Proof for Sola Scriptura - is irrefutable

[Bible2+]

Gracia Singh said in post #23:

Almost everyone is persuaded that they are right, yet obviously not everyone can be. All seriously and earnestly quote Scripture to back their views.

Note that while anyone can string verses together, they can't make the Bible say whatever they want. For if they say something which contradicts what the Bible says when it's taken as a whole, then what they're saying is mistaken.

Even when what one verse says appears plain, it can still be misinterpreted, such as by reading into it things it doesn't say, things which would contradict what other verses say. To arrive at correct doctrine, a verse in one place in the Bible must be compared with (qualified by) other, related verses elsewhere in the Bible (Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13). Our doctrine must be based on what the entire Bible says (2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 4:4), and not just on what some unqualified verses say.

An example of an unqualified verse would be John 3:36. We can't say it means that all we have to believe is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. For John 3:36 must be qualified by, for example, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (and vice versa). We have to believe both that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins and rose physically from the dead on the 3rd day. So when John 3:36 is qualified, something is added to it, not subtracted from it. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 adds further belief requirements to John 3:36 (and vice versa). 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 doesn't subtract, negate or contradict the belief requirement of John 3:36 (or vice versa).

Another way that John 3:36 must be qualified is we can't say that it means all that Christians have to do is believe for at least one moment during their lifetime. For John 3:36 must be qualified by other verses which show that Christians will obtain ultimate salvation only if they continue to believe to the end (Hebrews 3:6,14, Colossians 1:23). And this is just one of the conditions that the Bible as a whole shows must be met for Christians to obtain ultimate salvation (e.g. Romans 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 9:27).

The Bible itself, in its entirety, is all that Christians need to become perfect in both doctrine and practice. For:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 4:1 ¶I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

*******

Gracia Singh said in post #29:

Sir, simply quoting Scripture as it exists now does not answer the question of what Scripture is, how it came to be approved of as Scripture, and how it was Canonized.

The different books of the New Testament were all written for the early Church, which knew and trusted the writers, and so kept their writings, because the writers were eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 9:1, John 19:35, John 21:24, Luke 24:48, Revelation 1:17-19) or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:3). Also, the early Church had received some measure of God's own Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-13), Jesus Christ's own mind (1 Corinthians 2:16). And so the Church was able to know whether a teaching of the writers was truly from Jesus or not (John 10:27,4-5), just as Biblical Christians can still know this today for the same reason. Also, Biblical Christians today, just as the early Church did, can confirm for themselves that the writers of the New Testament agree with what the Old Testament prophesied (Acts 17:11, Acts 26:22-23, Luke 24:44-48).

 

[Bible2+]

JAL said in post #24:

Our authority is neither the Bible nor the Church nor even God but our own conscience . . .

Our authority must never be our own conscience. For:

Proverbs 16:25 ¶There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Proverbs 28:26 ¶He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool . . .

JAL said in post #24:

The foundation of our faith is special revelation, not Bible-study.

It must be both. For:

2 Timothy 3:15 . . . from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

JAL said in post #24:

Feelings of certainty are AUTHORITATIVE.

They should not be.

That is, Christian faith mustn't be based solely on heart feelings, which can be very deceptive (Jeremiah 17:9, Proverbs 28:26, Proverbs 14:12), but must be also a rational/intellectual enterprise. For saving faith requires mental assent (Philippians 3:15-16, Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Timothy 2:25, Romans 8:6) to Biblical doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 John 1:9-10; 1 Timothy 6:3, Titus 1:9) and continuing to remember that doctrine (1 Corinthians 15:2; 2 Peter 3:1-2; 2 Corinthians 11:3).

For example, for people to be saved they must believe (and continue to believe to the end: Hebrews 3:6,12,14, Colossians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 15:2) the Biblical doctrine that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (John 20:31, John 3:36, 1 John 2:23), and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins, and physically resurrected from the dead on the 3rd day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:39,46-47, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 26:28).

 

[JAL]

Our authority must never be our own conscience. For:

Proverbs 16:25 ¶There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Proverbs 28:26 ¶He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool . . .



It must be both. For:

2 Timothy 3:15 . . . from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.



They should not be.

That is, Christian faith mustn't be based solely on heart feelings, which can be very deceptive (Jeremiah 17:9, Proverbs 28:26, Proverbs 14:12), but must be also a rational/intellectual enterprise. For saving faith requires mental assent (Philippians 3:15-16, Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Timothy 2:25, Romans 8:6) to Biblical doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 John 1:9-10; 1 Timothy 6:3, Titus 1:9) and continuing to remember that doctrine (1 Corinthians 15:2; 2 Peter 3:1-2; 2 Corinthians 11:3).

For example, for people to be saved they must believe (and continue to believe to the end: Hebrews 3:6,12,14, Colossians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 15:2) the Biblical doctrine that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (John 20:31, John 3:36, 1 John 2:23), and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins, and physically resurrected from the dead on the 3rd day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:39,46-47, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 26:28).

But you too are likewise not addressing my specific arguments and scenarios. You can't discredit my views by merely reasserting your own conclusions. You have to address my arguments and scenarios. Otherwise you just leave me more convinced than ever that you CANNOT refute my views. And as I told Bob, I don't care if you cite me 100,000 verses that SEEM to support your position. Your position is still incorrect if you cannot resolve the self-contradictions alleged. For example you cited these verses:


Proverbs 16:25 ¶There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Proverbs 28:26 ¶He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool . . .

Ok so if you feel certain that the Bible is correct, should one go AGAINST that feeling of certainty? I should ignore the Bible and these verses that you cited? Is that correct behavior?

Fact is, ANYTHING that you do, and ANYTHING that you advise me, is ultimately based on your decision to obey or disobey your feelings of certainty. There's no escaping this fundamental fact. So let's not put the cart before the horse. Let's admit that, in the FINAL analysis, feelings of certainty drive the whole thing.

Paul was a Bible scholar prior to being saved. That scholarship - years and years of it - had convinced him that no ordinary Jew born in a manger has been, or ever would be - the Most High. Then he heard a voice on the Road to Damascus causing him to feel certain that ALL HIS BIBLE-SCHOLARSHIP WAS IN ERROR. So I ask you again, what drives the whole thing, ultimately? Feelings of certainty? Or Bible-verses? But I'm sure you'll continue to ignore all these multiple scenarios I've painted for you. Your attitude is, "I'm already convinced, so don't confuse me with the facts."

 

[JAL]

If you're a good man, you'll try to do what is right to the best of your knowledge and ability. That's what the doctrine of conscience is really stating. At any given moment,you're supposed to do whatever it is, at that moment, that you feel most certain is the right thing to do.

And this provides God a way to run the church. If He wants you to do something right now, He doesn't have to wait for you to happen on His will exegetically - He can just give you a feeling of certainty. Without this dynamic, He effectively has no way to run the church from moment to moment.

 

[BobRyan]

1. The Holy Spirit authored the Bible - 2 Peter 1:19-21 - so that following the Bible is to follow the work and teaching of the Holy Spirit Himself.
2. The Holy Spirit condemns all doctrine that contradicts scripture Gal 1:6-9 Isaiah 8:19-20
3. The Holy Spirit IS God .. so then our authority is God.
4. There are those "seared in their conscience" such that following it would be sin in that case. 1 Tim 4:2

It is the Holy Spirit that gives us Acts 17:11 telling us that they are approved who "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"


Acts 17
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds.

I am not opposed to any of these texts which are being used as primary sources for the doctrine of sola scriptura. I simply think there are better explanations of some of them and blatantly assuming a doctrine of the bible alone, which I understand to mean is that the Bible is the final authority for faith and practice doesn't prove the doctrine. To put it simply, a more detail exegesis would be nice.

I want to comment on one of those texts, namely with regards to Bereans. If the principle by which we form our judgements is that the scripture is the final authority, let's present a hypothetical challenge. Let's say the Bereans, instead of agreeing with Paul, rejected him because they read the Old Testament according to a traditional 1st century Rabbinic model.

That suggestion that you make - highlights a detail that defeats the entire argument against sola scriptura.

The Jews in Berea had as their overlords their own Rabbi's their long standing traditions of men.
The "god fearing gentiles" in those synagogues had the same domineering overlords commanding them what to think.

Now as you point out - Paul and Silas come with a Bible-based message that is more Bible than overlord-of-the-Jews man-made-tradition.

A. Many hear would argue that "thinking outside the box" ...freeing themselves from the chains imposed by their overlords and "searching the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were SO" was Holy Spirit lead - and proof that even in the most UNFAVORABLE context - sola scriptura still wins!

B. Others would argue "this never should have happened since the overlords-of-tradition should always be obeyed and scripture is not all that clear in what it says anyway".

So here was a perfect demonstration in favor of position-A.

 

[BobRyan]

That's putting the cart before the horse. I've been addressing a more foundational issue, namely by what AUTHORITY (on what basis) do you accept the Bible to be God's Word? Answer: conscience (feelings of certainty).
.

Nonsense: Proof is that when we present the Gospel to atheists they "feel like" there is no God.
When we present the Gospel to Jews "they feel like" Christianity is wrong.

Yet many of them convert to Christianity despite their feelings and the pressure of family and/or friends.

What Bible text says "they had good feelings about the Gospel so they accepted it"???

What math book, what chemistry book argues "when you FEEL like this is the right answer ... accept it".

What you call "feelings" might be the work of the Holy Spirit in some cases - but "feelings" in general come with no such Holy-Spirit-inspired guarantee label.

When saul-turned-Paul persecuted the Christians he "felt like" Christianity was a horrible sect of Judaism that needed to be wiped out. If all he did each night was ask himself "how am I FEELING today?" the answer was always "more persecution please.... tomorrow shall be the same as today - only more so".

See Phil 3 for proof of his "feelings" at that time.

This is irrefutable.

 

[BobRyan]

Bible2+ said: ↑
Our authority must never be our own conscience. For:

Proverbs 16:25 ¶There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

But you too are likewise not addressing my specific arguments and scenarios. You can't discredit my views by merely reasserting your own conclusions.

Prov 16:25 is not Bible2's "own conclusion" it is the Word of God and much easier to read and see what it is saying than you have suggested.

 

[BobRyan]

Exactly. It's a thread about whether scripture is the ONLY authority. I've proven that feelings of certainty are, in fact, the FINAL authority.

You are conflating two very different things.

1. The "feelings of mankind and the sinful nature" which are tossed about like waves on the sea -- every wind of doctrine.
2. The work of the Holy Spirit which at times affect the feelings.

Jesus did not "feel like" being separated from the Father and being tortured on the cross. See his prayer repeated 3 times .. yet "NOT My will - but Thy will be done".

Very few martyrs in the dark ages "felt like" being burned at the stake. Many Christians to this very day do not "feel like" being burned alive.

 

[JAL]

Nonsense: Proof is that when we present the Gospel to atheists they "feel like" there is no God.
When we present the Gospel to Jews "they feel like" Christianity is wrong.

Yet many of them convert to Christianity despite their feelings and the pressure of family and/or friends.

You're not making any sense. Yes ORIGINALLY they felt Christianity was wrong. Then at some point - probably due to the convicting work of the Holy Spirit as I've been pointing out over and over again - they felt certain that conversion was the right thing to do. At that point they converted (assuming they opted to obey their conscience/certainty).

What Bible text says "they had good feelings about the Gospel so they accepted it"???

This is beginning to look like intellectual dishonesty. Where did I say that it's all about a bunch of random emotions? Again, instead of addressing the specific scenarios, you make up a bunch of caricatures that have NOTHING to do with my position. How telling.

What math book, what chemistry book argues "when you FEEL like this is the right answer ... accept it".

Since when does God judge you based on your adherence to scientific method? When God gave Abraham a feeling of certainty that he needed to slaughter his son, what did that have to do with math and chemistry? This is dodgeball.

What you call "feelings" might be the work of the Holy Spirit in some cases - but "feelings" in general come with no such Holy-Spirit-inspired guarantee label.

Do you seriously want to be judged on whether you always figured out, to the letter, the exact will of God? Or would it be more charitable for God to evaluate you based on whether you did what is right to the best of your ability, that is, you always did what you felt certain was the morally right thing to do, whether that feeling came from reading Scripture, directly from the Holy Spirit, talking to counselors etc?

When saul-turned-Paul persecuted the Christians he "felt like" Christianity was a horrible sect of Judaism that needed to be wiped out. If all he did each night was ask himself "how am I FEELING today?" the answer was always "more persecution please.... tomorrow shall be the same as today - only more so".

If you're trying to convince me that Paul was heeding his conscience when he persecuted Christians, you're not going to succeed. But you conveniently ignored my reference to what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus (and pretty much all other scenarios posed to you). That conversion was triggered by a divinely inspired feeling of certainty, not by years of studying Hebrew and Greek at seminary.

See Phil 3 for proof of his "feelings" at that time.

This is irrefutable.

But this isn't about random feelings. You're deliberately misrepresenting me. How telling. It's becoming clear that your conclusion is an aprior presupposition. "I'm already convinced, don't confuse me with the facts."

By the way, do you really want your saving faith to be based on exegesis? Because if your mind slips up, becomes confused (viz. Alzheimer's disease), you could end up recanting biblical truth. Do you think God is stupid enough - or unkind enough - to entrust your salvation to your ability to evaluate and comprehend Scripture? Trust me, He's not. Hence it's the Holy Spirit's assignment to sustain your saving faith - He started this when He originally led you to be converted,and is still doing it today - He sustains within you a feeling of certainty that the gospel is true. This is the doctrine of the Inward Witness, and probably every born-again theologian in church history has upheld this doctrine. THIS is irrefutable.

 

[JAL]

So it's becoming increasingly obvious that you'll continue in the intellectual dishonesty of misrepresenting what I said.

You are conflating two very different things.

1. The "feelings of mankind and the sinful nature" which are tossed about like waves on the sea -- every wind of doctrine.

Where did I prize random emotions of the sinful nature? What has that got to do with ANYTHING? I've been talking about a feeling of certainty.

2. The work of the Holy Spirit which at times affect the feelings.

I'm not talking about random emotions.

Jesus did not "feel like" being separated from the Father and being tortured on the cross. See his prayer repeated 3 times .. yet "NOT My will - but Thy will be done".

What does Christ's sundry emotions have to do with ANYTHING? Again (sigh), that's not at issue here. So tell me about Christ's behavior. Which of the following two descriptions seems more accurate?
(A) Jesus always did what He felt certain was the will of His Father.
(B) Jesus always did what He felt certain was the morally wrong, rebellious thing to do.

So here again, I've given you yet ANOTHER scenario. And just like the last 10 scenarios I gave you, you'll ignore it, responding with more caricatures, more pretend-responses, etc. Because you have a theological agenda, on account of which the facts are of little or no interest to you.

Very few martyrs in the dark ages "felt like" being burned at the stake. Many Christians to this very day do not "feel like" being burned alive.

You keep proving my point. Did those martyrs?
(A) Allow themselves to be controlled by random emotions, OR
(B) Do what they felt certain to be the morally upstanding thing to do?

How many scenarios is that so far that you've ignored? About 10? What's funny is that you will not only continue to ignore MY scenarios, but also the ones you yourself presented!

 

[JAL]

You are conflating two very different things.

1. The "feelings of mankind and the sinful nature" which are tossed about like waves on the sea -- every wind of doctrine.
2. The work of the Holy Spirit which at times affect the feelings.

Jesus did not "feel like" being separated from the Father and being tortured on the cross. See his prayer repeated 3 times .. yet "NOT My will - but Thy will be done".

Very few martyrs in the dark ages "felt like" being burned at the stake. Many Christians to this very day do not "feel like" being burned alive.

Got a question for you. I've already mentioned Alzheimer's disease. Is God so unkind that the mentally handicapped in general are at a disadvantage? I mean, they hardly have the ability to go in and evaluate all the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to make sure that the Bible is legit, or to study all of church history as to properly decide whether Christ was really who He claimed to be. Doesn't it make more sense that God would kindly furnish them a feeling of certainty that the gospel is true? Since when is salvation mostly the domain of the Bible scholar? It might interest you to know that Jesus claimed the exact opposite when He said, "I praise you Father, who has hidden these things from the wise and the learned, but revealed them unto babes."

And not just the mentally handicapped but young children as well.

 

[BobRyan]

Got a question for you. I've already mentioned Alzheimer's disease. Is God so unkind that the mentally handicapped in general are at a disadvantage?

If they are supposed to "vet doctrine" and "see if it is correct according to the Word of God" they would indeed be at a disadvantage.

And nobody expects them to figure out complex doctrinal questions -- as it turns out.

But if you think that all the handicapped people on planet earth naturally "feel" their way to brilliant positions on doctrine .. I would argue that you could benefit from a short survey.

 

[BobRyan]

That side trip not withstanding we have this --



2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"
Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - none of those texts should exist!

1. The Holy Spirit authored the Bible - 2 Peter 1:19-21 - so that following the Bible is to follow the work and teaching of the Holy Spirit Himself.
2. The Holy Spirit condemns all doctrine that contradicts scripture Gal 1:6-9 Isaiah 8:19-20
3. The Holy Spirit IS God .. so then our authority is God.
4. There are those "seared in their conscience" such that following it would be sin in that case. 1 Tim 4:2

It is the Holy Spirit that gives us Acts 17:11 telling us that they are approved who "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"


Acts 17
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds.



Acts 17 highlights a detail that defeats the entire argument against sola scriptura.

The Jews in Berea had as their overlords their own Rabbi's their long standing traditions of men.
The "god fearing gentiles" in those synagogues had the same domineering overlords commanding them what to think.

Now as we all know - Paul and Silas come with a Bible-based message that is more Bible than overlord-of-the-Jews man-made-tradition.

A. Many hear would argue that "thinking outside the box" ...freeing themselves from the chains imposed by their overlords and "searching the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were SO" was Holy Spirit lead - and proof that even in the most UNFAVORABLE context - sola scriptura still wins!

B. Others would argue "this never should have happened since the overlords-of-tradition should always be obeyed and scripture is not all that clear in what it says anyway".

So here was a perfect demonstration in favor of position-A.

 

[JAL]

If they are supposed to "vet doctrine" and "see if it is correct according to the Word of God" they would indeed be at a disadvantage.

And nobody expects them to figure out complex doctrinal questions -- as it turns out.

But if you think that all the handicapped people on planet earth naturally "feel" their way to brilliant positions on doctrine .. I would argue that you could benefit from a short survey.

Again you're not meeting the objections at full force. I never said anything about complex doctrinal questions. The question is, what's the basis for their saving faith? A random guess? Today they lay their bets on the Bible, tomorrow the Koran? Either:
(1) God gives them a feeling of certainty, OR
(2) they need to take the Bible-scholar route and figure it all out for themselves, verifying that we even have valid Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (you can't skip that step if you're trying to LEGITIMATELY figure out which religion is the true one).


You either have saving faith or you don't. If you don't, you're not saved. If God doesn't provide a feeling of certainty about foundational truths (such as Jesus is Lord), MOST of the individuals in the following groups would be at a disadvantage:
(1) Mentally ill
(2) Mentally retarded
(3) Alzheimer's, Dementia, other such diseases.
(4) The young
(5) The uneducated
If God lets the saving faith of even ONE of these individuals fall through the cracks, He is being negligent. Even ordinary men are more responsible than that. For example in my country, there's laws about the handicapped - facilities and employers are REQUIRED to make suitable accomodations for them. Otherwise it's negligence, and it's against the law. So what do YOU think? Is God more negligent than men? Or does He have a fail-safe in place, to sustain saving faith?

"Love does no harm to one's neighbor." One reason that exegesis fails is that the world is too complex for us to predict all the side-effects of our actions. Who knows whether our deodorant, bug spray, hair spray, or car wax will cause cancer in someone as it leaches into the water supply? Or how can a soldier know for 100% certain whether it is REALLY God's will to drop a bomb on Hiroshima - unless God gives him feelings of certainty? If you say that God isn't willing to take the church in this direction, you're insinating He is too evil to give a hoot about 200,000 people in Hiroshima.

100 billion souls have lived and died since the world began. You know what that means, right? It means there's zero margin for errors in evangelism. Exegesis is fallible and thus will never give us 100% certainty that we are, at any given moment, evangelizing:
(1) At the right time
(2) In the right place
(3) Using the right words
(4) by divine appointment
Take a look at Acts 10 or 16 where Peter's and Paul's evangelism was guided by visions and revelations from the Lord - revelations that gave them feelings of certainty.

The Reformers believed in the Inward Witness but didn't capitalize on it - they emphasized the primacy of felt certainty for salvation, but did not emphasize it for our daily walk with God. This was a tragic mistake, and it happened becuase the birth of the printing press was too intoxcating and seemed too promising for them to emphasize anything other than the written Word.

In the OT, it was considered foolish to march out to battle without a sign from God - a sign that presumably helped to confer a feeling of 100% certainty. This was known as "Inquiring of the Lord". From Pentecost (and even before), the apostles took that same OT approach to evangelism. Most Christians, historically, have no concept of that. And sadly enough - it's the Galatian error in a nutshell! Paul was EXASPERATED with the Galatians for this error, because it spells the difference between church success and failure, at least by God's standards of success.

While the Reformation was helpful in many ways, in other ways it had has led us so far astray...

 

[JAL]

That side trip not withstanding we have this --
2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"
Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - none of those texts should exist!

The argument against Sola Scriptura is that the gift of prophecy DID exist, it WAS authoritative for Paul, and was his guiding light where all the years of studying of Hebrew and Greek had utterly failed him - failed to reveal to him the true Messiah, failed to show him how to walk with God on a daily basis, and even failed to alert him that God was breaking down the barriers between Jews and Gentiles. Above you cited Galatians but should have included this verse, "I did not receive [-[the gospel] from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:12). The Galatian error was precisely that - they had begun to value exegesis over the primacy of revelation (feelings of certainty from God).

This doesn't mean Scripture had no value for Paul. It's very useful in a debate, for example you can use it (as I've been doing) to show why Sola Scriptura is false, to argue for the primacy of revelation, and to argue for lots of other doctrines. In this sense it is useful for teaching as you've cited (Acts 17:11, 2Time 3:16) - see I'm using the same verses that YOU are in support of MY position.

 

[BobRyan]

The argument against Sola Scriptura is that the gift of prophecy DID exist, it WAS authoritative for Paul, and was his guiding light where all the years of studying of Hebrew and Greek had utterly failed him -

Totally wrong. Paul never declares war on scripture - rather Paul says this --

2Tim 3
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Paul makes the opposite argument as you have made "for him" in your post

Man made traditions of the magesterium - failed to reveal to him the true Messiah, failed to show him how to walk with God on a daily basis,

The Galatian error was precisely that - they had begun to value exegesis over the primacy of revelation (feelings of certainty from God).

Nonsense - not one word in the letter to the Galatians condemns scripture or exegesis - and we both know it.

Ephesians 6:2 Paul appeals to scripture "for authority"

===============


Acts 24
14But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets

Acts 25
8 while he answered for himself, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.;

Acts 26
Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come;

 

[JAL]

Totally wrong. Paul never declares war on scripture - rather Paul says this --

That's not what I said - but par for the course.

You cited this passage:

2Tim 3
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

But you didn't say much of the phrase 'man of God' which means a prophet. This epistle wasn't written 'to the church' but to someone with a prophetic gift. I already said that Scripture is a tool for instruction - and I used this same passage to back up that claim - but it's often counterproductive when used by people who, for lack of prophetic revelation, are probably misunderstanding it. Doesn't mean we should abandon it, but we should recognize its limitation and be open to the possibility that God prioritizes something else. Do you really think God planned to build His church (6000 years of history) primarily on a printing press that only appeared 500 years ago?

Paul makes the opposite argument as you have made "for him" in your post

see above.

Man made traditions of the magesterium - failed to reveal to him the true Messiah, failed to show him how to walk with God on a daily basis,

But that's precisely my point. Exegesis without adequate revelation culminates in man-made tradition - that's exactly where the Galatians were heading.

Nonsense - not one word in the letter to the Galatians condemns scripture or exegesis - and we both know it.

In my previous post I said scripture was useful in debates and instruction, also I've said other positive things about it. How is that a condemnation of Scripture? This is intellectual dishonesty. Time and again, you falsely villainize my words affording you a villain to easily condemn. Who do you think you're fooling?

Ephesians 6:2 Paul appeals to scripture "for authority"

As I myself attested.

Acts 24
14But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets

Acts 25
8 while he answered for himself, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.;

Acts 26
Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come;

None of this is a refutation of my view.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

1. The Holy Spirit authored the Bible - 2 Peter 1:19-21 - so that following the Bible is to follow the work and teaching of the Holy Spirit Himself.
2. The Holy Spirit condemns all doctrine that contradicts scripture Gal 1:6-9 Isaiah 8:19-20
3. The Holy Spirit IS God .. so then our authority is God.
4. There are those "seared in their conscience" such that following it would be sin in that case. 1 Tim 4:2

It is the Holy Spirit that gives us Acts 17:11 telling us that they are approved who "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"


Acts 17
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds.




That suggestion that you make - highlights a detail that defeats the entire argument against sola scriptura.

The Jews in Berea had as their overlords their own Rabbi's their long standing traditions of men.
The "god fearing gentiles" in those synagogues had the same domineering overlords commanding them what to think.

Now as you point out - Paul and Silas come with a Bible-based message that is more Bible than overlord-of-the-Jews man-made-tradition.

A. Many hear would argue that "thinking outside the box" ...freeing themselves from the chains imposed by their overlords and "searching the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were SO" was Holy Spirit lead - and proof that even in the most UNFAVORABLE context - sola scriptura still wins!

B. Others would argue "this never should have happened since the overlords-of-tradition should always be obeyed and scripture is not all that clear in what it says anyway".

So here was a perfect demonstration in favor of position-A.

This doesn't seem to address my main argument regarding the authority of the New Testament vs the Old or the idea that using this verse as a proof-text for Sola Scriptura would validate those who deny Christ if they have believed Christ contradicts the Scriptures. It is not invalid to ask if the Bereans had rejected Paul, would they not be justified under a sola Scriptura model? Suggesting because they had an accompanying understanding of the bible (which everyone has, no one can escape being part of a tradition of reading the bible) does nothing to hinder the rejection of Christ or the Christian gospel because they read the bible.

Simply put, is the entire New Testament message utterly dependant on the Old Testament? Now to some degree it is since we rely on it, but the New Testament cannot have it's absolute justification from the Old but ultimately in the life and character of Christ himself.

If this is a perfect demonstration of Sola Scriptura, then I would have to reject Sola Scriptura for it making the Old Testament the criterion of everything, even the prime reason for accepting Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

This doesn't seem to address my main argument regarding the authority of the New Testament vs the Old or the idea that using this verse as a proof-text for Sola Scriptura would validate those who deny Christ if they have believed Christ contradicts the Scriptures.

Hold on there.

1. Sola Scriptura is exactly what we expect to be used to debunk false Messiahs. What was the "other option"??? --- just "making stuff up"??
2. Acts 17:11 and the others - are devastating to the argument against sola scriptura -- the very details in the text that your post does not address... are key.

It is not invalid to ask if the Bereans had rejected Paul, would they not be justified under a sola Scriptura model?

Certainly it is a "happy fiction" for those against sola scriptura - but it is self-conflicted in its proposal since "sola scriptura" is exactly how we would have expected them to have rejected what Paul calls "false Apostles".

Recall that their own goofed-up magesterium was condemning Paul at the time.

Suggesting because they had an accompanying understanding of the bible (which everyone has, no one can escape being part of a tradition of reading the bible) does nothing to hinder the rejection of Christ or the Christian gospel because they read the bible.

Here again you pursue your fiction "the rejection of Christ or the Christian gospel because they read the bible" -- the very opposite of what the case is in Acts 17:11.

You read the devastating case against the argument opposing Sola Scriptura - and the "imagine" the opposite of what you are actually reading in the text ... as your imagination in that case is "compelling" to the unbiased objective Bible student. Why keep doing that?

The "we say-so" model failed in the dark ages. You need objective Bible "proof" of your position. .Imagination alone will not stand up to close review.

Simply put, is the entire New Testament message utterly dependant on the Old Testament?

Certainly because "anybody" could "make stuff up in the NT" and many false Messiahs and magisterium-leaders did that very thing among the Jews. It was the Bible that debunked them all and it was the Bible that showed that the Christians were getting it right.

Even the NON-Christians of Acts 17:11 could see that point clearly.

A detail that the argument against sola scriptura - does not survive for the objective unbiased Bible student. (As we may both agree)

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Hold on there.

1. Sola Scriptura is exactly what we expect to be used to debunk false Messiahs. What was the "other option"??? --- just "making stuff up"??
2. Acts 17:11 and the others - are devastating to the argument against sola scriptura -- the very details in the text that your post does not address... are key.



Certainly it is a "happy fiction" for those against sola scriptura - but it is self-conflicted in its proposal since "sola scriptura" is exactly how we would have expected them to have rejected what Paul calls "false Apostles".

Recall that their own goofed-up magesterium was condemning Paul at the time.



Here again you pursue your fiction "the rejection of Christ or the Christian gospel because they read the bible" -- the very opposite of what the case is in Acts 17:11.

You read the devastating case against the argument opposing Sola Scriptura - and the "imagine" the opposite of what you are actually reading in the text ... as your imagination in that case is "compelling" to the unbiased objective Bible student. Why keep doing that?

The "we say-so" model failed in the dark ages. You need objective Bible "proof" of your position. .Imagination alone will not stand up to close review.



Certainly because "anybody" could "make stuff up in the NT" and many false Messiahs and magisterium-leaders did that very thing among the Jews. It was the Bible that debunked them all and it was the Bible that showed that the Christians were getting it right.

Even the NON-Christians of Acts 17:11 could see that point clearly.

A detail that the argument against sola scriptura - does not survive for the objective unbiased Bible student. (As we may both agree)

Instead of attacking my motive or bias (which is pretty evident and something I don't hide) and pretending you are above everything else pure in your reading to the bible (which I don't believe is true of anyone), why not address what I'm actually saying?

There are things you are not addressing and certainty things which are problematic in what you are saying. Would you say Christ in of himself has no authority and must be subject to the Old Testament in it's entirety in order for him to derive his own authority? This seems to be what you are implying in which case Christ is shown to be merely derivative from the Torah and not in of himself greater than the law, since he is Lord and God from which the Torah originally came. This is not to suggest the Old Testament does not confirm Christ, it does, yet Christ's revelation is first necessary to even consider him being foretold in the Old. Since Christians preach Christ first before we preach the Old Testament should also indicate the level of dependence on the Old. A Christian can be convinced of Christ without recourse to the Old Testament and he would not have to justify himself by recourse to the Old Testament. Often times it is Christ who allows us to believe in the authority of the Old Testament, especially as Gentiles.

Secondly, the hypothetical is important in that it establishes a few things. Namely that if the Bereans had rejected Paul after reading the bible, they would not be justified. Yet what is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? It is the idea that the bible is our final authority. Under such a standard anyone would have been justified if they interpreted the bible independently of the Apostolic deposit and came to a different conclusion than it. This means that the teaching authority and words of the Apostles from their mouth had as much authority as anything in the Old and that men should have listened to them and believed them. This goes squarely against the notion that the written word of scripture is our final authority in all cases. If you so despise this hypothetical, consider me as an example. I deny what you say is clearly there in scripture. I have read the same verse and come to a totally different conclusion. Would I not be better simply submitting and listening to you rather than my own ideas concerning the bible or should I go with what I think the bible actually teaches? If Sola Scriptura is correct, I am ironically totally justified in my false belief.

Instead of petty attacks, let's reason. Don't pretend your unbiased either because you aren't. You are influenced by the restorationist sect of SDA as I am influenced by own Orthodox tradition. You aren't fooling anyone with your pretences to objectivity and clarity when you proclaim it so brazenly. Admit to your bias.