WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.

[YouAreAwesome]

FRIENDLY DISCUSSION PLEASE (no flamming and goading)

...proceeds to click "Optimistic" on "Excellent post". Please note @LoveGodsWord the forum rule:

NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, smileys or post ratings which are clearly meant to goad.

I know I can be just the same, you've seen me click "Funny" on some of your posts that were not intended to be humorous. So I'm not trying to pretend to be the "bigger christian" etc. It's just if someone reports goading behaviour in the thread it will be closed again which is a bit annoying really.

Like water off a duck's back I reckon.

Carry on.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Indiscriminately conflating the written Word and divine/spoken Word. Ignored.

I am sorry dear friend we are walking different paths. I cannot help you only God can through his Word.
We will have to agree to disagree. You denying God's Word does not make it so because you say so. As posted earlier 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.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

...proceeds to click "Optimistic" on "Excellent post". Please note @LoveGodsWord the forum rule:

NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, smileys or post ratings which are clearly meant to goad.

I know I can be just the same, you've seen me click "Funny" on some of your posts that were not intended to be humorous. So I'm not trying to pretend to be the "bigger christian" etc. It's just if someone reports goading behaviour in the thread it will be closed again which is a bit annoying really.

Like water off a duck's back I reckon.

Carry on.

Posting an optimistic rating dear friend, was an honest view of the post being rated with no goading intended. You posting a funny ratings on my posts that were scripture and not meant to be funny unless you believe scripture is funny. So posting a funny rating on a post of scripture is in breach of forum rules intended as goading. I suggest you read Roman 2:1-8 and be blessed by God's council.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Posting an optimistic rating was an honest view of the post being rated with no goading intended. You posting a funny rating on my posts that were not funny is in breach of forum rules intended as goading which I ignored. I suggest you read Roman 2:1-8 and be blessed by God's council.

So you really want me to report your "optimistic" rating and have this thread shut down because of your goading.

Ok, fun times. I think all that needs to be said has been said.

It amazes me that even after all of this debate you still do not understand the position of your opponent because you make comments like this:

Yet your telling us we should not believe God's Word

Not a single poster has said this. Not one. On either side of the debate. It's called building a strawman and then tearing it down. It's a dishonest debating technique where you tear down an argument that your opponent didn't make. For example, I could say, "Your telling us God only has one Word, but the bible is full of many words!". But the problem is, you never made that original argument that God only has one Word in the literal sense of one actual word. You have never made that ridiculous argument, so why should I argue against it? But this is what you have been doing, making up things that your opponent is saying and then showing why they are false. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you might be doing this without meaning to. And if this is the case, I suggest you ask more questions so you can understand your opponent. No use debating if neither side understands each other.

But anyway, you bring back some interesting memories of my former days as an SDA that's for sure.

Have you heard of Des Ford? He was head of theology at Avondale College and at one point was asked to search into the Investigative Judgment. 14 years he studied that doctrine. After this time he shared his conclusion at the "Glacier View Conference". If you haven't heard of him, look him up. Good man. Passed away just over a year ago. Fantastic preacher.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

So you really want me to report your "optimistic" rating and have this thread shut down because of your goading.

As posted earlier posting an optimistic rating in the past for me, was an honest view of the content of the post being rated with no goading intended. You posting a funny ratings on my posts that were not funny is seen as intended goading. I suggest you read Roman 2:1-8 and be blessed by God's council.

Ok, fun times. I think all that needs to be said has been said. It amazes me that even after all of this debate you still do not understand the position of your opponent because you make comments like this

What you were saying earlier is not what your friend is saying.

Not a single poster has said this. Not one. On either side of the debate. It's called building a strawman and then tearing it down. It's a dishonest debating technique where you tear down an argument that your opponent didn't make. For example, I could say, "Your telling us God only has one Word, but the bible is full of many words!". But the problem is, you never made that original argument that God only has one Word in the literal sense of one actual word. You have never made that ridiculous argument, so why should I argue against it? But this is what you have been doing, making up things that your opponent is saying and then showing why they are false. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you might be doing this without meaning to. And if this is the case, I suggest you ask more questions so you can understand your opponent. No use debating if neither side understands each other.

Not really dear friend. I will let these words speak for themselves below...

This time, I'll begin by showing that Sola Scriptura faces the same logical difficulty as Tradition. Once again, our basic choices are:
(1) Tradition
(2) Sola Scriptura
(3) Conscience, informed by Direct Revelation (my position).

Tradition is the claim, "Never rely on your own opinions, instead believe what the Catholic church teaches" (or Orthodox church). The logical difficulty here is obvious: if an agnostic gradually reaches the opinion that the Catholic church is the truth, he should not become a Catholic, because he was told to never rely on his own opinions. His opinions carry no weight. He is stuck.

Likewise, Sola Scriptura is the claim, "Never rely on your own opinions, instead believe what the Bible teaches." Same logical impasse - it implies that an agnostic who begins to form Christian opinions should not act on them because opinions carry no weight.

Thus Sola Scriptura is total nonsense.

When it comes to the "divine revelation" it is the bible alone that says the scriptures are the final authority to test the Spirits if they are from God or not as we are warned by JESUS and the Apostles that there will be many false prophets and teachers seeking to decieve if possible God's very elect in the last days. If the scriptures alone (Sola scriptura) are not the final authority how are you going to know what is right and what is wrong when the heart is deceitful above all things and desparately wicked and we have no standard of right and wrong, truth and error? The standard is the scriptures alone. Ok enough said. I am repeating myself now I guess. As posted earlier there is nothing wrong with divine revelation of the spoken Word of God to men (Gods' direct words to his messengers/prophets) but the final authority according to the scriptures that determine if a prophet has a message from God are the scriptures (Sola scriptura). That is what sola scriptura is. The Word of God is the final authority having the final say over direct revelation which can also be the Word of God as determined by the scriptures and God's Spirit that works through them.

...........

Your father was Desmond Ford? I do not know him but may have heard about him. Sorry for your loss. I did not know he was dead. Ok thanks for sharing seems your views are not the same as mine. We will have to agree to disagree but thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Did you read what you were quoting from? Posting an optimistic rating was an honest view of the post being rated with no goading intended. You posting a funny rating on my posts that were not funny is in breach of forum rules intended as goading which I ignored. I suggest you read Roman 2:1-8 and be blessed by God's council.


What you were saying earlier is not what your friend is saying. I suggest if you wish to make judgement that you follow all the conversations.


Nonsense. I will let these words for themselves below...

When it comes to the "divine revelation" it is the bible alone that says the scriptures are the final athority and to test the Spirits if they are from God or not as there will be many false prophets and teachers seeking to decieve if possible God's very elect. If the scriptures alone (Sola scriptura) is not the final authority how are you going to know what is right and what is wrong when the heart is deceitful above all things and you have no standard of right and wrong, truth and error? Ok enough said. I am repeating myself now I guess. As posted earlier there is nothing wrong with divine revelation of the spoken Word of God to men (Gods' direct words to his messengers/prophets) but the final authority according to the scriptures that determine if a prophet has a message from God are the scriptures (Sola scriptura). That is what sola scriptura is. The Word of God is the final authority having the final say over direct revelation.

...........

Your father was Desmond Ford? Ok thanks for sharing seems your views are not the same as mine. We will have to agree to disagree but thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Being that I'm no longer an sda, of course our beliefs are different. Des Ford my father? Nope. Great preacher? Yep. Do I agree with him on doctrine? Nope. Does he preach the gospel of Ellen White? Yep. Is it the gospel of the sda church? Nope. Is it the new covenant gospel? Nope. Is it a stepping stone for sdas towards the true gospel? Yes. Yet it still amazes me, 14 years he studied on one doctrine. No one better qualified for the job. And they kick him out for telling the truth of his studies. The investigative judgment is not in the bible. Anyways, better to ask questions than make assumptions about me.

I'm bowing out of this thread. Peace.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Being that I'm no longer an sda, of course our beliefs are different. Des Ford my father? Nope. Great preacher? Yep. Do I agree with him on doctrine? Nope. Does he preach the gospel of Ellen White? Yep. Is it the gospel of the sda church? Nope. Is it the new covenant gospel? Nope. Is it a stepping stone for sdas towards the true gospel? Yes. Yet it still amazes me, 14 years he studied on one doctrine. No one better qualified for the job. And they kick him out for telling the truth of his studies. The investigative judgment is not in the bible. Anyways, better to ask questions than make assumptions about me.

I'm bowing out of this thread. Peace.

Yea sorry, I do not agree or beleive anything you have posted here so we will have to agree to disagree as it seems as we are both walking different paths. I have another view based on the scriptures but that would lead us off topic. Thanks for sharing your view though.

 

[Swag365]

Yep faith comes by either hearing God's Word of reading it *ROMANS 10:17. But either way salvation only comes though believing God's Word.

In your view, what happens to infants and children who die without having believed God's Word? Are they all damned to hell?

How about the millions of people throughout history who never even heard the gospel one time during their life? Are they all damned to hell too?

 

[JAL]

When it comes to the "divine revelation" it is the bible alone that says the scriptures are the final authority to test the Spirits if they are from God or not as we are warned by JESUS and the Apostles that there will be many false prophets and teachers seeking to decieve if possible God's very elect in the last days. If the scriptures alone (Sola scriptura) are not the final authority how are you going to know what is right and what is wrong when the heart is deceitful above all things and desparately wicked and we have no standard of right and wrong, truth and error? The standard is the scriptures alone. Ok enough said. I am repeating myself now I guess. As posted earlier there is nothing wrong with divine revelation of the spoken Word of God to men (Gods' direct words to his messengers/prophets) but the final authority according to the scriptures that determine if a prophet has a message from God are the scriptures (Sola scriptura). That is what sola scriptura is. The Word of God is the final authority having the final say over direct revelation which can also be the Word of God as determined by the scriptures and God's Spirit that works through them.

Except there's a million scenarios that exegesis doesn't shed any clear light on. For example God might want to warn you to cancel an intended vacation flight because you might be carrying the Covid-19 virus without knowing it, or because someone scheduled for the same flight might have it, or because Islamic terrorists plan to hijack the flight. Exegesis is nigh useless for determining the exact specifics of God's will. It won't clearly reveal to you whether you're fully in harmony with God's will in respect to:
(1) The way you raise your kids
(2) Where you raise you kids
(3) What job you work
(4) What ministries that you participate in
(5) Which church you attend
(6) Which relationships you nurture most
(7) What diet that you consume
(8) Which doctors that you see
(9) What house you purchase
(10) What financial investments that you make.
(11) How much to invest
(12) Which politicians to support or vote for.
(13) Etc., etc., etc., etc.

p.s. And as YouAreAwesome noted, please stop the continual misrepresentation, claiming that I disbelieve or deny the inspiration of the Bible.

When it comes to the "divine revelation" it is the bible alone that says the scriptures are the final authority to test the Spirits if they are from God.

Again, if the Bible is the only authority, you have no authoritative basis on which to draw the conclusion that Scripture is inspired. Are you proposing blind faith? But if blind faith is valid, then it is perfectly valid for you to accept the Koran on blind faith.

...as we are warned by JESUS and the Apostles that there will be many false prophets and teachers seeking to decieve if possible God's very elect in the last days. If the scriptures alone (Sola scriptura) are not the final authority how are you going to know what is right and what is wrong when the heart is deceitful above all things and desparately wicked and we have no standard of right and wrong, truth and error?The standard is the scriptures alone

Excellent point to raise. The wickedness and deceitfulness of the human heart are precisely why exegesis won't work. Picture a person raised in a denomination, educated in that direction, and proceeding with a pastoral career or seminary position. At this point his heart will likely harden to doctrinal correction because:
(1) Deviations from that denomination's teaching could cost him his career. How is he going to feed his family, or pay for his children's education?
(2) Pride alone is enough to harden his heart. We've all seen it on this forum where people are trying to teach someone a reasonable or biblical point but their pride inhibits them.

Prior to conversion, Paul's own deceitful and wicked heart was hardened to the gospel. And what cut through all that hardness of heart - instantly? Direct Revelation!

If the scriptures alone (Sola scriptura) are not the final authority how are you going to know what is right and what is wrong

Direct Revelation doesn't work? In that case you need to throw out your Bible, as the writers relied on Direct Revelation. If it isn't reliable, then the Bible is not a reliable document.

 

[JAL]

Yet your telling us we should not believe God's Word...

As YouAreAwesome noted, this kind of statement about me is intellectual dishonesty. Please desist from such posts. I have never denied the inspiration of Scripture.

 

[Swag365]

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".

Sure, but you can use the "By their fruits ye shall know them" argument against practically any church, including the Catholic Church. One could make the argument, for example, that priestly celibacy leads to the sexual abuse of minors, as many have. One could make the argument that the Catholic doctrine of justification leads to a sense of legalism, as many have. I don't believe those things, naturally, but form of the argument is the same in both cases. I don't think it really holds much weight when trying to prove or disprove doctrine, because doctrines themselves are rarely followed in the manner intended.

 

[packermann]

All your scripture verses are hiding the elephant in the room. We Catholics agree that the Bible is the Word of God and is God's revelation to us. But that is not the issue. Not one of the verses you cited says that the Bible is God's ONLY way of revealing his truth to us.

Not only that, but the Bible does not itself tell us which books should be in the Bible and which books should not. So if sola scriptura was true, we should not have the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible. Nowhere does the Gospel of Matthew ever say it is the Word of God. No other book of the Bible says that the Gospel of Matthew is part of the Word of God.

Each gospel, each letter, each book was written independently of each other. They were not assembled into one book, the Bible, until A.D. 405. There were many books the Church rejected. For instance, there were 19 gospels for the Church to select. All but four were put into the Bible. How do you know that those four (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) should be in there? How do you know that the other 15 should not? It is obvious that God must have revealed to the Church apart from the Bible what should be in the Bible.

 

[Swag365]

All your scripture verses are hiding the elephant in the room. We Catholics agree that the Bible is the Word of God and is God's revelation to us. But that is not the issue. Not one of the verses you cited says that the Bible is God's ONLY way of revealing his truth to us.

Not only that, but the Bible does not itself tell us which books should be in the Bible and which books should not. So if sola scriptura was true, we should not have the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible. Nowhere does the Gospel of Matthew ever say it is the Word of God. No other book of the Bible says that the Gospel of Matthew is part of the Word of God.

Each gospel, each letter, each book was written independently of each other. They were not assembled into one book, the Bible, until A.D. 405. There were many books the Church rejected. For instance, there were 19 gospels for the Church to select. All but four were put into the Bible. How do you know that those four (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) should be in there? How do you know that the other 15 should not? It is obvious that God must have revealed to the Church apart from the Bible what should be in the Bible.

Yes. Sola Scripture is self-refuting because the doctrine itself is found nowhere in Sacred Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Yes. Sola Scripture is self-refuting because the doctrine itself is found nowhere in Sacred Scripture.

In fact, the Bible includes the statement that the writers wrote as they were inspired by God to write.

And there are numerous verses in Scripture that attest to the supremacy of Scripture as our authority. On a previous occasion where someone doubted it, I counted 19 of these.

There also is at least one that says, flat-out, that what is included there is all we need.

No matter how we look at it, from which angle, Sola Scriptura is valid.

 

[Swag365]

In fact, the Bible includes the statement that the writers wrote as they were inspired by God to write.

And there are numerous verses in Scripture that attest to the supremacy of Scripture as our authority. On a previous occasion where someone doubted it, I counted 19 of these.

There also is at least one that says, flat-out, that what is included there is all we need.

No matter how we look at it, from which angle, Sola Scriptura is valid.

No, there is not a single verse in Sacred Scripture that teaches that Sacred Scripture is the only supreme authority for faith and morals.

But lets cut to the chase. Everyone knows that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is the best verse that adherents of Sola Scriptura have to offer. Here it is (KVJ):

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
​

Those verses do not teach Sola Scriptura nor do they teach "that what is included there is all we need".

 

[JAL]

In fact, the Bible includes the statement that the writers wrote as they were inspired by God to write.

And there are numerous verses in Scripture that attest to the supremacy of Scripture as our authority. On a previous occasion where someone doubted it, I counted 19 of these.

There also is at least one that says, flat-out, that what is included there is all we need.

No matter how we look at it, from which angle, Sola Scriptura is valid.

Do you have a link to this list of these 19 verses, or something close to 19? And which one of these verses is the "one that says, flat-out, that what is included there is all we need" ?

 

[JAL]

In fact, the Bible includes the statement that the writers wrote as they were inspired by God to write.

And there are numerous verses in Scripture that attest to the supremacy of Scripture as our authority. On a previous occasion where someone doubted it, I counted 19 of these.

There also is at least one that says, flat-out, that what is included there is all we need.

No matter how we look at it, from which angle, Sola Scriptura is valid.

I agree with Swag365's last post. 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not teach Sola Scriptura. For example it doesn't even specify in what sense Scripture is profitable. In my view it is profitable precisely in the sense of pointing me to Direct Revelation, and thus away from the Sola Scriptura parties (Pharisees, Sadduccees, teachers of the law).

 

[Albion]

No, there is not a single verse in Sacred Scripture that teaches that Sacred Scripture is the only supreme authority for faith and morals.

Did you read the previous post? Now go check out the Bible for yourself and see. I cannot force you to do that, of course.

But lets cut to the chase.

I think we just did.

Everyone knows that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is the best verse that adherents of Sola Scriptura have to offer.

Not in the least. As I was attempting to show you...and I approached it from several different directions, the authority of Scripture is all over the Bible's pages!

2 Tim 3:16-17 is the best verse that adherents of Sola Scriptura have to offer...Those verses do not teach Sola Scriptura nor do they teach "that what is included there is all we need".

First, these verses in Timothy are your strawman. You've chosen a verse that does not teach Sola Scriptura while avoiding numerous ones that do. And if you say they do not teach that what is there says it's all we need, read John 20:30-31 before you decide about that matter.

 

[packermann]

In fact, the Bible includes the statement that the writers wrote as they were inspired by God to write.

No one is disputing that. But the Bible itself does not say which books were inspired and which were not.

And there are numerous verses in Scripture that attest to the supremacy of Scripture as our authority. On a previous occasion where someone doubted it, I counted 19 of these.

There is not one verse that says that the supremacy of Scripture is our ONLY authority. You are reading into these verse what is not there.

There also is at least one that says, flat-out, that what is included there is all we need.

That is very vague. But I think this is the verse you intended.

All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16,17

First of all, it says that ALL scripture is inspired by God. It does not say that ONLY scripture is inspired by God.

Second, it says that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. But it does not say that this is all we need. Don't we need prayer in order to be equiped in every good work? Don't we need Christian fellowship? Don't we need Bible teachers to explain what the Bible says? Clearly the Bible is not all we need! Don't I need a relationship with Christ in order to grown spiritually?

 

[JAL]

First, these verses in Timothy are your strawman. You've chosen a verse that does not teach Sola Scriptura while avoiding numerous ones that do. And if you say they do not teach that what is there says it's all we need, read John 20:30-31 before you decide about that matter.

Thanks for your honesty that 2Tim doesn't teach Sola Scriptura. But as for how you get Sola Scriptura out of John 20:30-31 is somewhat less than clear.
(1) Is it talking about sanctifying Life? Or justification?
(2) The written Word points me to sanctifying Life. It assures me that, to grow in grace, I need to seek Direct Revelation. That's the whole point of Gal 3:1-6 and the major emphasis of that epistle.
(3) If you claim it brings justifying Life - it saves us - why is it salvifically ineffectual for so many readers? (Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews, etc). Seems to me these readers need the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation).

Sola Scriptura isn't clearly taught anywhere in Scripture, as far as I can see.