Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[JAL]

Why not? Most English translations of verses that portray the gospel, are pretty much identical (certainly identical in thought, if not universally identical in word). In fact you can even paraphrase the gospel into your own words and it is still just as effective providing the core message is the same.

Let me get this straight. The objective process of discovering the correct religion is to read all the touted religious documents in the world, assuming you can find English translations, and doing side-by-side comparisons of various English translations (do this for all religions) to verify translation-integrity, and then HOPEFULLY reach a state of lifelong firm conviction (saving faith) that the bible is the correct religious book, and so on.

OR, the Inward Witness could instantly convict you, at the preaching of the gospel. Gee, I wonder which one of the these two schemas is more biblical. That's a tough one!

 

[swordsman1]

Direct Revelation MAKES KNOWN to us - causes us to feel certain about - things that we did not previously know (things we did not previously feel certain about). Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus is an excellent example.

Which is just as nebulous an answer. How do you know what the things are, which you did not previously know? Presumably they just popped into your mind right?

You gave us the following scenario of direct revelation:

"Absent 100% certainty, you need not be silent, necessarily, but you will, if acting in good conscience, begin with a DIFFERENT RUBRIC. You will preface like this, "I'm not really sure that I heard God speaking, but here's what I SEEM to have heard - take it with a grain of salt."

So you receive some kind of message. It wasn't God speaking audible words. So how then did this message come to you? Are they thoughts? Ideas? Feelings? You still refuse to say. Your description with all those caveats sounds awfully like the charismatic version of prophecy, where thoughts or feelings pop into your head which are then declared to be a "word from the Lord".

 

[swordsman1]

Terminology quibbles are of no real import here. Call it whatever you want, if you don't like the term conscience. Fact is, those feelings of certainty are morally obligatory - and you, like everyone else, have yet to illustrate any exceptions to this fact.

So after a million posts using the "rule of conscience" as your key argument, you now tell us it is nothing to do with the conscience! Yet presumably you still want to keep the terms "evil" and "good"?

Your argument is lame, to say the least.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Two things that tell me God's Word is true, and all other books, visions, prophecy of new words from the Lord, dreams, etc. should be rejected.

#1. The Bible is the only book that claims to speak with authority many times the very words of God (with depths of meaning and power); And His Word (the Bible) is internally consistent (logical), and it contains warnings that we should not add or take away from His Word at the end (in Revelation) (i.e. Sola Scriptura). Clearly it is the book above all books that should be heard alone as our sole source of authority and guide spiritually. See this CF thread here for biblical defense of Sola Scriptura.

#2. The Bible is the only holy book that has the credentials (evidences) to back up it's claims. You can check out a lengthy list of evidences that back up God's Word as being divine in origin in my blogspot article I had written here:​

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

No personal revelation today, voice, vision, dream, etc. is on par with Scripture that has an endless sea of evidences backing it up.​

I hope this helps.

Peace, love, and blessings be unto you in the Lord Jesus.

 

[swordsman1]

I don't understand the objection. The rule of conscience extrapolates to dictate both doctrine and practice, a fact which I've implied throughout the discussion but didn't expound clearly until post 222.

First you said the Spirits inward witness produces feelings of certainty in regard to our actions of conscience.

Now, after I pointed out your error, you agree with me that the inward witness only gives you a feeling of certainty that scripture is authentic.

You are quite welcome to change your mind of course. But all this time you have been pitting the Spirit's inward witness AGAINST sola scriptura, when they are in fact mutually and fully compatible with each other!

 

[JAL]

Abraham heard God speak in the vision. He didn't hear the vision.

You're making distinctions that simply don't hold up under the general classification of consciousness as loudness. Suppose for instance I dream of eating pizza. Did I see this dream? Or did I taste it? Those kinds of distinctions break down. And if, during the dream, I saw and heard people speak, did I see the dream? Or did I hear it? Both, because those kinds of absolute distinctions/dichotomies just don't hold up.

Abraham beleived what he heard. Same as the Galatians did. That is the point of the comparison in Galatians 3. There is nothing in the text about the Galatians seeing revelatory visions or seeing anything else.

Abraham heard/received the divine Word of Direct Revelation (not a Bible), and thus received the Spirit through the hearing of faith.

Loudness is what makes my reading of Galatians exegetically strong. The Inward Witness MUST be defined as both vision/voice, for reasons stated.

"Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by the hearing of faith?...After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to mature by the flesh?"

They heard the Voice in tandem with receiving the divine Word. They received the Spirit by the hearing of faith. At verse 6, he turns back to Abraham's similar experience of hearing/receiving the divine Word. Abraham heard the same Voice!

Your claiming that's not the parallel. This claim might carry some weight if the Inward Witness could be defined as something OTHER than voice. But the principle of loudness implies that both Abraham and the Galatians heard God speak. It's a perfect parallel.

After all, the Galatians received the Spirit. If the Spirit has no influence upon our mind, He is USELESS. And the moment He influenced the mind of the Galatians - that's the Voice! Since consciousness is loudness, ANY impact of the Spirit upon the human mind counts as the divine Voice.

To summarize this post, you're so desperate to disprove my solid exegesis that you are forced to resort to bogus, arbitrary distinctions that, under close scrutiny, simply don't hold up.

 

[swordsman1]

In fact, Swordsman1, the wicked/biased nature of the human heart is precisely why Sola Scriptura will never suffice. Direct Revelation cuts through the hardened heart like a hot knife through soft butter, CAUSING us to feel certain about even those doctrines that we were averse to. Again, Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus is a great example.

I have no idea what you mean, as you still haven't given us as clear definition and example of "direct revelation" as you experience it. You keep ducking and diving and moving the goalposts.

 

[JAL]

First you said the Spirits inward witness produces feelings of certainty in regard to our actions of conscience.

Um...that's still my position.

Now, after I pointed out your error, you agree with me that the inward witness only gives you a feeling of certainty that scripture is authentic.

False dichotomy. You're saying that the scope of Direct Revelation must be EITHER this OR that. God can speak on any topic of interest to Him, certainly anything pertinent to the Kingdom.

You are quite welcome to change your mind of course. But all this time you have been pitting the Spirit's inward witness AGAINST sola scriptura, when they are in fact mutually and fully compatible with each other!

Category mistake. You're mixing apples and oranges. These words make no sense. You are conflating these two concepts.

(1) The Spirit gives me a feeling of certainty that Scripture is true. Yes, that's one of my claims.
(2) The man-made epistemological doctrine known as Sola Scriptura, which is highly anti-revelatory, and which I therefore oppose.

 

[JAL]

I have no idea what you mean, as you still haven't given us as clear definition and example of "direct revelation" as you experience it. You keep ducking and diving and moving the goalposts.

False allegation. Ignored.

 

[swordsman1]

Um...Misses the thrust of the objection. One of the most monumental issues in church administration is the precise structure of church government. In the cessationist view, God was too dumb to manuscript a definition of church government valid for more than 50 years. THAT's the objection.

Then you have totally misunderstood 1 Corinthians 12-14. Paul's purpose in writing those chapters was not give the universal church instructions on church government. It was to correct abuses in spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church. The whole epistle was correcting a series of errors in their church.

I'm not a cessationist. The cessationist claim is that the lack of apostles is NORMATIVE, that such is God's ideal plan for the church. MY claim is that, mostly due to a Sola Scriptura pandemic that has oriented the church AWAY from Direct Revelation, and steeped us in man-made traditions shoved continually down God's throat, the church has proven to be infertile ground for the raising up of prophets and apostles. In general, the church has proven to be infertile ground for revival.

Really. So we would still have scripture-writing, authoritative, miracle-working, eye-witness Apostles of Christ today, if only it wasn't for those pesky Sola Scriptura guys.?

You don't deny they ceased though. So that still makes you a cessationist, even though you have a different and bizarre reason for their cessation.

 

[swordsman1]

The only reason bothering to comment again on this silly objection is that I saw it got upvoted by another poster. Unbelievable.

You say the conscience is about guilty feelings. And you don't recognize that phenomenon as logically inseparable from feelings of certainty? Maybe a scenario will clarify. Suppose I kill someone, and immediately have guilty feelings. Why do I have those feelings? Here again is the rule:

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

Obviously, I have guilty feelings because I acted WITHOUT full certainty. (My conscience wouldn't be beating me up over it if I clearly acted in full certainty). The reproof of my conscience, then is:

"You killed that man without sufficient degree of certainty to warrant doing so".

But the feeling is not one of certainty it is one of guilt. They are not the same feeling.

Or are you now saying we have to have a feeling of certainty about our feeling of guilt!????

Do we also need a feeling of certainty about our feeling of certainty?

You presumably have a feeling of certainty that the sky is blue. Is that a direct revelation?

 

[JAL]

So after a million posts using the "rule of conscience" as your key argument, you now tell us it is nothing to do with the conscience! Yet presumably you still want to keep the terms "evil" and "good"?

Your argument is lame, to say the least.

Nonsense. Ignored. You are stooping to this level for lack of a cogent rebuttal.

 

[JAL]

But the feeling is not one of certainty it is one of guilt. They are not the same feeling.

Or are you now saying we have to have a feeling of certainty about our feeling of guilt!????

Do we also need a feeling of certainty about our feeling of certainty?

You presumably have a feeling of certainty that the sky is blue. Is that a direct revelation?

Rambling...

 

[JAL]

Then you have totally misunderstood 1 Corinthians 12-14. Paul's purpose in writing those chapters was not give the universal church instructions on church government. It was to correct abuses in spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church. The whole epistle was correcting a series of errors in their church.

Wonderful. Even better. God was too dumb even to MENTION church government in His instruction manual. Lovely.

 

[swordsman1]

Abraham did not feel guilty about attempting to slaughter his son. That's because the Voice endued him with 100% certainty that it was the morally upright step to take, at that moment.

No, the reason Abraham was happy to kill his son was because he presumed Isaac would be resurrected, as he knew God would not break his promise.

We are not told how Abraham felt.

 

[swordsman1]

Let me get this straight. The objective process of discovering the correct religion is to read all the touted religious documents in the world, assuming you can find English translations, and doing side-by-side comparisons of various English translations (do this for all religions) to verify translation-integrity, and then HOPEFULLY reach a state of lifelong firm conviction (saving faith) that the bible is the correct religious book, and so on.

OR, the Inward Witness could instantly convict you, at the preaching of the gospel. Gee, I wonder which one of the these two schemas is more biblical. That's a tough one!

Yes, the gospel is preached, by the Spirits inward witness they understand it to be true, they believe and are saved.

Remember this all stemmed from your assertion was that adolescents couldn't be saved in such a manner.

 

[swordsman1]

Um...that's still my position.

Then your understanding of the Spirit's inward witness is not how Calvin described it. It is one of your own invention.

 

[JAL]

No, the reason Abraham was happy to kill his son was because he presumed Isaac would be resurrected, as he knew God would not break his promise.

We are not told how Abraham felt.

That's easy to disprove. Heb 11 celebrated the act as one of the most righteous acts in human history. Now suppose I am a man who PRESUMES (without 100% certainty) that God will resurrect my son upon killing him. So I kill him. Would you celebrate me? Is that kind of behavior paradigmatic? Is that what Abraham did? Is that what were supposed to emulate?

Heb 11 is supposed to provide models we should emulate.

 

[JAL]

Then your understanding of the Spirit's inward witness is not how Calvin described it. It is one of your own invention.

Calvin called it a feeling of certainty. So do I.

 

[JAL]

Which is just as nebulous an answer. How do you know what the things are, which you did not previously know? Presumably they just popped into your mind right?

I don't NEED to know the sorts of details that you seem to be fussing over. It's God's responsibility to reveal (cause me to feel certain about) whatever He wants me to know. I myself have only one obligation:

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

275 posts deep - and you STILL can't postulate any exceptions to this rule. You're just blowing hot air.