Have you heard the voice of God? Or, if He talks, what ways do you hear Him?

[blessedwife318]

So Sola Scriptura is now a weak Doctrine, I must say that is a new one, and I thought I had heard it all, being the black sheep in my family. I was once called a crack pot by my brother for stating that the Scriptures were sufficient for all faith and practice, and of course there was my 10 years at a charismatic "christian" school where I was told how crazy and weird I was (among other less nice names) so this is an area where you can say whatever you want toward me and it won't phase me because I know the Word of God is True, and is Sufficient. "Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God"

 

[Revmitchell]

I never said sola scriptura is a weak doctrine. To say that I did is a lie.

 

[Internet Theologian]

So Sola Scriptura is now a weak Doctrine, I must say that is a new one, and I thought I had heard it all, being the black sheep in my family. I was once called a crack pot by my brother for stating that the Scriptures were sufficient for all faith and practice, and of course there was my 10 years at a charismatic "christian" school where I was told how crazy and weird I was (among other less nice names) so this is an area where you can say whatever you want toward me and it won't phase me because I know the Word of God is True, and is Sufficient. "Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God"

There ya go right there!

 

[blessedwife318]

I never said sola scriptura is a weak doctrine. To say that I did is a lie.

You said my doctrine was weak. What Doctrine have I been defending on this thread? Sola Scriptura Therefore you said it was a weak Doctrine. Its really simple.

 

[Revmitchell]

You said my doctrine was weak. What Doctrine have I been defending on this thread? Sola Scriptura Therefore you said it was a weak Doctrine. Its really simple.

Show me the post where I said "The doctrine of sola scriptura is weak". If you cannot provide that then you have lied about me.

 

[annsni]

Another attack by you.
She has posted consistently and it is you who once again judge her motives.

Actually, he is correct. Hamel said "To me, some on here who are of the opinion that God ONLY speaks to His children through His written Word is absolute rubbish."

Then Blessedwife said "What I want to know is why you think that God speaking through His Word is "rubbish"

This was a complete misrepresentation of what Hamel actually said. It was corrected by others but she still hasn't said that she was mistaken or wrong. I don't know why that is but it is not right.

 

[Iconoclast]

Actually, he is correct. Hamel said "To me, some on here who are of the opinion that God ONLY speaks to His children through His written Word is absolute rubbish."

Then Blessedwife said "What I want to know is why you think that God speaking through His Word is "rubbish"

This was a complete misrepresentation of what Hamel actually said. It was corrected by others but she still hasn't said that she was mistaken or wrong. I don't know why that is but it is not right.

Ann.....maybe I am misreading something but she has over several threads defended the proposition of Sola Scriptura and the sufficiency of scripture....
The wording of only does not change it that much does it, when you read her response.Hamel could easily just say... I do not understand why you think this....
Rm in his post insists ...be put it in quotes.....the she did so intentionally as if to twist it.....I did not read it that way.
I am a bit tired maybe I am not reading it correctly?

 

[blessedwife318]

Show me the post where I said "The doctrine of sola scriptura is weak". If you cannot provide that then you have lied about me.

Of course you didn't say "the Doctrine of Sola Scripture is weak" no one is that bold and people like to have plausible deniability.
But here I will quote what you said and then put in how I got that you are saying Sola Scripture is weak in brackets that way everyone can see exactly what you said and you can't accuse me of misrepresenting you not that i think it will stop
"Your post was not standing up for sola scriptura. [Actually every post I have made in this thread has been about standing up for Sola Scripture, but you don't want to admit that because it means you are fighting aginst that] Your post misrepresented (intentionally) what he said. [In your opinion, I did quote him so that everyone could see his words for themselves and then I asked a question and made a comment about how tragic I saw his view since it is against Sola Scriptrua which I was standing up for. If quoting someone is misrepresenting them then that is new to me so thank you for that information ] If you do not have the ability to defend your doctrine [Sola Scriptura in this case] without misrepresenting (intentionally) [because quoting them is misrepresenting them, got it] what others say then your doctrine [Sola Scriptura] is weak and your debating abilities are weaker."

 

[blessedwife318]

Ann.....maybe I am misreading something but she has over several threads defended the proposition of Sola Scriptura and the sufficiency of scripture....
The wording of only does not change it that much does it, when you read her response.Hamel could easily just say... I do not understand why you think this....
Rm in his post insists ...be put it in quotes.....the she did so intentionally as if to twist it.....I did not read it that way.
I am a bit tired maybe I am not reading it correctly?

Well I did quote him directly in my reply so everyone could see exactly what he said, and what I responded with. But apparently quoting someone is now misrepresenting them.

 

[Revmitchell]

Of course you didn't say "the Doctrine of Sola Scripture is weak" no one is that bold and people like to have plausible deniability.
But here I will quote what you said and then put in how I got that you are saying Sola Scripture is weak in brackets that way everyone can see exactly what you said and you can't accuse me of misrepresenting you not that i think it will stop
"Your post was not standing up for sola scriptura. [Actually every post I have made in this thread has been about standing up for Sola Scripture, but you don't want to admit that because it means you are fighting aginst that] Your post misrepresented (intentionally) what he said. [In your opinion, I did quote him so that everyone could see his words for themselves and then I asked a question and made a comment about how tragic I saw his view since it is against Sola Scriptrua which I was standing up for. If quoting someone is misrepresenting them then that is new to me so thank you for that information ] If you do not have the ability to defend your doctrine [Sola Scriptura in this case] without misrepresenting (intentionally) [because quoting them is misrepresenting them, got it] what others say then your doctrine [Sola Scriptura][sic] is weak and your debating abilities are weaker."

Again misrepresented and misquoted. That quote has been altered by you to misrepresent me. Yet another lie by you. Also you were not defending Sola Scriptura you were defending your personal view of how it should be applied to our lives. If you do not know the difference then I suggest you go to your pastor and ask him to teach you.

 

[blessedwife318]

Again misrepresented and misquoted. That quote has been altered by you to misrepresent me. Yet another lie by you.

And how did I alter it? All my words were in brackets and I made that clear, so how did I alter your words?
Its sad that you have to keep attacking me because you cannot defend extra biblical revelation. But I have heard it all and it is no skin off my back to be attacked for standing up for truth

Just for reference sake here is your post without my commentary

Your post was not standing up for sola scriptura. Your post misrepresented (intentionally) what he said. If you do not have the ability to defend your doctrine without misrepresenting (intentionally) what others say then your doctrine is weak and your debating abilities are weaker.

And here it is with my commentary with your words bolded so that they will stand out and we can see if I did in fact alter your post in anyway shape or form.

"Your post was not standing up for sola scriptura. [Actually every post I have made in this thread has been about standing up for Sola Scripture, but you don't want to admit that because it means you are fighting against that] Your post misrepresented (intentionally) what he said. [In your opinion, I did quote him so that everyone could see his words for themselves and then I asked a question and made a comment about how tragic I saw his view since it is against Sola Scriptrua which I was standing up for. If quoting someone is misrepresenting them then that is new to me so thank you for that information ] If you do not have the ability to defend your doctrine [Sola Scriptura in this case] without misrepresenting (intentionally) [because quoting them is misrepresenting them, got it] what others say then your doctrine [Sola Scriptura] is weak and your debating abilities are weaker."

 

[Revmitchell]

You do not get to assert that I meant Sola Scriptura was weak when I did not neither did I say it. I said your doctrine is weak. I do not equate what you have been defending with Sola Scriptura. Again you do not know the difference between defending the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and defending how you personally want it applied to our lives. You were defending the latter not the former. Out of ignorance apparently but it is what you were doing.

So no I did not say the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was weak. It cannot be found in any of my posts no matter how much you try to spin it.

 

[blessedwife318]

You do not get to assert that I meant Sola Scriptura was weak when I did not neither did I say it. I said your doctrine is weak. I do not equate what you have been defending with Sola Scriptura. Again you do not know the difference between defending the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and defending how you personally want it applied to our lives. You were defending the latter not the former. Out of ignorance apparently but it is what you were doing.

So no I did not say the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was weak. It cannot be found in any of my posts no matter how much you try to spin it.

So in other words I did not alter your words in any way shape or form.

 

[Iconoclast]

You do not get to assert that I meant Sola Scriptura was weak when I did not neither did I say it. I said your doctrine is weak. I do not equate what you have been defending with Sola Scriptura. Again you do not know the difference between defending the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and defending how you personally want it applied to our lives. You were defending the latter not the former. Out of ignorance apparently but it is what you were doing.

So no I did not say the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was weak. It cannot be found in any of my posts no matter how much you try to spin it.

She has a better grasp on doctrine than you do.
If as you claim you did not mean sola scriptura....what doctrine did you mean...exactly?

 

[blessedwife318]

She has a better grasp on doctrine than you do.
If as you claim you did not mean sola scriptura....what doctrine did you mean...exactly?

That is a good question. I wish I had thought of it.

 

[Iconoclast]

That is a good question. I wish I had thought of it.

I want to see RM explain himself.

 

[HAMel]

May I suggest a State of the Art water filter? I use a Berkefeld at home. Studies show it filters out over 99% of all the bad goo.

 

[Internet Theologian]

May I suggest a State of the Art water filter? I use a Berkefeld at home. Studies show it filters out over 99% of all the bad goo.

The one here filters out 99.99% of foreign particles. Put about 5 or 6 through it (at least that if you're an alleged Calvinist), this place isn't too bad.

 

[HAMel]

I agree Internet..., it's not all "that bad" but there must be something in the water affecting some folks.

 

[agedman]

I am just not certain that "Sola Scriptures" is meant to be taken the way some are putting the emphasis

Sola Scriptures is the Doctrine that the Scriptures are the Final, the Supreme authority of all faith and practice.

I have never read (though admittedly both my memory and reading recall is becoming quite limited) Sola Scriptures used as the only way God answers prayer.

Throughout this thread, the term "Sola Scriptures" is being used by some to indicate that God only communicates through the Bible. That is NOT the doctrine.

Now, if you can convince me that I am posting in error, then please know that I am not without humility in any area to not admit to correction.

But, I am pretty sure and certain on this matter that extending it to limit God's communication is and never was the intent of the doctrine.