Sola Scriptura is nonsense, isn't it?

[JAL]

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.

(1) Addendums. Too nebulous. The bible addresses all creation and thus all possible topics. All direct revelation must be seen as CLARIFYINIG Scripture, therefore, not 'adding' to it. In other words the concept of 'adding to Scripture' is an oxymoron, it is just a favorite tactic used by cessationists to spread fear of direct revelation, fear that it will somehow 'add' to the Bible. Look, no one's proposing to canonize new material and, even if they did, do you think the church is too unwise to decide rightly on such proposals? Even I have THAT much confidence in the church.
(2) Modifications? What verse was I proposing to be modified?
(3) Corrections? See #2.

 

[JAL]

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.

Repudiation of conversion. See post 33.

 

[JIMINZ]

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.

You refute Sola Scriptura out of hand, yet you want everybody to believe what you are saying is 100% correct.

If you are not using the Bible for your assertions, what pray tell book or news paper are you using that we should believe what you say over what the Bible says?

All of your assertions are nothing more than that, assertions, you have no bonafide source other than the Bible for you to make such an assertion.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Well, a man's tradition in harmony with what Scripture teaches.

 

[JAL]

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.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring to the criteria for accepting a voice. My proposal is that a message, conclusion, or voice is 100% authoritative (i.e. may no longer be regarded as tentative) if, and only if, I am 100% certain about. This proposal appears to be tautologically true.

Now, can I provide biblical examples that feelings of certainty rule, that 100% certainty is biblical, and so on? Certainly. Bear in mind that the NT mentions the prophet Abraham and the prophet Moses more frequently than any other OT saints. Specifically the prophet Abraham is Paul's principal exemplar of faith in Galatians and Romans. Hebrews 11 celebrates Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son as one of the most righteous acts of faith in human history.

What kind of faith is Hebrews 11 referring to? What kind of faith led Abraham to an attempted slaughter of his own son? In other words what kind of faith is Hebrews 11 pressing us to seek?

100% certainty. The conclusion seems inescapable. Suppose Abraham's behavior were, "Although I'm not 100% certain it was God speaking, I'm going to kill my son anyway." That would make him a monster, a total psychopath.

A psychopath would happily kill his son on 99% certainty. He is a man whose conscience is warped. I can't really fault him for the act, though, if his conscience is so advocating. But the point is that Abraham was NOT a sick man. He was not a psychopath. He was a good man. As such, he would NOT kill his son on 99% certainty. The foregone conclusion - because faith cometh by hearing the Word (Rom 10:17) - is that the divine Voice gave him 100% certainty. After all, I've already suggested that 100% certainty defined the prophetic experience. Abraham is thus an excellent paradigm for all believers.

What now of Moses? The Voice commanded him to slaughter 7 nations to acquire the land of Canaan. How much of a monster do you think Moses was? The sort of psychopath that would do these things on 99% certainty? Clearly the voice gave him 100% certainty. Again, an excellent paradigm of faith for us to follow. Hebrews 11 says that these men conquered kingdoms (slaughtered nations) by faith. What kind of faith? 100% certainty as provided by the Voice of prophetic experience.

 

[D.A. Wright]

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).

Maybe because,in less than 6 hours, more than 120 replies have been generated?

 

[Jonaitis]

I suppose purgatory didn't find its way into the text. Papists are just angry that we tried to stop them from selling indulgences and making big money for future projects.

 

[JAL]

You refute Sola Scriptura out of hand, yet you want everybody to believe what you are saying is 100% correct.

If you are not using the Bible for your assertions, what pray tell book or news paper are you using that we should believe what you say over what the Bible says?

All of your assertions are nothing more than that, assertions, you have no bonafide source other than the Bible for you to make such an assertion.

Misrepresentations, false dichotomies, misleading generalizations, and nothing really specifically addressing the points of my arguments. Ignored.

 

[grampster]

I'm new here. Been lurking for a few days. This thread is interesting to me because of what has occurred in my life. A little history first. I was raised Roman Catholic and moved away from that for a number of reasons; some good, some bad. At a point in my life I recognized I was astray. RC as a background probably helped me with that, though.

So I started on a path that began with a rather dramatic beginning, which lead to reading the Book of Mormon upon suggestion by a friend. At the end of that book it mentioned that it probably was a bit strange but pray to the Holy Spirit as to whether it was true or not. I did, and I was led away from Mormonism. I became a born again Christian later as a result of an encounter with a student who was studying to be a minister. I began reading C.S. Lewis, J.I. Packer, Josh McDowell, and others, had a men's bible study group, read the bible cover to cover many times as well as perusing it in pieces when moved to do so. Got baptized by full immersion after a struggle about whether it was important for me to do so. It also got me kicked out of a RC priest's office while discussing the situation. This and more has occurred over the last 35+ years. I'm not affiliated nor do I attend any church...again for good and maybe some bad reasons. I pray daily and consult scripture.

I believe the bible to be absolutely true and inerrant. Why? Well if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob actually exists (I am sure of that because of the Faith He has given me by His Grace) and if He spoke the universe as we know it into existence, then I am absolutely sure that He is able to inspire humans to put down words that will be absolutely true no matter the generation, the century, the language or make or model of any human any time or place. The Scriptures are not only general, they are personal. The words and meanings are meant for each of us, collectively and individually and we will be made aware of what we need when we need through the Scripture by the Holy Spirit presuming we are asking and searching in Faith. With all the denominations we have today, how do we know what is being preached from any pulpit is true? Are preachers automatically prophets? Apostles? We have to have something to base what we hear upon.

I'll end this with the comment that is not in any way to be insulting to any of the contributors. But here and other Christian boards there always is a lot of nit picking and nat picking over just about anything we can think of with reference to what we claim to believe. I don't think that sort of stuff is worthy of debating actually.

There are several, if not many references in scripture about what it is that we believe and should believe. It's pretty simple really. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God....and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He was begotten by the Father through the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into Hell and rose from the dead on the 3rd day. He ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father and He will judge the quick and the dead. The OT prophets wrote and predicted about this in many ways. It is further written He has said we are to love God with all we have, love our neighbor as our self and believe on Jesus.

All of those words were written by men who were inspired by the Father. If they were not inspired and the Father did not inspire the translators over the ages, then we have a futile hope, because how are we to know what is true? We are told in the bible that it is of great value for all our needs and questions. At the end of the bible we are told this is all there is and and there ain't no more and we are warned not to change any of it. I believe there were warnings about picking nits and other "gospels" as well. If that is Sola Scriptura well, that's good enough for me.

 

[JAL]

Maybe because,in less than 6 hours, more than 120 replies have been generated?

(After a long guffaw). Fair point, I suppose. But I thought controversial theology is a claim beyond the pale of orthodoxy. I don't see where the Nicene Creed requires me to accept Sola Scriptura, or suggests that I must choose between that and Tradition, or disparages direct revelation as a third option.

 

[charsan]

View attachment 261338

That is exactly what they do, make up doctrine.

 

[JIMINZ]

Misrepresentations, false dichotomies, misleading generalizations, and nothing really specifically addressing the points of my arguments. Ignored.

What do you use as your Authority, to enable you to make such assertions?

Who are you that we should believe anything you have said resides anywhere close to the Truth, as for me, I use the Bible as the Supreme Authority, in all matters concerning what is found in the Bible.

Notice I did not say Church matters or Religious issues, this is mainly because there are a lot of things which are not found in or can be backed up with the Bible, which are found in the Churches.

Maybe those are the things your at odds with and not Sola Scriptura at all.

 

[dqhall]

I've responded to this claim several times and in many ways.

Again, Sola Scriptura contradicts conversion (see post 33).
Again, Sola Scriptura contradicts the authority of conscience (posts 42 and 56).
Again, exegesis does not afford me access to Scripture, only to my fallible interpretations of it (post 23).

You shouldn't just gloss over three rebuttals. Address the arguments.

I can not believe in the infallibility of the Bible or the Pope, yet I believe God is true.

 

[JAL]

What do you use as your Authority, to enable you to make such assertions?

Conscience informed by reason. Theological debates like this one pivot on reasons given for or against a position. In this case, I examined your words using Reason, and reached the conclusion (which I still feel certain about) that you misrepresented me. Clear?

You're free to provide counterarguments based on Scripture and your own reasoning.

Who are you that we should believe anything you have said resides anywhere close to the Truth, as for me, I use the Bible as the Supreme Authority, in all matters concerning what is found in the Bible.j

No one. I base my arguments on premises held by most Christians. For example post 33 argued that the premise of conversion backs my conclusions.

I am not speaking as 'an Authority'. I do not claim to be the pope. I just supply reasonable arguments,and a reasonable analysis of Scripture, to the best of my ability.

You're free to counter-argue. I'm not the pope.

Notice I did not say Church matters or Religious issues, this is mainly because there are a lot of things which are not found in or can be backed up with the Bible, which are found in the Churches.

Maybe those are the things your at odds with and not Sola Scriptura at all.

I'm pretty sure my beef is with Sola Scriptura.

 

[GodLovesCats]

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

Jesus had a Bible.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Closed permanently.
Thread has devolved into flaming and goading.
MOD HAT OFF​