WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A REBUTTAL

[Paul James]

Yes. We know the identity of Sacred Scripture only because Christ's Church said that those 73 documents were in it, and not because of anything in the texts themselves.

Sola Scriptura cannot be true.

So, you are saying that God's Holy Word needs man's endorsement to be true? Who do we think God is, that He actually needs mortal man to authenticate what He has said by inspiration to the Holy men who set down the record of what the Holy Spirit moved them to write?

 

[Paul James]

And how does your maxim play out on this verse:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy" (1Cor 14:1)

It is what is the best spiritual gift to be used in church meetings to encourage and exhort the members. Nothing to do with prioritizing prophecy over Scripture.

 

[Paul James]

Please read this and see how a hunger for God and visions from God precede Brother Yun being given a bible. This is important. Because both "Direct Revelation" and "The Bible" are important, but these visions PRECEDE the supernatural gift of the bible.

It all depends on whether these visions and revelations is consistent with the written Scriptural record in the 66 books of the Bible. If they are not, then the visions and revelations are false.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Where did you get that from? His reference to them being babes was concerning their division into factions depending on their favourite preacher!

Paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 3:1-2
I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit, so I had to treat you like babies and give you milk.

i.e. If you were in the Spirit I could have given you the solid food.

the Bible is written in clear literal text so that it can be understood at face value rather than trying to gain some "deeper" more "spiritual" meaning from it. The real Spiritual meaning is clearly set out in the literal text which doesn't need interpreting at all. It just needs to be believed at face value.

!!!! Wow. So did the disciples eat Jesus' physical flesh? (John 6:56)

 

[Paul James]

Absolutely. When you hold your own interpretation of the bible above the Holy Spirit Himself (and this happens all the time because there are so many different interpretations therefore at least some are holding the bible above the Spirit).

And your point about the Rich man and Lazarus only refutes your own belief. There are two sources for faith in the parable, Scripture and A Miracle.

The literal text of the Bible needs no interpretation at all. It is accepting the literal text and believing it.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

It all depends on whether these visions and revelations is consistent with the written Scriptural record in the 66 books of the Bible. If they are not, then the visions and revelations are false.

No you missed it. The visions allowed Brother Yun to gain possesion of a bible! Two birds with one stone. It all began visions and dreams. The bible came second. This is in direct opposition to Sola Scripture which states: the Scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. He would not have a had a bible if he didn't trust the Infallible Source, God.

 

[JAL]

Where did you get that from? His reference to them being babes was concerning their division into factions depending on their favourite preacher! Nothing to do with the way they viewed the Scriptures.

Where did I get that from? That's funny. A while back you insinuated that I should be spending more time demonstrating my biblical apologetic and less time in our current back-and-forth. And then when I link you to my posts expounding 1Corinthians to show you "where I got it from", you neither addressed nor even read the argument. How do I debate with the mentality, "I'm already convinced. Don't confuse me with the facts."

Do you want Scripture, or not?

 

[JAL]

The literal text of the Bible needs no interpretation at all. It is accepting the literal text and believing it.

So what's the holdup, then? A while back I asked how your literal hermeneutic plays out on this verse:

"Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

 

[Paul James]

So if God gives someone a dream and speaks to them about, say, selling a car, then we should reject His direction because there are no cars in the bible?

There is nothing in the Book of Acts where believers are controlled by dreams, nor has anything been said in support of it in any of the letters written by the Apostles. Therefore, I don't go along with dreams as guidance for Christians. Dreams are the least reliable source of guidance, followed by prophecy as the second least source of guidance. Much error and harm have been done by people relying on these two for personal guidance.

 

[Paul James]

Paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 3:1-2
I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit, so I had to treat you like babies and give you milk.

i.e. If you were in the Spirit I could have given you the solid food.



!!!! Wow. So did the disciples eat Jesus' physical flesh? (John 6:56)

You will see that as Paul further explains the reasons you will see that the Corinthians have divided themselves into factions depending on their favourite preacher, and are demonstrating a lack of knowledge about what the body of Christ really is and how it operates. They are also allowing a person with grievous sin to continue fellowshiping with them, and others have stopped believing in the resurrection of Christ. Their confusion between tongues and prophecy in the meetings is another sign that they are babes.

You need to read the whole book in its context, rather than take just a couple of random verses and use them to say, "This is what it is about". That's what cultish people do.

 

[Paul James]

Where did I get that from? That's funny. A while back you insinuated that I should be spending more time demonstrating my biblical apologetic and less time in our current back-and-forth. And then when I link you to my posts expounding 1Corinthians to show you "where I got it from", you neither addressed nor even read the argument. How do I debate with the mentality, "I'm already convinced. Don't confuse me with the facts."

Do you want Scripture, or not?

I will accept the literal Scripture in context, not twisted versions wrested out of their literal meaning and context.

 

[JAL]

You will see that as Paul further explains the reasons you will see that the Corinthians have divided themselves into factions depending on their favourite preacher, and are demonstrating a lack of knowledge about what the body of Christ really is and how it operates. They are also allowing a person with grievous sin to continue fellowshiping with them, and others have stopped believing in the resurrection of Christ. Their confusion between tongues and prophecy in the meetings is another sign that they are babes.

You need to read the whole book in its context, rather than take just a couple of random verses and use them to say, "This is what it is about". That's what cultish people do.

Um..He gave them epistles (Scripture) and he was clear that it was NOT solid-food-revelation. Scripture is babes-milk-revelation.

The writer of Hebrews made the same claim in Heb 5. He gave them the Epistle to the Hebrews INSTEAD of solid food. The epistle is babes-milk-revelation. Do I need to cite Peter on the same point? Why bother? If you didn't believe Paul, and neither the writer of Hebrews, who am I to think you'll believe Peter?

 

[JAL]

I will accept the literal Scripture in context, not twisted versions wrested out of their literal meaning and context.

You mean literal text like this:

"Eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

That kind of thing?

 

[JAL]

It is what is the best spiritual gift to be used in church meetings to encourage and exhort the members. Nothing to do with prioritizing prophecy over Scripture.

Right. So basically you've now invalidated pretty much everything you've argued in favor of Sola Scriptura. Up to this point you've basically insinuated that Direct Revelation has no place in the Christian life - you said that the written Word is the complete revelation of everything that God wants to say. Now you're backpedaling because you, like me and everyone else - we're all fallible. And that's precisely why it is inconsiderate to the 100 billion souls at stake for us to pretend to KNOW that fallible exegesis is satisfactory.

Since you're fallible, you can't claim to KNOW FOR SURE that fallible exegesis is satisfactory. With 100 billion souls at stake, you NEED to know for sure, which means you NEED to seek infallible revelation (you need to seek prophecy). Seems to me Paul had his priorities straight:

"Eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

 

[chilehed]

So, you are saying that God's Holy Word needs man's endorsement to be true?

Do you really think that I said something that sounds even remotely like that? What nonsense.

I suggest that you read what I actually said, and don't make it out to be something that it clearly is not.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

There is nothing in the Book of Acts where believers are controlled by dreams, nor has anything been said in support of it in any of the letters written by the Apostles. Therefore, I don't go along with dreams as guidance for Christians. Dreams are the least reliable source of guidance, followed by prophecy as the second least source of guidance. Much error and harm have been done by people relying on these two for personal guidance.

Your literal Bible disagrees with you:

Cornelius (Acts 10:1-6): In his vision Cornelius saw an angel who told him where to find Simon Peter and to send for him and listen to his message. Cornelius obeyed the vision, Peter came and preached, and Cornelius and his household full of Gentiles were saved by the grace of God.

Peter (Acts 10:9-15): While Peter was praying on the rooftop of a house in Joppa, God gave him a vision of animals lowered in something like a sheet. A voice from heaven told Peter to kill the animals (some of which were unclean) and eat them. The vision challenged what they currently believed about the Scriptures and showed them that Gentiles are “clean”; that is, heaven is open to all who follow Jesus.

Paul: Paul had several visions. One sent him to preach in Macedonia (Acts 16:9-10). Another encouraged him to keep preaching in Corinth (Acts 18:9-11). God also gave him a vision of heaven (2 Corinthians 12:1-6).

John (Revelation): Nearly the entire book of Revelation is a vision John had while exiled on the island of Patmos. John’s vision explains in more detail some of the events that God had shown Daniel.

[Source]

 

[YouAreAwesome]

You will see that as Paul further explains the reasons you will see that the Corinthians have divided themselves into factions depending on their favourite preacher, and are demonstrating a lack of knowledge about what the body of Christ really is and how it operates. They are also allowing a person with grievous sin to continue fellowshiping with them, and others have stopped believing in the resurrection of Christ. Their confusion between tongues and prophecy in the meetings is another sign that they are babes.

You need to read the whole book in its context, rather than take just a couple of random verses and use them to say, "This is what it is about". That's what cultish people do.

Paul explains how "worldy" they are for holding men in higher regard than the Message, the Spirit Himself. We all know this. And to explain this he begins with a comparison: Spirit = maturity, worldy = babes.

A good little summary is in 1 Corinthians 4:19-20
19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord wills, and I will know, not the word of those who are puffed up, but the power.
20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

 

[Paul James]

So what's the holdup, then? A while back I asked how your literal hermeneutic plays out on this verse:

"Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

You are saying that prophecy is to take priority over the literal text of Scripture and you are using this verse to support it. But when we put the verse in context to the rest of what Paul is saying, then that is not what he is talking about at all. Of course, this is not hermeneutics at all. It is basic comprehension 101 that I taught my class of 10 year old when I was a teacher teaching them basic reading skills. If I gave 1 Corinthians to my class of 10 year olds and asked them to tell me if Paul is saying that the gift of prophecy replaces the reading of Scripture, they would be quick in replying, "But we can't that here". demonstrating their knowledge of comprehension 101.

 

[Albion]

Yes. We know the identity of Sacred Scripture only because Christ's Church said that those 73 documents were in it, and not because of anything in the texts themselves.

I addressed that mistake in my previous post.

Am I supposed to recant simply because you've repeated yourself?

 

[Paul James]

Right. So basically you've now invalidated pretty much everything you've argued in favor of Sola Scriptura. Up to this point you've basically insinuated that Direct Revelation has no place in the Christian life - you said that the written Word is the complete revelation of everything that God wants to say. Now you're backpedaling because you, like me and everyone else - we're all fallible. And that's precisely why it is inconsiderate to the 100 billion souls at stake for us to pretend to KNOW that fallible exegesis is satisfactory.

Since you're fallible, you can't claim to KNOW FOR SURE that fallible exegesis is satisfactory. With 100 billion souls at stake, you NEED to know for sure, which means you NEED to seek infallible revelation (you need to seek prophecy). Seems to me Paul had his priorities straight:

"Eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

What Paul says later on (which you may be ignoring) is that when one prophesies, the others judge the prophecy. This means that they don't take the prophecy at face value even if the guy says, "Thus says the Lord". They judge the prophecy to determine whether the Lord is really saying it or not. The way they would judge it would be on the basis of the written Scripture, and, like the Bereans, they would have searched the Scriptures to see whether the prophecy is consistent with with Scripture or not. Just because the guy says, "I am really certain that this is coming from the Lord", which would ring alarm bells in me because if the prophecy is from the Lord, then he wouldn't have to say it is from the Lord, because those who have comprehensive Scripture knowledge would know immediately whether it was true or false.

A friend of mine told me about a meeting where a large guy got up and gave a loud prophecy (as if he had a built in amplifier) in KJV language, including "Thus says the Lord", and the leader, who had a lifetime experience and knowledge of the Scriptures told the people, "Well, we can safely ignore that one!"