Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[JAL]

In that case it should line up with scripture. The idea that the Author of Scripture is out of sync with the scripture He authors is not very consistent.

This line of argumentation was already discredited. Again: How would you know if the voice lines up with Scripture. To know that, you'd have to know Scripture on your own. If you already know Scripture on your own, you don't need the voice of the Holy Spirit to teach you !!!! You never did!

Therefore Sola Scriptura is confusing, vague, unclear. No one can even be sure how it's supposed to work. Everyone just pretends that it makes sense. That is exactly how the members of a cult behave.

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan,

After 2,000 years, has Sola Scriptura proven itself successful? I don't think so. As for the few doctrines that Christians agree on, most of them are salvation-doctrines assented to when the Spirit convicted us during conversion - before we learned to practice any real exegesis. At the point where exegesis begins, that's where agreement ends, because everyone has a different interpretation.

So why is it, Bob, that lots of Christians disagree with your exegesis on various issues? I can only think of four options:
....(A) The Bible isn't fully clear. Hence Sola Scriptura is a crock.
....(B) Those Christians are all a bunch of sinful rebels.
....(C) Those Christians are all stupid readers.
...(D) Mixture of B and C.

Obviously my choice is A. What's yours?

 

[prodromos]

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.

No, it looks like Christ is giving them the correct interpretation of Scripture, which they would then pass down as Holy Tradition.

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan ,

I think you accused me of equating cessation-of-prophecy with Sola Scriptura. You're objecting, "A lot of my Sola-Scriptura friends believe in prophecy."

Yes and no. If they believe in authoritative prophecy for today, they wouldn't be Sola Scriptura. The typical charismatic attitude is, "Today a prophecy can be spoken to encourage believers, but it is not authoritative like apostolic prophecy was. Everything must be tested against Scripture."

Such churches are governed by scholarly analysis and therefore man-made tradition. The leaders are resistant to the idea of desperately seeking a Voice to dictate their every practice and doctrine. In this view, prophecy is optional to some degree. Which powerfully diminishes the effort and zeal exerted toward its pursuit.

For example most charismatic churches do not define NT evangelism as prophetic utterance. Typically they don't even believe that Direct Revelation must initiate an evangelistic campaign (see Acts 16:6-10). They just "go out there and do it." Many of them don't even believe that the gift of prophecy is for every believer.

Thus, while charismatic theology is a good start, we need more than that. We need to get rid of Sola Scriptura.

And it's not just about doctrine. You personally know the Father and have real fellowship with Him - and thus are spiritually mature - only to the degree of Direct Revelation. This formula (maturity = mature prophethood) is the whole point of Numbers 12:6-8 and, in fact, the main point of 1 Corinthians. Not to mention John 5:37.

 

[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.

No, it looks like Christ is giving them the correct interpretation of Scripture, which they would then pass down as Holy Tradition.

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.

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan ,

I think you accused me of equating cessation-of-prophecy with Sola Scriptura.

I accused you of conflating the two in your ad hoc definition of what you call sola scriptura. Using a definition that the rest of us reject then showing how your own defintion fails as if that is supposed to mean something about our acceptance of what we call Sola Scriptura testing.

You're objecting, "A lot of my Sola-Scriptura friends believe in prophecy."

Yes and no. If they believe in authoritative prophecy for today, they wouldn't be Sola Scriptura.

Only if you believe scripture says we should reject prophets.

As noted earlier - not many people think scripture says that.

The typical charismatic attitude is, "Today a prophecy can be spoken to encourage believers, but it is not authoritative

"typical charismatic today" is not a source of truth or proof that I have used in any of my posts.

As noted in my comments about "me and 22 million of my friends" we don't believe in cessationism but we do read the Bible and see that we are supposed to listen to God's prophets - testing their teaching "sola scriptura" as Paul was tested in Acts 17:11

 

[JAL]

I accused you of conflating the two in your ad hoc definition of what you call sola scriptura. Using a definition that the rest of us reject then showing how your own defintion fails as if that is supposed to mean something about our acceptance of what we call Sola Scriptura testing.


Only if you believe scripture says we should reject prophets.

As noted earlier - not many people think scripture says that.

"typical charismatic today" is not a source of truth or proof that I have used in any of my posts.

As noted in my comments about "me and 22 million of my friends" we don't believe in cessationism but we do read the Bible and see that we are supposed to listen to God's prophets - testing their teaching "sola scriptura" as Paul was tested in Acts 17:11

As expected. Over the course of 150 posts:
....You failed to identify even one specific fault in my "ad hoc" definition of Sola Scriptura.
...You failed to supply a quote from even one Sola Scriptura proponent in disagreement with it.
....You failed to resolve the alleged contradiction at post 151.

You're just blowing smoke. At some point it counts as intellectual dishonesty.

 

[JAL]

Only if you believe scripture says we should reject prophets.

False dilemma. Non sequitur.

"typical charismatic today" is not a source of truth or proof that I have used in any of my posts.

And yet you failed to cite any charismatic to the contrary of my ad-hoc definition. Polemics and strawmen.

As noted in my comments about "me and 22 million of my friends" we don't believe in cessationism but we do read the Bible and see that we are supposed to listen to God's prophets - testing their teaching "sola scriptura" as Paul was tested in Acts 17:11

Strawman. My primary topic wasn't the testing of prophets, but whether the prophets heard an authoritative voice exempt from scholarly testing. Obviously they did, since the Voice ruled them before Scripture existed.

And for the millionth time, you haven't established that the Bereans practiced biblical scholarship without recourse to the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation). Did they attend seminary?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Only if you believe scripture says we should reject prophets.

False dilemma. Non sequitur.

Indeed - so there is no such problem as having to choose between scripture and prophets - it would be nonesenical.

At least we can agree on one thing.

And yet you failed to cite any charismatic to the contrary of my ad-hoc

I have pointed to 22 million that do not use your own personal definition of sola scriptura testing. Nor do I know of any one but you using it outright.

Try taking a step towards objectivity - show someone who claims to affirm sola scriptura testing (which is clearly not you) that uses your own ad hoc definition for the term.

And for the millionth time, you haven't established that the Bereans practiced biblical scholarship

And for the millionth time you have not established your ad hoc idea that sola scriptura testing is only possible for scholars or that this is ever a mandate in scripture or among those who affirm what is the real form of sola scriptura testing.

 

[JAL]

I have pointed to 22 million that do not use your own personal definition of sola scriptura testing. Nor do I know of any one but you using it outright.

Um...er...For the millionth time:
....(1) What specific part of my definition do they disagree with?
....(2) Can you cite even one such person verbatim?

Until then, how am I supposed to conclude anything other than intellectual dishonesty?

Try taking a step towards objectivity - show someone who claims to affirm sola scriptura testing (which is clearly not you) that uses your own ad hoc definition for the term.

You're joking, right? You need me to find an example of a person who regards Scripture as the only final authority and thus does not consider visions/voices authoritative? How about 1,000 posts on this forum over the past decade, for starters?

From the Wikipedia article on Sola Scriptura (which of course has footnotes to back up its claims).

Sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone, is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice...sola scriptura rejects any infallible authority other than the Bible.

And for the millionth time you have not established your ad hoc idea that sola scriptura testing is only possible for scholars

Strawman. That's a hyperbolic reading of my words. Anyone can try to practice Sola Scriptura but the very nature of the exercise involves tools provided by scholars (such as lexicons, grammar books, concordances, bible dictionaries, original manuscripts, and bible translations). It is therefore an exercise in scholarship even when performed by laymen. John Calvin wanted to prohibit laymen from instruction as much as possible because he believed that scholars alone are qualified for it.

And for the millionth time you have not established your ad hoc idea that sola scriptura testing is only possible for scholars

That's what John Calvin believed, not me.

 

[BobRyan]

And yet you failed to cite any charismatic to the contrary of my ad-hoc definition. .

other than the 22 million I mentioned who are not cessasionists yet flat out reject your own private ad hoc redefinition of the term?

BTW - how is the world do you assume everyone uses your own private view of it other than the 22 million I mentioned?

 

[BobRyan]

Um...er...For the millionth time:
....(1) What specific part of my definition do they disagree with?

The part where you imagined for us that "sola scriptura" is defined as the process of asking a Bible scholar to tell you what the Bible says or at least to approve of what you say the Bible says.

As noted - no one in scripture does that. And I don't know of anyone who claims that is their definition of the term.

.You're joking, right? You need me to find an example of a person who regards Scripture as the only final authority and thus does not consider visions/voices authoritative?

actually that is you using your own circular argument again. I never said that sola scriptura requires rejection of the Bible teaching on visions, dreams and prophets.

Rather it is the testing of all doctrine by scripture. (For the dozenth time I suppose by now)

How about 1,000 posts on this forum over the past decade, for starters?

From the Wikipedia article on Sola Scriptura (which of course has footnotes to back up its claims).

Sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone, is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice...sola scriptura rejects any infallible authority other than the Bible.

That works in the sense that anyone claiming to have a revelation from God is tested "Sola scriptura" just as Paul was tested in Acts 17:11.

You extend it to mean "rejection of the Bible teaching on visions and prophets" -- which is not very reasonable in my POV

 

[JAL]

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.

They are indeed responsible. Any failure to grow in prophecy is the fault of believers and results in an inability to properly understand Scripture.

Funny how you ignore the verses that refute Sola Scriptura as the only final autority. Verses supporting authoritative voice:

...Paul relied on authoritative voices and visions. Acts 13:2; Acts 16:6-10; Acts 18:9-11; Acts 22:6-10; Acts 22:17; Acts 22:21; Acts 23:11; 2 Cor 12:9.

...Acts 12:8. Peter hearkened to the voice of an angel.

...Mat 2: Here are found four separate authoritative dreams.

...Post 251. Shows David relying on an authoritative voice time and again. Solving the Problem of false doctrine

...Luke 4:1 shows Jesus led by the Spirit into the wilderness. That's an authoritive voice. In some places Jesus cited Scripture but He knew more than the text, via the Father's Voice.

...Jesus promised an authoritative voice to His discples (John 16:12-13).

...Both the major and minor prophets made predictions untestable exegetically.

...The prophets knew the secrets of men's hearts not found in Scripture (Acts 5:3-5; Acts 13:9-11; 1 Cor 14:24-25).

...I can't seem to find examples of the prophets testing the Voice exegetically. But we do have Peter relying on an authoritative vision contradictory to his understanding of Scripture (Acts 10).

...I asked you on what authority you accept Scripture. Burning bosom? You seem to have ignored the question.

...Post 302. I asked you a pertinent question and you seem to have ignored it. Solving the Problem of false doctrine

...Post 151. The alleged contradiction remains unresolved.



Summary: If God wanted us to believe in Sola Scriptura, He did a very poor job of conveying it. Scripture is prolific with authoritative voices.

 

[JAL]

other than the 22 million I mentioned who are not cessasionists yet flat out reject your own private ad hoc redefinition of the term?

BTW - how is the world do you assume everyone uses your own private view of it other than the 22 million I mentioned?

Um...one citation, please? One verbatim quote indicating that a Sola Scriptura person views something other than Scripture as a final authority?
(Which would only support my claim that Scripture is NOT the only final authority).

 

[BobRyan]

That's what John Calvin believed, not me.

You are having some difficulty on what others believe as compared to your own personal ad hoc defintion for the term "sola scriptura"

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"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.

JAL
Um...one citation, please?

ok... that one.

 

[JAL]

The part where you imagined for us that "sola scriptura" is defined as the process of asking a Bible scholar to tell you what the Bible says or at least to approve of what you say the Bible says.

As expected. Your whole case is predicated upon an intellectually dishonest caricature of where I stand.

You extend it to mean "rejection of the Bible teaching on visions and prophets" -- which is not very reasonable in my POV

Another strawman erected upon an intellectually dishonest caricature of where I stand.

Cheap, underhanded debating tactics. That's all I see here.

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan,

All you seem to do is put words in my mouth and then knock down such strawmen!

 

[JAL]

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

That's probably true. Every time I challenge you on the issue, you conveniently deflect or ignore the question.

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

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

If No, then you've contradicted all the biblical examples of authoritative voices/visions. Starting first with the angels, then with Adam and Eve, and continuing with the prophets.

 

[JAL]

@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?

Pick any authority you like as the basis for trusting in Scripture. Once you've picked one, it proves you believe in an authority other than Scripture and thus contradict Sola Scriptura.

 

[JAL]

@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).