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

[michaelp]

MariaG:

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

I can live with this. I just don’t think we should go on building straw men arguements. That is why I am here. To understand and learn from you so that I don’t misrepresent you. (And to be changed, if it be the Lord’s will).

 

[michaelp]

AServantofGod:

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

I do. God has set me up to do this.

Just kidding.

No one does. This is a pragmatic dream to have God tell us everything everyday. Or that we need His supernatural intervention in the interpretation of Scripture. It takes sweat and diligence. But it is not that hard, you are created in the image of God with great ability. You can interpret all kinds of things (including your catechism). You can do it.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

JPrejean:

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?

Ummm . . . one is infallible (i.e. cannot be wrong), the other is fallible (i.e. can be wrong). I hope that I got this.

I have other authorities in my life. The Proverbs tell us to have many counselors. It does not assume that all these counselors are infallible, but they are needed none the less. Collective wisdom is an authority, but not infallible. This is the way we view tradition.

I hope that this has answered your question.

Michael

 

[AServantofGod]

michaelp:

I do. God has set me up to do this.

Just kidding.

No one does. This is a pragmatic dream to have God tell us everything everyday. Or that we need His supernatural intervention in the interpretation of Scripture. It takes sweat and diligence. But it is not that hard, you are created in the image of God with great ability. You can interpret all kinds of things (including your catechism). You can do it.

Michael

Wow! I’ve never felt worthy enough.

 

[michaelp]

AServantofGod:

Wow! I’ve never felt worthy enough.

Bless you my son.

 

[clmowry]

michaelp:

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.

But then again, your not the Pope :.) (Just kidding.)

Your position is one that I find quite refreshing.

One of the things that I’ve always found was that “many” protestant ministers (at least several of those I listened to frequently on the radio) gave themselves and their congregation much more power than the Pope and the teaching Magestarium of the Church.

The Pope for example could not propose for belief something that directly contradicts an established dogma of the church. i.e. He couldn’t come out and decide…you know what…I’ve decided that the Trinity is false…we don’t have 1 God in 3 persons, we really have 3 separate Gods.

But I’ve heard many a protestant claim that they (individually) have the Holy Spirit which leads them in their interpretation and therefore they know that the interpretation is correct.

They’d never call it infallibility, but that is exactly what they are claiming for themselves.

In fact this was one of the key factors in my returning to the Catholic Church. While traveling on business I heard 5 different radio ministers, in 5 different states preach on the same verses. All claiming different intepretations, all claiming that they were led their by the Spirit. (The subject in question was Divorce and re-marriage and what the exceptions to a total prohibition were.)

I needed a Pope. Quite frankly I don’t see how anyone can get along without one!

But back to your point on the verse in question.

You may feel that too much is being read into the verses, but I think the point is that when your pulling from 2000 years of Church teaching it’s pretty easy to through quite a bit of theology at a verse or two.

It’s not that the Church pulls all of this theology from a verse or two. We just point out a verse or two that are consistant with 2000 years of theological learning.

Chuck

 

[michaelp]

clmowry:

But then again, your not the Pope :.) (Just kidding.)

Your position is one that I find quite refreshing.

One of the things that I’ve always found was that “many” protestant ministers (at least several of those I listened to frequently on the radio) gave themselves and their congregation much more power than the Pope and the teaching Magestarium of the Church.

The Pope for example could not propose for belief something that directly contradicts an established dogma of the church. i.e. He couldn’t come out and decide…you know what…I’ve decided that the Trinity is false…we don’t have 1 God in 3 persons, we really have 3 separate Gods.

But I’ve heard many a protestant claim that they (individually) have the Holy Spirit which leads them in their interpretation and therefore they know that the interpretation is correct.

They’d never call it infallibility, but that is exactly what they are claiming for themselves.

In fact this was one of the key factors in my returning to the Catholic Church. While traveling on business I heard 5 different radio ministers, in 5 different states preach on the same verses. All claiming different intepretations, all claiming that they were led their by the Spirit. (The subject in question was Divorce and re-marriage and what the exceptions to a total prohibition were.)

I needed a Pope. Quite frankly I don’t see how anyone can get along without one!

But back to your point on the verse in question.

You may feel that too much is being read into the verses, but I think the point is that when your pulling from 2000 years of Church teaching it’s pretty easy to through quite a bit of theology at a verse or two.

It’s not that the Church pulls all of this theology from a verse or two. We just point out a verse or two that are consistant with 2000 years of theological learning.

Chuck

Thank you for your honesty. This is reasonable. Even though I don’t agree with the conclusion since it seems purely pragmatic, thank you for understanding where I am coming from.

The Reformers had a great respect for tradition and were very fearful to go against it. In fact, Luther spent all night on the . . . ummm . . .pot . . . the night before Worms in great fear. I don’t think Protestant respect tradition enough. Protestants are many times to individualistic. I hope to do what I can to change this.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

Ok, I have to put in my two cents here–only people can be infallible, books can not. The bible is inerrant (without error), not infallible. It is an inerrant “what” that needs to be interpreted by an infallible “who.”

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?infall01.wav=infallible’))
Pronunciation: (")in-'fa-l&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin *infallibilis, *from Latin *in- *+ Late Latin *fallibilis *fallible
1 : incapable of error : UNERRING <an infallible memory>
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN <an infallible remedy>
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals.

All these can only be done by agents, not things.

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

Ok, I have to put in my two cents here–only people can be infallible, books can not. The bible is inerrant (without error), not infallible. It is an inerrant “what” that needs to be interpreted by an infallible “who.”

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: (")in-'fa-l&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin *infallibilis, *from Latin *in- *+ Late Latin *fallibilis *fallible
1 : incapable of error : UNERRING <an infallible memory>
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN <an infallible remedy>
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals.

All these can only be done by agents, not things.

Interesting. I will have to chew on that for a while. At first glance it really help to clarify some things for me. Thanks.

Michael

 

[clmowry]

Might even be a whole nickel!

An inerrant scripture that can be interpreted in an infinite number fallible ways is probably worse than useless, it’s down right dangerous.

You can then use the bible to justify just about anything you wish, and then try and blaim God for it!

Chuck

dennisknapp:

Ok, I have to put in my two cents here–only people can be infallible, books can not. The bible is inerrant (without error), not infallible. It is an inerrant “what” that needs to be interpreted by an infallible “who.”

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: (")in-'fa-l&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin *infallibilis, *from Latin *in- *+ Late Latin *fallibilis *fallible
1 : incapable of error : UNERRING <an infallible memory>
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN <an infallible remedy>
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals.

All these can only be done by agents, not things.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

michaelp:

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

No successor of the apostles acting alone has the gift of infallibility other than the successor of Peter, so many validly ordained bishops also did not receive that gift at their ordinations. But that’s beside the point.

The main point of my post was not to prove from Scripture that the apostles passed on authority because, as you point out, the texts that back it up are few and far from detailed. The point is that the early Church believed that their bishops derived their teaching authority from apostolic succession and Scripture can corroborate this belief when read in light of it.

The men who give us our clearest formulations of the belief in apostolic succession were not worried about basing their claims upon the New Testament because hardly anyone had a full NT canon and most of them were reading non-canonical materials right alongside what they did have. These writers were instead basing their teachings on those of the apostles - Ignatius was most likely ordained by Peter himself. That’s really the problem with beliefs such as this - the “obvious” and/or unchallenged ones don’t always get an explicit mention in Scripture because it is written to specific needs (wouldn’t you like to know the traditions Paul handed on “by word of mouth”?). But the belief was held by the early Church, and that should at least hold high honor with you because it does not conflict with Scripture and could actually be seen in it.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

And I could just be having a memory lapse, here, but what miracles did John the Baptist perform to validate his prophecy?

 

[mayra_hart]

. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura overlooks – or at least grossly underemphasizes – the fact that the Church came before the Bible, and not the other way around. It was the Church, in effect, which wrote the Bible under the inspiration of Almighty God: the Israelites as the Old Testament Church (or “pre-Catholics”) and the early Catholics as the New Testament Church.

In the pages of the New Testament we note that Our Lord gives a certain primacy to the teaching authority of His Church and its proclamation in His name. For instance, in Matthew 28:20 we see Our Lord commissioning the Apostles to go and teach in His name, making disciples of all nations. In Mark 16:15 we note that the Apostles are commanded to go and preach to all the world. And in Luke 10:16 we see that whoever hears the seventy-two hears Our Lord. These facts are most telling, as nowhere do we see Our Lord commissioning His Apostles to evangelize the world by writing in His name. The emphasis is always on preaching the Gospel, not on printing and distributing it.

Thus it follows that the leadership and teaching authority of the Church are indispensable elements in the means whereby the Gospel message is to reach the ends of the earth. Since the Church produced the scriptures, it is quite biblical, logical and reasonable to say that the Church alone has the authority to interpret properly and apply them. And if this is so, then by reason of its origin and nature, the Bible cannot serve as the only rule of faith for Christian believers. In other words, by producing the Scriptures, the Church does not eliminate the need for itself as teacher and interpreter of those Scriptures.

Moreover, is it not unreasonable to say that simply by putting Apostolic teaching into writing, the Church somehow made that written teaching superior to her oral teaching? Like the teaching organization Our Lord established, His Word is authoritative, but because the word is one form rather than another does not mean one form is to be subjugated to the other. Since God’s one Revelation is twofold in form, to deny the authority of one form would be to deny the authority of the other form as well. The forms of God’s Word are complementary, not competitive. Thus, if there is a need for the Scriptures, there is also a need for the teaching authority which produced them.

 

[michaelp]

mayra hart:

. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura overlooks – or at least grossly underemphasizes – the fact that the Church came before the Bible, and not the other way around. It was the Church, in effect, which wrote the Bible under the inspiration of Almighty God: the Israelites as the Old Testament Church (or “pre-Catholics”) and the early Catholics as the New Testament Church.

In the pages of the New Testament we note that Our Lord gives a certain primacy to the teaching authority of His Church and its proclamation in His name. For instance, in Matthew 28:20 we see Our Lord commissioning the Apostles to go and teach in His name, making disciples of all nations. In Mark 16:15 we note that the Apostles are commanded to go and preach to all the world. And in Luke 10:16 we see that whoever hears the seventy-two hears Our Lord. These facts are most telling, as nowhere do we see Our Lord commissioning His Apostles to evangelize the world by writing in His name. The emphasis is always on preaching the Gospel, not on printing and distributing it.

Thus it follows that the leadership and teaching authority of the Church are indispensable elements in the means whereby the Gospel message is to reach the ends of the earth. Since the Church produced the scriptures, it is quite biblical, logical and reasonable to say that the Church alone has the authority to interpret properly and apply them. And if this is so, then by reason of its origin and nature, the Bible cannot serve as the only rule of faith for Christian believers. In other words, by producing the Scriptures, the Church does not eliminate the need for itself as teacher and interpreter of those Scriptures.

Moreover, is it not unreasonable to say that simply by putting Apostolic teaching into writing, the Church somehow made that written teaching superior to her oral teaching? Like the teaching organization Our Lord established, His Word is authoritative, but because the word is one form rather than another does not mean one form is to be subjugated to the other. Since God’s one Revelation is twofold in form, to deny the authority of one form would be to deny the authority of the other form as well. The forms of God’s Word are complementary, not competitive. Thus, if there is a need for the Scriptures, there is also a need for the teaching authority which produced them.

But you are speaking from presuppositions that you already believe about the institutional nature of the Church. This is where I struggle the most. I don’t define the “church” the way you do. I define it the way that I see the Bible defining it–the collective body of Christ.

The “Church” per se did not produce the Scriptures, but individual men in the first century produced them and gave them to the Church. They were qualified to do so because of the dilegence the the studied with Luke 1 says that he, individually, studies the evidence. While look was part of the body of Christ, he was not an institutional authority, nor to I see anywhere that he belonged to one. So to say “the Church” produced it, works off a presupposed definition of the Church as an institutional authority that I cannot find in Scripture. This is one of the major differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics. And it is one that I, as a questioner, cannot find justification for.

Great stuff though. Thanks for your continued dilegence to teach me. I am very impressed with your knowledge.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Andreas Hofer:

And I could just be having a memory lapse, here, but what miracles did John the Baptist perform to validate his prophecy?

This is a very good question. I don’t have a really good answer for this. I would rather ignore it, but since I am trying to learn rather than simply defend my bias, I will chew on it for a while. You all are very helpful.

(For those of you who do not know the significance of this quesion that this good man has posed, here it is: I have been arguing from Deut 13 and 18 along with 2 Cor 12:12 that all people who spoke for God had to be verified by some type of attesting sign.
**2 Cor. 12:12 **
[Paul’s arguement to those in Corinth that he is a true apostle and the imposters were not] “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.”)

Initially, however (you knew it was coming), I would say that the miraculous nature of the circumstances of his birth and his verification by Christ (who authenticated Himself by miracles: Jn. 20:30-31) would be a start. I don’t doubt he was a prophet because the Scriptures (which are verified) say he was. Also, didn’t he leap in his mother’s womb when Christ came?

But, to support your argument, if I were alive in his day, I would have said to him, “John, why should I believe that you have come from God?” I think it would be a valid question (just dodge lightning). But then again, he might have done some other things besides that listed above and they are not recorded because Christ affirmed his message.

Thanks for the great challenges. It is very stimulating. I hope that you all are experiencing the same.

Once again, thanks for letting me post here.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp
“The “Church” per se did not produce the Scriptures, but individual men in the first century produced them and gave them to the Church. They were qualified to do so because of the dilegence the the studied with Luke 1 says that he, individually, studies the evidence. While look was part of the body of Christ, he was not an institutional authority, nor to I see anywhere that he belonged to one. So to say “the Church” produced it, works off a presupposed definition of the Church as an institutional authority that I cannot find in Scripture. This is one of the major differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics. And it is one that I, as a questioner, cannot find justification for.”

This presupposition is not all that hard to understand. It is a historical fact the the Church, however you want to define it, existed before one word of Scripture was written down. And while Luke was not an institutional authority he was linked to one–Paul. It is this link that gives his Gospel apostolic authority.

One other question. What is the use of Sola Scriptura if no one can read? This was the condition of most of the people of God until until fairly resently. So, God would give us one “infallible” authority in a book nobody could read until fairly resently? And this is not a case of the authoritarian church keeping people from the word of God. There were other factors as well, like that fact that books were extremely expensive and took a very long time to be produce because they had to be produced by hand. Also, without the advent of the printing press and paper (this didn’t come into europe until the last medieval period), it was not possible for everyone to have one–if they could even read!

In essence what we have here is a Enlightenment bias that tends to view the past in light of the present. Is it not a huge presupposition to think that everyone throughout the history of the Church had the knowledge and access to the Scriptures that makes a doctrine like Sola Scriptura possible?

 

[RMP]

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

OH I see. So the reformers believed that there WOULD be misunderstandings of scripture. But the average Joe bag of dougnuts wouldnt know the difference, hence, we need seminary schools for proper formulation of religious doctrine and thought. (another avenue of authority to teach properly)

So we have an inerrent (not infallable) book that is the sole authority of God’s word, “always reforming”, but there is no one one the planet I can trust to truly reveal what his book means.(objectively by your standards, I havent seen anyone raised front he dead yet myself).
But you say, “I can tell you the correct understanding!” AND I say, “BY what authority?”, and you say, “scripture is my authority.” Then I say, “sorry pal, your interpretation is OLD school, I have the real reformed truth.” It will never end. Im glad this argument ended at the council of trent. It is a shame so many fail to realize it.

Apostolic tradition is the answer, the only answer. It is the only way authority is preserved through history. God chooses who HE wills, not you. Does this upset you? Do you feel left out? You may be called to do God’s will, but you cannot claim God’s authority, with or without the good book. Submit to the one holy catholic Church and its teaching authoruty, instituted by OUR Lord Jesus Christ. To fail to do so is unwise, and eternally unfortunate.

 

[RMP]

The “Church” per se did not produce the Scriptures, but individual men in the first century produced them and gave them to the Church

Well duh, what individual men? Where these “individual men” outside of the church at the time?,or did THEY really start the church themselves? Jesus and the Apostles must have goofed!

“Gave them” to the church? So I guess the sermons were pretty bad until these “individual guys” came along. Surprise, surprise, Jesus stories in a book, wonderful, just what we needed.

I think you need history or tradition to validate these statements? The church? …really… who was the church at the time? These are really some hasty generalizations about important events, wouldnt you say? But you have nothing to substantiate your claims except opinion, or a blatent disregard for Catholic history.

You said “its not too hard”. I beg to differ. It seems to be a stumbling block for you.

Do not take my tone inappropriately, I mean no disrespect to you. But I am truly beginning to hate the reformation and philosophy of it.

 

[dennisknapp]

RMP

“Do not take my tone inappropriately, I mean no disrespect to you. But I am truly beginning to hate the reformation and philosophy of it.”

Let’s not let our emotions stand in the way of true dialog. Michaelp is truely trying to engage us in order to understand. We are here by choice and so is he. We need to have the mercy and compassion Jesus has or we will turn people off. Let’s just stick to the facts as best we can and leave the rest up to God.

I think we are all trying to follow the truth where ever it leads, and that means we are all on a journey. Let’s be understanding of those who may not be on the same road we are on.

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

michaelp
One other question. What is the use of Sola Scriptura if no one can read? This was the condition of most of the people of God until until fairly resently. So, God would give us one “infallible” authority in a book nobody could read until fairly resently? And this is not a case of the authoritarian church keeping people from the word of God. There were other factors as well, like that fact that books were extremely expensive and took a very long time to be produce because they had to be produced by hand. Also, without the advent of the printing press and paper (this didn’t come into europe until the last medieval period), it was not possible for everyone to have one–if they could even read!

I could ask the question another way, what good is any message written or spoken if people cannot hear, read, or see? The answer is that it is the message that Scripture witnesses to that is infallible. So you convey the message. To the degree that your communication adheres to the infallible word of Scripture, your message is true and represents God.

For example, if for some reason we did not have any Scripture today, say I went on a mission trip and they would not allow me to take my Bible, the message is what matters, not the written text.

Good question though.