Proof for Sola Scriptura - is irrefutable

BobRyan said:

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.

Click to expand...

So did the apostles definitively relate to the followers that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist-the Lord's Supper-or not? Or that baptism is necessary for regeneration/salvation? Or that infant baptism is salvific? Or that God is one God in three persons? Or that they couldn't practice the observance of a day of rest and worship on the Lord's Day rather than the Sabbath? Where do we find such defined teachings from the apostles, so that we can all agree? How do we know for sure?

BobRyan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Most of your facts are points of agreement that do nothing to establish Sola Scriptura. Let's actually take a look at the facts, shall we?
Sola Scriptura says that the ONLY reliable, authoritative verification of an idea is exegetical verification. This contradicts every self-authenticating revelation from Genesis to Revelation including all (truly inspired) prophecies, including God's voice to the angels, and including His voice to Adam and Eve - AND including His upcoming voice to us in the next world (see the Book of Revelation for examples) -or did you think we'd be practicing exegesis for all eternity?

One thing is clear. If the writers of the Bible had based their conclusions on exegesis, it would be GUARANTEED to be error-ridden. God's ASSURANCE of a reliable text was self-authenticating revelation.

So even if you could find one DEFINITE EXAMPLE where a saint practiced exegesis without assistance from the Inward Witness, with full approval by God for this endeavor - and you can't - it STILL wouldn't be anything close to proving that we should ALWAYS base every decision on exegesis alone. You're trying to build a monumental conclusion on - absolutely nothing.

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.

Click to expand...

Yep. Everytime I challenge you with a question or scenario that backs you into a corner, you just ignore it. Meanwhile you LIE by pretending that I haven't addressed your points over and over and over and over and over again. I wasn't the only one to point this out. Early in this thread another poster was saying the same thing.

You're intellectually dishonest. Period.

BobRyan said:

no.

For example in John 6 .. nobody "bites Christ" and in fact in John 6 Jesus Himself says that "literal flesh is worthless it is my WORDS that have life"

Click to expand...

Well, we have major disagreement here-with the ancient churches east and west, as well as with most mainstream Reformed churches.

BobRyan said:

In 1 Peter 3 "baptism now saves you NOT the touch of sacramental waters on flesh but rather the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" -- an appeal that no infant has ever made.

Click to expand...

A more common translation:
"In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God."

BobRyan said:

"baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" Matthew 28 - One God in three persons.

Click to expand...

Far from a definitive statement regarding the Trinity for those who want to know.

BobRyan said:

No NT writer identifies the LORD with any other day but Sabbath "the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28. Never is that said of week-day-1

The Bible says "the seventh-day is the Sabbath of the LORD" Exodus 20:10
The Bible says the Sabbath is "The Holy Day of the LORD" Isaiah 58:13
but never says "week-day-1 is the LORD's day"

Click to expand...

So? Did the apostles tell them "that they couldn't practice the observance of a day of rest and worship on the Lord's Day rather than the Sabbath?" Did the apostles tell or show them that they should practice it that new way?

BobRyan said:

Or prayers to the dead
Purgatory
Indulgences
etc.

Click to expand...

Why not? How do you know about the oral traditions/teachings? My Italian grandfather never wrote down his recipe for sausage. He told relatives about it however, and they later wrote it down. Now I can't prove that he even had-or was the source of- that original recipe, but I somehow doubt that the culinary delight my family experiences today would be available unless he did.

BobRyan said:

What a great place to start.

1. Step one -- see what the Bible says

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.

Click to expand...

You've hardly produced a single new argument since the opening post. You just keep citing verses that prove nothing. In the above passage Christ's focus is on the spirit of the law - which He understood better than the other Jews due to the help of the Inward Witness !!! Why do you keep citing passages that support my position? How does that help your case?

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

But of course it should exist for reasons I've already stated. Why WOULDN'T God, if He is professional in His leadership skillls:
- Not want to create a history book that preserves a record of His dealings with His people?
- Also make it useful for instruction, especially in the hands of prophets like Timothy?

Why do you keep citing verses that merely support points of agreement? How does that help your case? Why do you keep ignoring arguments that refute your position?

The problem for Sola Scriptura is that it leads to logical contradictions expressed throughout this thread, because any failure to acknowledge the primacy of conscience is self-contradictory in ANY theistic religion. It doesn't matter how many verses you cite to 'support' a contradiction - it won't help. Time and again I've asked you to address those charges of contradiction - you ignore them.

And you'll just keep on citing the same verses that prove nothing, while ignoring the contradictions

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light..

Luke says Christ also used that model --

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.


2. Step two: Stop yourself from glossing over the details in the texts just posted.



Until you pay attention to the details.



More obviously - it says that even those NON-Christians in Acts 17:11 could rely on the Bible - against their feelings, against their bias, against their magisterium, against their man-made-traditions and "see the truth" in scripture pointing out that Paul was right... and their own church leaders were wrong.


This affirms very Bible-text revelation from Genesis to Revelation including all (truly inspired) prophecies, including God's voice to the angels, and including His voice to Adam and Eve.

How obvious.

How wonderful!



Until you read the actual Bible on that subject.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light..

Click to expand...

First propose a non-contradictory position - then we can decide if any of these verses support it.

BobRyan said:

Indeed and now lets see the case of "nonChristians" who read scripture written long before their time - and evaluate a first century Apostle's teaching against that standard.

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!"


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"



And the bible writers also used the term - and had confidence that their readers knew what it was.



Hmm in Acts 17:11 they were being "told" by their magesterium that Paul was in error. Yet they found in scripture - that Paul was correct.

Where is the "confounding discussion" among those "non-Christians" about "what is scripture ... who should tell us what it says" -- given that their magisterium was already condemning Paul?? What exactly do you propose they did? (Given that the Bible is pretty explicit about what they did)

Click to expand...

First propose a non-contradictory position - then we can decide if any of these verses support it.

JAL said in post #152:

How do I check questions like this against the Bible, "Is the Bible God's Word?"

Click to expand...

2 Timothy 3:16 shows that it is. But 2 Timothy 3:16 by itself can never prove to anyone that the Bible is God's Word. 2 Timothy 3:16 will be believed only by those who have already received God's miraculous gift of faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b, Romans 12:3b, Hebrews 12:2), and have received some measure of God's Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-16).

And so only the elect will believe 2 Timothy 3:16.

-

That is, the elect are those individuals, whether Jews or Gentiles, who were chosen (elected) and predestinated by God before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13), before they were born (Romans 9:11-24), to become initially saved by faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel at some point during their lifetime (Acts 13:48b; 2 Timothy 2:10; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). This initial salvation is possible only because of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross for our sins (Romans 3:25-26), which was also foreordained by God before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8; 1 Peter 1:19-20).

Everyone on his own is wholly corrupt (Romans 3:9-12). So it's impossible for people on their own to ever believe in Jesus Christ and His Gospel and be initially saved (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, John 20:31; 1 John 5:13) through their own will (Romans 9:16, John 1:13, John 6:65) or their own intellect (1 Corinthians 1:18 to 2:16). Unsaved people can't understand the Gospel (1 Corinthians 2:14; 1 Corinthians 1:18) because only initially saved people, who have received the miraculous gift of some measure of God's own Spirit, can understand it (1 Corinthians 2:11-16).

The nonelect can't ever believe in Jesus Christ and His Gospel and be initially saved, even when they're shown the truth (John 8:42-47, John 10:26, Matthew 13:38-42). For the ability to believe in Jesus and His Gospel comes only to the elect (Acts 13:48b) wholly by God's grace as a miraculous gift from God (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b, Romans 12:3b, Hebrews 12:2) as the elect read (or hear) God's Word the Holy Bible (Romans 10:17, Acts 13:48, Acts 26:22-23), just as the ability to repent comes only as a miraculous gift from God (2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 11:18). Satan blinds the minds of non-Christians so that on their own they can't repent and acknowledge the truth of God's Word (2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Timothy 2:25-26).

JAL said in post #152:

Before you said it was the divine Word despite my objections.

Click to expand...

The Bible is the divine Word not in the sense of it being a 4th person of the Trinity, but in the sense that the Bible is the Word of the divine (2 Timothy 3:16), and not the work of men (2 Peter 1:20-21).

JAL said in post #152:

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?

Click to expand...

Those who already know what the Bible teaches (2 Timothy 3:15) are able to immediately judge (1 Corinthians 14:29) whether a prophecy in a church meeting is in line with the Bible or not (e.g. 1 John 4:1-3).

JAL said in post #152:

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.

Click to expand...

It can't be, because conscience is fallible (Proverbs 28:26).

JAL said in post #152:

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.

Click to expand...

Note that sola scriptura includes the principle of the self-authenticating revelation contained in the Bible. That is, the elect will miraculously believe what the Bible says (Acts 13:48, Acts 26:22).

*******

JAL said in post #153:

Suppose God said to a child, "The elect will never perish."

Click to expand...

Note that the Bible says that (John 10:28-29), and a child can know what the Bible says (2 Timothy 3:15).

But John 10:28-29 means that Christians will never spiritually perish so long as they remain in God's hand, and no one outside of a Christian can ever take him or her out of God's hand. John 10:28-29 doesn't mean that Christians are imprisoned in God's hand, that they can't wrongly employ their free will to jump out of God's hand themselves, such as by committing apostasy, to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12). Also, John 10:28-29 isn't contradicting that God Himself can in the end cast Christians out of His hand, that they can in the end lose their salvation, if they don't continue in His goodness (Romans 11:20-22), such as by wrongly employing their free will to commit a sin without repentance (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46) or become utterly lazy without repentance (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a, Romans 2:6-8).

Also, John 10:28-29 doesn't mean that a Christian's will is kept in God's hand in the sense a Christian can't wrongly employ his will to the ultimate loss of his salvation. For any such "kept" will would be nothing but a destroyed will. It would make Christians like someone who has been lobotomized, strait-jacketed, drugged, and locked up in a cell. Thank God He doesn't do that to Christians, but leaves them as free people with free will. And because He does, they themselves have to choose each and every day for the rest of their lives to deny themselves, to take up their crosses themselves, and to continue to follow Jesus Christ (Luke 9:23) to the end. And the Bible gives no assurance that every Christian will choose to do that (Hebrews 10:26-29, Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:2a).

JAL said in post #153:

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

Click to expand...

Note that simply reading what God's Word the Bible says has the power to change hearts, when the words of the Bible are wielded like a sword within someone by the Holy Spirit Himself (Hebrews 4:12, Ephesians 6:17).

*******

JAL said in post #172:

The problem for Sola Scriptura is that it leads to logical contradictions expressed throughout this thread, because any failure to acknowledge the primacy of conscience is self-contradictory in ANY theistic religion.

Click to expand...

Note that sola scriptura leads to no contradictions, because the Bible is from God (2 Timothy 3:16), and He is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Also, conscience can never be primary, because it is fallible (Jeremiah 17:9).

fhansen said in post #162:

So did the apostles definitively relate to the followers that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist-the Lord's Supper-or not? Or that baptism is necessary for regeneration/salvation? Or that infant baptism is salvific?

Click to expand...

Regarding infant baptism being salvific, note that sola scriptura doesn't teach that.

For unless God wants to make an exception for an elect individual (Exodus 33:19b, Romans 9:15), infant baptism isn't valid, because baptism is useless for salvation, and isn't even allowed, unless the one being baptized is already a believer with all his heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Acts 8:36-38, Mark 16:16). Also, Christians need to be not just sprinkled with water, as is often done with infant baptism, but water-immersion (burial) baptized (Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12) in order to be ultimately saved (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).

-

That is, in order to be saved ultimately, Christians must get water-immersion (burial) baptized into Jesus Christ's death for our sins (Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12, Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). For the original Greek noun for "baptism" (baptismos) is derived from the original Greek verb for "baptize" (baptizo), which means to immerse. For it's derived from the original Greek verb "bapto", which means to cover wholly with a fluid. We are to be "buried" in the water of baptism (Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12), and no one is buried by merely having some water sprinkled on his forehead. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church". On what basis did the Catholic Church, or any other church for that matter, abandon the requirement of immersion?

fhansen said in post #162:

Or that God is one God in three persons?

Click to expand...

Yes, sola scriptura definitely teaches that.

For it shows that Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:6, Matthew 1:23). And He is uncreated God, just as God the Father is uncreated God. For everything created was created by Jesus (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). Because Jesus is uncreated, there was never a time when He was not. He has always existed. He's YHWH the Holy One, from everlasting (Habakkuk 1:12a, Acts 3:14, Micah 5:2c). He's YHWH the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11, Titus 2:13), YHWH the good shepherd (Psalms 23:1, John 10:11, Mark 10:18), YHWH who will set His feet on the Mount of Olives at His return (Zechariah 14:3-4, Acts 1:11-12), YHWH the first and last (Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 2:8), YHWH the great I AM (Exodus 3:14, John 8:58), the great God (Titus 2:13), the mighty God (Isaiah 9:6), one God with God the Father (John 10:30, John 20:28), equal in divinity with God the Father (Philippians 2:6).

Just as the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) is the three distinct, coexisting Persons (Mark 1:9-11) of God the Father (Galatians 1:3), God the Son (Hebrews 1:8) and God the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 13:11 and Matthew 10:19-20; Acts 5:3-4), so the Trinity is YHWH the Father, YHWH the Son and YHWH the Holy Spirit. For YHWH is the only God (Isaiah 45:5-6). He has always been and forever will be the only God (Isaiah 43:10b).

fhansen said in post #162:

Or that they couldn't practice the observance of a day of rest and worship on the Lord's Day rather than the Sabbath?

Click to expand...

No, for sola scriptura shows that Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, don't have to keep the sabbath of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. For even the letter of the 10 commandments written and engraven in stones (2 Corinthians 3:7, Deuteronomy 4:13) was part of the abolished Old Covenant Mosaic law's ministration of death (2 Corinthians 3:6-7, Exodus 31:15b), which has been replaced by the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34) ministration of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6-18), in which Christians are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law and keep the spirit (Romans 7:6) of all the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments by loving others (Romans 13:8-10).

Saying Christians have to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law sabbath is just as mistaken as saying Christians have to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law circumcision (Acts 15:1-11). If Christians keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law sabbath thinking they have to because it's part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, they're as fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4) as Christians who keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law circumcision thinking they have to because it's part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 5:2). They've become debtors to perform the letter of the entire Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 5:3). They've placed themselves under its curse (Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26).

So no Christian should ever desire to go back into bondage under the letter of any part of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 4:21 to 5:8). Christians need to keep the sabbath only in spirit, not in the letter (Romans 7:6). Christians must never judge other Christians for not keeping the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law sabbath (Colossians 2:16), which letter was abolished on the New Covenant Cross of Jesus Christ along with all the rest of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Colossians 2:14-17, Ephesians 2:15-16, Romans 7:6, Hebrews 7:18-19, Hebrews 10:9b, Hebrews 10:1-23, Matthew 26:28).

For its letter was merely a shadow; now it all comes down to Jesus Christ Himself (Colossians 2:17). Jesus' New Covenant sabbath rest (Matthew 11:28-30), which all Christians enter by faith (Hebrews 4:3-4), exceeds in righteousness (cf. Matthew 5:20) the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law sabbath. For under the New Covenant sabbath, Christians must cease from their own works, as in those done apart from abiding in Jesus (John 15:4-5), every day of the week (Hebrews 4:3,10, Luke 9:23). And they can esteem every day of the week (Romans 14:5).

-

Also, Christians should be worshipping God every day of the week (Hebrews 13:15, cf. Psalms 145:2). And they should be meeting together every day of the week (Hebrews 3:13, Hebrews 10:25), at least in some fashion (Matthew 18:20), such as on this forum. The early Church started assembling together on the Lord's day (commonly called Sunday) instead of on the sabbath (commonly called Saturday) because the Lord's day, the 1st day of the week, was the day on which Jesus Christ physically resurrected (Mark 16:9) from the dead: "no longer observing the sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him" (Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, chapter 9. Ignatius was a contemporary of the apostle John. Compare John's reference to "the Lord's day" in Revelation 1:10).

But it's not a requirement for Christians to assemble together only on the Lord's day or to esteem the Lord's day above every other day of the week. It's also okay for Christians to choose to assemble together on the sabbath because they esteem the sabbath above every other day of the week. It's also okay for Christians to esteem every day of the week (Romans 14:5). Christians are never to judge each other over this matter but are simply to do what they believe Jesus Christ wants them as individuals to do (Romans 14:4-13). So the point isn't for Christians to esteem days but to focus on the person of Jesus Himself (Colossians 2:16-17).

Also, how do those who think they must keep the letter of the Old Covenant sabbath, keep the letter of the sabbath of Leviticus 25?

BobRyan said:

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

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light..


Luke says Christ also used that model --

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

The point remains.

Click to expand...

Even Scripture doesn't say that Scripture is the only thing. Sorry, you're just wrong here.

Bible2+ said:

2 Timothy 3:16 shows that it is. But 2 Timothy 3:16 by itself can never prove to anyone that the Bible is God's Word. 2 Timothy 3:16 will be believed only by those who have already received God's miraculous gift of faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b, Romans 12:3b, Hebrews 12:2), and have received some measure of God's Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-16).

Click to expand...

You keep using that nebulous terminology even though it obviously alludes to the Inward Witness - then you have the gall to suggest that we should NOT rely on the Inward Witness? That it is NOT authoritative? That conscience is NOT authoritative?

My response to you is the same as to Bob - first propose a non-contradictory position and THEN we can talk about whether all those verses enumerated by you actually support it.

And so only the elect will believe 2 Timothy 3:16.

-

That is, the elect are those individuals, whether Jews or Gentiles, who were chosen (elected) and predestinated by God before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13), before they were born (Romans 9:11-24), to become initially saved by faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel at some point during their lifetime (Acts 13:48b; 2 Timothy 2:10; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). This initial salvation is possible only because of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross for our sins (Romans 3:25-26), which was also foreordained by God before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8; 1 Peter 1:19-20).

Everyone on his own is wholly corrupt (Romans 3:9-12). So it's impossible for people on their own to ever believe in Jesus Christ and His Gospel and be initially saved (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, John 20:31; 1 John 5:13) through their own will (Romans 9:16, John 1:13, John 6:65) or their own intellect (1 Corinthians 1:18 to 2:16). Unsaved people can't understand the Gospel (1 Corinthians 2:14; 1 Corinthians 1:18) because only initially saved people, who have received the miraculous gift of some measure of God's own Spirit, can understand it (1 Corinthians 2:11-16).

The nonelect can't ever believe in Jesus Christ and His Gospel and be initially saved, even when they're shown the truth (John 8:42-47, John 10:26, Matthew 13:38-42). For the ability to believe in Jesus and His Gospel comes only to the elect (Acts 13:48b) wholly by God's grace as a miraculous gift from God (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b, Romans 12:3b, Hebrews 12:2) as the elect read (or hear) God's Word the Holy Bible (Romans 10:17, Acts 13:48, Acts 26:22-23), just as the ability to repent comes only as a miraculous gift from God (2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 11:18). Satan blinds the minds of non-Christians so that on their own they can't repent and acknowledge the truth of God's Word (2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Timothy 2:25-26).

Click to expand...

All this talk about how the elect alone can believe is further concession to the Inwward Witness.

The Bible is the divine Word not in the sense of it being a 4th person of the Trinity, but in the sense that the Bible is the Word of the divine (2 Timothy 3:16), and not the work of men (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Click to expand...

Either the written Word is the divine Word or it isn't. Don't tell me it is the divine Word 'in a sense'. You're trying to stand on both sides of the fence. In my view the written Word is a WORK of the divine Word (a book written by Him).

It can't be, because conscience is fallible (Proverbs 28:26).

Click to expand...

And yet authoritative (morally binding/obligatory). I personally don't believe it is fallible at the level of 100% certainty, however. Just my opinion, but reasonably well defensible.

Note that sola scriptura includes the principle of the self-authenticating revelation contained in the Bible. That is, the elect will miraculously believe what the Bible says (Acts 13:48, Acts 26:22).

Click to expand...

Trying to stand on both sides of the fence. Sola Scriptura contradicts self-authenticating revelation because it holds that one MUST test revelations against the Bible to deem them authoritative.

BobRyan said:

1. Step one -- see what the Bible says

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

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light..


Luke says Christ also used that model --

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.


2. Step two: Stop yourself from glossing over the details in the texts just posted.




Because all the existing ones are "irrefutable".

When you fail to address them you should not expect that such failure alone - resolves them in favor of your position.

Your argument is in each case "With the text".



On the contrary - Christ argues that the texts pointed to - utterly refute the man-made traditions of the magisterium of his day --- magisterium in charge of the one-true-nation-church started by God at Sinai.

-- see what the Bible says

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.


Obviously.

Click to expand...

My argument isn't with the text. It is with someone who, for example:
(1)Admits that Scripture is inerrant and thus must concede to the possibility of self-authenticating revelation, also known as PROPHECY (1Cor 14:1).
(2) But who yet insists that every revelation MUST be tested against Scripture (and thus can never be self-authenticating).

1 and 2 are in opposition, among other contradictions in your thinking.