Josiah Concept Ministries

It seems as though the audience favorite was Dinesh D’souza tonight.  The lanky scholar received thunderous applause after his speech on New Atheism.  D’souza had several tough acts to follow, including a very enlightening speech on the bodily Resurrection of Christ from Dr. William Lane Craig and a lecture on inerrancy of Scripture from Dr. Norman Geisler.

I have only one regret for this conference.  I probably won’t ever get the chance to do it again.  After all, how often do I run into William Lane Craig?

I wish I had challenged Dr. Craig’s view of Calvinism.  Dr. Craig fell into exactly the same trap that I describe in my post on predestination, only he runs into it with God’s sovereignty.  Dr. Craig assumes that the Calvinist and hyper-Calvinist views of human freedom are one in the same.  Dr. Craig affirms the Molinist view of God’s middle knowledge while attacking the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty as deterministic.  While Dr. Craig affirms that Molinism and Calvinism are compatible, he does not do the compatibility any justice.

Molinism, in brief, states that God has three levels of knowledge.  God’s natural knowledge, stage one, is encompasses every world that is possible.  At stage 2, God’s middle knowledge, He knows all of the worlds that are plausible.  In other words, at this stage, God knows what His creatures will do when given a set of circumstances.  God’s free knowledge, at stage three, is the actual world that God chooses to create from the middle knowledge He has at stage 2.  In this way, His creatures are still free to choose but God has chosen their world for them, so He already knows what the choice is going to be.

Hyper-Calivinism, which Dr. Craig views incorrectly as orthodox Calvinism, views reprobation as a positive action on God’s part rather than a negative action.  Orthodox Calvinism says that God allows reprobates to suffer His wrath (as all of humanity deserves), while positively pursuing the elect with His irresistible grace.  Hyper-Calvinism, on the other hand, has God purposely bringing sin into the lives of the reprobates so that they will suffer eternal damnation.

Chapter IX of the Westminster Confession of Faith details human free will, which clearly states that human will is libertarian (as Dr. Craig affirms) and “. . . is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil” (WCF, IX:I).  But chapter IX:III takes into account Scriptural teaching that man’s free will is tainted with sin to such a degree that “a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself [for salvation]. . . .”

This sort of free will is exactly the view that Molinists have.  But Dr. Craig is no monergist when it comes to salvation, and that is his error.  He wishes to retain a synergistic view of salvation, so he has adopted a view that allows for synergism while retaining some of the vestiges of monergism.

Bottom line, it is still Pelagian in nature.

Dr. Craig really disagrees not with God’s sovereignty in election, but with total depravity.  Though he later stated that he affirmed it, I have my doubts that he affirms it in the way a proper Calvinist would.  He still believes that man can come to God apart from the unconditional election.  Dr. Craig believes in a logically untenable universal atonement, and rejects both irresistible grace and eternal security.  As I’ve stated before, all of these doctrines flow from the first point of Calvinism, Total Depravity.  Dr. Craig does not accept total depravity despite his statement to the contrary.  Total depravity simply does not allow for a synergistic view of salvation.

All that said, Unshakable Faith 2008 was a great event that I encourage readers to attend next year if they can.  The planners are already working tirelessly to put something even better together for next year.  My prayers will certainly be with them in their endeavors.

The high point of the first half of day 2 of Unshakable Faith was Dr. William Lane Craig’s presentation of Leibniz’s argument for the existence of God.  It goes like this:

1. Everything that exists must have a cause, either as an intrinsic necessity or from some external source.
2. If the universe has a cause, it must be God.
3. The universe exists.
4. The universe must have a cause.
5. Therefore, God is the cause of the universe.

The solidity of this logic, Craig argues, is very powerful.  It is impossible to deny it starting at point 3, so points 4 and 5 flow necessarily and are therefore irrefutable.  The atheist must deny points 1 or 2 in order to shake this argument, but they will have much difficulty in doing so.  In a future post, I hope to elaborate on the difficulty of denying points 1 and 2, and therefore begin to build a more cohesive case for the existence of God.

The first presentation of the day has convinced me by evident reason that the foundation of any Biblical worldview must reject the evolutionary idea of millions of years.  Dr. Terry Mortensen of the Creation Museum presented a case against millions of years, followed with a breakout session on Flood Geology.  All-in-all, he presented a convincing exegetical case for a 6,000 year old earth.  Time permitting, I hope to elaborate somewhat on that point, standing on the shoulders of the giants of creation science who work at Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, and Creation Ministries International.

For now, suffice to say that I have renewed my position that a 6,000 year old earth with no death or destruction prior to the Fall is exegetically necessary for a Christian worldview.  I am a Young Earth Creationist, no longer am I a Young Earth Agnostic as I have stated in a previous post.  I have taken it on faith that God will show me the truth or falsity of that position in His time.

So far, this convention has been an amazing experience for me.  I look forward to more after lunch.

I’ve posted much on the topic of predestination lately. I have posted a general definition here, on its definite nature according to the counsel of God’s will here, and finally on the two-edged sword of double predestination here. The two primary objections to predestination are the hyper-Calvinist error of double predestination, and the modernist error of assuming our free will is greater than God’s will.

I have already considered the hyper-Calvinist error in my post on double predestination. Briefly, it assumes that God actively chooses to send one group of people to heaven and one group to hell. It sees God’s as taking a positive action on both sides of the coin–that He actively works sin in the reprobate’s life in order to send that person to hell while actively working good things in the elect’s life to send that person to heaven. No such action is necessary. God merely “passes over” the nonelect and takes no further action in that person’s life. That person will condemn himself to hell. Reprobation, therefore, is a negative action on God’s part.

The other error with predestination is more of a modern error. Modern theologies tend to place a greater emphasis on the human free will than the divine free will. This type of error assumes that our free will decisions can somehow limit God’s actions. Viewed correctly, we derive our free will from God’s decree. We are free, to be sure, but God is more free than we are.

The Westminster Confession of Faith spends a chapter on human free will. Chapter IX, paragraph 1 states “God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.” Paragraph 2 expounds on this will: “Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.”

Paragraph 3 reads:

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. (emphasis added)

It is important to remember that, according to the confession, man “has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation” (Rom 5:6, 8:7; cf. Jn 15:5). It is in this statement that we find no contradiction with John 3:16 or similar passages:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (emphasis added)

Put together with “Man . . . has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation,” we understand, finally, that apart from God’s grace, no one is going to believe in Him. This highlights our total dependence on God, which is something that modern theologies either downplay or forget altogether. Modern theologies would have God dependent upon man.

My own pastor has been teaching against predestination for several Sunday school sessions.  Regrettably, I have been unable to attend.  This past Sunday, he used 2 Peter 3:9 as the bullet proof text against predestination.  This verse reads:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

The problem is that, based on the teaching that man’s will is now wholly unable to will and do any good, no one is going to reach that repentance that God desires us to reach.

In sum, it is easy to attack predestination when it is isolated from the rest of what Calvinism teaches.  But when one considers that systematic theology as a whole (the way that it is meant to be considered), it is much harder to put a hole in it.  At one point, it is easy.  But when considering all five points of Calvinism, the system becomes a unified theology that is the best way to understand Scripture.

Christian, the keeper of the blog Free Thinking Joy, has accused me of contradicting Jesus:

In my remarks about the Ten Commandments, I have come to the conclusion that their real content can be summarized as “Treat others as you would like to be treated by them”, also known as the Golden Rule. Jesus, as quoted in Matthew 7:12, has put it like this: “Always treat others as you would like them to treat you, this is the law and the prophets.” By the way, “law and prophets” means not only the Ten Commandments but all the holy scriptures of the Jews at that time.

Surprise, surprise. Was Jesus a freethinker? In the eyes of the Pharisees, he certainly was. Now compare his “law and prophets” statement with Cory’s claim of the Ten Commandments as God’s absolute rules that have to be followed word by word. He seems to contradict his own master in this respect. (source)

I have not contradicted Jesus.  Christian has changed his assumptions.  I thought that we were dealing specifically with the Ten Commandments.  In that regard, they are Commandments, not suggestions, to be followed to the letter.

In the broader Christian theology, we are in an age of grace–we have considerable latitude in applying these practices to our lives.  Righteousness is not obtained by works of law, but by faith.  In that sense, the Ten Commandments can become the Ten Suggestions.  We follow God’s law to show Him honor, not because we are compelled to in order win favor.  Following the Commandments is the right thing to do.

The ironically named Christian, proprietor of Free Thinking Joy, asserts that the Ten Commandments are perfectly compatible with atheism. It is absurd on its face to think that any of the first four commandments, which center on man’s relationship to God, could be followed or even understood by atheists. Christian’s analysis is flawed, as I have shown in my first post.

The second six commandments give rules for relating to fellow humans. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that any atheist is capable of both understanding these rules and living them out on a day-to-day basis. I haven’t heard of any notable atheists that live otherwise.

The only problem is that the atheist views breaking these commandments as torts rather than crimes. This becomes especially noticeable for the commandments dealing with adultery and murder. A violation of these commandments is absolute, not situational.

5. Honor your father and mother.

Agreed–”Because, once you are a parent, you like to be respected by your own children.”

6. You shall not commit murder.

Christian says, “There have been many violations against the Sixth Commandment in the name of God.” However, there have also been violations by atheists. As I’ve stated in my previous post, the actions of one group have nothing to do with the other group. Since the claim of the post is that the Ten Commandments are perfectly compatible with atheism, merely pointing to another group that violates the commandment doesn’t belong here.

Philosophically, this isn’t 100% compatible with atheism. Natural selection, a component of philosophic naturalism, wants the weak and the sick culled out. This means that murder in some forms, such as euthanasia and abortion, is perfectly acceptable given the right set of circumstances. The general theistic view respects the dignity and right to life of all human beings, regardless of status, sickness, or number of cells. The atheist version makes us little better than animals.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

Christian returns to flawed reasoning with this commandment:

The wording is not quite how a secular humanist with a modern sexual ethic would put it. There are modern forms of ménage à trois, and they may work in some cases. But if you do not like your sex partner to have partners besides you, you should keep the same rule for yourself.

This is fine, if one subscribes to situation ethics. The commandments, however, were not designed with that in mind. They were designed to be absolute rules, hence their pronouncement as “commandments.” Very few would argue that they should be called the Ten Suggestions.

That said, Christian’s view grows out of the mistaken assumption that adultery is a tort committed against a spouse or significant other rather than a crime against God. The entire Holiness Code given to Israel is essentially God’s equivalent to a revised criminal code. Adultery isn’t just an offense against one’s spouse; it is a crime committed against God.

These “ménage à trois” that “work in some cases” might be perfectly fine with a spouse. But that doesn’t mean that God will be fine with them; in fact, the Bible teaches the opposite. Adultery, according to Jesus, is committed the moment you look upon someone with lust. With that in mind, we can hardly assume that God would condone the act even if the spouse does.

8. You shall not steal.

Agreed–”you do not want to be a victim of theft.”

9. You shall not lie.

Agreed–”Because you do not want him to do it to you.”

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s property.

Agreed–”Because it is easier to prevent a conflict than solve it later.”

Christian concludes:

I have shown that it may be easier for an atheist than for observant Jews and Christians to keep the first three commandments. The big part of the rest has nothing to do with God, therefore atheists and believers are equally fit to keep it or violate it. The only instance where atheist will lag behind is the Fourth Commandment, but this may not be the most important one.

I disagree that Christian has shown that it is easier for atheists to follow any of the commandments, let alone the first three. The atheist is equipped to keep Christian’s version of the commandments, but that is a false understanding of them. He is dead wrong to think that the rest of the commandments have nothing to do with God, for the commandments are crimes against Him, not torts against humanity. Finally, I agree that the atheist will lag behind on the Sabbath day, for he will not esteem any day above any other. But Christian’s response is to minimize the commandment, which is fallacious. All of the commandments are important or they wouldn’t be on the list.

“I guess that most atheists may not be aware of the fact that they observe the Ten Commandments better than many observant Jews and Christians,” says Christian, keeper of Free Thinking Joy. Let’s examine his post and see if that is true or if Christian is blowing smoke.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.

Christian says:

The observant Jew will certainly fulfill this commandment. The observant Muslim, too. The observant Christian, too. But most certainly of all, any atheist will fulfill it perfectly. He is the only one who can be certain. All others must ask themselves whether they really might worship the wrong god, and who the big Me really is.

This is silly. Christian thinks that by worshiping no gods at all, that he is fulfilling this commandment. He wishes. The Ten Commandments set the stage for the Jewish holiness code, the Greatest Commandment of which is “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, and might” (Deut 6:5). Not loving God at all isn’t fulfilling this commandment–it is grossly violating this commandment.

2. You shall not make yourself an idol.

Christian’s take:

Observant Jews (and Muslims) will fulfill this commandment in the real world, but not in their mental imagination. Observant Roman Catholics violate it grossly, making crucifixes and Mother of God statues, even praying to them. Observant Orthodox Christians violate it grossly, making icons and kissing them in prayer. Only atheists will fulfill the Second Commandment perfectly, in the real world as well as in their imagination.

Christian assumes that an idol is only a statue or an image. John Calvin, however, rightly recognizes that idolatry can be much more subtle than that. Calvin writes:

Bright, however, as is the manifestation which God gives both of himself and his immortal kingdom in the mirror of his works, so great is our stupidity, so dull are we in regard to these bright manifestations, that we derive no benefit from them. For in regard to the fabric and admirable arrangement of the universe, how few of us are there who, in lifting our eyes to the heavens, or looking abroad on the various regions of the earth, ever think of the Creator? Do we not rather overlook Him, and sluggishly content ourselves with a view of his works? And then in regard to supernatural events, though these are occurring every day, how few are there who ascribe them to the ruling providence of God - how many who imagine that they are casual results produced by the blind evolutions of the wheel of chance?

. . . Hence that immense flood of error with which the whole world is overflowed. Every individual mind being a kind of labyrinth, it is not wonderful, not only that each nation has adopted a variety of fictions, but that almost every man has had his own god. To the darkness of ignorance have been added presumption and wantonness, and hence there is scarcely an individual to be found without some idol or phantom as a substitute for Deity. Like water gushing forth from a large and copious spring, immense crowds of gods have issued from the human mind, every man giving himself full license, and devising some peculiar form of divinity, to meet his own views. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:11-12)

Calvin asserts that fashioning your own god is idolatry. Put another way, an idol need not be a statue, a picture, or other physical entity–it can be anything that takes the place of the One True God. In the case of many atheists, that is science or other mental reasoning. They worship it and make it inviolate the way that a Christian worships God and makes Him inviolate.

Because Christian misunderstands what an idol truly is, he fails to realize that atheists are actually the worst violators of this commandment.

3. You shall not use the name of the Lord in vain.

Christian says:

Observant Jews have taken the Third Commandment very seriously. They considered every use of the name of God as wrongful and therefore avoided even to pronounce it. This position comes very close to atheism. Any atheist may be ready to share this view, stating that there are really great things behind our visible world, things that we never will be able to fully understand, and that we should not use the name of a god to denominate them. Devout, fundamentalistic Christians and fanatic Muslims use God’s name frequently, and this use is considered wrongful by more liberal and open-minded Christians and Muslims. Only atheists can be a hundred percent sure that they never will violate the Third Commandment.

First, I don’t see how the Jewish prohibition on pronouncing the name of God comes close to atheism. The Jews still believe in God, and they hold a special reverence for His name. Second, Christian asserts without backing himself up that “Devout, fundamentalistic (sic) Christians and fanatic Muslims use God’s name frequently, and this use is considered wrongful by more liberal and open-minded Christians and Muslims.” I can’t respond since I have no idea what he’s talking about. From these premises, however, it doesn’t follow that atheists can be 100% sure that they will never violate this commandment.

The excellent Parchment and Pen theology blog has defined the third commandment here as making a pronouncement in the name of God that did not come from God. Perhaps Christian is following that premise, in which case I can agree that the atheist is less likely than a theist to make a false pronouncement in the name of God.

Traditionally, Christians have understood this commandment as forbidding the use of God’s name for all but reverent and prayerful uses. In other words, God’s name shouldn’t be used as a swear word. While I agree with C. Michael Patton’s definition linked above, I also firmly believe that God’s name shouldn’t be used as or with vulgarity. In that respect, the atheist isn’t safe from violating this commandment.

4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

Christian admits that this would be hard for an atheist to follow, but then asserts (again without evidence) that Christians don’t pay this commandment any mind either. Amazingly, the actions of one group of people bears little relevance on another group of people. The commandment is still grossly violated by atheists; whether or not theists are following or ignoring it is completely irrelevant.

The remaining commandments are covered in the next post.

My church attendance has been absolutely lousy. Normally, I work an opening shift on Sunday–which means that I go in at 6:00 am and I’m off at 4:00 pm. This is not a good Sunday work schedule for a church goer, since it means that I’m working right through the service.

This Sunday, however, I worked the opposite shift. My family and I arrived a little early, and Sunday School was still in session. Pastor Steve has been talking on predestination, one of my favorite topics, and I can’t attend because of my crazy work schedule. I have done two previous posts on the topic–one with a general definition and one speculating on God’s criteria for it.

The snippet of Sunday School I heard as I passed by the doors to the sanctuary this morning was the pastor arguing against this point based on Bible verses such as 2 Peter 3:9. The logic chain is this:

1. God wills that all will come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9)
2. Predestination requires that God choose some for heaven and others for hell
3. Therefore, predestination isn’t Biblical

Pastor Steve, however, has misunderstood Reformed theology. He assumes correctly that predestination is double.  However, he assumes further that both sides are positive actions on the part of God.  This is not so. God does not work to create unbelief in these people so they go to hell; rather these people condemn themselves through their sinful actions.

No one on planet earth deserves to go to heaven by God’s holy standards.  We all deserve punishment in hell. The foundation of unconditional election is the total depravity of mankind. Recall that man is utterly unable to will and do good–and that without God’s effectual calling, we are in such bondage to sin that we are dead in that sin (Eph 2:1-3). Recall also that no one seeks after God, there are none who do good, not even one (Rom 3:9-26). Our condition is not fixable by our own power; only the grace of God can fix this dilemma.

Absent God, we are dead in sin and will only be able to will and do evil. Eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge has corrupted the human will irrecoverably–this is the price that we all pay for Adam’s transgression.

With this, I know that my pastor would agree. He has said as much in many worship services. But he seems obsessed with the idea that human free will is somehow pleasing to God. This is not the case, by the clear teaching of the Bible. Human free will can only will and do evil, unless God steps in and changes it for us. We will never invite Him to do that, according to the Bible. That’s total depravity. So He has predestined some of us, and effectually calls those people to His service.

This much I’ve explained in my previous posts. What Pastor Steve misunderstands in the idea of a double predestination is that God somehow positively elects people to both heaven and hell. According to the Bible, that we all deserve hell. We have condemned ourselves to that fate with no help from God. The active will of God is selecting some humans to save from the inferno. Passively, he allows others to suffer that fate.

To assume that God elects some to heaven and effectually calls those people while electing others to hell and actively working to ensure that fate is hyper-Calvinism.  R.C. Sproul called it equal ultimacy, and rightly labeled it “scary.”  The truth is that God merely “passes over” some of humanity, leaving them to their own devices without His grace.  And that can only lead them to one place.

The point, however, is that God doesn’t actively choose some to heaven and actively send others to hell. We all deserve hell, but God, in His mercy, is choosing to rescue some of us in Christ. It is the reprobate who are getting what they deserve, and the elect who are getting what they don’t deserve.

Brian J. Sabel from Just Atheists wrote a post that caught my attention.  Since my grandma died, I’ve been thinking about death quite a bit for obvious reasons.  Obviously, my view of death is that we who place faith in Christ go on to eternal reward, while the rest do not.  “[I]t is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment . . .” (Heb 9:27).

I believe that my grandma has gone on to that eternal reward.  Not because I want to believe that since it is a comforting thought for me, but because my grandma placed her faith in Christ.  At the funeral, I could see the fruits of the Spirit in her lives through the stories people told of the lives she touched.  I had no idea how much time she donated freely to good causes.  Even though she was sick, she still donated time and crafts to other sick people.  She was an Eucharistic Minister and traveled to the sick and infirm at homes and hospitals to share the Lord’s Supper with them, and to talk and pray with them.

I could easily get into the debate about faith vs. works here, but suffice it to say that I believe her actions proceeded from her faith and that faith is what saved her, not what she did in this life.  That isn’t the point of my post.  The point is that Brian from Just Atheists believes that this life is all that there is and that view of life elevates life on earth above the religious view.

Many faithful see this as a very bleak way to view our lives. Without the rewards of the afterlife, they say, our lives on earth have no value or meaning. They often view my rejection of a belief in an afterlife as a cynical and nihilistic view which robs humankind of our best qualities. They could not be more wrong. And, in fact, I feel that my view elevates the value of human life beyond the capacity of a religious view.

The finite nature of our lives compels me to believe that each life is unique, valuable, and irreplaceable. When a person dies she is gone and we will never get her back. The consequence of this belief is that I love the people around me very deeply because I recognize how precious they are and how fortunate I am to experience their lives - they could be gone from me so quickly. (source)

Brian actually has a point.  His view elevates the view of this life above how religious often view it.  But the Bible doesn’t teach us to view this life as one of much importance.  The Bible calls this life a “mist” (Jms 4:14).  Like Brian’s astute observation, the Bible affirms that this life can be taken from us at any moment.  Unlike Brian, the Bible states we must build our treasure in heaven (Mt 6:19-20).

Does this mean that the religious should place no importance on this life whatsoever?  Of course not!  There is certainly wisdom in the expression “We don’t inherit this planet from our parents, we borrow it from our children.”  With all of the comparisons to God as the landowner and humans as His stewards in Jesus’ parables, can anyone ever really conclude that we aren’t called to be stewards of this planet?  God commanded us to “be fruitful and multiply,” and in order to do that effectively, we must be good stewards of the resources on this planet.

So there is some importance in this life.  But, unlike the atheist viewpoint, this life is not all that there is.  There is more out there, there is eternal life to be spent in perfect communion with our Creator, and with those that have gone before us in Christ.

Meanwhile, let’s be good stewards of this planet.  When God returns to earth, we’ll have to give an account for it.

In a comment posted here, a reader named Daniel F. writes:

I grew up in a devout very loving Christian family. I love my family, but the Christanity stuff fortunately did not stick. As I grew up, I noticed a lot of Christians were definite in their conviction, but confused on the details. I appreciate your courage in being open to sharing your thoughts. In today’s world, that definitely takes a lot of courage. And so… help me understand this.

How would we think of someone who decided to slaughter a larger portion of a class of preschoolers? That is, take a gun out and shoot execution style a portion of them? We would consider this person good? Should we praise this person and seek his approval?

Well, I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t. I would consider that outright evil. How would you feel if that story broke on the news? I hope really upset because it went against your moral fabric.

The problem with Christianity and other religions like Islam is that they very much promote moral corruption. You said, “God has chosen the elect and will draw them to Himself.” For what reason does God not choose everyone to draw to himself? Why would God create people only to torture them? By the way, who invented evil? If God is all powerful and created the universe, then He did. My dad says hell is the absence of God. Why define an absence? Why define evil?

In this context, is he no different than the murderous, evil human who slaughters the preschoolers?

I’ve e-mailed my response to Daniel, but I thought that I would make my response public since I think that it will help many of my readers who might not have had the courage to write in with the same problems or concerns. Read more »

My good friend Caleb posted an interesting but profoundly misguided entry on his MySpace Blog.  In this entry, Caleb has formally rejected all religious doctrine in favor of sola scriptura.  This is a dangerous view to hold.  People who adhere to extremist views of sola scriptura run the danger of sinking into heresy without realizing it.  Sola scriptura was never framed with the idea of ignoring all of church history or her doctrine.

So what is sola scriptura, then?  Sola scriptura is Latin for “by Scripture alone.”  It is the theological position that the Bible alone is sufficient to establish faith and morals and correct doctrine.  The Roman Catholic position has always been sola verbum Dei, which means “by the Word of God alone.”  Catholics consider Sacred Tradition on par with Scripture, which is rejected by the Protestant Reformers.  Said Martin Luther:

Unless I am convinced by sacred Scripture or by evident reason - I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is held captive by the word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand! I can do no other. God help me! Amen. Read more »