BIBLE ONLY?
INDEX INDEX INDEX
INDIRECT ARGUMENT FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA
TRADITION ITSELF
COMMANDS BIBLE ALONE
PREFACE
The Protestants believe that only the Bible has the authority to tell them how to live and what to believe about God and Jesus. The Catholic Church disagrees and says that the one true Church, the Roman Church, also has this authority. It says that to disagree is to oppose the right of the Church to command you and rule you. The Bible is closer to Protestantism than Catholicism and the Church has known that from the start because it used to go as far as to forbid lay Catholics to read the Bible. The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have a Bible. They were only allowed to have the Psalms, the Breviary, the Blessed Virgin’s Little Office and nothing more and these were not to be in the vernacular (page 155, Whatever Happened to Heaven?). Facts like this stand against the modern Catholic lie that it was only corrupted Bibles that were banned. We will see how the Bible opposes the authority the Roman Church has stolen for itself.
The Protestants say that sola scripture does not imply that the Bible has all the answers to every problem. It gives you the tools and the principles and the wisdom to figure things out. The Protestants say that sola scripture does not imply that the Bible alone is the word of God. They say God reveals himself through science and philosophy and people feel he is talking to them. They say merely that the Bible is the rule of faith and conduct. No revelation from God has the same authority as the Bible. It is like a king giving orders without making the orders law or investing them with his full authority. Protestants tend to hold that the Bible alone contains what God has sanctioned as his revelation. Other alleged revelations from God do not have this sanction and may not be from him at all.
SOLA SCRIPTURA IS BIBLICAL
To
be a Roman Catholic involves accepting tradition that is declared infallible by
the Church and scripture as the truth that God wants us to believe. This kind of tradition is spelled with a
capital T. It and the Bible have equal
authority. When tradition is being
questioned the Church responds by making a dogma of it to protect it so it
becomes more infallible than before. Funny that the Church has infallible tradition and was unable to
officially have an inerrant Bible but had one, the Vulgate, with many
corruptions and deletions and insertions? The Bibles the Church has depended on in the
past prove that it is not infallible.
Contrary
to the teaching of the Roman Church the only thing that Christian revelation
says has the right to tell us what God wants us to believe and do is the
Bible. The only Bible texts that are
cited as proofs by non-Catholics to prove that the Bible is the only rule of
faith are, Matthew 15:1-12; Luke 16:29; John 20:31 and Acts 17:11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21
and 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 and Hebrews 1:1-3.
Matthew
15:1-12 has Jesus protesting against Jewish tradition indicating that scripture
alone has authority from God. An example
he used was when the Jews annulled the command to honour your father and mother
by allowing a man who dedicated all his money to God, that
is the
Jesus
was against traditions that allegedly agreed with the word of God or
interpreted it for you. Jesus picked one
example. But what about the vast
majority of Jewish traditions that were easy to keep and seemed
reasonable? He condemned all the
traditions across the board. This means
that only scripture alone should be regarded as the authority that requires obedience. Jesus then plainly told us that the doctrines
of
The Jewish leaders
followed both tradition and the Old Testament scriptures. The Catholic Mass comes from Catholic
tradition for there is no evidence that priests have the power to offer the
sacrifice of the Mass from the Bible. In
Matthew 23:2,3 Jesus tells the people to obey the scribes and the Pharisees and
all they teach but not to copy them.
Jesus then here was encouraging their tradition as well for that was a
part of their religious practice and they were strict about it. But in Matthew 15 he said that they taught
the ideas of men as doctrines from God and if they contradict the word of God
with their tradition they prefer their tradition instead and condemned this as
evil. How can these two assertions be
made to fit together?
Two answers are possible.
Jesus meant that you obey
the scribes and Pharisees even when they teach false doctrine for it is safer
to listen to them than not to for now and this is expediency and not an
indication that tradition is good or safe.
Jesus meant that you obey
the scribes and the Pharisees but not their traditions.
Neither answer allows us
to make tradition equal to the Bible.
The scribes and Pharisees
were only adhering to traditions they didn’t make themselves. There was every reason why they thought the
traditions must be the word of God too for just because something is tradition
doesn’t mean its wrong. Then the
Catholic can’t argue, “When Jesus condemned tradition he condemned them for
making things up as they went along not tradition like our Catholic tradition
that has been handed down from previous generations for the Church can’t be
blamed for making them up now even if it has done.”
Most of the traditions
were not inventions but reasoned from the Old Testament. Jesus was not condemning the Jewish
traditions because he thought they were wrong.
They couldn’t have been all wrong.
What he was against was making human reasoning and interpretation equal
to the authority of the Old Testament scriptures. The Roman Catholic Church certainly teaches
that its own tradition is equal to the Bible, Old and New Testaments both. And it claims that much of this tradition is
just what was practiced from the start of the Church and was not reasoned or
developed from embryonic and undeveloped doctrines in the Bible. If Jesus condemned traditions created as
deductions from scripture how much more would he condemn traditions from the
constant practice of the Church? And the
Church knows fine well that that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of
the Blessed Virgin and her assumption into Heaven and prayers to saints to name
a few cannot even be traced to the first few generations after the apostles
never mind the apostles themselves even though the Church claims that God
stopped revealing his word with the death of the last apostle. The Church has made it binding irrevocable
dogma that it doesn’t give new revelations but claims it only clarifies
existing revelation. That is a bare-faced
lie.
Some say it was different
for the Catholic Church to have and follow tradition and declare it equal to
the Bible for unlike the Jews Catholicism is blessed with infallibility and
Christ promised to look after his Church forever. But Catholicism doesn’t use its infallibility
much. It was only used three times in
the twentieth century when Pius XI declared contraception wrong, Pius XII said
that Mary was assumed into Heaven and John Paul II declared that the Church had
no authority to ordain women. Most
Catholic tradition is still out there circulating around without the full stamp
of infallibility.
In Luke 16, Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus to drive home the point that only the Bible is needed to get the word of God. The rich man goes to Hell to feel the torment of fire forever and Lazarus is saved and happy. The rich man's pain is so bad that he madly desires a mere drop of water on his tongue. He asks for Lazarus to be raised from the dead to warn his brothers about the torment of Hell so that they might be avoided. He is told that his brothers don't need anybody to rise from the dead for they have the Law and the Prophets. So the Old Testament is sufficient. Catholics say this means the Bible shouldn't have the New Testament if the Old Testament is enough. So does that entitle them to ignore what Jesus taught? The New Testament claims that its message is in the Old Testament and that the gospel is in it. All the New Testament does is bring that out but it is not necessary. Nevertheless it is the word of God too according to non-Catholic Christianity which has no problem in accepting anything in this paragraph.
To stress the point that only the Old Testament is enough Jesus says that somebody rising from the dead to persuade bad people to repent is a waste of time when they have the scriptures. Then they have no excuse. He is saying he will not send visions and miracles to persuade people to turn to God. He will not send them even to draw people to the scriptures. That is people's own affair. Anybody then that does not study with and learn from the scriptures will be held accountable for it. Jesus is saying that the scriptures stand for themselves without miracles to draw attention to them and or verify them.
Would that suggest that we have a memory here of a tradition that Jesus never did miracles? I think so. But Christians would say that Jesus is saying his miracles were predicted in the Old Testament. Therefore he is only doing them to obey and uphold the Old Testament. They would have to argue then that miracles such as those of Lourdes and Fatima and Medjugorje and Garabandal, in short the miracles reported by the Catholic Church are not prophesied. They would have to conclude that these miracles are precisely the kind of miracles Jesus said are useless and therefore not from God. They are as useless as raising Lazarus from the dead to plead with sinners to repent.
When Jesus said even a saint rising from the dead with God's message is useless and not even worth thinking about when the scriptures are there we know that he indicated that less impressive things such as tradition and miracles of healing and apparitions are even more useless and beneath divine dignity. By doing them God would be denying the sufficiency of the scriptures.
John
20:31 says that the Gospel of John alone is enough for salvation and belief in
Jesus. The verse goes, "Jesus did many other
miraculous wonders in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in
this book. But I have written of the other signs so that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God so that by believing you may have
life in his name". In other words, it gives enough evidence
for one to base belief on and be saved by that belief coupled with
repentance. When John is enough and when
John appeals to other scripture, but only from the Bible, as scripture it implies that there is no need
for anything outside the Bible.
When the gospel of John is enough by itself, that shows the Bible is enough by itself. The Bible is enough but more than what we need. What we definitely do not need is a Church and pope and Church tradition that claim to be infallible!
This gospel also says that Jesus is the bread of life and we must eat his body and drink his blood to have eternal life. It does not mention the last supper so this tells us not to read anything eucharistic or to do with communion into what he said.
Acts
1
Thessalonians
2
Timothy
THOSE
WHO HOLD THAT CHURCH TRADITION IS EQUAL TO SCRIPTURE AND IS THE WORD OF GOD
SHOULD NOTE THAT THIS TRADITION IS NOT SAID TO BE GOD-BREATHED TO THE EXTENT
THAT SCRIPTURE IS SO THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD COMES FIRST AND WHAT IS NOT IN IT
IS NOT AUTHORITIVE.
2 Peter 1 says that the
scriptures are totally reliable and their words spoken by God as much as the words
that you would hear from his audible voice would be. When scripture is that god-breathed it
follows that it has the final say and is the supreme authority.
In
the Gospel of John, you will read of Jesus stressing that he says only what God
told him.
The
Bible says that all of it is inspired by God and useful for correcting error so
that the reader would be “thoroughly equipped for every good work” in 2 Timothy
The
scripture would not equip anyone for every good work unless it contains all we
need to know. Revealing God’s truth is a
good work so it is meant as well as other kinds of good works. If it had meant just non-evangelistic good
works it would have specified them and the context puts no limit on the
meaning. The Bible emphasises that God
comes first and God alone matters and is to be loved with others being loved
only because it is his will. Thus, any
good work that was not done to bring glory to God and to excite interest in his
gospel and word was really a bad work.
This proves that the verse is saying that the Bible is all that is needed
in matters pertaining to faith or morals.
Some
protest that the verse does not prove the sufficiency for it refers to the Old
Testament alone. In the preceding verse,
Paul, or whoever wrote this, ponders about the Old Testament. But it is possible for him to stop meaning it
alone and then to move to meaning all God’s writings including the ones since
then. By no stretch of the imagination
could the Old Testament be said to be sufficient. Jesus said that he came to improve and fulfil
it. The letter-writer did not mean the
Old Testament alone but whatever God had written since as well or will
write. He said all scripture which just
means all scripture that God will send.
The writer is not talking about the extent of scripture or what books are
scripture but of the nature of scripture.
Catholicism
answers that St Joseph of Cupertino was far from bright and knew just about
nothing on the teaching of the Church but knew all he needed to become a
saint. She says that this verse just
means that some of the doctrines of the Bible are sufficient to get you into
Heaven not that it contains all God requires you to believe. But the letter-writer is not writing to
dunces and the author does not mean, “all the good works you can do”, but, “all
the good works you should do”. There is
a sense in which even the person with little intelligence and education should
know all good.
Hebrews
1:1-3 says that God in the past spoke to mankind in many different ways but
through prophets but in these last days he speaks to us through his Son and by
him. This tells us that instead of
listening to prophets anymore we must listen only to Jesus. This implies that the apostles did not function
like prophets but only told what was known to be the teaching of Jesus
Christ. This implies a rejection of
Atheists
adore the fact that the Bible is the only lawful Christian deposit of doctrine
for it makes Christianity easier to refute.
Just prove a contradiction in the Bible and Christianity is disproved.
INDIRECT ARGUMENT FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA
PROTESTANT:
Your Roman Catholic Church just disposes of the doctrine that the Bible is the
only authority in matters of religion, or faith and morals, like last week’s
garbage. She asserts that she believes
in the Bible but she reckons it is not enough and that other sources of divine
revelation are needed as well. She says
that her infallible decrees and tradition and reason are the other
sources. She even declared at the
Council of Trent, Fifth Session, that nobody had a right to study the Bible
without consulting the unanimous consent of the fathers – the authorities such
as St Augustine and Jerome etc – to get their interpretation and without
accepting these and the interpretations officially laid down by the
Church. It decreed punishment for the
breakage of this rule.
CATHOLIC: And my Church is right. Nowhere does the Bible say that it is the
only rule of faith.
PROTESTANT: I agree.
However, the Bible says it implicitly.
It implies it. I am going to
prove to you that the fact that the Bible does not say that an additional
source of doctrine is needed proves that it teaches that it alone is the word
of God.
CATHOLIC: I suppose you are going to say that he would
have told us in the Bible what the other source of truth was in unmistakeable
terms for silence would mean leaving the way open for us to be deceived?
PROTESTANT: Yes!
Very good! If another infallible
teacher were unnecessary any Church or person could claim to be it. And if clever enough their lies would be
irrefutable. They could take advantage
of the ineffable nature of God and his truth to invent all the nonsense they
like. For example, when Jesus was fully
God and also fully man they could invent other seemingly contradictory
doctrines. They could say that if the
Bible says there are three persons in God it only means there are three we know
of and there could be more.
CATHOLIC: You are wrong. Not just anybody could claim to be the extra
authority. God made Peter the Bishop of
Rome and the first pope and the Church was infallible. The pope and the Church are the authority.
PROTESTANT: God did not say that Peter was meant to have
successors. God’s ways are strange from
our limited viewpoint. He did not say that
the Church was infallible.
CATHOLIC: Well then the authority must be the papacy
and the Church for no other authority ever made the claims that they made. Nobody else made as credible a claim.
PROTESTANT: Needing an infallible authority would not
mean that you would be right to believe that a person is that authority just
because he claims to be it. You are just
assuming.
DID BIBLE COME FROM CHURCH?
Did
the Bible come from the Church? Did the
Church make the Bible?
If
it did then it is not the word of God for it makes no sense to say that the
writings of those who had the knowledge and the evidence and the power to write
for God and the story of God with authority could be judged by those who did
not have the evidence and the knowledge and first-hand experience they had.
Catholic
theologians accuse Bible Christians of having no sensible reason to believe in
the Bible for saying that the Bible was independent of the Church. They would say, “Unlike you fundamentalists
we do not argue that the Bible is God’s word because he wrote it and say that
he wrote it because it is his inspired word.
We don’t argue in circles. We are not like them. We look at the Bible as an ordinary document
and then we check if it gives solid evidence that it is and Jesus was God’s
revelation first. Then we realise that
Jesus must have established an infallible Church for we have no reason to
believe that the Bible is God’s word.
The Church gives us this reason by infallibly proclaiming the Bible
God’s Word. At least we have a reason
for believing in the Bible.” This bad
logic is in the Karl Keating book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism
(page 126).
Have
the Catholics really reached this conclusion without preconceived ideas? Accuracy does not prove that the Bible is
God’s word. And the Bible says the
intelligence is a little bit deranged and the book is full of doctrines that
remind us of that for they make no sense in our thinking. So it is not the theology that convinces
them. They reject inspired books with
fewer paradoxical doctrines which shows that they were prejudiced in their
alleged research. They stick to the list
made by the Church knowing that the Church would not canonise books with too
many obvious errors which is hardly an impartial investigation. Religion sometimes uses evidence that the
Bible is the word of God. But the
evidence is not the word of God for they change it as they please. So human thinking is the real authority. It tells you what God thinks and when God is
supposed to come first and be always right surely you can see the irreverence
and arrogance in such behaviour? Why not
listen to commonsense and keep it simple and forget about Churches and Bibles
in the first place instead of going through this when you admit the need for
evidence? Evidence could seemingly prove
any book to be the word of God when you dismiss the books absurdities as
mysteries beyond reason or as things we are too dull to understand.
And
the Catholics are really saying: “The Bible is true for the Church thinks it
is. The Bible says the Church is right
and God keeps it from serious error. And
the Church is right for the Bible says it is right”.
And
they are saying, “We interpret the Bible as saying the Church is infallible and
our interpretation is right for the Church infallibly interprets it thus”. So they are saying the Bible is true for the
infallible Church infallibly interprets it as saying the Church is infallible.
The
Church is also saying, “The Bible is true therefore it is God’s word.” This is circular reasoning for even if the
Bible cannot be found to be lying that doesn’t meant it is true or that it is
God’s word. Anybody can write a book
that cannot be caught out in error and call it God’s word.
All
that is the circular reasoning they accuse the fundamentalists of and
worse. The fact that far more scholars
of the Bible can be found who think it is not the word of God than scholars who
think it is the word of God proves that.
And
the Bible never hints that the Church is infallible which makes the Catholic
vicious circle worse than the fundamentalist one. Also, if the Bible can be found to be true
when you examine it then why do you need the Church to tell you that it is
true? Why not argue that since the Bible
withstands sceptical examination that it must be true and since only a true
book can be the word of God that it must be the word of God? This is not circular reasoning. It is wrong to bring in the Church stuff for
it transgresses the law of parsimony, the law that the simplest thing must be
believed.
You
can have two Churches that teach exactly the same but which have one small
difference for a Church is a teaching body.
Different teachings mean different and distinct Church. There is a huge amount of difference between
the Church that made the Bible list and the Church that exists now or existed a
hundred years ago. If the latter is the
true Church the first is not so there is no logic in depending on the alleged
infallibility of the first.
The
Archbishop of Melbourne, Thomas Joseph Carr, declared that Catholics do not say
the Church is infallible because the Bible is inspired but that the Church is
infallible because the Bible is true (page 12, Lectures and Replies).
But
the Bible existed before an infallible Church was thought of. If the infallible Church were a substitute
for the Bible then why would God go to the trouble of giving us a Bible? If the infallible Church were the only
trustworthy interpreter of the Bible then the Church is better than the Bible
so again why not just give us a Church not a Bible?
The
Archbishop said that since the Church got along without the New Testament for
more than six decades that the authority of the Church does not rest on the
Bible but on the Church which eventually produced the Bible (page 14).
But the Church could not have survived without inspired WRITTEN teaching
from the apostles. We know the
importance of affidavits and the like today even soon after things are
reported. It is mad to say that God
spoke to the apostles and then that the Church produced the word of God. At most it could only verify that it was the
word of God. His argument is mere
speculation. The claim of some that the
Church could have continued without anything being written is completely
foolish for it is so dangerous for you need records to preserve the message
right. Without written records of the
apostles the Church could have no credibility when contending against
heretics. The infamous Catholic
apologist, Fr Leslie Rumble, who was on Radio Replies years ago was one
proponent of the doctrine of the Bible being totally unnecessary. The Bible certainly does not consider itself
unnecessary. We don’t have any Jesus
stories that might be reliable outside the Bible which shows how barmy this
doctrine is.
It
is surmised that the Bible says that scripture is inspired by God but does not
say what scripture is implying that only the Church could make scripture for
only it can say what it is (page 43).
But the word scripture means writings and the New Testament said that
the books of the Old Testament were inspired and each of its books claimed to
be inspired or were written by people who claimed or were claimed to have been
inspired. The Bible said that he would
guide the readers of the true scriptures so it was only natural that people
would know what books were scripture.
The hypotheses of an infallible Church is not needed to explain how we
might know what books God wrote. His
assertion that if the Bible were the only rule of faith then every one
believing that would be able to prove to themselves that it was the only word
of God (page 15) is therefore fallacious.
The
Bible was only approved by the Church after it had been put together without
her infallibility. Bishop Athanasius of
The
gift of infallibility may be given even to an apostate Church for her to
determine which books are canonical but that does not mean that she is
infallible on other things.
TRADITION ITSELF COMMANDS BIBLE ALONE
The
very tradition that the Catholic Church makes superior to the Bible and a
supplement to the Bible says that it should be ignored in favour of the
Bible!
The
tradition that the fathers honoured and obeyed was tradition that restated or
paraphrased or clarified what was in the scriptures and was in the
scriptures. (See page 15, Traditional
Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church Examined.) St Cyprian is quoted as saying that tradition
is just what is taught in the scriptures.
Cyril of Alexandria said that the scriptures are enough and more than
enough and Tertullian condemned Hermogenes
unless he could show that his teachings were in the Bible and pronounced a
curse on those who add to and subtract from the Bible and St Basil interpreted
the apostles as saying that nobody should believe anything unless it is written
in the Bible (page 16).
Justin
Martyr was the first source of what Rome recognises as divinely inspired
tradition to say that Christ forbade belief in what men say and counselled his
followers to believe only in what he himself and the Jewish prophets taught
(page 26, Evangelical Catholics; page 23, But the Bible Does
Not Say So).
St
Irenaeus stated that the Church will find every
doctrine it needs in the prophets and the gospels (page 26, Evangelical
Catholics). He wrote that when the
heretics are refuted from the scriptures they attack the scriptures as being
incorrect or uncanonical so in that case he appeals
to tradition to confute them (page 27, Church and Infallibility). But what Irenaeus
meant by tradition was the practice of revering the scriptures as
infallible. He argued that since they
were believed to be infallible since the time of the apostles they were real
and uncorrupted. A bible only believer
would say much the same thing without regarding tradition as an additional
authority.
St
Athanasius wrote that the scriptures are enough for
learning the truth in (Conte Gentes. 1,1).
St
John Chrysostom commanded that no man must be
listened to in religion without being checked out by the Bible first (2
Corinthians 6, Homily 13). The same instructed
in his Homily on Romans that we must read no other but Jesus and need no other
mind (page 27, Secrets of Romanism).
St
Jerome protested against creating things as if they were tradition from the
apostles without scripture saying they are true (commentary on Haggai, Cap
1.2). He informed Helvidius
that anything that was not written in the Bible was to be rejected. He said the Church does not admit anything
that is not found in the scriptures (page 23, But the Bible
Does Not Say So).
St
Basil (329-379) said that since Jesus said his sheep hear his voice and do not
listen to strangers that it is wrong to make a doctrine that is not mentioned
in the scriptures (De Fide, Garnier’s
Edition, Vol II, page 313). (See page 26, Evangelical Catholics).
Augustine
commanded that any doctrine that is not in the Bible must be refused (page 26, Evangelical
Catholics). In 400 AD he expressly
stated that he bows only to the authority of the canonical books and that all
that is needed for faith and living is in them (page 23, But the Bible
Does Not Say So).
Reasonings from
As
for the principle of private interpretation, the Protestant idea that since
there is no authority higher or equal to the Bible, each one must interpret it
for himself, it is in the same boat.
Catholics say it leads to chaos but that doesn’t make the Bible deny
that Bible alone is enough! Besides,
the Catholic Church and Protestants hold that private interpretation does not
mean you exclude the guidance of others or God but the contrary. Catholics say that faith is a gift from God
that enables you to judge the Church to stand in the place of God and accept
its teachings as true. So ultimately
they believe in private interpretation too. So they leave themselves with no
right to complain against the doctrine that it leads to chaos for that is
blasting the bugle into their own feet.
Conclusion
The
real Christian follows only the Bible. Catholics
are not true followers of Jesus for denying this principle.
WORKS
CONSULTED
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS CATHOLICS ARE ASKING, Tony Coffey, Harvest House
Publishers, Oregon ,2006
Catholicism
and Christianity, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen
& Unwin Ltd, 1928
Catholicism
and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988
Encyclopaedia
of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982
Evangelical
Catholics, A New Phenomenon, Stanley Mawhinney,
Christian Ministries Incorporated, Dundrum, Dublin,
1992
How
to Interpret the Bible, Fr Francis Cleary, SJ, Ligouri, Missouri, 1981
It Ain’t
Necessarily So, Investigating the Truth of the Biblical Past, Matthew Sturgis,
Headline Books,
Lectures
and Replies, Thomas Carr, Archbishop of
Lions
Concise Book of Christian Thought, Tony Lane, Lyon, Herts,
1984
Reason
and Belief, Bland Blanschard, London, George Allen
and Unwin Ltd, 1974
Roman
Catholic Claims, Charles Gore, Longmans, London, 1894
Secrets
of Romanism, Joseph Zachello, Loizeaux
Brothers, New Jersey, 1984
The
Bible Does Not Say So, Rev Roberto Nisbet, Church
Book Room Press, London, 1966
The Bible, The Biography, Karen Armstrong, Atlantic Books, London, 2007
The Church and
Infallibility, BC Butler, The Catholic Book Club, London, undated
Traditional
Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church Examined, Rev CCJ
Butlin, Protestant Truth Society,
Vicars
of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi,
Whatever
Happened to Heaven? Dave Hunt, Harvest House,
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Illinois ,1992
BIBLE
QUOTATIONS FROM:
The
Amplified Bible
Friday, 28 December 2007