Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[Albion]

It's hard to say - those two perspectives seem like two sides of a coin. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Well, I'm not being coy or trying to trap you or anything like that. I am simply finding what seem to me to be different themes in your posts on this thread. Different kinds of objections to Sola Scriptura.

Scripture cannot even tell me whether I should show up for work today.

Why should we think it should?? That has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

Because it doesn't apprise me as to whether my workplace will today be the scene of another 911-bombing, or a Covid-19 infestation, or some other catastrophe. Scripture can't even tell me whether the bug spray that I use in my household is safe - perhaps it is contaminating my neighbor's water supply. Any suggestion that Scripture is sufficient seems outlandish to me.

Hear this (because it has been posted innumerable times before):

Sola Scriptura says that Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation, all essential doctrine. It does not mean that it contains all the information in the world, covering everything that can be known on every possible subject, and not even everything that might deal with religion. Scripture doesn't exist to do that! Scripture itself testifies to this point. See John 20:30-31.

 

[JAL]

Hear this (because it has been posted innumerable times before):

Sola Scriptura says that Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation, all essential doctrine. It does not mean that it contains all the information in the world, covering everything that can be known on every possible subject, and not even everything that might deal with religion. Scripture doesn't exist to do that! Scripture itself testifies to this point. See John 20:30-31.

And hear this, because when you've posted this statement in the past, my replies have been generally identical.

Sola Scriptura claims more than that. It touts exegesis as the ONLY final authority on ALL religious issues and thus denies the authority of Direct Revelation. In effect, Moses owed no allegiance to the burning bush,nor Abraham to the Voice, but only to Scripture (which did not yet exist!)

Likewise we too should not have converted to Christianity, because we owed no allegiance to the Inward Witness that convicted us.

It simply doesn't make sense.

 

[JAL]

Why should be think it should?? That has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

It has everything to do with Sola Scriptura. All behavioral decisions are moral decisions impacting my friends, family, and my neighbors. So we are left with a dilemma:

(1) Scripture does not tell me the specifics of how to properly act in each situation of life. Only Direct Revelation could suffice here.
(2) Even if I seem to receive some Direct Revelation, Sola Scriptura tells me, "Don't trust it, unless you can corroborate it in Scripture". Which merely brings me back to issue #1 - resulting in a vicious circle.

 

[Albion]

And hear this, because when you've posted this statement in the past, my replies have been generally identical.

Sola Scriptura claims more than that. It touts exegesis as the ONLY final authority on ALL religious issues and thus denies the authority of Direct Revelation.

No, it doesn't.

It simply doesn't make sense.

What we have apparently established is that it doesn't make sense...to you.

But if Sola Scriptura is correctly defined, it makes perfect sense. And I do meant that most sincerely. It is a very clean-cut principle. Unfortunately, most of the people who argue against it not only misunderstand what the term means but also have made it much more intricate and convoluted than it actually is.

 

[JAL]

No, it doesn't.


What we have apparently established is that it doesn't make sense...to you.

But if Sola Scriptura is correctly defined, it makes perfect sense. And I do meant that most sincerely. It is a very clean-cut principle. Unfortunately, most of the people who argue against it not only misunderstand what the term means but also have made it much more intricate and convoluted than it actually is.

You deny my conclusion without substantiation. Care to provide any citations from Sola Scriptura scholars, to the effect that, if one hears a voice, he need not "check it out with Scripture" ? Curious to see how many such citations you could find.

 

[chilehed]

Tradition is the claim, "Never rely on your own opinions, instead believe what the Catholic church teaches" (or Orthodox church).

False premise.

 

[JAL]

False premise.

So the Catholic churches teaches that you can reject a huge number of Catholic doctrines without jeopardizing your salvation?
The catholic church teaches that the Magisterium is optional rather than mandatory?

 

[nolidad]

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.

Well your argument on the first two is abased on faulty logic and a false beginning! It starts that opinions of anyone other than opinions of believers cannot be influenced by God and that is false.

Your position is also fraught with enormous problems.

1. The conscience of man is fallen and thus even for a believer is an untrustworthy guide for discerning what God is trying to say. It may know some rights from wrongs, but the conscience of man is incapable of fellowship with God.

2. Direct REvelation from God. That is a wonderful sounding position but on what basis do you decide whether a revelation is from God or simply an angel of light deception wrapped in alot of godly sounding phrases? What is your authority and foundation for knowing what is from God and what is not?? Feelings? Prickly hairs on the back of our neck? reasonableness? How do you discern Godly doctrine from doctrines of men?

Now my position which is Sola SCriptura. Let me define it and defend it!

1. We know that all SCripture is God breathed and profitavle for doctrine , teaching and instruction on righteousness.
2. It defines doctrine (which is simply what God has to say about a matter for mankind to know).
3. While it has suffered more at the hands of believers, than unbelievers, it is not subject to ones private opinion.
4. I also believe God still speaks to us. Not to establish doctrine, but how to work out doctrine in day to day living, and how to guide our lives in a fallen world.

God also condemns trust in conscience or reason:
Proverbs 3:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Psalm 119:105 King James Version (KJV)
105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Not our conscience!

Now where the word of God is not readily available and people do not have access to apostles (the Word) evangelists, pastors and teachers, (Ephesians 4) to mature in the faith, I fully believe God will direct believers by their conscience compelled by god until they get access to the Word!.

The early church is an example. There were no bible bookstores and many had just a letter or two and the instructions given by a visit from Paul, Mark, Silas or Barnabbas. God would use them with those revelations of the Word of God! But to see how conscience can be easily decieved we only need look at the Galatians. I am positive they let there conscience believing it was guided by divine revelation to follow the old law because they had no solid structure to guide them (Scripture).

All revelations and impulses of conscience must pass the smell test of the Word of God! If they don't they must be resisted no matter how much we think it from god- for God will never contradict His Word to the Church!

 

[Albion]

You deny my conclusion without substantiation.

It's not a conclusion about a complicated subject. Sola Scriptura means something. You have either been misinformed about that that is...or else have reached your own conclusions from what someone might have said or simply by assuming something from reading the words Sola and Scriptura. Whichever that is, it doesn't matter. I hoped to be able to clear that up for you.

Care to provide any citations from Sola Scriptura scholars, to the effect that, if one hears a voice, he need not "check it out with Scripture" ?

Tell me how what you have described there has anything to do with Sola Scriptura. Or better yet, how it has anything to do what I've explained is the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

 

[JAL]

Well your argument on the first two is abased on faulty logic and a false beginning!

You'd certainly like to believe so. Demonstrating it is another matter.

It starts that opinions of anyone other than opinions of believers cannot be influenced by God and that is false.

A good start would be to write words that I can understand. I'm sorry if you're too pressed for time to write clearly, but the fact remains that I cannot adequately respond to words incomprehensible to me.

Your position is also fraught with enormous problems.

1. The conscience of man is fallen and thus even for a believer is an untrustworthy guide for discerning what God is trying to say. It may know some rights from wrongs, but the conscience of man is incapable of fellowship with God.

Incorrect. There are no exceptions to the following rule of conscience (regardless of how confused, misinformed, warped, or corrupted is that conscience)

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

2. Direct REvelation from God. That is a wonderful sounding position but on what basis do you decide whether a revelation is from God or simply an angel of light deception wrapped in alot of godly sounding phrases? What is your authority and foundation for knowing what is from God and what is not?? Feelings? Prickly hairs on the back of our neck? reasonableness? How do you discern Godly doctrine from doctrines of men?

The rule of conscience as stated above. Feel free to try to postulate a viable exception to that rule. WARNING: this effort will fail.

Now my position which is Sola SCriptura.

Already refuted in the OP, by means of a discussion on "opinion".

All revelations and impulses of conscience must pass the smell test of the Word of God! If they don't they must be resisted no matter how much we think it from god- for God will never contradict His Word to the Church!

Then the agnostic cannot convert. You're telling him to disregard his opinions, and thus he should not act on his eventual opinion that Christianity and/or the Bible is true.

You're not making sense.

My discussions with you in that past have not proven very fruitful, so don't be surprised if I stop responding to you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

Tradition and Sola Scriptura (since you posit the notion that they are stand-alone positions of belief (or religious pursuit, at least) are mostly objective --not subjective as your position is. In spite of your probable argument that direct revelation is objective, it is impossible for it to be so, UNLESS one is surely subjected to God's command. (By this I mean such things as were described in the OT as happened to the prophets, etc. "The lion has roared --who will not be afraid. The Lord has spoken --who can but prophecy." Short of that, it is subjective.) We are easily fooled when we depend on "what seems to us". We need an anchor. I am not in favor of depending on the weight and authority of Church, or Tradition, though they both have their purposes.

But Sola Scriptura is (usually) also accompanied by Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo and Solo Deo Gloria, and cannot well be taken separately from them. They are all parts of one another. Sola Scriptura must necessarily also include the things said in Scripture, which does include direct revelation (the Bible itself) and direct enlightenment by the Spirit. Direct Revelation, as opposing the Bible, is REMOVAL from the truth, and worse than unreliable. Direct Revelation, as adding to the Bible is also worse than unreliable, as one old reformer put it --worship that says things about God that he does not say about himself does not improve worship, and is false.

No, Direct Revelation, apart from Scripture, or in addition to Scripture, or in opposition to scripture is not just subjective, dangerous and unreliable, but FALSE. Thus, Sola Scriptura.

 

[JAL]

It's not a conclusion about a complicated subject. Sola Scriptura means something. You have either been misinformed about that that is...or else have reached your own conclusions from what someone might have said or simply by assuming something from reading the words Sola and Scriptura. Whichever that is, it doesn't matter. I hoped to be able to clear that up for you.


Tell me how what you have described there has anything to do with Sola Scriptura. Or better yet, how it has anything to do what I've explained is the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

Round and round we go....
Sorry I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I connected the dots well enough in my last several responses to you. I'll say it one last time. Historically, all advocates of Sola Scriptura, to my knowledge, have rejected the final authority of Direct Revelation in the life of post-apostolic believers, under the assumption that biblical exegesis is the only final authority. As Charles Hodge oft-stated his own understanding of Sola Scriptura, it means that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Did you get that last part? AND practice.

 

[nolidad]

You'd certainly like to believe so. Demonstrating it is another matter.

Well you start with a false conclusion that opinions do not have biblical rational to them.

A good start would be to write words that I can understand. I'm sorry if you're too pressed for time to write clearly, but the fact remains that I cannot adequately respond to words incomprehensible to me.

Well you start with the declaration that tradition and sola scripture start with the premise that opinions don't matter or shouldn't be trusted and that simply isn't true.

Incorrect. There are no exceptions to the following rule of conscience (regardless of how confused, misinformed, warped, or corrupted is that conscience)

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

And if Gods Word says A is good and B is evil?

Proverbs 16:25
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Many Jews that they were doing your B in good conscience by killing Jesus as a false prophet!

The rule of conscience as stated above. Feel free to try to postulate a viable exception to that rule. WARNING: this effort will fail.

That leads to moral relativism. Cannibals have no bad conscience about eating people. So you are saying to them eating people is acceptable in Gods sight.

Already refuted in the OP, by means of a discussion on "opinion".

Wrong for Scripture is not opinion, but teh declaration of Gods Word to man!

Then the agnostic cannot convert. You're telling him to disregard his opinions, and thus he should not act on his eventual opinion that Christianity and/or the Bible is true.

By themselves? NO! They need divine intervention to be able to exercise faith in the revealed Word of God concerining what is required for anyone to be saved!

 

[JAL]

Tradition and Sola Scriptura (since you posit the notion that they are stand-alone positions of belief (or religious pursuit, at least) are mostly objective --not subjective as your position is. In spite of your probable argument that direct revelation is objective, it is impossible for it to be so, UNLESS one is surely subjected to God's command. (By this I mean such things as were described in the OT as happened to the prophets, etc. "The lion has roared --who will not be afraid. The Lord has spoken --who can but prophecy." Short of that, it is subjective.) We are easily fooled when we depend on "what seems to us". We need an anchor. I am not in favor of depending on the weight and authority of Church, or Tradition, though they both have their purposes.

But Sola Scriptura is (usually) also accompanied by Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo and Solo Deo Gloria, and cannot well be taken separately from them. They are all parts of one another. Sola Scriptura must necessarily also include the things said in Scripture, which does include direct revelation (the Bible itself) and direct enlightenment by the Spirit. Direct Revelation, as opposing the Bible, is REMOVAL from the truth, and worse than unreliable. Direct Revelation, as adding to the Bible is also worse than unreliable, as one old reformer put it --worship that says things about God that he does not say about himself does not improve worship, and is false.

No, Direct Revelation, apart from Scripture, or in addition to Scripture, or in opposition to scripture is not just subjective, dangerous and unreliable, but FALSE. Thus, Sola Scriptura.

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.

 

[nolidad]

Then the agnostic cannot convert. You're telling him to disregard his opinions, and thus he should not act on his eventual opinion that Christianity and/or the Bible is true.

Only in your mind! For I was Catholic and now I am Sola SCriptura and neither one says you cannot trust any of your opinions. But just the ones that contradict SCripture in trusting in God and His Word alone! I let my conscience be bound and directed by Scripture! I test all "revelations" by what I know of Scripture before I act on them.

Let me ask you, How does the agnostic get saved in your opinion? Conscience and divine revelation are not going to reveal the gospel to Him so they are unable to be saved. They can only be saved by the revelation of the gospel which is SCripture!

 

[Albion]

Round and round we go....
Sorry I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Please don't. I really would like to make some progress on this subject since it comes up so often. Just tell us what you think SS means and we could go from there. It does not mean that everything that can be known is supposed to be in Scripture. It does not even mean that every bit of religious knowledge is defined or explained in Scripture. It does not mean that everybody who reads the Bible will understand it correctly. Just as with the US Constitution, what the Bible holds is what the authority that gave it to us (God in this case) intended us to have for a certain purpose.

If you have a different view of the matter, please let us clear the air. But not in a shotgun manner.

I'll say it one last time. Historically, all advocates of Sola Scriptura, to my knowledge, have rejected the final authority of Direct Revelation in the life of post-apostolic believers, under the assumption that biblical exegesis is the only final authority.

Perhaps it would help if we defined, explained, and gave examples of what you are referring to when the term "Direct Revelation" is used. I can think of several different meanings that people use, and they've all come up somewhere or other in these discussions.

Charles Hodge oft-stated his own understanding of Sola Scriptura, it means that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Did you get that last part? AND practice.

Aside from the fact that Charles Hodge does not own Sola Scriptura, this too needs clarification. Is "practice" praying to Mary, for example. That is a practice. Or could it be "practice" when we deal with something like one's demeanor while at worship. And what about religious practices that are not dealt with in Scripture?

 

[swordsman1]

Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you” (Gal 3:8).

"The (covenantal) promises were spoken to Abraham and to [us] his seed and to Christ his seed" (Verse 16, my translation).

Still convinced that 'hearing' in Galatians 3 has NOTHING to do with the Voice of Direct Revelation? Bear in mind that I've now shown you evidence of multiple verses in Galatians 3 alluding to Abraham's experience with the divine Voice - not to mention that Galatians 1 is where Paul belabored his own lifelong governing by Direct Revelation.

Yes, God spoke those words directly to Abraham. They were audible words, not thoughts or feelings or opinions he had. In Genesis it quotes the exact words God said to him.

The clincher is the next verse. Scholarship frankly agrees with me that verse 6 cites Abraham experience at Gen 15 as proof of the statements made in verses 2-5. As Calvin said, for example, verse 6 cites Abraham's experience at Gen 15 as proof that the Spirit and miracles are received by the hearing of faith.

Indeed, Abraham believed what he heard from God. The same as the Galatians believed the gospel they heard.

In Paul's eyes, Abraham is the perfect model here. Why so? Because he preceded the law (preceded Scripture), by 430 years, and thus preceded all the Sola Scriptura movements. In Paul's eyes, then Abraham is the definitive rebuttal of Sola Scriptura.

Not at all. God directly spoke to Abraham. Now God speaks to us through his word. Unless you can show that commonly God audibly speaks to people today, then Sola Scriptura is true.

I must perforce object to your words:

Why, what exactly don't you agree with?

 

[nolidad]

Round and round we go....
Sorry I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I connected the dots well enough in my last several responses to you. I'll say it one last time. Historically, all advocates of Sola Scriptura, to my knowledge, have rejected the final authority of Direct Revelation in the life of post-apostolic believers, under the assumption that biblical exegesis is the only final authority. As Charles Hodge oft-stated his own understanding of Sola Scriptura, it means that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Did you get that last part? AND practice.

As Albion is curious, so am I as to what you mean by rejecting authority of Direct Revelation. That is a very amorphous term and can be used to mask a legion of evils as well. It would behoove you to give some specific examples of this generic statement.

 

[JAL]

Well you start with a false conclusion that opinions do not have biblical rational to them.

Unclear.

Well you start with the declaration that tradition and sola scripture start with the premise that opinions don't matter or shouldn't be trusted and that simply isn't true.

Of so if I form an opinion, or hear a voice, can it be final? Or do I need to "check it out with Scripture"? Historically, what do the advocates of Sola Scriptura claim?

And what do the advocates of Tradition claim? Do I need to "check it out with the church" ?

Remember, on this thread I'm challenging the HISTORIC position on Sola Scriptura - not YOUR version of it, whatever that might be.

And if Gods Word says A is good and B is evil?

You've answered a question with a question. I'm going to repeat the original question. Again, can you plausibly demonstrate any viable exceptions to the following rule:

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

Obviously you are unable to do so. You would have posted an exception if you knew one.

By themselves? NO! They need divine intervention to be able to exercise faith in the revealed Word of God concerining what is required for anyone to be saved!

That doesn't meet the force of the objection. They form the OPINION that the Word is being revealed to them and then they act on the AUTHORITY of that OPINION. Thus they honor the rule:

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

 

[Albion]

Yes, God spoke those words directly to Abraham. They were audible words, not thoughts or feelings or opinions he had. In Genesis it quotes the exact words God said to him.

That's very much what I too was trying to get from our friend.

Indeed, Abraham believed what he heard from God. The same as the Galatians believed the gospel they heard.

Yes.

God directly spoke to Abraham. Now God speaks to us through his word. Unless you can show that commonly God audibly speaks to people is today, then Sola Scriptura is true.

Right.