you get off telling me things about myself that are patently untrue?!

As to the Catholic position, I find that does not satisfy my intellect; rather do I find the Catholic position insults my intellect, and is untenable at best. I do find very good grounds for my belief in the principle of Sola Scriptura, and in those beliefs I am supported by the most eminent Father of the Church, Saint Augustine, along with a number of other Fathers.

| Top of Page | What's on this page | Table of Contents | Comments? |

A Challenge to Karl Keating

At this point a comparison between Fundamentalism and Roman Catholicism is in order. When you think about Mr. Keating's statement, you have to wonder how the selfsame argument would apply to his belief? Can I apply his logic to his own position? That would be fair, wouldn't it? The following table contains Keatings statement and my counter-statement. Compare them and decide for yourself: is Keating's argument valid - or is it void of true value?
RomeWatch versus Karl Keating

You be the judge!

Keating's Statement

"In fact, fundamentalists begin with the fact of inspiration - just as they take other doctrines of fundamentalism as givens, not as deductions - and then they find things in the Bible that seem to support inspiration, claiming, with circular reasoning, that the Bible confirms its inspiration, which they knew all along.

The man who wrestles with the fundamentalist approach to inspiration at length is unsatisfied because he knows he has no good grounds for his belief. The Catholic position is the only one, ultimately, that can satisfy the intellect." (Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Page 124)

My response to Karl Keating's Statement

"In fact, Roman Catholics begin with the fact of an infallible pope and magesterium - just as they take other doctrines of Rome as givens, not as deductions - and then they try (usually without success) to find things in the Bible that seem to support infallibility, which they knew all along. So Catholics must turn to man-made Tradition to 'prove' their point.

The man who wrestles with the Roman Catholic approach to inspiration at length is unsatisfied because he knows he has no good grounds for his belief. In the end, the only REAL authority for Catholics is the 'Magisterium,' which posits itself as the sole interpreter of Scripture, and, by that definition, must be above Scripture." (RomeWatch Sola Scriptura Page)

Another Keating Error

Consider the following from Catholic apologist Karl Keating:
"Fundamentalists are quite right in believing the Bible is inspired,
but their reasons for so believing are inadequate because knowledge
of the inspiration of the Bible can be based only on an authority
establised by God to tell us the Bible is inspired, and that
authority is the Church." (Karl Keating, Catholicism and
Fundamentalism; Page 127)

Don't you find it interesting that Mr. Keating puts-down non-Catholics' acceptance of an inspired Bible because (he thinks) their reasons for acceptance are flawed or invalid? Never mind the FACT of acceptance - let's assume some reasons in those ignorant, non-Catholic minds, and go attack that instead! After studying the work of several Catholic apologists, I found that this is one of their favorite tactics. When they know they don't have a leg to stand on, they pick out some minor or irrelevant aspect of the subject, and drag the reader down a garden path of pretty, but nonsensical words. Mr. Keating writes very well indeed. Back in my days as a manager of Publications for an international firm, I would have hired him in a flash! Too bad he can't stay on track.

Did you notice how Mr. Keating simply assumed some 'reasons' in your mind and mine for accepting the inspiration of the Bible? Does he speak for you, my Protestant surfer friend? He most assuredly does not speak for me! How could he possibly know your reasons and mine without first asking us? Did he inquire of you? Did he inquire of anyone you know? I doubt it.

Next, Mr. Keating postulates a second assumption - that the only way one can determine if the Bible is inspired or not is by having an extra-Biblical authority to quote on the question. Does he really expect any intelligent reader to let such an ill-founded assumption pass without challenge? Where, Mr. Keating, do you derive the authority to declare that such an authority must exist? Upon what do you base your decision, being a fallible person just like the rest of us? Has it never occurred to you that there might exist a variety of very good reasons to accept the inspiration of the Bible, without having to appeal to a self-appointed authority?

I might also ask, where, in the non-existence of the Roman Catholic Church at and before the time of Christ, was the authority vested to determine if the entire Old Testament was inspired or not? If Keating and Rome are correct about Rome's self-proclaimed authority, even Jesus Himself was on dangerous ground - quoting from the testament so frequently.

Mr. Keating's third unfounded assumption is that the Roman Catholic Church is the authority he postulates. Why not the Eastern Orthodox church? It's history parallels that of Rome until the East-West split between Rome and Constantinople doesn't it? So why can't that denomination be the real, true authority instead of Rome? Millions of Orthodox believers think so. Or how about the Mormons? They claim a divinely-given infallibility for their prophets, and for The Book of Mormon, do they not? It is the same claim made by Rome, so who is to judge between them?

In addition, the claim to be the one, real, true, divinely-inspired church, with infallibility, is one of the primary signs of a cult, not of the church of God! The moment any organization or individual make such a claim, one's mind should encounter a very large, red flag that says, "WARNING! DANGER! STAY AWAY!" It is well known that whenever a man or organization declares himself/itself to have such absolute power and authority, the road to corruption has been entered. Only by vesting the absolute, final power and authority in the Word of God can the inevitable corruption of sinful men be avoided. Its something to think about.

| Top of Page | What's on this page | Table of Contents | Comments? |

How Can I be Sure the Bible is the Inspired Word of God?

[Fulfilled Prophecy] [Words of Christ] [Fathers of the Church][Changed Lives][Scripture Itself]

The Roman Catholic Church claims that it, and it alone has the authority to declare the Bible (Scripture) to be the inspired Word of God. How cavalier of her! How on earth can an organization that is supposed to derive its own validity from the Bible turn around and claim just the opposite?! That is, how can the Roman Catholic Church claim that she alone 'gave us' the Bible, when, in fact, the Bible gave us the Church?! How like a cult does Rome call black white, and call white black, and then curse anyone who disagrees!

COMING SOON: CHANGED LIVES PROVE INSPIRATION!Fulfilled Prophecy is Proof of Inspiration

One of the greatest proofs of the inspiration of Scriptures can be found in the area of prophecy - specifically fulfilled prophecy. Scripture is nothing if not a prophetic book. It "contains 1,817 individual predictions concerning 737 separate subjects found in 8,352 verses. These numerous predictions comprise 27 per cent of the 31,124 verses in the whole of the Scriptures." [The Signature of God: Astonishing Biblical Discoveries, Grant R. Jeffrey, ©1996: Frontier Research Publications- ISBN 0-921714-28-9]

I believe all readers would agree that God, and only God is capable of pronouncing hundreds of prophecies that, without exception, are fulfilled 'to the letter.' Such fulfilled prophecies lend unassailable credibility to the inspiration of Scripture. If the prophetic (and therefore the most difficult to accept) aspect of Scripture is provably accurate, what possible reason could we have to deny the credibility of the rest of Scripture which God claim to have inspired?

Consider, if you will, the Messianic prophecies. These are the prophecies that deal with Jesus Christ, the Messiah of God. The author cited above presents just seventeen Messianic prophecies and their precise fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Applying known Laws of Probability, he calculates that the probability of just one man, Jesus or not, fulfilling just those seventeen predictions is 1 chance in 480 Billion x 1 Billion x 1 Trillion! In short, impossible - unless, of course, God Himself had inspired those prophecies in the first place.

In addition, there are many other Scriptural prophecies, on other topics, that have also come to pass, to the finest detail.

COMING SOON: PROPHECY PROVES INSPIRATION!Under construction. Stop by again for the latest information. And thanks for visiting!

| Top of Page | List of Topics on this Page | Comments | Table of Contents |


It is clear from Jesus' own words that He considered Scripture (at least the Old Testament part) to be God's inspired Word. He quotes from just about every Old Testament book, He boldly states that "Scripture cannot be broken," and He claims that the Scriptures were written about Himself - the Messiah.

| Top of Page | List of Topics on this Page | Comments | Table of Contents |

COMING SOON: CHANGED LIVES PROVE INSPIRATION!Fathers of the Church Support Inspiration

Most Fathers of the Church support the idea that Scripture is inspired of God. A number of them also state that Scripture must be the final authority on matters of doctrine and practice. The following examples show that those Fathers of the Church seemed unfamiliar with the 'three-legged-stool" approach of Rome, i.e., that the final authority is evenly split among Scripture, The "Magisterium" of the Roman Catholic Church, and Roman Catholic Tradition. Actually, the three legs of Rome's stool are not equal at all. Close study shows that Scripture is a much shorter leg than the Roman Catholic Magisterium, because the understanding of Scripture is subject to that Magesterium. The lesser is always subject to the greater, right?

Anyhow, rather than repeat the information, I give you the links to their location on our "Fathers of the Church" page.

Saint Jerome

Saint Augustine

Saint Chrysostom

Saint Basil

| Top of Page | List of Topics on this Page | Comments | Table of Contents |


To be supplied.


| Top of Page | List of Topics on this Page | Comments | Table of Contents |


"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Peter, who Rome considers the first Pope and first Bishop of Rome, here cites Paul's writings as being on the same level as the Old Testament Scriptures - and therefore the inspired Word of God. How can any good Roman Catholic argue with their own first Pope?

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:16-21)

Peter here states that his words and those of the other Gospel writers are inspired prophecy, the Word of God given through them by the Holy Ghost. Thus does Peter once again claim equivalence with the Old Testament, which all agree is the inspired Word of God.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
"For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." (1 Timothy 5:18)

We need to examine these two passages together. The first thing to note is the Second Timothy was written by Paul in 63 AD, after the four Gospels and most of the rest of the New Testament were written. Note, secondly, that in 1 Timothy 5:18, that Paul, quoting from 1 Corinthians 9:9, refers to that Epistle as "scripture." If Paul, one of the greatest of the Apostles, considered his own writings as Scripture, who are we to argue?

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." (Galatians 3:22)

Here we have the Apostle Paul using the term "scripture" of the book of Romans (Romans 3:23, 5:12, and 2 Corinthinans 13:2). Once again we have an Apostle saying that the New Testament is Scripture - the inspired Word of God.

"For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." (Romans 10:11)

Which scripture says this? Paul is quoting here from the book of Romans:

"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." (Romans 9:33)

| Top of Page | List of Topics on this Page | Comments | Table of Contents |

Comments? Questions?

Visit Our Message Board!Click this box to view or post your comments on our Message Board. See what others have to say! Enter your own comments about this site, or the information you find here. If your comments are of general interest, they may be included in an update to this site.