Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

[swordsman1]

Maybe you're actually still unable to conceive how Direct Revelation could resolve a dispute (despite my numerous examples). Let's consider Pastor Yonggi Cho, arguably the most successful pastor in (post-apostolic) church history. This is a man who built a church to 80,000 strong, then walked away from it per the Voice (so he claims) to start a new one, and built the new one to one million strong, over a period of ten years. According to him, whenever faced with a fork in a road (for example indecisiveness as to whether to target a particular country with missionaries), he would join with his body of elders (i.e. the body of leaders subordinate to him) fasting and praying for Direct Revelation. They continue fasting and praying, he says, until they all get the "assurance" of the Holy Spirit (apparently 100% certainty) on which direction to take. They achieve consensus by Direct Revelation (or so he claims).

Would that be the same Yonggi Cho who was found guilty of embezzling $12 million from his church and sentenced to 3 years in prison?

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/pastor-david-yonggi-cho-convicted-of-embezzling-12m/35994.htm

 

[swordsman1]

Um...the doctrine of the Inward Witness is found in the official catechisms of the Protestant Reformation. Why do you persist in ignoring my answers? BASED on that doctrine, I could ask any evangelical theologian:
(1) Is the Inward Witness reliable? Or does the Holy Spirit fail at His job?
(2) Is exegesis equally reliable? Or do men often make mistakes?

The reformers doctrine of the Spirit's inward witness is the conviction that the Bible really is the word of God. Nothing more. It is not God giving us extra-biblical revelations via our feelings. The Inward Witness is the cornerstone of sola scriptura, not a rebuttal of it.

I have pointed this out to you before.

Here again is the maxim:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

THAT is the maxim. That is what I understand as the subjective experience of Direct Revelation.

Are you telling me that your advice to us all is to go with option-A? Clearly it is not.

All your 'maxim' describes is the human conscience, the mechanism that God has hard-wired into every human (including non-Christians) which tells them that doing evil is wrong. Nothing more. Just because we feel guilty whenever we sin or contemplate sinning doesn't mean God gives us new extra-biblical revelations via our feelings.

I have also pointed this out to you before.

Here's a two-pronged demonstration (you sort of need both prongs to get the picture).
(1) John is the only writer to record these words about the Voice:

"2I 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" (John 16).

Er... Jesus is addressing the apostles only, telling them that he would soon depart from them and that they should expect the coming of the Holy Spirit who would guide into all truth and tell them the future. For sure the apostles received direct revelation from the Spirit. That doesn't mean we do. We are not apostles.

I have also pointed this out to you before.

(2) Now notice how, when speaking to his own disciples, he uses the same kind of language - he assures them that this same Spirit will guide THEM into all truth:

"I have written these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27And as for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But just as His true and genuine anointing teaches you about all things, so remain in Him as you have been taught." (1 Jn 2)

No, John is not referring to the Spirit in this passage. You have ignored the context again. There is no mention of the Spirit at all in this chapter. Go back two verses to see what the anointing that "remains in you" actually is.

v24 "As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you."​

What they heard from the beginning was the preaching of God's Word. That is the anointing that teaches us. This is confirmed at the end of verse 27 , "just as it has taught you" where John refers to the anointing as "it", not "Him". John would never use the neuter pronoun to refer to the Holy Spirit.

I have pointed this out to you before.


I am surprised that you still are continuing to peddle these same bogus arguments when they have already been previously debunked.

 

[JAL]

I knew someone would seize on this issue eventually.

Would that be the same Yonggi Cho who was found guilty of embezzling $12 million from his church and sentenced to 3 years in prison?

Pastor David Yonggi Cho convicted of embezzling $12m

You mean, sort of like, Christ, Paul, Peter, and many of the prophets were thrown in prison, usually on false pretenses? That kind of thing is your big concern here?

Law is tricky. The laws of business vary from city to city, state to state, and nation to nation. I'm no attorney - and I suspect neither are you. Three things to keep in mind.
(1) He was attempting to help out his son financially. He himself, being (probably) the most successful pastor in church history, wasn't likely in any need of money.
(2) He's not an attorney. His son may have convinced him that it was a legitimate business operation. If he acted in clear conscience, he's INNOCENT in God's eyes.
(3) Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone. Are you going to assume that David's ministry of being a prophet was all false, just because he stumbled with Bathsheba?

 

[JAL]

The reformers doctrine of the Spirit's inward witness is the conviction that the Bible really is the word of God. Nothing more. It is not God giving us extra-biblical revelations via our feelings. The Inward Witness is the cornerstone of sola scriptura, not a rebuttal of it.

Don't just assert your point, argue it. Also, the term "extra-biblical" is an oxymoron. The Bible is a commentary on planet Earth and thus encompasses all possible issues. Direct Revelation doesn't introduce anything new (that's a logical impossibility) - it merely CLARIFIES existing realities and prior revelations. Therefore the term "extra-biblical" is a fabrication of Sola-Scriptura propaganda leveraged to throttle our zeal for Direct Revelation. This kind of thing is why Sola Scriptura is potentially the single greatest enemy of the Kingdom, and thus the whole reason Paul was furious with the Galatians (as I explained about two posts back).

 

[JAL]

I am surprised that you still are continuing to peddle these same bogus arguments when they have already been previously debunked.

You guffawed me at least twice on that post. Thanks for the good laugh! It's a good thing I wasn't drinking coffee - I would have spewed it out all over the keyboard.

 

[JAL]

The reformers doctrine of the Spirit's inward witness is the conviction that the Bible really is the word of God. Nothing more...I have pointed this out to you before.

Yes as I recall you even argued that the Inward Witness is strictly limited to causing us to feel certain about the inspiration of Scripture (you conceded that much, which is all I really need) and thus does NOT, in your view, extrapolate to making us feel certain about anything else (such as the tenets of salvation). And I pointed out how ridiculous that assertion is. The very fact that He's caused us to feel certain about the Bible's authenticity automatically spills over into raising our degree of certainty regarding Christ's Lordship, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, heavenly inheritance, and so on. Surprised I should have to remind you how silly your conclusions are.

 

[JAL]

All your 'maxim' describes is the human conscience, the mechanism that God has hard-wired into every human (including non-Christians) which tells them that doing evil is wrong. Nothing more. Just because we feel guilty whenever we sin or contemplate sinning doesn't mean God gives us new extra-biblical revelations via our feelings.

There again is that "extra-biblical" oxymoron. It's hardly incumbent upon me to rebut an argument predicated on an unintelligible term.

Reminder: My maxim never uses the word "conscience" and thus does not stand or fall on your definition and/or extrapolation of "conscience". I've pointed this out before. You want to disprove my maxim? Fine. Just as I have challenged you on other threads, you merely need to find one scenario that clearly warrants departure from it.

Still waiting....

 

[JAL]

What now of your comment on the Anointing mentioned by John:

No, John is not referring to the Spirit in this passage. You have ignored the context again. There is no mention of the Spirit at all in this chapter. Go back two verses to see what the anointing that "remains in you" actually is.

v24 "As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you."​

What they heard from the beginning was the preaching of God's Word. That is the anointing that teaches us. This is confirmed at the end of verse 27 , "just as it has taught you" where John refers to the anointing as "it", not "Him". John would never use the neuter pronoun to refer to the Holy Spirit.

Er...um...Your misguided comments on pronouns stem from 2000 years of bad metaphysics. Suffice it to say that God is not, for example, too proud to describe Himself as Living Water, Holy Fire, Living Bread, Holy Breath/Wind, and so on - regardless of whether the associated pronouns happen to be masculine, feminine, or neuter, and regardless of whether such things normally refer to an "it" rather than a "he".

Your metaphysics isn't biblical. That's not entirely your fault. The church has been imbibed with Platonism for 2,000 years now. As a result, she still has no idea what the divine Word is. You're making a false dichotomy here. You're insisting that the Scripture always makes a sharp, fully polarized distinction between the message and the Messenger. I'll give you a couple of examples to refute that:

"The [divine] Word came to Abraham in a vision...[speaking promises]" (Gen 15).

In the above verse, God is speaking. He is delivering a message as divine Word (Isa 55:11). Because the divine Word is sonic, the message (the sound) and the Messenger are one and the same thing. Thus your dichotomy between the Anointing (the Anointed One) and the message is a myth. (And before you go confusing the subjective with the objective, as you did in our last discussion, I'm mostly focusing on the objective side of things here).

Second example. Bear in mind that when we preach the gospel, we speak. We exhale breath from our mouth. Due to (horribly) bad metaphysics, the church STILL doesn't understand what it means to TRULY preach the Word. It literally means to have one's body and lungs charged with the Word and expelled during the preaching. (The reason most evangelism isn't effective is because it isn't true evangelism). Example:

"Jesus breathed on them, and said, 'Receive ye the Holy [Breath]" (Jn 20):

Here again the divine Word goes forth - and any message that it happens to deposit in the minds of the listeners cannot be radically dichotomized from the Messenger.

Sorry, but 2,000 years of bad, unbiblical metaphysics based on Plato are not my fault.

 

[BobRyan]

You can't imagine the irony of a Sola Scriptura proponent quoting Galatians. That epistle was written to refute Sola Scriptura on account of the primacy of Direct Revelation. Paul was furious about their regression to Sola Scriptura and called them fools for it.

and what is interesting is that in your false assumptions ... you quote only "you" --- not Paul.

Actually I discussed Paul quite a bit, in those exchanges with CJ - I mentioned not only what Paul wrote (for example 1Cor 14:1), but also what he DID, because his actions are crucial.

But the salient point is that you still did not show Paul making your wild assertions as quoted above.

Specifically your claim

1."That epistle was written to refute Sola Scriptura"
2. "Paul was furious about their regression to Sola Scriptura and called them fools for it"

Wild claims where your only source for them "is you" your quote of you.

Paul goes to Arabia for 3 years ... to sort it out. He never preached a "Bible is wrong - Jesus is right" message, nor did Jesus.

You know what I love about the stance I've taken? At some junctures it derives with a kind of logical rigor from axioms logically irresistible, or at least commonly held.

The Bible in Col 2:23 talks about what "sounds like" what "has the appearance of wisdom" but is of no value. It is not an argument against wisdom - it is an argument against rejecting scripture and making stuff up that "sounds good to us".

Indeed I can make a good case for my stance even without recourse to Scripture.

without a doubt.

 

[BobRyan]

Religion doesn't make sense - doesn't really work well - without the Inward Witness. For example even if you believe "the gospel" (the basic propositions), by default you're still unsaved! How so? Consider the Mormons, JWs, Jews. They all read the bible and worship "God" - but it's the wrong God!

the mormons argue for the inward witness "the burning in the bosom" that irrespective of what scripture says - tells you that they are right. They each claim to have that.

1 John 4
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. ... 6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Notice that in 1 John 4 - the "test" is specifically not - the "burning in the bosom" of the Mormons or "what you think is ok".

TWO points determine a line. - We have the witness of the Holy Spirit to us in real life, personally AND we have the product of the Holy Spirit "scripture" and when they line up - we know we are listening to "the right spirit".

period.

 

[JAL]

Er... Jesus is addressing the apostles only, telling them that he would soon depart from them and that they should expect the coming of the Holy Spirit who would guide into all truth and tell them the future. For sure the apostles received direct revelation from the Spirit. That doesn't mean we do. We are not apostles.

And so God is a respecter of persons? Take a look at Num 12:6-8. There we find that Moses was privy to face-to-face revelations of God in virtue of his spiritual maturity, not on account of God playing favorites.

So in your view, if a verse isn't directed to me, it cannot apply? That rules out the whole Bible, right? So much for the Great Commission. Note the inconsistency. I'm confident that you do believe in the Great Commission - but nowhere do the epistles command the church to go out and evangelize! (That's because evangelism is supposed to be the domain of prophets and those endued with prophetic giftings). The inconsistency is that while you hold to a Great Commission that is NOT commanded to the whole church, you repudiate a command that IS commanded to the whole church - the command to place Direct Revelation on the very top rung of the priority ladder alongside love:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things [not 'gifts'] especially the gift of prophecy." (1Cor 14:1).

How convenient for you. Nice exegetical strategy. Just disregard any verses that you don't much care for. As I recall, on my thread on 1Corinthians, I levied a four-post exegesis demonstrating how that epistle defines maturity as mature prophethood. One of the posts in particular seemed especially germane to me - and you refused to read it! Again, how convenient for you.

Moreover, the supposition that God did not intend Direct Revelation for all Christians, all generations is too problemmatical to take seriously. As I have pointed out to you before, there are 100 billion souls at stake. Therefore there is no acceptable margin for human error and hence we need to seek infallible revelation. And even if we are NOT supposed to seek it, nonetheless with 100 billion souls at stake, I still need to be sure, I need to know - infallibly - that I am NOT supposed to seek it. Either way, this places upon me an obligation to seek it, my obligation is thus tautologically implicit.

Are we really going to sit here and debate a tautology?

I've pointed this out to you before.

 

[JAL]

the mormons argue for the inner witness "the burning in the bosom" that irrespective of what scripture says - tells you that they are right. They each claim to have that.

1 John 4
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. ... 6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Notice that in 1 John 4 - the "test" is specifically not - the "burning in the bosom" of the Mormons or "what you think is ok".

TWO points determine a line. - We have the witness of the Holy Spirit to us in real life, personally AND we have the product of the Holy Spirit "scripture" and when they line up - we know we are listening to "the right spirit".

period.

Where does my maxim ground itself in the burning of the bosom? Please address MY maxim - not the miscellaneous speculations of myriad individuals and denominations.

 

[Albion]

And when did men follow the apostles? At the preaching of the gospel! The Inward Witness convicted them - instantly! This is Direct Revelation!

No, it isn't. As you yourself said, it was the Gospel.

 

[BobRyan]

Religion doesn't make sense - doesn't really work well - without the Inward Witness. For example even if you believe "the gospel" (the basic propositions), by default you're still unsaved! How so? Consider the Mormons, JWs, Jews. They all read the bible and worship "God" - but it's the wrong God!

the mormons argue for the inward witness "the burning in the bosom" that irrespective of what scripture says - tells you that they are right. They each claim to have that.

1 John 4
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. ... 6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Notice that in 1 John 4 - the "test" is specifically not - the "burning in the bosom" of the Mormons or "what you think is ok".

TWO points determine a line. - We have the witness of the Holy Spirit to us in real life, personally AND we have the product of the Holy Spirit "scripture" and when they line up - we know we are listening to "the right spirit".

period.

Where does my maxim ground itself in the burning of the bosom?

I have highlighted your statement above... note the highlighting

 

[JAL]

But the salient point is that you still did not show Paul making your wild assertions as quoted above.

Specifically your claim

1."That epistle was written to refute Sola Scriptura"
2. "Paul was furious about their regression to Sola Scriptura and called them fools for it"

Wild claims where your only source for them "is you" your quote of you.

Paul goes to Arabia for 3 years ... to sort it out. He never preached a "Bible is wrong - Jesus is right" message, nor did Jesus.



The Bible in Col 2:23 talks about what "sounds like" what "has the appearance of wisdom" but is of no value. It is not an argument against wisdom - it is an argument against rejecting scripture and making stuff up that "sounds good to us".



without a doubt.

Gotcha. I didn't "prove" my position apodictally, I didn't prove it 100%. Irrelevant. I can't prove ANYTHING 100% (neither can you). I can't even prove that you exist. What I exposed is the CONTEXT for Paul's assertions, in the Galatian epistle, for the phrase "the hearing of faith" - that context is Abraham hearing the divine Word at the Direct Revelation of Gen 15.

That exegetical analysis is rock-solid and impregnable. When faced with the two possible interpretations of a passage, the RATIONAL thing for the exegete to do is gravitate to the one best fitting the context. You are free to do the opposite. Nothing I can do about it.

In both Romans and Galatians, Paul chose Abraham as the paradigm of faith for all believers! Don't you see why this is significant?
(1) Abraham was a PROPHET! Had Paul WANTED to advocate Sola Scriptura - if he wanted to discourage the pursuit of Direct Revelation - he made a horrible choice of exemplar! Do you think that Paul was this stupid - worse yet that God is that stupid?
(2) Abraham preceded the Bible! Had Paul WANTED to advocate Sola Scriptura, Abraham is again the worst choice! Abraham had no Scripture - he ONLY had the Voice! Again, do you think that Paul was this stupid - worse yet that God is that stupid?

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan

As Louis Berkhoff noted in his Systematic Theology, God appeared to Abraham face to face again and again and again. Abraham was literally the poster child for Direct Revelation - and thus the PERFECT choice for a paradigm.

 

[Albion]

In both Romans and Galatians, Paul chose Abraham as the paradigm of faith for all believers! Don't you see why this is significant?

That's right--Abraham was a model for the importance of faith.

It is not about the trustworthiness of Scripture.

(2) Abraham preceded the Bible! Had Paul WANTED to advocate Sola Scriptura, Abraham is again the worst choice!

Again, a mistaken interpretation. Paul was indeed aware of Scripture and its importance, just as was Christ himself. Jesus often cited Scripture when debating with other people and referred questioners to the Scriptures.

 

[JAL]

No, it isn't. As you yourself said, it was the Gospel.

You're making a distinction without a difference. (Sigh). Again, there are two basic ways of reaching a conclusion:
(1) Exegesis. A careful, prolonged scholarly analysis. No scholar worth his salt accepts the integrity of a document, culture, or religion INSTANTLY - or reaches instant conclusions about it - and then calls his conclusions an exercise in scholarship? Do you NOT understand how seminaries operate?
(2) . The message persuades you (leaves you feeling certain). Why do you feel certain? Two possible reasons:
(A) You're a total idiot or very irrational. You are thus prone to being persuaded unjustifiably and, as such, your acquiescence is an reprehensible ct of foolishness to be disdained rather than applauded.
(B) Supernatural persuasion (otherwise known as Direct Revelation). Supernaturally you were CAUSED to feel certain - and you complied with this impact on your conscience. That IS to be applauded. Clearly, the documented conversions of Scripture fall into this category.

Your only bone of contention here is this:
(1) I call it the work of the Inward Witness.
(2) You refer to it as the work of the Gospel (Scripture)

To which my response is twofold:
(1) For purposes of a debate on epistemology (Direct Revelation vs exegesis) your distinction is irrelevant. In essence it's a distinction without a difference.
(2) The idea that a LIFELESS BOOK has the ability to reach into your heart and supernaturally persuade you appears to be a bogus claim. It definitely has less credibility than the claim that the Holy Spirit accomplishes this persuasion as Inward Witness.

 

[JAL]

That's right--Abraham was a model for the importance of faith.

It is not about the trustworthiness of Scripture.

Empty words, not much specific to go on. Shall we consider the specifics? Paul said that faith cometh by hearing. And Abraham is Paul's favorite example of faith. What passage does Paul point us to, to show us the source of Abraham's faith? What exactly did Abraham hear? Scripture?

"The [divine] Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision [speaking promises]...Abraham believed [the Voice]" (Gen 15).

This was a prophet seeing a vision and hearing the Voice. THAT'S the paradigm. The same thing happened to Paul on the Road to Damascus.

Prior to this point, Abraham was probably having doubts about ever having a son. In the above passage, the Voice promised him a son, helping to eradicate his doubts, and thus stimulate faith. Thus, faith cometh by hearing the divine Word of Direct Revelation.

Now, contrast this with scholars. How many scholars (Jews, JWS, Mormons) read the written Word and yet never achieve biblical faith? Plenty.

 

[JAL]

Paul was indeed aware of Scripture and its importance, just as was Christ himself. Jesus often cited Scripture when debating with other people and referred questioners to the Scriptures.

And that fact lends no substantive support to Sola Scriptura, for reasons covered at post 253.