Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

[concretecamper]

Similarly, there are relatively few Protestant churches that are in communion with each other.

nice try, FALSE

That, however, didn't prevent you from talking as though all were part of some close family simply simply because they are customarily classified as "Protestant."

I did no such thing. Please stick to the topic at hand...geez

Well, by the exact same token, the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches of the East, the Old Catholic churches, the Polish National Catholic church, the SSPX, SSPV, the Armenian Apostolic Church, and others ARE ALL CLASSIFIED AS CATHOLIC.

people claim to be all such things, doesnt mean it's true.

Being in communion with each other--or not--doesn't change anything about this or about what I wrote in the previous post.

we are all still trying to figure out that post.

 

[Albion]

nice try, FALSE

No, it's absolutely true and easily proven. Most of the churches in any given denomination are not in communion with those of other Protestant denominations, and in the case of those that are in communion with some other denomination, it's definitely not with more than one or two out of the many thousands of denominations that exist.

 

[BBAS 64]

This is a straw man. You're arguing against a point I didn't make.

Originally, I wrote "Golly, you're not off to a great start here" but then I realized that you copied that section of your post from Does The Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? – Alpha and Omega Ministries and, I guess, you forgot to cite your source.

That's not a criticism, you understand. Point is tho that the copyrighted page from which you took the bulk of your post uses arguments and point that really don't apply to my post. The problem with doing that whole Copy + Paste Commando bit is when your source is well-written but not applicable. And in this case, it's not applicable. Not to my post anyway.

Maybe you can find some other source or website to copy from to more specifically address my post?

Golly, copypasta in the main part of your post and some passive-aggression at the end of it. I'm impressed!

Yep.. updating my doc with the source.

Thanks... ya got it right?
Ditto I am impressed as well.

In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

and if you could get 100 protestant ministers to agree on what the bible teaches, your post may begin to go somewhere. I'd even venture to say get 5 protestant ministers to agree. The definition you supply fails becasue you are relying on the authority of the individual. It all depends on "I".

Good Day, Concrete Camper

You are speaking about interpretation, it is typical of members of the Roman church conflation of the two.

Sola Scriptura does not address interpretation ... go back and reread it.

In Him,

Bill

 

[concretecamper]

Good Day, Concrete Camper

Sola Scriptura does not address interpretation ... go back and reread it.

In Him,

Bill

I dont have to reread "it". This "version" of SS fails becasue it is up to "I". It is what "I" want to believe. It all has to do with the individual which IMO is silly. Christ was obedient, we should mirror Him, not Martin Luther or Henry VIII.

You are speaking about interpretation, it is typical of members of the Roman church conflation of the two.

its all about interpretation. Take the Episcopal Community for example. Those in Communion with it have wildly different views of the Sacraments and Salvation. This group comprises a large cross section of mainline protestantism within the US. They can't agree on what the bible teaches. Seems so silly to me.

The Catholic Church has 1 Catechism. She teaches 1 faith, not 5 different versions of it. Of course you have people within the Church that do not follow the CCC, but that is a different topic.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Oh lovely. A Rule guaranteed to fail

I respectfullly disagree that Scripture is errant.

I think it is FAR more likely that 7.7 billion people pointing to some individual feeling each has about some private "revelation" each claims to have is far more likely to be errant than God's inscripturated words

You're claiming that a system that guaranteed to fail is better than a system (1) proven to succeed in the past and (2) is by sheer logic a system offering real hope for further success.

This thread isn't about ANY system. Read post 165.

I think what HAS failed in terms of resolving disputed dogmas among us is for each "side" to simply claim that self feels self is right so self is right. Or each self claiming that each self can't be wrong so each self thus is right.

But you claim that the only valid rebuttal to Sola Scriptura would be.....

... some Rule/Norm that is more objectively knowable by all in the dispute than the black-and-white universally knowable words found in the Bible, more accepted by all in the dispute is reliable and truthful in these matters than God's inspired, inscripturated, black-and-white words of the Bible. If you have such an alternative rule/norm, state it. But "how each one feels about what each one claims is a direct subjective relevation" wounldn't be it. Have you studied any of the cults?



.

 

[JAL]

I respectfullly disagree that Scripture is errant.

Strawamn. Who said Scripture was errant? Not I.

I think it is FAR more likely that 7.7 billion people pointing to some individual feeling each has about some private "revelation" each claims to have is far more likely to be errant than God's inscripturated words

You can't escape the veracity of my position - you can only misrepresent it at best.
- (1) For example you're overlooking the fact that feelings of certainty govern us all. For instance, when you research an issue in Scripture, at what point do you become resolute on the issue? I'll tell you when. At the point when you feel certain - a degree of certainty to your satisfaction. And you won't bother to research issues where you already feel certain. Naturally.
- (2) On that note, exegesis won't leave you 100% certain (this is one of its many inferiorities to Direct Revelation) because it is a man-tainted process. For example where do you learn Hebrew and Greek? From a man-made lexicon! Plus exegesis has to start somewhere - hence with man-made assumptions! Because no matter how much you research the issues (context, culture, history, language, etc), the specter of fallibility looms.
- (3) Let's consider again what you said. First of all, you're talking about random, unregulated prophecy - any feelings whatsoever, even if they are at less than 100% certainty. That's a mere caricature of my position. You said:

I think it is FAR more likely that 7.7 billion people pointing to some individual feeling each has about some private "revelation" each claims to have is far more likely to be errant than God's inscripturated words

Basically you're insinuating that prophecy doesn't work. (And those who authored the Scriptures know that it does work). Again, what you should be admitting is, "I don't understand under what conditions it does work."

And it doesn't have to work. Remember, God won't judge you objectively. He will judge you subjectively, based on your subjective experience of, and fidelity to, this one rule:

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

- (4) Apparently Paul opted for the wrong epistemology when he wrote Romans. According to you, he had a much better chance of getting his doctrine right, when he set out to write Romans, if he relied on biblical scholarship, instead of Direct Revelation. He played the part of a fool, evidently. Or maybe we are the foolish ones?

This thread isn't about ANY system. Read post 165.

Strawman. Semantic quibbling.

I think what HAS failed in terms of resolving disputed dogmas among us is for each "side" to simply claim that self feels self is right so self is right. Or each self claiming that each self can't be wrong so each self thus is right.

You're confusing my position with yours. That is YOUR claim. Because:
(1) Sola Scriptura is the position that a Christian has the right to propagate his interpretations of Scripture (his exegesis) simply because he feels certain about it - even if it's less than 100% certainty! There is no objective standard of certainty! If a doctrine "feels right", go for it!
(2) Prophets had to be sure - really sure (100% certain) - after all, if they were in error, they could be stoned for it! Totally different standard.

... some Rule/Norm that is more objectively knowable by all in the dispute than the black-and-white universally knowable words found in the Bible, more accepted by all in the dispute is reliable and truthful in these matters than God's inspired, inscripturated, black-and-white words of the Bible. If you have such an alternative rule/norm, state it. But "how each one feels about what each one claims is a direct subjective relevation" wounldn't be it. Have you studied any of the cults?

Gotcha. Paul played the part of a fool when he wrote Romans. I guess he had never studied any of the cults.

Shall we consider Christ's comparison of the two systems here?
(1) Bible scholarship - the practice of forming chains of reasoning and proofs for the sake of deductively drawing conclusions.
(2) Direct Revelation - the practice of waiting upon God in prayer to hear HIS conclusions, accepted according to the degree one feels certain that God is speaking (preferably 100%).

Which of these two systems did Jesus officially endorse? Bear in mind the following. If system-1 is correct, then Bible scholars would outpace prophets. Meaning, prophets would be stranded in comparative darkness compared to the Bible scholars unraveling all the mysteries of Scripture. But we know for a fact that the opposite is the case, right? Jesus put it like this:

"At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to babes".

You see that word "revealed" ? It's the term used throughout the NT to designate Direct Revelation. A babe lacks sufficient scholarship to evaluate his father's claims. Rather, he accepts his father's voice based on feeling certain of its authenticity and reliability.

Lastly, since you've entirely resorted to erecting strawmen, I want to expose another one. I was very clear that I use exegesis as a temporary crutch (until I become a prophet). Yet your summaries of me are of the caricature, "You want to rely on any random feeling". You go even further than that, by insinuating, "You want to even accept ANYONE'S feelings as truth, such as the feelings of Joseph Smith." Again, I don't care what others CLAIM to feel certain about. What matters is whether I myself feel certain.

 

[JAL]

@CaliforniaJosiah,

Yep, Paul should have studied the cults. I mean,look how foolish he was. On the road to Damascus he threw out 20 years of exegetical conclusions when he heard a voice and saw a vision!!!! What a total idiot!

 

[JAL]

@CaliforniaJosiah,

Don't you accept the doctrine of the Inward Witness? Isn't that why, ultimately, you accept Scripture as inspired? Look, based on the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) an agnostic comes to reach his most monumental conclusions/decisions in life - and that's not an event of the past. Rather the Inward Witness is daily his basis for persisting in those beliefs both during and after conversion. Don't you understand that it 's a logical contradiction to claim both:
(1) Direct Revelation is unreliable. Only exegesis is reliable.
(2) But I daily rest my most definitive religious beliefs on Direct Revelation.

????

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

@CaliforniaJosiah,

Yep, Paul should have studied the cults. I mean,look how foolish he was. On the road to Damascus he threw out 20 years of exegetical conclusions when he heard a voice and saw a vision!!!! What a total idiot!

Irrelevant. Paul on the road to Damascus was given faith by the Holy Spirit. It was not a group of persons, churches and/or denominations in dispute over a dogma they each taught in conflicting ways. They have nothing to do with each other.

But I remind you: We are to present the written Words of God to people - that the Holy Spirit might use such in conversion. We are not instead to tell them to listen to voices during the night and trust that instead. But that's a completely different issue.

Sola Scriptura has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with coming to faith, it has to do with WHAT will be used as the rule/norm in the arbitration of dogmas in dispute. Until you present something MORE universally and objectively knowable to all parties in dispute than the written, black-and-white words of Scripture on the pages of Scripture.... something MORE universally accepted as reliable and authoritative among all parties in dispute than the words we find in Scripture... then you're not even addressing the topic here. If you will reject the Rule of Scripture, then present what is MORE objectively knowable to all in dispute...MORE accepted as reliable in matters of dogma. Otherwise, you have nothing to contribute.




.

 

[ripple the car]

With all due respect, if Sola Scriptura works, why do we have more than simply High Church Lutheranism right now?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Sola Scriptura is the position that a Christian has the right to propagate his interpretations of Scripture (his exegesis) simply because he feels certain about it! There is no objective standard of certainty!

No. That's your position.

Direct Revelation - the practice of waiting upon God in prayer to hear HIS conclusions, accepted according to the degree one feels certain that God is speaking (preferably 100%).

Then Joseph Smith is as correct as you. Then Arius is just as correct as you. Then truth is whatever anyone happens to individually happen to feel it is at this moment, and "truth" is going have 7.7 billion variations to go with the 7.7 billion people on the planet. All different, all correct. Absolute relativism.

Let's say 10 theologians are at the table, each teaching conflicting dogmas on some topic. Each FEELS he alone has some direct divine revelation he feels is from God and such says he alone is right. According to you, each one thus is right. Have you studied any of the cults?

Which of these two systems did Jesus officially endorse?

Well, not really relevant... but He pointed people OVER AND OVER to Scripture. He never once said, "Whatever you feel the supernatural is revealing to you is therefore correct dogma and all who feel differently than you are thus heretics unless they also feel the supernatural has revealed their dogma to them then you are the heretic."

What matters is whether I myself feel certain.

... thus your problem with Sola Scriptura. There it is.

I hold that truth matters, not me. Honestly, I care only a little bit more for how you personally and currently FEEL about dogma than I do about my own feelings. As I stated, if truth doesn't matter, then Sola Scriptura is irrelevant. You simply are confirming that.




.




.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I dont have to reread "it". This "version" of SS fails becasue it is up to "I". It is what "I" want to believe. It all has to do with the individual which IMO is silly. Christ was obedient, we should mirror Him, not Martin Luther or Henry VIII.
its all about interpretation. Take the Episcopal Community for example. Those in Communion with it have wildly different views of the Sacraments and Salvation. This group comprises a large cross section of mainline protestantism within the US. They can't agree on what the bible teaches. Seems so silly to me.

The Catholic Church has 1 Catechism. She teaches 1 faith, not 5 different versions of it. Of course you have people within the Church that do not follow the CCC, but that is a different topic.

I like your posts in this thread.

The bit about "disagreeing Catholics" is a red herring. I can't help thinking that the people who cite the "Cafeteria Catholics" thing believe that they've found some magic gotcha fact when what they're really doing is pointing out for me how well defined Catholic doctrine is that those who reject dogmas set themselves apart from orthodox belief. This type of Catholic believes he has latitude to pick and choose when the very Church he claims to be a member of says he doesn't.

But the average Cafeteria Catholic typically only reject one or two Church dogmas. I'm not saying that's okay but I am saying that disagreeing on a handful of issues is, by numbers, not enough to say they belong to different "denominations". This type of Catholic likely still believes 99% of what the Church teaches. The number of things they disagree on is quite small.

Protestants, however, can't even seem to agree on how mix Kool Aid.

 

[JAL]

Sola Scriptura has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with coming to faith, it has to do with WHAT will be used as the rule/norm in the arbitration of dogmas in dispute. Until you present something MORE universally and objectively knowable to all parties in dispute than the written, black-and-white words of Scripture on the pages of Scripture.... something MORE universally accepted as reliable and authoritative among all parties in dispute than the words we find in Scripture... then you're not even addressing the topic here. If you will reject the Rule of Scripture, then present what is MORE objectively knowable to all in dispute...MORE accepted as reliable in matters of dogma. Otherwise, you have nothing to contribute.
.

You are contradicting yourself. I am talking about the Spirit's role in convicting (convincing) us, and He can do this instantaneously even among those who have never read the Bible. Subjectively, such a person-in-conversion has feelings of certainty. That's all. And by that conviction, he has ALREADY reached conclusions debated by exegetes - in fact the most important ones - before reading the Bible. You're trying to dismiss that as irrelevant - you don't want to START there precisely because it contradicts your disbelief that Direct Revelation - under the right circumstances - CAN be - AND IS - reliable.

You know what's unreliable? Exegesis. You do realize, don't you, that the Inward Witness is what provides some semblance of unity? The major doctrines that we agree on - the Inward Witness convicted us of them BEFORE we read the bible! It's exegesis (on the issues discussed AFTER we got saved) that divides us! Your "norming" project is a complete and utter disaster!

Sola Scriptura has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with coming to faith, it has to do with WHAT will be used as the rule/norm in the arbitration of dogmas in dispute.

False. See above. You're right that the doctrines that are NOT in dispute came from the Inward Witness !!!! Those are the only doctrines not in dispute among us! That's the only norming that actually WORKS - and virtually 100% of evangelical theologians even admit to the Inward Witness! Clearly, you're the odd man out here with all your protests.

Also you are trying to win this debate by engaging in a narrow version of "dogmas in dispute". Dispute by whom? The agnostic who is considering these issues has no idea, initially, whether Mormonism, Judaism, Protestantism, Jehova's Witnesses, etc, has the correct dogma. ALL of it is in dispute, from his standpoint. And it's the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) that resolves these disputes.

You're just contradicting yourself. You're trying to say that Direct Revelation doesn't work. Except it does.

 

[JAL]

Irrelevant. Paul on the road to Damascus was given faith by the Holy Spirit. It was not a group of persons, churches and/or denominations in dispute over a dogma they each taught in conflicting ways. They have nothing to do with each other.

Um yes it was. Everyone in the world is in dispute over all religious issues. On the Road to Damascus, Direct Revelation (the Inward Witness) resolved disputes for Paul personally, as He does for me today. See my last post.

But I remind you: We are to present the written Words of God to people - that the Holy Spirit might use such in conversion. We are not instead to tell them to listen to voices during the night and trust that instead. But that's a completely different issue.

Silly voices in the night? So you've confirmed it - Paul was an idiot in your view, for listening to that silly voice on the Road to Damascus. Or is it your position that, if the voice is heard during the daytime, rather than the night, it's not silly?

Look, you've utterly resorted to strawmen - silly caricatures of my view. Here's my position - AGAIN:

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

There are no possible exceptions to this rule. You LIVE by this rule, as do we all. And now you call it silly? Ridiculous self-contradiction. Again, since that "silly voice" as you call it left Paul feeling certain about Jesus, he had no appropriate response, other than to accept Jesus as Lord. Yet here you insinuate this sort of behavior is inane. You are just calling yourself inane - and showing your whole system inane -because we ALL live by that rule.

Sola Scriptura has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with coming to faith...

Again, making arbitrary distinctions to win the debate. There is no such thing as "coming to the faith" understood as an exclusively past event. Epistemology is daily - it is every day. Suppose you believed, a while back, that the earth is flat. If down the road, your basis for that conclusion is impugned (shown 'silly' to use your term), then your belief is no longer valid TODAY. What I am saying is that we DAILY have a basis for our major beliefs - it is DAILY the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) at work within us - it's not an event of the past. It is TODAY. It is the Rock on which we stand. It is the only norming that ACTUALLY WORKS.

What we all need, therefore, is MORE of it (more Direct Revelation). Certainly our greatest need isn't for things that generally DON'T WORK (like exegesis, which is a total disaster in terms of norming).

 

[JAL]

@CaliforniaJosiah:

At least by exegetical standards, Paul was clear enough that we all need more Direct Revelation. Look at Paul's priorities. Funny you hear a lot about the so-called Great Commission today - and yet the epistles never command the churches to go out and evangelize!!! Here's what Paul DID command the church to do:

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

According to Paul, then, that's what a spiritual man does. Thus a spiritual man is basically a prophetic man, as confirmed at 14:37 - notice how "spiritual" and "prophet" are virtually interchangeable terms here: "If any man considers himself spiritual, or a prophet, let him acknowledge that my commands are from the Lord" (14:37). As Phillip Schaff noted, here Paul is saying that "inspiration won't deny inspiration". The spiritual man is a man characterized by Direct Revelation.

I remind you that Jesus arrived on the scene as The Prophet, on a mission to repudiate all the Sola Scriptura parties (the scholarly exegetes) of his day, with all their false doctrines acquired from scholarship. In that same vein, Paul had his priorities straight:

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

 

[JAL]

Honestly, I care only a little bit more for how you personally and currently FEEL about dogma than I do about my own feelings.

Baloney. You LIVE by the same rule as we all do:

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

There are no plausible exceptions to that rule. You just dislike the fact that it refutes Sola Scriptura. That inviolable rule is why Abraham obeyed the "silly voice in the night" (as you would call it) that commanded him to slaughter his own son. That inviolable rule is why Moses obeyed the "silly voice in the night" (as you would call it) that commanded him to slaughter seven nations to lay hold of Canaan. And obedience to that rule is why Hebrews 11 celebrated both of them for all their silly behavior.

Then Joseph Smith is as correct as you. Then Arius is just as correct as you. Then truth is whatever anyone happens to individually happen to feel it is at this moment, and "truth" is going have 7.7 billion variations to go with the 7.7 billion people on the planet. All different, all correct. Absolute relativism.

Absolute misrepresentation. Again, God judges us by the rule (see above), not on whether we are right. No one here is claiming that truth is relative - and you know it quite well. You've resorted to false caricatures - strawmen - because I've refuted your position.

Who said that Joseph Smith is correct? Not I. Who said that Arius is correct? Not I. That's just a strawman. All I've done is show that feelings of certainty are authoritative - and the only plausible mechanism explanatory of how Direct Revelation (the Inward Witness) can operate successfully.

Let's say 10 theologians are at the table, each teaching conflicting dogmas on some topic. Each FEELS he alone has some direct divine revelation he feels is from God and such says he alone is right. According to you, each one thus is right. Have you studied any of the cults?

Stop telling lies. Where did I assert such nonsense? I specifically stated that God evaluates on our fidelity to the rule:

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

and thus He does NOT grade us on whether we are actually right. Obviously, 10 theologians asserting mutually contradictory views cannot all be correct. The value of my approach, however, is that it provides God an avenue of norming. The Inward Witness succeeds in norming us on the major doctrinal issues by furnishing feelings of certainty. Those who are not privy to this norming remain stranded in darkness disputing amongst themselves all the possible religions, and even disputing the absence of religion (atheism).

 

[JAL]

Let's say 10 theologians are at the table, each teaching conflicting dogmas on some topic. Each FEELS he alone has some direct divine revelation he feels is from God and such says he alone is right. According to you, each one thus is right.

You insinuate that the lack of consensus discredits my epistemology. That sword cuts both ways, right? Picture ten exegetes sitting at a table. They all have different views of a passage. According to you, each one is right.

Thanks for discrediting your own epistemology.

 

[JAL]

@CaliforniaJosiah;

Evidently Paul wasn't the only fool here. Apparently Jesus was a fool as well, since He counseled us to listen to that "silly voice in the night".

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me" (Jn 10:27).

You might want to do a survey of "voice" in the OT. The Hebrew word is qowl, occurs 500 times, always in sonic contexts (no exceptions). The expression "obey my laws" is rarely found in the OT - instead it's almost always "Obey my voice" (about 50 times). Also the word "obey" is also sonic in orientation, it literally means to hearken unto a voice.

Ok so now you have both the incarnate Christ, Paul, and Yahweh all playing the fool - all honoring that silly voice in the night - if we accept your version of the affairs.

 

[JAL]

@CaliforniaJosiah;

Did I forget to mention Peter? My apologies. Based on his understanding of Scipture, Peter had a lifelong habit of shunning the Gentiles. That was his exegetical stance. Then he heard that silly voice in the night - in a vision - commanding him to go preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Based on that vision, he threw his exegetical stance out the window. But as you have insinuated, Peter was playing the fool - evidently he had never studied any of the cults.