WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A REBUTTAL

[theoneandonlypencil]

(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".

The maxim is another form of universalism, I disagree with the majority of calvinistic teachings, and God is the basis of scripture because scripture is a recording of God's word. He does not communicate with us the way he did back then, and since scripture is the last 'to date' recording we have of his word, that's why I will go off of. Not my faulty conscience or a wackjob with a revelation that he claims is from God.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

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.

If I didn't have the bible, I wouldn't know WHO to have faith in. Look bud, I'm not as lucky as the OT saints who literally had a constant audible voice that myself and others could hear who could literally punish me at any moment for doing something wrong.

 

[JAL]

The maxim is another form of universalism, I disagree with the majority of calvinistic teachings, and God is the basis of scripture because scripture is a recording of God's word. He does not communicate with us the way he did back then, and since scripture is the last 'to date' recording we have of his word, that's why I will go off of. Not my faulty conscience or a wackjob with a revelation that he claims is from God.

The maxim is another form of universalism? You disagree with the maxim? You LIVE by it. You cannot show me one scenario to the contrary. So enough of this incessant contradiction.

 

[JAL]

If I didn't have the bible, I wouldn't know WHO to have faith in. Look bud, I'm not as lucky as the OT saints who literally had a constant audible voice that myself and others could hear who could literally punish me at any moment for doing something wrong.

Even after reading, say, Num 12:6-8, you'd say that all the OT saints had an incessant, clear, audible voice?

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

The maxim is another form of universalism? You disagree with the maxim? You LIVE by it. You cannot show me one scenario to the contrary. So enough of this incessant contradiction.

The maxim is subjective. Truth is not. Drop it.

Even after reading, say, Num 12:6-8, you'd say that all the OT saints had an incessant, clear, audible voice?

Are you really going to debate that when THIS was in the verse;

"With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” "

My bad--he didn't just speak in a clear audible voice, he also spoke face-to-face. Still seems more reasonable than a 'fuzzy image' of God.

I'm going to drop this discussion--I'm tired and you aren't bringing anything new to the table, so you can have fun trying to dismantle sola scriptura until you die someday I guess lol.

 

[chilehed]

There is no flaw in my reasoning as it is based on the scriptures you deny.

Rather, there is a flaw in your reasoning because it is based on the canon which was determined by the Catholic Church, whose authority you deny.

Like it or not, you and I both believe the New Testament documents were written by the Apostles because the Catholic Church said that they were. That's the ONLY reason we believe it, and that completely cuts the idea of Sola Scriptura off at the root.

Sola Scriptura CANNOT be true, because without the witness of the Catholic Church we have no way to identify which documents are Apostolic and which ones are not.

Why I reject sola scriptura

 

[JAL]

Your understanding of salvation is implausible. You say:

If I didn't have the bible, I wouldn't know WHO to have faith in.

Dead wrong. Exegesis doesn't supply that information. The feeble human mind - no matter how well versed in Scripture - cannot properly conceive, on its own, an ineffably holy God - it will only worship the wrong God (a conceptual idol). That's precisely the plight of the Mormons, JWs, and the modern Jews. You need a Direct Revelation to be saved - He has to show you a picture of Himself, even if it's not crystal clear like the visions seen by the prophets. This is what it means to meet the Lord. And some noted scholars confirm this point. For example:

(1) Gordon Fee considered it exegetically undeniable that 2Cor 3:18 ascribes a literal beholding of Christ for all believers. This claims spills into chapter 4 where Paul says:

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ" (2Cor 4).

Again, that passage was just a followup on what Paul had already asserted in the previous chapter:

"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit (2Cor 3:18).

All this is Direct Revelation. You do realize that, don't you?

(2) Here's another example of an evangelical scholar: This, said Vincent, is the "new vision of the new man. He sees not only God, but the kingdom of God" (Vincent’s Word Studies on John 3:5) because "the new birth imparts a new vision" (Ibid., on Jn 3:11).

(3) John Calvin rightly opposed all anti-revelatory attempts to explain away John 16:16, concluding that "Christ wishes to be seen by us" (Calvin’s Commentaries on John 16:16). Likewise Calvin stated of 14:19 that the Spirit enables believers to always "behold him" by means of a "secret beholding of Christ" (ibid).

 

[JAL]

The maxim is subjective. Truth is not. Drop it.



Are you really going to debate that when THIS was in the verse;

"With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” "

My bad--he didn't just speak in a clear audible voice, he also spoke face-to-face. Still seems more reasonable than a 'fuzzy image' of God.

I'm going to drop this discussion--I'm tired and you aren't bringing anything new to the table, so you can have fun trying to dismantle sola scriptura until you die someday I guess lol.

You're missing the CONTRAST. Even the other PROPHETS, according to the passage, didn't hear the same clear voice that Moses heard. Much less the average OT saint!

 

[JAL]

The maxim is subjective. Truth is not. Drop it.

Doesn't matter whether it is subjective. You LIVE by it. You can postulate no exceptions to it, not even hypothetical situations.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

You're missing the CONTRAST. Even the other PROPHETS, according to the passage, didn't hear the same clear voice that Moses heard. Much less the average OT saint!

Dude, I simply do not have the time or energy to undo the mess you've tangled yourself up in or explain all of your bad methodology as it happens. If you want to believe your 'direct revelation' is the way to go, by all means, be my guest; but do not expect me to simply accept it as truth when what has been 'revealed' to me is the opposite of what you say.

Cheers.

 

[JAL]

Dude, I simply do not have the time or energy to undo the mess you've tangled yourself up in or explain all of your bad methodology as it happens. If you want to believe your 'direct revelation' is the way to go, by all means, be my guest; but do not expect me to simply accept it as truth when what has been 'revealed' to me is the opposite of what you say.

Cheers.

All you've done is confirm MY claim of an irrefutable maxim - which refutes YOUR stance, indicating that it is YOU caught in a tangle.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

All you've done is confirm MY claim of an irrefutable maxim - which refutes YOUR stance, indicating that it is YOU caught in a tangle.

perhaps you should abide by your own signature;

'These are just my opinions, not "the facts." '

I've tried explaining many times why your maxim doesn't work, and each time you come up with another scrambled wall of ramblings that just creates more theological issues I have to clear up with you before we can get back to the main point. I'm putting you on ignore now. Goodbye.

 

[JAL]

perhaps you should abide by your own signature;

'These are just my opinions, not "the facts." '

I've tried explaining many times why your maxim doesn't work, and each time you come up with another scrambled wall of ramblings that just creates more theological issues I have to clear up with you before we can get back to the main point. I'm putting you on ignore now. Goodbye.

You LIVE by that maxim. Therefore anything negative commented by you is pure hypocrisy.

 

[JAL]

The maxim is subjective. Truth is not. Drop it.

Any human experience is called subjective experience, or subjectivity. The fact that the maxim has some relevance to human experience (subjectivity) doesn't divest it of all objective truth. On the contrary, it is tautologically true, as noted several times, because it defines justice. Meaning you shouldn't punish someone if he does what is right to the best of his knowledge, which is what the maxim means.

The maxim is indeed objective truth, therefore.

 

[com7fy8]

JOHN 8:31-32 [31], Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, IF YOU CONTINUE IN MY WORD THEN YOU ARE MY DISCIPLES INDEED AND YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

JESUS is the living Word of God and His Word is the light of the world. There is NO ILLUMINATION outside of Gods' WORD which is the LIGHT of the WORLD.

And His word says >

"the Spirit is truth" in 1 John 5:6.

And Jesus says He is "the light of the world." (John 8:12)

And Jesus Himself says we in Jesus are "the light of the world" (in Matthew 5:14).

 

[lsume]

Hi all here is a 16 point rebuttal from another thread I thought best posted here as it would otherwise get lost for those interested. The reply will be made over a few posts. What are your thought? Do you believe Gods' Word is the guide of Christians?

................

16 POINT REBUTTAL OF THE MAIN ARGUMENT IN Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

Let's see about your claims and bring everything to the light of God's Word. As it is written 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 3:4 and again in JOHN 3:20-21
[20], For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. [21], But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are worked in God. Please if you disagree with any of the scriptures provided here that prove why your claims are in error, please prove why you disagree.

There are only no conceivable exception if you do not believe the scriptures. Where point one falls down and can be dismissed right away is that there is only one standard for GOOD and EVIL; SIN and RIGHTEOUSNESS and that is the Word of God given through God's 10 commandments *ROMANS 3:20; ROMANS 7:7; 1 JOHN 3:4; PSALMS 119:172. If we break anyone of them we stand guilty before God of sin *JAMES 2:10-11. Sin which is defined in Gods' Word is not believing God's Word *ROMANS 14:23 and breaking anyone of God's 10 commandments *JAMES 2:10-11; 1 JOHN 3:4. Breaking God's commandments from the heart is also defined in the scriptures or the Word of God as "Evil" in MATTHEW 15:19 see also GENESIS 6:5. So the point here? It is the Word of God alone (Sola scriptura) that gives us the knowledge of what good and evil; Sin and righteousness is. Outside of God's Word we do not know what sin is or have no knowledge of what sin is. This is why it is written in the scriptures in JAMES 4:17 [17], Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin and again in Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31 [30] And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to repent:[31], Because he has appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has ordained; whereof he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead which links to ROMANS 7:7 [7], What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law (Word of God): for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet (refering to EXODUS 20:17). The scriptures teach "FAITH comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *ROMANS 10:17. If we are saved by God's GRACE THROUGH FAITH *EPHESIANS 2:8-9 how then can you have FAITH which is needed for God's salvation *JOHN 3:16-21; EPHESIANS 2:8-9 when you have no Word?
- Point 1 falls over....

God's Word teaches that before the written word of God given to ISRAEL at Mt Sinai, there was the Spoken Word of God (GENESIS 3:1-3; 9; 11-19 8:15; 9:8; 24:7; 31:11 etc). After the written Word of God, sometimes God provides direct revelation of His Word to those who he sends as prophets and messengers to His people. This is biblical where your argument here in point 2 falls down we are also told in the scriptures that there will be many false prophets and teachers that God has not sent even showing great signs and wonders that if it were possible could deceive Gods' very elect *MATTHEW 24:24; JEREMIAH 14:4; MATTHEW 24:11; LUKE 6:26; 2 PETER 2:1. We are told in 1 JOHN 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. How then do we try the Spirits to see if they are of God or not? JESUS says the WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIGHT *JOHN 6:63.
God's Word is the very source of truth and tells us if someone has been given a direct revelation from God or not as it is written again; To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them *ISAIAH 8:20 and again And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that said, I know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him *1 JOHN 2:3-4. If there is no Word of God there is no standard has been given a direct revelation from God or not.
- Point 2 falls over....

Well this one is the easiest one of all to refute as it is the scriptures alone that show that conversion and salvation is the word of God alone we we believe and follow his Word *EPEHSANS 2:8-9; JOHN 3:16-21 etc. There is actually too many scriptures here that disagree with your teachings for example EPHESIANS 1:13 In whom you also trusted, AFTER THE YOU HEARD THE WORD OF TRUTH, THE GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION: in whom also after that you believed, you were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise. We are told in the scriptures that we are saved by God's GRACE THROUGH FAITH.. *EPHESIANS 2:8. Now if our salvation and conversion is by BELIEVING God's Word and faith comes by hearing and hearing comes only by the Word of God *ROMANS 10:17. How can you have conversion when there is no Word?
- Point three comes crashing down....

To be continued...

The Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword.
God’s Word is power.
Matt.4

1. [4] But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God

 

[Paul James]

Indeed, your pushing Catholic doctrines that are not biblical are you not? Can't cut through the scriptures dear friend they are the light that reveals darkness *JOHN 3:16-21.

Oh! I didn't know that the "direct revelation" as part of Catholic doctrine.
So that means when the Pope gets into the Chair of Peter and gets a "direct revelation" for the Church, he gets it directly for Jesus as well? What if the Pope's "direct revelation" contrasts with our friend's "direct revelation", what then? Bears thinking about...

 

[Paul James]

How do you know the Jesus you believe in is the real Jesus? Does it matter to you what He looks like?

There are hundreds of millions of stories of Jesus Himself bringing a person to Himself. Did He call you? Or did you study your way to Him?

The Christian body would look quite awful with everyone doubting each others salvation.

Brother Yun talks of how the church in China thrived without a Bible. Phillip Yancey said of China,
"They had no one to teach them, no printing presses, no seminaries, no one to run their clinics and orphanages. No resources, really, except the Holy Spirit.” It appears the Holy Spirit did just fine. (See here for the full article).

We are not in the same situation. We have the Bible, and everything we need to know about God and His plan of salvation is there for us. Anyhow, I had a friend in my church who in her younger days used to smuggle Bibles into China. Why should she have risked her freedom, perhaps her life doing that when all Jesus needed to do was give the Chinese Christians "direct revelation"?

 

[Albion]

Sola Scriptura CANNOT be true, because without the witness of the Catholic Church we have no way to identify which documents are Apostolic and which ones are not.

If you are referring to the canonization of the Bible, then we can quickly dispose of that favorite myth of many Roman Catholics that their denomination and it only created the Bible. Most Christian churches descend from the "Undivided Church" of the first few centuries before the well-known schisms occurred. That being the case, they're all inheritors today of the codified Holy Scriptures that come to us from that time period.

And if, by chance, you were including as "documents" the various Papal edicts, church councils, and the like, they aren't what Sola Scriptura is about anyway. Obviously not.

 

[Paul James]

Realization? You mean guessing game, right? What possible written material could prove to Abraham:
(1) That the written material itself is a true work of God
(2) That the Voice speaking to him was NOT that of deceiver
(3) That it was always the same voice, and thus never an impostor. I mean, wouldn't he likely suspect an impostor when it told him to go kill his own son?

You're not formulating a system that actually works. As I noted earlier, neither you nor LoveGodsWorth is providing a system that provides a viable solution to quandaries such as these:
(1) How does one know himself to be a prophet?
(2) If one hears a voice that speaks a foretelling, how can he test the voice?
(3) Is a prophet supposed to accept every voice? If not, how can he reliably decide/distinguish between them?

How do we know that Abraham heard a voice? We are told that God spoke to him, but we are not told how. If Abraham was a pagan Gentile, living in Ur of the Chaldees, whose family worshiped pagan gods, then how would he know that what was communicated to him was actually the Living God? We are not given that background information, so any theory about how God spoke to him, or whether he knew about God already, has to be guesswork and speculation.

Also, when God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, He wrote it down in His own handwriting so that Moses had a written record of them. Also, for a long time in Israel, the written Law was not consulted, and so the people, using "direct revelation" went after Baal, the fertility god of the Canaanites, who obviously must have a voice. But a young king discovered a copy of the Law in a cupboard in the Temple, read it, and realised through what was written in the Law that everyone were listening to the wrong "revelations" and so he had the Law read to the whole congregation, and there was a revival back to God. That revival was through the reading of the written Law and exposed the "revelations" coming from the pagan god were false.

You need to read Ezekiel, who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, prophesied about false prophets who got "direct revelations" but in reality were just dreaming them up from their own heads and the Lord never spoke to them. This shows us that not all direct revelation comes from God, and much of it is dreamed up; and if there is no foundation test medium to determine what comes from God or not, then we wouldn't know whether the revelation is true or false.