Proof for Sola Scriptura - is irrefutable

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" -- according to Paul
Actually it's kind of amusing that you would use a verse from this epistle to defend Sola Scriptura since this letter is actually Paul's magnum opus on the primacy of direct revelation (see 1Cor 14:1 and 14:38 for example).

In this epistle Paul makes a 4-pronged argument for the primacy of direct revelation, which I covered in various posts on this other thread, starting from post #150. I can't repeat all that material in one post, but I will share one of the 4 prongs right now. It goes like this. Paul WANTED to speak a particular kind of message to the Corinthians, "We speak wisdom among the mature" (2:6), but he couldn't do it because they were immature babes, "I could not speak to you as spiritual but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with solid food" (3:1-2).

Did you catch that? Paul gave them that epistle INSTEAD of solid food. Therefore this epistle is not solid food. Similarly the epistle to the Hebrews was provided instead of solid food (see Heb 5:11-14), and the same with 1Peter (1Pet 2:2). Clearly Scripture is not a source of solid food. Chrysostom remarked that not even “Scripture hath anywhere discoursed to us of these things" (see Chrysostom, NPNF, Part 1, Vol 12, Homily 34). So where then do we get solid food? The only other plausible choice is direct revelation. "God has REVEALED these things to us [the apostles and prophets] by His Spirit" (2:10). (See 4:9 for an example of 'us the apostles').

Still stuck on Sola Scriptura? Enjoy your babes milk, because that's the most you'll get out of it.

Maybe I'll share some of the other 3 prongs a little later, if this debate continues.

(Note. I'm NOT saying that every direct revelation counts as solid food. By no means. Paul is evidently referring to a very high-order class of direct revelation unavailable to immature Christians).
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: gordonhooker
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
JAL said in post #132:

Jesus was a prophet, not a seminary professor.

But note that Jesus taught Paul directly (Galatians 1:11-12) based on the Bible (Acts 26:22).

Similarly, Jesus taught the men on the road to Emmaus based on the Bible (Luke 24:25-27).

JAL said in post #132:

But Abraham is the paradigm for how ALL believers are to walk with God!

That's right, by faith in God's Word (Galatians 3:7), which is now written down in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

JAL said in post #132:

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).

Note that physical circumcision is not perpetual (Galatians 5:2).

Similarly, the fact that Abraham tithed doesn't make tithing perpetual.

That is, tithing isn't a New Covenant/New Testament commandment but was a part of the Old Covenant, the letter of which Jesus Christ abolished on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6). Christians thinking they have to keep the letter of the Old Covenant tithe is just as mistaken as Christians thinking they have to keep the letter of the Old Covenant circumcision (Acts 15:1-11). If Christians keep the letter of the Old Covenant tithe thinking they have to, they're as fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4) as Christians who keep the letter of the Old Covenant circumcision thinking they have to (Galatians 5:2). They've become debtors to perform the letter of the entire Old Covenant law (Galatians 5:3). They've placed themselves under its curse (Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26). It's sad some pastors even go out of their way to also lay the specific Old Covenant curse of Malachi 3:8-9 on their congregations.

Jesus Christ taught Christians have to obey His New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 15:10), such as those He gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37). Jesus' New Covenant commandments exceed in righteousness the abolished letter of the Old Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:20-48). For Jesus' New Covenant requirement is Christians do much more than merely tithe: They must forsake everything they have (Luke 14:33).

JAL said in post #132:

You're basing your argument on the false assumption that Israel's New Covenant was in effect.

Note that it has been in effect since the Cross (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24).

JAL said in post #132:

. . . nor have you convinced me that water baptism is necessary.

Note that sola scriptura shows that in order to be saved ultimately, Christians must get water-immersion (burial) baptized into Jesus Christ's death for our sins (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). If people believe with all their heart Jesus Christ is the human/divine Son of God (Acts 8:37), they can get baptized anywhere there's water (Acts 8:36) into which they can be fully-immersed (buried) (Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12). They need to make sure to be baptized in the name of God the Father; and of the Son, Jesus Christ; and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38). Christians can get water-immersion baptized at, for example, a Baptist-type congregation.

Besides getting water baptized, Christians can get Holy Spirit baptized (Acts 11:15-16, Acts 10:44-46). They usually have to ask to receive the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13b) baptism, for it's usually not given to them automatically at the moment they become Christians. That's why the apostle Paul asked some Christians: "Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2).

Christians usually receive Holy Spirit baptism through prayer accompanied by the laying on of hands, subsequent to water baptism (Acts 8:15-17, Acts 19:5-6). Holy Spirit baptism won't result in speaking in tongues for everyone (1 Corinthians 12:30), but for almost everyone, as tongues are one of the Spirit's lesser gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8-11,28; 1 Corinthians 14:5). Many Christians haven't yet experienced Holy Spirit baptism simply because they haven't yet asked for it, under the principle: "ye have not, because ye ask not" (James 4:2b). Many Christians haven't yet asked for it because they've come under the influence of mistaken teachings which say it's no longer in effect. Christians can get hands laid on them to receive Holy Spirit baptism at any Pentecostal-type congregation, or at any charismatic-type congregation, which can be of almost any denomination.

JAL said in post #132:

Israel's New Covenant (the New Jerusalem) is not in effect.

Note that the New Covenant (also called the New Testament) is in effect (2 Corinthians 3:6).

That is, the Bible, in English translations, sometimes calls the New Covenant the New Testament. For the original Greek word "diatheke" (G1242) can be translated into English as either "covenant" (Hebrews 8:8) or "testament" (Hebrews 9:15). So when Christians refer to the 2 main parts of the Bible as the Old Testament and New Testament, what they're really referring to are the 2 parts of the Bible which focus (for the most part) on the Old Covenant and New Covenant.

JAL said in post #132:

Israel's New Covenant (the New Jerusalem) is not in effect.

Regarding the New Covenant/New Testament being only for Israel (Jeremiah 31:31), note that just as the Gentile Ruth (a genetic forbear of Israel's Messiah: Matthew 1:5-16, Luke 3:23-32) could say to the Israelite Naomi: "thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God" (Ruth 1:16), so Gentiles in the Church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29).

That is, all Jews in the Church remain members of whichever tribe of Israel they were born into (Romans 11:1, Acts 4:36). And all Gentiles in the Church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29) and so have been grafted into its various tribes (cf. Ezekiel 47:21-23). So the entire Church is the 12 tribes of Israel (Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10). This is necessary, for all those in the Church are saved only by the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), which is made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 4:22b). John 10:16 refers to the "other sheep" of Gentile Christians being brought into "this fold" of Israel, which is the "one fold" of the Church (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:4-6, Revelation 21:9,12). A Gentile Christian can pray and ask which tribe of Israel he has been grafted into, and he will receive an answer from God, if he asks in faith (cf. Matthew 21:22), without any wavering (cf. James 1:6-7).

Also, all those in the Church, whether Jews (Acts 22:3) or Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews if they've undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus Christ (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).

JAL said in post #132:

Israel's New Covenant (the New Jerusalem) is not in effect.

Regarding New Jerusalem, note that Revelation 21:12 refers to Israel's 12 tribes in its description of the bride of Christ in Revelation 21:9. And the bride of Christ is the Church (Ephesians 5:30-32; 2 Corinthians 11:2).

Revelation 21:2,9-10 means the physical structure of the literal city of New Jerusalem in heaven is a picture of the Church. Something can be literal and at the same time symbolically picture something else. For example, in Matthew 21:19 the fig tree was literal, and at the same time its being without fruit pictured unbelieving, Old Covenant Israel being without fruit (Matthew 21:43).

Just as New Jerusalem's literal wall foundations have the names of the 12 apostles on them (Revelation 21:14), so the Church's foundation is the apostles (Ephesians 2:20). And just as New Jerusalem's literal pearly gates have the names of Israel's 12 tribes on them (Revelation 21:12,21), so the church consists of Israel's 12 tribes.

New Jerusalem is a literal city, 1,500 miles cubed (Revelation 21:16), with literal pearly gates and literal streets of gold (Revelation 21:21). It's God the Father's house in the 3rd heaven (Revelation 21:2-3, cf. 2 Corinthians 12:2b,4, Revelation 2:7b, Revelation 22:2,14), in which house Jesus Christ left to prepare a place for the Church (John 14:2). All those in the Church, whether Jews or Gentiles, have figuratively come to New Jerusalem by coming under the New Covenant (Hebrews 12:22-24, Galatians 4:24-26), which is made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and which only the Church comes under by believing in Jesus' New Covenant suffering and death on the Cross for our sins (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), the very heart of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

The Church looks for Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming, from heaven (Philippians 3:20), and the setting up of the physical aspect of His Kingdom on the earth with the physically resurrected Church for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29), a time period commonly called the Millennium. New Jerusalem won't descend from the 3rd heaven to the earth until after the future, New Earth (a new surface of the earth) has been created (Revelation 21:1-4), sometime after the future Millennium and subsequent events (Revelation 20:7-15). The Church will physically live and reign in New Jerusalem with God the Father and Jesus on the New Earth (Revelation 21:1 to 22:5). The Father and Jesus themselves will be the only temple in New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:22).

JAL said in post #132:

You don't believe what Paul said. He said that the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant were inviolable.

He meant in regard to the promise of salvation (Galatians 3:17).

JAL said in post #132:

God created us for fellowship and hence it's a voice-based covenant.

Note that the New Covenant is also a Bible-based covenant (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

JAL said in post #132:

So the stone tablets are the divine Word merely because the finger of God engraved then?

Of course. Although their letter is now abolished (Romans 7:6), by the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:7).

JAL said in post #132:

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.

Note that the Bible is the divine Word because it is from the divine (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is not from men (2 Peter 1:20-21).

*******

JAL said in post #138:

There's no escaping feelings of certainty . . .

Note that if they are wrong (Proverbs 14:12), they can be escaped by countering them with God's Word the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

*******

JAL said in post #139:

Everyone had a copy of the bible and access to a seminary library - AND the time to do the research?

No need for a copy or research. Simply hear the Bible itself read out loud in church (2 Timothy 3:15, Romans 10:17).

But now that we all do have copies of the Bible, there is no excuse for us not to also read all of it for ourselves.

That is, the best way for us today to study the Bible, as a whole, is simply to read every word of it (Matthew 4:4) over and over again. It ends up explaining itself once what it teaches has become engrained in your memory, and you see the connections between verses regarding something in one place in the Bible and other verses regarding that same thing in other places in the Bible. It's by comparing and combining related verses in different places in the Bible that we arrive at correct doctrine (Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13).

It's also a good practice to always start and end each Bible-reading session with a prayer for understanding and remembrance of the whole Bible.

One great way to read the whole Bible, over and over, is to think of it as 7 volumes:

1. Genesis to Deuteronomy
2. Joshua to Esther
3. Job to Song of Solomon
4. Isaiah to Malachi
5. Matthew to Acts
6. Romans to Philemon
7. Hebrews to Revelation

You can read a chapter in each volume every day. This will keep you current in every part of the Bible. After a while, there won't be any part you haven't read recently enough to remember what it teaches. When you reach the end of a volume, simply start again at the 1st chapter of that volume. In this way, you will be cycling through smaller volumes like #6 and #7 much more often than larger volumes like #2, but the smaller volumes are so much more dense with doctrine it's profitable to read them over and over more often.

Also, you can listen to recordings of people reading the Bible out loud whenever you need to keep your eyes on something else while you listen (such as keeping your eyes on the road while you're driving, or on a cutting board while you're preparing food, or on your clippers while you're trimming a hedge). In this way, you can listen to the Bible throughout the day, whenever you don't need to be thinking about something else (such as at your workplace or school). Also, you can listen to the Bible even while you're going to sleep, so it will become part of even your subconscious mind.

JAL said in post #139:

. . . 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.

Note that those feelings must still be checked against the Bible (Acts 17:11). For there are also false apostles (2 Corinthians 11:13).

*******

JAL said in post #140:

Thus there seems to be an ambiguity, for us as exegetes, as to whether God wanted ANYONE to persist in Jewish customs.

Note that the apostle Paul taught both Jews and Gentiles not to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17).
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
But note that Jesus taught Paul directly (Galatians 1:11-12) based on the Bible (Acts 26:22).
Direct revelation isn't new revelation. It merely clarifies, expounds, applies, ramifies truths voiced to Adam and Eve already. We both agree on that. But trying to conflate it with Sola Scriptura, as you are is a farce. Jesus spoke with Paul face to face just as Moses spoke with God face to face. That's hardly Sola Scriptura.

Similarly, Jesus taught the men on the road to Emmaus based on the Bible (Luke 24:25-27).
Jesus spoke to them face to face, explaining the Scriptures. That's PRECISELY what we need today. Exegesis doesn't cut it.

That's right, by faith in God's Word (Galatians 3:7), which is now written down in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Paul's paradigm set forth in Galatians, at Gal 3:6, is referring back to Gen 15:1-6 where Abraham received/heard the divine Word/Spirit by the hearing of faith in a PROPHETIC VISION. Had nothing to do with the written Word.

As for your next words, I'm not planning on an ongoing debate with you over the New Covenant as it's too far off topic. I said enough words to satisfy some of your curiosity about my views, but that's about as far as I really wanted to go.

That is, tithing isn't a New Covenant/New Testament commandment but was a part of the Old Covenant, the letter of which Jesus Christ abolished on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6). Christians thinking they have to keep the letter of the Old Covenant tithe is just as mistaken as Christians thinking they have to keep the letter of the Old Covenant circumcision (Acts 15:1-11). If Christians keep the letter of the Old Covenant tithe thinking they have to, they're as fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4) as Christians who keep the letter of the Old Covenant circumcision thinking they have to (Galatians 5:2). They've become debtors to perform the letter of the entire Old Covenant law (Galatians 5:3). They've placed themselves under its curse (Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26). It's sad some pastors even go out of their way to also lay the specific Old Covenant curse of Malachi 3:8-9 on their congregations.

Jesus Christ taught Christians have to obey His New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 15:10), such as those He gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37). Jesus' New Covenant commandments exceed in righteousness the abolished letter of the Old Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:20-48). For Jesus' New Covenant requirement is Christians do much more than merely tithe: They must forsake everything they have (Luke 14:33).
Ok.

Note that it has been in effect since the Cross (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24).
My view on the last supper is pretty much that of the classic dispensationalists, although mine is born from the idea of a master Covenant/Promise which, as stated, can express itself in any number of 'new' covenants/promises whether temporary or permanent, and whether scoped to a few or applicable to all believers. In my view, Jesus availed of this fact at the last supper by instituting a 'new' covenant (a sacramental Eucharist) to help the apostles officially and publicly expire the outmoded elements of Israel's old covenant (expire the letter of the law). Again, this is essentially the position of the classic dispensationalists - in this view Israel's New Covenant is not yet inauguerated although the writer of Hebrews had every right to apply many of its elements to us because all Christians share Christ as their High Priest. Again, I'm just satisfying your curiosity, I'm not going to debate the New Covenant extensively on this thread.

Note that sola scriptura shows that in order to be saved ultimately, Christians must get water-immersion (burial) baptized into Jesus Christ's death for our sins (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). If people believe with all their heart Jesus Christ is the human/divine Son of God (Acts 8:37), they can get baptized anywhere there's water (Acts 8:36) into which they can be fully-immersed (buried) (Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12). They need to make sure to be baptized in the name of God the Father; and of the Son, Jesus Christ; and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38). Christians can get water-immersion baptized at, for example, a Baptist-type congregation.
I advocate neither the Eucharist nor water baptism. Since God is anti-ritualistic, "Sacrifice and burnt-offering I did not desire", we should tend to avoid rituals (especially ones 2,000 years old) absent prophetic revelation (i.e. 100% certainty). But again, this is getting off-topic, I don't plan on debating water baptism with you.

Besides getting water baptized, Christians can get Holy Spirit baptized (Acts 11:15-16, Acts 10:44-46). They usually have to ask to receive the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13b) baptism, for it's usually not given to them automatically at the moment they become Christians. That's why the apostle Paul asked some Christians: "Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2).

Christians usually receive Holy Spirit baptism through prayer accompanied by the laying on of hands, subsequent to water baptism (Acts 8:15-17, Acts 19:5-6). Holy Spirit baptism won't result in speaking in tongues for everyone (1 Corinthians 12:30), but for almost everyone, as tongues are one of the Spirit's lesser gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8-11,28; 1 Corinthians 14:5). Many Christians haven't yet experienced Holy Spirit baptism simply because they haven't yet asked for it, under the principle: "ye have not, because ye ask not" (James 4:2b). Many Christians haven't yet asked for it because they've come under the influence of mistaken teachings which say it's no longer in effect. Christians can get hands laid on them to receive Holy Spirit baptism at any Pentecostal-type congregation, or at any charismatic-type congregation, which can be of almost any denomination.
I agree with a lot of this. Personally I believe there are an unlimited number of reviving outpourings available because we'll never be perfect in this life (we'll never be filled in the sense of absolute density) and because we need extra to radiate the Spirit to unbelievers (similar to the procession of the Spirit from Christ to us), even as Moses radiated Him to 70 elders (Num 11:25), and Jesus to His Twelve (John 20:22);

Note that the New Covenant (also called the New Testament) is in effect (2 Corinthians 3:6).
Israel's new covenant? Nope.

That is, the Bible, in English translations, sometimes calls the New Covenant the New Testament. For the original Greek word "diatheke" (G1242) can be translated into English as either "covenant" (Hebrews 8:8) or "testament" (Hebrews 9:15). So when Christians refer to the 2 main parts of the Bible as the Old Testament and New Testament, what they're really referring to are the 2 parts of the Bible which focus (for the most part) on the Old Covenant and New Covenant.
There is some agreement here but again, OT and NT saints are under the same Abrahamic covenant.

Regarding the New Covenant/New Testament being only for Israel (Jeremiah 31:31), note that just as the Gentile Ruth (a genetic forbear of Israel's Messiah: Matthew 1:5-16, Luke 3:23-32) could say to the Israelite Naomi: "thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God" (Ruth 1:16), so Gentiles in the Church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29).

That is, all Jews in the Church remain members of whichever tribe of Israel they were born into (Romans 11:1, Acts 4:36). And all Gentiles in the Church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29) and so have been grafted into its various tribes (cf. Ezekiel 47:21-23). So the entire Church is the 12 tribes of Israel (Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10). This is necessary, for all those in the Church are saved only by the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), which is made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 4:22b). John 10:16 refers to the "other sheep" of Gentile Christians being brought into "this fold" of Israel, which is the "one fold" of the Church (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:4-6, Revelation 21:9,12). A Gentile Christian can pray and ask which tribe of Israel he has been grafted into, and he will receive an answer from God, if he asks in faith (cf. Matthew 21:22), without any wavering (cf. James 1:6-7).
I think your extrapolation of the word 'grafting' might be a bit questionable but is off-topic.
Also, all those in the Church, whether Jews (Acts 22:3) or Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews if they've undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus Christ (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).
Off topic.

Regarding New Jerusalem, note that Revelation 21:12 refers to Israel's 12 tribes in its description of the bride of Christ in Revelation 21:9. And the bride of Christ is the Church (Ephesians 5:30-32; 2 Corinthians 11:2).

Revelation 21:2,9-10 means the physical structure of the literal city of New Jerusalem in heaven is a picture of the Church. Something can be literal and at the same time symbolically picture something else. For example, in Matthew 21:19 the fig tree was literal, and at the same time its being without fruit pictured unbelieving, Old Covenant Israel being without fruit (Matthew 21:43).

Just as New Jerusalem's literal wall foundations have the names of the 12 apostles on them (Revelation 21:14), so the Church's foundation is the apostles (Ephesians 2:20). And just as New Jerusalem's literal pearly gates have the names of Israel's 12 tribes on them (Revelation 21:12,21), so the church consists of Israel's 12 tribes.

New Jerusalem is a literal city, 1,500 miles cubed (Revelation 21:16), with literal pearly gates and literal streets of gold (Revelation 21:21). It's God the Father's house in the 3rd heaven (Revelation 21:2-3, cf. 2 Corinthians 12:2b,4, Revelation 2:7b, Revelation 22:2,14), in which house Jesus Christ left to prepare a place for the Church (John 14:2). All those in the Church, whether Jews or Gentiles, have figuratively come to New Jerusalem by coming under the New Covenant (Hebrews 12:22-24, Galatians 4:24-26), which is made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and which only the Church comes under by believing in Jesus' New Covenant suffering and death on the Cross for our sins (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), the very heart of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

The Church looks for Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming, from heaven (Philippians 3:20), and the setting up of the physical aspect of His Kingdom on the earth with the physically resurrected Church for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29), a time period commonly called the Millennium. New Jerusalem won't descend from the 3rd heaven to the earth until after the future, New Earth (a new surface of the earth) has been created (Revelation 21:1-4), sometime after the future Millennium and subsequent events (Revelation 20:7-15). The Church will physically live and reign in New Jerusalem with God the Father and Jesus on the New Earth (Revelation 21:1 to 22:5). The Father and Jesus themselves will be the only temple in New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:22).
I agree with a lot of this, as with much of the content of many of your other statements. There are slight differences in some of the extrapolations - but again it's off topic.

He meant in regard to the promise of salvation (Galatians 3:17).
He called it a covenant, and said the terms can't be altered, that not even the Mosaic Law altered this Abrahamic covenant. Trying to convince me of changes won't be an easy task and will probably take us too far off topic for me to remain interested.
Note that the Bible is the divine Word because it is from the divine (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is not from men (2 Peter 1:20-21).
I gave my reasons. If you want to bow down and worship the original writing material (the stone tablets) or the newer material (modern paper) because you think that's the divine Word, I just hope you do so with a clear conscience. Meanwhile I'll worship Jesus who is the REAL divine Word.

No need for a copy or research. Simply hear the Bible itself read out loud in church (2 Timothy 3:15, Romans 10:17).

But now that we all do have copies of the Bible, there is no excuse for us not to also read all of it for ourselves.

That is, the best way for us today to study the Bible, as a whole, is simply to read every word of it (Matthew 4:4) over and over again. It ends up explaining itself once what it teaches has become engrained in your memory, and you see the connections between verses regarding something in one place in the Bible and other verses regarding that same thing in other places in the Bible. It's by comparing and combining related verses in different places in the Bible that we arrive at correct doctrine (Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13).

It's also a good practice to always start and end each Bible-reading session with a prayer for understanding and remembrance of the whole Bible.

One great way to read the whole Bible, over and over, is to think of it as 7 volumes:

1. Genesis to Deuteronomy
2. Joshua to Esther
3. Job to Song of Solomon
4. Isaiah to Malachi
5. Matthew to Acts
6. Romans to Philemon
7. Hebrews to Revelation

You can read a chapter in each volume every day. This will keep you current in every part of the Bible. After a while, there won't be any part you haven't read recently enough to remember what it teaches. When you reach the end of a volume, simply start again at the 1st chapter of that volume. In this way, you will be cycling through smaller volumes like #6 and #7 much more often than larger volumes like #2, but the smaller volumes are so much more dense with doctrine it's profitable to read them over and over more often.

Also, you can listen to recordings of people reading the Bible out loud whenever you need to keep your eyes on something else while you listen (such as keeping your eyes on the road while you're driving, or on a cutting board while you're preparing food, or on your clippers while you're trimming a hedge). In this way, you can listen to the Bible throughout the day, whenever you don't need to be thinking about something else (such as at your workplace or school). Also, you can listen to the Bible even while you're going to sleep, so it will become part of even your subconscious mind.
Just look at this forum. Look at all areas of disagreement. You must either conclude that:
(A) All Christians are intellectually dishonest, they don't even TRY to intepret the Bible correctly OR
(B) Exegesis is exceedingly fallible
Take your pick. I'm going to assume you'll pick A, but I don't think that's very charitable to your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Could the same charge be levied against prophecy? Well certainly not against REAL prophecy, but definitely against most declarations masqueraded these days as real prophecy. Can we tell the difference? Well if I have 100% certainty about a declaration, God can hardly fault me for believing it - again, this is a tautology.
Note that those feelings must still be checked against the Bible (Acts 17:11). For there are also false apostles (2 Corinthians 11:13).
Abraham didn't check God's voice against the Bible. Everything hinges on your level of certainty. Sure if the Voice isn't speaking to you loud and clear, you can look to more prayer, or even to the Bible (conscience-permitting) in hopes of acquiring more certainty. If you're already fully certain, however, why check anything? That doesn't make sense. I don't plan to keep repeating these points to you a thousand more times.

Note that the apostle Paul taught both Jews and Gentiles not to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17).
Agreed. We are bound by the spirit of the law, not the letter.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: gordonhooker
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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".
Another comment on this. If the gospel is understood here as "Jesus is Lord" (although it's debatable whether that's the exact nuance in focus here), another fly in the ointment is that, in my view, it's not possible for a Christian to deny this gospel with a clear conscience, because the Inward Witness confirms the name Jesus to the conscience (for any believer who ever hears that name). Thus we have option #4:
(4) Paul was telling the Galatians, 'Go ahead and curse anyone who preaches a different gospel, since your conscience DOES know the truth.'

Option #4 is yet another variation consistent with authoritative conscience.

So now we've seen four possible interpretations of the passage already. And I'm confident that scholars could produce several more. What does that say about exegesis? Pretty fallible, isn't it? Do you honestly think God planned to stake the success of His church - and the salvation of the lost - on this nonsense? Precisely how irresponsible and negligent do you suppose He is?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: gordonhooker
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,885
3,525
✟320,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - none of those texts should exist!
I don't know why people don't just honestly admit that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unworkable, unuseful, in determining the truths of the faith with any degree of certainty. The proof of this fact lies in the differing positions held between sincere SS adherents, common folk and scholars alike, over essential or important beliefs. The RCC, for one, doesn't hold to this doctrine of course, maintaining that her creeds and beliefs have issued forth from the beginning with the advent and revelation of Christ, with Scripture and her lived experience (Tradition) supporting and not contradicting each other. By not adhering to the doctrine of SS she has a consistent body of beliefs without the turmoil and conflict that we witness on these forums alone between those who do. This is simply because the Church agrees with herself-duh-regardless of any possible speculations and objections by her individual members.

Now this brings me to the point. If a person or group or church wants to assert that they, exclusively, have the truth based solely on scripture (or even on some other source), while admitting that others would not necessarily arrive at the same conclusions based on the same source, then at least we'd have an honest position, where the truth-and potential problems- regarding the doctrine of SS are understood, faced, and addressed. In this case something other than Scripture alone still would/must be relied upon to ensure doctrinal integrity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
This is pretty hysterical considering that some of the most dearly held SDA doctrines have no basis in Scripture at all.

Tell us where you find the Scripture that says that our Lord has been conducting Investigative Judgement since 1844.

And you want to babble about Sola Scriptura? <ROFL>
I tend to agree......

The Investigative Judgment cannot stand against Scripture

*snip*
The Investigative Judgment, is the distinctive doctrine of Seventh Day Adventism codified to cover themselves after their belief that Christ would return in 1844 failed to come true, instead it was postulated by some of the early Adventists that it was actually at this point that Christ entered the Most Holy Place, this belief was later supported by the "prophet" of the group Ellen G White and found its way into most of her writings, part of the original doctrine included the shut door belief that no-one who wasn't a Christian (or in some cases an Adventist) at the time in which Christ entered the most Holy Place could not come under Grace, however as the group grew both through converts and births this part of the doctrine was dropped..........................................
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
BobRyan said:
1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" -- according to Paul

I've decided to share the other three prongs as briefly as possible, because I might not remain on this thread much longer. All four prongs are pointing to one conclusion - that spiritual maturity may be defined as prophetic maturity.

Prong 2:
A considerable number of Protestant scholars support the reading, 'We Apostles' in chapter 2. Thus:

"We [apostles and prophets] speak wisdom among the mature...in words [i.e. prophetic utterances] taught by the Spirit" (2:6, 13).

Paul is contrasting two categories of believers:
(A) Immature 'babes' (3:1-2) who are not 'spiritual' (3:1-2).
(B) Christians who are 'mature' (2:6), also called 'spiritual' (3:1-2), who are privy to prophet-quality revelation (even if not holding the OFFICE of a prophet). Note 14:37, 'If any man considers himself a prophet,or spiritual'. Did you catch that? Paul juxtaposed the terms 'spiritual' and 'prophet' as if they were synonyms.

Verses 2:15-16 confirm that a spiritual man (a mature man) is prophetic:

"He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we [apostles and prophets] have the mind of Christ."

Did you catch that? Since a spiritual man is under the Lord's direction, trying to correct his thinking is like trying to correct the Lord !!! What kind of man has thinking beyond correction? Such can ONLY refer to revelation at a prophet's level.

Prong 3:
Let's talk about chapter 12. We've seen that the 'spiritual' man (the 'mature' man) abounds in revelation. Verse 12:1 states, "Concerning spiritual things, brethren, I would not have you ignorant." The Corinthians were immature and thus 'ignorant' of spiritual things. The remedy? Obviously they needed an inundation with spiritual things! So what, specifically, are spiritual things? Paul goes on, in the remainder of chapter 12, to itemize a slew of revelatory and miraculous gifts including prophecy!

Notably, the words 'gifts' is not in the original Greek at 12:1. This chapter isn't introducing 'gifts' as a new topic but rather is merely clarifying, to these unspiritual babes, what it means to be spiritual. It just so HAPPENS that being 'spiritual' means to be gifted with revelations and miracles. (Picture Elijah for example).

Likewise at 14:1 the word 'gifts' is not in the Greek. "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual THINGS, especially the gift of prophecy" (14:1). Obviously, the spiritual man is the prophetic man.


Prong 4:
This prong is the hotly debated passage 13:8-12. Three Greek words found in ch. 2 and 3 reappear here:
(1) 'We [apostles and prophets]'
(2) babes
(3) mature
My translation of the passage (13:8-12) goes like this:

"Love never ceases. But where prophecies, they will cease, where tongues, they will cease, and where knowledge, it will cease. For we [apostles and prophets] know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when the mature is come, what is in part shall cease. When I was a babe, I spake as a babe, I understood as a babe, I thought as a babe: but when I became a [mature] man, I put away baby things."

Thus at maturity three baby activities will come to a cease (speaking, understanding, and thinking) in parallel to three revelatory gifts coming to a cease(prophecy, knowledge, and tongues). Did the babe actually CEASE from them, however? By no means! He merely ceased from his IMMATURE EXECUTIONS of them. In a word he MATURED.

Was Paul a babe, or mature? Both. Relative to the Corinthian babes, he was a mature prophet. "When I became a man, I put away baby things" (vs 11). But relative to Christ he was was still an immature prophet - a mere babe - and thus, "We [immature apostles and prophets] know in part and prophesy in part, but when the mature comes, what is in part will cease" (9-10).

This leads to an endless cycle called relative maturity (a theory well supported among scholars), meaning that each time he matures in prophecy, he will STILL be a babe relative to Christ and thus will need to grow even MORE in prophecy. And so on, endlessly. Robertson and Plummer put it like this, "The emancipation from childish things occurred as a matter of course and it continues" (Commentary on 1Corinthians).

So much for 1Corinthians. The book of Acts provides yet another basis for the primacy of direct revelation, but I'm not sure whether I'll cover it on this thread.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
JAL said in post #143:

Jesus spoke with Paul face to face just as Moses spoke with God face to face. That's hardly Sola Scriptura.

Note that sola scriptura doesn't leave God out. For Christians can't understand the Bible apart from God's miraculous revelation of it to them (Luke 24:45). All sola scriptura means is that any teaching by men must be checked against the Bible (Acts 17:11). And only Biblical teachings are binding on Christians (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 1 Corinthians 4:6).

JAL said in post #143:

Abraham received/heard the divine Word/Spirit by the hearing of faith in a PROPHETIC VISION. Had nothing to do with the written Word.

Note that Abraham lived 500 years before the Bible started to be written. Also, what God told Abraham didn't contradict what would later be penned in the Bible.

JAL said in post #143:

I advocate neither the Eucharist nor water baptism.

Note that Jesus Christ advocates both (e.g. Mark 16:16, John 6:53-57).

John 6:53-57 shows that all Christians, for their ultimate salvation, must eat the bread of Communion (Matthew 26:26) and drink the wine of Communion (Matthew 26:27-29), which actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:27-30) in some spiritual manner (John 6:63).

JAL said in post #143:

I think your extrapolation of the word 'grafting' might be a bit questionable . . .

Note that sola scriptura shows that just as all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are individual branches in the vine which is Jesus Christ (John 15:5), the only way to salvation (John 14:6, Acts 4:12), so all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are individual branches in the good olive tree of Israel, the Jews' own tree (Romans 11:17,24, Jeremiah 11:16-17). For all Jewish Christians remain part of Israel (Romans 11:1) as the natural branches in the tree of Israel (Romans 11:24). And all Gentile Christians have been grafted as branches from a wild olive tree into the tree of Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29) so they can partake of the salvation of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), which is made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 4:22b). This doesn't mean a wild branch becomes a natural branch, that a Gentile Christian becomes a genetic Jew, but that Gentile Christians, even while remaining branches from a wild olive tree, even while remaining genetic Gentiles, are still grafted in to become part of the good olive tree of Israel (Romans 11:17,24).

Similarly, all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are spiritually Abraham's seed (Galatians 3:29). And Abraham's seed is Israel (Isaiah 41:8, Romans 11:1; 2 Chronicles 20:7). So the entire Church is Israel (Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10). Not just the Jews in the Church (Romans 11:1b) but also the Gentiles in the Church are spiritually Abraham's seed of promise (Romans 9:7-8,24) as Isaac was (Galatians 4:28) and as Jesus Christ is (Galatians 3:16,29). So both Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles are heirs of all the promises made by God to Israel (Ephesians 3:6, Ephesians 2:12,19, Romans 15:27, Galatians 3:29b, Romans 11:17,24).

JAL said in post #143:

He called it a covenant, and said the terms can't be altered, that not even the Mosaic Law altered this Abrahamic covenant.

It didn't alter the promise of salvation by faith, but note that it would have forbidden Abraham from marrying Sarah his half-sister (Genesis 20:12, Leviticus 18:9).

JAL said in post #143:

If you want to bow down and worship the original writing material (the stone tablets) or the newer material (modern paper) because you think that's the divine Word, I just hope you do so with a clear conscience.

Note that the Bible isn't elevated by sola scripturists in the sense of worshipping it as if it were a fourth Person of the Trinity. Instead, the Bible is elevated in the sense of acknowledging that because it's God's Word, it's infallible (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4), and in the sense that because it's God's Word, we must be willing to be killed before we would deny any part of it (Revelation 6:9, Revelation 20:4, Mark 8:35-38, John 8:31b).

JAL said in post #143:

Meanwhile I'll worship Jesus who is the REAL divine Word.

Note that the Bible is not a fake divine Word, for it came only from God, not men (2 Peter 1:20-21).

JAL said in post #143:

Just look at this forum. Look at all areas of disagreement. You must either conclude that:
(A) All Christians are intellectually dishonest, they don't even TRY to interpret the Bible correctly OR
(B) Exegesis is exceedingly fallible

Biblical Christians aren't to divide into denominations (1 Corinthians 1:12-13; 1 Corinthians 3:4). And they can't interpret any Bible verse in a way which contradicts what the Bible as a whole teaches. Also, different interpretations of the Bible don't mean its doctrines can't be known for certain, but that it doesn't take away the free will of Christians (and those who wrongly claim to be Christians), who can wrongly employ their free will to reject the Bible's sound doctrines to chase after man-made fables instead (2 Timothy 4:2-4). If all Christians would become willing to accept what the Bible teaches when it's taken in its entirety (2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 4:4, Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13), then all Christians could become united in what they believe (1 Corinthians 1:10).

JAL said in post #143:

Could the same charge be levied against prophecy? Well certainly not against REAL prophecy, but definitely against most declarations masqueraded these days as real prophecy. Can we tell the difference? Well if I have 100% certainty about a declaration, God can hardly fault me for believing it . . .

Unless it goes against the Bible (e.g. 1 John 4:1-3).

JAL said in post #143:

If you're already fully certain, however, why check anything?

Because conscience is fallible (Proverbs 14:12).

*******

JAL said in post #144:

If the gospel is understood here as "Jesus is Lord" (although it's debatable whether that's the exact nuance in focus here), another fly in the ointment is that, in my view, it's not possible for a Christian to deny this gospel with a clear conscience . . .

Unless he has seared his conscience (1 Timothy 4:2).

JAL said in post #144:

. . . the Inward Witness confirms the name Jesus to the conscience . . .

Unless a Christian wrongly employs his free will to quench the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19).

*******

JAL said in post #148:

Verse 12:1 states, "Concerning spiritual things, brethren, I would not have you ignorant." The Corinthians were immature and thus 'ignorant' of spiritual things. The remedy? Obviously they needed an inundation with spiritual things! So what, specifically, are spiritual things? Paul goes on, in the remainder of chapter 12, to itemize a slew of revelatory and miraculous gifts including prophecy!

That's right.

And the Holy Spirit's gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8-10) which operate in Christians who have received Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 19:6, Acts 11:15-16, Acts 10:44-46) won't cease operating until Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming. For 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 means just as only when children become adults do they put away childish things, so only when Christians become perfect when they see Jesus face to face at His Second Coming (1 John 3:2) will they no longer need Spiritual gifts such as prophecy, tongues and the word of knowledge (1 Corinthians 12:8,10). During the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, which will just precede the Second Coming (Matthew 24:29-31), are some in the Church going to reject the ministry of the Two Witnesses because it will involve them prophesying and performing miracles (Revelation 11:3,6)?

Because Jesus Christ's Second Coming, like the preceding Tribulation, hasn't happened yet, all the Spirit's gifts are still operating in the Church today, in Pentecostal congregations, and in Charismatic congregations, which can be of almost any denomination. God's Word commands Christians to operate in the Spiritual gifts when Christians come together (1 Corinthians 14:26-31). So congregations today should be careful not to quench the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19) by despising prophesyings (1 Thessalonians 5:20) or forbidding all speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39). Tongues are one of the Spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8-10) through which Christians can be regularly edified (1 Corinthians 14:4-5,12,26). Not all Holy Spirit-baptized Christians will speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:30), but almost all will (cf. Acts 19:6, Acts 10:45-46), for tongues are one of the Spirit's lesser gifts (1 Corinthians 12:28; 1 Corinthians 14:5).

Different Christians receive different kinds of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:10). Some tongues are languages which people can understand (Acts 2:4,8) while other tongues are languages which people can't understand (1 Corinthians 14:2), not even the speakers (1 Corinthians 14:14). Unintelligible tongues could include ancient human languages which are unknown to history, ancient human languages which are known to history but aren't understood, and angelic languages (1 Corinthians 13:1). Unintelligible tongues aren't useless, however, for when they're prayed or sung privately to God without interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:2,28) they edify the spirits of those who speak or sing them (1 Corinthians 14:4,14-15, Jude 1:20) to bless and thank God (1 Corinthians 14:16). And when unintelligible tongues are prayed or sung out loud in a congregation and then Spiritually interpreted (1 Corinthians 12:10b-11) their interpretation edifies the whole congregation (1 Corinthians 14:5b,12-13,26). When Christians sing in tongues to God they're singing the "spiritual songs" which the Bible distinguishes from psalms and hymns (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16).

The Bible sets no restrictions on how much Christians can pray and sing to God in tongues out loud at home or silently in church (1 Corinthians 14:28) (just as regular praying can be done silently: 1 Samuel 1:13,17). Indeed, Paul the apostle prayed and sung to God in tongues in private more than anyone (1 Corinthians 14:18-19). But regarding church meetings, the Bible sets strict rules on speaking tongues out loud: They aren't to be spoken out loud in church meetings unless there's someone present who can Spiritually interpret them to the whole congregation (1 Corinthians 14:28). And even when a tongues-interpreter is present, at the most only 3 people should in turn speak out loud in unknown tongues, which should then be interpreted to the whole congregation (1 Corinthians 14:27). Everyone who has received the gift of tongues should be praying for the separate gift of the interpretation of tongues, so he or she can edify others (1 Corinthians 14:12-13; 1 Corinthians 12:10b).

JAL said in post #148:

The book of Acts provides yet another basis for the primacy of direct revelation . . .

If by direct revelation you mean only the gift of prophecy, note that the gift of prophecy is not primary, for it must be judged (1 Corinthians 14:29). And the ultimate judge of whether a prophecy in a church is true or not is what God Himself says in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4).
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Note that sola scriptura doesn't leave God out.

That is true -- but there is a kind of "either-or" logical fallacy that would argue "either you can test doctrine against the Word of God... or you can trust God to tell you ... but not both".

I find that logic "illusive" but still you will see it now and then.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The trouble is, Bob, you have no way of knowing to what extent their studying was illuminated by the Inward Witness.

The text does not say "God lead them to ignore the Word of God in scripture and not study IT daily to see IF those things were so ... since that is totally unreliable.. God lead them to trust their feelings instead".

And we both know it.

In fact -- we ALL know it.

The Word of God - scripture -- is the WORK of God who inspired it. Resorting to "God" does not include "ignoring the Word of God as the test of doctrine to SEE IF those things are so".

Obviously.

For example, let's suppose they were relying on exegesis. At what point does the exegete become resolute on an issue in question?

The whole point of exegesis is to avoid prior-bias and man-made-tradition interference with understanding the text. Recall that their "tradition" was telling them that Paul was in error.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Note that sola scriptura doesn't leave God out. For Christians can't understand the Bible apart from God's miraculous revelation of it to them (Luke 24:45).
Nebulous. It's easy to make such statements because they 'sound good' but don't really say anything specific.
All sola scriptura means is that any teaching by men must be checked against the Bible (Acts 17:11). And only Biblical teachings are binding on Christians (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 1 Corinthians 4:6).
That doesn't make sense. How do I check questions like this against the Bible, "Is the Bible God's Word?" Don't tell me to look it up in the bible - because I could do the same with the Koran or the Book of Mormon. God has to use self-authenticating revelation (the Inwad Witness) for the system to work.

Note that Abraham lived 500 years before the Bible started to be written. Also, what God told Abraham didn't contradict what would later be penned in the Bible.
Precisely my point. It was successful self-authentication. You keep telling me things I already know as though you're meeting my objections when in fact you're repeating things I've already shown to prove my position. I probably won't continue responding.

Note that Jesus Christ advocates both (e.g. Mark 16:16, John 6:53-57).
The problem is that you've already lost too much credibility with me. Your posts are far too verbose in the sense of citing a million verses that are merely peripheral/tangential to the topic at best, at worst they are way off topic, and they never meet the full force of my objections head-on. I don't have time to go look up a million verses that lead nowhere.

John 6:53-57 shows that all Christians, for their ultimate salvation, must eat the bread of Communion (Matthew 26:26) and drink the wine of Communion (Matthew 26:27-29), which actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:27-30) in some spiritual manner (John 6:63).
In some spiritual manner? Who's got time for nebulous statements that say absolutely nothing at all?

Note that sola scriptura shows that just as all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are individual branches in the vine which is Jesus Christ (John 15:5), the only way to salvation (John 14:6, Acts 4:12), so all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are individual branches in the good olive tree of Israel, the Jews' own tree (Romans 11:17,24, Jeremiah 11:16-17). For all Jewish Christians remain part of Israel (Romans 11:1) as the natural branches in the tree of Israel (Romans 11:24). And all Gentile Christians have been grafted as branches from a wild olive tree into the tree of Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29) so they can partake of the salvation of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), which is made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 4:22b). This doesn't mean a wild branch becomes a natural branch, that a Gentile Christian becomes a genetic Jew, but that Gentile Christians, even while remaining branches from a wild olive tree, even while remaining genetic Gentiles, are still grafted in to become part of the good olive tree of Israel (Romans 11:17,24).

Similarly, all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are spiritually Abraham's seed (Galatians 3:29). And Abraham's seed is Israel (Isaiah 41:8, Romans 11:1; 2 Chronicles 20:7). So the entire Church is Israel (Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10). Not just the Jews in the Church (Romans 11:1b) but also the Gentiles in the Church are spiritually Abraham's seed of promise (Romans 9:7-8,24) as Isaac was (Galatians 4:28) and as Jesus Christ is (Galatians 3:16,29). So both Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles are heirs of all the promises made by God to Israel (Ephesians 3:6, Ephesians 2:12,19, Romans 15:27, Galatians 3:29b, Romans 11:17,24).
Rambling, off-topic, and frequently nebulous.

It didn't alter the promise of salvation by faith, but note that it would have forbidden Abraham from marrying Sarah his half-sister (Genesis 20:12, Leviticus 18:9).
Off topic. I've indulged that topic enough.

Note that the Bible isn't elevated by sola scripturists in the sense of worshipping it as if it were a fourth Person of the Trinity. Instead, the Bible is elevated in the sense of acknowledging that because it's God's Word, it's infallible (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4), and in the sense that because it's God's Word, we must be willing to be killed before we would deny any part of it (Revelation 6:9, Revelation 20:4, Mark 8:35-38, John 8:31b).
That's funny. Before you said it was the divine Word despite my objections. Changing your tune now that it's convenient? I'm weary of going round and round in circles like this.

Biblical Christians aren't to divide into denominations (1 Corinthians 1:12-13; 1 Corinthians 3:4). And they can't interpret any Bible verse in a way which contradicts what the Bible as a whole teaches. Also, different interpretations of the Bible don't mean its doctrines can't be known for certain, but that it doesn't take away the free will of Christians (and those who wrongly claim to be Christians), who can wrongly employ their free will to reject the Bible's sound doctrines to chase after man-made fables instead (2 Timothy 4:2-4). If all Christians would become willing to accept what the Bible teaches when it's taken in its entirety (2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 4:4, Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13), then all Christians could become united in what they believe (1 Corinthians 1:10).
More rambling, making statements that 'sound biblical' and, as usual, not meeting the full force of my objections.
And the Holy Spirit's gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8-10) which operate in Christians who have received Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 19:6, Acts 11:15-16, Acts 10:44-46) won't cease operating until Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming. For 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 means just as only when children become adults do they put away childish things, so only when Christians become perfect when they see Jesus face to face at His Second Coming (1 John 3:2) will they no longer need Spiritual gifts such as prophecy, tongues and the word of knowledge (1 Corinthians 12:8,10). During the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, which will just precede the Second Coming (Matthew 24:29-31), are some in the Church going to reject the ministry of the Two Witnesses because it will involve them prophesying and performing miracles (Revelation 11:3,6)?

Because Jesus Christ's Second Coming, like the preceding Tribulation, hasn't happened yet, all the Spirit's gifts are still operating in the Church today, in Pentecostal congregations, and in Charismatic congregations, which can be of almost any denomination. God's Word commands Christians to operate in the Spiritual gifts when Christians come together (1 Corinthians 14:26-31). So congregations today should be careful not to quench the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19) by despising prophesyings (1 Thessalonians 5:20) or forbidding all speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39). Tongues are one of the Spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8-10) through which Christians can be regularly edified (1 Corinthians 14:4-5,12,26). Not all Holy Spirit-baptized Christians will speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:30), but almost all will (cf. Acts 19:6, Acts 10:45-46), for tongues are one of the Spirit's lesser gifts (1 Corinthians 12:28; 1 Corinthians 14:5).

Different Christians receive different kinds of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:10). Some tongues are languages which people can understand (Acts 2:4,8) while other tongues are languages which people can't understand (1 Corinthians 14:2), not even the speakers (1 Corinthians 14:14). Unintelligible tongues could include ancient human languages which are unknown to history, ancient human languages which are known to history but aren't understood, and angelic languages (1 Corinthians 13:1). Unintelligible tongues aren't useless, however, for when they're prayed or sung privately to God without interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:2,28) they edify the spirits of those who speak or sing them (1 Corinthians 14:4,14-15, Jude 1:20) to bless and thank God (1 Corinthians 14:16). And when unintelligible tongues are prayed or sung out loud in a congregation and then Spiritually interpreted (1 Corinthians 12:10b-11) their interpretation edifies the whole congregation (1 Corinthians 14:5b,12-13,26). When Christians sing in tongues to God they're singing the "spiritual songs" which the Bible distinguishes from psalms and hymns (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16).

The Bible sets no restrictions on how much Christians can pray and sing to God in tongues out loud at home or silently in church (1 Corinthians 14:28) (just as regular praying can be done silently: 1 Samuel 1:13,17). Indeed, Paul the apostle prayed and sung to God in tongues in private more than anyone (1 Corinthians 14:18-19). But regarding church meetings, the Bible sets strict rules on speaking tongues out loud: They aren't to be spoken out loud in church meetings unless there's someone present who can Spiritually interpret them to the whole congregation (1 Corinthians 14:28). And even when a tongues-interpreter is present, at the most only 3 people should in turn speak out loud in unknown tongues, which should then be interpreted to the whole congregation (1 Corinthians 14:27). Everyone who has received the gift of tongues should be praying for the separate gift of the interpretation of tongues, so he or she can edify others (1 Corinthians 14:12-13; 1 Corinthians 12:10b).
Off topic, rambling, etc.

If by direct revelation you mean only the gift of prophecy, note that the gift of prophecy is not primary, for it must be judged (1 Corinthians 14:29). And the ultimate judge of whether a prophecy in a church is true or not is what God Himself says in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4).
The criterion of judgment isn't expressly stated in the passage. There is no evidence that it was an exegetical criterion. Did the service come to a pause while they all whipped out their concordances, lexicons, and other seminary textbooks to do research? The verse is unclear, but if it really is talking about authentication of prophecy it's far more plausible to suggest that the Inward Witness (feelings of certainty) was the criterion. Don't stake too much on one unclear verse, given that the whole history of God's dealing with men is grounded primarily in self-authenticating revelation, not in exegesis.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The text does not say "God lead them to ignore the Word of God in scripture and not study IT daily to see IF those things were so ... since that is totally unreliable.. God lead them to trust their feelings instead".
And we both know it.
In fact -- we ALL know it.

I've already addressed these kinds of statements in numerous ways. Here's one way that I haven't mentioned for a while. Suppose God said to a child, "The elect will never perish." Huh? It's difficult to communicate with those WHO HAVE NEVER READ THE SCRIPTURES. It can be helpful to at least study the vocabulary of redemptive economy. This can be an issue because God's grace to us (including how much He speaks to us, and how loud and clear) is limited (see Num 12:6-8), for reasons I can't get into here but associated with maturity.

The point is that studying the Scriptures isn't proof of Sola Scriptura, no more than prophesying is proof of Sola Prophecy (a fact that you continue to conveniently overlook). For example it doesn't clearly establish exegesis over and above self-authenticating revelation. I myself said earlier on this thread that reading the Bible AMPLIFIES God's voice when insufficiently loud and clear (I said it was just like a student who prestudied the textbook before a lecture delivered at low volume and thus understands the message better than the other students).

In sum, the best you've been able to do is refer to a few references to the study of the Scriptures (which proves nothing) while:
(1) Ignoring a dozen scenarios that I painted as proof that Sola Scriptura is inadequate and self-contradictory.
(2) Ignoring hundreds of OT and NT verses that allude to prophecy just as strongly as any allusions to the reading of the Scriptures
(3) Ignoring the logical self-contradictions I've alleged of Sola Scriptura throughout this thread
(4) Ignoring pretty much all of my analysis of Paul's statements on the subject of direct revelation.
(5) Ignoring the clearly self-authenticating revelations prolific across the testaments such as Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus which caused him to ABANDON many of his former exegetical conclusions precisely because revelation is a higher authority than exegesis when self-authenticating.
The Word of God - scripture -- is the WORK of God who inspired it. Resorting to "God" does not include "ignoring the Word of God as the test of doctrine to SEE IF those things are so".
As cited above, you are merely ASSUMING that the berean examination of Scripture was purely exegetical without recourse to the Inward Witness. Unless you're some kind of pope, you need to PROVE your conclusions, not merely ASSUME them.

The whole point of exegesis is to avoid prior-bias...
Telling me what I already know and agree to isn't proof of those things on which we disagree. The question is, how effective is exegsis in avoiding bias? One of the things that Calvin was keenly aware of, when formulating the doctrine of the Inward Witness, is human pride and stubborness (which he attributed largely to the Fall of Adam). Let's be honest - given our pride, is any of us as objective, open-minded, and teachable as God intended us to be? A long time ago, one member of this forum aptly stated, "Pride REIGNS on these forums. Virtually no one comes here to learn anything but merely in the hopes of teaching others."

You think even the best exegetes are much different? You think they have less pride than you and I do? That they are less stubborn? Realistically, how easy is it for them to recant doctrines they've asserted for years, when someone shows them a good counter-argument? And it only gets worse because most teaching disseminated to us throughout church history is from people who are PAID to teach or preach. So it's not just pride, but survival instincts kicking in. I was debating with someone once, and he said, "Let me check it out with my pastor." I said, "That would probably be the WORST thing you can do because he gets paid to remain stable in his teachings. How is he going to feed his family if I'm in the right?" What's particularly problemmatic is that "Christian" witch-hunters (self-proclaimed watchdogs) have been MERCILESS and RUTHLESS historically.

Exegesis is DESTINED to be a failure at overcoming human bias. The ONLY hope for doctrinal unity is self-authenticating revelation supernaturally eliminating our pride, survival instincts, and obstinacy.

...and man-made-tradition interference with understanding the text. Recall that their "tradition" was telling them that Paul was in error.
My objection stands. You have no way of knowing for sure to what extent the Inward Witness assisted them. Expressing your own personal bias for Sola Scriptura isn't proof.

Since you haven't provided any proofs on this thread, while I've provided several that you've ignored, I likely won't continue responding.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Root of Jesse
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
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![/QUOTE]
Paul was speaking to them, not reading to them. The gospel was spoken,not written yet.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

You seem to be asking how they knew what scripture was... is that correct. Notice how often the NT text talks about "scripture".



Indeed. Yet Luke's readers knew the term and understood the phrase -- "He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."

As Josephus also argues in his day that the Canon of scripture had not changed for over 400 years
.


a. There is no dispute about the NT text - that is abundantly clear -- both Catholics and Protestants have no quarrel on that point.
b. Luke's readers had no quarrel about the rest of the Bible - that which was not what we call the NT ...
Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
No doubt Scripture is important. It's just not the end of the story. You need other sources to give context to the meaning.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The trouble is, Bob, you have no way of knowing to what extent their studying was illuminated by the Inward Witness.

The text does not say "God lead them to ignore the Word of God in scripture and not study IT daily to see IF those things were so ... since that is totally unreliable.. God lead them to trust their feelings instead".

And we both know it.

In fact -- we ALL know it.

The Word of God - scripture -- is the WORK of God who inspired it. Resorting to "God" does not include "ignoring the Word of God as the test of doctrine to SEE IF those things are so".

Obviously.

For example, let's suppose they were relying on exegesis. At what point does the exegete become resolute on an issue in question?

The whole point of exegesis is to avoid prior-bias and man-made-tradition interference with understanding the text. Recall that their "tradition" was telling them that Paul was in error.

I've already addressed these kinds of statements in numerous ways. Here's one way that I haven't mentioned for a while. Suppose God said to a child, "The elect will never perish." Huh? It's difficult to communicate with those WHO HAVE NEVER READ THE SCRIPTURES. It can be helpful to at least study the vocabulary of redemptive economy. This can be an issue because God's grace to us (including how much He speaks to us, and how loud and clear) is limited (see Num 12:6-8), for reasons I can't get into here but associated with maturity.

The point is that studying the Scriptures isn't proof of Sola Scriptura,

1. The Bible is the Word of God according to Christ in Mark 7 and Peter 2 Pet 1:19-21 -- irrefutable
2. The Bible says the it is to used for doctrine - 2 Tim 3:16 -- irrefutable
3. The Bible says that EVEN non-Christians are blessed and approved for TESTING the doctrine of the Apostle Paul "studying scripture daily to SEE IF those things were so" --- irrefutable

These irrefutable facts cannot be changed via "word games" as I am sure we both know.

In sum, the best you've been able to do is refer to a few references to the study of the Scriptures (which proves nothing) while:

You "deleted the details" down to a revisionist history form of "they read some scripture and enjoyed it"

When in fact the actual Bible says "'they studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO". Acts 17:11

devastating to the argument against sola scriptura -- and we both know it hence your statement above that deletes all the key details from the text -- before then declaring it to "prove nothing".


Exegesis is DESTINED to be a failure at overcoming human bias.


A by-presumption-alone assertion that is refuted by the "details" in Acts 17:11 where both the bias of the people studying the scriptures daily. AND ALSO the dogma of their man-made-traditions overlords, magesterium... all stated that Paul was false.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
No doubt Scripture is important. It's just not the end of the story. You need other sources to give context to the meaning.

not in real life.

In real life we have this perfect statement of the "Sola Scriptura" doctrine ...

When in fact the actual Bible says "'they studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO". Acts 17:11

Mark 7:6-13
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - this text should not exist!


It is the Holy Spirit that gave us the Bible which says "'they studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO". Acts 17:11

The point remains.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The text does not say "God lead them to ignore the Word of God in scripture and not study IT daily to see IF those things were so ... since that is totally unreliable.. God lead them to trust their feelings instead"...The Word of God - scripture -- is the WORK of God who inspired it. Resorting to "God" does not include "ignoring the Word of God as the test of doctrine to SEE IF those things are so".
Your whole 'defense' is a strawman, a false dichotomy, a total misrepresentation of my position. You're sayin it's either:
(1) Either one practices exegesis (your position)
(2) Or one looks to the Inward Witness alone and completely ignores the written Word
Whereas I constantly allow for scenario 3:
(3) As you study and read (largely to acquaint your mind with the issues and vocabulary), the Inward Witness extrapolates the verses for you (tells you their ultimate implications) and tells you tidbits of extra info (connections you likely would have missed on your own), plus historic and contextual info that you might not obtain reliably from scholarly commentaries. And He does this in a self-authenticating manner (He imparts feelings of certainty) so that you don't have to read a whole seminary library to justify drawing these conclusions on your own.

How about we look at an example. Most of us have read about Elijah, right? And Jesus had done the same. He had STUDIED the text. But when you look at His commentary on the widow (below), it's pretty evident that the Holy Spirit gave him insights into the text that most readers would have missed.

"I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon."

How would the average reader know (with 100% certainty) that Elijah only helped a single widow? How would he know (with 100% certainty) that the journey to a foreign region signified judgment on Israel?

Such passages (and there are several like this) flatly contradict your false dichotomy. Jesus learned by reading the Scriptures - but with the help of the Inward Witness !!! Such verses completely undermine every verse that you've touted as so-called 'proof' of Sola Scriptura. The ONLY thing you're exposing is your personal bias. Here's what your big proof-text states:

"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Where does it say that the Holy Spirit didn't give them any help understanding these verses? Except in your own head? It says the Bereans were of noble character. Got a question for you. Take two people:
(A) The one is arrogant. He doesn't ask God for help when studying Scripture. Tries to do it all on his own.
(B) The other person humbly asks God for insight as he studies.

Tell me which of the two men is of more noble character, in your view? Waiting for a reply.

Most of your posts on this thread are a LIE. You know darn well you're misrepresenting me (and the facts) by refusing to accept option #3 as a real possibility.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gordonhooker
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The trouble is, Bob, you have no way of knowing to what extent their studying was illuminated by the Inward Witness.

The text does not say "God lead them to ignore the Word of God in scripture and not study IT daily to see IF those things were so ... since that is totally unreliable.. God lead them to trust their feelings instead".

And we both know it.

In fact -- we ALL know it.

The Word of God - scripture -- is the WORK of God who inspired it. Resorting to "God" does not include "ignoring the Word of God as the test of doctrine to SEE IF those things are so".

Obviously.

For example, let's suppose they were relying on exegesis. At what point does the exegete become resolute on an issue in question?

The whole point of exegesis is to avoid prior-bias and man-made-tradition interference with understanding the text. Recall that their "tradition" was telling them that Paul was in error.

I've already addressed these kinds of statements in numerous ways. Here's one way that I haven't mentioned for a while. Suppose God said to a child, "The elect will never perish." Huh? It's difficult to communicate with those WHO HAVE NEVER READ THE SCRIPTURES. It can be helpful to at least study the vocabulary of redemptive economy. This can be an issue because God's grace to us (including how much He speaks to us, and how loud and clear) is limited (see Num 12:6-8), for reasons I can't get into here but associated with maturity.

The point is that studying the Scriptures isn't proof of Sola Scriptura,

1. The Bible is the Word of God according to Christ in Mark 7 and Peter 2 Pet 1:19-21 -- irrefutable
2. The Bible says the it is to used for doctrine - 2 Tim 3:16 -- irrefutable
3. The Bible says that EVEN non-Christians are blessed and approved for TESTING the doctrine of the Apostle Paul "studying scripture daily to SEE IF those things were so" --- irrefutable

These irrefutable facts cannot be changed via "word games" as I am sure we both know.

In sum, the best you've been able to do is refer to a few references to the study of the Scriptures (which proves nothing) while:

You "deleted the details" down to a revisionist history form of "they read some scripture and enjoyed it"

When in fact the actual Bible says "'they studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO". Acts 17:11

devastating to the argument against sola scriptura -- and we both know it hence your statement above that deletes all the key details from the text -- before then declaring it to "prove nothing".


Exegesis is DESTINED to be a failure at overcoming human bias.


A by-presumption-alone assertion that is refuted by the "details" in Acts 17:11 where both the bias of the people studying the scriptures daily. AND ALSO the dogma of their man-made-traditions overlords, magesterium... all stated that Paul was false.

Your whole 'defense' is a strawman, a false dichotomy, a total misrepresentation of my position. You're sayin it's either:
(1) Either one practices exegesis (your position)
(2) Or one looks to the Inward Witness alone and completely ignores the written Word
Whereas I constantly allow for scenario 3:
(3) As you study and read (largely to acquaint your mind with the issues and vocabulary), the Inward Witness extrapolates the verses for you (tells you their ultimate implications) and tells you tidbits of extra info

The Holy Spirit is the one telling us to "look at the details" in scripture and see how doctrine was being tested.

Notice how the sola scriptura method is used by Christ to utterly hammer man-made-tradition of the magisterium of His day.

Mark 7:6-13
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - this text should not exist!


It is the Holy Spirit that gave us the Bible which says "'they studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO". Acts 17:11

The point remains.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Such verses completely undermine every verse that you've touted...

Most of your posts on this thread are a LIE.

Your argument is self-conflicted and composed primarily of stories and false accusations.

To make a compelling case on a discussion board like this ... you have to respond to the actual facts presented.

1. The Bible is the Word of God according to Christ in Mark 7 and Peter 2 Pet 1:19-21 -- irrefutable
2. The Bible says the it is to used for doctrine - 2 Tim 3:16 -- irrefutable
3. The Bible says that EVEN non-Christians are blessed and approved for TESTING the doctrine of the Apostle Paul "studying scripture daily to SEE IF those things were so" --- irrefutable

These irrefutable facts cannot be changed via "word games" as I am sure we both know.
 
Upvote 0