Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

JAL · Aug 20, 2019

QvQ said:
Conscience is not obligatory. It isn't even reliable else why Hitler? He was doing what HE wanted to do, what he believed was right. You say he had a conscience?

You have the ability to read the mind of a dead man?

JAL · Aug 20, 2019

Hazelelponi said:
Jesus said: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." John 6:44

That's not conscience that's God.

This is just semantic word-games. You're playing dodgeball.

I am referring to feelings of certainty. If you don't want to call it conscience, call it something else. But it played a role in your conversion - and that is what you are in denial about. Feelings of certainty ARE morally obligatory, and were so in your conversion, like it or not. You can deny it all you want.

QvQ · Aug 20, 2019

JAL said:
Conscience didn't have the final say? So your rationale was:
- I feel certain that following Christ is an evil, wrong thing to do.
- I feel certain that following the Koran is the right thing to do.
Therefore I will follow Christ.

Sorry you're not making any sense. You are in denial about the role of conscience.

I am surrounded by Hard Core Hostile Atheist Americans and it was pounded into me that Christianity was evil, rotten and Dumb. Yes, I have been taught, even as that Muslim has, that Christianity is to be held in utter contempt. So my conscience, my reason, my culture tells me to reject it and yet I embrace it. So, even though my conscience, educated, literate, and so rational tells me it is wrong and stupid, I do it anyway because Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia.

Hazelelponi · Aug 20, 2019

JAL said:
This is just semantic word-games. You're playing dodgeball.

I am referring to feelings of certainty. If you don't want to call it conscience, call it something else. But it played a role in your conversion - and that is what you are in denial about. Feelings of certainty ARE morally obligatory, and were so in your conversion, like it or not. You can deny it all you want.

Romans 8:29 "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."

Not conscience but God gives certainty.

JAL · Aug 20, 2019

QvQ said:
The New Testament agrees with my conscience. If you can find an example of where the Gospel would contradict my conscience, then post it.

How about an example where Paul prioritized conscience over Scripture - thereby repudiating Sola Scriptura by his own example? Would that satisfy your curiosity?

Based on Scripture, the Jews anticipated a warrior-king as the Messiah, who would liberate them from oppressive nations. And yet Christ was born in a manger, lived as a pacifist, died on a cross, and failed to liberate the Jews from Roman oppression. Based on Paul's understanding of Scripture, then, Christ could not possibly be the Messiah.

Then he saw a flash of light on the road to Damascus, and fell off his horse. And a voice, 'Why do you persecute me Saul?"

Suddenly Paul felt certain that Jesus is Lord. All his conclusions based on exegesis were thrown out the window. Why? Because feelings of certainty trump exegesis.

The problem with exegesis is that it does NOT grant me access to the Word of God - only to my fallible interepretations of it. Paul experienced a direct revelation which served as a corrective to his flawed exegesis.

A similar thing happened to Peter. Based on Scripture, Peter shunned Gentiles. Until he received a direct revelation (a dream) contradicting his bible-based conclusions. The dream caused him to feel certain that a visit to the Gentiles was the right thing to do

Conscience trumps exegesis every time.

JAL · Aug 20, 2019

Hazelelponi said:
Romans 8:29 "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."

Not conscience but God gives certainty.

Exactly! See post #2. I didn't say that conscience is the AUTHOR of certainty, rather I use the term conscience as a SYNONYM for certainty. My argument is that certainty is morally obligatory (i.e. certainty as to what is evil and good) no matter WHERE it came from. Because it is never right to deliberately choose evil. Clear?

JAL · Aug 20, 2019

QvQ said:
I am surrounded by Hard Core Hostile Atheist Americans and it was pounded into me that Christianity was evil, rotten and Dumb. Yes, I have been taught, even as that Muslim has, that Christianity is to be held in utter contempt. So my conscience, my reason, my culture tells me to reject it and yet I embrace it. So, even though my conscience, educated, literate, and so rational tells me it is wrong and stupid, I do it anyway because Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia.

Right. Regardless of what the culture told you, you embraced Christianity because you felt certain it was the right thing to do. That's obedience to conscience.

QvQ · Aug 20, 2019

JAL said:
Exactly! See post #2. I didn't say that conscience is the AUTHOR of certainty, rather I use the term conscience as a SYNONYM for certainty. My argument is that certainty is morally obligatory (i.e. certainty as to what is evil and good) no matter WHERE it came from. Because it is never right to deliberately choose evil. Clear?

Certainty, the revelation of God is correct. Being careful to inform Faith with reason but conscience, no. Semantics. The resistance you feel is that many of us have been subject to attacks on Sola Scriptura, as attacks on our Faith. "How can anybody believe those old fairy tales." "Science deniers, bitter clingers," you know the riff.

Hazelelponi · Aug 20, 2019

JAL said:
Exactly! See post #2. I didn't say that conscience is the AUTHOR of certainty, rather I use the term conscience as a SYNONYM for certainty. My argument is that certainty is morally obligatory (i.e. certainty as to what is evil and good) no matter WHERE it came from. Because it is never right to deliberately choose evil. Clear?

No not "clear" because your arguing against scripture.

QvQ · Aug 20, 2019

JAL said:
Right. Regardless of what the culture told you, you embraced Christianity because you felt certain it was the right thing to do. That's obedience to conscience.

I believed the Bible. I knew God first. I looked for a language and a structure to that matched and the Book matches. Sola Scriptura.

JAL said:
Right. Regardless of what the culture told you, you embraced Christianity because you felt certain it was the right thing to do. That's obedience to conscience.

I embraced Christianity because it was the Truth. I wanted to know the Truth about God. I found some truth but I didn't have a language or structure to express it. I searched different traditions and Christianity was the match. Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth and the life ." I don't know much about the churches or rituals. My Christianity is simple and plain.

~Zao~ · Aug 21, 2019

JAL said:
Exactly! See post #2. I didn't say that conscience is the AUTHOR of certainty, rather I use the term conscience as a SYNONYM for certainty. My argument is that certainty is morally obligatory (i.e. certainty as to what is evil and good) no matter WHERE it came from. Because it is never right to deliberately choose evil. Clear?

When ya know ya know, Ya know?

A really good word study there ...

JAL · Aug 21, 2019

Hazelelponi said:
No not "clear" because your arguing against scripture.

In what sense?

JAL · Aug 21, 2019

QvQ said:
I believed the Bible. I knew God first. I looked for a language and a structure to that matched and the Book matches. Sola Scriptura.

I embraced Christianity because it was the Truth. I wanted to know the Truth about God. I found some truth but I didn't have a language or structure to express it. I searched different traditions and Christianity was the match. Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth and the life ." I don't know much about the churches or rituals. My Christianity is simple and plain.

Right. You felt certain that Christianity was true. Exactly.

HatGuy · Aug 21, 2019

JAL said:
The Bible addresses creation and thus all possible topics. Therefore the concept of 'revelation outside the Bible' is an oxymoron as I stated earlier. Therefore direct revelation cannot venture outside the Bible but rather serves to clarify it.

But this is what I've been saying all along.

But if direct revelation cannot venture outside of the Bible, then that makes the Bible the final authority.

JAL · Aug 21, 2019

gideon123 said:
JAL

Your reasoning is flawed. What was the whole message from Adam and Eve? Human beings cannot set their own moral standards.

Actually conscience is a moral standard created by God (Rom 2). And it can be misinformed or even warped. Nonetheless it must be honored because one should never deliberately do evil.

Exegesis is an effort to remedy the misinformed state of the conscience. And there's nothing wrong with that effort, especially if conscience demands it, but Christians tend to overlook the fact that direct revelation is potentially a better way to illuminate the conscience. Hence Paul's injunction at 1Cor 14:1 to seek the gift of prophecy.

Exegesis will always be fallible. Only prophecy/inspiration offers any real hope for infallible information about God's will.

We are broken and imperfect. Therefore, how can we construct a perfect moral system? We cannot. Therefore, to rely upon your conscience as the final arbiter of right and wrong ... is bound to lead to errors of judgment.

Conscience is always involved in our moral decisions.

A good example is Epstein, the man who recently committed suicide in a US prison. Epstein was a pedofile, he abused many young people. Did his conscience lead him to admit he was wrong, while all these crimes were ongoing. No. Epstein decided it was society that was wrong, and pedophilia was a justified behavior. He blamed society's standards, and he had no problem with his conscience.

I'm not sure why you think you can read the mind of a dead man.

THe Bible gives us the code of conduct laid out by God. Your conscience is not omnipotent over the Bible. Rather ... humble yourself, read the Bible daily, and learn the wisdom of God.

Blessings,
Gideon

You can't escape conscience as it underlies all our decisions. If you read the Bible, and obey it, it is because you feel certain that doing so is the morally right thing to do. That's conscience.

Thanks for reminding to me always honor my conscience above all else.

JAL · Aug 21, 2019

HatGuy said:
But this is what I've been saying all along.

But if direct revelation cannot venture outside of the Bible, then that makes the Bible the final authority.

You're really reaching here. I merely intimated that the two touch on all the same general topics of discussion, and ultimately do not mutually contradict. That's hardly grounds for placing the two on an epistemological par because, once again, exegesis affords me no direct access to the Bible, only to my fallible interpretations of it.

Let's review. Conscience is an inescapable tautology. When faced with two choices A and B, feeling certain that action A is evil and action B is good, I shall do B. This principle is self-evident, it does not beg further proof (although I provided some).

Now suppose someone put a book in front of you. He says, 'That should be your only authority'. Is that a tautological claim? Hardly. For example, wouldn't you want to investigate its contents and then DECIDE based on some evidentiary rationale - some basis - that such is true? And what will be your basis? Reason? Blind faith? Scholarship? Conscience? (Pick whatever you like).

But having selected a basis, examine now where you stand. You stand now on some authoritative basis deemed worthy of evaluating the book. In other words you've endorsed an authority OTHER than the book. Which means that the book cannot claim to be 'your only final authority', contrary to the 'Sola' part of Sola Scriptura. That's my beef with it.

HatGuy · Aug 21, 2019

JAL said:
You're really reaching here. I merely intimated that the two touch on all the same general topics of discussion, and ultimately do not mutually contradict. That's hardly grounds for placing the two on an epistemological par because, once again, exegesis affords me no direct access to the Bible, only to my fallible interpretations of it.

Let's review. Conscience is an inescapable tautology. When faced with two choices A and B, feeling certain that action A is evil and action B is good, I shall do B. This principle is self-evident, it does not beg further proof (although I provided some).

Now suppose someone put a book in front of you. He says, 'That should be your only authority'. Is that a tautological claim? Hardly. For example, wouldn't you want to investigate its contents and then DECIDE based on some evidentiary rationale - some basis - that such is true? And what will be your basis? Reason? Blind faith? Scholarship? Conscience? (Pick whatever you like).

But having selected a basis, examine now where you stand. You stand now on some authoritative basis deemed worthy of evaluating the book. In other words you've endorsed an authority OTHER than the book. Which means that the book cannot claim to be 'your only final authority', contrary to the 'Sola' part of Sola Scriptura. That's my beef with it.

I get you, but there are still two problems here.

JAL said:
That should be your only authority

ONLY authority and FINAL authority are not the same thing.

JAL said:
Which means that the book cannot claim to be 'your only final authority', contrary to the 'Sola' part of Sola Scriptura. That's my beef with it.

You can only have one final authority by nature of the word and concept "final". How can one have two final authorities for anything? The buck has to stop somewhere.

It would be good to note that some things are Biblical, some are unbiblical, and some are a-Biblical.

You know what, though, I think I do realise that I am also wrong on the official meanings of terms. I went to Google sola scriptura and realised my own error here. (From Wikipedia).

While the scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of subordinate authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of a denominated church, the ecumenical creeds, the councils of the catholic church, and so on - sola scriptura, on the other hand, rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all subordinate authority is derived from the authority of the scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

Sola scriptura is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations, and one of the five solae. It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by many of the Reformers, who taught that authentication of scripture is governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Some evangelical and Baptist denominations state the doctrine of sola scriptura more strongly: scripture is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.[1]

By contrast, Anglicanism and Methodism, also considered forms of Protestantism, uphold the doctrine of prima scriptura,[2][3] with scripture being illumined by tradition, reason, and in Methodism, experience as well, thus completing the four sides of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.[4] The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that to "accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognizes, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture".[5] The Roman Catholic Church officially regards tradition and scripture as equal, as interpreted by the Roman magisterium.[6] The Roman Catholic Church describes this as "one common source ... with two distinct modes of transmission",[7] while some Protestant authors call it "a dual source of revelation".

I did not know about prima scriptura. I'm sorry. That is actually more in the lines of what I'm arguing for. I'm sorry for wasting yours and others' time on this thread.

JAL · Aug 21, 2019

HatGuy said:
I get you, but there are still two problems here.

ONLY authority and FINAL authority are not the same thing.

You can only have one final authority by nature of the word and concept "final". How can one have two final authorities for anything? The buck has to stop somewhere.

Actually that's not an illegitimate claim. A final authority is, for example, a judge whose adjudication of your case is final. But he isn't the only final authority on that matter. Suppose for instance he's out sick on the day of your hearing. Another judge can fill in as the final authority over that hearing.

Here's a better example. A child will often see Mom and Dad as equal authority figures. Therefore once Mom had granted or denied a petition, he might respect her decision as final even if Dad has not yet weighed in. Similarly if he talked to Dad first, Dad's decision can be viewed as final. He has two final authorities.

Thus by 'final authority' I mean 'sufficient authority', and I think Sola Scriptura means to regard Scripture as the only sufficient authority. You MUST check it out with Scripture to properly become resolute.

Were that true, the Bible could never have been written! When Adam, Abraham, Moses (etc) heard the Voice, did they need to say, 'I can't accept the Voice until I first check it out with Scripture.' There was no Scripture to check it out with.

WHY is it not true? It is not true because conscience (feelings of certainty) is authoritative for obvious tautological reasons.

JAL · Aug 21, 2019

QvQ said:
The New Testament agrees with my conscience. If you can find an example of where the Gospel would contradict my conscience, then post it.

My first response to this, at post 225, was to narrate an anecdote from Paul's life where his actions esteemed direct revelation above exegesis.

Maybe that wasn't satisfying enough? Perhaps it would help to show you some didactic verses in the epistles where Scripture itself elevates direct revelation over exegesis? Might that be helpful?

aiki · Aug 21, 2019

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.

That Scripture is authoritative and sufficient to order Christian faith and practice is not a "theory."

2 Timothy 3:16-17
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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

(See also Psalms 19:7-11; Psalms 119:105)

JAL said:
However, both views overlook the primacy of conscience, with conscience defined as a feeling of certainty as to what is morally right or wrong.

But many Muslims are certain that cutting the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] out of a little girl is perfectly morally right and good. They are certain, too, that "honor killing" one's wife or daughter in the street is also morally right and good. Jeffrey Dahmer, a convicted cannibal serial killer, was also certain that his murderous actions were exactly what they should have been given his nihilistic worldview. Hitler was convinced, he was certain, that he had the right of things when he embarked on genocide and war against the world. The writer of Proverbs warns,

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.

People have been sincerely certain about many things that were morally wrong, factually in error, or logically fallacious (or all three together). How, then, can conscience (aka a feeling of certainty) be the final arbiter of truth?

JAL said:
If I feel certain that choice A is evil, and choice B is good, I shall opt for choice B.

Not necessarily. People often act contrary to their conscience. Paul wrote about this in his letter to the Roman Christians:

Romans 1:18
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

It is in large part because human beings do this, they act contrary to the dictates of their moral compass, to the "law of God written on their hearts," that God condemns them. I don't see, then, that conscience has the power to dictate behaviour in the way you describe.

JAL said:
As I can find no exceptions to this rule, I cannot controvert it, hence it needs no proof

See above.

JAL said:
and therefore conscience is my only final authority. This refutes Sola Scriptura.

??? So far, you haven't come anywhere close to securing this conclusion. See above.

JAL said:
This is not to suggest that Scripture is untrue. I accept the inerrancy of Scripture.

But only so long as you are certain of its inerrancy, right? Which makes the inerrancy of Scripture entirely a subjective thing (for you, at least). I think the inerrancy of Scripture is an objective fact, it is true independent of my feelings about it.

JAL said:
But exegesis provides me no direct access to Scripture, only to my fallible interpretations of it.

Is this not true, then, for all communication? If God's word is so incredibly murky, so susceptible to human fallibility, our communications with each other should be at least as murky and susceptible. Yet, here you are, making your case for your views, relying on the assumption that we will be able to understand your thoughts and arguments sufficiently to discuss them with you, perhaps even to adopt them. Why is human communication less susceptible to human fallibility than divine communication? Surely, if we cannot understand God's communications, we have no hope of understanding the communications of one another.

JAL said:
Whereas conscience, as we shall see, affords God a method of speaking to us in an infallible manner definitive of the prophetic experience.

Yeah...not.

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.

If the Gospel is preached fully, there will be more truth propositions to accept than this.

JAL said:
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.

So, how do you know 99% of evangelical theologians accept your idea about the "Inward Witness"? Do you have concrete proof for this claim? It's interesting that here you make a claim without certainty. You only say it is "probably" true that theologians agree as you say they do. Given the argument about "conscience" that you're making, ought not you to speak only of certainties?

Scripture tells us that people come to faith in Christ because God draws them to him (John 6:44), God convicts them of their sin (John 16:8), God gives them repentance (2 Timothy 2:25), and imparts to them the faith to believe (Romans 12:3). It isn't a man's conscience, then, that brings him to salvation but the work of God in persuading him to trust in Christ as Saviour and Lord.

Paul describes the state of every lost person in Ephesians 2:1-3. The lost are caught in the three-fold grip of the World, the Flesh, and the devil. Consequently, they are blind and deaf to God's truth, and at enmity with Him (Colossians 1:21), their conscience dulled and corrupted by sin and selfishness. No man, then, can come to God by dint of a mere feeling of certainty. Even those who do exert faith in Christ may do so with significant remaining uncertainty:

Matthew 9:24
24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, "Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief."

I think of Gideon, too, who, with significant uncertainty, obeyed God and defeated the enemies of Israel. What, then, of the necessity of a feeling of certainty? It appears not to be as essential as you assert.

JAL said:
The Holy Spirit operates in in the heart or mind persuasively, causing the unbeliever to begin feeling certain of the gospel.

Yes. But the key here, it seems to me, isn't the person's conscience but the persuading work of the Spirit.

JAL said:
This confirms:
(A) That conscience (feelings of certainty) are authoritative.

??? As far as I can tell, you have not yet argued successfully for this conclusion. See above.

JAL said:
If your original authority (feelings of certainty) has been impugned, then you should recant those 4 beliefs.

This is to make God's truth entirely subjective. But God's truth is true regardless of my feelings about it. This objectiveness of God's truth is vitally important to its authority. If God's truth is only true if I feel certain that it is, then I am the final arbiter of truth, not God.

JAL said:
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.

No, the rock of my faith is the Spirit of God imparting the truth of the Word of God to me, as well as the faith to believe it.

In bringing the lost to faith, God must work initially against a whole host of things that the lost hold as certain and which keep them consequently in their lost condition. What, then, of the primacy of certainty? The certainty of the lost about the rightness of their godless living is the enemy of God as He works to save them. Why, then, should a Christian rely primarily upon "conscience" to guide them? It may often be utterly - and fatally (in an eternal degree!) - wrong.

JAL said:
(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.

But all of what is written in the Bible is direct revelation. That is why it was accepted by the Early Church as authoritative and binding upon all Christian believers. Christ and the apostle John both taught that the Spirit had to reveal the truth of God's word to each person (John 14:26; John 16:13; 1 John 2:27). Is this not also a kind of direct revelation? It seems so to me... You cannot, then, separate Scripture from direct revelation as you are trying to do.

I agree, of course, that Christ is the foundation of the Church. But, you appear to be conflating his direct revelation of himself to people with his very person. But Christ's revelation of himself and his truth is no more Christ himself than my autobiography is me. My autobiography is about me, but it is not me myself. I would not, then, say that direct revelation is tantamount to the foundation of the Church.

JAL said:
Exegesis is NOT preeminent in conversion.

But is nonetheless essential to it. No one is truly converted without the truth propositions expressed in the Gospel. And those truths, under the illuminating work of the Spirit, must be "exegeted" by every person who encounters them.

JAL said:
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'?

But there are men who have done the necessary language work to be expert in both Hebrew and Greek who have translated Scripture so that you and I don't have to be experts ourselves in these languages to properly understand Scripture.

JAL said:
During conversion, the convert reaches the 4 conclusions above without the skills needed to mount an exegetical proof.

But does an "exegetical proof" have to rely upon personal expertise in the original languages of the Bible? I don't see, given what I've pointed out above, that it does.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave..."

Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

Veteran

Veteran

Member

:sighing:

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Member

:sighing:

Member

Wisdom’s child

Veteran

Veteran

Some guy in a hat

Veteran

Veteran

Some guy in a hat

Veteran

Veteran

Regular Member

Similar threads