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

[michaelp]

RMP:

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.

Please forgive me for my sceptical nature. I don’t believe things too easily and I question quite a bit. Just because I have yet to be persuaded by the learning that I am engaged in does not mean you have to hate things.

On to your comment. I don’t see the problem with saying that the Bible was given to the Church. It is not uncommon to speak of people’s gifts (i.e the mesage of Scripture) being given to the Church even though those that gave the message were a part of the church.

Eph. 4
8 Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN."9 (Now this *expression, *“He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)11 And He gave some *as *apostles, and some *as *prophets, and some *as *evangelists, and some *as *pastors and teachers,12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

You see, these all were gifts to the Church at the same time as being a part of the Church. The one who was a prophet (v.11) was given to the Church so that he could speak on behalf of God. Therefore, his message was the gift. So, the Bible can be spoken of as being given to the Church. This is a very Biblical concept.

BTW: I don’t think that it that relavent one way or the other. Or maybe I am misunderstanding the importance of this argument for you view.

Once again, your brother,

Michael

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

michaelp:

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.

That’s because you’re confining a historical search to a book that is not intended to be an exhaustive account of the apostolic Church. I think we agree that not even the Old Testament history, let alone the New, is supposed to tell us every single thing. Actually, we’re told that many things were omitted, at least from the Gospels, which outside of Acts are as close to a history as we can get.

I’m not saying you have to automatically accept that what the primitive Church did must have been correct, that it couldn’t have been perverted during the few decades from the apostles to our earliest solid documents. But still, if you examine the writings of the earliest Fathers, which are a great insight into the structure of the early Church, you see Clement, bishop of Rome, during the life of John, exercising authority over the Church at Corinth despite a still-living apostle much closer to their community. In 160 you can read Justin Martyr’s account of the Christian liturgy, which includes a Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist that essentially form the Mass. Those are just a few examples of a quick look at the world telling you what Scripture fails to cover in detail - a hierarchical, liturgical Church. Things have developed, solidified, been clarified, but that development can also be tracked as organic growth.

The structure of the early Church is an historical phenomenon that can be researched. I know it can be frustrating when there is that slight gap between the apostles and the historical record. But am I crazy for insisting that all those early writings should at least be given a look?

 

[e-catholic]

michaelp:

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

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

Deut. 13
1 "If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

This seems to say that a predicted wonder or sign that comes to pass is insufficient to determine that someone is sent by the lord. ( I think that this sums up the point of the chapter, therefore I didn’t bother to quote it further.)
(continued)

 

[e-catholic]

Deut. 18

22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.

This seems to say that if someone claims to be sent by the Lord, and what he predicts does not come to pass that he has not been sent by the Lord.

Neither of these chapters, (even in the portions not quoted here) suggests that the way to tell if someone is sent by the Lord is exclusively by way of signs and wonders. Certainly if someone prophecies and it does not come to pass, then it is false and cannot possibly be from God. However, if someone prophecies and it comes to pass, it does not necessarily mean that they were sent by God. These same things can also come from evil forces, therefore, depending on signs and wonders could cause you to be misled.

michaelp:

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

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

Michael

Catholics are against continued revelation. There can be no additions to the divine revelation which ended with the death of the last Apostle. Everything that the Catholic Church believes today is rooted in the truth revealed by Christ to the Apostles. Any claim of prophecy, or a vision etc. today must be in line with what was taught by the Apostles. Since the beginning of the Church all truth has been the same, it does not change; however, it does become better understood.

 

[michaelp]

RMP:

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.

From a Protestant perspective, this make little sense. The Sciptures are not THAT hard to understand. You do not give people who were created in the image of God enough credit. There are so many things that are clear. With the things that are not clear, we debate, but don’t divide over. One thing that you don’t understand is that most Protestants do not see the disunity the same way you do. I am unified with many people with whom I disagee on minor issues. I am unified with Arminians, Calvinists, Lutherans, Weslyians, and many other. What unifies us is that which is clear in Scripture. Certianly there are those who would deny essential doctrine, and I do not find unity with them (i.e oneness Pentecostals who deny the Trinity).

We follow by this dictum: “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.”

Maybe we do not have a “said” unity, but we are alot more unified than what has been expressed here on this forum.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Andreas Hofer:

That’s because you’re confining a historical search to a book that is not intended to be an exhaustive account of the apostolic Church. I think we agree that not even the Old Testament history, let alone the New, is supposed to tell us every single thing. Actually, we’re told that many things were omitted, at least from the Gospels, which outside of Acts are as close to a history as we can get.

I’m not saying you have to automatically accept that what the primitive Church did must have been correct, that it couldn’t have been perverted during the few decades from the apostles to our earliest solid documents. But still, if you examine the writings of the earliest Fathers, which are a great insight into the structure of the early Church, you see Clement, bishop of Rome, during the life of John, exercising authority over the Church at Corinth despite a still-living apostle much closer to their community. In 160 you can read Justin Martyr’s account of the Christian liturgy, which includes a Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist that essentially form the Mass. Those are just a few examples of a quick look at the world telling you what Scripture fails to cover in detail - a hierarchical, liturgical Church. Things have developed, solidified, been clarified, but that development can also be tracked as organic growth.

The structure of the early Church is an historical phenomenon that can be researched. I know it can be frustrating when there is that slight gap between the apostles and the historical record. But am I crazy for insisting that all those early writings should at least be given a look?

You would be surprized how much I consult the early church fathers. I am certianly not against this. Do you think that I am? All I believe is that they are fallible as I am, so I must read them with decernment, giving them great respect at the same time.

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp
“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.”

Does this make sense? If the people could not read and so have the knowledge which the Scripture witnesses to, how would they know they are communicating that? Your arguement about taking a missions trip to a place where you can not take your bible does not follow, for you are presupposing that there is a bible availible somewhere for you too read, if the opportunity presented itself. What I am saying is that you are 3rd century peasant who does not have one inkling of how to read or write. Even if you had access to a million copies of the Scripture you couldn’t cleam one bit of information. So, how do you as a 3rd century peasant gain the knowledge you would need in order to make a right choice in regards to the faith?

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

michaelp
“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.”

Does this make sense? If the people could not read and so have the knowledge which the Scripture witnesses to, how would they know they are communicating that? Your arguement about taking a missions trip to a place where you can not take your bible does not follow, for you are presupposing that there is a bible availible somewhere for you too read, if the opportunity presented itself. What I am saying is that you are 3rd century peasant who does not have one inkling of how to read or write. Even if you had access to a million copies of the Scripture you couldn’t cleam one bit of information. So, how do you as a 3rd century peasant gain the knowledge you would need in order to make a right choice in regards to the faith?

We are just jumping back and forth from thread to thread!

But the message of Scripture did exist in both written form and tradition. It was completed in written form in the first century. To the degree that the tradition adhere to the Scripture, it was true. The same would be the case on my missions trip. My message would have to adhere to the Apostle’s teaching that was recorded in Scripture and passed on by various means in the first century, as it is today (hence, my missionary story).

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp

“But the message of Scripture did exist in both written form and tradition. It was completed in written form in the first century. To the degree that the tradition adhere to the Scripture, it was true. The same would be the case on my missions trip. My message would have to adhere to the Apostle’s teaching that was recorded in Scripture and passed on by various means in the first century, as it is today (hence, my missionary story).”

So, you would have to rely on oral tradition and Church authority. Well, atleast until you could read and write and could raise out of extreme poverty and earn enough money to, not only feed you 11 children, but buy a hand written calf-skin bible. Then you would have all you needed to finally be able to truely understand what Christ expects and desires of you. But until that time you are going to have to rely on the Church to tell you what is true and which books you are going to have in that nice bible you are working so hard for. But in time… I am trying to be entertaining…and it is late, sorry. I hope my point came through, thou.

 

[AServantofGod]

michaelp:

Bless you my son.

My daughter but no harm done.

Good luck with your quest!

 

[mercygate]

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.

This cannot be repeated often enough. (And lets not go to “impeccability” right now but we need a cheat-sheet for that one right alongside of these two.)

 

[JPrejean]

michaelp:

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.

Not in the least. Fallibility is only relevant if the authority is used to resolve a dispute (viz., when there is a decision to be made, and it is possible to get the decision wrong). From the perspective of someone subject to the authority, it doesn’t matter fwhether that decision is right or wrong, because even if you disagree, you are still bound to obey. Consequently, any source whose persuasiveness depends on whether you accept its counsel or not (such as the counselors that you describe) is NOT an authority in this context. It has no power to bind you.

The only practical difference between a fallible authority and an infallible authority is that disputes resolved by an infallible authority cannot be later be corrected (they are “irreformable”). In other words, once that authority resolves a dispute, that resolution can never again be challenged if the authority is infallible (since the authority can never erroneously resolve a dispute). As a practical matter, that is all an “infallible authority” means…

When you say Scripture is the only infallible authority, I confess to having absolutely no idea what that means. As far as I can tell, that would mean that every dispute resolved using Scripture would be correct and irreformable. If, on the other hand, it is possible to resolve a dispute wrongly using Scripture, then Scripture is a fallible authority, not an infallible authority. Now I’ve heard the protest that it’s not Scripture that’s infallible in those cases, but the humans interpreting Scripture. But again, that’s a distinction without a difference. If the way in which Scripture resolves disputes is by people interpreting it, then for it to be an infallible authority, it must resolve disputes infallibly when that authority is invoked. That is why Catholics do not refer to Scripture as being “infallible” (making no mistakes in resolving disputes) but instead as “inerrant” (containing no errors in what it teaches).

So my question is: In what sense can Scripture be considered an authority at all in the sense of resolving disputes, and if it is an authority, how could it possible be considered infallible?

 

[michaelp]

JPrejean:

So my question is: In what sense can Scripture be considered an authority at all in the sense of resolving disputes, and if it is an authority, how could it possible be considered infallible?

This is a rather odd question and it is hard to believe that you are serious about it. I think that I must be really not seeing your perspective. I think of 2 Tim 3:16-17 and say, if he is right, this verse is wrong. I think of Ps. 119. If God’s word is not an authority, I don’t know what this passage is about either. Scripture is not cannot be profitable for correction and reproof if it is not infallible.

Interestingly, the terms infallible and inerrant stem from different battles that are taking place on two fronts. In contemporary Protestantism, if you say the Bible is not enerrant, but it is infallible, many would take that to mean that you are a liberal Protestant. Most would simply mean by infallible is that it cannot fail to tell the truth. In other words, its truth is not relative to only one culture. It is infallible in all cultures. But it is also in enerrant in that it cannot in that it does not contain any errors, historical or theological.

Now, as for authority. There are different levels of authority in all our lives. This is easy to demonstrate from the Bible. The Government is an authority. But when it conflicts with God’s word (the higher authority) who do we follow? The higher authority. Our parents our an authority. But if they were to tell us to follow Satan, we would disregard that authority on the basis of a higher authority. The same is true with the Church. It is an authority, but if it disagrees with God, then we “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Hope you understand now. There is always different levels of authority. But the only verified infallible (and enerrant) authority is God’s word as expressed through Scripture.

Michael

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

michaelp:

This is a rather odd question and it is hard to believe that you are serious about it. I think that I must be really not seeing your perspective. I think of 2 Tim 3:16-17 and say, if he is right, this verse is wrong. I think of Ps. 119. If God’s word is not an authority, I don’t know what this passage is about either. Scripture is not cannot be profitable for correction and reproof if it is not infallible.

Scripture can very easily be profitable for correction without being the sole, infallible authority for resolving dispute (that’s for present purposes ignoring the real distinction between inerrancy and infallibility). To say that something is profitable for reproof does not mean it is in and of itself sufficient for reproof. A prime example would be the controversy over the relationship between faith and works. Paul says we are saved by grace through faith, James says rather explicitly that we are not saved by faith alone. So in arguing with a Pelagian, appeals to Paul would be very profitable, but fail to do justice to the whole picture (by the way, if Scripture is so easy to understand why is that doctrine so hotly contended - it is rather central to salvation, yet not even all Protestants can agree on it, let alone with Catholics). There’s also the Eucharist, before even moving beyond the Last Supper account you’ll be arguing with me over what the meaning of the word “is” is.
I would also be careful about appeals to second Timothy to back up sola scriptura because verse 15 indicates that he has known the Scriptures from childhood - thus, on top of the book not actually saying Scripture is sufficient it is also referring only to the Old Testament.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

michaelp:

But the message of Scripture did exist in both written form and tradition. It was completed in written form in the first century. To the degree that the tradition adhere to the Scripture, it was true.

That’s actually backwards. No one at the time was sure as to exactly what books actually were Scripture. The Shepherd of Hermas was read in Rome for quite some time. Many pseudoevangelia were written. In discerning which books to accept, one criterion for canonicity was whether a book adhered to the teaching of the Church, her Tradition.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

michaelp:

From a Protestant perspective, this make little sense. The Sciptures are not THAT hard to understand. You do not give people who were created in the image of God enough credit. There are so many things that are clear. With the things that are not clear, we debate, but don’t divide over. One thing that you don’t understand is that most Protestants do not see the disunity the same way you do. I am unified with many people with whom I disagee on minor issues. I am unified with Arminians, Calvinists, Lutherans, Weslyians, and many other. What unifies us is that which is clear in Scripture. Certianly there are those who would deny essential doctrine, and I do not find unity with them (i.e oneness Pentecostals who deny the Trinity).

Not that hard to understand? Well, Peter, in 2 Pet 3:16 tells us that some things in Paul’s writings are “hard to understand”, which leads the ignorant and unstable to twist them, as well as the rest of Scripture, to their own destruction. Did Peter mean that many non-essential doctrines (a novel concept in itself) are hard to understand and that by “their own destruction” he meant insignificant disagreements, whereas all the essential doctrines will be as easy as you make them out to be?

 

[michaelp]

Andreas Hofer:

That’s actually backwards. No one at the time was sure as to exactly what books actually were Scripture. The Shepherd of Hermas was read in Rome for quite some time. Many pseudoevangelia were written. In discerning which books to accept, one criterion for canonicity was whether a book adhered to the teaching of the Church, her Tradition.

Just because people were not sure which books were Scripture does not mean that there is no Scripture, does it? Does it not exist until we know that it does? It’s like saying gravity did not exist until we defined what it was since there was so many different interpretations of it before Newton. But this is not true, gavity existed either way. It did not come into existence or power only when it was defined. And it did not need anyone to define it before it could do its job.

The same is true with Scripture, since Scripture is God’s word and God’s word is truth. No one needs to define it before it comes into being. People just need to recognize it.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Andreas Hofer:

Not that hard to understand? Well, Peter, in 2 Pet 3:16 tells us that some things in Paul’s writings are “hard to understand”, which leads the ignorant and unstable to twist them, as well as the rest of Scripture, to their own destruction. Did Peter mean that many non-essential doctrines (a novel concept in itself) are hard to understand and that by “their own destruction” he meant insignificant disagreements, whereas all the essential doctrines will be as easy as you make them out to be?

That is right SOME THINGS are hard to understand. This is far from “all things.” And it is even further from a mandate saying “therefore you need a institutionalized church that will interpret it for you because EVERYONE else is not qualified.” No, it is only the untaught and unstable. That is why study is sometimes (to quote George Bush) “Hard Work.” It take the desire of your heart and the sweat of your brow.

Michael

 

[e-catholic]

michaelp:

The same is true with Scripture, since Scripture is God’s word and God’s word is truth. No one needs to define it before it comes into being. People just need to recognize it.

Michael

How would those pryor to the time that scripture was defined recognize it? How would they know the truth when it was not neatly put in front of them in the cannon of scripture?

Many years passed between the death of Christ, the death of the Apostles, and the writings of the gospels (in most cases). How then could this be infallible? Where are the signs that tell us that these authors (some unknown) are infallible?

 

[michaelp]

e-catholic:

How would those pryor to the time that scripture was defined recognize it? How would they know the truth when it was not neatly put in front of them in the cannon of scripture?

Many years passed between the death of Christ, the death of the Apostles, and the writings of the gospels (in most cases). How then could this be infallible? Where are the signs that tell us that these authors (some unknown) are infallible?

How did Christ and the Apostle’s know what was the truth. Did they have Scipture? Did they use it authoritatively? If so, how did they know?

Michael