Proof for Sola Scriptura - is irrefutable

BobRyan said:

The wicked will see the work of the Holy Spirit -- the Bible... and wage war against it. The Holy Spirit does not "lead them to do that".

Click to expand...

You didn't understand me.

The Holy Spirit affirms the method used in Acts 17:11 where by the "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are SO" -- we call that "sola scriptura testing" and it is what the Holy Spirit leads mankind to do. To rely on HIS work in giving us HIS Word -- scripture.

Click to expand...

Using exegesis to test a doctrine does not establish Sola Scriptura as an epistemology. And you have no proof that this was exegesis, because we don't know to what extent the Holy Spirit's illumination (Inward Witness) was involved.

BobRyan said:

Answer



So then... you are saying that for all you know - I am writing this to you as "a disguised Christ" and you take my words without question at all... not even reading your Bible to check them out... just taking them as I type them -- because as you just said "a disguised Christ" presenting Himself to you as a total stranger is the same "revelation" as seeing an Angel from heaven.
So then you view this as the same as an Angel from heaven appearing to you in your room at this very moment?

I find your logic a bit self-defeating given the positions you have taken so far.

Click to expand...

Huh? I never even used the word 'Angel' in that statement. Where are you getting this stuff from? Here's what I said.
"You're in denial about the authoritative nature of direct revelation - and it holds true whether God is an invisible speaker, or speaking through a visible Christ, or through a disguised Christ."

Again, all I was referring to in that statement is the authority of direct revelation experienced as feelings of certainty (experienced as conscience). You responded:

So then... you are saying that for all you know - I am writing this to you as "a disguised Christ" and you take my words without question at all..

Click to expand...

I'm not even sure what this means. Since when are you a disguised Christ, writing to me? So you're the Christ? I have no idea what any of this means. Maybe you're referring to the following scenario. Suppose you are an antichrist (someone pretending to be Christ), and you write me, say, a letter of doctrine and exhortation. For some reason that letter stimulates a feeling of certainty sufficient for me to feel morally obligated to believe and obey it (say 98% certainty or higher). Is it authoritative? For me it is. Yes sir. I'm obligated, because conscience is authoritative. (I can't expect anyone else to obey it, however, unless I feel certain that they too feel enough certainty to be obligated).

Generally that scenario would never happen. Why would I feel a compelling degree of certainty about the authority of a random letter written to me by some random individual? Bob I'm just like you - I question EVERYTHING whenever possible. Which is precisely why I abandoned Sola Scriptura within one year of being saved (smile). The only reason I WOULDN'T question something would be due to a supernatural influence (hopefully the Inward Witness) raising my level of certainty in ways beyond my control.

Does that answer your question? I tend to think I'm a pretty clear writer, but a lot of people just don't get me. I wish I knew how to fix it.

BobRyan said:

Interesting "story"--

But in Acts 17:11 we have an actual historic fact --
"they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things were SO" that they had been told by the APOSTLE Paul. Acts 17:11b

Click to expand...

Bob, you do love the Lord, right? Then on His behalf, not for me, try not to jump to conclusions. You found a verse that MENTIONS looking at the Scriptures. So what? I can also show you plenty of verses that mention prophecy. So why not Sola Prophecy instead of Sola Scriptura? My point is that you need a little more evidence to go on.

Had you been born before the printing press - and before 500 years of Protestant indoctrination about Sola Scriptura - you probably would have laughed off Sola Scriptura as ludicrous. My point is that all of us are SEVERELY BIASED in our conclusions, we are influenced by history, environment, culture, and indoctrination. So we have to be careful about jumping to conclusions. Therefore I recommend that you try to test Sola Scriptura in all the various scenarios that I painted on this thread to make sure it's fully viable.

Instead of being 'instructed' to use our feelings... the Word of God says this -

"though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be ACCURSED" Gal 1:6-9

The model you use does not allow such a "let him be accursed" result since the moment you conclude "well it is a church Apostle" or "well it is an angel from heaven" your story "ends".

Rather than a diverting story -- we have this from Christ Himself --

Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.



I find your logic "illusive" just then.

By contrast -- the following is irrefutable.

Click to expand...

You keep repeating verses and allegations that I've already responded to.

Just where you had imagined " in vision they saw the risen Christ via divine revelation and were immediately convinced, thus no proof from scripture needed because of the beatific vision of the risen Christ" -- instead he goes out of his way to present himself as "a stranger" to them and the Bible - as the source of truth.

Click to expand...

I already addressed this. Direct revelation tells us the CORRECT meaning of various passages (instead of stranding us in a seminary library, like exegesis does, reading thousands of books and articles as to make educated guesses). In this case, there were numerous messianic passages fulfilled in Christ - which the TWELVE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT AS YET. They were aware of the EXISTENCE of such passages but didn't know that Christ was the fulfillment of them. So here Christ - instead of sending them off to seminary as Sola Scriptura would do - simply TOLD them of each passage and how He managed to fulfill it. This is the exact opposite of Sola Scriptura. It is Christ/God speaking directly to men for their education. This is called direct revelation. Not sure how many times I need to keep repeating the facts of the case.

BobRyan,
Notice how the disciples summarized the experience:

"They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"

And you want us to entertain seriously the notion that feelings weren't involved?

I understand your argument. You're saying that He wanted them to deduce from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. But even if that were true in some sense, it wouldn't be a significant deduction once He was finished revealing all those passages. I mean God doesn't treat us as stupid. Once He's revealed to us 99% of the relevant information, He can, if He wants, allow us to 'deduce' the remaining 1% once in a while, if it's already a foregone conclusion, for heaven's sake. Such a nominal deduction is hardly proof of Sola Scriptura as an epistemological system.

JAL said in post #116:

I don't accept multi-covenant theology (Gal 3).

Click to expand...

Do you mean that you don't accept Galatians 3, or that you believe that Galatians 3 contradicts multi-covenant theology?

If the latter, note that Galatians 3 doesn't contradict other Bible passages which teach a multi-covenant theology (e.g. Galatians 4:24, Romans 9:4, Ephesians 2:12).

JAL said in post #116:

So is there a way to lump it all under one covenant?

Click to expand...

No, because the letter of the Old Covenant was disannulled (Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 7:18).

JAL said in post #116:

Yes, because the cross is retroactive wherefore NT saints don't get a better - nor even a different - relationship with God than OT saints.

Click to expand...

But the OT saints had to wait until the New Covenant was instituted (Hebrews 11:40).

But you're right in that now all obedient believers who died during Old Testament times are part of the Church in heaven (Hebrews 11:13-16, Hebrews 12:22-24). For now there are no believers outside of the Church (Ephesians 4:4-6). And 1 Peter 4:6, 1 Peter 3:18c-19 and Ephesians 4:9 show there was a post-resurrection descent of Jesus Christ into Hades to preach the fulfillment of the New Covenant Gospel (of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) to the souls of the dead in Hades, after which preaching, Jesus ascended into heaven with all the souls of those in Hades who had died in faith (Ephesians 4:8-9, Hebrews 11:13-16, Hebrews 12:22-24).

JAL said in post #116:

God's sense of morality didn't change.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that in Genesis 22:2 God was commanding Abraham to commit immorality?

JAL said in post #116:

Like the part where Paul affirmed there was no changes in the covenant from Abraham to us?

Click to expand...

Note that there was the Old Covenant, which came between the time of Abraham and the time of the New Covenant (Galatians 3:19).

JAL said in post #116:

Ok so I can perform perfectly sound exegesis even if I only hear a few verses read per week?

Click to expand...

Much more than just a few verses were read per week, and over time everyone would hear the entire Bible read over and over. Compare 2 Timothy 3:15.

JAL said in post #116:

The written description of a bomb isn't the same thing as the bomb.

Click to expand...

It is if you put it into practice. Also, it is the Holy Spirit Himself who wields the words of the Bible like a sword within the hearts of Christians as they read these words or hear them read (Ephesians 6:17, Hebrews 4:12-13).

JAL said in post #116:

Conscience is authoritative. Period.

Click to expand...

Conscience is faulty (Proverbs 28:26).

JAL said in post #116:

I don't care if your feeling of certainty came from the devil himself. Conscience is authoritative.

Click to expand...

Then you have exposed the conscience-only position for the very real danger that it poses for Christians.

JAL said in post #116:

Generally the best defense is the Inward Witness (see 1 John 2:27).

Click to expand...

Not if it goes against the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

JAL said in post #116:

So Moses had to say to God "Sorry I can't accept your Voice, because I don't yet have a Bible to test it against."

Click to expand...

Moses wrote the first part of the Bible. So what he heard God say didn't contradict anything that God had said before.

Also, we do have the entire Bible to test our conscience against (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

*******

JAL said in post #118:

If my conscience is telling me that the morally right thing to do is to disobey the speaker, I should disobey even God Himself.

Click to expand...

That is utterly frightening, and shows the moral bankruptcy of the conscience-only view (Jeremiah 17:9).

JAL said in post #118:

If a man walks up to you (whether disguised or not), and you suddenly get a feeling of certainty that he is Christ, and it's enough certainty, in your opinion, to qualify as morally obligatory, then you MUST acknowledge him as the Christ.

Click to expand...

Not if he contradicts the Bible (Matthew 24:24, John 8:31).

Also, something similar to this could become especially important in our future.

For the beast which comes up out of the earth in Revelation 13:11-16 represents the individual man who will become the Antichrist's False Prophet (Revelation 19:20, Revelation 16:13). He could be a secretly-apostate pope who at some point during his tenure will make a great push for peace and unity between Christianity and Islam. He could say something like: "Why do we fight each other? Aren't we all the spiritual children of Abraham and of his God, the one God? Can't we lay aside our foolish, man-made differences of theology, which have done us no good at all, but have only brought us hatred and violence, and unite into one religion of Abraham, one religion of peace, based on love for the one God and love for our fellow man? What's more important than this?"

He could be so skillful in elucidating what the moderate Muslims could call "the true, peaceful, loving nature of Islam", that he could be hailed by them worldwide as (in their words) "a Great Imam, come to rescue our beloved Islam from the bad reputation falsely given to it by the terrorists". In this way, a pope could come to hold high positions of power in 2 religions at the same time, which could be symbolized by the 2 horns of the False Prophet lamb (Revelation 13:11). This would be similar to how the 7 horns of the true-Jesus lamb in Revelation 5:6 could represent the true Jesus holding 7 positions of power at the same time (compare Jesus wearing many crowns at the same time in Revelation 19:12). The False Prophet could even say he is Jesus Himself returned (via reincarnation). But he won't say he's Christ. For the False Prophet and the Antichrist will deny Jesus is the Christ, and will deny Christ is in the flesh (1 John 2:22; 2 John 1:7).

Once the False Prophet by his amazing miracles has brought the world under his spell (Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20), including many Muslims and Christians who may not care much for scriptural dogma, but could go wild over his signs and wonders, he could begin to (in his words) "restore to the world the real message which was spoken by me (Jesus) at my first coming, and by the great prophet Mohammed, but which message became corrupted by power-hungry men when they copied and changed the early manuscripts of the Bible and the Koran". He could then gradually initiate the world into the Antichrist's Gnostic Luciferianism (1 John 4:3, Revelation 13:4-6), that is, Satanism, a religion which could have existed since ancient times in some "mystery" cults, and still exists today in the highest degree of initiation of a worldwide secret society. The False Prophet could present his miraculously calling fire down from heaven (Revelation 13:13) as purported proof that Lucifer (the dragon, Satan) and the Antichrist are the true God (Revelation 13:4-8, Revelation 12:9), in an inversion of how back in Old Testament times, the prophet Elijah miraculously called fire down from heaven to prove that YHWH is the true God (1 Kings 18:37-39).

--

If a secretly apostate pope does become the Antichrist's False Prophet (of Revelation 13:11-16, Revelation 19:20 and Revelation 16:13), adherents of Catholicism will have to decide what their ultimate source of truth is: Is it the pope and the RCC, or God and the Bible? Many adherents of Catholicism who know God and the Bible well and hold to them as their ultimate source of truth will no doubt be utterly aghast at the false doctrines of a False Prophet pope. Such adherents of Catholicism could demand he be removed for heresy and apostasy, and that the cardinals elect a new pope. But other adherents of Catholicism, including many cardinals, bishops and priests, could be deceived (along with most of the rest of the world) into believing the False Prophet pope's false doctrines, because of his ability to perform the most amazing miracles (Revelation 13:13-14, Revelation 19:20; cf. Matthew 24:24).

And so a great schism could arise within the RCC. Compare the Akita prophecy: "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops". Many adherents of Catholicism could follow the False Prophet pope, while other adherents of Catholicism could reject him and elect their own, new pope (or reinstall a former pope who's still alive), whom they could declare to be the "True Pope". But this new (or reinstated) "True Pope" could be murdered, along with many of his followers, by the False Prophet pope's soldiers. Compare the Third Secret of Fatima: "he [the pope] was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions". Could the soldiers firing "arrows" be the Vatican's Swiss Guards, whose weapons and colorful uniforms hark back to the Middle Ages?

After this slaughter, the False Prophet pope could manage to retain the papacy and full control of the Vatican, and through his (deceived) cardinals, bishops and priests, retain full control of all RCC cathedrals, parishes, churches, etc., throughout the world. And when the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") obtains power over all nations, he and the False Prophet will make war against true, Biblical Christians (whether they're adherents of Catholicism or not) throughout the world, and will physically overcome them and kill them (by beheading) in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13).

It's only when the Antichrist has completely broken the physical power of the true Church (which consists of all true Christians, whether they're adherents of Catholicism or not: Ephesians 4:4-6) that the future Tribulation will end (Daniel 12:7b) and Jesus Christ's Second Coming will immediately occur, at which time He will physically resurrect and rapture (gather together) the Church (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6). And at His Second Coming, Jesus Christ will tread the winepress of God's wrath alone (Isaiah 63:3, Revelation 19:15-21), and so He/God will get all the glory for defeating the power of evil on the earth (Deuteronomy 32:39-43). For He/God won't share this glory with the Church (cf. Isaiah 42:8-14, Isaiah 26:18).

*******

JAL said in post #125:

So why not Sola Prophecy instead of Sola Scriptura?

Click to expand...

Because of, for example, 1 John 4:1-3.

JAL said in post #125:

So here Christ - instead of sending them off to seminary as Sola Scriptura would do - simply TOLD them of each passage and how He managed to fulfill it. This is the exact opposite of Sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

No, what Jesus did in Luke 24:25-27 is exactly sola scriptura, which requires no seminary. If it did, it would not be sola scriptura.

JAL said in post #125:

It is Christ/God speaking directly to men for their education. This is called direct revelation.

Click to expand...

Through His Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

BobRyan said:

Someone has posted that there are problems with sola scriptura. Through a process of philosophy and extreme inference.

There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

The error there - is that the entire argument above relies on ignoring what the Bible has to say on that subject - and simply "quoting yourself" relying on extreme inference alone.

There is... another way.

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!

Click to expand...

Scripture doesn't point to sola scriptura. NT verses cannot be used to prop up those same verses or books yet to be written to support sola scriptura. We do consider the NT canon as scripture, which by the way Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant all agree on, but this doesn't mean scripture itself says by scripture alone.

the early church primarily grew through apostles teachings and the epistles were examples of such teaching, to which their example was reciprocated and this was primarily the way doctrine was taught. We see this as early values in Acts where it says "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." (2:42) it does not however say they devoted themselves to reading the scripture. Why not? simply because scripture was not available for them to be devoting themselves to it and they needed to rely on the apostles teaching and each other.

It took quite a while before scripture could be so readily available so doctrine according to scripture alone simply was not pragmatic or even possible in the early church as it required wide use of tradition, iconography, liturgy and various other methods to teach and spread the gospel. This is just simple logistics of how a faith can spread without the available scripture.

1611 the KJV Bible was printed based on the 1550 printed greek text (for the NT) called the textus receptus (TR) which was an revised edition from it's first by a Catholic named Erasmus in the early 16th century. This same greek text was used to spur on the reformation and Luther and Tyndale use it for their translated bibles. This is all possible by way of the invention of the printing press in 1440. Why is this important? because before all of this happened, before the widely available KJV, before the reformation, the printed critical greek text, before the printing press was invented the bible was not in wide production. The process was long and expensive to produce a bible and it simply was not in the hands of most believers nor was it sitting next to a desk of a clergy that he could study at a whim.

This is the importance of maintaining tradition to preserve the church and realistically the bible wasn't that available until the 17th century. Even with the available printed KJV not all common people had a bible in their hands. Several changes in world had to happen to allow a shift in casts where common people turn into well educated people and arguably this didn't happen widely in the western world until the 20th century or even the 21st.

I grew up in the 80's and we had so many bibles in the house that every room could have one and we would still have spare bibles. But my parents didn't, they had a family bible that they read together and the father of the household had his own bible that he studied and then taught to the family. When my parents were older they were gifted a bible but they didn't have one as a child as their own. Today my household doesn't have a lot of bibles again but it is so widely available on the internet that it doesn't matter and we actually have wider access to the bible then when I did when I grew up.

This all represents a breakdown of tradition to give way to the rising demands of cultural trends of the products of the digital age. I am a postmodernist and typically I will not respect someone just because of their position instead they must earn that respect. if I was born a 100 years earlier I would not be able to function in society with the way I approach people, but in my context today it is widely accepted and even praised. In a bible study we all share our thoughts on a passage and applaud those with the most unique interpretation. This is all a very strange thing in the rest of history and it can and has lead to heretical interpretations of the bible and then heretic sects of christianity.

As a postmodernist and a charismatic evangelical protestant I tend to be repelled by tradition and I have no care for it. However the more I interact with cultures and study history the more I see how tradition is the mortar between the bricks of the church that hold it together even if I tend to reject it. I find myself in a place where I both seek and reject the great traditions of the church

BobRyan said:

Instead of being 'instructed' to use our feelings... the Word of God says this -

"though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be ACCURSED" Gal 1:6-9

The model you use does not allow such a "let him be accursed" result since the moment you conclude "well it is a church Apostle" or "well it is an angel from heaven" your story "ends".

Click to expand...

I have to apologize for my dull brain. This is a much better argument than I realized and I wasn't seeing the full force of it. Nice one Bob! You're right that, at least on first glance, Paul seems to be insisting upon one particular gospel/doctrine UNCONDITIONALLY, that is, regardless of Galatian conscience/certainty.

Bob, that's a very cogent exegesis. Since exegesis is incredibly tricky, however, the law of non-contradiction is paramount. A self-contradictory position is usually easy to spot, for example a God both finite and infinite. Equally contradictory is it to reject the primacy of conscience/certainty (as already shown). First we should resolve the contradiction (i.e. come up with a new hypothesis) and then try to reinterpret the verses accordingly. Can we realistically reinterpret Gal 1:6-9, however?

Let's get some perspective here. Sola Scriptura (exegesis) was simply not an option for most early Christians for lack of a Bible and a seminary library. On what basis/authority, then, did the Galatians accept Paul's messages to begin with? Self-authenticating revelation! Here's what Paul was telling the Galatians: "If anyone preaches to you a law-based, exegesis-based gospel, instead of a certainty-based, Voice-based, revelation-based, self-authenticating gospel, let him be accursed!" The Protestant church is still stuck in the Galatian error!

Paul begins his argument like this: "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (1:11-12). In fact verses 17-19 insist that not even the APOSTLES were instructing him. Jesus was speaking to him directly during all his early years as a Christian! At verse 14 he laments his previous law-based, exegesis-based lifestyle, until God, by revelation, called him out of the traditions of his forefathers (verses 15 and 16). Paul is actually climaxing toward a parallel with Abraham whom God likewise called out of the traditions of his forefathers (Gal 3). Abraham wasn't governed by Sola Scriptura.

"Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.I went in response to a revelation."

Chapter 2 is mostly about the circumcision group. Why was Paul rejecting circumcision? I mean, from a purely exegetical, Sola-Scriptura point of view, shouldn't one be circumcised? Yes! Yet Paul now regards it as ending "the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and [tending] to make us slaves" (verse 4). What freedom? Slaves to what? Exegesis often creates excessive rules. In reality your only obligation is to conscience/certainty taken as the divine Voice.

His argument pinnacles in Gal 3:2-6 where he converges three emphases.
(1) Direct revelation
(2) Sanctification by outpourings
(3) Miracles
They converge because waiting upon God for direct revelation (#1) automatically confers #2 and #3. I'm going to cover as much ground as one short post will permit.

The key is actually verse 6 where Paul cites the prophet Abraham as the PARADIGMATIC EXEMPLAR proving verses 1 thru 5.

Verse 1:
"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified."

Huh? Revelatory vision! A prophet is a maximally effective evangelist only insofar as God shares his 100% certainty with the audience (in this case by sharing a vision). Verse 2:

"Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

The 'hearing of faith' is the literal rendering of the Greek. He's asking them to recall a distinctive (prophetic!) EXPERIENCE of receiving the Spirit. In Acts, most believers experienced prophecy when the Spirit fell on them.

Verse 4:
"Have you EXPERIENCED all these [charismatic] things in vain?" (Not 'suffered' - see Gordon Fee's commentary).

What is the hearing of faith, however? Revelation. Faith cometh by hearing the (divine) Word speak(Rom 10:17). Again, verse 6 cites the prophet Abraham as proof of all this, specifically it sends us back to Genesis 15:1-6 where the divine Word (an outpouring of the Spirit)
(1) fell upon Abraham TWICE. Very significant.
(2) showed him a vision
(3) spoke promises to him, for example promised him the MIRACLE of a son in his old age. Thus, "Does God grant you His Spirit and work MIRACLES among you because you observe the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal 3:5).

The Abrahamic covenant is PROMISSORY. God speaks promises to us (such as the promise of heaven). Walking by grace, instead of by law and flesh and and human effort, means to wait upon God to speak more promises to us. Note verse 16 (paraphrased), "The promises were SPOKEN [by the Father] to Abraham and to Christ his seed and to us his seed" ('spoken' is the literal Greek word).

God speaks, however, by SENDING His divine Word as an OUTPOURING. And these outpourings are for sanctification! Galatians uses the word 'justification' but is actually emphasizing sanctification! Hence it says:

"Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made MATURE by the flesh?" (verse 3).

How had the Galatians BEGUN? By receiving the Spirit through the hearing of faith. How then were they supposed to CONTINUE on to maturity? The same way they had begun! They simply needed to RECEIVE more outpourings via the hearing of faith! 1900 years of erroneous sanctification makes it hard to see why. As I explained on another thread, the human soul spans the entire human body. Being filled with the Holy Spirit - sanctification - means being filled with Him LITERALLY. Those parts of your body NOT yet indwelled lack justifying faith! Thus sanctification (multiple outpourings) can ALSO be defined as multiple justifications! I'm going to prove this right now.

WHY did Abraham believe the promises spoken to him at Genesis 15:1-6? Because the divine Voice confers feelings of certainty (faith). Thus faith cometh by hearing the Word speak (Rom 10:17). Both Romans and Galatians refer to the faith/certainty conferred to Abraham in the passage as justification by faith. Do you see the problem here? Abraham was already a believer! He was ALREADY justified by faith! Paul is teaching multiple justifications by faith - because he's REALLY focusing on sanctification by faith!

"Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made MATURE [sanctified] by the flesh?" (verse 3).

There's two competing theories of sanctification:
(1) Sanctification by law. Read the law/Bible, find out God's commands, and observe them. That's what the Galatians were doing in regard to circumcision. This is sanctification by good works. Involves a LOT of human effort.
(2) Justification/sanctification by faith. God regenerated you, right? He cleansed you (well part of you so far). So how do we MATURE? By good works? No - by waiting on Him for more cleansings!

The above analysis of Galatians is precisely the same set of conclusions drawn by Andrew Murray, one of the most beloved and prolific Christian writers of Protestant history. (He wrote 200 books).

Bible2+ said:

Do you mean that you don't accept Galatians 3, or that you believe that Galatians 3 contradicts multi-covenant theology?

If the latter, note that Galatians 3 doesn't contradict other Bible passages which teach a multi-covenant theology (e.g. Galatians 4:24, Romans 9:4, Ephesians 2:12).

Click to expand...

Single-covenant theology lumps all the promises and covenants under one master Covenant/Promise. God gave you His favor via the cross. He can EXPRESS that favor (as well as your responsibilities, and any warning about judgments for neglecting them) via any number of covenants and promises including Mosaic law. Also some promises and covenants are scoped. For example God can promise you a new Honda. It's scoped to you alone even if, as a result of His favor, other Christians make enough money to buy Hondas as well. Israel's Old Covenant and her New Covenant are, technically speaking, scoped to Israel alone although other Christians experience basically the same set of blessings due to the nature of His favor.

No, because the letter of the Old Covenant was disannulled (Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 7:18).

Click to expand...

The law is the spirit of the law. The letter of the law is not the law except when it overlaps with the spirit of law, which it generally did in early Israeli history. By Christ's day, much of the letter was outmoded and needed to be terminated. Meanwhile the master Covenant/Promise didn't change.

But the OT saints had to wait until the New Covenant was instituted (Hebrews 11:40).

Click to expand...

Israel's New Covenant refers to the induction of Israel into heaven. It's still pending.

But you're right in that now all obedient believers who died during Old Testament times are part of the Church in heaven (Hebrews 11:13-16, Hebrews 12:22-24). For now there are no believers outside of the Church (Ephesians 4:4-6). And 1 Peter 4:6, 1 Peter 3:18c-19 and Ephesians 4:9 show there was a post-resurrection descent of Jesus Christ into Hades to preach the fulfillment of the New Covenant Gospel (of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) to the souls of the dead in Hades, after which preaching, Jesus ascended into heaven with all the souls of those in Hades who had died in faith (Ephesians 4:8-9, Hebrews 11:13-16, Hebrews 12:22-24).

Click to expand...

Reformed theology doesn't define the church as today. The OT saints were already the church.

Are you saying that in Genesis 22:2 God was commanding Abraham to commit immorality?

Click to expand...

God influenced Abraham's conscience and told him to obey it. Obedience to conscience is the definition of morality.

Note that there was the Old Covenant, which came between the time of Abraham and the time of the New Covenant (Galatians 3:19).

Click to expand...

Israel's old covenant did not alter the terms of the master Covenant/Promise (Gal 3:15-17).

Much more than just a few verses were read per week, and over time everyone would hear the entire Bible read over and over. Compare 2 Timothy 3:15.

Click to expand...

That's hardly enough for exegesis.

It is if you put it into practice.

Click to expand...

You mean if you explode the bomb? It's still not the description.

Also, it is the Holy Spirit Himself who wields the words of the Bible like a sword within the hearts of Christians as they read these words or hear them read (Ephesians 6:17, Hebrews 4:12-13).

Click to expand...

That's a non-statement. I don't accept nebulous theology. No one's really clear on what such words mean, or how they could possibly equate the written Word with the divine Word.

Conscience is faulty (Proverbs 28:26).

Click to expand...

Irrelevant, except where conscience admonishes us to seek from God an improved conscience. Which it does.

Then you have exposed the conscience-only position for the very real danger that it poses for Christians.

Click to expand...

Obeying conscience isn't 'a real danger'. See Abraham's attempt to murder his son. Righteousness might be a threat to this world - if an irresponsible or negligent God were running things! It's his job to insure that the righteous man turns out to be a blessing to this world.

Not if it goes against the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

Click to expand...

Dup.

Moses wrote the first part of the Bible. So what he heard God say didn't contradict anything that God had said before.

Click to expand...

That's not the point, obviously. The point is that it could have been the devil speaking, for all he knew. Hence the message needed to be self-authenticating in some infallible sense.

Also, we do have the entire Bible to test our conscience against (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Click to expand...

Conscience isn't to be 'tested'. It is to be obeyed. Period. What we test are those things that we feel uncertain about, and the question is whether exegesis, in the long run, offers the most potential - the maximum potential - for reliability of testing. It does not. Self-authenticating prophetic revelation offers that potential.

That is utterly frightening, and shows the moral bankruptcy of the conscience-only view (Jeremiah 17:9).

Click to expand...

A morally good person is someone who always tries to do what is morally right to best of his current knowledge and ability.

Not if he contradicts the Bible (Matthew 24:24, John 8:31).

Click to expand...

You seriously want to be judged on exegetical accuracy? Or obedience to conscience? Be careful what you wish for...

For the beast which comes up out of the earth in Revelation 13:11-16 represents the individual man who will become the Antichrist's False Prophet (Revelation 19:20, Revelation 16:13). He could be a secretly-apostate pope who at some point during his tenure will make a great push for peace and unity between Christianity and Islam. He could say something like: "Why do we fight each other? Aren't we all the spiritual children of Abraham and of his God, the one God? Can't we lay aside our foolish, man-made differences of theology, which have done us no good at all, but have only brought us hatred and violence, and unite into one religion of Abraham, one religion of peace, based on love for the one God and love for our fellow man? What's more important than this?"

He could be so skillful in elucidating what the moderate Muslims could call "the true, peaceful, loving nature of Islam", that he could be hailed by them worldwide as (in their words) "a Great Imam, come to rescue our beloved Islam from the bad reputation falsely given to it by the terrorists". In this way, a pope could come to hold high positions of power in 2 religions at the same time, which could be symbolized by the 2 horns of the False Prophet lamb (Revelation 13:11). This would be similar to how the 7 horns of the true-Jesus lamb in Revelation 5:6 could represent the true Jesus holding 7 positions of power at the same time (compare Jesus wearing many crowns at the same time in Revelation 19:12). The False Prophet could even say he is Jesus Himself returned (via reincarnation). But he won't say he's Christ. For the False Prophet and the Antichrist will deny Jesus is the Christ, and will deny Christ is in the flesh (1 John 2:22; 2 John 1:7).

Once the False Prophet by his amazing miracles has brought the world under his spell (Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20), including many Muslims and Christians who may not care much for scriptural dogma, but could go wild over his signs and wonders, he could begin to (in his words) "restore to the world the real message which was spoken by me (Jesus) at my first coming, and by the great prophet Mohammed, but which message became corrupted by power-hungry men when they copied and changed the early manuscripts of the Bible and the Koran". He could then gradually initiate the world into the Antichrist's Gnostic Luciferianism (1 John 4:3, Revelation 13:4-6), that is, Satanism, a religion which could have existed since ancient times in some "mystery" cults, and still exists today in the highest degree of initiation of a worldwide secret society. The False Prophet could present his miraculously calling fire down from heaven (Revelation 13:13) as purported proof that Lucifer (the dragon, Satan) and the Antichrist are the true God (Revelation 13:4-8, Revelation 12:9), in an inversion of how back in Old Testament times, the prophet Elijah miraculously called fire down from heaven to prove that YHWH is the true God (1 Kings 18:37-39).

--

If a secretly apostate pope does become the Antichrist's False Prophet (of Revelation 13:11-16, Revelation 19:20 and Revelation 16:13), adherents of Catholicism will have to decide what their ultimate source of truth is: Is it the pope and the RCC, or God and the Bible? Many adherents of Catholicism who know God and the Bible well and hold to them as their ultimate source of truth will no doubt be utterly aghast at the false doctrines of a False Prophet pope. Such adherents of Catholicism could demand he be removed for heresy and apostasy, and that the cardinals elect a new pope. But other adherents of Catholicism, including many cardinals, bishops and priests, could be deceived (along with most of the rest of the world) into believing the False Prophet pope's false doctrines, because of his ability to perform the most amazing miracles (Revelation 13:13-14, Revelation 19:20; cf. Matthew 24:24).

And so a great schism could arise within the RCC. Compare the Akita prophecy: "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops". Many adherents of Catholicism could follow the False Prophet pope, while other adherents of Catholicism could reject him and elect their own, new pope (or reinstall a former pope who's still alive), whom they could declare to be the "True Pope". But this new (or reinstated) "True Pope" could be murdered, along with many of his followers, by the False Prophet pope's soldiers. Compare the Third Secret of Fatima: "he [the pope] was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions". Could the soldiers firing "arrows" be the Vatican's Swiss Guards, whose weapons and colorful uniforms hark back to the Middle Ages?

After this slaughter, the False Prophet pope could manage to retain the papacy and full control of the Vatican, and through his (deceived) cardinals, bishops and priests, retain full control of all RCC cathedrals, parishes, churches, etc., throughout the world. And when the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") obtains power over all nations, he and the False Prophet will make war against true, Biblical Christians (whether they're adherents of Catholicism or not) throughout the world, and will physically overcome them and kill them (by beheading) in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13).

It's only when the Antichrist has completely broken the physical power of the true Church (which consists of all true Christians, whether they're adherents of Catholicism or not: Ephesians 4:4-6) that the future Tribulation will end (Daniel 12:7b) and Jesus Christ's Second Coming will immediately occur, at which time He will physically resurrect and rapture (gather together) the Church (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6). And at His Second Coming, Jesus Christ will tread the winepress of God's wrath alone (Isaiah 63:3, Revelation 19:15-21), and so He/God will get all the glory for defeating the power of evil on the earth (Deuteronomy 32:39-43). For He/God won't share this glory with the Church (cf. Isaiah 42:8-14, Isaiah 26:18).

Click to expand...

You seem to be rambling here. I see no way for you to prove that exegesis, in the long run, offers potentially better protection from deception than the Inward Witness and/or prophetic revelation.

Because of, for example, 1 John 4:1-3.

Click to expand...

Which never mentions exegesis or Sola Scripture. What that epistle DOES allude to is the Inward Witness (1 John 2:27).

No, what Jesus did in Luke 24:25-27 is exactly sola scriptura, which requires no seminary. If it did, it would not be sola scriptura.

Click to expand...

Um...wrong. Sola Scriptura doesn't HAPPEN without seminary. How do you think the Hebrew and Greek texts get translated into English? You have no way, other than a seminary library, to acquire reasonably enough knowledge to be able to expertly evaluate the various possible translations of a verse (or even decide which manuscripts are the most reliable ones). Unless you just take someone's word for it.

Through His Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Click to expand...

Timothy was a man of God (an OT term for a prophet).

JAL said in post #129:

Jesus was speaking to him directly during all his early years as a Christian!

Click to expand...

And what Jesus taught Paul was based on the Bible (Acts 26:22).

JAL said in post #129:

Abraham wasn't governed by Sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

Note that the Bible wouldn't start being written until 500 years after the time of Abraham.

JAL said in post #129:

Why was Paul rejecting circumcision?

Click to expand...

Because whether or not someone is physically circumcised doesn't matter to Christians (Colossians 3:11, Galatians 6:15, Galatians 5:6). Instead, the only circumcision that matters is the spiritual circumcision (Philippians 3:3) of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:11-13).

If Christians get physically circumcised thinking they have to (Acts 15:1,5) because it was commanded to Abraham (Genesis 17:10) and was part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Leviticus 12:3), then Christ will profit them nothing (Galatians 5:2). They've fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4) and placed themselves under the curse of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26).

Under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, physical circumcision was required for a male, whether Jew or Gentile, whether infant or adult, to become part of Israel (Exodus 12:48). But under the New Covenant, physical circumcision isn't required for a Jew or Gentile to become part of Israel. All that's required is faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29). This is one of the ways the New Covenant isn't according to the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 31:32). The letter of the entire Old Covenant Mosaic law was abolished on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6).

Also, unlike the abolished physical circumcision of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, the spiritual circumcision of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:11-13, Philippians 3:3, Romans 2:29) makes no distinction between males and females (Galatians 3:28-29).

Also, under the New Covenant, a non-Christian genetic Jew, even though he may be physically circumcised, is spiritually uncircumcised (Acts 7:51) and so spiritually isn't a Jew (Romans 2:28-29, Revelation 2:9b, Revelation 3:9). He has been broken off in spirit from the good olive tree of Israel, the genetic Jews' own tree (Romans 11:20,24). Yet he will be grafted in again if he comes into faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 11:23-32), who is Himself a Jew (John 4:9,22, Luke 2:21).

JAL said in post #129:

I mean, from a purely exegetical, Sola-Scriptura point of view, shouldn't one be circumcised?

Click to expand...

No, just as Abraham was declared righteous by his faith without being circumcised (Romans 4:10).

Similarly, some people feel that baptism can't be required for salvation, because baptism is a work, and salvation isn't based on works, but on faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). But baptism is a kind of circumcision (Colossians 2:11-13, Philippians 3:3, Romans 2:29). Just as Abraham, who is a model for Christians, was initially saved by faith alone, prior to his circumcision (Romans 4), so Christians are initially saved by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:2-5), prior to their baptism (Acts 8:36-38, John 20:31). But just as Abraham was ultimately saved by his works (James 2:21-24), so Christians will be ultimately saved by their works (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:26,30, Philippians 2:12b, Philippians 3:11-14; 2 Corinthians 5:9, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 6:10-12; 2 Peter 1:10-11, John 15:2a; 1 John 2:17b), which must include getting water-immersion (burial) baptized (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).

JAL said in post #129:

"Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made MATURE by the flesh?" (verse 3).

Click to expand...

Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

This means the works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, especially its physical circumcision (Galatians 6:12-13), are works of the flesh as opposed to spiritual works of faith (Philippians 3:2-14; 1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6, Titus 3:8). For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law isn't of faith (Galatians 3:12). Also, compare what Romans 7:5-6 says.

Galatians 3:2-3 means the works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law can't make Christians perfect. Galatians 3:2-3 isn't contradicting that Christians must have both faith and continued works of faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6b, Titus 3:8) (not works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law) if they're to obtain ultimate salvation (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:26,30, Philippians 2:12b, Philippians 3:11-14; 2 Corinthians 5:9, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 6:10-12; 2 Peter 1:10-11, John 15:2a; 1 John 2:17b). For Christians must continue to do righteous deeds if they're to continue to be righteous (1 John 3:7, James 2:24,26). And there's no assurance Christians will choose to do that, instead of wrongly employing their free will to become utterly lazy without repentance, to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a).

*******

JAL said in post #130:

Israel's New Covenant refers to the induction of Israel into heaven. It's still pending.

Click to expand...

Note that the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is already fulfilled, even though the prior, Millennial prophecy of Jeremiah 31:1-14,16-25 (Jeremiah 31:15 was fulfilled in the 1st century AD: Matthew 2:17-18) and the other Millennial prophecies haven't yet been fulfilled. For the making of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31,33) was fulfilled at Jesus Christ's Crucifixion (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17), just as the New Covenant being made with the houses of Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31,33) has been fulfilled (Acts 2:5,36-41, Romans 11:1,17,24). And the New Covenant being not according to the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Jeremiah 31:32) has been fulfilled (Hebrews 7:18-19, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17). And the New Covenant law of Jesus being written on the hearts of Jewish and Gentile Christians (Jeremiah 31:33) has been fulfilled (Romans 6:17, Ephesians 6:6, Galatians 6:2). And "they shall teach no more every man his neighbour" (Jeremiah 31:34) has been fulfilled (1 John 2:27). And "they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them" (Jeremiah 31:34) has been fulfilled (1 John 2:13). And "I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jeremiah 31:34) has been fulfilled (1 John 2:12).

JAL said in post #130:

Obedience to conscience is the definition of morality.

Click to expand...

Not if it contradicts the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

JAL said in post #130:

Israel's old covenant did not alter the terms of the master Covenant/Promise (Gal 3:15-17).

Click to expand...

It did in some cases.

For example, the now-abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6) permitted a divorced woman to marry someone else (Deuteronomy 24:2). But if her 2nd marriage ended, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade her to remarry her 1st husband (Deuteronomy 24:4). The New Covenant rules turn this on its head. For now a woman divorced from a valid husband can't marry anyone else (Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18b), but she can remarry her valid husband (1 Corinthians 7:11). It was because the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law permitted a divorced woman to marry someone else, that Jesus Christ, while the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was still in effect, could acknowledge the woman of Samaria's 5 marriages (John 4:18, assuming all 5 didn't end in the death of her husband: cf. Luke 20:29-31). The New Covenant rules forbidding a woman divorced from a valid husband to marry anyone else didn't come into legal effect until Jesus' death on the Cross brought the New Covenant into legal effect (Hebrews 9:16-17, Matthew 26:28) and abolished the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6).

JAL said in post #130:

No one's really clear on what such words mean, or how they could possibly equate the written Word with the divine Word.

Click to expand...

The written Word is the divine Word because the written Word came from the divine (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It did not come from men (2 Peter 1:20-21).

JAL said in post #130:

Conscience isn't to be 'tested'. It is to be obeyed.

Click to expand...

It is to be tested against God's Word the Bible (Hebrews 4:12). For conscience is fallible (Proverbs 28:26).

JAL said in post #130:

Self-authenticating prophetic revelation offers that potential.

Click to expand...

All extra-Biblical prophetic revelation must be tested (1 John 4:1-3).

Judged (1 Corinthians 14:29).

JAL said in post #130:

What that epistle DOES allude to is the Inward Witness (1 John 2:27).

Click to expand...

The Holy Spirit teaches individual Christians directly based on the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

JAL said in post #130:

Sola Scriptura doesn't HAPPEN without seminary. How do you think the Hebrew and Greek texts get translated into English? You have no way, other than a seminary library, to acquire reasonably enough knowledge to be able to expertly evaluate the various possible translations of a verse (or even decide which manuscripts are the most reliable ones). Unless you just take someone's word for it.

Click to expand...

Ancient Biblical manuscripts in the original languages (Hebrew for the Old Testament, Greek for the New Testament) still exist today, and it has never been proven they differ in doctrine from the original manuscripts. At the same time, it has never been proven they don't, just as it has never been proven even the original manuscripts were God's Word. Indeed, God has purposely made it so there's no way to scientifically prove even the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true (1 Corinthians 1:18 to 2:16). Yet Biblical Christians nonetheless (rightly) believe the Gospel is true, just as they (rightly) believe the ancient Biblical manuscripts we have match the original manuscripts in doctrine, and that all this doctrine is God's Word (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4, John 8:31). For Biblical Christians have been granted God's miraculous gift of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b) and some measure of God's own Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-16). And so they're able to spiritually recognize if something is said by God (John 10:4,27; 1 Corinthians 14:37), or only by some "stranger" (John 10:5).

And Biblical Christians know the Bible is God's Word not only because of the spiritual evidence of faith (Hebrews 11:1), but also because Jesus Christ confirms the entire Old Testament is true (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:44-48). And the entire New Testament was written by eyewitnesses of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 9:1, John 19:35, John 21:24; 1 Peter 5:1, Luke 24:48, Revelation 1:17-19) or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:3). And Jesus' New Testament suffering and death on the Cross for our sins, and His physical resurrection from the dead on the 3rd day (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Acts 26:22-23, Isaiah 53, Psalms 16:10, Acts 2:31). Also, no doctrine in the Bible has ever been proven false, so there's no reason for any Christian to reject any doctrine taught by the Bible.

It's the Bible which is able to make people wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 3:15; 1 Peter 1:23-25, Romans 10:17, Acts 13:48, James 1:18). All the Bible's teachings were given by the inspiration of God, and so they're all true and God's Word (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4). Jesus Christ says: "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed" (John 8:31). Christians must be willing to die before they would deny any part of His Word (Mark 8:35-38). One of Satan's prime aims is to get people to reject all or parts of God's Word and start believing something else which sounds better to them as humans (Genesis 3:1-6, Matthew 16:21-23; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:3-4), but which can't save their souls, so they will end up suffering in fire and brimstone with Satan and his fallen angels forever (Matthew 25:41,46, Revelation 20:10,15, Revelation 14:10-11).

JAL said in post #130:

Timothy was a man of God (an OT term for a prophet).

Click to expand...

Timothy is a man of God who sticks with the Bible (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Timothy 4:1-4).

2 Timothy 2:15

Bible2+ said:

And what Jesus taught Paul was based on the Bible (Acts 26:22).

Click to expand...

Jesus was a prophet, not a seminary professor.

Note that the Bible wouldn't start being written until 500 years after the time of Abraham.

Click to expand...

But Abraham is the paradigm for how ALL believers are to walk with God! They are to walk by the 'hearing of faith' (Gal 3:2-6, cf. Gen 15:1-6), NOT by Sola Scriptura!

Because whether or not someone is physically circumcised doesn't matter to Christians (Colossians 3:11, Galatians 6:15, Galatians 5:6). Instead, the only circumcision that matters is the spiritual circumcision (Philippians 3:3) of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:11-13).

If Christians get physically circumcised thinking they have to (Acts 15:1,5) because it was commanded to Abraham (Genesis 17:10) and was part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Leviticus 12:3), then Christ will profit them nothing (Galatians 5:2). They've fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4) and placed themselves under the curse of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26).

Under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, physical circumcision was required for a male, whether Jew or Gentile, whether infant or adult, to become part of Israel (Exodus 12:48). But under the New Covenant, physical circumcision isn't required for a Jew or Gentile to become part of Israel. All that's required is faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29). This is one of the ways the New Covenant isn't according to the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 31:32). The letter of the entire Old Covenant Mosaic law was abolished on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6).

Also, unlike the abolished physical circumcision of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, the spiritual circumcision of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:11-13, Philippians 3:3, Romans 2:29) makes no distinction between males and females (Galatians 3:28-29).

Also, under the New Covenant, a non-Christian genetic Jew, even though he may be physically circumcised, is spiritually uncircumcised (Acts 7:51) and so spiritually isn't a Jew (Romans 2:28-29, Revelation 2:9b, Revelation 3:9). He has been broken off in spirit from the good olive tree of Israel, the genetic Jews' own tree (Romans 11:20,24). Yet he will be grafted in again if he comes into faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 11:23-32), who is Himself a Jew (John 4:9,22, Luke 2:21).

Click to expand...

Circumcision began with Abraham. Since the Abrahamic covenant was still in effect (Gal 3), an exegete could defensibly regard it as perpetual (i.e. tied to the master Covenant/Promise). You're basing your argument on the false assumption that Israel's New Covenant was in effect.

Anyway my theology doesn't stand or fall on this aspect of the debate.

No, just as Abraham was declared righteous by his faith without being circumcised (Romans 4:10).

Click to expand...

But Paul's insights into Scripture came to him largely by prophetic revelation. Whereas exegesis is tricky, and thus an exegete COULD defensibly have argued for circumcision. Hence the circumcision group.

Similarly, some people feel that baptism can't be required for salvation, because baptism is a work, and salvation isn't based on works, but on faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). But baptism is a kind of circumcision (Colossians 2:11-13, Philippians 3:3, Romans 2:29). Just as Abraham, who is a model for Christians, was initially saved by faith alone, prior to his circumcision (Romans 4), so Christians are initially saved by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:2-5), prior to their baptism (Acts 8:36-38, John 20:31). But just as Abraham was ultimately saved by his works (James 2:21-24), so Christians will be ultimately saved by their works (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:26,30, Philippians 2:12b, Philippians 3:11-14; 2 Corinthians 5:9, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 6:10-12; 2 Peter 1:10-11, John 15:2a; 1 John 2:17b), which must include getting water-immersion (burial) baptized (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).

Click to expand...

Christians aren't saved by good works, nor have you convinced me that water baptism is necessary. But we might be getting off topic.

Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Click to expand...

No what it MEANS is indicated by Paul's EXAMPLE of what it means - he sends us back to Gen 15:1-6 to adduce Abraham as an example of receiving the Spirit by the hearing of faith.

This means the works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, especially its physical circumcision (Galatians 6:12-13), are works of the flesh as opposed to spiritual works of faith (Philippians 3:2-14; 1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6, Titus 3:8). For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law isn't of faith (Galatians 3:12). Also, compare what Romans 7:5-6 says.

Click to expand...

See above.

Galatians 3:2-3 means the works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law can't make Christians perfect. Galatians 3:2-3 isn't contradicting that Christians must have both faith and continued works of faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6b, Titus 3:8) (not works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law) if they're to obtain ultimate salvation (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:26,30, Philippians 2:12b, Philippians 3:11-14; 2 Corinthians 5:9, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 6:10-12; 2 Peter 1:10-11, John 15:2a; 1 John 2:17b). For Christians must continue to do righteous deeds if they're to continue to be righteous (1 John 3:7, James 2:24,26). And there's no assurance Christians will choose to do that, instead of wrongly employing their free will to become utterly lazy without repentance, to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a).

Click to expand...

see above.

Note that the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is already fulfilled, even though the prior, Millennial prophecy of Jeremiah 31:1-14,16-25 (Jeremiah 31:15 was fulfilled in the 1st century AD: Matthew 2:17-18) and the other Millennial prophecies haven't yet been fulfilled. For the making of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31,33) was fulfilled at Jesus Christ's Crucifixion (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17), just as the New Covenant being made with the houses of Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31,33) has been fulfilled (Acts 2:5,36-41, Romans 11:1,17,24). And the New Covenant being not according to the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Jeremiah 31:32) has been fulfilled (Hebrews 7:18-19, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17). And the New Covenant law of Jesus being written on the hearts of Jewish and Gentile Christians (Jeremiah 31:33) has been fulfilled (Romans 6:17, Ephesians 6:6, Galatians 6:2). And "they shall teach no more every man his neighbour" (Jeremiah 31:34) has been fulfilled (1 John 2:27). And "they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them" (Jeremiah 31:34) has been fulfilled (1 John 2:13). And "I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jeremiah 31:34) has been fulfilled (1 John 2:12).

Click to expand...

Israel's New Covenant (the New Jerusalem) is not in effect. It promises a full heart purification guaranteeing that she will never forfeit the land by disobedience. This can only refer to the next life (the Last Supper notwithstanding).

It did in some cases.

Click to expand...

You don't believe what Paul said. He said that the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant were inviolable. They could not be altered (Gal 3:15-17). Your issue is with Paul, not with me.

For example, the now-abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6) permitted a divorced woman to marry someone else (Deuteronomy 24:2). But if her 2nd marriage ended, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade her to remarry her 1st husband (Deuteronomy 24:4). The New Covenant rules turn this on its head. For now a woman divorced from a valid husband can't marry anyone else (Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18b), but she can remarry her valid husband (1 Corinthians 7:11). It was because the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law permitted a divorced woman to marry someone else, that Jesus Christ, while the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was still in effect, could acknowledge the woman of Samaria's 5 marriages (John 4:18, assuming all 5 didn't end in the death of her husband: cf. Luke 20:29-31). The New Covenant rules forbidding a woman divorced from a valid husband to marry anyone else didn't come into legal effect until Jesus' death on the Cross brought the New Covenant into legal effect (Hebrews 9:16-17, Matthew 26:28) and abolished the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6).

Click to expand...

You don't understand the Abrahamic covenant. God created us for fellowship and hence it's a voice-based covenant. Or do you think heaven will be a little room with a lamp, a desk, a Bible, a concordance, and a lexicon for you to practice Sola Scriptura for all eternity? That's why even the 10 commandments were not engraved in stone originally - God voiced them to all Israel (Ex 20). In fact the expression 'obey the law' is rarely found in the original Hebrew (probably less than 3 times?). Instead, 50 times it refers to 'obey my voice'. Also:
(1) The Hebrew word for voice appears 500 times in the OT and is always sonic.
(2) The Hebrew term for obey means to hearken unto a voice

The point is that the law, because it was God's voice, did not contradict the Abrahamic voice-covenant.

The written Word is the divine Word because the written Word came from the divine (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It did not come from men (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Click to expand...

That's silly logic. So the stone tablets are the divine Word merely because the finger of God engraved then? I don't care how many books God writes, that doesn't make them divine, whether He writes them on stone tablets or modern paper.

It is to be tested against God's Word the Bible (Hebrews 4:12). For conscience is fallible (Proverbs 28:26).

Click to expand...

Exegesis is fallible too. And?

All extra-Biblical prophetic revelation must be tested (1 John 4:1-3).
Judged (1 Corinthians 14:29).

Click to expand...

Tell it to Abraham.

The Holy Spirit teaches individual Christians directly based on the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Click to expand...

Nebulous.

Ancient Biblical manuscripts in the original languages (Hebrew for the Old Testament, Greek for the New Testament) still exist today, and it has never been proven they differ in doctrine from the original manuscripts. At the same time, it has never been proven they don't, just as it has never been proven even the original manuscripts were God's Word. Indeed, God has purposely made it so there's no way to scientifically prove even the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true (1 Corinthians 1:18 to 2:16). Yet Biblical Christians nonetheless (rightly) believe the Gospel is true, just as they (rightly) believe the ancient Biblical manuscripts we have match the original manuscripts in doctrine, and that all this doctrine is God's Word (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4, John 8:31). For Biblical Christians have been granted God's miraculous gift of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b) and some measure of God's own Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-16). And so they're able to spiritually recognize if something is said by God (John 10:4,27; 1 Corinthians 14:37), or only by some "stranger" (John 10:5).

And Biblical Christians know the Bible is God's Word not only because of the spiritual evidence of faith (Hebrews 11:1), but also because Jesus Christ confirms the entire Old Testament is true (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:44-48). And the entire New Testament was written by eyewitnesses of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 9:1, John 19:35, John 21:24; 1 Peter 5:1, Luke 24:48, Revelation 1:17-19) or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:3). And Jesus' New Testament suffering and death on the Cross for our sins, and His physical resurrection from the dead on the 3rd day (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Acts 26:22-23, Isaiah 53, Psalms 16:10, Acts 2:31). Also, no doctrine in the Bible has ever been proven false, so there's no reason for any Christian to reject any doctrine taught by the Bible.

It's the Bible which is able to make people wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 3:15; 1 Peter 1:23-25, Romans 10:17, Acts 13:48, James 1:18). All the Bible's teachings were given by the inspiration of God, and so they're all true and God's Word (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4). Jesus Christ says: "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed" (John 8:31). Christians must be willing to die before they would deny any part of His Word (Mark 8:35-38). One of Satan's prime aims is to get people to reject all or parts of God's Word and start believing something else which sounds better to them as humans (Genesis 3:1-6, Matthew 16:21-23; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:3-4), but which can't save their souls, so they will end up suffering in fire and brimstone with Satan and his fallen angels forever (Matthew 25:41,46, Revelation 20:10,15, Revelation 14:10-11).

Click to expand...

You're buiding off the work of scholars who selected manuscripts for you and translated them, either because you put your trust in mere men, or in the Inward Witness. You should be clear on which.

You could of course reproduce all their research yourself - might take you a couple of lifetimes, but at least then you could more legitimately claim to have credible knowledge - oh woops I forgot, you'd still probably have to rely on Greek and Hebrew grammars to learn those languages.

Timothy is a man of God who sticks with the Bible (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Timothy 4:1-4). 2 Timothy 2:15

Click to expand...

I use the Bible dadactically as well in these discussions. And?

You know when I first got saved, and was indoctrinated into Sola Scriptura, I used to wonder at verses like this, "And Enoch walked with God" (Gen 5:22). Seemed perplexing. I used to ask myself, how does someone walk with God without a book of instructions? I no longer find such passages terribly mysterious. Enoch simply abided by the voice of conscience qua voice of God (and/or vice versa).

BobRyan said:

Interesting "story"--

But in Acts 17:11 we have an actual historic fact --


"they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things were SO" that they had been told by the APOSTLE Paul. Acts 17:11

Click to expand...

The trouble is, Bob, you have no way of knowing to what extent their studying was illuminated by the Inward Witness. Your interpretation of these texts will always be a big Maybe at best, whereas I've shown the primacy of conscience to be logically inescapable.

For example, let's suppose they were relying on exegesis. At what point does the exegete become resolute on an issue in question? When he feels certain! You can't avoid the principle of certainty, Bob. Certainty rules - and I've shown you scenario after scenario to confirm this fact (probably over a half dozen so far) but you conveniently ignore all the scenarios.

Instead of being 'instructed' to use our feelings... the Word of God says this -
"though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be ACCURSED" Gal 1:6-9
The model you use does not allow such a "let him be accursed" result since the moment you conclude "well it is a church Apostle" or "well it is an angel from heaven" your story "ends".

Click to expand...

Actually I was being generous in my assessment of your argument. Here's another fly in the ointment. Reread the passage from PAUL'S perspective, that is, a man who at that instant already knew the correct gospel in virtue of prophetic revelation. You know what PAUL would want of anyone preaching a different gospel - for him to be cursed! So there's at least two possible readings here:
(1) Paul was cursing the blasphemers because his conscience knew the truth.
(2) Paul was telling the Galatians: 'Go ahead and curse the blasphemers even if your conscience persuades you that their message is correct.'

Yes, if you INTERPRET the passage as #2, it would be a problem passage for me. (Actually it would be a problem passage for everyone, because to deny the authority of conscience leads to self-contradictions). But I see nothing wrong with option #1. Also I told you my position which is #3:
(3) Paul was telling the Galatians: 'The only gospel that really makes sense is self-authenticating revelation (qua conscience) which you already experienced first-hand when I preached to you. Therefore I curse any contrary messenger' (and he was perhaps implying that the Galatians should do the same but we as interpreters need not go this far).

Rather than a diverting story -- we have this from Christ Himself --

Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

I've addressed this passage several times. I don't see where you're overcoming my objections to your reading.

in Acts 17:11 we have an actual historic fact --


"they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things were SO" that they had been told by the APOSTLE Paul. Acts 17:11

Click to expand...

They were hoping to FEEL CERTAIN (that's the goal of ANY kind of inquiry) about what Paul said. There's no escaping feelings of certainty, Bob. So here's another scenario, Bob, but I'm sure you'll ignore it just like you've ignored all the rest. An exegete begins to research an issue. After reading a number of scholarly books on the subject, he sees there are seven competing interpretations of the verses in question. Trouble is, he doesn't feel certain about ANY of them. Or maybe he has an (equally) small degree of certainty about each of them. Two questions for you:
(A) Can he move forward immediately with a final decision? If so, how?
(B) Now let's suppose the Holy Spirit intervenes, giving him 100% certainty about option #5. Can he move forward immediately with a final decision?

Bob, I already warned you that the primacy of conscience/certainty is a TAUTOLOGY. Why are we still debating about a tautology? I think you're well aware I'm right, all my scenarios PROVE that I'm right, but you just don't want to admit it.

BobRyan said:

No need to... just accept it.

Click to expand...

Accept what? YOUR interpretation of the passage, against the alternatives? Are you some kind of pope?

Not true in real life -- as we saw in Acts 17:1-4

Click to expand...

So the fact that Paul was a bible scholar proves that everyone could be professional exegetes like him? Everyone had a copy of the bible and access to a seminary library - AND the time to do the research? They didn't have to work for a living? Bob you're dreaming.

there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

Click to expand...

I've never denied that Scripture - in the hands of a prophet like Paul - is a very useful didactic tool. It's extremely dangerous in the hands of ordinary believers like you and I, however, as we are very prone to errors. The nature of this bible-based didactic argumentation is extrapolatory, moreover, meaning it takes the form: Assuming you already have belief X based on verse X, the implications are the following....'

Do you see the problem with extrapolatory argumentation? It builds on existing ASSUMPTIONS. If the assumptions themselves are incorrect, it leads to false conclusions. For Paul this was not a problem, as he was a PROPHET building on CORRECT assumptions. But to suggest that Sola Scriptura is a reliable epistemology for you and me is completely absurd.

Sola Scriptura FORCES you to rely on mere men (scholars) to ACQUIRE your foundational assumptions. It is an inherently flawed epistemology, as I've shown on this thread time and again.

I understand your concern. You're wondering, 'Why did Paul EVER need to appeal to Scripture in debates, if conscience/certainty rules?' Because unfortunately, God hasn't granted us an infinite amount of His convicting power. Every Christian, at a given moment of time, can only perform so many miracles for example (often none!). Grace is meted out to us - even to prophets like Paul - in limited measures (for reasons I can't get into here). So yes, if Paul was preaching, and his audience wasn't convinced due to a lack of convicting power (which I suspect was pretty rare), he naturally fell back on Scripture, when possible, to further convince them. I see nothing wrong with that.

On what basis/authority, then, did the Galatians accept Paul's messages to begin with?

Was it the "we say-so" basis? Not according to Gal 1!! In Gal 1 we have "though WE APOSTLES or an Angel from heaven should come to you and preach a different Gospel - let him be accursed"

No "we say-so" there.
No "because we claim to be Apostles" there.
No "because Apostles are in the magisterium" there

Click to expand...

See my last post on this thread. And please stop misrepresenting me, as it's not about whether someone claims to be an apostle, nor even if he IS in apostle, but whether his message triggers FEELINGS OF CERTAINTY. When you keep misrepresenting me on this issue, it begins to look like intellectual dishonesty.

Obviously.

Instead of "Self-authenticating revelation" -- what we see there is TESTING against known standard -- the Word of God.

Click to expand...

See above. And you conveniently ignore all the places in the OT and NT where there WAS self-authenticating revelation. The prophet Abraham is said to be the model of the faith-based lifestyle for ALL believers. To what extent did he test God's voice against the Bible? Oh that's right - there wasn't one! Got a question for you. Why do you suppose Paul selected the prophet Abraham as our paradigm? I mean, if Paul wanted to propagate Sola Scriptura, that's a pretty stupid choice, isn't it? And the same problem occurs in Heb 11. There too, many OT saints are cited as paradigms of the faith-based lifestyle - and many of them preceded the Bible! And many of those named were prophets! Is anyone seeing a pattern here?

Which "is to be used for Doctrine" 2 Tim 3:16 according to Paul.

Click to expand...

Timothy was a prophet.

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" -- according to Paul

Click to expand...

Verbal? Or written? "My sheep know my voice" (Jn 10:27). Or didn't you know that the law was originally VOICED to Israel (Ex 20)? And the rest of it was voiced to the prophet Moses?

Here's what Paul was NOT telling the Galatians: "If anyone preaches to you a Bible-based Law-of-God affirming , exegesis-based gospel, instead of a feelings-based make-stuff-up story let him be accursed!"

Click to expand...

Make up stuff? Where did I say that? Bob is your position so weak that you need to stoop to intellectual dishonesty? Evidently so.

BobRyan said:

Not true in real life.

In real life Paul utterly refuted the false accusation that he was preaching a gospel that tells Jews to no longer follow the scripture command about Jews being circumcised.

The enemies of Paul loved to accuse him of such Bible-contradicing-doctrine - But Paul goes out of his way to refute it.

Acts 21
17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

Hint: the very false accusation against Paul that you are trying to repeat in your post.


22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

The "error" that the judaizers were practicing in Acts 15:1-2 was the "making-stuff-up" man-made-error that GENTILES were supposed to be circumcised ... not just Jews. But exegesis... sola scriptura... Bible study and-not-mere-story-telling -- dictated that there was no such thing as a command in scripture insisting that Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved, or to be counted as the followers of God.

EVEN the NON-Christian Jews were not making-such-stuff-up in Acts 13 and Acts 18:4-5 etc.


The point remains

Click to expand...

I was referring to an exegesis-based MANDATING of circumcision. And as to whether or not God wanted Jews to continue practicing Jewish customs is a question saddled with one major complexity (i.e. caveat) - namely a faulty conscience. Specifically, if a Jew became a Christian, but his conscience was still mandating a set of Jewish customs, it wouldn't be appropriate for Paul to command him to desist, unless he could do so with sufficient convicting power to remold their conscience.

Thus there seems to be an ambiguity, for us as exegetes, as to whether God wanted ANYONE to persist in Jewish customs. And we can't even look at Paul's example because he attested, "To the Jews I became like the Jews to win the Jews." He also noted that Jewish exegesis-based customs TEND TO ENSLAVE (as I stated).

Also your distinction between Jews and Gentiles raises yet another objection to Sola Scriptura. Why would God have one set of rules for Jews, and another for Gentiles? For a very good reason. A command voiced to ONE person or nation is not necessarily appropriate for ANOTHER person or nation. Therefore Sola Scriptura is too facile, because it asks us to look for God's commands in texts directed at individuals, churches, and nations that lived and died TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO - and didn't even speak the same language that we do !!! How we can be sure that those rules still apply to today? We can't - we have to fallback on our own human logic to draw such conclusions, which is a matter of theological constructs and thus is NOT really 'Sola Scriptura'.