WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A REBUTTAL

[Paul James]

What is your goal, by the way? Uncertainty? When you try to use Scripture as a test, do you take yourself to have succeeded when you've reached a state of uncertainty?

When you pray to God for illumination on a topic, do you take yourself to have succeeded when you've reached a state of uncertainty?

I don't think you're making any sense.

Again, if you have a system that doesn't make sense, here's a novel idea - switch to one that does.

If the authority of the Bible is denied, then nothing makes sense and there is no foundation that a "revelation" is true or false. Prayer is not using God as a vending machine where we press a button and God dances to our tune. All we can do is to make our requests to God and leave any outcome to His sovereignty.

As John said about his gospel - that he wrote it so that we believe on the name of Jesus; so the rest of the Bible has been written so we believe that God is really there, and He is a communicating God, and has left a written record of what He has spoken to holy men of God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That written record is everything that God has communicated to mankind.

The Jews were very strict about what they included in their canon of the Old Testament, and the New Testament canon was decided on:
1. The writer has had personal encounters with Jesus in the flesh;
2 The writer has personally witnessed the resurrected of Christ, and this includes Paul in his encounter on the Damascus Road.
3. The writer had a close association with an Apostle or got his information directly from him. (Luke).
4. Had the Lord working with him with His miracle-working power.

Anyone who claims "direct revelation" from God (which is essentially Scripture, because when God speaks directly, that is what it is), but does not fit within the above four criteria, cannot be hearing from God at the same level as the Apostles who wrote the New Testament. Therefore he cannot be absolutely certain that God has actually spoken directly to him, if what is being spoken has not already been spoken by God in the written New Testament that He revealed to His Apostles.

 

[JAL]

As you have now guessed. I am pretty single-minded about keeping to the absolute authority of Scripture as everything that God has said to mankind, and, according to Proverbs 30:6-7, anyone who tries to add to what has already been written will earn a rebuke from the Lord and exposed as a liar.

It's beginning to look like the facts don't matter to you, and that you ultimately do not care which side of the debate has a done a better job of defending its case. You've swallowed an indoctrination known as Sola Scriptura and, while your mouth might acknowledge your own fallibility, your heart is set on, "I am infallibly correct that Sola Scriptura is true. I'm already convinced. Don't confuse me with the facts".

 

[Paul James]

But how do you get around the fact that our personal interpretation of the bible could hinder the Spirit?

The literal text of the Bible does not require interpretation. It is clearly written to say what God means to say, and for God to say literally what He actually means.

If you are interpreting the Bible in a way that departs from what it actually says, then you are reading stuff into the Bible that isn't there, and essentially adding to God word, and Proverbs 30:6-7 applies to anyone who adds to God's Word.

Yes, a person's interpretation of the Bible and reading spurious stuff into the literal text does grieve and hinder the Spirit, because it is an insult to Him not to accept what He clearly says in the literal text. If ones interpretation is different to the literal text, then that interpretation is a lie.

 

[JAL]

If the authority of the Bible is denied, then nothing makes sense and there is no foundation that a "revelation" is true or false. Prayer is not using God as a vending machine where we press a button and God dances to our tune. All we can do is to make our requests to God and leave any outcome to His sovereignty.

As John said about his gospel - that he wrote it so that we believe on the name of Jesus; so the rest of the Bible has been written so we believe that God is really there, and He is a communicating God, and has left a written record of what He has spoken to holy men of God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That written record is everything that God has communicated to mankind.

The Jews were very strict about what they included in their canon of the Old Testament, and the New Testament canon was decided on:
1. The writer has had personal encounters with Jesus in the flesh;
2 The writer has personally witnessed the resurrected of Christ, and this includes Paul in his encounter on the Damascus Road.
3. The writer had a close association with an Apostle or got his information directly from him. (Luke).
4. Had the Lord working with him with His miracle-working power.

Anyone who claims "direct revelation" from God (which is essentially Scripture, because when God speaks directly, that is what it is), but does not fit within the above four criteria, cannot be hearing from God at the same level as the Apostles who wrote the New Testament. Therefore he cannot be absolutely certain that God has actually spoken directly to him, if what is being spoken has not already been spoken by God in the written New Testament that He revealed to His Apostles.

You claim to hold to Sola Scriptura and yet make a huge number of assertions that have no clear exegetical support. Like the claim God is definitely unwilling to give someone 100% certainty today - thereby casting horrible aspersions on Him, beause He apparently doesn't care if the guy who is about to drop a bomb on Hiroshima knows (or feels certain) whether it is the morally right thing to do.

This isn't Sola Scriptura. This is actually the Gospel According to Saint Paul James.

 

[Paul James]

Ok so if all these people are liars, this means they are NOT absolutely certain, they are just CLAIMING to be certain.

And yet you fought me on that point, insisting that they ARE absolutely certain. And most of your objections to me were based on that assumption. Here again we've reached a point where you seem to be invalidating your previous statements.

The Scripture says let God be true and every man (by comparison) a liar. This is talking about the written record that was compiled as God spoke to holy men who wrote it all down. That written record is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Any "revelation" purporting to be from God that is not included in, or consistent with the written Scriptural record is a lie.

 

[Paul James]

It's beginning to look like the facts don't matter to you, and that you ultimately do not care which side of the debate has a done a better job of defending its case. You've swallowed an indoctrination known as Sola Scriptura and, while your mouth might acknowledge your own fallibility, your heart is set on, "I am infallibly correct that Sola Scriptura is true. I'm already convinced. Don't confuse me with the facts".

The only facts about the plans and purposes of God are found in the written Scriptures. Abusing me in the way that you are right now does not earn you a cigar.

 

[JAL]

The Scripture says let God be true and every man (by comparison) a liar. This is talking about the written record that was compiled as God spoke to holy men who wrote it all down. That written record is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Any "revelation" purporting to be from God that is not included in, or consistent with the written Scriptural record is a lie.

How is that relevant to the debate? Who on this forum is claiming that Direct Revelation will contradict Scripture? That's not the debate. The debate is whether the voice can give us 100% certainty thereby making it IMPOSSIBLE to check it out with Scripture - because no one is going to test what he is certain of. He's only going to test what he is not certain of.

 

[Paul James]

You claim to hold to Sola Scriptura and yet make a huge number of assertions that have no clear exegetical support. Like the claim God is definitely unwilling to give someone 100% certainty today - thereby casting horrible aspersions on Him, beause He apparently doesn't care if the guy who is about to drop a bomb on Hiroshima knows (or feels certain) whether it is the morally right thing to do.

This isn't Sola Scriptura. This is actually the Gospel According to Saint Paul James.

There is a flaming rule on this forum. It will be good to read up on it before you step on a "forum rule violation" mine.

 

[Paul James]

How is that relevant to the debate? Who on this forum is claiming that Direct Revelation will contradict Scripture? That's not the debate. The debate is whether the voice can give us 100% certainty thereby making it IMPOSSIBLE to check it out with Scripture - because no one is going to test what he is certain of. He's only going to test what he is not certain of.

The point of this thread is that the written Scripture is God's complete communication to mankind, and that it is the sole authority for any Christian doctrine. This is what Sola Scriptura is. The written Scripture is the voice of God to us, and if there is a voice that does not speak through the Scripture then it is certainly not the voice of God. I am absolutely certain about that!

 

[JAL]

The only facts about the plans and purposes of God are found in the written Scriptures. Abusing me in the way that you are right now does not earn you a cigar.

No sir. You make assertions not found in the text itself. For example Catholics on this thread have been pointing that out repeatedly.

You just gave me, for example, a four-point criterion for hearing God reliably. That's nowhere to be found in Scripture. It might make a possibly plausible case for a distantly related claim (the criterion of apostleship) but there is no such 4-point criterion in Scripture for hearing God reliably.


"The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up, take the child and His mother, and escape to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy Him" (Matthew 2:13).


I guess Joseph was a fool to obey this voice, as it wasn't a realization of your 4-point scenario for hearing God reliably.

Oh wait. That's right. You made the whole thing up in your head.

 

[JAL]

There is a flaming rule on this forum. It will be good to read up on it before you step on a "forum rule violation" mine.

That wasn't flaming. You may not like the way I worded it, but it's nonetheless my assessment that you are violating Sola Scriptura.

 

[JAL]

The point of this thread is that the written Scripture is God's complete communication to mankind, and that it is the sole authority for any Christian doctrine. This is what Sola Scriptura is. The written Scripture is the voice of God to us, and if there is a voice that does not speak through the Scripture then it is certainly not the voice of God. I am absolutely certain about that!

Again:

"The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up, take the child and His mother, and escape to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy Him" (Matthew 2:13).

You see what God did? He used Direct Revelation to protect his servants. Yet without any clear basis, you are insinuating that God is too unkind to do such things for us today.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

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?

Why you gotta bash these guys over and over? They preach Jesus to the lost. The same Jesus, despite your doctrinal differences with them, w are not furthering the gospel by tearing down those who preach it.

and, according to Proverbs 30:6-7, anyone who tries to add to what has already been written will earn a rebuke from the Lord and exposed as a liar.

I'm sorry but if you follow your logic to it's conclusion then the whole new testament deserves a rebuke from the Lord and should be exposed as lies. (In case you missed it, this is because the verse you are quoting was written BEFORE the whole new testament).

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Again:

"The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up, take the child and His mother, and escape to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy Him" (Matthew 2:13).

You see what God did? He used Direct Revelation to protect his servants. Yet without any clear basis, you are insinuating that God is too unkind to do such things for us today.

I think he put you on ignore. Pitty he was only trying to help you dear friend as has many people here. Seems you do not want to listen. In the days of JESUS and the Apostles many people did the same thing when JESUS and PAUL were trying to help some people that would not receive Gods Word. You can read about it in MATTHEW 13:13-15 and ACTS 28:26-27. If we close our eyes and ears to God's Word God can never help us. He then stand on the outside knocking. It is up to us to open the door and let him in.

 

[JAL]

The point of this thread is that the written Scripture is God's complete communication to mankind, and that it is the sole authority for any Christian doctrine.

Based on what? Because you said so, or would like to think so? There are very few passages that can be (unconvincingly) adduced in favor of that conclusion.

Like so many others, I myself have already discredited 2Tim 3:16-17 as a plausible basis for Sola Scriptura.
I have also discredited the appeal to the Bereans.

What else is there? Not much. Therefore Sola Scriptura is a man-made doctrine, not an exegetical datum. This itself doesn't prove it false, but it is saddled with a lot of exegetical problems (such as solid food), logical difficulties, logistics issues, and so on.

It is a doctrine that, like Trichotomy, is logically incoherent but somehow popular in virtue of the perceived attractiveness of the doctrine, coupled with longstanding indoctrination.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Based on what? Because you said so, or would like to think so? There are very few passages that can be (unconvincingly) adduced in favor of that conclusion.

Like so many others, I myself have already discredited 2Tim 3:16-17 as a plausible basis for Sola Scriptura.
I have also discredited the appeal to the Bereans.

What else is there? Not much. Therefore Sola Scriptura is a man-made doctrine, not an exegetical datum. This itself doesn't prove it false, but it is saddled with a lot of exegetical problems (such as solid food), logical difficulties, logistics issues, and so on.

It is a doctrine that, like Trichotomy, is logically incoherent but somehow popular in virtue of the perceived attractiveness of the doctrine, coupled with longstanding indoctrination.

Actually dear friend you have done no such thing. You simply ignored the scriptures shared with you and simply said you do not believe them and all the scriptures shared with you. Your reason was because you say so. I do not know about you but the scriptures teach we ought to obey God rather then man and only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that lead others to break the commandments of God *ROMANS 3:4; ACTS 5:29; MATTHEW 15:2-9. Sorry dear friend only God's Word is true and all you have done in this thread is to deny God's Word with your words that are not God's. I know who I believe and follow and it is not you.

 

[JAL]

Actually dear friend you have done no such thing. You simply ignored the scriptures shared with you and simply said you do not believe them and all the scriptures shared with you. Your reason was because you say so. I do not know about you but the scriptures teach we ought to obey God rather then man and only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that lead others to break the commandments of God *ROMANS 3:4; ACTS 5:29; MATTHEW 15:2-9. Sorry dear friend only God's Word is true and all you have done in this thread is to deny God's Word with your words that are not God's. I know who I believe and follow and it is not you.

That's dishonest debating.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That's dishonest debating.

No it is not what is dishonest? Your the one claiming that the bible is not the inspired word of God are you not? The scriptures teach that all scripture is given by inspiration of God you say no they are not. How is that being dishonest when that is what you posted.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

No it is not what is dishonest? Your the one claiming that the bible is not the inspired word of God are you not? The scriptures teach that all scripture is given by inspiration of God you say no they are not. How is that being dishonest when that is what you posted.

Can you please quote the exact spot where either @JAL or I claimed that the scriptures are not inspired.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Can you please quote the exact spot where either @JAL or I claimed that the scriptures are not inspired.

Could not be bothered chasing down heaps of quotes. I did not say you did I? JAL is the one making claims that there is no such thing as Sola scriptura and denying God's Word. It is kind of obvious isn't it and your the one making these claims.

YouAreAwesome said: ↑ I understand there is danger attached, but we really do have to trust in God and not in a book.

Though perhaps you need to make yourself more clear. We trust in God by believing his Word not by not believing it.