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

[michaelp]

Exporter:

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?

This is getting confusing. I have said this many times. Here is the definition of a prophet and you tell me if I am wrong: A prophet is one who speaks for God to the people. I know it is simplistic. (A priest, by the way, is someone who speaks for the people to God).

The signs of one who claims to speak for God are shown in Deut 13 and 18.

An apostle is also a prophet, by definition, since he speaks for God. But apostles (in the narrow since of the word restricted to the 12) in the New Testament carried great influence since they were sent with the message of the Gospel having seen Christ raise from the grave (Acts 2). But they were also prophets since they spoke the word of God. This is why Paul says that they had to show the signs of an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12).

A verified prophet then is one who speaks for God, conforming to orthodoxy already laid out by previously varified prophets (Moses for example). He is verified by the othodoxy that he speaks confirmed by some type of UNDENIABLE attesting sign (e.g. raising someone from the dead, acurately predicting the future, etc.).

Someone made and argument earlier that I fail to understand. They said that Christ was the last prophet according to Deut 18. This cannot be. There were prophets after Christ. What about Phillip’s daughters? What about Abagus (sp?)? What about 1 Cor. 12? Christ was the quintessential prophet who fulfilled Deut 18, but he was not the last prophet). But, like I said, I do not know of any verified prophets since the days of Christ. I have never seen one, or heard of someone who claimed to be one that performed undeniable signs like raising the dead.

Miracles are a different story. There can be miracles without prophets. Miracles are simply God divine intervention into history to do something that is undeniably from His hand. It is not necessarily the case that where there is a miracle, there is a prophet.

Who decides? God decides. The people recognize. It is the same thing with Scripture since it is just a record of the prophets words.

Hope this helps.

Michael

 

[Uncle_Abee]

If I picked up the bible, studied it, and then went out and spoke what was in it…that would make me a prophet. This is a prophet in the ordinary sense. All a prophet really is, is one who speaks God word. God’s word is found in scripture. Anyone who in truth repeats biblical knowledge is a prophet of God in an ordinary manner.

There’s another kind of prophet as well. Those are the ones who receive direct revelation from God (Moses, Isaiah, Samuel, etc.). These people are speaking God’s word too and fall in the definition of a prophet also. The difference is they are getting it right from the source. These are the folks who need to prove themselves by signs and wonders. When someone tells you “God told me by revelation to tell you…” then you need to ask them to prove it with a miracle.

The problem with us and “sola scriptura” is we can’t see beyond our denominational walls. We have added our human traditions to God’s word which is all we need to save us. This is where our denominational creeds come from. It is our attempt to define where we stand on scripture. All it really takes to be in Christ’s church and receive salvation is to follow His commands. All His commands are found in the bible. Denominational membership is not required.

The Roman Catholic church is a denomination too. I know many Catholics will come out against this. But, once you see it…you’ll understand sola scriptura, break down the wall you are behind, and start to move where Christ really wants you to be. Dwell on the fact that Christ started “one” church in the 1st century. Christ never gave it an official name. Christ never called the church Roman Catholic, Baptist, or Methodist. He just called it “my church.” At its inception Christ gave all the necessary rules. The church was perfect when He built it. Men are the ones who created all these names and added all these strange doctrines. All Christ’s church is, is a group of people bound by Christ’s rules. It has no official name.

All denominations are at equal fault. This includes Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Baptists, and yes even the one I am in…the Church of Christ.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I believe that the teaching of Sola Scriptura implies that it is God’s verified Word alone that binds our conscience.

Of course. As a Catholic, I would call this Sola Dei Verbum. However, to a Catholic “God’s Word” (Dei Verbum) is Jesus Christ. Whereas many Protestants seem to imply God’s Word is confined to the 66 books of the Bible that protestants accept as a “fallible list of infallible books.” Of course, they don’t really have a compelling reason as to why God’s Word is confined to their 66-book version, as compared to the 73-book version held by Catholics, or the 73+ book version held by Orthodox, or as contrasted with the “traditions,” both oral and written that St. Paul insisted upon.

Other Protestants merely claim that the Bible (their 66-book version) is the only “infallible” source of Christian authority. I find it rather ironic that they deny that anybody can infallible interpret this book. What is the use in having an infallible book if there’s nobody able to infallibly state what it teaches? Seems rather epistemologically equivalent to having a fallible book to me.

 

[michaelp]

itsjustdave1988:

Other Protestants merely claim that the Bible (their 66-book version) is the only “infallible” source of Christian authority. I find it rather ironic that they deny that anybody can infallible interpret this book. What is the use in having an infallible book if there’s nobody able to infallibly state what it teaches? Seems rather epistemologically equivalent to having a fallible book to me.

I don’t see how having someone to infallibly interpret an infallible book (Bible) that interprets the infallible God is any help. It just moves the problem up one level. Who is going to infallibly interpret the interpreter (the church). You cannot say that no one does, since all information, by definition must be interpreted (understood and then contextualized according to the language, culture, belief systems, etc.).

This is the subject of the other thread that I am on though. You can go there and read my views (not saying that they are correct, but they seem sound to me at this point).

Thanks for the post.

Michael

 

[JPrejean]

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.

Again, I think that you have a misunderstanding of Catholic belief if you think that the Pope is claiming any such thing. The Pope doesn’t claim to have direct revelation from God or to provide any new revelation. He is only speaking for God in the same sense that we all do, sharing “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). He is only a prophet speaking on behalf of God in the sense that any Christian spreading the Gospel is a prophet speaking on behalf of the Lord.

 

[michaelp]

JPrejean:

Again, I think that you have a misunderstanding of Catholic belief if you think that the Pope is claiming any such thing. The Pope doesn’t claim to have direct revelation from God or to provide any new revelation. He is only speaking for God in the same sense that we all do, sharing “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). He is only a prophet speaking on behalf of God in the sense that any Christian spreading the Gospel is a prophet speaking on behalf of the Lord.

Wow! If that is really the case, then I think we agree. Thanks.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I do think there is a confusion as to whether the Church is supposed to act in the way you think a prophet does. You seem to be saying that a prophet delivers new revelation. The Church and her Magisterium, however, do not receive anything knew. The role of the successors to the Apostles to guard and interpret the revelation that was handed on to them. So when the Pope, a council, or the ordinary Magisterium “speaks for God” I don’t think it’s in the same sense in which you are considering a prophet.

 

[michaelp]

Andreas Hofer:

I do think there is a confusion as to whether the Church is supposed to act in the way you think a prophet does. You seem to be saying that a prophet delivers new revelation. The Church and her Magisterium, however, do not receive anything knew. The role of the successors to the Apostles to guard and interpret the revelation that was handed on to them. So when the Pope, a council, or the ordinary Magisterium “speaks for God” I don’t think it’s in the same sense in which you are considering a prophet.

A prophet simply speaks on behalf of God. It does not have to be new revelation (per se).

An apostle speaks with authority and has seen Christ (Acts 2). They also have to have the evidence that they speak on behalf of God (2 Cor. 12:12).

Have a great day,

Michael

 

[RBushlow]

michaelp:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/quote.gif​

ChessterView Public ProfileFind all posts by ChessterAdd Chesster to Your Buddy List
#8 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/report.gif
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/post_old.gif November 27, 2004, 06:23 PM
michaelp http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_323691”, true);
Regular Member
Join Date: October 31, 2004
Posts: 104

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Sola Scriptura: an Evangelicals attempt to help to clarify its meaning
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesster
Where does scripture say this?

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

I reread your original post several times. It does not show where Sola Scriptura is contained in Scripture. Can you please point this out for me? Thank you.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

 

[JPrejean]

A prophet simply speaks on behalf of God. It does not have to be new revelation (per se).

By that definition, every Christian must perform signs and miracles, because every Christian speaks on behalf of God in spreading the Gospel.

An apostle speaks with authority and has seen Christ (Acts 2). They also have to have the evidence that they speak on behalf of God (2 Cor. 12:12).

This is true, but apostles aren’t the only ones with authority. Paul told Titus “Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” (Titus 2:15). He also instructed Timothy to “Command and teach these things.” (1 Tim. 4:11; see also 1 Tim. 5:7). It’s one of these “Every man is a human, but not every human is a man” deals.

 

[michaelp]

RBushlow:

I reread your original post several times. It does not show where Sola Scriptura is contained in Scripture. Can you please point this out for me? Thank you.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

This is anachronistic. It is a fallacious question. The New Testament had not been completed during the time of the Apostle. There was a living Scripture in Christ and the verified prophets. If an apostle were alive, then the word of God would be living.

Therefore, once there was no longer any who verified themselve by the signs of a true apostle or prophet (2 Cor 12:12), then only their written testimony was used as athoritative.

Can’t you at least try to understand where I am coming from? I am not just trying to be difficult, the the arguments against sola scriptura are based on a misunderstanding that I have attempted to help clarify. Then after I have explained, everyones’ arguments against sola scripture keeps assuming the same faulty understanding that I have attempted to clarify.

Let me try again.

Sola scriptura means that the Scripture alone is the only final authority that exists today because it is the only verified authority. This does not mean nula scriptura as is so often misunderstood by Roman Catholics (the the Scripture is the only authority–period. We do see other authorities of reason, conscience, and traditions). A better term might be prima scriptura, meaning that the Scripture is the primary authority that has final and infallible say in all matters upon which is speaks.

**"In the innumerable books that have been written lately we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." **
(emphasis added, Augustine, Reply to Faustus 11.5)

Here is where I am at at this point: If the Pope or the magisterium showed the signs of an apostle (2 Cor 12:12), and adhere to sound doctrine (Deut 13; Gal. 1:9), then I would most certianly follow their lead and I would say that God, like in the Old and New Testament times has both Scripture and those who speak for God authoritatively. Doesn’t this make since at all? Can’t you at least see some of my struggle? Maybe not. Shigh . . .

Michael

 

[germys9]

MichaelP,

Your arguments seem strong, but they are misleading and incorrect.

The main problem is that you base your whole theology on a false assumption - that Jesus did not found a church guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth and infallible doctrine. Only if Jesus did not do this, then sola scriptura holds water. It seems as though you misunderstand the magisterium and how it works. You said if the Pope raised somone from the dead you would believe in him. Catholics don’t believe in any pope as a prophet, but only believe in Jesus (who may work a miracle through men even today). In other words, no one will ever function as Isaiah did, for all revelation has been given to the Church who protects it and transmits it in its entirity generation after generation.

All of revelation ended with the death of the last apostle (the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches teach agree). Therefore there can only be private revelation which is only binding on the individual who received it (assuming that it was legitimate). Obviously, if someone “received a revelation” which was contrary to the Church, it would be false.

 

[michaelp]

germys9:

MichaelP,

Your arguments seem strong, but they are misleading and incorrect.

The main problem is that you base your whole theology on a false assumption - that Jesus did not found a church guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth and infallible doctrine. Only if Jesus did not do this, then sola scriptura holds water. It seems as though you misunderstand the magisterium and how it works. You said if the Pope raised somone from the dead you would believe in him. Catholics don’t believe in any pope as a prophet, but only believe in Jesus (who may work a miracle through men even today). In other words, no one will ever function as Isaiah did, for all revelation has been given to the Church who protects it and transmits it in its entirity generation after generation.

All of revelation ended with the death of the last apostle (the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches teach agree). Therefore there can only be private revelation which is only binding on the individual who received it (assuming that it was legitimate). Obviously, if someone “received a revelation” which was contrary to the Church, it would be false.

But you claim that the Pope is an Apostle right? What are the signs that he has provided to confirm this (2 Cor. 12:12). Apostle’s always spoke for God with authority. Therefore, they carry the role of a prophet as well since a prophet is simply someone who speaks for God.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

germys9:

MichaelP,

Your arguments seem strong, but they are misleading and incorrect.

Please understand that I am not trying to mislead anyone. I am just discussing this. In the discussion, I am giving my difficulties and struggles. I am not trying to lead anyone anywhere right now.

Respectfully,

Michael

 

[germys9]

Again Michael,

I understand your argument. The Bible is the only verified actual and authentic words of Christ and the apostles we have on record.

But now you try to understand a Catholic perspective.

You would probably admit that no one practiced sola scriptura in the Old Testament because as you said the Word was living through Moses and the prophets. And again you just admitted that Sola Scriptura was not practiced in the New Testament because the Word became flesh (Jesus) and continued to live through the apostles. But don’t you think (given the fact that no one in the Old or New Testament practiced sola scriptura and instead had a living Authoritative teaching office - Moses, prophets, Jesus, the apostles) that when the apostles wrote the letters in the Bible, that they would have made it more clear that that way of following revelation was suddenly going to change after the death of the last apostle.

Think about it - God set up an authoritative teaching office in the Old Testament. When Jesus came he set the same thing up in the New Testament and called it the church. Why would the followers of Christ suddenly change their practice after the death of the last apostle and begin practicing sola scriptura. And that’s assuming that the apostles wrote every thing down. You see, Catholics beleive that the living teaching office of the Word still exists in the Church because it contains succussors to the apostles who have their authority. When Paul appointed Timothy, if a Christian was to reject Timothy, he would be also rejecting Christ. Yet Timothy was not an original apostle. In Paul’s second letter to Timothy (probably his last letter) he doesn’t say - Timothy, when I die the practice of Christians will change and individuals will only need to read my letters and the gospels. But don’t won’t worry I wrote everything down clearly so every individual will come to the same conclusions on what is true. So, gather all of my letters and begin copying them so others can read.

No, he tells Timothy - Everything I have taught you in the presence of others (orally), gaurd with the Holy Spirit and pass it on to other faithful men who will pass it on to others. Notice he says his oral teaching could be passed on to others generations and be guarded by the Holy Spirit. And this is exaclty what all the successors to the apostles have done for 2000 years in the Catholic Church. It is not putting the Church over the Scriptures, but as Vatican II said, the magesterium is the servant of the Scriptures and only in light of the Tradition of the apostles (in the Catholic Church) can you have a true interpretation.

 

[germys9]

Your exactly right. The Pope (as successor to Peter) and the bishops in the Catholic Church (as successors to the apostles) do speak with the authority of God. Remember though, that all divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. So the bishops’ authority consists more in preserving the true revelation that the apostles handed down with the proper interpretation of it (which includes the Bible).

 

[michaelp]

germys9:

Your exactly right. The Pope (as successor to Peter) and the bishops in the Catholic Church (as successors to the apostles) do speak with the authority of God. Remember though, that all divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. So the bishops’ authority consists more in preserving the true revelation that the apostles handed down with the proper interpretation of it (which includes the Bible).

So we have an Apostle without the signs of an apostle (2Cor. 12:12). That would be hard for me to swollow without justification–Scripture would be nice, but I will take it from whatever authority you have!!

Michael

 

[michaelp]

germys9:

Again Michael,

I understand your argument. The Bible is the only verified actual and authentic words of Christ and the apostles we have on record.

But now you try to understand a Catholic perspective.

You would probably admit that no one practiced sola scriptura in the Old Testament because as you said the Word was living through Moses and the prophets. And again you just admitted that Sola Scriptura was not practiced in the New Testament because the Word became flesh (Jesus) and continued to live through the apostles. But don’t you think (given the fact that no one in the Old or New Testament practiced sola scriptura and instead had a living Authoritative teaching office - Moses, prophets, Jesus, the apostles) that when the apostles wrote the letters in the Bible, that they would have made it more clear that that way of following revelation was suddenly going to change after the death of the last apostle.
QUOTE]

But don’t you see. The Scripture is not an exhaustive history book. You cannot say that before Christ, there was always dual authority. The Bible only records theological history that touches on the history of redemption. You cannot think that it records everything. There were many time where the Lord did not have a prophet, apostle, or judge in the land. The reason why it looks like there always was is because the Bible only records the times (for the most part) when God WAS intervening through a prophet or Apostle, or Christ Himself.

Therefore, this arguement does not make any sense to me.

But this is a comon misunderstanding about Scripture.

Michael

 

[Fiat]

Dear Michael

The Pope and Bishops are NOT apostles. They are successors to the apostles.

In faith,
Fiat

 

[michaelp]

Fiat:

Dear Michael

The Pope and Bishops are NOT apostles. They are successors to the apostles.

In faith,
Fiat

Maybe this does clear some things up for me. So they do not sit in the seat of Peter?

OK, then, if the Pope is not an Apostle nor carries on Apostolic Sucsession (the authoritative office of an apostle), then what is his role?

Please clear up my misunderstanding because I am really confused now.

Michael