WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A REBUTTAL

[LoveGodsWord]

Empty words. You LIVE by the maxim:

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

If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Show me one scenario in your life that obviously calls for departure from the maxim. You can't.

Repitition, this is already adressed in the op. Still waiting for you to respond to the scriptures shared there that show why you are in error. Take your time it's already been like 26+ pages.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

your the one making these claims.
"I understand there is danger attached, but we really do have to trust in God and not in a book." Though perhaps you need to make yourself more clear. We trust in God by believing his Word not by not believing it.

You haven't answered my previous question here. Can you show me the courtesy of answering this question please?

Now as a reply to your comments, one danger is relying on the Holy Spirit and becoming misguided in some manner. This is a real danger and so each of us must remain humble and teachable. But there is another terrible danger: becoming so enamored with our slant on the bible that we don't let the Holy Spirit teach us. And this is the much more common problem. Everyone is a know-it-all when it comes to the bible.

Most Christians believe understanding the bible is "so obvious". If that is so, why are there so many interpretations? Jehovah's Witness' and Mormons use the Bible you know. Also the KKK I believe. Well how is the Holy Spirit meant to teach these if all they have is their slant on the bible! The answer is, it's very difficult for Him! To remain teachable, we must submit to the Holy Spirit.

Sola Sciptura elevates the bible as the sole authority, I'll take the God of the Bible as my authority thanks.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

It's this simple, show me one place in the whole bible where "The Word of God" literally means the Bible as it is compiled today. Remember, this part of the conversation began with a simple True/False question which you haven't responded to, but instead, ask all these questions back at me. I gave you the courtesy of answering your last question three times over until you were satisfied. But you do not share with me the same courtesy. I find this rude and feel like I'm not debating with someone but being preached at. There is a big difference between debating and preaching at each other.

Didn't we go through all this before with the all scripture being given by inspiration of God...? If all scripture is given by inspiration of God then does it not stand that it is God's Word to all mankind and if these scriptures are contained in the bible how is it not the Word of God?

 

[Albion]

We have a difference of opinion on what the bible means when it says "word of God". You believe it means bible some of the time. I believe it only ever means God's actual word, as in speaking to our heart by the Spirit; or Jesus; or the old Jewish Scriptures like the Pentateuch or the book of Jeremiah, or the book of Enoch etc.

Of course any discussion of Sola Scriptura (or its usual opposite, Sacred Tradition), would have relevance only within the framework of conventional Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant theology.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Didn't we go through all this before with the all scripture being given by inspiration of God...? If all scripture is given by inspiration of God then does it not stand that it is God's Word to all mankind and if these scriptures are contained in the bible how is it not the Word of God?

We haven't gone over it because you haven't shown a single verse that shows "the Word of God" to mean the entire canon of Scripture including the New Testament and Old Testament because it did not exist at the time the New Testament was being penned. Therefore the New Testament references to scripture always referred back to older documents, and the Word of God always meant either Jesus, or God's actual speaking.

I'll try to simplify, how can a New Testament author refer to the New Testament which has not yet been compiled?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Of course any discussion of Sola Scriptura (or its usual opposite, Sacred Tradition), would have relevance only within the framework of conventional Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant theology.

Sorry, what point are you making?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

We haven't gone over it because you haven't shown a single verse that shows "the Word of God" to mean the entire canon of Scripture including the New Testament and Old Testament because it did not exist at the time the New Testament was being penned. Therefore the New Testament references to scripture always referred back to older documents, and the Word of God always meant either Jesus, or God's actual speaking.

I'll try to simplify, how can a New Testament author refer to the New Testament which has not yet been compiled?

Sure we have you simply have chosen to ignore it. Don't you think God is in control of his Word? Or that the writings of the very words of JESUS and the Apostles are the inspired Word of God? *2 TIMOTHY 3:16. Do you not believe that the bible is the inspired Word of God? Sorry I thought you did. Maybe I confused you with someone else.

 

[Albion]

We haven't gone over it because you haven't shown a single verse that shows "the Word of God" to mean the entire canon of Scripture including the New Testament and Old Testament because it did not exist at the time the New Testament was being penned.

I got your point the first time.

It is essentially a personal objection to what both Catholics and Protestants believe about this issue that has divided them so sharply and fundamentally.

Therefore, you've laid it before us for our consideration, and IMO that's all there is to that.

 

[JAL]

Repitition, this is already adressed in the op. Still waiting for you to respond to the scriptures shared there that show why you are in error. Take your time it's already been like 26+ pages.

Seems pretty clear this is more dishonest debating. No your OP did not address the specific challenge. 500 posts deep and you've failed to provide one specific scenario - even a hypothetical one - that would clearly warrant your departure from the maxim, which proves that you LIVE by the maxim every single moment of every single day.

 

[JAL]

Repitition, this is already adressed in the op. Still waiting for you to respond to the scriptures shared there that show why you are in error. Take your time it's already been like 26+ pages.

Here's a charitable post. This poster read my maxim yesterday and was about to debate it, then he suddenly remembered the Voice that commanded Abraham to slaughter his son. He concluded that the Sola Scriptura ideology of testing would fail in such scenarios and that God's Voice indeed must have the capacity to be self-authenticating as I alleged.

And I wouldn't have minded debating with him as long as it were honest debate. For example I'm pretty sure that he, unlike you, would not have falsely accused me of denying the inspiration of Scripture.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Seems pretty clear this is more dishonest debating. No your OP did not address the specific challenge. 500 posts deep and you've failed to provide one specific scenario - even a hypothetical one - that would clearly warrant your departure from the maxim, which proves that you LIVE by the maxim every single moment of every single day.

Not really dear friend. Sure the op addresses your claims even your maxims. Yet here we still are waiting for you to respond to the scriptures shared in the OP that show why you are in error. Take your time it's already been like 26+ pages and climbing. Why don't you want to talk scripture with me. I will not bit you

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Here's a charitable post. This poster read my maxim yesterday and was about to debate it, then he suddenly remembered the Voice that commanded Abraham to slaughter his son. He concluded that the Sola Scriptura ideology of testing would fail in such scenarios and that God's Voice indeed must have the capacity to be self-authenticating as I alleged.

And I wouldn't have minded debating with him as long as it were honest debate. For example I'm pretty sure that he, unlike you, would not have falsely accused me of denying the inspiration of Scripture.

I have already shared with you I believe there is nothing wrong with divine revelation as I believe this continues today and is biblical but it is tested through the Word of God. You seem to be focusing on the divine revelation but reject the scriptures which are the very test to know if a revelation is from God or not according to the scriptures. It is the rejecting of the scriptures in favour of divine revelation that I believe is not biblical.

 

[JAL]

I have already shared with you I believe there is nothing wrong with divine revelation as I believe this continues today and is biblical but it is tested through the Word of God. You seem to be focusing on the divine revelation but reject the scriptures which are the very test to know if a revelation is from God or not according to the scriptures. It is the rejecting of the scriptures in favour of divine revelation that I believe is not biblical.

So then Abraham shouldn't have heeded any voices, then, as he had no Scripture to test them?

 

[JAL]

And I suppose you think the

I have already shared with you I believe there is nothing wrong with divine revelation as I believe this continues today and is biblical but it is tested through the Word of God. You seem to be focusing on the divine revelation but reject the scriptures which are the very test to know if a revelation is from God or not according to the scriptures. It is the rejecting of the scriptures in favour of divine revelation that I believe is not biblical.

And I suppose the angels have to carry Bibles around to test any voice they might hear? Please tell me how the angels distinguish God's voice - reliably - from a possible counterfeit.

 

[JAL]

I have already shared with you I believe there is nothing wrong with divine revelation as I believe this continues today and is biblical but it is tested through the Word of God. You seem to be focusing on the divine revelation but reject the scriptures which are the very test to know if a revelation is from God or not according to the scriptures. It is the rejecting of the scriptures in favour of divine revelation that I believe is not biblical.

Looks like, on your assumptions, that Adam and Eve did the right thing, when they disobeyed the Voice of God in the garden. After all, they didn't have Scripture to test it.

 

[JAL]

I have already shared with you I believe there is nothing wrong with divine revelation as I believe this continues today and is biblical but it is tested through the Word of God. You seem to be focusing on the divine revelation but reject the scriptures which are the very test to know if a revelation is from God or not according to the scriptures. It is the rejecting of the scriptures in favour of divine revelation that I believe is not biblical.

And how stupid you apparently think Noah was - to spend all that time building an ark, with no Scripture to prove that building an ark was God's will!

 

[JAL]

You keep saying that your OP was an on-point rebuttal of my 16 points. I'll humor you momentarily on this allegation. You said:

There are only no conceivable exception [to the maxim] if you do not believe the scriptures. Where point one falls down and can be dismissed right away is that there is only one standard for GOOD and EVIL; SIN and RIGHTEOUSNESS and that is the Word of God given through God's 10 commandments *ROMANS 3:20; ROMANS 7:7; 1 JOHN 3:4; PSALMS 119:172.

Where in that statement is even one hypothetical scenario that runs contrary to the maxim? The maxim was proposed as an obvious counterexample to Sola Scriptura. All you've done is respond, "Sola Scriptura is true, not your maxim." But you've done nothing to discredit the maxim!

You insinuate that the ten commandments tell us everything we need to know about righteousness. You mean like this command:

"Thou shall not kill."

And yet Moses and Joshua purposed to slaughter 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan. And Heb 3 and 4 says they were right to do it. God's law is unchanging only in the sense that the spirit of the law - its underlying meaning - is love. But the specifics of how to fulfill it vary from situation to situation, individual to individual, and nation to nation - and it can even involve one nation slaughtering another (viz. going to battle against Hitler).

You claim that the ten commandments are God's written Word. Actually they began as God's spoken Word. They were authoritative because the Voice is authoritative in whatever it spoke TO ISRAEL. Again, God can speak a very different set of commands to me today because I'm not Israel. The written Word can't tell me the specifics of God's will FOR ME - it can only assure me that God's will is always love and righteousness, in the final analysis.

Yes the 10 commandments began as God's voice. And your claim is that a voice must, in all cases, be tested by Scripture? But at that point Israel had no Scripture to test the voice. I guess they should have ignored it, then?

Still waiting for you to find me one hypothetical scenario that clearly calls for taking exception to the maxim.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Could you supply some Scripture where such a Teaching could be found, I seem to have missed it?

What Sola Scriptura does is, verify unfounded statements.

For without a Scripture to back up what your espousing, where then is the truth in your belief to be found?.........A Catechism, Commentary?

So much to say. I made this post that should answer most of my response

The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

 

[Albion]

Hi, LOfT. I notice that in your denunciation of the idea of Scripture Alone, you base your opinion virtually exclusively on the testimony of...Scripture.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

It is the rejecting of the scriptures in favour of divine revelation that I believe is not biblical.

Strawman.