WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A REBUTTAL

[theoneandonlypencil]

That sword cuts both ways. Obviously you would have posted an exception to the rule if you had one. Clearly you don't.

But even though you're wasting my time on a moot point, I will address your question, or link you to where I've already addressed it. Give me a few minutes...

Or you could stop dancing around the issue and give me an answer, if it's so simple and 'moot'.

 

[JAL]

This teeters on universalism, which is not compatible with scripture whatsoever. If your maxim defines justice, and God would be unjust to dishonor that maxim; what of the tribal people who do not know of God, yet worship other gods? Are they going to be saved? After all, they did what was best to their knowledge; and God was not of their knowledge. That is, except, for the famous line "No one shall come to the father except through me."

If our only judge is conscience, how can Jesus claim that it is necessary to know and obey Jesus? A couple of factors here. First, no one will get to heaven by obeying conscience - only because we're already fallen in Adam (can't discuss Original Sin here, and my version isn't the traditional one). Secondly, a person who is obeying ALL of his conscience would not reject Jesus. How so? Imagine a person on a remote island who has never heard the name Jesus - has no idea who He is. Still, everyone has General Revelation (Romans 1 and 2) which paints a primordial picture of God. This is Yahweh revealing Himself, even if it's not the most crystal-clear portrait conceivable. If he submit to THAT God (who by the way IS Jesus), he will get special revelation, in my view (he'll be born again and will receive the Holy Spirit). Now he has the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation), so if someone comes preaching "Jesus" to him he won't reject it - he will accept it by virtue of the influence of the Inward Witness. In fact he has ALREADY accepted Jesus, not by the five letters J-e-s-u-s, which don't mean much, but because he has now MET Jesus by Direct Revelation. (The Mormons and JW's know the five letters J-e-s-u-s but it does them no good because they've never met HIm).

And this dynamic isn't limited to General Revelation. (In fact it's dubious, given the hardened heart of sinful man, whether General Revelation alone would move a sinner to submit to Yahweh/Jesus). What I'm saying is that most OT saints got saved by the Inward Witness (special revelation) without recourse to General Revelation. In other words, they came to know the Lord - they met the Lord - same way you and I do.

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

Does that answer your question?
Still waiting for one exception to the maxim. (Yawn).

 

[JAL]

Or you could stop dancing around the issue and give me an answer, if it's so simple and 'moot'.

Um...I just did.

 

[JAL]

Or you could stop dancing around the issue and give me an answer, if it's so simple and 'moot'.

Please don't accuse me of dancing. Over the last few days I toiled over a similar thread that ran nigh 500 posts. I've been up all night on this one which is now 225 posts. Every question you've asked me has already been answered on those threads. I'm forced to keep repeating myself.

You've yet to answer MY main challenge to you - show me one clear exception to the maxim - one clear scenario.

 

[JAL]

Honestly, I'm a few replies away from putting this guy on ignore lol.

I'd like to get your take on this post 142.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

If our only judge is conscience, how can Jesus claim that it is necessary to know and obey Jesus? A couple of factors here. First, no one will get to heaven by obeying conscience - only because we're already fallen in Adam (can't discuss Original Sin here, and my version isn't the traditional one). Secondly, a person who is obeying ALL of his conscience would not reject Jesus. How so? Imagine a person on a remote island who has never heard the name Jesus - has no idea who He is. Still, everyone has General Revelation (Romans 1 and 2) which paints a primordial picture of God. This is Yahweh revealing Himself, even if it's not the most crystal-clear portrait conceivable. If he submit to THAT God (who by the way IS Jesus), he will get special revelation, in my view (he'll be born again and will receive the Holy Spirit). Now he has the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation), so if someone comes preaching "Jesus" to him he won't reject it - he will accept it by virtue of the influence of the Inward Witness. In fact he has ALREADY accepted Jesus, not by the five letters J-e-s-u-s, which don't mean much, but because he has now MET Jesus by Direct Revelation. (The Mormons and JW's know the five letters J-e-s-u-s but it does them no good because they've never met HIm).

And this dynamic isn't limited to General Revelation. (In fact it's dubious, given the hardened heart of sinful man, whether General Revelation alone would move a sinner to submit to Yahweh/Jesus). What I'm saying is that most OT saints got saved by the Inward Witness (special revelation) without recourse to General Revelation. In other words, they came to know the Lord - they met the Lord - same way you and I do.

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

Does that answer your question?
Still waiting for one exception to the maxim. (Yawn).

You're right, our conscience is not our only judge; ever heard of a 'seared' conscience?

Your theology has already been done before; with the concept that 'all people are worshipping God, even if they call him another name'. In other words, if I grew up on an island, knew that there was a higher power, but then decided to call him Odin and worship him in ways that do not jive with christianity...then he's saved still. That's not how it works. Nobody comes to the father except through Jesus--if worshipping idols thinking they're God(because you know a God exists, just not who or what it is)is OK, mind explaining to me why idolatry is condemned in the bible and 'Ye shall not have any other gods before me'?

It's also ironic because the 'Divine revelation' you speak of in Romans 1 specifically is the gospel; the gospel that was given to people back in a time where God communicated with directly, to be passed down and spread because you CANNOT BE SAVED WITHOUT THE GOSPEL.

This verse is also from Romans 1:

"32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Does that sound like someone who is secretly going against his own conscience, or is God saying that they're so far gone that they HAVE no conscience?

We need Sola Scriptura because God does not give us 'revelations' the way you imply he does--the way he did back in the biblical days.

Please don't accuse me of dancing. Over the last few days I toiled over a similar thread that ran nigh 500 posts. I've been up all night on this one which is now 225 posts. Every question you've asked me has already been answered on those threads. I'm forced to keep repeating myself.

You've yet to answer MY main challenge to you - show me one clear exception to the maxim - one clear scenario.

You might want to consider that you had so many replies because you're very good at stalling and you don't like to give concise answers(I imagine that's because if you condensed them down to something more understandable, people would recognize it easily as being wrong).

 

[JAL]

Then tell me how an Atheist--or anyone else that is either fully convicted God does not exist and religion is evil/harmful(or even people who worship other gods)will not be judged by God for it.

(1) All men have sinned in Adam (not by the traditional theory of Original Sin, though)
(2) There is no true "atheist" according to Rom 1 and 2. All have General Revelation in their conscience. As I said, conscience rules. To submit to God as revealed in conscience is to submit to Jesus and thus be saved. There is salvation is no name under heaven other than Jesus Christ. That's certainly who saved the OT saints.

 

[chilehed]

What? Are you claiming that the bible is not God's Word

Not at all. I'm pointing out a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. You assume that you know that it is, which begs the question.

Any defense of Sola Scriptura must begin by proving which ancient documents are authentic Apostolic works. You haven't done that, all you've done is adopt the canon that was determined by the Catholic Church whose authority you reject. You can't have it both ways.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You've yet to answer MY main challenge to you - show me one clear exception to the maxim - one clear scenario.

I know this is to somone else but you are dancing around this one that has been addressed in the first section of the OP that you will not address as well as the rest of the OP that shows why you are in error.

 

[JAL]

You're right, our conscience is not our only judge; ever heard of a 'seared' conscience?

Yes. That person is often called a psychopath. Are you advising the psychopath to DISOBEY the maxim? You do realize, don't you, that such would further degrade his behavior, to the maximum extent of evil?

So again, you have no exceptions to the maxim.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

@LoveGodsWord
@Paul James

Neither of you have provided a satisfactory basis for why you believe that Scripture is inspired. Paul James cited 2Tim 3:16-17 but it's invalid (circular) to stand on Scripture's veracity to establish Scripture's veracity. You have to stand on something OTHER than Scripture, and that 'something' (whatever it happens to be) is thus, for you, an authority HIGHER than Scripture because it dictates whether you accept/reject the bible (and dictates whether you accept/reject some other book in its stead). This authority - higher than Scripture - refutes the idea that Scripture is the only final authority.

Thus Sola Scriptura is logically incoherent nonsense.

If scripture is not inspired, we don't have Christianity. Everything you know about God RIGHT now more than likely came from scripture, because it is the only record we have of God. Without scripture, you can't know everything God has done...and therefor will not be able to distinguish God from any other 'voice', right or wrong, you may hear.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Not at all. I'm pointing out a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. You assume that you know that it is, which begs the question.

Any defense of Sola Scriptura must begin by proving which ancient documents are authentic Apostolic works. You haven't done that, all you've done is adopt the canon that was determined by the Catholic Church whose authority you reject. You can't have it both ways.

There is no flaw in my reasoning as it is based on the scriptures you deny. There will be no agreement between us because the doctrines from the Catholic Church teach and promote man made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God and teach these supersede the Word of God. This is simply a disagreement since the times of the reformation I was trying to share with someone else earlier. For me 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 *ROMANS 3:5; Acts of the Apostles 5:29; MATTHEW 15:2-9. There is no salvation outside of the scriptures. Where your post fails is in thinking God is not in control of his Word.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Yes. That person is often called a psychopath. Are you advising the psychopath to DISOBEY the maxim? You do realize, don't you, that such would further degrade his behavior, to the maximum extent of evil?

So again, you have no exceptions to the maxim.

If a psychopath does what he thinks is right(remember, he has a seared conscience and God's 'general revelation' means nothing to him)then God can't judge him no matter how evil he is to him, according to the maxim.

For every time you say 'you have no exceptions to the maxim', I think you yourself miss the entire point of your maxim and what it is contingent on.

 

[JAL]

Your theology has already been done before; with the concept that 'all people are worshipping God, even if they call him another name'.

Nope. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I said that anyone who rejects Jesus (which is most of the world) is not saved. Did you read it carefully?

In other words, if I grew up on an island, knew that there was a higher power, but then decided to call him Odin and worship him in ways that do not jive with christianity...then he's saved still. That's not how it works. Nobody comes to the father except through Jesus--if worshipping idols thinking they're God(because you know a God exists, just not who or what it is)is OK, mind explaining to me why idolatry is condemned in the bible and 'Ye shall not have any other gods before me'?

Where did I say you could bypass Jesus?

Secondly, I said the efficacy of General Revelation is dubious at best. Even if no one gets saved by General Revelation, therefore, it doesn't undermine my theology.

It's also ironic because the 'Divine revelation' you speak of in Romans 1 specifically is the gospel; the gospel that was given to people back in a time where God communicated with directly, to be passed down and spread because you CANNOT BE SAVED WITHOUT THE GOSPEL.

No. You're confusing the intro-part of the letter (where Paul mentions gospel) with his exposition on General Revelation. I'd be willing to wager that 99% of the theologians concur with me on this point.

This verse is also from Romans 1:

"32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Does that sound like someone who is secretly going against his own conscience, or is God saying that they're so far gone that they HAVE no conscience?

That's the maxim. Part of knowing something is feeling certain about it.
Paul is saying that they deserve judgment because they knowingly violate the maxim:

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

These are people opting for A when they know they should have opted for B. Again, the maxim defines justice.

 

[JAL]

If a psychopath does what he thinks is right(remember, he has a seared conscience and God's 'general revelation' means nothing to him)then God can't judge him no matter how evil he is to him, according to the maxim.

For every time you say 'you have no exceptions to the maxim', I think you yourself miss the entire point of your maxim and what it is contingent on.

Um...You can't just skip entire segments of my theology and then charge me with contradiction. All men are guilty in Adam, for starters.

Secondly, your words are empty. You can't sit here and keep pretending to critique the maxim since you LIVE by it. You haven't shown one exception, you haven't even shown how it would be appropriate to advise the psychopath to depart from the maxim.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

(1) All men have sinned in Adam (not by the traditional theory of Original Sin, though)
(2) There is no true "atheist" according to Rom 1 and 2. All have General Revelation in their conscience. As I said, conscience rules. To submit to God as revealed in conscience is to submit to Jesus and thus be saved. There is salvation is no name under heaven other than Jesus Christ. That's certainly who saved the OT saints.

Atheists would be classified as 'unbelievers', which absolutely exist in the bible.

This is literally just another form of universalism, which is 'as long as you do the right thing, you're saved no matter if you believe in God or not', since according to you doing the right this IS believing in God...even if you don't say you believe in God.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Um...You can't just skip entire segments of my theology and then charge me with contradiction. All men are guilty in Adam, for starters.

Secondly, your words are empty. You can't sit here and keep pretending to critique the maxim since you LIVE by it. You haven't shown one exception, you haven't even shown how it would be appropriate to advise the psychopath to depart from the maxim.

Your maxim is flawed and shown why through the scriptures in the first section of the OP. That you will not address.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Nope. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I said that anyone who rejects Jesus (which is most of the world) is not saved. Did you read it carefully?

Where did I say you could bypass Jesus?

Secondly, I said the efficacy of General Revelation is dubious at best. Even if no one gets saved by General Revelation, therefore, it doesn't undermine my theology.

No. You're confusing the intro-part of the letter (where Paul mentions gospel) with his exposition on General Revelation. I'd be willing to wager that 99% of the theologians concur with me on this point.


That's the maxim. Part of knowing something is feeling certain about it.
Paul is saying that they deserve judgment because they knowingly violate the maxim:

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

These are people opting for A when they know they should have opted for B. Again, the maxim defines justice.

I'll say it again; "This is literally just another form of universalism, which is 'as long as you do the right thing, you're saved no matter if you believe in God or not', since according to you doing the right this IS believing in God...even if you don't say you believe in God."

 

[JAL]

If scripture is not inspired, we don't have Christianity. Everything you know about God RIGHT now more than likely came from scripture, because it is the only record we have of God. Without scripture, you can't know everything God has done...and therefor will not be able to distinguish God from any other 'voice', right or wrong, you may hear.

(Sigh). According to Paul we are saved by the same faith as Abraham, who preceded the canon by 400 years.

You are not saved by virtue of reading a book - the Mormons, JWs, and Jews all do the same. You are saved by meeting the Lord.

And no, it is not true that the basis of my beliefs is Scripture. That doesn't make sense - I stand on Scripture as my basis for believing in Scripture? You're dogding the contradiction, not resolving it. Calvin had a better answer - the basis of my beliefs is the Inward Witness (a Direct Revelation) that causes me to feel certain about Scripture, in consonance with the maxim:

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

 

[JAL]

I'll say it again; "This is literally just another form of universalism, which is 'as long as you do the right thing, you're saved no matter if you believe in God or not', since according to you doing the right this IS believing in God...even if you don't say you believe in God."

Misrepresenation. You cannot be saved without faith in Jesus (without knowing Jesus) since He atoned for your sins.

I think your problem is that you don't want to admit that faith is enough. You've put God in a little five-letter box named J-e-s-us, and the problem is that you're not willing to make room for the OT saints who got saved by the faith of Abraham without knowing those five letters.