Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[JAL]

He's barred from obtaining a copy of the world's most widely-distributed book??

Of course not. Assuming he can afford a bible, the issue is, why should he trust that book? On what basis? How does he identify the true religion RELIABLY. Must he master hebrew and greek and arabic, master all history, study all the religions, and thus come to an objective determination?

Or can the Spirit simply convict his conscience, a form of Direct Revelation otherwise known as the Inward Witness? Which approach to conversion is more in harmony with the biblical economy, in your view?

 

[JAL]

So you have direct revelation and I have direct revelation yet they conflict. Only one is authentic. How do we know which one? How do we even know the wrong one is wrong and the right one is right?

Answered a 100 times. You have ONE OBLIGATION to God, as do I. There are no exceptions to this rule.

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

This rule doesn't MENTION doctrine but, as a corollary, it EXTRAPOLATES to doctrine in the following way. Suppose a voice speaks a doctrine to me. Should I accept it? If, at that moment, I feel certain that the doctrine is true, then, in all likelihood, my conscience will tell me the following:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil (rejecting this doctrine), and B is good (accepting this doctrine), I should opt for B".

That's how we all got saved - the 'doctrine' in that case was the gospel itself. The Holy Spirit caused us to feel certain the the gospel and/or the bible is true.

 

[JAL]

And to extrapolate further, Damian, the prospect of unity in the church lies, not in more exegesis - that just further divides us - but more Direct Revelation. If the Voice causes all of us to feel certain of all the same doctrines - just as He is causing us all to feel certain of the basic gospel - we will finally be in unity.

 

[Albion]

Of course not. Assuming he can afford a bible, the issue is, why should he trust that book?

Why should be trust anything else? Nothing beats God's word. The Bible is either the word of God or it is not.

Christians believe that it is, so in the discussion we have been having, we do not question that. We ourselves have already been convinced, and all that is going on is that you are attempting to make a case for something other than God's word to be taken as equally authoritative.

But as for agnostics, surely we do not think that they will be brought to Christ by some brainstorm coming out of the unknown, a new feeling washing over them, their logic, or something else of that sort--but NOT the word of God which, by the way, testifies to its own ability to convert the nonbeliever!

So either we believe that, along with its other contents, or we do not believe the Bible is, in fact, divine revelation in any other respect.

 

[JAL]

Why should be trust anything else? Nothing beats God's word. The Bible is either the word of God or it is not.

I guffawed on that one. Maybe we're talking past each other? Are you contemplating a different scenario than I am? I was addressing conversion. How will the agnostic (reliably) come to KNOW which book - among all the religious books in the world - is the truly inspired manuscript? How can this conversion process be stable and reliable and fail-safe and SUSTAINED (a sustained saving faith that doesn't vacillate into unbelief, even for a person who develops Alzheimers), aside from Calvin's theory of the Inward Witness?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't get the point of this statement. I've participated on several threads with you over the past year. I'm well aware that you are an advocate of Sola Scriptura. And now your big clarification is these words?

"I would check it out with Scripture...That is why the Bible is our sole authority...I hope this helps you to understand where I am coming from."

Why would I need you to rearticulate the very dogmatic statements that I've been refuting for 200 posts? How is that even helpful?


Look, I too, "check it out with Scripture". Since I'm not yet a prophet, I do not get clear instruction from God and thus, quite often, resort to exegesis insofar as conscience directs. But that shouldn't be the anticipated ZENITH of Christian experience. The pinnacle of Christian experience is supposed to be face to face fellowship with God, not Bible-scholarship. Again, Jesus summarized the impoverished human condition thus:

"Ye have never heard his voice, nor seen His shape, nor does His word dwell in you" (Jn 5:37).

Not sure you understand where I am coming from.

Moving on.

May God bless you.

 

[swordsman1]

Right, just as the prophet Abraham heard God (speaking promises) and received the Spirit in a revelatory vision. Gen 3:6 refers DIRECTLY back to Gen 15:1 as the paradigm provided to EXEMPLIFY and ESTABLISH the argument at Gal 3:2-5. Stop pushing your man-made paradigms on the rest of us. Just believe what Paul taught. Actually Paul alluded to revelatory visions earlier in the chapter but the reference is a bit obscure and thus widely overlooked. Let's go back to verse 1:

There is no evidence that the Galatians received direct revelations from God. The similarity between Abraham and the Galatians that Paul pointed out was they both believed the word of God. It doesn't say the Galatians received that word in the same way as Abraham did. Paul makes no mention of the mechanism of reception. You are reading something into scripture that isn't there.

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

And you think "Before your very eyes" is a reference to some kind of vision of Christ?

Read the rest of the verse....

"It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. "​

It was Paul who publicly portrayed Christ as crucified when he preached before their eyes.

How can a personal vision be public? Do you think every Galatian received the exact same personal vision of Christ, all at the same time?

The point of the comparison between Abraham and the Galatians is they were both saved by "HEARING with faith". Not seeing with faith!

If the Galatians had all received a vision Paul would have plainly said so, not use words that have to be twisted in order to arrive at your suggested meaning.

 

[nolidad]

Unclear.

Well you are the one falsely accussing traditionalists and sola scritura folk of saying that people are not allowed opinions.

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?

No it is not final! I go back to to your A is evil and B is good. If you hear a voice saying B is good and
your conscience tells you B is good, but the Bible tells you A is good and B is evil-which will you follow??

Remember, on this thread I'm challenging the HISTORIC position on Sola Scriptura - not YOUR version of it, whatever that might be.

And did Sola Scripture have unanimous consent or were there versions and you are just showing us the most radical?

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

Obviously you are unable to do so. You would have posted an exception if you knew one.

I did post the exception- If the Bible contradicts your position based on what you believe divine revelation and a good conscience tells you- then B is evil.

Also Cannibals in good conscience eat people. How can you tell them God says it is wrong! Especiallyi before they eat you!!!!

That doesn't meet the force of the objection. They form the OPINION that the Word is being revealed to them and then they act on the AUTHORITY of that OPINION. Thus they honor the rule:

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

Hog wash! Muslims believe that teh christian gospel is your A (evil) and that trusting Allah is your B (good). How can you tell them they are wrong!

All you have done with your A or B is to reduce godliness and morality to a sense of personal moral relativism. If one believes something is right and believe it is okay with God then there is no objective right or wrong in general, it all becomes what ever one feels to do. The Bible has a lot to say abou tthat- all bad!

Proverbs 30:12
There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.

 

[nolidad]

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.

Horrible and fallacious analogy ! When Abraham lived the Word of God was still in process so Abraham did not have a direct objective source to turn to. But now that we have the complete revelation God gave to man- we need to check out "voices" dreams and visions" and "revelations" with what has been declared and preserved for mankind to know and understand! But you know that already.

 

[swordsman1]

And that brain is too limited and uninformed to always make the best possible decisions fully innocuous to my neighbors. Hence the need for Direct Revelation as the only way to fulfill the maxim, "Love does no harm to its neighbor" (Rom 13).

It is plain common sense not to do face-to-face evangelism in the midst of a pandemic outbreak. You don't need the bible to tell you that, or a revelation. Use your brain that God gave you. If as you say your brain "is too limited" to make such common sense decisions, then follow the advice of the government. Not wait for a feeling.

Yes, objectively speaking, direct revelation can be plausibly defined only with respect to feelings of certainty. The converse isn't true. Not every feeling of certainty is necessarily a direct revelation. Regardless, feelings of certainty are consistently authoritative, in light of the rule of conscience.

I can find plenty examples of God giving direct revelation by speaking actual words, but where in scripture is there any example of direct revelation being a feeling? Admit it, there is none.

As a result, all conscious experience can be defined as voice,

Sorry I can't see how consciousness can ever be defined as "voice".

although more precisely as sensory experience.

Now that I can understand. So why use the word "voice" if that is not the precise term to use?

For example if your science professor says to you, "Light is not just a particle, it is waves of energy", you comprehend those words via mental visions more or less distinct ("loud and clear"), first you picture light, particles, and then waves.

I suppose a child might get an understanding of scientific concepts through such pictures. But not university level students in your example, not even in their mind's eye.

First consciousness is a voice or loudness, now it is a picture. You are not explaining your ideas very well.

In fact, when you see the word "God" in Scripture and begin to worship, you always worship one mental vision or another.

So when you think of God you imagine a picture of him, something like an old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud?

The recognition that all conscious experience is loudness (sensory experience) abolishes many fabricated distinctions, such as the distinction between God influencing my mind versus speaking actual words to me. Or the distinction between seeing God versus seeing a vision of God. In point of fact we always see one conceptual object or another, not really the objects themselves - for it is the mind that sees.

Non sequitur. I get your point about consciousness being the presence of the 5 senses (I'll ignore your illogical label "loudness"). But it does not follow that this factoid means the idea of God influencing your mind is synonymous with God speaking audible words to you. Or that seeing a childish picture of God in your mind's eye is synonymous with God giving you a vision.

But I think I now understand what you are saying about hearing a voice. You are not hearing a literal voice, right? You are just using that term to say you believe that God 'speaks' to you via your feelings. A mistake many Christians make, particularly charismatics. They usually back up their idea with the verse "my sheep hear my voice", just as you did, which they inexplicably interpret as God speaking to them via their feelings. But there is no biblical evidence for such an interpretation. Nowhere is God's metaphorical voice ever described as a feeling.

 

[HatGuy]

Maybe I can help you grasp my distinctions a bit better.

Sola Scriptura is the claim that the bible is the only FINAL authority - it is the claim that we are REQUIRED to always "check it out with Scripture" (for example a voice). This contradicts the (tautological) rule of conscience expressed probably a 100 times on this thread, and also contradicts the facts of Scripture - the bible EXAMPLES of where the divine Voice availed of the rule of conscience time and again, in fact it contradicts even the Inward Witness itself. I did not have "check it out with Scripture" to become a Christian, rather the Inward Witness convicted my conscience DIRECTLY, and thus availed of the (tautological) rule of conscience.

I've tried my best to catch up with this thread and not jump in misinformed on the direction it ha s gone, but I'm still perplexed about some of the claims made about sola scriptura here.

This post in particular I thought was interesting because I would want to know why / how the inward witness convicted your conscience. In other words, did this happen when someone was preaching? Or a friend was talking to you about Jesus? Or did the Inward Witness arrive one day while you were sitting on the couch eating a sandwich, and there was no correlation between it and anything you ever heard before?

The whole point of scripture is that is provides us with the revelation of the gospel in Jesus Christ, and it is the gospel that is the power of salvation. (Romans 1:16.) Arguably, even the phrase "Word of God" refers not to much to the Bible (although by implication it can) but to the gospel message of Jesus, the living Word. That is why the "Word of God" is also the "Sword of the Spirit".

Sola scriptura, if you go back in its history, was the claim that the Scriptures provide the clearest and oldest and most reliable revelation of the gospel, and since the gospel of Jesus is the clearest representation of the face of God (the "face of God found in Christ") then it is the gospel that ought to be our guiding "hermeneutic" in all of theology and revelation and Christian living. The Old Testament (as Paul and the apostles show) points to this gospel, and the NT explains it. Therefore, the Bible has final authority not because God is interested in words on a page but because it contains the gospel.

Furthermore, Reformers stated that the gospel must be preached and proclaimed- the Word must be communicated as word. This throws out the idea that exegesis and study was ever the main point of revelation, even as helpful as it may be. The gospel has inherent power of its own to strike the conscience and bring it peace and it must be proclaimed.

Conscience has to be bound to something, it does not exist freely on its own. God binds it to Law naturally but over time we change Law to suit our flesh so that we can try and bring our conscience in line to our flesh. However, when we bind our conscience to the gospel then we experience peace because it tells us that Jesus died for us, defeated evil, and we are saved by grace etc. An Inward Witness is a witness to something, which is the gospel, which is an external witness. We are changed from the outside in, and only then from the inside out.

 

[swordsman1]

Answer: Christ IS one of the preachers. The divine Word mentioned at Rom 10:17 can enter our bodies either directly from the mouth of Christ (Isa 55:11) OR be sacramentally mediated through the body of a HUMAN preacher.

There is absolutely no indication that Christ is one of the preachers referred to in Rom 10:14. A completely unwarranted assumption on your part. But at least you now have to admit that you were wrong in saying "hearing the Word" in Rom 10:17 is entirely direct revelation.

Christ Himself was the preacher at issue in Gal 3:8:

Wrong. It was Paul and his colleagues who preached the gospel to the Galatians...

Gal 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you"

Gal 4:13 "I preached the gospel to you at first"​

Nowhere does it say Christ preached to them.

 

[JAL]

There is no evidence that the Galatians received direct revelations from God. The similarity between Abraham and the Galatians that Paul pointed out was they both believed the word of God. It doesn't say the Galatians received that word in the same way as Abraham did. Paul makes no mention of the mechanism of reception. You are reading something into scripture that isn't there.

So at Gal 3:6 Paul cites Abraham's experience at Gen 15 as paradigmatic but, in your view, it was NOT paradigmatic?

When you're interested in believing what Paul said, maybe we can discuss this more.

And you think "Before your very eyes" is a reference to some kind of vision of Christ?

Read the rest of the verse....

"It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. "​

It was Paul who publicly portrayed Christ as crucified when he preached before their eyes.

How can a personal vision be public? Do you think every Galatian received the exact same personal vision of Christ, all at the same time?

Um...Have you ever been to a movie theater? I take it you haven't.

And that engineering isn't the only way for God to do it. Put a little thought into it.

The point of the comparison between Abraham and the Galatians is they were both saved by "HEARING with faith". Not seeing with faith!

If the Galatians had all received a vision Paul would have plainly said so, not use words that have to be twisted in order to arrive at your suggested meaning.

All conscious experience is sensory experience - thus the Voice broadly encompasses all manner of ways that God can speak to us, all the five senses for STARTERS - ANYTHING LOUD AND CLEAR (includes feelings of joy and peace that are distinct (loud and clear) for example). Go back to Gen 15. In the VISION Abrhaham HEARD God. It was all part of the package.

Yes the Galatians saw visions. It is logically impossible for God (the Inward Witness) to enlighten the mind without visions - again go back and read my post defining consciousness-as-sensory to see why.

Therefore, even YOU saw a mental vision of Christ crucified when the gospel was preached to you - probably not prophetic/vivid like the visions Paul is referring to at Gen 15:1 (Abraham) and Gal 3:1 (Galatians).

It's logically inescapable. Don't tell me you heard a gospel of Christ crucified without some kind of picture entering your mind. That doesn't make sense.

Next you'll claim that mental pictures are not visions. Again, go back and read my comments on consciousness - those kinds of distinctions don't hold water. Visions might differ in the degree of LOUDNESS, but all mental pictures (and all visual sensations) are in essense of the same KIND. They all amount to the same kind of thing generally - for the mind's eye is what sees, ultimately.

 

[swordsman1]

And I would say that even a mere degree of felt certainty falls broadly under the definition of the divine Voice of John 10:27.

Show me from scripture that the metaphorical "voice" in "My sheep hear my voice" is a feeling.

Are you arguing that feelings of certainty are not authoritative? That we must always have recourse to Scripture? In a word, are you claiming an exception to the rule of conscience defined as:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I shall do B?"

You have butchered the concepts of both the human conscience and the Spirit's inward witness. The conscience is feelings of guilt over some morally wrong action. And the internal witness only applies to the truth of scripture.

 

[JAL]

First consciousness is a voice or loudness, now it is a picture. You are not explaining your ideas very well.

I can't believe you're not following me. I think you're a pretty smart guy. I use the term 'loudness' to connote - and imply - the COMMONALITY of all manner of conscious experience. It is sensory experience defined as SOME kind of impression (anything in the spectrum) experienced at any degree of INTENSITY (loudness). My usage of this term reinforces the fact that it is logically impossible to talk about a conscious experience without reference to an IMPRESSION or IMPACT (of some intensity/loudness) characteristic of what we'd normally refer to as sensory experience.

When I formulated my rule of conscience, I challenged everyone to postulate an exception to the rule.

Same thing goes here. I challenge everyone to describe to me an exception to the rule - describe a conscious experience that cannot be understood in terms of intensity/loudness.

Non sequitur. I get your point about consciousness being the presence of the 5 senses (I'll ignore your illogical label "loudness"). But it does not follow that this factoid means the idea of God influencing your mind is synonymous with God speaking audible words to you. Or that seeing a childish picture of God in your mind's eye is synonymous with God giving you a vision.

There it is again. "Does not follow, you haven't proven your point". I can't even prove that you exist. 100% proof is not the goal here. Cogency is. If my position isn't cogent, find me ONE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE - in this case I'm speaking about the principle of loudness (not conscience). Otherwise you're blowing hot air.

But I think I now understand what you are saying about hearing a voice. You are not hearing a literal voice, right?

Sigh. What I'm saying is that those distinctions are INVALID. All conscious experience is loudness and thus there is ultimately no MEANINGFUL distinction between audible voices versus inaudible voices.

What's MEANINGFUL, rather, is the following distinction - perceived externality. Does the thought/voice SEEM like it might have orignated in my own mind? Or does it strike me as one that seemed to DEFINITELY come from a speaker OTHER than my own mind? I think this is important because God didn't create us to ruminate on our own thoughts, but for FELLOWSHIP, which is DEFINED as the experience of perceived externality (sensations originating from someone other than myself). There are too many people running around saying, every time a godly thought comes to mind, that "God spoke to me" - even if they had no clear sense of perceived externality.

You are just using that term to say you believe that God 'speaks' to you via your feelings. A mistake many Christians make, particularly charismatics. They usually back up their idea with the verse "my sheep hear my voice", just as you did, which they inexplicably interpret as God speaking to them via their feelings. But there is no biblical evidence for such an interpretation. Nowhere is God's metaphorical voice ever described as a feeling.

Stop patronizing my theological position. If you have an argument, make it.

 

[JAL]

Show me from scripture that the metaphorical "voice" in "My sheep hear my voice" is a feeling.

That's a caricature of my position.

You have butchered the concepts of both the human conscience and the Spirit's inward witness. The conscience is feelings of guilt over some morally wrong action. And the internal witness only applies to the truth of scripture.

Nope. You've just butchered my claims.

 

[JAL]

I can find plenty examples of God giving direct revelation by speaking actual words, but where in scripture is there any example of direct revelation being a feeling? Admit it, there is none.

You're butchering what I am saying. What I said, repeatedly, is that the MAIN COMPONENT of Direct Revelation is feelings of certainty. I never said that was the ONLY component. I've been talking about visions, dreams, voices, etc - ALL these are potential components, but NONE of them amount to anything if they fail to raise our level of certainty. What good are audible words if I don't feel certain they came from God?

You just keep creating such strawmen because you have no cogent rebuttal.

Sorry I can't see how consciousness can ever be defined as "voice".

Example. Take any concept, put it in a sentence, and mentally a sing it to your favorite tune, at any degree of loudness you prefer.

 

[swordsman1]

Their ETERNAL DESTINY DEPENDS on them INFALLIBLY selecting the correct religion, INTERPRETING its documents correctly, and SUSTAINING saving faith in that interpretation. And if they are to MAKE THAT DECISION OBJECTIVELY,

Which they can do perfectly well without being masters in Greek, as the gospel has already been translated into plain English.

they'd better master Arabic as well, because they NEED to determine whether the Koran is the true book of God.

Nope, the Koran is translated into plain English as well.

The Inward Witness cuts through all that confusion and quagmire. It causes them to feel certain of the true religion thereby sparing them of the need to be Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, and history scholars as to fully research the issue for themselves.

You do realise the Spirit's inward witness speaks only about the TRUTH of scripture, not it's translational meaning? You should do, as your misunderstanding of that concept has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.

(Sigh). Audible words are not contrary to my thesis. For the millionth time, that issue is mrerely tangential, because all the actual spoken words in the world AMOUNT TO NOTHING if unattended with feelings of certainty. If God says to me, "Go preach the gospel in Egypt", those words amount to nothing if they do nothing to help persuade me that I should go to Egypt. He needs to speak to me in such a way that I feel certain that such is the morally expedient course of action. Again, this another total-crap "rebuttal" of my position.

And for the millionth time you still have not provided any biblical evidence that God gives direct revelation through feelings of certainty in one's ideas, in addition to God directly speaking real words. Just one clear example from scripture would do. Just one.

Total-crap objection. Certainty of the gospel of course. What possible good would it do for God to make me feel certain of what I already opined, i.e. what I already felt certain about on my own? Look,if you're going to indulge in nonsensical readings of my position, you're wasting my time.

That's not what you said earlier.

You originally said that the feelings of certainty was not towards the truth of scripture, but towards our actions....

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

You then gave us an example of such a feeling telling us whether we should evangelize in a middle of a global pandemic.

If you have changed your mind, and now agree with me that the Spirit's internal witness only gives you a feeling of certainty that scripture is authentic, then fine. But why are you pitting it in OPPOSITION to sola scriptura? They are complementary to each other.

You seem to be very confused about even your own ideas.

 

[JAL]

Which they can do perfectly well without being masters in Greek, as the gospel has already been translated into plain English.

Nope. They have no way to be sure of trusting a given translation. And their eternal destiny potentially DEPENDS on correct information. That puts the agnostic in a quandary.

The quandary is real, and the only reason that you are in denial of it is that it undermines your whole position.

 

[swordsman1]

I absolutely do cite Bible scholars on areas of agreement and fault them in areas of disagreement. I make no bones about it. And? So?

Because it exposes your rank hypocrisy.

You spurn bible scholarship as a whole (because they disagree with your theory on Sola Scriptura), inventing a conspiracy theory against them that they are brainwashing people to believe Sola Scriptura in order to make money for themselves.

But when you think you find one that agrees with one your ideas, you are only too happy to appeal to them. The irony is he didn't agree at all with what you said. And the double irony is that the scholar a proponent of Sola Scriptura! (a brainwasher according to you).