Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[Bible Highlighter]

Actually I delight to point out that the major components of my position seem to be tautologies impossible to repudiate without self-contradiction, and thus stand firm regardless of which religion happens to be the true one. I certainly don't need Scripture to defend the rule of conscience, nor the primacy of the Voice. On the assumption that monotheism is real, the Voice of God must be preeminent.

(1) Only the Voice could hope to infallibly reveal the true religion to every human heart.
(2) Only the Voice could hope to infallibly reveal the proper methods of evangelism.
(3) Only the Voice could hope to establish world peace. World rulers will always stipulate conflicting campaigns unless jointly governed by the same Voice.
(4) Fellowship with God (i.e. fellowship with anyone) can only be defined in terms of a distinct ("loud and clear") mutual exchange of sensations and thus entails the divine Voice (understood as all manner of sensation).
(5) Only the Voice could real-time direct all of my actions as to avoid accidental harm to my neighbor. "Love does no harm to its neighbor" (Rom 13).

And you think that, based on such premises, I have no right to appeal to Scripture to further corroborate the Voice. Wrong again. While the Voice is the ultimate authority (although strictly speaking my conscience is the real authority), what am I to do whenever I do not hear the Voice loud and clear? My primary focus is prayer, naturally, but my conscience, at times can also lead me to look to Scripture for TENTATIVE answers to my questions, tentative because my analysis of Scripture is fallible.

Another basis for my appeals to Scripture is strategy. Knowing that YOU endorse Scripture, it is only strategic for me to appeal to it in a debate with you, regardless of what I myself happen to believe about it. (Turns out I do believe that Scripture is true).

Clear?

The problem is that we have to weed out from every all the crackpots who say they had prophecies (Which always turn out to be in failure), and or those who had near death experiences and yet they do not line up with the Bible, etc. or those who say they have extra holy writings in addition to the Bible and yet these writings really do not line up with God's Word. We have a sea of error out there, and you want us to just trust that voice in your head as if it is on par with Holy Scripture. Many people hear voices in their head today, but I am confident that many of these voices do not come from God.

In other words, without the Bible, a person can be led to think that loving others could involve premarital sex, or they could think that loving others is lacing brownies with weed as a gift for their neighbors because weed makes people happy. Without a compass like the Bible, a person can just follow that voice into walking into oncoming traffic.

 

[JAL]

The problem is that you cannot prove your direct revelation(s) or another person's revelations from God are on equal authority to Scripture. Until you do, you got nothing. You got no case to actually make.

Um...I've actually got a BIG case to make.
(1) I have shown that Sola Scriptura is nonsense (see post 101 for example).
(2) The rule of conscience isn't dependent on whether one's revelations are on a par with Scripture. In point of fact, the rule of conscience mentions NEITHER Scripture NOR Direct Revelation. It simply states, in refutation of Sola Scriptura:

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

Secondly, once the bible student finally admits that Sola Scriptura doesn't make sense and logically contradicts the rule of conscience, he is at pains to be on the lookout for an epistemological system that DOES work, a system that can potentially resolve all situations of indecision on religious belief and practice. And it seems the only other plausible alternative is a system grounded firmly in Direct Revelation. This will cause the reader to scrutinize the Scriptures with a completely new set of lenses. Suddenly the old verses potentially take on a whole new import and meaning previously unseen:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy" (1 Cor 14:1).

"The one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, b but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, c unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.

Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy (verse 39).

In that epistle, how many times did Paul mention exegesis? How many times did he mention the so-called Great Commission? Scholars have widely pointed out that the eminence of a topic is often indicated by its frequency of mention. In that case, the above passage is provocative.

You keep saying there is 'no proof'. This is the old tired strategy of claiming, "If you can't prove your position 100%, I don't have to accept it". Look, I can't prove ANYTHING 100%. Neither can you. I can't even prove that you exist. That's not really the point.

The point is owning up to the fact that Sola Scriptura appears to be complete gibberish, and seems to be contrary to authorial intent. And thus, if we are believers averse to seemingly irrational thinking, we'll naturally tend to gravitate to an epistemology grounded in conscience and Direct Revelation.

 

[JAL]

If you are hearing a voice, I would test the voice that you hear to make sure it is God.

This completely misses the point. Implicitly - and quite often explicitly - I've been defining authoritative Voice as one that influences your conscience. And once it has done so effectively, at that point it is not necessary to test it. Because the rule of conscience has no exceptions. What do I mean by "effectively"? Consider the rule:

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

At issue here is the DEGREE of certainty. Some action (such as Abraham attempting to slaughter his son) require 100% certainty - absolute certainty. Other actions require a lesser degree of certainty. Thus for each kind of action, the conscience, unless warped, will not acquiesce until a particular degree of certainty is reached. But once it is reached, it doesn't seem to make sense to claim that further testing is needed.

Ask the voice that speaks to you to confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Why? Because Scripture says....
1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world"
(1 John 4:1-3).

Correct. To the extent that conscience directs, you should test the spirits. But interestingly there is no clear evidence that John had exegesis in mind as the test. Let's refer back to John's gospel:

12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

According to the above passage, HOW were the disciples to be guided into all truth? Exegesis? Seminary? It's a clear reference to Direct Revelation. That's what Jesus taught HIS disciples. In turn, what did John teach his OWN disciples? Notice he uses similar language:

"I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him." (1Jn 2).

Note the context. He is talking about being led astray - this is precisely the context for testing the spirits. But the TEST mentioned here is neither seminary nor exegesis. What he is saying, rather, is that if someone comes along speaking something contrary to what you ALREADY LEARNED by Direct Revelation, reject it. That's the test.

You're right. We should ask the spirit to acknowledge Jesus. That's a valid test, because His divinity is something we already learned by the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation).

 

[klutedavid]

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

Your using the scripture the same way a fundamentalist uses the scripture.

You tell me how you know that the letter to the Romans is an authentic letter written by an apostle?

That's not the written Word - it's the divine Word speaking to us in Direct Revelation.

The Divine word spoken to Paul was recorded by Paul in his letters.

Paul's favorite example of such hearing, in both Romans and Galatians, is the prophet Abraham, specifically at Gen 15 where:

"The Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision [speaking promises]"

Once again your using the scripture to support your position, which is holding to the authority of the scripture itself.

If only you had any idea how few people God has ever spoken to, directly in history, you would be shocked. An audible communication between man and God is very rare.

How many people are prophets and have received revelation directly through the Holy Spirit would be numerous.

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

More quotations from a fundamentalist in denial.

You cannot accept any scripture as inspired without the written letters by Christian authors. That is Christian authors from the first three centuries of Christian history. It is only by reading their correspondence that we have any idea, what letters were written by apostles.

Letters in the N.T sometimes have no author, letters such as Hebrews. How would anyone know who wrote what letter and even what was in any of these letters, without church history.

You cannot deny early church history otherwise you forfeit the New Testament.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Um...I've actually got a BIG case to make.
(1) I have shown that Sola Scriptura is nonsense (see post 101 for example).
(2) The rule of conscience isn't dependent on whether one's revelations are on a par with Scripture. In point of fact, the rule of conscience mentions NEITHER Scripture NOR Direct Revelation. It simply states, in refutation of Sola Scriptura:

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

Secondly, once the bible student finally admits that Sola Scriptura doesn't make sense and logically contradicts the rule of conscience, he is at pains to be on the lookout for an epistemological system that DOES work, a system that can potentially resolve all situations of indecision on religious belief and practice. And it seems the only other plausible alternative is a system grounded firmly in Direct Revelation. This will cause the reader to scrutinize the Scriptures with a completely new set of lenses. Suddenly the old verses potentially take on a whole new import and meaning previously unseen:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy" (1 Cor 14:1).

"The one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, b but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, c unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.

Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy (verse 39).

In that epistle, how many times did Paul mention exegesis? How many times did he mention the so-called Great Commission? Scholars have widely pointed out that the eminence of a topic is often indicated by its frequency of mention. In that case, the above passage is provocative.

You keep saying there is 'no proof'. This is the old tired strategy of claiming, "If you can't prove your position 100%, I don't have to accept it". Look, I can't prove ANYTHING 100%. Neither can you. I can't even prove that you exist. That's not really the point.

The point is owning up to the fact that Sola Scriptura appears to be complete gibberish, and seems to be contrary to authorial intent. And thus, if we are believers averse to seemingly irrational thinking, we'll naturally tend to gravitate to an epistemology grounded in conscience and Direct Revelation.

The name "Sola Scriptura" is not correct, but the teaching of Sola Scriptura does accept things like conviction of keeping the Moral Law, and looking at the creation to know there is a God, etc. My position is "Sola Scriptura + the Anointing to Understand it by God." I believe God can speak to us in other ways, but Scripture is primary in building our spiritual lessons and truths for our life. Again, you would not know of the gospel that saves you if it was not for Scripture. This proves the necessity of the need of Scripture. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). This is Scripture and not voices in your head. The other stuff you speak of is merely secondary and not primary to our faith. We build our faith in what the Bible says primarily because voices can deceive a person to walk into oncoming traffic or to jump off a bridge.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

(3) Only the Voice could hope to establish world peace. World rulers will always stipulate conflicting campaigns unless jointly governed by the same Voice.

While we are to follow after peace with all men (Hebrews 12:14), world peace is not in God's plans. The Lord will return and destroy the remaining nations at His second coming. Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Um...I've actually got a BIG case to make.
(1) I have shown that Sola Scriptura is nonsense (see post 101 for example).
(2) The rule of conscience isn't dependent on whether one's revelations are on a par with Scripture. In point of fact, the rule of conscience mentions NEITHER Scripture NOR Direct Revelation. It simply states, in refutation of Sola Scriptura:

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

Secondly, once the bible student finally admits that Sola Scriptura doesn't make sense and logically contradicts the rule of conscience, he is at pains to be on the lookout for an epistemological system that DOES work, a system that can potentially resolve all situations of indecision on religious belief and practice. And it seems the only other plausible alternative is a system grounded firmly in Direct Revelation. This will cause the reader to scrutinize the Scriptures with a completely new set of lenses. Suddenly the old verses potentially take on a whole new import and meaning previously unseen:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy" (1 Cor 14:1).

"The one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, b but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, c unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.

Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy (verse 39).

In that epistle, how many times did Paul mention exegesis? How many times did he mention the so-called Great Commission? Scholars have widely pointed out that the eminence of a topic is often indicated by its frequency of mention. In that case, the above passage is provocative.

You keep saying there is 'no proof'. This is the old tired strategy of claiming, "If you can't prove your position 100%, I don't have to accept it". Look, I can't prove ANYTHING 100%. Neither can you. I can't even prove that you exist. That's not really the point.

The point is owning up to the fact that Sola Scriptura appears to be complete gibberish, and seems to be contrary to authorial intent. And thus, if we are believers averse to seemingly irrational thinking, we'll naturally tend to gravitate to an epistemology grounded in conscience and Direct Revelation.

A person has to be born again by water in order to see Sola Scriptura. Being born again by water is accepting that God's Word the Holy Bible is a divinely inspired book and there is no other holy book, vision, communication, dream, or voice in one's head that can compare to it. Ephesians 5:25-27 refers to the communicated Word of God as the washing of the "water of the Word." Peter refers to being born of incorruptible seed, which is the Word of God. For the grass withers and flower fades.

Being born again by water generally happens when a person first accepts Christ Jesus but not always. I was fortunate that God had showed me right away that there is a perfect Word of God before my eyes, and it was by the hearing of Scripture and receiving Jesus that I was saved (back in 1992).

 

[JAL]

We have a sea of error out there, and you want us to just trust that voice in your head as if it is on par with Holy Scripture. Many people hear voices in their head today, but I am confident that many of these voices do not come from God..

Are you saying that you've found an exception to the rule of conscience? Are you saying that, with respect to hearing voices, there are cases where we should NOT heed the following rule?

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

If so, can you fully clarify the scenario and fully explain how it constitutes a valid exception to the above rule?

The problem is that we have to weed out from every all the crackpots who say they had prophecies (Which always turn out to be in failure), and or those who had near death experiences and yet they do not line up with the Bible, etc. or those who say they have extra holy writings in addition to the Bible and yet these writings really do not line up with God's Word. We have a sea of error out there, and you want us to just trust that voice in your head as if it is on par with Holy Scripture. Many people hear voices in their head today, but I am confident that many of these voices do not come from God.

Business as usual. Even the biblical exegete aims to reach a point where he feels certain of his conclusions. Conscience always rules. If you feel certain that a voice in your head is false/evil, or that a particular self-professed "prophet" is a crackpot, naturally you'll react accordingly. Again, business as usual. Nothing I've said changes all that.

And naturally you'll do the same thing I do. When I lack certainty on an issue because the divine Voice isn't yet speaking to me loud and clear (I'm not yet a prophet after all), I'll typically fall back on exegesis to make decisions, insofar as my conscience directs me to do so. Again, business as usual.

In this next statement of yours, are you claiming to have found a valid exception to the rule? (It's not clear on that point).

In other words, without the Bible, a person can be led to think that loving others could involve premarital sex, or they could think that loving others is lacing brownies with weed as a gift for their neighbors because weed makes people happy. Without a compass like the Bible, a person can just follow that voice into walking into oncoming traffic.

Oncoming traffic? Really? That's your biggest worry? The Voice commanded the prophets Moses and Joshua to slaughter 7 nations in pursuit of Canaan. Did Moses need to "check it out with Scripture" ? Interestingly Israel did not go up and do the slaughter the first time. Hebrews thrice-rebuked this reluctance as disobedience to the Voice.

Similarly, when the prophet Abraham heard a voice commanding him to slaughter his son, did he need to first "check it out with Scripture"? Did he need the Bible as his compass? When Saul and the prophet Samuel heard the Voice commanding them to slaughter all the Amalekites, did they need the Bible as their compass? When the prophet David heard a voice commanding him to slaughter all the Philistines, did he need the Bible as his compass? Did he first need to "check it out with Scripture" ?

Again, are you claiming to have found a valid exception to the rule of conscience? If so, could you please clarify?

 

[JAL]

While we are to follow after peace with all men (Hebrews 12:14), world peace is not in God's plans. The Lord will return and destroy the remaining nations at His second coming. Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34).

You're really confused. God has ALWAYS wanted world peace, although our sin has forfeited it time and again. In point of fact there wouldn't even be peace in the next world if it weren't for the divine Voice, because people always have differences of opinion on how to conduct themselves and how to lead others and/or react to them.

 

[JAL]

A person has to be born again by water in order to see Sola Scriptura. Being born again by water is accepting that God's Word the Holy Bible is a divinely inspired book and there is no other holy book, vision, communication, dream, or voice in one's head that can compare to it. Ephesians 5:25-27 refers to the communicated Word of God as the washing of the "water of the Word." Peter refers to being born of incorruptible seed, which is the Word of God. For the grass withers and flower fades.

Being born again by water generally happens when a person first accepts Christ Jesus but not always. I was fortunate that God had showed me right away that there is a perfect Word of God before my eyes, and it was by the hearing of Scripture and receiving Jesus that I was saved (back in 1992).

You realize what you just said, right? You are claiming that you are able to see the truth of Sola Scriptura by virtue of special insight conferred to you during the new birth. In other words, you allege to have gotten a Direct Revelation that Sola Scriptura is true.

But if Direct Revelation is indeed an authority, then it undermines the "Sola" in Sola Scriptura. Evidently Scripture is NOT the only final authority in the Christian life. Agreed.

 

[Need answers]

Non biblical Tradition doesnt make sense to me. I would rather stick with scripture.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This completely misses the point. Implicitly - and quite often explicitly - I've been defining authoritative Voice as one that influences your conscience. And once it has done so effectively, at that point it is not necessary to test it. Because the rule of conscience has no exceptions. What do I mean by "effectively"? Consider the rule:

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

At issue here is the DEGREE of certainty. Some action (such as Abraham attempting to slaughter his son) require 100% certainty - absolute certainty. Other actions require a lesser degree of certainty. Thus for each kind of action, the conscience, unless warped, will not acquiesce until a particular degree of certainty is reached. But once it is reached, it doesn't seem to make sense to claim that further testing is needed.

I think there is a point of going to far with one's rule of conscience. We also have to consider that Scripture (not some voice in your head or some conscience of yours) says:

Correct. To the extent that conscience directs, you should test the spirits. But interestingly there is no clear evidence that John had exegesis in mind as the test. Let's refer back to John's gospel:

So the next time you hear a voice in your head, you are going to test it by asking that voice that Jesus has come in the flesh?

12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

This was primarily for the apostles or the disciples. The way we can apply this passage today is that the Spirit can guide us into all truth (Which is Scripture). Jesus said God's Word is truth (John 17:17).

According to the above passage, HOW were the disciples to be guided into all truth? Exegesis? Seminary? It's a clear reference to Direct Revelation. That's what Jesus taught HIS disciples. In turn, what did John teach his OWN disciples? Notice he uses similar language:

And I can say the same for you about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. You think it just refers to Timothy (But it doesn't).

"I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him." (1Jn 2).

I believe 1 John 2:27 applies today for the believer in regards to the believer having a completed Bible (of which the believers back in the early church did not have so easily available to them).

Why?

Jesus said to Thomas blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. You want some miraculous voice or vision or something to talk to you. I got it all right in God's Word (the Bible). I know the Bible is not good enough for you. You need something else. But I would encourage you to read 1 Kings 13:11-32.

Note the context. He is talking about being led astray - this is precisely the context for testing the spirits. But the TEST mentioned here is neither seminary nor exegesis. What he is saying, rather, is that if someone comes along speaking something contrary to what you ALREADY LEARNED by Direct Revelation, reject it. That's the test.

You're right. We should ask the spirit to acknowledge Jesus. That's a valid test, because His divinity is something we already learned by the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation).

I am actually against going to Bible school and believe it is really wrong to go there. I believe Bible schools do not really teach you the Word of God like you should know it, but they brainwash their students to their way of thinking of what the Bible says. I am fortunate I dodged that bullet and I just studied God's Word on my own with God by asking for His help in understanding it. So yes. I agree that the name Sola Scriptura is not correct, but the definition or explanation of Sola Scriptura does not account addition knowledge or things that back up the Bible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You realize what you just said, right? You are claiming that you are able to see the truth of Sola Scriptura by virtue of special insight conferred to you during the new birth. In other words, you allege to have gotten a Direct Revelation that Sola Scriptura is true.

But if Direct Revelation is indeed an authority, then it undermines the "Sola" in Sola Scriptura. Evidently Scripture is NOT the only final authority in the Christian life. Agreed.

So what if you convince me? What then? I throw my Bible in the trash and I just listen to some voice in my head and some guy's vision. Great job! You have helped me to throw away the faith (Which is the Bible).

But good thing I am not weak minded and my faith is strong in His Word. For I have been born again of water (By the Scriptures). If you cannot see God's Word (the Bible) as the sole Word for man today I cannot help you to see that. Only God can do that, my friend. Ask God if Sola Scriptura is true in the name of Jesus. Then turn to Scripture for the answer.

 

[ripple the car]

Honestly, what you are left with is conscience, personal feelings or impressions, someone else's thoughts on what Scripture means, or Tradition. Those are pretty much your options.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You realize what you just said, right? You are claiming that you are able to see the truth of Sola Scriptura by virtue of special insight conferred to you during the new birth. In other words, you allege to have gotten a Direct Revelation that Sola Scriptura is true.

As I said.... I believe in what is called:

"Sola Scriptura + the Anointing to Understand it."​

So I am not in disagreement that there are problems with the name Sola Scriptura. But I do agree with the TEACHING of Sola Scriptura. The name does not match the teaching. I already created a thread on that here:

Reevaluating the term Sola Scriptura (Bible alone + God giving understanding on it is the truth).

But if Direct Revelation is indeed an authority, then it undermines the "Sola" in Sola Scriptura. Evidently Scripture is NOT the only final authority in the Christian life. Agreed.

There are lots of people who say they are born again, but the fruit of their life does not show that they were born again (or at least recently anyways). There is a symbiotic relationship between the Living Word and the Communicated Word. I am attempting to create a thread on this particular topic to help show those who are resistant to such a concept that is clearly taught in His Word.

 

[Need answers]

Why do people debate against Sola Scripture? Dont they see how wrong Tradition is at times?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@JAL

See, my friend. The problem I have with your position is that when you speak against God's Word (the Bible) as an authority and you argue for other authorities (like voices, conscience speaking moments, etc.) you make for a faith that is no different than biblical cults. They play it footloose and fancy free with the Scriptures and make something else on equal authority with God's Word. Your argument against the Bible as an authority for our life can lead a person to just throw their Bible in the trash and thus demolish their faith. You cannot speak against God's Word and elevate other things above it as if they are on the same level. To say that the voices in your head or your conscience is better or on the same level as Scripture is shaky at best because voices have to be tested (1 Timothy 4:1-3), and our hearts have to be checked by God's Word (the Bible). For men can defile their mind and conscience (Titus 1:15).

 

[redleghunter]

You claim that my premise is false. Therefore you should be able to supply one exception to the rule of conscience:

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

Yes the premise is false because you pit direct revelation, the Scriptures and tradition as equally efficacious alone to test truth claims. Then crate the trichotomy one invalidates the other if one is authoritative over the others.

You boil this down to determining between good and evil and somehow the human conscience is the final arbiter.

I that is the case good and evil would be subjective.

When we already have the Holy Scriptures which are inspired of God which are sufficient to determine Truth.

Neither tradition not personal conscience can change the Truth of God.

 

[JAL]

You tell me how you know that the letter to the Romans is an authentic letter written by an apostle?

Ultimately I don't claim to know anything. Although I defend my beliefs vigorously, see my signature.

If you're asking why I feel certain - I mean a pretty high degree of certainty - that Romans is authentic, I attribute this conviction to Direct Revelation (the Inward Witness) impacting me during my conversion and still impacting me today. Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

The Divine word spoken to Paul was recorded by Paul in his letters.

The written Word is a semblance of the divine Word. The Bible is not God. And Gen 15:1 is an outpouring of the divine Word upon Abram, not a Bible dropping on his head. Again, not sure of what point you are trying to make.

Once again your using the scripture to support your position, which is holding to the authority of the scripture itself.

Um...where have I denied that Scripture is true? Again, not sure of what point you are trying to make.

If only you had any idea how few people God has ever spoken to, directly in history, you would be shocked. An audible communication between man and God is very rare.

Empty words. No clear definition of voice, audibility, and so on. And no clear explanation as to how your views fit with verses like John 10:27. You seem to be rambling.

More quotations from a fundamentalist in denial.

That's like saying that, just because Jesus cited Scripture, he was a fundamentalist and cessationist opposed to Prophethood.

You cannot accept any scripture as inspired without the written letters by Christian authors. That is Christian authors from the first three centuries of Christian history. It is only by reading their correspondence that we have any idea, what letters were written by apostles.

That's funny. I seem to recall accepting the Bible as truth before having delved into the writings of such Christian authors. Seems to me I was influenced by the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) precisely as Calvin held. You're basically denying the ability of the Holy Spirit to lead someone to conversion sans scholarship. You're not making much sense.

Letters in the N.T sometimes have no author, letters such as Hebrews. How would anyone know who wrote what letter and even what was in any of these letters, without church history.

You cannot deny early church history otherwise you forfeit the New Testament.

See above.

 

[JAL]

Yes the premise is false because you pit direct revelation, the Scriptures and tradition as equally efficacious alone to test truth claims. Then crate the trichotomy one invalidates the other if one is authoritative over the others.

You boil this down to determining between good and evil and somehow the human conscience is the final arbiter.

I that is the case good and evil would be subjective.

When we already have the Holy Scriptures which are inspired of God which are sufficient to determine Truth.

Neither tradition not personal conscience can change the Truth of God.

The premise is false - meaning the one for which you can find not even a single exception, 140 posts deep? That's the premise you had in mind?