Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

JAL · Apr 15, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
John 12:48 is above your maxim.

Can't hear you because actions speak louder than words.

JAL · Apr 15, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Insults are not become of the saints.

That's not an insult. I actually assumed that you were not so arrogant as to place yourself on a par with Abraham or Moses. I had given you the benefit of the doubt.

JAL · Apr 15, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
That is like saying that we need to build an Ark because God told Noah to build one. I am talking today and not in the past. The Bible did not exist back then. Revelation is progressive. We have something that Abraham never had. A complete Bible. There is precious treasure in the Bible, but apparently your missing it.

I see no cogent connection between your analogy and what I said. Paul said we are saved by the same faith as Abraham (See Romans 4 and Galatians 3). He didn't much comment on Noah's Ark, and I fail to see its relevance here.

JAL · Apr 15, 2020

swordsman1 said:
No, "this nation" in Judges 2:20 is Israel at the time of the judges, long after Moses went up the mountain. The covenant they had was in writing in the form of scripture. So the "voice" in this passage is a metaphor for scripture.

One of the written stipulations of the covenant was the admonition to obey the Voice. If God meant "obey written text",He would have stuck with that terminology. Is He trying to confuse us? Sorry, we've been over this already. While I can't prove my position 100%, there is hard evidence for real Voice in Scripture, while your phrase "metaphorical voice" is found NOWHERE in Scripture, it seems to be an oxymoron, it runs contrary to the purpose God created us for (He created us to speak to/fellowship with us), it seems to confuse the distinction between written Word and divine Word, etc.etc., etc. Your theory is problemmatic and just doesn't have much to go on.

By the way, the 10 commandments were not "VOICED to Israel". It doesn't say that. It says "Then God spoke..." (Ex 20:1). There is no mention of speaking to Israel. In Ex 20:18 it says all the people heard was thunder and the trumpet. So presumably it was only Moses who heard God's words.

Nor is the word "voiced" used Ex 20:1. The Hebrew word is ḏab·bêr, to speak.

Exegetical error of fact. You don't believe me? Maybe you'll believe Moses:

"You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. 13He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. 1"

Everytime you make an exegetical error you reinforce the fact that EXEGESIS SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK. As human beings we are all far too fallible to draw conclusions reliably from religious texts. That's why we need the same gift that Paul and the other prophets relied on - Direct Revelation.

JAL · Apr 15, 2020

So much for your theory that God's Voice in the OT was merely written-law-as-metaphorical-voice. I had already warned you a while back that Heb referred to how the "voice shook the earth" in the sense of sonic vibrations shaking Mt. Sinai.

Bible Highlighter · Apr 15, 2020

@JAL

I thought I could make one last ditch effort to reach you on this point with God's Word. Sorry I could not do that. I will leave you to the Lord, and I will let Him correct you.

So I will let him show you the truth of what His word says.

Anyways, blessings be unto you
(even if we disagree strongly on Scripture).
Please stay safe.

With loving kindness to you in Christ.

Sincerely,

~ J.

JAL · Apr 15, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
@JAL

I thought I could make one last ditch effort to reach you on this point with God's Word. Sorry I could not do that. I will leave you to the Lord, and I will let Him correct you. So I will let him show you the truth of what His word says.

Blessings be unto you (even if we disagree strongly on Scripture).
Please stay safe.

With loving kindness to you in Christ.

Sincerely,

~ J.

Too bad you are leaving now. I plan to soon create a summary list of the logical problems facing Sola Scriptura. Of course the main charge is that the maxim itself is authoritative and thus contradicts the idea of Scripture as the only final authority - but there are several other charges. And because my perspective is somewhat unique, you won't likely hear about them from anyone else.

swordsman1 · Apr 15, 2020

JAL said:
One of the written stipulations of the covenant was the admonition to obey the Voice. If God meant "obey written text",He would have stuck with that terminology. Is He trying to confuse us? Sorry, we've been over this already.

I don't know what verse(s) you are referring to but it doesn't have any bearing on Judges 2:20 where the language is quite clear....

Judges 2:20 "So the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers and has not listened to my voice""

"this nation" is the nation of Israel at the time of the judges, long after Moses. God said that this nation has disobeyed the covenant which they had in the Torah. It then describes this act as "not listening to my voice." The Israelites in this verse didn't hear any literal audible voice, so "voice" here is a metaphor for the written covenant.

I have shown you 20 other such verses where God's "voice" is not referring to his literal audible voice, but is referring to scripture.

Now you have claimed that "my voice" in John 10:27 "my sheep hear my voice" is not a literal audible voice that believers hear, but rather a metaphor for 'impressions on the mind'. Now you just have to prove it. Where in in scripture is God's "voice" described as an 'impression on the mind'? Chapter and verse please.

There is none, is there? So "my voice" here is clearly a reference Jesus's words in scripture, just as God's "voice" is a metaphor for God's words in scripture in the OT.

JAL said:
while your phrase "metaphorical voice" is found NOWHERE in Scripture, it seems to be an oxymoron, it runs contrary to the purpose God created us for (He created us to speak to/fellowship with us), it seems to confuse the distinction between written Word and divine Word, etc.etc., etc. Your theory is problemmatic and just doesn't have much to go on.

You are clearly confused by the word 'metaphorical". It is the adjective form of the word metaphor. You do know what a metaphor is, don't you?

JAL said:
Exegetical error of fact. You don't believe me? Maybe you'll believe Moses:

"You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. 13He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. 1"

Everytime you make an exegetical error you reinforce the fact that EXEGESIS SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK. As human beings we are all far too fallible to draw conclusions reliably from religious texts. That's why we need the same gift that Paul and the other prophets relied on - Direct Revelation.

You told me to look in Exodus 20 where you said the 10 commandments were described as being "VOICED to Israel". You were wrong.

JAL · Apr 16, 2020

swordsman1 said:
Now you have claimed that "my voice" in John 10:27 "my sheep hear my voice" is not a literal audible voice that believers hear, but rather a metaphor for 'impressions on the mind'. Now you just have to prove it. Where in in scripture is God's "voice" described as an 'impression on the mind'? Chapter and verse please.

Blatant misrepresentation. Typical distortion of my position. What is a voice - even a human voice? It is words/breath sonically leaving the mouth. Based on Isaiah 55:11, I clearly defined God's voice as the divine Word sonically leaving God's mouth. I clearly repudiated any notion of a metaphorical voice. OF COURSE it makes an impression. Tell me, what kind of voice heard does NOT make an impression? The fact that it makes impressions isn't grounds for you to reduce my view of a literal, mountain-shaking sonic Voice to YOUR metaphorical nonsense. You keep re-resurrecting your silly strawman rebuttals everytime you want to save face.

I don't know what verse(s) you are referring to but it doesn't have any bearing on Judges 2:20 where the language is quite clear....

Yes the language is quite clear. God chose to use a term 'voice' represented 500 times sonically in the OT. He consistently uses a term 'obey' that means 'hearken unto a sonic voice'. He couldn't make it any more clear if He tried.

Judges 2:20 "So the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers and has not listened to my voice""

"this nation" is the nation of Israel at the time of the judges, long after Moses. God said that this nation has disobeyed the covenant which they had in the Torah. It then describes this act as "not listening to my voice." The Israelites in this verse didn't hear any literal audible voice, so "voice" here is a metaphor for the written covenant.

You're way off. In multiple posts we discussed Galatians 3. Paul kept stressing that Abraham had no written law - he had no 'written metaphor for God's voice' to use your terminology - and thus HAD to be led by the hearing of faith. The nature of the covenant was Voice-based (otherwise known as fellowship with the Living God). Paul ALSO stated in Gal 3 that the Abrahamic covenat was INVIOLABLE - he said it remained in force because the law (properly understood) never contradicted it. The continuity is obvious - the 10 commandments HAD to be a Voice-based covenant to function as an ongoing administration of the Abrahamic Voice-covenant. Now you're asking me to throw 1,000 years of Voice-continuity out the window for some wild speculation about a 'metaphorical voice'.

"this nation" is the nation of Israel at the time of the judges, long after Moses. God said that this nation has disobeyed the covenant which they had in the Torah. It then describes this act as "not listening to my voice." The Israelites in this verse didn't hear any literal audible voice, so "voice" here is a metaphor for the written covenant.

Sorry, voice is not a metaphor for voice, that's not how metaphors work. Moses defined the original 10 commandments as a Voice-covenant in the passage I cited. Here it is again:

"You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. 13He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. 1"

That's a voice-based covenant regardless of whether it was subsequently facsimilied onto stone-tablets. Not only that, but the law repeatedly enjoined ongoing fidelity to the Voice. You said much time had passed unto the verse in Judges but, tell me, during all that time, when was Israel told to DISCONTINUE obedience to the Voice? To trade it in for nothing more than the printed page? It's true that the later legalistic Jews imprisoned themselves under written law, but that's precisely the sort of error that Jesus came to correct. Like the prophet Abraham, Jesus listened to His Father's voice.

I have shown you 20 other such verses where God's "voice" is not referring to his literal audible voice, but is referring to scripture.

No you've shown 20 instances of wild speculation that fail to explain why God would consistently use sonic terms to describe a text-based covenant.

You told me to look in Exodus 20 where you said the 10 commandments were described as being "VOICED to Israel". You were wrong.

Yeah sure. YOUR claim - while admitting that the Hebrew word there means "to speak" - is that the words weren't voiced. Huh? I'd love for you to explain to me how spoken words do not count as voice. You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

JAL · Apr 16, 2020

And let's be clear. When Jesus said His sheep listen to His voice, He made this statement which, by all accounts, was pre-crucifixional and thus in OT times (although I personally accept no relevant distinctions between OT and NT administrations). That's just another reinforcement of the Voice-continuity. It SUMMARIZES His administration for all the OT saints (ALL of the sheep), at least from Genesis to the cross.

You're trying to claim DISCONTINUITY - you're claiming that most sheep were privy to 'metaphorical voice' but a few were privileged to a real sonic voice. Since when is God a respecter of persons? In my view, the privileges of the prophets are for all men, if we all seek God's face with equal diligence.

swordsman1 · Apr 16, 2020

JAL said:
Blatant misrepresentation. Typical distortion of my position. What is a voice - even a human voice? It is words/breath sonically leaving the mouth. Based on Isaiah 55:11, I clearly defined God's voice as the divine Word sonically leaving God's mouth. I clearly repudiated any notion of a metaphorical voice. OF COURSE it makes an impression. Tell me, what kind of voice heard does NOT make an impression? The fact that it makes impressions isn't grounds for you to reduce my view of a literal, mountain-shaking sonic Voice to YOUR metaphorical nonsense. You keep re-resurrecting your silly strawman rebuttals everytime you want to save face.

Yes the language is quite clear. God chose to use a term 'voice' represented 500 times sonically in the OT. He consistently uses a term 'obey' that means 'hearken unto a sonic voice'. He couldn't make it any more clear if He tried.

You're way off. In multiple posts we discussed Galatians 3. Paul kept stressing that Abraham had no written law - he had no 'written metaphor for God's voice' to use your terminology - and thus HAD to be led by the hearing of faith. The nature of the covenant was Voice-based (otherwise known as fellowship with the Living God). Paul ALSO stated in Gal 3 that the Abrahamic covenat was INVIOLABLE - he said it remained in force because the law (properly understood) never contradicted it. The continuity is obvious - the 10 commandments HAD to be a Voice-based covenant to function as an ongoing administration of the Abrahamic Voice-covenant. Now you're asking me to throw 1,000 years of Voice-continuity out the window for some wild speculation about a 'metaphorical voice'.

Sorry, voice is not a metaphor for voice, that's not how metaphors work. Moses defined the original 10 commandments as a Voice-covenant in the passage I cited. Here it is again:

"You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. 13He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. 1"

That's a voice-based covenant regardless of whether it was subsequently facsimilied onto stone-tablets. Not only that, but the law repeatedly enjoined ongoing fidelity to the Voice. You said much time had passed unto the verse in Judges but, tell me, during all that time, when was Israel told to DISCONTINUE obedience to the Voice? To trade it in for nothing more than the printed page? It's true that the later legalistic Jews imprisoned themselves under written law, but that's precisely the sort of error that Jesus came to correct. Like the prophet Abraham, Jesus listened to His Father's voice.

No you've shown 20 instances of wild speculation that fail to explain why God would consistently use sonic terms to describe a text-based covenant.

Yeah sure. YOUR claim - while admitting that the Hebrew word there means "to speak" - is that the words weren't voiced. Huh? I'd love for you to explain to me how spoken words do not count as voice. You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

Rubbish, you are full of lies. I am not misrepresenting you at all. You said "my voice" in "my sheep hear my voice" is an impression on the mind. In post #333 I asked you what your understanding of "my voice" in John 10:37. And in post #339 you replied, "So, generally, I'd say that God's voice consists of any real-time impression more or less distinct ("loud and clear") that He imposes on the mind via His direct agency." Have you changed you mind yet again?

So are you now saying that "my voice" that believers hear is Jesus's literal audible voice?

Actually don't bother answering my questions, because I know I won't get a straight answer.

It's a waste of my time trying to debate with you.

You blatantly lie. You refuse to give straight answers to our questions. You obfuscate at every turn to make it impossible to understand your reasoning. You employ countless logical and exegetical fallacies. You are inconsistent. You are continually sarcastic, rude and insulting. Is it any surprise that nobody is persuaded by your arguments?

Sorry I have bigger fish to fry than to waste my time on a stubburn lone crusader armchair theologian with bizarre theories that no scholars agree with.

JAL · Apr 16, 2020

swordsman1 said:
Rubbish, you are full of lies. I am not misrepresenting you at all. You said "my voice" in "my sheep hear my voice" is an impression on the mind. In post #333 I asked you what your understanding of "my voice" in John 10:37. And in post #339 you replied, "So, generally, I'd say that God's voice consists of any real-time impression more or less distinct ("loud and clear") that He imposes on the mind via His direct agency." Have you changed you mind yet again?

For the millionth time, on a thread that is less than a 15-volume systematic theology, any given post can only expose particular FACETS of my position. For the millionth time, one FACET of God's voice (the subjective facet) is a subjective impression on the mind. How can there be a subjective facet if there is no objective cause stimulating it? Do you not understand the difference between the subjective and the objective? You've deliberately chosen to read my posts in the most obtuse ways in your strawmen efforts to impugn my conclusions. You're not fooling anyone.

JAL · Apr 16, 2020

@swordsman1 and @All:

This post will serve as a summary list of the seemingly insurmountable objections facing Sola Scriptura.

(1) There are no conceivable exceptions to the following maxim. (I prefer to call it the rule of conscience, but the exact naming of it isn’t a vital issue).

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

This maxim is a final authority in the sense that it both can and does properly dictate all our behavior, thereby contradicting the view of Scripture as the ONLY final authority. The maxim is tautological because it defines justice. God would be unjust to dishonor this maxim because perfect justice evaluates men on whether they did what is right to the best of their knowledge, which is precisely what the maxim means. Interestingly Rom chap. 14 seems to be a verbose articulation of the maxim. It implies that the final court of appeals on moral issues is whether the individual either "has doubts" (vs 23), on the one hand, or feels "fully convinced" (vs. 5), on the other. Parallel to Romans 14 is 1Cor 8:1-13 which actually mentions the word conscience several times.

(2) The biblical incidents of God speaking to men presuppose the maxim. Righteous men obeyed the Voice (even when it commanded them to slaughter entire nations) because it caused them to feel certain that it was the morally right thing to do. In fact Heb 3 and 4 thrice rebuked Israel for initially abstaining from the slaughter, chastising it as disobedience to the Voice. See 1 Sam 15 for a similar example. And when Paul heard the Voice on the road to Damascus, he rightly abandoned 20 years of exegesis-based conclusions, because the Voice caused him to feel certain of the gospel. To summarize, the only viable definition of Direct Revelation is God-given feelings of certainty, because God’s voice is of no use to me if it doesn’t help me feel certain about the authenticity of the message. In fact, such dynamics form the only cogent explanation as to how biblical inspiration enabled the prophets to author the Scriptures.

(3) The Sola Scriptura position logically contradicts conversion. If biblical exegesis is the only appropriate basis for reaching religious conclusions, the prospective convert has no appropriate basis to claim, conclude, or assert that Scripture itself is inspired. The solution is to admit that the maxim defined in point #1 is the basis for conversion, meaning the agnostic converts when he feels certain that accepting the gospel is the morally right thing to do. Arguably the Inward Witness is what causes him to feel certain about the gospel. And this isn’t just an event of the past – he needs this feeling of certainty DAILY to sustain saving faith, he especially needs this help if he is or becomes mentally ill (Alzheimers), or is an adolescent, or has no access to a Bible, and so on. This means that feelings of certainty are authoritative for the duration of the Christian life, contrary to the notion of exegesis as our only authority. In fact, exegesis cannot be the basis for conversion because there was no printing press for 90% of salvation history.

(4) The Sola Scriptura position contradicts illumination. God is supposed to enlighten the human mind. He speaks to us. But the Sola Scriptura party says we should not trust a voice until we “check it out with Scripture.” This creates a logical contradiction. If I already understand Scripture well enough to determine the voice’s harmony or disharmony with it, why do I need the voice to help me understand Scripture? In the biblical view, God’s voice doesn’t need to be tested against Scripture but rather self-authenticates by causing us to feel certain about it.

(5) The Sola Scriptura position ties God’s hands from running the church. Suppose God wants me to do something right now. MUST he wait until I happen to reach that same conclusion exegetically, perhaps after four years of seminary? No. All He needs to do is give me a distinct (“loud and clear”) feeling of certainty that the action is urgently required. A humorous example will illustrate the point. Suppose your vehicle has slipped on an icy road and is about to head over an embankment. God shouts to an angel, ‘Go save that guy!’. The angel says to himself, “I don’t feel certain that was God speaking. I’ll need some time to check it out with Scripture.”

(6) The Sola Scriptura position casts unacceptably dark shadows on God’s character, because it consigns Christians to rely on exegesis – essentially play guessing games – even on life-and-death decisions. For example we are told not to expect a Direct Revelation providing us a feeling of 100% certainty whether dropping a bomb on Hiroshima (which killed 200,000 people) is the morally right thing to do. But far more than that. 100 billion have lived and died since the world began. Here too, we have to play guessing games about the most effective way to reach them with the gospel.

(7) With 100 billion souls at stake, the primacy of Direct Revelation is the correct stance. Even if I’m wrong about this theory, I’m still right about it. How so? Because with so much at stake, I need to feel 100% certain about whether I’m right or wrong about the theory, in order to conduct evangelism responsibly. Exegesis is a fallible science that cannot hope to achieve 100% certainty. The pursuit of Direct Revelation is thus the correct stance no matter which religion turns out to be the true one, and thus does not need any biblical support to establish itself as correct. Paul placed superlative emphasis on Direct Revelation when he commanded, ‘Eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy” (1Cor 14:1). In fact the NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180), for only an irresponsible/negligent God would entrust the evangelism of 100 billion souls to humanly fallible approaches.

(8) It would be irresponsible/negligent of God to confine us to religious documents tainted by man-made opinions. And yet that is precisely what Sola Scriptura entails. In order to learn Greek and Hebrew, for example, I have to learn it from a man-made Lexicon. As the efficacious Voice of God, only Direct Revelation can hope to achieve full insulation from the opinions of men. Here’s another example of the man-made taint. Exegesis is an application of human reason and human scholarship in an effort to construct proofs of what the biblical text does or does not say. All proofs, however, are built on top of assumptions that, in turn, need to be proven. This leads to an infinite regress of unproven assumptions. The only way to break out of this infinite loop is to provisionally stipulate some man-made presumptions hoping the readers will concur. And that is precisely how all exegesis proceeds.

(9) The Sola Scriptura party prioritizes scholarship over the Voice, contrary to human purpose. God did not create us out of a need for Bible scholars. He created us to fellowship with us – to speak with us.

(10) Jesus made it clear that exegesis is an inferior revelator of truth. How so? If exegesis were superior to Direct Revelation, then Bible scholars would unfold all the mysteries of Scripture while leaving the prophets stranded in cognitive darkness by comparison. This is an exact reversal of the actual state of affairs. Jesus put it like this:

“Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned [the bible scholars], and revealed them unto babes.”

Christ’s words are far more than just an abstract advisory – it was His actual experience. By virtue of Direct Revelation, Christ’s understanding of the Scriptures utterly dwarfed that of the Sola Scriptura parties of His day (the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the teachers of the law).

- “Revealed them unto babes.” A babe accepts a message from his father because he feels certain about his father’s voice, not because he is scholarly enough to evaluate the veracity of the message, or “test it against Scripture”.

(11) There is no clear evidence for the primacy of “testing it against Scripture”. For example there is no proof that the Bereans examined the Scriptures without recourse to the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation). And the argument based on 2 Tim 3:16-17 is saddled with difficulties. For example it says “profitable” rather than sufficient. It is directed to a “man of God” (Timothy) which is a phrase strongly intimating prophethood. And it’s not even clear in what sense “profitable” – in my view Scripture is profitable precisely in the sense of pointing to us toward Direct Revelation. On the contrary, the “testing of the spirits” simply involves checking whether they agree or disagree with things taught by the Spirit via the Voice of Direct Revelation – that is the upshot of passages such as John 16:12-15 and 1John 2:20-22 and 1John 2:26-28. Note there is no mention of biblical exegesis in these passages, as the test. Only the anointing is mentioned.

(12) Paul’s definition of a church (and note that all subsequent definitions are man-made) envisions a church charismatically governed by recipients of Direct Revelation:

“God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues” (1 Cor 12).

(13) The inability of exegesis to provide 100% certainty casts yet another aspersion on God’s Fatherly character. If He isn’t willing to provide Direct Revelation to all of us, He is expecting us to perpetually labor in the gospel without hope of ever really being certain that we are propagating the true religion, or even being fully certain that we ourselves are saved. Some Father He is!

(14) A close analysis of the first epistle to the Corinthians strongly suggests an incredibly strict definition of spiritual maturity identifiable only with mature prophets. This epistle is prolific with references to Spirit-inspired speech such as prophecy and ascribes superlative revelation only to the mature, in keeping with Number 12:8-10. I have a thread on this epistle here. Relevant posts on that thread include: Post 7, and Post 33, and Post 46, and Post 47, and post 52, and post 58.

(15) The new birth must be defined as a revelatory vision of Christ, albeit usually not very distinct ("loud and clear") in our immaturity, because the human mind, unable on its own to properly self-conceive a ineffably holy God, would only worship a conceptual idol (viz. the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses who worship the 'God' of their exegesis but it's not the true God). This, said Vincent, is the "new vision of the new man. He sees not only God, but the kingdom of God" (Vincent’s Word Studies on John 3:5) because "the new birth imparts a new vision" (Ibid., on Jn 3:11). Gordon Fee rightly insisted that 2Cor 3:18 ascribes to all believers a direct beholding of Christ in the most literal sense. This is a vision that cannot be exegetically "tested against Scripture" for the reason already stated - the human mind cannot exegetically conceive an ineffably holy God.

(16) Witnessing is biblically defined as impromptu Spirit-inspired speech:"When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, 12for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say" (Luke 12). This flies in the face of the notion that a voice cannot be accepted until we "check it out with Scripture". Instead it confirms that if we feel certain enough about a revelation to proclaim it in good conscience, we can freely do so.

Bible Highlighter · Apr 16, 2020

JAL said:
@swordsman1 and @All:

This post will serve as a summary list of the seemingly insurmountable objections facing Sola Scriptura.

(1) There are no conceivable exceptions to the following maxim. (I prefer to call it the rule of conscience, but the exact naming of it isn’t a vital issue).

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

This maxim is a final authority in the sense that it both can and does properly dictate all our behavior, thereby contradicting the view of Scripture as the ONLY final authority. The maxim is tautological because it defines justice. God would be unjust to dishonor this maxim because perfect justice evaluates men on whether they did what is right to the best of their knowledge, which is precisely what the maxim means.

Well, I was going to leave the thread for good, but seeing you wrote a final argument for your position in a more well thought out way (with numbered points), I decided to answer your post here (in bite sized pieces or replies) this one last time (hopefully).

As you may know: I disagree with the name "Sola Scriptura" but not the teaching. "Sola Scriptura" the teaching is not in conflict with other forms of minor complementary information to the Bible that can guide the believer like a conscience, the wondrous creation revealing God's existence, etc.; The problem is placing these things above what Scripture says. They should all breath in harmony (with God's Word, the Bible being uplifted or glorified).

While I am for the teaching of Sola Scriptura, some (not all) in the Sola Scriptura camp have not really answered me on how the prophets spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost in 2 Peter 1:21. Some (not all) also do not seem to understand that the Holy Ghost can speak through us new words as per Mark 13:11 if we are being martyred. But 1 Peter 1:21 was in the past, and some of their words were to help one day be immortalized in Scripture. Mark 13:11 is not about teaching new doctrine or about how they need to add new words to the Bible. These believers are at the end of their life and are about to die (and no one is there to record what they say to add a new book to the Bible).

The problem with "Prima Scriptura" (Which is undoubtedly your position) is that it opens the door for all sorts of gross and scary errors to rule over one's faith like a defiled conscience (because of a person justifying sin), false visions, false dreams, mystical new age insight, angelic visitations, false miracles (Note: I am not claiming that God cannot do miracles today) with the Bible playing second fiddle or not at all in many cases. In my view: I believe this position takes a more liberal approach with the Scriptures. In this position: Some believe that a person can be saved without even knowing about Jesus and they can be saved by a direct revelation from God (Which you yourself have testified to). This of course violates everything we know about salvation in the New Testament. For in the pages of the New Testament: Nowhere did anyone get saved without Jesus. Those who were of the Old way and were accepted by God also accepted Jesus (like the disciples).

My position is called: "Sola Scriptura + the Anointing to Understand It."
I am thinking of also calling it: "Sola Scriptura + Some Small Tidbits of Extremely Minor Complimentary Secondary Knowledge." (or the short version "Gloria Scriptura" i.e. "Glory to Scripture."). This "Minor Secondary Knowledge" would not include new visions, new dreams, new holy words to add to Scripture, or a new holy book, or the guidance of some new prophet, some new age meditation or practice, near death experience, men's religious traditions, etc. (which "Prima Scriptura" wrongfully makes room for). Such "Minor Knowledge" would include what the teaching of Sola Scriptura already accepts like a conscience (that is not defiled), the witness of creation letting us know about God's existence, speaking words by the Holy Ghost when being martyred, etc.

You said, I quote:

"“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good,
I should opt for B”." Quote by: JAL.

This is your maxim or one of your major points against Sola Scriptura or a complete reliance on the Bible. If so, I beg to differ. A person's sinful life can defile their conscience, and so the conscience cannot be trusted unless one heeds the conviction of the Spirit (Which is talked about in Scripture). For have you never heard of a sociopath before? These are people who have no real moral convictions about anything. Hence, their conscience is defiled. So the conscience is not trustworthy all on it's own as a guide for the faith. In fact, nowhere does the Bible say that faith is a result of the conscience, either. Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Today: This is the Bible. Yes, a conscience being convicted by the Spirit will help a person to accept God's Word, but it is not new words of knowledge being added to the Bible here. A moral choice in choosing God is not like knowing how we must be saved by the gospel according to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

The gospel of our salvation is:

#1. Believing that Christ died for our sins,
#2. Believing He was buried, and
#3. Believing He was risen three days later on our behalf for salvation (According to the Scriptures).

This is the gospel of our salvation according to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The gospel of salvation is not according to the conscience alone or some voice alone. You cannot be saved if you reject the gospel. Atheists can make moral choices, but that does not mean that they are saved if they make some moral choices that benefit their life. The moral choice is not what saves alone, but it is GOD who offers the way of escape through faith in the gospel message.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness;
but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."
(1 Corinthians 1:18).

Yet, you think that one can be saved without hearing about Jesus, and or the cross. But as the Bible says, the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us, it is the power of God.

Bible Highlighter · Apr 16, 2020

JAL said:
(2) The biblical incidents of God speaking to men presuppose the maxim. Righteous men obeyed the Voice (even when it commanded them to slaughter entire nations) because it caused them to feel certain that it was the morally right thing to do. In fact Heb 3 and 4 thrice rebuked Israel for initially abstaining from the slaughter, chastising it as disobedience to the Voice. See 1 Sam 15 for a similar example. And when Paul heard the Voice on the road to Damascus, he rightly abandoned 20 years of exegesis-based conclusions, because the Voice caused him to feel certain of the gospel. To summarize, the only viable definition of Direct Revelation is God-given feelings of certainty, because God’s voice is of no use to me if it doesn’t help me feel certain about the authenticity of the message. In fact, such dynamics form the only cogent explanation as to how biblical inspiration enabled the prophets to author the Scriptures.

Yes, God did speak to OT saints, and the early church believers by His audible voice. But there is no evidence that this audible voice would continue past Revelation (with the warning to not to add to the prophecy of this book - with Revelation now being a part of the end of our Bible).

Here is an illustration again of how I believe God communicates throughout history and how He speaks today:

God speaks only by His Word when it comes to the matters of the faith. All other extremely minor sources of secondary knowledge only seek to give glory to God's Word (the Bible).

Yes, prophets even spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21), and men of God today can be moved to speak words by the Holy Ghost (because they do not know what to say) before they are martyred or killed (Mark 13:11). But there is no evidence in Scripture that these two things are for the building of new Scripture with new doctrine after the close of Revelation within our Bible. A person can think that they have to build an Ark because God told Noah to build one. But we know based on the context that those instructions were only for him because a global flood was coming to destroy that wicked world. The same is true with why God no longer speaks in an audible voice to us today. Prophetically Jesus spoke of this.

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29).

Jesus says it is more blessed to believe without seeing.
Jesus alludes to a time of when men will not see, and yet they will believe. Men will not rely upon their major outward senses like: Sight, and hearing, etc.; For Jesus said is more blessed to not see and yet believe. This tells me there will be a time that God desires for men to be more blessed (Which of course fits if God gives us a complete Bible and ceases to talk to us by an audible voice). Yet, you want some kind of vision or voice, or something that is not as blessed so you can believe. Your not willing that God can change in the way that He communicates to us. I am sure it was hard for many men to accept that Jesus was God in the flesh (or God incarnate). But it was a new way in which God was communicating with men (that was never done before).

Bible Highlighter · Apr 16, 2020

JAL said:
(3) The Sola Scriptura position logically contradicts conversion. If biblical exegesis is the only appropriate basis for reaching religious conclusions, the prospective convert has no appropriate basis to claim, conclude, or assert that Scripture itself is inspired. The solution is to admit that the maxim defined in point #1 is the basis for conversion, meaning the agnostic converts when he feels certain that accepting the gospel is the morally right thing to do. Arguably the Inward Witness is what causes him to feel certain about the gospel. And this isn’t just an event of the past – he needs this feeling of certainty DAILY to sustain saving faith, he especially needs this help if he is or becomes mentally ill (Alzheimers), or is an adolescent, or has no access to a Bible, and so on. This means that feelings of certainty are authoritative for the duration of the Christian life, contrary to the notion of exegesis as our only authority. In fact, exegesis cannot be the basis for conversion because there was no printing press for 90% of salvation history.

Jesus said narrow is the way that leads unto life, and FEW be there that find it. In Matthew 7:23 we learn of how certain believers thought that they were okay with God and they pointed to the works they did in His name, and Jesus told them to depart from Him because He never knew them and they worked iniquity (or sin). So this means that there are many who think they are saved and in reality they are not saved. Scripture of course talks about these kind of believers who are cast out. No doubt they did not think they were not saved. So a person's inward feelings of thinking they are saved does not really stand up to what the Word of God actually says. So the rule of faith cannot be one's feelings that they are saved, but it has to be what the Word of God says.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1).

Seen. The word "seen" is one of the five senses. We cannot go by what we see, hear, or feel. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Faith is not about what you feel, but it is about trusting in what God's Word says. For faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). This is hearing the gospel message in the Bible and hearing and obey the rest of the words in your Bible. Do a keyword search on the word "faith" in the Bible sometime. You will not see this word appeal to the senses, but to placing trust in what God's Word says. Yes, back in the past, God spoke in an audible form, and men had to place their faith in that, but God is progressive in the way He communicates throughout history and today. But feelings alone is not something that is a major factor in our faith in the New Testament or New Covenant teaching. So this point really does not stand on its own (Especially when the Bible talks about how there are believers who are not going to make it).

Bible Highlighter · Apr 16, 2020

JAL said:
(4) The Sola Scriptura position contradicts illumination. God is supposed to enlighten the human mind. He speaks to us. But the Sola Scriptura party says we should not trust a voice until we “check it out with Scripture.” This creates a logical contradiction. If I already understand Scripture well enough to determine the voice’s harmony or disharmony with it, why do I need the voice to help me understand Scripture? In the biblical view, God’s voice doesn’t need to be tested against Scripture but rather self-authenticates by causing us to feel certain about it.

We are told not to believe every spirit but we are to test the spirits to see whether they are of God or not.

1 John 4:1-3 says,

1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

So if you test your voice (that you are hearing) and it will not admit or confirm to you that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, this voice or spirit is of the spirit of antichrist. My guess is that if you were to do this: Your voice would not speak to you any longer or it will attempt to not answer that point. This is the proof even to yourself that there are no more audible voices of God. No prophet today can say that the audible voice that speaks to him or her admits that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. If such a person does say so, they are most likely lying, or they are under the strong influence of a dark spirit that has corrupted their thinking (For the Scriptures cannot be broken - See: John 10:35).

Bible Highlighter · Apr 16, 2020

JAL said:
(5) The Sola Scriptura position ties God’s hands from running the church. Suppose God wants me to do something right now. MUST he wait until I happen to reach that same conclusion exegetically, perhaps after four years of seminary? No. All He needs to do is give me a distinct (“loud and clear”) feeling of certainty that the action is urgently required. A humorous example will illustrate the point. Suppose your vehicle has slipped on an icy road and is about to head over an embankment. God shouts to an angel, ‘Go save that guy!’. The angel says to himself, “I don’t feel certain that was God speaking. I’ll need some time to check it out with Scripture.”

First, your example makes a weak argument. Angels do not have faith like men do. So God commanding angels to do things (by audible words) does not relate to how God communicates with man today who is under the vehicle of faith.

Second, I believe Bible school actually can destroy a person's faith and a believer should avoid going to Bible school at all costs. I believe the proper way for a believer to understand God's Word is by asking God to help show them the understanding on it (When they read it). Now, just because a believer asks God for the understanding on His Word, does not mean they are going to always be given instant understanding when they read it. There are multiple layers to God's Word in even one verse or passage. Also, a believer may not be in complete obedience or they may not have a true heart of obedience towards God, and thus this prevents God from answering their prayer fully. Sometimes a believer needs to keep asking, as well (See: Luke 18:1-8). Sometimes God's timing for us to know something is not in God's timing for us to know it yet.

Three, a Christian is also supposed to study (the Word or the Scriptures) to show themselves approved unto God according to 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV. They are to rightly divide the Word of Truth for themselves, and not be lazy and sit back and let God do all the work. Remember, the Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not (See: Acts of the Apostles 17:11). Meaning, they were more noble because when the bereans (during the time of the early church) heard the spoken Word of God from the apostles, they checked it with the Written Word of God to see if it was true. In other words, they looked to God's Word (Written Word) as their authority and they did not just believe the voice of the apostles.

Four, if men of God do need an answer from God in a challenging life situation, they can ask God in prayer, and then search the Scriptures for an answer. Those who are truly pure of heart, and are faithful to the Lord will answer them by His Word (the Bible). So there is no need for looking to some outward voice, or to seek out a vision, dream, etc. to get the answer. God's Word (the Bible) can provide the answers for our life today. Many men of God can testify to this very fact (Which bears witness against men who have false dreams, false visions, and who hear voices that are not of God).

So in conclusion on this point:

God can certainly talk to His people in their life via His Word (the Bible). They do not need those other things (Which the Bible strongly implies has passed away while we are under the faith - before Christ returns).

Bible Highlighter · Apr 16, 2020

JAL said:
(6) The Sola Scriptura position casts unacceptably dark shadows on God’s character, because it consigns Christians to rely on exegesis – essentially play guessing games – even on life-and-death decisions. For example we are told not to expect a Direct Revelation providing us a feeling of 100% certainty whether dropping a bomb on Hiroshima (which killed 200,000 people) is the morally right thing to do. But far more than that. 100 billion have lived and died since the world began. Here too, we have to play guessing games about the most effective way to reach them with the gospel.

God destroyed the world with a global flood, and God did ask His people to wipe out entire groups of people before. But this was in the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant, believers are told not to take life. Believers are to pray for their enemies, and to do good towards them. They are to love them. So there is no such thing as a believer making a decision today in taking life. This is part of the problem in not understanding that there are two different covenants with each of them having their own unique respective laws or commands. Hebrews 7:12 says the priesthood and the Law has changed. We are under a New Covenant with New Commands. Jesus came not into the world to condemn the world, but to save it (John 3:17).

As for the gospel: Well, we reach men with the gospel by telling them about how Christ died for their sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later on their behalf for salvation (According to the Scriptures). Yes, men of God need to make moral decisions, but if they were to follow their instructions in the New Testament very closely, they will not drop any bombs on anyone, but they will love and do good towards their enemies, and tell them to believe in Jesus for salvation (even while they face death).

Also, the Sola Scriptura position is not just one on exegesis alone, but it does include asking God for the understanding on what His Word says. Many Sola Scriptura Christians believe strongly in praying before they read the Word to help in their understanding of it, and or when they need an answer from God. Sure, the name Sola Scriptura should be re-evaluated, but the teaching does not deny that God can open the eyes of a believer to see things in His Word that they could not have seen otherwise without God's help. Note: This is not an audible voice of God but a moving of the Spirit upon them to awaken their eyes to see something in the Bible that they could not see before.

Anyways, in conclusion on this point: It is not valid because many believers who are Sola Scriptura who believe in Non-Resistance, and who believe that God's Word can be understood by asking God for help (without the hearing of any audible voices).

Side Note:

Touching again upon your statement about the gospel:

Well, you said before a person can be saved without even knowing about Jesus and they can be saved by a direct (general) revelation of God. This is a denial of even the basic version of gospel of salvation in Jesus (that was preached even before the cross). Jesus is the Messiah who saves. He is the promised one. To cut the name of Jesus Christ out of any aspect of salvation (within the New Covenant) is dangerous false teaching.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus;" (1 Timothy 2:5).

"Neither is there salvation in any other:
for there is none other name under heaven given among men,
whereby we must be saved." (Acts of the Apostles 4:12).

JAL · Apr 16, 2020

We've been over this a 100 times. Theologically, you object to the proposed maxim because you dislike the clear refutation of Sola Scriptura. But in actual practice, you LIVE by the maxim! You still have not cited a single scenario in your life where it would be appropriate to depart from the maxim.

Bible Highlighter said:
You said, I quote:

"“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good,
I should opt for B”." Quote by: JAL.

This is your maxim or one of your major points against Sola Scriptura or a complete reliance on the Bible. If so, I beg to differ. A person's sinful life can defile their conscience, and so the conscience cannot be trusted unless one heeds the conviction of the Spirit (Which is talked about in Scripture)....

What conviction by the Spirit? The kind that makes us feel certain about what is morally right or wrong and thereby conforms to the maxim?

...For have you never heard of a sociopath before? These are people who have no real moral convictions about anything. Hence, their conscience is defiled. So the conscience is not trustworthy all on it's own as a guide for the faith. In fact, nowhere does the Bible say that faith is a result of the conscience, either.

Where does the maxim use the word conscience? Are you saying that your advice to the sociopath is to NOT follow the maxim? That would degrade his behavior even further, to the very maximum extent of evil!

Yet, you think that one can be saved without hearing about Jesus, and or the cross. But as the Bible says, the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us, it is the power of God.

Yes, tons of OT saints got saved without knowing the five letters J-e-s-u-s because they knew the same Lord Jesus Christ that we know, via the Inward Witness serving as His voice (John 10:27).

So far, you've done nothing to surmount objection #1.

I'll be working all day, not sure I can come back any time soon. Maybe tomorrow or Saturday. I'll try to pop in now and then if I can.

Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Veteran

Similar threads