Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[swordsman1]

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.

Have you even read Hebrews 11? It says exactly what I said.

Heb 11:19 "He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, "​

Abraham's willingness to kill his son is a remarkable lesson in faith, because he had so much faith in God's promise he was prepared to kill his son assuming he would be resurrected.

 

[swordsman1]

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

Calvin didn't call it a feeling of certainty in regard to actions of conscience.

 

[JAL]

Have you even read Hebrews 11? It says exactly what I said.

Heb 11:19 "He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, "​

Abraham's willingness to kill his son is a remarkable lesson in faith, because he had so much faith in God's promise he was prepared to kill his son assuming he would be resurrected.

Have you even tried to UNDERSTAND Heb 11? My objection stands. Resolve the charge of contradiction.

 

[JAL]

Have you even read Hebrews 11? It says exactly what I said.

Heb 11:19 "He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, "​

Abraham's willingness to kill his son is a remarkable lesson in faith, because he had so much faith in God's promise he was prepared to kill his son assuming he would be resurrected.

So if I tried to kill my own son without 100% certainty, you'd praise my action as a remarkable lesson in faith?

Your position is nonsense.

 

[JAL]

Calvin didn't call it a feeling of certainty in regard to actions of conscience.

Talk about moving the goalposts ! Every single post of yours seems to be a hodge-podge of random strands of my thinking yanked out of each of their separate discrete context, as a completely illegitemate strategy of trying to make my position look random.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

Hebrews 11 tells us why Abraham was happy to kill his son.

It doesn't say it was because "the Voice endued him with 100% certainty that it was the morally upright step to take"

 

[JAL]

Hebrews 11 tells us why Abraham was happy to kill his son.

It doesn't say it was because "the Voice endued him with 100% certainty that it was the morally upright step to take"

One step at a time. Before we talk more about the role of the Voice, explain to me how it makes sense to celebrate a man who kills his son with less than 100% certainty that it is the morally right thing to do.

 

[swordsman1]

Talk about moving the goalposts ! Every single post of yours seems to be a hodge-podge of random strands of my thinking yanked out of each of their separate discrete context, as a completely illegitemate strategy of trying to make my position look random.

I'm moving goalposts????
One minute you define the Spirits inward witness as feelings of certainty in regard to our actions of conscience. Contra Calvin.
Next minute you say it is feelings of certainty in regard to the authenticity of scripture. Pro Calvin.

Make your mind up.

 

[swordsman1]

One step at a time. Before we talk more about the role of the Voice, explain to me how it makes sense to celebrate a man who kills his son with less than 100% certainty that it is the morally right thing to do.

A feeling of certainty from the Spirit's inward witness? Abraham would have felt no such thing. He wasn't reading scripture.

Abraham would have no doubt felt his conscience telling him not to do it, but his faith was even stronger than his own conscience and he was willing to disobey it.

 

[JAL]

I'm moving goalposts????
One minute you define the Spirits inward witness as feelings of certainty in regard to our actions of conscience. Contra Calvin.
Next minute you say it is feelings of certainty in regard to the authenticity of scripture. Pro Calvin.

Make your mind up.

You keep drawing artificial, bogus distinctions. And it's wearing me out. I'm in a meeting but trying to comment on this.

Every time I use a different word, or express a different FACET of my position, you call it a contradiction, and tell me to make up my mind. You Sola Scriptura advocates have had 2,000 years to unfold your position. I'm trying to explain my views in one thread, which means YOU need to read between the lines, but you conveniently refuse to do this because you want to claim everything is a contradiction.

I'm moving goalposts????
One minute you define the Spirits inward witness as feelings of certainty in regard to our actions of conscience...

Yes that's one FACET of the Inward Witness, His ability to speak to us about moral actions.

Next minute you say it is feelings of certainty in regard to the authenticity of scripture. Pro Calvin.

Yes, that is another FACET of the Inward Witness, His ability to speak to us about doctrines.

Where is the contradiction?

You say I contradicted Calvin. Not at all. In Calvin's view, BOTH of these facets were involved. That is to say, the Inward Witness gives us feelings of certainty about the authenticity of Scripture AS A MEANS of convicting our conscience of the need for a moral action - the action of repentance unto salvation.

Again, you have made artificial, bogus distinctions - endless nitpicking that doesn't make sense - because you have no cogent rebuttals.

 

[JAL]

A feeling of certainty from the Spirit's inward witness? Abraham would have felt no such thing. He wasn't reading scripture.

Abraham would have no doubt felt his conscience telling him not to do it, but his faith was even stronger than his own conscience and he was willing to disobey it.

So Abraham went AGAINST His conscience in your view !!!! He disobeyed his conscience ! Great. You have finally been the one person to find an exception to the rule of conscience! You succeeded! Where everyone else failed! Here's the rule again:

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

According to you, Abraham went with action-A. His conscience told him it was evil, but he made a deliberate decision to TO DO EVIL. And Hebrews 11 celebrated him for it! Laid him down as a model for us to emulate!

Thanks! Now we all know how to live - at every opportunity, we should all, after the fashion of Abram, make a deliberate decision TO DO EVIL.

Again, you're so desperate to disprove my position that you're stooping to completely incoherent statements.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When Direct Revelation is defined in terms of a tautological principle (conscience), it makes no sense to refer to is as dangerous or unreliable,i.e. something that should NOT be relied on. Until you can undermine the tautology...

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

...you're speaking empty words. On the surface they might SOUND "theological" and "reasonable" but ultimately those words make no sense at all.

I didn't get the sense that is what he meant by it.

But even if he did, the conscience should be guided by the Word of God, or it is indeed unreliable, and can be even dangerous. I got the notion though, from his post, that he meant something more along the lines of conscience guided by direct revelation from God (as opposed to Scripture).

Thank you for your kind words, by the way.

 

[JAL]

I didn't get the sense that is what he meant by it.

But even if he did, the conscience should be guided by the Word of God, or it is indeed unreliable, and can be even dangerous. I got the notion though, from his post, that he meant something more along the lines of conscience guided by direct revelation from God (as opposed to Scripture).

Thank you for your kind words, by the way.

Sorry you lost me on that one. You seem to be responding to a slightly older post, and I have no recollection of the context of that exchange. Not even sure who is each of the "he"-pronouns in your statement.

 

[JAL]

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.?

Scripture-writing? I'm not even sure that Paul saw himself as a writer of "scripture" in the sense of envisioning or planning the current canon foreseen to be a world-wide publication. More likely he wrote a bunch of letters that the church, ipso facto, DECIDED to canonize.

What pesky Sola Scriptura guys? I'm referring to the whole church. Even most charismatics subscribe to the dogma that, ultimately, we must "check it out with Scripture". And they too have traded in the apostolic government for a modernized clergy, characterized by man-made liturgical traditions shoved down God's throat. Case in point. I attended a charismatic church whose leader insisted on a big choir. Is there strong NT support for a choir? I don't see much, if any. Does this mean he's wrong? No - but here's the point:
(1) Some insist that we DO need choirs, and claim to know it.
(2) Others insist that we do NOT need choirs, and claim to know it.
BOTH parties are shoving their traditions down God's throat because what they NEED to do is admit that, until Direct Revelation gives them 100% certainty, NEITHER of them knows for sure the truth about choirs.

Thus, virtually all the churches are built on a platform of intellectual dishonesty - by and large the leaders are claiming to know things that they do not, in fact, actually know. Given that fact, how can we expect revival? And how can this possibly be fertile soil for the raising up of apostles and prophets?

In another church I went to, the "pastor" was also called a "bishop" (understood to be a grade higher than a pastor). On what basis are people making these distinctions? Why are they claiming to "know" the legitimacy of applying such titles to seemingly ordinary men? Why are they shoving these titles down God's throat?

Until we repent of intellectual dishonesty, I don't see much hope for revival.

 

[JAL]

There is no evidence that the Galatians received direct revelations from God. The similarity between Abraham and the Galatians that Paul pointed out was they both believed the word of God. It doesn't say the Galatians received that word in the same way as Abraham did. Paul makes no mention of the mechanism of reception. You are reading something into scripture that isn't there.

The Galatians didn't hear the same Voice that Abraham heard? That's odd, because Jesus said:

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me" (Jn 10:27).

Also odd is Gal 3:16, properly translated:

"The promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed..and you are Abraham's seed" (3:16, 29)

The whole chapter is dominated by Voice. Verse 8 was already mentioned:

"Scripture...announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you" (3:8).

and thus when Paul applies the rubric "the hearing of faith" to the Galatians, it seems virtually inconceivable to understand it in a way other than Voice.

Let's also review this verse again:

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom 10:17)

and thus:

"The Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision [speaking promises]...Abraham believed [i.e. acquired faith]" (Gen 15).

Thus Abraham acquired faith - and received the Spirit - by hearing the divine Word speak. And thus:

"Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, by the hearing of faith?...Consider Abraham" (Gal 3:2, 6).

The parallel is clear enough. At this point one either has to conclude that the Galatians heard the same Voice as Abraham, or imagine that Paul was trying to confuse/mislead his readers.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I've done a couple of threads on this issue, but I still feel that virtually no one gets it. Let's try this again.

This time, I'll begin by showing that Sola Scriptura faces the same logical difficulty as Tradition. Once again, our basic choices are:
(1) Tradition
(2) Sola Scriptura
(3) Conscience, informed by Direct Revelation (my position).

Tradition is the claim, "Never rely on your own opinions, instead believe what the Catholic church teaches" (or Orthodox church). The logical difficulty here is obvious: if an agnostic gradually reaches the opinion that the Catholic church is the truth, he should not become a Catholic, because he was told to never rely on his own opinions. His opinions carry no weight. He is stuck.

Likewise, Sola Scriptura is the claim, "Never rely on your own opinions, instead believe what the Bible teaches." Same logical impasse - it implies that an agnostic who begins to form Christian opinions should not act on them because opinions carry no weight.

Thus Sola Scriptura is total nonsense. Moreover it couldn't even boast ubiquity for 90% of human history, until the dawn of the printing press around 1500 A.D.

Every historic wane of prophets is fertile ground for the spawn of a Bible-scholar movement (a Sola Scriptura movement) that artificially fills the (universally felt) need for religious leadership. In Christ's day, the Sola Scriptura parties largely consisted of the Pharisees, Saducees, and teachers of the law. In diametric opposition to this accursed epistemology, Christ The Prophet arrived as the antithesis of the Sola Scriptura insanity, denouncing the widely accepted beliefs and practices as man-made religious traditions. He made it clear that HIS teaching derived not from the seminaries of His day but directly from the Father, literally face to face, and thus by Direct Revelation.

History repeats itself. The wane of the early apostles/prophets culminated, once again, in the spawning of more Sola Scriptura movements. Even today's advocates of Tradition are actually Sola Scriptura advocates in disguise, because their conclusions are grounded four-square on Bible-scholarship - an exegetical analysis of scripture, history, and culture. And thus, as Andrew Murray lamented, the mistake of the Galatian church is repeated to this day in all the churches - even in the churches most confidently self-assured that they are free from the Galatian error.


We need revival. And the only sure way to get it - if Galatians 3 is any authority on the matter - is to receive outpourings of the Spirit via "the hearing of faith" (which is the literal rendering of the Greek). This is a clear reference to Direct Revelation, anecdotal indeed of Paul's own affair with Direct Revelation outlined in Galatians 1.

Conscience and intuition are the receptors of revelation. Conscience tells us that something is wrong. Truth is revealed to intuition. If there was no devil and Christians were 100% tuned into God, there would be no need for the Bible. Obviously that is not the case.

The Bible is essential. If we do not submit supposed revelation to the Bible, we will easily be deceived. It's easy to confuse flashing thoughts with revelation. All Christians would do well to pray for the "Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation".

The Pharisees did not go by Sola Scriptura. There was a codified interpretation of what the Torah meant. It's called the Talmud. Lord Jesus constantly battled those who put the Talmud above the Torah. Funny, it's not much different today. They are known as denominations instead various schools of rabbinical thought.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Scripture-writing? I'm not even sure that Paul saw himself as a writer of "scripture" in the sense of envisioning or planning the current canon foreseen to be a world-wide publication. More likely he wrote a bunch of letters that the church, ipso facto, DECIDED to canonize.

What pesky Sola Scriptura guys? I'm referring to the whole church. Even most charismatics subscribe to the dogma that, ultimately, we must "check it out with Scripture". And they too have traded in the apostolic government for a modernized clergy, characterized by man-made liturgical traditions shoved down God's throat. Case in point. I attended a charismatic church whose leader insisted on a big choir. Is there strong NT support for a choir? I don't see much, if any. Does this mean he's wrong? No - but here's the point:
(1) Some insist that we DO need choirs, and claim to know it.
(2) Others insist that we do NOT need choirs, and claim to know it.
BOTH parties are shoving their traditions down God's throat because what they NEED to do is admit that, until Direct Revelation gives them 100% certainty, NEITHER of them knows for sure the truth about choirs.

Thus, virtually all the churches are built on a platform of intellectual dishonesty - by and large the leaders are claiming to know things that they do not, in fact, actually know. Given that fact, how can we expect revival? And how can this possibly be fertile soil for the raising up of apostles and prophets?

In another church I went to, the "pastor" was also called a "bishop" (understood to be a grade higher than a pastor). On what basis are people making these distinctions? Why are they claiming to "know" the legitimacy of applying such titles to seemingly ordinary men? Why are they shoving these titles down God's throat?

Until we repent of intellectual dishonesty, I don't see much hope for revival.

Revival does not depend on intellectualism at all. It depends on Christians getting real with God, praying, repenting and seeking. I have a short book about the greatest revival in the 20th century, right at the start in Wales. There was zero emphasis on doctrine. It was all about spiritually dead Christians coming alive and getting real with God. One result was unity, not in doctrine but in love and in the Spirit. Shut down theological institutions, quit arguing about non-issues and cry out to God. I have my own views about church life. Since the modern church model is an absolute failure, something has to change. But just fixing the structure is nowhere near enough. The church is people, not an organisation. Start with people. If they are right, the rest will fall into place.

 

[swordsman1]

Every time I use a different word, or express a different FACET of my position, you call it a contradiction, and tell me to make up my mind. You Sola Scriptura advocates have had 2,000 years to unfold your position. I'm trying to explain my views in one thread, which means YOU need to read between the lines, but you conveniently refuse to do this because you want to claim everything is a contradiction.

You have based your entire argument on the premise that the Holy Spirit's Inward Witness, which according to you, gives us a "feeling of certainty" on every action we make. And as a result we can discard Sola Scriptura. Despite your disdain for bible scholars (because they disagree with your theories), to add weight to your argument you made a big fanfare about how the great John Calvin, who championed this doctrine, agrees with you and how the whole of evangelical Christianity has embraced it.

But you have been lying to us. That is not the doctrine of the Spirit's Inward witness. Here is Calvin's doctrine.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. (1.7.4)

Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearths through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as a thing far beyond any guesswork! (1.7.5)​

As we can see it is nothing whatsoever to do with feelings of certainty regarding our actions. It is the Holy Spirit giving us an inner conviction that Scripture is authentic and is truly the word of God. It is ONLY that.

So ironically, far from repudiating Sola Scriptura as you make out, the Spirit's inward witness is actually the driving force behind Sola Scriptura.

We can now see that your theory is built on a pack of lies. And now it has been exposed, your whole edifice has come crashing down. It can now be safely consigned to the theological dustbin where all your other bizarre theories have ended up.

You say I contradicted Calvin. Not at all. In Calvin's view, BOTH of these facets were involved. That is to say, the Inward Witness gives us feelings of certainty about the authenticity of Scripture AS A MEANS of convicting our conscience of the need for a moral action - the action of repentance unto salvation.

Despite your error being exposed at the beginning of this thread you have maintained your lie throughout. Only now are you starting to back-pedal and forced to admit the Spirit's witness refers to scripture. But in order to try and save some face, I see you are once again lying. It was not Calvin's view that "both facets were involved". Calvin makes no mention of the Spirit's internal witness also speaking to us about our actions.

How much more dishonesty must we endure?

 

[swordsman1]

So Abraham went AGAINST His conscience in your view !!!! He disobeyed his conscience ! Great. You have finally been the one person to find an exception to the rule of conscience! You succeeded! Where everyone else failed!

You seriously think that a person's conscience would tell him that it is acceptable to murder someone?

Here's the rule again:
"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

That is not the rule of conscience. It is your own invented rule which you have been shoving down our throats for the past 300 posts, falsely maintaining it to be the God ordained rule that is stamped onto every human psyche. No, the rule of conscience is this:

If a person feels guilty about a particular action, then it is morally wrong and sinful.

 

[swordsman1]

Scripture-writing? I'm not even sure that Paul saw himself as a writer of "scripture" in the sense of envisioning or planning the current canon foreseen to be a world-wide publication. More likely he wrote a bunch of letters that the church, ipso facto, DECIDED to canonize.

The apostles were well aware that their writings were from God.

1 Corinthians 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

1 Corinthians 14:36-37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.​

And the apostles also regarded their writings to be part of scripture. Peter said other people twist Paul's letters "as they do with the other scriptures".

2 Peter 3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.​