Continue the Reformation by Upholding Apostolic Doctrine

I was looking for another topic to write about continuing the Reformation. The Reformation wasn’t a split from the true Church. The reformers wanted to be biblical, not become reformers. As I was looking at the Tecarta Bible, today’s verses of the day are Acts 2:42-44. I decided to use the Thru the Bible Commentary to gain some insights. The late J. Vernon McGee wrote a very interesting comment on Acts 2:42 goes like this:

I have a little booklet called the Spiritual Fingerprints of the Visible Church. How can you identify a real church? Notice the four marks of identification.

First, They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine. The mark of a church is not the height of the steeple nor the sound of the bell. It is not whether the pulpit is stationed in the middle or the chancel is divided. The important issue is whether or not they hold the apostles’ doctrine. Correct doctrine was one of the fingerprints of the visible church.

Secondly, fellowship. They were sharing the things of Christ.

The third, breaking of bread. Breaking of bread is more than just going through the Lord’s uspper. It means being brought into a fellowship and relationship with Christ.

The fourth, prayers. I’m afraid in the average church today it is a little fingerprint. That is, prayer is the evident weakness of the church. Actually, the greatest asset of any church is prayer.

It’s not enough that any church should claim, “We are the true Church founded in 33 A.D.” That’s what Roman Catholicism has been doing. It even claims Peter was the first Pope and that every Pope should be viewed as a successor of Peter. As a former Roman Catholic, I really would examine the catechism and it’s full of loosely quoted or quoted out-of-context Scriptures. The apostolic doctrine’s source is in the epistles written by the apostles themselves. One needs to understand what apostolic doctrine really is before accepting the claim that a church or denomination is apostolic.

Apostles’ doctrine: The word doctrine derives from the Latin term for teaching and refers to the content that was taught in the New Testament. The proper teaching of Scripture was called “the apostles’ doctrine”, meaning that which the apostles taught. This contrasted with erroneous teachings called “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1), meaning that teaching whose source is not God but messengers of Satan, whose desire is to substitute false relgion for Christianity (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

Illustration: The apostles’ doctrine was true, not because an apostle taught it, but because it was consistent with the Scriptures. The Bereans examined the teaching of Paul in the light of the Scriptures before accepting it (Acts 17:11). Also, the church at Ephesus examined some who called themselves apostles and found the liars (Rev. 2:2).

Application: A Christian should attempt to understand and believe true doctrine, while rejecting all that disagrees with the Word of God (1 John 4:1). (First Reference, Acts 2:42, PrimaryReference: Acts 2:4; cf. Titus 3:10)

This is where Sola Scriptura fits in with the teaching that the Scripture contains the final authority in all spiritual matters, including church tradition. Roman Catholicism blatantly rejects it and makes it no secret to say, “Scripture alone isn’t Scriptural.” while ironically pointing to the Bible, then quoting again, as expected, out-of-context verses. The reason can be that the apostles never supposedly carried the complete Bible (heard that reasoning from a Catholic fake defender) we have today. However, the apostles quoted from the Old Testament canon, way before the councils had a debate over which book is and isn’t part of the Bible. I would like to address this from Just for Catholics with a loving answer to Catholic readers, if ever:

1. Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible does not give exhaustive details on the history of redemption. John 21:25 says that not all that Jesus did is recorded in the book; all the books of the world would not be enough for that purpose. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the church. We need ‘enough’ knowledge not ‘exhaustive’ knowledge. Sometimes Catholic apologists argue for the need of tradition, saying that Bible does not record everything. Apparently they do not realize that tradition is not exhaustive either! Does tradition give us all possible information about the life of Christ, and all that He said, and all the apostles did and said? Of course not! In fact, we would respectfully challenge our Catholic friends to give us one statement that Jesus said that comes to us by tradition and not from the Holy Scripture.
2. Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the church’s authority to teach God’s revelation. The Church is ‘the pillar and foundation of the truth’ (I Timothy 3:15) because it upholds and teaches the Word of God. However the church cannot add doctrines of human origin or contradict the God-breathed Scriptures. The church’s authority is subordinate to the authority of the Bible. Moreover, the church is commissioned to preach the Word orally, and to transmit the Christian Gospel from one generation to the next. The most enthusiastic proponents of sola Scriptura do so eagerly and do their best to make sure that their preaching is consistent with the written Word of God. 
3. Sola Scriptura is not a denial that historically God’s Word came in other ways other than the written form. Before writing down His message, God spoke through the apostles and prophets, and personally in Christ Jesus, His Son. During the same time the Holy Spirit moved holy men to write down His Word to be the permanent inspired record of His message for the post-apostolic age till the end. The apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20) and though they are absent, we can still build our lives on their teaching which is recorded infallibly in the Holy Scriptures.
4. Sola Scriptura does not imply that the Bible will always be interpreted correctly, or that there will not be differences and heresies among Christians. Jesus was clear enough in His teaching, yet His disciples often misunderstood Him. The apostles’ message was also perfectly intelligible, and yet all sorts of errors and heresies crept in the early church. Similarly, the Bible is not written in a mysterious and cryptic code that needs some infallible decoder to explain its hidden meaning. The Bible is addressed to the ordinary people of God and it can be understood. The problem lies not with the clarity of the Bible, but with people who often ignore the Bible or twist the its meaning because of laziness, ignorance and prejudice.

That’s what the reformers wanted. Even before them, there were already many martyrs for the Word of God. Jan Hus and Girolamo Savonarola were burned alive for their convictions on the Scripture. The reformers had a Catholic Bible in their hand–something even lay Catholics were forbidden for some time. It wasn’t just an ordinary misunderstanding. It was a huge matter of the truth. Today, people just want tolerance without truth, which only leads to more bigotry in the long run. True, people will hate the truth but the Reformation was done done out of love for the truth, and for people to know the truth.