How can a sola scriptura proponent know that all revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle?

[joe370]

How can a sola scriptura proponent* (scripture alone as the Christians final authority)* - know that all revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle? I believe it, but the holy bible is silent regarding the matter, so why should I (if I were a sola scriptura proponent) - believe it?

 

[panner]

Same reason we do I reckon, through faith

 

[joe370]

Same reason we do I reckon, through faith

So sola scriptura Christians can defer to faith, in lieu of scripture alone, when it comes to a teaching?

 

[SyCarl]

I would refer to Jude 1:3.

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
(Jud 1:3 NASB)

The faith was once for all handed down. If it has all been handed down, there is no more to come.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I would refer to Jude 1:3.

The faith was once for all handed down. If it has all been handed down, there is no more to come.

I wonder, couldn’t that be used to reject the Book of Revelation by John the Apostle? Because John wrote that book after Jude claimed that “the faith was once for all handed down”.

I also wonder, when did the Catholic Church discern that all public revelation ended? Did the original Apostles claim that, while they were still alive? Or, was it perhaps one of the early Ecumenical Councils of the Church that discerned it?

I would really like to learn more about this subject, both from a Catholic and non-Catholic (including Muslim and LDS Church) perspective.

 

[panner]

So sola scriptura Christians can defer to faith, in lieu of scripture alone, when it comes to a teaching?

We do too, we take it on faith the Church is who they say they are. etc.

 

[joe370]

We do too, we take it on faith the Church is who they say they are. etc.

True, but we are not sola scriptura advocates! We defer to the Catholic Church regarding sacred scripture and sacred tradition. I am addressing this question to those who claim that a belief, teaching or practice must be found in scripture (the final authority for sola scriptura proponents) - to be believed, taught or practiced!!!

 

[joe370]

I would refer to Jude 1:3.

The faith was once for all handed down. If it has all been handed down, there is no more to come.

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
(Jud 1:3 NASB)

The faith, once and for all, handed down to the saints does not answer the following question, but thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut:

How can a sola scriptura proponent (scripture alone as the Christians final authority) - know that all revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle? I believe it, but the holy bible is silent regarding the matter, so why should I (if I were a sola scriptura proponent) - believe it?

 

[Nicea325]

True, but we are not sola scriptura advocates! We defer to the Catholic Church regarding sacred scripture and sacred tradition. I am addressing this question to those who claim that a belief, teaching or practice must be found in scripture (the final authority for sola scriptura proponents) - to be believed, taught or practiced!!!

The underlined words is key for SS advocates. As a result,my question to SS advocates is always simple:

Tell me what Bible Abraham used,if SS is the mother of all doctrines?

 

[lampstand]

Sola scriptura is a circular argument. Its advocates have decided that in order to be proven, they must see it literally in the Bible. And how do they prove this? By saying that it must be in the Bible.

 

[Alan55]

If sola scriptura activists were honest with themselves, I think that they’d admit that this doctrine is less based on scripture than on the desire to avoid admitting of the authority of the magisterium in interpreting scripture.

Similarly, I think that the reduction of sacraments to mere symbols is based not on the scriptures but on the desire to avoid the need for priestly ordination by bishops in apostolic succession and in communion with Rome. Denying the authority of the Church to interpret scripture and administer the sacraments set the “reformers” free to advance their interpretation of scripture and form new churches independent of Rome.

Note that the notion of the ability of each person to interpret scripture on their own with the help of the Holy Spirit fell by the side pretty quickly when new and sometimes strange interpretations of scripture conflicted with the views of the likes of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin.

In other words, decide what you want to do, then look for support in the scriptures for your position.

 

[JonNC]

Sola scriptura is a circular argument. Its advocates have decided that in order to be proven, they must see it literally in the Bible. And how do they prove this? By saying that it must be in the Bible.

This isn’t what sola scriptura is. Sola scriptura is the practice of using the scripture as the final norm, holding all teachings and teachers accountable to it., It neither rejects Tradition, nor does it require that something must be seen, literally, in scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Alan55;7589447]If sola scriptura activists were honest with themselves, I think that they’d admit that this doctrine is less based on scripture than on the desire to avoid admitting of the authority of the magisterium in interpreting scripture.

First, Alan, SS is a practice, not a doctrine (see above). Perhaps, regarding authority, there was a need to use scripture as the final norm, since those communions that claim Tradition and scripture came to schism and disagreement.

Similarly, I think that the reduction of sacraments to mere symbols is based not on the scriptures but on the desire to avoid the need for priestly ordination by bishops in apostolic succession and in communion with Rome.

This view is disputed by the existence of Reformation era communions that are sacramental, the Catholic view of our clergy notwithstanding.

Denying the authority of the Church to interpret scripture and administer the sacraments set the “reformers” free to advance their interpretation of scripture and form new churches independent of Rome.

The Magisterium has every authority to interpret scripture and administer the sacraments.

Note that the notion of the ability of each person to interpret scripture on their own with the help of the Holy Spirit fell by the side pretty quickly when new and sometimes strange interpretations of scripture conflicted with the views of the likes of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin.

You are correct. Lutherans do not indulge in private interpretation. I’ll let the Reformed and others speak for themselves.

In other words, decide what you want to do, then look for support in the scriptures for your position.

As you mentioned Luther, a source, please as to where he said this.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Alan55;7589447]If sola scriptura activists were honest with themselves, I think that they’d admit that this doctrine is less based on scripture than on the desire to avoid admitting of the authority of the magisterium in interpreting scripture.

I was guilty of that as well, as a former sola scriptura proponent. Strangely enough, it seems permissible for anyone sola scriptura advocate to authoritatively interpret scripture.

Similarly, I think that the reduction of sacraments to mere symbols is based not on the scriptures but on the desire to avoid the need for priestly ordination by bishops in apostolic succession and in communion with Rome.

That is so true.

Denying the authority of the Church to interpret scripture and administer the sacraments set the “reformers” free to advance their interpretation of scripture and form new churches independent of Rome.

Even Martin Luther, the father of protestantism agreed with you:

*“We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”
Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24
“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary,* the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. *We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”
Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519

Note that the notion of the ability of each person to interpret scripture on their own with the help of the Holy Spirit fell by the side pretty quickly when new and sometimes strange interpretations of scripture conflicted with the views of the likes of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin.

In other words, decide what you want to do, then look for support in the scriptures for your position.

Sola scriptura via the authoritative interpretation of each and every SS proponent, has led to a great deal of confusion, and “God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.” 1 Cor. 14

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

This isn’t what sola scriptura is. Sola scriptura is the practice of using the scripture as the final norm, holding all teachings and teachers accountable to it., It neither rejects Tradition, nor does it require that something must be seen, literally, in scripture.

Jon

Jon the practice of holding all teachings and teachers accountable to scripture alone as the Christians ultimate yardstick, (to me anyway) - is the advancement of individual interpretation of each and every teacher, regardless of church affiliation, and no one church has the right to arbitrate as the Catholic church did early on, via council. The benchmark for determining doctrinal truth has shifted from the church (pre-reformation) - via council, regarding sacred scripture and sacred tradition, to the bible (post reformation, including certain traditions depending on the church) - via individual interpretation of either the church magisters, or the church member, if said member does not agree with the church magister(s). Everyone deferring to scripture alone as the Christians final authority for settling matters such as doctrinal disputes, is not scriptural or workable, even if it does not reject tradition, which of course is not the case for all SS proponents.

The Bible as the final norm would have been impossible for the first 300 years of Christianity; the Bible as the Christians final norm is not taught in the Bible; the Bible as the Christians final norm, was not taught by the Apostles; the Bible as the Christians final norm, was not the practice of the early church; the practice of the early church, (the same church that codified the Bible and settled doctrinal disputes) - was deference to the church, which, according to sacred scripture, is being forever guided by the holy spirit to all truth.

If the Bible, as the Christians final norm (as opposed to the church’s final norm, regardless of denomination) - for resolving doctrinal disputes, is to be embraced today, then it only stands to reason that the Bible, as the Christians final norm for resolving doctrinal disputes, would have been the practice of the church during the apostolic age, and the post apostolic age - agreed?

Your thoughts friend…

 

[JohnnyReb]

This may be annoying, but I am going to answer a question with a question. What do you mean by “revelation”?

I ask because God continues to reveal himself to us everyday, individually and as faith communities in our walk with Christ. Do you mean that the revelation of scripture ended with the last Apostle? The revelation of doctrine? Can you please define what you mean by revelation? I ask because in a charismatic view of things, there are types of revelation given for different purposes.

 

[joe370]

JonNC;7590060]First, Alan, SS is a practice, not a doctrine (see above). Perhaps, regarding authority, there was a need to use scripture as the final norm, since those communions that claim Tradition and scripture came to schism and disagreement.

Could you expound? Are you suggesting that the EOC and CC schism that occurred in the 11th century would not have occurred if the one CC, prior to the schism, would have deferred to scripture alone as the final norm???

This view is disputed by the existence of Reformation era communions that are sacramental, the Catholic view of our clergy notwithstanding.

Disputed but not refuted. Sadly, most non-Catholics would not agree with you.

The Magisterium has every authority to interpret scripture and administer the sacraments.

Why? Most non-Catholics would say: By who’s authority do they teach, interpret scripture and administer the sacraments?

You are correct. Lutherans do not indulge in private interpretation. I’ll let the Reformed and others speak for themselves.

I don’t really see a big difference between the church to which you belong and the church to which I belong, when it comes to authority, which of course stems from the teaching office of the church, rather than the members of the church via private interpretation.

As you mentioned Luther, a source, please as to where he said this.

Jon

Purgatory is one example. Some of the most obvious verses about purgatory appear in the Deutero books, which, to my surprise as a former non-Catholic, were always part of the Bible, and ML threw out the Deutero books and then insisted that purgatory was not in the Bible.

 

[joe370]

This may be annoying, but I am going to answer a question with a question. What do you mean by “revelation”?

I ask because God continues to reveal himself to us everyday, individually and as faith communities in our walk with Christ. Do you mean that the revelation of scripture ended with the last Apostle? The revelation of doctrine? Can you please define what you mean by revelation? I ask because in a charismatic view of things, there are types of revelation given for different purposes.

Hey Johnny. Sure, God continues to reveal himself to us everyday, individually and as faith communities in our walk with Christ, but I am referring to revealed truth which was made known to the apostles (apostolic church) - on Pentecost, and passed on to the successors of Jesus’ church, and upon the close of the apostolic age, all revealed truth ceased, which of course does not undermine the development of those doctrinal truths that were revealed to the apostles - eg the Trinity.

 

[benidict]

How can a sola scriptura proponent* (scripture alone as the Christians final authority)* - know that all revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle? I believe it, but the holy bible is silent regarding the matter, so why should I (if I were a sola scriptura proponent) - believe it?

It did not end with the last Apostle. It ended with Joseph Smith Jr…Or was it Ellen G. White? Nope, wait, I got it. Brother Stare! Just kidding. But this is a very good point Joe. Without a Guiding Authority, such as the RCC has. How would we know? Peace

 

[JohnnyReb]

It did not end with the last Apostle. It ended with Joseph Smith Jr…Or was it Ellen G. White? Nope, wait, I got it. Brother Stare! Just kidding. But this is a very good point Joe. Without a Guiding Authority, such as the RCC has. How would we know? Peace

No. It ends with me. Thus saith the Lord.