Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

[Albion]

You're making a distinction without a difference. (Sigh).

Sorry, but no. The difference between the Gospel and the whole of Scripture is well-known and is not controversial.

Your only bone of contention here is this:
(1) I call it the work of the Inward Witness.

I referred to you calling it "Direct Revelation."

 

[JAL]

Sorry, but no. The difference between the Gospel and the whole of Scripture is well-known and is not controversial.


I referred to you calling it "Direct Revelation."

I'm not sure you followed my reasoning. Are you debating terminology? Unlike the (rather versatile) term "gospel", the term "Direct Revelation" is especially useful in this discussion because it clearly underscores the distinction between:
(1) Prolonged scholarly research accomplished during four years of seminary mastering Hebrew, Greek, and Amaraic
(2) Instantaneous supernatural persuasion.

Seems like you're trying to misextrapolate my reference to the term "gospel" as to accuse me of contradiction. That's pretty weak. I was merely using the term "gospel" to refer to the occasioning of the preaching, and thus the term was neutral to the debate on epistemology. What was NOT neutral was my emphasis on INSTANTANEOUS conversion which, for reasons stated a couple of posts back, is best explained by Direct Revelation (supernatural persuasion). Hope that helps.

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure you followed my reasoning. Are you debating terminology? .

No. The words and terms in question have certain meanings which almost any dictionary will confirm. The Gospel is the Gospel and Direct Revelation is Direct Revelation, that's all.

I'd say to "let it go at that" except that your POV about the subject matter of this thread seems to depend on your own personal use of those terms.

(continued in next post)

 

[JAL]

No. The words and terms in question have certain meanings which almost any dictionary will confirm. The Gospel is the Gospel and Direct Revelation is Direct Revelation, that's all.

I'd say to "let it go at that" except that your POV about the subject matter of this thread seems to depend on your own personal use of those terms.

(continued in next post)

Um...my position is not so facile as to be undermined by your trivial distinctions of terminology.

Again, if my position is really that facile, your job is simple. Just find me one scenario that clearly warrants departure from the maxim:

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

 

[Albion]

I was merely using the term "gospel" to refer to the occasioning of the preaching, and thus the term was neutral to the debate on epistemology.

I see. But the "Gospel" is the part of the Bible that records Christ's life and ministry.

is best explained by Direct Revelation (supernatural persuasion).

Direct Revelation means a truth revealed to a person by God, directly, as opposed to the truth that any of us can access in the Bible or--as those churches which believe in ongoing prophesy or "Sacred Tradition" as alternate means of instruction from God like to say-- as the church established by Christ sees the matter.

 

[Albion]

Um...my position is not so facile as to be undermined by your trivial distinctions of terminology.

Well, you may call it "trivial" to use the correct references, but it sure makes it harder to appreciate the point you may have been intending to make when it was apparently based on an incorrect principle.

I would be interested to read your perspective if it were presented in another way. Hopefully, you will do that for us.

 

[JAL]

I see. But the "Gospel" is the part of the Bible that records Christ's life and ministry.

Again, it's probably a versatile term. Consider:

"For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it" (Heb 4).

I read this as reference to the gospel preached to OT saints. (I subscribe to a version of Covenant Theology and thus tend to postulate a common gospel spanning both testaments). Consider as well:

"Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you" (Gal 3:8).

Direct Revelation means a truth revealed to a person by God, directly, as opposed to the truth that any of us can access in the Bible or--as those churches which believe in ongoing prophesy...

I'm pretty much fine with that definition, I think. But then you expand it:

or "Sacred Tradition" as alternate means of instruction from God like to say-- as the church established by Christ sees the matter.

No, I personally wouldn't put "Sacred Tradition" under that umbrella. This is not to say that I'm the authority on proper use of terminology. My main goal here, however, is to convey a point of view and I think I can do it well enough despite any imperfections in my terminology. If you're still unclear on how I am using the term "Direct Revelation" feel free to specify which aspects need more clarification.

 

[swordsman1]

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?

No, that is an invalid comparison. The South Korean criminal justice system has no history of falsifying convictions against Christians. And in any case Yonggi Cho's misdemeanors were exposed by the elders of his own church (themselves Christians), not the Korean authorities.

As he has been convicted of fraud, there is a clear question mark over his honesty. Therefore, at best, his claims of direct revelation can only be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

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.

That doesn't mean he was innocent. Yoshiaki Tsutsumi was once the world's richest man, but he was still found guilty of fraud.

(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.

Ignorance of the law is no defence. And if that was his defence it certainly didn't wash with the judge/jury.

(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?

Another invalid comparison. We know David was a true prophet because the Bible says he was. Plus David was honest enough to confess his fleshly temptation, and to genuinely repent of his sin. Can the same be said of Yonggi Cho?

 

[swordsman1]

Don't just assert your point, argue it.

I already have on another thread. But I am happy to repeat the proof that the reformers doctrine of the Inner Witness is nothing more than the conviction that the bible is truly the infallible word of God, and not what you claim it to be....

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. (1.7.4)

Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearths through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as a thing far beyond any guesswork! (1.7.5)


Westminster Confession of Faith

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

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.

Wrong. The term "extra-biblical" is neither an oxymoron nor an invention of sola scriptures proponents. It is a common term that simply means any information given outside of scripture.

What does extra-Biblical mean?

 

[swordsman1]

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.

I suspect everyone else was nodding in agreement with me.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

The doctrine of the Inward Witness is what it is, and nothing more. You arbitrarily claiming it "spills over" to other areas is simply a case of wishing thinking and a desire to butcher the confessions of the reformation to try and make them align with your own bogus theory in an attempt to give it some legitimacy.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

You're lying. You have always previously referred to it as 'rule of conscience', and as recently as 6 days ago...
WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.

The terms 'evil' and 'good' gives the game away. Shunning evil is exactly what the human conscience tells us to do. So of course I agree with it, the conscience it is an undeniable fact of every human life. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with receiving direct revelations from God.

 

[swordsman1]

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

Strawman fallacy. You're arguing against a point I didn't make. I was addressing your interpretation of 1 John 2:27 which you have failed to answer; not metaphysics, Platonism, or any other straw man you wish to erect and ignite.

 

[Tradidi]

Here comes a grenade!

But a helpful conversation, I believe.

I've seen many people take issue around these forums with sola scriptura - not just Catholics, but even non-traditional Protestants (for want of a better term).

Something that I've been exploring and that has been hugely helpful is understanding that the "Word of God" is not primarily the same thing as the Bible. The Word of God is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and (of course) you find that in the Bible but difficult parts of the Bible ought to be interpreted through the gospel.

The distinction is helpful (and I would argue, true) for many reasons, but when we're dealing with sola scriptura, I want to quote an article at biblicaltraining.org that talks about Luther's understanding of the "Word of God" and how he used that understanding to form a sola-scriptura outlook, and how he defended that against critics.

"We need to recognize that the notion that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself allowed Luther to respond to the main objections Catholics raised to his doctrine of the authority of Scripture over the Church. They argued that since it was the Church that determined which books to be included in the Canon of Scripture it was clear that the Church had authority over the Bible. Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church. Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."

Full article (for more context and interest) here: Free Online Bible Classes | What was Martin Luther's theology of the Word of God?. It's not a long read.

Oh what a great light to the nations you are holding up! Luther, the apostate monk who after having rejected the authority of the Church, went on to consult and accept the authority of the Devil, ended up accepting as the only and final authority his own ever changing, baseless and simply idiotic opinions and fantasies, and to demand under pain of excommunication that everyone else accept him as the only final and infallible authority as well.

And that's the man whose opinions you find useful?!

Well, while you're onto a winner, keep going. Here's a few more of Luther's weird and wonderful opinions the blind may find useful: Luther's own statements..

 

[swordsman1]

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.

We are not Moses either.

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!

If the "you" in John 16:13 refers to all believers, then according to your logic....

• We can all foretell the future (the very same verse)
  
  
• We still have Jesus physically in our company (verse 16)
  
  
• We will all soon abandon Jesus (verse 31)
  
  
• We will shortly enter a time of grief (verse 20)
  
  
• We are still waiting for the Holy Spirit to arrive (verse 6)
  
  
• We will soon be expelled from the synagogue (verse 2)

They are all part of the same discourse in the upper room, and demonstrates how utterly ludicrous your suggestion is.


Your attempt to trap me with the Great Commission has also backfired... Jesus extends it to all believers in Matthew 28:20, "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

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."

That command was written when the gift of prophecy was still active in the church. In my view it no longer is. I'm sure you disagree, so for argument's sake let's presume it is still active today. Where in scripture is prophecy ever described as receiving a direct revelation via a "feeling"? According to scripture anyone who makes prophecies from such a subjective source is a false prophet...

Jeremiah 23:16. This is what the Lord Almighty says: “Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord."

Therefore there is no acceptable margin for human error and hence we need to seek infallible revelation.

We already have infallible revelation. It's called scripture. Any other supposed revelation today is fallible, especially subjective thoughts and feelings - they are the greatest of liars.

"He who trusts in his own heart is a fool" (Prov.28:26)

"My thoughts are not your thoughts" (Isa 55:8)

"The heart is deceitful above all things" (Jer 17:9)

 

[BobRyan]

Oh what a great light to the nations you are holding up! Luther, the apostate monk who after having rejected the authority of the Church, went on to consult and accept the authority of the Devil, ended up accepting as the only and final authority his own ever changing, baseless and simply idiotic opinions and fantasies, and to demand under pain of excommunication that everyone else accept him as the only final and infallible authority as well.

aside from false accusations did you have a point you wanted to make?

Various theologians—especially the Jesuit St. Robert Bellarmine—attacked the doctrinal positions of the Protestant reformers, but there was no one to rival the theological and moral engagement evident in the writings of Luther or the eloquence and passion characteristic of the works of John Calvin. Roman Catholics tended to emphasize the beliefs and devotional subjects that were under direct attack by the Protestants—e.g., the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary, and St. Peter. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (“Index of Forbidden Books”) was established in 1559 in an attempt to combat the spread of some of the writings of the Protestant Reformation.
Counter-Reformation | Summary, Facts, & Significance

 

[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.

Gotcha. I didn't "prove" my position apodictally, I didn't prove it 100%.

You didn't even prove it with a quote from Paul making any of the wild statements you claimed "for him" when quoting yourself. Even though repeatedly asked for some source "other than yourself" for the claims you made.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"?? seriously?

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!

On the contrary.

The only way the reader has any reference/context at all for Paul's statements about Abraham is ... that... they ... have ... (wait for it)... s c r i p t u r e !!!

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO" Acts 17:11.

The point remains regarding feelings over scripture not being a reliable rule for arriving at correct doctrine.

Paul give no example at all of someone having scripture and then setting it aside for the sake of "feelings".

Do you think that Paul was this stupid - worse yet that God is that stupid?

nope ... hence my attention to "details" not merely "feelings"

 

[JAL]

I already have on another thread. But I am happy to repeat the proof that the reformers doctrine of the Inner Witness is nothing more than the conviction that the bible is truly the infallible word of God, and not what you claim it to be....

Why this strawman? Again, I didn't debate the technical definition. I rather complained about your unwillingness to extrapolate it. You still haven't discredited my extrapolation.

And your point is moot. Regardless of how narrow is that technical definition of the Inward Witness, it is empirically evident that salvific Direct Revelation is broader in scope. Even Charles Finney's revival allegedly converted tens of thousands per week - how effective do you suppose Paul was. Paul's audience didn't have Bibles (and certainly not a New Testament). They had no proof of what the Bible says or does not say. They accepted what Paul said based on the power of Direct Revelation.

Again, this is how prophetic ministry works. The OT prophet would frequently have been useless if the Spirit didn't convict (convince) the audience that God is speaking. That's why the NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).

To summarize, here's your big monumental case against me. You accuse me of using the term Inward Witness more broadly than the technical definition. So? And? Is that all you've got?

Wrong. The term "extra-biblical" is neither an oxymoron nor an invention of sola scriptures proponents. It is a common term that simply means any information given outside of scripture.

What does extra-Biblical mean?

Different assumptions. We're talking past each other. I can't address all possible religious concepts. I'm addressing evangelicals. Most of them agree with me that the Holy Spirit illuminates the human mind. In some sense He helps to EXPLAIN the verses instead of merely REPEATING them verbatim. Once that point is conceded, EVERYTHING (every possible topic on planet Earth) is biblical and therefore "extra-biblical" is an oxymoron. The definition you linked to is simply defining extra-biblical as any words that are not strictly a bible-verse. Totally irrelevant.

 

[JAL]

No, that is an invalid comparison. The South Korean criminal justice system has no history of falsifying convictions against Christians. And in any case Yonggi Cho's misdemeanors were exposed by the elders of his own church (themselves Christians), not the Korean authorities.

As he has been convicted of fraud, there is a clear question mark over his honesty. Therefore, at best, his claims of direct revelation can only be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

There is a clear question mark over EVERYONE's integrity. Ever heard of the sinful nature? And I take everyone's claims of direct revelations with a huge pinch of salt. But in my opinion he's still the most successful pastor in church history. You're free to discard his huge track record, but consider this:

Many parents would happily trade their right arm, or goto jail, to save their kids. That's apparently what this man did. You can sit there and keep throwing stones, but meanwhile I'll repeat what I said: "Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone."

That doesn't mean he was innocent.

Nor does it mean he was guilty.

Ignorance of the law is no defence.

Um yes it is. God's standards are better than those of men. God knows we can't all be attorneys. He has the final say whether we were negligent - not the courts. Just because the courts convict us, doesn't prove we're guilty in God's sight.

My theology doesn't stand or fall on Yonngi Cho. It's not so facile. Is that all you've got?

BTW, Charles Finney was the greatest American revivalist - he literally changed the course of American history, per my secular history book in college. He relied on basically the same technique as Yonggi Cho - he waited in prayer and fasting for the "assurance" of the Holy Spirit, as to guide his evangelistic endeavors.

 

[JAL]

Strawman fallacy. You're arguing against a point I didn't make. I was addressing your interpretation of 1 John 2:27 which you have failed to answer; not metaphysics, Platonism, or any other straw man you wish to erect and ignite.

Um...That's what I responded to. Your failure to connect the dots isn't really my problem.