Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[Bible Highlighter]

(7) With 100 billion souls at stake, the primacy of Direct Revelation is the correct stance. Even if I’m wrong about this theory, I’m still right about it. How so? Because with so much at stake, I need to feel 100% certain about whether I’m right or wrong about the theory, in order to conduct evangelism responsibly. Exegesis is a fallible science that cannot hope to achieve 100% certainty. The pursuit of Direct Revelation is thus the correct stance no matter which religion turns out to be the true one, and thus does not need any biblical support to establish itself as correct. Paul placed superlative emphasis on Direct Revelation when he commanded, ‘Eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy” (1Cor 14:1). In fact the NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180), for only an irresponsible/negligent God would entrust the evangelism of 100 billion souls to humanly fallible approaches.

Do Christians who go to your church, or who believe as you do agree 100% on all things? If so, what is preventing them from having that direct revelation on the things of God in other areas?

Granted, I am not against God opening the eyes of a believer (not the hearing of an audible voice) to see things in Scripture, and or for them to have an inner witness by God that His Word (the Bible) is true. But an inner witness or the opening of our eyes does not show forth new forms of communication or new words to be added to the Bible. God talking to our hearts and confirming the truth, or opening the meaning behind what His Word says is not in conflict with the teaching of Sola Scriptura or in using exegesis (Comparing Scripture with Scripture).

We both agree on the following verse.

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (Romans 8:16).

But how we get there today is another matter. You said a person can be saved by a direct revelation from God without even hearing about Jesus. This is contrary to New Testament Scripture.

People have all sorts of ideas about what "direct revelation" from God even means. Some see it as a still small voice that is not exactly in words, and others see it as an audible voice of God, or as a vision, or dream, etc.; Some may see "direct revelation" as a combination of these things or anyone of them (and it can differ between the individual). Then there are those who read Scripture, and simply know it is the true revelation of God, and the Spirit witnesses with their spirit that they are the children of God (after they acted upon Scripture in believing the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

But how do we really know? Which revelation is the true one?
Another guy in some other religion can say he has direct revelation from God, too; But it would simply be his word over your word. Both of you had some kind of extraordinary experience of what one believes to be God, but only one of them (or neither of them) is telling the truth.

The issue comes down to who is telling the truth (Which direct revelation cannot answer).

There were many self authenticating ways that God proved Himself to be true even back in the Old Testament. God would make prophecies about the future by His Word, and when they came to pass, they would see that His Word (words) were true. False prophets who put forth a prophecy that failed to come to pass were to be killed.

Hundreds of Messianic prophecies have been fulfilled authenticating the Word of God. Another way God confirms His Word is by biblical numerics. Another way is by seeing the typifications of Christ in the Old Testament stories. Another way is by discovering Christ Himself in the many pre-incarnate appearances He has made in the OT, as well. How fitting because Jesus said to the Pharisees that they sought the Scriptures for eternal life but it is they that testify of Him. What they missed by the Scriptures was Jesus Himself. They missed the most important thing. Jesus. I believe you are running into the same problem when you say that a person can be saved in certain circumstances without knowing about Jesus. Oh, and I have one more; Another way we can authenticate the Bible is that many scientific evidences back up God's Word, too.

For example:

In the realm of medical science, we know that there are 46 chromosomes in the human body.

We know according to Scripture (and not some voice telling us or by some near death experience) that under the New Covenant, our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit.

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Corinthians 3:16).

1 Corinthians 6:19 also confirms this truth, as well. What is interesting is that 1 Corinthians is the 46th book of the Protestant Bible.

Behold the scene in John 2:

[Jesus said]

“Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up.” ​

The Jews
then said,

“It took forty-six years to build this temple,
and will You raise it up in three days?”
​

But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.​

(John 2:19-22).

Not sure if you caught it or not, but the Jews said that it took them 46 YEARS to build the temple. The Jews were confused and they thought Jesus was going to tear down the literal temple of worship, but Jesus was referring to His body. The body that has 46 chromosomes within it.

I could keep going on the number 46 and other numbers, but it probably make you curl up in a ball in a corner somewhere drooling like a madman. But this should suffice to show you that God's Word should be revered and you should drop to your knees before it in awe of it's divine power so as to worship God in spirit and in truth. For if you ever did a study on biblical numerics, you would not doubt His Word in what every little letter says. So the next time you think His Word is not good enough. Think again. God's Word is divine and the depths of it's treasures is beyond your imagining. But hey; If you want to think of the Bible as some kind of second rate watered down message from GOD and or that is just optional or secondary to your divine voice in your head, then by all means: Follow that voice and see where it gets you. I will trust the Bible alone instead of some vision, dream, voice, near death experience, etc.;

2 Peter 1:19
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed,..."

 

[JAL]

BTW, please don't say anything more about audible voices for now. You're totally misrepresenting me on that issue. I have never claimed that Direct Revelation is usually an audible voice. It can be any kind of impression that conveys something, and it will ALWAYS be accompanied with feelings of certainty. You yourself said that the Spirit convicts. That means He will cause to feel convinced/certain of something. That's Direct Revelation. If you want a little clarity on what I mean by mental impressions, you can start with post 169. Maybe I'll find you some other posts if I have time later.

 

[JAL]

Ultimately, I don't distinguish between audible and inaudible voices. For example if you hear voice in a dream or vision, is it really an audible voice? Those distinctions don't hold up very well. You'd LIKE to pigeonhole me into an audible framework as a way of discrediting my views because most Christians have never experienced God speaking to them face to face like He did with Moses. But my views are not tied down to any such restrictive framework.

 

[pescador]

Isn't the subject of this thread "Sola Scriptura doesn't make sense"? It seems that the discussion has veered considerably from that subject.

To me, the doctrine of "sola scriptura" makes perfect sense. The Bible, the word of God, is far more reliable than the ideas of men. There will always be disagreements about people's ideas, but the Bible is consistent from Genesis through Revelation.

 

[JAL]

On the other hand, God is no respecter of persons. So yes, if any of us rose to the same maturity level of prophets like Moses, Paul, Isaiah, and Ezekiel we'd be privy to the same kinds of revelations as they had - what Paul called 'surpassing revelations'. God created us for fellowship, and fellowship can ONLY be defined in terms of a mutual exchange of sensations more or less distinct("loud and clear"). The more we mature, the more distinct("loud and clear") those sensations will become.

 

[JAL]

Isn't the subject of this thread "Sola Scriptura doesn't make sense"? It seems that the discussion has veered considerably from that subject.

To me, the doctrine of "sola scriptura" makes perfect sense. The Bible, the word of God, is far more reliable than the ideas of men. There will always be disagreements about people's ideas, but the Bible is consistent from Genesis through Revelation.

Actually it's impossible to study the Bible without the influence of the opinions of men. That's one of about 13 objections summarized at post 393. Also in that list are charges of logical contradiction. Sola Scriptura 'sounds logical' only on the surface. When you look at it more closely, it makes no sense at all.

 

[JAL]

Do you have anything besides strawman arguments that begin by pigeon-holing me into some general category and then challenging that category instead of my specific views?

The problem with "Prima Scriptura" (Which is undoubtedly your position) is that...

So if I happen to intersect with any views in that category, I'm liable even for those criticisms that don't specifically apply to me? Nice debating tactic. Makes your job easy, doesn't it? Except it raises concerns about intellectual dishonesty.

...[Prima Scriptura] opens the door for all sorts of gross and scary errors to rule over one's faith like a defiled conscience (because of a person justifying sin), false visions, false dreams, mystical new age insight, angelic visitations, false miracles

In terms of authority, I basically hold to ONE maxim:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

You yourself LIVE by this maxim. About 400 posts deep, neither you nor anyone else can think of even one scenario that calls for departure from the maxim. How then can you say that my views lead to gross and scary errors, when in fact you live by the same principle every moment. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

(Note: I am not claiming that God cannot do miracles today) with the Bible playing second fiddle or not at all in many cases. In my view: I believe this position takes a more liberal approach with the Scriptures. In this position: Some believe that a person can be saved without even knowing about Jesus and they can be saved by a direct revelation from God (Which you yourself have testified to). This of course violates everything we know about salvation in the New Testament.

Sheer intellectual dishonesty. About five times now I've replied to that objection of yours with the following distinction: The OT saints knew our Lord Jesus Christ personally via the Voice, not necessarily by the five letters J-e-s-u-s. I NEVER intimated that one could be saved without knowing Yahweh/Jesus. What I did suggest is that it might be possible for someone to cry out to Yahweh in response to General Revelation (although I don't firmly insist on that possibility because it's a complex question).

For in the pages of the New Testament: Nowhere did anyone get saved without Jesus. Those who were of the Old way and were accepted by God also accepted Jesus (like the disciples).

Correct. That's not a rebuttal.

These kinds of comments sound underhanded (again raising concerns about intellectual dishonesty):

"Yes, a conscience being convicted by the Spirit will help a person to accept God's Word, but it is not new words of knowledge being added to the Bible here.

Why would you bring up 'added to the Bible' other than to underhandedly insinuate that my view favors canon-expansion, which I clearly repudiated?

 

[JAL]

Do Christians who go to your church, or who believe as you do agree 100% on all things?

Ok so if there is any disagreement among the participants, the whole system falls to the ground? Too bad. I guess that spells the end of Sola Scriptura.

God talking to our hearts and confirming the truth, or opening the meaning behind what His Word says is not in conflict with the teaching of Sola Scriptura

This is a logical contradiction identified at point #4 in the Summary-of-objections at post 393. Don't see any resolution on your part as yet

You said a person can be saved by a direct revelation from God without even hearing about Jesus. This is contrary to New Testament Scripture.

Sheer misrepresentation. Were OT saints saved, or not? And if so, to what God did they pray to, if not Jesus?

People have all sorts of ideas about what "direct revelation" from God even means...But how do we really know? Which revelation is the true one?

It doesn't matter. I've answered this objection probably a dozen times. You and I both agree to ONE maxim - you IMPLY agreement because you too can find no exceptions:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil,and B is good, I should opt for B"

I claimed that Direct Revelation causes us to feel certain about it. If you feel certain about the revelation, that means you've ALREADY accepted it (so you don't have a choice). So I'll make it real simple for you. Here's a supplementary maxim:

"You can be confident in a revelation when you find it incontrovertible, that is, when you can't help but have confidence in it."

Another guy in some other religion can say he has direct revelation from God, too; But it would simply be his word over your word.
Both of you had some kind of extraordinary experience of what one believes to be God, but only one of them (or neither of them) is telling the truth.

So? What's the problem here? All YOU have to worry about is ONE maxim:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil,and B is good, I should opt for B"

If you don't feel certain about the OTHER guy's revelation, then, per the maxim, you are SUPPOSED to reject it. You're already living by that maxim every single moment of every single day, so I don't see the problem here.

To summarize, the fact that 2 people might disagree about what God is saying is not cause to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Otherwise, the Bible would have been thrown out within 30 days of its inception.

The issue comes down to who is telling the truth (Which direct revelation cannot answer).

Neither can fallible exegesis. When two exegetes disagree, exegesis cannot answer because all exegetes are fallible. It's the same dilemma except that exegesis affords no HOPE of resolution - and thus no prospect of unity. Direct Revelation is the only hope for unity, because if we all mature enough to hear the Voice clearly, we'll all feel certain of the same doctrines.

By the way, you seem to do a LOT of rambling. Your posts would be a lot shorter if you stayed on point.

 

[JAL]

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1).
Seen. The word "seen" is one of the five senses. We cannot go by what we see, hear, or feel. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Faith is not about what you feel, but it is about trusting in what God's Word says.

You've literally reached the conclusion opposite of what Hebrews 11 is teaching. Let's start with the Greek word for 'substance', as it also means CERTAINTY (did you catch that?). Faith is not a substance. I can't pour you a glass of faith. Here's a better translation:

"Faith is the certainty of things hoped for, the assurance [the feeling certain] of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1).

Regardless of whether you see them, you feel certain about them, having been apprised of them by Direct Revelation. And believe me, it gets much better yet. Was the author REALLY saying that we don't see these things? No! One of the major ways that Direct Revelation causes you to feel certain about the unseen realm is to show you VISIONS of it. These things are not supposed to REMAIN unseen. The whole chapter is about seeing those things! Example:

"For [Abraham] was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God" (Heb 11:10).

The prophet Abraham saw the heavenly city! He saw all the same kinds of visions that the prophet John recorded in the Book of Revelation! Here's a similar example:

"Jacob had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. 13There above it c stood the Lord" (Gen 28)

Here Jacob sees God in a vision - and we know that God appeared to Abraham time and again. Now here's the clincher. Hebrews 11 is a chapter about exemplary faith! The kind that we are all supposed to aspire to! And he's defining this faith as feelings of certainty born of revelatory visions and voices! What degree of faith? 100% certainty ! How do I know that? Because one of his examples is Abraham's attempt to slaughter his son (verse 17). The Voice MUST have given Abraham 100% certainty because it would be evil to try to kill your own kid on anything less than 100% certainty. Moving on, look at verse 27:

"By faith [Moses] left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible."

Why was Moses confident? Why did he feel certain? What was his faith grounded in? Revelatory visions. Look at verse 13:

"All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. "

Did you catch that? They didn't receive the promised heavenly city - they only SAW it from a distance - in visions! Again, Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing from the Word of God" (Rom 10:17) - we already know that refers to visions because Paul's favorite example in both Romans 4 and Galatians 3 is to refer back to Gen 15:1:

"The Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision [speaking promises]" (Gen 15).

Faith cometh by hearing the divine Word - hearing the Lord during visions for example.

Thanks for bringing up Hebrews 11. Always welcome to do that - it's a wonderful refutation of Sola Scriptura.

 

[JAL]

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1). Seen. The word "seen" is one of the five senses. We cannot go by what we see, hear, or feel. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Faith is not about what you feel, but it is about trusting in what God's Word says.

Is blindness a healthy condition? Would you like to be described as a spiritually blind Christian? Is blindndess normative? No. Of course not. What's interesting is the biblical definition of spiritual blindness. A spiritually blind person is one who cannot see the unseen realm clearly - that would include me as well, since I've never experienced a distinct ("loud and clear") vision. A couple of examples, to bolster this point. When Isaiah went up to the temple and saw God face to face, what was his immediate reaction? Now, with his own blinders removed, he suddenly realized that everyone else in his sphere was spiritually blind! Picking up on this theme, John confirmed:

“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.” Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him." (Jn 12).

Did you catch that? It was because Isaiah saw Jesus face to face that he finally understood the nature of spiritual blindness!

One more example. When Elisha's manservant couldn't see the armies of God - the chariots of Fire - he prayed for him:

"Open his eyes, Lord, that he may see"

Did you catch that? Elisha characterized him as spiritually blind!

And what was Elisha's remedy for spiritual blindness? How do we get such Direct Revelation? Prayer! Let's all change our priorities - we need to be praying for revival, for outpourings of the Spirit/Word.

 

[JAL]

First, your example makes a weak argument. Angels do not have faith like men do.

Intellectual dishonesty. The narrative of the angel was touted by me as just a humorous illustration to explain the issue. It wasn't the thrust of the argument. And then you continue on with more rambling.

Seems like about 80% of the time, you're posting tons of words that have NOTHING to do with the force of the arguments raised. In other words, you typically make a pretense of rebuttal.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

(8) It would be irresponsible/negligent of God to confine us to religious documents tainted by man-made opinions. And yet that is precisely what Sola Scriptura entails. In order to learn Greek and Hebrew, for example, I have to learn it from a man-made Lexicon. As the efficacious Voice of God, only Direct Revelation can hope to achieve full insulation from the opinions of men. Here’s another example of the man-made taint. Exegesis is an application of human reason and human scholarship in an effort to construct proofs of what the biblical text does or does not say. All proofs, however, are built on top of assumptions that, in turn, need to be proven. This leads to an infinite regress of unproven assumptions. The only way to break out of this infinite loop is to provisionally stipulate some man-made presumptions hoping the readers will concur. And that is precisely how all exegesis proceeds.

First, the problem is that you are not reading the text of the Bible plainly though. There is always a normal way to read a text. Whether you are reading an aircraft technical manual, or the Bible, there is a certain basic method of acceptance of how people read a language or a given sentence. One looks at the context, and compares the whole of the text in what it says.

Second, I am not like your average Christian. I do not believe in going to Bible school, and in the necessity of how we must learn biblical Hebrew, and Greek in order to understand the Bible. That is the carnal man's way of thinking. I am not against learning the original languages but most often others think that is the only way you can understand the Bible (and it is not). Psalms 12:6-7 says that the words of the Lord are pure words and that He shall preserve them forever. We only have copies today and not the originals. If the Word of God only existed in copied manuscripts in a dead language, then it would have failed to be preserved forever. For you are right. Trusting in the scholar interpretation on how to interpret the Hebrew and Greek in every case is problematic. Certainly they are not unbiased in their defining of all words (unlike a secular dictionary). Anyways, the point is that God preserved His Word in the world language of today. For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. His Word exists in a living and breathing language that men should be held without excuse before. I believe this to be the King James Bible.

Also, there are metaphors in the Bible. Without studying what they mean, God is not going to just tell you the meaning. I am sure He could, but I would like for you to prove that you or another believer are able to pull this off. If not, then your method of "direct revelation" fails. You need to define words of how humans understand metaphor and or even complicated Bible words or terms that we may not be familiar with (because of the time period).

Take for example your interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. You believe this passage is exclusively giving instructions to Timothy alone. Do you believe God revealed this interpretation to you? If so, you are not hearing from God the correct interpretation or how this text is basically written. The person of whom the instructions in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is given to is the "man of God." This means every faithful believer because it is referring generically to the "man of God" and not specifically to just one church group alone, or to Timothy or to one of the apostle's pets.

In any event, I am not against the Anointing of God to understand Scripture. Surely, we cannot fully or more accurately understand the Bible without asking God for the understanding on it. But God giving us the understanding on Scripture is not Him audibly talking to us. This is not a contradiction of Sola Scriptura, but merely a secondary element that helps us to enhance what is already in God's Word. I believe in Gloria Scriptura. All secondary things like God opening our eyes to see His Word is not new knowledge because it is merely a reveal of what the Word already says. It is a glorification of His Word when we see and fully understand it.

I find errors in interpretation in God's Word for those believers who rely too heavily in scholarship, church history, etc.; and I find errors in interpretation for those believers who rely too heavily on the focus of the miraculous experiences, etc.; There is plenty of problems on both sides - IMO. While I may not be entirely free of error, I do believe that God is good and moral, and God wants us to trust in every word that He says plainly. God is not going to make us to jump through hoops by talking to some audible voice or something. Again, if you are talking to a voice, you need to put forth the 1 John 4:1-3 test. In my opinion, the voice will most likely not pass the test. It will either remain silent or tell a lie. Why? Because we have God's Word in our hands today. It is called the Holy Bible. But people do not like to be held accountable to the true word of God. That is what this is really about.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ultimately, I don't distinguish between audible and inaudible voices. For example if you hear voice in a dream or vision, is it really an audible voice? Those distinctions don't hold up very well. You'd LIKE to pigeonhole me into an audible framework as a way of discrediting my views because most Christians have never experienced God speaking to them face to face like He did with Moses. But my views are not tied down to any such restrictive framework.

I have heard voices and or sounds in a dream before. If you hear something in your dream like a voice, it is most likely your spirit that hears this voice and not your physical ears. Either that or it is a spirit of some kind talking to you on a spiritual level. In either case, the sense of sound is mimicked or replicated for you in how you would hear in the real world. If you hear a voice in your dream and can make out the words in that communication, then it is a form of an audible voice (Whether it takes place in this physical world, or a possible dream world in your mind, or the spirit world makes no difference). Perhaps it is your memory recalling sound back to you. In either case, if you wake up and recall actual speaking, then it is an audible voice but in a different state of being (sleep). An inaudible voice would simply be no words of any kind heard or no voice heard (no murmuring or no noise) whatsoever. It would just be pure silence. When a person says that God spoke to them silently, this means there was no actual voice of any kind (whether it was in the physical world or in their dreams while they sleep). They heard nothing of any kind. Silence, but they felt guided by God by other circumstances happening in their life that were out of the norm that pointed them to a repeat message of the glorification of God's Word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Is blindness a healthy condition? Would you like to be described as a spiritually blind Christian? Is blindndess normative? No. Of course not. What's interesting is the biblical definition of spiritual blindness. A spiritually blind person is one who cannot see the unseen realm clearly - that would include me as well, since I've never experienced a distinct ("loud and clear") vision. A couple of examples, to bolster this point. When Isaiah went up to the temple and saw God face to face, what was his immediate reaction? Now, with his own blinders removed, he suddenly realized that everyone else in his sphere was spiritually blind! Picking up on this theme, John confirmed:

“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.” Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him." (Jn 12).

Did you catch that? It was because Isaiah saw Jesus face to face that he finally understood the nature of spiritual blindness!

One more example. When Elisha's manservant couldn't see the armies of God - the chariots of Fire - he prayed for him:

"Open his eyes, Lord, that he may see"

Did you catch that? Elisha characterized him as spiritually blind!

And what was Elisha's remedy for spiritual blindness? How do we get such Direct Revelation? Prayer! Let's all change our priorities - we need to be praying for revival, for outpourings of the Spirit/Word.

Lets deal with the passage that you don't like. If your belief has any chance to hold up to any kind of scrutiny, you need to deal with 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Would you mind please to offer us a word for word commentary on that passage in the King James Bible? My guess is that such a thing is not going to happen because you did not properly deal with John 12:48.

 

[JAL]

As for the gospel: Well, we reach men with the gospel by telling them about how Christ died for their sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later on their behalf for salvation (According to the Scriptures). Yes, men of God need to make moral decisions, but if they were to follow their instructions in the New Testament very closely, they will not drop any bombs on anyone, but they will love and do good towards their enemies, and tell them to believe in Jesus for salvation (even while they face death).

No Christians in the military? Is that your assumption? And you don't even come close to handling the main objection in that paragraph of mine, namely that with 100 billion souls at stake, we need Direct Revelation to be 100% certain that we are evangelizing correctly.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

BTW, please don't say anything more about audible voices for now. You're totally misrepresenting me on that issue. I have never claimed that Direct Revelation is usually an audible voice. It can be any kind of impression that conveys something, and it will ALWAYS be accompanied with feelings of certainty. You yourself said that the Spirit convicts. That means He will cause to feel convinced/certain of something. That's Direct Revelation. If you want a little clarity on what I mean by mental impressions, you can start with post 169. Maybe I'll find you some other posts if I have time later.

Have you tried the 1 John 4:1-3 test on the voice that talks to you?
If you have not done so, I would do so now. My guess is that the voice will either go silent for you or it will simply dodge the issue, or lie. In other words, it will most likely not pass the test and if that is the case, then your whole argument here fails.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No Christians in the military? Is that your assumption? And you don't even come close to handling the main objection in that paragraph of mine, namely that with 100 billion souls at stake, we need Direct Revelation to be 100% certain that we are evangelizing correctly.

Ever seen Hacksaw Ridge the movie?

It's based on a true story.

 

[JAL]

You did not properly deal with John 12:48.

Then respond with a point-by-point rebuttal of how my exegesis of John 12:48 is unsatisfying. Show an analysis of everything that I said about it and where it fails to satisfy.

Lets deal with the passage that you don't like. If your belief has any chance to hold up to any kind of scrutiny, you need to deal with 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Ditto. I said enough about it. You need to demonstrate, point by point, where my reading of it is inadequate.

And let's remember that it is a passage NOT addressed to the church - it was addressed to one man, arguably a prophet. And even where it says that Scripture is profitable it is talking about the OT, not the NT.

Who said I don't like that passage? I have no issues with it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You've literally reached the conclusion opposite of what Hebrews 11 is teaching. Let's start with the Greek word for 'substance', as it also means CERTAINTY (did you catch that?). Faith is not a substance. I can't pour you a glass of faith. Here's a better translation:

"Faith is the certainty of things hoped for, the assurance [the feeling certain] of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1).

Regardless of whether you see them, you feel certain about them, having been apprised of them by Direct Revelation. And believe me, it gets much better yet. Was the author REALLY saying that we don't see these things? No! One of the major ways that Direct Revelation causes you to feel certain about the unseen realm is to show you VISIONS of it. These things are not supposed to REMAIN unseen. The whole chapter is about seeing those things! Example:

"For [Abraham] was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God" (Heb 11:10).

The prophet Abraham saw the heavenly city! He saw all the same kinds of visions that the prophet John recorded in the Book of Revelation! Here's a similar example:

"Jacob had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. 13There above it c stood the Lord" (Gen 28)

Here Jacob sees God in a vision - and we know that God appeared to Abraham time and again. Now here's the clincher. Hebrews 11 is a chapter about exemplary faith! The kind that we are all supposed to aspire to! And he's defining this faith as feelings of certainty born of revelatory visions and voices! What degree of faith? 100% certainty ! How do I know that? Because one of his examples is Abraham's attempt to slaughter his son (verse 17). The Voice MUST have given Abraham 100% certainty because it would be evil to try to kill your own kid on anything less than 100% certainty. Moving on, look at verse 27:

"By faith [Moses] left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible."

Why was Moses confident? Why did he feel certain? What was his faith grounded in? Revelatory visions. Look at verse 13:

"All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. "

Did you catch that? They didn't receive the promised heavenly city - they only SAW it from a distance - in visions! Again, Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing from the Word of God" (Rom 10:17) - we already know that refers to visions because Paul's favorite example in both Romans 4 and Galatians 3 is to refer back to Gen 15:1:

"The Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision [speaking promises]" (Gen 15).

Faith cometh by hearing the divine Word - hearing the Lord during visions for example.

Thanks for bringing up Hebrews 11. Always welcome to do that - it's a wonderful refutation of Sola Scriptura.

Not true. Faith is not a feeling. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Thomas wanted to not only see Jesus, but He wanted to feel his side, and put his finger into the print of the nails, as well.

"Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:25).

"Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." (John 20:27).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Then respond with a point-by-point rebuttal of how my exegesis of John 12:48 is unsatisfying. Show an analysis of everything that I said about it and where it fails to satisfy.

What post # did you prove that this was talking about some divine hidden voice or revelation and not the actual words of Jesus? I did not see you make that case with Scripture.