Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

[JAL]

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."

So it all applies to you? Here's what it says:

"You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Did you start in Jerusalem? Or was it Judea? Samaria? You were supposed to start in Jerusalem.

Look, my point is that God doesn't play favorites. We are therefore privy, as we mature, to the same KIND (same quality and specificity) of Direct Revelation granted to saints such as Moses. Contrary to your silly arguments, that point hasn't "backfired".

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...

Silly argument, and conspicuously devoid of any exceptions to the Maxim.

We already have infallible revelation. It's called scripture.

Silly point. Exegetes are (incredibly) fallible.

 

[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.



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?




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".



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

Ignored. You've offered no plausible counter-exegesis of Galatians 3.

And as for Acts 17:11 (and all kindred verses), I already addressed them at post 253.

Finally, despite your complaints about "feelings", you've PROVEN yourself unable to find an exception to the Maxim. Not even a scenario from your own life. This proves that you LIVE by the maxim. You honor it in EVERYTHING you do. And then you're going to sit here and blatantly contradict yourself in this debate? Do you have any idea how utterly ridiculous - and irrational - that is?

 

[BobRyan]

I posted this

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"

Ignored. You've offered no plausible counter-exegesis of Galatians 3.

You offer no case against sola scriptura from Galatians 3.. quoting yourself does not count.

Here is you post that I responded to

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?

There is nothing in Gal 3 refuting the testing of all faith and doctrine sola scriptura - by those who have scripture - as you and I do.

And there is no statement by Paul in Gal 3 telling us to dump scripture - in favor of "feelings".

You say in your quote of you (not Paul) "(1) Abraham was a PROPHET!" --

But as we saw in 1 John 4 already those prophets are subject to the teaching and testing of scripture.

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 "inward witness" no matter what scripture says about testing..

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.

the same point made by Paul in Gal 1

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

failing to pass that sola scriptura test - they are to be accursed even if the claim is that "an angel from heaven" came and gave you direct revelation!!

And in Num 12:6 we see that neither you nor I nor anyone we have met in our life time are prophets.

"If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream."

So not even having that level of communication with God you want to dump scripture in favor of ... what?... feelings?

 

[Tradidi]

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

I'd be happy to oblige if only you would clarify which accusation you believe is false. If you follow the link I provided and read Luther's own writings I think you will quickly head for the exit, as have most (if not all) serious protestant scholars by now. Reading Luther's own writings is by far the greatest and most effective antidote to Protestantism.

Please note that, unlike Protestants who consult anti-Catholic literature to learn what to despise in the Catholic Church but who never consult a Catholic theology manual to find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches, what we are talking about here is not some anti-Protestant making up stories about what Luther said or did. We're talking about what the man himself said, in his own words. Even better if you can read it in German — if you can stomach the vulgarity that is!

 

[JAL]

You're lying. You have always previously referred to it as 'rule of conscience', and as recently as 6 days ago...

Um...I STILL refer to it as the "rule of conscience" based on MY understanding of the term conscience. You're missing the point. The point is that the maxim doesn't MENTION the term "conscience" and therefore doesn't stand or fall on anyone's particular definition of "conscience" - the maxim stands on its own two feet without recourse to the correct technical definition of "conscience".

The only reason you Sola-Scriptura advocates seize on the term "conscience" is an act of desperation sprung from an inability to fault my maxim. You hope that you can discredit my theology by raising disputes about conscience. But the maxim doesn't even use that term! That was my point.

Still waiting for you to provide one plausible exception to the maxim...

How long's it been now? Weeks? Months? I've lost track...

 

[JAL]

There is nothing in Gal 3 refuting the testing of all faith and doctrine sola scriptura - by those who have scripture - as you and I do.

Um...yes there is. Abraham accepted the Voice without bothering to "check it out with Scripture". There was no Scripture! That's the paradigm laid out for us in Galatians 3!

Not to mention Paul's own example in Galatians 1. He was steeped in Judaic traditions built on exegesis - until he heard the Voice! Then he IMMEDIATELY abandoned Sola Scriptura !!!!

Sorry, but your decision to ignore the facts of Scripture isn't helping your case.

And there is no statement by Paul in Gal 3 telling us to dump scripture - in favor of "feelings".

Stop contradicting yourself. And stop insinuating lies about my position.

When people stoop to these tactics, it's pretty clear they've long-lost the debate.

 

[JAL]

But as we saw in 1 John 4 already those prophets are subject to the teaching and testing of scripture.

That's a laugh. There is no mention of exegesis or seminary in those passages. Only the Anointing is mentioned.

 

[JAL]

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.

You didn't discredit my logic. Again, Paul converted tens of thousands of people - who didn't have Bibles! Especially not a NT! They had no way of verifying the content of Scripture. Yet they converted instantly due to the Spirit's convicting influence (Direct Revelation). So let's compare these two claims. During conversion:
(1) Direct Revelation (the Inward Witness) is strictly limited to the Spirit saying, "The Bible is inspired". (Of course this information was useless in Paul's day since his audience lacked Bibles).
(2) Direct Revelation is frequently broader than that. The Spirit typically convicts the unbeliever of Christ's Lordship, divinity, crucifixion, resurrection, redemption, judgment seat, heavenly inheritance, and even His Trinity.

Obviously #2 is the better account of the Spirit's saving grace. I don't much care if the Reformers didn't acknowledge this extrapolation. It stands on its own two feet. It makes for an improved usage of the term "Inward Witness" even if you dislike my choice of terminology.

 

[JAL]

Having said this:

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.

It's amazing you overlook the irony of this:

That command was written when the gift of prophecy was still active in the church. In my view it no longer is.

Let me explain the irony. Here's Paul's definition of a church/church-government:

"And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues." (1Cor 12:28).

Any ALTERNATIVE definition of a church/church-government did NOT come from Scripture. So much for Sola Scriptura! The first irony, here, then is that, in this debate, I'm the only one taking Paul at his word. I accept no definition of a church other than Paul's definition.

And, from there, the irony only gets worse. Most theologians would agree that the Mosaic law remained a valid instruction manual for several hundred years. Do they feel the same way about the NT? Typically not. Typically they claim that Paul's definition of a church was only good for about 50 years !!! Apparently God was too stupid to write an instruction manual with any serious longevity! And it still gets worse, because the printing press didn't appear for another 1500 years !!!! So by the time that Paul's words were in circulation, they were already 1400 years out of date!!! My question to you is: just how stupid do you think God is? Just how incompetent and incapable is He, in your view, of producing an instruction manual valid for numerous generations?

I'm sorry you bought into a lie, known as Sola Scriptura, that has moved you to dispense with Paul's (fully charismatic) definition of a church.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

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.

Yep. Good thead and thanks for sharing. Some have tried to make anti-sola scriptura threads here and in other sections of the forum as well which are unbiblical nonsense. If there is no Word there is no faith and without faith it is impossible to please God and whatsoever is not of faith is sin and we receive God's Grace through faith. How sad it is if one has no Word to have faith in when faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

God bless.

 

[Tradidi]

Yep. Good thead and thanks for sharing. Some have tried to make anti-sola scriptura threads here and in other sections of the forum as well which are unbiblical nonsense. If there is no Word there is no faith and without faith it is impossible to please God and whatsoever is not of faith is sin and we receive God's Grace through faith. How sad it is if one has no Word to have faith in when faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

God bless.

Exodus 20:16

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Exodus 20:16

Wonderful scripture, but don't you think it ironic that anti-sola scripture believers try and use scripture to support their teachings? Yet there is no lie in God's Word which has been shared with you and no salvation without it. As posted earlier, if there is no Word there is no faith and without faith it is impossible to please God and whatsoever is not of faith is sin and we receive God's Grace through faith. How sad it is if one has no Word to have faith in when faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. You do know that the above are scripture references right and if so how can they be a lie if they are simply God's Word? As it is written let God be true and every man a liar. According to the scriptures, only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God.

 

[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....

As for your claim that the Inward Witness is strictly limited to the Spirit saying, "The Bible is inspired", here's a seminary professor who begs to differ. He writes:

"Likewise, the Reformers declared that God the Holy Spirit witnessed directly to the heart of the believer giving assurance that that believer is in fact saved, regenerate, and a child of God. Thus was born the doctrine known today as the Witness of the Spirit, or the Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit."
4. The Witness of the Spirit in the Protestant Tradition | Bible.org

 

[BobRyan]

But as we saw in 1 John 4 already those prophets are subject to the teaching and testing of scripture.

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 "inward witness" no matter what scripture says about testing..

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.

the same point made by Paul in Gal 1

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

failing to pass that sola scriptura test - they are to be accursed even if the claim is that "an angel from heaven" came and gave you direct revelation!!

And in Num 12:6 we see that neither you nor I nor anyone we have met in our life time are prophets.

"If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream."

So not even having that level of communication with God you want to dump scripture in favor of ... what?... feelings?

That's a laugh.

We see that response to scripture more and more often these days.

 

[BobRyan]

I posted this

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"

Ignored. You've offered no plausible counter-exegesis of Galatians 3.

You offer no case against sola scriptura from Galatians 3.. quoting yourself does not count.

Here is you post that I responded to

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?

There is nothing in Gal 3 refuting the testing of all faith and doctrine sola scriptura - by those who have scripture - as you and I do.

And there is no statement by Paul in Gal 3 telling us to dump scripture - in favor of "feelings".

You say in your quote of you (not Paul) "(1) Abraham was a PROPHET!" --

But as we saw in 1 John 4 already those prophets are subject to the teaching and testing of scripture.

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 "inward witness" no matter what scripture says about testing..

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.

the same point made by Paul in Gal 1

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

failing to pass that sola scriptura test - they are to be accursed even if the claim is that "an angel from heaven" came and gave you direct revelation!!

And in Num 12:6 we see that neither you nor I nor anyone we have met in our life time are prophets.

"If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream."

So not even having that level of communication with God you want to dump scripture in favor of ... what?... feelings?


==============================

inexplicably that post above - gets this response

Not to mention Paul's own example in Galatians 1. He was steeped in Judaic traditions

As Saul... before getting the scripture info that he then used to evangelize others.

Then he IMMEDIATELY abandoned Sola Scriptura

Nope.

See Acts 17
2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

Bible details matter.

 

[JAL]

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!



failing to pass that sola scriptura test - they are to be accursed even if the claim is that "an angel from heaven" came and gave you direct revelation!!

That's not a "Sola Scriptura" test. As I noted earlier, both OT and NT prophets needed the Spirit to convict (convince) the audience of their message/gospel. Such Direct Revelation establishes OT and NT prophets as the quintessential evangelists. Here Paul's "test" is the same as John's, namely if a spirit (even an angel) comes preaching to you a gospel other than what Direct Revelation (the Inward Witness) has already taught you, let him be accursed.

 

[JAL]

And in Num 12:6 we see that neither you nor I nor anyone we have met in our life time are prophets.

Baloney. Stop telling lies. You know very well that passage lends no support to such a notion.

 

[BobRyan]

I'd be happy to oblige if only you would clarify which accusation you believe is false. If you follow the link I provided and read Luther's own writings I think you will quickly head for the exit, as have most (if not all) serious protestant scholars by now. Reading Luther's own writings is by far the greatest and most effective antidote to Protestantism.

Hardly. Luther's 95 theses formed a key pillar for protestantism. Reading them resulted in defections from Catholicism all across Europe.

His doctrine condemned the teaching on purgatory and indulgences and ultimately the authority of the Popes who were at the time calling each other "antichrist".

Even better if you can read it in German — if you can stomach the vulgarity that is!

Are you saying you are "not able to stomach" reading those 95 theses or that Protestants can no longer tolerate them?

 

[BobRyan]

And in Num 12:6 we see that neither you nor I nor anyone we have met in our life time are prophets.

"If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream."

So not even having that level of communication with God you want to dump scripture in favor of ... what?... feelings?

[/QUOTE]

Baloney. Stop telling lies. You know very well that passage lends no support to such a notion.

You argue that Abraham was a prophet.

The Bible says this --

Num 12:6
"If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream."

So not even having that level of communication with God as would an actual Prophet - you want to dump scripture in favor of ... what?... feelings?

 

[JAL]

Nope.

See Acts 17
2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

Bible details matter.

So if Paul utilized Scripture in a debate, that establishes him as Sola Scriptura? Let's test your logic on a few cases.
(1) JAL utilizes Scripture in debates. That proves he is Sola Scriptura.
Woops already failed on the 1st case. Too bad. Nice try though.

AGAIN: On the Road to Damascus Paul experienced a paradigm-shift. Prior to that point, he walked by Sola Scriptura. AFTER that point, the Voice became an independent authority. No need to "check it out with Scripture". To prove this, consider Moses.

When Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the Voice dictated his writings. That Voice was authoritative. He didn't bother to "test" it against Scripture - there was no Scripture! Similarly, when Paul wrote Romans, he didn't DECIDE on the content, he didn't say, "Well let me replace this line with something else, because it didn't 'check out' against Scripture." The Voice was authoritative.

Bible details matter.

Correct. You forgot to include Moses in your set of details. Hence your position is debunked.