Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[Bible Highlighter]

You are putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that Scripture is not the written Word of God?

The inward witness is talked about in Scripture. So the inward witness is not something that is some new teaching that is not mentioned in Scripture already.

Where did I say the Bible was wrong or incomplete? The Bible accomplishes the purposes for which it is intended, which does not including being 'my only final authority' as such contradicts conversion vis a vis the Inward Witness.
But saying there is no merit to the argument is not an acceptable way to refute an argument. Don't just assert your position. Argue it.

The inward witness alone does not teach doctrine, correction, and training in righteousness. It is ultimately in God's Word that these things are taught. Obviously a human is needed to read the Bible. Nobody is denying that. But when we say we are not for the Bible alone as our sole authority on spiritual matters of the faith, that means we can add holy words to His good book (and that is not possible).

 

[JAL]

If it was not for Scripture surviving throughout history, we would not know about the gospel today.

What a low view you have of the Holy Spirit. You seem to forget that He inspired the writers and can do this in any generation. Thus if the Bible disappeared from the earth today, He could write another one tomorrow.

This is possible via direct revelation which is the REAL bedrock of the church, not Scripture.

 

[~Zao~]

And all you have to do is provide one exception to the rule. Show me one occasion where, feeling certain that action A is evil and B is good, that A is the morally proper choice.

I already answered that with trust that the father had left more explicate details than was acknowledged. Iow, moot.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

If you try to find me another holy book or set of prophetic spoken words that are more holy than the Bible, or on equal footing in holiness with the Bible, you won't find it. For without the Bible, a person has got nothing.

No other book has more evidences proving that the text itself is divinely inspired by God.

Check out my Blogger article here:
Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

Some say you cannot prove the Bible; I say, "Yes you can." If a person is willing to look at the evidences, it is undeniable. What you got that compares? It is my belief that there is nothing else that compares to God's Holy Word (i.e. the Bible).

I’m curious how you would prove the Bible to a person looking for 100% certainty?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You are putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that Scripture is not the written Word of God?

You gave me the impression that God the Father's words are not Scripture. They are today. They are now a part of God's written Word (the Bible).

 

[~Zao~]

[QUOTE="JAL, post: 74224406, member: 88229”]W...
This is possible via direct revelation which is the REAL bedrock of the church, not Scripture.[/QUOTE]I believe your correct in that as being the key left to Peter. But directly after that Jesus reminded him of his other nature that knew and remembered from whence it came.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@JAL:

The Bible also says,

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).

If the inward heart alone was a trustworthy guide spiritually, then we can go off trusting our heart to let us read the Bible. But we know how disastrous that can be. There are many men who have done evil things according to what they thought was biblical. They let their hearts guide them to destruction. They really did not surrender to God's Word, the Bible, but they surrendered to their inward selves what they wanted to hear. So the ultimate authority spiritually is God's Word and not what our heart thinks.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@JAL

Yes, the Bible can be confirmed by outside evidences, but the ultimate authority spiritually is the Bible and not some other thing.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sola Scriptura ultimately rests in trusting God's Word alone for our faith, morals, salvation, etc. Our minds, hearts, and lives align to what His Word says, and not what we want it to say.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I’m curious how you would prove the Bible to a person looking for 100% certainty?

God ultimately convicts a person of the truth. I am just a vessel and I am nothing in and of myself alone. The evidences for God's Word speak for themselves (You can check out the blogger article I created if you are interested). A person can have 100% certainty if they take that leap of faith by accepting Christ. But the evidences no doubt are undeniable for those who are willing to have ears to hear and eyes to see.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

God ultimately convicts a person of the truth. I am just a vessel and I am nothing in and of myself alone. The evidences for God's Word speak for themselves (You can check out the blogger article I created if you are interested). A person can have 100% certainty if they take that leap of faith by accepting Christ. But the evidences no doubt are undeniable for those who are willing to have ears to hear and eyes to see.

Isn’t taking a leap of faith clearly showing your willing to trust even if your not 100% certain?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What a low view you have of the Holy Spirit. You seem to forget that He inspired the writers and can do this in any generation. Thus if the Bible disappeared from the earth today, He could write another one tomorrow.

This is possible via direct revelation which is the REAL bedrock of the church, not Scripture.

Okay, I apologize about you not thinking that Scripture is not the written Word of God. But I don't think it is correct for you to say something like what you did here. No way do I believe that. I believe that with God, all things are possible. God can one day speak and add new words to Scripture one day. But until then, we have His Word (Scripture) to guide us. What other prophetic words, or holy books do you think we should follow if it is not the Bible alone for our sole authority on spiritual matters?

 

[JAL]

I still think all of this is an unnecessary dichotomy.

Your example is a good example.

In your example you've asserted that (A) the gospel was preached with great anointing. I call up Romans 10:17 which explicitly says the Word of God creates the 'hearing' necessary for faith.

And you severely misunderstand Paul. The prophet Abraham is Paul's principal paradigm of faith in both Romans and Galatians. And in both epistles, Abraham's hearing at Genesis 15:1-6 is his principal example of saving/sanctifying faith. You are right that faith comes by hearing the Word, specifically the kind of hearing-the-Word exemplified for us at Genesis 15:1-6. It was an experience of DIRECT REVELATION:

"Then the Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision" (Gen 15:1).

This is NOT the written Word. There was no written word at that time. Now, at Gal 3, Paul twice refers to this Abrahamic dynamic as 'receiving the Spirit by the hearing of faith' and he severely indicts the Galatians for deemphasizing that principle. Paul is literally insinuating that the degree of success in the church stands or falls on the emphasis of that principle.

Let's be clear. As Calvin noted, verse 6 is citing Abraham's experience at Gen 15 as the exemplar of what it means to receive the Spirit and receive miracles via the hearing of faith (direct revelation). Let's see how the passage illustrates both.

(1) The divine Word came to Abraham. That's an outpouring of the Spirit that arrived AFTER Abraham was already saved. Paul is telling the Galatians. Having begun in the Spirit, are you now matured by human effort? Meaning, having received one outpouring at the time of conversion (when the Spirit first spoke to you as Inward Witness), isn't it obvious that, to mature, you need more hearings/outpourings - more direct revelations?
(2) The reason that direct revelations arrive as outpourings is because when God speaks, he releases an outpouring (the divine Word) - see Isaiah 55:11.
(3) How did miracles apply here? Gal 3:5 implies that his experience at Gen 15 ALSO exemplified miracles-through-hearing. Abraham needed a miracle. His wife was barren and there was no known medical solution at that time. The Voice spoke to him a PROMISE of a child. (Note the emphasis on promises in chapter 3 of Galatians).

That is the paradigm. We are supposed to be prayerfully waiting upon God for direct revelations (signs, signals, promises) and such - which is precisely the function of a prophet and those who are seeking that gift. When the OT saints marched into battle without a sign from God, they were likely to be defeated. The same is true of evangelism today.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Isn’t taking a leap of faith clearly showing your willing to trust even if your not 100% certain?

Okay, I had Indiana Jones in my mind at that moment. So yeah, it's technically not a blind leap of faith. The Bible is based on tons of evidences. These evidences make it obvious that God and His Word are true. If this was not the case, then men could not be punished by God at a Judgment.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

And you severely misunderstand Paul. The prophet Abraham is Paul's principal paradigm of faith in both Romans and Galatians. And in both epistles, Abraham's hearing at Genesis 15:1-6 is his principal example of saving/sanctifying faith. You are right that faith comes by hearing the Word, specifically the kind of hearing-the-Word exemplified for us at Genesis 15:1-6. It was an experience of DIRECT REVELATION:

"Then the Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision" (Gen 15:1).

This is NOT the written Word. There was no written word at that time. Now, at Gal 3, Paul twice refers to this Abrahamic dynamic as 'receiving the Spirit by the hearing of faith' and he severely indicts the Galatians for deemphasizing that principle. Paul is literally insinuating that the degree of success in the church stands or falls on the emphasis of that principle.

Let's be clear. As Calvin noted, verse 6 is citing Abraham's experience at Gen 15 as the exemplar of what it means to receive the Spirit and receive miracles via the hearing of faith (direct revelation). Let's see how the passage illustrates both.

(1) The divine Word came to Abraham. That's an outpouring of the Spirit that arrived AFTER Abraham was already saved. Paul is telling the Galatians. Having begun in the Spirit, are you now matured by human effort? Meaning, having received one outpouring at the time of conversion (when the Spirit first spoke to you as Inward Witness), isn't it obvious that, to mature, you need more hearings/outpourings - more direct revelations?
(2) The reason that direct revelations arrive as outpourings is because when God speaks, he releases an outpouring (the divine Word) - see Isaiah 55:11.
(3) How did miracles apply here? Gal 3:5 implies that his experience at Gen 15 ALSO exemplified miracles-through-hearing. Abraham needed a miracle. His wife was barren and there was no known medical solution at that time. The Voice spoke to him a PROMISE of a child. (Note the emphasis on promises in chapter 3 of Galatians).

That is the paradigm. We are supposed to be prayerfully waiting upon God for direct revelations (signs, signals, promises) and such - which is precisely the function of a prophet and those who are seeking that gift. When the OT saints marched into battle without a sign from God, they were likely to be defeated. The same is true of evangelism today.

But how do we know about this vision?

Scripture.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In short, you cannot undermine the Bible being the sole authority on spiritual matters. It's self defeating. The Bible does not say that we can be made perfect unto all good works by some other means (See: 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Is not living for God (our works) one of the core foundational things of our faith?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Isn’t taking a leap of faith clearly showing your willing to trust even if your not 100% certain?

Also, not sure why you would be arguing against me on evidences that back up the Bible. Should you not be in support of me by such a thing?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, imagine if everyone made the Bible their ultimate authority on spiritual matters. This world would be a far better place to live in if people truly followed the words of Jesus and the words of His followers.

But the moment we start swimming into shark infested waters (uncharted territory) is where the danger lies. For show me a book, or set of holy words that compares with the Holy Bible. You won't find it.

 

[~Zao~]

Isn’t taking a leap of faith clearly showing your willing to trust even if your not 100% certain?

is a leap of faith biblical? is that like putting out a fleece?

 

[~Zao~]

And you severely misunderstand Paul. The prophet Abraham is Paul's principal paradigm of faith in both Romans and Galatians. And in both epistles, Abraham's hearing at Genesis 15:1-6 is his principal example of saving/sanctifying faith. You are right that faith comes by hearing the Word, specifically the kind of hearing-the-Word exemplified for us at Genesis 15:1-6. It was an experience of DIRECT REVELATION:

"Then the Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision" (Gen 15:1).

This is NOT the written Word. There was no written word at that time. Now, at Gal 3, Paul twice refers to this Abrahamic dynamic as 'receiving the Spirit by the hearing of faith' and he severely indicts the Galatians for deemphasizing that principle. Paul is literally insinuating that the degree of success in the church stands or falls on the emphasis of that principle.

Let's be clear. As Calvin noted, verse 6 is citing Abraham's experience at Gen 15 as the exemplar of what it means to receive the Spirit and receive miracles via the hearing of faith (direct revelation). Let's see how the passage illustrates both.

(1) The divine Word came to Abraham. That's an outpouring of the Spirit that arrived AFTER Abraham was already saved. Paul is telling the Galatians. Having begun in the Spirit, are you now matured by human effort? Meaning, having received one outpouring at the time of conversion (when the Spirit first spoke to you as Inward Witness), isn't it obvious that, to mature, you need more hearings/outpourings - more direct revelations?
(2) The reason that direct revelations arrive as outpourings is because when God speaks, he releases an outpouring (the divine Word) - see Isaiah 55:11.
(3) How did miracles apply here? Gal 3:5 implies that his experience at Gen 15 ALSO exemplified miracles-through-hearing. Abraham needed a miracle. His wife was barren and there was no known medical solution at that time. The Voice spoke to him a PROMISE of a child. (Note the emphasis on promises in chapter 3 of Galatians).

That is the paradigm. We are supposed to be prayerfully waiting upon God for direct revelations (signs, signals, promises) and such - which is precisely the function of a prophet and those who are seeking that gift. When the OT saints marched into battle without a sign from God, they were likely to be defeated. The same is true of evangelism today.

But what is the evangelism? into the sons of Abraham?