Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

Albion said:
Oh, so if we call it "subsequent" revelation instead of "new" revelation, it isn't open to being dismissed as a loaded term often wielded by advocates of something or other in order to breed fear of Direct Revelation?

Great. Use that term and answer the questions I've asked.

What questions? Like this one maybe?

"What is the benefit of any voices if you already have the answer from God?"

I don't understand the question. By and large, the main purpose of Direct Revelation - the purpose of the Voice - is to compensate for the paucity of answers endemic to the feeble human mind.

Not sure what 'questions' of yours I've neglected to answer, but I'll try to have a brief look see if I missed anything.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

Albion said:
Feeling certain isn't at issue here.

If something makes you feel certain about God's truth and his will for us, that's fine, but it isn't the truth itself.

And if you were NOT certain about it, the truth would still be the truth.

Feeling certain is the ONLY issue here. I can act only according to my current convictions, regardless of what the truth ACTUALLY is.

Albion · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
The Mormons read the same Bible as we do, they see the word 'God' there, as we do, and proceed to worship "God". Likewise the Jehovah Witnesses. Likewise the Jews. Why then are they not saved?

You said it. They see the word ("God"). Their consciences, however, did not tell them what the Gospel was actually explaining to them. Their teachers instructed them to follow their consciences--and those leaders' claims of being prophets who could augment the Gospel.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

Albion said:
New revelation isn't a term at all. I am referring to revelation that is new, unique.

It obviously is that if you insist that it is not something we all already know from having read the Bible. And we all consider the Bible to be revelation, don't we? It's not just a compilation of the musings of some old Hebrews, as I've heard some skeptics describe their thinking about the Bible.

That it's brand new revelation is the point, though. What is the benefit of any such thing if you already have the answer from God? At best, what the voice says is exactly what is to be found in the Bible and is an encouragement to remember and be guided by what the hearer already has been taught.

You DON'T have the answer from God. All you have is fallible exegesis. Look, I think all parties can agree that Direct Revelation, unlike exegesis, provides the prospect of infallible revelation.

Again, Direct Revelation CLARIFIES Scripture. As a further clarification of an existing revelation, I'm averse to calling it "new revelation".

One reason (among many) that Scripture doesn't provide all the answers is, again, the inability of the human mind to accurately conceive an ineffably holy God, regardless of how much Scripture is studied. For example you cannot really know the joy of the Lord until you FEEL that joy by Direct Revelation. This happens in revival. Christians today have no idea what happiness really feels like (and yet think they do). A real revival would change all that.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

Albion said:
You said it. They see the word ("God"). Their consciences, however, did not tell them what the Gospel was actually explaining to them. Their teachers instructed them to follow their consciences--and those leaders' claims of being prophets who could augment the Gospel.

You're missing the point. The point is that, regardless of how erudite the bible scholar, he cannot properly conceive an ineffably holy God, without the aid of Direct Revelation.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

robycop3 said:
"Tradition" - man-made & therefore untrue

"revelation" - Guesswork, colored by what one wants to be true

"sola Scriptura" - Sustained by fulfilled Scriptural prophecy. If you were led to Jesus by your grandmother, she gained her intel from Scripture, as did your pastor, or whoever.

Actually your grandmother gained her intel from a Direct Revelation widely known as the Inward Witness. That's why she believed Christ and the Bible in the first place.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

swordsman1 said:
Yes, God spoke those words directly to Abraham. They were audible words, not thoughts or feelings or opinions he had. In Genesis it quotes the exact words God said to him....Indeed, Abraham believed what he heard from God. The same as the Galatians believed the gospel they heard.

You're distorting the paradigm. At Gen 15, alluded to at Gal 3:2-6, the Voice/Word/Spirit constituted one package. The HEARING referred to RECEIVING the spoken divine Word constituting an OUTPOURING of the Spirit. That's the paradigm. Abraham received the Spirit through THAT hearing of faith. Anything else is your own fabrication - has nothing to do with what Paul actually wrote.

THAT is the paradigm presented to us by Paul. If that's not the model that he wanted to convey to the Galatians, he should not have pointed them to that passage.

I'm not interested in your fabrications. I'm interested in what Paul had to say.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

Maybe these are the questions that you think I neglected?

Albion said:
So, doesn't this mean simply that you prefer to think that something other than God's revelation in Holy Scripture is what you want to follow instead of the Bible? That's a serious question.

All of us must follow one rule - the rule of conscience:

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

There are no exceptions to that rule. Therefore the claim, "I should follow the Bible instead of conscience" cannot be true.

The above holds true even if the conscience is misinformed/confused. For example one might labor under the misconception that Sola Scriptura is true. Hence this thread.

Also it might be warped - it might have placated itself somewhat to accept the status quo. Meaning what? Historically Christians have, for example, bought into the Great Commission, the notion that any-old-Christian is supposed to "get out there and evangelize". In this dogma, there is no need for Direct Revelation. What this overlooks is that, with 100 billion souls at stake, fallibility is unacceptable. We NEED infallible Direct Revelation because need to be sure that we are conducting evangelism properly.

Yes. Sola Scriptura does mean that God's word in Scripture contains all that is doctrinal and essential for salvation. It doesn't mean all sorts of other things that I read on these forums, but it means this. What is your objection?

Round and round...

Albion · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
What questions? Like this one maybe?

"What is the benefit of any voices if you already have the answer from God?"

I don't understand the question. By and large, the main purpose of Direct Revelation - the purpose of the Voice - is to compensate for the paucity of answers endemic to the feeble human mind.

I am understanding take to mean that you gain essential, doctrinal instructions or guidance that is not to be found in the Bible. Revelation comparable to the Scriptures, in other words. Correct that if it's not what you meant.

Albion · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
Feeling certain is the ONLY issue here.

No. Quite obviously, the most important issue is that information is conveyed. That is what Sola Scriptura is all about and, for that matter, what Holy Tradition is all about.

I can act only according to my current convictions, regardless of what the truth ACTUALLY is.

All right, but whether you can act or cannot act, the meaning of Sola Scriptura (and Holy Tradition) is revelation, not who complies with it and why or why not. The only reason to speak of either of those is because of the need to know what the truth is.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

Albion said:
I am understanding take to mean that you gain essential, doctrinal instructions or guidance that is not to be found in the Bible. Revelation comparable to the Scriptures, in other words. Correct that if it's not what you meant.

Again, Direct Revelation provides CLARIFICATION of existing revelation. It is not new revelation (an oxymoron). For example, suppose I read in Scripture that I'm supposed to love my neighbor. That doesn't tell me the specifics. Should I go out and share the gospel with him? But in doing so I might infect him with Covid-19, or receive an infection from him which I then transfer to my own family. Direct Revelation is only possible remedy here. It can tell me SPECIFICALLY what I'm supposed to do, in all situations.

Maybe you're asking whether submission to Direct Revelation implies a commitment to canonize every message spoken by the Voice, thereby constituting a push for "new revelation" (your term). That doesn't follow. That's an individualistic issue - a conscience issue. Meaning, when the Voice last spoke to me, did it fully persuade my conscience to launch a lobby seeking to canonize the message? You might be interested to know that despite the prevalence of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement over the last couple hundred years, you'd be hard pressed to find a single individual who lobbied for the canonizing of a message.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

Albion said:
All right, but whether you can act or cannot act, the meaning of Sola Scriptura (and Holy Tradition) is revelation, not who complies with it and why or why not. The only reason to speak of either of those is because of the need to know what the truth is.

Whenever it suits you, you conveniently water down the meaning of Sola Scriptura. It is far more than the claim that Scripture is true. It is the claim that voices have no binding jurisdiction over us, independent of the Scriptures. The truth is, however, that a voice influential to conscience IS obligatory, thereby divesting us of the obligation to "check it out with Scripture" (conscience permitting).

Albion · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
You DON'T have the answer from God.

Does that mean that the Bible is not to be taken for divine revelation? I assumed that all of us agreed on that much at least.

Look, I think all parties can agree that Direct Revelation, unlike exegesis, provides the prospect of infallible revelation.

In the few cases we know of in history, probably. But the idea that everyone who thinks he's hearing voices in his bedroom is receiving divine revelation that either supplements or replaces Scripture is definitely NOT agreed to.

Direct Revelation CLARIFIES Scripture. As a further clarification of an existing revelation, I'm averse to calling it "new revelation".

The wording aside, please explain to us the idea that this kind of "revelation" clarifies existing revelation, by which I assume you mean Scripture. What direct revelation are you referring to and is it something that every Christian receives?

One reason (among many) that Scripture doesn't provide all the answers is, again, the inability of the human mind to accurately conceive an ineffably holy God, regardless of how much Scripture is studied.

There is nothing amiss with believing that, in Scripture, Man was given everything that he needs in order to be saved. Once again, we must point out that Sola Scriptura does not assert that everything that can be known is in Scripture (or needs to be). Yet your defense of Direct Revelation seems to be claiming that it delivers exactly that.

For example you cannot really know the joy of the Lord until you FEEL that joy by Direct Revelation.

Why should I believe that?

This happens in revival. Christians today have no idea what happiness really feels like (and yet think they do). A real revival would change all that.

Standard Pentecostal stuff. But it's just "feel good," meaning thoroughly human emotions, not revelation or divine guidance which is the topic here.

Albion · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
Whenever it suits you, you conveniently water down the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

I certainly have not. But if you have found the discussion to have wandered a bit, do bring us back to the issue which is indeed the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

It is far more than the claim that Scripture is true. It is the claim that voices have no binding jurisdiction over us, independent of the Scriptures.

Well, that second part doesn't amount to a change in what Sola Scriptura is. Sola Scriptura says that Scripture contains all that is doctrinally essential for our salvation and that is what I have always said about it.

The truth is, however, that a voice influential to conscience IS obligatory,

Says you. That's all there is to that.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

Albion said:
Does that mean that the Bible is not to be taken for divine revelation? I assumed that all of us agreed on that much at least.

No, it means acknowledgement of some obvious points such as:
(1) I have no direct access to the Bible. Only to my fallible interpretations.
(2) I don't even have direct access to the actual languages. I am forced to learn Greek and Hebrew from a man-made (!) Lexicon.
(3) The Bible doesn't spell out the specifics of daily behavior appropriate for me right now.

The wording aside, please explain to us the idea that this kind of "revelation" clarifies existing revelation, by which I assume you mean Scripture. What direct revelation are you referring to and is it something that every Christian receives?

For example it's how you got saved. The Mormons read the same word 'God' in Scripture but, for lack of Direct Revelation, worship the wrong God. Thus Direct Revelation CLARIFIES the biblical references to "God" - it clarifies existing revelation.

There is nothing amiss with believing that, in Scripture, Man was given everything that he needs in order to be saved. Once again, we must point out that Sola Scriptura does not assert that everything that can be known is in Scripture (or needs to be). Yet your defense of Direct Revelation seems to be claiming that it delivers exactly that.

Again, Sola Scriptura claims more than that, as you finally admitted a few posts back. Round and round we go...

Why should I believe that?

Not sure what you mean. Joy that isn't FELT isn't joy. Or maybe you're saying that you can reach this joy by exegetically studying the word "joy" in the Bible. Good luck with that. Paul refers to God doing more than we can ask or imagine. Any level of joy that you can imagine - this joy is higher. Exegesis is an intellectual endeavor residing within the BOUNDARIES of our understanding, not exceeding them. You need Direct Revelation.

Oh, the idea that the more emotional something is, how it feels, is what makes it revelation.

70 posts deep, and you'd honestly deem those words as a full assessment of the logic, or lack thereof, of my position? Not to mention other threads of mine linked to, totaling innumerable comments on the writings of Paul, Luke, and others? Please. Let's be honest here.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

Albion said:
Says you. That's all there is to that.

Nope. Not says me. Says the rule of conscience, on which I've challenged you, on numerous threads, to provide an exception:

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

LoveGodsWord · Apr 12, 2020

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzz

. All I got from reading this thread is the promotion of denying God's Word and a headache both of which are not biblical and unpleasant. There is nothing wrong with Gods' Word and tradition if they lead people to God. Where we are warned agained tradition from the very words of JESUS however is when tradition leads people away from God to break God's commandments and not believe Gods' Words *MATTHEW 15:2-9. God's Word (Sola scriptura) therefore is the standard of what is right and wrong and we are told to live by every word of it *2 TIMOTHY 3:16; MATTHEW 4:4. Only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *ROMANS 3:4 Acts of the Apostles 5:29-32; MATTHEW 15:2-9. May you receive God's Word and be blessed. (the OP topic is Catholic dogma and not biblical) There is no salvation in unbelief and not following God's Word. According to the scriptures we are saved by Grace through faith and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *EPHESIANS 2:8-9; ROMANS 10:17.

Bible Highlighter · 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.

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.

First, I have provided an 8 point biblical defense for Sola Scriptura here:

A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!

Second, I agree with Sola Scriptura the definition or the meaning given, but I believe the term "Sola Scriptura" deserves a better name. I created a thread, on that here:

Reevaluating the term Sola Scriptura (Bible alone + God giving understanding on it is the truth).

Three, maybe I misunderstood what you read, but I get the impression that you somehow erroneously think 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is merely part of a letter that only applies to Timothy alone. Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture.

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16).

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not like the command given to Noah to build the Ark whereby it only applied to him, and his family. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 can be applied universally to every believer and there is no indication in Scripture that these words were meant only for Timothy. Surely the Lord wants us to have doctrine, and instruction in righteousness. For Jesus said to the disciples to go out unto all nations and to teach them all things He had commanded them. These commands of our Lord were continued with the apostle Paul; For Paul says to anyone who thinks himself to be spiritual, they should know that what he has written should be regarded as the Lord's commandments (See: 1 Corinthians 14:37).

Four, there is a difference between carnal knowledge like using bug or weed killers in your lawn vs. spiritual knowledge. God's Word is an authority on all matters in relation to spiritual things. So using carnal knowledge as an argument against Sola Scriptura is simply not applicable.

Five, you think that just because the early apostles received inspiration to write Scripture or that they talked with God directly that this must continue on today. We can see that God is perfectly capable of changing His method of communication to man even within Scripture itself. We learn by Scripture that God talked only in audible voice before the books of Job and the books of Moses came forth. So if God no longer speaks in an audible voice alone like He used to do, and He later communicated to mankind using both an audible voice and Scripture, it is not a far stretch to say that He has changed His method of communication again.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzz . All I got from reading this thread is the promotion of denying God's Word and a headache both of which are not biblical and unpleasant. There is nothing wrong with Gods' Word and tradition if they lead people to God. Where we are warned agained tradition from the very words of JESUS however is when tradition leads people away from God to break God's commandments and not believe Gods' Words *MATTHEW 15:2-9. God's Word (Sola scriptura) therefore is the standard of what is right and wrong and we are told to live by every word of it *2 TIMOTHY 3:16; MATTHEW 4:4. Only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *ROMANS 3:4 Acts of the Apostles 5:29-32; MATTHEW 15:2-9.

May you receive God's Word and be blessed. (the OP is Catholic dogma and not biblical)

You've apparently posted on the wrong thread. Certainly I don't see anything pertinent to the OP.

Or maybe you just wanted to regurgitate your beliefs regardless of their credibility. That's your prerogative.

LoveGodsWord · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
You've apparently posted on the wrong thread. Certainly I don't see anything pertinent to the OP.

Or maybe you just wanted to regurgitate your beliefs regardless of their credibility. That's your prerogative.

You obviously did not read what was posted. If you did you would not have written what you did here. What do you think the post says that you were quoting from?

Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

Veteran

Veteran

Facilitator

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Facilitator

Facilitator

Veteran

Veteran

Facilitator

Facilitator

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads