Sola Scriptura is nonsense, isn't it?

[Francis Drake]

This last statement is a false dichotomy.

John 6:63

Ephesians 6:17

And many others.

For the life of me, I cannot see how those verses prove anything against my post!

 

[anna ~ grace]

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).

Agreed. Good points, all. Scripture is awesome, and inspired. But Sola Scriptura does not work. We *do* need help beyond ourselves. We need the Church.

 

[JAL]

No, in 33 you demonstrate that we can't find answers to every question that we think should be answered. But that's not the only understanding of sola scriptura.

To me sola scriptura says that Scripture is the only direct witness to God's acts in history. But the witnesses aren't inerrant, nor do they answer any question we want them to. But it's still where we need to go to find out what Jesus taught and what he did.

There's a lot to be said for the Wesleyan quadrilateral or the Anglican equivalent. Jesus, after all, left the Church with the authority to make decisions. But they should make those decisions grounded in Jesus' life and teachings.

The difficulty with 42 is that conscience is formed by our culture and our experiences. Those could be misleading if our culture has different priorities than God's.

You seem to repeat your assertions without directly addressing the arguments, for instance the argument in 42 where I challenged, 'If you feel convinced that action A is evil and action B is good, which one shall you commit to?" Surely B right? (Unless of course there are more options but either way you will try to commit to one that you feel certain is good, or the most-good/least-evil of all the options).

I see no exception to this rule. Until you can provide one, your 'repudiation' of authoritative concsience is just blowing hot air (in addition to contradicting conversion as post 33 demonstrated which argument you continue to ignore).

 

[JacksBratt]

Sola Scriptura is the claim that the Bible is the only final authority on all major religious issues.

So..........what else would you consult with?

 

[hedrick]

Shall I intend on doing evil? If my conscience is currently convinced (feels certain), when faced with two choices A and B, that action A is evil and action B is good, what shall I do? (Pick whatever you like).

No, you shouldn't do evil. But what do you consider evil? Your conscience should be formed, at least in part, by Jesus' teaching. However we face questions today that the 1st Cent didn't. Hence it should also be formed, in part, as part of a Christian community that has grappled with those issues, based both on Jesus' teachings and on pastoral experience.

 

[Albion]

However, the problem with Sola Scripture lies between what God intended when it was written, and our flawed understanding of it.

The first thing to do is to know what authority, source, etc. of information is the best. Then it is necessary to understand what it is telling us. But if someone misund3erstands, that does not invalidate the authority! The only way that could possibly make sense is if EVERYONE misunderstands the revelation or if it is flatly incapable of being understood. I see no reason to think that is the case with the Bible.

And of course, there are countless things that God would reveal through his spiritual gifts that can never be judged against scripture.

For the last 40 odd years, the path of my life has been guided through prophecy, visions, dreams, words of knowledge, etc.

So now you are saying that you PREFER something to Scripture. There is nothing in that which makes any of it more meaningful or accurate than the Bible--and certainly not more understandable, yet this was one of your main reservations about Scripture, that it might be misunderstood.

 

[AlexDTX]

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

So is your point that no one can be fully confident they are saved?

 

[Francis Drake]

Agreed. Good points, all. Scripture is awesome, and inspired. But Sola Scriptura does not work. We *do* need help beyond ourselves. We need the Church.

The historic track record of the church institution, as a source of authority or direction is utterly ghastly.

 

[AlexDTX]

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

BTW, you say it is new to me, when you know nothing about what I know. I say your communication is poor instead.

 

[JAL]

In broad terms I accept Sola Scripture. However I only do so as a check on those who claim the church as the final authority.

However, the problem with Sola Scripture lies between what God intended when it was written, and our flawed understanding of it.
Ultimately, our understanding has to come with Holy Spirit guidance, otherwise we are no better than faithless naturally minded intellectuals, and no matter how much we know of scripture, it is of little value before the Lord.

1Cor2v14The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Paul makes it clear that the Spirit of God is the final authority, because without revelation, God's intentions will remain foolishness to us.

And of course, there are countless things that God would reveal through his spiritual gifts that can never be judged against scripture.
For the last 40 odd years, the path of my life has been guided through prophecy, visions, dreams, words of knowledge, etc. The majority of which have concerned things like starting businesses, inventing things, buying cars, finding a wife, moving house, and having my life saved by a word of knowledge.

None of the above would be found by Sola Scripture.

I agree with pretty much of all the statement (except any endorsement of Sola Scriptura). The problem is that the church hasn't bothered to clearly investigate the critiria for distinguishing 'when God is guiding you' (direct revelation) versus 'fallible efforts to interpret Scripture' (exegesis). So in actual practice, people tend to conflate the two. So here I'll attempt to clarify the distinction.

My point of departure is the question, 'What is illumination by the Holy Spirit'. I see two choices:
(1) Exegesis. We are supposed to read a set of premises in Scripture, logically deducing conclusions by deductive reasoning. In this case, the Holy Spirit needs to increase our analytical skills, basically increase our IQ, so that we become better scholars.
(2)Direct revelation. The Holy Spirit tells us the meaning of the verses, sparing us from the fallible effort of deductive reasoning. We don't draw our own conclusions. Conclusions are accepted on the perceived authority of the Voice (feelings of certainty, preferably 100% certainty when its available), and thus tentatively when less than 100%.

Now which paradigm fits better with Scripture? Are the truths of scripture unfolded mostly to:
(A) Scholars?
(B) recipients of revelation?

Jesus put it this way, 'I praise you Father, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned but revealed them unto babes.'

 

[charsan]

There are threads on CF now like "Is tongues for today" and "why tongues aren't meant for today" among others shows the futility of Sola Scriptura

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

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?

My understanding, and the way I live, is that you will know you are being guided when what you imagine the Holy Ghost is telling you does not contradict Scripture. That is why I follow the line of belief that says Scripture is a final authority.

For example, should a lady come and say to me, God has told me you will be my husband, I know that this cannot be God because I am already married and the Scripture says not to commit adultery.

Why the canon? Because there is so much written that is spurious you could be led to believe anything. We need to know what is God inspired and what is merely of men.

For such an example I would say that I would not consider anything Kenneth Hagin wrote as Scripture, even though he claims to have received his doctrine from Jesus. Why? Because he taught the exact opposite of what Jesus taught, and I know this from the gospels that are included in the Scripture.

 

[JAL]

No, you shouldn't do evil. But what do you consider evil? Your conscience should be formed, at least in part, by Jesus' teaching. However we face questions today that the 1st Cent didn't. Hence it should also be formed, in part, as part of a Christian community that has grappled with those issues, based both on Jesus' teachings and on pastoral experience.

Your conscience 'should' be informed by a book?

Suppose someone puts a book in front of you. At that moment your conscience is telling you - stands convinced - that reading that particular book is evil, or at least morally inferior to some other option (such as reading some other book).

So here again, choice A is evil in your eyes, choice B is good. What shall you do?

The point is that you're unsucessfully trying to add to my paradigm. You're saying, 'it's not just conscience as the authority, it's conscience plus reading Jesus teachings'.

And I say, no it's Sola Conscience because conscience DICTATES your decision as to whether to read the book and whether to OBEY the book.

Having said that, I do admit that, if your conscience tells you to read the Bible, and upon reading some verse, its stance on an issue is changed (it's feelings of certainty are now altered on a given issue), then in that indirect sense we can truthfully say that the Bible rightly influenced you.

Be aware that, without authoritative conscience, God can't run the church! Why not? Suppose He wants you to do something specific right now. How to convey this convincingly? Hope that you attend seminary for 4 years possibly drawing the same conclusion at that point? Nope. He needs to give you a feeling of certainty as to His specific will, and He can do this instantaneously. This is what it means to be led by the Spirit.

 

[JAL]

My understanding, and the way I live, is that you will know you are being guided when what you imagine the Holy Ghost is telling you does not contradict Scripture. That is why I follow the line of belief that says Scripture is a final authority.

For example, should a lady come and say to me, God has told me you will be my husband, I know that this cannot be God because I am already married and the Scripture says not to commit adultery.

Why the canon? Because there is so much written that is spurious you could be led to believe anything. We need to know what is God inspired and what is merely of men.

For such an example I would say that I would not consider anything Kenneth Hagin wrote as Scripture, even though he claims to have received his doctrine from Jesus. Why? Because he taught the exact opposite of what Jesus taught, and I know this from the gospels that are included in the Scripture.

Regardless of whether Scripture properly guided you in these circumstances, my point is that Scripture cannot be touted as the ONLY final authority (see my post 33).

 

[D.A. Wright]

Is this "General Theology?" Sounds pretty "Controversial" to me.

 

[JAL]

So is your point that no one can be fully confident they are saved?

Prophets experienced 100% certainty on many issues (including their own salvation in my opinion), and I think God wanted the prophetic anointing to flourish in all generations. All of us are supposed to be prophets (1Cor 14:1). The main thrust of the entire Corinthian epistle beginning mostly in chapter 2, I'd say, is that God defines spiritual maturity as mature prophethood.

It would be unprofessional for God to doom His people to a perpetual state of uncertainty regarding their salvation (something less than 100%).

Why do I say the prophets had 100% certainty? Because God permitted them to be stoned for any mistakes. If the prophet was supposed to speak even when He was unsure of the accuracy of the message, then he would likely get himself stoned. He needed to be sure, and needed to be infallible.

 

[JAL]

Is this "General Theology?" Sounds pretty "Controversial" to me.

Hm...Not sure why you'd think so. Mostly I've sought to clarify what illumination by the Spirit entails. I thus see three competing epistemologies:
(1) Magisterium/Tradition
(2) Sola Scriptura
(3) Spirit's illumination (rightly understood, in my view, as direct revelation).

 

[Francis Drake]

The first thing to do is to know what authority, source, etc. of information is the best. Then it is necessary to understand what it is telling us. But if someone misund3erstands, that does not invalidate the authority! The only way that could possibly make sense is if EVERYONE misunderstands the revelation or if it is flatly incapable of being understood. I see no reason to think that is the case with the Bible.

You conveniently missed out the first part of my post!
"In broad terms I accept Sola Scripture. However I only do so as a check on those who claim the church as the final authority."

I have watched the "scholars" on the forum bashing each other over the head with their posts, each claiming Sola Scripture, when in reality, its not Sola Scripture, only flawed opinions of scripture.
And we are all guilty of that to some measure.

But just to be clear, I have always believed the scriptures (as originally written) are the revealed word of God. I never disputed that.

So now you are saying that you PREFER something to Scripture.

Absolutely yes, I do at times prefer somethings to scripture, ie. the direct voice of God in the right context. Perhaps you have never encountered it?

There is no way that scripture can tell me what where to move and what house to buy, but the Holy Spirit did that many times!

There's no way I could discover what had broken inside a complex piece of engineering machinery, but a Holy Spirit vision did. (Saving me many £1000s)

There's no way a bible could reveal a serious failure in a major heating system, one that had defeated several specialists, but a revelatory dream pinpointed exactly what the problem was. The Holy Spirit again saved me a whole lot of financial pain.

There's no way whilst driving at speed down a country road at night that my bible would save me from a car crash, but hearing the Holy Spirit's advance warning did.

As I said previously, I have had 40 odd years direct experiences of God speaking through various gifts of the Spirit.
These events are of a completely different purpose and complementary to scripture.

There is nothing in that which makes any of it more meaningful or accurate than the Bible--and certainly not more understandable, yet this was one of your main reservations about Scripture, that it might be misunderstood.

The above examples have no need of a bible, so your last comments are rather meaningless.

 

[JIMINZ]

100% certain? Nothing. Honesty is the best policy.

The typical Christian who says, 'I am 100% certain of my salvation' probably doesn't understand what 100% certainty is. I imagine he's actually 99% certain.

You sound as though your opinion on this subject is 100%, how can you be so certain, what is your opinion based on other than the very thing you say is an incorrect belief, (Sola Scriptura)?

100% certainty of a believers Salvation, is based upon Faith in what the Bible does in fact say on the matter.

If a believer would say I'm not sure 60/40% then they apparently do not understand they actually do stand IN Christ 100%

Gal. 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Oh no, my Sola Scriptura is showing.

Oh well....

 

[Pedra]

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).

How can the ALMIGHTY GOD be so Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent to oversee HIS Word?
To question GOD almighty is the absurdity!