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

[germys9]

michaelp:

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

What you say makes no sense. The sign is that the apostles ordained men who ordained men who ordained men…leading all the way up to John Paul II and all the bishops in the Catholic Church. How much clearer can this sign be. The apostleship is not exactly the same as the original apostles. As Paul later said, God appoints apostles in the Church (and he doesn’t say unless a man performs a miracle he cannot be a true apostle of God). The authority of the present day Pope and bishops of the Catholic Church lies in the fact that they are successors to the original apostles regardless of what name you want to give them.

Practicing Sola Scriptura lacks justification for in it you denounce the Church that Jesus established along with its authority; giving your interpretation of scripture the final authority.

 

[germys9]

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

My point was that individuals could not read the Torah for themselves and decide what they thought it meant. There was an authority that they were bound to and it was not merely there intepretations.

 

[mercygate]

michaelp:

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

You’ve undoubtedly encountered this a hundred times before, but when Jesus called Peter “the rock on which I will build my Church” and gave him the Keys to bind and loose in heaven and earth; when he told Peter that he would be the one to “strengthen your brethren;” when Jesus breathed on the Apostles on Easter evening and gave them the power to forgive and to retain sins; when Jesus commanded Peter to be the shepherd and to “feed my sheep” – all taken together warrant the Apostolic Church, in union with Peter (Rome), as the privileged place of trust. When the Apostles decided that the place of Judas would be taken by someone “who has been with us from the beginning, since the Baptism of John and an eyewitness to the Resurrection” they were accepting and acting upon the commission entrusted to them by the Lord himself.

The bishops, as successors of the Apostles, speak by inspiration on matters of faith and morals – but it is not an inspiration that is the same as that which inspired the writers of Scripture. It makes use of the ordinary means of grace – like book learnin’. Sometimes it slams the culture like a bombshell, like when Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae to the shock and consternation of most of the Church, not to mention the rest of the world. Now, I would call that prophetic!

 

[JPrejean]

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?

Apostolic succession refers to their authority being derived from the Apostles in a succession of appointed teachers (viz., the Apostle appoints a teacher, who appoints other teachers, who appoint other teacher, and on and on). The authority they have is the authority of the episkopos or presbyter (which were originally given simultaneously, but later became separate offices), but this authority only comes from Apostles. It does not mean that the bishops are themselves Apostles (I recognize that the distinction is confusing).

The Pope’s office has unique authority in that he also receives the power of the Keys (making him the steward of Christ’s Kingdom) that were originally given to St. Peter by Christ Himself. It is the authority of those Keys that is associated with the Chair of Peter.

 

[MariaG]

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

Maybe you missed my previous post, (or I missed your response?) but the pope recently performed a public exorcism. I say this completely qualifies as a sign and wonder. If you disagree, please be specific on why not.
God Bless,
Maria

p.s.

I either messed up on posting or it is on a different thread. So this is the first time on this thread I am telling you about the “signs and wonders” of JPII. Sorry.

 

[RBushlow]

michaelp:

This is anachronistic. It is a fallacious question.

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).

Hi Michael,

I disagree, I don’t think that it is anachronistic or fallacious.
Let me try this: If Scripture alone is the only authority, then all doctrines must be therein contained. Any doctrine not originating within scripture may be false, no guarantee that it is True. Therefore, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura must be contained within scripture. If it is not, then it cannot be said to be True.

May the Lord cause His face to shine upon you, may He be gracious to you and grant you His peace.

 

[michaelp]

germys9:

What you say makes no sense. The sign is that the apostles ordained men who ordained men who ordained men…leading all the way up to John Paul II and all the bishops in the Catholic Church. How much clearer can this sign be. The apostleship is not exactly the same as the original apostles. As Paul later said, God appoints apostles in the Church (and he doesn’t say unless a man performs a miracle he cannot be a true apostle of God). The authority of the present day Pope and bishops of the Catholic Church lies in the fact that they are successors to the original apostles regardless of what name you want to give them.

Practicing Sola Scriptura lacks justification for in it you denounce the Church that Jesus established along with its authority; giving your interpretation of scripture the final authority.

But can’t you see that these are just assumptions and presuppositions without anything to back them up. How do you expect me to understand this, much less believe it?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

My point was that individuals could not read the Torah for themselves and decide what they thought it meant. There was an authority that they were bound to and it was not merely there intepretations.
How do you know this? This is an assumption based upons something you already believe to be true. The Scriptures were written in the language of the people for a reason. Why didn’t God just speak in some angelic language if he were not trying to communicate with ordinary people? Why did he use syntax that would have been understood for the comon interpreter if it was not meant for them. Why contextualize your message for people who are not qualified to interpret.

This is so very confusing to me. It is getting more confusing.

I am sorry that I cannot see the things the way you do. But I am trying.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

JPrejean:

Apostolic succession refers to their authority being derived from the Apostles in a succession of appointed teachers (viz., the Apostle appoints a teacher, who appoints other teachers, who appoint other teacher, and on and on). The authority they have is the authority of the episkopos or presbyter (which were originally given simultaneously, but later became separate offices), but this authority only comes from Apostles. It does not mean that the bishops are themselves Apostles (I recognize that the distinction is confusing).

The Pope’s office has unique authority in that he also receives the power of the Keys (making him the steward of Christ’s Kingdom) that were originally given to St. Peter by Christ Himself. It is the authority of those Keys that is associated with the Chair of Peter.

So then, they do not speak infallibly for God?

 

[michaelp]

MariaG:

Maybe you missed my previous post, (or I missed your response?) but the pope recently performed a public exorcism. I say this completely qualifies as a sign and wonder. If you disagree, please be specific on why not.
God Bless,
Maria

p.s.

I either messed up on posting or it is on a different thread. So this is the first time on this thread I am telling you about the “signs and wonders” of JPII. Sorry.

Exorcism were never used as demonstatable factual miracles. They were miracles of benevolence for the most part. In other words, someone could deny an exorcism couldn’t they. They could not deny if someone were to rise from the dead, as the Apostles did.

I watch TV and see people claim exorcisms, back pain healing, stomach ailments, and it all makes me laugh. I just say, hey, if you really have the power of God, do something that no one would deny like Christ and the apostles did.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

RBushlow:

Hi Michael,
If Scripture alone is the only authority, then all doctrines must be therein contained. .

Again, this is a misunderstanding: Sola scriptura is not that scripture is the only authority, but the only infallible authority.

Wow! I can’t believe that all of you all cannot get this.

Oh well, there are probebly many things that I will continue to misrepresent you on as well. We will just keep at it until we get it, right?

Michael

 

[JPrejean]

michaelp:

So then, they do not speak infallibly for God?

I’m not sure what you mean by “speak infallibly for God,” so I’ll just reproduce the language of the Catechism, and we can go from there:

*890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.[418] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,”[419] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”[420] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.[421]*

michaelp:

This is an assumption based upons something you already believe to be true. The Scriptures were written in the language of the people for a reason. Why didn’t God just speak in some angelic language if he were not trying to communicate with ordinary people? Why did he use syntax that would have been understood for the comon interpreter if it was not meant for them. Why contextualize your message for people who are not qualified to interpret.

The question is whether the assumption is reasonable. If you want to send a message reliably, what’s the best way to do it? Would you leave only a textbook, or would you also demonstrate to people what you were trying to teach? Clearly, the best way to preserve meaning would be to do the latter. I can’t understand why it is questionable to think that God would understand something that every educational system in human history has grasped: that passing knowledge through both education and writing is the most effective way to preserve meaning.

michaelp:

Sola scriptura is not that scripture is the only authority, but the only infallible authority.

Yes, but you’re talking with Catholics, and the only operative question is whether that claim has any strength when you conflict with Catholic belief. Asserting the principle is meaningless unless you ground it in concrete cases discernible from the historical record to assess whether the claim of infallibility is robust. In every instance where sola scriptura has been put to the test against a doctrine that one would expect from the historical record to be apostolic in origin, it has failed. Now tell me, why would one believe anything that is wrong in every single historical instance in which it has been put to the test? It’s just a meaningless platitude to say that Scripture is “the only infallible authority” when any meaningful test that would even make that claim believable turns out the wrong way.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

You accept the authority of the Apostles as validated. Those Apostles demonstrated that their authority did not cease to exist when one of them died. They did this when they replaced Judas with Matthias, in fact citing two verses of Scripture in support of their action - someone needed to fill the office vacated by the now dead Apostle. We also see that Timothy received his teaching authority through the imposition of hands. Not at, during, with, or other sorts of prepositions, but through the imposition of hands. That sounds a lot like ordination to me. Now let’s go to Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Rome, both second century bishops who were disciples of apostles. These men tell us that bishops wield teaching authority (the sure gift of truth) by virtue of their apostolic succession.

Now, if the Apostles, by virtue of the powers vested in their office, claimed to be able to appoint successors to wield their authority and the rest of the Church right after their death accepted and continued that claim, isn’t that all the validation that is needed? If you reject a successor of the Apostles you are rejecting the apostolic validation that established the succession.

 

[RMP]

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

Im sorry, but I think this post is quite humorous.
Sola Scriptura essentially expresses that there should be no misunderstandings of scripture, everyone can read the scriptures themselves and have material sufficiency for salvation. Yet, the protestant need introduce this novel doctrine (SOLA scriptura) to explain it.

(But we all seem to misunderstand its true meaning)

This is genius I say!

 

[MariaG]

posted by Michael
Exorcism were never used as demonstatable factual miracles. They were miracles of benevolence for the most part. In other words, someone could deny an exorcism couldn’t they. They could not deny if someone were to rise from the dead, as the Apostles did.

I watch TV and see people claim exorcisms, back pain healing, stomach ailments, and it all makes me laugh. I just say, hey, if you really have the power of God, do something that no one would deny like Christ and the apostles did.

Ahh. I see. You pick and choose which miracles you say show Apostolic authority.
Just for your information, the exorcism was done so quietly that few around even knew what was happening. It was not done for “show” on tv.

And Micheal, it is not that most do not understand what you are saying, we just disagree that it is a valid argument that substantiates SS.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[michaelp]

JPrejean:

I’m not sure what you mean by “speak infallibly for God,” so I’ll just reproduce the language of the Catechism, and we can go from there:

*890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms: *

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.[418] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,”[419] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”[420] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.[421]

The question is whether the assumption is reasonable. If you want to send a message reliably, what’s the best way to do it? Would you leave only a textbook, or would you also demonstrate to people what you were trying to teach? Clearly, the best way to preserve meaning would be to do the latter. I can’t understand why it is questionable to think that God would understand something that every educational system in human history has grasped: that passing knowledge through both education and writing is the most effective way to preserve meaning.

Yes, but you’re talking with Catholics, and the only operative question is whether that claim has any strength when you conflict with Catholic belief. Asserting the principle is meaningless unless you ground it in concrete cases discernible from the historical record to assess whether the claim of infallibility is robust. In every instance where sola scriptura has been put to the test against a doctrine that one would expect from the historical record to be apostolic in origin, it has failed. Now tell me, why would one believe anything that is wrong in every single historical instance in which it has been put to the test? It’s just a meaningless platitude to say that Scripture is “the only infallible authority” when any meaningful test that would even make that claim believable turns out the wrong way.

I am sorry. I really don’t understand these statements. Remember, you are talking to someone who is not very familiar with your tradition. Therefore, this does not make sense. Please restate your question.

Thanks.

 

[AServantofGod]

michaelp:

I cannot speak for uninformed Protestants on this matter any more than you can speak for or defend uninfomed Catholics.
Michael

The one thing that stands out from all these posts is this “uninformed Protestants”. Who determines who is informed & who is uninformed?

 

[michaelp]

Andreas Hofer:

You accept the authority of the Apostles as validated. Those Apostles demonstrated that their authority did not cease to exist when one of them died. They did this when they replaced Judas with Matthias, in fact citing two verses of Scripture in support of their action - someone needed to fill the office vacated by the now dead Apostle. We also see that Timothy received his teaching authority through the imposition of hands. Not at, during, with, or other sorts of prepositions, but through the imposition of hands. That sounds a lot like ordination to me. Now let’s go to Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Rome, both second century bishops who were disciples of apostles. These men tell us that bishops wield teaching authority (the sure gift of truth) by virtue of their apostolic succession.

Now, if the Apostles, by virtue of the powers vested in their office, claimed to be able to appoint successors to wield their authority and the rest of the Church right after their death accepted and continued that claim, isn’t that all the validation that is needed? If you reject a successor of the Apostles you are rejecting the apostolic validation that established the succession.

Matthias was one who had witnessed the resurrected Christ. Do you really want to say that this is an instance where the transferral of Apostolic authority is taught. Do you draw staws to choose a Pope? (Acts 1)

Timothy was ordained by Paul. It says nothing about passing on his apostolic authority. Do you really see the Roman catholic idea of succession and infallibility being taught in these words? Read them and think unbiasedly.

“Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery. Take pains with these things; be *absorbed *in them, so that your progress will be evident to all. Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.” (1 Tim 4:14-16).

That is alot to get out of this statement by Paul. I don’t think an unbiased reader would get this out of either Acts 1 or 1 Tim 4. But I guess you are going to punt to the authority of the Church to interpret it this way. But to me, this is very circular.

I was ordained in a Church where the church layed their hands on me. I was approved by the church, but I did not recieve the gift of infallibility.

Hope this has been insightful to help you see my perspective.

Michael

 

[JPrejean]

Please restate your question.

What is the difference between Scripture being the only authority and Scripture being the only infallible authority?

I’ll answer my own question as well: there isn’t any difference, at least not a meaningful one. Do you have a different answer?

 

[michaelp]

RMP:

Im sorry, but I think this post is quite humorous.
Sola Scriptura essentially expresses that there should be no misunderstandings of scripture, everyone can read the scriptures themselves and have material sufficiency for salvation. Yet, the protestant need introduce this novel doctrine (SOLA scriptura) to explain it.

(But we all seem to misunderstand its true meaning)

This is genius I say!

I have never heard that “sola scriptura essentially expresses that there should be no misunderstandings of Scripture.” Again, this is a misrepresentation. That is not the way the Reformers believed. Otherwise the principle of semper reformanda “always reforming” is meaningless.

Again, pragmatically, I would like to have a Church that infallibly interprets the few parts of Scripture that are not clear. But I do not see the justification for it. The arguement have all be pragmatic at best.

I do, however, remain open to and look for an unpragmatic argument.

Michael