Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[JAL]

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.

Right. And I won't give you such evidence. Because that's not my position. Again why would I need God to cause me to feel certain about my opinions, that is, about those things I already feel certain about?

Direct Revelation MAKES KNOWN to us - causes us to feel certain about - things that we did not previously know (things we did not previously feel certain about). Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus is an excellent example.

 

[swordsman1]

You're saying we should NOT rely on feelings of certainty? Are you counseling me to reject the rule:

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

????

As I said to you before, your rule is wrong. The human conscience does not produce feelings of certainty, but rather feelings of guilt.

 

[JAL]

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).

I actually never said that the brainwashing was deliberate. But the heart is endlessly deceitful and, as such, naturally INCLINES our minds in directions favorable, and REPELS us from doctrines unfavorable. This is true for all of us including myself - although I am one of the few candid enough to acknowledge the reality of this problem. And I think the leading apologists of Sola Scriptura labor under their own heart's deception. Others are just led astray by them.

It is impossible believe that those apologists are free of bias. I say this, because I'm quite sure they are much smarter than I am, and yet they never seem to discuss any of the rather cogent objections that I've raised here.

But not every word penned by these scholars is biased. I cite them on points of agreement, and fault them on points of disagreement. In fact all the scholars do the same thing, amongst themselves.

 

[JAL]

As I said to you before, your rule is wrong. The human conscience does not produce feelings of certainty, but rather feelings of guilt.

Terminology quibbles are of no real import here. Call it whatever you want, if you don't like the term conscience. Fact is, those feelings of certainty are morally obligatory - and you, like everyone else, have yet to illustrate any exceptions to this fact.

 

[JAL]

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"​

I don't understand the objection. The rule of conscience extrapolates to dictate both doctrine and practice, a fact which I've implied throughout the discussion but didn't expound clearly until post 222.

 

[JAL]

In fact, Swordsman1, the wicked/biased nature of the human heart is precisely why Sola Scriptura will never suffice. Direct Revelation cuts through the hardened heart like a hot knife through soft butter, CAUSING us to feel certain about even those doctrines that we were averse to. Again, Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus is a great example.

 

[swordsman1]

And yet the cessationist claim is that, within a few dozen years of the manuscripting of this carefully-defined administration, it was already obsolete!

Of course - Paul was writing a letter to the Corinthian church, not to believers throughout history. There were dozens of other problems specific to the Corinthian church that Paul addressed in his epistle. Getting drunk at the Lord's table for instance.

Presumably you believe we no longer have Apostles today (of the NT kind). Then you too are a cessationist! As the verse you quoted says, apostleship is one of the spiritual gifts.

 

[JAL]

Of course - Paul was writing a letter to the Corinthian church, not to believers throughout history. There were dozens of other problems specific to the Corinthian church that Paul addressed in his epistle. Getting drunk at the Lord's table for instance.

Um...Misses the thrust of the objection. One of the most monumental issues in church administration is the precise structure of church government. In the cessationist view, God was too dumb to manuscript a definition of church government valid for more than 50 years. THAT's the objection.

Presumably you believe we no longer have Apostles today (of the NT kind). Then you too are a cessationist! As the verse you quoted says, apostleship is one of the spiritual gifts.

I'm not a cessationist. The cessationist claim is that the lack of apostles is NORMATIVE, that such is God's ideal plan for the church. MY claim is that, mostly due to a Sola Scriptura pandemic that has oriented the church AWAY from Direct Revelation, and steeped us in man-made traditions shoved continually down God's throat, the church has proven to be infertile ground for the raising up of prophets and apostles. In general, the church has proven to be infertile ground for revival.

 

[JAL]

And in the minds of both myself and Andrew Murray, such reorientation away from Direct Revelation was precisely the error of the Galatians addressed primarily in chapter 3, and for which Paul was furious with them.

 

[JAL]

As I said to you before, your rule is wrong. The human conscience does not produce feelings of certainty, but rather feelings of guilt.

The only reason bothering to comment again on this silly objection is that I saw it got upvoted by another poster. Unbelievable.

You say the conscience is about guilty feelings. And you don't recognize that phenomenon as logically inseparable from feelings of certainty? Maybe a scenario will clarify. Suppose I kill someone, and immediately have guilty feelings. Why do I have those feelings? Here again is the rule:

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

Obviously, I have guilty feelings because I acted WITHOUT full certainty. (My conscience wouldn't be beating me up over it if I clearly acted in full certainty). The reproof of my conscience, then is:

"You killed that man without sufficient degree of certainty to warrant doing so".

 

[swordsman1]

Example. Picture Moses with a pen and paper proceeding to write Genesis. A comrade asks him what he's doing. He says, "I'm writing down what the Voice is telling me to write."

The comrade objects, "But why did you trust this voice? Did you check it out with Scripture?"

Does anyone else see the absurdity of this objection? Or just me? Isn't it clear that the divine Voice is self-authenticating and thus need not be tested?

But you said you do not hear an audible voice such as Moses heard? (you are not a prophet you said). So what do you use to guide you in the faith in the absence of such direct revelations?

 

[JAL]

Abraham did not feel guilty about attempting to slaughter his son. That's because the Voice endued him with 100% certainty that it was the morally upright step to take, at that moment.

 

[JAL]

But you said you do not hear an audible voice such as Moses heard? (you are not a prophet you said). So what do you use to guide you in the faith in the absence of such direct revelations?

Again, I don't make distinctions between audible and inaudible voices.

Here's what I have. Like every Christian I have a feeling of certainty, relatively distinct ("loud and clear"), in the gospel, albeit by no means would I classify it as 100% certainty. And this revelation isn't given to me in clearly articulated words-from-God, rather it's just a general conviction/belief, meaning that if, for a moment, I try to imagine myself rejecting Christ, my conscience rises up against me.

What guides me in the faith? I don't have any clear guidance in the faith, because I don't have clear unambiguous words of instruction from God. I'm no prophet. What guides me is my conscience, which is probably misinformed on a ton of day-to-day issues of daily living. Thus, since I'm not a prophet, I do not have a well-enlightened conscience, I can't even tell you for sure whether I'm living in the exact city, or working the exact job, that God intended for me. I sort of stumble around somewhat in the dark, like most every Christian I've met, although few of them would admit to this plight.

 

[swordsman1]

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

The paradigm is believing what they heard.
There is no mention of the Galatians receiving a vision of Christ.

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

What, so you're now saying it wasn't a vision? The Galatians all saw Christ in the flesh appearing before them at the same time?

Why did you say they received a "revelatory vision" then?

Strange that Paul makes no mention of such a marvellous event, don't you think? And contradicts his own statement in 1 Corinthians that he was the last person to see Christ in the flesh on the Damascus Road.

You seem to be digging yourself into an even bigger hole.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

Abraham heard God speak in the vision. He didn't hear the vision.

Abraham beleived what he heard. Same as the Galatians did. That is the point of the comparison in Galatians 3. There is nothing in the text about the Galatians seeing revelatory visions or seeing anything else.

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).

Thinking about Christ and imagining him hanging on the Cross in my mind's eye is not what I would call receiving a vision from God. And I doubt anyone else would either.

 

[al taglieri]

The Scriptures teach natural and supernatural revelation. Rom 1:19-20 shows natural revelation:
19 because that which is known about God is evident m]">[m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

But natural revelation does not reveal the way of salvation

1For that you need the Scriptures as in Psalm 19:
The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

This is synthesized by the first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith:
1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; (Rom. 2:14–15, Rom. 1:19–20, Ps. 19:1–3, Rom. 1:32, Rom. 2:1) yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. (1 Cor. 1:21, 1 Cor. 2:13–14) Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manner, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; (Heb. 1:1) and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: (Prov. 22:19–21, Luke 1:3–4, Rom. 15:4, Matt. 4:4,7,10, Isa. 8:19–20) which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; (2 Tim. 3:15, 2 Pet. 1:19) those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased. (Heb. 1:1–2)

Make sure to look up the Heb 1 passage. Jesus has revealed all that needs to be revealed in the Scriptures

 

[swordsman1]

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.

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.


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.

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

I have seriously tried to understand your position but I'm still just as baffled I'm afraid. Not only you have failed to explain yourself but you've often refused to answer my calls for further clarification. All I can see, apart from a lot of confusion, is a number of exegetical faults and logical inconsistencies in your reasoning which I've pointed out and will leave you to ponder.

 

[JAL]

Abraham heard God speak in the vision. He didn't hear the vision.

Abraham beleived what he heard. Same as the Galatians did. That is the point of the comparison in Galatians 3. There is nothing in the text about the Galatians seeing revelatory visions or seeing anything else.

And the Bible does't mention "Trinity" either. Nor does it mention the atomic structure of water, but it's an observed phenomenon. My theory of consciousness is subjectively observable, i.e. it is confirmed in all our experience, and has no exceptions. As a result, it is nonsense to speak of the Spirit enlightening our mind without visions. Comprehension is the perception of conceived/conceptual objects, as already argued. For example if you are trying to explain something to someone, it is when he finally sees in his mind a satisfyingly clear mental picture of the concepts that he will say, "Oh okay. Now I see what you mean." Literally, he sees it.

Thinking about Christ and imagining him hanging on the Cross in my mind's eye is not what I would call receiving a vision from God. And I doubt anyone else would either.

Correct, if your mind alone was the only party involved in concocting that mental picture. Whereas if the Inward Witness was involved in helping to generate that picture, it is indeed a revelatory vision. The biblical definition of a vision is a picture provided to our consciousness by the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

I think the problem here is that you are assuming that ALL influence by the Spirit must be perfectly "loud and clear". But generally that is true only for a prophet. For the rest of us, as immature believers, the influence of the Spirit is so indistinct ("low volume") as to typically be barely detectable, indeed in some cases we only experience it at a subconscious level. I agree with you that an experience so indistinct as to fall on the subconscious level is not NORMALLY what we think of as a revelatory vision - and certainly not what the biblical writers typically had in mind when they used the term "vision". Nonetheless it has all the earmarks, in a primordial way, of that very phenomenon.

 

[JAL]

I have seriously tried to understand your position but I'm still just as baffled I'm afraid. Not only you have failed to explain yourself but you've often refused to answer my calls for further clarification. All I can see, apart from a lot of confusion, is a number of exegetical faults and logical inconsistencies in your reasoning which I've pointed out and will leave you to ponder.

You're not fooling anyone here.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

Why not? Most English translations of verses that portray the gospel, are pretty much identical (certainly identical in thought, if not universally identical in word). In fact you can even paraphrase the gospel into your own words and it is still just as effective providing the core message is the same.