Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[JAL]

I find your ad hoc definitions problematic

Why is honesty problematic to you? Oh that's right. Because we've been dishonest for so long that everyone pretends it's okay.

 

[Vanellus]

Sola scriptura does not imply sine deo.

 

[JAL]

Sola scriptura does not imply sine deo.

Sola Scriptura tends to discourage the zealous pursuit of prophecy because it basically implies, "Even if you DO happen to hear a voice, you can't trust it as authoritative, you must test it against exegesis, so you might as well skip the voice-seeking and head directly to the exegesis."

This makes SS the number one enemy of revival. Why so? Because pursuing revival is the same thing as pursuing the Voice. You can't see this because scholars still don't understand biblical metaphysics. It's off-topic but I'll summarize the issue just so you understand.

Metaphysically, God speaks a prophetic word by releasing the divine Word from His mouth (Isaiah 55:11). That's an outpouring. Thus the more we seek prophecy, the more outpourings/revivals we receive - and hence the more people will be saved. Those outpourings are also for our sanctification, so the more holy the church will be.

Arguably, then, Sola Scriptura is the devil's favorite doctrine in the church. He absolutely loves it, because it has been destroying us for 2,000 years.

Just so you know where I'm coming from.

 

[JAL]

1. Is Jesus the Son of God? --- does that make you infallible on something?
2. Is the Bible the Word of God? -- does that make you infallible in any way?
3. Is the Gospel truly good new? -- does that make you infallible in some way?

I find your ad hoc definitions problematic

Sola Scriptura is one of the main causes of denominationalism. How so? Because Sola Scriptura assumes the Bible is clear. On that assumption, if I reach a different interpretation than you, it means you are just being a rebel against "the Word of God" and therefore I am warranted in forming my own denomination.

If all of us were to admit that we're fallible interpreters, there would be fewer denominations.

 

[JAL]

Personally, I don't even bother directly pray for the gift of prophecy. I just pray for revival because I'm confident it's all the same thing. Sanctification, revival, outpourings, evangelism, prophecy - all of them are part of the same bucket.

 

[Darren Court]

Am I sensing indignation here?

No what you're no sensing here is evasion even though it is clearly deliberate! One can only wonder why someone would chose to do so and then deny they are doing so!

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?

 

[Vanellus]

I think we talked past each other at some juncture. I trust that others didn't find it pointless if they saw where I was coming from.

Please disregard the post as I don't want to spend any more time trying to resolve the disconnect.

I think you are mistaken. Rather than talking past each other, I simply disagree with the applicability of your Abraham example. Abraham was a unique life which occurred when there were no scriptures. Your what if speculation is simply a pointless waste of time.

 

[Darren Court]

Again, let's be mature.

Sadly, I don't think you can be! What you can do is insult, be sarcastic, avoid the bits of response you don't like as well as any questions whilst suggesting others be mature. Maybe if you could get that guy in the mirror to?

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]

Can you at least make a list of verses where the Bible uses the expression "man of God" and is clearly NOT referring to a prophet? Will you do this for us all, please?

Huh? Yes, the two in the letters to Timothy. I would have thought that obvious by now since I've repeatedly asked for evidence that the Greek phrase is used in the same way as the Hebrew one, but happy to help you!

 

[Darren Court]

NT evangelism is prophetic utterance. Paul never counsels the whole church to evangelize - instead he counsels them to seek the gift of prophecy (1 Cor 14:1).

He counseled Timothy "the man of God" to evangelize - Timothy the prophet.

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?

 

[JAL]

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?

None of you proposed a solution? Here I'll provide another clue, another piece of the puzzle. I will simply explain why Sola Scriptura is a logical contradiction. Like all my observations, this is extremely simple stuff.

SS regards the Bible as the only final authority for both doctrine and practice. Therefore a proposed mandate is merely a suggestion, it doesn't actually count as a real imperative until we have located an authoritative basis for it in Scripture. Now here's the problem. 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.” Nor is it rational to accept the Bible on a blind leap of faith. If blind faith were commendable, the Christian would be perfectly warranted in suddenly converting to Islam on blind faith.

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. For example suppose I accepted the Bible on the basis of Reason, but tomorrow my reasoning leads me to conclude that Islam is a more rational choice. In that case I will abandon the Bible in favor of the Koran, thereby confirming that Reason is, for me, a higher authority than the Bible, since it governs my willingness to accept or reject the book. Thus the Bible can never be legitimately construed as our highest authority because some higher authority clearly dictates our decision to accept or reject this book.

The next clue, then, is to simply ask yourself: on what basis/authority do I accept the Bible? This might help you understand how an authoritative voice operated in all the prophets such as Abraham, and still in all the angels today.

 

[Darren Court]

I have already articulated it on these forums more than once.

Most people come here to teach. They don't LIKE to be taught. That's how human pride works. So this time around, I'd like to give people a chance to figure out the answer for themselves.

But maybe that's not possible, if they are blinded by 2,000 years of indoctrination.

Oh, the "cop out" response! People who ask for evidence and research don't really want it because Jal super powers know the hearts of everyone who asks!

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]

The next clue, then, is to simply ask yourself: on what basis/authority do I accept the Bible? This might help you understand how an authoritative voice operated in all the prophets such as Abraham, and still in all the angels today.

Nope you keep avoiding the question whilst assuming your arrogant air of personal authority! ..and to think you point at others being here for ego! (Cap seems to fit you)

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?

 

[JAL]

Huh? Yes, the two in the letters to Timothy. I would have thought that obvious by now since I've repeatedly asked for evidence that the Greek phrase is used in the same way as the Hebrew one, but happy to help you!

I would have thought it would be obvious that those two examples don't count because they are the two in dispute.

We have about 70 cases where "man of God" betokens a prophet. You know what that means, right? Such a large number means that such expression qualifies as a technical term for a prophet. Paul would have known about this. He deliberately used that choice of words for Timothy alone, knowing full well what it meant in the Old Testament. Either you think Paul was stupid, careless, or misleading. Sixty times the NT used the expression "the saints" in reference to the church. Paul could have fallen back on that expression. Other possibilities include, "Timothy, my son in the faith" (which he used earlier), or something more general like "servant of God" or "ambassador of God" or "child of God".

Instead he used the technical term for a prophet. Twice. And he did this for Timothy alone. Deal with it.

 

[JAL]

Oh, the "cop out" response! People who ask for evidence and research don't really want it because Jal super powers know the hearts of everyone who asks!

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?

I just provided another clue in post 151.

 

[Darren Court]

I would have thought it would be obvious that those two examples don't count because they are the two in dispute.

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?

 

[Darren Court]

I just provided another clue in post 151.

Not interested in clues or playing YOUR silly immature games. You either have something to say or you don't! If you don't or you're simply embarrassed by the lack of evidence, logic and scripture to support your views, then don't bother wasting people's time.....
.
For the umpteenth time.... ... "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]

Not interested in clues or playing YOUR silly immature games. You either have something to say or you don't! If you don't or you're simply embarrassed by the lack of evidence, logic and scripture to support your views, then don't bother wasting people's time.....
.
For the umpteenth time.... ... "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?

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.

 

[JAL]

Not interested in clues or playing YOUR silly immature games. You either have something to say or you don't! If you don't or you're simply embarrassed by the lack of evidence, logic and scripture to support your views, then don't bother wasting people's time.....
.
For the umpteenth time.... ... "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?

Why are you so eager for the solution. Obviously, because you can't wait to attack it. And if you're like most people on this forum, you frankly don't care if your own position is a contradiction in terms, you just want to save face by using (typically shallow) attacks to "win" the debate.

Tell you what. Admit that post 151 identifies a real contradiction in Sola Scriptura, one that you can't resolve. Then I'll spit out the desired solution outright.

 

[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?

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.