Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They had the spoken Word by the Apostles and the Torah and the prophets. Already stated in the last post and the written Word made in the lifetime of the Aposltes.Yes, but the question is not what the Bible is in the sense of what comprises it (i.e., that is both the OT and NT; nobody's disagreed on that since Marcion in the 140s), but rather how they could've lived by it prior to canonization, since the idea of turning to the Bible would've meant something different then than it does now in the post-canonization world that we live in.
John 5: 39-47
"You pore over the Scriptures because you presume that by them you possess eternal life. These are the very words that testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me to have life. I do not accept glory from men, but I know you, that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in My Father’s name, and you have not received Me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe if you accept glory from one another, yet do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”
Where do you find these other utterances?
On the original thread which is here, over a period of 500 posts I repeatedly demonstrated that your objections regurgitate Sola Scriptura without meeting the force of my 16 points. Even when I rephrased a single objection several times, in several different ways, your replies just served as a pretense of real rebuttal. I don't find it necessary to repeat all that material on this thread.16 POINT REBUTTAL OF THE MAIN ARGUMENT IN Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense
Let's see about your claims and bring everything to the light of God's Word. As it is written only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *ROMANS 3:4 and again in JOHN 3:20-21 [20], For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. [21], But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are worked in God. Please if you disagree with any of the scriptures provided here that prove why your claims are in error, please prove why you disagree.
There are only no conceivable exception if you do not believe the scriptures. Where point one falls down and can be dismissed right away is that there is only one standard for GOOD and EVIL; SIN and RIGHTEOUSNESS and that is the Word of God given through God's 10 commandments *ROMANS 3:20; ROMANS 7:7; 1 JOHN 3:4; PSALMS 119:172. If we break anyone of them we stand guilty before God of sin *JAMES 2:10-11. Sin which is defined in Gods' Word is not believing God's Word *ROMANS 14:23 and breaking anyone of God's 10 commandments *JAMES 2:10-11; 1 JOHN 3:4. Breaking God's commandments from the heart is also defined in the scriptures or the Word of God as "Evil" in MATTHEW 15:19 see also GENESIS 6:5. So the point here? It is the Word of God alone (Sola scriptura) that gives us the knowledge of what good and evil; Sin and righteousness is. Outside of God's Word we do not know what sin is or have no knowledge of what sin is. This is why it is written in the scriptures in JAMES 4:17 [17], Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin and again in Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31 [30] And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to repent:[31], Because he has appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has ordained; whereof he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead which links to ROMANS 7:7 [7], What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law (Word of God): for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet (refering to EXODUS 20:17). The scriptures teach "FAITH comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *ROMANS 10:17. If we are saved by God's GRACE THROUGH FAITH *EPHESIANS 2:8-9 how then can you have FAITH which is needed for God's salvation *JOHN 3:16-21; EPHESIANS 2:8-9 when you have no Word?
- Point 1 falls over....
God's Word teaches that before the written word of God given to ISRAEL at Mt Sinai, there was the Spoken Word of God (GENESIS 3:1-3; 9; 11-19 8:15; 9:8; 24:7; 31:11 etc). After the written Word of God, sometimes God provides direct revelation of His Word to those who he sends as prophets and messengers to His people. This is biblical where your argument here in point 2 falls down we are also told in the scriptures that there will be many false prophets and teachers that God has not sent even showing great signs and wonders that if it were possible could deceive Gods' very elect *MATTHEW 24:24; JEREMIAH 14:4; MATTHEW 24:11; LUKE 6:26; 2 PETER 2:1. We are told in 1 JOHN 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. How then do we try the Spirits to see if they are of God or not? JESUS says the WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIGHT *JOHN 6:63.
God's Word is the very source of truth and tells us if someone has been given a direct revelation from God or not as it is written again; To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them *ISAIAH 8:20 and again And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that said, I know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him *1 JOHN 2:3-4. If there is no Word of God there is no standard has been given a direct revelation from God or not.
- Point 2 falls over....
Well this one is the easiest one of all to refute as it is the scriptures alone that show that conversion and salvation is the word of God alone we we believe and follow his Word *EPEHSANS 2:8-9; JOHN 3:16-21 etc. There is actually too many scriptures here that disagree with your teachings for example EPHESIANS 1:13 In whom you also trusted, AFTER THE YOU HEARD THE WORD OF TRUTH, THE GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION: in whom also after that you believed, you were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise. We are told in the scriptures that we are saved by God's GRACE THROUGH FAITH.. *EPHESIANS 2:8. Now if our salvation and conversion is by BELIEVING God's Word and faith comes by hearing and hearing comes only by the Word of God *ROMANS 10:17. How can you have conversion when there is no Word?
- Point three comes crashing down....
To be continued...
On the original thread which is here, over a period of 500 posts I repeatedly demonstrated that your objections regurgitate Sola Scriptura without meeting the force of my 16 points. Even when I rephrased a single objection several times, in several different ways, your replies just served as a pretense of real rebuttal. I don't find it necessary to repeat all that material on this thread.
I'm not catholic but I completely agree. However, there can be huge problems with singular control over doctrine. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'd say it has to do with allowing the freedom of doctrinal subjectivity with regard to the lesser doctrines, and more of a unity on the greater ones. Much room for debate here though. This is where I take the Spirit as my guide. I'm more than happy to worship with Catholics and protestants alike. And I do!Jesus said "By their fruits shall ye know them". The fruit of sola scriptura is the fragmentation of Protestantism into thousands of conflicting denominations that can't agree with one another about the meaning of a single biblical passage. Total doctrinal chaos - exactly the opposite of the clearly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers - "that they all may be ONE, even as I and My heavenly Father are ONE".
Let's get something straight. Prior to your involvement, I initiated the discussion on a thread summarized in a 16-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura. You then claimed to rebut MY 16 points but what you actually did was copy/paste copious amounts of verses unjustifiably presumed to support Sola Scriptura. In all the verses that mention "The Word", you indiscriminately conflate the written Word with the divine Word of Direct Revelation (see Isa 55:11), for example the revelatory vision at Gen 15:1 (you even went so far as to conflate the divine Word of John 1 with the (written?) Word of Sola Scriptura):Actually no. You did not address anything in the OP dispite being asked to. But that is ok I did not think you would or could that was why the OP rebuttal was made in the other thread which I have also posted on the first page here if you want to have a go at it now. Until then we will have to agree to disagree dear friend but thankyou for sharing.
Let's get something straight. Prior to your involvement, I initiated the discussion on a thread summarized in a 16-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura. You then claimed to rebut MY 16 points but what you actually did was copy/paste copious amounts of verses unjustifiably presumed to support Sola Scriptura. In all the verses that mention "The Word", you indiscriminately conflate the written Word with the divine Word of Direct Revelation (see Isa 55:11), for example the revelatory vision at Gen 15:1 (you even went so far as to conflate the divine Word of John 1 with the (written?) Word of Sola Scriptura):
"The Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision [speaking promises]" (Gen 15:1).
By equating the Voice of the Lord with Sola Scriptura whenever it suits you, you thereby claim that all biblical data points to Sola Scriptura. How convenient for you - but that is not a real rebuttal. It just makes you a moving target (read this as self-contradictory). Your posts also indiscriminately refer to "praying to God for understanding" without clarifying how such is materially different than I myself asking for divine illumination of the written Word (Direct Revelation). I'll say it again: I don't see much of anything in your posts that is either clear or worth responding to.
I already addressed them. I exposed that your posts:Hi dear friend. Happy to go through your new post and points here after you address my first rebuttals of your 16 points on page one. Still waiting so far for you to do this after many requests. Let's start there. If you make an attempt there I will deal with these ones. Sounds fair? Until then I have decided it is not worth my time. Let's get something clear. The written Word of God is the divine Word of God. It is a transcript of the "SPOKEN" Word of God. No one has ever said there is no direct revelation from God to people (e.g prophets, messengers). We are told in the written Word of God that there are many false prophets and false teachers in the last days and to test the Spirits with the written Word of God. That is pretty much all I have contested in summary. The final authority is the written Word of God.
Hope this helps.
Let's get something straight. Prior to your involvement, I initiated the discussion on a thread summarized in a 16-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura. You then claimed to rebut MY 16 points but what you actually did was copy/paste copious amounts of verses unjustifiably presumed to support Sola Scriptura. In all the verses that mention "The Word", you indiscriminately conflate the written Word with the divine Word of Direct Revelation (see Isa 55:11), for example the revelatory vision at Gen 15:1 (you even went so far as to conflate the divine Word of John 1 with the (written?) Word of Sola Scriptura):
"The Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision [speaking promises]" (Gen 15:1).
By equating the Voice of the Lord with Sola Scriptura whenever it suits you, you thereby claim that all biblical data points to Sola Scriptura. How convenient for you - but that is not a real rebuttal. It just makes you a moving target (read this as self-contradictory). Your posts also indiscriminately refer to "praying to God for understanding" without clarifying how such is materially different than I myself asking for divine illumination of the written Word (Direct Revelation). I'll say it again: I don't see much of anything in your posts that is either clear or worth responding to.
So let's try this again. I'm going to post here a summary of my 16-point summary, as it were, consisting of approximately 10 salient points. And then I'm going to let the readers of this thread decide for themselves whether your responses directly address the full force of my 10 arguments.
(Point 1)
How do we test a voice? From Genesis to Revelation, the biblical test is everywhere IMPLIED to be the Spirit convicting us. Meaning, if the Spirit - during the Direct Revelation - leaves us feeling 100% certain/persuaded of the message/Voice, we are morally obligated to it. In this way His Voice is self-authenticating. That's the only reasonable explanation as to why:
(A) Adam and Eve were obligated to obey the Voice (with no Scripture to test the voice or distinguish it from satan's voice).
(B) Noah obeyed the Voice (with no Scripture to test the voice).
(C) Abraham tried to kill his son in response to a voice (with no Scripture to test the voice)
(D) Moses and Joshua slaughtered nations in response to a voice (with no Scripture to test the voice)
(E) Saul and Samuel slaughtered the Amalekites per the Voice
(F) David slaughtered Philistines per the Voice
(G) Paul instantly forsook 20 years of Sola-Scriptura-conclusions when he heard the Voice on the Road to Damascus (previously he already HAD tested Jesus by Scripture, unsuccessfully).
(H) Peter shunned the Gentiles, for exegetical reasons, until a vision persuaded him to go preach to them (Acts 10). In a word, the vision told him to REJECT what he had learned from Scripture.
(I) The prophets sucessfully wrote the Scriptures per the Voice (even when the voice said something non-testable such as a foretelling)
When I point out such examples, for example at post 530, you move the goalposts. You claim that all these examples of a self-authenticating Voice are actually examples of Sola Scripura. You put it like this - here's your exact words:
"Already answered see previous post. Before the written word was the spoken Word of God."
Huh? At what point in human history did Sola-Voice (Direct Revelation) suddenly become the same thing as Sola Scriptura? This makes you a moving target.
(Point 2)
It's absurd to claim that all voices can be tested by exegesis. For example if someone gives you a word of encouragement, "You will receive a new job offer within 7 days", or an exhortation, "The Lord says to pack up your bags and move to Africa to preach the gospel", there's no verse of Scripture that could prove that statement true or false.
Nowhere does Scripture claim that exegesis is the test of a voice. The appeal to the Bereans proves nothing because the Bereans pesumably examined Scripture under the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation), not by exegesis (human reasoning). Likewise the appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves nothing because Timothy was almost certainly a prophet (Paul mentored him after all) who, as such, definitely relied on divine illumination.
Rather, the biblical references to "testing" typically allude to the Anointing (1Jn 2:20-23;26-27;compare 1Jn 3:24 with 4:1). The clear implication is that the test is to ask the spirit whether it agrees, or disagrees with, those things already learned from the Anointing's self-authenticating Voice. Jesus said:
“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.”
Because His Voice is self-authenticating, the above passage nowhere mentions the need to first put the Voice to the test of exegesis, whenever you seem to hear it.
(Point 3)
As suggested in point 1 of my original 16-point rebuttal, the following "rule of conscience" properly governs us in all scenarios and thus overrides any (fallible) conclusion drawn from biblical exegesis:
"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".
You can complain about the unreliability of conscience all you want, but the fact is that neither you nor anyone else has risen to my challenge of postulating even one single scenario that warrants deliberate departure from the above maxim. And I went further than that:
(A) I noted that the above maxim finds support in Paul's discussion of conscience at 1Cor 8:1-13 and the parallel chapter Romans 14.
(B) I showed, at post 539, that the above maxim is tautological because it defines justice. I showed that if God were to dishonor the maxim, it would classify Him as an evil, unjust judge.
Direct Revelation ALWAYS operates via the above maxim - that's how it self-authenticates. Direct Revelation works like this:
(1) The Spirit conveys a message to us.
(2) He convicts our conscience, causing us to feel certain that the message is true.
(3) Feelings of certainty must be heeded, per the maxim (per the rule of conscience).
(Point 4)
Points 1 to 3 laid out a system defining how Direct Revelation operates. In the 3,000 years since Moses wrote, no theologian has provided an alternative system that arguably always "works" - a theory of divine-human communication fully viable in all possible scenarios. This is the only known system of divine-human communication that actually makes sense.
By way of contrast, advocates of Sola Scriptura have, for at least 500 years, utterly failed to provide a clear, coherent theory on divine illumination. Supposedly God is supposed to teach me about Scripture - the problem is that Sola Scriptura presses me to test His voice exegetically. But if I already understand Scripture well enough to test His voice exegetically, why do I need His voice? There is nothing clear about the Sola Scriptura position. This is a real problem. As I recall, one theologian "solved" it by claiming that God no longer illuminates the mind, since we have the written Scriptures today.
(Point 5)
How do we know that Scripture is inspired? This itself is a Direct Revelation. The Spirit convicts us of this truth (Point 3 explained how Direct Revelation works). The Protestant Reformation crystallized this Reformed doctrine under the rubric "The Inward Witness" - they rightly claimed that the Spirit reveals to us that Scripture is inspired by causing us to feel certain about it. Since this revelatory influence DICTATED whether or not to accept the book, it is a higher authority than the book.
Even if you don't accept the Reformed doctrine of the Inward Witness, the fact remains you accepted the book on SOME basis (such as Reason). This positions Reason as a higher authority than the book, since it dictated your decision to accept or reject the book. In a nutshell, the book cannot be our highest authority, since we had to accept the book based on some other authoritative basis.
(Point 6)
Scripture is babes-milk-revelation, not solid-food-revelation. This is clear because Paul often handed out epistles (such as 1Corinthians) INSTEAD of solid food - see 1Cor 3 (and see point 14 in my 16-point summary for a set of posts on 1Corinthians that, by themselves, adequately refute Sola Scriptura). The writer of Hebrews did the same (Heb 5) - he handed out the Epistle to the Hebrews INSTEAD of solid food. This flatly contradicts the notion that the canon contains all the revelation intended for us. And I'm not alone in this thinking: the church father Chrysostom remarked on solid food that not even “Scripture hath anywhere discoursed to us of these things" (NPNF, Part 1, Vol 12, Homily 34).
(Point 7)
Exegesis is inevitably tainted with man-made opinions, for at least two reasons:
(A) A man-made lexicon and/or grammer book is the only way to learn Hebrew and Greek.
(B) All exegetical proofs are based on assumptions that, in turn, need to be proven. This leads to an infinite regress of unproven assumptions. The only way to break out of the infinite loop is to provisionally STIPULATE some man-made presumptions.
As a result, there is no such thing as "testing against Scripture" - the best we can do is study, and test against, a somewhat man-made version of Scripture.
(Point 8)
The epistles do not command the churches to practice exegesis (regardless of whether the prophet Timothy was so commanded). Even in those few passages that do mention "The Word", the question remains whether:
(A) Is it talking about the written Word or the divine spoken Word (Gen 15:1, Isa 55:11) - you can't just assume one or the other, nor indiscriminately equate both with Sola Scriptura - as you have been so fond of doing in our debate.
(B) Nor can you presume these verses to advocate studying the written Word without recourse to divine illumination (Direct Revelation). As mentioned earlier, there is no basis for assuming that Paul counseled Timothy to study the Scriptures without divine illumination.
To summarize, Sola Scriptura is a theological construct, not an exegetical datum. It has no clear support in Scripture, it seems to contradict Scripture at every turn, and it seems to be a man-made doctrine from first to last. Just because a tradition is longstanding in the church, doesn't prove it true. The Reformers already demonstrated that traditions persisting for 1500 years in the church need not be true.
On the other hand, what IS clearly articulated, nay, commanded, to the churches is the primacy of prophecy - and Paul closely associated the term prophecy with the word revelation. Paul puts prophecy on the very top rung of the priority-ladder alongside love:
"Eagerly desire the greater gifts" (1 Cor 12:31)
"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).
29Two 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. (
39Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues
There you have it - multiple clear references to prophecy and, as usual, not a single clear reference to exegesis.
(Point 9)
Paul gave us his definition of a church:
28And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues (1Cor 12:28).
Every alternative definition - every subsequent definition - is a deviation from Paul's definition and is thus man-made. To embrace a definition of the church other than Paul's is itself a violation of Sola Scriptura. And note that Paul's definition already stands in stark contrast to the Sola-Scriptura mentality:
(1) In the Sola-Scriptura mentality (exegesis), Bible-scholars are the leaders of the church.
(2) In the Pauline mentality, apostles and prophets (recipients of Direct Revelation) are the leaders of the church.
(Point 10)
Christ's entire ministry was a rebuttal of the Sola Scriptura parties of His day (the Pharisees, Sadducces, and teachers of the law). He made it clear that HIS teaching came directly from the Father, literally speaking with Him face to face, and thus by Direct Revelation. He made it clear that it was Direct Revelation that veered Him away from the myriad exegetical errors of the Bible scholars. And He made it clear that, for us too, Direct Revelation proves to be a more reliable interpreter of the Scriptures than Bible scholarship:
"At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to babes".
A babe lacks the scholarly skills to test his father's voice exegetically. Thus he accepts the message based on the perceived authority and reliability of the father - in a word he feels certain that his father's voice is trustworthy.
Bonus Point: The NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).
I already addressed them. I exposed that your posts:
(1) Fallaciously equate the authoritative Voice (the spoken Word) with the Sola Scriptura position (the text as the only authority). And by no means was I the only person to observe that fallacy in your posts. Others called you on it too.
(2) Claim to address my objections but do not.
(3) Are a copy/paste of myriad verses PRESUMED to support Sola Scriptura with no clear explanation why.
(4) Talk about "praying to God for understanding" without clearly explaining how such is materially different than I myself praying to God for illumination of the Scriptures (Direct Revelation)
(5) That your appeals to the Bereans and Timothy carry no weight because you have no proof that they read Scripture without recourse to divine illumination (Direct Revelation).
In addition to those five DISPROOFS of your posts, I just provided a 10-point PROOF of my position.
I suspect you'll continue to try to shift the burden of proof onto me - claiming I didn't address your posts - because at this point you have no cogent rebuttal.
Maybe what I'll do is just go through some of your posts highlighting some examples of the five fallacies just named.
God's written Word? Or the spoken Word of Direct Revelation? You indiscriminately conflate them. And why the assertion that either one is the only authority? Paul claimed that our conscience is authoritative enough to obligate us and judge us (Rom 2:14-16). This is precisely the claim of my main maxim - the rule of conscience - which by itself refutes Sola Scriptura.16 POINT REBUTTAL OF THE MAIN ARGUMENT IN Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense
Let's see about your claims and bring everything to the light of God's Word. As it is written only God's Word is true...
Disagree with what? Where do any of these verses suggest Sola Scriptura?...and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *ROMANS 3:4 and again in JOHN 3:20-21 [20], For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. [21], But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are worked in God. Please if you disagree with any of the scriptures provided here that prove why your claims are in error, please prove why you disagree.
The 10 commandments? That was the Voice! Only later was it written down. Israel didn't have to "use exegesis to test the voice" - the Voice itself was authoritative.There are only no conceivable exception if you do not believe the scriptures. Where point one falls down and can be dismissed right away is that there is only one standard for GOOD and EVIL; SIN and RIGHTEOUSNESS and that is the Word of God given through God's 10 commandments *ROMANS 3:20; ROMANS 7:7; 1 JOHN 3:4; PSALMS 119:172.
The spoken Word, or the written Word? The written Word without proper illumination? The written Word without respect to conscience? The written Word without respect to our differing situations and circumstances? Where is your proof that (fallible) exegesis has the final say in all this?If we break anyone of them we stand guilty before God of sin *JAMES 2:10-11. Sin which is defined in Gods' Word is not believing God's Word *ROMANS 14:23 and breaking anyone of God's 10 commandments *JAMES 2:10-11; 1 JOHN 3:4. Breaking God's commandments from the heart is also defined in the scriptures or the Word of God as "Evil" in MATTHEW 15:19 see also GENESIS 6:5. So the point here? It is the Word of God alone (Sola scriptura) that gives us the knowledge of what good and evil; Sin and righteousness is. Outside of God's Word we do not know what sin is or have no knowledge of what sin is.
You assume that the written Mosaic Law is the only way Paul could possibly know that coveting thy neighbor's wife and possessions is morally wrong? You seem to have overlooked Paul's discourse on General Revelation (Romans 1) and conscience (Rom 2).This is why it is written in the scriptures in JAMES 4:17 [17], Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin and again in Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31 [30] And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to repent:[31], Because he has appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has ordained; whereof he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead which links to ROMANS 7:7 [7], What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law (Word of God): for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet (refering to EXODUS 20:17).
Indiscriminately conflating the written Word and spoken Word. Ignored - because nobody make sense, when you do this,of what point that your are trying to make.The scriptures teach "FAITH comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *ROMANS 10:17. If we are saved by God's GRACE THROUGH FAITH *EPHESIANS 2:8-9 how then can you have FAITH which is needed for God's salvation *JOHN 3:16-21; EPHESIANS 2:8-9 when you have no Word?
- Point 1 falls over....
God's Word teaches that before the written word of God given to ISRAEL at Mt Sinai, there was the Spoken Word of God (GENESIS 3:1-3; 9; 11-19 8:15; 9:8; 24:7; 31:11 etc). After the written Word of God, sometimes God provides direct revelation of His Word to those who he sends as prophets and messengers to His people. This is biblical where your argument here in point 2 falls down
Again, Christ's spoken Word should not be indiscriminately conflated with the written Word thematic to Sola Scriptura.we are also told in the scriptures that there will be many false prophets and teachers that God has not sent even showing great signs and wonders that if it were possible could deceive Gods' very elect *MATTHEW 24:24; JEREMIAH 14:4; MATTHEW 24:11; LUKE 6:26; 2 PETER 2:1. We are told in 1 JOHN 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. How then do we try the Spirits to see if they are of God or not? JESUS says the WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIGHT *JOHN 6:63.
And this written standard - are we to interpret it with, or without, the aid of divine illumination (Direct Revelation)? Don't you see that your posts are not rebutting anything I've said?God's Word is the very source of truth and tells us if someone has been given a direct revelation from God or not as it is written again; To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them *ISAIAH 8:20 and again And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that said, I know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him *1 JOHN 2:3-4. If there is no Word of God there is no standard has been given a direct revelation from God or not.
- Point 2 falls over....
Indiscriminately conflating the written Word and spoken Word.Well this one is the easiest one of all to refute as it is the scriptures alone that show that conversion and salvation is the word of God alone we we believe and follow his Word *EPEHSANS 2:8-9; JOHN 3:16-21 etc. There is actually too many scriptures here that disagree with your teachings for example EPHESIANS 1:13 In whom you also trusted, AFTER THE YOU HEARD THE WORD OF TRUTH, THE GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION: in whom also after that you believed, you were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise. We are told in the scriptures that we are saved by God's GRACE THROUGH FAITH.. *EPHESIANS 2:8. Now if our salvation and conversion is by BELIEVING God's Word and faith comes by hearing and hearing comes only by the Word of God *ROMANS 10:17. How can you have conversion when there is no Word?
- Point three comes crashing down....
You continue to claim that I didn't address your posts. And yet at post 30 I summarized five fallacies in your general methodology (fallacies that I already pointed out on the earlier thread). Let's take a look at some examples of these
God's written Word? Or the spoken Word of Direct Revelation? You indiscriminately conflate them. And why the assertion that either one is the only authority? Paul claimed that our conscience is authoritative enough to obligate us and judge us (Rom 2:14-16). This is precisely the claim of my main maxim - the rule of conscience - which by itself refutes Sola Scriptura.
Disagree with what? Where do any of these verses suggest Sola Scriptura?
The 10 commandments? That was the Voice! Only later was it written down. Israel didn't have to "use exegesis to test the voice" - the Voice itself was authoritative.
I see you cited Rom 7:7 as evidence that the law is the only standard of righteousness
(1) Irrelevant because you have no proof that God intended for us to comprehend the written law without illumination (Direct Revelation)
(2) Paul said that even those who don't have the law are under conscience (Rom 2; cf Rom 14;1Cor 8:1-13).
(3) You have no proof that the term "law" in Rom 7 refers exclusively to written Mosiac Law. In my view it refers to the law of conscience, thereby subsuming as well, for Israel, the Mosaic Law that embellished their conscience. And I don't think it's logically coherent to define sin without recourse to conscience.
(4) You seem to have no concept of the spirit of the law versus the letter. You can't just lookup God's commands in the Bible because what applies to one person doesn't necessarily apply to another.
(A) Drastic example. "Thou shall not kill" - Yet Israel was supposed to kill 7 nations to take Canaan. How does that apply to you today?
(B) Even if it were God's will, generally speaking, to attend church services on Saturday, you can't prove this applies to everyone. One person might stay home to take care of an ailing parent, friend, or relative. Another might be crippled and lack transportation. Another might need to work on Saturday. You might try to push your Saturday church-regimen on everyone, but you have no proof that such is God's will FOR EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.
(C) Even clearer example. God might one person to attend university-A, another to attend university-B
To summarize, you've cited a plethora of verses without any clear demonstration that exegesis is the final authority on either doctrine or moral decisions.
The spoken Word, or the written Word? The written Word without proper illumination? The written Word without respect to conscience? The written Word without respect to our differing situations and circumstances? Where is your proof that (fallible) exegesis has the final say in all this?
You assume that the written Mosaic Law is the only way Paul could possibly know that coveting thy neighbor's wife and possessions is morally wrong? You seem to have overlooked Paul's discourse on General Revelation (Romans 1) and conscience (Rom 2).
And again, irrelevant, because you have no proof that God expects us to interpret the Mosaic Law without the aid of divine illumination (Direct Revelation).
Indiscriminately conflating the written Word and spoken Word. Ignored - because nobody make sense, when you do this,of what point that your are trying to make.
Again, Christ's spoken Word should not be indiscriminately conflated with the written Word thematic to Sola Scriptura.
And this written standard - are we to interpret it with, or without, the aid of divine illumination (Direct Revelation)? Don't you see that your posts are not rebutting anything I've said?
Indiscriminately conflating the written Word and spoken Word.
PSLAMS 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
PSLAMS 36:9 For with you is the fountain of life: in your light shall we see light.
PSLAMS 43:3 O send out your light and your truth: let them lead me; let them bring me to your holy hill, and to your tabernacles.
PSLAMS 119:105 YOUR WORD IS A LAMP UNTO MY FEET AND A LIGHT UNTO MY PATH.
PSALMS 119:130 THE ENTRANCE OF YOUR WORDS GIVES LIGHT; IT GIVES UNDERSTANDING TO THE SIMPLE
PROVERBS 6:23 FOR THE COMMANDMENT IS A LAMP AND THE LAW IS LIGHT; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
ISAIAH 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is NO LIGHT IN THEM
JOHN 1:1-4 [1], In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD. [2], The same was in the beginning with God. [3], All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4], In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [5], And THE LIGHT (Word) SHINES IN DARKNESS; and the darkness comprehended it not.
JOHN 3:19-21 And this is the condemnation, that LIGHT IS COME INTO THE WORLD (the Word), and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. FOR EVERYONE THAT DOES EVIL HATES THE LIGHT, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. BUT HE THAT DOES TRUTH COMES TO THE LIGHT, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are worked in God.
JOHN 17:17 SANCTIFY THEM THROUGH THE TRUTH THY WORD IS TRUTH
JOHN 8:12 Then spoke Jesus again to them, saying, I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD (The Word): he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
JOHN 8:31-32 [31], Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, IF YOU CONTINUE IN MY WORD THEN YOU ARE MY DISCIPLES INDEED AND YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE
JESUS is the living Word of God and His Word is the light of the world. There is NO ILLUMINATION outside of Gods' WORD which is the LIGHT of the WORLD.
-Pont 4 crashes down
The words in bold reassert Sola Scriptura without actually addressing the objection raised in point 5. How can God run the church - how can He even direct a church service - if He has to wait until we find out His specific plans by exegesis? Suppose, in today's service, he wants you to reach out to sister Suzy Applegate with a word of encouragement. Must He wait until you figure this out exegetically? And how is that going to happen, given that her name isn't mentioned in the Bible? I fail to see how the Sola-Scriptura framework ships with a mechanism for God to direct His church. In Paul's framework, the solution is pretty obvious:On the contrary Gods' Word is His instruction manual for running his Church and His directions for all those who believe and follow His Word (eg 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17; EPHESIANS 4:11-12; TITUS 1:5-9; MATTHEW 18:19-20; EPEHESIANS 5:18-21; MATTHEW 18:17; 1 CORINTHIANS 14:26; HEBREWS 13:16; 1 TIMOTHY 3:15; 1 PETER 2:4-5; EPHESIANS 5:23 etc. Too many more scriptures here.
-Point 5 comes crashing down
To be continued...
Indiscriminately conflating the written Word and spoken Word. Ignored.
The words in bold reassert Sola Scriptura without actually addressing the objection raised in point 5. How can God run the church - how can He even direct a church service - if He has to wait until we find out His specific plans by exegesis? Suppose, in today's service, he wants you to reach out to sister Suzy Applegate with a word of encouragement. Must He wait until you figure this out exegetically? And how is that going to happen, given that her name isn't mentioned in the Bible? I fail to see how the Sola-Scriptura framework ships with a mechanism for God to direct His church. In Paul's framework, the solution is pretty obvious:
"29Two 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."
Thus by Direct Revelation, God plans to run His church. If He wants you to speak a word to Suzy Applegate, He directly reveals it to you without any need for you to figure this out by exegesis.
Exactly. One must prayerfully seek God to illuminate the written Word - one MUST seek Direct Revelation. That's hardly a rebuttal.There is no guessing games dear friend for those who believe and follow God's Word and prayerfully seek God through His Word and want to know what Gods' truth is. In fact God promises those who rely on His Word to be their guide and teacher here *JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; JOHN 7:17; JOHN 8:31-36; 1 JOHN 5:3. This is a part of the new covenant promise to all those who believe and follow God's Word as shown in HEBREWS 8:10-11.
-Point 6 comes crashing down
Indiscriminately conflating written Word and divine/spoken Word.Your theory is wrong as shown through the scriptures already as our salvation is by God's GRACE THROUGH FAITH *EPEHSANS 2:8-9; JOHN 3:16-21 etc. There is actually too many scriptures here that disagree with your teachings for example EPHESIANS 1:13 In whom you also trusted, AFTER THE YOU HEARD THE WORD OF TRUTH, THE GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION: in whom also after that you believed, you were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise. We are told in the scriptures that we are saved by God's GRACE THROUGH FAITH.. *EPHESIANS 2:8. Now if our salvation and conversion is by BELIEVING God's Word and faith comes by hearing and hearing comes only by the Word of God *ROMANS 10:17. How can you have conversion when there is no Word?
- Point 7 comes crashing down....
Clearly, that was not my premise. I didn't say that the Bible itself was tainted. I said that exegesis is a man-tainted lens that, as such, perceives a man-tainted version of Scripture. Here again, you've had multiple opportunities to rebut my objection but utterly failed to meet the real force of it.Your starting off point 8 with a false premise. The bible is not a religous document tainted by man made opinions. The scriptures teach that ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness *2 TIMOTHY 3:16. Everything else falls down from here because your building on a false premise that is not biblical. You also deny God's promises to those who seek him to know the truth of His Word in JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; 1 JOHN 2:27; JOHN 8:31-32; JOHN 7:17.
- Point 8 comes crashing down....
When you claim that a premise is false, you might want to actually comment on the suppositions of that premise, instead of spewing forth a slew of tangential statements that bear no clear relation to the premise.Actually this is another false premise. God's Word alone teaches that "IF ANY MAN WILLS TO DO HIS (God's) WILL HE SHALL KNOW OF THE DOCTRINE IF IT BE OF GOD OR NOT *JOHN 7:17; These promises of course are conditional on seeking God with all of your heart *JEREMIAH 29:13, asking God to be your guide and teacher *JOHN 14:26; and believing his promises *HEBREWS 11:6; JOHN 16:13 and continuing to in God's Word *JOHN 8:31-32. God speaks with us through His Word *JOHN 6:63.
- Point 9 comes crashing down....
Indiscriminately conflating written Word and divine/spoken Word.This one is also buiding on faulty foundations. As the scriptures define Gods' Word as TRUTH in JOHN 7:17 SANCTIFY THEM THROUGH THE TRUTH; THY WORD IS TRUTH. God was revealing the truth of the WORDS of JESUS to those who would receive them. How do you think these babes received the truth if it was not through the very Words of JESUS who is the living Word of God *JOHN 1:1-4; 14?
- Point 10 comes crashing down....
(1) Where do those verses clearly advocate exegesis - the attempt to understand the Scriptures on the basis of bible-scholarship and seminaries instead of divine illumination?Your premise again is faulty. You state here "there is no clear evidence for the primacy of testing it against the scriptures" which is not biblical as the scriptures teach "TO THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY IF THEY SPEAK NOT ACCORDING TO THIS WORD THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THEM" ISAIAH 8:20 and again "HE THAT SAYS I KNOW HIM (GOD) IF AND KEEPS NOT HIS COMMANDMENTS (The Word) IS A LIAR AND THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM *1 JOHN 2:3-4. It is God's Word alone that defines the scriptures are TRUTH. "SANCTIFY THEM THROUGH THE TRUTH THY WORD IS TRUTH *JOHN 17:17 and again "THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE *JOHN 6:63. Your post here makes no sense. How can you test someone against the Spirit when the scriptures show that the Spirit is the Spirit of the WORD OF GOD *JOHN 6:63?
- Point 11 comes crashing down....
Totally irrelevant comments that have absolutely nothing to do with my point. How is that a rebuttal? Clearly, I was referring to the local church, not to the church universal. No one here is disputing the definition of the church universal, comprised of the believers of all denominations who hold in common the divinity and lordship of Christ. Each of the local churches, however, operates under a particular type of governmental administration. For example the Catholic churches cater to a papacy, a church council, priests, and so on. Each denomination has its own variation of church government. Sadly, most denominations have little interest in Paul's definition of church government:According to the sciptures the GREEK word for "CHURCH" is - G1577 ἐκκλησία; ekklēsia From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church. God's church therefore are all those who believe and follow God's Word as the scriptures teach "WHERE TWO OF THREE ARE GATHERED TOGETHER IN MY NAME THERE I AM IN THE MIDST OF THEM" *MATTHEW 18:20. What you have posted above is not Pauls definition of Church. 1 CORINTHIANS 12 is about Spiritual gifts in the Church (those who believe and follow Gods' Word) and the different positions and roles within God's Church. Which once again is shown and directed by GOD'S WORD!
- Point 12 comes crashing down....
Correct. I've given you my opinion - backed by cogent reasoning. You would do well to actually rebut the reasoning instead of, once again, spewing forth a set of tangentially related verses.Your repeating your self here again and claiming things that are not biblical but simply your opinion. As shown in some previous points the scriptures teach that ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness *2 TIMOTHY 3:16. Everything else falls down from here because your building on a false premise that is not biblical. You also deny God's promises to those who seek him to know the truth of His Word in JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; 1 JOHN 2:27; JOHN 8:31-32; JOHN 7:17.
- Point 13 comes crashing down....
Wow. Total hand-waving. You just shrugged off point 14 of my original 16 points, which was essentially a complete study of 1Corinthians, and you managed to do this without mentioning or disputing a single verse of that epistle. Admittedly you proceed to comment on one issue in that epistle - the babes-milk-versus-solid-food issue - but only because it recurs in Hebrews 5:ISAIAH 28:9-13 [9], WHOM WILL HE TEACH KNOWLEDGE? AND WHOM WILL HE MAKE TO UNDERSTAND THE MESSAGE? THEM THAT ARE WEANED FROM THE MILK, AND DRAWN FROM THE BREASTS? [10], FOR IT IS PRECEPT UPON PRECEPT, PRECEPT UPON PRECEPT; LINE UPON LINE, LINE UPON LINE; HERE A LITTLE, THERE A LITTLE. [11], Nay, but by men of strange lips and with another tongue will he speak to this people [12], to whom he said, This is the rest, give ye rest to him that is weary; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. [13], THEREFORE SHALL THE WORD OF JEHOVAH BE UNTO THEM PRECEPT UPON PRECEPT, PRECEPT UPON PRECEPT; LINE UPON LINE, LINE UPON LINE; HERE A LITTLE, THERE A LITTLE; THAT THEY MAY GO, AND FALL BACKWARD, AND BE BROKEN, AND SNARED, AND TAKEN.
The Word? The written Word or divine/spoken Word? He gave them a written Word (the Epistle to the Hebrews) and was clear that it was not solid food. Clearly, the written Word is not solid food.The scriptures shown above prove that God teaches us knowledge through his Word. Being drawn from the breasts means those who accept God as their saviour from sin. Still do not believe?
HEBREWS 5:13 FOR EVERY ONE THAT PARTAKETH OF MILK IS WITHOUT EXPERIENCE OF THE WORD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS; for he is a babe. (see also HEBREWS 5:12;
These scriptures prove the "Spiritual Maturity" comes once again by the WORD OF GOD!
- Point 14 comes crashing down....
Again, tangential points that don't meet the force of the objection. In fact, I agree with many of these statements about the nature of the new birth, representing SOME of its aspects. But you didn't bother debate the particular aspect that I mentioned in refutation to Sola Scriptura.Goodness what waffle. The new birth is not complicated if is a revelation of JESUS Christ through the scriptures as we BELIEVE and follow God's Word. The new birth is when we die to to walk in newness of life and happens when we choose to give our lives to Christ to believe and follow what God's Word says. As it is written in the scriptures. JOHN 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVES ON HIM (The WORD see JOHN 1:1-4; 14) SHOULD NOT PERISH BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE *JOHN 3:16 and again "WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH..." EPHESIANS 2:8. If we are Born again we have receved God's forgiveness for our sins and are now free to walk in newness of life through God's Spirit *ROMANS 8:1-4; GALATIANS 5:16. That the righteousness of Gods LAW is fulfulled in those who believe and follow God's Word (ROMANS 8:4). Those who are born again no longer practice sin *1 JOHN 3:6-9. This is the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil *1 JOHN 3:10. Everything shared here is revealed in Gods' Word in relation to the new birth from the WORD OF GOD *see JOHN 3:3-7; 1 JOHN 3:4-10; ROMANS 8:1-4; GALATIANS 5:16; ROMANS 6:1-23; HEBREWS 8:10-12; ROMANS 3:31 if you want the detail.
- BOOM Point 15 comes crashing down....
You completely ignored the thrust of the argument. Again, witnessing is defined as Spirit-inspired impromptu speech, "for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say" and thus one does not take the time to exegetically test it. This flies in the face of the Sola Scriptura methodology. Yet it's a perfect match for the Direct Revelation framework.[/quote][/quote]Witnessing is based on the good news of the Word of God. God's Spirit is the Spirit of the Word of God *JOHN 6:63. He is our guide and teacher that leads us to understand God's truth through his Word *JOHN 16:13 as we pray and ask God to teach us and guide us *JOHN 14:26. Gods' Spirit being the Spirit of the Word *JOHN 6:63 according to the scriptures works through God's Word not outside of it.
- BOOM Point 16 and the whole building comes crashing down ....
But there was no scripture from Adam to Moses, to test the Voice heard. This proves that God can speak in a self-authenticating manner, and thus without need for exegetical testing.Actually no you didn't you simply ignored them. If you disagree please show me where you addressed anything that was posted as a rebutt to your posts on page one. If you cannot why make claims that are not true? Also I never once said that the written Word of God is the only authority I said the written word of God was the FINAL authority to which all revelations (spoken Word of God) are tested.
Indiscriminately conflating the written Word and divine/spoken Word. Ignored."DITTO" see post # 34 linked. God's Spirit works through the written Word of God as it is the Spirit of truth and God's Word is truth that the Spirit of God works through *JOHN 6:63; JOHN 17:17. If you have no Word you have no faith *ROMANS 10:17; If you have no Word and no Faith than you have no Spirit as the Spirit of God works through the Word of God not outside of it as it is the power behind the Word of God in those who believe *1 JOHN 5:4; ROMANS 1:16. No one has God's Spirit if they do not have God's Word and believe it as the Spirit works through the Word of God as we believe.
Today God's written Word tells us to test the Spirits to see if they are from God or not. Yet your telling us we should not believe God's Word which is to deny the very Words of God and the very standard of truth and error, sin and righteousness. This simply means no defence when the many false prophets come that JESUS warns us are coming in the last days *MATTHEW 24:24. Your not putting on the whole armour of God when you throw away your SWORD (The Word) and your SHIELD (faith in the Word).
Hope this helps.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?