Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[JAL]

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?

It seems you're asking me to prove 100% that Paul, writing in Greek, used the expression "man of God" in the same way as the Hebrew expression for "man of God." Let's be mature here: I can't prove anything 100%. I can't even prove that you exist. Like I said, all I needed to do was demonstrate that "man of God = prophets" is one viable translation (one possible translation) rooted in OT precedent, thereby undermining the assumption that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is 100% proof of Sola Scriptura. Mission accomplished.

Establishing OT precedent is useful. Why so? Because it is exegetically illegal to reach a conclusion devoid of some kind of linguistic precedent. It doesn't necessarily have to be a biblical precedent, I just need to plausibly argue that Greek or Hebrew has been used in such ways in the past. In this case, however, the precedent was in fact a biblical one, which is icing on the cake.

 

[JAL]

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?

Isn't it interesting that Paul used the expression "man of God" in both of his epistles to Timothy - but in none of the epistles explicitly addressed to the whole church! Pure coincidence? I seriously doubt it.

Paul's desire for the whole church is expressed at 1 Cor 14:1 - not to mention 1 Cor 12:31.

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan,

When the prophet Abraham heard a Voice commanding him to sacrifice his son, was he commendable for regarding it as authoritative? Or reprehensible? Can you show me where he had to rely on a scholarly analysis of Scripture to test the voice? And the same for people like Adam, Eve, and Noah?

 

[Vanellus]

I assume no one thinks that the burning of books, or the burning of people, or fighting wars lasting decades is what Christians of different churches should do now. Isn't this rejection of extreme violence a plus for the churches of today?

 

[Darren Court]

@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.


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.

Really instead of telling us that scripture isn't the authority even though it's the ONLY authority scripture says we should use to judge things, 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]

Really instead of telling us that scripture isn't the authority even though it's the ONLY authority scripture says we should use to judge things, 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?

You're asking how we are to decide whether a voice is authoritative? For example, how did the prophet Abraham decide? (As mentioned in post 63). Is this your question? If it is, you are finally asking the right question.

How sad that, after 2,000 years of scholarly analysis, the church still doesn't know the only plausible answer to this question. And as far as I can see, the correct answer is rather obvious and just plain common sense. This isn't to insult you - I just don't understand how all the brilliant minds of the past managed to overlook something relatively simple and fundamental. This critical oversight further confirms that scholarly analysis is a very tenuous endeavor.

 

[JAL]

Really instead of telling us that scripture isn't the authority even though it's the ONLY authority scripture says we should use to judge things...

Where does Scripture say that? And what then is your response to post 63?

 

[JAL]

Instead of telling us that scripture isn't the authority even though it's the ONLY authority scripture says we should use to judge things...

Really? Every voice must be tested by Sola Scriptura? The following passage describes a voice. Please show me where the passage says to test the voice via a scholarly analysis of Scripture:

"I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come. 14He will glorify Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you." (John16).

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan,

When the prophet Abraham heard a Voice commanding him to sacrifice his son, was he commendable for regarding it as authoritative?

of course.

Can you show me where he had to rely on a scholarly analysis of Scripture to test the voice?

Can you show me where the sola scriptura examples in scripture as we find them in Acts 17:11, Mark 7:6-13, Matt 22:29-33 "Send out for scholarly analysis" before being presented to the hostile group in each case that opposes the gospel?

can you show me where Acts 17:1-5 say "Paul first sent out for scholarly analysis the presented scripture" in his sola scriptura method that is stated there??

Is it your claim that like Adam, Eve and Abraham - we have no written text of scripture - authored by the Holy Spirit and are to ignore it if we have it???

 

[BobRyan]

Really instead of telling us that scripture isn't the authority even though it's the ONLY authority scripture says we should use to judge things, 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?

You're asking how we are to decide whether a voice is authoritative? For example, how did the prophet Abraham decide? (As mentioned in post 63). Is this your question? If it is, you are finally asking the right question.

How sad that, after 2,000 years of scholarly analysis, the church still doesn't know the only plausible answer to this question. And as far as I can see, the correct answer is rather obvious and just plain common sense. This isn't to insult you - I just don't understand how all the brilliant minds of the past managed to overlook something relatively simple and fundamental. This critical oversight further confirms that scholarly analysis is a very tenuous endeavor.

you did not answer his question to you

 

[BobRyan]

I assume no one thinks that the burning of books, or the burning of people, or fighting wars lasting decades is what Christians of different churches should do now. Isn't this rejection of extreme violence a plus for the churches of today?

true - the "Might makes right" did not work for the pagan Roman empire against Christians and never worked for any Christian group addressing differences with some other group of Christians either.

 

[BobRyan]

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??

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

True because actually DOING what I claim they were doing - and showing that this is the pattern they gave us -- is THE POINT.

You seem to like the idea that having nothing to go on - is a better way to make the point rather than showing that this is exactly what they were actually doing. I find a certain paucity in logic at that point in your post.

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.

Indeed - "as if scripture mattered".

Their argument was not sustained by "I have the good feel that I am right and you are wrong" since that is not an objective way to make the case on any planet that we know of. Rather they show what the Word of God says and make their stand there.

This is the easy part. I don't understand how you find it confusing.

And I've been saying that such isn't proof of Sola Scriptura.

Which is not logical

And I gave myself as an example. In debates, I cite verses to prove a point

As if that proves that doing it is wrong??? Or as if it proves that what one is supposed to do is to NOT appeal to the Word of God as the standard of Truth??

How in the world is that logical?

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan:

Again, Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that a voice is never authoritative

How is it you keep coming up with these ad hoc definitions for sola scriptura?

Do you have some documented statement from scripture or ??? that says "sola scriptura can't be true if there is a Holy Spirit that directs you to use it"????

Where does your "no Holy Spirit exists" form of "sola scriptura" come from???

 

[JAL]

Let's be mature here. Your superficial, strawman objections waste so much time. I never purported to supply a full-breadth, fully exhaustive definition of Sola Scriptura. Clearly I was simply honing in on some essential aspects of Sola Scriptura, namely:
....(1) The "Sola" in Sola Scriptura means that biblical analysis is the only final authority.
....(2) Ergo, a voice is never authoritative by itself.

Yet you waste my time with objections like this: (Do you win debates by exhausting your opponents?)

How is it you keep coming up with these ad hoc definitions for sola scriptura?
Do you have some documented statement from scripture or ??? that says "sola scriptura can't be true if there is a Holy Spirit that directs you to use it"????

Where does your "no Holy Spirit exists" form of "sola scriptura" come from???

That's a laugh. You haven't challenged #1 and #2 above. Show me any of your posts in months or years past where you've counseled believers to accept voices as authoritative without first comparing them to Scripture.

I guess my "ad-hoc" definition of Sola Scriptura isn't terribly far off the mark, after all.

 

[JAL]

of course.


Can you show me where the sola scriptura examples in scripture as we find them in Acts 17:11, Mark 7:6-13, Matt 22:29-33 "Send out for scholarly analysis" before being presented to the hostile group in each case that opposes the gospel?
can you show me where Acts 17:1-5 say "Paul first sent out for scholarly analysis the presented scripture" in his sola scriptura method that is stated there??

Sola Scriptura examples? That's assuming what's in debate. As far as I can see, those passages neither explicitly nor implicitly address the issue of whether a voice can ever be authoritative/self-authenticating. Again, you've created a strawman argument completely irrelevant to this debate.

Is it your claim that like Adam, Eve and Abraham - we have no written text of scripture - authored by the Holy Spirit and are to ignore it if we have it???

Ridiculous speculation. Even someone reading my posts at a 1st grade reading level wouldn't likely conjecture such an absurd caricature of my position. Where have I claimed that the Bible isn't valid/inspired scripture?

Again, do you win debates by exhausting your opponents with strawman arguments?

 

[JAL]

you did not answer his question to you

Accusing me of deflection? For clarification, I reiterated his words, asking him to confirm which question was being asked.

As for deflection, you still haven't done much in the way of providing a clear treatment of post 63.

 

[JAL]

of course.


Can you show me where the sola scriptura examples in scripture as we find them in Acts 17:11, Mark 7:6-13, Matt 22:29-33 "Send out for scholarly analysis" before being presented to the hostile group in each case that opposes the gospel?

What is this "sending out" nonsense? Obviously just another strawman.

 

[JAL]

True because actually DOING what I claim they were doing - and showing that this is the pattern they gave us -- is THE POINT.

You seem to like the idea that having nothing to go on - is a better way to make the point rather than showing that this is exactly what they were actually doing. I find a certain paucity in logic at that point in your post.

Indeed - "as if scripture mattered".

Their argument was not sustained by "I have the good feel that I am right and you are wrong" since that is not an objective way to make the case on any planet that we know of. Rather they show what the Word of God says and make their stand there.

This is the easy part. I don't understand how you find it confusing.


Which is not logical

As if that proves that doing it is wrong??? Or as if it proves that what one is supposed to do is to NOT appeal to the Word of God as the standard of Truth??

How in the world is that logical?

(Yawn). More strawman arguments that simply do not address the questions:

....(1) Can a voice, under any circumstances, ever be authoritative? (See John 10:27 for example).
....(2) Can anything other than Scripture ever be authoritative on religious issues of doctrine and practice?

If either 1 or 2 are ever true, the "Sola" in Sola Scriptura is a lie from hell. Clear? Capeesh? Hopefully so. In that case, care to stop wasting my time with posts that fail to address the real issue?

 

[JAL]

You seem to like the idea that having nothing to go on..

Nothing to go on? The whole OT where prophets accepted the Voice as authoritative is nothing to go on? Maybe you're the one who doesn't believe in Scripture?

Jesus and John the Baptist were led by the Spirit from the mother's womb. John even leaped for joy in the womb, just because Mary was nearby, thereby indicating a primordial revelation of some kind. On what authority were such infantile revelations based? Scholarly analysis? That's a laugh.

"Nothing to go on." LOL.

 

[All Becomes New]

The solution is within the verses you quoted. Paul says,

1 Corinthians 11:19 CSB17
“Indeed, it is necessary that there be factions among you, so that those who are approved may be recognized among you.”

So what is the solution?

Here!

Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith,