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

  • Thread starter Thread starter michaelp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Once again to you all,

I will have to pull out of this conversation for a while. I hope that you all have gained as much as I have from this. I think that I better understand your positions. Becuase of this, I promise not to misrepresent you in any of my teachings. I have been further pursuaded by you all about the importance of tradition and I greatly respect your views, even if I disagree.

Many of you have been kind and gracious. I hope that I have been the same with you. I feel as if many of you are my friends. You will see me around soon, but please do not be offended if I do not answer any more for a while. And, also, please do not think that I have given up learning from you all.

Your brother in Christ,

Michael
 
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/post_old.gif Today, 09:28 AM
michaelp http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_online.gif

Did you know that you have espoused Islamic beliefs?

You are saying you want to use Scripture and Scripture only to resolve questions! That is the way of Islam! Muslims use only their Koran…their equavalent of our Bible. You are like them.

Catholic Faith and Truth is as a three-legged stool. Three-legged stools are very stable - as opposed to a one-legged stool! We Catholics know the three legs of Catholocism are:
  1. The Scriptures ( all of them)
  2. The wisdom of the Magisterium
  3. Jesus said He would all ways be with the church, so the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium.
 
40.png
michaelp:
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
Click to expand...
What you say is true, not all things are hard to understand, but which things are those that are hard and which are not? Just believing you have a good grasp on things does not mean you understand well. The untaught and unstable were pretty sure they were getting things right.

Untaught also covers a much broader group of people than you seem to recognize. For the vast majority of history most of humanity has been untaught by modern standards. If untaught means uninitiated in Christian doctrine then most of the “taught” had become so through oral teaching and not through study of Scripture because 90% of the population could not read. If untaught refers to lack of training in Scripture study, once again most everyone is untaught because your average Christian is not fluent in ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek as well as being well-instructed in Near Eastern history from 1500 bc to ad 100 in order to complement their study of hermeneutical techniques. Plus, who is teaching people to avoid these pitfalls? Are they all self-taught or have they received instruction in the faith from someone else?

On top of that, it seems that a major consequence of sola scriptura is that the untaught are supposed to have little to no difficulty understanding the Scriptures because the Word of God has a plain sense.
 
40.png
michaelp:
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
Click to expand...
Well, Christ was (and is) God, therefore he knew the truth. The Apostles knew Christ, and Christ taught them the truth, and gave them the job of spreading the truth.

Christ and the Apostles had Jewish scripture, but even that varied from one community to another. Some jewish communities used books that others did not.

How then do we know that the Gospels are infallible (by your original assertion of signs etc.) if the Apostles were dead? We know how Christ and the Apostles knew the truth, but what about after them? Why wouldn’t the truth be lost? Most scholors believe that the Gospels were written by people who did not know the Apostles, and certainly didn’t know Christ.
 
Thanks for participating, michaelp. Just to explain one point of difference, you said:
Scripture is not cannot be profitable for correction and reproof if it is not infallible.
Click to expand...
Maybe not infallible, but it does need to be authoritiative in some way. The trick is figuring out who has authority to correct and reprove, how they obtain it, and how they are confirmed in the faith. Those are some of the questions that Catholicism answers.
 
40.png
michaelp:
I recived this question in another post. I have seen it many times throughout this forum. I think that there are many misunderstanding concerning the Protestant understanding of sola scriptura among RCs. I hope to help clarify here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisknapp
I have a question for you–Where do you find the belief in Sola Scriptura anywhere in the Church prior to the 1600’s?

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).

If someone were to do this, I would believe that they speak for God because God’s word compels me to do so. Therefore, sola scriptura is not an absolute statement that says that there cannot be any other infallible revelation that binds us. It just simply says that God is not speaking through VERIFIED prophets or apostles today. Therefore, the only VERIFIED source that we have right now is the Scripture–sola scriptura.

The problem that I have with the Pope, traditions, and the Magisterium is that they do not follow the pattern that God laid out for those who claim to speak for him (Deut 13 and 18). I certainly would be willing to follow the Pope if he met this criteria. But, from what I know, he has neither predicted the future nor shown and signs of an apostle that would compel me in any way. I am bound by Scripture to these guidelines.

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
Click to expand...
 
HELLO, WE MET ON ANOTHER POST. I WAS THE ONE WHO SAID A SIMPLE PRAYER AND GOD BROUGHT ME TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. PLEASE, DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE POPE, JESUS GAVE HIM THE JOB. DO YOU KNOW WHO PUT SCRIPTURE IN CANON? THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DID.HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY JUDAS HAD TO BE REPLACED?HAVE YOU EVER SEEN PRIEST OR BISHOPS ORDAINED,THE LAYING ON OF HANDS.WHY DID JESUS BREATH THE HOLY SPIRIT ON THE APOSTLES,AND TELL THEM,GO FORGIVE MENS SINS,WHOSE SINS YOU FORGIVE ARE FORGIVEN WHOSE SINS YOU RETAIN ARE RETAINED?DID YOU KNOW THAT ST. PETER THE APOSTLE IS DIRECTLY BELOW THE VATICANS MAIN ALTER?YOU ARE PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT.LOVE THE POPE AND THE MAGESTARIUM!THE CHURCH IS AWSOME, PRAY ABOUT IT.BE VERY SPECIFIC AND ABANDON YOUR WILL TO GOD,ASK HIM TO LEAD YOU TO THE CHURCH HE FOUNDED.GOD BLESS
 
40.png
michaelp:
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
Click to expand...
Don’t put words in my mouth, now. I never said that Scripture magically became such only when it was declared to be so. What I did say, however, is that it your assertion that the teaching of the early Christians was only acceptable if it stood the test of Scripture is false. It must be false because it was the teaching of the Church that put writings to the test in order to discern whether or not they were scriptural. One of the two had to be accepted in order to test the other, and in this case it was the accepted oral teaching that was used to judge the writings.
 
40.png
michaelp:
I recived this question in another post. I have seen it many times throughout this forum. I think that there are many misunderstanding concerning the Protestant understanding of sola scriptura among RCs. I hope to help clarify here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisknapp
I have a question for you–Where do you find the belief in Sola Scriptura anywhere in the Church prior to the 1600’s?

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).
Michael
Click to expand...
To Michaelp,
A lot of posts here…I’ve read through many but not all. Hope it’s not to old for another reply. I don’t agree with your basic assertions from Dt 13 that all prophets must perform wondrous signs. Not all of the OT prophets performed signs let alone raised the dead, etc. I think the import this passage is that no matter how convincing one may have been, their teaching must agree with Yahwistic doctrine. Dt.18 is self explanatory and an example can be found in Acts 11:27. Yet, even though the prophecy of Agabus came to pass, there is no mention of miraculous signs. 2 Cor 12:12 can be referenced to 1 Cor 2:4. Here Paul admits “in fear and trembling” that he did not speak in with philosophical wisdom so as to convince his listeners but relied on the power of the Holy Spirit. No signs are mentioned. Secondly, I believe the claim of the Catholic Church regarding the primacy of Peter and his successors is verifiable. Scripturally it is attested to in Mt 16. The keys are the symbol of authority, cf Is 21-22. David Currie, in his book Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic p.81ff, writes “The keys to rule the Church permanently were given to Peter and to his successors in Rome, not even to the other apostles…” The reliability of Christ to safeguard His church even against the gates of hell is the power behind the infallability of the Pope in matter of faith and morals. Neither did He say to Peter “Go and build me a Church.” He said, “On this rock I will build my Church.” Read the Fathers, they verify the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and other claims of the Church. Remember, Christ did not come to earth and leave us a bible without a guide so that people would be constantly at odds over what is inspired and what does it mean. He left us a teaching Church, with His authority which, at the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419 established what would be included in the scriptures and did so by His authority. Again Mt 16 “Whatever you delared bound on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Powerful words. God bless you on your journey.
May the peace of Christ be with you.
 
40.png
banjo:
To Michaelp,
A lot of posts here…I’ve read through many but not all. Hope it’s not to old for another reply.Mt 16 “Whatever you delared bound on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Powerful words. God bless you on your journey.
May the peace of Christ be with you.
Click to expand...
An also with you.
It is never too late to post, as long as the thread is open.

BTW cudos on your excellent exposition here.

God bless.
 
40.png
neophyte:
Michael,

Jesus told the Apostles:

Was He wrong? He must’ve been if the Reformers were right.
Click to expand...
Who are you talking about here? Are you saying that all catholics are right? And if you are just referring to ordained leadership then are you saying that not one single ordained leader (priest etc) has turned away from the Lord or grown slack in their faith? If they have then isn’t possible for them to be in error?

Jeff
 
But don’t you think that although, yes scripture is infallible it is not complete. there are things that i am sure paul did not include in his letters and there are things, as noted in the end of john, that were not written down. The bible is a tool. It is not everything. If it was, JESUS would have had a scribe. But he didn’t. What he did do is start a church and gave apostles authority over it.

Do you think Jesus didn’t know what he was doing? Do you think he didn’t know the nature of man? Was Jesus not GOD? Does he make mistakes? I think not. Jesus knew what would happen to his church and he entrusted it to men! He said what you bind here will be bound in heaven. NOT what you bind here that is also in scripture will be bound in heaven.

Simply put, Jesus made the bible incomplete so that we would need to keep in a covenant relationship with his church. Otherwise we would not need the church. The bible is exactly how he wants it. But our unruly nature, as usual, is disobedient to his commands and thus we need to “see it in writing”. We no longer believe what we cannot see, even if Jesus promised it.
 
40.png
michaelp:
40.png
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. ***
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
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.
Notice your comments that I have underlined and think about way back before printed Bibles. I think you will see that people would’ve developed a way to know if communication was adhering to the infallible word of Scripture. They would have people that had this authority. They would’ve had Bishops and Priests who all sent the same message. To keep communication straight, there needs to be a Magisterium so that no individual is interpretting Scripture in a way that is incorrect and then spreading this around. The Church would be one. Not divided, but one Church, one body of christ. Protestantism destroys this, doesn’t it. It leads to confusion. We should be unified or it should be a universal Church. The only way to keep people unified and protect the truth is to have a protector, a shepherd, a POPE. This may be hard to accept, but is not hard to understand.

I’ve read through this whole thread including your original post that sola scripture is misunderstood. I feel for you. It must be quite frustrating. It seems that you have a desire to do what was already done. I think you want to bring all Protestants under one tent. You want all of them informed. This shows that you are caring and serious about your faith.

I do hope you get the book Jesus, Peter and the Keys. It will give you a better idea of who the Pope is. I don’t think he is a prophet speaking for God. He is our shepherd protecting our flock. The Church is our guide and guided by the Holy Spirit because Jesus said he would send the holy spirit. Read the book and give it some thought.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...
Andreas, I am not able to follow this discussion very well because the thread is slightly too long for the time I have to spend following it. So this question may be off thread.

Your basic argument is that the apostles held to practices that are not recorded in scripture. This of course is an appeal to tradition. What are the traditions that the apostles held to that were handed down through the church but were not found in scripture?
Andreas Hofer:
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.
Click to expand...
However Clement was not correcting them on doctrine. He was correcting them on conduct. For that matter we find Paul correcting Peter on his conduct. So can’t the same argument be made for Paul?

Jeff
 
Nice Jeff. I think that you are on to something in your posts. Thanks for your insights.

I just thought that I would step in to say that while I am not directly involved anymore, I am still watching and enjoying this thread!!

Michael
 
interesting thread. i was not aware of nuances in the belief of sola Scriptura. it seems what you are saying is that the cause of division amongst us is not accepting Church authority. As Newman said, sometimes clarifying the real grounds of disagreement does a lot of good even if we still don’t agree. i am curious, though, why any one would call the Bible infallible. It seems what you mean is inerrant, without error. Infallible seems to mean something closer to “cannot miss” than “without error.” There is a distinction between never being wrong and the ability to give correct guidance. Papal teaching against artificial birth control, for instance, has never changed, but the philosophical paradigms used to explain it have shifted from natural law to personalism. Philosophical paradigms, like scientific ones, shift. They involve different metaphorical visions of the universe. Einstein’s physics does not build on Newtonian physics, though they can both be used to acheive some of the same things. Infallibility implies the inability to make the wrong decisions, not the inability to give wrong information. God of course is infallible and the Bible is His word and inerrant. Is what you are saying is that the infallibility of the Pope is unnecessary because the Bible is inerrant? John
 
Thank you, Michaelp, for a pleasant discussion.

I was looking for John the baptist’s sign or miracle, and came to this verse:

John 10:41.

I, too, am sure John was a prophet. It’s a good challenge.
 
This is very interesting. I think we can all agree that John the Baptist was a prophet/spoke for God. Logically, then we can conclude that “signs and wonders” are not a prerequisite for believing that someone speaks on God’s behalf.

If that is the case then there need be no requirement for the Pope (or any bishop for that matter) to work “signs and wonders” in order for us to believe that he (they) speak on God’s behalf and obey their authority.

This, then, should remove one big obstacle for those who claim that they would recognize the Pope’s authority to speak on God’s behalf if only he would work “signs and wonders”.
 
40.png
jphilapy:
Your basic argument is that the apostles held to practices that are not recorded in scripture. This of course is an appeal to tradition. What are the traditions that the apostles held to that were handed down through the church but were not found in scripture?

Jeff
Click to expand...
Here are a few:
  1. The Liturgy.
  2. The Rite of Baptism
  3. The quotations of Christ found in St. Clement and St. Justin Martyr’s writings.
  4. The 50 (85) Apostolic Canons
  5. The interpretation of the Scriptures that Christ is God, and not simply a Divine Creature.
  6. The Tradition that the Four Gospels are authentic, and written by Ss. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
  7. The Tradition that St. Paul’s writings are to be accepted, and not discarded on the grounds that he was an apostate from the law, and clearly in contradiction with the view of the Law found in the Gospels.
 
40.png
mtr01:
This is very interesting. I think we can all agree that John the Baptist was a prophet/spoke for God. Logically, then we can conclude that “signs and wonders” are not a prerequisite for believing that someone speaks on God’s behalf.

If that is the case then there need be no requirement for the Pope (or any bishop for that matter) to work “signs and wonders” in order for us to believe that he (they) speak on God’s behalf and obey their authority.

This, then, should remove one big obstacle for those who claim that they would recognize the Pope’s authority to speak on God’s behalf if only he would work “signs and wonders”.
Click to expand...
Not at all. There were many cases where someone spoke the word of God but did not have sign and wonders themselves, but there was ALWAYS someone who did have signs and wonders that authenticated their message. This is called the apostolic umbrella. John the Baptist was authenticated by Christ’s own testimony or you and I would not have any way to believe that what he said was true. Paul verified Luke’s writings.

This is the norm. Read 2 Cor. 12:12. If you did not have the signs, don’t try to speak on behalf of God. There is no reason for anyone to believe you.

Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top