The verified Word?


This is in response to a quote from another thread. On the other thread this author has said that we are not addressing his original post. I think he has a valid point, so, here is my response.


I appreciate you trying to clear up any misconceptions about sola scriptura. I would not want to misrepresent anyones views, this is something that happens to Catholics quite often. Although I understand what you are saying about the subject, we still disagree, so here is my view.

[quote=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. This is not to say that God cannot still speak infallibly through prophets today. If there was a verified prophet, we would listen to him.

God has always protected His word and verified His revelation through supernatural occurrences that left little doubt that it was God speaking. I think of Moses and the signs he performed to the Israelites to verify that he was from God. I think of the stipulations laid down for EVERYONE who claims to speak for God in Deut 13 and 18 (read them). I think of Paul’s statement in 2 Cor. 12:12 saying that the “signs of a true apostle were performed among you with signs and wonders.” I think that God has always been very protective of his word so that he would not be misrepresented. Therefore, he set up the rules that have not changed. If someone claims to speak for God, let him show UNDENIABLE sign (raise the dead, turn a staff into a snake, predict the future with 100% accuracy, heal the paralyzed, etc).

[font=Arial]Deut. 13
1 "If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.[/font]
[font=Arial][font=Arial]This seems to say that a predicted wonder or sign that comes to pass is insufficient to determine that someone is sent by the lord. ( I think that this sums up the point of the chapter, therefore I didn’t bother to quote it further.)





Deut. 18

22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.

[font=Arial]This seems to say that if someone claims to be sent by the Lord, and what he predicts does not come to pass that he has not been sent by the Lord.

Neither of these chapters, (even in the portions not quoted here) suggests that the way to tell if someone is sent by the Lord is exclusively by way of signs and wonders. Certainly if someone prophecies and it does not come to pass, then it is false and cannot possibly be from God. However, if someone prophecies and it comes to pass, it does not necessarily mean that they were sent by God. These same things can also come from evil forces, therefore, depending on signs and wonders could cause you to be misled.

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

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

Therefore, Protestants are not against continued revelation (a misunderstanding by many of sola scripture), we just say that whomever claims to speak infallibly for God had better show the signs of a prophet. This is the essense of sola scriptura and, when understood this way, it is found throughout all the Scripture.

[font=Arial]Catholics are against continued revelation. There can be no additions to the divine revelation which ended with the death of the last Apostle. Everything that the Catholic Church believes today is rooted in the truth revealed by Christ to the Apostles. Any claim of prophecy, or a vision etc. today must be in line with what was taught by the Apostles. Since the beginning of the Church all truth has been the same, it does not change; however, it does become better understood.

I look forward to your response.:slight_smile:



DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit