Proof for Sola Scriptura - is irrefutable

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Oh the Holy Spirit does and must illuminate the Word and give understanding. The Protestant Reformers all believed this also.
But it's insufficiently clear. Yes that's the sort of language that theologians of all denominations (and religions) will tend to use. Don't put up with it. It makes them sound like experts and earns them fat paychecks in pulpits and seminaries but it's not clear enough to clearly delineate precisely how illumination is supposed to work. They mostly use unclear language in regard to virtually everything, that is, in their definitions of regeneration, sanctification, illumination, inspiration, revelation, the voice of God, conscience, the sinful nature, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and revival - anything that pertains to what it means to walk with God. I don't tolerate nebulous language, and neither should you - but since pew members have been putting up with it for almost 2,000 years, the church isn't making much progress in my opinion. Calvin's definition of the Inward Witness as feelings of certainty is one of the precious few lucid propositions of church history.

Unclear language is a mere pretense of actually taking a definite stance on the issues in question. As long as we rest complacent with it, we remain insufficiently critical of theological systems to evaluate them effectively or decide among them rationally. "I'm not really sure what you just said, Pastor, but it sounded biblical to me, so I'll teach it to my Sunday school class as well."

So let's get clear on this. You used the term 'illuminate'. I'd have to get into my precise definition of consciousness to fully clarify my definition of that term, but I don't want to digress. I will say the following, however. There seems to be only 2 possible choices as to how the Holy Spirit illuminates our mind:
(1) He increases our IQ or, at least, upgrades our skill at scholarly analytics as to improve our exegetical skills. This allows us to figure out the meaning of a particular verse.
(2) He tells us the meaning of a verse and we accept it based on the perceived authority/persuasiveness of the Father's voice (ultimately it stimulates feelings of certainty). Christ's numerous allusions to being taught of the Father would seem to match this paradigm well.

Two problems with theory #1
(A) Even in SECULAR tests, the Christian would now perform better than before.
(B) Those scholars (even unbelievers) who already HAVE top-notch skills in scholarly analytics would uncover all the mysteries of Scripture while even so-called prophets would walk in comparative darkness.

So which theory is correct - 1 or 2? Here's what Jesus said, "I praise you Father who has hidden these [mysteries] from the wise and the learned [the bible scholars], and revealed them unto babes." I'm not saying that scholarship is a bad thing. I'm just pointing out that it is NOT the most effective tool for illumination. We need revelation from God, presumably obtained by praise, worship, prayer, and waiting upon Him to send revival.

Here's one specific example. Take the word 'joy' in Scripture. Do you seriously think you can get real understanding of this term by analyzing the Greek text? You need to FEEL an outpouring of joy from the Lord. Then you'll have a FEELING OF CERTAINTY that you now understand/comprehend the Greek term as used in Scripture. You can call it illumination, or direct revelation, or enlightenment - it all means the same thing.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
stuart lawrence said in post #84:

So God abolished the fact he wants you to love him with all your heart, body, soul mind and strength?

No, for that is part of the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, which has not been abolished. Only its letter has been abolished (Romans 7:6).

stuart lawrence said in post #84:

God abolished the fact he doesn't want you to, take his name in vain, steal, bear false witness, murder, covet, commit adultery?

No, for the New Covenant repeats the ideas of the 1st and 2nd of the 10 commandments of the Old Covenant (Deuteronomy 5:7-10) in such verses as 1 Corinthians 8:4, Mark 12:29-30 and 1 John 5:21. And the idea of the 3rd of the 10 commandments (Deuteronomy 5:11) is amplified in the New Covenant to include our actions and not just our words (Titus 1:16). That is, we can profess the name of the LORD/YHWH, but we do so in vain if we don't obey Jesus Christ and God the Father (Matthew 7:21, Hebrews 5:9, Luke 6:46).

And the idea of the 4th of the 10 commandments of the Old Covenant (Deuteronomy 5:12-15) is amplified in the New Covenant to include every day of a Christian's life in Jesus Christ (Matthew 11:28-30, Hebrews 4:3,10, Luke 9:23). The idea of the 5th of the 10 commandments (Deuteronomy 5:16) is repeated in the New Covenant (Ephesians 6:1-3) and amplified to include honoring every person who's older than us (1 Timothy 5:1-2). The idea of the 6th of the 10 commandments (Deuteronomy 5:17) is repeated in the New Covenant (Revelation 21:8, Galatians 5:21) and amplified to include hatred by itself (1 John 3:15), or unjustified anger by itself, or name-calling by itself (Matthew 5:21-22).

The idea of the 7th of the 10 commandments of the Old Covenant (Deuteronomy 5:18) is repeated in the New Covenant (Galatians 5:19-21) and amplified to include lust by itself (Matthew 5:28). The idea of the 8th of the 10 commandments (Deuteronomy 5:19) is repeated in the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 6:10). The idea of the 9th of the 10 commandments (Deuteronomy 5:20) is repeated in the New Covenant (Matthew 15:19, cf. Revelation 22:15c). The idea of the 10th of the 10 commandments (Deuteronomy 5:21) is repeated in the New Covenant (Luke 12:15, Ephesians 5:5; 1 Corinthians 6:10).

So there's no need to go back to the 10 commandments of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant has all of them covered. Indeed, the New Covenant forbids all manner of sins for those who want to be ultimately saved (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21).

stuart lawrence said in post #84:

Does that mean I am a legalist, denying salvation by faith in Christ alone?

Grace sets Christians free from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 6:14b, John 1:17, Romans 7:6) but not from Jesus Christ's New Covenant law (Galatians 6:2, John 15:10; 1 Corinthians 9:21, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Matthew 26:28), the commandments of which (John 14:15) are those He gave, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37). For while Christians are initially saved by grace, by faith only (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:1-5), and don't have to obey the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law to obtain ultimate salvation (Galatians 2:16, Romans 7:6), they do have to obey Jesus' New Covenant commandments to obtain ultimate salvation (Hebrews 5:9, Matthew 7:21, Romans 2:6-8).

It's by Christians obeying Jesus' New Covenant commandments, whether obeying them currently (1 John 3:24) or during the future Tribulation of Matthew 24 and Revelation chapters 6 to 18 (Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 12:17b), that Christians can be sure they're truly loving Jesus (John 14:21-24; 1 John 5:3) and remaining in His love (John 15:10, John 14:21b,23b, Jude 1:21). Christians must fear ultimately losing their salvation, ultimately being cut off the same as non-Christians, if they don't continue in His goodness (Romans 11:20-22, Luke 12:45-46).

stuart lawrence said in post #84:

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Rom. 3:31

Romans 3:31 means Christians establish the Old Covenant Mosaic law not in its letter, but in its spirit (Romans 7:6), by loving others (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14, Matthew 7:12).
 
  • Winner
Reactions: klutedavid
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
JAL said in post #89:

Conscience is authoritative, for example when Abraham tried to slaughter his own son, or Saul was trying to kill off the Amelekites. Doesn't MATTER if it 'supposedly' contradicts God's written command of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

Note that Abraham lived some 500 years before the 10 commandments were given.

Also, the fact that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering (Genesis 22:2) shows it was possible for God way back in ancient times to accept human sacrifice, just as God would later accept the human sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ on the Cross (John 3:16, Isaiah 53). But nothing says Isaac was a willing sacrifice (Genesis 22:7). For Abraham may have had to bind Isaac to keep him on the altar (Genesis 22:9). And God's subsequently-retracted command to sacrifice Isaac had only been a test of Abraham's obedience to God (Genesis 22:12).

Also way back in ancient times, God could have allowed Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering (Judges 11:31-40) because she was a willing sacrifice (Judges 11:36), just as God allowed the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ on the Cross (John 3:16) because Jesus was a willing sacrifice (John 10:11,17-18, John 15:13). Note also what 2 Kings 3:27 says.

But now, in these days, no one should ever think God would accept them sacrificing their child as a burnt offering, even if their child was a willing sacrifice. For Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross has put an end to all such sacrifices for all time (Hebrews 10:5-18). So now, in these days, after the sacrifice of Jesus, if any people think God is commanding them to sacrifice their child as a burnt offering, it's not God commanding them to do that, but their own insanity, or the devil, who loves to deceive people with lies into committing murder (John 8:44).

JAL said in post #89:

Conscience is authoritative, for example when Abraham tried to slaughter his own son, or Saul was trying to kill off the Amelekites. Doesn't MATTER if it 'supposedly' contradicts God's written command of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

Regarding Saul and the Amalekites, note that it was the breaking of the principle of Deuteronomy 25:17-19 (compare Exodus 17:14) which was the downfall of Saul (1 Samuel 15:2-23).

For under the Old Covenant, murder was forbidden (Deuteronomy 5:17), while killing in a war commanded by God was required (1 Samuel 15:3).

-

But under the New Covenant, which Christians are under (Matthew 26:28, Jeremiah 31:31), Christians are commanded never to harm anyone, even in self-defense (Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:52). They're to be as harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16c). For Christians are commanded to love even their enemies (Matthew 5:44), and this means they must do them no harm (Romans 13:10a, Matthew 7:12).

It's the meek who will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5, Psalms 37:11).

Christians don't employ physical weapons or any other violence against people (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18). Instead, Jesus Christ at His 1st coming set the example for what Christians are to do when they're physically attacked by people (1 Peter 2:19-23). They're to go meekly like sheep to the slaughter (Romans 8:36), just like Jesus did (Isaiah 53:7). Obedient Christians don't fear death (Hebrews 2:15) and don't love their lives unto death (Revelation 12:11b), but hate their lives in this world, so they might retain eternal life (John 12:25, Mark 8:34-38). For obedient Christians know being killed is no loss for them, but gain (Philippians 1:21), as it brings their still-conscious souls into heaven to be with Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:8), which is far better than remaining in this fallen world (Philippians 1:23).

During the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, Christians (not in hiding) will have to face martyrdom with patience and faith to the end (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4, Matthew 24:9-13), just as Christians have always had to spiritually overcome in the face of martyrdom (e.g. Revelation 2:10-11).

JAL said in post #89:

Again, if you had a kid, and told him to clean his room every day of the week (7 days), but he FELT CERTAIN you meant every week day (5 days), you can't punish him (unless you're unjust) because he's acting in good conscience (heeding felt certainty).

Thank God that He doesn't abandon us to our own, faulty conscience (Proverbs 28:26).

Instead, the ability of Christians (although not their choosing) to repent from and confess to God every sin they commit is assured. For if they do commit a sin, even if they're unaware of it, Jesus Christ will send them warning and chastening to make sure they know they've sinned and need to repent (Revelation 3:19, Hebrews 12:6-7, cf. Jeremiah 31:18-19). And He will give them time to repent (Revelation 2:21a). It's only if they wrongly employ their free will to waste the time they're given, and ignore the warning and chastening, and refuse to repent (Revelation 2:21-23, cf. Deuteronomy 21:18-21) until death (1 John 5:16b) or Jesus' future, Second Coming (Luke 12:45-46), that they will ultimately lose their salvation due to unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Galatians 5:19-21).

If Christians become unsure whether or not they've ignored Jesus' warning, and refused to repent from a sin, they need to pray and ask Him to reveal to them if there's any unrepentant sin in their heart (Psalms 139:23-24). And they need to be reading the Bible, every word of it (Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16), over and over again. For it will expose to them any unrepentant sin which still exists in their heart (Hebrews 4:12; 2 Timothy 3:16), so they can repent from it and confess it to God, and be forgiven and perfect before God (2 Timothy 3:17; 1 John 1:9; 2 Corinthians 7:1).

*******

JAL said in post #90:

What is the basis/authority for your acceptance of Scripture?

God's miraculous gift of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8).

*******
JAL said in post #94:

If He WERE doing a comparison, the Counselor (prophetic revelation guiding men into all truth via feelings of certainty) would beat the pants off exegesis 24/7 and twice on Sunday.

Note that it's not either/or, but both/and. For the Counselor (John 16:13) inspired the writing of the Bible (2 Peter 1:20-21).

JAL said in post #94:

If Sola Scriptura is so great, why not just drop a Bible on their heads on Pentecost? Was God incapable? Instead He gave them something much more potent - a prophetic anointing.

Do not in any way discount the potency of God's Word the Bible. For it is the very sword of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 6:17):

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Note that here the Bible serves as a discerner of our conscience, and so it is superior to it (Jeremiah 17:9).

JAL said in post #94:

Sola Scriptura makes God look incompetent, since the printing press appeared only 500 years ago.

Note that the Bible was simply handwritten before the printing press was invented. That's how God's people had the Bible for some 3,000 years before Gutenberg.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Again, my use of the term 'authority' is a terminology perfectly clear to all Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox theologians.

you conflate it with 'method' when you claim exegesis is an 'authority'
you conflate it with "cognition" when you claim the ability to read text and understand what it says is "authority"

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???

when you are given the sola scriptura teaching method of Christ

Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

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, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.

You then ignore "every detail in the text" to post

Except the text doesn't mention the term "epistemological system" nor even the phrase Sola Scriptura. In the speech cited, Christ wasn't doing a theological lecture

That is astounding indifference to the facts in the text itself!!
Facts that the argument against sola-scriptura does not survive!!

Your solution to those irrefutable details is to ..ignore them??

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hi Bible2. Principally I challenged you to answer DIRECTLY one major question - head-on without circumventing its force - and, as expected, you dodged the force of it.

"Again, if you had a kid, and told him to clean his room every day of the week (7 days), but he FELT CERTAIN you meant every week day (5 days), you can't punish him (unless you're unjust) because he's acting in good conscience (heeding felt certainty). Would you give that kid a sound beating?"

Yep. Like everyone else, you are unwilling to answer this question because doing so discredits almost 2,000 years of faulty epistemology rampant in the church. Your pretend-response:

Thank God that He doesn't abandon us to our own, faulty conscience (Proverbs 28:26).
That's the whole point. None of us are omniscient. All of us, except in cases of prophetic revelation, are susceptible to errors in attempting to ascertain God's will from the Bible. Therefore God would be displeased with us continually if He had to evaluate us based on 100% correct exegesis (in fact most people didn't even have Bibles throughout history). So He must, if He is just, evaluate us based on our adherence to conscience - yes, even a FAULTY conscience.


Note that Abraham lived some 500 years before the 10 commandments were given.
Fundamental moral principles don't have start dates and expiration dates, my friend.

Also, the fact that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering (Genesis 22:2) shows it was possible for God way back in ancient times to accept human sacrifice, just as God would later accept the human sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ on the Cross (John 3:16, Isaiah 53). But nothing says Isaac was a willing sacrifice (Genesis 22:7). For Abraham may have had to bind Isaac to keep him on the altar (Genesis 22:9). And God's subsequently-retracted command to sacrifice Isaac had only been a test of Abraham's obedience to God (Genesis 22:12).
Again, basic morality isn't dated. Furthermore the voluntary self-sacrifice of an ADULT (Christ) isn't a warrant or a precedent for an ordinary man beating up his own kids to death, even if they are sufficiently docile to permit it. And it's hardly justification for Moses and Joshua to slaughter seven nations (including their children) - such conquering of Kingdoms was also described as a righteous act in Hebrews 11. Again, the only way to make sense of Abraham's sacrifice (and the Mosaic genocides) is to assume that the divine Voice gave their conscience feelings of certainty - in this case 100% certainty since only an evil man or a psychopath would initiate such violent behavior at less than 100% certainty.

After all, let's assume Abraham had some rationale other than the Voice. It would have to be very compelling to justify the behavior, right? Essentially it would have to ethically DEMAND of him such behavior. Ok but if it were so compelling, then why not follow through? Why did he stop at the last instant? The reason is obvious: The Voice commanded him to stop. Thus the same Voice that gave him a feeling of certainty to initiate the act was now giving him a feeling of certainty to desist. Sorry, but, like it or not, those are the facts.

Also way back in ancient times, God could have allowed Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering (Judges 11:31-40) because she was a willing sacrifice (Judges 11:36), just as God allowed the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ on the Cross (John 3:16) because Jesus was a willing sacrifice (John 10:11,17-18, John 15:13). Note also what 2 Kings 3:27 says.
Again, morality is not dated, and two wrongs don't make a right. Jephthah needed 100% certainty if he was a good man. Since the faith of Hebrews 11 is 100% certainty, it mentions BOTH Abraham AND Jephthah. Otherwise you can't justify beating up your kids to death - not even in ancient times. In John 8, Jesus spoke favorably of Abraham, contrasting him with evil violent men. A man who tries to burn his own kids to death, without 100% certainty, is not a kind man - in ANY generation. In point of fact God condemned nations that sacrificed their children to deities - and trust me, it wasn't merely on account of false deities.

But now, in these days, no one should ever think God would accept them sacrificing their child as a burnt offering, even if their child was a willing sacrifice. For Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross has put an end to all such sacrifices for all time (Hebrews 10:5-18). So now, in these days, after the sacrifice of Jesus, if any people think God is commanding them to sacrifice their child as a burnt offering, it's not God commanding them to do that, but their own insanity, or the devil, who loves to deceive people with lies into committing murder (John 8:44).
As already stated, we still need God to give us 100% certainty (prophetic revelation) on questions such as whether we should drop a bomb on Hiroshima. (God is evil if He has no desire to help us decide such matters). So I categorically reject your assumption that God's way of dealing with men has changed. Yahweh is the same today, yesterday, and forever.

And by the way, your assumption that Abraham had a different morality in virtue of living pre-Mosaic-law is false, because Galatians 3:15-17 says that the law never altered the terms of the Abrahamic covenant. Multi-covenant theology is a superficial reading of Scripture. Any 'new' covenant was just a further deployment and/or rearticulation of the existing Abrahamic covenant.


Regarding Saul and the Amalekites, note that it was the breaking of the principle of Deuteronomy 25:17-19 (compare Exodus 17:14) which was the downfall of Saul (1 Samuel 15:2-23).
The downfall of Saul, as recorded in 1Sam 15, was disobedience to the Voice - which is precisely the dynamic I've been alleging from the getgo. When the Voice gives you a feeling of certainty about God's will, it is BINDING (obligatory).

For under the Old Covenant, murder was forbidden (Deuteronomy 5:17), while killing in a war commanded by God was required (1 Samuel 15:3).
Commanded by God? You're not making any sense. On what basis does a man have the right to conclude that God has commanded him to commit genocide, if not by virtue of a Voice inciting 100% certainty?

Admittedly the human conscience will condone violence when self-defense absolutely demands it, but only an evil man initiates genocide without 100% certainty.


But under the New Covenant, which Christians are under (Matthew 26:28, Jeremiah 31:31), Christians are commanded never to harm anyone, even in self-defense (Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:52). They're to be as harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16c). For Christians are commanded to love even their enemies (Matthew 5:44), and this means they must do them no harm (Romans 13:10a, Matthew 7:12).
Nope. False dichotomy. See John 8 where Abraham was prized for adhering to the same kindness prized today. Yahweh has't changed, my friend.

As the Protestant Reformers held, there is only one Covenant of Grace spanning both testaments (Gal 3). You're not under a different covenant than OT saints, my friend.

God's miraculous gift of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8).
This is the basis/authority for your accceptance of Scripture? Yep. I totallly agree. The Inward Witness, said Calvin, is a feeling of certainy initiating and SUSTAINING saving faith, including:
(1) Your belief that Jesus is God
(2) Your belief that the Bible is inspired
Thanks for acknowledging that feelings of certainty are AUTHORITATIVE (morally obligatory).


It's the meek who will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5, Psalms 37:11).

Christians don't employ physical weapons or any other violence against people (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18). Instead, Jesus Christ at His 1st coming set the example for what Christians are to do when they're physically attacked by people (1 Peter 2:19-23). They're to go meekly like sheep to the slaughter (Romans 8:36), just like Jesus did (Isaiah 53:7). Obedient Christians don't fear death (Hebrews 2:15) and don't love their lives unto death (Revelation 12:11b), but hate their lives in this world, so they might retain eternal life (John 12:25, Mark 8:34-38). For obedient Christians know being killed is no loss for them, but gain (Philippians 1:21), as it brings their still-conscious souls into heaven to be with Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:8), which is far better than remaining in this fallen world (Philippians 1:23).
see above.

During the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, Christians (not in hiding) will have to face martyrdom with patience and faith to the end (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4, Matthew 24:9-13), just as Christians have always had to spiritually overcome in the face of martyrdom (e.g. Revelation 2:10-11).
Um...The same martyrdom was already an OT ethic per Hebrews 11. Yahweh hasn't changed a bit. Or didn't you know that Israel murdered her prophets? Note that God didn't condone such murders just because it was OT times.

Instead, the ability of Christians (although not their choosing) to repent from and confess to God every sin they commit is assured. For if they do commit a sin, even if they're unaware of it, Jesus Christ will send them warning and chastening to make sure they know they've sinned and need to repent (Revelation 3:19, Hebrews 12:6-7, cf. Jeremiah 31:18-19). And He will give them time to repent (Revelation 2:21a). It's only if they wrongly employ their free will to waste the time they're given, and ignore the warning and chastening, and refuse to repent (Revelation 2:21-23, cf. Deuteronomy 21:18-21) until death (1 John 5:16b) or Jesus' future, Second Coming (Luke 12:45-46), that they will ultimately lose their salvation due to unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Galatians 5:19-21).

If Christians become unsure whether or not they've ignored Jesus' warning, and refused to repent from a sin, they need to pray and ask Him to reveal to them if there's any unrepentant sin in their heart (Psalms 139:23-24). And they need to be reading the Bible, every word of it (Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16), over and over again. For it will expose to them any unrepentant sin which still exists in their heart (Hebrews 4:12; 2 Timothy 3:16), so they can repent from it and confess it to God, and be forgiven and perfect before God (2 Timothy 3:17; 1 John 1:9; 2 Corinthians 7:1).
All this talk about sin is irrelevant to the debate until we properly define sin. You showed your unwillingness to do that when you refused to answer the question I gave you about the boy tasked with cleaning his room 7 days a week.
Note that the Bible was simply handwritten before the printing press was invented. That's how God's people had the Bible for some 3,000 years before Gutenberg.
The NT wasn't even canonized until around 250 A.D. And it wasn't until "the late Middle Ages, [that] the production of both religious and secular texts passed to professional copyists. Booksellers placed shops near the universities and to cathedral schools, and so the book trade mushroomed. Of course, most people in the Middle Ages were illiterate, and so picture Bibles full of wonderful illustrations became popular."
How was the Bible distributed before the printing press was invented in 1455?
Unfortunately in that period the Catholic church put a ban on public distribution of the Bible because they believed that only priests were sufficiently educated to perform biblical exegesis. The Reformers changed all all that, but not until 1500 A.D. Until then, 99% of Christians did not have a personal copy of either the OT or the NT. But I already intimated such in earlier posts.

Do not in any way discount the potency of God's Word the Bible. For it is the very sword of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 6:17). Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Note that here the Bible serves as a discerner of our conscience, and so it is superior to it (Jeremiah 17:9).
A common Protestant misconception. You're confusing the written Word with the divine Word. Imagine a group of students running out of a classroom screaming "It's a bomb" when the professor brandishes a history book on World War II. This is silly because the book is only a DESCRIPTION of the bombs, the book is not the explosive power itself. In the same way, the written Word, by virtue of inspiration, is merely an ACCURATE DESCRIPTION of God's power, not the actual power itself (the divine Word).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Hi Bible2. Principally I challenged you to answer DIRECTLY one major question - head-on without circumventing its force - and, as expected, you dodged the force of it.

"Again, if you had a kid, and told him to clean his room every day of the week (7 days), but he FELT CERTAIN you meant every week day (5 days), you can't punish him (unless you're unjust) because he's acting in good conscience (heeding felt certainty). Would you give that kid a sound beating?"

Yep. Like everyone else, you are unwilling to answer this question because doing so discredits almost 2,000 years of faulty epistemology rampant in the church. Your pretend-response:

That's the whole point. None of us are omniscient. All of us, except in cases of prophetic revelation, are susceptible to errors in attempting to ascertain God's will.

So then shall we "trust man made tradition" or the "word of God" given our fallability?

What does God say about it?

study the Bible to find out what Christian doctrine is 2 Tim 3:16

study the Bible to see Jesus' method of teaching in Luke 24 when he directed the Christians "back to the Bible"

Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

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, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye


speaking of "fallible children" these folks in Acts 17 are not even Christian and yet STILL they manage the skills necessary for accurate sola scriptura TESTing of an APOSTLE.

Acts 17
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 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. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
you conflate it with 'method' when you claim exegesis is an 'authority'
you conflate it with "cognition" when you claim the ability to read text and understand what it says is "authority"

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???

when you are given the sola scriptura teaching method of Christ

Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

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, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.

You then ignore "every detail in the text" to post



That is astounding indifference to the facts in the text itself!!
Facts that the argument against sola-scriptura does not survive!!

Your solution to those irrefutable details is to ..ignore them??

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???
Not supposed to notice WHAT? Why do you suppose Jesus was able to explain all these Scriptures to them? Because He went to a better seminary than they did? Because He was more practiced in biblical exegesis? Do you not understand that:
(1) The bible scholars of Christ's day were drawing TOTALLY WRONG CONCLUSIONS?
(2) Christ drew 100% CORRECT CONCLUSIONS by virtue of prophetic revelation?
You're right. Such passages afford irrefutable proof - how mistaken is Sola Scriptura. The difference between exegesis and direct revelation is the following:
- The exegete reads all the books in a seminary library amassing as much information as he can so that he can bring all this knowledge about history, language, and culture to bear on the text in an effort to deduce the meaning of the verse at hand (i.e. make an EDUCATED GUESS).
- In direct revelation, the Father simply TELLS His child the correct meaning of the verses. (This doesn't exempt the child of the responsibility to do some studying as to mentally develop a plethora of theological categories and vocabulary words, because God probably won't speak to you with much theological precision if you're too illiterate to comprehend His words).

Jesus was a carpenter, not a seminary professor, and never even attended seminary. Hence "the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" (John 7:15) meaning that He lacked formal theological training. He didn't make EDUCATED GUESSES on the meanings of the verses, as Bible scholars do.

So stop acting like I'm hiding something. Almost every passage that you cite supports my position.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Again, my use of the term 'authority' is a terminology perfectly clear to all Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox theologians.

you conflate it with 'method' when you claim exegesis is an 'authority'
you conflate it with "cognition" when you claim the ability to read text and understand what it says is "authority"

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???

when you are given the sola scriptura teaching method of Christ

Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

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, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.

You then ignore "every detail in the text" to post

Except the text doesn't mention the term "epistemological system" nor even the phrase Sola Scriptura. In the speech cited, Christ wasn't doing a theological lecture

That is astounding indifference to the facts in the text itself!!
Facts that the argument against sola-scriptura does not survive!!

Your solution to those irrefutable details is to ..ignore them??

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???


Not supposed to notice WHAT?

Makes me suspect that you are not actually reading the posts.

Why do you suppose Jesus was able to explain all these Scriptures to them?

Because they were able to hear and understand basic language..

The "detail" you are quickly glossing over in Luke 24 is that Jesus REMAINS in disguise during that teaching -- and instead of pointing them to emotionalism and feelings and "because I say so" - He remains in disguise and point them to scripture to make the case!!

The very thing you have imagined should not work! It is "sola scriptura" just when "sola feelings" would have worked hands-down because all He had to do was reveal Himself as the resurrected Christ at that moment and they would not even be interested in looking for scripture "proof"!!

And we all know it!!

Incredibly obvious!!

Your "solution" so far has consistently been to NOT look at the details in the text posted when making your argument against "sola scripture" because that is the only way your position holds up in view of the details in those texts.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
you conflate it with 'method' when you claim exegesis is an 'authority'
you conflate it with "cognition" when you claim the ability to read text and understand what it says is "authority" Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???
Any method that you use to reach a conclusion is an authority in your life if you deem it morally binding/obligatory. I thought I was clear on this. Is that really so difficult to understand?

when you are given the sola scriptura teaching method of Christ

Luke 24

"27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

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, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.

You then ignore "every detail in the text" to post
You don't seem to be paying much attention to the verses that you cite. Notice where it says that he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. That's revelation! He was giving them to understand everything that the Bible scholars had missed! Exegesis is no comparison to direct revelation! How does that fail to support my position?


The "detail" you are quickly glossing over in Luke 24 is that Jesus REMAINS in disguise during that teaching -- and instead of pointing them to emotionalism and feelings and "because I say so" - He remains in disguise and point them to scripture to make the case!!
You're in denial about the authoritative nature of direct revelation - and it holds true whether God is an invisible speaker, or speaking through a visible Christ, or through a disguised Christ. For example suppose someone walked up to you claiming to be God. Would you follow him? That would be stupid, wouldn't it? So were the disciples stupid to follow Him? Not if His prophetic anointing was CONVICTING them, giving them a feeling of certainty. The whole RELATIONSHIP of Christ with His disciples doesn't even make sense apart from the authority of conscience/certainty.

Since the whole relationship is BASED on direct revelation, I don't care if you cite me a thousand examples of where Jesus - whether incognito or undisguised - was educating them in the Scriptures. Doesn't change a thing.


The very thing you have imagined should not work! It is "sola scriptura" just when "sola feelings" would have worked hands-down because all He had to do was reveal Himself as the resurrected Christ at that moment and they would not even be interested in looking for scripture "proof"!!
What you fail to understand about my position is that God can use ANYTHING to raise levels of certainty - Scripture, signs and wonders, the Inward Witness. When He takes charge of the process, all of it then counts as PART of the Inward Witness. Whereas, when we self-initiate biblical exegesis, we're merely making educated guesses, and there's no guarantee of success. Two different scenarios.
(1) Christ/God taking charge of educating someone.
(2) Self-initiated biblical exegesis.
The one is fallible, the other infallible (assuming He takes full charge, as there is such a thing as partial revelation)

And we all know it!!

Incredibly obvious!!

Your "solution" so far has consistently been to NOT look at the details in the text posted when making your argument against "sola scripture" because that is the only way your position holds up in view of the details in those texts.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???
All those texts presuppose direct revelation, as I have shown. Biblical exegesis is fallible and thus takes a backseat to direct revelation.
(1) What good would it do the Bereans, for example, to use Scripture as a tool, if the Inward Witness was not, moment by moment, sustaining within them a feeling of certainty that Scripture is God's word? None!
(2) Why do you ASSUME (without proof) that the Berean endeavor was a matter of biblical exegesis? How do you KNOW that they didn't look to the Holy Spirit (the Inward Witness) to EXPLAIN those verses to them? As John said:
"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: klutedavid
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Any method that you use to reach a conclusion is an authority in your life if you deem it morally binding/obligatory.

I think it is good to brush my teeth and use mouthwash as the "method" I use for good breath and health - but it is not morally binding.

I think that exegesis is the most reliable and objective method for accurate Bible understanding but it does not mean it is a "sin" if a 2nd grader reads his/her Bible without it.

Your conflation of "Authority" into every topic mentioned is more than a little confused and is apparent to the objective unbiased reader as such.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

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, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.

You then ignore "every detail in the text" to post
...
The "detail" you are quickly glossing over in Luke 24 is that Jesus REMAINS in disguise during that teaching -- and instead of pointing them to emotionalism and feelings and "because I say so" - He remains in disguise and point them to scripture to make the case!!

The very thing you have imagined should not work! It is "sola scriptura" just when "sola feelings" would have worked hands-down because all He had to do was reveal Himself as the resurrected Christ at that moment and they would not even be interested in looking for scripture "proof"!!

And we all know it!!

Incredibly obvious!!

You don't seem to be paying much attention to the verses that you cite.

Before I read the rest of your post ... and savor the thought that you are going to pay attention to the actual details just pointed out.

Notice where it says that he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. That's revelation! He was giving them to understand everything that the Bible scholars had missed! Exegesis is no comparison to direct revelation

Utter nonsense as all the details you ignored just then would have informed you.

As already pointed out.

1. The "detail" you are quickly (still) glossing over in Luke 24 is that Jesus REMAINS in disguise during that teaching -- and instead of pointing them to emotionalism and feelings and "because I say so" - He remains in disguise and point them to scripture to make the case!!

The very thing you have imagined should not work! It is "sola scriptura" just when "sola feelings" would have worked hands-down because all He had to do was reveal Himself as the resurrected Christ at that moment and they would not even be interested in looking for scripture "proof"!!

2. Exegesis demands that for a given topic we look at what each Bible author says on the subject and taking all the each authors says on the subject as well as all that other authors say about it - we form a 360 degree view of the doctrine.. full and complete.

Like this

“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, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,

And we all know it!!

In fact it is the same way we present the subject today -- 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, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day


Just where you had imagined " in vision they saw the risen Christ via divine revelation and were immediately convinced, thus no proof from scripture needed because of the beatific vision of the risen Christ" -- instead he goes out of his way to present himself as "a stranger" to them and the Bible - as the source of truth.

Bible details matter - even when some doctrines of men - need us to gloss over them.

The teacher "opens the mind of the student to understand math and science" by setting the subject up in an orderly and step-by-step manner so all may "get it"
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You're in denial about the authoritative nature of direct revelation - and it holds true whether God is an invisible speaker, or speaking through a visible Christ

"though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be ACCURSED" Gal 1:6-9

The model you use does not allow such a "let him be accursed" result since the moment you conclude "well it is a church Apostle" or "well it is an angel from heaven" your story "ends".

"they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things were SO" that they had been told by the APOSTLE Paul. Acts 17:11

, or through a disguised Christ.

So then... you are saying that for all you know - I am writing this to you as "a disguised Christ" and you take my words without question at all... not even reading your Bible to check them out... just taking them as I type them -- because as you just said "a disguised Christ" presenting Himself to you as a total stranger is the same "revelation" as seeing an Angel from heaven.

So then you view this as the same as an Angel from heaven appearing to you in your room at this very moment?

I find your logic a bit self-defeating given the positions you have taken so far.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think it is good to brush my teeth and use mouthwash as the "method" I use for good breath and health - but it is not morally binding.
I been discussing what is the basis/authority for doctrine and practice. In my own experience, putting a toothbrush in my mouth doesn't automatically provide me a direct revelation as to God's will. However, if it DID do so, I suppose I would have to regard my toothbrush as authoritative (assuming those revelations gave me feelings of certainty I suppose).
I think that exegesis is the most reliable and objective method for accurate Bible understanding but it does not mean it is a "sin" if a 2nd grader reads his/her Bible without it.
When the Inward Witness isn't speaking loud and clear on a particular issue, exegesis may be your best bet for the moment. The problem is that Sola Scriptura is an ideology tending to KEEP us in this rut, instead of impelling us on to prioritize prophetic revelation. What did Paul prioritize? He commanded, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, ESPECIALLY the gift of prophecy" (1 Cor 14:1). Personally I don't really pray for 'prophecy' as such but rather just pray for revival, which is itself revelation.

Exegesis is a problem because:
(1) It's just an educated guess.
(2) The world is too complex (too full of humanly unpredictable side-effects) to ever reveal God's precise will.
(3) It doesn't allow God to run His church (as it forces Him to wait on us to verify His will exegetically whereas angels immediately heed the Voice spoken to them at 100% certainty).

And just as you need a direct revelation to really understand the Greek word for 'joy', so too of the Greek word for 'Lord', meaning you cannot get to know Him exegetically. Paul wrote:

"I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven...[seeing] surpassingly great revelations".

Your conflation of "Authority" into every topic mentioned is more than a little confused and is apparent to the objective unbiased reader as such.
Sola Scriptura claims that Scripture is the FINAL authority in all matters of doctrine and practice; according to which, a proposition in question is warranted if, and only if, it has been tested against Scripture. Picture the following scenario. A proposition has suddenly jumped into the mind of two believers. Both believes are in a state of severe uncertainty about its veracity.
(1) The first believer has a Bible. Let's assume his conscience is telling him to research the proposition against Scripture. And so he does.
(2) The second believer doesn't HAVE a Bible. Obviously his conscience won't tell him to research the proposition against Scripture. More likely it will tell him to compare the proposition, as best he can, against whatever the Inward Witness has already taught him. And so he does.

Note that both believers followed their conscience. Now I ask you, is God at a total loss here, in terms of evaluating the second believer? "Well since he didn't have a Bible, I can't really evaluate him morally." Isn't it clear that God will judge them both BY THE SAME CRITERIA - their adherence to conscience? This goes all the way back to Adam and Eve! The divine Voice gave them a feeling of certainty regarding the forbidden fruit. It was their choice to either obey conscience/certainty or disregard it. Thus, the doctrine of authoritative conscience decisively explains how God has judged all men and women, of all nations, of all generations. (Admittedly I'd need to discuss General Revelation a bit to complete the picture).
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Before I read the rest of your post ... and savor the thought that you are going to pay attention to the actual details just pointed out.



Utter nonsense as all the details you ignored just then would have informed you.

As already pointed out.

1. The "detail" you are quickly (still) glossing over in Luke 24 is that Jesus REMAINS in disguise during that teaching -- and instead of pointing them to emotionalism and feelings and "because I say so" - He remains in disguise and point them to scripture to make the case!!

The very thing you have imagined should not work! It is "sola scriptura" just when "sola feelings" would have worked hands-down because all He had to do was reveal Himself as the resurrected Christ at that moment and they would not even be interested in looking for scripture "proof"!!
As noted before, sometimes I don't know to whom you are responding. Where did I say that my theory of authority hinges on whether Jesus is disguised or undisguised? All I said is that the conscience (defined as feelings of certainty about our moral obligations) is authoritative. It's hard for me to respond to you when I feel like I have no idea whom or what you're referring to. (Maybe it's just my dull brain failing to comprehend you).

Can we agree on what exegesis is? Because I'm beginning to wonder whether you've ever seen a professional exegesis. Have you read articles published in real seminary journals? Exegesis entails the amassing of knowledge garnered from seminary resources (articles, books, and commentaries on history, grammar, culture, and Scriptures) and then bringing ALL that knowledge to bear on your analysis of a single verse, as to make educated guesses on its meaning. Your article won't even get published unless you cite dozens of such resources in your footnotes. Is that the sort of exercise that Jesus walked the disciples through according to the passage? I mean, I don't see any evidence of that. Where are all the footnotes? Whereas direct revelation refers to God simply TELLING you the meaning of a verse, acting upon your mind DIRECTLY, manipulating it to feel certain about the meaning announced to you. The passage states that Jesus 'opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.' Sounds like direct manipulation to me.

I will concede that it is POSSIBLE for an instructor to use Scripture as a didactic tool. I mentioned this earlier. If I am debating with someone who already accepts the Bible, I can use his own favorite verses against him in the debate. Basically you just challenge him to be consistent in his extrapolations. Paul often used Scripture in this way (albeit he did it infallibly in most cases), and perhaps a similar technique was true of the Bereans as well.

2. Exegesis demands that for a given topic we look at what each Bible author says on the subject and taking all the each authors says on the subject as well as all that other authors say about it - we form a 360 degree view of the doctrine.. full and complete....
Exegesis lacks sufficient credentials to be fully legit because you ultimately have to rely on mere men (the scholars who wrote the seminary textbooks).

...Like this

“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, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,

And we all know it!!
See comments above.
Just where you had imagined " in vision they saw the risen Christ via divine revelation and were immediately convinced, thus no proof from scripture needed because of the beatific vision of the risen Christ" -- instead he goes out of his way to present himself as "a stranger" to them and the Bible - as the source of truth.
But I don't see where Jesus exegetically 'proved' anything.

Bible details matter - even when some doctrines of men - need us to gloss over them.
Still not sure what I'm glossing over - Oh yes you said that the fact that Jesus was in disguise refutes every argument I've made on this entire thread. Sure.

The teacher "opens the mind of the student to understand math and science" by setting the subject up in an orderly and step-by-step manner so all may "get it"
In some ways this is a good analogy. The teacher can either:
(1) Do a step by step proof. I had an amazing Calculus teacher who proved basically everything. That was her teaching style. Each proof typically took up an entire one-hour session. Very complicated, and similar in some ways to professional exegesis.
(2) Most of my teachers simply lectured from the textbook with a take-it-or-leave-it approach. Didn't try to prove anything. "Here's what the textbook says, just accept it as fact." That's more like direct revelation - more like what Jesus did in the passage cited.

Pretty good analogy.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
JAL said in post #105:

So I categorically reject your assumption that God's way of dealing with men has changed. Yahweh is the same today, yesterday, and forever.

Note that Hebrews 13:8 means only that Jesus/God Himself is the same yesterday, today and forever, not that the letter of His law by which He deals with people has to remain the same forever. For it has changed under his New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-32, Hebrews 7:12).

Also, compare what Genesis 22:2 and Genesis 22:12 say, to see how God's command can change.

Also, note what the apostle Paul says in Galatians 3:10-25.

JAL said in post #105:

When the Voice gives you a feeling of certainty about God's will, it is BINDING (obligatory).

Not if it goes against God's Word the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2-4). (See also Proverbs 14:12.)

For God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

JAL said in post #105:

The Reformers changed all all that, but not until 1500 A.D. Until then, 99% of Christians did not have a personal copy of either the OT or the NT.

But they could hear the Bible read in church (1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 4:2-4),

Compare 2 Timothy 3:15.

JAL said in post #105:

You're confusing the written Word with the divine Word.

They are the same, for the Bible is the written Word of the divine (God). It's not the invention of humans (2 Peter 1:20-21).

*******

JAL said in post #109:

Biblical exegesis is fallible and thus takes a backseat to direct revelation.

Not if a so-called direct revelation contradicts the Bible (2 Peter 2:1-2).

-

It is sometimes claimed that Christians cannot possibly be deceived by people who (mistakenly) claim to have direct revelation, even if these people perform miracles. Matthew 24:24 is referenced.

But in Matthew 24:24 the original Greek doesn't say: "if it were possible", in the sense of it not being possible. Instead, it says: "if possible", meaning that false Christs and false prophets will in our future perform great miracles by the power of Satan (2 Thessalonians 2:9, Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20) as part of his intention to deceive as many of the elect as possible. The Bible nowhere says it's impossible for any elect person to be deceived. Instead, Jesus Christ had started out in Matthew 24 by specifically warning the elect: "Take heed that no man deceive you" (Matthew 24:4), meaning it's possible for the elect to be deceived, if they don't take heed to Jesus' warning regarding great-miracle-working false Christs and false prophets who will appear in our future (Matthew 24:4-5,23-25, Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20).

The elect can also be deceived in other ways, whether before they become Christians (Titus 3:3, Romans 7:11) or after (1 John 3:7; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Corinthians 15:33, Galatians 6:7, Ephesians 5:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:3). The apostle Paul warns the elect: "The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1 Timothy 4:1). The time will come when some "shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:4). For it's possible for Christians to commit apostasy, to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12b).

The fact that Christians can be deceived into committing apostasy doesn't mean Satan is stronger than God, or that God would for no reason abandon a Christian, but means that the principle of the "deceivableness of unrighteousness" (2 Thessalonians 2:10, Proverbs 17:4a) applies even to Christians.

JAL said in post #109:

"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. . .

By means of the Bible, God's Holy Spirit can teach individual Christians directly (1 John 2:27, John 16:13; 2 Timothy 3:15-17). But He also works through human teachers and prophets in the Church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11-16, Colossians 3:16; 2 Timothy 2:2,24, Hebrews 5:12).

*******

JAL said in post #113:

I been discussing what is the basis/authority for doctrine and practice.

That basis is the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

JAL said in post #113:

The problem is that Sola Scriptura is an ideology tending to KEEP us in this rut, instead of impelling us on to prioritize prophetic revelation.

All extra-Biblical prophetic revelation must be checked against the Bible to make sure that it doesn't contradict the Bible (e.g. 1 John 4:1-3).

*******

JAL said in post #114:

Paul often used Scripture in this way (albeit he did it infallibly in most cases), and perhaps a similar technique was true of the Bereans as well.

Note that you said "most" cases. Do you mean that Paul made mistakes in his teachings in the Bible in some cases?

That is, do you deny Biblical inerrancy?
-
It is sometimes asked: "Isn't the Bible's inerrancy a stupid idea, because it can be defeated by just a single error anywhere in the Bible?"

The answer is No, for the Bible's inerrancy is taught by the Bible itself (2 Timothy 3:16-17), while the idea of the Bible's errancy renders it useless. For then we can claim any part of the Bible we personally don't like is in error. And so we vitiate the whole purpose of the Bible, which is to be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16b-17). That is, if the Bible were errant we could reject its doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness whenever we personally felt like it (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Note that Hebrews 13:8 means only that Jesus/God Himself is the same yesterday, today and forever, not that the letter of His law by which He deals with people has to remain the same forever. For it has changed under his New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-32, Hebrews 7:12).
I don't accept multi-covenant theology (Gal 3). You're entitled to your opinion. I'll summarize my basic rationale. First of all, 'covenant' and 'promise' are often used interchangeably because a promise sworn by God binds Him covenantally to fulfill it. Thus every promise is technically a covenant. Consequently there are INNUMERABLY MANY covenants in Scripture, making the exegete's job too complicated/fallible. So is there a way to lump it all under one covenant? Yes, because the cross is retroactive wherefore NT saints don't get a better - nor even a different - relationship with God than OT saints. This continuity is called the Covenant of Grace in Reformed theology, and it can express itself in any number of covenants/promises. That's why Paul's discussion of the Abrahamic Covenant/Promise in Galat 3 uses the term 'promise' in both the singular and plural.

Also, compare what Genesis 22:2 and Genesis 22:12 say, to see how God's command can change.
God's sense of morality didn't change. Sorry Charlie.
Also, note what the apostle Paul says in Galatians 3:10-25.
Like the part where Paul affirmed there was no changes in the covenant from Abraham to us?

Not if it goes against God's Word the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2-4). (See also Proverbs 14:12.)
For God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).
You need to address my arguments.

But they could hear the Bible read in church (1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 4:2-4),
Ok so I can perform perfectly sound exegesis even if I only hear a few verses read per week? Sounds like you exegetes need to make up your mind on what exegesis is. A moment ago BobRyan was telling me to take the whole Bible into account.


They are the same, for the Bible is the written Word of the divine (God). It's not the invention of humans (2 Peter 1:20-21).
Um..The written description of a bomb isn't the same thing as the bomb. This is true regardless of who created the description versus who created the bomb.

Not if a so-called direct revelation contradicts the Bible (2 Peter 2:1-2).
Conscience is authoritative. Period. I've proven that, and you've done nothing to refute those proofs.

It is sometimes claimed that Christians cannot possibly be deceived by people who (mistakenly) claim to have direct revelation, even if these people perform miracles. Matthew 24:24 is referenced.
I don't care if your feeling of certainty came from the devil himself. Conscience is authoritative. (Of course God can fault you for LISTENING to the devil, if you did so by free choice against the advice of conscience).

Suppose for instance you knew that the devil, against your son's will (totally out of his control so it wasn't your son's fault) took over your son's mind. Is your son innocent, or guilty, for heeding the resulting feelings of certainty? Innocent of course, as it wasn't his fault. I repeat: conscience is ALWAYS authoritative.

But in Matthew 24:24 the original Greek doesn't say: "if it were possible", in the sense of it not being possible. Instead, it says: "if possible", meaning that false Christs and false prophets will in our future perform great miracles by the power of Satan (2 Thessalonians 2:9, Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20) as part of his intention to deceive as many of the elect as possible. The Bible nowhere says it's impossible for any elect person to be deceived. Instead, Jesus Christ had started out in Matthew 24 by specifically warning the elect: "Take heed that no man deceive you" (Matthew 24:4), meaning it's possible for the elect to be deceived, if they don't take heed to Jesus' warning regarding great-miracle-working false Christs and false prophets who will appear in our future (Matthew 24:4-5,23-25, Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20).
Where did I say it's impossible to be deceived?
(1) Those who are deceived by no fault of their own are innocent.
(2) Those who are deceived because they've violated conscience (i.e. lent ear to deceivers against the advice of conscience) will be punished.

The elect can also be deceived in other ways, whether before they become Christians (Titus 3:3, Romans 7:11) or after (1 John 3:7; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Corinthians 15:33, Galatians 6:7, Ephesians 5:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:3). The apostle Paul warns the elect: "The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1 Timothy 4:1). The time will come when some "shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:4). For it's possible for Christians to commit apostasy, to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12b)...
The fact that Christians can be deceived into committing apostasy doesn't mean Satan is stronger than God, or that God would for no reason abandon a Christian, but means that the principle of the "deceivableness of unrighteousness" (2 Thessalonians 2:10, Proverbs 17:4a) applies even to Christians.
See above. Generally the best defense is the Inward Witness (see 1 John 2:27).
By means of the Bible, God's Holy Spirit can teach individual Christians directly (1 John 2:27, John 16:13; 2 Timothy 3:15-17). But He also works through human teachers and prophets in the Church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11-16, Colossians 3:16; 2 Timothy 2:2,24, Hebrews 5:12).
But phrases such as 'by means of the Bible' are unclear. That's not really saying anything,for example it isn't specific as to whether you mean exegesis, or illumination, or even what those two terms mean.

All extra-Biblical prophetic revelation must be checked against the Bible to make sure that it doesn't contradict the Bible (e.g. 1 John 4:1-3).
That's nonsense. So Moses had to say to God "Sorry I can't accept your Voice, because I don't yet have a Bible to test it against." And I guess Adam, Eve, and everyone else was in the same dilemma? Again, conscience/certainty is authoritative, hence prophetic revelation, by generating feelings of certainty, is self-authenticating.

Note that you said "most" cases. Do you mean that Paul made mistakes in his teachings in the Bible in some cases?
I knew someone would go there. No, that's not what I meant. Paul corrected Peter at one point (Gal 2). Thus even apostles were not infallible at every moment in time (a common area of misconception). They were only infallible on revelations delivered to them at 100% certainty (and such were the revelations used to write the Bible).
That is, do you deny Biblical inerrancy?
No.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Bible2 said:
All extra-Biblical prophetic revelation must be checked against the Bible to make sure that it doesn't contradict the Bible (e.g. 1 John 4:1-3). 1 John 4:1-3).

I responded, "That's nonsense. So Moses had to say to God "Sorry I can't accept your Voice, because I don't yet have a Bible to test it against." And I guess Adam, Eve, and everyone else was in the same dilemma? Again, conscience/certainty is authoritative, hence prophetic revelation, by generating feelings of certainty, is self-authenticating."

Of course here I'm referring to 100% certainty. If your conscience is telling you, "This doesn't really count as as prophetic revelation because the degree of certainty is less than 100%, in fact you don't have enough certainty to move forward at all," then in that case, yes it's fine to fall back on exegesis (conscience permitting), using it as a testing tool in hopes of increasing your level of certainty.

Typically that's not what the prophets did, by and large, as far as I know. Since they were so close to God, they knew they would be more likely to get more certainty by simply turning to prayer.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be ACCURSED" Gal 1:6-9

The model you use does not allow such a "let him be accursed" result since the moment you conclude "well it is a church Apostle" or "well it is an angel from heaven" your story "ends".
Doesn't matter whether I think the speaker is God Himself, actually. If my conscience is telling me that the morally right thing to do is to disobey the speaker, I should disobey even God Himself. I doubt such a scenario is possible, however, since God has inscribed Himself into our conscience per the doctrine of General Revelation. Anyway, the point is that if my conscience tells me 'let him be accursed' then so be it. Otherwise no.
"they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things were SO" that they had been told by the APOSTLE Paul. Acts 17:11
I've commented sufficiently on this verse, in my opinion.

So then... you are saying that for all you know - I am writing this to you as "a disguised Christ" and you take my words without question at all... not even reading your Bible to check them out... just taking them as I type them -- because as you just said "a disguised Christ" presenting Himself to you as a total stranger is the same "revelation" as seeing an Angel from heaven...
So then you view this as the same as an Angel from heaven appearing to you in your room at this very moment? I find your logic a bit self-defeating given the positions you have taken so far.
I have memory issues - where did I say all that stuff about a disguised Christ being the same as seeing an Angel from heaven? I don't recall. You seem to be putting words in my mouth. All I said is that feelings of certainty are authoritative. If a man walks up to you (whether disguised or not), and you suddenly get a feeling of certainty that he is Christ, and it's enough certainty, in your opinion, to qualify as morally obligatory, then you MUST acknowledge him as the Christ. Similarly if a being appears to you, and you feel obligated to classify him as an angel based on your degree of certainty, then so be it. It's a totally different ballgame, however, when the degree of certainty does NOT feel obligatory. In that case your conscience will likely COMMAND you to question the apparition, and the feelings inside you.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How does God judge the unbeliever? Here's my personal take on General Revelation (Romans 1). The human brain fosters a conscience inclined to believe in a Creator but convinced of His existence only when seeing or experiencing His glory as revealed in Nature (Romans 1:19-20). If the unbeliever submits to this revelation (which is called conversion), he'll presumably receive the Inward Witness as a better and incessant revelation, although perhaps all unbelievers are too hardened from the Fall to convert without the aid of the Holy Spirit's convicting power. Thus they tend to suppress General Revelation (verse 18).

Suppose a man converts. Even if he has never heard the name Jesus, the Inward Witness will probably afford him some protection from false religions. And if he ever DOES hear the name Jesus, or reads the Bible, the Inward Witness will confirm these things and shed some light on them.

In sum, the unbeliever is someone who:
(A) rejects God against the advice of conscience
(B) probably does submit to his conscience in some matters
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
How does God judge the unbeliever? Here's my personal take on General Revelation (Romans 1). The human brain fosters a conscience inclined to believe in a Creator but convinced of His existence only when seeing or experiencing His glory as revealed in Nature (Romans 1:19-20). If the unbeliever submits to this revelation (which is called conversion), he'll presumably receive the Inward Witness as a better and incessant revelation, although perhaps all unbelievers are too hardened from the Fall to convert without the aid of the Holy Spirit's convicting power. Thus they tend to suppress General Revelation (verse 18).

Suppose a man converts. Even if he has never heard the name Jesus, the Inward Witness will probably afford him some protection from false religions. And if he ever DOES hear the name Jesus, or reads the Bible, the Inward Witness will confirm these things and shed some light on them.

In sum, the unbeliever is someone who:
(A) rejects God against the advice of conscience
(B) probably does submit to his conscience in some matters

The wicked will see the work of the Holy Spirit -- the Bible... and wage war against it. The Holy Spirit does not "lead them to do that".

The Holy Spirit affirms the method used in Acts 17:11 where by the "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are SO" -- we call that "sola scriptura testing" and it is what the Holy Spirit leads mankind to do. To rely on HIS work in giving us HIS Word -- scripture.
 
Upvote 0