WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A REBUTTAL

[Paul James]

Name ONE scenario that clearly calls for departure from the maxim. You cannot. This means you LIVE by the maxim, so don't go trying to tell me that it's a faulty maxim.

The problem with having your own determination of what is good or evil is that you become your own god; just like what Satan said to Eve in the garden - that if she ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil she would become like God, knowing good from evil and wouldn't have to trust God's judgment for them.

That is why I am happy to allow the Bible, which is God's inspired communication to me, to determine what is right or wrong. The problem is not the Bible itself, but many deciding that they don't want to accept the literal text, and they decide on "spiritual" interpretations that makes them feel more comfortable; because the literal text challenges who they want to be and what they want to do, so they come up with "direct revelations" that suit their own view of what they want their own Christianity to be, when the literal text of the Bible might be saying something quite different.

We have 25,000 Greek manuscripts of the Bible, dating back to the 4th Century, and they all say the same basic thing. So the notion that the Bible is tainted by man is a misnomer. As I said, man's interference with the Bible is his unwillingness to accept the literal text as it is written, and wants to read into it what is not there and ignore what is actually there. So the tainting of man involves reading stuff into the Bible to suit himself.

 

[Paul James]

I gave you two examples of where your maxim is flawed, and even explained how it correlates to universalism; a belief that is highly contradictory to the bible.

It is an example of making the Bible read how he wants it to read, rather than just accepting the literal text that is really there. Notice that our friend is spending more time "shooting down" those of us who disagree with him, rather than presenting substantive evidence supporting his notion of "direct revelation" instead of dependence on the literal text of the Bible.

 

[Paul James]

Really? Your only ignoring this question because it is based on fact. What do you think the reformation was over? The reformation was based on the Catholic Church not following scripture and teaching that man made traditions supersede the Word of God.

That's right, and those traditions came from "direct revelation" while the Pope was in the Chair of Peter. This is because Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and has direct communication with Christ that the ordinary Church member has not, so in their view, Jesus has to speak to the people through the Pope while he is in the Chair of Peter.

I am not knocking the Catholic Church here - just reflecting my own opinion about it. It is the same thing when a Charismatic prosperity preacher says that he is preaching from "direct revelation" from the Holy Spirit to the people and because the people trust the preacher, they accept it. It is also the same when a "prophet" gets up and says, "This is what the Lord is saying to me ("direct revelation"). It is very difficult for many to refute what is being said in such a prophecy, because it would seem they are opposing the Holy Spirit, when in reality, it is the "prophet's" own spirit speaking and he is usurping the authority of God to cause people to believe the prophecy.

 

[Paul James]

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

And it is all written down in the Bible as a permanent record for us.

 

[Paul James]

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.

That's right. The basic canon of Scripture, with a couple of exceptions, was in place by 250AD. It is interesting that the book of James was not originally accepted because it seemed too "Jewish" to contain sound Christian doctrine. I find that interesting because those who hold to a faith/works salvation, depend on James as their support for it.

 

[Paul James]

Direct Revelation doesn't "supsersede the Scriptures" - it DOES, however, have the power to challenge my fallible interpretations of them. I have no direct access to "the Scriptures" but only to my fallible translations and intepretations of them.

Direct Revelation challenges my fallible interpretations by causing me to feel certain that my previous understanding of the Bible was incorrect. This imposes a moral obligation per the maxim:

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

Example. Paul had an incorrect understanding of Scripture - for 20 years he believed that the Messiah would liberate captive Israel. That's why he couldn't imagine that Jesus was the Messiah. Then on the Road to Damascus, a Direct Revelation challenged his fallible interpretation. In a single flash of light, He jettisoned 20 years of studying the written Word - he threw it all out the window.

The answer to misinterpretation of Scripture is to just read the literal text as it is written and just believe it without trying to read stuff into it that isn't clearly stated in the text.

 

[Paul James]

Direct Revelation doesn't "supsersede the Scriptures" - it DOES, however, have the power to challenge my fallible interpretations of them. I have no direct access to "the Scriptures" but only to my fallible translations and intepretations of them.

Direct Revelation challenges my fallible interpretations by causing me to feel certain that my previous understanding of the Bible was incorrect. This imposes a moral obligation per the maxim:

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

Example. Paul had an incorrect understanding of Scripture - for 20 years he believed that the Messiah would liberate captive Israel. That's why he couldn't imagine that Jesus was the Messiah. Then on the Road to Damascus, a Direct Revelation challenged his fallible interpretation. In a single flash of light, He jettisoned 20 years of studying the written Word - he threw it all out the window.

And yet he used the written Scriptures when he preached to the Jews in their synagogues, and showed them Jesus through them. He didn't throw the written Scriptures out the window - what he threw out were the inaccurate notions that people were reading into the Scripture that were not clearly expressed in the literal text.

 

[chilehed]

Most Christian churches descend from the "Undivided Church" of the first few centuries before the well-known schisms occurred.

Yeah, that'd be the Catholic Church. Most other denominations didn't exist at all prior to the Protestant Reformation, but that's not relevant to my point. Whatever name you care to give to the Church of the earliest centuries of Christianity, the only reason that we are able to indentify which documents are Apostolic is because that Church recognized them as such.

... they're all inheritors today of the codified Holy Scriptures that come to us from that time period.

Yes. Codified by the Church that Christ established. Sola Scriptura cannot be true, because you can't identify what documents are Apostolic apart from the authority of the Church which was able to identify them as such.

 

[Paul James]

Exegesis is man-made interpretations of Scriptura. When it's used to dictate religious behavior, it INEVITABLY leads to man-made traditions. Jesus walked in Direct Revelation and thus in liberation from all those self-imposed burdens.

Exegesis is merely determining the intention of the author and how the readers of his time understood what he wrote. In this we have to be conversant with the culture, religion and history of the time, and the context in which the passage is contained. Because there are major differences between First Century culture and our own, we make mistakenly read into New Testament Scripture things according to our own times and culture, when having a better understanding of the culture in which it was written, gives us a better indication of why the author wrote what he wrote. This is not "imposing man's interpretation" on Scripture, but having a better understanding of the life and times of the author and his readers.

I think what you are talking about is "eisegesis", which is reading personal interpretation into Scripture some "spiritual" meaning behind the literal text. Many preachers do this when they want to fit the Scripture into their preconceived views - ie: making the Scripture say what they want it to say to suit their favourite topics, often selecting random verses out of context.

Hermeneutics follows exegesis in determining how the passage of Scripture relates to our own social, environmental, and religious culture. This is the "science" of Scripture interpretation, and it helps to determine whether the Scripture is "for" our education, and whether it is "to" us as direct instruction.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

@LoveGodsWord

I'm trying to understand, which do you believe?
1. The Word of God is the Bible
2. The Word of God is Jesus
3. Both 1 and 2 are correct
4. The Word of God is God speaking to us
5. All of the above

This is not a trick question. SDA's don't hold a firm view on this from memory. So which one do you believe? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

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"?

You're missing the point. While it is helpful and beneficial to have a bible as a Christian, it is not necessary. China proves this. Therefore because sola scripture teaches the bible is the "sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice" it is blasphemous against the Holy Spirits work.

 

[Albion]

Yeah, that'd be the Catholic Church.

You're entitled to believe that, my friend, but simply telling it to me isn't going to do anything to advance this discussion that we're supposed to be engaged in.

Most other denominations didn't exist at all prior to the Protestant Reformation, but that's not relevant to my point.

Good.

Whatever name you care to give to the Church of the earliest centuries of Christianity, the only reason that we are able to indentify which documents are Apostolic is because that Church recognized them as such.

How many can you name that do not? The strength of Sola Scriptura is precisely that almost all Christians of almost every denomination believe it to be divine revelation. And that includes yours as well as almost every other one!

Yes. Codified by the Church that Christ established. Sola Scriptura cannot be true, because you can't identify what documents are Apostolic apart from the authority of the Church which was able to identify them as such.

Of course we can. They are the same books as those two councils over 300 years removed from the life of Christ on Earth and the founding of His church approved of.

What's more, and as our friend here, Paul James, pointed out in his post, almost every one of the Bible books was already accepted and used to the exclusion of the Gnostic Gospels and other uninspired writings...before those councils even met to put their stamp of approval on them!

 

[Paul James]

You're missing the point. While it is helpful and beneficial to have a bible as a Christian, it is not necessary. China proves this. Therefore because sola scripture teaches the bible is the "sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice" it is blasphemous against the Holy Spirits work.

So, Jesus relating the story about Abraham telling the rich man in hell that the guy's brothers had Moses and the Prophets (ie: the written Scriptures) and if they didn't believe the Scriptures, then even someone rising from the dead wouldn't convince them, is actually blaspheming the Holy Spirit's work?

If the Holy Spirit inspired the authors to write their record of what God spoke to them, then it is blaspheming the Holy Spirit's work to place full dependence on the authority of the Bible, seeing that it is actually the Holy Spirit's work?

 

[Albion]

You're missing the point. While it is helpful and beneficial to have a bible as a Christian, it is not necessary.

All that that "proves" is that a loosely-organized church can survive on the memory of what the members had been taught...from the Bible. That's where it all comes from, whether or not they currently are allowed to have a copy.

Even if these Christians do not know but the basics of the faith, being without the benefit of copies of the Bible as is the situation facing them, the Bible itself remains what it is--the word of God above which there is nothing more authoritative.

 

[Paul James]

You're entitled to believe that, my friend, but simply telling it to me isn't going to do anything to advance this discussion that we're supposed to be engaged in.


Good.


How many can you name that do not? The strength of Sola Scriptura is precisely that almost all Christians of almost every denomination believe it to be divine revelation. And that includes yours as well as almost every other one!


Of course we can. They are the same books as those two councils over 300 years removed from the life of Christ on Earth and the founding of His church approved of.

What's more, and as our friend here, Paul James, pointed out in his post, almost every one of the Bible books was already accepted and used to the exclusion of the Gnostic Gospels and other uninspired writings...before those councils even met to put their stamp of approval on them!

I just had a thought, and I am not saying that it is definitely right or wrong, but seeing that the book of James wasn't accepted into the canon of Scripture until around the 4th Century, could it be that when the Church was moving toward more of a faith/works view of salvation, that the doubts about James sort of vanished and his book was accepted into the canon of Scripture?

 

[Albion]

I think it was more that James' letter is the simplest epistle in the entire New Testament. It is essentially one idea and one idea only--unless your alleged Faith does what Faith must do, it's not Faith.

Yeh, well, okay.

That's an important lesson, one might counter, and James was no doubt operating from personal experience involving people who made big claims but didn't act like people who had accepted Christ.

Still, it's so uncomplicated that people through the ages have tended to feel that it's more like a personal reply than what we find revealed in other Bible books.

 

[JAL]

The problem with having your own determination of what is good or evil is that you become your own god; just like what Satan said to Eve in the garden - that if she ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil she would become like God, knowing good from evil and wouldn't have to trust God's judgment for them.

(Yawn). You can't postulate a single-scenario clearly calling for departure from the maxim.

We have 25,000 Greek manuscripts of the Bible, dating back to the 4th Century, and they all say the same basic thing. So the notion that the Bible is tainted by man is a misnomer. As I said, man's interference with the Bible is his unwillingness to accept the literal text as it is written, and wants to read into it what is not there and ignore what is actually there. So the tainting of man involves reading stuff into the Bible to suit himself.

Misrepresentation -and failure to rebut the specific arguments. My position isn't that Scripture is tainted, but rather that we have no direct access to Scripture, only via man-made tools such as man-made lexicons and man-made exegetical proofs.

 

[Paul James]

All that that "proves" is that a loosely-organized church can survive on the memory of what the members had been taught...from the Bible. That's where it all comes from, whether or not they currently are allowed to have a copy.

Even if these Christians do not know but the basics of the faith, being without the benefit of copies of the Bible as is the situation facing them, the Bible itself remains what it is--the word of God above which there is nothing more authoritative.

It is interesting that many Charismatics believe in direct revelation from the Holy Spirit taking priority over written Scripture. One of the faults of the movement is that they accept everything supernatural as coming from the Holy Spirit, and therefore do not have accurate discernment about whether something supernatural is actually from God or not.

I am not knocking the Charismatic movement as some like to do out of ignorance concerning what it is really about. Most Charismatics are Bible-believing Christians who enjoy church more than others.

But the notion of "direct revelation" has brought in invasion of the occult in many wacky kundalini manifestations such as jerking, falling down, rolling on the floor, shaking, and other out of control behaviour; as well as Hindu mind-control ideas, such as "if I believe hard enough it will happen", positive thinking and confession; plus prosperity and guaranteed healing teaching. Much of this spurious stuff would be eliminated if believers properly searched and consulted the written Scripture to determine whether these manifestations and teachings are really Biblical, or not.

 

[JAL]

That's right, and those traditions came from "direct revelation" while the Pope was in the Chair of Peter. This is because Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and has direct communication with Christ that the ordinary Church member has not, so in their view, Jesus has to speak to the people through the Pope while he is in the Chair of Peter.

I am not knocking the Catholic Church here - just reflecting my own opinion about it. It is the same thing when a Charismatic prosperity preacher says that he is preaching from "direct revelation" from the Holy Spirit to the people and because the people trust the preacher, they accept it. It is also the same when a "prophet" gets up and says, "This is what the Lord is saying to me ("direct revelation"). It is very difficult for many to refute what is being said in such a prophecy, because it would seem they are opposing the Holy Spirit, when in reality, it is the "prophet's" own spirit speaking and he is usurping the authority of God to cause people to believe the prophecy.

Unregulated exegesis is just as chaotic as unregulated prophecy. Regulation is a simple manner - recall that Direct Revelation has to make us feel certain of the message. Therefore the following maxim applies to everyone involved - the (so-called) prophet, his audience, etc:

"I can accept a revelation without question when in fact I am unable to question it, that is, when it's raised my level of certainty so high that i CANNOT questoin it."

 

[Paul James]

(Yawn). You can't postulate a single-scenario clearly calling for departure from the maxim.


Misrepresentation -and failure to rebut the specific arguments. My position isn't that Scripture is tainted, but rather that we have no direct access to Scripture, only via man-made tools such as man-made lexicons and man-made exegetical proofs.

I have studied exegesis and hermeneutics at Masters level as part of my post-graduate degree in Theology. So, what have you gained from your post-graduate study in the same area?