In his sermon 'Sola Scriptura-Why We Are Protestant,' Robert Bosley addresses the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, emphasizing its importance during the Reformation as a formal principle that asserts the Scriptures alone as the infallible authority for faith and practice. He contrasts this with the Roman Catholic Church's position, which views both Scripture and 'capital T' Tradition, as passed down by the Magisterium, as equally authoritative. Bosley examines Matthew 22 and 2 Timothy 3 to demonstrate Jesus' and the apostles' high regard for Scripture as God's voice. He argues that Scripture is both unique and sufficient for equipping believers for every good work, and must be the ultimate judge of all traditions. The sermon also touches on the historical debate regarding the biblical canon, particularly the Apocrypha, noting that these books were not universally recognized as Scripture until the Council of Trent. Bosley concludes by urging believers to hold fast to the Scriptures as their sole authoritative guide, warning of the dangers of elevating tradition to the same level.

Good afternoon church. If you would take out your copy of the Scriptures and open up to 2 Timothy chapter 3. 2 Timothy chapter 3. We're going to be continuing the short series that I've been doing looking at the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and where we as reformed Protestants disagree. Last week we considered the doctrine of justification that a sinner is made right with God by faith alone and Christ alone apart from any works of merit in contrast to the Roman Catholic system, particularly the sacramental system.

But as central as that debate was to the Reformation, that was not the only point of contention. And also vitally important area of debate with Rome was the question of authority. What is often called the formal principle of the Reformation, the formal principle, the issue or the principle that gives shape or form to the debate. And fundamentally, if we're asking how a sinner is made right with God, we have to say what our authority is that we go to to answer this question. That is the topic that gave form to the Reformation.

And the Reformers came out on the side of a doctrine that came to be known as sola scriptura, that these scriptures alone are our infallible and final rule of faith and practice. And so the the question of authority regarding the Reformation was is it scripture and scripture alone that gives the final answer on these questions or do we need something else to come alongside equal to scripture to supplement it. Well to begin with actually first let's pray and then we will consider this question further. Let's pray. Our Father, we thank you for this time.

I pray, Lord, that you would give us ears to hear and grace to receive your words. Help me, Lord, to speak as I ought to speak, and may you be glorified in our time together this afternoon. In Jesus' name, amen. To start, I want us to begin by considering the official position of the Roman Catholic Church as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Quote, in keeping with the Lord's command the gospel was handed on in two ways, orally and in writing.

End quote. Now this oral transmission, the catechism of the Catholic Church, also calls the living transmission and that's because it is passed on by the living successors of the Apostles, the bishops or the Magisterium of the Church. And this living transmission is also, and I'm again quoting the Catechism, is quote called tradition, and this is tradition with a capital T, since it is distinct from sacred scripture though closely connected to it. Another sentence or few on still the catechism. Sacred tradition and sacred scripture then are bound closely together.

The next sentence, as a result, the church to whom the transmission and interpretation of revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from Holy Scripture alone. But Scripture and capital T tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiment of devotion and reverence." End quote. So Rome openly states that scripture alone is not their final authority. It is scripture plus what they call the capital T tradition passed on by the Magisterium, the the ruling class so to speak of the Catholic Church. Now in addition to this there's also a another tradition, local traditions, a lowercase T tradition that develops over time and can be adapted to differing circumstances.

And we would agree that this happens. Our church has its own traditions. Every group of true churches have their own traditions. That's not a bad thing. That's good and it's natural and it's inevitable.

And we agree there's a place for this tradition that it's not infallible and it can be changed. But we would assert that local tradition must be conformed and changed according to scripture. Everything must be in accordance with scripture. Semper Reformanda, reforming according to the Word of God. But Rome asserts again, quoting the Catechism, quote, in the light of capital T tradition these lowercase t traditions can be retained, modified, or even abandoned under the guidance of, not Scripture, but under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium, End quote.

And so note what Rome says its authorities are. According to Rome in its own catechism, its own official documentation, the magisterium is the final authority for all church practice, ostensibly under the light of the so-called capital T tradition. And so while claiming three sources of authority, Scripture, tradition, the Magisterium, each is proclaimed to have the authoritative Word of God handed down in various means from the Apostles. In practice, Rome determines what the faith consists of through the Church. Rome will criticize us as Protestants for holding to sola scriptura, claiming that we've abandoned sources of authority outside of scripture, but in reality Rome fundamentally abandons scripture and practices what we call sola ecclesia, the church alone is their final authority.

Because in their system, scripture and tradition are ultimately placed at the mercy of the bishops and the pope. That is Rome's view. But when we open our Bibles, what is Jesus' view of authority? What's his view of the Scriptures? What did the apostles teach about the Scriptures?

Now I asked you to open up to 2nd Timothy 3, and we'll get there in a second, but I do want to look at two other passages before we get to 2nd Timothy. First I want us to see what was Jesus's view of Scripture. And one of the most helpful places for this, I believe, is in Matthew chapter 22. You can flip there quickly or write it down and look at it later, but I'm going to move on. Matthew 22, 31, Jesus is rebuking the Sadducees and he says, as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God?

And then he quotes Genesis. Jesus is rebuking the Sadducees and criticizing them for not understanding and believing the words of Moses. Now these men never heard Moses actually speak. Moses had been dead for a very long time before the first century. And yet Jesus says when they read Moses, it is God speaking to them.

God spoke to you saying the words that Moses wrote. That is Jesus's view of Scripture. Jesus makes this vitally important point to them and to us today when we evaluate this question of what is our authority in church and practice. He asserts that to hear the voice of God you go to the written scriptures. You do not go to the Pharisees, the Sadducees, he did not say even go to the Levites or the high priests.

You go to the scriptures if you want to hear the voice of God. Earlier in Matthew, in Matthew chapter 15, Jesus is addressing the claims of extra biblical tradition. The Pharisees and the scribes had adopted a system of tradition outside of Scripture that is remarkably similar to the system that Rome proclaims today. The Pharisees said that they held to, yes, Scripture as an authority, but also there is the tradition of the elders passed down orally from Moses. And we hold that as well.

Well, what was Jesus' response? He explicitly rebuked them for setting aside the commandment of God for the sake of the traditions of men. Specifically, he was referring to the fifth commandment, appropriate for today. They were setting aside the commandments, the very ten commandments of God given to Moses. They were setting it aside for the sake of human tradition.

Now of course Rome will claim today that their tradition is not like the Pharisees tradition. Theirs actually goes back to the Apostles While the Pharisees only claimed that theirs went back to Moses, to which we say, pot, meat, kettle, you are guilty of the same thing. And when we come across this argument that there's this unbroken chain of tradition, we can simply say to the Roman Catholic apologists and say, okay, prove it. Where is this tradition in history? They never can prove it.

They may be able to prove that a certain tradition or doctrine goes back maybe for a long time, but they can never prove a line going all the way back to the apostles. It simply doesn't exist. There are a number of dogmas today that you must believe to be a member in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church that were utterly unknown in the early church. There are some that were utterly unknown to the medieval church or even in the time of the Reformation. Rome's claims of 2, 000 years of unbroken tradition are historically a farce.

Now what was the Apostle Paul's view of tradition? Second Timothy 3. This is, I believe, one of the most clear passages that we can go to, to grasp the foundation and the importance of what we call sola scriptura. We're going to primarily be looking at 16 and 17, but I'm going to back up to verse 14 so we get a little bit of the context. The apostle Paul writing to Timothy, his representative, he says, but you must continue with the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise for 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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." This description of Scripture here follows on this commendation of the Scriptures to Timothy and how he has been raised in the scriptures. And when you go to commentaries or interactions with this, one of the main things you will hear is that this is only about the Old Testament. Because Timothy was raised with the Old Testament. He was a child when the New Testament wasn't even written, so therefore this only applies to the Old Testament. And in a sense it's true.

Timothy was raised reading and hearing the Old Testament scriptures. New Testament wasn't written yet, but consider when this was written. If we assume the traditional historical dating of the New Testament books, Second Timothy is one of the last books written, probably shortly before Paul's martyrdom in 68 AD. I personally take a little bit of a minority position, a little bit more conservative position than many, and I believe all the New Testament was written before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, including the book of Revelation. Some people will say Revelation, the works of John, are toward the end of the first century.

That's fine. But I would say that 2nd Timothy might be the last book written. It's possible. And Paul, before this, in 1st Timothy, quotes the gospel according to Luke. He quotes Luke 10 and 1st Timothy and he calls it scripture.

And Peter, obviously not really relevant, not immediately relevant to what Paul is writing, but Peter in 2nd Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture. So there is an awareness in the minds of the Apostles that there is new Scripture being written. They may not have known exactly what was written. We know Paul wrote at least four letters to the Corinthian Church. Our Bible only has two.

It's not because we lost Scripture, but I believe God only inspired the two that we need today. And I'm sure Paul wrote many other letters to many other churches. So they may not have known exactly when they were writing inspired scripture, but there was at least an awareness that new scripture was being written. And this being one of, if not the last book of the New Testament written when Paul writes all scripture is given by inspiration, this would necessarily include these other new books that are being written. Not only the books that Timothy would have heard as a child.

All scripture. On top of this, when the Spirit of God moved Paul to write this, the Spirit knew what was scripture. God himself is the author of Scripture ultimately, and God knows his canon perfectly and infallibly. And so when the Spirit moved Paul to say that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, it necessarily includes the New Testament scriptures, not merely the Old Testament. And so we come to this issue of, well, all scriptures, Old and New Testament alike, they are utterly unique.

And this is the foundation of our idea of sola scriptura. It has a unique nature and has a unique function. All scripture, Paul writes, is given by inspiration of God. Nowhere else is anything called inspired in the Bible. No tradition, No document aside from these written scriptures.

Nothing is called inspired except the Holy Scriptures. No tradition. The word is phaeopneustos in Greek and it has the idea of God's breath, is the air moving as God speaks. It's that when you go to the scriptures, the inspired Word of God, when you go to these God-breathed documents, it is as if you are so close that you are feeling the movement of air as God speaks. That is what is meant when it says that they are inspired, they are breathed out by God.

And we have an unbroken line of evidence and testimony to the content of the scriptures. Traditions rise and fall throughout history. The scriptures are unbroken. Tradition clearly develops over time. You can look at almost anything that Rome claims is an extra biblical tradition and see its development.

Yes, some of it very early, much of it very late, but you see the development over time. The Scriptures are consistent. They have not been fundamentally ever altered or changed. Scripture alone is considered to be breathed out by God. 2nd Peter 1, Peter tells us how scripture was given that men were carried along or moved along by the Spirit of God.

Nothing else, no other source of doctrine is described in this way. And this coheres with what Jesus said that we just looked at a minute ago in Matthew 22 is God speaking to you. So the scriptures are unique, but they're also sufficient. We see the uniqueness of Scripture here, but we also see the sufficiency of Scripture here. Now if we only had verse 16, this would be harder to prove.

If we only had all Scriptures given by inspiration and is profitable for these things, we could say, well, it's profitable, That doesn't mean that it's alone. It's good for doctrine. It's good for a proof, but there's we can have something more. But Paul didn't end there. Verse 17, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

It's not simply that Scripture is profitable. It is profitable, but it in of itself makes the man of God complete and equipped for every good work, equipped for the work of ministry. Now yes, the phrase man of God does have a particular application to those who are the ministers, so to speak, in the church, like Paul, like Timothy. It draws from the Old Testament imagery of the prophet being the man of God. But this also applies to every believer.

God has given you many good works to do, though most of you will never preach in a church. How can you be equipped for all those good works that God has called you to do? You go to the scriptures. It is in the scriptures that you will be equipped for every good work. Traditions are helpful, often times.

Traditions can correct, traditions can rebuke, traditions can train, but Traditions in of themselves cannot do what scripture does in themselves make you complete and ready for every good work. Traditions may have their place, but they must be regulated by scripture. Scripture is sufficient, and it must be the judge of all our traditions, of all our practices, of everything we believe and teach and do. All of it must be regulated by what God has inspired. We know of no other source of inspired authoritative teaching.

There's no evidence of it in anything else aside from the written scriptures. Well, I've got about seven minutes. I want to touch on one related issue, the idea of the canon. And you little boys don't get too excited. I don't mean the boom canon.

I mean C-A-N-O-N, the canon or the rule of the scriptures. What is the authoritative list of the scriptures? This is technically distinct from the issue of sola scriptura, but it's often related to it, and it obviously is related to it. The canon of scripture. Because after all, if we are going to say that scripture alone is our authority, we're going to say sola scriptura, we need to know what is the scriptura.

Now the word canon in itself means the idea of a standard or a rule by which everything is measured. And here it takes on the idea of an authoritative list of books that is the rule for our faith and for our practice. Now defenders of Rome will often accuse Protestants of removing books from the canon of scripture. I'm sure you've seen this. It's very common.

Or that we do not accept the Church's role in establishing the canon. This is often primarily true of the more popular-level apologists. The scholars tend to recognize it's not really a very good argument. When we look at Rome's Bible, their canon, we see that they have all the books we have, but they have some more. They have the addition of what we would call the Apocrypha, or what they call the Deutera canon, the second canon.

These are the books of Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees, as well as some additional sections to the books of Daniel and Esther. Daniel and Esther in the Greek version of the Old Testament contain numerous additions, stories, several chapters of additional information, more narrative, more stories, Belle and the Dragon, so on and so forth. When Jerome translated the Greek version of the Old Testament into Latin for his Vulgate, Jerome recognized that these books were not Scripture. And so he actually removed those sections from where they were in Esther and Daniel and he set the the Apocrypha aside almost like an appendix. He still translated it into Latin, but said this is not scripture, but it might be useful.

And this was a common view throughout church history. In 1611, when the King James Version was first published, many of you may not know this, but it was published with the Apocrypha. Not because they thought the Apocrypha was Scripture. They absolutely did not. But, following tradition for a very long time said it's not scripture but it may be useful for historical and ethical education.

And this was a dominant view of the Apocrypha throughout the church. And this is what Jerome did when he translated into the Vulgate. He set aside, said it's not canon, it's not scripture, but it may be useful. The sampling of people who held the same view throughout the church, you have Melito of Sardis in the second century origin, Athanasius of Alexandria, the bishop famously, Athanasius contra mundum, Athanasius against the world. He did not believe the Apocrypha was scripture.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Pope Gregory the Great, on and on, even into the 1500s. Luther's first opponent at the beginning of the Reformation, Cardinal Cayetan, he did not hold that the Apocrypha was scripture. In his commentary on the Old Testament, Cajetan wrote, quote, these books are not canonical. That is, they are not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith, end quote. You'll notice there's a pattern here among those who rejected the Apocrypha.

If a theologian or if a bishop or a preacher knew Hebrew and understood history, particularly the Jewish canon and the Jewish view of scripture, they were much more likely to reject the Apocrypha, because there is no question that these books were rejected by the Jews. Most of the Apocrypha was written prior to the first century. It was written roughly in the period of 300 BC to 180. So some of these books were still being written, but the books that had been written were always rejected by the Jews. They were not accepted.

Unfortunately, when you have the split between the church and the synagogue by definitively by the end of the first century, there was a real pulling away from the Jewish roots of the church. There was really only two early fathers who even knew Hebrew, and that caused much confusion about what books did the Jews view as Scripture. But the two men who primarily were Hebrew scholars in the early church, Origen and Jerome both agreed these are not Scripture. And that tradition continued on even until the Reformation. However, Rome has adopted these books today and calls them Scripture.

Now there was a stream of thought that accepted them as Scripture, beginning with regional councils in the 4th century, but these were always regional councils called to address local issues. It was never, as you'll often hear, the universal practice of the whole church to receive these books. It simply wasn't true. It never happened until the Council of Trent. By the time you get to the Reformation, the desire of the Reformers to go ad fontes back to the sources of the original languages had created renewed interest in Hebrew and a desire to understand the historical Jewish perspective on the canon.

And so the Reformers were unanimous in their rejection of the Apocrypha because they said no, God's word was given in Hebrew in the Old Testament, Greek in the New Testament. We cannot go beyond what is written. We cannot add to the Old Covenant scriptures. And so in opposition to the Reformers, in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church and the Council of Trent for the first time infallibly and universally declared that the Apocrypha was scripture. So no, Luther did not remove books from the Bible.

Rome added them. These books were never universally recognized until the mid 16th century when Rome, via the judgment of a council, decreed that these are now scripture. It is interesting that Cajetan, Luther's first debate opponent, rejected them. Unfortunately, he died before the Council of Trent happened. It would have been interesting to see what his response would have been to the Council of Trent had he survived.

But what does this mean for us? As we look at history, as we look at where we stand as Protestants in contrast to Rome, let us hold fast to the more sure word that we have been given. We have the God-breathed scriptures. So whatever our practice, whatever our belief, whatever our traditions are, let us go to the scriptures as our only and our final infallible source of authority. Because to go beyond this is dangerous.

This is what God has given to regulate His church, to regulate His people. Go to this. Evaluate all your traditions by this. Because this is God's Word to you. If you want to hear God speak, read your Bible.

Let's pray. Father, we thank you that you have given us your Word. We Thank you Lord that you have preserved it and you have allowed us to live in a time and place where we have it so easily available to us. Oh God, may we never take for granted this wonderful treasure you have given us in your word. And help us Lord to be diligent to conform our lives our church and all our practices to it knowing that this is what you have written what you have given to us as our final standard thank you Lord for not leaving us without instruction.

Thank you Lord for speaking to us even today. In Jesus' name, amen.