Sola Scriptura is nonsense, isn't it?

[JAL]

God is holy. Therefore, churches built on a platform of intellectual dishonesty are probably distancing themselves from His sanctifying revivals, healing graces and evangelistic unction.

Let's be honest, therefore, about the fact that we don't know what we're doing. We don't really know anything for sure, certainly not how to run a church.

Let us be especially honest about the fact that several popular doctrines are so problematical as to almost certainly be nonsense, case in point Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura appears to be a logical absurdity that contradicts common sense and repudiates conversion. Evangelicals conveniently overlook this fact whenever they cite verses supposedly in favor of this 'doctrine' (if we even want to call it that).

 

[JAL]

CAN we know anything for sure? 100% certainty? Or has God doomed us to uncertainty regarding our salvation, His will for our lives, how to be maximally effective in evangelism, and how to abound in His graces?

Let's rephrase the question. Are we aware of any people who, at least from time to to time, DID know the will of God? I think we will generally agree that the apostles and prophets did so. HOW did they know it? Direct revelation!

Any Christian who claims that direct revelation does not or cannot work seems to be in conflict with his own history. Under the right conditions, it DOES work, unfortunately the church hasn't made much effort to determine those conditions...

 

[redleghunter]

What are you certain of exactly?

 

[Phil W]

God his holy. Therefore, churches built on a platform of intellectual dishonesty are probably distancing themselves from His sanctifying revivals, healing graces and evangelistic unction.

Let's be honest, therefore, about the fact that we don't know what we're doing. We don't really know anything for sure, certainly not how to run a church.

Let us be especially honest about the fact that several popular doctrines are so problematical as to almost certainly be nonsense, case in point Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura appears to be a logical absurdity that contradicts common sense and repudiates conversion. Evangelicals conveniently overlook this fact whenever they cite verses supposedly in favor of this 'doctrine' (if we even want to call it that).

Hi, JAL.
What is your definition of sola scriptura?
Is it "believe only what is in the bible"?

 

[thecolorsblend]

I do not believe in the man-made doctrine called "sola scriptura".

However, the OP seems premised on the idea that there is no authority in religious matters. Assuming that I'm interpreting the post correctly then I must completely reject that idea.

But there is an authority which can guide the faithful. This same authority is who, humanly speaking, wrote the New Testament.

 

[Dave L]

What are you certain of exactly?

Faith comes from scripture. Anything beyond scripture robs people of faith.

 

[JAL]

What are you certain of exactly?

100% certain? Nothing. Honesty is the best policy.

The typical Christian who says, 'I am 100% certain of my salvation' probably doesn't understand what 100% certainty is. I imagine he's actually 99% certain.

 

[JAL]

Hi, JAL.
What is your definition of sola scriptura?
Is it "believe only what is in the bible"?

Sola Scriptura is the claim that the Bible is the only final authority on all major religious issues.

 

[Anto9us]

Ultimately, the AUTHORITY is as colors has said - the Holy Ghost

Different denominations are guided by different principles, however, as to what best represents what Holy Spirit intended.

This may be a Magisterium of church leaders (for Catholic and Ortho)

Or Sola Scriptura idea...

Or, in my case, Wesleyan Quadrilateral
Which Albert Outler in the 60's said was what Wesley WOULD HAVE SAID...

 

[JAL]

I do not believe in the man-made doctrine called "sola scriptura".

However, the OP seems premised on the idea that there is no authority in religious matters. Assuming that I'm interpreting the post correctly then I must completely reject that idea.

I don't think that's really what I said?

But there is an authority which can guide the faithful. This same authority is who, humanly speaking, wrote the New Testament.

Sure, but you'll need to be more specific. How do I know when I'm being 'guided'? Just assume it when I feel like it? What's the criteria?

 

[JAL]

Faith comes from scripture. Anything beyond scripture robs people of faith.

This is a nebulous statement. What does 'beyond Scripture' mean? My experience with you in the past is that, every time you hear something you disagree with, you dismiss it with a nebulous rebuttal that isn't really saying anything specific.

 

[Dave G.]

Since you state We don't know what we are doing, why then should We bother listening to you ?

 

[JAL]

Since you state We don't know what we are doing, why then should We bother listening to you ?

So my honesty about my own fallibility makes me LESS palatable as an instructor?

 

[redleghunter]

100% certain? Nothing. Honesty is the best policy.

The typical Christian who says, 'I am 100% certain of my salvation' probably doesn't understand what 100% certainty is. I imagine he's actually 99% certain.

Do you believe the Holy Scriptures teach absolute truth and certainties?

 

[JAL]

Do you believe the Holy Scriptures teach absolute truth and certainties?

Exegesis doesn't provide me direct access to Scripture. It only provides me access to my own fallible interpretations of it.

If I want something infallible, I'd better look to the prophetic experience. "Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

 

[royal priest]

100% certain? Nothing. Honesty is the best policy.

The typical Christian who says, 'I am 100% certain of my salvation' probably doesn't understand what 100% certainty is. I imagine he's actually 99% certain.

What about a revelation from God? How certain would that be? Is there a way to know if a revelation came from God or another source?

 

[Jonaitis]

If Scripture isn't our highest authority to appeal to, then it is no longer God's word, whose word should be supreme above all human institutions.

 

[JAL]

What about a revelation from God? How certain would that be? Is there a way to know if a revelation came from God or another source?

That's an epistemological question - and one of the main topics of this thread. Unfortunately I'm in only a few posts deep so far, I haven't had time to fully address it.

Can I prove my position 100% incontrovertibly to you? No. What I'm after on this thread:
(1) Honesty about the fact that Sola Scriptura appears to be logical absurdity.
(2) Honesty about the fact that my epistemology (yet to be clarified) is NOT absurd and is probably the most plausible alternative to #1.

 

[Anto9us]

I would not call ANY of the methods of guidance "nonsense"

Papal Magesterium, Metropolitan Magisterium, Sola Scriptura, or Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

But the first move regarding Sola Scriptura would be to define the SCOPE of Scripture.

Just 66 books of Protestant Bible?

Sorry, that leaves out first fifteen hundred years of Christian history, yet some Sola Sciptura adherents would claim this.

Is SCRIPTURA to include deuterocanonical works?
Tewahedo additions to NEW Testament? (Much never translated into English to this day)

Wesley/Quad adds only EXPERIENCE to Scripture-Reason-Tradition, a principle of others here at C.F., and Hooker the Anglican considered EXPERIENCE to be part of REASON, Wesley separated it.

I would be curious to read the Tewahedo books, but cannot at this time.

 

[redleghunter]

Exegesis doesn't provide me direct access to Scripture. It only provides me access to my own fallible interpretations of it.

If I want something infallible, I'd better look to the prophetic experience. "Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

Is your answer “no” the Bible contains no clarity on Truth and certainties?

Meaning you deny the perspicuity of Holy Scriptures?

The Perspicuity of Scripture by Burk Parsons