You're not a prophet? Then you're not mature!

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So you accept the Bible as inspired because one of the writers, Paul, claimed to be inspired?

Didn't I just make a comment about illogical, irrational religion? Or was that someone else?

If you don't believe that the Bible is God's inspired record, how can you seriously view yourself as a true Christian? That puzzles me.

 

[JAL]

If you don't believe that the Bible is God's inspired record, how can you seriously view yourself as a true Christian? That puzzles me.

Where did I say that?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Where did I say that?

Then why did you refer to illogical, irrational religion? That seems to tell me that you believe that Sola Scriptura is illogical and irrational. Am I mistaken or is that what you are saying?

 

[JAL]

Evangelicals universally reason like this, "Since the Bible is inspired, therefore God's plan has always been Sola Scriptura". Huh?

Suppose Jesus had reasoned like that. In that case, He would have gone to seminary, and ignored His Father's voice. On the contrary, He intimated that His Father's voice was authoritative, that it decisively EXPLAINED the Scriptures to Him. This is direct revelation. As explained on the other thread, direct revelation trumps exegesis.

 

[JAL]

Then why did you refer to illogical, irrational religion? That seems to tell me that you believe that Sola Scriptura is illogical and irrational. Am I mistaken or is that what you are saying?

Sola Scriptura is not merely the claim that the Bible is inspired. It is the claim that all religious/moral imperatives must be validated by the exegetical process, i.e. that in order to accept a doctrine, we must first 'check it out with Scripture'.

How then do we get the imperative/doctrine that Scripture is inspired? By checking it out with Scripture? That would be circular reasoning. That is NOT how you got the imperative. You got it from the Inward Witness (qua feelings of certainty). Which proves that feelings of certainty are authoritatative, whence Sola Scriptura is not 'Sola' (it is NOT the only authority).

Indeed, the only authority is conscience.

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B"

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Evangelicals universally reason like this, "Since the Bible is inspired, therefore God's plan has always been Sola Scriptura". Huh?

Suppose Jesus had reasoned like that. In that case, He would have gone to seminary, and ignored His Father's voice. On the contrary, He intimated that His Father's voice was authoritative, that it decisively EXPLAINED the Scriptures to Him. This is direct revelation. As explained on the other thread, direct revelation trumps exegesis.

So, how come Jesus used the Septuagint to show the two disciples at Emmaeus all the fulfilled prophecies about Him right through the Old Testament? How come Abraham told the rich man in hell that if people didn't believe Moses and the Prophets (the written Scriptures) then even someone coming back from the dead wouldn't convince them of anything.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Sola Scriptura is not merely the claim that the Bible is inspired. It is the claim that all religious/moral imperatives must be validated by the exegetical process, i.e. that in order to accept a doctrine, we must first 'check it out with Scripture'.

How then do we get the imperative/doctrine that Scripture is inspired? By checking it out with Scripture? That would be circular reasoning. That is NOT how you got the imperative. You got it from the Inward Witness (qua feelings of certainty). Which proves that feelings of certainty are authoritatative, whence Sola Scriptura is not 'Sola' (it is NOT the only authority).

Indeed, the only authority is conscience.

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B"

So, the Bereans were wrong when they validated Paul's teaching from the written Scriptures which they searched daily? Weren't the Bereans Sola Scriptura?

 

[JAL]

So, how come Jesus used the Septuagint to show the two disciples at Emmaeus all the fulfilled prophecies about Him right through the Old Testament? How come Abraham told the rich man in hell that if people didn't believe Moses and the Prophets (the written Scriptures) then even someone coming back from the dead wouldn't convince them of anything.

There is nothing wrong with appealing to Scripture to make an argument. Paul used this tactic, and I do too. Because if you know that your audience accepts Scripture, you can cite those self-same scriptures to challenge errors in their thinking.

Also you're overlooking something here. It says Jesus (Jesus being God) explained the Scriptures to them. This is functionally a direct revelation from God. There is no reason to classify it as exegesis. Thus it further refutes Sola Scriptura.

 

[JAL]

So, the Bereans were wrong when they validated Paul's teaching from the written Scriptures which they searched daily? Weren't the Bereans Sola Scriptura?

You're putting the cart before the horse. Does Sola Scriptura even make sense? (Sigh). I ask you again, where did you get the imperative to accept Scripture as inspired?

The question proves that it does NOT make sense. You confirmed this a few posts back by giving me a silly response, you basically said, "I believe the bible because one of the writers, Paul, claimed to be inspired."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You're putting the cart before the horse. Does Sola Scriptura even make sense? (Sigh). I ask you again, where did you get the imperative to accept Scripture as inspired?

The question proves that it does NOT make sense. You confirmed this a few posts back by giving me a silly response, you basically said, "I believe the bible because one of the writers, Paul, claimed to be inspired."

So, if Paul was not inspired by direct revelation from Christ in his letters, how can you trust in the truth of what he wrote? This means that we cannot depend on anything he wrote about the gospel and so the basic foundation of the gospel that Paul wrote about is unreliable!

 

[JAL]

And that's when I brought up irrational, illogical religion. It would be irrational to claim, "I know the Koran is inspired because the writer said so."

 

[JAL]

So, if Paul was not inspired by direct revelation from Christ in his letters, how can you trust in the truth of what he wrote? This means that we cannot depend on anything he wrote about the gospel and so the basic foundation of the gospel that Paul wrote about is unreliable!

Where did I say he was not inspired?
And why do you keep ignoring my main questions?

 

[JAL]

Again, why do you believe the Bible? (I believe it too, but I have a good reason for it - a reason that refutes Sola Scriptura).

And this time don't give me a silly response. Don't say, "I believe the Bible because it says that it is an inspired book".

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Where did I say he was not inspired?
And why do you keep ignoring my main questions?

I give up!

 

[JAL]

Exactly! You have no solution to the questions because Sola Scriptura is absolute nonsense!

 

[JAL]

Here's why I believe the Bible - I feel certain that it is true. Now in my opinion, those feelings of certainty came from the Inward Witness. Can I prove that's the origin? No. Regardless of whether I can prove it, I am morally obligated to them. Because our moral obligations are defined thusly:

"If I feel certain that action-A...."

This shows that feelings of certainty are authoritative - which refutes 'Sola Scriptura' (the claim that biblical exegesis is the only authority).

 

[JAL]

Clear? Not sure how to make it more clear.

 

[JAL]

Back to the Bereans. Obviously they were not acting in Sola Scriptura, because Scripture approves of them (Scrpture wouldn't approve of the nonsense-position known as Sola Scritpura). Two points:

(1) Since the Bereans obviously felt certain that an investigation of Scripture would be useful, they were honoring the rule of conscience.
(2) Was it an exegesis-based investigation? Perhaps, but more likely they were counting on direct revelation - they were hoping for feelings of certainty from the Holy Spirit. Don't assume everything is about exegesis just because evangelicals would like to think so.