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

[mercygate]

st_felicity:

PLEASE don’t attribute that nonsense to me

Gotcha! I didn’t think that was you.

. . . michealp . . . does not believe the current “Roman” Catholic Church is the same Church Christ founded

Yes, I know the syndrome well. Some people (like me) actually recover from it once they confront the facts.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

quote=MichaelpWho ordained you and under what authority?)
My Church, under the authority of Stonebriar Community Church. Ordination is a formal attestation of the local body of Christ approval of my service. Don’t make it out to be more than it is. It ain’t much and gave me no real power that I did not have before by virtue of my committment to the Scriptures and ministry.

[/quote]

Laying on of hands is the MOST BIBLICAL (both in the OT and NT) means of transferring authority. It isnt a game, it isnt pointless, it does give you real power if it is valid. It is a fomal attestation to GOD himself, the ONE UNDIVIDED CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church as a whole and at a local body level. You dont mess with God, His Church, or the local congregation with un-authorized authority. If you read 1&2Timothy and Titus with the concept of authority and preserving the truth in mind you will see how precious ordination is.

Michaelp:

CD:

                          2)You said "I believe that I speak for God, being a pastor, but not infallibly. I believe that I have authority

, but not infallible authority." So when you read the Bible who answers your questions? Who tells you what a certain passage says and has the binding power for you to accept it?
Depends. Most if fairly simply. I have been trained and continue to train myself in many ways. You are supposing that I have alot of questions. I read the Scriptures within the regula fide of the historic Christian church. When I have a conflict with something or tradition conflicts, I look to the evidence and pray that the Holy Spirit guides me in my decisions. But in most of these matters, if the Bible does not speak clearly on the subject, then I don’t. I speak clearly to the degree that Scripture, my experience, tradition, emotion, general revelation, and the Holy Spirit speaking through my conscience allows me. I don’t mind leaving tension where the Bible leaves tension. I think people are smart enough to make up their own mind. If they have someone make it up for them, do they really understand it? If they don’t really understand it, are they really convinced of it?

So what does “authority” mean to you. What is the point of teaching if someone is going to believe what they want, and even lead others astray right in front of your eyes. Im no scholar, but anyone who says that they dont have a lot of questions when reading the Bible is sadly mistaking. Scholars spend their whole lives with questions, some that cannot be answered. You mention tradition, how far back do you go? Is your tradition traceable through the years, or does it stop at an early date and start up at a more recent one? And about guiding your decisions, people need to be assured what they are doing is true, there is nothing wrong with personal interpretation on a certain level, but when you are teaching you need to be sure, especially on important matters.

Michaelp:

CD:

3)So if a person comes up to you while you are talking to a Lutheran, Calvinist and a few others who adhere to… " In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

"…and asks something about salvation . . .
Give me an example from my evangelical tradition. Don’t throw all adherents of sola Scriptura into the same group and I will not throw you in will all adherent of Scripture plus an outside infallible authority.

I dont know your evangelical tradition, especially with the way people have such open interpretations on stuff it varies from person to person. How am I throwing them in the same group, you said yourself that you agree with those guys on “essentials”. So if you really do agree “in essentials” then non essentials should be a cake walk and you should not be divided like you are. You guys dont adhere to “in essentials” from everything from Baptism to the last days.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

stonebriar.org/index.php?id=335
Michael,
Is this the church you teach at and ordained at?
(If not ignore the rest of this post)

Our History
A long history in a short time
On a warm autumn evening in 1998, a group of folks met to talk and pray about forming a church in the center of one of the nation’s fastest growing cities. Little did they realize the phenomenon that was about to result as Stonebriar Community Church came into being. …

How old is the oldest Catholic Church in the Dallas area?

Our Mission
Our mission is to encourage all people to pursue a lifelong, joyous relationship with Jesus Christ.

There is more to a chuch than that.

MEMBERSHIP IS . . .

. . . the indication of your commitment to the beliefs and policies of Stonebriar Community Church. It indicates that you are part of this body of believers, which “grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work” (Ephesians 4:16). It recognizes your relationship to the household of God, “which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (I Timothy 3:15).

MEMBERSHIP IS NOT . . .

. . . a means of salvation. Becoming a member of Stonebriar Community Church or any other church does not give us eternal life in heaven.

. . . a specific command found in Scripture. However, Scripture does speak about Christians being committed to a local gathering of believers within the body of Christ, which is found throughout the world. Many books of the New Testament were letters written to local churches, instructing their fellowship together.

Church membership goes hand in hand with salvation, but you have to be in the right one.

**Ecclesiology and Eschatology: This course is a study of the nature of the Church and what the Bible has to say about the end times. In this class we will examine the different views about the end times that people have held throughout church history. We will also examine the nature of the Body of Christ asking such questions as: When did it begin? Were Old Testament Saints a part of the Body? What is the church’s relationship to Israel? Much time will be spent on the differences between Dispensational and Covenant theologies with regard to the Church.

Apologetics and Postlegomena:** This course is a study of defending the Christian faith. As such, we will examine the different possible methods for defending the faith that people have held throughout church history and the strengths and weaknesses of each. Key apologetic questions will be dealt with, such as: Why does God allow evil? How do we know that Christ rose from the grave? What happens to the people who have never heard the Gospel? How do we know the Bible is inspired?

I would love to hear more, especially about church history and how the truth was preserved.
It seems there IS more to SS than what was put out?

We simply study the Bible at a deeper level, giving people an understanding of what they believe and why they believe it.
…

The Theology Program at Stonebriar Community Church seeks to give people who may never have the call to full-time seminary an opportunity to take part in the same type of theological education. We are committed to the Reformation principle that the study of the Bible and theology is a right, privilege, and duty for everyone, not just the clergy. All of our classes are designed with the understanding that people have families and full-time jobs that demand their attention. We also understand that believers have a strong desire to come to know their God at a deep level. We believe that the way to do this is through commitment to a study of the Bible and theology.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

Hi Michael
stonebriar.org/images/pastors/MichaelPatton_sm.jpg
I see you got a good group of Pastors.
stonebriar.org/index.php?id=440

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Your illustration fails for many reasons. First, it begs the question since all Bible do not necessarily have to have a sleeve cover. In other word, sleeve covers are not a necessary attribute of what a Bible is. In the context of 2 Cor 12:12, Paul is defending his apostleship agains “so-called super apostles.” Those who were claiming apostolic authority. Paul enters and says that they are not true Apostles since the sign of a true apostle is that they perform signs. If it was just the sign of some apostle, Paul’s argument would not make sense both contextually (since he would have have an arguement or historically (since all the apostles did have signs and wonders).

First of all, I am not question begging. It was your assertion that the indefinite article showed that ALL apostles were intended.
I am simply pointing out that the indefinite article does no such thing.
Indefinite means that in some way there is a lack of definition or precision. When a definite group is intended, the definite article is used. It is NOT used here.

I could modify the argument from sleeve cover to a particular book of a particular bible, say Genesis.
And I can say the same things as I said before:

saying I have a bible with Genesis, does not mean I have ALL bibles with Genesis.
Nor does it mean that ALL bibles have Genesis in them.

Let’s try an experiment:
Make the attribute necessary, by explicitly injecting the definition:

I have an OT (old testament) bilble with Genesis, does not mean I have ALL OT bibles with Genesis.
Nor does it mean that ALL OT bibles have Genesis in them.

So the first retort works even in that case: ALL can’t be used.

Genesis is part of the definition of an OT, but some OT’s may not have it in there. (Maybe the bible was ripped.)

None of this will grant you the ability to say that ALL apostles/prophets are required to perform miracles based on scripture.

I don’t believe you have anywhere near a 100% statistic either.
For unless a prophet is validated during their ministry, it’s a moot point.

You claim hundreds of validations, but the principle for most prophets is that they were dead before any sign was proven for them. The prophecy and rejection usually comes first, the sign much later.

Acts: 7:51.

Here’s a validation for a Pope, How about the miracle of the sun at portugal. It was predicted, it was publicly seen. It was because of an apparition of Mary, the Immaculate conception. The young children who prophecied the public miracle recognize the pope of that day.

The passage in 2Cor12 still makes sense even if an Apostle does not HAVE to perform a miracle. A miracle does help validate that speaker for God.

 

[mtr01]

Huiou Theou:

The passage in 2Cor12 still makes sense even if an Apostle does not HAVE to perform a miracle. A miracle does help validate that speaker for God.

Great post, Huiou

Without a doubt, logically your conclusion is both sound and valid. I would just like to point out also that this whole signs and wonders “requirement” assumes that anyone claiming to be speaking for God, and who performs a sign is therefore authentically speaking for God. However, Scripture tells us that this is not the case.

Matt 24:24

 

[Elliott]

If there were a prophet verifiable in your eyes and he taught against sola scriptura or sola fide would you not reject him for teaching against what you believe to be revealed truth, Thus holding your interpretations to be infallible in themselves? Are you your own infallible authority?

 

[mtr01]

Elliott:

If there were a prophet verifiable in your eyes and he taught against sola scriptura or sola fide would you not reject him for teaching against what you believe to be revealed truth, Thus holding your interpretations to be infallible in themselves? Are you your own infallible authority?

Ha! Then he would probably appeal to Matt 24:24! (most subjectively I might add).

 

[scylla]

I think a valid point is made here that should be addressed.

When someone mentioned authority, Michael you passed it off as something that wasn’t very important. Yet this is extremely important because what is there to keep me from starting my own church and claiming my own authority to interpret.

By becoming a pastor you are taking it upon your own authority to be a leader. You are essentially sending yourself and not being sent. In doing that you are negating that Christ himself sent out apostles who in turn laid hands upon others to be sent. Starting a new church in essence then negates Christ’s apostolic mission here on earth.
I can say this about myself, I have absolutely no authority to start my own church.

 

[mtr01]

scylla:

I think a valid point is made here that should be addressed.

When someone mentioned authority, Michael you passed it off as something that wasn’t very important. Yet this is extremely important because what is there to keep me from starting my own church and claiming my own authority to interpret.

By becoming a pastor you are taking it upon your own authority to be a leader. You are essentially sending yourself and not being sent. In doing that you are negating that Christ himself sent out apostles who in turn laid hands upon others to be sent. Starting a new church in essence then negates Christ’s apostolic mission here on earth.
I can say this about myself, I have absolutely no authority to start my own church.

You are exactly right, scylla. Take Clement of Rome, for instance (ordained by Peter himself):

“The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.””

and

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.”

The question is, why should we follow “those who cause strife in the episcopate”, when we could simply follow those who were granted their authority from the Apostles?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Happy Easter! Michaelp!