Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[JAL]

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 love this one. "If you can't prove apodictically that your position is correct, then mine is true by default."

And as regards for audible, the historic church seems to have no clear definition of what that term even means, or even the nature of conscious experience. If you hear a voice in a dream, is it an audible voice? Again, you make a bunch of nebulous statements that might "sound good" for a Sunday sermon but are ultimately hollow, insubstantial, and biblically and logically unsubstantiated.

 

[Albion]

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?

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

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

According to the concept that is called Tradition, what you are describing cannot be new revelation. That would be a contradiction in terms.

 

[JAL]

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.

I gave plenty of examples already. When Abraham heard a voice commanding him to slaughter his son, did he need to "check it out with Scripture" ? No. The Voice of Direct Revelation is authoritative, precisely because it influences conscience.

Contrast that fact with what Sola Scriptura proponents maintain. They would tell you that should NEVER rely exclusively on the perceived authority of a voice, rather you must always "check it out with Scripture". In this view, Direct Revelation is NOT authoritative. Only Scripture is authoritative.

 

[JAL]

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

Exactly their position. Thus, if you're still trying to convince me that I've misunderstood their position, you're floundering.

According to the concept that is called Tradition, what you are describing cannot be new revelation. That would be a contradiction in terms.

"New revelation" is YOUR term. I refer to my position as "Direct Revelation".

 

[swordsman1]

Wrong. You're putting the cart before the horse. The prophets wrote down things given to them by Direct Revelation. Scripture would not exist without Direct Revelation.

I'd have thought my use of present tenses would make it obvious I was referring to the situation today. Of course people received direct revelation in the past.

And all you have to do is postulate a viable epistemology sans direct revelation. You cannot.

You are shifting the burden of proof. It is not for me to set out to disprove direct revelation today. You are the one making the assertion. Therefore the onus in upon YOU to prove it.

Um...one OPINES to have the facts.

So you often say things like, "In my opinion the sky is blue", or "In my opinion fire is hot" ?

Opinions are not facts. Even your own sig says : These are just my opinions, not "the facts."

These words are silly. If you're not of the opinion that Christianity is true, you're not a Christian. Period.

No, Christianity is not an opinion. It is a fact.

Your conscience is your internal opinion as to what is morally right or wrong.

Your conscience is not an opinion. An opinion is your own personal judgement on a matter based on your own fallible reasoning. The conscience is the mechanism God has pre-programmed into every human to tell him whether a particular action or thought is morally wrong or not. It is how gentiles are determined to be guilty of sin even though they do not have the Law (Rom 2)

 

[Albion]

I gave plenty of examples already. When Abraham heard a voice commanding him to slaughter his son, did he need to "check it out with Scripture" ? No.

Answer this, please. What new doctrine is involved in what God told Abraham?

The Voice of Direct Revelation is authoritative, precisely because it influences conscience.

So, doesn't this mean simply that you prefer to think that something other than God's revelation in Holy Scripture is what you want to follow instead of the Bible? That's a serious question.

Contrast that fact with what Sola Scriptura proponents maintain. They would tell you that should NEVER rely exclusively on the perceived authority of a voice, rather you must always "check it out with Scripture".

Yes. Sola Scriptura does mean that God's word in Scripture contains all that is doctrinal and essential for salvation. It doesn't mean all sorts of other things that I read on these forums, but it means this. What is your objection?

 

[Albion]

"New revelation" is YOUR term. I refer to my position as "Direct Revelation".

New revelation isn't a term at all. I am referring to revelation that is new, unique.

It obviously is that if you insist that it is not something we all already know from having read the Bible. And we all consider the Bible to be revelation, don't we? It's not just a compilation of the musings of some old Hebrews, as I've heard some skeptics describe their thinking about the Bible.

That it's brand new revelation is the point, though. What is the benefit of any such thing if you already have the answer from God? At best, what the voice says is exactly what is to be found in the Bible and is an encouragement to remember and be guided by what the hearer already has been taught.

 

[JAL]

You are shifting the burden of proof.

You are making assumptions about where the burden belongs.

It is not for me to set out to disprove direct revelation today. You are the one making the assertion. Therefore the onus in upon YOU to prove it.

And you are likewise making an assertion. And?

Opinions are not facts. Even your own sig says : These are just my opinions, not "the facts."

That's not really the bone of contention. The question in the OP is whether we have to RELY on our opinions. Turns out we do, contrary to both Sola Scriptura and Tradition.
All this was clear in the OP. You're just dancing around this point.

No, Christianity is not an opinion. It is a fact.

(sigh). More dancing. I have no access to "fact" because I'm not infallible. I became a Christian when I reached the OPINION that Christianity is true.

Your conscience is not an opinion. An opinion is your own personal judgement on a matter based on your own fallible reasoning. The conscience is the mechanism God has pre-programmed into every human to tell him whether a particular action or thought is morally wrong or not. It is how gentiles are determined to be guilty of sin even though they do not have the Law (Rom 2)

People have different opinions as to what is right or wrong. Thus, conscience is not logically divorceable from opinion.[/QUOTE]

 

[swordsman1]

I love this one. "If you can't prove apodictically that your position is correct, then mine is true by default."

It's a pretty obvious deduction. Unless you can prove direct revelation occurs today, what other method apart from scripture does God use to speak to his people in regards to the faith?

nd as regards for audible, the historic church seems to have no clear definition of what that term even means, or even the nature of conscious experience. If you hear a voice in a dream, is it an audible voice?

It's not about what the church thinks. It's about what the bible says. When it quotes God's words verbatim (God said,"......"), then either God literally spoke those words, or scripture is lying.

Again, you make a bunch of nebulous statements that might "sound good" for a Sunday sermon but are ultimately hollow, insubstantial, and biblically and logically unsubstantiated.

Ah, the fallacy of ad hominem.

 

[JAL]

New revelation is the point, though. What is the benefit of any voices if you already have the answer from God?

New revelation is a loaded term often wielded by advocates of Sola Scriptura to breed fear of Direct Revelation.

It's an oxymoron. God had already revealed to Adam and Eve, presumably, His desire for perpetual fellowship with them. All subsequent revelation CLARIFIES the original revelation. There is no possible notion of "new revelation". Let's move on.

 

[Albion]

New revelation is a loaded term often wielded by advocates of Sola Scriptura to breed fear of Direct Revelation.

All subsequent revelation CLARIFIES the original revelation.

Oh, so if we call it "subsequent" revelation instead of "new" revelation, it isn't open to being dismissed as a loaded term often wielded by advocates of something or other in order to breed fear of Direct Revelation?

Great. Use that term and answer the questions I've asked.

 

[swordsman1]

You are making assumptions about where the burden belongs.

No, I simply read your post and spotted the fallacy you made.

And you are likewise making an assertion. And?

What, that sola scriptura is true? That has been the default position of the protestant church for ages. Not a new assertion.

That's not really the bone of contention. The question in the OP is whether we have to RELY on our opinions. Turns out we do, contrary to both Sola Scriptura and Tradition.
All this was clear in the OP. You're just dancing around this point.

Nobody should rely on their opinions, because they originate from their own fallible reasoning.

(sigh). More dancing. I have no access to "fact" because I'm not infallible. I became a Christian when I reached the OPINION that Christianity is true.

You're not infallible. But scripture is.

People have different opinions as to what is right or wrong. Thus, conscience is not logically divorceable from opinion.

Then that is their opinion, not their conscience speaking.

If someone says it's ok to murder. That would just be their opinion. Not their conscience. They are either ignoring their conscience, or their conscience is 'seared'.

 

[JAL]

It's a pretty obvious deduction. Unless you can prove direct revelation occurs today, what other method apart from scripture does God use to speak to his people in regards to the faith?

Do you even have a viable theory of conversion? Apparently not. Your words lead to the following dilemma. Consider the agnostic's ruminations:

"Is Christianity true? Is the Bible true? I don't know. According to Swordsman1, God certainly isn't going to speak to me about it. I guess I'll have to rely on my own human reasoning. No, I can't do that either, because Swordsman1 says "It's a pretty obvious deduction" that Scripture is the only revelation of truth. But that's the whole problem, I can't look to the Bible because I'm still trying to DECIDE whether the Bible is true. Seems I'm stuck"

Your position makes zero sense. To resolve that quandary, Calvin came up with a theory known as the Inward Witness - and pretty much every evangelical theologian in church history has agreed with him on this point. The Inward Witness is a Direct Revelation of the gospel. For example:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." (John 6:44).
"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." (Jn 10:27).

If God were to honor YOUR claim that exegesis is the sole means of divine-human communication, it would spell disaster for anyone incapable of reliable exegesis - they could not be saved, or at least could not be expected to SUSTAIN saving faith reliably:
(1) The majority of adolescents
(2) The mentally handicapped (viz. Alzheimers, autism, brain damage, etc)
(3) The physically handicapped (mute, deaf, blind, etc).
(4) Those too poor to receive bibles, or living in countries that ban them.

The Inward Witness cuts through all those issues - with perfect reliability. Direct Revelation is the ONLY fully reliable revelation of truth. God is a little wiser than you are. Thus while you are quick to deprecate Direct Revelation, God, in His wisdom, stakes the entire Kingdom on it.

 

[chilehed]

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?

Among your false premises are:

• That Tradition is something other than Apostolic teaching.
• That the Catholic Church teaches that one should never exercise one's reason.
• That the Catholic Church teaches that the right use of reason can arrive at answers contrary to truth.
• That human reason is reliably capable of arriving at all truth without reliance on divine revelation.

And after reading your other thread I see another:

• That you are able of determining for yourself that you are not one of those spoken of in 2 Peter 3:16

 

[JAL]

If someone says it's ok to murder. That would just be their opinion. Not their conscience. They are either ignoring their conscience, or their conscience is 'seared'.

You're still trying to divorce opinion from conscience. That makes no sense. You are evidently picturing an individual who says to himself:
(1) I know it is okay to murder. Morally, it is the right thing to do. That is my opinion.
(2) I know, by my conscience, that murder is wrong. That is my conviction.

That's an impossible psychological state. It is impossible to be of the mindset where:
- I am convinced that proposition-A is true
- And ALSO convinced that proposition-A is false

Thus the attempt to divorce opinion from conscience is a logical impossibility.

 

[robycop3]

"Tradition" - man-made & therefore untrue

"revelation" - Guesswork, colored by what one wants to be true

"sola Scriptura" - Sustained by fulfilled Scriptural prophecy. If you were led to Jesus by your grandmother, she gained her intel from Scripture, as did your pastor, or whoever.

 

[Albion]

"Tradition" - man-made & therefore untrue

To be fair to the advocates of Tradition, though, we have to say that they posit that there is a pattern and a consistency to the tradition, whatever it is, and that fact shows the hand of God at work.

Those who reject Tradition point out that 1) it's nowhere mentioned in Scripture which we all believe to be God's word, and 2) the standards which define Tradition (pattern, consistency, etc.) are only talking points.

None of the dogmas that have been proclaimed by reference to Tradition are the result of a belief that actually was 'from the beginning,' consistent, and so on.

 

[JAL]

You're not infallible. But scripture is.

And how did you reach the opinion that scripture is true? Oh, that's right, you benefited from a Direct Revelation known as the Inward Witness, speaking through your sense of opinion/conscience, causing you to feel certain of the gospel.

Let me get this straight. In your view, God's master-plan was to stake the salvation, sanctification, and evangelism of His people upon a book that wasn't printing-pressed for 90% of church history, on behalf of a Sola Scriptura ideology self-contradictory in nature and incapable of conferring salvation.

You do realize it cannot confer salvation, right? You were not aware? Allow me to enlighten you.

The Mormons read the same Bible as we do, they see the word 'God' there, as we do, and proceed to worship "God". Likewise the Jehovah Witnesses. Likewise the Jews. Why then are they not saved? They are not worshipping the right God. The feeble human mind cannot rightly picture an ineffably holy God - it can only fashion, and worship, a conceptual idol. Therefore the Inward Witness - as Calvin and other scholars have noted - must provide a mental picture (vision) - a Direct Revelation - of the true God. When Christians say things like, "I was an atheist until 2 years ago, when I finally met the Lord", this is precisely what they are referring to. In effect, ALL of us had the Damascus-road experience usually ascribed to Paul, even if our vision was incredibly dim compared to that blazing Light.

Thus, you based the biggest decision of your life - the decision to convert - on Direct Revelation. Are we to entertain seriously the notion that Direct Revelation, having been entrusted with life's biggest decision, should NOT be entrusted with life's smaller decisions?

You do realize, don't you, that the biggest pushers of Sola Scriptura - both in ancient times and today - PROFIT FINANCIALLY from that ideology? They literally have a hundred thousand incentives (counted in actual dollars) per year to keep brainwashing us to their mentality. Imagine what would happen to their careers - and their pocketbooks - if the church accepted the absolute primacy of Direct Revelation in all matters. In light of this fact, you need to think carefully about what you've bought into.

 

[JAL]

Among your false premises are:

• That Tradition is something other than Apostolic teaching.
• That the Catholic Church teaches that one should never exercise one's reason.
• That the Catholic Church teaches that the right use of reason can arrive at answers contrary to truth.
• That human reason is reliably capable of arriving at all truth without reliance on divine revelation.

I don't see where the argument in the OP relies on any of those premises.

 

[Albion]

And how did you reach the opinion that scripture is true? Oh, that's right, you benefited from a Direct Revelation known as the Inward Witness, speaking through your sense of opinion/conscience, causing you to feel certain of the gospel.

Feeling certain isn't at issue here.

If something makes you feel certain about God's truth and his will for us, that's fine, but it isn't the truth itself.

And if you were NOT certain about it, the truth would still be the truth.