Sola Scriptura is nonsense, isn't it?

[AlexDTX]

I find your post confusing and unclear in your purpose.

God his holy. Therefore, churches built on a platform of intellectual dishonesty are probably distancing themselves from His sanctifying revivals, healing graces and evangelistic unction.

I don't see holiness equivalent to intellectual honesty. We seem to have different understandings of the meaning. Holiness is separation from sin. Sin is not a matter of intellect, although it can be connected, I suppose. Sin is usually a moral matter. Intellect may be used to justify immorality, but immorality is a choice of behavior.

Let us be especially honest about the fact that several popular doctrines are so problematical as to almost certainly be nonsense, case in point Sola Scriptura.

Please explain what you mean. Sola Scriptura, as I understand it, rejects all other sources of authority. The expression came from the Catholic Priest, Martin Luther, who protested the sales of indulgences in his 95 Theses. As he explored things further, he rejected Catholic church traditions as unequal to Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura appears to be a logical absurdity that contradicts common sense and repudiates conversion. Evangelicals conveniently overlook this fact whenever they cite verses supposedly in favor of this 'doctrine' (if we even want to call it that).

I don't see the premise of Sola Scriptura relevant to conversions. No one gets saved through intellectual debate. People come to Christ with broken hearts, disappointments, frustrations and many other reasons seeking remedy in their lives. Anyone who is talked into salvation can also be talked out of salvation, thus were never saved at all. Salvation is a heart issue, not a mental agreement.

CAN we know anything for sure? 100% certainty? Or has God doomed us to uncertainty regarding our salvation, His will for our lives, how to be maximally effective in evangelism, and how to abound in His graces?

Descartes, who is famous for his statement, I think therefore I am, wrestled with this same doubt. He eliminated every uncertainty which brought him to himself. He knew he existed and he had thoughts. With that certainty, he built upwards into all other certainties.

Your questions are wrestling with doubt. Faith in Christs, which is the foundation of our salvation, is in the heart, not the mind. Can we doubt and believe simultaneously? Yes, of course we can. But if you have had the new birth, the reality of Christ in your heart, remains forever. Doubt, then, comes into our minds first, then our hearts. Stay focused on the Lord in your heart, then you will not doubt.

Any Christian who claims that direct revelation does not or cannot work seems to be in conflict with his own history. Under the right conditions, it DOES work, unfortunately the church hasn't made much effort to determine those conditions...

"Revelation" is a loaded word. God communicates with all born again believers. But the connotation of the word "revelation" carries the idea of something untold by God before. This is where Sola Sciptura connects, although the expression is not Sola Scriptura, but Plenary Inspiration. In other words, while God still communicates, there is nothing more to be added to the Bible. All that God says to us now will always agree with Scriptures. Is this what you are getting at?

 

[redleghunter]

Honesty about the fact that Sola Scriptura appears to be logical absurdity.

You need to prove this assertion.

 

[JAL]

If Scripture isn't our highest authority to appeal to, then it is no longer God's word, whose word should be supreme above all human institutions.

Again, exegesis provides me no direct access to the written Word, only to my own fallible interpretations. You might be interested to know that the divine Word that came to the prophets (e.g. Gen 15:1-6) provided infallible revelation.


Your statement has a nice theological 'ring' to it, on the surface it 'sounds persuasive' and 'sounds appealing' but have you really stopped to ask whether it is internally self-contradictory? That was my charge in the opening post, and now it is high time for me to explain why. I'll do so in my next response to you.

 

[redleghunter]

God is holy.

Ok how do you know this?

 

[thecolorsblend]

I don't think that's really what I said?

Your post was so vague regarding actual religious authority that I was required to make some guesses.

What, then, do you believe is the religious authority to which the faithful should submit? After all, we know you don't believe it to be Sacred Scripture.

Sure, but you'll need to be more specific. How do I know when I'm being 'guided'? Just assume it when I feel like it? What's the criteria?

For me, it comes down to being in communion with the Church which Our Lord founded. That is where certitude lies; an unbroken line of succession leading directly back to Our Lord Himself.

 

[Jonaitis]

Is your answer “no” the Bible contains no clarity on Truth and certainties?

Meaning you deny the perspicuity of Holy Scriptures?

The Perspicuity of Scripture by Burk Parsons

Nice little article:

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Yet, those things that are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or another, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” - WCF 1:7

 

[redleghunter]

Faith comes from scripture. Anything beyond scripture robs people of faith.

Faith is a gift of God. We know this because of the witness of the Holy Scriptures. That was the point I was making.

In our post modern society, the skeptical, material, nihilistic, moral relativist believe we cannot know anything with certainty. The Scriptures testify this is false of course.

 

[Jonaitis]

Again, exegesis provides me no direct access to the written Word, only to my own fallible interpretations. You might be interested to know that the divine Word that came to the prophets (e.g. Gen 15:1-6) provided infallible revelation.

Your statement has a nice theological 'ring' to it, on the surface it 'sounds persuasive' and 'sounds appealing' but have you really stopped to ask whether it is internally self-contradictory? That was my charge in the opening post, and now it is high time for me to explain why. I'll do so in my next response to you.

Do you believe in the illumination of the Holy Spirit? Redleghunter's reply is my follow up post.

 

[Dave G.]

So my honesty about my own fallibility makes me LESS palatable as an instructor?

Well assuming you are part of We and we don't know anything then neither do you. Did you ever respect the opinion of an instructor who doesn't know anything ?

 

[redleghunter]

Your post was so vague regarding actual religious authority that was forced to make some guesses.

What, then, do you believe is the religious authority to which the faithful should submit? After all, we know you don't believe it to be Sacred Scripture.

For me, it comes down to being in communion with the Church which Our Lord founded. That is where certitude lies; an unbroken line of succession leading directly back to Our Lord Himself.

Some Aquinas may be suitable to this discussion.

 

[Gregory95]

Greetings friend who shall have the high authority between two of the family of Christ disagreeing on doctrine

That's an epistemological question - and one of the main topics of this thread. Unfortunately I'm in only a few posts deep so far, I haven't had time to fully address it.

Can I prove my position 100% incontrovertibly to you? No. What I'm after on this thread:
(1) Honesty about the fact that Sola Scriptura appears to be logical absurdity.
(2) Honesty about the fact that my epistemology (yet to be clarified) is NOT absurd and is probably the most plausible alternative to #1.

 

[redleghunter]

Please explain what you mean. Sola Scriptura, as I understand it, rejects all other sources of authority. The expression came from the Catholic Priest, Martin Luther, who protested the sales of indulgences in his 95 Theses. As he explored things further, he rejected Catholic church traditions as unequal to Scriptures.

A little bit deeper in the link below. Sola Scriptura does not reject all sources of authority but puts Scripture as the only infallible authority. As opposed to the modern and post modern “Solo Scriptura” or as I coin it “Solo Meo.”

Understanding Sola Scriptura

 

[JAL]

If Scripture isn't our highest authority to appeal to, then it is no longer God's word, whose word should be supreme above all human institutions.

As mentioned earlier, Sola Scriptura is the claim that the Bible is the only final authority on all major religious issues. Thus if I cannot find scriptural proof, I should withdraw an assertion. And what is proof? After all, a single Greek verb has over one hundred forms in its conjugation, as opposed to a simple language like English (say 4 or 5 forms). Without spending several years at seminary mastering Hebrew and Greek,therefore, how can I really claim to have 'proof'?

Consider conversion. During conversion, the unbeliever typically reaches several major religious conclusions/doctrines - BEFORE learning any Hebrew or Greek, or even having read the Bible.
(1) Jesus is God.
(2) Jesus died for my sins.
(3) Jesus plans to take me to heaven forever.
(4) The Bible is His written Word.

Notice he drew ALL his most major religious conclusions - a liftime's worth - BEFORE studying Greek and Hebrew! Conversion is often instananeous - one short preached message and - that's all!

How is this possible? Calvin had the answer. Direct revelation - he called it the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit, and probably 99% of evangelical theologians have (rightly) agreed with him since then.

HOW does it work? Simple. As Calvin stated, it boils down to a feeling of certainty. The Holy Spirit operates in in the heart of mind persuasively, causing the unbeliever to begin feeling certain of the gospel. We say that the Holy Spirit convicts (convinces) the unbeliever.

Implied corollaries:
(1) Christ - via direct revelation - is the foundation of the church. Scripture is NOT that foundation, in fact it was only widely available 500 years ago when the printing press appeared.
(2) Feelings of certainty are therefore authoritative in religious matters. Recall that conversion is not of your past, you in fact DAILY assert those 4 conclusions. If your original authority (feeling of certainty) has been impugned, then you should recant those 4 beliefs.
(3) Conscience is authoritative. In my next post I'll explain why #3 is just a paraphrase of #2.

 

[JAL]

Is your answer “no” the Bible contains no clarity on Truth and certainties?

Meaning you deny the perspicuity of Holy Scriptures?

The Perspicuity of Scripture by Burk Parsons

Now you're asking a different question. I seem to recall that your original question was whether the content of Scripture is true. I would affirm so. Now you seem to be asking whether Scripture is perfectly clear to the exegete. Were that so, he'd be infallible.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

God is holy. Therefore, churches built on a platform of intellectual dishonesty are probably distancing themselves from His sanctifying revivals, healing graces and evangelistic unction.

Let's be honest, therefore, about the fact that we don't know what we're doing. We don't really know anything for sure, certainly not how to run a church.

Let us be especially honest about the fact that several popular doctrines are so problematical as to almost certainly be nonsense, case in point Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura appears to be a logical absurdity that contradicts common sense and repudiates conversion. Evangelicals conveniently overlook this fact whenever they cite verses supposedly in favor of this 'doctrine' (if we even want to call it that).

Whether you believe the same as Evangelicals or not this is a very aggressive sand insulting way of putting your views. You appear to have judged and condemned Evangelicals on this subject and say that what they believe is absurdity.

I learned many years ago not to judge other people and in particular other believers, even if I dont agree with their denomination specific doctrine. I will discuss it with them in a non judgmental way trying to learn from them about what they believe and speaking about what I believe. The key thing is being born again in the name of Jesus Christ. The Bible says believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and you will be saved. You have written off many, many people who believe that and used terms like dishonesty, nonsense and absurdity in describing their beliefs. This is not the loving act of a Christian in my view, but the way its written comes across as written out of pride that you think yourself better than Evangelicals.

 

[JAL]

Ok how do you know this?

I don't (see my signature). I don't know anything 100% certain. When debating these issues, I tend to build off premises that we all tend to agree on, even if we are only 99% certain.

You are free to reject the premise that God is holy (if you feel you can do so with logical consistency). In that case, any of my arguments predicated on His holiness will not apply to you. Ignore them please.

 

[AlexDTX]

A little bit deeper in the link below. Sola Scriptura does not reject all sources of authority but puts Scripture as the only infallible authority. As opposed to the modern and post modern “Solo Scriptura” or as I coin it “Solo Meo.”

Understanding Sola Scriptura

Yup. I understand that. His OP was so confusing, however, that I was more interested in trying to untangle his points.

 

[JAL]

Whether you believe the same as Evangelicals or not this is a very aggressive sand insulting way of putting your views. You appear to have judged and condemned Evangelicals on this subject and say that what they believe is absurdity.

I learned many years ago not to judge other people and in particular other believers, even if I dont agree with their denomination specific doctrine. I will discuss it with them in a non judgmental way trying to learn from them about what they believe and speaking about what I believe. The key thing is being born again in the name of Jesus Christ. The Bible says believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and you will be saved. You have written off many, many people who believe that and used terms like dishonesty, nonsense and absurdity in describing their beliefs. This is not the loving act of a Christian in my view, but the way its written comes across as written out of pride that you think yourself better than Evangelicals.

This is not a debate about 'who is better'. Let's stick to the arguments please.

 

[JAL]

Yup. I understand that. His OP was so confusing, however, that I was more interested in trying to untangle his points.

Yes anything new to you will be confusing, but some clarification ensued, if you had time to read all my posts.

 

[charsan]

God is holy. Therefore, churches built on a platform of intellectual dishonesty are probably distancing themselves from His sanctifying revivals, healing graces and evangelistic unction.

Let's be honest, therefore, about the fact that we don't know what we're doing. We don't really know anything for sure, certainly not how to run a church.

Let us be especially honest about the fact that several popular doctrines are so problematical as to almost certainly be nonsense, case in point Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura appears to be a logical absurdity that contradicts common sense and repudiates conversion. Evangelicals conveniently overlook this fact whenever they cite verses supposedly in favor of this 'doctrine' (if we even want to call it that).

Totally agree