Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[JAL]

In case you haven't checked recently, the written Word is much, much more than "written laws in the NT and OT". The Bible is the direct message from God to people.

I just covered that. The direct message is the Voice. A subsequent copy of that message is an indirect medium of communication.

The difference? The divine Word is the sanctifying power of God. The written Word is powerless to sanctify although, like Paul said, it does do a good job of working death in our members.

 

[pescador]

I just covered that. The direct message is the Voice. A subsequent copy of that message is an indirect medium of communication.

The difference? The divine Word is the sanctifying power of God. The written Word is powerless to sanctify although, like Paul said, it does do a good job of working death in our members.

If you really feel that way I pity you. The Bible has been the mainstay of the Judeo-Christian world for thousands of years, and you believe somebody like Andrew Murray? He has been dead for over 100 years so I know you didn't hear him in person; you must have read his books. Like Paul said, the written word does indeed do a good job of working death in your members.

 

[JAL]

If you really feel that way I pity you. The Bible has been the mainstay of the Judeo-Christian world for thousands of years, and you believe somebody like Andrew Murray? He has been dead for over 100 years so I know you didn't hear him in person; you must have read his books. Like Paul said, the written word does indeed do a good job of working death in your members.

Um...I cited Paul as proof for my position, not Andrew Murray. Clearly, what I indicated is that Andrew Murray caused me to investigate some aspects of Paul (et. al) that I had overlooked. Also I'm a huge fan of logical consistency and common sense. For example, if you tell me that 2 plus 2 equals 5 and claim to have a thousand verses to back you up, I'm not likely to accept your conclusion. I found that Andrew Murray's writings exposed logical contradictions in traditional theology.

If you really feel that way I pity you. The Bible has been the mainstay of the Judeo-Christian world for thousands of years, and you believe somebody like Andrew Murray?

False dichotomy. It's not necessarily believe EITHER the Bible OR Andrew Murray. If an instructor has correctly expounded Scripture with respect to an issue, then it is only appropriate to believe the instructor on that issue. If you don't see why, let me know, and together we can work through the math. I'm not being harsh here - it's just that I'm at a loss for words to account for the fact that, for about 10 posts now, you've insinuated that it's inappropriate for me to learn anything from a Bible expositor named Andrew Murray.

 

[JAL]

Like Paul said, the written word does indeed do a good job of working death in your members.

And thanks for conceding that the written Word does have that kind of effect. Not sure why we've been debating a point that Paul stated so clearly.

 

[pescador]

Um...I cited Paul as proof for my position, not Andrew Murray. Clearly, what I indicated is that Andrew Murray caused me to investigate some aspects of Paul (et. al) that I had overlooked. Also I'm a huge fan of logical consistency and common sense. For example, if you tell me that 2 plus 2 equals 5 and claim to have a thousand verses to back you up, I'm not likely to accept your conclusion. I found that Andrew Murray's writings exposed logical contradictions in traditional theology.

False dichotomy. It's not necessarily believe EITHER the Bible OR Andrew Murray. If an instructor has correctly expounded Scripture with respect to an issue, then it is only appropriate to believe the instructor on that issue. If you don't see why, let me know, and together we can work through the math. I'm not being harsh here - it's just that I'm at a loss for words to account for the fact that, for about 10 posts now, you've insinuated that it's inappropriate for me to learn anything from a Bible expositor named Andrew Murray.

You have put Andrew Murray's writings above the Word of God. You said, "The written Word is powerless to sanctify although, like Paul said, it does do a good job of working death in our members. One inspires you, the other "works death..." Are you changing your mind now?

 

[JAL]

You have put Andrew Murray's writings above the Word of God. You said, "The written Word is powerless to sanctify although, like Paul said, it does do a good job of working death in our members. One inspires you, the other "works death..." Are you changing your mind now?

No, I made points such as the following.
(1) Please don't use the term inspiration indiscriminately. Inspiration is ALWAYS a Life-giving infusion of the Holy Spirit that has nothing to do with a book - neither the Bible nor Andrew Murray's books. (The Spirit doesn't shove a canon into my body and soul).
(2) All books work death, including Andrew Murray's, insofar as they provide written commands. This is mostly due to the existence of the sinful nature. In fact the conscience is the main repository of God's commands (Romans 1 and 2). Thus, even the commands written on our conscience are a source of death, due to the sinful nature.
(3) Not all of Andrew Murray's writings are written commands.
(4) Not all of Scripture is written commands.
(5) SOME of Scripture, far from being a written command, is pointing us toward Life (Direct Revelation)
(6) Andrew Murray was the first writer to awaken me to points 1 to 5.
(7) The deadly side-effects of written commands are nullified if there is sufficient Life-giving Spirit present within a believer. (Life is the antidote to death). And, in my opinion, Paul's letters originally shipped (sacramentally) with such dosages, in those days of revival. (Same in Moses' day). Thus for his original audience, the letters worked Life (sacramentally speaking). We can't presume the same is true for us today.

I'm sorry you resent the fact that teachers such as Andrew Murray can help us understand Scripture better.

 

[JAL]

You have put Andrew Murray's writings above the Word of God. You said, "The written Word is powerless to sanctify although, like Paul said, it does do a good job of working death in our members. One inspires you, the other "works death..." Are you changing your mind now?

If I had said that Andrew Murray's books confer Life, you might have a point. Only the Spirit confers Life.

Andrew Murray's books do not confer life. Like all books, they are powerless to sanctify. However, the Bible is a compass that points our eyes to the source of life (the Spirit), and Murray's books help us to recognize Scripture as such a compass.

 

[JAL]

But in the 66 books of the Bible, every issue that we are likely to encounter is already dealt with somewhere among those books.

This kind of statement is patently false, of course.The Bible doesn't tell me the exact specifics of God's will from moment to moment. All it does is confirm that the Law of Love underlies those specifics.

Like most people, your complaints about Direct Revelation are 100% based on the flaws perceived in unregulated prophecy. If you think that God might be telling you something, but are less than 100% certain, and yet presume to be correct instead of taking it tentatively a best, this is what the Bible literally condemns as prophesying in presumption. And merely because such unregulated, condemned misbehavior often leads to chaos - that's your primary reason for having become virtually anti-revelatory? Really? That's like me saying, "I've seen a lot of bad, unprincipled exegetes. Therefore it's time to throw away the Bible".

Secondly, Christ is not a book. This means you only know Him to the extent of Direct Revelation - the extent to which He has personally manifested Himself to you. (Can't recall if we discussed this point). Let's start with Paul's example. Prior to conversion, he was an expert in exegesis. Did he know God? Nope, he met the Lord literally face to face on the road to Damascus. And he subsequently refers to that experience as the revelation of the gospel - revelation of what exactly? Christ. Thus Direct Revelation is how we come to know Christ, and more Direct Revelation is how we come to know Him better:

17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better (Eph 1).

The goal for all believers is the same - knowing Christ intimately and, eventually, face to face even in this life:

"The Lord spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaks with a friend" (Ex 33:11).
"You have never heard His voice, nor seen His shape, nor does His Word dwell in you" (John 5:37).

The Mormons, Jews, Jehovah Witnesses - they all read the book and yet haven't met the Lord! Why? Two reasons.
(1) Again, the Lord is not a book.
(2) The human mind cannot properly conceive an ineffably holy God. Thus when you worship "God" as conceived by exegesis alone, you only worship a conceptual idol - you never actually manage to worship Yahweh/Christ.

This means that a vital aspect of the Inward-Witness experience is that the Holy Spirit paints a picture/vision of Christ - although most of us, in our immaturity coupled with a lack of revival - currently see a picture too faint to even realize that we see Christ (essentially we're seeing Him only on a somewhat subconscious level).

To summarize. The new birth can be defined, in part, as a vision of Christ. This, said Vincent, is the "new vision of the new man. He sees not only God, but the kingdom of God" (Vincent’s Word Studies on John 3:5) because "the new birth imparts a new vision" (Ibid., on Jn 3:11). Gordon Fee rightly insisted that 2Cor 3:18 ascribes to all believers a direct beholding of Christ in the most literal sense. This is a vision that cannot be exegetically "tested against Scripture" for the reason already stated - the human mind cannot exegetically conceive an ineffably holy God.

Calvin seemed to reach a similar conclusion. He commented on Heb 11:3,

"Men’s minds therefore are wholly blind, so that they see not the light of nature which shines forth in created things, until being irradiated by God’s Spirit...[whereby] they have a deep conviction fixed in their minds and behold the true God."

On John 16:16 he commented that "Christ wishes to be seen by us". On John 14:19 he claimed that the Spirit enables believers to always "behold him by a secret beholding of Christ" (ibid).

Conclusion: For one to claim, "I don't have much interest in Direct Revelation" is (inadvertently) tantamount to, "I'm not much interested in getting to know Christ better." And I can also prove the point on logical grounds alone without recourse to Scripture - in fact I seem to recall I did so earlier on this thread.

P.S. Interesting point to wet your appetite. You're aware, of course, that Scripture contains hidden tidbits potentially overlooked by exegesis? Jesus surfaced some of these tidbits in His debates with the Pharisees. One of the hidden tidbits in John 16, in my (tentative) opinion, is that "praying in Christ's name" is veiled code-language for a face to face vision of the Father. Petitions offered under this degree of inspiration are inspired petitions which, as such, cannot be denied, "Ask anything in my name and you will receive it". Just my tentative opinion - so please don't overreact with all kinds of vehement judgments concerning presumptive exegesis.


@pescador, And yes, Andrew Murray awakened me to all of these biblical and logical insights - and I do not apologize for it.

 

[1213]

And by reliable you mean that you can interpret it infallibly, then?...

I try not to interpret. I think it is better to allow Bible explain what it means and not add own meanings into it.

 

[1213]

So it's okay to presume to know how to evangelize instead of asking Him for clear guidance? Because that's what it boils down to.

Is Bible not clear guidance? How can it be so, if you have the Holy Spirit from God?

 

[JAL]

Is Bible not clear guidance? How can it be so, if you have the Holy Spirit from God?

The Holy Spirit illuminating the mind's understanding of Scripture is precisely what I call Direct Revelation.

After all, "new revelation" is an oxymoron (there is no such thing because it's a contradiction in terms), due to the fact that any post-Adam revelation can only serve to merely clarify existing revelation and thus cannot be new. Paul didn't see himself as teaching anything new - he just clarified what was already revealed.

I think can I clarify the debate. Here are the two most likely theories as to how the Holy Spirit enlightens us.
(1) The exegetical system. According to this theory, it is our responsibility to deductively draw conclusions based on chains of textual analysis with regard to grammar, context, and history. In this system, therefore, the role of the Holy Spirit is to heighten our analytical skills (make us better scholars) and thus effectively elevate our IQ. This theory is problematic for several reasons (feel free to ask).
(2) Direct Revelation. Instead of our minds being burdened with the task of deductively drawing conclusions, the Holy Spirit simply TELLS US the meaning of the verses. And thus we accept HIS conclusions based on our conviction that His voice is authoritative, especially when He convicts us to the degree of 100% certainty.

Note that, if theory-1 is the correct one, this would mean that Bible scholars would unravel all the hidden mysteries of Scripture and thereby, comparatively speaking, strand the prophets in darkness. But isn't this a reversal of the facts? Jesus said that the recipients of Direct Revelation are the ones privy to the mysteries, thus stranding the Bible scholars in darkness:

"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to babes".

The babe isn't scholarly enough to exegetically test the voice. He merely feels certain that his father's voice is trustworthy.

 

[pescador]

No, I made points such as the following.
(1) Please don't use the term inspiration indiscriminately. Inspiration is ALWAYS a Life-giving infusion of the Holy Spirit that has nothing to do with a book - neither the Bible nor Andrew Murray's books. (The Spirit doesn't shove a canon into my body and soul).
(2) All books work death, including Andrew Murray's, insofar as they provide written commands. This is mostly due to the existence of the sinful nature. In fact the conscience is the main repository of God's commands (Romans 1 and 2). Thus, even the commands written on our conscience are a source of death, due to the sinful nature.
(3) Not all of Andrew Murray's writings are written commands.
(4) Not all of Scripture is written commands.
(5) SOME of Scripture, far from being a written command, is pointing us toward Life (Direct Revelation)
(6) Andrew Murray was the first writer to awaken me to points 1 to 5.
(7) The deadly side-effects of written commands are nullified if there is sufficient Life-giving Spirit present within a believer. (Life is the antidote to death). And, in my opinion, Paul's letters originally shipped (sacramentally) with such dosages, in those days of revival. (Same in Moses' day). Thus for his original audience, the letters worked Life (sacramentally speaking). We can't presume the same is true for us today.

I'm sorry you resent the fact that teachers such as Andrew Murray can help us understand Scripture better.

Since you say "All books work death", I will not continue to discuss this matter with you. Bye.

 

[JAL]

Since you say "All books work death", I will not continue to discuss this matter with you. Bye.

That's all you've got? You see this is what confirms my arguments - when fellow posters have nothing more than a pretense of rebuttal. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[JAL]

Since you say "All books work death", I will not continue to discuss this matter with you. Bye.

Oh I forgot to mention - the name pescador presumably means fisherman? Excellent choice. Are you aware that Christ twice repeated the fisherman scenario? Since He seldom repeated the same parable twice, this suggests that it was a lesson of paramount importance. And what was the lesson? The primacy of Direct Revelation! (Unfortunately the church still hasn't realized this).

 

[BobRyan]

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:

(1)Christ slam hammers the "tradition" idea in Mark 7:6-13 "sola scriptura" when he opposes the magesterium of the one true nation church started by God at sinai "sola scriptura".

(2) sola scriptura is the Bible-approved model in Isaiah 8:20, in Mark 7:6-13 and in Acts 17:11... I am with the Bible on that one.

(3) Feelings, conscience, supposed direct revelation to an individuals "must be tested" against scripture... "sola scriptura" -- for as scripture says there are those who are "seared in their conscience' and who then unwittingly follow "doctrines of demons" 1 Time 4:1-5

 

[JAL]

(1)Christ slam hammers the "tradition" idea in Mark 7:6-13 "sola scriptura" when he opposes the magesterium of the one true nation church started by God at sinai "sola scriptura".

(2) sola scriptura is the Bible-approved model in Isaiah 8:20, in Mark 7:6-13 and in Acts 17:11... I am with the Bible on that one.

Are you saying that Jesus is opposed to illumination (as discussed at post 531) and the new birth (as discussed at 528)? Here's a 10-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura if you'd like more info.

By the way, are you aware of why the idiom "illumination" exists, that is, why it became a synonynm for both ordinary intuition and direct revelations (God-given intuitions)? Here's why. You can't see the objects in a dark room until a light illuminates the room. Now, we comprehend by forming mental pictures/visions. Initially an unclear concept is all darkness for us until an intuition forms a clear vision/picture, thus bringing conceptual objects into light. And then we see it all clearly, "Ah, now I see what you mean". Thus:

"I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people" (Eph 1:18).

How did the prophet Abraham know his heavenly hope? He saw it! These patriarchs saw the heavenly city in visions (compare Gen 28:12-13 with Heb 11:10). Anyway I digress. I was explaining the term illumination. In regard to intuition, we say, therefore, that a light has dawned on the mind (or "a light bulb flashed"). Thus the light of intuition and/or revelation provides visions to the mind's eye or, as Paul put it:

"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers [they are in darkness - Eph 4:18], so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God...6For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ." (2 Cor 4)

The above passage confirms what I argued at post 528 - that the new birth is a revelatory vision of the glory of God, which totally refutes Sola Scriptura.

(1)Christ slam hammers the "tradition" idea in Mark 7:6-13 "sola scriptura" when he opposes the magesterium of the one true nation church started by God at sinai "sola scriptura".

I'm not defending Tradition. Also I'm not sure why you would speculate, even for an instant, that any passage in Scripture is opposed to divine illumination (Direct Revelation). In the passage that you cited, Jesus shed some light on an OT command, "Honor your father and mother." Similarly, when the Holy Spirit speaks to me today, telling me the meaning of a verse, it is illumination/revelation (again, see post 531 if you're not clear on this).

(3) Feelings, conscience, supposed direct revelation to an individuals "must be tested" against scripture... "sola scriptura" -- for as scripture says there are those who are "seared in their conscience' and who then unwittingly follow "doctrines of demons" 1 Time 4:1-5

I postulate only one rule (one maxim) that I like to call the rule of conscience:

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

I don't care how seared the conscience is, you can't postulate a single scenario that clearly calls for departure from the rule of conscience. This rule underlies Rom 2:14-15, 1Cor 8:1-13, and the whole chapter of Rom 14. God would be an evil, unjust judge if He dishonored the rule - and thus you have a logical contradiction. I'm a huge fan of logical consistency. Meaning, I don't care if you cite a million verses, I reject your position out of hand if it contains a logical inconsistency. Don't tell me that 2 plus 2 = 5 and then "back it up" with 1,000 verses - I'm not interested.

The above maxim ("rule of conscience") has no exceptions and thus refutes Sola Scriptura. Meaning, when it dictates a particular course of action, it must be heeded - no need to "check it out with Scripture". The maxim rules. This means I need to check something out with Scripture only when the maxim itself is telling me to do so. Otherwise not.

 

[JAL]

(2) sola scriptura is the Bible-approved model in Isaiah 8:20, in Mark 7:6-13 and in Acts 17:11... I am with the Bible on that one.

You alluded to the Bereans at Acts 17:11. Again, there are at least two ways to read the Scriptures:
(1) Full reliance on exegetical methodology (Bible scholarship).
(2) Full reliance on divine illumination (Direct Revelation)

Again, see post 531 if this distinction isn't perfectly clear. The point is, please don't assume that the Bereans went with option 1.

I'm no prophet as yet, so I don't get much illumination. Therefore even I myself fall back on option 1, as a temporary crutch. And I don't apologize for it. But I also recognize the danger - the danger of attempting to use human reasoning to comprehend the Scriptures.

 

[JAL]

I fixed the earlier link to the 10-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I fixed the earlier link to the 10-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura.

Here you go I added a 10-point rebuttal of your claims agianst Sola Scriptura starting here for anyone interested as well.

 

[1213]

...After all, "new revelation" is an oxymoron (there is no such thing because it's a contradiction in terms), due to the fact that any post-Adam revelation can only serve to merely clarify existing revelation and thus cannot be new. ....

Ok, I think it is good you said that. For me direct revelation is ok, as long as it is not in contradiction with Bible.