Sola Scriptura is nonsense, isn't it?

[JIMINZ]

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

What else would you base Religious issues on, "The Wall Street Journal"?

 

[JAL]

So you base your authority and assurance on feelings with no confirmation other than from within yourself, making the assumption that it is from God. This is a sure recipe to disaster in it's own due time... Seen it many times, it's similar to the idea that we are all little gods with the true and living God in the background someplace. You need a means of justifying those feelings, we always need to test the spirit that is feeding into us. So happens we have a manual.

Congratulations. You have just repudiated the biblical doctrine of conversion (see post 33) and, along with it, the very notion of evangelism. Suppose you are preaching to some agnostics. Convicted by the Spirit and thus pierced to the heart, they cry out, 'We are convinced! We feel certain of the gospel! What shall we do next?"

What will you tell them?
(1) "Don't rely on feelings of certainty. That's a recipe for disaster. You need to goto seminary for 4 years mastering Hebrew and Greek. Don't draw any major religious conclusions until then. Sola Scriptura is the only way to behave.
(2) OR, you could say with Peter, 'Repent IMMEDIATELY and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins".

I think we have all lost track of how many people come to this forum "thinking" they had the Holy Spirit because of feelings they had going on inside, that now have faded. Their conclusion is they lost the Holy Spirit. The question is, did they ever have it ? That's running ones spiritual life by the seat of the pants with no knowledge of how God even works. Anything can be feeding into your feelings and gut instinct, God, an agent of Satan, the world or yourself. Feelings are useful but not reliable, the word of God is true, tested and cuts like a two edged sword to the truth.

You'd have to show me an example where conscience isn't authoritative. Faced with two choices A and B, where you feel certain that A is evil and B is good, won't you always go with B? I see no exceptions to the rule.

 

[JAL]

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

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).

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I'm a bit of a "Johnny come lately" on this thread because I live in a different time zone and while you guys are having a great debate, I am engaging in peaceful slumber until my Burmese cat meows at my bedroom door and wants to come in for a warm cuddle with me.

The bottom line is that the Bible, through all its inspired authors, is the way that God has communicated with mankind. Jesus affirmed this in his story about the rich man and Lazarus. In the story Abraham told the rich man that the guy's brothers had the Law and the Prophets, and if they didn't believe them, they would not accept anyone else even if they rose from the dead to warn them not to come to that horrible place where the rich man found himself. So, Jesus Himself affirmed the overarching authority of Scripture for faith and Christian practice.

But we have to realise that not all Scripture is direct instruction to us. Some make the mistake of taking isolated verses of Scripture from the Old Testament and the gospels and serve them up as direct instructions to New Covenant believers. As we read through the historical books, we see that many people did things that God did not intend for them to do, and so they are there as examples of what we should not do, rather than what we should do. Much of the Old Testament is there to show us God's ways, and the development of His plan of salvation for mankind.

The gospels are there to show the life and ministry of Jesus, and to complete the view of God's real nature and character through Christ. He set the example of what a Christian minister should be, and how a genuine believer should relate to others. We see in Acts how the church was born and developed, and some of the problems it encountered along the way. We see in the Epistles how we can put our faith in Christ in practical ways, and why it is important that we maintain a full trust and dependence on Christ, and how that works out in practice.

If the definition of sola scriptura for some is to take every word of the Bible as directly applying to us regardless of the differences in culture, history and dispensation, then I would say it is flawed. But if we use the principles of good exegesis to determine what was meant by the person writing the Scripture, and how the hearers and readers understood it in their own cultural, historical and religious culture, and then used hermeneutical principles to see how it could be applied to people in our religious environment and culture - whether a passage of Scripture is culture-dependent, or transcultural, then we can rightly divide God's Word.

There are those who include church tradition, which is doctrine made up by those who wanted to express their personal control over the church. Often these doctrines and traditions were introduced by church authorities who had political motives, and who often were living very unholy lives. For example, there is a doctrine that all Protestants are destined for hell, because they have departed from the mother church. Also, that prayers to Mary and the Saints are just as valid as prayers to Christ Himself, and that the church's authority overrules Scripture itself.

But then, just in case some think I am Catholic-bashing, in my own Pentecostal tradition, there are doctrines, such as guaranteed healing for those who have enough faith, being slain in the Spirit makes a person closer to God; every has to speak in tongues otherwise they are not saved; all prophecy is correct without question; having to have a 30 minute "worship time" with loud music to hype people up and get them in the mood; guaranteed prosperity with poverty as a sign of a weak faith; all supernatural has to be of the Holy Spirit, regardless of how out of control and idiotic it appears; every mental health problem has to be a demon; and if anyone questions any of these doctrines they are possessed with a demon and need deliverance.

My view of sola Scripture is that all Scripture is inspired by God for instruction, guidance, and reproof and that everything has to be measured against it. All tradition and doctrine is man inspired. Some of it comes from the interpretation of Scripture, but much of it is dreamed up by someone who has had a "revelation", either from a dream, vision, impression or "voice", or in a more sinister way for political and 'controlling' reasons.

Some who oppose sola Scripture (but not all) because their favourite tradition or doctrine is not reflected anywhere in the Bible, so they choose to hold to their tradition or doctrine regardless and defend their choice to the max. Others just don't like the strict demands that the Bible places upon their lives and they want to have some kind of religious faith and their favourite sins as well.

 

[JAL]

Before I do that, I must note a couple of problems with the argument(s) you've presented thus far as a whole.

A. To claim Sola Scriptura is nonsense is a rather assured claim (you have stated we can't be sure of everything).

Yes it is rather assured because I've already attested to experiencing 99% certainty. Personally I haven't experienced 100% certainty.

And though I argue vigorously at times, 'as though' I'm 100% sure of my position, my signature is always there as an ever-present disclaimer.

If you tell me that 2 plus 2 equals 5, I will call it nonsense. Not that I'm 100% certain, but I'm going to say it anyway. By that same token, the opening post claimed that Sola Scriptura APPEARS to be absolute nonsense. I've seen nothing to mitigate that claim, neither on this thread nor any of the other threads over the last several years.

B. Your OP starts with presupposing the authority of scripture. Your very first sentence is "God is holy" and you build things from there. How do you know God is Holy? Where did you get that idea from? Where did you get the words or the concept from? (Hint: the Bible)

This is not circular reasoning (I already addressed this issue). The premise is tentative (as I don't have it 100% certainty) and for purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter where I got it from. My argumentation takes the form, 'If you agree with premise-A, then I think you should accept conclusion-A'. If you can't accept the premise, the argument doesn't apply to you. Ignore it.

Let me be even more clear. An argument can be leveraged even if you alone accept the premise that God is holy (doesn't really matter whether I myself accept that premise) because I'm ultimately challenging the internal consistency of your position.

 

[JIMINZ]

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

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?

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.

 

[JAL]

C. In post #15 you speak about how the prophetic experience may be infallible, but you use scripture to try prove such a point. That automatically makes scripture a higher authority, even in your own argument.

Um..incorrect. Two points here.
(1) Whenever God isn't speaking me to clearly (i.e. at 100% certainty), I fall back on exegesis as a crutch. Conclusions draw from exegesis must be regarded as tentative and thus less authoritative than 100% certainty.
(2) Even if God WERE speaking to me at 100% certainty, and thus as my highest authority, I would still leverage exegetical arguments. The form of the argument would be:
(A) Do you except premise-A based on Scripture? Yes, right?
(B) Then based on that premise, you must also accept conclusion-A as well.
Which is precisely a tactic that Paul used, knowing full well that his prophetic anointing was a higher authority than exegesis.

In all of this, it's a bit like the post-modern liberal who wants to claim that we should ditch the Bible's moral authority because "God is love" but yet forgets that the very idea of "God is love" comes from the very Bible they want to ditch. Without the Bible they want to ditch, where would they have ever even come up with the idea that God is love?

You're not making any sense. You're confusing the chicken with the egg. Prophets knew about God's holiness and love, by direct revelation, before the Bible existed. Direct revelation had to come first and, based on that authoritative knowledge, they wrote the Bible.

 

[Dave G.]

Congratulations. You have just repudiated the biblical doctrine of conversion (see post 33) and, along with it, the very notion of evangelism. Suppose you are preaching to some agnostics. Convicted by the Spirit and thus pierced to the heart, they cry out, 'We are convinced! We feel certain of the gospel! What shall we do next?"

What will you tell them?
(1) "Don't rely on feelings of certainty. That's a recipe for disaster. You need to goto seminary for 4 years mastering Hebrew and Greek. Don't draw any major religious conclusions until then. Sola Scriptura is the only way to behave.
(2) OR, you could say with Peter, 'Repent IMMEDIATELY and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins".


You'd have to show me an example where conscience isn't authoritative. Faced with two choices A and B, where you feel certain that A is evil and B is good, won't you always go with B? I see no exceptions to the rule.

We guide people to believe, so I reject your assertion all together. We don't ask if they feel but if they believe.

 

[thecolorsblend]

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.

Hey bro, nice man-made tradition you got there.

 

[JAL]

Before I do that, I must note a couple of problems with the argument(s) you've presented thus far as a whole...
I still don't see how any of this negates the Bible being the final (or primary) authority in the life of the believer.

As I later clarified, my key principle is authoritative conscience and I've challenged several posters to find me even one exception to that principle. Still waiting in vain, as usual. In NO sense is the Bible a higher authority than conscience. It can't be since conscience DICTATED my decision to commit to one book (such as the Bible) over another book (such as the Koran). Clearly conscience is the highest authority, which clearly DOES negate the Sola-Scriptura claim to being the only final authority.

Firstly, I agree that the Holy Spirit brings direct revelation to the believer, but such revelation is brought through a vehicle at least 99 percent of the time.

A vehicle powered ultimately by conscience, in the final analysis.

Romans 10:17 tells us that faith comes from hearing the Word of God (which is referring to the gospel, the message of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit that powerfully convicts through the living Word that comes from the spoken / written word). In other words, the content of the revelation usually comes to a person through various means. No one sits in the bath and suddenly gets all four of those points in their heart. Each point may come gradually, or they may come fairly quickly at a revival meeting or something. But the fact is that there is content in those four points that the conscience itself does not simply conjure up for itself without some sort of external means.

And that content is useless if there is no authoritative basis for accepting it. Conscience is that authority which morally obligates to accept content (or reject it).

All Sola Scriptura is saying is that the purest form of the message is found in the Bible...

Nope it says more than that. It says that Scriptura is the only final authority. Everything must be checked against Scripture, is the claim.

...not that Scripture is the foundation of the church (negating the relevance of you point (1) above). I've never heard anyone ever preach that scripture is the foundation of the Church. I've only ever heard it preached that Christ is - but incidentally, people usually preach that because the Bible says it and God has spoken to them through the words of the Bible in some way.

Ultimately the visible church (in terms of corporate assemblies) is a body of people with shared beliefs. Those who tout exegesis as the foundation of those beliefs thereby IMPLY that Scripture is the foundation of the church. Yes we all agree that Christ wrote the bible and thus ultimately He is in some sense the foundation, but the evangelical church emphasizes a WRITTEN foundation, often to the disparagement of direct revelation. That's an exact reversal of our proper priorities.

(2) and (3) above are equally too simplistic. Conscience is certainly authoritative to a certain degree to an individual believer, but what of the community? Or the Church universal? My conscience has no real authority over you, correct? So what is the authority we can all at least agree on?

While I am more or less a fan of existential philosophy, we can't reduce Christianity to merely existential modes of thought (i.e. the conscience being a final authority). There is far more at stake than just me and my own spiritual walk.

So you really think that God planned to flourish unity in the church, as a community, by means of exgetical consensus? Based on a text that wasn't even widely circulated until 500 years ago? And subject to all the faillibility of human intepretation? That was His master plan? Just how stupid do you think God is, anyway? Is it any wonder that the denominations disagree on almost everything - EXCEPT THOSE CONCLUSIONS GIVEN BY DIRECT REVELATION DURING CONVERSION VIA THE INWARD WITNESS. For the most part, that's all they agree on!

Mind entertaining a different prospect or picture, just for a moment? How about something biblical, like a church governed by apostles/prophets (1Cor 12:28). Let me explain how it works. It's really quite simple. A man walks up to you and says: At moment I am your leader. Here are the commands of God. Submit to them now.

He's claiming to be a prophet of God. Isn't that how Moses behaved? Paul? Joshua? And what will be your response. Simple. Do you feel 100% certain at that moment? If so, submit.

Notice that this approach, unlike exegesis, affords the potential of perfect unity in the church.

Hmm...turns out that God isn't stupid after all. He actually came up with a potentially more promising plan for unity than you did.

 

[JIMINZ]

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.

OK, there is the subject then.

Your working from the premise, that your belief is correct, other than Scripture itself, where would you have gotten such a belief?

Therefore put forward your best argument as to why Sola Scriptura is a Logical absurdity.

 

[JAL]

We guide people to believe, so I reject your assertion all together. We don't ask if they feel but if they believe.

R.C. Sproul said it best. He rightly claimed that saving faith is a feeling of certainty about the truth of the gospel. He said this in an audio series, which I no longer possess.

But to me it only seems tautological, so I hardly need the recording.

 

[JAL]

OK, there is the subject then.

Your working from the premise, that your belief is correct, other than Scripture itself, where would you have gotten such a belief?

Therefore put forward your best argument as to why Sola Scriptura is a Logical absurdity.

I don't think you've been reading many of my posts...

 

[Pedra]

Is the Bible truly God's Word? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Pedra]

 

[Jonaitis]

Hey bro, nice man-made tradition you got there.

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

 

[Pedra]

 

[Pedra]

 

[JAL]

God's revelation is the most reliable source of information that we can have.

That's the proposition.

What's so "absurd" about that? If we didn't believe in the existence of a God, then of course your criticism would be reasonable, but since we do....?

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.

 

[Albion]

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).

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.