Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[JAL]

No that's your misunderstanding of SS. SS claim is that scripture is our ultimate authority. In other words, nothing can contradict scripture and scripture is our ultimate reference.

Um...That's exactly what I said. You've made a distinction without a difference. Congrats.

The problem here is that high church people like to dismiss "Sola Scriptura" in favour of "Sola Ecclessia" but then reject "Sole Ecclessia" too. This is because they want to claim three co-equal authorities of church, tradition and scripture when the reality is that their ultimate authority is the church!

Who decides which traditions are Godly and which aren't? THE CHURCH - The Church is over tradition
Who decide what scripture means and doesn't mean? THE CHURCH. - The church is over scripture

In other words, to high church people, the church is the ultimate authority which is what "Sola Ecclessia" means.
In like manner, those who subscribe to "Sola Scriptura" do believe in understanding church tradition and in following church authority, provided that it does not conflict with understanding of scripture. Scripture is the ultimate authority.

The irony is that in the end both systems end up agreeing - yes agreeing!

You see, when you ask a high church person how the church can be infallible in interpreting scripture and applying church tradition, they have to accept that it's through the direction of the Holy Spirit. The problem being that the church has got things wrong over years and had to change/adapt teaching and understanding as a result... which at the very least means the church isn't always listening to the Holy Spirit.

Conversely, if you ask "Sola Scriptura" person how they can be sure of the interpretation of scripture, they have to concede it is through the Holy Spirit... with the problem being that so many get different interpretations, they can't all be the Holy Spirit. In other words many aren't listening to the Holy Spirit.

In other words, both sides of this argument rely upon the same thing, the Holy Spirit to claim they're right... and that's ironic.

Oooooooooooooookay....not sure what any of that has to do with me and my views. But thanks for sharing.

 

[Darren Court]

Again. Citing Scripture isn't proof of a Sola Scriptura mentality.

Again moving goalposts to score a goal only scores a goal in your head!

Wikipedia, at least, would beg to differ:

Wonderful a new authority for you to appeal to!
For the rest of us that rely on truth and reality, we KNOW the NT phrase written in Greek doesn't mean the same ENGISH phrase in the OT, written in Hebrew.... but wikipedia says differently!!

Your scholarly analysis seems to be in error. Gee what a surprise! Do you think maybe - just maybe - God was smart enough to prefer His own infallible Voice (Direct Revelation) over fallible scholarship?

Your judgement here has little value except to yourself. If you have to resort to insult maybe you should read the bible's direction first!

 

[JAL]

Wonderful a new authority for you to appeal to!
For the rest of us that rely on truth and reality, we KNOW the NT phrase written in Greek doesn't mean the same ENGISH phrase in the OT, written in Hebrew.... but wikipedia says differently!!

Um...er...Wikipedia was appealing to a scholarly analysis of Scripture. Thought that's what you believed in?

Your judgement here has little value except to yourself. If you have to resort to insult maybe you should read the bible's direction first!

I supplied reasons for my views. I engaged in debate, not ad hominem insults.

 

[JAL]

If each time a verse that refutes your suggestion is quoted - you dismiss it (instead of addressing it) - then you could always end up with "so then no verse refutes my POV". I don't see how that is a compelling solution.

(Sigh). I gave myself as an example. I cite verses in debates. That doesn't mean that I'm practicing, much less advocating, Sola Scriptura!

You're not getting this. Think debating strategy. If I suspect that you and I already agree on one particular verse - even if your understanding of that verse came from Direct Revelation - I can use that verse against you in a debate. In this case I'm really leveraging Direct Revelation against you, not Sola Scriptura.

The point is that it doesn't matter whether you got your understanding of that verse from scholarly analysis, or from Direct Revelation. All that matters is that, since we both agree on it, I can strategically use it against you in a debate.

 

[Darren Court]

Nothing negated. Fact: the epistle was written to Timothy, not to the whole church.

Fact: the verse doesn't teach Sola Scriptura, not even to Timothy. All it says is that Scripture is profitable. It doesn't say sufficient.

Nope the letters to Timothy were clearly not just written to Timothy otherwise Paul would not have concluded..."Grace be with you all."

Again the verse says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

You first tried to claim this instruction was just for Prophets, then just for Timothy and now avoid the reality!

"...thoroughly equipped for every good work." Maybe instead of avoiding points made you could just answer this simple question...

Precisely what works does scripture not equip us of?

An assertion that seems to fly in the face of the available data. The Hebrew word for prophet translates directly to the Greek term. That's continuity, not discontinuity.

You seem to be making errors in your scholarly analysis. That's to be expected, right?

More insults... I hope they're making you feel good!

Then you seem to think making a claim is good enough just because you're right. How about stepping up to prove your right using the actual scripture. Here it should be pretty easy to do. All you need to do is find scripture that demonstrates in the OT there's an instruction to seek the gift of prophecy else show from the NT that prophets are just merely called by God and we shouldn't seek prophetic gifts.

False dichotomy. Anyway I'm simply pointing out that 2 Tim 3:16-17 provides no solid ground for Sola Scriptura because it can easily be understood as an application to prophets.

I guess another claim, this time "false dichotomy" based on nothing more than the assumption you must be correct!

The irony is that you then present your own "false dichotomy". You know know what a "false dichotomy is don't you?
I'm simply pointing out that 2 Tim 3:16-17 provides no solid ground for Sola Scriptura because it can easily be understood as an application to prophets.... except that it cannot be EASILY understood to be limited to prophets for whole variety of reasons provided, not least the one in this section that you simply dismissed as "false dichotomy"!!

You're referring to the closing salutations to multiple people? Obviously that's not enough to go on.

Closing salutations means Paul was not just communicating to Timothy or he would have said "Please pass on my..." You can dismiss with "obviously" because you choose to do so but that doesn't make it so unless we've uncovered another new authority "JAL"

I have no idea what you just said.

Not surprising.

SS can't be true because it is inherently a logical contradiction. I'm debating whether I care to spend the time to demonstrate it here.

SS can ONLY be an logical contradiction in the minds of those who don't understand it or those who choose to misunderstand it in order to assess it so.

Dots not connected? Prophecy is an authority of itself. If that weren't true, Moses couldn't have written any Scriptures. He would have had to say, "I can't write down what these prophetic voices/visions are telling me because I first need to do a scholarly analysis of Scripture to corroborate them." Oh wait. Since there was no scripture at that time, prophecy must be authoritative/self-authenticating. I almost forgot.

Still connecting unconnected dots then!

Prophecy isn't an authority upon which we can all rely upon not least because God doesn't use prophecy to speak to everyone or in every circumstance. If this were the case then no scripture, church or tradition would be required because we could all rely on Prophecy.

Moreover, the purpose of the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY is not to provide all knowledge upon which decisions are based. If that were the case then the Holy Spirit would not be required and the very idea of SS would defeat itself because scripture tells us that we cannot see the truth in scripture UNLESS it is revealed by the Holy Spirit. The point is that if Prophecy was the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY then it would be authority we turn to check it's correct and from God Himself, thereby not in contradiction to His will, His character and His previous instruction (all documented in scripture).

The bigger problem you have here is that of most scriptural authority deniers, you think that scripture has to mean what is written down. The irony is that scripture tells us that is not the case. Scripture tells us that it is God's "living and active" word, that Christ is the "word", that man cannot live by bread alone "but on every word that comes from the mouth of God". Were all those words written down throughout history? No, clearly not.... but they are the "word" of God. Thus when God gave Moses His "word" it was God's word and it became scripture.

Does the fact that there was no written word at that time negate SS now? No, obvious not! Does David not knowing Christ's sacrifice negate Christ's sacrifice? Obviously not. Once Christ sacrificed, everything change and trying to understand David's actions in the light of what Christ did is spurious to say the least. Likewise trying to apply SS before scripture was written.

 

[Darren Court]

Um...er...Wikipedia was appealing to a scholarly analysis of Scripture. Thought that's what you believed in?

Frankly, I don't care what Wikipedia does or does not say or even the claim upon which it tries to claim it upon because, Wikipedia is not an authority I recognise.

 

[Darren Court]

I supplied reasons for my views. I engaged in debate, not ad hominem insults.

You clearly didn't here and didn't bother to check... So let's demonstrate....

In response to... "Firstly, the NT term "man of God" is not found anywhere in the OT.... nowhere! The NT says here "theos anthrōpos" and the conjecture that this is the same as the OT term "ish Elohim" is just that, conjecture. In fact, the term "man of God" is only found in Timothy in the NT"

You wrote..."Your scholarly analysis seems to be in error. Gee what a surprise! Do you think maybe - just maybe - God was smart enough to prefer His own infallible Voice (Direct Revelation) over fallible scholarship?"

Now you might like to cling to the belief that you provided reasons for your statement "Your scholarly analysis seems to be in error. Gee what a surprise!" but the fact is YOU DID NOT. You simply expressed our opinion without reason unless you want to contend that your point of infallible voice speaks to this matter, in which case you have an entirely different problem. The irony is not lost in your accusation of "ad hominent" when it was you who do so!

 

[JAL]

Nope the letters to Timothy were clearly not just written to Timothy otherwise Paul would not have concluded..."Grace be with you all."

I can call someone and have a discussion with them. In the closing salutation, I can say, "May God's grace be with your whole family."

That doesn't mean the entire body of the message was specifically addressed to each and every member of their family. Again, it's not enough to go on. Look at verse 1:2. This epistle is clearly addressed:

"2To Timothy my true son in the faith:"

Likewise in the 2nd epistle:

"2To Timothy, my dear son"

Again the verse says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

You first tried to claim this instruction was just for Prophets, then just for Timothy and now avoid the reality!

"...thoroughly equipped for every good work." Maybe instead of avoiding points made you could just answer this simple question...

Precisely what works does scripture not equip us of?

You're dodging the point. The point is that fallible scholars are in danger of inadequate and improper equipping. Hence we need to seek infalliable revelation, since 100 billion souls are potentially at stake if we mess up.

More insults... I hope they're making you feel good!

Do you understand what a debate is? Why do you consider it a personal insult every time I disagree with you?

Then you seem to think making a claim is good enough just because you're right. How about stepping up to prove your right using the actual scripture. Here it should be pretty easy to do. All you need to do is find scripture that demonstrates in the OT there's an instruction to seek the gift of prophecy else show from the NT that prophets are just merely called by God and we shouldn't seek prophetic gifts.

I have no idea what you just said.

2 Tim 3:16-17...cannot be EASILY understood to be limited to prophets for whole variety of reasons provided

Yes it can. I've cited sources agreeing with me that "man of God" can easily be understood as reference to prophets.

You will continue denying this because you view the verse only through lenses tainted by indoctrination into Sola Scriptura.

Prophecy isn't an authority upon which we can all rely upon not least because God doesn't use prophecy to speak to everyone or in every circumstance.

In our immaturity - until we become mature and thus a mature prophet like Paul - we naturally look to scholarly analysis. With 100 billion souls at stake, it doesn't make a lot of sense to insist that God wanted us to primarily focus our efforts on scholarship.

If this were the case then no scripture, church or tradition would be required because we could all rely on Prophecy.

How can an immature prophet rely on prophecy alone? I'm pretty sure neither of us have attained to prophethood as yet, much less mature prophethood.

Moreover, the purpose of the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY is not to provide all knowledge upon which decisions are based.

In actual practice, that's precisely what the Sola Scriptura mentality tends to culminate in. Nothing is authoritative unless demonstrable from Scripture, in that mindset.

The bigger problem you have here is that of most scriptural authority deniers, you think that scripture has to mean what is written down. The irony is that scripture tells us that is not the case. Scripture tells us that it is God's "living and active" word, that Christ is the "word", that man cannot live by bread alone "but on every word that comes from the mouth of God". Were all those words written down throughout history? No, clearly not.... but they are the "word" of God. Thus when God gave Moses His "word" it was God's word and it became scripture.

I'm not sure your point here. If you're challenging SS, I'd be the first to agree with you.

Does the fact that there was no written word at that time negate SS now? No, obvious not!

Obviously, yes. It negates the idea that a Voice can be considered authoritative only if corroborated by a scholarly analysis of Scripture.

 

[JAL]

Frankly, I don't care what Wikipedia does or does not say or even the claim upon which it tries to claim it upon because, Wikipedia is not an authority I recognise.

Again, dodging the argument. The article cited a number of verses to prove the point. In my mind, that seems far more credible that your personal bias to the contrary.

 

[JAL]

You clearly didn't here and didn't bother to check... So let's demonstrate....

In response to... "Firstly, the NT term "man of God" is not found anywhere in the OT.... nowhere! The NT says here "theos anthrōpos" and the conjecture that this is the same as the OT term "ish Elohim" is just that, conjecture. In fact, the term "man of God" is only found in Timothy in the NT"

You wrote..."Your scholarly analysis seems to be in error. Gee what a surprise! Do you think maybe - just maybe - God was smart enough to prefer His own infallible Voice (Direct Revelation) over fallible scholarship?"

Now you might like to cling to the belief that you provided reasons for your statement "Your scholarly analysis seems to be in error. Gee what a surprise!" but the fact is YOU DID NOT. You simply expressed our opinion without reason unless you want to contend that your point of infallible voice speaks to this matter, in which case you have an entirely different problem. The irony is not lost in your accusation of "ad hominent" when it was you who do so!

No. I didn't merely assert my opinion. I pointed you to an article citing about 70 verses to prove the point.

Secondly, you seemed to want historical evidence favorable to my analysis. I pointed you to the Geneva Bible endorsed by a significant percentage of the church.

 

[JAL]

@Darren Court,

Just to be clear. This comment in the Geneva Bible:

"The Prophets and expounders of God's will are properly and distinctly called, men of God."

was specifically on 2 Tim 3:16-17.

 

[JAL]

@Darren Court,

I've found that John Gill is held in high esteem among evangelicals. He writes:

"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"

This argument would carry more force if I were able to make you realize that NT ministry/preaching is prophetic utterance. If you like, I can probably find you a couple of old posts where I demonstrate that the NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance. For example, John the Baptist was the premier evangelist of his day, and he was a prophet in the magnitude of Elijah (Luke 1:17). Similarly, the prophet Jonah preached to the Ninevites.

Revival is rare today, and this is mostly due to the lack of prophets.

 

[Darren Court]

I can call someone and have a discussion with them. In the closing salutation, I can say, "May God's grace be with your whole family."

That doesn't mean the entire body of the message was specifically addressed to each and every member of their family. Again, it's not enough to go on. Look at verse 1:2. This epistle is clearly addressed:

1) The problem here is that your letters have a specific audience and Paul's letters have a vast and ongoing audience. Thus you even accept that the instructions in his letters were not solely for Timothy. You're just claiming that the letters are limited to persons like Timothy (prophets) which is spurious with the closing dialogue

2) The closing dialogue has no hint of something said to Timothy that he should simply pass on. It's a statement that to everyone

3) Coupled with the whole of chapter 6, it's clear "man of God" reference is not restricted to Timothy... a point I made earlier and you ignored.

You're dodging the point. The point is that fallible scholars are in danger of inadequate and improper equipping. Hence we need to seek infalliable revelation, since 100 billion souls are potentially at stake if we mess up.

No you're changing the point... that this verse gives us direct indication that EVERYTHING we need to DO ALL THE GOOD WORKS is contained within scripture... the precise wording of the verse!

You want to change the context of the verse to about "fallible scholars" when the subject is "man of God" and then divert to "inadequate and improper equipping" when the scripture specifically refers to be the source of knowledge to do "GOOD WORKS"

Do you understand what a debate is? Why do you consider it a personal insult every time I disagree with you?

Do you deny insulting? "You seem to be making errors in your scholarly analysis. That's to be expected, right?"

You do understand that insults are not a required element of debate don't you?

I have no idea what you just said.

No surprise there!

Yes it can. I've cited sources agreeing with me that "man of God" can easily be understood as reference to prophets.

You will continue denying this because you view the verse only through lenses tainted by indoctrination into Sola Scriptura.

Your sources are limited to wikipedia.. and you evade the five points I made in connection to this.
The fact you THINK you know why I do what I do, suggests extra sensory powers or prophecy!

In our immaturity - until we become mature and thus a mature prophet like Paul - we naturally look to scholarly analysis. With 100 billion souls at stake, it doesn't make a lot of sense to insist that God wanted us to primarily focus our efforts on scholarship

That's laughable.... to think that in immaturity we refer to scripture but when we become mature we move onto something greater!
Of course, to ask for scripture to confirm this would be to be immature and we've created the perfect self-proving argument!

...and you keep referring to scholarship, which is your word not mine. Understanding scripture doesn't require scholarship. Scholarship is man driven... whilst the bible is specific about the Holy Spirit guiding into truth. Thus an absolute imbecile could see the truth in scripture, after a single reading and no study, if led by the Holy Spirit and a man who spent His entire life studying one verse could be error. SS is nothing to do with scholarship!

How can an immature prophet rely on prophecy alone? I'm pretty sure neither of us have attained to prophethood as yet, much less mature prophethood.

Huh? So Moses could be mature and rely on scripture not written? Just you're argument full circle hitting you on the back! Prophethood isn't a status and does not preclude immaturity or error. Don't you read the bible? Moreoever, we are to seek the GIFT of prophecy and it's not something we can attain, period!

I'm not sure your point here. If you're challenging SS, I'd be the first to agree with you.

No, I think I made the point pretty clear that "scripture" is nothing more and nothing less than God's word... which at times was not written down!

Obviously, yes. It negates the idea that a Voice can be considered authoritative only if corroborated by a scholarly analysis of Scripture.

Wonderful. You see things wrong way up!

SS does not discount God giving us Prophetic direction but rather gives us a means by which to test if some claim is from God (i.e does not contradict what God has said previously. PRECISELY what the Bereans were doing). SS does not restrict God from saying anything new or providing clarity where there was confusion or argument (that's exactly what Jesus did). SS provides an absolute position to consider if things are of God based on the fact that God does not contradict Himself or change.

Nothing is authoritative unless demonstrable from Scripture, in that mindset.

Not true. If you said "God has told me tomorrow there's going to be an earthquake", there is nothing in scripture to help us decide and SS doesn't help except to say what we should do with if indeed it turns out your were wrong and spoke for God without His authority! However, NOTHING God says will ever contradict what God has said previously, hence SS can often be used to judge.

...but this is nothing but a distraction because the FACT is you, nor anyone I have met is claiming divine instruction or interpretation and so I have no reason to think on it.

Where we do have discussion and where you have avoided going is whether the Holy Spirit can reveal to me the truth in scripture that the church has taught and believed wrongly.

You may now rant into the void here as I'm done!

 

[Darren Court]

Again, dodging the argument. The article cited a number of verses to prove the point. In my mind, that seems far more credible that your personal bias to the contrary.

Again dodging the issue to hide behind Wikipedia!

The fact is that Wikipedia based on it's own else other unnamed authority, assumes that OT Hebrew words translated as "man of God" are the same as those NT Greek words translated "man of God" are culturally, spiritually and linguistically the same.

I reject Wikipedia's authority and sadly you don't!

 

[JAL]

1) The problem here is that your letters have a specific audience and Paul's letters have a vast and ongoing audience. Thus you even accept that the instructions in his letters were not solely for Timothy. You're just claiming that the letters are limited to persons like Timothy (prophets) which is spurious with the closing dialogue

And what is this vast and ongoing audience supposed to conclude? My interpretation? Or yours? You cannot presume one way or the other. Fact is, there is no clear, decisive evidence for Sola Scriptura. It's a logical construct.

2) The closing dialogue has no hint of something said to Timothy that he should simply pass on. It's a statement that to everyone

Strawman. I didn't say he has to pass it on.

3) Coupled with the whole of chapter 6, it's clear "man of God" reference is not restricted to Timothy... a point I made earlier and you ignored.

I'm not following you. Where did I say that Timothy was the only "man of God"? There were tons of prophets in the early church.

No you're changing the point... that this verse gives us direct indication that EVERYTHING we need to DO ALL THE GOOD WORKS is contained within scripture... the precise wording of the verse!

Let's suppose I conceded this point (which I do not). For the sake of argument, then, let's say that Scripture provides us everything we need to know to grow in godliness and it conveys all this information to us infallibly so that we don't make errors. (I'm laughing already but let's continue).

Precisely what information is it conveying to us? I would argue that precisely what the Bible is conveying to us is our need for us to look to Christ for understanding and thus to seek prophecy (1 Cor 14:1).

So even if I agree with you on 2 Tim 3:16-17, it still doesn't necessarily culminate in the Sola Scriptura ideology.

You want to change the context of the verse to about "fallible scholars" when the subject is "man of God" and then divert to "inadequate and improper equipping" when the scripture specifically refers to be the source of knowledge to do "GOOD WORKS"

I have no idea what you just said. And I'm getting weary of trying to weed through your rather opaque rants. It's time consuming. Please try to write a little more clearly.

Do you deny insulting? "You seem to be making errors in your scholarly analysis. That's to be expected, right?"

Where is the personal insult to you? I repeatedly indicated that all of us are prone to making such errors in our scholarly analysis because we are fallible. That's why we need (infallible) prophecy.

Your sources are limited to wikipedia..

Intellectual dishonesty.

That's laughable.... to think that in immaturity we refer to scripture but when we become mature we move onto something greater!

Strawman. False dichotomy. I didn't say that a mature prophet abandons Scripture. He merely abandons Sola Scriptura. He now understands the Scriptures much better than the Bible scholar, via the prophetic gift. Read the Book of Hebrews. It's a masterful analysis of the OT. There is no way a mere scholar could have achieved such a deep understanding of the Old Testament. Clearly, the writer of Hebrews was aided by Direct Revelation. That's what we all need today.

...and you keep referring to scholarship, which is your word not mine. Understanding scripture doesn't require scholarship.

Yes it does. You can only learn Hebrew and Greek from man-made lexicons written by fallible scholars. Or you rely on English translations created by those same scholars. This means that any errors in their scholarly analysis can potentially creep into your own mind.

Scholarship is man driven...

Exactly.

...whilst the bible is specific about the Holy Spirit guiding into truth.

Exactly. What God wanted is the primacy of Direct Revelation. My whole point. Our priorities aren't straight.

Thus an absolute imbecile could see the truth in scripture, after a single reading and no study, if led by the Holy Spirit and a man who spent His entire life studying one verse could be error.

Exactly.

SS is nothing to do with scholarship!

Tell it to every seminary in the country. They will laugh in your face.

SS does not discount God giving us Prophetic direction [authoritatively] but rather gives us a means by which to test if some claim is from God (i.e does not contradict what God has said previously.

I added a word as you can see. Yes, SS does indeed denounce the idea that a voice can be authoritative - all voices must be tested by scholarly analysis.

PRECISELY what the Bereans were doing).

Sheer assertion. Again. You have no proof that the Bereans tried to study the Bible in a mere scholarly fashion and thus without the Light of the Holy Spirit.

SS does not restrict God from saying anything new or providing clarity where there was confusion or argument (that's exactly what Jesus did).

Yes, lip service is paid to the Holy Spirit, by all Sola Scriptura proponents. As I mentioned.

Not true. If you said "God has told me tomorrow there's going to be an earthquake", there is nothing in scripture to help us decide and SS doesn't help except to say what we should do with if indeed it turns out your were wrong and spoke for God without His authority!

Oh Sola Scriptura is quite clear on this matter. SS states that the voice you heard is not authoritative. There might be an earthquake tomorrow, but a voice isn't sufficient basis to decide anything with finality.

However, NOTHING God says will ever contradict what God has said previously, hence SS can often be used to judge.

And you don't see the apparent absurdity of this position? Let me spell it out for you. Let's say I hear a voice today. According to SS, I need to test it via a scholarly analysis of Scripture. Now here's the problem. If I already understand Scripture well enough to test the voice - if my scholarship is really all that polished - then why did I need the voice to begin with?

Any way you slice and dice it, Sola Scriptura leads to a diminution of God's voice in the life of the believer. That's the catastrophe. And for you to fully understand how catastrophic this is, I'd need to talk about metaphysics. Trouble is, it's hard to do that clearly and effectively because it's another area where the church seems to have misunderstood Scripture.

...but this is nothing but a distraction because the FACT is you, nor anyone I have met is claiming divine instruction or interpretation and so I have no reason to think on it.

Exactly. Sola Scriptura fosters the mentality that Direct Revelation is not top-priority. Which is precisely what Paul combatted at 1 Cor 14:1.

Where we do have discussion and where you have avoided going is whether the Holy Spirit can reveal to me the truth in scripture that the church has taught and believed wrongly.

I have no idea what you just said.

 

[JAL]

Again dodging the issue to hide behind Wikipedia!

Yes, I hide behind the 72 verses cited in my favor in the Wikipedia article. Shame on me.

The fact is that Wikipedia based on it's own else other unnamed authority, assumes that OT Hebrew words translated as "man of God" are the same as those NT Greek words translated "man of God" are culturally, spiritually and linguistically the same.

Um...I think you missed a significant part of the argument. Do you know what the Septuagint is? It's the Greek version of the Old Testament. Scholars consider it invaluable as a resource. The article points out that the Greek version of "man of God" as found in the Septuagint contains the same Greek words seen in 2 Tim 3:16-17.

 

[BobRyan]

(Sigh). I gave myself as an example. I cite verses in debates. That doesn't mean that I'm practicing, much less advocating, Sola Scriptura!

I gave scriptures demonstrating the very point I am arguing for the real life practice of sola scriptura and you replied to each one a suggestion for dismissing it as "a verse of scripture" rather than addressing the substance of what it said. How in the world do you view that as a substantive solution to anything?

You're not getting this. Think debating strategy. If I suspect that you and I already agree on one particular verse - even if your understanding of that verse came from Direct Revelation - I can use that verse against you in a debate.

Indeed - so could the Sadducees in Matt 22 - in the details you are not looking at. But notice how the sola scriptura method in fact worked not just in Matt 22, but also in Mark 7:6-13. In other words - LOOK at the details in the texts I reference rather than simply dismissing them "as scripture" as if you had something better than the solution Christ himself is using in those two examples.

In this case I'm really leveraging Direct Revelation against you

Not in our discussion since the inspired text of Matt 22 and Mark 7 is refuting your claims so far.

The point is that it doesn't matter whether you got your understanding of that verse from scholarly analysis, or from Direct Revelation. All that matters is that, since we both agree on it, I can strategically use it against you in a debate.

I welcome your using something in the examples given in Mark 7:6-13 and in Matt 22 against my POV - so far you have only ignored every detail in the texts referenced.

How in the world does that help your argument??

I could add Acts 17:11 and Acts 17:15

2 And according to Paul’s custom, he visited them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a significant number of the leading women.

Just as in the Matt 22 case that you are not looking at - the Bible says it worked.

your claim that someone "can object" not withstanding since the sola-scriptura method never say "no one will ever object to anything proven sola scriptura".

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing. What am I missing??

 

[Darren Court]

Yes, I hide behind the 72 verses cited in my favor in the Wikipedia article. Shame on me.

Yes still dodging linguistic reality! Hebrew is not the same as Greek... period.

 

[Darren Court]

Um...I think you missed a significant part of the argument. Do you know what the Septuagint is? It's the Greek version of the Old Testament. Scholars consider it invaluable as a resource. The article points out that the Greek version of "man of God" as found in the Septuagint contains the same Greek words seen in 2 Tim 3:16-17.

Do you know what a translation is? You know when something is written in one language and then converted to another?
Well, mistakes happen!
.
Here, you demonstrate ignorance of this reality! As if "Scholars consider it invaluable as a resource." means they think the Septuagint is without mistakes in translation.... LOTS OF THEM!!! Is this ignorance on your behalf or just selective memory to avoid the fact that turning to the Septuagint provides no support for the claim you want to make?
.
Would you like a list of references that point out the Septuagint is flawed or do you somehow believe translations themselves are infalliable?

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan:

Again, Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that a voice is never authoritative in itself because it must be tested by a scholarly analysis of Scripture.

All you've done is provide examples where people used Scriptures in debates. You consider this alone as sufficient "proof" of Sola Scriptura.

I gave scriptures demonstrating the very point I am arguing for the real life practice of sola scriptura and you replied to each one a suggestion for dismissing it as "a verse of scripture" rather than addressing the substance of what it said. How in the world do you view that as a substantive solution to anything?

Indeed - so could the Sadducees in Matt 22 - in the details you are not looking at. But notice how the sola scriptura method in fact worked not just in Matt 22, but also in Mark 7:6-13. In other words - LOOK at the details in the texts I reference rather than simply dismissing them "as scripture" as if you had something better than the solution Christ himself is using in those two examples.

Not in our discussion since the inspired text of Matt 22 and Mark 7 is refuting your claims so far.

I welcome your using something in the examples given in Mark 7:6-13 and in Matt 22 against my POV - so far you have only ignored every detail in the texts referenced.

How in the world does that help your argument??

I could add Acts 17:11 and Acts 17:15

2 And according to Paul’s custom, he visited them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a significant number of the leading women.

Just as in the Matt 22 case that you are not looking at - the Bible says it worked.

your claim that someone "can object" not withstanding since the sola-scriptura method never say "no one will ever object to anything proven sola scriptura".

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing. What am I missing??

You have repeated this argument several times and, every time, I have provided the same response. Yes, Paul and Christ cited verses, in debates, to prove a particular point. And I've been saying that such isn't proof of Sola Scriptura. And I gave myself as an example. In debates, I cite verses to prove a point, and my doing so makes me neither a practitioner nor an advocate of Sola Scriptura.

Honestly? I'm beginning to suspect that you're frustrated because you have always assumed those examples of Paul and Christ establish Sola Scriptura and thus, if they do not, you are now bereft of any broad-based biblical foundation for the doctrine. So you'll keep insisting that I have "ignored" those verses.

I don't see how ignoring my response helps your case.