Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[JAL]

"Sola scriptura is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations, and one of the five solae.[1] It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by many of the Reformers, who taught that authentication of Scripture is governed by the discernible excellence of the text, as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man."

in other words - the very definition for it that your ad hoc revision for that definition - flat out denies.

Did you not see where it says "authentication of Scripture"? I suspect you are misreading this citation. That particular fragment is answering the question, "On what authority do we accept the Bible?"

Yes, as I posted earlier on this thread, evangelicals have always admitted, at least since the days of John Calvin, that we accept Scripture on the basis of an authoritative voice known as the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit (John 10:27). (If you perhaps recall, I cited Jack Deere on this point, who in turn was citing the Westminister Confession). What evangelicals should also have admitted is that this authoritative Voice stands in baldfaced contradiction to the notion of Scripture as the only authority.

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan,

A prophet was typically an itinerant preacher who preached only to the towns to which the Voice sent him. That itself is proof of reliance upon an authoritative voice. For example it sent Jonah to preach to Nineveh even though he didn't really want to go there (Jonah 3:1-3).

True - but since the false idea that sola scriptura testing is cancelled if God tells a prophet something -- has been shown to be a bogus idea that has no foundation in scripture or in the definition that me and 22 million of my friends use - but rather is something closer to cessationism, I guess we don't have a problem with Jonah 3.

How is this even a little confusing at this point??

 

[JAL]

True - but since the false idea that sola scriptura testing is cancelled if God tells a prophet something....

Cancelled? What does that even mean? Nevermind. Why bother ask? All you do is put random words in my mouth.

 

[BobRyan]

Did you not see where it says "authentication of Scripture"? I suspect you are misreading this citation. That particular fragment is answering the question, "On what authority do we accept the Bible?"

It shows that their acceptance of the Sola Scriptura principle that they adopted did not obligate them to rejecting that work of the Holy Spirit in their life ---

What it did not say is that their concept of Sola Scriptura meant it could not work unless they first contacted a Bible scholar to tell them what to think about a given text.

The point remains.

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan

AND, you still haven't specified on what authority you accept Scripture - if not on the authority of the Voice (John 10:27). Burning bosom?

Mormons are the ones using 'burning in the bosom' doctrine instead of sola scriptura. Feel free to pick any alternative you like to sola scriptura.

I and all those who join me in affirming sola scriptura will continue to test all tradition, teaching and doctrine by the Bible.

 

[JAL]

It shows that their acceptance of the Sola Scriptura principle that they adopted did not obligate them to rejecting that work of the Holy Spirit in their life ---

No it shows they are contradicting themselves. On the one hand they rely on the authoritative Voice to accept Scripture, and then they contradict themselves by claiming that voices/visions are not authoritative and therefore must be tested by Scripture.

 

[JAL]

Mormons are the ones using 'burning in the bosom' doctrine instead of sola scriptura. Feel free to pick any alternative you like to sola scriptura.

I and all those who join me in affirming sola scriptura will continue to test all tradition, teaching and doctrine by the Bible.

Deflection. You still haven't told me on what authority YOU accept Scripture.

 

[JAL]

What it did not say is that their concept of Sola Scriptura meant it could not work unless they first contacted a Bible scholar to tell them what to think about a given text.

Another dishonest caricature of my position. Gee what a shock.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

I never said that sola scriptura requires rejection of the Bible teaching on visions, dreams and prophets.

That's probably true.

Indeed it would be illogical to reject the text that defines visions, dreams, prophets and is the work of the Holy Spirit by that process while claiming to test all things by that same text.

Your failed ad hoc redefinition of the concept of "sola scriptura" not accepted by those who accept sola scriptura. It is yours.

Can visions/voices be a final authority? Yes or No?

No vision can be accepted without being tested by the Bible - the sola scriptura test. The Bible rejects that suggestion as we saw in Isaiah 8:20

If Yes, then Sola Scriptura is false because the Bible is not the only authority.

It is your failed redefinition that fails. Clearly you reject your own definition of sola scriptura each time you say you reject sola scriptura.

By contrast all of us who do accept sola scriptura - don't use your personal definition for the term.

 

[BobRyan]

Deflection. You still haven't told me on what authority YOU accept Scripture.

because you are off topic at that point.

 

[JAL]

Your failed ad hoc redefinition of the concept of "sola scriptura" not accepted by those who accept sola scriptura. It is yours.

You haven't shown a shred of inaccuracy.

No vision can be accepted without being tested by the Bible - the sola scriptura test. The Bible rejects that suggestion as we saw in Isaiah 8:20

In that case Peter was wrong to obey the vision of Acts 10 - a vision which contradicted his lifelong understanding of Scripture.

Spare me your delusions about Isa 8:20. I see nothing particularly clear in that passage, much less something clearly in favor of .Sola Scriptura.

And the four visions of Matthew 2 should not have been heeded since they could not have been established by Scripture.

And course the same of all the visions of the prophets including those of Daniel, the entire Book of Revelation, Paul's vision on the Road to Damascus, etc, etc, etc.

You're speaking total nonsense.

It is your failed redefinition that fails. Clearly you reject your own definition of sola scriptura each time you say you reject sola scriptura.

By contrast all of us who do accept sola scriptura - don't use your personal definition for the term.

I cited Wikipedia confirming that Sola Scriptura is the claim that Scripture is the only authority.

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan,

So when angels appeared to Peter, he should have disregarded their messages and commands? I mean, you said that visions must be tested by Sola Scriptura. Or lay aside Peter for the moment. How about Cornelius?

30Cornelius answered: “Three days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me 31and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. 32Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter (Acts 10).

Not authoritative? Meaning, no need to obey this vision until he managed to prove from Scripture that the command to summon Peter was God's will? How exactly was he supposed to prove that from Scripture?

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan,

So when angels appeared to Peter, he should have disregarded their messages and commands?

ok - one morte time - slowly and with meaning. Pay close attention to the details. We will use your example above.

Gal 1:6-9
. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed

So then "yeah" the very thing you seem to doubt/reject -- yeah... that thing

Peter should check to see if the angel speaking to him is contradicting scripture - and if not -- only then take it seriously.

How is this even a little bit confusing??

Notice what happens in Acts 10 - when Peter is told to eat cats and rats. In direct contradiction to Lev 11 about not eating cats, rats and bats etc. Peter said "NO" - and does it 3 times. But also he ponders it according to the text -- not while eating a rat sandwich - but rather while looking for some symbolic meaning, in case there is some meaning there that does not contradict scripture.

Same thing happens in John 6 - when they are told to bite Christ.

 

[JAL]

because you are off topic at that point.

Deflection. Dodging. Why can't you answer such a straightforward question? It's not off-topic. The topic of thread is how to fix the problem of false doctrine. I say, "Via an authoritative Voice." And I'm pretty sure you rely on an authoritative Voice to accept Scripture - just asking you to confirm it. Squarely on topic.

 

[JAL]

ok - one morte time - slowly and with meaning. Pay close attention to the details. We will use your example above.

Gal 1:6-9
. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed

So then "yeah" the very thing you seem to doubt/reject -- yeah... that thing

Peter should check to see if the angel speaking to him is contradicting scripture - and if not -- only then take it seriously.

How is this even a little bit confusing??

Already refuted at post 292 where, as I showed, John makes it pretty clear that the "test" of a spirit is not exegesis but merely the observation of whether his message contradicts the gospel-truths revealed to you by the Voice. Paul is citing his own voice/vision as authoritative and expecting the Galatians to do the same. Didn't you read verses 1:11-12 ????

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Gal 1).

Paul is desperately trying to solidify the authority of the Voice in the Galatian mindset:

1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a revelation. (Gal 2)

So what gospel is Paul talking about? A gospel obtained via the Sola Scriptura method? Guess again:

"[God] announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” (Gal 3:8)

That's an authoritative voice. Do you know what the Galatian error was? Sola Scriptura !!!! They had regressed from the voice back to an exegetical observance of the written text/law. Paul was trying to reel them back into the Voice:

"Received ye the Spirit by the works of the [written] law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish?...He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, does he do it by the works of the [written] law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal 3)

How do I know it means the Voice? Simple. In the very next verse (verse 6), as several scholars have noted, Paul quotes from the passage Genesis 15:1-6. According to these scholars, Paul is clearly citing Abraham's experience as proof of the hearing of faith. So let's turn back to that passage:

"After these things the [spoken] word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision [speaking promises]...6And he believed [the spoken promises] and he counted it to him for righteousness."

Gee what a shock. Here Paul is counseling the Galatians to rely on authoritave visions and voices, just like Abraham did and thus NOT rely on written Scripture (the Law) to ascertain God's will.

ok - one morte time - slowly and with meaning. Pay close attention to the details. We will use your example above.

Gal 1:6-9
. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed

Correct. If an angel or a spirit comes to you speaking a gospel different than the one heard from the authoritative Voice, let him be an anathema.

Notice what happens in Acts 10 - when Peter is told to eat cats and rats. In direct contradiction to Lev 11 about not eating cats, rats and bats etc. Peter said "NO" - and does it 3 times. But also he ponder it -- not while eating a rat sandwich - but rather while looking for some symbolic meaning

Strawman. Peter may have needed time to figure out how to apply the vision, but he did not deny its authority.

 

[prodromos]

BobRyan said:
Luke 24:25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

looks like a "sola scriptura" demonstration by Christ.

It does not say "you foolish men and slow of heart to make me correct you" -- Jesus places the blame on them and not on his own failure to correct them earlier. He speaks to them as being responsible for not reading scripture correctly.

Huh?

 

[JAL]

I and all those who join me in affirming sola scriptura will continue to test all tradition, teaching and doctrine by the Bible.

If a prophet speaks to me a message, I agree with you that it might need testing. We disagree on the nature of testing.

However, is a test always needed? Can a prophet ever speak authoritatively? My answer is "Yes, because he can release the authoritative divine Word from his mouth." You answer is, "No - a prophet's message must always be tested by Scripture."

In that case, can you please shed light on the following passage:

35By the word of the Lord one of the company of the prophets said to his companion, “Strike me with your weapon,” but he refused.
36So the prophet said, “Because you have not obeyed the Lord, as soon as you leave me a lion will kill you.” And after the man went away, a lion found him and killed him.
37The prophet found another man and said, “Strike me, please.” So the man struck him and wounded him. (1 Kings 20).

How was this sort of message supposed to be verified by the Sola Scriptura method?

 

[BobRyan]

If a prophet speaks to me a message, I agree with you that it might need testing. We disagree on the nature of testing.

Well the Bible is pretty clear that it is sola scriptura testing in Acts 17:11, Isaiah 8:20, Gal 1:6-9.

You have free will of course and go to some non-bible source aas you wish.

However, is a test always needed? Can a prophet ever speak authoritatively?

You are conflating two different things again.

Prophets that are shown to be in line with God's Word - the Bible - can be as 2 Peter 1:19-21 states - as I quoted it to you earlier.

That is still the case.

In that case, can you please shed light on the following passage:

35By the word of the Lord one of the company of the prophets said to his companion, “Strike me with your weapon,” but he refused.

You are switching topics again. Both agree that you are quoting scripture - are you trying to "test scripture" to see if "scripture is scripture"???

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
Luke 24:25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

looks like a "sola scriptura" demonstration by Christ.

It does not say "you foolish men and slow of heart to make me correct you" -- Jesus places the blame on them and not on his own failure to correct them earlier. He speaks to them as being responsible for not reading scripture correctly.

Huh?

In Luke 24 Christ's rebuke to his followers is that they failed to read the Bible , and believe what it said.

Christ does not say to them "well of course you can't read the Bible -- I would never expect that you could"

Nor does He say "your problem is that you can't understand what you are reading because you are not a Bible scholar".

Christ does not use any of that. Rather He rebukes them point blank because they did read scripture, and then understand all that they were supposed to have known by then. It was all "on them" in His rebuke.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
ok - one morte time - slowly and with meaning. Pay close attention to the details. We will use your example above.

Gal 1:6-9
. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed

So then "yeah" the very thing you seem to doubt/reject -- yeah... that thing

Peter should check to see if the angel speaking to him is contradicting scripture - and if not -- only then take it seriously.

How is this even a little bit confusing??

Try not to "Forget" that it is you asking for this very scenario -- where an angel shows up and says something and then asking if that is to be tested.

Already refuted at post 292 where, as I showed, John makes it pretty clear that the "test" of a spirit is not exegesis

You are conflating two different things .... "again". The method of getting an objective meaning from the text and the fact that as we see in Gal 1:6-9 those spirits are to be tested against known scripture -

but merely the observation of whether his message contradicts the gospel-truths revealed to you by the Voice.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things SPOKEN to them by the Apolstle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

It was all based on sola scriptura testing. And then that which was tested and approved became an additional part of that known and tested teaching from God such that even the Angel is to be tested. Which was the very thing you claimed to doubt.

This is irrefutable.

Paul never says that he can make stuff up and they have to believe it. Rather "IF WE (apostles)" so here Paul puts HIMSELF in that list of those to be tested "OR an ANGEL" should come to you with a VOICE TEACHING A DIFFERENT doctrine of salvation -- then Paul argues that HE HIMSELF in that case should be "Accursed".

You post as if you are not actually reading the text in the post you are responding to.

What he did not do - is go the Mormon route of "whatever the burning in your bosom tells you is right"