Sola Scriptura is nonsense, isn't it?

[aiki]

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.

Well, who gets to say what is and isn't "intellectual dishonesty"? Often, this description is improperly applied to those who merely hold a differing point of view.

Let's be honest, therefore, about the fact that we don't know what we're doing.

I think you can only speak for yourself, here. On what basis do you get to make this assertion for everyone?

We don't really know anything for sure, certainly not how to run a church.

This is a self-refuting statement. If you don't know anything for sure, that would include your statement that you don't know anything for sure, which puts your statement itself in doubt. In other words, if your statement is true, you don't know for sure that you don't know anything for sure. See? Self-refuting.

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.

Well, simply saying so doesn't make it so. What version of Sola Scriptura are you aiming at? My guess is at the least sophisticated one.

Sola Scriptura appears to be a logical absurdity that contradicts common sense and repudiates conversion.

Says the one who just offered a self-refuting statement...

Evangelicals conveniently overlook this fact whenever they cite verses supposedly in favor of this 'doctrine' (if we even want to call it that).

So far, you've just offered opinion. We've all got those. Do you have anything else to offer?

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?

2 Timothy 3:16-17

Let's rephrase the question. Are we aware of any people who, at least from time to to time, DID know the will of God? I think we will generally agree that the apostles and prophets did so. HOW did they know it? Direct revelation!

Are you an apostle? No, there hasn't been any of those since the first century AD. Are you a prophet? I very much doubt it. They, too, no longer exist.

Any Christian who claims that direct revelation does not or cannot work seems to be in conflict with his own history.

On what basis are we to assume that what God did for/with certain individuals He intends to do for/with us all?

Under the right conditions, it DOES work, unfortunately the church hasn't made much effort to determine those conditions...

What "right conditions" did Moses meet when he heard from God? He was a murderer hiding on the backside of the desert when God spoke to him! How about Paul? What conditions did he meet in order to hear from God? He was a persecutor of Christians, totally opposing the work of God when God spoke to him. Abraham? Had he met certain conditions in order for the angel of the Lord to approach him? Nope.

 

[JAL]

Aren't Sola Scriptura, and the leading of the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture two different subjects?

IMHO when I put forward a belief I have which is based upon what I have read in the Bible, that is MY belief, I cannot speak for the Holy Spirit and don't pretend to do so.

I can string a number verses together to make a coherent argument for said belief, but then again so could you, and both of our beliefs are diametrically opposed, could it be said that the Holy Spirit led either one to their conclusions?

But Sola Scriptura is about the Resolution of Religious Issues, which I also suppose are in relation to what different Denominations consider to be Doctrine, not what I personally believe as opposed to your belief on the same issue.

Case in point, I believe, in OSAS but not necessarily the Calvinistic view of it.
I believe Calvin was way off on any number of issues, and those issues shaded all of his other beliefs.

I think I could honestly say you personally do not believe in OSAS, now it must be understood, I am not espousing my belief as a Denominational Doctrine, just my belief the way I understand it to be.

My belief also is, a Born Again Believer Cannot Sin, are we in disagreement on that issue as well?

Do you see what I mean, these are my beliefs, based solely upon Scripture itself not what any Church, Denomination, or historic Church Father has said.

Therefore that is Sola Scriptura to me.

Ok your version of Sola Scriptura shouldn't be called such because it isn't the historically accepted definition. To avoid confusion, please assign to it a different name.

In your version, you're claiming, "I have some beliefs that I deduced from Scripture alone, I did not look to any other basis."

Whereas the accepted definition of Sola Scriptura is, "The bible is the only final authority for all major religious beliefs". Here's how Wikipedia defines Sola Scriptura:

Sola Scriptura (Latin: by scripture alone) is a theological doctrine held by some Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

 

[Pedra]

Interesting how some people in present day are eager to claim they are speaking for God as the OT prophets of old , because in the OT if they claimed to speak for GOD but it was found they didn't , or their prediction did not come true etc...the penalty was death.
Deuteronomy 18:20
But if any prophet dares to speak a message in My name that I have not commanded him to speak, or to speak in the name of other gods, that prophet must be put to death."

 

[JAL]

When such an 'infallible alternative' shows up, we will be fair enough to take a look. None has appeared yet or been referred to on this thread, however.

To begin with, that's a contradiction in terms isn't it? The gift of prophecy is NOT infallible? What a shame, as Jesus walked in that gift. I guess I have to throw out the whole Bible then because, if the writers had no infallible gift of inspiration, I can't trust what it says. Too bad.

 

[JAL]

Interesting how some people in present day are eager to claim they are speaking for God as the OT prophets of old , because in the OT if they claimed to speak for GOD but it was found they didn't , or their prediction did not come true etc...the penalty was death.
Deuteronomy 18:20
But if any prophet dares to speak a message in My name that I have not commanded him to speak, or to speak in the name of other gods, that prophet must be put to death."

Agreed, it's a real problem. That's why we need to try to figure out a reasonable criterion for accepting or rejecting an alleged prophetic message. I propose 100% certainty, mostly for obvious, tautological reasons.

 

[Pedra]

I'm not questioning God's Word. I'm questioning our fallible interpretations of it, and aspiring to a potentially infallible alternative (the prophetic gift).

It was God by the Holy Spirit who brought us His word through men and why do you doubt God bringing forth the most important piece of written work given on this earth?

 

[Redwingfan9]

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).

If we are to reject sola scriptura then what exactly is our faith based on and how is it unifying at all?

 

[Albion]

To begin with, that's a contradiction in terms isn't it? The gift of prophecy is NOT infallible?

Maybe another look at the meaning of prophesy is in order here. "Prophesy" does not mean that addendums, modifications, or corrections to the Holy Scriptures are being sent our way.

 

[Pedra]

I just don't kapish , someone trying to convince me that believing the Bible IS what it testifies itself to be, AKA, the inerrant Word of God is wrong, that the BIble is fallible, but somehow I'm supposed to believe some guy standing before me is speaking for GOD inerrantly? or infallible? no , sorry, no can do.

 

[GodLovesCats]

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

Faith comes from God. We can read the Bible forever and not believe a word of it.

 

[charsan]

How did the early Christians until at least 400 know about Jesus before Scripture?

 

[JIMINZ]

To insure that you know, I have in fact read your posts.

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.

Would be nice if, you gave the names of these Churches which fall in to your category of (Intellectual Dishonesty)?

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.

That is a nebulous statement, just what are these several other Doctrines which you find to be so problematic, and nonsense.

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).

Make your case for the logical absurdity that contradicts common sense and repudiates conversion.

You can't just leave that statement hanging out there without any meat on those bones, why is Soly Scriptura absurd in your way of thinking, and why does it contradict common sense, let alone repudiate conversion?

 

[JAL]

Well, who gets to say what is and isn't "intellectual dishonesty"?...I think you can only speak for yourself, here. On what basis do you get to make this assertion for everyone?

The typical evangelical pastor stands up in the pulpit preaching and teaching, all the while radiating utmost confidence, as though he knows for sure what the Bible teaches, and he doesn't hedge it with a disclaimer (see my signature).

Yet that same pastor, if PRESSED, will acknowledge his own fallibility. You don't see any hint of intellectual dishonesty here?

100 billion have lived and died since the world began. Evangelism is therefore critical, we cannot afford to be intellectually dishonest about it. And yet I attended an evangelical 'church' for about a year where the pastor INSISTED that it's proper to evangelize even as a newborn christian (even though Jesus didn't begin his public ministry until the age of 30).

He PRETENDED to know something he didn't know, even though 100 billion souls are at stake if he is wrong. That is intellectual dishonesty. Such pretense fosters a false sense of security causing some Christians to buy into conclusions that should be questioned. I just don't think it's likely that the church will ever see another revival given 2,000 years of this kind of behavior. We have literally invented our own religion and shoved it down God's throat.

This is a self-refuting statement. If you don't know anything for sure, that would include your statement that you don't know anything for sure, which puts your statement itself in doubt. In other words, if your statement is true, you don't know for sure that you don't know anything for sure. See? Self-refuting.

Not self-refuting. Self-affirming. You're right. In my opinion, I don't know for sure that I don't know anything for sure. The argument is self-affirming because it continues to affirm that everything stated by me is my opinion, not fact.

If this is your way of responding to my rebuttal of Sola Scriptura, I don't see where you are adddressing the charges of contradiction that I alleged.

Well, simply saying so doesn't make it so. What version of Sola Scriptura are you aiming at? My guess is at the least sophisticated one.

I thought I was pretty clear, see post 33 for example.

Says the one who just offered a self-refuting statement...

See above.

So far, you've just offered opinion. We've all got those. Do you have anything else to offer?

Yes, several charges of contradiction that you are obviously unable to mitigate.

All your doing is manifesting your hostility to my conclusions. I don't expect you to like my conclusions. I just expect you to address the arguments.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

So now you're claiming that exegesis yields 100% certainty? You don't see the contradiction? When I am 100% certain on an issue, then I MUST claim to be INFALLIBLE on that issue. (Anything less would be a lie). If you deny this, then you don't understand 100% certainty. To be 100% certain on a particular issue means a level of certainty so absolute that you can't even COGITATE the possibility of being mistaken on the issue in question. You can ONLY see yourself as infallible on it at that moment.

So let's be honest. Does exegesis provide that degree of certainty? Because I can demonstrate that the divine Voice is capable of providing it. For example I can cite biblical examples so indicating.

Are you an apostle? No, there hasn't been any of those since the first century AD. Are you a prophet? I very much doubt it. They, too, no longer exist.

Prophecy flourishes with an abundant flow of the Holy Spirit. One of the main problems, in my opinion, is that all the intellectual dishonesty over the centuries has all but quenched Him. Therefore, you are right, you should not expect to see any prophets in this day and age.

On what basis are we to assume that what God did for/with certain individuals He intends to do for/with us all?

Fair point. I'll come back to this shortly. I certainly can't give a complete biblical defense in a short time, but I can give a partial defense, along with some very reasonable logical arguments. So give me a moment....

Theology is an imperfect science. I can't give you an absolute proof of anything - I can't even prove that you exist. What I CAN do is demonstrate that ecclesiology grounded in direct revelation (the pursuit of prophecy - 1Cor 14:1) is a more REASONABLE and BIBLICAL position than Sola Scriptura.

What "right conditions" did Moses meet when he heard from God? He was a murderer hiding on the backside of the desert when God spoke to him! How about Paul? What conditions did he meet in order to hear from God? He was a persecutor of Christians, totally opposing the work of God when God spoke to him. Abraham? Had he met certain conditions in order for the angel of the Lord to approach him? Nope.

Glad you mentioned these men. At some point I'll show how their anecdotes corroborate my whole position.

 

[JAL]

To insure that you know, I have in fact read your posts.

Would be nice if, you gave the names of these Churches which fall in to your category of (Intellectual Dishonesty)?

Hardly necessary. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck...
If you carefully read my statements and complaints, you will be able to decide for yourself which churches that I would charge with intellectual dishonesty.

That is a nebulous statement, just what are these several other Doctrines which you find to be so problematic, and nonsense.

Off-topic. I proposed to discuss ONE example on this thread, namely the nonsense that is called Sola Scriptura. Other issues are beyond the pale of this discussion.

Make your case for the logical absurdity that contradicts common sense and repudiates conversion..You can't just leave that statement hanging out there without any meat on those bones, why is Soly Scriptura absurd in your way of thinking, and why does it contradict common sense, let alone repudiate conversion?.

I have made a case. See post 33 (see also 23, 33, 42, 56 - and there were more).

 

[JIMINZ]

Agreed, it's a real problem. That's why we need to try to figure out a reasonable criterion for accepting or rejecting an alleged prophetic message. I propose 100% certainty, mostly for obvious, tautological reasons.

Is it your belief, when a believer says he believes in Sola Scriptura, you automatically understand him to be saying he believes he is Prophet?

When you hear someone use Scripture to back up their position, do you believe he is attempting to Prophesy?

 

[JAL]

If we are to reject sola scriptura then what exactly is our faith based on and how is it unifying at all?

Our faith is grounded in direct revelation. Saving faith is a feeling of certainty given to us by the Inward Witness. This anticipates Paul argument in Galatians 3, 'Having begun in the Spirit, would you now try to attain your goal by human effort"?

The whole church is still missing the thrust of Paul's argument. How did we get our current level of faith? Direct revelation. How then do we grow to a higher level of faith? We need more direct revelation! That's Paul's point, even though the whole church has completely missed it (except Andrew Murray, my mentor).

He wrote, "The mistake of the Galatian church is repeated to this day even in the churches most confidently assured that they are free from the Galatian error." Maybe I'll cover this epistle in some depth later.

How is it unifying? We are unified on the main issues BEFORE we study Scripture. At conversion, before I read the Bible, the Inward Witness taught me (via feelings of certainty)
(1) Jesus is God
(2) He died for my sins
(3) the bible is His written word
(4) He plans to take me to heaven

Direct revelation is the best source of unification. Sola Scriptura (exegesis) divides.

Do we want more unity? Yes. How do we get it? Seek more direct revelation (1Cor 14:1).

 

[JAL]

Is it your belief, when a believer says he believes in Sola Scriptura, you automatically understand him to be saying he believes he is Prophet?

When you hear someone use Scripture to back up their position, do you believe he is attempting to Prophesy?

I don't see where these questions are coming from. I can't seem to make the connection. I'm not sure you've understood anything I've written on this thread.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

What I posted was consistent with my first question.

 

[JAL]

I just don't kapish , someone trying to convince me that believing the Bible IS what it testifies itself to be, AKA, the inerrant Word of God is wrong, that the BIble is fallible, but somehow I'm supposed to believe some guy standing before me is speaking for GOD inerrantly? or infallible? no , sorry, no can do.

You are attributing to me several assertions explicitly repudiated by me. This is total nonsense.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Our faith is grounded in direct revelation. Saving faith is a feeling of certainty given to us by the Inward Witness. This anticipates Paul argument in Galatians 3, 'Having begun in the Spirit, would you now try to attain your goal by human effort"?

The whole church is still missing the thrust of Paul's argument. How did we get our current level of faith? Direct revelation. How then do we grow to a higher level of faith? We need more direct revelation! That's Paul's point, even though the whole church has completely missed it (except Andrew Murray, my mentor).

He wrote, "The mistake of the Galatian church is repeated to this day even in the churches most confidently assured that they are free from the Galatian error." Maybe I'll cover this epistle in some depth later.

How is it unifying? We are unified on the main issues BEFORE we study Scripture. At conversion, before I read the Bible, the Inward Witness taught me (via feelings of certainty)
(1) Jesus is God
(2) He died for my sins
(3) the bible is His written word
(4) He plans to take me to heaven

Direct revelation is the best source of unification. Sola Scriptura (exegesis) divides.

Do we want more unity? Yes. How do we get it? Seek more direct revelation (1Cor 14:1).

We don't need more direct revelation. Everything we need to know about God is contained in scripture. Any additional revelation is redundant and unnecessary.