Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
"Well what is your doubt based on? Is there a scripture passage that leads you to doubt that Christ intended his Church to retain authority. I, for one, see no time limitation on Peter’s binding and loosening power. Do you? I see no time limitation on the gates of hell not prevailing over the church. Do you? In fact, the only limitation I see is Jesus telling His church that He would remain with it until the end of the Age and unless I am wrong, which I can assure you, I am not, the Age has not ended.

But doesn’t it seem really odd that Jesus would establish a church and give it some authority and then just forget about it? Especially when that contradicts the promise that Jesus made about remaining with the church until the end of the age. That sort of makes Jesus a liar, doesn’t it? But that is the crux of your position."

You are the one reading a succession into the passage. There is nothing about succession in the passage, Jesus is just talking to Peter.

In addition to what the earlier poster said allow me to correct my misunderstanding of your original post. I thought the point you were trying to make was there was no evidence for any authority being given. But now I see that what you meant was that no authority was given to any of the people who came after Peter and the other Apostles. Well that is simply not the case at all. If we accept your premise then this church that Peter was to lead as its chief steward was to be a one generation church and that succeeding generations would be on their own. Or are we to believe that when scripture says that Gods wants all men to be saved that it means all men in all generations? In any event if you want the definitive scripture passage for Apostolic Succession then I refer you to the Book of Acts, chapter 1. Here, Peter stands up among the disciples and tells them they need to choose a successor to Judas who committed suicide. He quotes two of the Psalms [Psalm 65:25 and Psalm 109:8] in doing so. So they draw lots and choose Mathias. Here is the passage from the KJV:

“15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) 16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. 21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” [Acts 1:15-26 KJV]

Notice Peter says in verse 17 that Judas was numbered with the Apostles and now, after his election, verse 26 says Matthias is now numbered with the Apostles. Matthias was the successor to the bishoprick of Judas. Now there it is as plain as the nose on your face. And the early church placed extreme importance on Apostolic Succession. In 80 AD a situation arose in Corinth regarding who was to lead the christian community. An appeal was made to Clement, Bishop of Rome to settle the question. Part of what Clement wrote is as follows:

“Through countryside and city the apostles preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Later others such as Irenaeus would echo Clement:

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).

Irenaeus would also write:

“It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).

“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).

There is the evidence which you asked for both in scripture as well as in historical fact.

 

[Philthy]

Hi AJ

.
Sola Scriptura is NOT…

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis,

You do realize that this distinction is irrelevant, don’t you? Who cares whether it is doctrine or practice? From what I can tell, SS is both a doctrine and a praxis and nothing you have posted indicates why it would matter. What difference does it make whether we define SS as a doctrine (ie a belief) or a praxis (ie practice)? They are largely one and the same thing: you believe Scripture is God’s intended sole means for determining the truth (doctrine) and you simultaneous employ the reading and interpretation of Scripture as the means for determining those truths.(praxis) They are practically inseparable, and that makes your entire point useless.

1. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called “private arbitration.” SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.

You know, AJ, I have been asking you for quite some time to provide your alternative to the criticism you throw at the Catholic Church of “self exempting self”. This paragraph above is as close as you have come to addressing it. And you know what I think? Its a pathetic attempt at rewording the fact that you, and everyone else who embraces the praxis of SS haven’t the slightest idea on how to improve on the Catholic system. Some, following the alleged praxis arrive at private interpretation; some following the alleged praxis arrive at a corporate arbitration. You have had 500 years to sift through the Scriptures and come up with your plan, and you still cant figure it out! Are you joking?! Anyone in their right mind can recognize this confusion for what it is.
At least in the Catholic system we can have a definitive endpoint for the recognition of truth and that the form of that system can be constructed from the very praxis you embrace. The problem for you is that you reject the authority within the Catholic system and are therefore left forever arbitrating in an attempt to know the truth.

Those that reject the Rule of Scripture (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) do so not because they have an alternative norma normans for this purpose (they don’t) but becuase each of them rejects accountability (but exclusively in the sole case of self alone, they all passionately embracing it for all OTHERS); it’s accountability each rejects (for self, anyway), and thus norming and WHATEVER might serve as the norma normans in such. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right, so there. Just accept whatever I alone say with docility.” Each attempts to justify this “all are accountable but me alone” in remarkably similar ways, but it’s the same position and same reason for the rejection of accountability.

You keep making this claim that the CC rejects accountability, but I disagree. No one in the Church is unaccountable. All the bishops are accountable to other bishops. Everyone has an opportunity to speak their peace including those outside the visible boundaries of the Church. Did you know that non-Catholics Christians and non-Christians were included in Vatican 2 discussions? But there is a more fundamental issue that you continue to avoid in your condemnation of the Catholic Church: **How is the private interpreter or the corporate interpreter held more accountable than the bishops in the Catholic Church? ** It would seem to be a very simple question to answer, yet you continue to fail to address this very basic issue.
What I believe you are confusing is authority with accountablility. And there is another underlying failure on your part IMHO: you dont believe in the absolute truth of an interpretation of Scripture being revealed once and for all. In your mind all truth is accountable to arbitration, and that would include, of course, the praxis and doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Blessings!

 

[mackbrislawn]

I think it is up to me to figure out what it all means, not up to the church to tell me what it all means.

I can appreciate this way of thinking, because it’s kind of the universal assumption in our American culture.

But, the trouble is with figuring it out for yourself, interpreting scripture all by yourself, is that you are not doing it just for yourself, but for everybody else, too. That is, since the gospel message is for everybody, the truth is for everybody and applies to everybody, not just to a single individual.

Unless, of course, you believe in relative truth, not absolute truth. In my opinion, this attitude has led to moral relativism in this country, and ultimate disbelief in truth at all.

 

[twb1621]

You are the one reading a succession into the passage. There is nothing about succession in the passage, Jesus is just talking to Peter.

This may help you to recognize the establishment of apostolic succession including the papacy.

St. Linus succeeded St. Peter in the years 67 - 76 CE

St. Anacletus succeeded St. Linus 76 – 88 CE

Note that at least six of the original apostles were still alive and most certainly would have been involved in the selection process at the time of the first successors to the Apostle Peter. Also note that Judas Iscariot was assigned a successor by Peter and the Apostles first;

Apostle John was determined to have lived until 98 to 100 CE.
Apostle Thomas was determined to have lived until 72 CE
Apostle Philip was estimated to have lived to sometime around 98 CE
Apostle Bartholomew was determined to have lived until 71 CE
Apostle Simon the Zealot was estimated to have lived to sometime around 100 to 107 CE
Apostles Matthias was determined to have lived until 80 CE
St Matthias was not one of the original Apostles but was chosen by the other Apostles and Peter when Judas left their rank.

2 Timothy CH1; 3 I give thanks to God, whom I serve from my forefathers, with a pure conscience, that without ceasing I have a remembrance of you in my prayers, night and day. 4 Desiring to see you, being mindful of your tears, that I may be filled with joy: 5 Calling to mind that faith which is in you unfeigned, which also dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice, and I am certain that in you also 6 For which cause I admonish you that you stir up the grace of God which is in you by the imposition of my hands.” (Note; Holy Orders, the rite performed for the installation of guidance and facility of the Holy Spirit to each and every successor.)

---

Acts CH14; 22 And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed. (ordained – the sacrament of Laying of Hands for the succession of the faith.)

 

[surritter]

I never heard that about Simon the Zealot. I always thought that John was the last of the Apostles to die. Of course I know that the dates aren’t firm, and maybe I thought it because John was simply one of the more famous Apostles.

Excellent evidence you have presented for succession, though!!

 

[twb1621]

I don’t believe in the authority of the church. You could say that the church canonized the Bible, but the church of 325 is different than it is now. And to be perfectly honest, the church didn’t cement a canon until the 1500’s.

Anyway, I don’t accept the authority of the church. Would I say that authority is from only Scripture? No, I accept other people’s commentaries and opinions of the Bible, but I think it is up to me to figure out what it all means, not up to the church to tell me what it all means.

Then you are only selectively believing those verses in scripture that fit what you can accept.
Luke CH10; 16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."
2 Timothy CH2; 1 So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
1 Timothy CH3; 13 For they that have ministered well, shall purchase to themselves a good degree, and much confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 14 These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Acts Ch20; 28 “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

Ephesians CH4; 1 “I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body (the Church) and one Spirit (Holy Spirit); as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Colossians CH1; 23 If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister. 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church.”

I repeat the following issues I raised previously;
as far as Sola Scriptura is concerned; we know scripture tells us Jesus made a covenant to never abandon His Church, that she would never fall and that she would always be guided by the Holy Spirit until His return; Hence the requirment for apostolic succession. We also know according to scripture that in all things Jesus maintains primacy and that by the Father’s will, all things He shall reconcile to Himself. He even went as far as to warn us of the deceit and corruption that would arise at times both from outside and within His Church including the distortion of His Word and the deception of the many, yet asks for perseverance.

Based on the principles of sola scriptura, who has in the past or does possess the righteousness to question the commitment and ability of our Lord to oversee the Church He founded with His blood, and so love her in her devotion and purge her of her corruption as, how and when He determines appropriate to Himself?

Has Our Lord not always had the authority to reconcile all things in heaven and on earth to Himself according to His Word and our Father in Heaven? Does man know better than God and can man do better than God overseeing His own Church for man to believe his own intervention is required to “reestablish” and modify church precepts? Can any man explain how the existence of so many “Christian” faiths is not a testament to man’s weakness of faith and trust in our Savior’s abilities to oversee His Church of which He has always been the High Priest?

No where in Scripture does it say the Church Jesus founded would end, become corrupt and fail or be reestablished or revised at any time or by any man before His return. Just the opposite is true. God proclaims through scripture everything but these things will occur. Yet many have been mislead into accepting the personal beliefs and disbeliefs of individual men and women who did not have the faith or knowledge to accept the complete teachings of our Lord, establishing their own faiths through their adopted beliefs based on individual interpretations.

Every other faith that refers to itself as Christian and that possesses independent interpretations generated from anti-Catholic founders, not Christ. The proof is in the lineage of the teachings of scripture. If in fact the Catholic Church was not the true Church as some other “Christian” faiths were led to believe, one would have to know which Faith was the True Faith. After all, there must be one (and only one) because the Bible testifies to it and to the fact it must be visible, obvious, and is of only “one God, one Faith, one body and one Baptism”… So which one has been established by Jesus through the Apostles and their successors and has maintained consistency since His crucifixion without interruption as Jesus proclaimed AND has all the Characteristics to identify it Biblically?

The element of the Bible is the Catholic Church. Taken from its element, scripture is used selectively to suite what one believes rather than believing in faith and trust what the entirety of scripture teaches.

If self interpretation or sola Scriptura were acceptable in the teachings of Christ, you would find the support for the objection to these issues in scripture. If one cannot provide justifiable answers to these issues, one’s interpretations are flawed and further thought into the issues raised would be in order.

 

[seascale]

Aquinas’ brilliance far surpasses ours, but his greatest claim to fame is his Sainthood.
This point is relevant because he would not have been declared a Saint if he believed in Sola Scriptura.

I still await an answer as to what he meant, then, when he said “we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.” Aquinas specifically excludes oral tradition in this quote. It’s pretty black and white, and I am not hearing any convincing arguments to the contrary.

It is a pointless and poorly thought out claim to say that that Aquinas “declared the Church infallible, but only in so far as it was consistent with the Bible.”

So you say, but in order to add intellectual rigor to your claim, you must provide a reasonable explanation as to why Aquinas didn’t really mean to say what he did. After all, if the successors to the apostles and prophets are infallible, why wouldn’t we believe them regardless of whether they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings? It is a salient question to which no real answer has yet been provided.

 

[surritter]

I still await an answer as to what he meant, then, when he said “we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.” Aquinas specifically excludes oral tradition in this quote. It’s pretty black and white, and I am not hearing any convincing arguments to the contrary.

So you say, but in order to add intellectual rigor to your claim, you must provide a reasonable explanation as to why Aquinas didn’t really mean to say what he did. After all, if the successors to the apostles and prophets are infallible, why wouldn’t we believe them regardless of whether they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings? It is a salient question to which no real answer has yet been provided.

I won’t tackle the first one for now – Philthy can jump in for that – but I don’t see any problem at all with your second scenario. There’s no need to explain why Aquinas didn’t mean what he wrote, because what he wrote is in perfect harmony with what we believe as Catholics today. The Church is infallible, yet it cannot declare something which is contrary to those truths found in the Bible. That’s all Aquinas is saying. It doesn’t mean that everything the Church teaches must also be found in the Bible!

 

[seascale]

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

Jesus prophesied that Jerusalem would fall. He sent the Apsotles to Rome because it was the center of civilzation at that time, and that was the most practical point from which to spread the gospel “to all nations”. I think some study of culture, language, politics and economics prior to the birth of Christianity will make this clear.

Well, it is called the ROMAN Catholic Church. The pope is called a pontiff. Yes, it is Roman in many ways.

Also, please show me where Christ specifically sent his apostles to Rome. He did send them to all nations, but nowhere does He specifically send them to Rome.

I don’t think everyone knows what happened. The point I am trying to make is a response to “you can’t read words that are not there”. In fact, this is exactly what Luther did. The fact that he did so in all sincerity only strengthens my point.

I would contend that Luther stated that it was by grace alone, through faith alone because of Christ alone, because he was specifically excluding words the RCC had added. The RCC, BTW, also says that we are saved by grace alone. So, if you are going to accuse Luther of this sin, you will also have to accuse the RCC of the same.

If it is sufficiently clear, why are all those who adhere to it so fragmented?

Among those Protestants who practice exegesis, there is agreement on the fundamentals of the faith. This was demonstrated in the document entitled The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration, which was signed by Protestants from many different denominations in 1999. The signers of the declaration might disagree on non-essential doctrines, but they all agree on what the Bible says about the essentials.

 

[seascale]

That’s all Aquinas is saying. It doesn’t mean that everything the Church teaches must also be found in the Bible!

I hate to belabor the point, but according to Aquinas, if the Church teaches something that is not in the Bible, then we shouldn’t believe it (only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings). Notice the word only: “We believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.”

I will concede that this shouldn’t be taken as excluding concepts that are clearly conveyed, though not explicitly stated, in Scripture (such as the Trinity).

 

[seascale]

I would stipulate this point. So, why is it ok to credit Newton with discovering and defining gravity, but it is not ok to credit the Catholic Church with the Bible?

I was responding to those Catholics who make the claim that the Catholic Church created the New Testament. Newton did not create gravity. He simply recognized it for what it was. The same is true with the Church and the canon. I would caution against statements which have the appearance of placing too much confidence in man. I would rather explicitly attribute it all to God. If we do not make this distinction clearly, the object of our faith (God) is displaced (by confidence in man), whether formally or just in practice.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I was responding to those Catholics who make the claim that the Catholic Church created the New Testament. Newton did not create gravity. He simply recognized it for what it was. The same is true with the Church and the canon. I would caution against statements which have the appearance of placing too much confidence in man. I would rather explicitly attribute it all to God. If we do not make this distinction clearly, the object of our faith (God) is displaced (by confidence in man), whether formally or just in practice.

You are assuming that the Catholic Church is an institution of men - it is that, but it is also a divine institution, the Body of Christ. The documents of the New Testament were created through the Church and for the Church. They were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - the same Holy Spirit that Jesus sent to guide His Church (the Catholic Church) into all truth. You can’t separate the two.

 

[seascale]

On what Scripture do you base your assessment that part of it is non essential?

By non-essential, I mean to say that our salvation does not depend on our understanding of that particular passage. So, for example, there is a lot of symbology employed by the minor prophets. If I, as a Christian, am unable to understand what it all means, it does not condemn me to Hell. On the other hand, if I cannot grasp the gospel message that is another matter. The gospel message, by the way, is clearly laid out in Scripture.

We do just what the first Christians did on the day of Pentecost. We receive it with conviction,joy, and respond in obedient faith.

You receive it, but how do you correctly appropriate it? By holding up the Magisterium, the RCC just provides one more (supposedly) infallible source (the Bible being the other). The argument advanced as to why the Magisterium is needed is that it provides correct interpretation of the Scriptures. However, if our appropriation of the information is the weak link in the chain, then adding infallible sources does not really solve the problem.

I agree. It is a good thing they have the gift of infallibility, or we would have no way of knowing the Truth! We would be orphans, left to be tossed about by every wind. We might even be swayed by certain modern innovators trying to claim that things previously considered doctrines are no longer doctrines!

You seem to take a low view of the Holy Spirit. You imply that He is impotent without the agency of the Magisterium. I believe we should have a bit more confidence in the Holy Spirit than that.

 

[mackbrislawn]

You seem to take a low view of the Holy Spirit. You imply that He is impotent without the agency of the Magisterium. I believe we should have a bit more confidence in the Holy Spirit than that.

It is kind of hard not to have a low view of the Holy Spirit, since He seems to be leading everyone every which way.

 

[seascale]

You are assuming that the Catholic Church is an institution of men - it is that, but it is also a divine institution, the Body of Christ. The documents of the New Testament were created through the Church and for the Church. They were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - the same Holy Spirit that Jesus sent to guide His Church (the Catholic Church) into all truth. You can’t separate the two.

If the Holy Spirit continues to guide the apostolic successors *in the same way *He guided the apostles writing the New Testament, then why has the canon been closed? I would argue the canon has been closed because only those writings of the apostles are, in fact, infallible.

It seems to me the early Church fathers were careful to distinguish between their own authority and that of the Apostles.

Polycarp: “Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning”

Clement I: “Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.”

 

[seascale]

It is kind of hard not to have a low view of the Holy Spirit, since He seems to be leading everyone every which way.

I will give your Catholic brethren the benefit of a doubt and posit that they do not share this disdain of the Holy Spirit with you.

 

[seascale]

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine (or praxis) by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.

In response, I would like to quote from another author, Norman Geisler. In response to Akin’s challenge (actually, not to Akin specifically, but to the challenge in general) Geisler writes:

"…the Bible, like any normal human communication, needs no interpretive framework superimposed on it. All it needs is good exegesis, that is, reading the meaning out of it that the author put into it…In other words, the Bible simply needs historical-grammatical exegesis…

“Further…even if outside sources are used as an aid in understanding (such as understanding words and cultural setting), these need not be infallible to be helpful. Using such sources is a daily and common practice by both laypersons and scholars. It is sufficient for everyday life. It is used to understand road signs, news reports, and books. Housewives, courts, and judges employ it. There is nothing special, uncommon, or infallible about it. Yet it is sufficient for life and death matters. It provides an adequate and sufficient means for discovering truth without either claiming to be or being infallible…Why then is an infallible guide (other than the Holy Spirit) needed when approaching Scripture? The fact is there is no such need. Indeed, historically, we can compare the results of this sola Scriptura method with the results of the early Fathers, and the results are the same on all the basic doctrines of the Christian Church. This should be no surprise because the commonsense, everyday (historical-grammatical) method is the same one used by the early Fathers when they derived the essential doctrines of the faith from Holy Scripture.”

 

[mackbrislawn]

I will give your Catholic brethren the benefit of a doubt and posit that they do not share this disdain of the Holy Spirit with you.

No, nor do I. Because they don’t consider the Holy Spirit to be truly leading all those people who think the Holy Spirit is leading them every which way.

 

[seascale]

Obviously, Jesus is talking to the Apostles, not just to Peter. Jesus just spoke to Peter and only Peter when He gave him the keys.

But he gave the same power to loose and bind to all His disciples (Matthew 18:18)

 

[seascale]

No, nor do I. Because they don’t consider the Holy Spirit to be truly leading all those people who think the Holy Spirit is leading them every which way.

Glad to hear it. We are in agreement then! The point at which we differ is who we believe is really being led by the Holy Spirit. But for my part, no, I don’t believe that all who say they are led by the Holy Spirit (Protestant or otherwise) are really being led by Him.