Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[Darren Court]

Post 151 identified a logical contradiction in Sola Scriptura. If that is of no interest to you at all, perhaps you are dwelling on the wrong thread.

You criticise SS reliance on scriptural authority but you won't answer upon which authority we should rest!

.... "maybe you should tell us what authority is so great to judge whether that "voice" you like to refer to is God's, your own or anothers?

 

[JAL]

I would have thought if these two are in dispute you would at least have some evidence to support your view other than English translations!

Perhaps if you dealt with reality rather than fantasy, you'd have some kind of meaningful words with which to convince others?

As for commentaries that don't specifically classify "man of God" as a prophet, some of them understand it as "minister of the gospel" which is close enough, since NT evangelism is prophetic utterance. In any case "minister of the gospel" is clearly not a reference to every single Christian.

And these scholars, as well, are indulging in pure fantasy?

 

[Darren Court]

And these scholars, as well, are indulging in pure fantasy?

No that seems like your realm... fantasy and denial of reality!

 

[JAL]

No that seems like your realm... fantasy and denial of reality!

So these scholars were sober-minded, not fantasizing, when they acknowledged that "man of God" could well mean "prophet" at 2 Tim 3:17. You implicitly acknowledged my point while camouflaging it in an ad hominem attack. And I'm supposed to believe your chief concern here is ascertaining truth rather than just winning a debate? Why should I believe that?

BTW, here's another standard Catholic objection to Sola Scriptura. If 2 Tim 3:16-17 regards Scripture as sufficient, then the NT is unnecessary, because the context is referring to the OT Scriptures.

But I suppose you really don't care how sorry/ lame your own analysis is? You only want to win a debate, isn't that right?

 

[Darren Court]

Fantasy? I cited a couple of reputable scholars on the point. Do you think they were indulging in plain fantasy? I'm just asking.

What do you mean, "other than English translations"? The Greek Septuagint was written by scholars, and used the same words as Paul for those 70 cases. The Greek translation doesn't count either? What does count with you? Oh I get it. Anything which supports your side of the debate. Anything else doesn't count.

"Tabernacle" was a technical term in the OT. Do I really need to prove to you that, in the Book of Hebrews, the Greek word has the same connotation as the Hebrew version?

And I'm not even insisting it does. I'm simply pointing out that it may be the case, that it's a viable possibility. Like I said, that's all I need to make my case. You're just frustrated because 2 Tim 3:16-17 doesn't necessarily convey what you'd like it to convey.

You're still indulging your fantasy, one facet of which is perceived ability to psychologically assess the motivation of others! It's an assumed arrogance that betrays a lack of intellectual honest, that's fully evidence in your statements like "You're just frustrated because 2 Tim 3:16-17 doesn't necessarily convey what you'd like it to convey."

The fact remains you have produced not one shred of evidence to support the view you desperately want to believe that the term "man of God" used in the letters to Timothy refer solely to a prophet. I didn't see you quote any reputable scholars who claimed this either but it's just another one your many smoke screens because you haven't any actual evidence. The fact is that the vast majority of interpretations for "man of God" in these two letters believe it refers to people of God, ie. all of us, rather than specifically prophets! Sadly you don't get that when you point that finger at me, three more are pointing back at you as like to accuse others of the things you are most guilty of."
.
Tabernacle" was a technical term in the OT. Are you really that desperate or just bringing the most stupid argument you can? (To anyone else reading please forgive the insulting terms used here, but Jal constantly uses or implies such terms whilst refusing to respond to direct and pertinent points and nothing of the subtle nature seems to be getting through).. There are many terms that translate perfectly well from the Hebrew OT to the Greek NT, and vice versa. There are also many terms that do not. If you know that, then you're being deceitful here in pretending the fact that Tabernacle translates back and forth well is significant. If you do not, then you are ignorant. I can't tell which.

And I'm not even insisting it does... that's a lie! Right from the start of this thread, you argued that 2Ti:3 16-17 only applies to prophets based on the very thing you insisted that you now claim you're not insisting. That "man of God" means prophet. You like moving goalposts, strawman arguments, Ad hominem attacks, anything save admitting you erred or that other people's view might be valid.

and best of all, whilst you criticise the authority people who believe in SS rely upon, you have nothing to say about the authority or authorities you believe we should rely on. I guess it makes you feel good to simply criticise and you haven't the integrity or confidence to offer where you stand.

Seriously.... "maybe you should tell us what authority is so great to judge whether that "voice" you like to refer to is God's, your own or anothers?​

 

[Darren Court]

And I'm supposed to believe your chief concern here is ascertaining truth rather than just winning a debate? Why should I believe that?

Nope, I suspect nobody ever expects you to believe anything that didn't emanate in the space between your ears. I know I certainly don't!

 

[Darren Court]

But I suppose you really don't care how sorry/ lame your own analysis is? You only want to win a debate, isn't that right?

No, I have long since realised that nobody ever wins any debate with the great "Jal"
.
My only purpose in continuing the dialogue was... i) to demonstrate to others the futility of discussions with Jal ii) to demonstrate the flimsiness of Jal's position to others iii) to provide Jal with no excuse to not see the person in the mirror iv) the unlikely prospect that Jal would wake up and face reality.

 

[Darren Court]

BTW, here's another standard Catholic objection to Sola Scriptura. If 2 Tim 3:16-17 regards Scripture as sufficient, then the NT is unnecessary, because the context is referring to the OT Scriptures.

BTW, saying "here's another standard Catholic objection" is just like the other links and scholars you pointed to, invisible! Maybe that's the problem, Jal sees things that aren't there!

 

[JAL]

I didn't see you quote any reputable scholars who claimed this either but it's just another one your many smoke screens because you haven't any actual evidence.

Here's what I posted to you before:

The Geneva Bible comments on 2 Tim 3:17: "The Prophets and expounders of God's will are properly and distinctly called, men of God."

John Gill commented on 2 Tim 3:17. "By 'man of God' may be meant everyone...but more especially a minister of the Gospel; for as it was usual to call a prophet under the Old Testament by this name, it seems to be transferred from thence to a minister of the New Testament"


Clearly, John Gill is not describing a reference to every Christian. He clearly sees the connection to the OT prophet, and I’ve already argued that a NT evangelist properly relies on prophetic utterance. Both commentators are linking "man of God" to the Hebrew usage of that phrase.

That's how a technical term functions. Just like I don't need to prove to you that "Spirit of God" means the same thing in the NT as it did in the OT.

The fact is that the vast majority of interpretations for "man of God" in these two letters believe it refers to people of God, ie. all of us, rather than specifically prophets! Sadly you don't get that when you point that finger at me, three more are pointing back at you as like to accuse others of the things you are most guilty of."

The "vast majority" is a respectable number but not fully decisive. Again, Paul knew how "man of God" was used 70 times in the OT.

.
Tabernacle" was a technical term in the OT. Are you really that desperate or just bringing the most stupid argument you can? (To anyone else reading please forgive the insulting terms used here, but Jal constantly uses or implies such terms whilst refusing to respond to direct and pertinent points and nothing of the subtle nature seems to be getting through).. There are many terms that translate perfectly well from the Hebrew OT to the Greek NT, and vice versa. There are also many terms that do not. If you know that, then you're being deceitful here in pretending the fact that Tabernacle translates back and forth well is significant. If you do not, then you are ignorant. I can't tell which.

How is "man of God" used as a technical term 70 times in the OT insignificant? Oh that's right. You're insisting on, "You have to give 100% proof otherwise Sola Scriptura is the default." Sola Scriptura is riddled with logical, pragmatic, and logistical difficulties. It's not the default. And I can't prove anything 100%. I can't even prove that you exist.

Let's be mature. You discounted "tabernacle" as an example of a technical term because you gratuitously discount anything opposed to your position. Convenient, isn't it?

Still waiting for you to resolve the logical contradiction alleged at post 151.

And I'm not even insisting it does... that's a lie! Right from the start of this thread, you argued that 2Ti:3 16-17 only applies to prophets based on the very thing you insisted that you now claim you're not insisting. That "man of God" means prophet. You like moving goalposts, strawman arguments, Ad hominem attacks, anything save admitting you erred or that other people's view might be valid.

I "insist" in the sense of defending my points vigorously in a debate. That's because my signature is ever-present as a disclaimer. I have repeatedly acknowledged that I am a fallible interpreter. In fact, I said that, as a fallible human being, I can't even be sure that God exists!

Your problem is that, for SS, you basically stand or fall on 2 Tim 3:16-17. All I needed to do was show a viable alternative translation. Which I did.

And yes, I believe that it's a reference to prophets. That is my opinion and I stand by it. Because I am fallible, I don't ultimately insist that my opinions are correct.

and best of all, whilst you criticise the authority people who believe in SS rely upon, you have nothing to say about the authority or authorities you believe we should rely on. I guess it makes you feel good to simply criticise and you haven't the integrity or confidence to offer where you stand.

Seriously.... "maybe you should tell us what authority is so great to judge whether that "voice" you like to refer to is God's, your own or anothers?​

Yeah, like you've established your credibility on this thread as an above-board debater. I don't see any clear evidence of that.

 

[JAL]

BTW, saying "here's another standard Catholic objection" is just like the other links and scholars you pointed to, invisible! Maybe that's the problem, Jal sees things that aren't there!

Deflecting again. Just like you deflected the objection raised at post 151. And a host of other objections.

You haven't even been honest enough to admit that Sola Scriptura is a problematical position.

And yet you want my pearls? My Dad made a comment about this passage.

"Do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces" (Mat 7).

He said it means, "Don't share the gems of your biblical understanding with hard-hearted people. They will just attack you."

I don't know if my Dad was right about Christ's meaning there. But he did make a valid point.

Again: deal with post 151 or at least admit that Sola Scriptura is stuck with an insurmountable contradiction identified in that post. Then I will be happy to show you my pearls.

 

[Darren Court]

Yeah, like you've established your credibility on this thread as an above-board debater. I don't see any clear evidence of that.

That's a really good comment upon which to end this dialogue!
.
You can make yourself feel good and rant into a big void of no reply and believe what you want to believe. My work here is done!

 

[JAL]

That's a really good comment upon which to end this dialogue!
.
You can make yourself feel good and rant into a big void of no reply and believe what you want to believe. My work here is done!

As suspected. No resolution to the logical contradiction raised at post 151.

 

[JAL]

This offer remains open - open to anyone who is a proponent of Sola Scriptura. I will happily share my pearls about how an authoritative voice operates if you either:
.....(A) resolve the logical contradiction alleged of Sola Scriptura at post 151
....(B) OR, at least admit that you find that alleged contradiction insoluble.

 

[JAL]

The Reformers became so enthralled with the printing press that they over-optimistically jumped the gun, leaping into a doctrine called Sola Scriptura facilitated easily by the advent of ubiquitous bible-circulation. Blinded by this optimism, they never perceived the Bible for what it really is: a history book about prophets and prophecy. The "Acts of the Apostles" could easily have been named, "The Acts of the Prophets." As a result of this horrible oversight, most Christians have no inkling of the following truths:
....(1) The NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance.
....(2) Paul equated spiritual maturity with prophethood, nay, specifically with being a mature prophet. Paul made this argument twice! Meaning, in two separate chapters!

The topic of this thread regards how to solve the problem of false doctrine. Answer: it can't be solved until the entire church flings itself headlong, with full reckless abandon and wholehearted zeal, into the pursuit of an authoritative voice known as prophecy. Jesus put it like this:

"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to babes."

That word "revealed" is the same word used for Direct Revelation throughout the NT. The "wise and the learned" are the Bible scholars. A babe accepts his father's teaching, not on the basis of scholarly analysis, but on the perceived authority of his father's voice.

 

[BobRyan]

Sola Scriptura is one of the main causes of denominationalism.

It is how protesting Catholics found out that there was some bad doctrine in the traditions and teachings handed down to them.

It is how Christ slam hammers the bad traditions in His day in Mark 7:6-13 - this is irrefutable.
It is how the non-Christians of Acts 17:11 tested the teaching of the Apostle Paul - and were praised for doing so - by the Author of Acts 17. This too is irrefutable.

JAL
The Reformers became so enthralled with the printing press that they over-optimistically jumped the gun, leaping into a doctrine called Sola Scriptura

More Bible - less creative writing.

Your ad hoc redefinition of the term into "no Holy Spirit just scripture" is your own doing. You can't blame your personal invention on others.

How so? Because Sola Scriptura assumes the Bible is clear.

And that John 16 can be read - and is true.

 

[BobRyan]

If all imperatives must be founded upon Scripture alone, from where did you and I obtain the imperative to accept the Bible as inspired? Surely we cannot rationally claim, “I accept the Bible as inspired because it claims to be.”

That is nonsense of the form "From where do we get the idea that God is the Creator of the World? From God? surely not! from God's Word? Surely not! We should not accept those sources for that teaching -- surely not!"

It is nonsense to argue that way - though it is interesting creative writing.

Mormons will come to your home with a lot of wild stories and then insist that you not use sola scriptura testing but rather "a burning in your bosom" which some of them claim to have as they read "Pearl of Great Price" or some other book. That is called "every wind of doctrine" not sure why you are so delighted with the method.

 

[Darren Court]

That is nonsense of the form "From where do we get the idea that God is the Creator of the World? From God? surely not! from God's Word? Surely not! We should not accept those sources for that teaching -- surely not!"

It is nonsense to argue that way - though it is interesting creative writing.

Mormons will come to your home with a lot of wild stories and then insist that you not use sola scriptura testing but rather "a burning in your bosom" which some of them claim to have as they read "Pearl of Great Price" or some other book. That is called "every wind of doctrine" not sure why you are so delighted with the method.

That's the problem Jal has constantly displayed! LOVES to criticise but ignores logic, won't come forth with his view and often just resorts to unvalidated, unsubstantiated and unevidenced opinion sprinkled with large amounts of arrogance and sarcasm!

 

[JAL]

I feel plenty of hot air blowing at me. No resolution of the logical contradiction alleged at post 151. And no intellectually honest admission to the problem. As expected. That's fine. Until that changes, I'll keep my precious pearls to myself.

I guess I'm just sick and tired of my pearls being attacked by people committed to complete nonsense and contradictions. At least my pearls form a stance thoroughly rational, coherent, and consistent, even if unpalatable to some.

 

[JAL]

LOVES to criticise but ignores logic, won't come forth with his view and often just resorts to unvalidated, unsubstantiated and unevidenced opinion sprinkled with large amounts of arrogance and sarcasm!

All these words, especially the ones I highlighted, describe your posts to me. Just as you said, why won't you simply "come forth with [your] view" on post 151? Why are you ignoring it?

 

[Darren Court]

All these words, especially the ones I highlighted, describe your posts to me. Just as you said, why won't you simply "come forth with [your] view" on post 151? Why are you ignoring it?

LOL! Seriously LOL so much it's hard to stop!

"On what basis/ authority, then, does a typical Christian accept the Bible? Reason? History? Blind faith? The Roman Catholic says, "On the authority of the church!" Regardless of the Christian's particular choice of basis/authority, this selected basis/authority now functions as a higher authority than the Bible because it dictated his decision to accept or reject the Bible"
.
Where does this say the authority to which you subscribe? It doesn't!
.
Irrespective, this just shows hypocrisy in action because so many of the criticisms of SS are valid for this "church" authority you want to cling to... but that's to be expected, isn't it? Like for instance the example you gave for Moses and Abraham not being able to judge against scriptural authority because there wasn't any scripture, but then there also wasn't any church either!
.
No wonder you won't come clean, your intellectual dishonesty won't allow it!
(It's no wonder you don't have any friends!)