Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

swordsman1 said:
And who might they be? Bible publishers and sellers?

I thought it was pretty obvious that the allusion was to Bible-scholars.

Sola Scriptura culminates in the conclusion that Bible-scholars should rule the church and be financially well-compensated for this work. And who's been pushing this Sola-Scriptura doctrine for the last 2,000 years? You guessed it - Bible scholars !!!

And unfortunately we, as pew members, have been swallowing the lie both hook, line, and sinker.

swordsman1 · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
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"

Not quite. I would describe the human conscience as...
"If I feel A SENSE OF GUILT that doing action-A is wrong, then it most probably is"

JAL said:
Therefore the claim, "I should follow the Bible instead of conscience" cannot be true.

Who ever said "I should follow the Bible instead of conscience"? The 2 would always be in harmony with each other. There no immoral action advocated in the bible.

JAL said:
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.

Your conscience would never tell you whether Sola Scriptura is true, as it is not a moral action.

The only way to find out if it is true is to determine whether God guides people in the faith in any other way apart from scripture.

LoveGodsWord · Apr 12, 2020

The reason why many try to deny God's Word is because the scriptures normally teach that what they are promoting is not biblical or against the teachings of the bible. (e.g. Idol worship, sabbath breaking, making graven images and bowing down to them) The Word of God condemns these practices as sin. So the best way for these people to seek to follow man made traditions and teachings that break the commandment of God is to deny God's Word which condemns their practices. The early reformers called this the Spirit of the Antichrist. The OP is simply promoting Catholic doctrine which is not biblical.

God bless all.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

swordsman1 said:
That 'paradigm' is one straight from your own imagination, not from scripture.

Gal 3:2 "Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? "

Of course the the Galatians received the Spirit by believing what they heard (hearing with faith). Remember the word 'hearing' is the normal Greek word for audible hearing. What they heard was the gospel as preached by Paul.

Gal 3:6 "just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."

And that was the same way Abraham was saved. God spoke to him audibly, and Abraham believed what he heard.

Right, just as the prophet Abraham heard God (speaking promises) and received the Spirit in a revelatory vision. Gen 3:6 refers DIRECTLY back to Gen 15:1 as the paradigm provided to EXEMPLIFY and ESTABLISH the argument at Gal 3:2-5. Stop pushing your man-made paradigms on the rest of us. Just believe what Paul taught. Actually Paul alluded to revelatory visions earlier in the chapter but the reference is a bit obscure and thus widely overlooked. Let's go back to verse 1:

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Notice the implication. He is pointing them back to a moment when they DISTINCTLY received the Spirit. He is asking them to RECALL that exact moment. Most of us didn't have such a powerful experience in our early days of conversion. I myself don't know an exact moment when the Spirit entered my body, in my early days. But in Paul's generation of revival, such experiences were often quite distinct, for example:

"When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues b and prophesied. 7" (Acts 19)

Prophesied. What is the prophetic experience? Speech, right? But also - visions!

"Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions,your old men will dream dreams" (Acts 2).

Suppose you had been converted in THAT fashion. You would, in that case, DISTINCTLY remember:
(1) An exact moment of receiving the Holy Spirit.
(2) The visions that you SAW, with your own eyes.
(3) The divine Voice that you presumably HEARD during the visions.

With that as the background, let's go back to what Paul said to the Galatians:

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

How did Paul manage to spread the gospel halfway around the planet ON FOOT, and yet, 2,000 years later, we still can't finish the job? I'll tell you how. Direct Revelation. When Paul preached the gospel he delivered it with unction - with outpourings that conferred heart-arresting, heart-convicting visions (prophetic experiences) that essentially COMPELLED large audiences to accept the truth of the gospel.

I digress. Note the parallel. To refresh points 1,2,3 in the minds of the Galatians, he pointed them back to Gen 15:1:

"The Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision [speaking promises]"

This would likewise have enabled the prophet Abram to remember:
(1) An exact moment of receiving the Holy Spirit.
(2) The visions that he SAW, with his own eyes.
(3) The divine Voice that he HEARD during the visions.

And yet YOUR claim, Mr. Swordsman1, is that this is NOT the paradigm that Paul pointed the Galatians to.

At some point I will likely stop debating with you because no matter how much evidence and cogent argumentation I supply, you'll just deny my conclusions and keep repeating your own, sans evidence. Your basic claim is,"Jal, you must accept everything I say until you can prove your position 100% clear of all doubts."

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

swordsman1 said:
Not quite. I would describe the human conscience as...
"If I feel A SENSE OF GUILT that doing action-A is wrong, then it most probably is"

Who ever said "I should follow the Bible instead of conscience"? The 2 would always be in harmony with each other. There no immoral action advocated in the bible.

Your conscience would never tell you whether Sola Scriptura is true, as it is not a moral action.

The only way to find out if it is true is to determine whether God guides people in the faith in any other way apart from scripture.

Unsubstantial, tangential assertions. If you've got a direct , on-point rebuttal of my central arguments, state it. For lack of time, I'm going to ignore all the mere pretenses of a real rebuttal.

swordsman1 · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
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.

No, of course you won't find such specifics in the bible. That is why God gave you a brain.

JAL said:
Direct Revelation is only possible remedy here. It can tell me SPECIFICALLY what I'm supposed to do, in all situations.

And by direct revelation you mean having a feeling of certainly?

JAL said:
Maybe you're asking whether submission to Direct Revelation implies a commitment to canonize every message spoken by the Voice

JAL said:
when the Voice last spoke to me,

So you are hearing a voice?

swordsman1 · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
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).

So you hear voices, you attribute them to God, they are obligatory to obey, and without any recourse to scripture? Your standpoint is even more dangerous than I thought.

swordsman1 · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom 10:17). That's not the written Word - it's the divine Word speaking to us in Direct Revelation.

Wrong. Rom 10 is not direct revelation.

"And how will they hear without a preacher?" Rom 10:14

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

swordsman1 said:
No, of course you won't find such specifics in the bible. That is why God gave you a brain.

And that brain is too limited and uninformed to always make the best possible decisions fully innocuous to my neighbors. Hence the need for Direct Revelation as the only way to fulfill the maxim, "Love does no harm to its neighbor" (Rom 13).

And by direct revelation you mean having a feeling of certainly?

Subjectively or objectively?
Yes, objectively speaking, direct revelation can be plausibly defined only with respect to feelings of certainty. The converse isn't true. Not every feeling of certainty is necessarily a direct revelation. Regardless, feelings of certainty are consistently authoritative, in light of the rule of conscience.

So you are hearing a voice?

You seem to be fixated on audibility as though it were the central issue on this thread, despite my protestations to the contrary. Let's discuss, briefly.

Consciousness is loudness. To be conscious means to experience an ongoing stream of sensations more or less distinct ("loud and clear"). The cessation of those sensations, therefore, is the very definition of unconsciousness - the death of consciousness. As a result, all conscious experience can be defined as voice, although more precisely as sensory experience. Take for instance the most obscure philosophical concept known to mankind. In order to comprehend it, the words defining it enter you mind - and can be mentally sung to any tune! This proves that all thought is voice. And to comprehend the concept, you must visualize the constituent elements. For example if your science professor says to you, "Light is not just a particle, it is waves of energy", you comprehend those words via mental visions more or less distinct ("loud and clear"), first you picture light, particles, and then waves. In fact, when you see the word "God" in Scripture and begin to worship, you always worship one mental vision or another. The mind can only worship what the mind's eye sees. Calvin was quite correct, therefore, to define the new birth in terms of God-given vision (and thus as Direct Revelation). Even feelings of certainty are sensations experienced more or less distinctly ("loudly and clearly").

The recognition that all conscious experience is loudness (sensory experience) abolishes many fabricated distinctions, such as the distinction between God influencing my mind versus speaking actual words to me. Or the distinction between seeing God versus seeing a vision of God. In point of fact we always see one conceptual object or another, not really the objects themselves - for it is the mind that sees.

Since fellowship with God is conscious experience, it too can only be defined in terms of loudness (sensory experience). Fellowship with ANYONE, obviously, can only be defined as a mutual exchange of sensations more or less distinct ("loud and clear"). And the wider the variety of the sensations, the higher the intimacy (all other factors being equal). For example if I perceive my wife with all the five senses, by default I have more intimacy than if I were limited to sonic exchanges with her. The upshot is this. Since God created us for fellowship, it must be His will to maximize the intimacy by providing the full spectrum of sensations. For example.

"The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend".

Jesus summarized the impoverished human condition thus:

"Ye have never heard His voice, nor seen his shape" (Jn 5:37).

Numbers 12:8-10 makes it obvious that visions of God coincide with spiritual maturity. At issue here is that intimacy with God cannot be classified as biblical exegesis. It is Direct Revelation.

Again, we see that Sola Scriptura is total nonsense that flies in the face of both common sense and everything taught in Scripture.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

swordsman1 said:
Wrong. Rom 10 is not direct revelation.

"And how will they hear without a preacher?" Rom 10:14

Answer: Christ IS one of the preachers. The divine Word mentioned at Rom 10:17 can enter our bodies either directly from the mouth of Christ (Isa 55:11) OR be sacramentally mediated through the body of a HUMAN preacher. Christ Himself was the preacher at issue in Gal 3:8:

"Scripture...announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

Recall that Christ often spoke with the prophet Abram face to face. In such cases, the divine feet WERE the feet that brought the good news.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

swordsman1 said:
So you hear voices, you attribute them to God, they are obligatory to obey, and without any recourse to scripture? Your standpoint is even more dangerous than I thought.

I'm not a prophet as yet. I have no distinct experience of God speaking clear words to me. Like most Christians, I do believe that the Inward Witness was influential to my conversion, meaning it gives me a degree of felt certainty that the gospel is true. And I would say that even a mere degree of felt certainty falls broadly under the definition of the divine Voice of John 10:27.

Are you arguing that feelings of certainty are not authoritative? That we must always have recourse to Scripture? In a word, are you claiming an exception to the rule of conscience defined as:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I shall do B?"

I think not. I think you just continue to spew empty words.

swordsman1 · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
Romans 10:17 is exemplified at Gen 15:1.

Romans 10 is nothing to do with visions.

JAL said:
And please stop contradicting John 10:27.

I'm still waiting to hear your understanding of "my voice" in John 10:27. I think you will find I am not contradicting John not when you see the true meaning of "my voice".

JAL said:
Thirdly, as I warned you earlier, if you're going to keep discussing voice, please provide clear definitions, for example does it include voices heard in a dream.

Sure, God spoke audibly to people in dreams and visions. But note there was never any doubt God spoke, so these were not like dreams we have every night.

JAL said:
Calvin called it a feeling of certainty given by the operation of the Holy Spirit. And?

But certainty of what? Your own ideas and opinions? I suggest you read Calvin's explanation again.

JAL said:
You are flatly contradicting what Calvin taught.

Calvin made no mention of 'opinions'.

JAL said:
What Calvin said. A feeling of certainty, first and foremost, triggering the conversion dynamic via conscience:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil (i.e. rejecting the gospel), and B is good (i.e. accepting it), I should opt for B".

Calvin said nothing of the sort.

JAL said:
First and foremost, the function of the divine Voice indicated over the last 140 posts is a God-given imposition of feelings of certainty.

Show me in scripture where God's metaphorical 'voice' is described as "a feeling of certainty".

JAL said:
Scripture cannot bring someone to salvation.

Romans 10:17 disagrees with you.

JAL said:
As Calvin held, we need a vision of God to replace our conceptual idolatry. This is Direct Revelation.

Where did Calvin say that?

JAL said:
When Calvin formulated the doctrine of the Inward Witness it was in answer to the question, how can we reliably and unfailingly identify the true religion and sustain saving faith - without slipping in and out of saving faith?

Where did you get that information about Calvin from? Or did you just make it up?

JAL said:
And how many adolescents have mastered Hebrew and Greek, as to be experts in exegesis?

They don't have to be experts in exegesis. They can read plain English.

JAL said:
The claim that people can goto heaven without saving faith is an unsupported assumption that flies in the face of everything that Paul taught.

Try telling that to David when he lost his newborn son, and said he would see him again in heaven.

JAL said:
And how many of them have mastered Hebrew and Greek? Your position doesn't make sense.

What an ludicrous suggestion. Reading and understanding the bible does not require mastery of Hebrew and Greek.

JAL said:
Questions about "words" and "audibility" are not the primary bone of contention here (although I'll likely comment on it since you keep bringing it up). The main bone of contention is whether God can give us feelings of certainty and, once received, are they authoritative. I'd like to think that He HAS that ability, and I've already proven that conscience is authoritative, at least proven in the sense that we cannot imagine any exceptions to that rule.

You are the one continually speaking of 'direct revelation'. But you haven't provided a shred of biblical evidence to back up your claim that it means a "feeling of certainty". Show me an example in scripture of someone receiving a direct revelation via a "feeling of certainty".

I can show you hundreds of examples where direction revelation is given by actual spoken words from God.

swordsman1 · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
"If I feel certain that God is speaking to me, then I do indeed believe that God is speaking to me."

So your belief that God is speaking to you, is based on something completely subjective and unreliable - your feelings.

swordsman1 · Apr 12, 2020

JAL said:
I thought it was pretty obvious that the allusion was to Bible-scholars.

Sola Scriptura culminates in the conclusion that Bible-scholars should rule the church and be financially well-compensated for this work. And who's been pushing this Sola-Scriptura doctrine for the last 2,000 years? You guessed it - Bible scholars !!!

And unfortunately we, as pew members, have been swallowing the lie both hook, line, and sinker.

You hypocrite! You were happy to appeal to Calvin, a bible scholar, when you thought he agreed with you. It's a shame for you he actually didn't. And you appealed to Andrew Murray too if I remember.

JAL · Apr 12, 2020

swordsman1 said:
Romans 10 is nothing to do with visions.

I'm still waiting to hear your understanding of "my voice" in John 10:27. I think you will find I am not contradicting John not when you see the true meaning of "my voice".

Sure, God spoke audibly to people in dreams and visions. But note there was never any doubt God spoke, so these were not like dreams we have every night.

But certainty of what? Your own ideas and opinions? I suggest you read Calvin's explanation again.

Calvin made no mention of 'opinions'.

Calvin said nothing of the sort.

Show me in scripture where God's metaphorical 'voice' is described as "a feeling of certainty".

Romans 10:17 disagrees with you.

Where did Calvin say that?

Where did you get that information about Calvin from? Or did you just make it up?

They don't have to be experts in exegesis. They can read plain English.

Try telling that to David when he lost his newborn son, and said he would see him again in heaven.

What an ludicrous suggestion. Reading and understanding the bible does not require mastery of Hebrew and Greek.

You are the one continually speaking of 'direct revelation'. But you haven't provided a shred of biblical evidence to back up your claim that it means a "feeling of certainty". Show me an example in scripture of someone receiving a direct revelation via a "feeling of certainty".

I can show you hundreds of examples where direction revelation is given by actual spoken words from God.

Insubstantial, tangential, misrepresentational. Nothing solid here. You want so much to impugn my position that you read me superficially and ignore the real thrust of my arguments. I can't believe I even responding to some of this garbage - but I won't respond to all of it.

They don't have to be experts in exegesis. They can read plain English.

Total crap. Their ETERNAL DESTINY DEPENDS on them INFALLIBLY selecting the correct religion, INTERPRETING its documents correctly, and SUSTAINING saving faith in that interpretation. And if they are to MAKE THAT DECISION OBJECTIVELY, they'd better master Arabic as well, because they NEED to determine whether the Koran is the true book of God. The Inward Witness cuts through all that confusion and quagmire. It causes them to feel certain of the true religion thereby sparing them of the need to be Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, and history scholars as to fully research the issue for themselves.

Aside from the Inward Witness, there is obviously no SEAMLESS pathway to salvation.

You are the one continually speaking of 'direct revelation'. But you haven't provided a shred of biblical evidence to back up your claim that it means a "feeling of certainty". I can show you hundreds of examples where direction revelation is given by actual spoken words from God.

(Sigh). Audible words are not contrary to my thesis. For the millionth time, that issue is mrerely tangential, because all the actual spoken words in the world AMOUNT TO NOTHING if unattended with feelings of certainty. If God says to me, "Go preach the gospel in Egypt", those words amount to nothing if they do nothing to help persuade me that I should go to Egypt. He needs to speak to me in such a way that I feel certain that such is the morally expedient course of action. Again, this another total-crap "rebuttal" of my position.

But certainty of what? Your own ideas and opinions? I suggest you read Calvin's explanation again.

Total-crap objection. Certainty of the gospel of course. What possible good would it do for God to make me feel certain of what I already opined, i.e. what I already felt certain about on my own? Look,if you're going to indulge in nonsensical readings of my position, you're wasting my time.

You asked me why I claim that Calvin understood the new birth as a vision of God provided by Direct Revelation. He commented on Heb 11:3,

"Men’s minds therefore are wholly blind, so that they see not the light of nature which shines forth in created things, until being irradiated by God’s Spirit...[whereby] they have a deep conviction fixed in their minds and behold the true God."

Calvin rightly opposed all anti-revelatory attempts to explain away John 16:16, concluding that "Christ wishes to be seen by us" (Calvin’s Commentaries on John 16:16). Likewise Calvin stated of John 14:19 that the Spirit enables believers to always "behold him by a secret beholding of Christ" (ibid).

JAL · Apr 13, 2020

swordsman1 said:
You hypocrite! You were happy to appeal to Calvin, a bible scholar, when you thought he agreed with you. It's a shame for you he actually didn't. And you appealed to Andrew Murray too if I remember.

I absolutely do cite Bible scholars on areas of agreement and fault them in areas of disagreement. I make no bones about it. And? So?

JAL · Apr 13, 2020

swordsman1 said:
So your belief that God is speaking to you, is based on something completely subjective and unreliable - your feelings.

You're saying we should NOT rely on feelings of certainty? Are you counseling me to reject the rule:

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

????

Bible Highlighter · Apr 13, 2020

JAL said:
You're putting the cart before the horse. You haven't provided any VIABLE ALTERNATIVE to revelatory epistemology. What I mean, I already ruled out Sola Scriptura as internally self-contradictory (at post 101 for example), and neither you nor anyone else has resolved those allegations.

So if you want to plausibly disdain Direct Revelation, please provide a different epistemology as an alternative. You don't have one. Period.

Well, I am not discounting that men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, or they were inspired by the Spirit to write what they did. If such did not happen, we would not have the Bible we do today. But you have to prove that men are still speaking and writing new authoritative level of communications that needs to be added to the back of our Holy Bibles as if they should be the 67th book, 68th book, the 69th book, etc.

But if they were to do so, then what about the Revelation 22:18 warning about not adding any words to the prophecy of this book?

I believe Revelation 22:18 is referring to the whole Bible and not exclusively Revelation alone because this book ends our Bible. For men of God have tried to add to God's Word in general and they received plagues upon their life from other parts of the Bible (and not Revelation).

Bible Correctors lose Voice
Bible Corrector Loses Voice on Ankerberg Show

Now, the apostle Peter had men healed by his shadow. While I believed that this happened, I believe it was to show the authenticity of the early apostles in that they were true messengers of the Lord.

"And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."
(Mark 16:20).

My point here is that do you still see how God must operate in this way today? Is God still healing by using the shadow like Peter did? While I do not doubt that God can do so, I simply believe God had worked miracles like these to show that the disciples of Jesus were truly were from God.

Seeing we have a complete Bible and it endured persecution from extinction and it has changed lives, etc. it is a book above all books.

Again, you have to have an authoritative Word from God like a voice, feeling, vision, dream, etc. that is on par with the what the big stuff says in Scripture. So far, you have not really offered a new vision, new words of God that come by direct revelation that you can offer. So far, your position is one of silence in the fact that you say that there is more than the Word of God that seems better, but you still got nothin'. This shows the bankruptcy of your own position. Do you have a voice in your head, direct revelation, feeling, new holy words from God that is on par with John 3:16, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and 1 John 5:7 (KJV)?

Is there a way we can test your communications to show that they are truly from God?

Bible Highlighter · Apr 13, 2020

@JAL

The saints at Ephesus were told by Paul that they (believers) were laid upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

Ephesians 2:20 says,
"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"

This means that there are no more apostles or prophets today because Paul was telling the believers at Ephesus that they were laid upon them in that they were like a foundation. If Paul thought that things continued in the way that you suggest, then he would have included the Ephesian believers in that foundation within verse 20.

So the Apostles and Prophets were merely the foundation built upon the foundation of Jesus. “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone;” (Ephesians 2:18-20). We are said to have access by one Spirit unto the Father that is build upon the “foundation” of the apostles and prophets.

Being an apostle is a gift (See 1 Corinthians 12:28-31). The qualifications of being an apostle was to have seen the risen Lord Jesus Christ (See Acts of the Apostles 1:22-26). Paul said he met the qualifications as being an apostle because he had seen the risen Lord. 1 Corinthians 9:1 “…Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Paul called himself the “last prophet.” (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). Paul says that God has set forth the apostles last (1 Corinthians 14:9).

DamianWarS · Apr 13, 2020

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.

Sure but not in conflict with biblical teaching. We may receive revelation like "go here" or "do this" and pretty much should expect this but not stuff like kill your neighbour because he is the anti-christ or God told me Moses was a woman.

Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Similar threads