WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A REBUTTAL

[Paul James]

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.

If I had my time all over again, I would spend the first two years of my Christian life just studying the Bible and getting to know God's plans and purposes as described in it. I would sign up with a Bible-believing Bible college and consolidate my personal learning in a disciplined environment having my views vetted by experienced, mature godly men. That's what Paul told Timothy - to pass on his teaching to faithful men who will pass it on to others. That would take care of the first five years - learning by the Holy Spirit through my own study of the Scriptures and through faithful Spirit-filled men to consolidate my foundation. Then I might have been better qualified to function in the prophetic with a little more confidence that I might be speaking through the Spirit and not just from my own mind.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

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.

What point are you making? Is it, one person prophesied incorrectly therefore all direct revelation prophecy is not from the Lord?

Please put a link for "Prophets for the Nation". Never heard of it and can't find it.

 

[Paul James]

What point are you making? Is it, one person prophesied incorrectly therefore all direct revelation prophecy is not from the Lord?

Please put a link for "Prophets for the Nation". Never heard of it and can't find it.

The point I am making is that how do we know that these TV evangelists are false without a reliable method of testing?

The OT prophets were prophets for the nation of Israel. They passed into history at the death of John the Baptizer. We have blokes labelling themselves as "prophets for the nation" giving all sorts of predictions for, mainly the USA. These self-styled prophets are fake, because there were no Christian "prophets for the nation" prophesying "God's Word" for the Roman Empire.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

If I had my time all over again, I would spend the first two years of my Christian life just studying the Bible and getting to know God's plans and purposes as described in it. I would sign up with a Bible-believing Bible college and consolidate my personal learning in a disciplined environment having my views vetted by experienced, mature godly men. That's what Paul told Timothy - to pass on his teaching to faithful men who will pass it on to others. That would take care of the first five years - learning by the Holy Spirit through my own study of the Scriptures and through faithful Spirit-filled men to consolidate my foundation. Then I might have been better qualified to function in the prophetic with a little more confidence that I might be speaking through the Spirit and not just from my own mind.

I understand. For this discussion one of the questions is, can the Spirit speak to a person who has no Bible? It sounds like you have encountered this to some extent (you say you didn't know your bible well enough) and so your answer is yes. My answer is also definitively yes. As He has with you, so He can do with others. And I agree, understanding Who He has been to humanity throughout history is helpful in discerning His Voice in the present. But it doesn't undermine His voice in the initial stages of Spiritual growth, nor does it undermine His speaking to us daily to interpret the bible itself. Therefore Sola Scriptura raises the bible too high, right up into the clouds as an idol. I believe it is exceptional necessary for us today to know what's in the bible and attempt to understand it. But it is not necessary in the same sense that the Spirit is necessary. As evidenced in China.

Our difference might be emphasis. I emphasize the Spirit because the bible is held as "the Word of God" to replace the Spirit which is an ironic blasphemy. You emphasize the bible because you believe the Spirit alone can lead a person into strange places because they will find it hard to discern their own voice from the Spirit's voice. And that can be a problem for sure. There's no question the bible is helpful in this way, but it is not the Sole Authority, God is.

 

[JAL]

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.

You are clouding this discussion a bit by using a non-prevalent terminology. The Wikipedia definition of Direct Revelation is useful because it clearly conveys the distinction between exegesis and Voice. For the sake of this discussion, could you please allow that terminology.

As for your claim that the term should mean canonized revelation, could you just please use the term "Canonical Revelation" (or Canonized Revelation") to make that distinction. Otherwise we'll be talking past each other.

And let's be honest. Your claim is confusing. You said:

New Testament prophecy is not a revelation gift.

Confusing, because Paul used the term "revelation" for it:

"Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged" (1Cor 14).

You seem to be making distinctions not clearly supported by the text itself. Maybe you can clarify your rationale.

For example, you seem to think that whenever God speaks clearly, it MUST be canonized? And therefore He won't speak clearly anymore?

 

[JAL]

The point I am making is that how do we know that these TV evangelists are false without a reliable method of testing?

Agreed, but you haven't proposed a system that works. Exegesis doesn't make sense, right? Let's see why.

A direct revelation will either:
(1) Try to educate us in doctrine OR
(2) Give us some encouragement or advice for our life, for example, "Don't go to work today because one of your fellow employees has Covid-19 even though no one knows it yet."

Obviously, exegesis isn't going to help us with #2. The Bible never mentions Covid-19, and thus proposes no test to detect it.
What about #1? Again, if the divine Voice were trying to teach me something, and I already know Scripture well enough to exegetically confirm it or rebut it, then I didn't need the Voice to begin with.

Your epistemology doesn't make sense. So why don't we go with one that does? How about that?

Here's one. Feelings of certainty. Direct Revelation simply needs to leave me feeling 100% certain of the message. That's what happened to Paul on the Road to Damascus, and the same thing happened to the prophet Abraham wherefore he even tried to kill his own son.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The point I am making is that how do we know that these TV evangelists are false without a reliable method of testing?

According your own method of establishing a prophecy, aren't we to weigh up what is prophesied (i.e. Hey, what do you think?). Under your own system, isn't it false to call someone a false prophet? There may be a false prophecy, but not a false prophet, right?

 

[Paul James]

According your own method of establishing a prophecy, aren't we to weigh up what is prophesied (i.e. Hey, what do you think?). Under your own system, isn't it false to call someone a false prophet? There may be a false prophecy, but not a false prophet, right?

It comes right back to having the written Scriptures as the only reliable foundation for testing whether a prophecy or a revelation is from God or not. The written Scriptures are the only reliable source that records exactly who God is and what His plans and purposes are for mankind. If we never had those Scriptures, we wouldn't know that there is the living God, Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter, and the other Apostles. We wouldn't know how the Christian church was born and developed, and we wouldn't know that Jesus Christ is going to return one day.

If we don't have the written Scriptures as our foundation for the truth, then there is none, and people can say whatever they like as from God, and there is no way we can test it to determine whether it is the truth or not.

A prophet can say, "I have a revelation that man never went to the moon at all, but it was all done in a specially designed movie studio". We can't know whether he is right or wrong if he is adamant that he feels very certain about it. Actually there are some who are setting out to prove just that and are very convincing about their conspiracy theory.

Another prophet can get a revelation to say that an alien inspired Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate JFK in Dallas, and he is very certain that it was God who told him. How are we going to test whether he is telling the truth or not.

Still another prophet can say, "God told me that UFOs are real and they are signs of the Second Coming of Christ". Who is there who can say he is not telling the truth?

 

[JAL]

If we don't have the written Scriptures as our foundation for the truth, then there is none, and people can say whatever they like as from God, and there is no way we can test it to determine whether it is the truth or not.

A prophet can say, "I have a revelation that man never went to the moon at all, but it was all done in a specially designed movie studio". We can't know whether he is right or wrong if he is adamant that he feels very certain about it. Actually there are some who are setting out to prove just that and are very convincing about their conspiracy theory.

Another prophet can get a revelation to say that an alien inspired Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate JFK in Dallas, and he is very certain that it was God who told him. How are we going to test whether he is telling the truth or not.

Easy. I've answered this a 100 times already. When this "prophet" told me his message, did I feel 100% about it? And do I still feel 100% certain about it? My only obligation, in all life scenario, is to heed certainty:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B".

That's a feasible system. I'm pretty sure the church hasn't proposed any alternative feasible system. So what are you going to do? Give the church another 2,000 years to propose one?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

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.

There is nothing slippery. The OP is already victory for the thread that your friend refuses to address. As well as much more of the scriptures shared within the thread.

God's Word teaches....

1 CORINTHAINS 10:11 NOW ALL THESE THINGS HAPPENED TO THEM FOR EXAMPLES; AND THE ARE WRITTEN FOR OUR ADMONITION, UPON WHOM THE END OF THE WORLD HAS COME.

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

Are you trying to agrue now that the new testament is not scripture inspired by God?

Yes I believe God's Word is both the old and new testament scriptures and ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD.

God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Do you know what that means? If you do how do you think it relates to the question you asked?

I believe Gods' Word how about you dear friend?

 

[Paul James]

Agreed, but you haven't proposed a system that works. Exegesis doesn't make sense, right? Let's see why.

A direct revelation will either:
(1) Try to educate us in doctrine

Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar all have absolute certainty that we are our own gods, and that all Christians will be wealthy, and sick people who are not healed are deficient in their faith. By your definition of absolute certainty they are speaking the truth,,,or are they?

OR
(2) Give us some encouragement or advice for our life, for example, "Don't go to work today because one of your fellow employees has Covid-19 even though no one knows it yet."

So, if it turns out that no one at your workplace actually has the virus, and you get fired for not turning up to work, and you and your family starve, then did your absolute certainty actually work?

Obviously, exegesis isn't going to help us with #2. The Bible never mentions Covid-19, and thus proposes no test to detect it.

If your employer is not a Christian and you tell him you are not coming to work today because you got a revelation from the Lord, how do you think he will react to that? How are you going to be able to distinguish between a true revelation from the Lord, and your own fears that someone at work might have the virus and you might be infected? How are you going to test to see if the revelation is actually from God?

What about #1? Again, if the divine Voice were trying to teach me something, and I already know Scripture well enough to exegetically confirm it or rebut it, then I didn't need the Voice to begin with.]/quote]
True. You wouldn't need a voice to teach you something that is already clearly written in the Bible. What if the voice is trying to tell you things that are clearly contrary to what is actually written in the Scripture, but you feel absolutely certain about what the voice is saying to you? Which are you going to choose - the voice, or the clear information in the Scriptures?

Your epistemology doesn't make sense. So why don't we go with one that does? How about that?

Every person who started up a false cult was absolutely certain that what they believed was the absolute truth, and they would not listen to anyone who brought their attention to the written Scriptures to try and show them that they were in error. They were so certain about what the voices were telling them, that they were unteachable to anything other than what the voice was telling them.

Here's one. Feelings of certainty. Direct Revelation simply needs to leave me feeling 100% certain of the message. That's what happened to Paul on the Road to Damascus, and the same thing happened to the prophet Abraham wherefore he even tried to kill his own son.

But were are not Paul or Abraham, so what make any of us think that we are specially chosen of God as they were, or anyone remotely approaching the calibre of those men of God?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Easy. I've answered this a 100 times already. When this "prophet" told me his message, did I feel 100% about it? And do I still feel 100% certain about it? My only obligation, in all life scenario, is to heed certainty:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B".

That's a feasible system. I'm pretty sure the church hasn't proposed any alternative feasible system. So what are you going to do? Give the church another 2,000 years to propose one?

Goodness. You trust your feelings when God says the heart is desparately wicked and who can know it. I the LORD try the reigns and give to every man according to His doing. Good luck with that. No one knows right from wrong without Gods' Word dear friend and you wanting to throw it away gives you no standard of what truth is. Good luck finding your way when the road is dark and narrow and you have no lamp to light your path.

 

[Paul James]

Easy. I've answered this a 100 times already. When this "prophet" told me his message, did I feel 100% about it? And do I still feel 100% certain about it? My only obligation, in all life scenario, is to heed certainty:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B".

That's a feasible system. I'm pretty sure the church hasn't proposed any alternative feasible system. So what are you going to do? Give the church another 2,000 years to propose one?

The question remains: what are you basing your absolute certainty on? What if you come up with a revelation that you are absolutely certain about, and your pastor comes to you and tells you that you are in error, what are you going to do? And what if all the other members of your church, including the deacons and elders are absolutely certain that the pastor is God's appointed leader of the church and his doctrines are on an absolutely sound Scriptural foundation and is the most mature and experienced pastor to lead their church?

 

[JAL]

Goodness. You trust your feelings when God says the heart is desparately wicked and who can know it. I the LORD try the reigns and give to every man according to His doing. Good luck with that. No one knows right from wrong without Gods' Word dear friend and you wanting to throw it away gives you no standard of what truth is. Good luck finding your way when the road is dark and narrow and you have no lamp to light your path.

Empty words. You LIVE by the maxim:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B".

If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Show me one scenario in your life that obviously calls for departure from the maxim. You can't.

 

[JAL]

The question remains: what are you basing your absolute certainty on? What if you come up with a revelation that you are absolutely certain about, and your pastor comes to you and tells you that you are in error, what are you going to do? And what if all the other members of your church, including the deacons and elders are absolutely certain that the pastor is God's appointed leader of the church and his doctrines are on an absolutely sound Scriptural foundation and is the most mature and experienced pastor to lead their church?

(Sigh). For the g-zillionth time, God isn't going to judge me based on what OTHER people think, or claim to be certain of. If He is good and just, he will judge me based on whether I was faithful to the maxim:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B"

because a just God will judge me on whether I did what was right to the best of my knowledge, which is what the above rule means.

 

[Paul James]

Goodness. You trust your feelings when God says the heart is desparately wicked and who can know it. I the LORD try the reigns and give to every man according to His doing. Good luck with that. No one knows right from wrong without Gods' Word dear friend and you wanting to throw it away gives you no standard of what truth is. Good luck finding your way when the road is dark and narrow and you have no lamp to light your path.

Here's a bloke running ahead in a thick fog, not knowing that he is running headlong toward a cliff and if he keeps going he will go over the cliff and fall to his death, but he keeps running because he is absolutely certain that the direction in which he is running is absolutely safe. A friend could warn him that he is running to danger, but the bloke says, "I don't believe you, because I have this absolute certainty that I will be quite safe!"

 

[JAL]

The question remains: what are you basing your absolute certainty on? What if you come up with a revelation that you are absolutely certain about, and your pastor comes to you and tells you that you are in error, what are you going to do? And what if all the other members of your church, including the deacons and elders are absolutely certain that the pastor is God's appointed leader of the church and his doctrines are on an absolutely sound Scriptural foundation and is the most mature and experienced pastor to lead their church?

There is no fully viable system other than the one I've proposed. This means that God has to intervene in such a way to make it work. For example, He probably won't let the devil give me 100% certainty, as such could cause confusion. But even if He did, on my side it doesn't matter because God will STILL judge me on my fidelity to the maxim.

 

[Paul James]

(Sigh). For the g-zillionth time, God isn't going to judge me based on what OTHER people think, or claim to be certain of. If He is good and just, he will judge me based on whether I was faithful to the maxim:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B"

because a just God will judge me on whether I did what was right to the best of my knowledge, which is what the above rule means.

So, if you give your pastor the middle finger of disobedience because of your absolute certainty, and you are disciplined by the pastor and elders for false doctrine and disobedience and asked to leave the church, who will you blame? Will you say then that the whole church and its leadership are not of God and you are, and all they did was to persecute you for your faith?

 

[JAL]

Here's a bloke running ahead in a thick fog, not knowing that he is running headlong toward a cliff and if he keeps going he will go over the cliff and fall to his death, but he keeps running because he is absolutely certain that the direction in which he is running is absolutely safe. A friend could warn him that he is running to danger, but the bloke says, "I don't believe you, because I have this absolute certainty that I will be quite safe!"

Are you trying to tell me that you FAULT this guy for behaving according to 100% certainty?

Let me ask you a question. Do you pull out your birth certificate every day to check your name? Make sure you have it right? I mean, it could be that you're in a state of confusion from Alzheimer's and not realizing it.

No, you don't, because the nature of 100% certainty is that IT WON'T LET YOU consider such possibilities. So in your example, you're asking the impossible:
(1) You're saying this guy had ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that he was safe - and that even the friend who warned him didn't diminish that certainty
(2) And then you're implying that he SHOULD have heeded the warning, contrary to his certainty.

You don't see the contradiction in your proposal?

 

[JAL]

So, if you give your pastor the middle finger of disobedience because of your absolute certainty, and you are disciplined by the pastor and elders for false doctrine and disobedience and asked to leave the church, who will you blame? Will you say then that the whole church and its leadership are not of God and you are, and all they did was to persecute you for your faith?

The middle finger? That's your big worry? That's your concern? (Sigh). We've been over this. Abraham felt certain that he was supposed to kill his son. Isn't that more serious than the middle finger? Moses and Joshua felt certain they were supposed to slaughter 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan. Isn't that more serious than the middle finger?

If the Voice can be trusted in the big things, why not in the little things?