Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

JAL · Jul 3, 2020

Somehow I keep overlooking your posts. I missed this one too.

CaliforniaJosiah said:
...and thus you are noting the irrelevant; that has NOTHING - absolutely nothing whatsoever - to do with Sola Scriptura.

Again..... yet again....

Sola Scriptura: The Definition:

The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is called in epistemology, as we examine and evaluate the positions (especially doctrines) among us.

Again, you've conveniently narrowed the goal posts, misrepresenting Sola Scriptura for the sake of the debate. And not just you, I've seen it time and again when debating with Sola-Scriptura advocates. As soon as we get into a debate, they conveniently narrow the definition of Sola Scriptura, typically by glossing over the word "Sola". In this case you're bracketing out two crucial points:
(1) Sola Scriptura is the claim that Scripture is the ONLY final authority for both doctrine and practice. That is ONE self-contradictory claim refuted by me in my various responses to you on this thread.
(2) Sola Scriptura is also the (equally ridiculous) claim that Scriptura is God's only avenue of norming. That too, I've soundly refuted in my posts to you.

You are in denial. You've taken the approach, "I have no solid rebuttal so I'll just keep insisting that his arguments are irrelevant."

I'll clarify the relevance even further. What is norming? What's the goal here? Merely a consensus? Look, 100 billion souls are at stake. Therefore a consensus for the mere sake of consensus is inane. What we need is correct doctrine - otherwise our evangelistic strategies might be incorrect and thus partially crippled (which is precisely the case for the last 2,000 years in my opinion). I'd rather have 1% of Christians with correct doctrine than a 100% consensus comprised of lies from hell. K?

Therefore the first question, in evaluating the cogency of Sola Scriptura, is this - was exegesis intended by God as His primary epistemological tool? Does it work? Is it reliable? Those are the sort of questions I've addressed in my posts to you.

Voluminously, you keep repeating your ASSUMPTION (already disproven by me) that a written text is the only conceivable tool for norming. How inane. I gave you at least three clear examples to disprove that, for example I pointed out that angels walk in harmony with God's mind and will in virtue of the (self-authenticating) Voice and thus without recourse to exegesis. And I explained how Moses and Joshua, in virtue of the Voice, led Israel - acting in a solidarity of mindset - up to slaughter 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan. And I explained how ALL of us, as Christians, by that same Voice (the Inward Witness) enjoy a solidarity of mind in regard to the major issues of doctrine (the divinity of Christ, the atonement, the inspiration of Scripture, and so on). That's not just norming - it's not just consensus - it's actually correct doctrine.

Nice try - but your claim that my posts have no relevance here is utterly ridiculous. The best you could argue is the following, you could say:

"If 10 theologians are sitting at a table and, for purposes of this particular discussion, have agreed to look to exegesis alone for norming, then it should probably be an exegesis of Scripture as opposed to some other text. In this context, Direct Revelation is probably irrelevant to the discussion. This would be a Sola Scriptura discussion"

If that's all you're trying to say, I have no quarrel with you. But bear in mind that is NOT the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the claim, for example, that a Voice has no independent authority over us - that biblical exegesis is the only FINAL authority. Meaning, one MUST check it out with Scripture (as opposed to, say, Abraham who obeyed the Voice commanding him to slaughter his son without recourse to Scripture).

Even as Moses spoke face to face with God, taking orders directly from the Voice, the incarnate Christ had that same face-to-face relationship with the Father. Yet if God appeared to a Sola-Scriptura proponent, he would have to say to God (if being consistent), "Your commands have no authority over me if I cannot verify them exegetically, which is a problem if I lack sufficient scholarship for proper exegesis. Too bad."

Utterly ridiculous. Utterly contrary to the biblical paradigm. Hey, I've got an idea. When forming an epistemology, how 'bout we start with something remotely biblical? Have you ever considered THAT idea?

JAL · Jul 3, 2020

@CaliforniaJosiah;

Maybe you're actually still unable to conceive how Direct Revelation could resolve a dispute (despite my numerous examples). Let's consider Pastor Yonggi Cho, arguably the most successful pastor in (post-apostolic) church history. This is a man who built a church to 80,000 strong, then walked away from it per the Voice (so he claims) to start a new one, and built the new one to one million strong, over a period of ten years. According to him, whenever faced with a fork in a road (for example indecisiveness as to whether to target a particular country with missionaries), he would join with his body of elders (i.e. the body of leaders subordinate to him) fasting and praying for Direct Revelation. They continue fasting and praying, he says, until they all get the "assurance" of the Holy Spirit (apparently 100% certainty) on which direction to take. They achieve consensus by Direct Revelation (or so he claims).

You might reply that such is not really a "doctrinal dispute". However recall that Sola Scriptura affects both doctrine and practice - because doctrine affects practice. The two are inextricable. And in my discussions of the Inward Witness, I already conveyed that the Inward Witness provides norming for both doctrine and practice.

Hope this helps.

JAL · Jul 3, 2020

CaliforniaJosiah said:
...and thus you are noting the irrelevant; that has NOTHING - absolutely nothing whatsoever - to do with Sola Scriptura.

Again, the Spirit's influence during conversion is a resolution of dispute. It is norming. This is the point that you are conveniently overlooking. For example, right now I might be debating with you, even as a Christian, on the divinity of Christ, on the efficacy of the atonement, or the integrity of the canon, if it were not for the fact that, at least to a satisfactory extent, the Inward Witness has already resolved those disputes among us. He has provided norming. And, again, this is not an event of the PAST. The Inward Witness testifies to me on these doctrines DAILY. He is my dispute-resolver DAILY, at least on all the major issues. (Obviously I still need more Direct Revelation, for the minor issues).

But why waste my breath? Your position is refuted, you have no solid rebuttal, so you'll just keep responding that Direct Revelation has no bearing on debates over Sola Scriptura and norming!

BobRyan · Jul 3, 2020

HatGuy said:
Here comes a grenade!

But a helpful conversation, I believe.

I've seen many people take issue around these forums with sola scriptura - not just Catholics, but even non-traditional Protestants (for want of a better term).

Something that I've been exploring and that has been hugely helpful is understanding that the "Word of God" is not primarily the same thing as the Bible. The Word of God is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and (of course) you find that in the Bible but difficult parts of the Bible ought to be interpreted through the gospel.

The distinction is helpful (and I would argue, true) for many reasons, but when we're dealing with sola scriptura, I want to quote an article at biblicaltraining.org that talks about Luther's understanding of the "Word of God" and how he used that understanding to form a sola-scriptura outlook, and how he defended that against critics.

"We need to recognize that the notion that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself allowed Luther to respond to the main objections Catholics raised to his doctrine of the authority of Scripture over the Church. They argued that since it was the Church that determined which books to be included in the Canon of Scripture it was clear that the Church had authority over the Bible. Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church. Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."

Full article (for more context and interest) here: Free Online Bible Classes | What was Martin Luther's theology of the Word of God?. It's not a long read.

Well it is most certainly true it was not the Catholic Church.

They did not even exist for over 500 years after Christ.

Notice what is said in Luke 24 -
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

No such thing in the Bible as "lets wait for a Catholic Pope to tell us what is scripture".

Luke 24
32 They said to one another, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”

Luke 24
44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

Acts 17:11 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so

2 Tim 3: 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness

None of it giving credit to the Pope or the RCC ... it is all long before that.

Not one example of "the Pope has not told us what scripture is yet... so we wait..."

2 Peter 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I am going with the Bible on this one.

Fidelibus · Jul 3, 2020

concretecamper said:
I called that one

Yes you did! And still waiting.

Albion · Jul 3, 2020

BobRyan said:
Well it is most certainly true it was not the Catholic Church.

That's true, but I disagree with HatGuy's idea that the word of God is the Gospel and it only. The term (word of God) is used in Scripture in reference to Christ himself and also to Holy Scripture. In addition, the reference is made more times to Scripture than it is made to Christ himself.

And it looks as though the following, which was quoted, doesn't support that theory either:

Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church.

Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."

CaliforniaJosiah · Jul 3, 2020

Josiah said:
See post 204.

Yes, I agree, any person, church, denomination that simply appoints SELF as the infallible one, the authoritative one, the reliable one - is very likely one to avoid.

Josiah said:
See post 204 especially sections "Why Scripture"? and "Why Some Reject this Rule?"

I agree. Scripture is reliable. So, that makes it a good norm. If 10 people/churches/denominations are in disagreement about a dogma, each simply insisting each self is exclusively right has no possiblity of resolving the conflict, the only possibility is an egotistical shouting match of which is the greatest.

.

concretecamper said:
or we could just do as Paul commanded Timothy to do. "Listen to the Church" the "bulwark of truth"

I have a hunch you think "church" means one specific voice (the RCC perhaps?) - which just means you think the best Rule for resolving dispute over dogma is for each party to simply declare "I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong when I myself declare I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong." Of course, if 10 disagreeing parties just SHOUT that at each other, we just have a loud, egotistical shouting match and it's IMPOSSIBLE to resolve anything (except who is the most egotistical and loud). Your approach just eliminates any possibility of norming.... just who is the most egotistical and fearful of accountability.

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Jul 3, 2020

BNR32FAN said:
What your describing here is not exactly sola scriptura

See post 204.

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Jul 3, 2020

JAL said:
(1) Sola Scriptura is the claim that Scripture is the ONLY final authority for both doctrine and practice. That is ONE self-contradictory claim refuted by me in my various responses to you on this thread.
(2) Sola Scriptura is also the (equally ridiculous) claim that Scriptura is God's only avenue of norming.

It would help you enormously if you would actually read post 204.

You are presenting your own strawman.... While presenting no alterantive, nothing MORE objectively, universally knowable and unchangable than Scripture as the rule in norming disputed dogmas, nothing all parties will accept as MORE reliable in this matter than Scripture. You knock down your strawman.... and offer nothing.

What is norming?

Read post 204.

In ALL disciplines, there is the issue of norming.... of evaluating positions and dealing with obvious disputes. My doctorate is in physics.... here our chief rule/canon/norma normans is math. Why math? It's objective and knowable and accepted by all in physics as reliable. In most civilizations, some aspect of the Rule of Law (hopefully) exists; if a cop stops me for speeding... and there is dispute over the issue... the written, objective law will be the rule/canon/norm. We proceed according to the Rule of Law. Now, you can opt for an absolute dictatorship... or for pure lawlessness (anyone can do whatever each views as "right" and "good") but generally, civilized persons disagree with you on those.

you keep repeating your ASSUMPTION (already disproven by me) that a written text is the only conceivable tool for norming. How inane.

Read post #204, the section "Why Scripture?"

I never stated, "the only conceivable tool." One could use the book "The Wizard of Oz" for this, I just think the Bible is a better choice. We might disagree.

I've asked you, WHAT is (in your opinion) MORE objectively and universally knowable to all parties in dispute than the black-and-white words of Scripture? But you won't answer. I keep asking you, WHAT is (in your opinion) viewed by all parties in dispute as more reliable in matters of dogma than the black-and-white words in Scripture. But you won't answer.

I explained how ALL of us, as Christians, by that same Voice (the Inward Witness) enjoy a solidarity of mind

You perhaps don't get out much.... and don't read anything at this website....

You need to read Christian history.... You need to read the Bible (MUCH of it to correct the wrong, so wrong must at least then existed).

Much of Jesus' ministry was correcting wrong. Over and over and over again, He quoted SCRIPTURE. Never once did Jesus say, "Hey, if you happen to personally FEEL in yourself that you yourself are right, then you must be right."

.

.

concretecamper · Jul 3, 2020

CaliforniaJosiah said:
I have a hunch you think "church" means one specific voice (the RCC perhaps?)

doesnt matter what I think. The point is Paul told Timothy to listen to THE Church. It is obvious there is only one. It is up to us to find "the pearl of great price".

CaliforniaJosiah said:
which just means you think the best Rule for resolving dispute over dogma is for each party to simply declare "I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong when I myself declare I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong

I think you are wrong ^_^

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Of course, if 10 disagreeing parties just SHOUT that at each other, we just have a loud, egotistical shouting match and it's IMPOSSIBLE to resolve anything (except who is the most egotistical and loud)

there is ONE truth. I am not afraid to say it. So yes, everyone but 1 IS WRONG.

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Your approach just eliminates any possibility of norming.... just who is the most egotistical and fearful of accountability.

nope, again, everyone but 1 is wrong. Salvation of souls are at stake. And Henry VIII, White, or Smith cannot save them.

CaliforniaJosiah · Jul 3, 2020

concretecamper said:
Salvation of souls are at stake. And Henry VIII, White, or Smith cannot save them.

Or any other single church/denomination/person who simply exempts self from accountability, who simply (and egotistically) SHOUTS, "I'm right cuz I'm right so I'm right when I say I'm right so there." Frankly, I don't care if that one is Joseph Smith or Pope Francis or Billy Graham or the Catholic Church or the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church or you or me. Just because one person/church/denomination/cult has the ego (and fear) to shout this doesn't make them right and does NOTHING to determine truth. You seem to recognize this when it's a loud mouth you personally don't agree with but.... GOD can say "Just swallow what I'M saying" but no person/church/denomination/cult (including the church you or I belong to) has that right (although perhaps the ego to pretend so, elevating self to godhood and violating the First Commandment).

.

JAL · Jul 3, 2020

CaliforniaJosiah said:
It would help you enormously if you would actually read post 204.

You are presenting your own strawman.... While presenting no alterantive, nothing MORE objectively, universally knowable and unchangable than Scripture as the rule in norming disputed dogmas, nothing all parties will accept as MORE reliable in this matter than Scripture. You knock down your strawman.... and offer nothing.

Um...I've discredited the entire notion that God's intended epistemology was Bible scholarship, and thereby discredited the Sola Scriptura mentality.

nothing all parties will accept

Um...do your homework. All parties have already accepted. Evangelicals already HAVE accepted the Inward Witness. (You're the odd man out here). All I've done is elucidate the implications of the Inward Witness with respect to norming.

In ALL disciplines, there is the issue of norming.... of evaluating positions and dealing with obvious disputes.

(1) In all these disciplines, is there no margin for error? Is the eternal welfare of 100 billion souls seriously at stake, in these disciplines?
(2) Why do you PERSIST in ignoring a Direct-Revelation pursuit of norming - all the examples I gave you? Maybe because those examples refute your assumption that exegesis is the only conceivable norming? And exegesis has proven to be a disaster at norming!

My doctorate is in physics.... here our chief rule/canon/norma normans is math. Why math? It's objective and knowable and accepted by all in physics as reliable.

And using the analogy of math and physics as a precedent for religion is a silly error. Maybe try taking a philosphy 101 class? You'll soon find out that theology and philosophy are both inextricably intertwined and, more to the point, NEITHER of those two disciplines lend themselves to the sort of empirically verifiable, virtually indisputable conclusions and methodologies characteristic of math and physics. That's why need Direct Revelation. Scholarship won't suffice. I already cited Jesus on this point:

"At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

That statement UTTERLY REFUTES your epistemology. The Bible scholars of Christ's day were saturated with misunderstandings and false teachings. You really don't understand Paul's conversion at all. It wasn't merely a transition to faith in Christ. It was more profoundly a transition from the Sola-Scriptura (scholarship) methodology to the Direct-Revelation epistemology - and he never looked back. Look what he says in 1Corinthians:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."

Paul's not finished yet. He picks up the theme of wisdom again in chapter 2. Notice that, like the above citation of Christ's words, Paul confirms that this wisdom remains hidden until Direct Revelation:

"Among the mature, however, we speak a message of wisdom—but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of the mysterious and hidden wisdom of God,a which He destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it. For if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9Rather, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him.”b 10But God has revealed it to us by the Spirit."

No eye has seen it. The Bible scholar has eyes - he SEES the text - but overlooks the message! It's hidden from his sight!

I've asked you, WHAT is (in your opinion) MORE objectively and universally knowable to all parties in dispute than the black-and-white words of Scripture? But you won't answer. I keep asking you, WHAT is (in your opinion) viewed by all parties in dispute as more reliable in matters of dogma than the black-and-white words in Scripture. But you won't answer.

Um...the doctrine of the Inward Witness is found in the official catechisms of the Protestant Reformation. Why do you persist in ignoring my answers? BASED on that doctrine, I could ask any evangelical theologian:
(1) Is the Inward Witness reliable? Or does the Holy Spirit fail at His job?
(2) Is exegesis equally reliable? Or do men often make mistakes?

The correct answers seem obvious. Therefore in response to your question:

"WHAT is (in your opinion) MORE objectively and universally knowable to all parties in dispute than the black-and-white words of Scripture?"

I've repeated my answer about 20 times now, you just keep ignoring it. As I predicted you would.

You honestly think God is stupid enough to stake His kingdom on fallible exegesis - on an epistemology guaranteed to fail on account of human fallibility? Apparently you do!

JAL · Jul 3, 2020

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Never once did Jesus say, "Hey, if you happen to personally FEEL in yourself that you yourself are right, then you must be right."

Strawman-words which I explicitly repudiated. At some point such blatant misrepresentation begins to look like dishonest debating.

Glad you brought up Jesus. What epistemology did He endorse? The divine Voice? Or scholarship? For example, I'd like you tell me the name of the seminary that Jesus attended? And tell me which seminary did He recommend for His disciples? Or, rather, did He counsel them to listen to that "silly voice in the night" as you called it?

"I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come. 14He will glorify Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you. 15Everything that belongs to the Father is Mine. That is why I said that the Spirit will take from what is Mine and disclose it to you." (John 16).

Looks like He advocated the Voice. Gee, what a shock. Maybe He's a bit wiser than you Sola-Scriptura zealots?

Much of Jesus' ministry was correcting wrong. Over and over and over again, He quoted SCRIPTURE.

Tainted lenses. This is not entirely your fault, it's the natural result of 500 years of Sola-Scriptura dogma brainwashed into us. (I myself was indoctrinated into Sola Scriptura when I first got saved. That mentality lasted for about one year).

Due to these tainted lenses, a Christian inculcated into Sola Scriptura tends to perceive every utilization of Scripture (such as the Bereans) as indubitable proof of Sola Scriptura. He's too biased to consider any alternatives (and I'm going to point out two alternatives). Consider how Christ utilized Scripture in the following passage:

"I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27And there were many in Israel with leprosy g in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”

He's using Scripture to prove a point, right? So that proves Sola Scriptura epistemology? Let's be serious. Here we see Jesus reaching a conclusion about Eliajah that the Bible scholars around him had overlooked for centuries, and would CONTINUE to overlook if given 1,000 years more study. He penetrated those passages by Direct Revelation!

"I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me." (John 8).

Therefore when you read about the Bereans, for example, don't presume them to have succumbed to the vain effort of trying to penetrate the mysteries of Scripture via scholarship. Chances are they were attempting to read the Scriptures under the Light of the Holy Spirit, that is, in askance of Direct Revelation.

Secondly, understand strategy - the same strategy that I use in these debates. When I quote Scripture, it isn't proof that I endorse Sola Scriptura. I do not. Rather it's just good debating strategy. Since I know that YOU endorse Sola Scriptura, I'm going to use your own verses against you in a debate. Christ did the same. Paul did the same. Don't take it as "proof" that either of them endorsed Sola Scriptura.

CaliforniaJosiah · Jul 3, 2020

JAL said:
All parties have already accepted. Evangelicals already HAVE accepted the Inward Witness.

So, which is it? EVERY Christian who disagrees with another on some dogma have accepted this idea of yours that each is to look into themselves for what God thinks God says OR that "Evangelicals" do?

So, there are Reformed Baptist "Evangelicals." There are "Particular Baptist" Evangelicals. There are "Free Will" Evangelicals - and hundreds of other types of Evangelcals - and none of them agree with all the others on dogma. So, how is your claim that all parties agree with your "look to how each feels" approach?

In all these disciplines, is there no margin for error?

There IS that margin. And it's admitted, which is why accountability is permitted. Yeah, there are those who place themselves equal to or above God... who claim for self that self alone is inerrant and just right cuz self claims self alone is just right so self is right.... but most lack that ego. If you read post 204, you will see that ALL norming proceeds from the acknowledgment that error is possible and that truth exists and matters. If all that matters is if one's ego is sufficiently large to declare that self can't be wrong, then yes, norming is irrelevant. But then you are left with 7.7 billion different versions of "right." I just disagree that each individually gazing just into their navel to find Truth is the best way for all of us to come to an awareness of one truth.

all the examples I gave you?

You haven't shared any.

List any controversy among Christians (any website on church history can give you hundreds). And list for me the ones that were resolved because each one just gazed endlessly into their navel to see how each individually felt was good and right, then BINGO, the problem was solved. Now, I can direct you to church councils, etc., etc., etc. which dealt with issues that threatened to destroy Christianity, and TOGETHER they "searched the Scriptures to see if it is true" as God told us to do, and decided - together - that the Bible supported one position. And thus nearly all (including those that originally felt otherwise) came into compliance. This is how we came to the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, etc. I can't think of ANY controversy EVER in ALL the 2000 years of Christianity that was resolved because those with differing peoples all just gazed into their navel and BINGO every one came to the same view.

You really don't understand Paul's conversion at all.

This topic has nothing to do with conversion. Read post 204.

The correct answers seem obvious. Therefore in response to your question:"WHAT is (in your opinion) MORE objectively and universally knowable to all parties in dispute than the black-and-white words of Scripture?" I've repeated my answer about 20 times now, you just keep ignoring it.

You haven't answered it. You only point to THE most subjective thing possible, THE most non-universal thing possible, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is requested. You just point to yourself, and how you today FEEL is true cuz you just assume however YOU individually happen to feel today MUST of course be right. But then some other person feels the exact opposite but they must be right TOO because they are doing what you claim always leads to the truth - with absolute certainly, always. You don't get out much, do you? Try a study of the cults.... do a bit of study of church history.... maybe just take a peak at General Theology forum here at CF.

.

JAL · Jul 3, 2020

CaliforniaJosiah said:
So, which is it? EVERY Christian who disagrees with another on some dogma have accepted this idea of yours that each is to look into themselves for what God thinks God says OR that "Evangelicals" do?

So, there are Reformed Baptist "Evangelicals." There are "Particular Baptist" Evangelicals. There are "Free Will" Evangelicals - and hundreds of other types of Evangelcals - and none of them agree with all the others on dogma. So, how is your claim that all parties agree with your "look to how each feels" approach?

Not sure of what your objection is here. The foundations of the faith are held in common, for example the inspiration of Scripture. Please desist with the strawman arguments. I never said that the Inward Witness has revealed ALL doctrine to ALL Christians. In fact, I was very explicit to the contrary, numerous times, for example when I pointed out that most of us, including myself, are NOT prophets and thus are generally NOT privy to much revelation outside the fundamentals of the faith.

JAL · Jul 3, 2020

CaliforniaJosiah said:
I just disagree that each individually gazing just into their navel to find Truth is the best way for all of us to come to an awareness of one truth.

Stop telling lies. You do NOT disagree with MY maxim. What you do rather is:
(1) Distort it into something else. Telling lies.
(2) Then claim to disagree with me.
This is also called a strawmen argument.

Here again is the maxim:

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

THAT is the maxim. That is what I understand as the subjective experience of Direct Revelation.

Are you telling me that your advice to us all is to go with option-A? Clearly it is not. So given that we both agree on the maxim, why the intellectual dishonesty of distorting it into caricatures like this:

"I just disagree that each individually gazing just into their navel to find Truth is the best way for all of us to come to an awareness of one truth."

Where does my maxim mention my navel? This is why I have confidence in my position. When people resort to cheap debating tactics for lack of a real rebuttal, my confidence is bolstered. You can change all that - all you have to do is refute my maxim. Yeah, good luck with that.

JAL · Jul 3, 2020

@CaliforniaJosiah;

You do understand that the maxim itself refutes Sola Scriptura, right? It refutes the "Sola" part - the claim that exegesis is the only FINAL authority. Because the maxim itself is authoritative. When it dictates a course of action or cogitation, there is no need to "check it out with Scripture". That's why Abraham obeyed the voice commanding him to slaughter his own son, without recourse to "checking it out with Scripture".

JAL · Jul 3, 2020

CaliforniaJosiah said:
You haven't answered it. You only point to THE most subjective thing possible, THE most non-universal thing possible, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is requested.

Requested by WHOM? YOU are the one requesting, and insisting upon, only one possible kind of answer. You're asking loaded questions tailored to the kind of response that YOU want, instead of addressing the title of this thread - which pertains to the viability of Sola Scriptura as an epistemology. You assume the very things that are in dispute! How convenient! For example you assume that:
(1) that written text is the only possible norming tool
(2) that Direct Revelation is not a viable norming tool.

You don't see how ludricous that is? Your epistemology divests the following parties of even the fundamental doctrines:
(1) Children. No scholarship there. Guess they can't know the Lord.
(2) Mentally handicapped. No scholarship there. Guess they can't know the Lord.
(3) Alzheimers. Well, they may have had saving faith in the past, but I guess they are hellbound now.
(4) The poor. For all those who never owned Bibles due to poverty, I guess they ended up in hell.

In all four cases, the norming of the Inward Witness is the solution!

At what point are you going to fess up and admit that, for purposes of religion, Sola Scriptura is total nonsense!

I don't care how well textbooks succeed in other disciplines. It's not adequate here. Again, if you want to fall back on exegesis as a temporary crutch until you become a prophet, I have no quarrel with you. But Sola Scriptura claims to be more than just a crutch. The "Sola" in Sola Scriptura touts it to be the quintessential epistemology.

BobRyan · Jul 3, 2020

Albion said:
That's true, but I disagree with HatGuy's idea that the word of God is the Gospel and it only. The term (word of God) is used in Scripture in reference to Christ himself and also to Holy Scripture. In addition, the reference is made more times to Scripture than it is made to Christ himself.

And it looks as though the following, which was quoted, doesn't support that theory either:

Certainly it is true that it is more than the 4 gospels -- but I got from his post that he thought Christ was the source... and of course Christ is God and "the spirit of Christ within them" (God the Holy Spirit) is said to be the source in 1 Peter 1

1 Peter 1
10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.

By pointing to Christ as the ultimate author of scripture - via the "Spirit of Christ" (God the Holy Spirit) one points to a source that far precedes the RCC.

But I agree with you that any effort to limit the term "scripture" in the concept of "sola scriptura" to just the 4 gospels, is falling far short of the 66 books of scripture that we actually have.

Hebrews 8 says it was Christ speaking at Sinai.

John 1 says it was Christ who is the YHWH Creator God in Genesis 1 (and of course so also the Father and the Holy Spirit - but John 1 specifically singles out Christ -- God the Son)

Albion · Jul 3, 2020

BobRyan said:
Certainly it is true that it is more than the 4 gospels -- but I got from his post that he thought Christ was the source... and of course Christ is God and "the spirit of Christ within them" (God the Holy Spirit) is said to be the source in 1 Peter 1

Yes, I am sure that was in there somewhere.

However, as I read the post, it appeared that something more than that was intended. I'd be relieved to find that this was not actually the case.

But I agree with you that any effort to limit the term "scripture" in the concept of "sola scriptura" to just the 4 gospels, is falling far short of the 66 books of scripture that we actually have.

Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Junior Member

Facilitator

Similar threads