• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I mention the maxim because you need to know it to understand my posts. Anyway, you're asking about how to test a revelation. A few posts back I used the word "incontrovertible" - that's how you test some OTHER guy's so-called revelation. Also you should search for any posts where I used the term "bathwater" because, in part, I commented that the fact that 2 people disagree over a revelation isn't cause for throwing out the baby with the bathwater. When 2 people disagree over the bible, must we throw out the Bible?

Ok so if you search accordingly, and read those posts, and still have doubts, let me know.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Also, for more on testing a revelation - see point 11 in my 16-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura. The argument there is that we know the truth by the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) - this is an extrapolation of Calvin's doctrine of the Inward Witness. The biblical concept of testing is to check whether a spirit agrees or disgrees with what you already learned by Direct Revelation. Subjectively, you cannot "really" know whether you learned something by Direct Revelation, but that's immaterial as I'm referring to incontrovertible "revelations" (beliefs), and thus you BELIEVE yourself to know something (and you can't change that). So the test is to compare what you CAN question (the sayings of this spirit) with those things you CANNOT question (incontrovertible beliefs, or at least beliefs you find yourself unable to controvert in good conscience).
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
  • Winner
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,329.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
For those interested...

WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A 16 POINT REBUTTAL OF THE OP'S CLAIMS (linked)

This is a detailed rebuttal point by point showing the logical fallacies in relation to God's Word not being the only source of God's guidence. It also show the claims made in each point are simply man made opinion that are not based on scripture and directly showing how the WORD of God alone addresses every claim and point being made in the OP here and in the controversial theology sections on the forum. Hope it is helpful to those interested. I did not wish to post it here as it would just get lost in pages. The link provided shows why the OP is in error for those interested.

God bless.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0

1213

Disciple of Jesus
Jul 14, 2011
3,661
1,117
Visit site
✟153,699.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
...You cannot just ASSUME that faith comes from reading the bible, or ASSUME that such distinctions don't matter. ...

The reason I believe and want to be loyal to God is the Bible. By what the Bible tells, I have learned to know God and His will. And because of what the Bible tells, I want to be loyal (faithful) to God. Without it, I probably would be a non-believer. And certainly, I wouldn’t know Bible God by the teachings of the Church in my country, because they are really far from what the Bible teaches.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The reason I believe and want to be loyal to God is the Bible. By what the Bible tells, I have learned to know God and His will. And because of what the Bible tells, I want to be loyal (faithful) to God. Without it, I probably would be a non-believer. And certainly, I wouldn’t know Bible God by the teachings of the Church in my country, because they are really far from what the Bible teaches.
If you're content disobeying Paul's command to seek Direct Revelation (1Cor 14:1), there is significant reason to believe that Paul would be very frustrated and disappointed in you, much like he expressed his frustration with the Galatians. What YOU want or like is not the only issue. 100 billion souls are at stake here and therefore we need to be open minded as to what Paul's advice was on how to most effectively pursue sanctification and evangelism.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,779
✟498,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
If you're content disobeying Paul's command to seek Direct Revelation (1Cor 14:1), there is significant reason to believe that Paul would be very frustrated and disappointed in you, much like he expressed his frustration with the Galatians. What YOU want or like is not the only issue. 100 billion souls are at stake here and therefore we need to be open minded as to what Paul's advice was on how to most effectively pursue sanctification and evangelism.

This is a very harsh and incorrect response to another Christian! If you're saying that you can't get inspiration from God through the Bible then I suggest you open yours once in a while.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,779
✟498,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The reason I believe and want to be loyal to God is the Bible. By what the Bible tells, I have learned to know God and His will. And because of what the Bible tells, I want to be loyal (faithful) to God. Without it, I probably would be a non-believer. And certainly, I wouldn’t know Bible God by the teachings of the Church in my country, because they are really far from what the Bible teaches.

Don't pay attention to JAL's post. It's mean-spirited and incorrect. God bless you in your jurney with Him in this life.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: 1213
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This is a very harsh and incorrect response to another Christian! If you're saying that you can't get inspiration from God through the Bible then I suggest you open yours once in a while.
When I first got saved, I was indoctrinated into Sola Scriptura. That almost wrecked my life. Why so? At that time I was dealing with some serious emotional issues and I knew I needed help from God - or from medication (wasn't thrilled with the latter). So I read every book I could find on how to draw strength from the Holy Spirit. Accordingly I also memorized several books of the NT because those Holy-Spirit books claimed that Scripture was critical to drawing strength from God. And it failed miserably, over the course of several month. I was in despair. Then I started reading the writings of Andrew Murray, who seemed to imply that the Presence of God is a Direct Revelation, and if all you seek is the written Word, you might NEVER experience a strong influx of His strength. Murray made it clear to me what I needed to do and, within a few days, it became a reality. Even today, I am literally sustained by a measure of the Presence that I was never privy to during my days of Sola Scriptura.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,779
✟498,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
When I first got saved, I was indoctrinated into Sola Scriptura. That almost wrecked my life. Why so? At that time I was dealing with some serious emotional issues and I knew I needed help from God - or from medication (wasn't thrilled with the latter). So I read every book I could find on how to draw strength from the Holy Spirit. Accordingly I also memorized several books of the NT because those Holy-Spirit books claimed that Scripture was critical to drawing strength from God. And it failed miserably, over the course of several month. I was in despair. Then I started reading the writings of Andrew Murray, who seemed to imply that the Presence of God is a Direct Revelation, and if all you seek is the written Word, you might NEVER experience a strong influx of His strength. Murray made it clear to me what I needed to do and, within a few days, it became a reality. Even today, I am literally sustained by a measure of the Presence that I was never privy to during my days of Sola Scriptura.

That's an interesting story but remember that it's YOUR story; it doesn't apply to everybody.

I, and I'm sure others, derive A LOT from reading the Bible, which is, after, the Word of God. When I read the Bible, which I do extensively these days thanks to COVID-19 isolation, I receive a lot from the Holy Spirit. This doesn't eliminate prayer or praying on tongues, but it is my main source of inspiration.

You probably know that Sola Scriptura came about when Martin Luther broke from the corrupt Catholic church, which had VERY STRANGE ways of interpreting God's will. I happen to agree with him that the Bible is infallible; men have created all kinds of doctrines and practices that conflict with each other. Look at all the Protestant denominations, each of which insists that its doctrine is right and everyone else's is wrong.

I'm glad that you have found your path but that doesn't mean it applies to everyone. Remember what Paul wrote to the church in Corinth? "My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

Because you have found inspiration from the writer Andrew Murray doesn't mean that he replaces God's Word to everybody.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That's an interesting story but remember that it's YOUR story; it doesn't apply to everybody.

I, and I'm sure others, derive A LOT from reading the Bible, which is, after, the Word of God. When I read the Bible, which I do extensively these days thanks to COVID-19 isolation, I receive a lot from the Holy Spirit. This doesn't eliminate prayer or praying on tongues, but it is my main source of inspiration.
You might be using terms indiscriminately. Reading the Bible isn't inspiration. You might find it "somewhat inspiring" (like any well-written or well-directed movie) but it's not inspiration in the theological sense.

Because you have found inspiration from the writer Andrew Murray doesn't mean that he replaces God's Word to everybody.
Actually I have defended my position across almost 500 posts by showing it superior logically, exegetically, contextually, and so on.

Here's some Scripture not yet mentioned. Here's what Paul actually says about the written Word - the same written Word that the Sola Scriptura party elevates above the divine Word:

"For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death....Sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good" (Rom 7)

And again:

"God has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory..." (2Cor 3).

The divine Word (the Holy Spirit) brings Life. The written Word frequently brings DEATH - the written Word does have some benefits but if the divine Presence is insufficiently strong in us to shield us from its potentially deathly side-effects, we're in trouble. I'm sorry if you don't like what Paul said.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,779
✟498,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You might be using terms indiscriminately. Reading the Bible isn't inspiration. You might find it "somewhat inspiring" (like any well-written or well-directed movie) but it's not inspiration in the theological sense.


Actually I have defended my position across almost 500 posts by showing it superior logically, exegetically, contextually, and so on.

Here's some Scripture not yet mentioned. Here's what Paul actually says about the written Word - the same written Word that the Sola Scriptura party elevates above the divine Word:

"For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death....Sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good" (Rom 7)

And again:

"God has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory..." (2Cor 3).

The divine Word (the Holy Spirit) brings Life. The written Word frequently brings DEATH - the written Word does have some benefits but if the divine Presence is insufficiently strong in us to shield us from its potentially deathly side-effects, we're in trouble. I'm sorry if you don't like what Paul said.

That's quite a distortion of Scripture. Paul wrote about the written law, i.e. the Torah and how trying to keep it brings spiritual death. This by no means applies to the entire Bible.

If the letter kills, why doesn't this also apply to Andrew Murray's writings? You put down God's word and elevate one man's ideas. Couldn't that be construed as cultish?
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That's quite a distortion of Scripture. Paul wrote about the written law, i.e. the Torah and how trying to keep it brings spiritual death. This by no means applies to the entire Bible.
Um...Yes it does. Spiritual principles are somewhat like laws of nature. They apply everywhere. Paul's claim is that written commands bring death because a written command both tempts you and condemns you without providing the sanctifying grace to (efficaciously) MOVE and EMPOWER you to obey the command. That applies wherever a shortage of grace exists.
If the letter kills, why doesn't this also apply to Andrew Murray's writings? You put down God's word and elevate one man's ideas. Couldn't that be construed as cultish?
Absolutely it does apply to Andrew Murray's writings. Here are some things that you need to understand. (1) Andrew Murray was well aware of this fact, hence his writings are not really a book of commands. On the contrary, his treatises are generally trying to get us to STOP understanding sanctification as obedience to commands and instead as waiting on the Lord for sanctifying outpourings received via Direct Revelations.
(2) He's saying that the NT writers had the same priority in mind but the Bible scholars missed it. Point #3 below is one reason they missed it.
(3) The commands in the NT are addressed to Paul's generation of revival which ALREADY DID have plenty of sanctifying grace to obey those commands. (Also I personally believe that even Paul's written messages, in those days, shipped with an extra dosage of anointing even as the anointing that rubbed off his body onto cloths healed the sick).

Again, I'm sorry if you don't like what Paul said.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,779
✟498,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Um...Yes it does. Spiritual principles are somewhat like laws of nature. They apply everywhere. Paul's claim is that written commands bring death because a written command both tempts you and condemns you without providing the sanctifying grace to (efficaciously) MOVE and EMPOWER you to obey the command. That applies wherever a shortage of grace exists.
Absolutely it does apply to Andrew Murray's writings. Here are some things that you need to understand. (1) Andrew Murray was well aware of this fact, hence his writings are not really a book of commands. On the contrary, his treatises are generally trying to get us to STOP understanding sanctification as obedience to commands and instead as waiting on the Lord for sanctifying outpourings received via Direct Revelations.
(2) He's saying that the NT writers had the same priority in mind but the Bible scholars missed it. Point #3 below is one reason they missed it.
(3) The commands in the NT are addressed to Paul's generation of revival which ALREADY DID have plenty of sanctifying grace to obey those commands. (Also I personally believe that even Paul's written messages, in those days, shipped with an extra dosage of anointing even as the anointing that rubbed off his body onto cloths healed the sick).

Again, I'm sorry if you don't like what Paul said.

I very much like what Paul said in all his writings. I disagree with with what you say concerning Andrew Murray's secular writings. He is just another person expressing his thoughts, but his writings are NOT the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I very much like what Paul said in all his writings. I disagree with with what you say concerning Andrew Murray's secular writings. He is just another person expressing his thoughts, but his writings are NOT the Bible.
Irrelevant. He was an excellent expositor of the Bible. I never said that his writings are Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,779
✟498,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Irrelevant. He was an excellent expositor of the Bible. I never said that his writings are Scripture.

No, but you discount the efficacy of Scripture in favor of an expositor's writing about Scripture.

"So I read every book I could find on how to draw strength from the Holy Spirit. Accordingly I also memorized several books of the NT because those Holy-Spirit books claimed that Scripture was critical to drawing strength from God. And it failed miserably, over the course of several month. I was in despair. Then I started reading the writings of Andrew Murray, who seemed to imply that the Presence of God is a Direct Revelation, and if all you seek is the written Word, you might NEVER experience a strong influx of His strength." [emphasis mine]
 
Upvote 0

1213

Disciple of Jesus
Jul 14, 2011
3,661
1,117
Visit site
✟153,699.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If you're content disobeying Paul's command to seek Direct Revelation (1Cor 14:1)...

Paul says in that:

Follow after love, and earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
1Cor 14:1

I don’t think that is commandment to seek Direct Revelation. But, I am not against direct revelation. I think there is all important said in the Bible, no reason why God should repeat it to me personally.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, but you discount the efficacy of Scripture in favor of an expositor's writing about Scripture.

"So I read every book I could find on how to draw strength from the Holy Spirit. Accordingly I also memorized several books of the NT because those Holy-Spirit books claimed that Scripture was critical to drawing strength from God. And it failed miserably, over the course of several month. I was in despair. Then I started reading the writings of Andrew Murray, who seemed to imply that the Presence of God is a Direct Revelation, and if all you seek is the written Word, you might NEVER experience a strong influx of His strength." [emphasis mine]
Um...The written Word doesn't have any sanctifying efficacy. Post 492 should have already convinced of you that. Maybe this passage will help:


"Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law." (Gal 3).

Paul is talking about sanctification. The written Word doesn't accomplish it. Still not enough Scripture for you? Maybe Romans 8:

"Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you a free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh..."(Rom 8)

How many times does Paul have to say it before you'll believe it? Ten? Fifteen? Twenty?

Your post is also mixing apples with oranges. You're comparing these two things:
(1) Andrew Murray teaching me to look to the Presence instead of written Law/Word
(2) My memorizing Scripture back when I mistakenly believed that the written Word DID have a degree of efficacy.

That's a category mistake. It would be more logical to compare these two things:
(3) Andrew Murray teaching me to look to the Presence instead of written Law/Word
(4) Scripture teaches the same thing but I had missed it until I read Andrew Murray.

The fact is, we all need teachers, because all of us miss things in Scripture. If you want to fault me for looking to Andrew Murray as a mentor, that's your prerogative.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Paul says in that:

Follow after love, and earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
1Cor 14:1

I don’t think that is commandment to seek Direct Revelation. But, I am not against direct revelation. I think there is all important said in the Bible, no reason why God should repeat it to me personally.
The REASON is that you are a fallible interpreter of the text. For example you could misunderstand how to properly evangelize (and it is my personal opinion that the church has misunderstood evangelism for 2,000 years). And with 100 billion souls at stake, there's no acceptable margin for error. We need to seek infallible revelation.

Even if I'm wrong I'm still right. How so? Suppose I'm wrong. Suppose we DON'T need infallible revelation. With 100 billion souls at stake, I still need to be sure, that is, I need to KNOW (infallibly) that we DON'T need it, in order for me to forge ahead with evangelism. Either way, then, I still need to seek infallible revelation.

This means my position is a no-brainer. Anyone who cares about the lost should prioritize Direct Revelation - and I don't even need Scripture to back this up (although there's PLENTY of it). I don't even need to know whether Christianity is the true religion. If I suspect that God exists, I should seek His face in Direct Revelation, simply because there are 100 billion souls at stake. Enough said.
 
Upvote 0