WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A REBUTTAL

[JIMINZ]

When Paul says:

"I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened"

You do realize that means revelatory visions, don't you?

Could you supply some Scripture where such a Teaching could be found, I seem to have missed it?

What Sola Scriptura does is, verify unfounded statements.

For without a Scripture to back up what your espousing, where then is the truth in your belief to be found?.........A Catechism, Commentary?

 

[JAL]

I see. Ok then please if your not willing to read or address this rebuttal to you then please do not pretend this OP does not address your 16 points and refutes it when you can see clearly that it does. Anyhow we will have to agree to disagree. I only wish you well. Thanks for sharing your view which as you can see here and I say respectfully is not my view or do I think is biblical.

I read it all-right. I just didn't see anything relevant to respond to.

But in good faith, I've asked everyone else to pitch in and help me see if I've missed any relevant points that you made.

I suppose your claims about 2Timoth 3:16-17 might be relevant - except that those kinds of claims have been refuted both by me and by Catholics countless times. For example:
(1) The passage says that Scripture is profitable, not sufficient.
(2) The passage is directed to Timothy (a man of God, which is a common OT title for a prophet) - it isn't addressed to the ordinary believer.
(3) The passage isn't clear in what sense "profitable" - it is profitable in the sense of pointing us to Direct Revelation.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I read it all-right. I just didn't see anything relevant to respond to.

But in good faith, I've asked everyone else to pitch in and help me see if I've missed any relevant points that you made.

I suppose your claims about 2Timoth 3:16-17 might be relevant - except that those kinds of claims have been refuted both by me and by Catholics countless times. For example:
(1) The passage says that Scripture is profitable, not sufficient.
(2) The passage is directed to Timothy (a man of God, which is a common OT title for a prophet) - it isn't addressed to the ordinary believer.
(3) The passage isn't clear in what sense "profitable" - it is profitable in the sense of pointing us to Direct Revelation.

Nonsense. What do you think the words of JESUS mean in MATTHEW 13:13? People have pitched in from what I have seen in your two threads on the same topic but it seems you do not want to listen to what they have to say to you.

 

[JAL]

Not really dear friend. All you doing is rejecting the Word of God that disagrees with you. God gave him the correct understanding of his Word through his Spirit. There is nothing wrong with a direct revelation from God through his Spirit which God does to his prophets (messengers) if it is according to the Word of God. Already discussed in the rebuttal in the OP go read it. Only God can teach us what his Word means. You will not find it in college or seminary see JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; JOHN 7:17; HEBREWS 8:10-11 and 1 JOHN 2:27

You don't seem to get it. In order for this to be a real debate, there has to be 2 competing positions. Meaning, if one of the positions is logically incoherent (it is is pure self-contradictory nonsense), there is nothing to debate. Point #1 of my 16 points demonstrates that Sola Scriptura is logically incoherent (and no, you didn't address that argument, but merely pretended to). So there's nothing really to debate here.

 

[JAL]

Nonsense. What do you think the words of JESUS mean in MATTHEW 13:13?

If you think the passage is pivotal to the debate, make your argument. I'm not here to give a commentary on every verse of Scripture.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You don't seem to get it. In order for this to be a real debate, there has to be 2 competing positions. Meaning, if one of the positions is logically incoherent (it is is pure self-contradictory nonsense), there is nothing to debate. Point #1 of my 16 points demonstrates that Sola Scriptura is logically incoherent (and no, you didn't address that argument, but merely pretended to). So there's nothing really to debate here.

Well I would say in my view the logically incoherent position is yours as proven in the OP. If you cannot see anything to debate why are you still here?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

If you think the passage is pivotal to the debate, make your argument. I'm not here to give a commentary on every verse of Scripture.

No need. I see your not hear for a discussion. We can agree to disagree if you like. It is not my loss. The OP already addresses all your arguments and shows through the scriptures why you are in error. If you want to address them or not you are free to do what you wish and believe as you want to. It is only made and posted in love and only as a help to those who may be interested on the topic.

 

[JIMINZ]

Paul fell for a lie, then. Prior to conversion, Paul was 100% Sola Scriptura. According to you, that's the correct posture. Then he had a Direct Revelation on the Road to Damascus. If we extrapolate YOUR position, Paul would have appropriately responded, "I reject all visions. I base my beliefs totally on Scripture alone."

I do not know the reason but I'm really curious.

What is the reason you personally are so down on Sola Scriptura?

 

[JAL]

Not really dear friend. All you doing is rejecting the Word of God that disagrees with you. God gave him the correct understanding of his Word through his Spirit. There is nothing wrong with a direct revelation from God through his Spirit which God does to his prophets (messengers) if it is according to the Word of God. Already discussed in the rebuttal in the OP go read it. Only God can teach us what his Word means. You will not find it in college or seminary see JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; JOHN 7:17; HEBREWS 8:10-11 and 1 JOHN 2:27

(1) Again, you haven't explained how one knows himself to be a prophet. Where in Scripture does it indicate whether Jal is, or is not, a prophet? Your position doesn't make sense. And don't tell me that a prophet has to "check it out with Scripture" - prophets existed before the Bible existed.

(2) So let me get this straight. Suppose God is giving me a Direct Revelation to help me understand Scripture better. All I know is that I hear a voice. You're saying that I have to check it against Scripture? But if I already know and understand Scripture well enough to determine whether it aligns with Scripture, that means the voice isn't helping me understand Scripture! It's just repeating what I already know and understand! That was point #4 of the 16-point rebuttal, which you STILL have not addressed.

 

[JIMINZ]

Paul fell for a lie, then. Prior to conversion, Paul was 100% Sola Scriptura. According to you, that's the correct posture. Then he had a Direct Revelation on the Road to Damascus. If we extrapolate YOUR position, Paul would have appropriately responded, "I reject all visions. I base my beliefs totally on Scripture alone."

Paul was not in possession of a Bible, HE WAS WRITING IT!

 

[JAL]

Paul was not in possession of a Bible, HE WAS WRITING IT!

Um...He had Scripture - the OT. And don't tell me it wasn't sufficient - because I'm sure you LOVE to cite 2 Tim 3:16-17 which you claim speaks of sufficient Scripture,and it's referring to the OT.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

(1) Again, you haven't explained how one knows himself to be a prophet. Where in Scripture does it indicate whether Jal is, or is not, a prophet? Your position doesn't make sense. And don't tell me that a prophet has to "check it out with Scripture" - prophets existed before the Bible existed.

(2) So let me get this straight. Suppose God is giving me a Direct Revelation to help me understand Scripture better. All I know is that I hear a voice. You're saying that I have to check it against Scripture? But if I already know and understand Scripture well enough to determine whether it aligns with Scripture, that means the voice isn't helping me understand Scripture! It's just repeating what I already know and understand! That was point #4 of the 16-point rebuttal, which you STILL have not addressed.

Not really dear friend. Most of this is already explained in the OP. There are different tests to know if someone is a prophet, teacher or messenger or not in God's Word and these tests are defined in the scriptures (see DEUTERONOMY 18:22; MATTHEW 7:16-20; 1 JOHN 4:1; NUMBERS 12:6; MATTHEW 24:24; 2 PETER 1:21; JEREMIAH 23:14; 2 PETER 2:1 etc etc) We are to test the Spirits according to the scriptures. "To the law and the testimony if they speak not according TO THIS WORD IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THEM (ISAIAH 8:20). The Word of God is the final test. For example once again it is written in 1 JOHN 2:3-4 [3], And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4], He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him

Sorry dear friend seems like God's Word disagrees with you. You cannot know God without the Word of God that is why it is written faith comes by hearing and hearing BY THE WORD OF GOD *ROMANS 10:17

Hope this helps.

 

[JAL]

I do not know the reason but I'm really curious.
What is the reason you personally are so down on Sola Scriptura?

Myriad reasons, some of these already spelled out in my 16-point rebuttal.
(1) It's a logically self-contradictory theory and therefore a lie from hell. Isn't that enough?
(2) Implicitly, it casts horrible aspersions on God, as if He were malevolent.
(3) Exegesis is fallible. Why entrust the evangelism of 100 billion souls to fallible methods? Is that really God's plan? Doesn't He care enough to want better?
(4) Why even trust human decisions to fallible methods? Suppose for instance you unknowingly spread the Covid-19 virus. Direct Revelation could have prevented that.
(5) Jesus arrived in vehement opposition to the teaching of the Sola Scriptura parties of His day (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Teachers of the law). He stressed that HIS teaching came by Direct Revelation.
(6) Scripture is pretty clear that genuine evangelism is prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180),
(7) Paul could hardly have been more clear about the primacy of direct revelation (1Cor 14:1).
(8) Galatians seems to clearly define sanctification as an endless series of Direct Revelations.
(9) Sola Scriptura makes God look like a horrible leader, because the printing press didn't exist for 90% of salvation history.

 

[JIMINZ]

Um...He had Scripture - the OT. And don't tell me it wasn't sufficient - because I'm sure you LOVE to cite 2 Tim 3:16-17 which you claim speaks of sufficient Scripture,and it's referring to the OT.

I don't have the least intention of telling you such a thing so don't tell me what I Scripture I love to cite..........Deal?

Come to think of it, your 100% correct.

Paul was a Pharisee, he called himself a Jew Of Jews he took great pride in his Jewish heritage and learning, I do not believe you would want to attempt to Rebutt Paul, he was very, very well versed in those Scriptures.

I'm sure he would approve of Sola Scriptura whole heartedly.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Um...He had Scripture - the OT. And don't tell me it wasn't sufficient - because I'm sure you LOVE to cite 2 Tim 3:16-17 which you claim speaks of sufficient Scripture,and it's referring to the OT.

I think your missing the point here dear friend. You cannot find God through college or seminary. This was shown in the OP. God needs to be your guide and teacher in order to know Gods truth through his Word.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Myriad reasons, some of these already spelled out in my 16-point rebuttal.
(1) It's a logically self-contradictory theory and therefore a lie from hell. Isn't that enough?
(2) Implicitly, it casts horrible aspersions on God, as if He were malevolent.
(3) Exegesis is fallible. Why entrust the evangelism of 100 billion souls to fallible methods? Is that really God's plan? Doesn't He care enough to want better?
(4) Why even trust human decisions to fallible methods? Suppose for instance you unknowingly spread the Covid-19 virus. Direct Revelation could have prevented that.
(5) Jesus arrived in vehement opposition to the teaching of the Sola Scriptura parties of His day (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Teachers of the law). He stressed that HIS teaching came by Direct Revelation.
(6) Scripture is pretty clear that genuine evangelism is prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180),
(7) Paul could hardly have been more clear about the primacy of direct revelation (1Cor 14:1).
(8) Galatians seems to clearly define sanctification as an endless series of Direct Revelations (I'll get you a link on this).
(9) Sola Scriptura makes God look like a horrible leader, because the printing press didn't exist for 90% of salvation history.

ALL your claims here are shown to be fallacy and man made teachings and opinions of men that deny the Word of God as shown and refuted in this OP that your not willing to address.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Ok @everyone thanks for the friendly discussion will be back latter to chat more

God bless

 

[JAL]

Not really dear friend. Most of this is already explained in the OP. There are different tests to know if someone is a prophet, teacher or messenger or not in God's Word and these tests are defined in the scriptures (see DEUTERONOMY 18:22; MATTHEW 7:16-20; 1 JOHN 4:1; NUMBERS 12:6; MATTHEW 24:24; 2 PETER 1:21; JEREMIAH 23:14; 2 PETER 2:1 etc etc) We are to test the Spirits according to the scriptures. "To the law and the testimony if they speak not according TO THIS WORD IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THEM (ISAIAH 8:20). The Word of God is the final test. For example once again it is written in 1 JOHN 2:3-4 [3], And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4], He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him

Sorry dear friend seems like God's Word disagrees with you. You cannot know God without the Word of God that is why it is written faith comes by hearing and hearing BY THE WORD OF GOD *ROMANS 10:17

Hope this helps.

No it doesn't help.
(1) You keep referring back to Scritpure as your only source of religious knowledge. If Scripture is the only basis for knowledge, how does the prospective convert, who is not yet sure about whether Scripture is true, DECIDE whether Scripture is true? On what knowledge-basis does he base his conclusion? You're not making any sense.

(2) Merely citing a long list of verses doesn't make you the winner of a debate. Let's take a look at the first verse you cited, DEUTERONOMY 18:22:

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah hath not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him".

Suppose I hear a voice foretelling an event. How do I know whether to believe it? I can't check it out with Scripture since it doesn't tell me all future details about tomorrow and the next day. You'll likely reply, 'Believe it if you're a prophet'.
(A) Again, how do I know if I'm a prophet? You're just talking in circles without actually getting us anywhere. You're not providing any real answers.
(B) Even if I know myself to be a prophet, is a prophet to believe every voice that he hears? You're not providing any real answers - nothing viable that makes sense.

So there's really nothing to debate. Take some time, give the issues some thought, and come back with a HOLISTIC SYSTEM that makes good clean sense IN ALL THE RELEVANT AREAS. Then we'll have 2 reasonable positions to debate. Right now, there's only 1.

 

[JAL]

ALL your claims here are shown to be fallacy and man made teachings and opinions of men that deny the Word of God as shown and refuted in this OP that your not willing to address.

Did everyone see what she did? She discarded 9 objections with nothing more than, essentially, "I am right and you are wrong." That's why I ignored her early posts on this thread, as I found nothing relevant there.

 

[JAL]

Ok I did as promised. I updated point #8, in post 32, with a link to a post on Galatians.

 

[JIMINZ]

If Scripture is the only basis for knowledge, how does the prospective convert, who is not yet sure about whether Scripture is true, DECIDE whether Scripture is true? On what knowledge-basis does he base his conclusion? You're not making any sense.

Are you saying you do not trust what is written in the Bible but you would use some other source before checking in the Bible, The Inspired Word God?

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah hath not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him".

Suppose I hear a voice foretelling an event. How do I know whether to believe it? I can't check it out with Scripture since it doesn't tell me all future details about tomorrow and the next day. You'll likely reply, 'Believe it if you're a prophet'.
(A) Again, how do I know if I'm a prophet? You're just talking in circles without actually getting us anywhere. You're not providing any real answers.
(B) Even if I know myself to be a prophet, is a prophet to believe every voice that he hears? You're not providing any real answers - nothing viable that makes sense.

The conversation is not about the validity of a Prophet it's about Sola Scriptura, your just throwing everything into the air hoping something will hit the fan and stick to the wall.

So there's really nothing to debate. Take some time, give the issues some thought, and come back with a HOLISTIC SYSTEM that makes good clean sense IN ALL THE RELEVANT AREAS. Then we'll have 2 reasonable positions to debate. Right now, there's only 1.

Thank you for finally conceding the point Sola Scriptura rules!!!!