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)
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?
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.
As I can find no exceptions to this rule, I cannot controvert it, hence it needs no proof
See above.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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..."