Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[JAL]

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 in your OP. I added my post to the conversation as a help for you to understand why by saying...

You're "conveniently" (your word) ignoring the argument made in the OP.

Let's start with this. Do you know of ANY exceptions to this rule of conscience:

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

After several years of experience on this forum, I'm confident that you, like everyone else, will utterly fail in the effort to find any exceptions to this rule. In ALL SITUATIONS, our obligation is to conscience, not to biblical exegesis specifically. Thus the "Sola" in Sola Scriptura is a lie. The true doctrine is Sola Conscientia (conscience alone). When you YOURSELF read Scripture today, it is because you FEEL CERTAIN that doing so is the morally right thing to do. That's an example of conscience at work.

Conscience is a higher authority than Scripture. How so? Because if tomorrow you:
(1) Feel certain that Scripture is false.
(2) AND feel certain that the Koran is true
You will then begin reading the Koran instead of Scripture.

Sola Scriptura is a contradiction in terms because it claims Scripture to be the highest authority in our lives, in flat contradiction to the fact that conscience is the ONLY final authority in our lives.

Conscience is authoritative for a very good reason - it defines justice. If God is just, He will judge us based on whether we acted rightly TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE. Which is precisely what it means to heed conscience. A God who dishonors the primacy and authority of conscience is, in a word, unjust.

THAT'S the charge of logical contradiction. Sola Scriptura violates the most basic premises definitive of the divine economy.

 

[JAL]

And what happens if another believer disagree with you based on where the spirit has led them in their search?

Are you postulating an exception to the rule of conscience?

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

There are simply no exceptions to this rule, regardless of whether, as you say, "another believer disagree with you based on where the spirit has led them in their search?"

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You're "conveniently" (your word) ignoring the argument made in the OP.

Not really dear friend. You have been shown why in very post you quoting from and are simply part quoting me again where I posted in full..

"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." Your not reading the posts you are quoting from. Your simply surface reading and part quoting and leaving out the sections within the post that prove why your claims here are in error.

Let's start with this. Do you know of ANY exceptions to this rule of conscience:

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

After several years of experience on this forum, I'm confident that you, like everyone else, will utterly fail in the effort to find any exceptions to this rule. In ALL SITUATIONS, our obligation is to conscience, not to biblical exegesis specifically. Thus the "Sola" in Sola Scriptura is a lie. The true doctrine is Sola Conscientia (conscience alone). When you YOURSELF read Scripture today, it is because you FEEL CERTAIN that doing so is the morally right thing to do. That's an example of conscience at work.

Conscience is a higher authority than Scripture. How so? Because if tomorrow you:
(1) Feel certain that Scripture is false.
(2) AND feel certain that the Koran is true
You will then begin reading the Koran instead of Scripture.

Sola Scriptura is a contradiction in terms because it claims Scripture to be the highest authority in our lives, in flat contradiction to the fact that conscience is the ONLY final authority in our lives.

Conscience is authoritative for a very good reason - it defines justice. If God is just, He will judge us based on whether we acted rightly TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE. Which is precisely what it means to heed conscience. A God who dishonors the primacy and authority of conscience is, in a word, unjust.

THAT'S the charge of logical contradiction. Sola Scriptura violates the most basic premises definitive of the divine economy.

Nonsense. I posted very simply for you in the last post you are quoting from showing that none of what you have written above is logical to Sola scriptura because it simply means to believe God's Word and do what God's Word says believing God over all things as the standard of truth. Surely you can understand this right? This is where your whole OP falls down.

 

[JAL]

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.

The problem here is that, when examining the Bereans, your spectacles are tainted by 2000 years of Sola Scriptura dogma. That's why you ASSUME that the Bereans primarily placed their hope of comprehending Scripture in the tools of exegesis rather than the reception of Direct Revelation. If the Bereans were PROPERLY examining Scripture - and they were - it means they tried to read it under the Light of the Holy Spirit, and thus in the hope and expectancy of Direct Revelation.

And even if it could be shown that the Berean method was exegetical rather than revelatory, this STILL would not establish the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Take me for instance. I've spent a good many hours practicing exegesis (as a crutch useful for my own paucity of Direct Revelation). My practicing exegesis isn't proof that I'm an advocate of Sola Scriptura.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The problem here is that, when examining the Bereans, your spectacles are tainted by 2000 years of Sola Scriptura dogma. That's why you ASSUME that the Bereans primarily placed their hope of comprehending Scripture in the tools of exegesis rather than the reception of Direct Revelation. If the Bereans were PROPERLY examining Scripture - and they were - it means they tried to read it under the Light of the Holy Spirit, and thus in the hope and expectancy of Direct Revelation.

And even if it could be shown that the Berean method was exegetical rather than revelatory, this STILL would not establish the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Take me for instance. I've spent a good many hours practicing exegesis (as a crutch useful for my own paucity of Direct Revelation). My practicing exegesis isn't proof that I'm advocate of Sola Scriptura.

All I have seen from your OP is your opinion and eisegesis you have not provided any exegesis. Do you know what exegesis means and if you do where have you provided it? All you have promoted in this OP is Catholic dogma that is not biblical. Anyhow nice talking to you. I am out of this thread as I see it is going no where.

 

[JAL]

This is where your whole OP falls down.

This is a gratuitous claim that did not directly address any of the arguments raised. Don't be surprised if I begin ignoring you.

 

[JAL]

All I have seen from your OP is your opinion and eisegesis you have not provided any exegesis. Do you know what exegesis means and if you do where have you provided it? All you have promoted in this OP is Catholic dogma that is not biblical. Anyhow nice talking to you. I am out of this one.

Ignored.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

Hearing with faith?

Hearing what with faith?

The only way that we even know there is a Gospel is from early written records, and by the apostles I might add.

There is a degree of scripture required to define the Gospel.

There is a degree of church tradition to identify these early letters.

There is also a degree of the influence of the Holy Spirit to understand the Gospel and to accept the Gospel.

All three are necessary to some extent.

 

[JAL]

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.

If the objection stated in the OP isn't clear, take a look at post 101.

 

[JAL]

Hearing with faith?

Hearing what with faith?

The only way that we even know there is a Gospel is from early written records, and by the apostles I might add.

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom 10:17). That's not the written Word - it's the divine Word speaking to us in Direct Revelation. 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]"

I've discussed this at length at post 15. You got saved the same way Abraham did:

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

So much for the Sola Scriptura nonsense.

 

[JAL]

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.


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


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.


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!


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

Before I address this post further, please clarify for me the full meaning and extent of the "Sola" in "Sola Scriptura" (again, emphasis on "Sola"). For example, am I to regard the Bible as my ONLY authority in religious matters? And, if so, how do you reconcile that claim with the seemingly undeniable primacy of conscience:

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

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Since you defined Sola Scriptura incorrectly all of your conclusions are in error. Not to mention the unnecessary trichotomy you created.

 

[redleghunter]

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom 10:17). That's not the written Word - it's the divine Word speaking to us in Direct Revelation.

How did you come to this conclusion? You used the Holy Scriptures.

 

[JAL]

Since you defined Sola Scriptura incorrectly all of your conclusions are in error. Not to mention the unnecessary trichotomy you created.

Non sequitur. Even if I happened to challenge a position OTHER than Sola Scriptura (let's call it position-X), it's certainly a position widely taught in evangelical circles (whatever the proper name might be). To show me ineffectual, then, you'd have to show that I failed to plausibly challlenge position-X, and that I failed to plausibly defend Direct Revelation. Of course you've done nothing of the kind. You've only managed to spew empty words.

What is position-X? It is the widely held position that Scripture is the only final authority, the position that Direct Revelation isn't independently authoritative, the claim that, in regard to a voice, we must "always check it out with Scripture". This contradicts the rule of conscience:

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

And I can find no exceptions to this rule. Nor can you.

 

[redleghunter]

Non sequitur. Even if I happened to challenge a position OTHER than Sola Scriptura (let's call it position-X), it's certainly a position widely taught in evangelical circles (whatever the proper name might be). To show me ineffectual, then, you'd have to show that I failed to plausibly challlenge position-X, and that I failed to plausibly defend Direct Revelation. Of course you've done nothing of the kind. You've only managed to spew empty words.

What is position-X? It is the widely held position that Scripture is the only final authority, the position that Direct Revelation isn't independently authoritative, the claim that, in regard to a voice, we must "always check it out with Scripture". This contradicts the rule of conscience:

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

And I can find no exceptions to this rule. Nor can you.

Let me ask the very question which your entire false premise stands on.

If a person’s direct revelation contradicts Holy Scriptures who is the final arbiter of what is true and what is not true? The individual with the direct revelation?

If this be the case, then the final word on authority would be the individual and you would have created a new Sola. That would be “Solo Meo.”

And for the benefit of others I will post how the Reformers defined Sola Scriptura and it is not your understanding. This will also expose your false trichotomy:

Understanding Sola Scriptura

Excerpt:


Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scripturahas often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scripturato mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.

 

[JAL]

Let me ask the very question which your entire false premise stands on.

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"

If a person’s direct revelation contradicts Holy Scriptures who is the final arbiter of what is true and what is not true? The individual with the direct revelation?

See what you did? Essentially you answered a question with a question - precisely because you can NOT find a single exception to my premise. And since you cannot find one, please retract your (false) claim that it's a false premise.

 

[truefiction1]

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.

I'll begin with a reminder that Scripture and Tradition aren't supposed to be opposing holy concepts. They are both fully alive (not concepts at all) and reveal Truth directly and together; As the Son (Word) and Holy Spirit together reveal the Father.

If you are a thinking kind of a person, and it seems obvious from your deliberations that you are, then perhaps it would best suit your purposes to perform your best unbiased study of the historical development of Christian doctrine from its early beginnings. Afterwords, you'll have a decision to make.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Non sequitur. Even if I happened to challenge a position OTHER than Sola Scriptura (let's call it position-X), it's certainly a position widely taught in evangelical circles (whatever the proper name might be). To show me ineffectual, then, you'd have to show that I failed to plausibly challlenge position-X, and that I failed to plausibly defend Direct Revelation. Of course you've done nothing of the kind. You've only managed to spew empty words.

What is position-X? It is the widely held position that Scripture is the only final authority, the position that Direct Revelation isn't independently authoritative, the claim that, in regard to a voice, we must "always check it out with Scripture". This contradicts the rule of conscience:

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

And I can find no exceptions to this rule. Nor can you.

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. Sure, the men of God had spoken with God, and received visions, dreams, etc., but there is no proof that men of God are still creating Scripture on equal authority to Scripture (like they did back in the day). For if their communication is on par with Scripture, then they should be adding to the back of their bibles. Men have tried, but this is where all the biblical cults come from (like the JW's, Mormons, etc.). Also, Revelation adds a warning not to add to His Word (Revelation 22:18). This is not only the book of Revelation but the whole Bible because the Holy Bible is generally accepted as a 66 book collection in one book now. James says God has chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith (James 2:5). So many of the poor are not going to know about any 66 book canon. They will regard the Holy Bible as one book because that is how it exists today. Back in the apostles day they did not have a Holy Bible or Bible apps, or websites with God's Word. God's Word is right in front of people's faces, but many of them reject it for another Christ, or another holy book, or some near death experience, or vision, or something else. God's Word is not good enough for them. But as we know in the story of 1 Kings 13:11-32, things did not work out for the man of God who listened to another prophet who did not speak God's Word.

 

[JAL]

How did you come to this conclusion? You used the Holy Scriptures.

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?

 

[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?

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