WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A REBUTTAL

[JAL]

I don't have the least intention of telling you such a thing so don't tell me what I Scripture I love to cite..........Deal?

Come to think of it, your 100% correct.

Paul was a Pharisee, he called himself a Jew Of Jews he took great pride in his Jewish heritage and learning, I do not believe you would want to attempt to Rebutt Paul, he was very, very well versed in those Scriptures.

I'm sure he would approve of Sola Scriptura whole heartedly.

Paul held to Sola Scriptura only until he received Direct Revelation on the Road to Damascus. Like you said, he was a writer of the NT. Direct Revelation is what enabled him to write it. Thus Paul became a good example of the following principle:

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” (John 16).

Had Paul made the big mistake of continuing to rely on Sola Scriptura (fallible exegesis), we would't have those inerrant epistles of his. All we'd have is a typical flawed seminary journal.

 

[JAL]

Are you saying you do not trust what is written in the Bible but you would use some other source before checking in the Bible, The Inspired Word God?

You realize, don't you, that you do NOT trust in the Bible alone? You had to have some basis that dictated, in your own mind, whether or not accept Scripture as true. All you have to do is tell us the basis.
(1) Was it Reason?
(2) Conscience?
(3) Inward Witness?
(4) Historical Research?

Take your pick. Tell us your basis - tell me why you believe that Scripture is true. Whatever your basis, it is, for you, a higher authority than Scripture because it DICTATES your decision to accept - and continue accepting - Scripture. This basis flatly contradicts the "Sola" in Sola Scriptura.

So why do you accept Scripture? What's your basis? Don't tell me "Scripture" because that's circular reasoning. That's like saying "I accept the Koran because the Koran calls itself the Word of God".

 

[JIMINZ]

Paul held to Sola Scriptura only until he received Direct Revelation on the Road to Damascus. Like you said, he was a writer of the NT. Direct Revelation is what enabled him to write it. Thus Paul became a good example of the following principle:

He fell back on his knowledge of the Law found in the Old Testament to writ to the Hebrews as well as others.

That knowledge was not Direct Revelation as you say.

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” (John 16).

OH, I get it now, your a Direct Revelation GUY, you don't want to use the Bible as your Authority because it goes against you beliefs, ok I can dig that.

Had Paul made the big mistake of continuing to rely on Sola Scriptura (fallible exegesis), we would't have those inerrant epistles of his. All we'd have is a typical flawed seminary journal.

No, No, No h paul relied upon his very own Direct revelation which is so much different than what you rely on, but when Necessary, he used the knowledge available in the Old Testament and then built upon that with what he heard directly from Jesus Himself.

 

[JIMINZ]

You realize, don't you, that you do NOT trust in the Bible alone? You had to have some basis that dictated, in your own mind, whether or not accept Scripture as true. All you have to do is tell us the basis.
(1) Was it Reason?
(2) Conscience?
(3) Inward Witness?
(4) Historical Research?

Take your pick. Tell us your basis - tell me why you believe that Scripture is true. Whatever your basis, it is, for you, a higher authority than Scripture because it DICTATES your decision to accept - and continue accepting - Scripture. This basis flatly contradicts the "Sola" in Sola Scriptura.

So why do you accept Scripture? What's your basis? Don't tell me "Scripture" because that's circular reasoning. That's like saying "I accept the Koran because the Koran calls itself the Word of God".

It's called Faith, I happen to believe that the written word of God is the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. I feel sorry for those who have not had an experience where they obtained Faith to believe.

You have just answered my question about why you do not believe therefore this discussion does not need to progress any further.

Good night.

 

[JAL]

He fell back on his knowledge of the Law found in the Old Testament to writ to the Hebrews as well as others.

That knowledge was not Direct Revelation as you say.

Oh that's interesting. Then what Paul wrote is not Scripture, then, it's just your typical humanly fallible seminary journal. Too bad, earlier I had assumed that Paul's writings were on a par with this general classification:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim 3:16)

But you seem to beg to differ. Right?

Oh then you seem to change your mind again in the next statement:

No, No, No h paul relied upon his very own Direct revelation which is so much different than what you rely on, but when Necessary, he used the knowledge available in the Old Testament and then built upon that with what he heard directly from Jesus Himself.

Care to make up your mind? Did Paul rely on Direct Revelation or not?

And what was that crack about "so much different than what you rely on"? How many Direct Revelations have I boasted on this thread, or any other thread? (i.e. in the sense of clearly articulated doctrines heard from God). Oh that's right. Zero.

 

[JAL]

It's called Faith, I happen to believe that the written word of God is the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. I feel sorry for those who have not had an experience where they obtained Faith to believe.

You have just answered my question about why you do not believe therefore this discussion does not need to progress any further.

So I gave 4 options for your basis to believe in Scripture:
(1) Was it Reason?
(2) Conscience?
(3) Inward Witness?
(4) Historical Research?
You rejected all of them. You added:
(5) Faith

You went with Faith instead of Reason. That means blind faith. Now, let's bear in mind that, as I said, this DICTATED your decision to accept Scripture and thus is a higher authority than Scripture. Consider the implications:
(1) For you, blind faith is a higher authority than Scripture.
(2) That means, tomorrow, if a Muslim preaches the Koran, you will likely accept it on blind faith.
(3) By admitting that blind faith is a doctrinal authority in your life, you yourself have refuted the "Sola" in Sola Scriptura.


Am I the only one who has figured out that Sola Scriptura doesn't make sense? I sure hope not.

 

[JIMINZ]

So I gave 4 options for your basis to believe in Scripture:
(1) Was it Reason?
(2) Conscience?
(3) Inward Witness?
(4) Historical Research?
You rejected all of them. You added:
(5) Faith

You went with Faith instead of Reason. That means blind faith. Now, let's bear in mind that, as I said, this DICTATED your decision to accept Scripture and thus is a higher authority than Scripture. Consider the implications:
(1) For you, blind faith is a higher authority than Scripture.
(2) That means, tomorrow, if a Muslim preaches the Koran, you will likely accept it on blind faith.
(3) By admitting that blind faith is a doctrinal authority in your life, you yourself have refuted the "Sola" in Sola Scriptura.


Am I the only one who has figured out that Sola Scriptura doesn't make sense? I sure hope not.

Sorry, I did not intend to go down that rabbit hole you live in, and digging another room doesn't mean I will fall into that one either.

I wrote.
"I happen to believe that the written word of God is the Bible, both Old and New Testaments."

The Koran is not the word of God and never will be, maybe you should read it, unless of course you already have.

But Faith is a great thing to have, without Faith you don't have Salvation either, because that takes Blind Faith to Believe in a God you cannot see, and a Trinity, and a Savior that died for your sins, and sooooo much more but, you don't care about Faith being Blind you want to Hold and Look at what you believe in, or it cant possibly be true.

Like I said Good Night, I'm done.

 

[JAL]

Sorry, I did not intend to go down that rabbit hole you live in, and digging another room doesn't mean I will fall into that one either.

I wrote.
"I happen to believe that the written word of God is the Bible, both Old and New Testaments."

The Koran is not the word of God and never will be, maybe you should read it, unless of course you already have.

But Faith is a great thing to have without Faith you don't have Salvation either, because that takes Blind Faith to Believe in a God you cannot see, and a Trinity, and a Savior that died for your sins, and sooooo much more but you don't care about Faith being Blind you want to Hold and Look at what you believe in or it cant possibly be true.

Like I said Good Night, I'm done.

Does it take blind faith to believe in a God that you cannot see? That question deserves some discussion. Suppose a blind man hears your voice. I'd say he believes in you, but not on blind faith.

Anyway you have attested to an irrational position (incoherent nonsense) known as a blind-faith mentality. And you seem to think that God is so irrational as to condone this mentality? You claim to have a biblical position, but certainly the Bible scholars don't agree with your assessemnt. Of the five choices that we discussed, almost all evangelical scholars opt for #3, which is a type of Direct Revelation, as our basis for believing that Scripture is true. In addition, some noted evangelical scholars insist that our faith is ANYTHING but blind. Examples.
(1) Gordon Fee considered it exegetically undeniable that 2Cor 3:18 ascribes a literal beholding of Christ for all believers. Earlier you asked me my basis for believing that "the eyes of your heart be enlightened" (Eph 1:17 -18) refers to revelatory visions. An examination of chapters 3 and 4 of 2Corinthians is a good start in that direction:

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ" (2Cor 4).

That passage was just a followup on what Paul had already asserted in the previous chapter:

"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit (2Cor 3:18).

All this is Direct Revelation. You do realize that, don't you?

(2) Here's another example of an evangelical scholar: This, said Vincent, is the "new vision of the new man. He sees not only God, but the kingdom of God" (Vincent’s Word Studies on John 3:5) because "the new birth imparts a new vision" (Ibid., on Jn 3:11).

(3) John Calvin rightly opposed all anti-revelatory attempts to explain away John 16:16, concluding that "Christ wishes to be seen by us" (Calvin’s Commentaries on John 16:16). Likewise Calvin stated of 14:19 that the Spirit enables believers to always "behold him" by means of a "secret beholding of Christ" (ibid).

 

[redleghunter]

What are your thought? Do you believe Gods' Word is the guide of Christians?

The Holy Scriptures are God Breathed. Keep going.

 

[JAL]

You Sola Scriptura people consider it so super-righteousness to boast about how adequate is the written Word to serve as our guide, meanwhile implying the inadequacy of the divine Word to be our guide.

"The Word of the Lord came to [the prophet] Abram in a [revelatory] vision" (Gen 15).

The divine Word guides us by Direct Revelation. But you guys insinuate that the divine Word has never been an adequate guide. Nice. Lovely mentality.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You Sola Scriptura people consider it so super-righteousness to boast about how adequate is the written Word to serve as our guide, meanwhile implying the inadequacy of the divine Word to be our guide.

"The Word of the Lord came to [the prophet] Abram in a [revelatory] vision" (Gen 15).

The divine Word guides us by Direct Revelation. But you guys insinuate that the divine Word has never been an adequate guide. Nice. Lovely mentality.

Dear JAL, we only have our salvation by Faith in God's Word *JOHN 3:15-21; EPEHSIANS 2:8-9. Your trying to argue against a Christians only means of salvation. Did you know this? If we do not have faith in God's Word it is the same as sin in God's eyes *ROMANS 14:23. What you are promoting can only lead you and others away from God and his salvation that he has gifted all those who believe and follow his Word *EPHESIANS 1:13. This is only posted in love and as a help. My prayer is that you might receive it in the spirit that it is given.

May you receive Gods Word and be blessed.

 

[JIMINZ]

Does it take blind faith to believe in a God that you cannot see? That question deserves some discussion.

Sure it does, can you physically prove God exists?
Sorry, I'm going to have to use some good ole Sola Scriptura here.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

End of discussion.

Suppose a blind man hears your voice. I'd say he believes in you, but not on blind faith.

Of course not he hears my voice, what's you point?

Anyway you have attested to an irrational position (incoherent nonsense) known as a blind-faith mentality. And you seem to think that God is so irrational as to condone this mentality? You claim to have a biblical position, but certainly the Bible scholars don't agree with your assessemnt.

Let me see, sorry some more of that dreaded Sola Scriptura coming your way.

1Jn. 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar:
for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen,
how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

As far as those illustrious Bible Scholars you put so mush store in, how could they have missed such a simple thing as Blind Faith, probably because they don't have Blind Faith themselves, the same as you therefore they themselves are blind to the TRUTH.

And once again some more Sola Scriptura

1Cor. 1:25
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1Cor. 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Cor. 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

I'm not going to go any further, you get the drift of my position and why.

 

[JAL]

Dear JAL, we only have our salvation by Faith in God's Word *JOHN 3:15-21; EPEHSIANS 2:8-9. Your trying to argue against a Christians only means of salvation. Did you know this? If we do not have faith in God's Word it is the same as sin in God's eyes *ROMANS 14:23. What you are promoting can only lead you and others away from God and his salvation that he has gifted all those who believe and follow his Word *EPHESIANS 1:13. This is only posted in love and as a help. My prayer is that you might receive it in the spirit that it is given.

May you receive Gods Word and be blessed.

Faith cometh by hearing the divine Word. In both Rom 4 and Galat 3, Paul points us back to this example:

"The Word of the Lord came to [the prophet] Abram in a [revelatory] vision" (Gen 15).

Abraham didn't receive a Bible. He received Christ the divine Word, and heard His voice:

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

Thus salvation has never been by the written Word. It has ALWAYS been by the divine Voice speaking the truth into our hearts.

 

[JAL]

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
End of discussion.

Your inability to comprehend the Scriptures is precisely why you need Direct Revelation. Lots of people saw God. There are tons of examples:

"The seventy elders of Israel went up 10and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank" (Ex 24).

 

[JAL]

Of course not he hears my voice, what's you point?

Um...The point was pretty obvious. Based on a voice, a blind man can believe in someone he has not seen, and this is not blind faith - it's not irrational faith, contrary to your earlier insinuation that blind faith in Scripture is appropriate. Blind faith is NEVER appropriate.

 

[JIMINZ]

Nighty Night all, don't eat each other.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

"You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to Me!" (John 5:39).

QED.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

"You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to Me!" (John 5:39).

QED.

Indeed, if the scriptures point to JESUS how can you find JESUS without the scriptures?

 

[Paul James]

Indeed, if the scriptures point to JESUS how can you find JESUS without the scriptures?

It would be interesting if someone could identify who Jesus and why He came to earth, and what He did on the cross for us, by some other source of information than the Scriptures.

 

[JAL]

Indeed, if the scriptures point to JESUS how can you find JESUS without the scriptures?

By meeting Him. That's what Direct Revelation is.

Salvation isn't obtained by reading about Jesus. It's obtained by meeting Jesus, and then continuing to meet with Him on a regular basis. Admittedly He hasn't yet appeared to you and me as CLEARLY as He did to the great prophets. But He has shown Himself to you, indistinctly. Otherwise you'd only have a written biography, and thus no relationship with Him, no fellowship with Him, and no salvation.

I'm trying to clarify the difference between exegesis and Direct Revelation. I hope you're taking it all in.