Sola Scriptura: an Evangelicals attempt to help to clarify its meaning

[michaelp]

I recived this question in another post. I have seen it many times throughout this forum. I think that there are many misunderstanding concerning the Protestant understanding of sola scriptura among RCs. I hope to help clarify here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisknapp
I have a question for you–Where do you find the belief in Sola Scriptura anywhere in the Church prior to the 1600’s?

I believe that the teaching of Sola Scriptura implies that it is God’s verified Word alone that binds our conscience. In other words the Scripture alone is the primary and only infallible source from which we recieve revelation from God. This is not to say that God cannot still speak infallibly through prophets today. If there was a verified prophet, we would listen to him.

God has always protected His word and verified His revelation through supernatural occurrences that left little doubt that it was God speaking. I think of Moses and the signs he performed to the Israelites to verify that he was from God. I think of the stipulations laid down for EVERYONE who claims to speak for God in Deut 13 and 18 (read them). I think of Paul’s statement in 2 Cor. 12:12 saying that the “signs of a true apostle were performed among you with signs and wonders.” I think that God has always been very protective of his word so that he would not be misrepresented. Therefore, he set up the rules that have not changed. If someone claims to speak for God, let him show UNDENIABLE sign (raise the dead, turn a staff into a snake, predict the future with 100% accuracy, heal the paralyzed, etc).

If someone were to do this, I would believe that they speak for God because God’s word compels me to do so. Therefore, sola scriptura is not an absolute statement that says that there cannot be any other infallible revelation that binds us. It just simply says that God is not speaking through VERIFIED prophets or apostles today. Therefore, the only VERIFIED source that we have right now is the Scripture–sola scriptura.

The problem that I have with the Pope, traditions, and the Magisterium is that they do not follow the pattern that God laid out for those who claim to speak for him (Deut 13 and 18). I certainly would be willing to follow the Pope if he met this criteria. But, from what I know, he has neither predicted the future nor shown and signs of an apostle that would compel me in any way. I am bound by Scripture to these guidelines.

Therefore, Protestants are not against continued revelation (a misunderstanding by many of sola scripture), we just say that whomever claims to speak infallibly for God had better show the signs of a prophet. This is the essense of sola scriptura and, when understood this way, it is found throughout all the Scripture.

Hope that this helps clarify this important issue that is often misunderstood and more often misrepresented.

Michael

 

[Vincent]

How would the canon of Scripture be explained in the sola Scriptura paradigm? Who in history had the prophetic charism to infallibly verify the Book of Revelation, for example?

 

[michaelp]

Vincent:

How would the canon of Scripture be explained in the sola Scriptura paradigm? Who in history had the prophetic charism to infallibly verify the Book of Revelation, for example?

Very good question. But before I answer this, there is something that needs to be said. Even if I were to answer this question you pose with “I don’t know,” (which is not my answer) this would not invalidate the arguments made above would it? If so, how?

I will answer this when the time is right. But in my mind, this question should not play a part in the Evangelical definition of sola scriptura and it will get us off subject.

Michael

 

[Beaver]

Sword Play

By Donald F. Hudzinski

 A reflection on the temptations of the Lord (Mt 4: 1-11).

As Jesus approaches the devil he draw his sword, the sword of pride. It is composed of power, prestige, and property. But our Hero has a sword also the sword of humility. It is composed of faith, hope, and charity.

The battle begins and we observe how these swords collide. Pride’s power against humility’s faith; pride’s prestige against humility’s hope; and pride’s property against humility’s charity.

Our hero’s victory teaches us how to wield the sword of humility to defeat our enemy the devil. With such a sweet victory one must savor the source. May I forever store the sword of humility in the scabbard of my heart, so it will be available for the battle of souls? May this piercing of my heart forever change me?
Thanks and praise to God forever.

 

[Exporter]

MichaelP,

You wrote,"It just simply says that God is not speaking through VERIFIED prophets or apostles today. Therefore, the only VERIFIED source that we have right now is the Scripture–sola scriptura.

*You say, yes just you MichaelP, just you. Does you Bible state there are no Verified prophets today? All you have is a Protestant Bible that had over 80 verses modified and several entire Books omitted by King James and his hired men. You should look into why King James wanted the Bible modified.

What is a “VERIFIED” prophet? Who verifies they are Prophets?

**Does the Holy Scripture say it is verified? **

Try reading Matthew 16:17 thru’ 19. Jesus told Simon/Cephas/Peter that He (Jesus) would build His Church on Peter, and He gave the Keys to the Kingdom of God to Peter. All this means that Peter would be in charge of all the Apostles, that never would Jesus forsake or leave the Church, that the Holy Spirit would comfort and guide Her. Jesus didn’t tell anyone to write a Book did he? Jesus said He would be with His Church. Thats the way it has been since Jesus said that. Thank you Sir.

 

[michaelp]

Exporter:

MichaelP,

You wrote,"It just simply says that God is not speaking through VERIFIED prophets or apostles today. Therefore, the only VERIFIED source that we have right now is the Scripture–sola scriptura.

*You say, yes just you MichaelP, just you. Does you Bible state there are no Verified prophets today? All you have is a Protestant Bible that had over 80 verses modified and several entire Books omitted by King James and his hired men. You should look into why King James wanted the Bible modified.

What is a “VERIFIED” prophet? Who verifies they are Prophets?

Does the Holy Scripture say it is verified?

Try reading Matthew 16:17 thru’ 19. Jesus told Simon/Cephas/Peter that He (Jesus) would build His Church on Peter, and He gave the Keys to the Kingdom of God to Peter. All this means that Peter would be in charge of all the Apostles, that never would Jesus forsake or leave the Church, that the Holy Spirit would comfort and guide Her. Jesus didn’t tell anyone to write a Book did he? Jesus said He would be with His Church. Thats the way it has been since Jesus said that. Thank you Sir.

I am completely open to having verified prophets who speak for God today. I have never met or seen one. But they just must follow the criteria that is layed out in Scripture. This only seems reasonable. Read Deut 13 and 18.

Christ also says in Heb 13 that he will be with all believers, this does not mean that all people have the ability to prophetically speak for God.

I respectfully must say that the passage in Matt 16 does not nulify the criteria of a prophet. Peter had this when he performed signs and wonders, as did the rest of the Apostles and prophets in the New Testament.

Thanks for the reply,

Michael

 

[Chesster]

michaelp:

In other words the Scripture alone is the primary and only infallible source from which we recieve revelation from God.

Where does scripture say this?

 

[michaelp]

Chesster:

Where does scripture say this?

You had better read the original post again. I think that it is clear enough.

 

[Pug]

Most of the Protestants I know would not agree with some of what you seem to be saying. I think part of the problem is that the manner in which Protestants view scripture is not uniform across the various denominations. The ones I know would not accept the possibility of a revelation happening today of equal weight to the bible. I doubt they would accept any addition to revelation (about God). Some might accept a person with the gift from the HS of prophecy, but not revelation kind of prophecy.

Do you find that the prophecy of a prophet in Dt18:15 has been fulfilled in Jesus? I tend to see it that way. Or do you look for another fulfillment of it, or something?

 

[michaelp]

Pug:

Do you find that the prophecy of a prophet in Dt18:15 has been fulfilled in Jesus? I tend to see it that way. Or do you look for another fulfillment of it, or something?

Yes, I do believe that that passage is speaking of Christ, the quintessential prophet.

I cannot speak for uninformed Protestants on this matter any more than you can speak for or defend uninfomed Catholics. But, for the record, most Protestant confessions such as the Westminster confession do allow for God to work through Prophets in the future. In other words, they do not propose to put God in a box that fits some paradigm, as I don’t either.

In fact, Protestants who take a futuristic view of the book of Revelation do believe that there will be at least two prophets in the future (Rev. 11:3). These will obviously follow by the rules of a prophet and verify themselves through signs and wonders. Do you see the pattern? Even in revelation, God still requires the one who speaks on behalf of Him to verify himself. God does not want us to be naive and believe just anyone who says that they are messengers of God.

Michael

 

[Chesster]

Okay, I read it again and I see that you say, " If someone claims to speak for God, let him show UNDENIABLE sign (raise the dead, turn a staff into a snake, predict the future with 100% accuracy, heal the paralyzed, etc). If someone were to do this, I would believe that they speak for God because God’s word compels me to do so."

Well, history records countless miracles performed by Catholic Saints. To name a few, St. John Bosco raised a 15 year old boy from the dead in 1849, Pope St. Pius X performed a number of healing miracles, Lourdes has had a number of miracles reported, St. Padre Pio performed numerous miracles in the last century and I could go on and on. So, what miracles did the Reformers perform?

 

[michaelp]

Chesster:

Okay, I read it again and I see that you say, " If someone claims to speak for God, let him show UNDENIABLE sign (raise the dead, turn a staff into a snake, predict the future with 100% accuracy, heal the paralyzed, etc). If someone were to do this, I would believe that they speak for God because God’s word compels me to do so."

Well, history records countless miracles performed by Catholic Saints. To name a few, St. John Bosco raised a 15 year old boy from the dead in 1849, Pope St. Pius X performed a number of healing miracles, Lourdes has had a number of miracles reported, St. Padre Pio performed numerous miracles in the last century and I could go on and on. So, what miracles did the Reformers perform?

Wow! OK, if this is indeed verifiable, these men both demonstated for all to see (as the apostle and the prophets did) and they claimed to speak the word of God, then I will believe what they say. I have no problem with this. Now we are on the same page.

But, I have not seen any of these things claimed for the current magisterium who claims to speak for God. It is still necessary. Did they quit doing this. Believe me, if I saw the Pope raise someone from the dead, I would be compelled to believe him–so long as his teaching were in accordance with already revealed truth (Deut. 13).

Thanks again,

Michael

 

[GULaw]

I don’t see the relevence of Deut 13 & 18. Those chapters seem to refer exclusively to those who prophesy future events. A few things on those Scriptures:

First, while D 18:22 says that one who claims to speak of the future in the name of God is not from God if the thing prophesied does not come to pass - 13:3, however, shows that not even a successful prophesy is proof of a prophet’s validity. When Catholic mystics, saints, and prophets throughout history have prophesied, they have had a pretty good batting average (depending on who you ask). However, all this does is disprove that these individuals were definitely not speaking for God - their actual validity is still uncertain, and such private revelation is not binding on the faithful.

Second, the verses refer to individuals, not institutions; prophecy as distinct from authority. If a Levite priest had falsely claimed to speak as a prophet of God, it would say nothing about the validity of Levite authority under the Old Covenant.

Third, a better criteria would be a Scriptural standard for judging proper authority, yes? Paul exerts his authority in both 1 and 2 Thess; in both books this authority is seen as emanating from his status as an apostle - which is the root of the authority that the bishops and pope exercise.

 

[rlg94086]

michaelp:

Yes, I do believe that that passage is speaking of Christ, the quintessential prophet.

I cannot speak for uninformed Protestants on this matter any more than you can speak for or defend uninfomed Catholics. But, for the record, most Protestant confessions such as the Westminster confession do allow for God to work through Prophets in the future. In other words, they do not propose to put God in a box that fits some paradigm, as I don’t either.

In fact, Protestants who take a futuristic view of the book of Revelation do believe that there will be at least two prophets in the future (Rev. 11:3). These will obviously follow by the rules of a prophet and verify themselves through signs and wonders. Do you see the pattern? Even in revelation, God still requires the one who speaks on behalf of Him to verify himself. God does not want us to be naive and believe just anyone who says that they are messengers of God.

Michael

Dear Michael,

FYI, I know of some fundamentalists who would disagree and also say “they can’t speak for uninformed protestants” (meaning you). Which of the thousands of non-Catholic churches is informed vs. uninformed?

God bless you on your path,
Robert, a convert.

P.S. I highly recommed you read Jesus, Peter & the Keys ( amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1882972546/qid=1101613577/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6834811-8877445?v=glance&s=books ). It is an excellent work on the scriptural basis for papal authority.

 

[neophyte]

Michael,

Jesus told the Apostles:

He will always be with them. (Matthew 28: 20)

The Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth, and will be with them always. (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:13

They speak with the authority of God. (Matthew 10:20; Luke 10:1; Luke 10:16)

They will remember everything He taught them. (John 14:16-18, 26; Luke 21:33)

They will never teach erroneous doctrine. (John 17:17-19)

They be one in the doctrine they teach (John 17:20-23)

They have to power to forgive sin. (John 20:21-23)

God will give them whatever they ask for in Christ’s name, and the fruit they bear will remain. (John 15:16)

Was He wrong? He must’ve been if the Reformers were right.

 

[michaelp]

GULaw:

I don’t see the relevence of Deut 13 & 18. Those chapters seem to refer exclusively to those who prophesy future events. A few things on those Scriptures:

First, while D 18:22 says that one who claims to speak of the future in the name of God is not from God if the thing prophesied does not come to pass - 13:3, however, shows that not even a successful prophesy is proof of a prophet’s validity. When Catholic mystics, saints, and prophets throughout history have prophesied, they have had a pretty good batting average (depending on who you ask). However, all this does is disprove that these individuals were definitely not speaking for God - their actual validity is still uncertain, and such private revelation is not binding on the faithful.

Second, the verses refer to individuals, not institutions; prophecy as distinct from authority. If a Levite priest had falsely claimed to speak as a prophet of God, it would say nothing about the validity of Levite authority under the Old Covenant.

Third, a better criteria would be a Scriptural standard for judging proper authority, yes? Paul exerts his authority in both 1 and 2 Thess; in both books this authority is seen as emanating from his status as an apostle - which is the root of the authority that the bishops and pope exercise.

You must remember that prophet is one who claims to speak for God. That is the definition. It is true whether of an institution or an individual. Do you think that God only savegaurds his word so long as it is an individual? If so, why?

You said, “Third, a better criteria would be a Scriptural standard for judging proper authority, yes? Paul exerts his authority in both 1 and 2 Thess; in both books this authority is seen as emanating from his status as an apostle - which is the root of the authority that the bishops and pope exercise.”

Again, I must say that if the Popes and the counsels claim to have apostolic infallible authority must show the “signs of an apostle with signs and wonders” (2 Cor. 12:12). Remeber, the issue is not just authority, but infallible athority.

Again, I just must say this every few thread to let you all know how much I appreciate your kindness in the discussions. This is really the best Christian forum that I have ever been to. Many people who are infomed and willing to share. It is a testimony to you all.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

neophyte:

Michael,

Jesus told the Apostles:

Was He wrong? He must’ve been if the Reformers were right.

I am sorry, I cannot respond appropriately to every proof text. I don’t understand what you are trying to say with each one. Many were spoken directly to the Apostles, some have a wider application to the entire church speaking of the ontological unity of the church when baptized by the Spirit.

Thanks,

Michael

 

[GULaw]

michaelp:

You must remember that prophet is one who claims to speak for God. That is the definition. It is true whether of an institution or an individual. Do you think that God only savegaurds his word so long as it is an individual? If so, why?

I agree with your definition of prophecy, and I should not have limited prophesy to only future events - but prophecy is still but one type of God’s revelation. To be from God, a prerequisite is that the prophesy must be true, but this does not work both way - the truth of a prophesy is not proof that it is God’s revelation.

Yet, from this, you make two related mistakes that are logically unjustified and lead to a false conclusion. First, you leap from prophecy (specific) to revelation (in general). Second, you fail to make the same leap in what your standard is - you maintain a specific standard (a miraculous sign, which is by definition what the “truth” of a prophecy entails) for the whole of extra-Scriptural revelation when only the general standard, applied to the circumstances, is appropriate (“truth”). The standard is truth, but its application to prophecy results in a clear miracle - it is not justified to require a clear miracle for other revealed statements. Note that in the case of prophecy the miracle and the verification are one and the same thing - the miracle is the truth of the prophecy - whereas in other cases, you are requiring “signs and wonders” independent of whatever true statements might be made. If the a prophet says “God told me it will rain on Tuesday,” it makes sense not to believe him unless it rains on Tuesday - if a prophet says “God is angry with you,” it makes no sense to only believe him if he raises someone from the dead.

As for applying the standard of truth to the revelations of Tradition: unlike the “oracle” of Deuteronomy that can be objectively tested (“Tomorrow night it will rain”), a different kind of revealed truth (“Heaven exists”) cannot be tested against “facts,” just previous teaching - and there is plenty of evidence that the infallible teachings of the Church do not contradict one another. Thus, the Church does pass the test of Deuteronomy.

Again, I must say that if the Popes and the counsels claim to have apostolic infallible authority must show the “signs of an apostle with signs and wonders” (2 Cor. 12:12). Remeber, the issue is not just authority, but infallible athority.

Note the context in this chapter - Paul is answering those who question his authority. He justifies his authority and denounces his skeptics as false apostles not on the basis of miracles - but on the basis of truth and unity with the valid teachings of others (10:12-18, 11:4, 12:18). It is these skeptics that demand miracles - from chapters 10-12 Paul essentially says “I don’t need to do miracles, because I speak God’s Words. The fact that I have done miracles is gravy.” Jesus followed a similar pattern - condemning those who would demand a sign and promising them none but the sign of Jonah - yet performing miracles for those who already believed. (umm…not that I mean anything personal by that ) Remember that truth may be a prerequisite for revelation, but it does not prove revelation, and miracles certainly do not prove revelation either (demons can do some nifty tricks).

Again, I just must say this every few thread to let you all know how much I appreciate your kindness in the discussions. This is really the best Christian forum that I have ever been to. Many people who are infomed and willing to share. It is a testimony to you all.

Yes, yes, we are truly wonderful. We like you, too .

 

[enanneman]

Hi Michael, let’s go back to your original post.

michaelp:

I believe that the teaching of Sola Scriptura implies that it is God’s verified Word alone that binds our conscience. In other words the Scripture alone is the primary and only infallible source from which we recieve revelation from God. This is not to say that God cannot still speak infallibly through prophets today. If there was a verified prophet, we would listen to him.

With the death of the last apostle, the Apostolic Age had come to a close at the end of the first century. The church teaches that God had unfolded the width and breath of His revelation through the apostles, and with John’s death, all novel revelation ceased. Therefore, if any man were to come forward to prophesize something that went against what had been already revealed, we would know that he would be a false prophet.

(Incidentally, this is how the Church weighs the apparitions of Mary–whether or not they go against what was revealed in the Apostolic Age.)

But, getting back to your original statement of “Scripture alone is the primary and only infallible source from which we receive revelation from God.” Let’s look at the oft-asked question of where in scripture is there a table of contents? A trite question, to be sure, but an important one because its answer points to the need of an authoritative church to determine what is God-Breathed and what is not. How else would one sift through all the gospels of the Gnostics, and know that only that there were only four Gospels of Christ?

We also know from the close of the Gospel of St. John that there were many things that Christ did which were not recorded. And, if one thinks about all the things Jesus must have taught in the upper room after His resurrection, the implications of “missing revelation” are all too real.

No, my friend, Scripture does contain the complete revelation of Jesus Christ. Certainly, it is the infallible word of God, but the first epistles were written years after Christ’s resurrection, and the Gospels followed decades later. What occurred in the intervening years was the Apostles and the presbyters establishing churches and teaching the doctrines of the faith as Christ had literally spoken directly to them. It is these teachings that the Catholic Church is based, which is why we have teachings about Mary, Purgatory, the Trinity, which are not explicitly covered in the Bible, but are true nevertheless, because Christ had revealed them to us.

Peace and God bless!

Eric

 

[michaelp]

I think that you all have a misunderstanding of what prophecy is. It is not simply speaking about things yet future (for this is only for verification sake), but speaking for God.

The third commandment speaks to this issue as well. “You shall not take the Lord your God’s name in vain.” This doesn’t refer to saying GD as so many think (hang with me for a moment), but it was written in a context where people in the land of Canan were using the name of their gods in hexes and curses. In essence they would try to validate their statements by invoking the name of their god so as to give it authority. God did not want His name used this way. He did not want people to say “thus sayeth the Lord” when He had not said anything. Therefore, the principle of the third commandment is this: Do not say that I have said something that I did not say."

God is very protective of his word. The prophet is ANYONE who claims to speak for Him. The signs of a prophet can be either signs and wonders (2 Cor. 12:12) or predicting the future (Isa. 40-48; Deut 18). These signs must be in adherence to sound doctrine (which by the way was evident to the community of God without and before “canonization”; Deut 13). I think that He still protects His word today and does not want people to say that He has said something that He did not say.

If this were not the case, then anyone could claim that they were a prophet in the first century or today. God still requires that if someone is going to say that they are speaking for God, then they must show the signs.

2 Cor. 12:12 way not just speaking about Paul. Notice the indefinite article which tells us that all those who claim the authority of an apostle must have. If Paul were only speaking of himself as GULaw has proposed, he would have used a personal pronoun.

You are mistaken about the purpose of the signs that Jesus performed. In John 20:30-31 we are told that Jesus did many other signs, but that “these have been written so that you [an unbeliever] might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”

In short, God provides the evidence we need to believe. None can just claim to speak for God and expect anyone to believe if they do not do something that proves that God is with them.

Thanks again,

Michael