Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[JAL]

Again an example would go a long way.

Here is an example from me, A colleague and friend of mine had a revelation in October that a large storm was coming that would cover the earth. She also has had confirmation that more darkness is still to come. She feels of course the current covid pandemic is the storm, the darkness to come? She's not worried as she says God can see in the dark.

This revelation is not new doctrine and although the bible does not affirm this specific scenario it is still in agreement with how the bible reveals to the nature of God and it also fits with broader revelation, still of course unknown as to their specific roles but fully compatible with sola scriptura. She didn't need to check the bible to know it was God but that doesn't mean it's not inline and consistent with biblical teachings

So? And? Where did I say that Direct Revelation was supposed to contradict biblical teaching? I've consistently asserted the contrary.

I see you're still not getting it. Let's try this again. There are two ways to look at Paul:
(1) Paul was endued with superlative revelation because we needed someone to write the NT for us. The church needed a kickstart.
(2) Paul was simply a model for all of us to emulate, we should ALL aspire to the superlative revelation experienced by all the top prophets including Paul. (See Num 12:8-10 for example).

For 2,000 years, Bible-scholars have been brainwashing us to accept proposition #1. But when we examine what Paul ACTUALLY TAUGHT, it seems clear he was a proponent of #2. To demonstrate that point, I have a whole thread on 1Corinthians.

Chances are most of us will never reach the level of top-notch prophethood. The point is to at least be moving in that direction (1Cor 14:1) in the hope that we at least will attain to some mighty revivals for the sake of winning more of the lost. Otherwise, we are moving in the wrong direction, we are, by allegiance to man-made traditions, suppressing revival rather than cultivating it.

 

[DamianWarS]

So? And? Where did I say that Direct Revelation was supposed to contradict biblical teaching? I've consistently asserted the contrary.

I see you're still not getting it. Let's try this again. There are two ways to look at Paul:
(1) Paul was endued with superlative revelation because we needed someone to write the NT for us. The church needed a kickstart.
(2) Paul was simply a model that ALL for all of us to emulate, we should ALL aspire to the superlative revelation experienced by all the top prophets including Paul. (See Num 12:8-10 for example).

For 2,000 years, Bible-scholars have been brainwashing us to accept proposition #1. But when we examine what Paul ACTUALLY TAUGHT, it seems clear he was a proponent of #2. To demonstrate that point, I have a whole thread on 1Corinthians.

Chances are most of us will never reach the level of top-notch prophethood. The point is to at least be moving in that direction (1Cor 14:1) in the hope that we at least will attain to some mighty revivals for the sake of winning more of the lost. Otherwise, we are moving in the wrong direction, we are, by allegiance to man-made traditions, suppressing revival rather than cultivating it.

again an example (outside of the bible) would be helpful

 

[Albion]

So? And? Where did I say that Direct Revelation was supposed to contradict biblical teaching? I've consistently asserted the contrary.

That's true, but your theory also holds that it is a necessary addendum or supplement to Scripture. That, in fact, is the reason for dissing Sola Scriptura. It's to say that God's word is not adequate for the task it exists to accomplish. Put another way, it is to consider Scripture defective.

It cannot be both ways at once--Scripture is God's word and Scripture is inadequate.

 

[JAL]

That's true, but your theory also holds that it is a necessary addendum or supplement to Scripture. That, in fact, is the reason for dissing Sola Scriptura. It's to say that God's word is not adequate for the task it exists to accomplish. Put another way, it is to consider Scripture defective.

Direct Revelation is the task of the divine Word. It is Christ speaking to us. This is also called fellowship with God, it is the very purpose for which we were created.

The written Word a tool especially useful in our immaturity, for helping us to find ways properly instruct those who are even less mature than we are.

The written Word isn't defective - it is simply a different tool designed to fulfill a different purpose. The written Word is the supplement to the divine Word, not vice versa. You have it backwards. Get your priorities straight. God didn't create us to be Bible scholars. He created us to SPEAK with us (fellowship with us). The Sola Scriptura proponent seems to picture his place in heaven as a little room with a desk, chair, lamp, bible, and concordance. Thus he has his priorities all wrong.

 

[JAL]

again an example (outside of the bible) would be helpful

You're not getting it. There is no such thing as revelation OUTSIDE the bible. Direct Revelation sheds light on existing revelation. Even Paul didn't see himself as teaching "new revelation" - he rather saw himself as clarifying EXISTING revelation.

The distinction, though - the difference from the historic doctrine of Sola Scriptura - is that I understand Direct Revelation to be self-authenticating such that one need not "check it out with Scripture". Example. Picture Moses with a pen and paper proceeding to write Genesis. A comrade asks him what he's doing. He says, "I'm writing down what the Voice is telling me to write."

The comrade objects, "But why did you trust this voice? Did you check it out with Scripture?"

Does anyone else see the absurdity of this objection? Or just me? Isn't it clear that the divine Voice is self-authenticating and thus need not be tested?

Again, it self-authenticates by raising our level of felt certainty to a degree that quenches any compunctions in our conscience.

 

[JAL]

woops big typo on 204. Corrected now.

 

[Albion]

Direct Revelation is the task of the divine Word.

Not what you have described by use of that term. In your posts, that term has been used to mean all sorts of extra-Scriptural things from hearing voices to emotional release to comprehension to something else.

 

[JAL]

Not what you have described by use of that term. In your posts, that term has been used to mean all sorts of extra-Scriptural things from hearing voices to emotional release to comprehension to something else.

Whatever.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Are you posting on the wrong thread? Whom are you addressing?

Dear JAL:

It is not my intention to quarrel with you and or to get you angry. So far, as I have witnessed this discussion, it sort of reminds me of an angry cat wanting to fight with a dog who just wants to be happy.

I believe we need to calm this cat fight.

And love one another:

I don't want any cat fights. I am essentially commanded by God to love everyone (when we look at the whole counsel of God's Word). So I want to say this morning that I love you, brother (Even if we may not agree exactly). I think we can both agree that this is a touchy issue because it is dealing with the source of authority by which we gain access to communicating with God and in establishing matters of the faith.

Although we are not in complete agreement, I want you to know that we are not that much different. I do not like the name "Sola Scriptura," but I mostly agree with the primary teaching behind it (which makes allowances for minor extra biblical knowledge like God's creation teaching us the existence of God, the leading of our conscience (if it is not defiled), etc.).

I believe Sola Scriptura the teaching (and not the name) is telling us that we can have an assurance on the most important things like salvation (through the gospel, and Sanctification), the nature of God (in that He is a Trinity, and that God is spirit), the Incarnation of Christ, and in how to conduct ourselves beyond the scope of just having a moral compass (if it is not defiled). For example: You would not know about 1 John 1:9 to confess of your sins in order to be forgiven of sin, unless it was clearly spelled out to you in God's holy word. We also have to take under consideration that the heart can also deceive us, too (As Scripture says and not as some voice or revelation today says).

I believe the "teaching" (and NOT THE NAME) "Sola Scriptura" is telling us that God's Word is the sole source on matters regarding the most important things within our faith like salvation, the nature of God, etc.; And it is not in reference to things like how to fix a Toyota Tundra, or to know how to operate an iMac computer.

I believe the OT saints and the early church were able to speak and write under the moving (or inspiration) of the Holy Spirit (with some of these key moments were recorded in Scripture for our learning and faith today).

Now, I do believe there are exceptions to the rule on this. In the future men of God will be able to speak by the leading of the Holy Spirit or by God the Father in certain circumstances (During the End Times or during intense times of their life being taken).

12 "But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.
18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.
19 In your patience possess ye your souls." (Luke 21:12-19).​

But no new doctrine, or major revelation is being disclosed within these particular circumstances.

I believe God answers prayer, which is a change of a life situation for that prayer, or a person being healed by my praying, or a person getting saved by my praying, etc.; This is a form of God communicating with us, but God is not revealing new words to add to Scripture when He answers my prayers.

God can talk to us by the magnification of His Word in life situations, as well.

For example:

Back when I lived in the state I grew up in: There was this baby deer that was living in my back yard once for about two weeks. It's mother would come by and feed it and then leave. However, it would make noises to it's mother at night, which would sometimes make it hard for me to sleep. So the one day, I was presented with an opportunity to get rid of this baby deer safely. So I decided to put on my black rubber work gloves and go outside in order to grab him gently and throw him over the chain link fence back into the forest where it's mother was at.

So I walked really slow and got really close to him; And just when I was about to grab him, he quickly bolted to the front of the house. This scared me a little, because I did not want the little guy getting hit by any cars in the front of the house, seeing I live on a busy street. However, when I got to the front of the house, he did not go near the traffic of the road, which was good. So he started to move back towards the back yard again. However, this time he went into the neighbor's back yard. This was perfect because they had a gate to their back yard so I could close it behind me, ensuring my capture of the little guy.

So I pinned him behind some stacked up wood behind the neighbor's shed and I grabbed him. He was kicking and screaming as I held him in my hands; And then I threw him over the chain link fence back into the forest. He landed safely on the other side of the fence; And later, I eventually seen him reunite with his mother (Which put me at ease).

However, afterwards I kept thinking to myself of how scared this baby deer was when I was holding it in my hands. I mean, it had no idea what I was going to do it. It probably thought I was trying to either eat it or hurt it in some way. In fact, I could actually feel the fear dripping off of this poor little guy.

Anyways, later that evening, when I was watching a video on "YouTube" by Chuck Missler, as per my usual routine thru out the week (back then), he told me about the following passages ...

Isaiah 13:11a - "And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity ..."

Isaiah 13:13 - "Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger."

Isaiah 13:14 - "And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land."

So I said to myself. What is a "roe"?
So I looked it up on the internet and low and behold, a roe is a baby deer! Here I was just a few hours earlier chasing a baby deer and I could feel it's fear in the fact that I was chasing it. This was a passage that God wanted to show me. He wanted to show me that the world will one day run in fear as the chased roe when God (i.e. Jesus Christ) will return to end all evil and iniquity. It was powerful! Coincidence one might say?

There were more of these kinds of things that took place.
There was a time when me and my fiance at the time (who is now my wife) had run into the same message over and over and over. We went into a book store and opened a book and it talked about God's forgiveness. We went to church and the part of the preach was on forgiveness. We kept seeing forgiveness repeated to us thru out the time my fiance was visiting me from her country; This all led up to a situation where forgiveness came into play personally within something that happened during our trip. It hit us personally.

Anyways, the point I wanted to make is that these extra biblical sources of communication were only a magnification of what His Word says. If I had a dream, or vision, or heard a voice, I would check it with Scripture and see if it was biblical. I would not check my own divine direct revelation from God to see if it was from God. That is why the Bible is our sole authority and not what we think, feel, or hear, etc.

I hope this helps you to understand where I am coming from.

In any event, whether you agree or not, may God's love shine upon you;
And may you please be well.
With loving kindness to you in Christ,

Sincerely,

~ J.

 

[Albion]

I believe the "teaching" (and NOT THE NAME) "Sola Scriptura"

Actually, it's both the teaching and the name. That is what kicked off the criticism of Sola Scriptura here--misunderstanding what the term Sola Scriptura means.

We have read innumerable people's posts denouncing the term because...and then they give all manner of incorrect definitions for Sola Scriptura.

Were we just to get that much straight, this thread might be considered a success.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Actually, it's both the teaching and the name. That is what kicked off the criticism of Sola Scriptura here--misunderstanding what the term Sola Scriptura means.

We have read innumerable people's posts denouncing the term because...and then they give all manner of incorrect definitions for Sola Scriptura.

Were we just to get that much straight, this thread might be considered a success.

I understand. In order to build a bridge, or to an extend an olive branch between us, I am merely expressing my view or opinion that I do not agree with the name "Sola Scriptura," but I agree with the teaching of "Sola Scriptura."

 

[JAL]

Anyways, the point I wanted to make is that these extra biblical sources of communication were only a magnification of what His Word says. If I had a dream, or vision, or heard a voice, I would check it with Scripture and see if it was biblical. I would not check my own divine direct revelation from God to see if it was from God. That is why the Bible is our sole authority and not what we think, feel, or hear, etc.

I hope this helps you to understand where I am coming from.

I don't get the point of this statement. I've participated on several threads with you over the past year. I'm well aware that you are an advocate of Sola Scriptura. And now your big clarification is these words?

"I would check it out with Scripture...That is why the Bible is our sole authority...I hope this helps you to understand where I am coming from."

Why would I need you to rearticulate the very dogmatic statements that I've been refuting for 200 posts? How is that even helpful?


Look, I too, "check it out with Scripture". Since I'm not yet a prophet, I do not get clear instruction from God and thus, quite often, resort to exegesis insofar as conscience directs. But that shouldn't be the anticipated ZENITH of Christian experience. The pinnacle of Christian experience is supposed to be face to face fellowship with God, not Bible-scholarship. Again, Jesus summarized the impoverished human condition thus:

"Ye have never heard his voice, nor seen His shape, nor does His word dwell in you" (Jn 5:37).

 

[Albion]

In order to build a bridge, or to an extend an olive branch between us, I am merely expressing my view or opinion that I do not agree with the name "Sola Scriptura," but I agree with the teaching of "Sola Scriptura."

I know. Good luck with that.

 

[JAL]

Actually, it's both the teaching and the name. That is what kicked off the criticism of Sola Scriptura here--misunderstanding what the term Sola Scriptura means.

I am still not convinced that I've misunderstood it. We didn't finish that conversation, and now I'm short on time. My last post on this was 111, and I don't see where you replied.

 

[Albion]

I am still not convinced that I've misunderstood it. We didn't finish that conversation, and now I'm short on time. My last post on this was 111, and I don't see where you replied.

Before I address this post further, please clarify for me the full meaning and extent of the "Sola" in "Sola Scriptura" (again, emphasis on "Sola"). For example, am I to regard the Bible as my ONLY authority in religious matters?

Frankly, I don't know what happened there; posts were flying back and forth pretty fast for awhile.

But to your point/question--

I have answered this so many times, including at least several different times on this very thread. But no matter. Here is the answer...

Sola Scriptura means that the Bible contains all necessary doctrines. Literally, it's Scripture Alone that holds the answers and no other source of information is its equal or is necessary.

Not Tradition, legend, Papal edicts, our own rationalizations or gut feelings, the opinion of "Early Church Fathers" or any of that.

Of course if any of those happens to re-iterate what is already in Scripture, that's wonderful, but it doesn't add anything that's essential, so we are still talking about Scripture Alone.

 

[DamianWarS]

You're not getting it. There is no such thing as revelation OUTSIDE the bible. Direct Revelation sheds light on existing revelation. Even Paul didn't see himself as teaching "new revelation" - he rather saw himself as clarifying EXISTING revelation.

The distinction, though - the difference from the historic doctrine of Sola Scriptura - is that I understand Direct Revelation to be self-authenticating such that one need not "check it out with Scripture". Example. Picture Moses with a pen and paper proceeding to write Genesis. A comrade asks him what he's doing. He says, "I'm writing down what the Voice is telling me to write."

The comrade objects, "But why did you trust this voice? Did you check it out with Scripture?"

Does anyone else see the absurdity of this objection? Or just me? Isn't it clear that the divine Voice is self-authenticating and thus need not be tested?

Again, it self-authenticates by raising our level of felt certainty to a degree that quenches any compunctions in our conscience.

Sola scriptura is about scripture being the final authority it is not about it being the only authority. If you receive direct revelation it self-authenticates as you describe but it also doesn't go against scripture and if it did, then it disqualifies the revelation as authentic. Do you see where I'm going with this? Whatever you receive and however strong or passionate you feel the message is and who gave it, if it disagrees with scripture it is not from God, ergo sola scriptura.

 

[JAL]

Sola Scriptura means that the Bible contains all necessary doctrines. Literally, it's Scripture Alone that holds the answers and no other source of information is its equal or is necessary.

Consigning the agnostic to the quandary of the OP - if it is the only reliable source of info for religious behavior, the agnostic has no reliable way to identify Christianity as the correct religion. Of course the simple solution is a Direct Revelation (the Inward Witness) that PERSUADES him of the Bible's veracity (gives him a feeling of certainty, which is thus AUTHORITATIVE by virtue of the tautological rule of conscience).

But moving on. I charged you with denying the full import of Sola Scriptura - it says more than that. The advocates claim that we MUST "check it out with Scripture", thus contradicting the tautological rule of conscience.

You deny this charge. You say that the Sola Scriptura position is NOT meant to imply anything more - thus it is NOT meant to imply that we must always "check it out with Scripture".

So then I asked you (paraphrased here), "In your view, then, advocates of SS would thus be okay with holding an opinion or heeding a voice - regarding it as a final authority - even without checking it out with Scripture?" At that point you seemed to change your tune, at post 42:

The "advocates" of Sola Scriptura do not consider those things to be final, no. The conclusions you are thinking of can be erroneous and the voice could be, and most likely is, other than from God. Even if it IS from God, it most likely is not about a matter of doctrine. Most times when people claim such a thing, the message is quite personal and not applicable to other people.

Your words do nothing but further convince me that I've correctly understood SS. This movement does INDEED claim that Scripture is the only final authority and, in so doing, implicitly denies the finality of the rule of conscience.

 

[JAL]

Sola scriptura is about scripture being the final authority it is not about it being the only authority. If you receive direct revelation it self-authenticates as you describe but it also doesn't go against scripture and if it did, then it disqualifies the revelation as authentic. Do you see where I'm going with this? Whatever you receive and however strong or passionate you feel the message is and who gave it, if it disagrees with scripture it is not from God, ergo sola scriptura.

Do I see where you are going? Yes. Nowhere useful. God's supposed to help us understand the bible. But you're implying we can't trust a voice, even if it's self-authenticating, because we first have to make sure it doesn't disagree with scripture - which presumes I understand scripture, as to make that determination. But if I already understand scripture, why do I need the voice? Why would I ask God to help me understand the Bible if I already understand it, if I'm already capable of determining what does, or does not, agree with Scripture? As always, Sola Scriptura makes no sense.

 

[Albion]

Consigning the agnostic to the quandary of the OP - if it is the only reliable source of info for religious behavior, the agnostic has no reliable way to identify Christianity as the correct religion.

He's barred from obtaining a copy of the world's most widely-distributed book??

Of course the simple solution is a Direct Revelation (the Inward Witness) that PERSUADES him of the Bible's veracity (gives him a feeling of certainty, which is thus AUTHORITATIVE by virtue of the tautological rule of conscience).

Well, we're now back to you attempting to put human rationalizations and feelings on the same level as the word of God. But what you asked me was to explain what Sola Scriptura means. And that is what I offered in my reply.

 

[DamianWarS]

Do I see where you are going? Yes. Nowhere useful. God's supposed to help us understand the bible. But you're implying we can't trust a voice, even if it's self-authenticating, because we first have to make sure it doesn't disagree with scripture - which presumes I understand scripture, as to make that determination. But if I already understand scripture, why do I need the voice? Why would I ask God to help me understand the Bible if I already understand it, if I'm already capable of determining what does, or does not, agree with Scripture? As always, Sola Scriptura makes no sense.

So you have direct revelation and I have direct revelation yet they conflict. Only one is authentic. How do we know which one? How do we even know the wrong one is wrong and the right one is right?