Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[Saint Steven]

But Sola Scriptura is (usually) also accompanied by Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo and Solo Deo Gloria, and cannot well be taken separately from them.

Well said. Those were my thoughts as I read through this topic.
What happens when the "Sola Scriptura" point in the OP is expanded to include the full thought?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well said. Those were my thoughts as I read through this topic.
What happens when the "Sola Scriptura" point in the OP is expanded to include the full thought?

That's the same problem we find when someone supports their viewpoint with Scripture. We can all find scripture to support what we think, but what does the whole of Scripture say? God's purpose here is not to depend on nor to bring praise to the ability of man.

Back to the OP then, how can we but do the best we can, and ask God for wisdom and understanding as we study Scriptures rather than to rely on our take of Direct Revelation, whatever he means by that. I've watched more than one sincere person trying not to lose their mind second guessing what they felt God was "trying" to tell them.

 

[Saint Steven]

That's the same problem we find when someone supports their viewpoint with Scripture. We can all find scripture to support what we think, but what does the whole of Scripture say? God's purpose here is not to depend on nor to bring praise to the ability of man.

Back to the OP then, how can we but do the best we can, and ask God for wisdom and understanding as we study Scriptures rather than to rely on our take of Direct Revelation, whatever he means by that. I've watched more than one sincere person trying not to lose their mind second guessing what they felt God was "trying" to tell them.

Yes.
And I think these things are meant to balance each other out. It's not a matter of choosing one of the three from the list.

"Direct Revelation" is balanced with scripture. If the "revelation" is counter-biblical, it should be rejected. There is value in tradition as well. The source of creeds and the Bible too, from which we get our scripture to weigh the "direct" revelation. It all works together.

 

[JAL]

Yes.
And I think these things are meant to balance each other out. It's not a matter of choosing one of the three from the list.

"Direct Revelation" is balanced with scripture. If the "revelation" is counter-biblical, it should be rejected.

Your advice "sounds good' on the surface but is actually not on-point (not even close), partly because you haven't been following this thread. Direct Revelation is self-authenticating, thereby obviating the need "to check it out with Scripture".

If someone asked you, "How do you know Scripture is inspired", I guess you'd reply, "Because I checked it out with Scripture" ????

That doesn't make sense, right? Calvin had the solution. The Inward Witness, he claimed, causes us to feel certain that Scripture is inspired. That's how Direct Revelation works - it authenticates by creating feelings of certainty.

Why are we obligated to feelings of certainty? Due to the following inviolable, tautological rule - for years I have challenged people to find an exception - that I like to call the "rule of conscience":

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

As we are already 500 posts deep, not sure I can afford spending the time debating this rule all over again...Suffice it to say that no one has managed to provide any exceptions.

 

[Saint Steven]

Your advice "sounds good' on the surface but is actually not on-point (not even close), partly because you haven't been following this thread. Direct Revelation is self-authenticating, thereby obviating the need "to check it out with Scripture".

If someone asked you, "How do you know Scripture is inspired", I guess you'd reply, "Because I checked it out with Scripture" ????

That doesn't make sense, right? Calvin had the solution. The Inward Witness, he claimed, causes us to feel certain that Scripture is inspired. That's how Direct Revelation works - it authenticates by creating feelings of certainty.

Why are we obligated to feelings of certainty? Due to the following inviolable, tautological rule - for years I have challenged people to find an exception - that I like to call the "rule of conscience":

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

As we are already 500 posts deep, not sure I can afford spending the time debating this rule all over again...Suffice it to say that no one has managed to provide any exceptions.

I was about to debate your first paragraph when the example of Abraham being asked to offer Isaac dropped into my head. Sola scriptura would have rejected that revelation as false. (which puts the cart before the horse historically, but points to a principle) Abraham didn't need to run that by anyone.

And I may have an advantage over many of your readers, having heard from God on several occasions. Though I don't call myself a Prophet, or even a prophet, I have enough experience to know when it self-authenticates. No need to check with anyone. I know what I heard and I know what to do. Typically short and sweet and not in violation of any scripture. "Talk to that woman." (which leads to an incredible spiritual encounter)

The reason for my knee-jerk reaction to your first paragraph is that we are told to weigh prophecy in a congregational speaking. And I suppose I do that when someone prophesies over me as well. Not something I typically seek out. Although I did make a trip to IHOP. (take a number)

So, that which is often referred to as the "loud voice" of God is indeed self-authenticating. I even remember hearing the self-authenticating (loud voice) when I was eight years old at my conversion experience. It seemed completely natural to me. I knew who it was and it didn't frighten me. The message was mind-blowing, what I needed to do was clear, and there was no discussion. Which wasn't the case with the "Talk to that woman." message mentioned above. My query, "What should I say?", went unanswered. (then we improvise) Although Matthew 10:19 comes into play here. (we are given what to say when we open our mouths and speak) Anyway...

Not say that there is no value in Tradition and Sola Scriptura, although Sola Scriptura would need to be changed to simply "scripture", I suppose. Since "Sola" indicates a singular focus. I don't suppose you are advocating a Bibleless church. Nor one that rejects all of church (small "c") history and tradition.

Just to be clear, I wouldn't advocate either of those above a self-authenticating direct revelation from God. So I suppose I would agree with the OP. I need to re-read it now and give a rating. Now that I have a bit more clarity. (thanks for listening) - lol

 

[JAL]

I was about to debate your first paragraph when the example of Abraham being asked to offer Isaac dropped into my head. Sola scriptura would have rejected that revelation as false. (which puts the cart before the horse historically, but points to a principle) Abraham didn't need to run that by anyone.

And I may have an advantage over many of your readers, having heard from God on several occasions. Though I don't call myself a Prophet, or even a prophet, I have enough experience to know when it self-authenticates. No need to check with anyone. I know what I heard and I know what to do. Typically short and sweet and not in violation of any scripture. "Talk to that woman." (which leads to an incredible spiritual encounter)

The reason for my knee-jerk reaction to your first paragraph is that we are told to weigh prophecy in a congregational speaking. And I suppose I do that when someone prophesies over me as well. Not something I typically seek out. Although I did make a trip to IHOP. (take a number)

So, that which is often referred to as the "loud voice" of God is indeed self-authenticating. I even remember hearing the self-authenticating (loud voice) when I was eight years old at my conversion experience. It seemed completely natural to me. I knew who it was and it didn't frighten me. The message was mind-blowing, what I needed to do was clear, and there was no discussion. Which wasn't the case with the "Talk to that woman." message mentioned above. My query, "What should I say?", went unanswered. (then we improvise) Although Matthew 10:19 comes into play here. (we are given what to say when we open our mouths and speak) Anyway...

Not say that there is no value in Tradition and Sola Scriptura, although Sola Scriptura would need to be changed to simply "scripture", I suppose. Since "Sola" indicates a singular focus. I don't suppose you are advocating a Bibleless church. Nor one that rejects all of church (small "c") history and tradition.

Just to be clear, I wouldn't advocate either of those above a self-authenticating direct revelation from God. So I suppose I would agree with the OP. I need to re-read it now and give a rating. Now that I have a bit more clarity. (thanks for listening) - lol

Thanks for finding some points of cogency in my position. Seems to me there is a great deal of useful information that God might want to convey to us that is not readily testable by exegesis. For example a missionary would presumably need to know where God plans to launch the next revival:

"Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. 7 When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. 8 So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. 9 During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them."

 

[1213]

The REASON is that you are a fallible interpreter of the text. For example you could misunderstand how to properly evangelize…

You could as well misunderstand the direct revelation. In the case of the Bible, I think interpretations are usually the problem, that people add own meanings to the direct words by making interpretations. It would be better to let the Bible explain what it means.

…(and it is my personal opinion that the church has misunderstood evangelism for 2,000 years). …

Please explain why do you think so?

 

[JAL]

You could as well misunderstand the direct revelation.

Are you asking me if Direct Revelation actually works? Whether it is a proven system?
(1) Do you not accept Calvin's doctrine of the Inward Witness? Wasn't Calvin's whole point that God can reliably reveal information that the human mind, left to its own fallibility, was prone to overlook?
(2) When Paul and Moses wrote books and epistles, were they unsure, in your estimation, whether they were actually writing truth? Perhaps they were misunderstanding the Direct Revelations, as you suggest, and therefore the Bible, even today, is not a reliable document?
(3) It's been what - 3000 years since Moses wrote? To the best of your knowledge, is there a viable system other than Direct Revelation to reliably convey truth ? And, if not, would you say that God is incapable of reliable communications? That our fallibility is insurmountable even for Him? Of course if you so conclude, that means Scripture is fallible, right?

My point is that, I don't think it's practical to dispute whether Direct Revelation works. The real question is how can we know WHEN it is at work or, less ambitiously, my goal is to determine when I am warranted in concluding that it is at work. And my reflection on THAT question has led to some pretty reasonable suggestions. Here's a very strict formulation - the strict ones seem to be tautologies and thus impossible to rationally dismiss.

"I can accept a revelation without question when I find it incontrovertible, that is, when it has raised my level of felt certainty to a degree making it impossible for me to question it."

The above is what I would call 100% certainty.

Slightly less strict is this one - this one would at least cover how the Inward Witness works for all Christians - this is a state probably less than 100% certainty.

"I can accept a revelation, at least tentatively, if it has raised my level of felt certainty to a degree such that I cannot question it in good
conscience".

Take me, for example. I CAN question my salvation, and the Bible, but the moment I try to push forward in that direction, my conscience begins screaming at me.

You could as well misunderstand the direct revelation.

There are two issues here:
(1) What was the original message?
(2) How to properly extrapolate/apply it?

Same rules apply - apply them seperately to each of those 2 questions. Meaning:
(1)If I'm 100% certain of the message, I should acknowledge it as truth.
(2) If I'm 100% certain of my interpretation/extraplation of it, I should acknowledge it as truth.

 

[JAL]

Was too busy to address this point.

Please explain why do you think so?

The NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).

After all, a prophet is an itinerant oracle fully apprised of when to preach, where to preach, and what to say. Isn't that role well-befitting of an evangelist? But that's not even the crucial point. It's this. A prophet was 100% certain of his message - but accordingly the Spirit had to convict his target audience at 100% certainty as well. This makes him the perfect evangelist - think of how effective you'd be as an evangelist if your audience automatically felt 100% certain that God was speaking. They'd literally tremble at your every word.

Equally crucial is this. With 100 billion souls at stake, God would be negligent/irresponsible to deny us clear guidance in evangelism. A prophet was under such clear guidance. The OT parallel is extremely compelling here: Yahweh would have been negligent/irresponsible to deny Israel clear military guidance, for 2 reasons:
(1) Kings and generals, ideally, shouldn't march out to slaughter nations without divine authorization. Morally speaking.
(2) It's not even safe to try.
Therefore, in the OT, Israel was well aware of the need to "inquire of the Lord" - wait on Him for a distinct ("loud and clear") signal - before marching into battle. For example the pillars of Cloud and Fire led all the marches:

On the day the tabernacle, the tent of the covenant law, was set up, the cloud covered it. From evening till morning the cloud above the tabernacle looked like fire. 16That is how it continued to be; the cloud covered it, and at night it looked like fire. 17Whenever the cloud lifted from above the tent, the Israelites set out; wherever the cloud settled, the Israelites encamped. 18At the Lord’s command the Israelites set out, and at his command they encamped. As long as the cloud stayed over the tabernacle, they remained in camp. 19When the cloud remained over the tabernacle a long time, the Israelites obeyed the Lord’s order and did not set out. 20Sometimes the cloud was over the tabernacle only a few days; at the Lord’s command they would encamp, and then at his command they would set out. 21Sometimes the cloud stayed only from evening till morning, and when it lifted in the morning, they set out. Whether by day or by night, whenever the cloud lifted, they set out. 22Whether the cloud stayed over the tabernacle for two days or a month or a year, the Israelites would remain in camp and not set out; but when it lifted, they would set out. 23At the Lord’s command they encamped, and at the Lord’s command they set out. They obeyed the Lord’s order, in accordance with his command through Moses (Num 9).

See how the Fire served as a signal "loud and clear"? This is PRECISELY the NT strategy for evangelism. Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem for - what? It had to be a distinct ("loud and clear") signal that would elevate their certainty to 100%:

"Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them" (Acts 2).

Was that the end of it? No more signals needed? Wrong. You should NEVER march into enemy territory without a signal. Just 2 chapters later:

Peter prayed..."Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly."

That was an earthquake! And it wasn't the only earthquake in Acts! The entire book of Acts documents the influence of signs, signals, visions, and heavenly voices upon early evangelism.

Thus, the principle responsibility of the church is to wait upon the Lord, in prayer and praise, for revivals heralded by Direct Revelation, that is, by heavenly signals "loud and clear". The best way to evangelize is - not to evangelize! That's a bit of an overstatement, so here's what I tell people. If you have a few spare hours that your lazy flesh is likely to squander away - if you're pretty sure that the time won't get used for praise and worship - I see nothing wrong with using it for "evangelism." But don't ever mistake it for real evangelism.

 

[1213]

...
Equally crucial is this. With 100 billion souls at stake, God would be negligent/irresponsible to deny us clear guidance in evangelism.....

Sorry, I think Bible is enough and I want to follow Jesus and his teachings.

 

[1213]

...would you say that God is incapable of reliable communications? ....

No, I think Bible is reliable communication from God.

 

[JAL]

Sorry, I think Bible is enough and I want to follow Jesus and his teachings.

So it's okay to presume to know how to evangelize instead of asking Him for clear guidance? Because that's what it boils down to.

Thanks for saying "Sorry" to me but the Lord is the one to whom you will likely be apologizing, on the last Day.

 

[JAL]

No, I think Bible is reliable communication from God.

And by reliable you mean that you can interpret it infallibly, then?

Are you a fallible interpreter or infallible one?

If you are a fallible one, please don't refer to exegesis as a reliable medium of communication. That's a contradiction in terms.

 

[JAL]

Too bad you are unwilling to follow the examples of the apostles that I showed you, which men waited in prayer for clear guidance from heaven.

 

[pescador]

Um...The written Word doesn't have any sanctifying efficacy. Post 492 should have already convinced of you that. Maybe this passage will help:


"Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law." (Gal 3).

Paul is talking about sanctification. The written Word doesn't accomplish it. Still not enough Scripture for you? Maybe Romans 8:

"Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you a free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh..."(Rom 8)

How many times does Paul have to say it before you'll believe it? Ten? Fifteen? Twenty?

Your post is also mixing apples with oranges. You're comparing these two things:
(1) Andrew Murray teaching me to look to the Presence instead of written Law/Word
(2) My memorizing Scripture back when I mistakenly believed that the written Word DID have a degree of efficacy.

That's a category mistake. It would be more logical to compare these two things:
(3) Andrew Murray teaching me to look to the Presence instead of written Law/Word
(4) Scripture teaches the same thing but I had missed it until I read Andrew Murray.

The fact is, we all need teachers, because all of us miss things in Scripture. If you want to fault me for looking to Andrew Murray as a mentor, that's your prerogative.

Why do you equate all of scripture in the New Testament with the Old Testament law? If God's word doesn't speak to you, my I suggest that you pray earnestly for that to happen? Andrew Murray is a teacher but, unlike the perfect Word of God, he is not infallible.

 

[pescador]

So it's okay to presume to know how to evangelize instead of asking Him for clear guidance? Because that's what it boils down to.

Thanks for saying "Sorry" to me but the Lord is the one to whom you will likely be apologizing, on the last Day.

Are you sure he shouldn't be asking (reading) Andrew Murray instead of asking God?

 

[JAL]

Why do you equate all of scripture in the New Testament with the Old Testament law? If God's word doesn't speak to you, my I suggest that you pray earnestly for that to happen? Andrew Murray is a teacher but, unlike the perfect Word of God, he is not infallible.

I learned a thing or two from Andrew Murray. Is that so bad? Could you please get over it? Have you never learned anything from an instructor?

 

[JAL]

Why do you equate all of scripture in the New Testament with the Old Testament law? If God's word doesn't speak to you, my I suggest that you pray earnestly for that to happen?

Books do not speak (last I checked). You're confusing the divine Word (God) with the written Word (written laws in the NT and OT).

This distinction was clear from the 10 commandments. God voiced them to the entire nation of Israel, originally. Only later was a written copy provided to Israel.

 

[pescador]

I learned a thing or two from Andrew Murray. Is that so bad? Could you please get over it? Have you never learned anything from an instructor?

Of course I have, but I don't regard any teacher as being better than infallible Scripture.

 

[pescador]

Books do not speak (last I checked). You're confusing the divine Word (God) with the written Word (written laws in the NT and OT).

This distinction was clear from the 10 commandments. God voiced them to the entire nation of Israel, originally. Only later was a written copy provided to Israel.

In case you haven't checked recently, the written Word is much, much more than "written laws in the NT and OT". The Bible is the direct message from God to people.