Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[chilehed]

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

At least one of them is explicitly stated in it. If you can't see even that one then there's no point in continuing.

 

[JAL]

First, I have provided an 8 point biblical defense for Sola Scriptura here.

Let's cut to the chase. Even if you've provided a thousand-point defense of Sola Scriptura, it all amounts to nothing if the doctrine itself isn't logically coherent. Sola Scriptura is a contradiction in terms, for reasons stated in the OP. Until you clear that up, your 8 corroborative points do not hold water.

 

[JAL]

You obviously did not read what was posted.

Precisely my admonishment to you.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Let's cut to the chase. Even if you've provided a thousand-point defense of Sola Scriptura, it all amounts to nothing if the doctrine itself isn't logically coherent. Sola Scriptura is a contradiction in terms, for reasons stated in the OP. Until you clear that up, your 8 corroborative points do not hold water.

Who says the biblical teaching of Sola Scriptura is not logically coherent and a contradiction of terms. That is simply a false claim not based on the scriptures and unbelief in Gods' Word.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Precisely my admonishment to you.

If you do not read what is posted to you then you do not have to but why make a discussion thread if you are not willing to discuss it with those who participate in it? Anyhow not my loss I guess.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Let's cut to the chase. Even if you've provided a thousand-point defense of Sola Scriptura, it all amounts to nothing if the doctrine itself isn't logically coherent. Sola Scriptura is a contradiction in terms, for reasons stated in the OP. Until you clear that up, your 8 corroborative points do not hold water.

You need to read my whole post or read it a little more slowly before hitting the buzzer button in quick reply. I said in my second point that I am in agreement with the meaning of Sola Scriptura (that does not discount Knowledge of the creation that shows God's existence), but I do believe that the term could be renamed better. I created a thread on this before (of which I provided a link within the post you just quoted).

 

[JAL]

You obviously did not read what was posted. If you did you would not have written what you did here. What do you think the post says that you were quoting from?

Here's what you said:

"All I got from reading this thread is the promotion of denying God's Word and a headache both of which are not biblical and unpleasant."

The OP was not a denial of God's Word, and your response hasn't addressed the arguments of that post. My reaction seems appropriate.

 

[JAL]

You need to read my whole post or read it a little more slowly before hitting the buzzer button in quick reply. I said in my second point that I am in agreement with the meaning of Sola Scriptura (that does not discount Knowledge of the creation that shows God's existence), but I do believe that the term could be renamed better. I created a thread on this before (of which I provided a link within the post you just quoted).

I don't think you read mine.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't think you read mine.

I read your OP, and a few other posts. That is what my post was in reply to.

 

[JAL]

Who says the biblical teaching of Sola Scriptura is not logically coherent and a contradiction of terms. That is simply a false claim not based on the scriptures and unbelief in Gods' Word.

Care to reference the argument in the OP, at some point in time?

 

[JAL]

I read your OP, and a few other posts. That is what my post was in reply to.

Posting what YOU want to argue doesn't necessarily count as a direct response to MY arguments. I don't see where you've resolved the charge of logical contradiction.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Here's what you said:

"All I got from reading this thread is the promotion of denying God's Word and a headache both of which are not biblical and unpleasant."

The OP was not a denial of God's Word, and your response hasn't addressed the arguments of that post. My reaction seems appropriate.

Here let me add the part you seem to have conveniently left out.

"There is nothing wrong with Gods' Word and tradition if they lead people to God. Where we are warned against tradition from the very words of JESUS however is when tradition leads people away from God to break God's commandments and not believe Gods' Words *MATTHEW 15:2-9. God's Word (Sola scriptura) therefore is the standard of what is right and wrong and we are told to live by every word of it *2 TIMOTHY 3:16; MATTHEW 4:4. Only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *ROMANS 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29-32; MATTHEW 15:2-9. May you receive God's Word and be blessed. (the OP topic is Catholic dogma and not biblical) There is no salvation in unbelief and not following God's Word. According to the scriptures we are saved by Grace through faith and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *EPHESIANS 2:8-9; ROMANS 10:17."

How does the above not address the OP?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here's what you said:

"All I got from reading this thread is the promotion of denying God's Word and a headache both of which are not biblical and unpleasant."

The OP was not a denial of God's Word, and your response hasn't addressed the arguments of that post. My reaction seems appropriate.

If Scripture teaches the sufficiency of certain teachings by Scripture alone, then it is sufficient. Take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which you think applies to Timothy only. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is profitable for righteous instruction, and doctrine (teachings) so that the man of God (not just Timothy) may be perfect unto all good works. Notice that Paul does not say Timothy alone here but he says the "man of God." You don't like the idea of being under the Bible alone so you have to re-write 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to be applicable to Timothy alone (when this is not the case).

 

[Albion]

No, it means acknowledgement of some obvious points such as:
(1) I have no direct access to the Bible. Only to my fallible interpretations.

Even if I agree to this, it doesn't bear upon Sola Scriptura, which is what we started with...and the statement that Sola Scriptura "doesn't make sense."

There's no way that it doesn't make sense, so long as the observer knows what Sola Scriptura means and doesn't tack a number of other propositions onto SS, claiming that they are inherent in SS, although they are not.

(2) I don't even have direct access to the actual languages. I am forced to learn Greek and Hebrew from a man-made (!) Lexicon.

True, but there's nothing mysterious about translating into whatever language the reader uses.

(3) The Bible doesn't spell out the specifics of daily behavior appropriate for me right now.

I doubt that very much, but of course I would have to know what they are.

Still in all, and for the umpteenth time, Sola Scriptura doesn't suppose that the Bible covers all information that man could ask about, nor is there any reason for it to have done so. That it does not do that is not a shortcoming in the Bible.

For example it's how you got saved. The Mormons read the same word 'God' in Scripture but, for lack of Direct Revelation, worship the wrong God.

Now, that's clearly a mistake. All the usual Christian churches know how you get saved and none of them relied upon what you call "Direct Revelation," let alone follow the Direct Revelation that the Mormons followed and got the wrong God!

Again, Sola Scriptura claims more than that, as you finally admitted a few posts back. Round and round we go...

No, it doesn't, nor did I say it did.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Posting what YOU want to argue doesn't necessarily count as a direct response to MY arguments. I don't see where you've resolved the charge of logical contradiction.

I have addressed several of your illogical conclusions made in this thread. If there is a particular point you want me to address, I will be happy to do so using Scripture. In the mean time what does it hurt to check out my 8 points in Scripture that back up Sola Scriptura?

If you conclusions are truly correct, then they should stand up to opposition.

 

[Soyeong]

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.

In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see of what he said is true, and Sola Scriptura is essentially saying that we should follow that precedent whenever someone tries to teach us something, and we ever discern a conflict between what someone says and what OT Scripture says, then we should stick with what OT Scripture says. It is not denying the use of opinions.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

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.

And what happens if another believer disagree with you based on where the spirit has led them in their search? I would think if were talking about a belief system, the people of that system must agree on how the system works. They would agree on the beliefs of that system or they do not believe in the same system. And if neither of them accept the system completely they have created their own system it seems.

 

[JAL]

Here let me add the part you seem to have conveniently left out.

Convenient? You said that ALL you got from the OP was a denial of God's Word. This classifies the rest of your comments as superfluous.

"There is nothing wrong with Gods' Word and tradition if they lead people to God.

That doesn't seem to be the sense of 'Tradition' referenced in the OP, and thus is not a response to the OP. As I said, seems you posted to the wrong thread.

Where we are warned against tradition...

Ditto.

...from the very words of JESUS however is when tradition leads people away from God to break God's commandments and not believe Gods' Words *MATTHEW 15:2-9. God's Word (Sola scriptura) therefore is the standard of what is right and wrong and we are told to live by every word of it *2 TIMOTHY 3:16; MATTHEW 4:4. Only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *ROMANS 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29-32; MATTHEW 15:2-9.

And then you end with a defense of Sola Scriptura that does not respond directly to MY arguments (my charge of contradiction).

The OP topic is Catholic dogma and not biblical

Huh? Again, wrong thread?

 

[JAL]

If Scripture teaches the sufficiency of certain teachings by Scripture alone, then it is sufficient. Take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which you think applies to Timothy only. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is profitable for righteous instruction, and doctrine (teachings) so that the man of God (not just Timothy) may be perfect unto all good works. Notice that Paul does not say Timothy alone here but he says the "man of God." You don't like the idea of being under the Bible alone so you have to re-write 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to be applicable to Timothy alone (when this is not the case).

(1) "Man of God" STRONGLY suggests a prophet.
(2) If this passage is the bedrock of Sola Scriptura, God most likely would have addressed it to an entire church. Instead, he directed this epistle to the one man Timothy.

This makes God appear to be a painfully poor apologist for Sola Scriptura. I don't buy it. And in fact, in the past, I've expressed several other objections to that apologetic, for example:
(3) It argues too much. If it's teaching sufficiency, it means the OT alone is sufficient.
(4) You have no right to assume in what SENSE it is profitable or sufficient. My position: Scripture is sufficient in the sense of pointing us to the primacy of Direct Revelation. The entire canon attests to the primacy of the Voice, starting from the dialog between Adam, Eve, and God in the garden.

The difference? Unlike Sola Scriptura, my position isn't a contradiction in terms. You need to resolve the charge of contradiction spelled out in the OP. THEN I can entertain seriously your defense of SS.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Convenient? You said that ALL you got from the OP was a denial of God's Word. This classifies the rest of your comments as superfluous.


That doesn't seem to be the sense of 'Tradition' referenced in the OP, and thus is not a response to the OP. As I said, seems you posted to the wrong thread.

Ditto.

And then you end with a defense of Sola Scriptura that does not respond directly to MY arguments (my charge of contradiction).


Huh? Again, wrong thread?

I looked at your OP dear friend. Nothing in it was biblical and the arguments against sola scriptura I found illogical because if someone believes God's Word they do what God's Word says. This simple sentence brings down your whole argument against Sola scriptura in your OP. I added my first post to the conversation as a help for you to understand why by saying...

"There is nothing wrong with Gods' Word and tradition if they lead people to God. Where we are warned against tradition from the very words of JESUS however is when tradition leads people away from God to break God's commandments and not believe Gods' Words *MATTHEW 15:2-9. God's Word (Sola scriptura) therefore is the standard of what is right and wrong and we are told to live by every word of it *2 TIMOTHY 3:16; MATTHEW 4:4. Only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *ROMANS 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29-32; MATTHEW 15:2-9. May you receive God's Word and be blessed. (the OP topic is Catholic dogma and not biblical) There is no salvation in unbelief and not following God's Word. According to the scriptures we are saved by Grace through faith and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *EPHESIANS 2:8-9; ROMANS 10:17."

Now how does the above not address the OP in your view?

There is no salvation for anyone dear friend if we do not believe God's Word for whatsoever is not of faith is sin ROMANS 14:23 and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *ROMANS 10:17. I believe the OP is catholic teaching which teaches against the gospel of our Lord JESUS Christ and is not biblical.

May you receive God's Word and be blessed. Ignoring it does not make it disappear.