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

[mtr01]

michaelp:

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.

I’m sorry, but this reasoning leads to an infinite regress of “who verifies whom”. Who verified Paul’s writings, Peter? Who verified Peter’s writings? and so on. Besides, were the Jews who followed John before Jesus’ ministry wrong to follow him, since he hadn’t been “authenticated” at that point?

michaelp:

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

I thought we already established the John did not have the signs. I guess by your logic he was wrong to speak on God’s behalf since he “did not have the signs”, or that no one should have believed him prior to Jesus’s ministry.

Besides, this is really a less than convincing argument. As GULaw pointed out way back you are engaging in poor argumentation by taking the specific “requirements” for a prophet (although as we see, they are not truly requirements) and applying them to anyone who speaks on behalf of God. That is faulty reasoning. For as St. Paul tells us:

Eph 4:7 But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ.
Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith: Ascending on high, he led captivity captive: he gave gifts to men.
Eph 4:9 Now that he ascended, what is it, but because he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens: that he might fill all things.
Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the word of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ

Clearly, different “offices” have different gifts. The issue you fail to grasp is that the Pope is a bishop (pastor). He is not an apostle, nor a prophet. So my question to you is, on what logical or scriptural basis do you demand that a bishop display the gifts of an apostle? Again, St. Paul tells us that different gifts were given to different people for different reasons, which ultimately builds up the Body of Christ:

1Co 12:7 And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit.
1Co 12:8 To one indeed, by the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom: and to another, the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit:
1Co 12:9 To another, faith in the same spirit: to another, the grace of healing in one Spirit:
1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles: to another, prophecy: to another, the discerning of spirits: to another, diverse kinds of tongues: to another, interpretation of speeches.
1Co 12:11 But all these things, one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will.
1Co 12:12 For as the body is one and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body: So also is Christ.

It seems pretty clear to me that apostles don’t necessarily have the same gifts as bishops (pastors), not to mention that not everyone within a particular “office” would even get the same gifts. On what basis do you contend that your argument is valid?

Is it possible that you eisogesis is nothing more than rationalization in order to avoid the implications of not being in communion with Christ’s Church and Vicar?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

michaelp:

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

Hmm, I don’t quite understand what comfort the apostolic umbrella would give to anyone. The purpose of John was to testify to Jesus. It was John’s purpose to prepare people for Jesus, not the other way around. I can’t see how John’s testimony about Jesus was of any value unless people already believed in John as a prophet. Clearly there was some reason other than miracles which led people to believe that john was a prophet.
Peerhaps it was the office that John was entitled to?
Zechariah offered incense in the temple, and hence had to be a Aaronite priest. John, was, therefore by birth a high priest.
Clearly, miracles would not be needed in that case.

 

[mtr01]

Huiou Theou:

Hmm, I don’t quite understand what comfort the apostolic umbrella would give to anyone. The purpose of John was to testify to Jesus. It was John’s purpose to prepare people for Jesus, not the other way around. I can’t see how John’s testimony about Jesus was of any value unless people already believed in John as a prophet. Clearly there was some reason other than miracles which led people to believe that john was a prophet.
Peerhaps it was the office that John was entitled to?
Zechariah offered incense in the temple, and hence had to be a Aaronite priest. John, was, therefore by birth a high priest.
Clearly, miracles would not be needed in that case.

Excellent points, Huiou. Indeed it would make no sense that John would have to be authenticated by Jesus, when John’s whole ministry was to prepare the way for Him.

 

[michaelp]

Obvously the jury was still out on John by the time that Christ came. Some believed he might be a prophet some did not. We only find out who He was because of Christ. His testimony alone did not have the authority to authenticate Christ as the messiah, he just paved the way. Christ’s miracles and signs proved who he was. Christ then authenticated John. Notice here. People learn who John is by Christ.

**Matthew 11:7-11 **7 As these men were going away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John, "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 8 "But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Those who wear soft *clothing *are in kings’ palaces! 9 "But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and one who is more than a prophet. 10 "This is the one about whom it is written, ‘BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU.’ 11 "Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen *anyone *greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

So you see. There is not a person who ever spoke for God who was not directly or indirectly verified by some sort of signs and wonders. How would you expect people to believe. Otherwise, ANYONE can show up on the scene and claim to be from God and be infallible. Why should we believe?

Paul tells us:
**2 Corinthians 12:12 **12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.

An aposte was one who spoke for God with autority. All people who do so must show signs.

Michael

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I have read, and reread, the text you are quoting in support of you position and I still don’t get it.

Jesus is not telling us who John is on his own authority (why, he wants all to come to him, not go to John). So this ‘veification’ does not help John. There was no point in verifying John (As John himself says, I must decrease and he must increase). What Jesus is doing here is teaching people his own greatness by invoking the scripture which refers to John.

So, suppose the Pope was ‘verified’ in a similar fashion, when it was too late? would that do any good? The reason John was useful in preparing the way of Jesus was because people already knew him to be a prophet.
John is useless if he needs to be verified by Jesus – and John was not useless. ( As an aside: anyone who came to John had to risk that he was a fake. ).

A sign is one kind of verification, but many people will not believe in signs – even if one should rise from the dead.
I have heard deconstructions where every miracle of Jesus is reduced to a natural event. Should I dig up historical records of past popes miracles it would do no good. ( To be cannonized as a saint, such a miracle is a requirement now even for a Pope. The miracle is seen to ‘verify’ the Pope’s sainthood, but not his being a spokesman for God (prophet). ).

What you offer me is that Scripture’s testimony is sufficient to verify John. There is no miracle here from John, only from Jesus.

Then why not accept scripture as ‘verifying’ the Pope?
Why the double standard? What is generically different about the pope? John was ‘verified’ after the fact, but scripture verifies the ‘Rock’ beforehand.

Again, John was an Aronite priest, the whole line of Aronite priests were consecrated prophets by God in the old testament.
People KNEW John had the charism of prophet, but they had to risk that John was not playing them false somehow as even a prophet could.

( Caiphas comes to mind, but his wicked prophecy was still true. Again, what miracle did Caiphas perform? )

 

[mercygate]

Huiou Theou:

I have read, and reread, the text you are quoting in support of you position and I still don’t get it. . . .

A sign is one kind of verification, but many people will not believe in signs – even if one should rise from the dead. . . .

Then why not accept scripture as ‘verifying’ the Pope?
Why the double standard? What is generically different about the pope? John was ‘verified’ after the fact, but scripture verifies the ‘Rock’ beforehand.

Good points Huiou. See also Mt. 16:4 and Lk. 11:29 – an evil and adulterous generation that “seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except thesign of Jonah.”

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

An aposte was one who spoke for God with autority. All people who do so must show signs.

Michael

Again you assume this without demonstrating it to be the case. As I mentioned before, the Pope is a bishop, not an Apostle. Where is the Scriptural evidence that a bishop (pastor) must have the same gifts as an apostle? Fact is, there is none, and Paul in the Scriptures I quoted earlier contradicts your assertion.

 

[michaelp]

mtr01:

Again you assume this without demonstrating it to be the case. As I mentioned before, the Pope is a bishop, not an Apostle. Where is the Scriptural evidence that a bishop (pastor) must have the same gifts as an apostle? Fact is, there is none, and Paul in the Scriptures I quoted earlier contradicts your assertion.

With all due respect, MT, this is simply the fallacy of ambiguity or theological slight of hand.

1. Def of Pope/bishop: Successor of the apostles who speaks on behalf of God with infallible authority.
2. Def. of Apostle: one who speaks on behalf of God with infallible authority.

The reason why #2 must to show the signs is because of its speaking on behalf of God. Therefore, #1 must as well. Unless you want to change the definition and take of the Pope extracting infallible authority. Then you would be in agreement with Protestants. If not, I don’t see how you get by this just by saying that a pope is not technically an Apostle even though He carries the same authority that required signs and wonders.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Jesus is not telling us who John is on his own authority (why, he wants all to come to him, not go to John). So this ‘veification’ does not help John.

Christ’s verification does not help John??? Wow! OK. I know you believe this, but I will just have to disagee.

There was no point in verifying John (As John himself says, I must decrease and he must increase).

John’s statement has no bearing on this issue one way or the other. John was simply saying that Now that Christ’s ministry has begun, his is over. People CAN have ministries without being thought of as infallible or being verified. Christ’s testimony of John gives him legitimacy beyond a doubt.

What Jesus is doing here is teaching people his own greatness by invoking the scripture which refers to John.

And proclaiming to the crowed and us who he was. The one who was sent to pave the way.

So, suppose the Pope was ‘verified’ in a similar fashion, when it was too late?

Too late. John simply fullfilled the prophecy. Christ came DURING the ministry of John. Maybe within months. How is this “too late”?

The reason John was useful in preparing the way of Jesus was because people already knew him to be a prophet.

What exactly was this “usefulness”?

A sign is one kind of verification, but many people will not believe in signs – even if one should rise from the dead.

True, but this did not stop Paul from saying that one who spoke on behalf of God MUST be varified by them.

I have heard deconstructions where every miracle of Jesus is reduced to a natural event. Should I dig up historical records of past popes miracles it would do no good. ( To be cannonized as a saint, such a miracle is a requirement now even for a Pope. The miracle is seen to ‘verify’ the Pope’s sainthood, but not his being a spokesman for God (prophet). ).

No one denied the miracles of Christ or the Apostle when they did them. They were indisputable. They just did not believe in the source. But they still did them. I have never heard or seen the Pope do a miracle. Has He ever heald anyone? Has he ever raised the dead. The current Pope has not.

What you offer me is that Scripture’s testimony is sufficient to verify John. There is no miracle here from John, only from Jesus.

This is the apostolic umbrella. Can you tell me of ONE person who ever spoke on behalf of God who did not have a verified apostle or prophet to verify or discredit his or her message?

This is God’s norm for those who claim to speak on behalf of Him infallibly. Do you think God suddenly quit caring about the verification of His word. What would stop anyone for claiming to speak on behalf of Him?

Then why not accept scripture as ‘verifying’ the Pope?

I would, but there is nothing that would suggest implicitly, explicity, by precept, or practice that there was some infallible succession of Popes and bishops that is used only when they in succession or ex cathedria. This is alot to pile on the the Scriptures.

But you are right. If the Scriptures taught it, it would be varified.

Why the double standard? What is generically different about the pope? John was ‘verified’ after the fact, but scripture verifies the ‘Rock’ beforehand.

Yes, with a massive amount of scriptural eisogesis.

( Caiphas comes to mind, but his wicked prophecy was still true. Again, what miracle did Caiphas perform? )

Neither he nor his listeners knew that he was speaking infallibly. We only know because it was verified by and established apostle. Again, this supports my points very strongly.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

mercygate:

Good points Huiou. See also Mt. 16:4 and Lk. 11:29 – an evil and adulterous generation that “seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except thesign of Jonah.”

This is silly to apply out of context. Obviously, God is the one who requires signs from those who claim to speak on behalf of Him. See Deut 13, 18 and 2 Cor. 12:12.

Michael

 

[TNT]

michaelp:

I am completely open to having verified prophets who speak for God today. I have never met or seen one. But they just must follow the criteria that is layed out in Scripture. This only seems reasonable. Read Deut 13 and 18.

Christ also says in Heb 13 that he will be with all believers, this does not mean that all people have the ability to prophetically speak for God.

I respectfully must say that the passage in Matt 16 does not nulify the criteria of a prophet. Peter had this when he performed signs and wonders, as did the rest of the Apostles and prophets in the New Testament.

Thanks for the reply,

Michael

Heb. is not part of the bible. Unless, of course you can prove it by miracles, signs and wonders.

It’s nice piece of old literature, but that’s it. Quoting from it proves nothing at all toward SS. You don’t even know who wrote it with certainty.

Of course that’s the dread-lock of a SS advocate. So, it won’t be addressed here…or anywhere else.

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

With all due respect, MT, this is simply the fallacy of ambiguity or theological slight of hand.

1. Def of Pope/bishop: Successor of the apostles who speaks on behalf of God with infallible authority.
2. Def. of Apostle: one who speaks on behalf of God with infallible authority.

The reason why #2 must to show the signs is because of its speaking on behalf of God. Therefore, #1 must as well. Unless you want to change the definition and take of the Pope extracting infallible authority. Then you would be in agreement with Protestants. If not, I don’t see how you get by this just by saying that a pope is not technically an Apostle even though He carries the same authority that required signs and wonders.

Michael

With even more respect Michael, you really have no understanding of the Catholic Church. Just where did you get your definitions? Looks like you made them up to me. As I posted many times before, a Bishop is a pastor. St. Paul speaks of pastors as distinct from apostles and prophets (Ephesians 4). Just because **you **think a pastor and an apostles are the same thing does not make it so. Here’s one major difference between an apostle and a bishop (including the Pope). Apostles were given the authority to create new doctrine (Acts 15). No bishop including the pope has this authority. The offices are simply the not the same. I know this, St. Paul knew this, why don’t you know it?

Furthermore, you also completely misunderstand infallibility, and it’s organs. I can explain it to you if you promise to actually listen. You are also still guilty of fallaciously attributing “requirements” of prophets (which John the Baptist disproves) to every office in the Church. You still have nowhere demonstrated this, you just assume this as your premise (another logical fallacy).

 

[michaelp]

With even more respect Michael, you really have no understanding of the Catholic Church. Just where did you get your definitions? Looks like you made them up to me. As I posted many times before, a Bishop is a pastor. St. Paul speaks of pastors as distinct from apostles and prophets (Ephesians 4). Just because **you **think a pastor and an apostles are the same thing does not make it so. Here’s one major difference between an apostle and a bishop (including the Pope). Apostles were given the authority to create new doctrine (Acts 15). No bishop including the pope has this authority. The offices are simply the not the same. I know this, St. Paul knew this, why don’t you know it?

1. Does the pope or congregation of bishops claim to speak infallibly on behalf of God? Yes.
2. Does God requires signs of those who claim to speak infallibly for them? Yes.
3. Have the Catholic popes or bishops followed these requirements? No.
   Conclusion: Should be believe they speak on behalf of God with infallible authority? No.

Furthermore, you also completely misunderstand infallibility, and it’s organs. I can explain it to you if you promise to actually listen. You are also still guilty of fallaciously attributing “requirements” of prophets (which John the Baptist disproves) to every office in the Church. You still have nowhere demonstrated this, you just assume this as your premise (another logical fallacy).

In your opinion I have not demonstrated this. I believe that it has been demonstrated with great clarity.

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

1. Does the pope or congregation of bishops claim to speak infallibly on behalf of God? Yes.
2. Does God requires signs of those who claim to speak infallibly for them? Yes.
3. Have the Catholic popes or bishops followed these requirements? No.
Conclusion: Should be believe they speak on behalf of God with infallible authority? No.

1. Isn’t it your claim that the Bible is the only infallible authority? Yes.
2. What sign has the Bible done? None.
   Conclusion: I guess it doesn’t speak for God.

 

[michaelp]

1. Isn’t it your claim that the Bible is the only infallible authority? Yes.
2. What sign has the Bible done? None.
Conclusion: I guess it doesn’t speak for God.

Wow! You got me.

(Are you serious?)

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Wow! You got me.

(Are you serious?)

How is it your logic only works when its applied toward the authority of the Church? When the flaw is pointed out, you mock it. Of course it doesn’t make sense!

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

How is it your logic only works when its applied toward the authority of the Church? When the flaw is pointed out, you mock it. Of course it doesn’t make sense!

So you are serious? I really don’t know.

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

How is it your logic only works when its applied toward the authority of the Church? When the flaw is pointed out, you mock it. Of course it doesn’t make sense!

So you are serious? I really don’t know.

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

So you are serious? I really don’t know.

ORIGINAL POST:

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.

WHEN ASKED WHAT VERIFIED MEANS–YOU SAID IT WAS CLEAR IN YOUR ORIGINAL POST.

YOUR EXPLANATION OF HOW YOU DETERMINED SCRIPTURE WAS THE ONLY AUTHORITY:
michaelp: If God’s word is not an authority, … Scripture is not cannot be profitable for correction and reproof if it is not infallible.

ANOTHER EXPLANATION:

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.

YOUR EXPLANATION OF WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR A PERSON TO BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE AUTHORITY:

michaelp: There is not a person who ever spoke for God who was not directly or indirectly verified by some sort of signs and wonders.

HOWEVER…to the argument that the Church (which you claim has no* verified* authority) determined what texts were to be deemed inspired and therefore determined the canon of your only infallible authority, you claim…

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 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.

SO…WAIT A MINUTE…Scripture is the only infallible authority, because it can be used for correction, but it exists even without definition and does not need to be defined as authoritative by anyone except perhaps the authors of Scripture themselves, but only if they have been verified by someone who does the works of an apostle. Is that right?

ARE YOU SERIOUS? I REALLY DON’T KNOW.

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

ORIGINAL POST:

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.

WHEN ASKED WHAT VERIFIED MEANS–YOU SAID IT WAS CLEAR IN YOUR ORIGINAL POST.

YOUR EXPLANATION OF HOW YOU DETERMINED SCRIPTURE WAS THE ONLY AUTHORITY:
michaelp: If God’s word is not an authority, … Scripture is not cannot be profitable for correction and reproof if it is not infallible.

ANOTHER EXPLANATION:

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.

YOUR EXPLANATION OF WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR A PERSON TO BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE AUTHORITY:

michaelp: There is not a person who ever spoke for God who was not directly or indirectly verified by some sort of signs and wonders.

HOWEVER…to the argument that the Church (which you claim has no* verified* authority) determined what texts were to be deemed inspired and therefore determined the canon of your only infallible authority, you claim…

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 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.

SO…WAIT A MINUTE…Scripture is the only infallible authority, because it can be used for correction, but it exists even without definition and does not need to be defined as authoritative by anyone except perhaps the authors of Scripture themselves, but only if they have been verified by someone who does the works of an apostle. Is that right?

ARE YOU SERIOUS? I REALLY DON’T KNOW.

I am so lost. I was just asking if you were serious about the question above. Yes or no. If yes, then I will respond. You have just gone in a million directions. Keep it simple, one subject at a time, I am not a smart man.

Michael