God's "Supreme Court" in this context is the Holy Spirit- not anything connected with man or any of his denominations.
Sola Scriptura
- Thread starter robert derrick
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
God's "Supreme Court" in this context is the Holy Spirit- not anything connected with man or any of his denominations.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
There is a very critical distinction which Catholics must always keep in mind when discussing the topic of Sola Scriptura. This distinction determines whether the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true or not. The distinction is "material" versus "formal" sufficiency of Scripture.
On his wonderful blog, Dr Michael Liccione was having a discussion with a Protestant systematic theology professor on this very subject. The Protestant professor succinctly explained the difference between the two understandings of Scripture (highlights by me):
In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!
This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this. The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition don't exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).
What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.
Take the example of Baptism: If Scripture were formally sufficient, it would have to lay out in a very systematic manner what effects Baptism has on the individual, whether it is required, who can be Baptized, and how to Baptize. Contrary to the formal approach, what happens in real life and throughout history is that theologians of both the Protestant and Catholic camps have had to "derive" various doctrines like Baptism piece by piece, starting with the explicit references to baptism, then any allusions to it, and then the support of related doctrines, all to come to their final conclusions on Baptism. As everyone is aware, there is no such systematic treatment of Scripture on this teaching - and as everyone is equally aware, Protestants have disagreements on every one of those facets mentioned (e.g. whether infants can be baptized).
Given this very solid example against the notion of formal sufficiency, we can have great confidence that no specific passage will ever teach formal sufficiency (since the Scriptures cannot contradict or mislead).
Probably the most famous - and most important - example that contradicts formal sufficiency is all the heresy surrounding the Trinity. As Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong explains: "The [Trinity] can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian."
Other examples (among many) that contradict the notion of formal sufficiency are especially those texts discussing interpretation of OT prophecy, which the NT shows was very often missed by the Jews who knew the OT quite well. The Road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-27), the Bereans (Acts 17:1-5,10-12), and Apollos (Acts 18:24-26) demonstrate the problem quite well.
One last important thing to note is that when one affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture, there is no "fear" of "undermining" the authority of Scripture or "subordinating" the authority of Scripture with Tradition or Magisterium - fears which Protestants regularly inject in such discussions. The reason why there is no such "fear" from the Catholic end is because material sufficiency by *nature* means Tradition and Magisterium are necessary to arrange the "bricks" in the right order to form the right structure. That "fear" can only exist if the Protestant can demonstrate formal sufficiency to be true - and until then is fallaciously fear mongering.
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency (catholicnick.blogspot.com)
On his wonderful blog, Dr Michael Liccione was having a discussion with a Protestant systematic theology professor on this very subject. The Protestant professor succinctly explained the difference between the two understandings of Scripture (highlights by me):
The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.
In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!
This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this. The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition don't exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).
What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.
Take the example of Baptism: If Scripture were formally sufficient, it would have to lay out in a very systematic manner what effects Baptism has on the individual, whether it is required, who can be Baptized, and how to Baptize. Contrary to the formal approach, what happens in real life and throughout history is that theologians of both the Protestant and Catholic camps have had to "derive" various doctrines like Baptism piece by piece, starting with the explicit references to baptism, then any allusions to it, and then the support of related doctrines, all to come to their final conclusions on Baptism. As everyone is aware, there is no such systematic treatment of Scripture on this teaching - and as everyone is equally aware, Protestants have disagreements on every one of those facets mentioned (e.g. whether infants can be baptized).
Given this very solid example against the notion of formal sufficiency, we can have great confidence that no specific passage will ever teach formal sufficiency (since the Scriptures cannot contradict or mislead).
Probably the most famous - and most important - example that contradicts formal sufficiency is all the heresy surrounding the Trinity. As Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong explains: "The [Trinity] can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian."
Other examples (among many) that contradict the notion of formal sufficiency are especially those texts discussing interpretation of OT prophecy, which the NT shows was very often missed by the Jews who knew the OT quite well. The Road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-27), the Bereans (Acts 17:1-5,10-12), and Apollos (Acts 18:24-26) demonstrate the problem quite well.
One last important thing to note is that when one affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture, there is no "fear" of "undermining" the authority of Scripture or "subordinating" the authority of Scripture with Tradition or Magisterium - fears which Protestants regularly inject in such discussions. The reason why there is no such "fear" from the Catholic end is because material sufficiency by *nature* means Tradition and Magisterium are necessary to arrange the "bricks" in the right order to form the right structure. That "fear" can only exist if the Protestant can demonstrate formal sufficiency to be true - and until then is fallaciously fear mongering.
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency (catholicnick.blogspot.com)
Whether the Catholic Church has changed any command from God has yet to be proved. I deny it.
A but more on this topic of authority
Jesus said "Whoever listens to you (or hears you) listens to me (or hears me)".(Lk 10:16)
If someone has authority, then when they give them a task, a mission, an office under their authority, then they give them the authority that goes with it.
This consists of the authority to act and to speak in their name (within the scope of the authority they give them).
Take the example of the centurion with the sick servant in Mt 8:5-10. The centurion approaches Jesus and asks him to cure his servant.
Verse 9 is a key verse For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come here,’ and he comes;
The Centurion has authority because of his rank, given him by those above him. I don't know the structure of the Roman Army but ultimately his authority comes from Caesar himself. When he gives an order to a soldier it was as if Caesar himself was standing there giving the order. To disobey the Centurion was to disobey Caesar.
Or we could put it another way - for a soldier to listen to the centurion was to listen to Caesar; to reject the centurion was to reject Caesar.
When the centurion said to Jesus "For I too am a person under authority" he was acknowledging that Jesus too had authority from above and that his word was sufficient to cure his servant Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed .(verse 8) This is why Jesus was astonished at the faith of the centurion.
When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith (verse 10).
Now move on to Luke 9:1-6 and Luke 10:1-6 Jesus enunciates these two principles with the disciples he send out on mission.
He summoned the Twelve and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal (the sick).(Lk 9:1-2)
He gives them authority to act and authority to speak in his name. And he sums this up in verse 16 - Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.
That is a universal principle when Jesus gives someone a task, a mission, an office under his authority.
Thus when Jesus sends the apostles out on the great mission with the great commission in Mt 28:19-20
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. He gives the apostles the authority to act and to speak in his name, and the "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." applies to them.
The NT gives us an example of people trying to usurp authority:
Then some itinerant Jewish exorcists tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those with evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” When the seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish high priest, tried to do this, the evil spirit said to them in reply, “Jesus I recognize, Paul I know, but who are you?” The person with the evil spirit then sprang at them and subdued them all. He so overpowered them that they fled naked and wounded from that house. (Acts 19:13-16).
They had no authority to act or speak in Jesus’ name and the evil spirits knew that.
I now want to go back to the Old Testament.
In Ex 3&4 God gives Moses a mission and gives him authority to act and speak for God. Moses is reluctant because of his poor speech so God put Aaron under Moses’ authority to speak on Moses behalf. (4:14-15). But note what God says to Moses in verse 16 He shall speak to the people for you: he shall be your spokesman, and you shall be as God to him.
We see this in the plagues where God told Moses and Moses told Aaron who acted.
Now move on to Numbers 12 where we see a warning about trying to claim authority you do not have. Aaron and Miriam grumble about Moses and thinking they are just as good as him.
They complained, “Is it through Moses alone that the Lord speaks? Does he not speak through us also?” (vs 2).
God was angry and called all three of them to the meeting tent and said to them (vs 6-8)
“Now listen to the words of the Lord:
Should there be a prophet among you,
in visions will I reveal myself to him,
in dreams will I speak to him;
Not so with my servant Moses!
Throughout my house he bears my trust:
face to face I speak to him,
plainly and not in riddles.
The presence of the Lord he beholds.
Why, then, did you not fear to speak against my servant Moses?”
He then turned Miriam into a leper.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
In the statement I made...."My biggest issue with the Bible only approach is that it limits God's authority to make adjustments."
My point was that we don't want to put the Bible in the position of God...it is about God. And it does not have the authority to
silence God. It is a testament of God from 2000 years ago...it is the not final word that God would utter...its not a epitaph. God has communicated with people in one way or another for 2000 years.
The last pages of the Bible are not God signing off forever. No statement that He says, "I will never ever say or do anything again!"
Last edited:
Actually, we are all the Supreme Court, not judging Scripture, but rather judging whether any laws are constitutional or not.
Jesus is our Chief Justice, and our Commander in Chief.
And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
Those who abdicate their seat of judgment over their own lives are foolish indeed.
And following false leaders into a ditch will not be an excuse for diving into the ditch after them.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
We get so many different denominations because they all share one common component = They all deviate from Sola Scriptura at some juncture.
Your reasoning is of course true in general:
God does talk to His people, And many people in history have hit upon truths at times no matter what religion or philosophy, for all coming intot he world have been lightened by Christ with intelligence, reason, and judgment.
There are many voices in the world and all have their significance (1 Cor 14:10), and so long as they do not contradict Scripture, they are fine to be heard and believed by any who wish.
However, if we are hearing any 'voices' that contradict Scripture, then we need to silence them and refuse to hear them.
By Scripture we know for certain what is true of God, and we can therefore know for a certain what is a lie and is false and against God, when it plainly contradicts the Scriptures of God.
My point was that we don't want to put the Bible in the position of God...it is about God. And it does not have the authority to
silence God.
And the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh. And He has His Word written in Scripture, so that we may know His Word and not believe another.
Scripture is not just 'about God', if you mean like a story or tale about God, but is God's Word written in the flesh, by Him that came in the flesh.
We don't worship 'Scripture' nor the book of the Bible, but by Scripture we know we are worshipping the true God in spirit and in truth, and not worshipping a false god, that is no god.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
So many miss this. WHY - Two reasons, lacking the Holy Spirit and not adhering to Sola Scriptura.
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
I guess the point is also that having one big organization on earth wouldn't be Scriptural in any case, if each company of believers, searching the Sriptures, looks to the risen Lord as their head (Ephesians 1).
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Where is the house you will build for ME? saith the Lord
Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
Has not My hand made all these things? And so they came into being,” declares the LORD. “This is the one I will esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, who trembles at My word.
One other reason . . . the more someone is willing to deviate from the plain sense of a passage, the less they will be in agreement with others.
Much love!
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,953
- 3,398
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Read your Bible.
Christ's CHURCH is our final earthly Authority:
Matt 16:16-19
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matt. 18:15-18
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent ME, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."
Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."
- The Church is the Body of Christ and He is the Head (1 Cor. 12:12-31, Eph. 4:3-6, Col. 1:8).
- Jesus said that HE is the Light of the World (John 8:12).
- Jesus also said that His Church is the Light of the world (Matt. 5:14).
- Jesus is Truth itself (John 14:6).
- The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
- The Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).
- Jesus identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
LOL When you go to the physiatrist I recommend that you do not tell him that you are ok, it is the rest of world that is insane.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
YES, Christ's Church ( His Chosen Ones) is His Authority on earth - Not that harlot church from Rome.
only in RCC dogma and nowhere else.
The deliberate twisting you do to scripture to make yourselves feel superior is amazing and yet so totally wrong. Modern Pharisees.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
- Status
Similar threads
