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

  • Thread starter Thread starter michaelp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just curious…since you are questioning the authority of the Pope and Magisterium based on the requirements of a proven prophet, what miracles have you performed? By what authority do you speak? The Bible? The same Bible assembled by the Magisterium? How do you know the New Testament books you read are inspired? Some books were rejected…this has been explained in other threads.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I know protestant theologians (they believe they are “informed”) who disagree with you. Whom should I believe? As Catholics, the posters on this forum are explaining our understanding of the teachings of the Magisterium. Are we (the posters) all correct? Not necessarily. Just as is the case with the Bible, someone’s incorrect interpretation of the Magisterium’s teaching does not mean the Magisterium is fallible.

Again, I recommend Jesus, Peter & the Keys.

God Bless,
Robert.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Alright, I think we’re narrowing in here. You justify almost every statement you make with Scripture except for this assumption. It sounds like something someone taught you, but what is its basis?

Check 1 Cor 12:28-30 - see the list of gifts, which not all share? Not all apostles were prophets, not all prophets worked miracles, not all miracle workers spoke in tongues. Speaking in tongues is generally associated directly with speaking for God - but not all of them are prophets.

Romans 12:6-8 also gives a list of gifts, including both teaching and prophecy. One can presumably “teach” and be speaking for God, yet this is listed seperately from prophecy.

Also Eph 4, and maybe a run through a concordance to note all of the times Paul referred to himself as “teaching” and the 0 times he referred to himself as a prophet - yet I assume we agree he spoke for God in the course of teaching.

I agree with your assesment of the, erm, Second Commandment (FYI, Catholics number them differently), and I agree that God jealously protects his word. However, from where I stand:
  1. Prophecy is one of many gifts that may entail speaking for God - others might be tongues and teaching.
  2. The truth of a prophecy is required if its source is Divine, but does not prove a Divine source.
  3. The first test for anything touted as revelation is truth, whatever form that test may take under the circumstances.
  4. Miraculous signs may be evidence of, but not proof of, a Divine source
    Two final things:
    First, I still fail to see how you have established that miraculous signs are required as proof of Divine Origin - they are always cited as evidence, but there seem to be many instances of people speaking for God without a miracle accompanying. What great miracles were wrought by David as he wrote the Psalms? Ezra or Nehemiah? Most of the judges? Miracles may have surrounded them, but none were performed by them - just as miracles surround the pope, although, to my knowledge, he has never performed one.
Second, there are many miracles surrounding the ordinary ministry of the Catholic Church that have been documented throughout the centuries. We’re practically miracle obsessed - in case you haven’t noticed, we’re the people who get slammed for things like “Virgin Mary grilled cheese” - so, many people write them off, but there are gobs of genuine, documented accounts of uniquely Catholic mircales. How does this not provide the “proof” you require, whether such proof is necessary or not? Here are some resources:
geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2735/#e
discountcatholicstore.com/new_page_6.htm
 
40.png
michaelp:
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.
Click to expand...
Then stop trying to speak for Him.
 
40.png
michaelp:
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

…
God does not want us to be naive and believe just anyone who says that they are messengers of God.

Michael
Click to expand...
The Westminster Confession of Faith states: 6. 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: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

To me, (not a Protestant), this implies some sort of specialness to the bible, that isn’t going to be added to later. Nothing else is going to be necessary for us in any important way (faith, salvation, life = important). This is why I said that most Protestants I know would be unlikely to agree to accept somebody speaking today having *equal *weight to the bible. I meant this kind of necessary for salvation kind of weight. Is this what you mean?

I agree, this is not a denial of prophets who tell the future or give warnings or messages. It more seems a denial of prophets or people presenting something new concerning faith that is necessary or some new message about salvation that is necessary. Whatever new those prophets present, it won’t be necessary for faith or salvation.

I agree, future-looking Protestants do expect to look around and see the two witnesses some day giving testimony.

Are you saying that, assuming or granting the following premises: JP2 does the right signs like raising the dead, JP2 teaches the doctrine of Purgatory as part of the faith and the message about salvation, Purgatory is not found in the bible, Purgatory does not contradict the bible, JP2 teaches that it is a doctrine that must be believed, then granting all that stuff, you would accept the teaching of Purgatory?

I do agree, we should not believe just anyone saying they speak for God.
 
40.png
Des:
Then stop trying to speak for Him.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s fair, Des - Michael is obviously being sincere and gracious in his inquiry, and I think we owe him the same in our responses.
 
40.png
GULaw:
I don’t think that’s fair, Des - Michael is obviously being sincere and gracious in his inquiry, and I think we owe him the same in our responses.
Click to expand...
Ok, I appologize. Just having some fun.:o
 
How does one judge who is a legitamate prophet from sola scriptura?

That would be rather subjective wouldn’t you say?
And that would be very dangerous unleess you had the charism of infalliability.
Mormons beleive Joseph Smith was a prophet and many 7th day Adventist beleive E.G. White was a prophet how would one judge this by sola scriptura?
How does one judge the approved apparitions of Mary some of which are prophetical like Lourdes and Fatima? Unless a church has the authority to bind and loose and tell us what are approved and what is not what do we do. Jesus gave us such a church to tell us what scripture was and what the trinity was etc. No other church can claim to have revealed to the body of Christ the basic tenets of Christendom none of which were achieved by sola scriptura rather by the handing down of tradition both oral and written along with the Keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose. No church in protestantism or sectarian can claim to know infalliably a valid prophet. Even Moromons will tell you to look for a bruning of the Boosom after reading Joseph Smiths writings to determine if he was a true prophet. Is this what a true prophet comes down to a burning of the bossom?

As far as miracles as proving who is a prophet that alone would not be enough Pharoah’s magicians can do tricks, the devil tempted Jesus with his own miracles and of course the anti-christ might be able to do super human things one of whichmight be coming back from the dead using a literal exegesis. OF course there has been miracles in the church on a continous basis for 2000 years even Fatima was reported in the secular New York Times and the communist run newspapers of Portugal. The catholic church is not wanting for miracles.
The popes job is to shepherd the flock and protect the faith not to be magician to the world. WE see very early in the church that the apostles apparently lost the supernatural charism of miracles late in acts and in Paul’s letters and the catholic epistles. It does not indicate it ceased altogher becuase it has not ceased into todays church rather the frequent occurence of such miracles immediately after Pentacost appears to have ceased. Frequent miracles were not the only way christ built his church and for good reason. Jesus said blessed are those who do not see and believe.
Of course the Jews of Jesus time saw him and his miracles and still did not beleive so miracles alone wouldn’t convince one of the truth despite what you say rather the holy spirit guides one into the truth.
 
I will ask the poster to please study the lives of the Saints. Padre Pio is a modern day Saint, as is St. Theresa Neumann among many others. I will also ask him or her to look at scripture in regards to wanting signs or proofs. You, can not prove that Jesus did what he did, it is a matter of faith. Jesus said there would be be those who would come after him that would perform miricles. Where are they?Oops, they are in the Catholic Church. I grew up Church of Christ and God called me to the Catholic Church. Why? I said a prayer, one that was very specific. Lord, if you are like the Church of Christ saays you are I will have nothing to do with you, but if you really are loving and YOU started a Church I will be there. I was litterally pulled to the local Cathedral, scared, thinking I had lost my mind and knowing NOTHING about the Holy Spirit. Pray honestly, and you will get your answer, and throw pride out the window, we don’t hold a candle to God. God Bless
 
40.png
Maccabees:
How does one judge who is a legitamate prophet from sola scriptura?

That would be rather subjective wouldn’t you say?
And that would be very dangerous unleess you had the charism of infalliability.
Mormons beleive Joseph Smith was a prophet and many 7th day Adventist beleive E.G. White was a prophet how would one judge this by sola scriptura?
How does one judge the approved apparitions of Mary some of which are prophetical like Lourdes and Fatima? Unless a church has the authority to bind and loose and tell us what are approved and what is not what do we do. Jesus gave us such a church to tell us what scripture was and what the trinity was etc. No other church can claim to have revealed to the body of Christ the basic tenets of Christendom none of which were achieved by sola scriptura rather by the handing down of tradition both oral and written along with the Keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose. No church in protestantism or sectarian can claim to know infalliably a valid prophet. Even Moromons will tell you to look for a bruning of the Boosom after reading Joseph Smiths writings to determine if he was a true prophet. Is this what a true prophet comes down to a burning of the bossom?

As far as miracles as proving who is a prophet that alone would not be enough Pharoah’s magicians can do tricks, the devil tempted Jesus with his own miracles and of course the anti-christ might be able to do super human things one of whichmight be coming back from the dead using a literal exegesis. OF course there has been miracles in the church on a continous basis for 2000 years even Fatima was reported in the secular New York Times and the communist run newspapers of Portugal. The catholic church is not wanting for miracles.
The popes job is to shepherd the flock and protect the faith not to be magician to the world. WE see very early in the church that the apostles apparently lost the supernatural charism of miracles late in acts and in Paul’s letters and the catholic epistles. It does not indicate it ceased altogher becuase it has not ceased into todays church rather the frequent occurence of such miracles immediately after Pentacost appears to have ceased. Frequent miracles were not the only way christ built his church and for good reason. Jesus said blessed are those who do not see and believe.
Of course the Jews of Jesus time saw him and his miracles and still did not beleive so miracles alone wouldn’t convince one of the truth despite what you say rather the holy spirit guides one into the truth.
Click to expand...
Both Joseph Smith and others would have to meet BOTH the criteria laid out for the signs of one who speaks for God (I have quit using the word “prophet” because of misunderstandings). They would have to adhere to previously revealed truth and provide either predictive prophecy or signs of a prophet (e.g. raise the dead, heal, etc.). They did not meet either of the criteria.

I still think that you are misunderstanding sola scriptura in your response. If you reread the original post, you will see that your statement does not apply.

Again, this is the purpose of why I posted this–to clear up the misunderstanding of sola scriptura.

Michael
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
I will ask the poster to please study the lives of the Saints. Padre Pio is a modern day Saint, as is St. Theresa Neumann among many others. I will also ask him or her to look at scripture in regards to wanting signs or proofs. You, can not prove that Jesus did what he did, it is a matter of faith. Jesus said there would be be those who would come after him that would perform miricles. Where are they?Oops, they are in the Catholic Church. I grew up Church of Christ and God called me to the Catholic Church. Why? I said a prayer, one that was very specific. Lord, if you are like the Church of Christ saays you are I will have nothing to do with you, but if you really are loving and YOU started a Church I will be there. I was litterally pulled to the local Cathedral, scared, thinking I had lost my mind and knowing NOTHING about the Holy Spirit. Pray honestly, and you will get your answer, and throw pride out the window, we don’t hold a candle to God. God Bless
Click to expand...
My prayer is the same. Thank you for sharing.
 
I just wanted to thank you all for allowing me to learn from you all in this conversation. I have learned much and will continue to pray for our guidence in this matter.

I do hope that everyone understands that I am truly trying to learn. Believe it or not, I do have somewhat of an open mind about this (as open as it is being bound by my traditions!). Even though I have found the arguments thus far wanting, you all have been gracious and thought provoking.

I will have to step out of this thread now for I don’t have the time I would like to spend on it.

I pray that God blesses you all with knowledge, will, and character as you and I pursue Him and the Kingdom.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
I just wanted to thank you all for allowing me to learn from you all in this conversation. I have learned much and will continue to pray for our guidence in this matter.

I do hope that everyone understands that I am truly trying to learn. Believe it or not, I do have somewhat of an open mind about this (as open as it is being bound by my traditions!). Even though I have found the arguments thus far wanting, you all have been gracious and thought provoking.

I will have to step out of this thread now for I don’t have the time I would like to spend on it.

I pray that God blesses you all with knowledge, will, and character as you and I pursue Him and the Kingdom.

Michael
Click to expand...
Again micaelp, I appologize for the way I first answered you. It was more of a joke than anything. Anyways, keep seeking the Truth with prayer and trust in God. Many ex nonCatholics here had the same concerns as you have.
God Bless you wherever you end up.:blessyou:
 
40.png
michaelp:
Both Joseph Smith and others would have to meet BOTH the criteria laid out for the signs of one who speaks for God (I have quit using the word “prophet” because of misunderstandings). They would have to adhere to previously revealed truth and provide either predictive prophecy or signs of a prophet (e.g. raise the dead, heal, etc.). They did not meet either of the criteria.

I still think that you are misunderstanding sola scriptura in your response. If you reread the original post, you will see that your statement does not apply.

Again, this is the purpose of why I posted this–to clear up the misunderstanding of sola scriptura.

Michael
Click to expand...
What I am trying to point out is the subjective nature of your criteria. The examples of miracles outside of Saint Peter among the 12 apostles are relatively few does that mean the other 12 did not have the gift of apostleship. Most of the prophets, men and women of God in the Old Testament did not have have one miracle. After Moses miracles where pretty rare in the Bible until Jesus and after Peter in the early chapters of Acts miracles are few and rare. Since most of the Bible does not revolve around miracles does that discount that as the word and message of God. There wouldn’t be much in the Bible if it was all miracles. Think about it your subjective criteria is not God’s criteria.
Since there is no such things as sola scriptura how could I possibly understand it. Ask a dozen protestants to define it and it might result in 12 different definitions. True I may not understand your particular take on this tradition of man. The thing with the catholic church there is just one take on official dogma. The doctrine of the trinity can be defined in creedal statements that all agree with each using different angles. In protestantism you get contradicting answers on baptism, communion, sola scriptura etc etc you can rightly accuse of us of not understanding it from your point of view but considering it is one of dozens of interpretations please forgive us when we have to work through this minefield of contradiction to find your partuclar truth that denies another persons particular truth. Hence protestantism provides individual truth and not universal truth catholcism on the other hand provides for universal truth as it does not contradict itself by the southern baptist branch of catholicism.
 
40.png
michaelp:
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.

Michael
Click to expand...
I think there may be some merit in distinguishing between a person who holds the Keys and a person who is a prophet of God. The Pharisees and scribes of Jesus time held Keys. Jesus acknowledged that they had the power to block others from entering the kingdom (which in fact they were doing) He also made it clear that they were not speaking and acting truthfully with regard to God’s kingdom. Evidently, a keeper of the keys is not required to be a true prophet of God.

I am a Catholic and I plan to continue to be one, not because I think every pope was always and everywhere a true prophet of God, but because I believe if Jesus were here today he would say: “Follow their instructions for they have inherited the seat of Peter.” He may or may not say we should follow their example, I have a great deal of respect for the actions of the modern popes that I know about but I have no doubt that they and all popes before them had flaws because they were all human.

What matters most is that we follow the example of Jesus. He was the true prophet. No one else will be that 100% true prophet, not even someone like Mother Teresa (whom I greatly admire), until Jesus comes again.

Peace,

-Jim
 
You have some good points raised trogiah if we were looking for another propeht of God we would end up Muslims or Mormons.
We look to the apostolic church not the next prophet after Jesus.
Catholic teaching is that the faith is once and for all delivered unto the saints the original apostles. We aren’t looking for the next apostle but rather to those who hold the office of apostle and inherit the keys and the power to bind and loose.
Those who claim to be another prophet invariably have the spirit of anti-christ and the of course the anti-christ will claim to be the last prophet. We should look to avoid people who claim such things.
On close inspection men like Mohammed and Joseph Smith or Jim Jones or David Kouresh who claim to be prophets are always false.
 
michaelP

In the beginning of this thread you said you would accept the Catholic Magesterium and it’s work if you could know they were VERIFIED PROPHETS.

michaelP, WHAT IS A VERIFIED PROPHET? What has to happen for you to know they are “verified prophets”?
 
40.png
michaelp:
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.

Michael
Click to expand...
You confuse the office an apostle w/ that of a prophet. The Pope is an apostle. Paul was an apostle yet he does not leave us written prophesy.
 
40.png
michaelp:
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
Click to expand...
You cannot ingnore this question in light of your arguments. You said:

“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”

According to this, the person, or people, that deemed these sacred books, AND NO OTHERS, to be written by individuals that show the signs of a prophet, must themselves also show the signs of a prophet. Evidence must be provided of such for your definition to hold up.
 
Yes Brad you are absolutly correct. I have pleaded with MichaelP to tell us what a VERIFIED PROPHET is. I ask him once again.

What is a “verified prophet”? Who decides?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top