That’s a pretty good answer. You gave him the answer? So each one of these words we could spend a long time seeking to understand and define. What is it for God to be infinite? No end. Yeah. Kind of difficult for us to grasp. Why is that? Why is it difficult for me to understand the infinite? Because I’m finite. All I know is this boundary that I’ve been created in and placed in.
And it’s very, very difficult. It’s impossible for me to grasp the infinite. So usually as we define God, we’re defining him in negative terms. He’s not this, he’s not this, he’s not this. These are positive terms, and that’s why they’re difficult for us to really fully and completely grasp. We really can’t. His eternality is unchangeableness. How are we made? We’re made changeable or unchangeable? Yeah, Adam and Eve were made changeable, right? They could sin. They weren’t made sinners, but they could sin. So they were made changeable.
And all of that is infinite, is infinity, is eternality, is unchangeableness, is in what? In his being, in his wisdom, in his power, in his holiness, in his justice, in his goodness, and in his truth. So each one of those adjectives, infinite, eternal, unchangeable, applies to his being, his wisdom, his power, his holiness, his justice, his goodness, and his truth. Does that make sense? Something to ponder and meditate upon today? OK. All right.
Could I ask Elder Harris to pray for us as we dismiss to our classes? Father God, we thank you. We see how magnificent you are, how wonderful. us here and we rise up to you and meet with you today and we are so blessed and full of joy and grace. I pray that you would be with our children’s class as they learn about your law and grow in the knowledge of your will and be with our pastor as we discuss and learn and are refreshed and inspired by the five solas. Amen.
Thank you. We’re dismissed. Thank you, Mrs. Cashen and students. All right. What are we studying? The five solas. What did we learn last time we just jumped into the five solas? Anybody? Just one thing. Just encourage me with one thing. Okay. I thought it was really interesting when you said, how do you describe the Reformed faith? Did I go to a Reformed church? And that this is a summary of that. That was a VA moment for me. OK. All right, good. Thank you. All right, so what are the five solos? Just the names of them. B-Day. Solo B-Day. Yes, that’s one. That’s two. Three. Is that the one you just said? No? Yeah. Christus, yes. Okay.
Five of them. That’s why they’re called the five. So what does sola mean? Alone. Okay, good. Good. That’s a good Is sola Latin? Yes, okay. Okay, so we’re going to start with sola scriptura. Again, Latin words. Only scripture, scripture alone, either one.
Well, why is this, why was this an issue? What was? the problem in the church. As we think of the Reformation, we think of the church going astray. What was the problem with regard to Scripture? Yes, sir. Traditions, okay. They wanted to bring something else in addition to God’s Word, alongside God’s Word, equivalent to God’s Word, and that was happening. So that was the problem.
We’ll see it here, the Roman Catholic doctrine that the reformers became sensitive to and sought to reform the church. Okay, so this is the Council of Trent. Well, this is just an excerpt, a definition of a little from Wikipedia, what the Council of Trent was. It was held between 1545 and 1563. That’s quite a long time.
At the bottom here, it’s referred to by Wikipedia, not me, as the Counter-Reformation. What does that mean, Counter-Reformation? Against the Reformation, right? When was the Reformation going on? in the early 1500s, all right? When did Martin Luther, and this is not necessarily the start of the Reformation, but lots of people think it is. When did he nail those 95 theses to the chapel door? 17, 1517. So 1517, when did Calvin write his first institutes? There are several versions of it, right? His first one comes out in 1536. Okay, 1536. So the Reformation is going on, right?
And the institutes are really thought of as the first systematic theology. So that’s, it’s going on. And so we see the Roman Catholic, and people wouldn’t refer to it as the Roman Catholic Church at this point, but the church now, which is not being reformed, which is against what the, not the Protestants are doing, get together and enact or publicize the doctrine against the Reformation. And so that’s what the Council of Trent was. I’m sure it was more than that, but that’s what we would recall it to be. In Northern Italy, it was the 19th Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, prompted by the Protestant Reformation at the time, been described as the most impressive embodiment of the ideals of the Counter-Reformation.
And that’s Wikipedia, that is not Chris Cashin. The Council issued key statements and clarifications of the Church’s doctrine and teachings, including Scripture, and that’s what we’re focused on this morning, biblical canon, sacred tradition, original sin, justification, salvation, the sacraments, the mass, veneration of the saints, and also issued condemnations of what it defined to be heresies committed by the Protestants, right? The Protestants, they are wrong, they’re heretical. Right? They’re an abomination. If you believe in justification by faith alone, you are an anathema.
Okay, so that’s the Council of Trent going on almost 20 years, 1545 to 1563. So why would we consider this? Why would I even bring this up? Because this is where some statements are going to be made by the Roman Catholic Church about scripture. All right, so this is the fourth session. This is history. I can’t even get into Council of Trent website. They’ve apparently locked people out, like me. I don’t think so. So this is from hanover.edu, and this is a recordation of one of the statements of the Council of Trent. Fourth session. 18th day of the month of April, the year MDXLVI. What is that? 1546?
The decree concerning canonical scriptures. The sacred and holy ecumenical and general synod of Trent. That’s what they think of their synod, their council. It’s holy. It’s sacred. That tells you something right away. Lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the apostolic sea presiding therein. I think that’s a reference to the pope. Keeping this always in view, that error is being removed, the purity itself of the gospel pre-preserved in the church. Well, that’s a good statement. Purity of the gospel pre-preserved. Wonderful.
However, this is where they go off the rails. This is a continuation of that same document. And seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books and the unwritten traditions. This is a statement right out of the Council of Trent. Which have come down even to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand, the synod, meaning the council, Following the examples of the Orthodox Fathers receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books of the Old and New Testament as also the said traditions. Therein lies the problem.
And so they’re placing the traditions which they would view as that which is verbally handed down from generation to generation to generation as equivalent to God’s Word. So in essence, adding to the Word of God. 66 book, well, they also added the Apocrypha. But in addition to that, the unwritten traditions.
All right, so there’s the problem. This is from another website. This is not the Council of Trent, but it’s somebody else talking about the Council of Trent. The Council decreed that both scripture and tradition were to be of equal authority. That’s the idea. That’s what we just read in the Council of Trent.
This was the denial of the position known as sola scriptura, or the Bible alone possessing the supreme authority in the church. In addition, Latin Vulgate translation was declared the official Bible of the church. Basically, you had to use it. You didn’t use it, it was a problem. This was the official version now.
What’s wrong with that? Anything? People didn’t speak Latin. That’s one thing. People didn’t speak Latin. Anything else? The original versions are in Greek and Hebrew, and the church is saying, well, we’re going to take something else, a translation, and say that’s the official version. That’s it. Never mind what it was originally written in. Another problem.
In addition, the canon of Scripture was enlarged because the Vulgate contained additional books called the Apocrypha. What’s the Apocrypha? Is it the Word of God? We would not understand it that way and receive it that way, but the Roman Catholic Church did. But the Protestants reject it as canonical.
Okay, that’s somebody else’s description of the general problem within the Roman Catholic Church that was stated and set forth in the Council of Trent. All right, this is from Wilhelmus O’Brockle, who lived in 1635 to 1711. And as he writes, he writes many times with regard to people who would take position against doctrine. And so he wants to respond to those who would take a position against the doctrine and say, well, this is where they’re wrong. And so we ask the question here, are the Scriptures perspicuous? What does that mean, perspicuous?
I don’t use that word. Can you understand them? Are they clear? Is it possible for you to read them and come away with a clear understanding of Scripture? So he gives this answer, and this is why I included this, because now he’s referring back to the Roman Catholic Church.
Roman Catholicism maintains the scriptures are so obscure, you can’t understand them, don’t even try. So obscure. They cannot be comprehended except by the use of unwritten tradition. That’s why we need the unwritten tradition to come in, because the unwritten tradition explains that which is in God’s word, and so you need them together. and the authoritative declarations of the church. You need the church as well, because the church is really the only entity that can tell you what the scriptures mean. So don’t try it on your own. Don’t do this at home.
Only go to the church, which is going to be using not only the scriptures, but also the unwritten tradition. And that every text can only be understood in a manner which is congruent with the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church, since she determines such and such to be the meaning of a given text. This is Wilhelmus Abrakel, and he’s just summarizing how the Roman Catholic Church adds to and puts up barriers to the Word of God. And so it’s actually taking away from the Word of God in that, isn’t it?
Saying, don’t try it yourself. We’ll do it for you, and we’ll tell you what it means, because there’s no way you can understand it. Well, maybe that was just in 1546, right? I mean, maybe Wilhelmus of Braco was writing about the Council of Trent, and it’s over. What about today? This is Vatican II, this is 1965. What is that, 1915, 63 to 19, 400 years? Is that right? Did I get that right? Help me. Yes, thank you. All right, so 400 years later.
Vatican II, another council of the Roman Catholic Church. Hence, there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and sacred scripture, for both of them flowing from the same divine wellspring. In a certain way, merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. Sacred scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it’s consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine spirit. That’s good. While sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the apostles and hands it on to their successors in its full purity. Who are the successors of the apostles? The Pope. The Pope is.
Oh, another problem. Consequently, it is not from sacred scripture alone that the church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore, both sacred tradition and the sacred scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence, on the same, on par. You’ve seen the problem. It hasn’t gone away. 400 years later, Roman Catholic Church is still saying, yep, yep, this is still good doctrine. This is from Vatican website.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, those three, those three things, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others.
You must have the teaching of the Church. You must have tradition. And, well, yeah, you’ve got to have this Bible, too. Those three things. So linked together and joined together, one cannot stand without the other, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. You’ve got to have the teaching of the church to be saved, because you can’t grasp it. OK. They continue adding to the word. Just an example. This is from a document that followed after Vatican II, published by Pope Paul VI, and this is what he writes. We’re looking at the general doctrine of the Church, and now I want to say, well, this is how it’s worked out.
Just one example. that punishment or the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they, in fact, frequently do even after the remission of guilt. After you’ve been forgiven, there’s still some vestiges of sin that may remain. Forgiveness is not complete. It’s clearly demonstrated by the doctrine on purgatory.
Where does that come from? It’s not in the 66 books, so it’s gotta be taken from the tradition, maybe the Apocrypha, I haven’t studied it enough to know. In purgatory, in fact, the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, truly repentant, but before satisfying with worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and for omissions are cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments.
I think this is 1967. I can’t remember. Yes, sir? Was this part of Vatican II? No, this comes after Vatican II. It’s a proclamation of the Pope that follows Vatican II, but shortly thereafter. It’s either 1966 or 67. But here, you see the numbers there, number eight, number nine, those are footnotes. And so what’s the Pope relying on to make these statements? Well, number eight, That even though you’re cleansed, even though there’s been a remission of guilt, there still remains vestiges of sin. Where’s he getting that from?
Well, Numbers 20 and 27. In the second Kings, I don’t know how, but somehow. But then, Innocent IV. Who’s that? A pope. He’s relying on a pope. Instruction for the Greeks. The Council of Trent, he’s referring to a church council as being his authority, his source. And then Augustine, tracked on John’s gospel. I didn’t look those up, but you see what’s happening. Scripture, and then I’m gonna add to that, and I’m gonna add to that, I’m gonna add to that, and I’m gonna come up with purgatory.
What about number nine? Penance for sins committed and for omissions. Number nine, the Council of Lions, a church council. There’s no scripture reference, nothing. No, it’s just the church’s declaration. Okay, just an example. So you’ve seen the problem? Have I pounded it enough?
This is what John Murray says, writes, It is what may be called oral tradition, sharply distinguished by the word oral in contrast with written. It means that there were revelations given by Christ and by the Holy Spirit that were not included in Scripture. So things that were revealed by God, He wants us to know them, but He didn’t put it down in Scripture for us. It’s outside of Scripture, and the church has said, we’ve got to bring it in. adding to, but are handed on from generation to generation in the church and by the church, particularly in and by the bishops as the alleged successors of the apostles.
There you go. John Murray. Again, John Murray. If I must listen to the voice of the church, As it comes to expression in the consensus of bishops, and particularly in definitive pronouncements of the Roman Pontiff, meaning the Pope, I must be assured that this voice is invested with divine authority. It’s a pretty good statement by Murray, right?
I must know and be confident that God is speaking through them. Divine authority. I must have assurance from God that this voice is His voice. I must have a word from Him certifying to me that this is likewise His word. And then the question. Where am I to find this? And it’s a rhetorical question. Right? It can’t be found. Okay.
Again, John Murray, the most recent pronouncements of Rome continue to reiterate and enforce the usurpations in respect of authority whereby the basic principles that God alone is the source of all authority and has revealed will, the norm, are made void in the magisterium of the church and most particularly in the supreme magisterium of the Roman pontiff. So as the Pope sits on his chair and he declares something with regard to doctrine or the church, it’s infallible. Again, it’s on par with scripture. And that’s their doctrine today.
Okay, adding to the Word of God. Okay, so the problem isn’t new, is it? Can you find this problem in the Word of God? You can probably find it in chapter three of Genesis. It’s not new. It’s not new. We’ve been adding to the word of God since the Garden of Eden.
A woman said to the serpent, we may eat from the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, you shall not eat from the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it. What did Eve just do? She just added to the word of God. as she’s on the road to distrust that he had given this to them for their good, right, this prohibition. But the servant said to the woman, you will not surely die.
And so he’s taking away. Eve’s adding to the word of God. Satan’s taking away from the word of God. In chapter three. It’s not new. Roman Catholic Church is just following Eve and Satan. Mark, chapter 7. So it’s not just the Old Testament. This is Jesus speaking.
And he said to them, well, did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites? He’s referring to the Pharisees now. As it is written, this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain they do worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men. It’s exactly what the Pharisees were doing. It’s not new. Adding to and taking away from the Word of God. And then Revelation.
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. So not only do we have the recordation of those who were engaged in taking away and adding to the word of God in scripture itself, we have that historical record. We also have the warning here that’s given to us, not to add to it, not to take away from it.
All right, let me ask other questions before we get to the solution. Yes, sir? I don’t know if you’re going to include this in your class. So I think you said in the first lesson the five solos were after the 16th century, right? I mean, this whole configuration, how they came up with that. You can’t find five solos in the institutes. Right.
So also going on at this time was the- scripture at all, a lot of spiritualists out of those radical groups. So I would suggest adding them, I mean, Sola Scriptura speaks to them just as well as the Roman Catholics. And then another thing, you can think of Pentecostalism or a continuation of Revelation prophecy, Sola Scriptura stands against that. So my point is, the Roman Catholics shouldn’t be the only poster child.
That’s good. They are. I suggest you might want to teach it that way. They’re a pretty big target. I like the Pentecostals because there are many in Africa. The Pentecostal church is big in Africa. So, yeah, that’s good. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. What’s the solution? Sola Scriptura. What does Scripture say about itself? Deuteronomy 6. I think we’re going to read this this morning.
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children and talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, when you rise. You shall bind them. There’s a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. What about tradition? Where’s that? It’s not here, right? It’s just the word of God. These words, and that’s it, these words.
Deuteronomy 32, and when Moses had finished speaking all these words to Israel, he said to them, take to heart all the words by which I’m warning you today, that you may command them to your children, that they may be careful to do all the words of this law, for it is no empty word for you but your very life. It can’t be much clearer than this.
It’s the word of God. Your very life, and by this word, you shall live long in the land you’re going over to the Jordan to possess. Now, Deuteronomy is written as the Israelites are about to enter the promised land. And Moses is saying, this is what you’ve got to take with you. This is the only thing. This is how you’re going to live long there.
Jeremiah chapter one, and the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me, behold, I have put my words in your mouth. Not the words of men, not traditions, only the word of God. Thus sayeth the Lord. Not only the Old Testament, but the New as well.
Galatians chapter one, if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preach to you, let him be accursed. Hmm. I would suggest that sticking with the Roman Catholic Church, the traditions, the traditions are a gospel contrary to the one that’s been preached. Right. As we have said before, and so now I say again, if anyone is preaching a gospel contrary to one you’ve received, let him be accursed. And so the Roman Catholic doctrine is a doctrine that’s contrary to the doctrine of the Lord.
And then, all scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. Doesn’t include tradition. Doesn’t include the Roman pontiff and his proclamations.
All scripture. That’s it. All right. So that’s what scripture says about itself. What is sola scriptura? What does that mean? Well, first, what it doesn’t mean. I always think it’s important. And we’re trying to define something to say what it doesn’t mean, first of all, the negative. Sola Scriptura, this is from Douglas Van Dorn, Five Solas. Sola Scriptura does not proclaim that the Bible is the only book that gives truth. Can you go to a mathematical math book and see that 1 plus 1 equals 2 and know that that’s right?
Yes, you can. Yeah, can you take up, I was never good in biology, but can you take up a book on biology and see how this is how an animal’s put together, this is how God created this one, and understand the components and parts and things of human anatomy? Yes. Yes, and is it true? Yes.
The Bible is not the only book that gives truth. Know that the Bible speaks to every truth in the world. We don’t, that’s not the case. What do we know about the Civil War from the Bible? I’m talking about the American Civil War. What do we know about it? Well, we know that men are sinners, and as a result of sin, men engaged in conflict that resulted in a lot of deaths. But we don’t know anything about the cause other than sin, right? We don’t know the history. It’s not contained in the Bible. So there are some Bibles that speak truth about the Civil War. So a scripture does not proclaim that we cannot learn things through nature, reason, or experience.
So I’m learning a lot about trees right now as they’re being cut down in our yard and getting cut up. Now I can learn why trees are here and who made them by and through Scripture, right? But I can’t learn the difference between an oak and a birch and a pine through Scripture. I can do that by experience, and as others teach me, I can certainly learn.
So it doesn’t proclaim that. So the Scripture does not imply that we are infallible in interpreting the Bible. It doesn’t say that. And sola scriptura does not negate creeds and confessions or traditions. It doesn’t negate them. Now you have to be careful when we talk about traditions because we’ve been hammering the Roman Catholic Church with regard to traditions. We have to define some of those. in the way that word is used. But can we use a confession? Is that okay? Or are we violating sola scriptura? We violate sola scriptura when we take the confession and we raise it up above scripture.
If we use the confession or creed as a tool, as an instrument to help us understand Scripture, that’s where it needs to be, subordinate to Scripture, just as a tool to help us understand or to maybe help us drill down to where we should be in Scripture.
If I want to learn about Christ the mediator, I can go to chapter whatever it is in the Westminster Confession of Faith. And I can see this summary of doctrine concerning Christ the Mediator. And that’s going to help me get into the Word of God, find the different areas in the Word of God where I’m going to read Scripture, the authoritative, infallible Word of God about Christ the Mediator. It’s a help.
Once it becomes a greater authority than Scripture, that’s when the problem occurs. Does that make sense? With regard to traditions, Van Doren continued by noting that Sola Scriptura subordinates them on matters that scripture speaks to. That’s his position. Okay, questions about the negative, what Sola Scriptura is not? All right. The positive. Actually, this should have been moved up. Now we command you brothers in the name of our Lord Jesus that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
Now when Paul refers here to tradition, what’s he referring to? I think he’s referring to the Word of God, how they’ve been taught. And they’ve been taught from the Word of God. He’s not talking about, well, this is unwritten, handed down from bishop to bishop to bishop. No, no. There weren’t any bishops yet. They were elders. So I think that’s what he’s speaking of here when he speaks of tradition handed down. I think he’s speaking of the teachings, the gospel truths that he gave to them on those three Lord’s Days that he taught. Okay, that should have gone before.
OK, so the positive, sola scriptura is. This is from a Ligonier doctrine. John MacArthur wrote it. The Reformation principle of sola scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. That’s important, spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
It’s a fairly simple idea. It’s a fairly simple teaching. We don’t want to go beyond it and throw out our math books. We don’t want to go beyond it and throw out our history books. But Sola Scriptura speaks to spiritual matters. And what is our supreme authority in spiritual matters? It’s the Word of God. Period. This is from Van Dorn. Sola Scriptura proclaims that God’s Word is sufficient for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training righteous. Where do you get that from? Oh, 2 Timothy.
So that you may be equipped for every good work, for everything you need to come to faith in Christ, justification and sanctification in his sight, spiritual matters. So, that’s what the smart guys say, okay? I’ve tried to summarize it here in three Three teachings, three takeaways. First, that everything men, women, and children need for salvation, faith, and spiritual life is in the word of God and nowhere else. Everything you need. Now, can you use commentaries and books? Sure, they’re great helps. But is that our supreme authority? No, no, it’s not. They can be helpful, but they’re not our supreme authority. Secondly, that nothing else is equivalent to or on par with the Word of God. It stands alone. Nothing. And third, that nothing is to be added to the Word of God and nothing is to be taken away from the Word of God.
Those are the three takeaways for me. Maybe you have others. Well, you’re a smart guy. I mean, this guy here, Van Dorn, he’s a smart guy. And so is Mr. Reverend MacArthur. Okay, well that’s what I’ve got on Sola Scriptura. It’s kind of an important doctrine. I really focused on the Roman Catholic doctrine. But that was because I needed to show the problem. And it goes beyond. I mean, we just touched on that. There are so many examples that we could bring in that were leading people and continue to lead people astray. So that’s the problem, but this is the solution. Questions? Sir? I don’t have a question, but until a couple of weeks ago, I had heard of five solas. So I did a little research and Yes. It is a nutshell. It’s a big nutshell, but it is a nutshell. Yeah? Yes, sir?
I want something on Hebrews chapter 6, where it’s impossible to be restored for those who have seen all the goodness of God, and how it’s been handled over the years. And he was making the point that it had to do with people going back to the Old Testament sacrifices, going back to the model of things in the Old Testament, rejecting the things that were revealed in Christ.
And I make the point that the Roman Catholic Church has done that in the priesthood, in the baptismal regeneration, and in the mass is a re-sacrifice. And so, I mean, I would Yes, good, thank you Yes, sir No Said like a trick question Oh, no creeds Yeah, nothing else. The church has no even ministerial authority and no creeds, confessions, anything like that. Whereas the distinction between that and sola scriptura would be that, as he defined, it’s the only infallible rule of faith.
OK, interesting. Good, thank you. Westminster Confession of Faith. Obviously, we would agree with Sola Scriptura. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture. That’s really, that’s really Sola Scriptura, isn’t it?
And it’s contained in our confession. Okay. Lord willing, next time we’ll go to Solus Christus. All right, if there are no other questions, let’s pray. Oh, I’m sorry. You’ve got to yell at me. Say, wake up. I often wonder if those who recall God, if they know what to protest against. No. No, absolutely not. We don’t even understand what that word means. Good. Thank you. Okay. Oh, I’m sorry. Hey. Wake up. I just wanted to make a comment.
I lived with a former Catholic. And before he decided he wasn’t a Catholic anymore, we would get into a discussion. The way I saw it was that the Catholic Church, everything they do makes the people dependent on the Catholic Church and not on God or Christ or the Holy Spirit. Everything is through the church, yes. They worship the church. All right, I think I’ve got everybody. Let’s pray.
Father, what a blessing it is to know that you’ve spoken to us, that you’ve given us your word. And Father, you enable us to understand it by and through your spirit. And so we pray, Lord God, that you would continue to give us even more understanding and that we would revere only your word. Help us, Lord. Help us. And now we ask that you prepare us for worship. Work in our hearts, Lord God, that we would be alert and attentive. And Father, worship you in spirit and truth this very day. And even as we prepare for the supper, Lord, work on our hearts. Help us to examine ourselves. We ask all this in Jesus’s name. Amen. Amen. Thank you all. Sorry, it was in here, I had to find it.