WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A REBUTTAL

[JAL]

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.

This part of the discussion originated in the claim that Abraham had some written material that proved to him the Voice was legit. That claim seems incredibly bogus and farfetched, and I don't see where either you or anyone else has managed to plausibly bolster it.

 

[JAL]

Really? Your only ignoring this question because it is based on fact. What do you think the reformation was over?

You can't legitimately put labels on me based only on what I oppose. What do I advocate? What I advocate - the primacy of Direct Revelation - stands in diametric opposition to Catholic doctrine.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

This part of the discussion originated in the claim that Abraham had some written material that proved to him the Voice was legit. That claim seems incredibly bogus and farfetched, and I don't see where either you or anyone else has managed to plausibly bolster it.

You do realize that God has dealt with his people in different ways over time, yes? Of course I believe that Abraham didn't need written material at that time--God was practically right there. However, at the core of this is your disagreeing with Sola Scriptura; which is very much needed these days, as God does NOT interact with us the same as he did in the times of Abraham.

God's methods of dealing with us humans change over time...or do you think we should still be making animal sacrifices and avoiding mixed fabric?

EDIT: I feel the need, based on your personality, to clarify that the last part was light sarcasm. No, I am not accusing you of saying we need to still be making sacrifices or avoiding mixed fabric.

 

[JAL]

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

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.

Again, all religions and philosophies teeter on each other. The differences are what's important. Therefore I consider it a despicable debating tactic trying to impugn someone's position - to make it look bad - based on what it "teeters" on. It doesn't MATTER what it teeters on. What matters is what it actually IS.

And frankly your objecting to my maxim is just blowing hot air. You LIVE by it. You haven't shown a single specific,real-life scenario where you'd depart from it.

 

[JAL]

You do realize that God has dealt with his people in different ways over time, yes? Of course I believe that Abraham didn't need written material at that time--God was practically right there. However, at the core of this is your disagreeing with Sola Scriptura; which is very much needed these days, as God does NOT interact with us the same as he did in the times of Abraham.

God's methods of dealing with us humans change over time...or do you think we should still be making animal sacrifices and avoiding mixed fabric?

EDIT: I feel the need, based on your personality, to clarify that the last part was light sarcasm. No, I am not accusing you of saying we need to still be making sacrifices or avoiding mixed fabric.

God deals with us EXACTLY how He dealt with them. It's called Direct Revelation:

"My sheep listen to my voice, I know them, and they follow me" (Jn 10:27).

 

[LoveGodsWord]

@YouAreAwesome why do you think post # 159 linked is funny dear friend? Do you know what the reformation was about? If your teaching against Sola Scriptura your teaching Catholic doctrine which is not biblical.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

God deals with us EXACTLY how He dealt with them. It's called Direct Revelation: "My sheep listen to my voice, I know them, and they follow me" (Jn 10:27).

Not really dear friend. JOHN 10:26-27 testifies against what your teaching..

JOHN 10:26-27 [26], But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. [27], My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me

My sheep hear my Voice (the Word of God see JOHN 1:1-4; 14) and follow him. Those who believe not (the Word) are not His Sheep because they do not hear and do not follow.

Hope this helps.

 

[chilehed]

Let's see about your claims and bring everything to the light of God's Word.

First you have to prove that all of the ancient documents you cite actually are God's word. You haven't done that, so everything else you say can be ignored for now.

 

[JAL]

Not really. I have only shared the scriptures with you. You claim that "direct revelation" supersedes the Word of God (the scriptures).

Direct Revelation doesn't "supsersede the Scriptures" - it DOES, however, have the power to challenge my fallible interpretations of them. I have no direct access to "the Scriptures" but only to my fallible translations and intepretations of them.

Direct Revelation challenges my fallible interpretations by causing me to feel certain that my previous understanding of the Bible was incorrect. This imposes a moral obligation per the maxim:

"If I feel certain that my action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

Example. Paul had an incorrect understanding of Scripture - for 20 years he believed that the Messiah would liberate captive Israel. That's why he couldn't imagine that Jesus was the Messiah. Then on the Road to Damascus, a Direct Revelation challenged his fallible interpretation. In a single flash of light, He jettisoned 20 years of studying the written Word - he threw it all out the window.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

@YouAreAwesome why do you think post # 159 linked is funny dear friend? Do you know what the reformation was about? If your teaching against Sola Scriptura your teaching Catholic doctrine which is not biblical.

That's like saying, "Do you believe in Jesus? Yes? Well that's Catholic doctrine!!"
That kind of logic makes me chuckle. (p.s. just a side note, where in Australia are you situated? I know many SDA's...)

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Again, all religions and philosophies teeter on each other. The differences are what's important. Therefore I consider it a despicable debating tactic trying to impugn someone's position - to make it look bad - based on what it "teeters" on. It doesn't MATTER what it teeters on. What matters is what it actually IS.

And frankly you're objecting to my maxim is just blowing hot air. You LIVE by it. You haven't shown a single specific,real-life scenario where you'd depart from it.

I generally try not to be so blunt with my debates, but I'm just going to say it; this point is utter rubbish.

All you've done is add a bunch of unnecessary jargin, put words in my mouth, and avoid directly responding to my answers by, instead, asking ME more questions ignoring what I already wrote. This very quote;

And frankly you're objecting to my maxim is just blowing hot air. You LIVE by it. You haven't shown a single specific,real-life scenario where you'd depart from it.

Is a great example. I do not always live by that maxim; in fact, just today before I yelled at someone I felt deep down 'hey, you know, I shouldn't do that' because that was the right thing to do. You know what I did? Ignored the right thing and did it anyways. Criminals do it all the time too, in case you'd like to ask how they wind up in jail.

Your point is contingent not on the assumption that everyday people do or do not depart from the maxim--but that the maxim is, or either is a large part of, God's method of 'direct revelation' which is to be believed over his pre-recorded word--which you have yet to prove at all. (Don't even get me started on the linear view you portray of the purpose of scripture)

I also never claimed to know more than you. I said neither of us are an ultimate authority, and just expressed my opinion that your theology does not have a good basis and is flawed. I gave two valid examples of where your maxim fails, and you didn't bother to respond. Don't ask me to recite them; go back and re-read my messages at least three times, go calm down and drink some tea, then we'll talk when you're ready to have a proper debate and not a childish flamewar.

 

[JAL]

Not really dear friend. JOHN 10:26-27 testifies against what your teaching..

JOHN 10:26-27 [26], But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. [27], My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me

My sheep hear my Voice (the Word of God see JOHN 1:1-4; 14) and follow him. Those who believe not (the Word) are not His Sheep because they do not hear and do not follow.

Hope this helps.

Really? The divine Word that came down from the throne and then died on the cross? Now that's the written Word? Moving target.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Not really dear friend. JOHN 10:26-27 testifies against what your teaching..

JOHN 10:26-27 [26], But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. [27], My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me

My sheep hear my Voice (the Word of God see JOHN 1:1-4; 14) and follow him. Those who believe not (the Word) are not His Sheep because they do not hear and do not follow.

Hope this helps.

Do you realise you are arguing against your own case here?

 

[JAL]

Is a great example. I do not always live by that maxim; in fact, just today before I yelled at someone I felt deep down 'hey, you know, I shouldn't do that' because that was the right thing to do. You know what I did? Ignored the right thing and did it anyways. Criminals do it all the time too, in case you'd like to ask how they wind up in jail.

You do realize that you just confirmed the maxim, right?

You were faced with two actions:
Action-A, perceived as evil
Action-B, perceived as good.

In this case you chose Action-A, but you acknowledge that you SHOULD have gone with B.

The maxim isn't a declaration of what you did. It's a stipulation on what you SHOULD do. To live in accordance with the maxim simply means to operate under a mentality consistent with that ideology. Which you just confirmed.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

God deals with us EXACTLY how He dealt with them. It's called Direct Revelation:

"My sheep listen to my voice, I know them, and they follow me" (Jn 10:27).

That's a pretty useless component to this argument considering just beforehand Jesus backed up his claims with;

25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me,"

Don't worry; if the voice in my head can't be verified to be God's through scripture--I'll accept any non-coincidental miracle such as miraculous healing, a plague destroying an entire nation so that I can save my people, or perhaps a man named Jesus literally standing in front of me performing any of said miracles in the name of God. (still waiting for that confirmation, though)

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That's like saying, "Do you believe in Jesus? Yes? Well that's Catholic doctrine!!"
That kind of logic makes me chuckle. (p.s. just a side note, where in Australia are you situated? I know many SDA's...)

How is that true when I only asked you do you know what the reformation was about which is proof to what I am sharing in relation to sola scriptura and Catholic doctrine? The reformation came about because the Catholic Church abandoned the Word of God to follow man made teachings and traditions that broke the commandments of God. Sola Scriptura is one of the pillars of the reformation calling the Church back to the Word of God. Today the Catholic Church continues to teach what you guys are sharing here in this forum.

 

[JAL]

That's a pretty useless component to this argument considering just beforehand Jesus backed up his claims with;

25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me,"

Don't worry; if the voice in my head can't be verified to be God's through scripture--I'll accept any non-coincidental miracle such as miraculous healing, a plague destroying an entire nation so that I can save my people, or perhaps a man named Jesus literally standing in front of me performing any of said miracles in the name of God. (still waiting for that confirmation, though)

I'm not grasping your point here.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You do realize that you just confirmed the maxim, right?

You were faced with two actions:
Action-A, perceived as evil
Action-B, perceived as good.

In this case you chose Action-A, but you acknowledge that you SHOULD have gone with B.

The maxim isn't a declaration of what you did. It's a stipulation on what you SHOULD do. To live in accordance with the maxim simply means to operate under a mentality consistent with that ideology. Which you just confirmed.

Here is an idea how about you address the OP that deals with this in detail and your 16 other points which show why you are in error? If you cannot why do you not believe the scriptures? Point one of the OP addresses this post here of yours in detail. Your only repeating yourself without addressing anything provided in the OP.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Do you realise you are arguing against your own case here?

Goodness and how would that be?

JOHN 10:26-27 testifies against what your teaching..

JOHN 10:26-27 [26], But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. [27], My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me

My sheep hear my Voice (the Word of God see JOHN 1:1-4; 14) and follow him. Those who believe not (the Word) are not His Sheep because they do not hear and do not follow.

The Voice of JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD!

Hope this helps.

 

[JAL]

How is that true when I only asked you do you know what the reformation was about? The reformation came about because the Catholic Church abandoned the Word of God to follow man made teachings and traditions that broke the commandments of God. Sola Scriptura is one of the pillars of the reformation calling the Church back to the Word of God. Today the Catholic Church continues to teach what you guys are sharing here in this forum.

You realize that sword cuts both ways, don't you? When Jesus incarnated Himself among the Jews, HE found Himself entrenched in man-made traditions created by the Sola Scriptura parties of his day (Pharisees, Sadducees, teachers of the law).

Exegesis is man-made interpretations of Scriptura. When it's used to dictate religious behavior, it INEVITABLY leads to man-made traditions. Jesus walked in Direct Revelation and thus in liberation from all those self-imposed burdens.