WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A REBUTTAL

[LoveGodsWord]

Say "no salvation without the Word of God". We agree. But you are substituting Bible in the place of Word of God. There was no bible when the bible was written! I'm sorry but your argument makes no sense. You can't sub in bible wherever you want.

Here's a good pointer: the bible can only reference things older than itself. Therefore the Word of God NEVER means the bible when written IN the bible.

Actually no I am not. The Word of God is the spoken and written Word according to ROMANS 10:17. The spoken Word of God however is not a Word that does not agree with the written Word. If the spoken Word disagrees with the written Word it is not from God. The spoken Word of God must agree with the written Word right? So if the spoken Word must agree with the written Word of God how can we do away with the written Word of God? We cannot can we.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Actually no I am not. The Word of God is the spoken and written Word according to ROMANS 10:17. The spoken Word of God however is not a Word that does not agree with the written Word. If the spoken Word disagrees with the written Word it is not from God. The spoken Word of God must agree with the written Word right? So if the spoken Word must agree with the written Word of God how can we do away with the written Word of God? We cannot can we.

Stop for a moment. Slow down and think.

1. The bible does not talk about the bible.
2. The bible does not use "word of god" to mean bible.
3. Romans 10:17 does not say anything about the bible or any other written document.
4. There IS salvation without the bible.
5. There is no Salvation without Jesus, the Word.
6. Your word>faith>salvation idea is not talking about the bible
7. God does not need the bible.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Stop for a moment. Slow down and think.

1. The bible does not talk about the bible.
2. The bible does not use "word of god" to mean bible.
3. Romans 10:17 does not say anything about the bible or any other written document.
4. There IS salvation without the bible.
5. There is no Salvation without Jesus, the Word.
6. Your word>faith>salvation idea is not talking about the bible
7. God does not need the bible.

Firstly what is it that you disagree with from the scriptures in the post you are quoting from? The bible is ALL SCRIPTURE given by inspiration of God *2 TIMOTHY 3:16. Yes it is the Word of God. The Spoken Word of God simply refers back to the written Word.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Firstly what is it that you disagree with from the scriptures in the post you are quoting from? The bible is ALL SCRIPTURE given by inspiration of God *2 TIMOTHY 3:16. Yes it is the Word of God. The Spoken Word of God simply refers back to the written Word.

I do not disagree with scripture. I disagree with your interpretation of it.

Do you think 2 Timothy 3:16 is talking about itself? Do you think Paul believed his writings would become a part of the scriptures? 2 Timothy 3:16 is most definitely NOT talking about the bible, but about the Jewish Scriptures.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

@LoveGodsWord The bible does not use "Word of God" to mean bible. True or false?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

@LoveGodsWord The bible does not use "Word of God" to mean bible. True or false?

The bible is the Word of God. ALL SCRIPTURE given by inspiration of God *2 TIMOTHY 3:16.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I do not disagree with scripture. I disagree with your interpretation of it.

Ok what is my interpretation of the scriptures you disagree with and why? Please do not disagree dear friend because you say so when I have only provided the scriptures to show why I disagree with you. To me 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.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Um...The written Word doesn't have any sanctifying efficacy. Post 492 should have already convinced of you that.

The above are your words, then we have the very Word's of JESUS disagree with your words that says...
JOHN 17:17 "SANCTIFY THEM THROUGH THE TRUTH; THY WORD IS TRUTH.
Who should we then believe you of JESUS? Yep not you.

 

[Albion]

... Sola Scriptura doesn't provide any way to know which documents are Apostolic and which are not.

The Church has already answered that--as you pointed out when trying to claim that it was your denomination alone which did so.

Your "logic" questions whether one of the cardinal beliefs of all Christians--that the Bible is the word of God--is, in fact, right. Of course, all of life could, in theory, be an illusion; but if we call the Bible into question, we might as well call the existence of God into question and other such beliefs that are fundamental to the Christian religion.

If we do NOT do that, then we have the Bible as the holy book of the faith, the only complete record of the founder's will and testimony, and all Christians have nearly the same holy book! Identifying it is not a matter of dispute, no matter what denomination we are speaking of.

All that Sola Scriptura says is, trust God's word instead of anything that comes from men rather than our Creator, no matter what claims may be made for those other sources.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The Church has already answered that--as you pointed out when trying to claim that it was your denomination alone which did so.

Your "logic" questions whether one of the cardinal beliefs of all Christians--that the Bible is the word of God--is, in fact, right. Of course, all of life could, in theory, be an illusion; but if we call the Bible into question, we might as well call the existence of God into question and other such beliefs that are fundamental to the Christian religion.

If we do NOT do that, then we have the Bible as the holy book of the faith, the only complete record of the founder's will and testimony, and all Christians have nearly the same holy book! Identifying it is not a matter of dispute, no matter what denomination we are speaking of.

All that Sola Scriptura says is, trust God's word instead of anything that comes from men rather than our Creator, no matter what claims may be made for those other sources.

Yep good post. The false teaching that lead people to reject God leads them to reject God's salvation.

 

[Paul James]

Sorry, I was responding to your question. God might say "you are the man" depending on the context.

But I'm not the one purporting to receive "direct revelation".

 

[Paul James]

What's this got to do with the bible only referencing older scriptures and not itself?

I am saying that God talks to me too, but He says different things to those saying they have "direct revelation". When He talks to me, He references what He says with Scripture so that I know that His voice direct to me is the same as His voice through the written Word.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The bible is the Word of God. ALL SCRIPTURE given by inspiration of God *2 TIMOTHY 3:16.

Slippery.

But I think this is at least one victory for the thread. We have a difference of opinion on what the bible means when it says "word of God". You believe it means bible some of the time. I believe it only ever means God's actual word, as in speaking to our heart by the Spirit; or Jesus; or the old Jewish Scriptures like the Pentateuch or the book of Jeremiah, or the book of Enoch etc.

This verse in 2 Timothy 3:16 for example was written by Paul. Do you believe Paul was meaning the bible when he wrote "all scripture" even though there was no bible? I think that notion is somewhat ridiculous.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

But I'm not the one purporting to receive "direct revelation".

Wait, let's get our definitions straightened out. The definition on Wikipedia:

Direct revelation is a term used by some Christian churches to express their belief in a communication from God to a person, by words, impression, visions, dreams or actual appearance. Direct revelation is believed to be an open communication between God and man, or the Holy Spirit and man, without any other exterior (secondary) means.

Ok so God speaks by impressions. So those times you prophesied, was that not direct revelation?

 

[Paul James]

Slippery.

But I think this is at least one victory for the thread. We have a difference of opinion on what the bible means when it says "word of God". You believe it means bible some of the time. I believe it only ever means God's actual word, as in speaking to our heart by the Spirit; or Jesus; or the old Jewish Scriptures like the Pentateuch or the book of Jeremiah, or the book of Enoch etc.

This verse in 2 Timothy 3:16 for example was written by Paul. Do you believe Paul was meaning the bible when he wrote "all scripture" even though there was no bible? I think that notion is somewhat ridiculous.

He was speaking of the Torah, which he used to preach to the Jews in their synagogues.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I am saying that God talks to me too, but He says different things to those saying they have "direct revelation". When He talks to me, He references what He says with Scripture so that I know that His voice direct to me is the same as His voice through the written Word.

Just because you weigh it up against the bible does not discount it as direct revelation. What it does do is show how the scriptures are not the SOLE authority. They are authoritative for sure, but we must keep learning and growing in our understanding of God and changing our way of thinking. This occurs because God Himself brings us closer to Himself with His Spirit. His Spirit leads us into truth. His Spirit is above the bible. The bible has become an idol.

 

[Paul James]

Wait, let's get our definitions straightened out. The definition on Wikipedia:

Direct revelation is a term used by some Christian churches to express their belief in a communication from God to a person, by words, impression, visions, dreams or actual appearance. Direct revelation is believed to be an open communication between God and man, or the Holy Spirit and man, without any other exterior (secondary) means.

Ok so God speaks by impressions. So those times you prophesied, was that not direct revelation?

No, because New Testament prophecy is not a revelation gift. It is an inspirational gift and must be judged by others experienced in the prophetic to confirm that it is truly something that God would say. The only way to know that for sure is to know what God has already said in one or more of the 66 books of the Bible. A person who says, "Thus says the Lord" while giving a NT prophecy, is not speaking from the Lord at all, because that statement implies that the prophecy, coming directly from the Lord, should not be judged by men.

Direct Revelation is equal to Scripture, and because the canon of written Scripture is closed, then if the direct revelation is not reflected in the written Scripture then it is false and is just a dream in the person's mind. And to say "I have a direct revelation from the Lord" is an outright lie.

 

[Paul James]

Just because you weigh it up against the bible does not discount it as direct revelation. What it does do is show how the scriptures are not the SOLE authority. They are authoritative for sure, but we must keep learning and growing in our understanding of God and changing our way of thinking. This occurs because God Himself brings us closer to Himself with His Spirit. His Spirit leads us into truth. His Spirit is above the bible. The bible has become an idol.

Kenneth Copeland had a direct revelation that Covid 19 would be dead by 29 March. Do you think that was from the Lord? How do you know? And afterward he predicted by direct revelation that there was going to be a heat wave over Easter, so hot that it will kill the virus in America. Check the temperatures over Easter. Was that direct revelation from the Lord? Also, does the New Testament support "Prophets For The Nation"? Check these things out to see if direct revelation without the authority of the Bible to prove it true, is actually true and not a lie.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

No, because New Testament prophecy is not a revelation gift. It is an inspirational gift and must be judged by others experienced in the prophetic to confirm that it is truly something that God would say. The only way to know that for sure is to know what God has already said in one or more of the 66 books of the Bible. A person who says, "Thus says the Lord" while giving a NT prophecy, is not speaking from the Lord at all, because that statement implies that the prophecy, coming directly from the Lord, should not be judged by men.

Direct Revelation is equal to Scripture, and because the canon of written Scripture is closed, then if the direct revelation is not reflected in the written Scripture then it is false and is just a dream in the person's mind. And to say "I have a direct revelation from the Lord" is an outright lie.

I agree with this for the most part, but how do you think about this:

If I already understand Scripture well enough to determine the voice’s harmony or disharmony with it, why do I need the voice to help me understand Scripture?

Don't you think God can teach us about the bible? Don't you think He can show us those places that we're thinking about it wrong? And doesn't this place Him ABOVE the bible?

You see, I understand where you're coming from. I actually believe very similarly to you. I think it's only a subtle difference between us, the difference being that I believe we should be willing to have our beliefs challenged by God Himself. You see, I grew up an SDA. If I held your view, I would still be an SDA. Or maybe that's too strong a statement, I probably wouldn't be, but I wouldn't be where I am now.

 

[chilehed]

Your "logic" questions whether one of the cardinal beliefs of all Christians--that the Bible is the word of God--is, in fact, right.

Nonsense. I know that the Bible is the word of God, as does every Catholic. The Bible is a Catholic book and it arose in the Catholic Church, which was the only Church in existance during the Apostolic age. Not the Baptist, not the Presbyterian, nor the Methodist, CoC, or any other denomination you care to name. Those denominations did not exist prior to the Reformation, fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding.

The argument I presented (and your own response to it) proves that those who hold to the notion of sola scriptura deprive themselves of any rational way to prove that it is, and that sola scriptura is irrational, self-refuting nonsense that nullifies the word of God. It's a deception straight from the pit of hell, and Satan is quite pleased that people believe it.

All that Sola Scriptura says is, trust God's word instead of anything that comes from men rather than our Creator, no matter what claims may be made for those other sources

If that were true than there would be no argument, because that is Catholic teaching and it is not what sola scriptura says at all. Sola scriptura is not found anywhere in Sacred Scripture, either explicitly or by deduction, and in fact contradicts it.

If I'm wrong, then derive the canon from scratch. You can't do it, and you won't even pretend to try.