Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

ToBeLoved · Aug 21, 2019

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
What do you mean? I'm only criticizing the Protestant doctrine because I think it is flawed and doesn't work. I'm not trying to condemn Protestantism totally.

Orthodoxy doesn't offer a comprehensive view on authority because it doesn't need one. This, though imperfect, has not lead the Church into the type of schism and breakup we see in the Protestant world.

If the Catholic Church and their sex scandals are in your view the “authority” I’ll pass.

Now God’s Word and Jesus Christ. I like God’s authority.

JAL · Aug 21, 2019

aiki said:
How so?
Oh? Again, how so?

You insinuated that your exegesis is fact, not theory. And then below you have the gall to say that I am the one full of my own high opinions. Wow. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black...

It is indeed a fact that I read Scripture. But this isn't what you meant. Did I offer exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

Of course not. We've already established that. Your reading is Authoritative by default (but I'm the one full of my own high opinions, right?). Whatever.

Do you regard yourself infallible? Because you sure are sounding that way.

Inherently fallible? How so?

I really need to explain why exegesis is fallible? Oh I forgot. You've already indicated that you're infallible.

Many things thought and written by fallible men are entirely accurate. A simple example is the equation 2+2=4. Is this equation automatically in error simply because I, a fallible human, have expressed it? Obviously not. If I stick my bare hand into a fire and say, "The fire is burning my hand!" is my statement inherently doubtful because I'm a fallible human being? That would be silly. Why, then, is one's exegesis of Scripture automatically suspect merely because one is fallible?

To begin with, you have no direct access to the written Word. Where does one learn Greek and Hebrew today? From men! From man-made lexicons! You really think God is dumb enough to stake the success of His kingdom on fallible men? Nope. He intended direct revelation (1Cor 14:1).

2+2=4 is your proof of infallible exegesis? Seminary is a waste then, right? It's all as simple as 2 + 2 = 4. I sure hope you don't waste much time studying your Bible. Who would be foolish enough to waste his time studying something as simple as 2 + 2 = 4?

Can we get back to reality here? Exegesis involves a process of reasoning aimed at establishing, by proof, the correct set of conclusion. Now here's the problem with proofs. They are built on assumptions - that need to be proven! This leads to an infinite regress! Which means you have to begin with some man-made assumptions! And you seriously expect me to regard this process as reliable - with 100 billion souls at stake? You need to rethink your position - don't do it for me. Do it for them.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not vague or mysterious in its meaning. It says what it means and means what it says...

Thanks. I guffawed on that one. YOUR reading is the indisputably correct one. Wow.

If you want to say that a plain, natural, straightforward reading of the verses in their immediate context, that takes into account literary type, cannot properly render their meaning, then you must explain how we are to trust the communications that we have with one another to effectively impart our ideas. If divine revelation is so fraught with uncertainty, why aren't your own words far more so?

I commented on this perspective shortly back.

"Apparent" is the right word (as opposed to "actual").

Um..all contradictions are apparent contradictions. I'm not infallible so it is (obviously) true that my charges of contradiction might be incorrect. But to ignore them instead of resolving them betrays the inferiority of your position.

I think you might be a little to full of your own high opinion of your philosophical chops to acknowledge any lapses in reasoning you make. Under these circumstances, I'm not sure a "harder" look is going to help you any.

Said the Authority on Scripture.

~Zao~ · Aug 21, 2019

Does it point to God or man. End of deduction.

aiki · Aug 21, 2019

JAL said:
And when I called you a mind-reader for these conclusions, you charged me with deflection? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. I have heard Muslims talk very frankly about the moral necessity of female genital mutilation and honor killing. I have heard Hitler in his recorded public speeches declaring the tenets of the Third Reich with ferocious certainty and conviction. No mind reading necessary.

JAL said:
Yet you claim that Hitler killed 6 million Jews without any twinge of conscience? No compunctions? Seriously?

You're asking me if I'm seriously contending that Hitler had moral unease while he killed six million Jews? Your incredulity borders on the comic. I think the very fact that Hitler killed six million Jews establishes the certainty of his mind about doing so. One does not kill six million people while doubting that one ought to. This seems very obvious to me...

JAL said:
Look, it doesn't matter anyway. I see no exception to the rule of conscience.

As I've already said, this doesn't mean there aren't any. It seems to me you're suffering under some serious philosophic myopia that is constricting your ability to see the flaws in your views.

JAL said:
If you feel certain that action A is evil, and B is good, you're obligated to B.

What does "obligated to B" mean? Obligated to act in accord with B? I've shown that doesn't always happen. Obligated to acknowledge that B is morally right? That may happen but Scripture indicates that a person can so bruise their ability to discern right from wrong that the ability ceases to function and they become "reprobate." As you've acknowledged, psychopaths act in this way.

JAL said:
I personally doubt there are any perfect psyschopaths in the world (people with no conscience whatsoever and thus able to guiltlessly murder at ANY level of certainty).

I'm afraid I'm not particularly persuaded by your opinions about psychopaths.

JAL said:
As noted earlier, a psychopath could guiltlessly murder someone on less than 100% certainty, because his conscience is warped. For him, 95% certainty might be enough to assuage any compunctions in his conscience.

What do you mean by "guiltlessly"? The psychopath murders without a sense of guilt, or that he is guiltless of having done an evil thing because he was certain it was okay to do it? I know of no Scripture that suggests that God withholds His judgment of the wicked because they were inured to the immoral character of their deeds.

JAL said:
Justice makes sense only if we are judged on conscience (see post 5), for reasons that, to me, seem painfully obvious and tautological. Feel free to rebut the analogy in post 5, if you can.

From post #5:

JAL said:
Conscience is tautologically authoritative. Why so? Authority is what obligates me to a particular belief or practice. As it turns out, I am currently obligated to believe whatever I currently feel certain about. Since that is a tautology, there is no escaping this conclusion.

"Authority obligates me to a particular belief or practice"? I see criminals flout civic authority on a regular basis; children rebel against the authority of their parents (in thought and deed) regularly; people act against the "authority" of their God-given (and thus authoritative) moral sense very frequently. It doesn't appear to me, then, that authority does obligate one to a particular belief or practice.

JAL said:
Is Sola Scriptura a tautological position? Suppose someone put a book in front of you. He says, 'That should be your only authority'. Is that a tautological claim?

This doesn't represent the Sola Scriptura position accurately. No Sola Scriptura proponent I know asserts the view in this way to others.

JAL said:
But having selected an authoritative basis, examine where you now 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'. This is the basic logical inconsistency in Sola Scriptura.

If I've used a gangplank to come aboard a ship, I don't stand any longer upon the gangplank but the ship. The gangplank has aided me in coming to stand upon the boat but, having done so, it no longer is what I'm standing upon. In the same way, I may come to stand upon the "ship" of the word of God as my sole authority in matters of doctrine and practice by the "gangplank" of reason, and/or arguments from the nature of the biblical text itself, and/or by virtue of the Early Church's recognition of the Bible as God's word, or whatever. But having come to stand upon the word of God in matters of Christian belief and practice, I no longer stand upon these other things in matters of Christian belief and practice. I see no logical inconsistency in this whatsoever.

JAL said:
Let's get something straight. I don't care if you cite a million verses that 'seem' (on the face of it) to support your position, if that position has unresolved charges of internal contradictions.

Well, let me get something straight with you: I will refer to Scripture in support of my views whether or not you accept God's word as authoritative. I do, and so will argue for my views accordingly. If you don't like this, argue with someone else.

As for "internal contradictions": So far I haven't seen that you've shown any. Clear?

JAL said:
It's not. Conscience is the basis on which we will be evaluated.

Says who? I don't see this established in Scripture. And since it is God's evaluation I assume you're talking about, it is His word that ought to guide what we think about His evaluation.

JAL said:
Note that A is tautological, if conscience is defined as feelings of certainty.

I don't think that it is properly so-defined. "Conscience" as I understand it has always referred to my God-given moral sense, the "law of God written on my heart" by which I distinguish moral from immoral, not a mere feeling of certainty.

JAL said:
(B) Objective epistemology. I don't see that I have any access to this. The Bible doesn't really give me direct access to the written Word of God, only to my fallible interpretations of it.

I don't agree with this view at all. I've already explained why.

JAL said:
Suppose He wants you to do something right now, say perhaps, preach to your mailman. Must He wait until you've spent 4 or 5 years at seminary mastering Hebrew and Greek hoping in vain you'll reach the same conclusion one day while reading your Bible? No.

False dichotomy. These aren't the only two options. I already explained that there have been men who were experts in the languages of the Bible who have properly rendered the text of Scripture in English so that we may get at its truth without being experts in Greek and Hebrew ourselves. As I become familiar with God's word through regular study of it, I come to understand the truths, wisdom, commands and spiritual principles that are in it that I may apply on-the-go to any situation throughout each day. I don't need to hear directly from God via some direct, personal revelation, but need only apply what I already know of His revelation to me in Scripture.

JAL · Aug 21, 2019

aiki said:
So, how do you know 99% of evangelical theologians accept your idea about the "Inward Witness"?

I don't know anything for 100% certain. See my signature.

My recollection on this is that all the Reformed creeds either mentioned it or alluded to it. Also bear in mind that systematic theologies - and scholarly works in general - tend to discuss the arguments for and against a position, if it is controvesial in the church. After 30 years of exposure to the evangelical movement, I never saw any controversy over this issue (except maybe one article in one journal where the position taken was unclear). Every Christian writer and leader recognized that the Spirit was needed to win people to the gospel, as Inward Witness.

And with the abundance of verses on the inward testimony, it's pretty hard to deny:
Examples:

Jn 16, “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you."

Notice verses 7-9 in Jn 16 where the Spirit will convict (convince) the sinner of his sin. This is the role of the Inward Witness in conversion, as I cited in post #2.

You unsaved Jews, said Jesus, "Have never heard the Father's voice, nor seen His shape" (Jn 5:37). "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him (Jn 6:44). Rom 8:16 states, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God (KJV). 1Jn 4:13 affirms is that it is by the Spirit we know ourselves to be children of God, "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit" (KJV). Again, "Ye need not that any man teach you [because] the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth‖ (2:27, KJV). Again, "It is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth‖ (5:6, KJV). Again, for the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me‖ (Jn 15:26, KJV). Galatians 4, "Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, c Father.”

Jn 10:27, "My sheep know my voice, and follow me."

The Hebrew word qowl ('voice') occurs 500 times in the OT, as the KJV bears out well, and always in sonic contexts (i.e. it intimates sound in the ordinary sense as opposed some kind of mental voice divested of sound). The OT saints were not called to obey the written Word/law but to the voice. The expression 'obey my law' is almost never found in the OT (and when it's found it's just a corollary to the Voice), the expression used is almost always 'Obey my voice' (about 50 times). The Hebrew word for 'obey' is equally sonic, and ultimately means to 'hearken unto a voice'.

Thus, the case for the Inward Witness is pretty hard to challenge. I haven't even fully covered the logical problems with rejecting it. Feel free to dispute on this issue further.

So what, then, if I'm wrong in my belief that 99% of evangelical theologians buy into it? My position hardly stands or falls on whether there is a minority of theolgoians that might question it.

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.

Necessitates conscience. You're just highlighting how the Inward Witness persuades conscience. If you feel certain that Christianity is true, you'll likely commit to it. Otherwise, probably not. I covered this in post 2 already.

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."

And? I see no exception to the rule of conscience.

But all of what is written in the Bible is direct revelation.

Are we getting into semantic issues here? If so, try looking at post 89 which clearly distinguishes between exegesis vs direct revelation.

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.

That's hardly a monumental observation. Obvious points like that is what I'd expect you to read between the lines. Here I can't always spell out everything as they would do in a 1500 page systematic theology textbook.

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.

Conversion occured before the Bible. We are of the same kind of saving faith as Abraham (Rom 4 and Gal 3). It was Spirit-based, not exegesis based. The Abrahamic covenant hasn't changed one iota (Gal 3).

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.

Right. Those fallible men.Thanks for reminding me.

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..."

When 100 billion souls are stake, we need reliable conclusions.

aiki · Aug 21, 2019

JAL said:
You insinuated that your exegesis is fact, not theory. And then below you have the gall to say that I am the one full of my own high opinions. Wow. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black...

"You do it, too" does not empty my observation about your high opinion of yourself of its truth.

What exegesis did I offer, exactly? You said a Sola Scriptura view of Scripture was "theory" but many Christians don't see it that way, which I observed. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 seemed pertinent. I don't recall exegeting the verses, however.

JAL said:
Of course not. We've already established that. Your reading is Authoritative by default (but I'm the one full of my own high opinions, right?). Whatever.

Strawman.

JAL said:
I really need to explain why exegesis is fallible? Oh I forgot. You've already indicated that you're infallible.

*Sigh* Do you always react to challenges in this petty, hyper-sensitive way? Sheesh.

JAL said:
To begin with, you have no direct access to the written Word. Where does one learn Greek and Hebrew today? From men! From man-made lexicons! You really think God is dumb enough to stake the success of His kingdom on fallible men? Nope. He intended direct revelation (1Cor 14:1).

I don't think God has "staked the success of His kingdom upon fallible men." But, He does use them to preserve and transmit His inspired word to us. Your radical mistrust of "fallible men" correctly preserving and transmitting God's word to us is without good basis, as far as I'm concerned. It seems born mostly out of your desire to promote modern-day prophetic revelation.

JAL said:
2+2=4 is your proof of infallible exegesis?

??? Where did I say my mathematical example was "proof of infallible exegesis"? No where.

JAL said:
Seminary is a waste then, right?

Non sequitur.

JAL said:
It's all as simple as 2 + 2 = 4.

Strawman.

JAL said:
Can we get back to reality here?

You can, if you like. I never left.

JAL said:
And you seriously expect me to regard this process as reliable - with 100 billion souls at stake? You need to rethink your position - don't do it for me. Do it for them.

So far, you haven't given me any good reason to "rethink my position." Just a lot of tangled thinking and rhetorical jabbing.

JAL said:
Thanks. I guffawed on that one. YOUR reading is the indisputably correct one. Wow.

Pot and kettle...

JAL · Aug 21, 2019

aiki said:
Yes, seriously. I have heard Muslims talk very frankly about the moral necessity of female genital mutilation and honor killing. I have heard Hitler in his recorded public speeches declaring the tenets of the Third Reich with ferocious certainty and conviction. No mind reading necessary...You're asking me if I'm seriously contending that Hitler had moral unease while he killed six million Jews? Your incredulity borders on the comic. I think the very fact that Hitler killed six million Jews establishes the certainty of his mind about doing so. One does not kill six million people while doubting that one ought to. This seems very obvious to me...

For one thing, I don't see how that squares well with Rom 1 and 2 which DOES seem to attribute a moral compass (conscience) to men.

But again, why is this relevant to the current debate? If a man feels certain that action A is evil, and B is good, what do you want him to do? Should he try his hardest to 'faithfully' do evil? Isn't the correct answer B? (I mean, I've faced some difficult multiple choice exams in my life, but surely this isn't one of them).

Is that how YOU live? is it how you counsel others to live? For example, do you read the Bible because:
(A) You think reading the bible is an evil thing to do OR
(B) You think reading the bible is a good thing to do.

You have done nothing to impugn the rule of conscience. And this where I've stood for 30 years - I just can't find anyone able to undermine the concept of conscience. It's surely a tautology.

At any given moment, all I can do is make my very best effort to do what is right, to the best of my knowledge. What possible exception is there to this good rule? None. You're just blowing hot air.

As I've already said, this doesn't mean there aren't any. It seems to me you're suffering under some serious philosophic myopia that is constricting your ability to see the flaws in your views.

I give up. Evidently you believe that we should all try our hardest to do evil. (But I'm the myopic one hear). If everyone disobeyed conscience, this world would self-destruct in a matter of hours. Darn good thing that people don't 'see' the world the way you do. But that's not sight,it's myopia.

What does "obligated to B" mean? Obligated to act in accord with B? I've shown that doesn't always happen.

(Sigh) Morally obligated. We are morally obligated to try to do what is righteous versus opting to deliberately follow evil.

Obligated to acknowledge that B is morally right? That may happen but Scripture indicates that a person can so bruise their ability to discern right from wrong that the ability ceases to function and they become "reprobate." As you've acknowledged, psychopaths act in this way.

And? How does that suspend the rule of conscience? How does that prove that I should make it my goal to do all the evil I can, to the best of my knowledge and ability?

What do you mean by "guiltlessly"? The psychopath murders without a sense of guilt, or that he is guiltless of having done an evil thing because he was certain it was okay to do it? I know of no Scripture that suggests that God withholds His judgment of the wicked because they were inured to the immoral character of their deeds.

Regardless of how much you continue to misunderstand me, as you just did yet again (so much for your theory about the clarity of human communications), please understand this. A failed theodicy is not a viable position. You can't coherently take a position that contradicts justice. Animals kill without compunction, for lack of conscience. That's not sin. To punish them as though it were sin would be unjust. The same is true of a psychopath. If a plenal psychopath existed (and I don't believe such is possible), that is, a person with zero conscience who REALLY BELIEVES it's okay to murder anyone and everyone, somewhat like an animal, God cannot punish him for it. That would be unjust.

The rule of conscience is just a corollary of the definition of justice. It's all tautological. You've done nothing to disprove this.

All you've done is danced around my charges of logical contradiction expressed since post 1. You haven't resolved them because you apparently cannot.

JAL · Aug 22, 2019

aiki said:
You're asking me if I'm seriously contending that Hitler had moral unease while he killed six million Jews? Your incredulity borders on the comic. I think the very fact that Hitler killed six million Jews establishes the certainty of his mind about doing so. One does not kill six million people while doubting that one ought to. This seems very obvious to me...

Comic? Do you realize what you just insinuated? You just implied that the devil himself is well intentioned!

After all, no one would kill 6 million Jews unless he really believed it was a noble act, right? Isn't that what you just said?

Now I'm angry at myself - for all those times I get angry at the devil. What's wrong with me? All this while he's been one heck of a righteous dude, I'm kicking myself for not realizing it.

JAL · Aug 22, 2019

aiki said:
"Authority obligates me to a particular belief or practice"? I see criminals flout civic authority on a regular basis; children rebel against the authority of their parents (in thought and deed) regularly; people act against the "authority" of their God-given (and thus authoritative) moral sense very frequently. It doesn't appear to me, then, that authority does obligate one to a particular belief or practice.

You've wandered off into the semantics of 'authority' and, in doing so, overcomplicated the simplicity of the conscience-argument. Should we try to do the most evil we can? Or the most good? No need to complicate the argument.

Says who? I don't see this established in Scripture. And since it is God's evaluation I assume you're talking about, it is His word that ought to guide what we think about His evaluation.

Justice doesn't make sense without conscience. You don't punish an animal for sin. It has no conscience. Sin (evil) is when you feel certain that action A is evil, and yet you do it anyway. That involves conscience.

If I've used a gangplank to come aboard a ship, I don't stand any longer upon the gangplank but the ship. The gangplank has aided me in coming to stand upon the boat but, having done so, it no longer is what I'm standing upon. In the same way, I may come to stand upon the "ship" of the word of God as my sole authority in matters of doctrine and practice by the "gangplank" of reason, and/or arguments from the nature of the biblical text itself, and/or by virtue of the Early Church's recognition of the Bible as God's word, or whatever. But having come to stand upon the word of God in matters of Christian belief and practice, I no longer stand upon these other things in matters of Christian belief and practice. I see no logical inconsistency in this whatsoever.

I don't think this analog fits. Feel free to show me why I'm wrong.

Groundless faith - a sort of blind faith - doesn't make for a coherent epistemology. Were blind faith a good thing then it would be just fine for me to accept the Koran tomorrow on blind faith

Thus there needs to be a basis for our faith. So here's a different analogy that seems to better depict the scenario. Suppose a person is myopic. He wants to read the Bible but, in order to do so, he has to mount it on pedestal sufficiently close to his eyes for visibility.

Suddenly the pedestal is removed. What's holding it up now? If nothing, it hasn't been replaced, he is in dire straits. The book will fall to the ground, thus inaccessible.

In other words, your initial beliefs - the four mentioned in post 2:
(1) Jesus is God
(2) Jesus died for my sins.
(3) Jesus will take me to heaven
(4) The bible is His written word.
are either mounted on blind faith (not satisfactory) or on something solid.

There has to be some epistemological underpinning. I say it's the conscience.

And if you have a different underpinning in mind (such as Reason) that's fine. But if that mount has been removed, then your conclusions now rest on nothing more than blind faith. And it would then be hypocritical of you to suggest that it's wrong to switch to different religion on blind faith.

Your point isn't totally invalid. I have no objection to the gangplank (let's say Reason) being removed. But it needs to be replaced with another mount. If you now claim, 'My new mount is the written Word of God. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God because that book says so. It claims to be such'. Then it seems obvious to me that you've engaged in circular reasoning.

Now maybe it isn't as high as 99%, but I'm pretty sure the majority of theologians would say that our faith rests on one permanent mount - the Inward Witness.

Look, I said before I can't give you absolute apodictic proof of my views. I can't even prove that you exist. But I think I'm right about my position being a bit more cogent than the alternatives.

Well, let me get something straight with you: I will refer to Scripture in support of my views whether or not you accept God's word as authoritative. I do, and so will argue for my views accordingly. If you don't like this, argue with someone else.

As for "internal contradictions": So far I haven't seen that you've shown any. Clear?

There are multiple unresolved charges of contradiction here.

I don't think that it is properly so-defined. "Conscience" as I understand it has always referred to my God-given moral sense, the "law of God written on my heart" by which I distinguish moral from immoral, not a mere feeling of certainty.

You say tomato, I say tomaaaato. No need to get entrenched in terminology debates. I refer to feelings of certainty. If you'd rather use a different term for it than conscience, that's fine, but largely irrelevant. The logic of the arguments remains the same.

False dichotomy. These aren't the only two options. I already explained that there have been men who were experts in the languages of the Bible who have properly rendered the text of Scripture in English so that we may get at its truth without being experts in Greek and Hebrew ourselves. As I become familiar with God's word through regular study of it, I come to understand the truths, wisdom, commands and spiritual principles that are in it that I may apply on-the-go to any situation throughout each day. I don't need to hear directly from God via some direct, personal revelation, but need only apply what I already know of His revelation to me in Scripture.

Deflection. That doesn't meet the force of the objection.The force of the objection is that God might want you to do specific tasks to specific people in specific places at specific points of time, and there is no way you could know all those specifics by Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura pretty much ties God's hands as far as dictating every move we make, on those occasions when He might want to do this.

Either you would need to be clairvoyant, or receive direct revelation. Period.

JAL · Aug 22, 2019

aiki said:
I don't think God has "staked the success of His kingdom upon fallible men." But, He does use them to preserve and transmit His inspired word to us. Your radical mistrust of "fallible men" in correctly preserving and transmitting God's word to us is without good basis, as far as I'm concerned. It seems born mostly out of your desire to promote modern-day prophetic revelation.

You haven't heard the half of it. Although I accept the Nicene Creed, there are a number of popular doctrines that seem to be errors born of our fallibility. Generally I can only discuss them in the controversial forum, however.

Where did I say my mathematical example was "proof of infallible exegesis"? No where.

My hyperbole was a reaction to yours. You used 2+2=4 basically as grounds for the comparative ease of exegesis. If exegesis is that easy, it SHOULD be infallible. In reality, exegesis is quite difficult and, as such, very error-prone. And that's a big problem, given 100 billion souls at stake.

The way I see it, even if I'm wrong (about the need for direct revelation) I'm still ultimately right. Because with that many souls at stake, I at least need to reach 100% infallibly certainty that direct revelation is not needed. So one way or another, the most responsible thing to do is seek it. Paul put it like this, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

I don't need Paul to tell me that. With that many souls at stake, it only seems tautologically self-evident that the responsible thing to do is seek infallible revelation. And if you'd like to see a partial defense of the primacy of prophecy, check out posts 179 and 180. I think the best defense is anchored in 1Cor 2 (spilling into chapter 3) but maybe I'll cover that later.

JAL · Aug 22, 2019

aiki said:
"
So far, you haven't given me any good reason to "rethink my position." Just a lot of tangled thinking and rhetorical jabbing.

But this is the kind of response I so frequently get from you. Let's recall what these words are in response to. I made a simple logical argument. Here it is again

Exegesis is the steps taken to build a Bible-based argument to prove some conclusions. The problem is that all proofs are built on assumptions - that need to be proven! This leads to an infinite regress! The only way out of the regress is to begin with some man-made assumptions - unproven! This pretty much guarantees that nothing can be reliably proven from the Bible. (I might consider withdrawing this complaint if the only type of foundational assumptions needed for exegesis were as simple as 2+2 =4).

Instead of responding with a cogently stated, well-reasoned, critical evaluation and rebuttal, you reply with a bunch of empty rhetoric - that accuses me of being full of empty rhetoric! Amazing.

Par for the course. I've seen this kind of behavior for years on this forum. This is why I quickly get impatient on this forum. You asked why I seem to react so sensitively and indignantly - that's why.

Note the difference. When you carefully laid out your gang plank analogy, I responded in kind. I gave you a carefully reasoned response (whether you agree with it or not).

I'll admit that on our INITIAL exchange at the very beginning, I was too hasty. I was at work and rushed my reading of you and response. But since then I'm pretty sure I haven't deflected or ignored anything significant, not intentionally anyway.

bmjackson · Aug 22, 2019

The OP is correct, that a man being born of the world, has his conscience to guide him for what he does. He is not a moral being and not responsible if he does not have a conscience. What any man, and psychopaths are guilty of, is not coming to the Lord Jesus Christ, to have the necessary work done to him, that is, to awaken his dead spirit part, and thereafter, have his conscience informed by God. And yes, it is direct revelation that does this though scripture plays a huge part.

A man who is now under the kingship of God, is given the ability to know absolute truth, through the action of his nowawakened spirit within him, that is, truth according to God, not his own judgment which is flawed and informed by other flawed men. In some societies, it is considered absolutely right and normal, to eat each other.

Evangelicalism is wrong over the issue of final authority. It cannot be as book, as there must be something inside him that says it is the absolute truth that he is reading and that is why there is so much disagrement. It cannot be councils or one man with a funny hat either.

The OP has correctly sussed out the inconsistency as he says clearly. But he misses one i,portant point - that the children of God hear their Father speak directly to their spirits not heir consciences, though it is now informed correctly and have scripture to help them discern this.

A man hears 3 voices: his own, the devil, and that of God. He must know which one it is and the conscience is his own unless he has become a child of God truly.

bmjackson · Aug 22, 2019

I am sorry but I do not have an edit option for some reason which has not been explained to me. Sorry for the errors.

charsan · Aug 22, 2019

ToBeLoved said:
If the Catholic Church and their sex scandals are in your view the “authority” I’ll pass.

Now God’s Word and Jesus Christ. I like God’s authority.

Did you even look at his faith? He is not a Catholic he is Orthodox. Not everything is always Catholic and you have yourself as an authority if you use Sola Scriptura which Christ, the Apostles, nor the early Church advocated. Going by the Bible alone is a man made doctrine that started in the 1600's

aiki · Aug 22, 2019

JAL said:
For one thing, I don't see how that squares well with Rom 1 and 2 which DOES seem to attribute a moral compass (conscience) to men.

This wanders from the point I made about Hitler being certain of the rightness of his Third Reich and the genocide he attempted against the Jews. Did Hitler at some point in his life have a sense that killing a single person - let alone millions of people - was wrong? Yes, Romans 1:18 certainly indicates that he not only had such a sense but suppressed it so effectively that he went on confidently to kill millions of Jews (and others, too). But you leveled a sarcastic charge of "mind reading" at me when I wrote of Hitler's confidence in the rightness of his murderous deeds. I pointed out that I was not mind reading but simply taking Hitler at his word. Now you want to discuss if Hitler ever had any moral qualm about killing other people. This is a shifting of the goalposts, it seems to me. I was not mind-reading as you said, and Hitler did commit genocide without qualm (a rather obviously necessary state of mind when killing millions of people). Wondering if Hitler ever had a sense that wholesale murder was wrong is another question and sidesteps the point of our exchange about Hitler.

JAL said:
But again, why is this relevant to the current debate? If a man feels certain that action A is evil, and B is good, what do you want him to do? Should he try his hardest to 'faithfully' do evil? Isn't the correct answer B?

I've tried to point out that whatever the correct moral stance ought to be in a given situation, people regularly violate it. However certain a person is that A is immoral and B is not, they don't necessarily choose to act in accord with A. Often they choose B. And this is a big part of why people stand guilty before God. They knew they ought to have done A but did B instead. So, then, certainty does not always necessarily constrain us in the way you seem to think it does.

JAL said:
Is that how YOU live? is it how you counsel others to live? For example, do you read the Bible because:
(A) You think reading the bible is an evil thing to do OR
(B) You think reading the bible is a good thing to do.

I know many Christians who agree that it is good to read the Bible but who leave their Bible on the shelf for months at a time. I have a friend who is a terrible chain-smoker. He knows with great certainty that he ought not to smoke, that it will kill him, that it grieves his family that he smokes so much. But he still smokes. Being confident that the right thing is the right thing doesn't necessarily mean one will act in accord with the right thing.

JAL said:
You have done nothing to impugn the rule of conscience. And this where I've stood for 30 years - I just can't find anyone able to undermine the concept of conscience. It's surely a tautology.

Well, I don't agree. I think your "Rule of Conscience" is demonstrably at odds with reality.

JAL said:
At any given moment, all I can do is make my very best effort to do what is right, to the best of my knowledge. What possible exception is there to this good rule? None. You're just blowing hot air.

"All I can do is make my very best effort"? No, very often people choose the path of least resistance through life, which often involves not acting in accord with what one knows is right. This isn't "hot air" but the obvious fact of the matter - even in your own life (unless, of course, you're sinlessly perfect - which you aren't).

JAL said:
I give up. Evidently you believe that we should all try our hardest to do evil.

Strawman.

JAL said:
If everyone disobeyed conscience, this world would self-destruct in a matter of hours. Darn good thing that people don't 'see' the world the way you do. But that's not sight,it's myopia.

Strawman. I never said people always violate their consciences. But everyone does at various times. So, your "Rule of Conscience" is not true. Conscience does not constrain our behaviour in the way you contend.

JAL said:
And? How does that suspend the rule of conscience? How does that prove that I should make it my goal to do all the evil I can, to the best of my knowledge and ability?

Strawman and non sequitur. I'm not trying to prove the opposite of your Rule of Conscience, that people ought to make it their goal to do all the evil they can, I'm simply pointing out that it is a "rule" that people often violate. How, then, can it be a rule that orders behaviour as fully as you say. It simply doesn't.

JAL said:
Regardless of how much you continue to misunderstand me, as you just did yet again (so much for your theory about the clarity of human communications),

Where did I put forth a "theory about the clarity of human communications"?

And I asked for clarification in order to avoid misunderstanding. Why is your response simply to jab and snipe?

JAL said:
You can't coherently take a position that contradicts justice. Animals kill without compunction, for lack of conscience. That's not sin. To punish them as though it were sin would be unjust. The same is true of a psychopath. If a plenal psychopath existed (and I don't believe such is possible), that is, a person with zero conscience who REALLY BELIEVES it's okay to murder anyone and everyone, somewhat like an animal, God cannot punish him for it. That would be unjust.

If I wander onto private property unaware I have done so, failing to see the signs that say trespassing will result in my arrest and prosecution, are those upon whose property I have trespassed acting immorally if they do to me exactly as the posted signs warned they would? I don't see how. My ignorance, my lack of awareness of my trespassing, is no proof against prosecution and it does not make my prosecution an immoral act by my prosecutors.

In the same way, a man who is utterly confident that he has not trespassed into forbidden territory morally when he has does not make God's prosecution of his moral trespass unjust. God has "posted" his Moral Law within each of us, in His word, and in at least some of the laws governing nations. All of us - including psychopaths - have some level of awareness of the Moral Law (even if it's only derived externally) given to us by our divine Moral Law Giver. We are, then, responsible for what we do with this awareness, however blunted it may be by a person's suppression of it and the reprobation that follows.

JAL said:
The rule of conscience is just a corollary of the definition of justice. It's all tautological. You've done nothing to disprove this.

All you've done is danced around my charges of logical contradiction expressed since post 1. You haven't resolved them because you apparently cannot.

I disagree. If there has been any "dancing" it has been by you.

JAL said:
Comic? Do you realize what you just insinuated? You just implied that the devil himself is well intentioned!

Strawman.

JAL said:
After all, no one would kill 6 million Jews unless he really believed it was a noble act, right? Isn't that what you just said?

No, it wasn't.

JAL said:
Now I'm angry at myself - for all those times I get angry at the devil. What's wrong with me? All this while he's been one heck of a righteous dude, I'm kicking myself for not realizing it.

Just can't help yourself, eh? Is it insecurity prompting this jabby stuff?

JAL said:
You've wandered off into the semantics of 'authority' and, in doing so, overcomplicated the simplicity of the conscience-argument. Should we try to do the most evil we can? Or the most good? No need to complicate the argument.

Deflection. And oversimplification.

JAL said:
Justice doesn't make sense without conscience. You don't punish an animal for sin. It has no conscience. Sin (evil) is when you feel certain that action A is evil, and yet you do it anyway. That involves conscience.

Humans don't exist in the moral vacuum in which animals do even if they are fully psychopathic and have no internal sense whatever of right and wrong. They still may be informed of God's Moral Law by the revelation of God's word, the preaching of it by Christians, and at least some of the laws governing the society in which they live. Animals have no such moral environment in which they move. Making comparisons as you have, then, doesn't really work.

aiki · Aug 22, 2019

JAL said:
I don't think this analog fits. Feel free to show me why I'm wrong.

I'm not responsible for your opinions. You don't think the analogy fits. Okay. But it's your responsibility to explain why, not my responsibility to guess why and then mount a counter-argument. As far as I'm concerned, the analogy works very well.

JAL said:
Groundless faith - a sort of blind faith - doesn't make for a coherent epistemology. Were blind faith a good thing then it would be just fine for me to accept the Koran tomorrow on blind faith

I've not contended for blind faith. This is your Strawman of what I put forward.

JAL said:
Thus there needs to be a basis for our faith. So here's a different analogy that seems to better depict the scenario. Suppose a person is myopic. He wants to read the Bible but, in order to do so, he has to mount it on pedestal sufficiently close to his eyes for visibility.

Suddenly the pedestal is removed. What's holding it up now? If nothing, it hasn't been replaced, he is in dire straits. The book will fall to the ground, thus inaccessible.

No, this is not in any way a "better scenario." First of all, a person may move a Bible closer for reading in a multitude of different ways. Myopia does not necessarily require a pedestal for reading. If the myopic person crouched down on the floor, the fallen Bible could still be read, though uncomfortably. Second, the matter in question isn't merely the reading of the Bible but the way in which it is regarded, what it is understood to be. Reason and the various other things that convince me that the Bible is the divinely-inspired and authoritative word of God, sufficient to define proper Christian belief and practice, cease to be necessary in the way they were in bringing me to this conviction once the conviction is secured. I don't rely upon them for defining proper Christian belief and practice, but the Bible. This is not to say that I've suspended the use of reason, evidence, etc across the board, only that in defining Christian belief and practice, the word of God is entirely sufficient. And so, I think, my gangplank and ship analogy is a much better analogy to this state of affairs.

JAL said:
And if you have a different underpinning in mind (such as Reason) that's fine. But if that mount has been removed, then your conclusions now rest on nothing more than blind faith. And it would then be hypocritical of you to suggest that it's wrong to switch to different religion on blind faith.

See above.

JAL said:
Your point isn't totally invalid. I have no objection to the gangplank (let's say Reason) being removed.

It isn't removed, though. I still employ reason in the exercise of my Christian faith all the time. But insofar as defining what is proper, basic, Christian belief and practice is concerned, God's word is entirely sufficient.

JAL said:
If you now claim, 'My new mount is the written Word of God. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God because that book says so. It claims to be such'. Then it seems obvious to me that you've engaged in circular reasoning.

This isn't what I've contended for. See above.

JAL said:
Now maybe it isn't as high as 99%, but I'm pretty sure the majority of theologians would say that our faith rests on one permanent mount - the Inward Witness.

Look, I said before I can't give you absolute apodictic proof of my views. I can't even prove that you exist. But I think I'm right about my position being a bit more cogent than the alternatives.

We've all got opinions.

JAL said:
You say tomato, I say tomaaaato. No need to get entrenched in terminology debates. I refer to feelings of certainty. If you'd rather use a different term for it than conscience, that's fine, but largely irrelevant. The logic of the arguments remains the same.

I don't agree. Whose definition of "conscience" we use makes a significant difference, I think, to the logic of your arguments.

The Moral Law written on my heart is not subjectively derived as a mere feeling of certainty is. The Moral Law forming my conscience, is placed there by the Moral Law Giver, not generated through my own reason, or intuition, or preferences, or whatever.

JAL said:
Deflection. That doesn't meet the force of the objection.The force of the objection is that God might want you to do specific tasks to specific people in specific places at specific points of time, and there is no way you could know all those specifics by Sola Scriptura.

Of course I can't know the specifics of future unknown circumstances ahead of time. But once I am in them, I have all I need in Scripture, in the revelation of God to me in His word, to properly navigate them.

JAL said:
Sola Scriptura pretty much ties God's hands as far as dictating every move we make, on those occasions when He might want to do this.

Not at all. And, anyway, I don't believe God wants to dictate every single move we make in any situation. He may have particular things He wants us to do and if He does, He'll make that crystal clear. But, generally speaking, He expects that I'll apply the spiritual principles, and wisdom, and truth and commands He's given to me in His word to the circumstances in which I find myself.

JAL said:
You haven't heard the half of it. Although I accept the Nicene Creed, there are a number of popular doctrines that seem to be errors born of our fallibility. Generally I can only discuss them in the controversial forum, however.

A rather...ironic quotation. I assume you're as fallible as the next guy, yet you are able to discern the errors born of the fallibility of others without apparent difficulty. Strange, it seems to me, if you're just as fallible as they are. How are you to trust your own judgment when this is so? How is it that your own fallibility doesn't bring you to serious errors of your own, as human fallibility has to those who constructed the Nicene Creed? How is it that your arguments in this thread aren't fraught with unseen errors like the Creed in which you perceive so much error? Are you not as fallible as the ancient creators of the Creed? Smarter, perhaps? More insightful?

JAL said:
You used 2+2=4 basically as grounds for the comparative ease of exegesis.

No, I used it as an example of how man can be correct while still being fallible. Our fallibility doesn't necessitate or guarantee error. Sometimes, humans get things perfectly right. Like 2+2=4.

JAL said:
Because with that many souls at stake, I at least need to reach 100% infallibly certainty that direct revelation is not needed.

See, this isn't what I as a person who holds to Sola Scriptura believes. I don't believe that direct leading from God is never needed or never happens. I only hold that God's main way of communicating to us His will is through His word, particularly where the core doctrines and practices of the faith are concerned. I don't regard God's personal leading of someone and the primacy of Scripture in defining Christian doctrine and practice as an Either-Or situation but a Both-And one. It isn't either direct leading or Sola Scriptura but both direct divine leading and Sola Scriptura.

JAL said:
So one way or another, the most responsible thing to do is seek it. Paul put it like this, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

Paul also wrote,

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, fully equipped for doing good works.

JAL said:
Exegesis is the steps taken to build a Bible-based argument to prove some conclusions. The problem is that all proofs are built on assumptions - that need to be proven!

But if they need to be proven, why are they then assumed? Clearly, they can (must) be assumed without proof. Such assumptions have been referred to as "brute givens."

JAL said:
The only way out of the regress is to begin with some man-made assumptions - unproven!

But they aren't unreasonable assumptions. Some may be quite reasonably deduced without concrete proof. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" is a good example. In fact, much of modern science derives, not from man-made assumptions but from the belief in a rational God who made a rational universe into which we humans endowed by God with rationality could delve and discover more about God.

JAL said:
This pretty much guarantees that nothing can be reliably proven from the Bible.

As you have stated things thus far, this conclusion is a non sequitur. I don't see how this conclusion follows necessarily from what you've pointed out about brute givens.

JAL said:
Instead of responding with a cogently stated, well-reasoned, critical evaluation and rebuttal, you reply with a bunch of empty rhetoric - that accuses me of being full of empty rhetoric! Amazing.

Yes, yes, you are the only logical, cogent person in this exchange and no one ought to say otherwise. Yeesh. No wonder you're in such a tangle philosophically.

JAL said:
Par for the course. I've seen this kind of behavior for years on this forum. This is why I quickly get impatient on this forum. You asked why I seem to react so sensitively and indignantly - that's why.

This does not excuse your frequent impatient nastiness.

JAL said:
Note the difference. When you carefully laid out your gang plank analogy, I responded in kind. I gave you a carefully reasoned response (whether you agree with it or not).

And what was my analogy, exactly? Stupid, unreasoning, uncritical nonsense? No, it was an attempt to do exactly what you did with your myopia-pedestal analogy.

JAL · Aug 22, 2019

aiki said:
I've tried to point out that whatever the correct moral stance ought to be in a given situation, people regularly violate it. However certain a person is that A is immoral and B is not, they don't necessarily choose to act in accord with A. Often they choose B. And this is a big part of why people stand guilty before God. They knew they ought to have done A but did B instead. So, then, certainty does not always necessarily constrain us in the way you seem to think it does.

Unbelievable. Is this deflection? You seem to be the only person on this thread completely unable to grasp my position.
For the millionth time, I am not saying that conscience PHYSICALLY FORCES them to choose B. All I'm saying is that conscience imposes on them the moral obligation (read this is 'an expectation in God's sight') to do B.

This is a big part of why people stand guilty before God.

No, it is the ONLY reason they stand guilty before God. That's the tautological nature of justice that I've been trying to convey for 275 posts. I thought it was clear at least by post 5 but you're still not getting it.

I don' t have much time but I'll come back as I can.

JAL · Aug 22, 2019

@aiki
Looks like many of your subsequent responses to me are based on that total misunderstanding of my views. To save time I will ignore those particular responses.

But thanks, you're doing wonderful job of confirming to me that human intercommunications are utterly unreliable/fallible, which further cements my conviction on the need for infallible direct revelation.

JAL · Aug 22, 2019

@aiki

- A couple quick points.
- Faith is a fruit of the Spirit (per Galatians). Therefore it seems utterly implausible to credit it to exegesis. It's the work of the Inward Witness.
- The primacy of direct revelation becomes self-evident when we consider biblical categories such as 'joy inexpressible' and 'peace transcending all understanding'. Because God knows your brain and body, He is capable of calming your anxieties, and influxing degrees of joy in you, beyond your wildest imaginations. Now, imagine trying to arrive at those levels of joy, peace - and heartfelt love/compassion for your neighbor - by exegetical efforts. To even so attempt is total nonsense.

JAL · Aug 22, 2019

@aiki
"Love does no harm to your neighbor" (Rom 13). In this fragile world fraught with dangers, there are an infinite number of ways to accidentally harm my neighbor. Only an omniscient King can steer your path moment to moment in ways always safe for your neighbor. Thus direct revelation from moment to moment is the only way to fulfill God's perfect will. Exegesis will never provide you that kind of accuracy and granularity of information.

Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Wisdom’s child

Regular Member

Veteran

Regular Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Charismatic Episcopal Church

Regular Member

Regular Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads