Is Scripture Alone is Biblical?

[Vic C.]

Can someone show me the previous thread on this topic that was closed ?

Oh, this could get interesting...

Joe! lol :whip


Tina, the only thread on this that I have closed recently was Dave's thread with one responce and what I did was directed him here because this a very recent thread.

As for older threads, use the search feature and search for Sola Scriptura.

 

[stranger]

scripture alone illustrated. . .

There are two completely empty bookselves side by side. In one bookshelf a bible is placed. In the second bookshelf an identical bible is placed. Next to it a book with a (fictious) title 'how to interpret and read the bible' is placed. Which bookshelf in this illustration best houses scripture alone?

If you want realism then visit your Pastor's study and have a look at the titles in his bookcases. One of my previous Pastors even preached straight out of 'the interpreters bible' - yet the church believed they belived in scripture alone!

blesssings

 

[amg0364730]

Hey, just remember 'be cool' alright? Let us study this topic as like the great academe teacher.

:yes GOD BLESS



ORA ET LABORA

 

[mondar]

Strictly speaking, I don't think Scripture Alone is Biblical. Throughout the Bible God gave us teachers, pastors, preachers and evangelists to help us understand His words. I don't believe that the roles of pastor, teacher and evangelist have been done away with, therefore I don't believe in Scripture alone.

handy, a little note about definitions seems in order. Maybe I am being to fussy on technicalities, but I think those technicalities are important. I dont know if your above statement would misrepresents sola scriptura or not. Words are sometimes a struggle in clear definitions. My guess is that your denial of "scripture alone" has reference more to what is called solo scriptura. Unfortunately the english phrase "scripture alone" is not clear. One cannnot tell if it is speaking of sola scriptura or solo scriptura, and there is only one letter difference.

Sola Scriptura says --- the scriptures are the only infallible source of authority. Sola scriptura would allow for other sources of authority, but would not make them infallible. So then sola scriptura would commend itself to Church leaders (as in Ephesians 2:11-13), but if those Church leaders claim infallibility equal with the word of God, that would not be sola scriptura.
Solo scriptura --- this scriptures contain all truth. Nothing more would be needed other then the bible.

I do believe however that Scripture contains the only complete and untainted truth. Unfortunately, as the previous poster pointed out, as soon as any failed human opens up the Scriptures, then fallible interpretations begin to seep in. Which I believe is why God gave us pastors, teachers, etc. By studying together and receiving solid teaching from a god-called teacher or preacher, we can come to a fuller understanding of God's word.

This paragraph makes me think you are articulating a position of sola scriptura when you say... "I do believe however that Scripture contains the only complete and untainted truth." I think I remember you are Lutheran. Did not Luther himself articulate a position of sola scriptura, but retained pastors, bishops, and teachers?

 

[francisdesales]

Sola Scriptura says --- the scriptures are the only infallible source of authority. Sola scriptura would allow for other sources of authority, but would not make them infallible. So then sola scriptura would commend itself to Church leaders (as in Ephesians 2:11-13), but if those Church leaders claim infallibility equal with the word of God, that would not be sola scriptura.
Solo scriptura --- this scriptures contain all truth. Nothing more would be needed other then the bible.

Thanks for providing this distinction.

However, I believe enough people have pointed out that the Bible, as an entire body of work, does not call itself an infallible source. Rather, it is the believing community as a whole that has declared, by the Holy Spirit, that THIS (bible) is the Word of God, is infallible and inerrantly God's Word - and other books are not.

Now, if this community is wrong, then what happens to that declaration? It is not of much value, is it...

And please don't bother with the 'begging the question' defense that God is protecting His Word... The Mormons can use the same defense.

That is the point that we make about sola scriptura being an incomplete teaching. The believing community is the House of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Not the bible. God has given the Bible as a gift to His People, not vice versus.

In addition, the believing community has given particular members authority - and they also believe, via Scriptures, that God has, as well - to speak for them. As such, the call to make known that sola scriptura is incomplete is NOT some effort to undermine Scripture or make authority "equal" to Scriptures. They are not the same. Scripture will always be the underlying authority of the declarations made by the Church. Living authority cannot change what has come before (such as the Eucharist is no longer the living presence of Jesus Christ), nor can this living authority deny what the believing Church has believed "from the beginning".

However, the Scriptures cannot speak for themselves on numerous issues. The very existence of these threads prove that. On the other hand, authority found in men is alive and able to speak the will of God as He speaks through His People. But this cannot contradict Sacred Writ. As such, it is a false dichotomy to set living authority granted to the bishops against the Sacred Scriptures.

Regards

 

[mondar]

However, I believe enough people have pointed out that the Bible, as an entire body of work, does not call itself an infallible source. Rather, it is the believing community as a whole that has declared, by the Holy Spirit, that THIS (bible) is the Word of God, is infallible and inerrantly God's Word - and other books are not.

Yes, we have both spoken to this issue. I expect that you know that I feel the scriptures is a fallible list of infallible books. Therefore I question the authority of any believing community. A list of books does not need to be a revelatory matter.

I suggest we both be cautious in this thread, if you wish discussion directly with me I would suggest the 1 on 1 debate threads.

That is the point that we make about sola scriptura being an incomplete teaching. The believing community is the House of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Not the bible. God has given the Bible as a gift to His People, not vice versus.

Concerning the scriptures being an "incomplete teaching..." I would agree that the revelation of the glory of God will continue throughout all eternity. So then, it seems obvious that God's revelation at any moment in time is incomplete. He is an eternal God.

Sola Scriptura does not make any claim that is different. The claim of sola scriptura is that the bible is all that is neccessary for salvation and growth at this time, not that it reveals everything about God. The concept of a complete revelation would fall more under the concept of Solo Scriptura.

Concerning the indwelling, you have no disagreement from me on that point. I would agree that the believers are the house of the Spirit. Scripture does not indwell any person, institution, or organization. I would also agree that the concept of revelation is different then the concept of indwelling. Scripture is an artifact of Gods action of revelation, not an indwelling of a person or organization.

Francis, I read the rest of your post, but want to read it again later. It is not an easy post to read.... and No time to finish.

In addition, the believing community has given particular members authority - and they also believe, via Scriptures, that God has, as well - to speak for them. As such, the call to make known that sola scriptura is incomplete is NOT some effort to undermine Scripture or make authority "equal" to Scriptures. They are not the same. Scripture will always be the underlying authority of the declarations made by the Church. Living authority cannot change what has come before (such as the Eucharist is no longer the living presence of Jesus Christ), nor can this living authority deny what the believing Church has believed "from the beginning".

However, the Scriptures cannot speak for themselves on numerous issues. The very existence of these threads prove that. On the other hand, authority found in men is alive and able to speak the will of God as He speaks through His People. But this cannot contradict Sacred Writ. As such, it is a false dichotomy to set living authority granted to the bishops against the Sacred Scriptures.

Regards

 

[handy]

Sola Scriptura says --- the scriptures are the only infallible source of authority. Sola scriptura would allow for other sources of authority, but would not make them infallible. So then sola scriptura would commend itself to Church leaders (as in Ephesians 2:11-13), but if those Church leaders claim infallibility equal with the word of God, that would not be sola scriptura.
Solo scriptura --- this scriptures contain all truth. Nothing more would be needed other then the bible.

Thanks for the clarification. Going by the above definitions, I would hold to Sola Scriptura but not Solo scriptural.

People are always going to be fallible. God will still continue to use people. There are plenty of very wise teachers out there. There are also a lot of cranks. To me, the line of division are the Scriptures. If what a teacher or pastor says is in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures, then I can learn from them with a fair amount of confidence that there is spiritual truth in what they are saying.

However, I do try to avoid those who say, "I've my Bible, I don't need anything or anyone else." I don't believe that that is a Scriptural position at all.

 

[francisdesales]

However, I do try to avoid those who say, "I've my Bible, I don't need anything or anyone else." I don't believe that that is a Scriptural position at all.

Agree, the "church of one" people don't have a leg to stand on...

Regards

 

[turnorburn]

If you want to see a topic that will run for 50 pages just start a thread on Sola Scriptura...

 

[francisdesales]

Yes, we have both spoken to this issue. I expect that you know that I feel the scriptures is a fallible list of infallible books. Therefore I question the authority of any believing community. A list of books does not need to be a revelatory matter.

I would suggest that this very concept is in need of some serious reflection, my friend...

Otherwise, WHICH Sacred Scriptures is from God? The Koran? The Book of Mormon? The Eastern Orthodox Bible of the first 1000 years that didn't have Revelation in it? The Protestant Bible sans the Deuterocanonicals? The Jewish Bible?

My friend, I don't want to drag you through this again, and that is why I am not going on a "full scale offensive" on this issue. You know where I stand, I believe. My point is that the Church defines what is the Scriptures. Thus, a fallible body cannot put together an infallible book without "begging the question". Either they believe they have been given the authority from above (based on their experience of the Holy Spirit) to determine the canon, or the canon is just a canon among canons, subject to error and NOT inerrant and infallible.

To say "God protects His Scriptures" says nothing, because God has not told us (without the Church) WHICH "books" He IS PROTECTING!!!

Men are fallible, but when guided by God, who indwells this house, we BELIEVE that the Spirit of God has led them to determine the table of contents, infallibly. There is no reason to think that the Spirit was only able to do this one time over the course of Christianity. We do not believe God's Spirit has abandoned us.

Christianity needs a living and visible authority, Mondar. But it can never contradict Scriptures. Otherwise, this authority could not be accepted by God's People.

Regards

 

[mondar]

...those who say, "I've my Bible, I don't need anything or anyone else." I don't believe that that is a Scriptural position at all.

Agreed

 

[mondar]

Otherwise, WHICH Sacred Scriptures is from God? The Koran? The Book of Mormon? The Eastern Orthodox Bible of the first 1000 years that didn't have Revelation in it? The Protestant Bible sans the Deuterocanonicals? The Jewish Bible?

I think we can know which books are scripture, just not infallibly know. Take for instance the Koran. Of course we both agree that the Koran is not the word of God. For you... you feel it is insufficient for spiritual growth or salvation if I merely recognize that the Koran is a false revelation. I know it is not apostolic, it was written by a man in the 7th century and has no eye witnesses. It contradicts the NT witness of what happened at the cross. I have many reasons not to believe the Koran is a revelation from God. Are my reasons infallible? No, because I am not fallible. Yet my reasons are sufficient for me to know that the Koran is not the word of God.

On the other hand, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is insufficient to merely recognize that the Koran is not scripture, I must have an infallible source declare that it is not scripture. Then you seem to suggest that I cannot know the extent of the canon. Why not? Are you suggesting that something cannot be known unless it is infallibly known?

You are a student of Church History. You love the Church Fathers. Tell me... what you suggest,... Do you say that historical record reflect uninamity and a lack of debate. Do you think the early Church was uniform in its recognition of the canon? There was no debate? It was just automatic for all early Church men to accept this same canon? When did this Roman Catholic Canon become "infallible?" Even if you say Hippo (and I do not grant that Hippo and Trent say the same thing)... but for the sake of argument, even if you say Hippo, then you must also say that before Hippo it was not necessary to have an infallible canon. Why would it be necessary for the salvation and spiritual growth of Christians after Hippo and not before Hippo? Were not there different lists of books, and the canon was disputed right up until Trent? Heavens!!! There were even Catholic scholars at Trent that advised against declaring the deuterocanonicals to be scriptural. There was never any unanimity in the Church. The historical record reflects that there was debate all along by good Churchmen on all sides of the issue. My point is that the historical record reflects the canon being a fallible list of infallible books.

Lets also think of the OT. In the OT Jewish community there was never a council that affirmed the deuterocanonicals. This means that there could never have been a Jew in the OT who could have known infallibly what books were canonical.

No, I think the reasoning of an infallible declaration of canonical books is circular. How do we know that some Church can infallibly declare books to be infallible? Because that Church has declared itself to be fallible?

My friend, I don't want to drag you through this again, and that is why I am not going on a "full scale offensive" on this issue.

That would not be a problem, but it should be done in the 1 on 1 section.

I am going to skip the rest of your post. While I have the time at this point in the day, I do not see the profit. Francis, I do think if you wish to pursue this further, we should go to the 1 on 1 section. It seems that it is difficult for you or me not to respond to each other, and that would be the proper place for such a dialogue.

 

[francisdesales]

Otherwise, WHICH Sacred Scriptures is from God? The Koran? The Book of Mormon? The Eastern Orthodox Bible of the first 1000 years that didn't have Revelation in it? The Protestant Bible sans the Deuterocanonicals? The Jewish Bible?

I think we can know which books are scripture, just not infallibly know. Take for instance the Koran. Of course we both agree that the Koran is not the word of God. For you... you feel it is insufficient for spiritual growth or salvation if I merely recognize that the Koran is a false revelation. I know it is not apostolic, it was written by a man in the 7th century and has no eye witnesses. It contradicts the NT witness of what happened at the cross. I have many reasons not to believe the Koran is a revelation from God. Are my reasons infallible? No, because I am not fallible. Yet my reasons are sufficient for me to know that the Koran is not the word of God.

Of course, that is presuming that you are a priori Christianj and part of the Church that already (whether you realize it or not) accepts the Church's authority to rule on such matters. An unbiased non-religious person inspecting both books will not necessarily refute the Koran and take up the Christian Bible (presuming he is operating in a vacuum with no access to a faith community...)

That is the problem with such discussions, Mondar. I think many people underestimate the concept of authority - and often overestimate it, from my fellow Catholics... Authority utterly depends upon acceptance by the community, as such, authority must have some warrant that is external to itself. Thus, the authority of the Church is dependent upon the Scriptures, in addition to past Apostolic Tradition. Thus, one cannot MERELY say (as a Catholic) that authority is divinely given from above. That is insufficient, because this authority is only as effective as its reception by God's People.

This is also true of the Scriptures themselves. People, you and I, must ACCEPT the supposed authority of Scriptures, otherwise, they cannot stand alone as the sole authority. God works in both the community and the Scriptures. In addition, interpretation is dependent upon the reader, as has already been pointed out - and we have gone over in the past (such as Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7...) Thus, the need for dual, unequal authorities that do not contradict. They serve to support each other.

I hope this explains my particular point of view. A more broad study of what "authority" is has led me to realize that authority (whether it is bishops or the Bible) depends on two sides of the equation. The prophet also requires inspiration from God AS WELL AS God's inspiration of the People of God to HEAR the message. Imagine if Jeremiah spoke a prophesy but NO ONE accepted it as from God. It would have no authority. Authority depends on the giver AND the receiver. As such, sola scriptura cannot work "alone", because it only sees the Bible as some self-proven text that somehow speaks for itself and by itself and doesn't take into account the community's ACCEPTANCE. Thus, I don't accept "sola scriptura", even your nuanced definition.

I will let you mull this over, comment if you desire here. I am going to be busy for the next few weeks and am not sure if I could properly maintain a "one-on-one" debate.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Of course, that is presuming that you are a priori Christianj and part of the Church that already (whether you realize it or not) accepts the Church's authority to rule on such matters.

No, I dont see it as an a-priori argument.

An unbiased non-religious person inspecting both books will not necessarily refute the Koran and take up the Christian Bible (presuming he is operating in a vacuum with no access to a faith community...)

An unbiased person with both Koran and New Testament should seriously question certain assertions on the Koran. I am not a Koran expert, and dont recall which Surah's this information is in, but the Koran claims some very different things about Jesus. I believe the Koran (Quaran) adopts the swoon theory of Jesus on the cross. It denies the deity of Jesus, and then turns around and says the NT is true. Furthermore, I dont see why I should trust the Koran about Jesus, the NT was written by eyewitnesses. The assertions of the Koran were recited to the Arab people by someone who never saw Jesus, and did not seem to understand the doctrines of Christianity correctly. I believe he spoke of the trinity as the Father, Mary, and Jesus.

When you say above that a person in a vacuum would not know to choose Christianity after reading both Koran and Bible, I think this is a false analogy. Muslims believe the NT and OT is also books of God. They do not deny the Bible, but claim the Koran supersedes the Bible. I guess the bottom line is that I think an unbiased person would choose the Bible and reject the Koran.

That is the problem with such discussions, Mondar. I think many people underestimate the concept of authority - and often overestimate it, from my fellow Catholics... Authority utterly depends upon acceptance by the community, as such, authority must have some warrant that is external to itself. Thus, the authority of the Church is dependent upon the Scriptures, in addition to past Apostolic Tradition. Thus, one cannot MERELY say (as a Catholic) that authority is divinely given from above. That is insufficient, because this authority is only as effective as its reception by God's People.

This is also true of the Scriptures themselves. People, you and I, must ACCEPT the supposed authority of Scriptures, otherwise, they cannot stand alone as the sole authority. God works in both the community and the Scriptures. In addition, interpretation is dependent upon the reader, as has already been pointed out - and we have gone over in the past (such as Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7...) Thus, the need for dual, unequal authorities that do not contradict. They serve to support each other.

I hope this explains my particular point of view. A more broad study of what "authority" is has led me to realize that authority (whether it is bishops or the Bible) depends on two sides of the equation. The prophet also requires inspiration from God AS WELL AS God's inspiration of the People of God to HEAR the message. Imagine if Jeremiah spoke a prophesy but NO ONE accepted it as from God. It would have no authority. Authority depends on the giver AND the receiver. As such, sola scriptura cannot work "alone", because it only sees the Bible as some self-proven text that somehow speaks for itself and by itself and doesn't take into account the community's ACCEPTANCE. Thus, I don't accept "sola scriptura", even your nuanced definition.

My "nuanced" definition? I dont think that was a fair accusation. I admit few people today have a very deep understanding of the old Lutheran and Reformed confessions of faith. I am speaking of Lutheran and Reformed people that dont know the confessions themselves. I would not expect a Catholic to be very well versed in protestant confessions, but can you quote the Westminster Confession or the 1689 London Baptist confession and prove that my definition of sola scriptura is "naunced?"

A second issue in your above statement concerns the issue of infallibility. Somehow you conversation drifts toward picturing me as a person who refuses to accept the authority of a Church. I dont think this is a fair representation of my thinking. If you want, I would be willing to name my authorities. I do not believe them to be inerrant authorities, but they are authorities. The scripture sets up authorities in the plurality of elders (pastors and teachers). The rule the local body of believers that I participate in. The authoritative statement of doctrine for our local church is the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. I have expressed very minor disagreements or questions concerning the 1689. The pastors and Elders consider it too small of a matter for it to mean anything. They would say that neither the 1689 or themselves are inerrant. The point is that I function under authority. So that is nt the issue. The question concerns the authority being inerrant. If my elders make such a claim, why should I believe them? They can say God gave it to them, or it came from the beginning, but that would be more of an a-priori claim. Of course they make no such claim.

I will let you mull this over, comment if you desire here. I am going to be busy for the next few weeks and am not sure if I could properly maintain a "one-on-one" debate.

Regards

LOL, yeah, we are all busy, and I probably could not have kept up either. But it would be better then violating the rules of this board. Are we not under authority here also.... ; ).... but not an infallible authority.... ; )

 

[stranger]

mondar

Sola Scriptura says --- the scriptures are the only infallible source of authority. Sola scriptura would allow for other sources of authority, but would not make them infallible. So then sola scriptura would commend itself to Church leaders (as in Ephesians 2:11-13), but if those Church leaders claim infallibility equal with the word of God, that would not be sola scriptura.
Solo scriptura --- this scriptures contain all truth. Nothing more would be needed other then the bible.

The apostle Paul had 'authority unto scripture' and I would specifically call this authority 'apostolic authority'.

Did not Luther himself articulate a position of sola scriptura, but retained pastors, bishops, and teachers?

Yes Luther articulated much about what we consider to be sola scriptura - but how much of his voluminous writings address the question: where did Luther get his authority from? Believe it or not we need to talk about the apostolic authority of men like Luther and Calvin. Protestants in general will I think avoid this sort of discussion. To posit this apostolic authority in sola scripure (re your discussion with francis about begging the question) renders the church worldwide 'unapostolic' with an 'apostolic scripture'.

blessings

 

[mondar]

The apostle Paul had 'authority unto scripture' and I would specifically call this authority 'apostolic authority'.

Sola Scriptura allows for times of revelation. So if Paul were here he would still have revelatory authority. He is not here, but he left written instructions.

Did not Luther himself articulate a position of sola scriptura, but retained pastors, bishops, and teachers?

Yes Luther articulated much about what we consider to be sola scriptura - but how much of his voluminous writings address the question: where did Luther get his authority from? Believe it or not we need to talk about the apostolic authority of men like Luther and Calvin. Protestants in general will I think avoid this sort of discussion.

If your talking about the average person in the pew, I admit we have room for improvement in teaching our own people the doctrines of the faith. If you saying that all protestant leaders will run from any discussion of apostolic authority, that would be a statement of ignorance on your part. You would obviously not be familiar with what protestants are saying.

To posit this apostolic authority in sola scripure (re your discussion with francis about begging the question) renders the church worldwide 'unapostolic' with an 'apostolic scripture'.

blessings

Yes, we are a Church without modern apostles. There is not record of apostolic succession, with the exception of Judas who forfeited his office. Even had Judas not committed suicide, even if he had lived afterward, he would not have been an apostle. He would have been replaced. Judas will not be counted as an apostle in heaven. What I am saying is that the bible gives no teaching of apostolic succession.

 

[stranger]

mondar wrote:

Sola Scriptura allows for times of revelation. So if Paul were here he would still have revelatory authority. He is not here, but he left written instructions.

How would sola scripture take into account non-writing prophets or apostles?

If your talking about the average person in the pew, I admit we have room for improvement in teaching our own people the doctrines of the faith. If you saying that all protestant leaders will run from any discussion of apostolic authority, that would be a statement of ignorance on your part. You would obviously not be familiar with what protestants are saying.

I'll agree, Protestant leaders (run to) discuss apostolic authority. But what I am interested in is the apostolic authority (or otherwise) of Calvin and Luther. Who sent these men? Admittedly Lutherans have discussed whether or not Luther was a prophet - the 95 thesis did have enormous impact but who sent him?

Yes, we are a Church without modern apostles. There is not record of apostolic succession, with the exception of Judas who forfeited his office. Even had Judas not committed suicide, even if he had lived afterward, he would not have been an apostle. He would have been replaced. Judas will not be counted as an apostle in heaven. What I am saying is that the bible gives no teaching of apostolic succession.

I would agree that though Judas was one of the twelve he is not normally considered an apostle. Let me reserve comment about 'no modern day apostle' for later.

'Apostolic succession' would be more in francis' arena. A reference in Isaiah 22:15-25 mentions an office responsible for the key to the house of David. A man named Shebna is expelled from office (nothing new about this) while Eliakim son of Hilkiah is appointed his successor. In the NT the successor to this office can be inferred to be Peter and the office - apostolic - if you accept that the key to the house of David is in fact the Keys to the Kingdom, in the same way that Jesus as the Son of David was the successor to the throne and house of David.

To challenge existing notions of the prophetic and apostolic, and the assumptions that they ceased, would be more my forte.

blessings

 

[stranger]

mondar wrote:

Yes, we are a Church without modern apostles.

Here are some questions about a church that has no modern day apostles...

Could your church still have apostles and prophets though they were not functioning in their respective offices? Could these 'apostles and prophets' come under a different name than 'apostle or prophet' or have no name/title at all?

If we acknowledge that false apostles and prophets exist - what does this tell us about true apostles and prophets? As an illustration - if there were only fake Mona Lisa's how would we know that they are fake if the real one didn't exist?

blessings

 

[mondar]

mondar wrote:

Yes, we are a Church without modern apostles.

Here are some questions about a church that has no modern day apostles...

Could your church still have apostles and prophets though they were not functioning in their respective offices? Could these 'apostles and prophets' come under a different name than 'apostle or prophet' or have no name/title at all?

This is going to get into the term "apostle." In the NT not all apostles were the same. The 12 had special memories to remember the word's of Jesus Christ (John 14:26). The 12 have special privelages in that they will someday sit on 12 thrones and rule the 12 tribes. Barnabas was an apostle, but was not in this category of apostles, he was not one of the 12. The 12 gave us our special revelation. When Ephesians talks about the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the Church, it is not referring to Barnabas, but to the 12 and Paul.

The term apostle means "sent one." A person can be sent by Jesus Christ for the purpose of special revelation. This would violate the concept of sola scriptura. The concept of a missionary being a sent one by a Church does not have the concept of special revelation. That would not be a violation of sola scriptura.

I (and the church I attend) would deny further revelation beyond the scripture. So then, in that sense of the word, we do not have apostles and prophets. We have the scriptures, and it is sufficient, and the only inerrant source for our faith and practice.

If we acknowledge that false apostles and prophets exist - what does this tell us about true apostles and prophets? As an illustration - if there were only fake Mona Lisa's how would we know that they are fake if the real one didn't exist?

blessings

To continue using your analogy....
Michelangelo is no longer painting the Mona Lisa, he ceased painting it long ago. So then there are false prophecies, false revelations, false prophets, false apostles, but only one Michelangelo and Mona Lisa. Forgeries can continue long after the original was made.

 

[mondar]

How would sola scripture take into account non-writing prophets or apostles?

Sola scriptura allows for the development of the scriptures. It does not speak to times of revelation. It assumes two times of revelation, one centered around Moses (the anti-type of Christ) and the other around the Logos. Christ revealed the Father to the 12 and Paul. They revealed the Father to many. This revelation was both oral and written. The oral and written revelation of the 12 and Paul was and is inerrant and infallible.

No think about the passing down of these traditions. The written form (the early manuscripts) were obviously not protected from error. There are variants. The only people to actually claim infallible variants are the KJV only people. No some claim infallibility to their oral tradition, but claim no infallibility to the scribal transmission of the written record. Does that make sense?

So if error crept into the written record by scribal error, what happened to the more easily changable oral record? The great advantage of the written records is that it changes far far less then anything passed down in oral form.

So then to answer your question more directly, sola scriptura affirms oral revelation by the original apostles, but denies any infallible oral transmission.

If your talking about the average person in the pew, I admit we have room for improvement in teaching our own people the doctrines of the faith. If you saying that all protestant leaders will run from any discussion of apostolic authority, that would be a statement of ignorance on your part. You would obviously not be familiar with what protestants are saying.

I'll agree, Protestant leaders (run to) discuss apostolic authority. But what I am interested in is the apostolic authority (or otherwise) of Calvin and Luther. Who sent these men? Admittedly Lutherans have discussed whether or not Luther was a prophet - the 95 thesis did have enormous impact but who sent him?
You know I did read something about Luther being a prophet once. If forget where. It does not matter. Neither Luther nor Calvin claimed apostolic authority. What they claimed was that they were returning to the original message of the apostles recorded in the NT. Had they claimed apostolic authority, they could have given a new revelation, that is not what they did. The perceived of themselves as restoring the message of the original apostles, not giving fresh apostolic or prophetic revelation.

[quote:21o321hs]Yes, we are a Church without modern apostles. There is not record of apostolic succession, with the exception of Judas who forfeited his office. Even had Judas not committed suicide, even if he had lived afterward, he would not have been an apostle. He would have been replaced. Judas will not be counted as an apostle in heaven. What I am saying is that the bible gives no teaching of apostolic succession.

I would agree that though Judas was one of the twelve he is not normally considered an apostle. Let me reserve comment about 'no modern day apostle' for later.

'Apostolic succession' would be more in francis' arena. A reference in Isaiah 22:15-25 mentions an office responsible for the key to the house of David. A man named Shebna is expelled from office (nothing new about this) while Eliakim son of Hilkiah is appointed his successor. In the NT the successor to this office can be inferred to be Peter and the office - apostolic - if you accept that the key to the house of David is in fact the Keys to the Kingdom, in the same way that Jesus as the Son of David was the successor to the throne and house of David.

To challenge existing notions of the prophetic and apostolic, and the assumptions that they ceased, would be more my forte.

blessings

[/quote:21o321hs]

If I can make a suggestion, I feel cautious about violating the rules of this forum. The admin has created rules which forbid any RC protestant dialogue in this section. I would suggest we go to the 1 on 1 section.

By the way, I do remember Francis saying something like what you speak of, but I dont recall the exact teaching.

Yes, I would question the idea of continued revelation.