WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A REBUTTAL

theoneandonlypencil said:

@JAL Out of curiosity, what if someone's direct revelation contradicts yours? And how would you go about proving that yours was the true revelation?

Click to expand...

I was recently asked this question on a similar thread. I was at work, so I responded with a series of short replies (posts 479 to 482) but those posts will show you how to a link to a few slightly-longer posts that are more thorough.

@LoveGodsWord
@Paul James

Neither of you have provided a satisfactory basis for why you believe that Scripture is inspired. Paul James cited 2Tim 3:16-17 but it's invalid (circular) to stand on Scripture's veracity to establish Scripture's veracity. You have to stand on something OTHER than Scripture, and that 'something' (whatever it happens to be) is thus, for you, an authority HIGHER than Scripture because it dictates whether you accept/reject the bible (and dictates whether you accept/reject some other book in its stead). This authority - higher than Scripture - refutes the idea that Scripture is the only final authority.

Thus Sola Scriptura is logically incoherent nonsense.

Paul James said:

How do you know it is the real Jesus? The Scripture says that if someone says that Jesus is here or He is there, or out in the desert, don't believe him. Even if someone who looks like Jesus appears to me, I would tell it to go away because I am waiting to see the real Jesus when I get to glory and meet Him face to face. It would be interesting to know what Jesus looked like when he got the visitation. If he was an European with long straight brown hair and a small beard, I would say the "vision" is a fake.

Click to expand...

How do you know the Jesus you believe in is the real Jesus? Does it matter to you what He looks like?

There are hundreds of millions of stories of Jesus Himself bringing a person to Himself. Did He call you? Or did you study your way to Him?

The Christian body would look quite awful with everyone doubting each others salvation.

Brother Yun talks of how the church in China thrived without a Bible. Phillip Yancey said of China,
"They had no one to teach them, no printing presses, no seminaries, no one to run their clinics and orphanages. No resources, really, except the Holy Spirit.” It appears the Holy Spirit did just fine. (See here for the full article).

JAL said:

I was recently asked this question on a similar thread. I was at work, so I responded with a series of short replies (posts 479 to 482) but those posts will show you how to a link to a few slightly-longer posts that are more thorough.

Click to expand...

I haven't been able to go over your longer post with a 'fine tooth comb', so to say, but I've read most of it. I'll give you two things right now that I disagree with immediately;

Your Maxim, "If feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B", is ironically the exact same thing used by a lot of Atheistic arguments. I'd have a difficult time convincing someone with that Maxim that God is not evil, he is not unjust, and that religion is not wholly toxic.

As for a fellow Christian, there are just as many ways that Maxim can go wrong. In fact, I'd say it underlines the large problem we have of people making personal convictions based on their faith, and then setting it as a hard 'rule' in Christianity. The idea is to unite the church; not divide it. The fact that people are still to this day receiving radically different revelations--sometimes about something as mundane as the sinfulness of hair length, to me points out what I already thought; God is not currently 'active' as far as direct revelations are concerned. At least, in the variety we see in the bible.

I hold the view of Sola Scriptura that you use Scripture and the Holy Spirit together in order to receive any accurate understanding of God's will--although, scripture should be by default the final authority if there are no resolutions otherwise. Scripture is a recording of God's word, it is how we keep track of what has been said. The way you discern what 'voice' you're hearing it, would be to compare it to scripture. And vice versa can happen, as well(For example, the Holy Spirit may guide you to find historical facts or context behind any contradictory scripture to illuminate the real meaning). If everything in scripture is an accurate recording of biblical events and God's word, then the voice you hear should not contradict that; God does not contradict himself. And if scripture is not inspired...well, I'd say you and I should probably stop being Christian then, because otherwise we have little to nothing else to base our faith on.

If direct revelation takes precedence over the authority of the written word, we have no reason to have the bible. Yet without scripture, the truth of Christianity would've been lost long, long ago--I don't think I need to tell you about the 'telephone' game and its repercussions(we do, after all, have the gnostic gospels).


Second, I disagree with your other statement here;

"This maxim is a final authority in the sense that it both can and does properly dictate all our behavior, thereby contradicting the view of Scripture as the ONLY final authority. The maxim is tautological because it defines justice. God would be unjust to dishonor this maxim because perfect justice evaluates men on whether they did what is right to the best of their knowledge, which is precisely what the maxim means."


This teeters on universalism, which is not compatible with scripture whatsoever. If your maxim defines justice, and God would be unjust to dishonor that maxim; what of the tribal people who do not know of God, yet worship other gods? Are they going to be saved? After all, they did what was best to their knowledge; and God was not of their knowledge. That is, except, for the famous line "No one shall come to the father except through me."


Obviously we're just showing off our opinions here, however; I doubt either of us are truly qualified to make any set-in-stone rules in this area. However, compared to sola scriptura, I think your theology falls short in terms of the foundation it is built on. Will probably write more later when I'm better rested and my brain isn't fried.

Paul James said:

We don't really know that. Seeing that handwriting existed well before his time, he would have had written material that would have led him to the realisation that the Person who was speaking to Him was God.

Click to expand...

Realization? You mean guessing game, right? What possible written material could prove to Abraham:
(1) That the written material itself is a true work of God
(2) That the Voice speaking to him was NOT that of deceiver
(3) That it was always the same voice, and thus never an impostor. I mean, wouldn't he likely suspect an impostor when it told him to go kill his own son?

You're not formulating a system that actually works. As I noted earlier, neither you nor LoveGodsWorth is providing a system that provides a viable solution to quandaries such as these:
(1) How does one know himself to be a prophet?
(2) If one hears a voice that speaks a foretelling, how can he test the voice?
(3) Is a prophet supposed to accept every voice? If not, how can he reliably decide/distinguish between them?

theoneandonlypencil said:

I haven't been able to go over your longer post with a 'fine tooth comb', so to say, but I've read most of it. I'll give you two things right now that I disagree with immediately;

Your Maxim, "If feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B", is ironically the exact same thing used by a lot of Atheistic arguments. I'd have a difficult time convincing someone with that Maxim that God is not evil, he is not unjust, and that religion is not wholly toxic.

As for a fellow Christian, there are just as many ways that Maxim can go wrong.

Click to expand...

Name ONE scenario that clearly calls for departure from the maxim. You cannot. This means you LIVE by the maxim, so don't go trying to tell me that it's a faulty maxim.

JAL said:

Realization? You mean guessing game, right? What possible written material could prove to Abraham:
(1) That the written material itself is a true work of God
(2) That the Voice speaking to him was NOT that of deceiver
(3) That it was always the same voice, and thus never an impostor. I mean, wouldn't he likely suspect an impostor when it told him to go kill his own son?

You're not formulating a system that actually works. As I noted earlier, neither you nor LoveGodsWorth is providing a system that provides a viable solution to quandaries such as these:
(1) How does one know himself to be a prophet?
(2) If one hears a voice that speaks a foretelling, how can he test the voice?
(3) Is a prophet supposed to accept every voice? If not, how can he reliably decide/distinguish between them?

Click to expand...

As another shorter response, the name of the game is consistency. In the same way that you can often recognize a person(via voice, text or otherwise)based on their speech and mannerisms, you can identify God's voice by picking up on the consistencies--or inconsistencies--with what he has previously said and done. I'd like to imagine that with the pharisees, like Paul, God was able to show him where the pharisees' ideology did not match up with the things God already had put in place.

theoneandonlypencil said:

This teeters on universalism, which is not compatible with scripture whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Irresponsible debating. Don't tell me what my view "teeters on". That means nothing. All religions and philosophies have lots of intersections and thoughts in common. What's important, therefore, are not the similarities, but the differences. If you have a specific point of rebuttal, state it. Telling me what my views "teeter on" isn't helping.

JAL said:

Name ONE scenario that clearly calls for departure from the maxim. You cannot. This means you LIVE by the maxim, so don't go trying to tell me that it's a faulty maxim.

Click to expand...

I gave you two examples of where your maxim is flawed, and even explained how it correlates to universalism; a belief that is highly contradictory to the bible.

theoneandonlypencil said:

As another shorter response, the name of the game is consistency. In the same way that you can often recognize a person(via voice, text or otherwise)based on their speech and mannerisms, you can identify God's voice by picking up on the consistencies--or inconsistencies--with what he has previously said and done. I'd like to imagine that with the pharisees, like Paul, God was able to show him where the pharisees' ideology did not match up with the things God already had put in place.

Click to expand...

Inconsistencies? Like asking you to kill the son you just got, thereby proving the Voice did not come from God? That kind of thing?

theoneandonlypencil said:

I gave you two examples of where your maxim is flawed, and even explained how it correlates to universalism; a belief that is highly contradictory to the bible.

Click to expand...

No, you said "teetered on" universalism. A universal rule of morality doesn't prove that everyone goes to heaven.

No you haven't shown ONE scenario where I should depart from the maxim.

JAL said:

Irresponsible debating. Don't tell me what my view "teeters on". That means nothing. All religions and philosophies have lots of intersections and thoughts in common. What's important, therefore, are not the similarities, but the differences. If you have a specific point of rebuttal, state it. Telling me what my views "teeter on" isn't helping.

Click to expand...

Irresponsible debating? I pointed out a flaw in your maxim and compared it to universalism because they both create a similar problem. The DIFFERENCE is that since your maxim works in a similar way to universalism, and we know universalism is not correct, that IS the difference here.

theoneandonlypencil said:

Irresponsible debating? I pointed out a flaw in your maxim and compared it to universalism because they both create a similar problem. The DIFFERENCE is that since your maxim works in a similar way to universalism, and we know universalism is not correct, that IS the difference here.

Click to expand...

Universalism is a doctrine about everyone going to heaven. Where did I state that everyone goes to heaven? The maxim doesn't even come close to mentioning that issue. So yes, I'd say that's pretty irresponsible debating.

P.S. I'm not a universalist. You're way off.

LoveGodsWord said:

Not really what your teaching is Catholic doctrine. What do you think the reformation was over?

Click to expand...

Baseless. Ignored.

JAL said:

Inconsistencies? Like asking you to kill the son you just got, thereby proving the Voice did not come from God? That kind of thing?

Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, living in a time where God was actively present in affairs and situations in ways he simply isn't right now(I don't see him flooding regions anymore or appearing as a flaming bush in my backyard)should already clear up a lot of confusion on who's talking. Especially if the voice is one that will actively dish out punishments and then tell you what you did wrong.

JAL said:

Universalism is a doctrine about everyone going to heaven. Where did I state that everyone goes to heaven? The maxim doesn't even come close to mentioning that issue. So yes, I'd say that's pretty irresponsible debating.

P.S. I'm not a universalist. You're way off.

Click to expand...

The more you talk, the more I'm thinking that you didn't read what I said at all.

theoneandonlypencil said:

Second, I disagree with your other statement here;

"This maxim is a final authority in the sense that it both can and does properly dictate all our behavior, thereby contradicting the view of Scripture as the ONLY final authority. The maxim is tautological because it defines justice. God would be unjust to dishonor this maxim because perfect justice evaluates men on whether they did what is right to the best of their knowledge, which is precisely what the maxim means."


This teeters on universalism, which is not compatible with scripture whatsoever. If your maxim defines justice, and God would be unjust to dishonor that maxim; what of the tribal people who do not know of God, yet worship other gods? Are they going to be saved? After all, they did what was best to their knowledge; and God was not of their knowledge. That is, except, for the famous line "No one shall come to the father except through me."

Click to expand...

I've highlighted the important part. You're putting words in my mouth, which doesn't give me much faith in intellectual honesty of this debate if that's what you're resorting to so early on. I also never said it was universalism; I said first that it 'teeters' on it(meaning it is similar but not quite the exact same), and then I have just in another reply added that both create a similar theological error.