WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A REBUTTAL

[Paul James]

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?

The Apostle to the Hebrews was writing to Jewish believers who were still grappling with faith and works and having problems with freeing themselves from the Mosaic Law. This is why the Apostle wrote to them in this way, calling them babes capable of digesting only the milk of the word instead of the meat that mature believers can digest. It has nothing to do with having the Scriptures as the foundation of their faith.

 

[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).

Trying to shoot me down just weakens your position.

 

[Paul James]

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.

But you clearly said that it is the Church who decided what was Scripture or not, didn't you? Isn't that making mortal men the arbiters of it? Who said that the hierarchy of the Church are better qualified to say whether a book is holy Scripture or not, than anyone else?

 

[Paul James]

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]

These events are not "direct revelation" but specific guidance to to specific actions as required by the Holy Spirit. It is not the same as Benny Hinn getting a "direct revelation" that there are nine persons in the trinity instead of just three.

 

[Paul James]

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 is not talking about people having the Scripture as the foundation of their faith and knowledge of the will of God for them. He is talking about those in the church who are puffed up with their own self-importance and who are promoting division by saying that their preferred preacher (Paul, Apollos, Cephas) is superior to all others, and the ones who are so arrogant to say that they are closest to the cutting edge of what God is doing in the church because they follow Christ. These arrogant ones are telling the people who is important and who is not in the church, and not allowing every member to have equal opportunity to share what God gives them to contribute to the service.

So, just because a person has a comprehensive knowledge of the Scriptures, it doesn't mean that he is puffed up at all. Apollos was described as "mighty in the Scriptures" and yet he wasn't described as being puffed up with pride. And he was teachable with it, because he allowed Aquila and Priscilla to show him the gospel more perfectly.

Peter quite astutely describes those who twist Paul's letters to mean things he never meant: "He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).

 

[Albion]

These events are not "direct revelation" but specific guidance to to specific actions as required by the Holy Spirit.

Exactly. Most of the misunderstanding that attaches to people who denounce Sola Scriptura as wrong, a contradiction, or something else...

can be traced back to one simple fact.

They don't know what the term Sola Scriptura means. Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is adequate for its purpose, which is revealing to us all doctrine that is essential for salvation.

Scripture does not answer everything that can be known. There is other knowledge in the universe that the Bible doesn't teach about, but knowing it will not guide us to Heaven more effectively.

Scripture does not guarantee that every reader of the Bible will understand it correctly, just that the truth is there.

And as for the devotees of "Direct Revelation," the post by Paul James was correct to point out that these "revelations" do not reveal anything that is essential for mankind to find salvation. Rather, they typically deal with personal matters such as God bringing the guy a girl to love, whether the person will get the job he wants, how to make the person's ministry more God-pleasing, or else they reassert something that is in the Bible already. In addition, they are not given to all mankind, which is a very fundamental departure from the purposes of Holy Scripture. They might better be called "Private Revelation" than "Direct Revelation."

Just about every mistake concerning the meaning of Sola Scriptura that people make was laid before us in post #316 by "YouAreAwesome."

 

[YouAreAwesome]

These events are not "direct revelation" but specific guidance to to specific actions as required by the Holy Spirit. It is not the same as Benny Hinn getting a "direct revelation" that there are nine persons in the trinity instead of just three.

So direct revelation is different to "specific guidance to specific actions as guided by the Holy Spirit"? So what IS direct revelation then?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Paul is not talking about people having the Scripture as the foundation of their faith and knowledge of the will of God for them. He is talking about those in the church who are puffed up with their own self-importance and who are promoting division by saying that their preferred preacher (Paul, Apollos, Cephas) is superior to all others, and the ones who are so arrogant to say that they are closest to the cutting edge of what God is doing in the church because they follow Christ. These arrogant ones are telling the people who is important and who is not in the church, and not allowing every member to have equal opportunity to share what God gives them to contribute to the service.

So, just because a person has a comprehensive knowledge of the Scriptures, it doesn't mean that he is puffed up at all. Apollos was described as "mighty in the Scriptures" and yet he wasn't described as being puffed up with pride. And he was teachable with it, because he allowed Aquila and Priscilla to show him the gospel more perfectly.

Peter quite astutely describes those who twist Paul's letters to mean things he never meant: "He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).

All of this you have written is directed at a strawman in your mind of the position you think I hold. You are arguing against an argument I am not making. It's quite strange.

 

[chilehed]

But you clearly said that it is the Church who decided what was Scripture or not, didn't you?

Only in the sense that the Church as a whole knew which documents were Apostolic and which were not. It was a decision based on faithfulness to that which had been given to them by the Apostles.

I certainly didn't say that "God's Holy Word needs man's endorsement to be true" as you claimed.

Sola Scriptura cannot be true, because with it you can't even detemine what books belong in the canon. You assume the canon and go from there, but that begs the question. The only reason you have a canon is because the Church gave it to you.

 

[Paul James]

Exactly. Most of the misunderstanding that attaches to people who denounce Sola Scriptura as wrong, a contradiction, or something else...

can be traced back to one simple fact.

They don't know what the term Sola Scriptura means. Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is adequate for its purpose, which is revealing to us all doctrine that is essential for salvation.

Scripture does not answer everything that can be known. There is other knowledge in the universe that the Bible doesn't teach about, but knowing it will not guide us to Heaven more effectively.

Scripture does not guarantee that every reader of the Bible will understand it correctly, just that the truth is there.

And as for the devotees of "Direct Revelation," the post by Paul James was correct to point out that these "revelations" do not reveal anything that is essential for mankind to find salvation. Rather, they typically deal with personal matters such as God bringing the guy a girl to love, whether the person will get the job he wants, how to make the person's ministry more God-pleasing, or else they reassert something that is in the Bible already. In addition, they are not given to all mankind, which is a very fundamental departure from the purposes of Holy Scripture. They might better be called "Private Revelation" than "Direct Revelation."

Just about every mistake concerning the meaning of Sola Scriptura that people make was laid before us in post #316 by "YouAreAwesome."

It is interesting that Paul did receive a lot of direct revelation from the Lord, especially in the three years he spent in isolation (self-isolation? ) in Arabia where the Lord personally took him through the same training for three years that He spent training the other Apostles during His earthly miniistry.

But he got a thorn in the flesh because of these revelations (2 Corinthians 12:7). What was the nature of this thorn in the flesh. Let's go back a bit:
"Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. 23 Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. 24 From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26 in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27 in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness— 28 besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation?" (2 Corinthians 11:22-29).

These were the thorn in the flesh that Paul suffered in his ministry. Not some disability, illness or eye condition. He received great revelation from the Lord which ended up as New Testament Scripture, forming the foundation of our Christian faith. In order to prevent him being puffed up because of these revelations, the Lord caused him to experience more suffering connected with his ministry than anyone else has ever suffered. That is what he pleaded with the Lord to remove from him. He, like the rest of us, found suffering very unpleasant, and we have seen how at times he got so depressed that he despaired of life (2 Corinthians 1). Along with that, he had major struggles between his flesh and the Spirit with him (Romans 7). But the Lord replied, "My grace is sufficient for you".

So, these ones who say they get "direct revelation" from the Lord, where is the suffering they go through to keep them from being puffed up with pride? Where is the struggle between their flesh and the Spirit within them? Where is the persecution, the extreme pressure leading to depression and despairing of life? If it is not there, these ones are not having the same direct revelation that Paul had.

I don't want direct revelation from the Lord, because direct suffering accompanies it, and I, like anyone, want a reasonably comfortable life. So, if those who believe they are receiving direct revelation from the Lord, and are not experiencing the type of suffering that Paul experienced, even in a small way, then I wouldn't think that there would be much value in the "revelations" they are getting.

Just sayin'...

 

[Paul James]

So direct revelation is different to "specific guidance to specific actions as guided by the Holy Spirit"? So what IS direct revelation then?

2 Corinthians 12:1-6.

 

[Paul James]

All of this you have written is directed at a strawman in your mind of the position you think I hold. You are arguing against an argument I am not making. It's quite strange.

I am just reading 1 Corinthians in context and not just extracting a random verse out of it.

 

[Paul James]

Only in the sense that the Church as a whole knew which documents were Apostolic and which were not. It was a decision based on faithfulness to that which had been given to them by the Apostles.

I certainly didn't say that "God's Holy Word needs man's endorsement to be true" as you claimed.

Sola Scriptura cannot be true, because with it you can't even detemine what books belong in the canon. You assume the canon and go from there, but that begs the question. The only reason you have a canon is because the Church gave it to you.

I don't agree with you on this, but I can't be bothered to push the issue any further in this direction. It is getting late in the day and my blue energy pill is wearing off.

 

[JAL]

The Apostle to the Hebrews was writing to Jewish believers who were still grappling with faith and works and having problems with freeing themselves from the Mosaic Law. This is why the Apostle wrote to them in this way, calling them babes capable of digesting only the milk of the word instead of the meat that mature believers can digest. It has nothing to do with having the Scriptures as the foundation of their faith.

Right. He gave them an Epistle (Scripture) and was clear that it wasn't solid food. Ignoring the facts just weakens your position.

 

[lsume]

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

Yes and The Word of God will never die. Heaven and earth shall pass away but My Word will never pass away.

 

[JAL]

The Apostle to the Hebrews was writing to Jewish believers who were still grappling with faith and works and having problems with freeing themselves from the Mosaic Law. This is why the Apostle wrote to them in this way, calling them babes capable of digesting only the milk of the word instead of the meat that mature believers can digest. It has nothing to do with having the Scriptures as the foundation of their faith.

And by the way, you have a penchant for a subtlety in your replies that responds to ideas other than the precise objection. (A long while back I was tempted, several times, to call you on this). In this case:
(1) You begin with 2 sentences that we both agree on - facts not in dispute - as if such is a satisfactory reply.
(2) You end with a third sentence that, at best, is a distantly related tangent to the force of the objection. Viz., "the Scriptures as the foundation of their faith"???? Those were not my words. My bone of contention is whether Scripture is solid food. The facts belie it.

But since you brought it up - yes a perennial weakpoint in Sola Scriptura is how can the Scriptures be the foundation of faith given the lack of a printing press for 90% of church history. The claim that everyone had a Bible memorized in their heads - for 1500 years ? - doesn't wash.

"Until [the printing press], believe it or not, most Bibles were copied by hand!...Because this was such an arduous task, it was rare for the average person to conceive of owning their own copy of the Bible. Instead, people looked to their priest who was often one of the few literate people in the community, to possess a Bible from which he could proclaim the Good News."

Foundation of their faith? Really? Apparently God was too incompetent to provide a solid foundation for the faith for 90% of human history.

How can a document that I do not possess be the foundation of my faith? I can't really study it, so I have to go on blind faith? Both in terms of getting saved (i.e. choosing the right religion) and then walking with God subsequently?

 

[JAL]

Disparaging prophecy, you wrote:

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.

Later, when I pressed you to tell me what a literal reading of 1Cor 14 entails, you conceded of prophecy:

It is what is the best spiritual gift to be used in church meetings to encourage and exhort the members.

Then I accused you of backpedaling. You responded:

Trying to shoot me down just weakens your position.

No, actually debate is always a matter of trying to shoot down the opposing position. This strengthens one's own position.

Anyway, as I've pointed out a couple of times now, you have some legitimate complaints, not about prophecy, but about unregulated prophecy. That is all.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

And as for the devotees of "Direct Revelation," the post by Paul James was correct to point out that these "revelations" do not reveal anything that is essential for mankind to find salvation.

How about when they reveal Jesus Himself? Is He not Salvation?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I don't want direct revelation from the Lord, because direct suffering accompanies it

Reminds me of Exodus 20:19. So rather than Direct Revelation from God they got a much worse substitute, the Law. But in fact, you do already have direct revelation from the Lord in your heart or else why do you believe?

2 Corinthians 12:1-6

How is this passage describing Direct Revelation differently to what we receive today?

 

[JAL]

I can't really fault you for this post - it's the understandable knee-jerk reaction of someone heavily indoctrinated into the lie known as Sola Scriptura. Just recognize it for what it is - nothing more than a knee jerk reaction - because when we look below the surface, the potential problems with your perspective are myriad.

It is interesting that Paul did receive a lot of direct revelation from the Lord, especially in the three years he spent in isolation (self-isolation? ) in Arabia where the Lord personally took him through the same training for three years that He spent training the other Apostles during His earthly miniistry.

Oh? And Paul was right to trust all this revelation? You've repeatedly insinuated that direct revelation shouldn't be trusted. Why should Paul have trusted the initial vision seen on the Road to Damascus? Or was that an unwise move on his part? And why should he have trusted all the later revelations?

Based on the thorn in Paul's flesh, you wrote:

I don't want direct revelation from the Lord, because direct suffering accompanies it, and I, like anyone, want a reasonably comfortable life.

Revelation of what? Paul didn't know Christ until the revelation. What he received, starting on the Road, were face to face revelations of Christ. That's how He came to know Christ better than you and I do. So let me get this straight. You are a Christian claiming that you don't want to get to know Christ - it's just not worth it in your view. I'll chalk this up as another exegetical error on your part - and thus as more proof that we need Direct Revelation to reliably/infallibly interpret both the OT and the NT.

Also let's be more specific about what Direct Revelation can do for you - I'm talking about a high-magnitude of it, not merely the normal Inward Witness given to every Christian. Most Christians seem to have no clue how to define the joy of the Lord - and thus no concept of what revival is, and no inkling of what real happiness is. Understand it like this. If God loves you, what level of ecstasy does He intend to withhold from you? None. So imagine every single nerve-ending and pleasure-center in your brain and body being stimulated with tickles of love, joy, peace - somewhat like narcotics - but with ineffably more effectiveness and finesse. Paul compared it to being drunk with wine! (See Eph 5:18). And even if you believe that God stimulates the "mind" without recourse to the body (another historic exegetical error), you can still imagine the same net effect.

Secondly, Christians fail to understand the biblical concept of Rest. You don't toil to sustain the new birth. God sustains it. It's a God-given degree of holiness. Each incremental reviving outpouring, in that same fashion, auto-sustains a higher level of obedience, to the point where, in a major revival, the Christian is almost always at rest (punctuated only infrequently, perhaps only once a week, or once a month, with a real agony of temptation). Jesus put it like this - this promise refers to some of the Promised Land which the church has failed to go up and possess:

"Come unto me all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest...For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light".

When is the last time you awoke from a good night's sleep complaining, "Good Lord! That rest was a lot of hard work!" That would be a contradiction. Rest and toil are diametrically opposed concepts.

And let's get some perspective here. God's requirements for, and expectations of, Paul were especially stringent because he was chosen to be a key historical figure until Christ's return. Paul's ministry historically land-marked God's readiness to decentralize the nation Israel in order to spring open the doors to worldwide evangelism. Just because Paul had to suffer a thorn doesn't prove that you will have to.

Moreover, most of your objections to Direct Revelation are based on your negative experiences with unregulated, spurious "revelation". That's not much to go on.

Did Paul tire? Did he grow weary? Again, let's get some perspective here. He pushed himself to incredible limits - he was able to do so precisely because he walked in a degree of supernatural strength that you and I have no cognizance of. Strength that looks like this:

"So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God" (1King 19:8).

Don't just focus on the negative. Think of what Direct Revelation can do for you - for all of us.