Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

JAL said:

See my latest post #19.
Conscience is obligatory. I can think of no occasion where faced with choices A and B, and I feel certain that A is evil and B is good, it is right for me to go with A. Can you?

Click to expand...

Ya I would have to look in the father’s writing under the term days.

JAL said:

What is our final authority for both faith and practice? The two most popular theories on this have been:
(1) Tradition (the church), for example the Magisterium of Catholic tradition.
(2) Sola Scriptura - the claim that Scripture is the only final authority on all major religious doctrines.

However, both views overlook the primacy of conscience, with conscience defined as a feeling of certainty as to what is morally right or wrong. If I feel certain that choice A is evil, and choice B is good, I shall opt for choice B. As I can find no exceptions to this rule, I cannot controvert it, hence it needs no proof (although I will provide some), it is thus self-evidently/tautologically true at all times, and therefore conscience is my only final authority. This refutes Sola Scriptura.

This is not to suggest that Scripture is untrue. I accept the inerrancy of Scripture. But exegesis provides me no direct access to Scripture, only to my fallible interpretations of it. Whereas conscience, as we shall see, affords God a method of speaking to us in an infallible manner definitive of the prophetic experience.

Click to expand...

I see a contradiction saying you accept the "inerrancy of Scripture" but then stating that you think the interpretations are "fallible".
It also seems to me thinking conscience has any reliable authority is just the lifting up man's judgment as higher & more infallible then the written Word of God. Feelings are not reliable. Man's judgment & conscience is not reliable.
I also think anyone who doubts the Bible's inerrancy is based upon opinion rather then study.

JAL said:

So then Scripture is clear enough? No need to worry, then? I take it, then, that you read Scripture infallibly? Fallibility was my concern, right?

Click to expand...

Look, we are fallible creatures, but the word of God is his revelation to us and, by definition, it must be intelligible. If some people don't understand parts of it, others do. But what other authority can you turn us to which is universally comprehended by all people in the exact same way? Well, the answer is 'there is none.'

So let's be clear. Does exegesis leave you 100% certain on some issues?

Click to expand...

I have to say that I am unsure of some things. However, that isn't to say that NOBODY understands those things...and that is what your line of thinking is asserting.

You are unsure of at least some parts of Scripture (I know it's not all of Scripture), so you want to dismiss it as inadequate, not that YOU are inadequate but that the Bible has failed! As I recall you mentioned logic awhile back, so apply it here.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

To me the main logical problem of Sola Scriptura is that it doesn't allow for the individual to be convinced by anything other than scripture. We can suppose that a person comes to an idea through reading the bible but that person is wrong. This person has, in their mind, conformed to scripture and therefore doesn't listen to any other external authority despite the fact that this lesser voice of authority is correct. Sola Scriptura justifies in the minds of many their reading of the Bible even if they are wrong.

Click to expand...

Then that person would be delinquent in not reading Romans 12.

JAL said:

Is God just? Did you read the analogy of the little boy? Here it is again:

A simple analogy proves the authority of conscience (feelings of certainty). Suppose a man says to his son, 'Clean your room every day of the week'. The father meant all 7 days of the week but the boy felt certain his father meant 'every week day' and thus 5 days per week. So he cleans it five days a week - he's acting in good conscience. What shall the father do? Beat his son with many stripes? Only an unjust, evil father would do such a thing. God is just. Therefore He must honor conscience as our highest authority.

So even though the boy's understanding was at variance with his father's intentions, his behavior was perfectly righteous. Does that help?

Click to expand...

God’s Revelation to mankind is not clear enough seems to be your answer. See what I posted previously.

Then maybe you can give an example from Scriptures that fits your dad and son chore example.

JAL said:

So you think men are infallible interpreters by default?
But the main issue isn't whether feelings are reliable. The main issue is whether we are obligated to rely on them. Turns out that the very nature of conscience obligates me to rely on feelings of certainty. If I feel certain that action A is evil and B is good, I shall do B. What about you?

Since this conscience-framework is what we are stuck with - it's a framework that He created - even God must operate within it. I explained in the initials couple of posts how He does so. The Inward Witness address conscience by modifying and/or elevating our feelings of certainty.
Well I accept inerrancy as stated.

Click to expand...

Starting from a false premise just increases in compromise.

JAL said:

So then Scripture is clear enough? No need to worry, then? I take it, then, that you read Scripture infallibly? Fallibility was my concern, right?

Let's be clear. If exegesis left me 100% certain of my exegetical conclusions, then I would have to claim to be infallible on those conclusions. 100% certainty on a given question means that I basically can't even cogitate the possibility of being mistaken on that issue. Therefore I could only see myself as infallible, at that moment, on that issue.

So let's be clear. Does exegesis leave you 100% certain on some issues? If so, why then don't you claim infallibility on those issues? Tell us which issues you are currently infallible on - and I hope it includes the issue of how to properly evangelize, since 100 billion souls are at stake. That is WHY we need infallibility.

Click to expand...

1 John 2:27 says this:

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

John 16:13 says this:

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

JAL said:

The Bible is universally comprehended by all people in the exact same way? I have no idea what that means, nor do I see any truth to it. Interesting you don't seem to directly address my specific arguments on this thread.

Click to expand...

You know what I meant when I said it several different ways. The word of God must be true and intelligible or else he isn't God. So if any of it is misunderstood by some mortal, that does not make the Bible wrong or incomplete. And the person who is in doubt doesn't have to remain in doubt anyway. Just like the study of any of the courses we took in school, it didn't make sense immediately but we learned.

Also I've identified specific logical problems with Sola Scriptura. You can't just gloss over those charges.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't. There simply isn't any merit to them. I asked you -- if you are convinced of those objections -- to tell us what is that infallible, universally understood, source of authority we could turn to instead of the Bible. Well..........???????

JAL said:

Personally I'd prefer this thread focus more on prophecy than on tongues. I realize there may be some overlap.

You're asking how should tongues be regulated in an assembly. Paul was fortunate to be a part of a proper assembly. I don't think that such assemblies exist today, in the strictest Pauline sense. Therefore I'm not even sure that Paul's regulations would strictly apply to contemporary scenarios.

I'm more interested in figuring out where we strayed a bit from the beaten path. One we have proper revivals, and have recovered a true apostolic church, then we can likely apply Paul's regulations more strictly.

Click to expand...

Besides the men of God in the Bible, who do you believe is making accurate prophecies of the future?

JAL said:

Excellent verses describing the ability of the Inward Witness to reveal truth infallibly. Thank you!

Click to expand...

Your welcome. We know the truth because God can speak to us according to His Word (i.e. the Bible). We can confirm the truth of God's Word by looking at the context, and by using real world examples, as well. But yes, God is the One who ultimately shows us the truth of what He wants us to know within His Word.

JAL said:

The very nature of Christian conversion establishes the primacy of conscience. During conversion, which can transpire in a matter of seconds if the gospel is preached powerfully with great anointing/unction, agnostics and atheists alike draw four major religious conclusions:
(1) Jesus is God.
(2) Jesus died for my sins.
(3) Jesus plans to take me to heaven forever.
(4) The Bible is His written Word.
How is this possible? Blind faith? But blind faith is not wise as such practice would lead you to accept any and every false religion presented to you. Calvin had a better answer named the Inward Witness. Probably 99% of evangelical theologians have (rightly) agreed with him since then.

How does it work? Simple. As Calvin stated, it boils down to a feeling of certainty. The Holy Spirit operates in in the heart or mind persuasively, causing the unbeliever to begin feeling certain of the gospel. We say that the Holy Spirit convicts (convinces) the unbeliever. This is a direct revelation. This confirms:
(A) That conscience (feelings of certainty) are authoritative. Recall that conversion is not a phenomenon of your past, you in fact DAILY assert those 4 conclusions. If your original authority (feelings of certainty) has been impugned, then you should recant those 4 beliefs. In other words, the Inward Witness is, on daily basis, the rock upholding our faith, and therefore feelings of certainty are STILL a final authority in our lives long after initial conversion.
(B) Direct revelation - not biblical exegesis - is the foundation of the church. Stated succinctly, Christ Himself - not His written texts - is the foundation of the church.
(C) Exegesis is NOT preeminent in conversion. Sola Scriptura demands exegetical proof for any conclusion drawn. The problem is that Greek, for example, is too complex for quick proofs. A single Greek verb has over one hundred forms in its conjugation, as opposed to a simple language like English (say 4 or 5 forms). Without spending several years at seminary mastering Hebrew and Greek,therefore, how can I really claim to have 'proof'? During conversion, the convert reaches the 4 conclusions above without the skills needed to mount an exegetical proof. As Calvin noted, the Inward Witness (feelings of certainly) afford the only plausible explanation.

Click to expand...

I still think all of this is an unnecessary dichotomy.

Your example is a good example.

In your example you've asserted that (A) the gospel was preached with great anointing. I call up Romans 10:17 which explicitly says the Word of God creates the 'hearing' necessary for faith.

Both the Word and the Spirit work together, or are two sides of the same coin, working mysteriously in the believer to justify and sanctify. The Spirit uses the Word, and the Word has the Spirit.

Again, (B) is incorrect in your premise. It doesn't matter if some Protestants IMPLY that scripture is the foundation of the church. That is proved wrong by the very scripture's words that those protestants attest to be the final authority. Christ is the foundation of the church, as you rightly state, and any Sola-Scriptura believer will attest to that fact. Any Protestant believer who implies or teaches that scripture is the foundation of the Church is not being faithful even to the doctrine of sola scriptura.

(C) is incorrect by your example. Your example includes the preaching of the gospel with 'great anointing / unction'. The gospel is an exegesis of scripture - of the teaching of the apostles that we are devoted to (or at least the early church was in Acts 2:42). 'Great anointing / unction' would include some sort of spirit-led clarification of the gospel to the intended audience ('exegesis' means to explain and clarify the text). In other words, exegesis on some level is required for preaching.

Exegesis is not usually the task of the hearer but of the preacher. Some sort of exegesis is required from the preacher to clarify to the hearer. This doesn't require years at seminary, and I agree to that. It doesn't even necessarily require knowledge of greek words etc. But it certainly requires the Bible in some part of the equation.

Here's the problem with this post (and the other). You're critiquing a Biblicism prevalent (it seems) in certain quarters of America, and blaming an inappropriate negation of the power of the Spirit (and the direct revelation of the Spirit) on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Just because some Protestant groups have gone extreme on the Bible doesn't mean the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is itself faulty.

One can attest to scripture being the final authority while also attesting to direct revelation from the Holy Spirit and direct experience of the divine. As I do.

Spirit does not trump Word, and Word does not trump Spirit. There is no need to create a dichotomy between the two. Any attempt to do so always veers off into unhealthy directions. To make your own conscience your final authority is neither right nor safe, but to ignore it is neither right or safe either. An aeroplane needs two wings to fly - likewise, we need both Word and Spirit. And this is what any good reformationist knew and taught in their day.

For me, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and Revelation 22:18 are pretty rock solid in defending Sola Scriptura. But if you need something more I did a defense of it (a while back using God's Word).

A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!