Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

I've done a couple of threads on this issue, but I still feel that virtually no one gets it. Let's try this again.

This time, I'll begin by showing that Sola Scriptura faces the same logical difficulty as Tradition. Once again, our basic choices are:
(1) Tradition
(2) Sola Scriptura
(3) Conscience, informed by Direct Revelation (my position).

Tradition is the claim, "Never rely on your own opinions, instead believe what the Catholic church teaches" (or Orthodox church). The logical difficulty here is obvious: if an agnostic gradually reaches the opinion that the Catholic church is the truth, he should not become a Catholic, because he was told to never rely on his own opinions. His opinions carry no weight. He is stuck.

Likewise, Sola Scriptura is the claim, "Never rely on your own opinions, instead believe what the Bible teaches." Same logical impasse - it implies that an agnostic who begins to form Christian opinions should not act on them because opinions carry no weight.

Thus Sola Scriptura is total nonsense. Moreover it couldn't even boast ubiquity for 90% of human history, until the dawn of the printing press around 1500 A.D.

Every historic wane of prophets is fertile ground for the spawn of a Bible-scholar movement (a Sola Scriptura movement) that artificially fills the (universally felt) need for religious leadership. In Christ's day, the Sola Scriptura parties largely consisted of the Pharisees, Saducees, and teachers of the law. In diametric opposition to this accursed epistemology, Christ The Prophet arrived as the antithesis of the Sola Scriptura insanity, denouncing the widely accepted beliefs and practices as man-made religious traditions. He made it clear that HIS teaching derived not from the seminaries of His day but directly from the Father, literally face to face, and thus by Direct Revelation.

History repeats itself. The wane of the early apostles/prophets culminated, once again, in the spawning of more Sola Scriptura movements. Even today's advocates of Tradition are actually Sola Scriptura advocates in disguise, because their conclusions are grounded four-square on Bible-scholarship - an exegetical analysis of scripture, history, and culture. And thus, as Andrew Murray lamented, the mistake of the Galatian church is repeated to this day in all the churches - even in the churches most confidently self-assured that they are free from the Galatian error.

We need revival. And the only sure way to get it - if Galatians 3 is any authority on the matter - is to receive outpourings of the Spirit via "the hearing of faith" (which is the literal rendering of the Greek). This is a clear reference to Direct Revelation, anecdotal indeed of Paul's own affair with Direct Revelation outlined in Galatians 1.

UPDATE: For those new to this thread, post 393 has a summary of objections to Sola Scriptura.

rocknanchor · Apr 12, 2020

IMO(3), Soundness, walks in all three:

(1) “Follow” tradition
(2) “Profitable” Sola Scriptura
(3) “Seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit” conscience

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

rocknanchor said:
IMO(3), Soundness, walks in all three:

(1) “Follow” tradition

Which ones? Without Direct Revelation, how do I know FOR SURE which traditions to follow?

(2) “Profitable” Sola Scriptura

Profitable to whom? The prophet Timothy? Agreed.
Whereas, in the hands of a Bible-scholar steeped in human reasoning, Scripture is potentially a recipe for disaster. Right? Hasn't human history already proven so, ad nauseum?

(3) “Seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit” conscience

Excellent. Now we're getting somewhere.

rocknanchor · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
Which ones?

Well, of course that one that was mentioned, the Apostle's. Example? How about preaching the word in season, out of season? Or when Paul placed his hands on them (Acts 19:6)?

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

rocknanchor said:
Well, of course that one that was mentioned, the Apostle's. Example? How about preaching the word in season, out of season? Or when Paul placed his hands on them (Acts 19:6)?

Preach the word in season? You're referring to the evangelistic command issued to the prophet Timothy? Paul never commanded the churches to evangelize. In other words there is no such thing as the Great Commission - it was actually the Great Omission.

Here's what Paul commanded the churches to do:

"Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1 Cor 14:1).

Your reply is actually a case in point. By relying on exegesis, you fell into the trap of buying into a man-made religious tradition known as the Great Commission. Paul would never have fallen into such a error, because he relied on Direct Revelation for doctrine.

"Preach the word in and out of season".

The truth is that the NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance, as I've demonstrated elsewhere (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).

Hillsage · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
Which ones? Without Direct Revelation, how do I know FOR SURE which traditions to follow?

2TH 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

IMO, this verse is a case for 'two' of the 'three' options. Question is, was were you taught and does the Spirit of truth guide you as to which ones are 'of man' or 'of God'.

Profitable to whom? The prophet Timothy? Agreed.

First off, who said Timothy was a prophet? I know of no scripture, and the Spirit doesn't bear witness 'to me', of that 'assumption'.....so now where do we go?

Whereas, in the hands of a Bible-scholar steeped in human reasoning, Scripture is potentially a recipe for disaster. Right? Hasn't human history already proven so, ad nauseum?

666 "Christian denominations" all declaring "I'm right and YOU'RE WRONG.", prove that all traditions aren't good. :idea:

Excellent. Now we're getting somewhere.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

"Preach the word in and out of season". Covid-19 isn't the first plague in history. Had you been an instructor throughout the ages, would you have advised all your students to evangelize liberally during pandemics?

You see, that question posed no conundrum for Paul. Since he chose to look to Direct Revelation, he knew when to preach, and when not to preach. He was safe - and kept everyone safe - because he walked in the shadow of the Almighty.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

Hillsage said:
2TH 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

I think I addressed this verse already?

First off, who said Timothy was a prophet? I know of no scripture, and the Spirit doesn't bear witness 'to me', of that 'assumption'.....so now where do we go?

Paul said, "that the man of God may be equipped for every good work". The expression "man of God" is an OT rubric for a prophet. Paul is making a clear distinction - in the hands of a prophet, Scripture is decidedly profitable. But in the hands of anyone else (viz. Pharisees, Saducees, teachers of the law) it is potentially a recipe for disaster. I'm not advising Christians to throw their Bibles away. I'm warning them of the danger of prioritizing exegesis over Direct Revelation.

swordsman1 · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
Likewise, Sola Scriptura is the claim, "Never rely on your own opinions, instead believe what the Bible teaches." Same logical impasse - it implies that an agnostic who begins to form Christian opinions should not act on them because opinions carry no weight.

If it wasn't for scripture you wouldn't have a gospel. And believing the gospel is not a matter of opinion, it is simply believing the facts presented in scripture.

JAL said:
Moreover it couldn't even boast ubiquity for 90% of human history, until the dawn of the printing press around 1500 A.D.

Before the printing press, the scriptures were copied by hand. Every church would have had access to a copy and/or had a teacher who could relay the content. In the very early church, before the canon was fully distributed, they relied on prophecy (which was still active at the time) to guide them in the faith .

JAL said:
We need revival. And the only sure way to get it - if Galatians 3 is any authority on the matter - is to receive outpourings of the Spirit via "the hearing of faith" (which is the literal rendering of the Greek). This is a clear reference to Direct Revelation, anecdotal indeed of Paul's own affair with Direct Revelation outlined in Galatians 1.

"hearing with faith" simply means believing what you heard. Nothing to do with direct revelation. The word "hearing", akoēs, is the normal word for physical hearing with your ears, as any lexicon will tell you. The Galatians received the Spirit because they believed what they heard, the gospel. It is nothing to do with extra sensory perception or any such like.

SkyWriting · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
Thus Sola Scriptura is total nonsense. Moreover it couldn't even boast ubiquity for 90% of human history, until the dawn of the printing press around 1500 A.D.

Not exactly. Jesus read from scrolls and referred to specific passages.
But mostly a good point.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

Swordsman1, although a bunch of nebulous statements might suffice for a Sunday morning sermon, they won't wash here. You need to be more clear.

swordsman1 said:
If it wasn't for scripture you wouldn't have a gospel.

Huh? What do you mean by these words? Doesn't the whole shibang originate in Direct Revelation? How did the church get Scripture and/or the gospel, if not by Direct Revelation? Here's what Paul had to say about it:

"Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you” (Gal 3:8).

The 'gospel' being referred to there is the divine Voice (Direct Revelation) speaking to the prophet Abraham who is Paul's favorite paradigm and exemplar for all believers to emulate. In fact the Hebrew word for prophet was applied first to Abraham before anyone else.

And believing the gospel is not a matter of opinion, it is simply believing the facts presented in scripture.

Huh? What do you mean by these words? You never formed the opinion that the Bible is true? Nor acted on such opinion? You don't seem to be making any sense.

Clearly, you based your biggest decision in life (the decision to be a Christian) on an opinion. The challenge here is not to live in denial of this fact but explain how it is viable - I've argued elsewhere (see link in OP) that a dynamic known as the conscience makes 'opinion' a viable epistemology, indeed the ONLY viable one.

Before the printing press, the scriptures were copied by hand. Every church would have had access to a copy and/or had a teacher who could relay the content. In the very early church, before the canon was fully distributed, they relied on prophecy (which was still active at the time) to guide them in the faith .

Circulation was poor for 90% of human history, until the printing press appeared. Period.

"hearing with faith" simply means believing what you heard. Nothing to do with direct revelation. The word hearing, akoēs, is the normal word for physical hearing with your ears, as any lexicon will tell you. The Galatians received the Spirit because they believed what they heard, the gospel. It is nothing to do with extra sensory perception or any such like.

I'll reply to this blatant exegetical error shortly.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

SkyWriting said:
Not exactly. Jesus read from scrolls and referred to specific passages.
But mostly a good point.

Um...quoting Scripture doesn't establish the anti-revelation dogma known as Sola Scriptura. For example, when Christ quoted Scripture, He did not thereby impugn the authority of His own Prophethood.

Albion · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
I've done a couple of threads on this issue, but I still feel that virtually no one gets it. Let's try this again.

It would be more accurate to say that the folks who don't believe in 'Scripture Alone' as the proper standard for defining essential doctrine are determined not to accept the many explanations that have been given them on these threads.

Thus Sola Scriptura is total nonsense.

Oh yes. That'll do the trick for sure.

Moreover it couldn't even boast ubiquity for 90% of human history, until the dawn of the printing press around 1500 A.D.

Well, here is one major mistake in your thesis. Of course the Bible existed prior to 1500! You are speaking only of the ease of access to it on the part of the average person.

With that understood, how does your analysis work? It doesn't. However, your comment does illustrate one huge error on the part of many people who try to disprove Sola Scriptura. They don't know what the term refers to!

SkyWriting · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
Um...quoting Scripture doesn't establish the anti-revelation dogma known as Sola Scriptura. For example, when Christ quoted Scripture, He did not thereby impugn the authority of His own Prophethood.

Nor does have any anti-revelation aspects. It is not against outside knowledge that scripture doesn't already cover. It simply means to be the authority on covered topics.

swordsman1 · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
Huh? What do you mean by these words?

I'd have thought my statement was pretty obvious. Knowledge about Jesus, salvation, etc is only found in scripture. If it wasn't for scripture we would know nothing about him (apart from the fact he existed, from a Jewish historian).

JAL said:
Doesn't the whole shibang originate in Direct Revelation? How did the church get Scripture and/or the gospel, if not by Direct Revelation? Here's what Paul had to say about it:

"Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you” (Gal 3:8).

The 'gospel' being referred to there is the divine Voice (Direct Revelation) speaking to the prophet Abraham who is Paul's favorite paradigm and exemplar for all believers to emulate. In fact the Hebrew word for prophet was applied first to Abraham before anyone else.

Certainly Abraham, the apostles, and the ancient prophets received direct revelation. That doesn't mean we should expect to.

JAL said:
Huh? What do you mean by these words?

Having an opinion is making a judgement based on your own (fallible) reasoning, rather than the known facts. If you have the facts, you don't need to make a opinion.

JAL said:
Clearly, you based your biggest decision in life (the decision to be a Christian) on an opinion.

It wasn't a decision I made, but one that God made. No opinions were involved.

JAL said:
I've argued elsewhere (see link in OP) that a dynamic known as the conscience makes 'opinion' a viable epistemology, indeed the ONLY viable one.

The human conscience only tells you whether a particular action you have done, or contemplating doing, is sinful or not. It says nothing about opinions.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

You commented on Galatians 3:

swordsman1 said:
"hearing with faith" simply means believing what you heard. Nothing to do with direct revelation. The word "hearing", akoēs, is the normal word for physical hearing with your ears, as any lexicon will tell you. The Galatians received the Spirit because they believed what they heard, the gospel. It is nothing to do with extra sensory perception or any such like.

Let's begin with some context, shall we? Jesus said, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27). Although some modern translations are misleading, the truth is that the OT rarely features the words, "Obey my laws". In almost all cases it was rather articulated as, "Obey my voice", about 50 times. The Hebrew word there is qowl which appears 500 times in the OT, always in sonic contexts without any exceptions. Furthermore the Hebrew word for "obey" itself means to hearken as unto a voice. Thus any notion that the OT saints were under written law is a myth and a lie. Got it?

That same Voice is thematic to Galatians 3. I already mentioned 3:8:

"Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you” (Gal 3:8).

Read the whole chapter of Galatians 3 - you'll find that The Promise (the Covenant) - is ALSO a major thesis of Galatians 3, and that Promise/Covenant was articulated in innumerable promises (including any promises that Jesus might speak to you today). Thus the Covenant thematic to Galatians 3 can be summarized like this:

"The (covenantal) promises were spoken to Abraham and to [us] his seed and to Christ his seed" (Verse 16, my translation).

Still convinced that 'hearing' in Galatians 3 has NOTHING to do with the Voice of Direct Revelation? Bear in mind that I've now shown you evidence of multiple verses in Galatians 3 alluding to Abraham's experience with the divine Voice - not to mention that Galatians 1 is where Paul belabored his own lifelong governing by Direct Revelation. Moving on to the passage in contention:

"Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?...5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Gal 3:2-5)

The clincher is the next verse. Scholarship frankly agrees with me that verse 6 cites Abraham experience at Gen 15 as proof of the statements made in verses 2-5. As Calvin said, for example, verse 6 cites Abraham's experience at Gen 15 as proof that the Spirit and miracles are received by the hearing of faith. So let's go back to Gen 15. Recall that Abraham was a prophet who, as such, often saw God face to face, and spoke with Him.

"The Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision...Abraham believed God [speaking promises], and he credited to him as righteousness."

Did you catch that? Abraham didn't receive a Bible (the written Word). Rather he received an outpouring of the Spirit (the divine Word) by hearing God speak. Thus Abraham received the Spirit through the hearing of faith:

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

In Paul's eyes, Abraham is the perfect model here. Why so? Because he preceded the law (preceded Scripture), by 430 years, and thus preceded all the Sola Scriptura movements. In Paul's eyes, then Abraham is the definitive rebuttal of Sola Scriptura.

By prioritizing the written Word (written Law), the church is making precisely the mistake of the Galatians, as Andrew Murray saw so clearly, and lamented with such futility.

We're not quite done here. Let's look again at verse 5:

"He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

Miracles? Abraham is supposed to be proof of all this. What miracle transpired at Gen 15? A big one. Abraham's wife was barren. In that same passage the divine Voice promised Him an offspring. Thus he received this miracle via "the hearing of faith".

To summarize, here's Paul's doctrine of sanctification. "Wait on the Lord in prayer, waiting for him speak promises"

Because when God speaks promises, He ALSO pours out the Spirit - He speaks by releasing the Word/Spirit from His mouth (see Isaiah 55:11).

"The Word of the Lord came [as a sanctifying outpouring] to Abraham in a vision"

I must perforce object to your words:

swordsman1 said:
"hearing with faith" simply means believing what you heard. Nothing to do with direct revelation. The word "hearing", akoēs, is the normal word for physical hearing with your ears, as any lexicon will tell you. The Galatians received the Spirit because they believed what they heard, the gospel. It is nothing to do with extra sensory perception or any such like.

The problem with your assessment is that it is nothing more than a regurgitation of the man-made tradition known as Sola Scriptura, without recourse to what Paul actually said.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

swordsman1 said:
I'd have thought my statement was pretty obvious. Knowledge about Jesus, salvation, etc is only found in scripture. If it wasn't for scripture we would know nothing about him (apart from the fact he existed, from a Jewish historian).

Wrong. You're putting the cart before the horse. The prophets wrote down things given to them by Direct Revelation. Scripture would not exist without Direct Revelation.

Certainly Abraham, the apostles, and the ancient prophets received direct revelation. That doesn't mean we should expect to.

And all you have to do is postulate a viable epistemology sans direct revelation. You cannot.

Having an opinion is making a judgement based on your own (fallible) reasoning, rather than the known facts. If you have the facts, you don't need to make a opinion.

Um...one OPINES to have the facts.

It wasn't a decision I made, but one that God made. No opinions were involved.

These words are silly. If you're not of the opinion that Christianity is true, you're not a Christian. Period.

The human conscience only tells you whether a particular action you have done, or contemplating doing, is sinful or not. It says nothing about opinions.

Your conscience is your internal opinion as to what is morally right or wrong.[/quote][/QUOTE]

Albion · Apr 12, 2020

Would you say that your objection to the sufficiency of Scripture is more about there being an alternate source of information, i.e. direct inspiration...

or

that Scripture is often misunderstood by the reader, which renders its information insufficient for the purpose of determining essential doctrine?

Hillsage · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
I think I addressed this verse already?

Yes you did, but without the need for the Holy Spirit leading you, which is apparently your only 'litmus'. I just agree with rockananchor that there is need for all three;

rockananchor said; IMO Soundness, walks in all three:

(1) “Follow” tradition
(2) “Profitable” Sola Scriptura
(3) “Seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit” conscience

JAL said;

Paul said, "that the man of God may be equipped for every good work". The expression "man of God" is an OT rubric for a prophet. Paul is making a clear distinction - in the hands of a prophet, Scripture is decidedly profitable.

All I hear is 'opinion' above. Where is your "IT IS WRITTEN". It's upon that 'word' quickened into my heart by the Spirit that your 'the man of God' only means prophets....like Timothy. The "man of God" term is only used twice in the NT...in Timothy. And in your OT rubric it is used 70 times, and some of those, which I just checked, are for 'other than prophets'. So I'm of the opinion based upon scripture and the Spirit, that Timothy was called, anointed and appointed as a pastor in the five-fold ministry, which the letter/admonitions from Paul seem to support. But not once is the word prophet used by Paul.

But in the hands of anyone else (viz. Pharisees, Saducees, teachers of the law) it is potentially a recipe for disaster. I'm not advising Christians to throw their Bibles away. I'm warning them of the danger of prioritizing exegesis over Direct Revelation.

I've agreed with this statement for decades. Since even scripture supports the deceitfulness of the scribes writing 'the bible' scrolls of their day in Jeremiah.

JER 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.

Denominational scribes didn't just start in the NT. There were denominations back then. The Yahwehists the Deuteronomists, the Masorectrics etc. All with scribes indoctrinated to tweek the way 'they were taught'.

But you need not answer me and this post JAL, I see the blood in the water has brought the feeding frenzy to the thread. So I do wish you the best with 'them' and this, your ....third thread???.... along these lines. I prefer moving on.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

Albion said:
Would you say that your objection to the sufficiency of Scripture is more about there being an alternate source of information, i.e. direct inspiration...

or

that Scripture is often misunderstood by the reader, which renders its information insufficient for the purpose of determining essential doctrine?

It's hard to say - those two perspectives seem like two sides of a coin. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Scripture cannot even tell me whether I should show up for work today. Because it doesn't apprise me as to whether my workplace will today be the scene of another 911-bombing, or a Covid-19 infestation, or some other catastrophe. Scripture can't even tell me whether the bug spray that I use in my household is safe - perhaps it is contaminating my neighbor's water supply. Any suggestion that Scripture is sufficient seems outlandish to me.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

Hillsage said:
Yes you did, but without the need for the Holy Spirit leading you, which is apparently your only 'litmus'.

I don't understand. You are saying I underemphasize the Spirit's leading? And yet the leading of the Spirit is my main thesis - I refer to it as Direct Revelation.

All I hear is 'opinion' above. Where is your "IT IS WRITTEN". It's upon that 'word' quickened into my heart by the Spirit that your 'the man of God' only means prophets....like Timothy. The "man of God" term is only used twice in the NT...in Timothy. And in your OT rubric it is used 70 times, and some of those, which I just checked, are for 'other than prophets'. So I'm of the opinion based upon scripture and the Spirit, that Timothy was called, anointed and appointed as a pastor in the five-fold ministry, which the letter/admonitions from Paul seem to support. But not once is the word prophet used by Paul.

And yet Paul addressed those words to one man, named Timothy. Odd, isn't it? The passages touted as the bedrock of Sola Scriptura were only addressed to one man - whom you say MIGHT not have been a prophet? Let's assess. God supposedly wanted these words to convey the eminence of biblical exegesis and yet He:

(1) Addressed them to only one man named Timothy (instead of to an entire church)
(2) AND He used the phrase "man of God" which STRONGLY SUGGESTS prophethood.

So apparently you think that God is a poor instructor?

I've agreed with this statement for decades.

Excellent.

Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

Veteran

Continue Well 2 John 9

Veteran

Continue Well 2 John 9

Veteran

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Veteran

Veteran

Facilitator

The Librarian

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Facilitator

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads