Opponents of the doctrine of sola Scriptura often produce a series of attacks in an attempt to demonstrate that some human infallible source is necessary as a rule of faith for the church today—because apparently the promised Holy Spirit is insufficient for this task (cf. John 14:26). We are never told how the fallible decision to join an "infallible" church is supposed to bring comfort, but some believe this line of reasoning is more compelling than accepting the Scriptures alone to be God-breathed. Consider one of the more common arguments against the Reformation principle:

Sola Scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy. Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid has popularized this recent platitude and many others have picked up on the expression. Madrid and countless others seem to believe that a diversity of peripheral issues within Protestantism is proof of anarchy. One of the biggest problems with this attack, however, is that sola Scriptura does not claim to bring unanimity of opinion. If Protestants were running around claiming that the Bible alone brings unanimity of thought then perhaps Catholics would have a legitimate complaint—but nowhere do Evangelicals teach this concept. Protestants who are faithful to the solas of the Reformation recognize that we bring to the Bible our inherited sinful natures, our personal biases, and our personal theological paradigms. The Roman apologist apparently seems to forget this one important aspect. The main point of sola Scriptura cannot be stressed enough. That is, the abuse of an infallible source is not proof against that source being infallible.

Perhaps an illustration will help to clarify. Consider the case of a man who has recently purchased a bookcase, takes it home, and instead of reading the instructions in earnest, he simply looks at a few of the diagrams and attempts to piece together his case. However, when he is finished, his shelves are crooked, he has unused screws, and the sides are uneven. Now, would the man have any right in claiming there is some deficiency with the instructions? Would he be justified in returning to the store and demanding the instructions be changed? Absolutely not. The problem is not with the directions, but with the way the man abused those directions for they were sufficient for the task at hand.

Now however unlikely this scenario might be, I believe it crystallizes the failure of those who attempt to dismiss the Bible as a sufficient rule of faith for God’s people simply because they treat the Bible with the same respect (or lack thereof) as did the man with the directions and his bookcase. Just because people claim they are exegeting Scripture does not in fact mean that they are truly applying proper hermeneutical principles nor does it follow that they are allowing the text to speak for itself. Again, we all come to the Bible with our sinful natures and our traditions—some good and others not so good.

Here, then, is where the true test comes into play. That is to say, if the same argument can be applied to one’s own position and reach a similar conclusion then it stands to reason that one cannot consistently use this argumentation. For instance, if it can be pointed out that there are copious differences of opinions on a plethora of issues, then it must logically follow (when applying the same standard against Protestants) that the bishop of Rome is not a sufficient source. Would any Roman Catholic apologist agree to that premise? Of course not. They would be quick to point out that there are many professing Catholics who act in open variance with the Roman Catholic Church. And Protestants would say the same thing--there are many professing Evangelicals whose beliefs are in direct conflict with the clear teaching of Scripture. But it does not, then, logically follow that the Bible is therefore insufficient for its intended purpose, that is, for the salvation and edification of God's people.

So in the final analysis, the argument does not pass the internal consistency test. The "blueprint for anarchy" argument is simply a canard that too many RC apologists use all the while it can be used against their own position as demonstrated by the myriad of issues of disagreement with respect to the nature and extent of Tradition, the legitimacy of the current Pope, and papal infallibility to name just a few. When all is said and done sola Scriptura is not a blueprint for anarchy—the fallen nature of man is.

The debate surrounding the evolution of the human species continues to arouse passions on both sides of the issue with great pro-Darwinian efforts gaining strength even among evangelical circles. One outspoken voice in this debate that is attempting to quell the firestorm of controvery and to expose the great hoax of the descent of mankind is Dr. Michael Girouard of the Instititute of Creation Research. Girouard is a medical physician and a former evolutionist who is well versed in scientific data and the Word of God in order to demonstrate that Darwin's theory of evolution is neither scientific nor historical. Girouard travels the globe in an attempt to recapture the evangelical message of Genesis and to expose evolution for what it truly is—a religion created by man to replace the God of Holy Scripture with atheistic presuppositions. Listed below are links to videos of Dr. Girouard at a university campus amid scores of evolution-minded students and faculty. 

LOT 'S WIFE:

The Sunday School teacher was describing how Lot's wife looked back and turned into a pillar of salt when little Jason interrupted, "My Mummy looked back once, while she was driving," he announced triumphantly, "and she turned into a telephone pole!"

GOOD SAMARITAN:

A Sunday school teacher was telling her class the story of the Good Samaritan, in which a man was beaten, robbed and left for dead. She described the situation in vivid detail so her students would catch the drama. Then, she asked the class, "If you saw a person lying on the roadside, all wounded and bleeding, what would you do?" A thoughtful little girl broke the hushed silence, "I think I'd throw up."

DID NOAH FISH?

A Sunday school teacher asked, "Johnny, do you think Noah did a lot of fishing when he was on the Ark?" "No," replied Johnny. "How could he, with just two worms."

HIGHER POWER:

A Sunday school teacher said to her children, "We have been learning how powerful kings and queens were in Bible times. But, there is a higher power. Can anybody tell me what it is?" One child blurted out, "Aces!"

MOSES & THE RED SEA:

Nine-year-old Joey, was asked by his mother what he had learned in Sunday school. well, Mom, our teacher told us how God sent Moses behind enemy lines on a rescue mission to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. When he got to the Red Sea, he had his army build a pontoon bridge and all the people walked across safely. Then, he radioed headquarters for reinforcements. They sent bombers to blow up the bridge and all the Israelites were saved." "Now, Joey, is that really what your teacher taught you?" his mother asked. "Well, no, Mom. But, if I told it the way the teacher did, you’d never believe it!"

THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD:

A Sunday School teacher decided to have her young class memorize one of the most quoted passages in the Bible; Psalm 23. She gave the youngsters a month to learn the verse. Little Rick was excited about the task, but, he just couldn't remember the Psalm. After much practice, he could barely get past the first line. On the day that the kids were scheduled to recite Psalm 23 in front of he congregation, Ricky was so nervous. When it was his turn, he stepped up to the microphone and said proudly, "The Lord is my Shepherd, and that's all I need to know."

(F. F. Bruce's book has been available now for over two decades, but it still remains at the forefront with respect to the historical account of canonization.)   

There is a growing historical illiteracy and apathy within Christendom today that is serving to deepen the chasm between those who view the Bible as a mere collection of ancient writings gathered together through political hegemony against others who see God’s providence at work in the process of recognizing the canon of Scripture. F. F. Bruce delivers a cogent historical narrative that sets the record straight to demonstrate that while some view the second century catholic church as a body of believers who were disorganized and whose collections of inspired writings were at open variance with each other, the truth is something far more compelling. Known worldwide as the "dean of evangelical scholarship," the late F. F. Bruce (1910–1990) offers some helpful insight into a topic that used to be reserved for scholars only. Bruce taught at the Universities of Edinburgh, Leeds and Sheffield before serving as Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester in England. Bruce dedicated a life-time to textual criticism and his corpus of writings includes New Testament History, The Books and the Parchment, How We Got our English Bible, and The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

Bruce’s chief focus is to counter the growing accusations within scholarship of those who repudiate the idea that the universal church possessed a consensus as to the extent of the New Testament canon by the end of the second century. As one key piece of evidence, Bruce points out that the catholic response to the publication of Marcion’s canon in the middle of the second century caused universal condemnation. That is to say, Bruce writes that the church recognized that the teaching of Marcion—through his canon—was not what the earliest Christians had heard from the beginning. But if the church recognized an aberration of teaching from men such as Marcion, how was one to defend the orthodox faith and which books should one use to do so? This was the question that confronted the early church and it was the historical narrative Bruce sought to undertake.

While the Canon of Scripture is not a seminal work in the area of historical canonization, the overall canonical story provides a framework of understanding the historical background to the Old Testament and the formation of the New. The historical process that is often fraught with heavy technical jargon usually reserved for the world of academia is communicated to a wider audience in easy to understand diction.

By the time of Jesus and the Apostles, the limits of the Old Testament had already been established. What was not universally agreed upon, however, was the arrangement or the division of the books, but traditionally the Hebrew Bible contained 24 in number and was arranged by the law, the prophets, and the writings. Evidence to support this limitation of books is found in the writings of the first century historian Josephus. Further support for a limited Old Testament canon at the time of Christ comes from Philo of Alexandria—a representative of Alexandrian Judaism. As Bruce points out, Philo would give us the best indication if non-Palestinian Jews accepted a wider canon than that of the Hebrew Bible, but there is no sign of accepting the authority of books outside the Hebrew Scriptures, including the books known as the Apocrypha.

One item that still separates Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelicals is the addition of the Apocrypha or the "Septuagintal plus." These are the works that were added to the Hebrew Bible during the translation into the Greek language. Since no distinction was ever made in the Septuagint, the entire corpus of writings was carried into the Greek-speaking world and was promulgated as sacred Scripture to the majority.

There were, however, some early church fathers—such as Origen and Jerome—that understood the original Hebrew tongue and recognized the "Septuagintal plus" did not belong on the same level as the traditional 24 books of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, it was the Septuagint that the early church lauded and it was the collection of writings contained in that version that stood at the vanguard of Christianity until some questioned the veracity of the Old Testament canon during the sixteenth century Reformation period.

The New Testament was a different story. The apostolic church had inherited the Old Testament canon but was not yet in possession of the New. The words and deeds of Jesus were circulating orally, but such tradition could easily and quickly become corrupted. What eventually augmented the Old Testament and the oral tradition was a first century fourfold gospel—the good news about Jesus. The Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus were all circulating from the early second century onward. Extent manuscripts of these writings, surviving to us in the Chester Beatty manuscript, dates to around the year A.D. 200. It was during this same time period that the only books still in dispute were Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, Jude and Revelation.

What, then, of the supposed lost gospels or the gnostic scrolls discovered at Nag Hammadi? Much is made today of the early church suppressing other books that should have been included in the Bible. Bruce makes clear that these books were never in serious contention for canonicity because they all failed to meet the requisites. That is to say, for a book to be given serious consider for the canon, it must have apostolic authority, antiquity, orthodoxy, and catholicity—none of gnostic text fit these aforementioned criteria.

Catholics and Greek Orthodox might gloss over the historical evidence against the inclusion of the Apocrypha, liberal scholars will inevitably deny the historic criteria for canonicity, and the conservative might find the theological aspect of canonization discussion to be lacking, but all will be thoroughly edified as they read one of twentieth centuries foremost textual scholars wax eloquent about the formation of both the Old and New Testaments. This book will serve well for those who seek to know more about the historical process—the discussions and disagreements—among the early church fathers in recognizing that which is ultimately theopnuestos, God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

There seems to be a growing chasm among Evangelicals over the issue of defining what music is acceptable in the worship service. Even within Reformed circles one cannot find a general consensus as whether or not music is morally neutral. The very thought might sound a bit strange to the one who has never given serious reflection to this issue, but the reality is that music can—and has—divided many Christians. Regardless of which side one ultimately embraces several factors must be remembered.

The basis of authority. The Evangelical who affirms the God-breathed Scriptures as his ultimately authority in matters of faith, practice, and morals must always appeal directly to the Bible in order to remain consistent. That is to say, when issues arise involving matters of worship one must first look to God's Word to find a solution—and not rely on philosophical argumentation to support one's preconceived notions. All too often in this debate, I have seen people attempt to give a "biblical" answer without ever giving serious consideration to the text of Scripture. We must look to Scripture to find the answer and not have our preconceived notions read back into the Bible.

Music is given by God. We are told in Colossians 1:16 that all things created in heaven and on earth, both visible and invisible were created by God and for Him—and this inevitably includes music. When someone attempts to argue that certain notes, beats, and rhythms are intrinsically evil, one must be careful because the logical conclusion to this belief would result in one affirming that God created something evil. Furthermore, this line of reasoning would lead one into a form of the early second century heresy of Gnosticism—that is, the material world is inherently evil.

Do not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. The chief argument mustered against allowing certain genres of music in church (most notably, rap and rock ‘n’ roll) seems to be that music can elicit lascivious emotions. The argument follows a syllogism something like this:

1. Music can express emotions;
2. Some emotions are sinful;
3. Therefore, some music in inherently evil.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that if fails to take into account the context of the emotion. We can all point out biblical examples of hatred, sexual desire, and melancholy that is both right and wrong—depending on the attitude and the context. Hatred towards a brother is wrong; hatred towards defiling God’s temple is laudable. Sexual desire towards another man’s wife is adultery; desires towards one’s own spouse is natural.

To think that God is more glorified by music created on a musical instrument in one’s own cultural context over against a different instrument in a different time is the beginning of hubris. God’s people around the world worship Him in their own way—and that might seem at open variance with the way someone in Middle America worships. However, God looks at the heart to determine if our motives are pure or no. We would all do well to remember the old axiom: In essential unity; in non-essentials liberty; but in all things charity. Do not put prohibitions on God’s people that He Himself does not mandate.