Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

JAL · May 5, 2020

QvQ said:
We do agree in that exegesis is chain of man-made proofs and the Bible is a direct revelation complimenting a person's experience of a manifest God. God is not a character found only the pages of a book.

Let's be precise here. The Bible is not a Direct Revelation to me. Paul wrote down what came to HIM by Direct Revelation (he heard God's voice) but the written-down version is not the same as the Voice. The Voice is interactive. It manipulates the mind interactively to insure that the message has been properly apprehended and/or understood. In this sense it surpasses exegesis.

I think we agree but I hesitate to rely on my own conscience as I am as prone to self interest, peer pressure and cultural influence as anyone is. I must use both my conscience and the Bible to understand what is truly moral or B good.

Here's the rule of conscience:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B"

To challenge this rule is to challenge the integrity and justice of God, because a good and fair God will judge you based on whether you always did what was right to the best of your knowledge, which is what the rule means. You can find a biblical basis for this rule at Romans chap 14, see also 1Cor 8:1-13 and Rom 2:14-15.

I think we agree but I hesitate to rely on my own conscience as I am as prone to self interest, peer pressure and cultural influence as anyone is. I must use both my conscience and the Bible to understand what is truly moral or B good.

No one is saying that the rule excludes the Bible. You will consult the Bible insofar as your conscience directs - that's the rule in action. Visualize:

"If I feel certain that consulting the Bible is good, and ignoring it is evil..."

Again, there are no possible exceptions to the rule. That would be a logical impossibility.

Hawkins · May 6, 2020

Sola Scriptura to me means it remains the only tangible authority which cannot be corrupted. Human authorities can be corrupted. That's how the authority itself was shifted from the Jews to the Catholics and from the Catholics to the Protestants, while only the Scripture itself doesn't change in terms of its theology and authenticated contents.

JAL · May 6, 2020

Hawkins said:
Sola Scriptura to me means it remains the only tangible authority which cannot be corrupted. Human authorities can be corrupted. That's how the authority itself was shifted from the Jews to the Catholics and from the Catholics to the Protestants, while only the Scripture itself doesn't change in terms of its theology and authenticated contents.

Too much of an oversimplification. Scripture is inspired and, like you say, uncorrupted, but nonetheless an exegete can only view it through a man-tainted lens for at least 3 reasons.

(1) Try as you might, you cannot entirely purge your thinking from a heritage of indoctrination, secular influences, personal bias, and modern enculturation. You can't be sure, for example, that the ancient Greeks and Hebrews understood the text the same way that you do today.
(2) You can learn Hebrew and Greek only from man-made lexicons. Therefore the data is already man-tainted before you begin. For example, even though I am a Trinitarian, the term 'Spirit' - despite its popularity among the lexicons - is a horribly blatant travesty of translation. Thus the title of the Third Person is clearly NOT "Holy Spirit" (even though I myself use that title to avoid confusing people). This means that exegesis is so prone to error that, after 2000 years of it, the church still can't even figure out the Third Person's name !!!!
(3) Exegesis is an attempt to prove an assertion either harmonious or disharmonious with the text. Every proof is built on assumptions, however, which in turn need to be proven. This leads to an infinite regress of unproven assumptions. The only way to break out of the infinite loop is to provisionally STIPULATE some man-made presumptions. Therefore the data is already man-tainted before the exegetical process even starts.

To claim that exegesis was God's master plan for the church is to insinuate that He is a negligent, irresponsible leader. And that's not even to mention the fact that He failed to provide the printing press for 90% of human history.

QvQ · May 6, 2020

JAL said:
Let's be precise here. The Bible is not a Direct Revelation to me. Paul wrote down what came to HIM by Direct Revelation (he heard God's voice) but the written-down version is not the same as the Voice. The Voice is interactive. It manipulates the mind interactively to insure that the message has been properly apprehended and/or understood. In this sense it surpasses exegesis.

Here's the rule of conscience:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B"

To challenge this rule is to challenge the integrity and justice of God, because a good and fair God will judge you based on whether you always did what was right to the best of your knowledge, which is what the rule means. You can find a biblical basis for this rule at Romans chap 14, see also 1Cor 8:1-13 and Rom 2:14-15.

No one is saying that the rule excludes the Bible. You will consult the Bible insofar as your conscience directs - that's the rule in action. Visualize:

"If I feel certain that consulting the Bible is good, and ignoring it is evil..."

Again, there are no possible exceptions to the rule. That would be a logical impossibility.

QvQ · May 6, 2020

The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Every one goes to hell in their own hand basket
A friend once said there was a quote that the Devil's disciples are the minions of righteousness, meaning that many seduced by Satan have been convinced of their own righteousness. Moral, good and evil, in the cold light of day are complex and require not only my own conscience but the wisdom of the Bible.
Also, IF the Word is not the Word received, as in what Paul wrote and what he actually heard or being something else in Hebrew and not precisely the same in Latin, however, since a living God has control of the written word. the meanings He wants to convey in English are what He wills. You consider it mistakes, however God is the Author and Editor of that Book, aye?

JAL · May 6, 2020

QvQ said:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Every one goes to hell in their own hand basket
A friend once said there was a quote that the Devil's disciples are the minions of righteousness, meaning that many seduced by Satan have been convinced of their own righteousness. Moral, good and evil, in the cold light of day are complex and require not only my own conscience but the wisdom of the Bible.

(Yawn) Already addressed countless times.
(1) You can't cite one clear exception to the rule of conscience as I defined it.
(2) You can't refute the exegetical corroboration - I named 3 passages in favor of it.
(3) You can't refute the tautology underlying it - God would be unjust to dishonor it, as shown.

Also, IF the Word is not the Word received, as in what Paul wrote and what he actually heard or being something else in Hebrew and not precisely the same in Latin, however, since a living God has control of the written word. the meanings He wants to convey in English are what He wills. You consider it mistakes, however God is the Author and Editor of that Book, aye?

Already addressed.
(1) It's self-evidently impossible for ordinary written words to convey the full experience of Direct Revelation. For example when you and I read the words 'God' or an 'angel', we typically picture a very dim and inaccurate portrait. When a prophet encounters those same words, typically the Holy Spirit shows him a vision of real angels and the real face of God.
(2) Ordinary written words cannot guarantee that we interpret them correctly. Direct Revelation - the voiced divine Word - can oversee the communication process reliably.

You consider it mistakes, however God is the Author and Editor of that Book, aye?

Please don't tell blatant lies about my position. Nowhere did I argue that the written Word contains mistakes.

QvQ · May 6, 2020

JAL said:
(Yawn) Already addressed countless times.
(1) You can't cite one clear exception to the rule of conscience as I defined it.
(2) You can't refute the exegetical corroboration - I named 3 passages in favor of it.
(3) You can't refute the tautology underlying it - God would be unjust to dishonor it, as shown.
Already addressed.
(1) It's self-evidently impossible for ordinary written words to convey the full experience of Direct Revelation. For example when you and I read the words 'God' or an 'angel', we typically picture a very dim and inaccurate portrait. When a prophet encounters those same words, typically the Holy Spirit shows him a vision of real angels and the real face of God.
(2) Ordinary written words cannot guarantee that we interpret them correctly. Direct Revelation - the voiced divine Word - can oversee the communication process reliably.

Please don't tell blatant lies about my position. Nowhere did I argue that the written Word contains mistakes.

Clear Exceptions to the Rule of Conscience are too numerous to enumerate: If a person believes that A is evil and B is good then do B. How many wars are on that list? The Fatherland, The Motherland, God and Country, you bet, in good B conscience.
The idea that a person would choose A is absurd.
Hitler himself believed he was Good. Hitler was for the German populace and he wanted every good thing for them. He also believed Jewish people were evil and he meant to curb their evil. Curbing Evil Jews was B Good to Hitler.
What I would like is for You to list one person who has stated, "I know this that I do is evil and I am going to do it." No all the evil ones believe themselves Good and many believe they were agents of God.
Did Hitler know what evil was? Did he know he was evil? Did he proceed by choosing A? Or did his conscience inform him that he was B Good?

JAL · May 6, 2020

QvQ said:
Clear Exceptions to the Rule of Conscience are too numerous to enumerate: If a person believes that A is evil and B is good then do B. How many wars are on that list? The Fatherland, The Motherland, God and Country, you bet, in good B conscience.
The idea that a person would choose A is absurd.
Hitler himself believed he was Good. Hitler was for the German populace and he wanted every good thing for them. He also believed Jewish people were evil and he meant to curb their evil. Curbing Evil Jews was B Good to Hitler.
What I would like is for You to list one person who has stated, "I know this that I do is evil and I am going to do it." No all the evil ones believe themselves Good and many believe they were agents of God.
Did Hitler know what evil was? Did he know he was evil? Did he proceed by choosing A? Or did his conscience inform him that he was B Good?

You're claiming that no one ever chooses evil intentionally, and thus when faced with a choice:

"I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good"

everyone ALWAYS chooses B, everyone is always faithful to try to do good. After all, you said:

The idea that a person would choose A is absurd.
Hitler himself believed he was Good.

There are several problems with this conclusion. Let's extrapolate it.
(1) Even if it were true, it wouldn't constitute an exception to the rule of conscience. An exception means a scenario that clearly warrants disobeying the rule - a scenario that warrants choice-A.
(2) Even persons like Hitler and satan are, at heart, perfectly well-intentioned, perfectly good guys? Albeit morally confused. In other words, God is actually the evil monster here because He punishes the pure in heart for being stupid, not for being evil. And all the biblical exhortations and reprimands concerning evil are misleading, since no one is evil - except God of course. Essentially all these kinds of statements are misleading:

"Away from me, you evildoers!" (Mat 7: 23)

"If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those that ask Him" (Lk 11:13)

"They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful. They invent new forms of evil; they disobey their parents. 31They are senseless, faithless, heartless, merciless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things are worthy of death, they not only continue to do these things, but also approve of those who practice them" (Rom 1).

All of this, in your view, is misleading because it is actually referring to stupid people, not to evil people.

You've certainly managed to cast doubt on the integrity of Scripture - but at least, with respect to the human race, you've made me less of a cynic. I now see that all my fellow men are perfectly good, and the only real devil that I need to be wary of is - God!

QvQ · May 7, 2020

JAL said:
You're claiming that no one ever chooses evil intentionally, and thus when faced with a choice:

"I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good"

everyone ALWAYS chooses B, everyone is always faithful to try to do good. After all, you said:

There are several problems with this conclusion. Let's extrapolate it.
(1) Even if it were true, it wouldn't constitute an exception to the rule of conscience. An exception means a scenario that clearly warrants disobeying the rule - a scenario that warrants choice-A.
(2) Even persons like Hitler and satan are, at heart, perfectly well-intentioned, perfectly good guys? Albeit morally confused. In other words, God is actually the evil monster here because He punishes the pure in heart for being stupid, not for being evil. And all the biblical exhortations and reprimands concerning evil are misleading, since no one is evil - except God of course. Essentially all these kinds of statements are misleading:

"Away from me, you evildoers!" (Mat 7: 23)

"If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those that ask Him" (Lk 11:13)

"They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful. They invent new forms of evil; they disobey their parents. 31They are senseless, faithless, heartless, merciless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things are worthy of death, they not only continue to do these things, but also approve of those who practice them" (Rom 1).

All of this, in your view, is misleading because it is actually referring to stupid people, not to evil people.

You've certainly managed to cast doubt on the integrity of Scripture - but at least, with respect to the human race, you've made me less of a cynic. I now see that all my fellow men are perfectly good, and the only real devil that I need to be wary of is - God!

One very real devil I am wary of and it is a very fine line...believing and acting as if my will is the Will of God. I mistake my will, my conscience, my reasons for the Will of God. In fact, when a person slips that mooring then that person no longer submits to God but has becomes god in his own conscience, judgement and opinion.

JAL · May 7, 2020

QvQ said:
One very real devil I am wary of and it is a very fine line...believing and acting as if my will is the Will of God. I mistake my will, my conscience, my reasons for the Will of God. In fact, when a person slips that mooring then that person no longer submits to God but has becomes god in his own conscience, judgement and opinion.

Again, here's the rule of conscience:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

Obeying this rule is not a devilish thing to be wary of. On the contrary, disobeying it is the very definition of devilish behavior. This is the only possible definition of devilish behavior. Therefore you can desist in your efforts to impugn the rule. Clearly, you're not succeeding.

Going back to what you said:

QvQ said:
One very real devil I am wary of and it is a very fine line...believing and acting as if my will is the Will of God. I mistake my will, my conscience, my reasons for the Will of God. In fact, when a person slips that mooring then that person no longer submits to God but has becomes god in his own conscience, judgement and opinion.

You are glossing over the nature of the rule - note the emphasis on feeling certain:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

Whereas your words are describing the sin of presumption - the sin where you PRESUME yourself to be in the will of God even when you are less than 100% certain. The sin of presumption is, in fact, disobedience to the rule. A great example of this sin is when a person presumes Sola Scriptura to be God's will even though he's less than 100% certain. Hence this thread.

Basically you've raised the issue of degrees of certainty. Bear in mind that your conscience generally demands higher levels of certainty for beliefs and actions of great consequence. Anyway here's how to handle varying degrees of certainty in good conscience.

"When faced with several choices, I will opt for the one that I feel MOST certain about."

Someone will say, "But that means I could kill someone on less than 100% certainty!". Not likely, because at that point your conscience will likely be saying:

"99% certainty is not enough to kill someone - thus in you heart you know that you do NOT feel certain (enough) to kill that person. Or to put it differently, what you feel MOST certain about, in this scenario, is the need to seek more certainty, for example by waiting upon God for Direct Revelation."

Example. David was unsure whether he should go up and murder the Philistines.

"David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And the LORD said unto David, Go, and smite the Philistines…Then David enquired of the LORD yet again. And the LORD answered him [again]…I will deliver the Philistines into thine hand" (1Sa 23:2, 4, KJV).

Why did he inquire twice? Obviously, the initial Direct Revelation provided less than 100% certainty, or it was originally at that level and then waned. This illustrates the difference between the Sola Scriptura movement and the prophet-mentality.
(1) When an exegete is unsure of a Direct revelation, he says to himself, "I need to check it out with Scripture. That's the solution."
(2) When David was unsure of a Direct Revelation, for him the obvious solution was - to seek more Direct Revelation !!!!

JAL · May 7, 2020

Understand David's rationale. Since exegesis is fallible, it will never raise your level of certainty to 100%. I'm pretty confident that 100% certainty is a very idealistic state-of-mind unattainable without supernatural aid. Thus on issues of great consequence - such as evangelism/missions - we should wait upon God for 100% certainty before proceeding. In fact the NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180), for only an irresponsible/negligent God would entrust the evangelism of 100 billion souls to humanly fallible approaches.

QvQ · May 8, 2020

JAL said:
Again, here's the rule of conscience:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

Obeying this rule is not a devilish thing to be wary of. On the contrary, disobeying it is the very definition of devilish behavior. This is the only possible definition of devilish behavior. Therefore you can desist in your efforts to impugn the rule. Clearly, you're not succeeding.

Going back to what you said:

You are glossing over the nature of the rule - note the emphasis on feeling certain:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

Whereas your words are describing the sin of presumption - the sin where you PRESUME yourself to be in the will of God even when you are less than 100% certain. The sin of presumption is, in fact, disobedience to the rule. A great example of this sin is when a person presumes Sola Scriptura to be God's will even though he's less than 100% certain. Hence this thread.

Basically you've raised the issue of degrees of certainty. Bear in mind that your conscience generally demands higher levels of certainty for beliefs and actions of great consequence. Anyway here's how to handle varying degrees of certainty in good conscience.

"When faced with several choices, I will opt for the one that I feel MOST certain about."

Someone will say, "But that means I could kill someone on less than 100% certainty!". Not likely, because at that point your conscience will likely be saying:

"99% certainty is not enough to kill someone - thus in you heart you know that you do NOT feel certain (enough) to kill that person. Or to put it differently, what you feel MOST certain about, in this scenario, is the need to seek more certainty, for example by waiting upon God for Direct Revelation."

Example. David was unsure whether he should go up and murder the Philistines.

"David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And the LORD said unto David, Go, and smite the Philistines…Then David enquired of the LORD yet again. And the LORD answered him [again]…I will deliver the Philistines into thine hand" (1Sa 23:2, 4, KJV).

Why did he inquire twice? Obviously, the initial Direct Revelation provided less than 100% certainty, or it was originally at that level and then waned. This illustrates the difference between the Sola Scriptura movement and the prophet-mentality.
(1) When an exegete is unsure of a Direct revelation, he says to himself, "I need to check it out with Scripture. That's the solution."
(2) When David was unsure of a Direct Revelation, for him the obvious solution was - to seek more Direct Revelation !!!!

OK, now what if what I am 100% certain is the Will of God, and I check it twice however what I am absolutely certain of contradicts scripture?

JAL · May 8, 2020

QvQ said:
OK, now what if what I am 100% certain is the Will of God, and I check it twice however what I am absolutely certain of contradicts scripture?

(1) Impossible to check it. 100% certainty is a supernatural state - it is a mind-controlled state of certainty so absolute that you CANNOT cognitively entertain any notion of questioning it. (It doesn't control all aspects of your mind, however).
(2) And even if you could question it, you wouldn't. Here's why. How many times a day do you pull out your birth certificate to recheck your name? Fact is, you've reached a level of certainty inconducive to "checking it twice" - and that's not even a supernaturally induced state!
(3) 100% certainty leads to blamelessness because, per the rule of conscience, God cannot fault you for acting according to 100% certainty. Remember, as I implied at post 348, God doesn't punish people for being stupid, ignorant, or misinformed - rather He punishes them for deliberate acts of evildoing.
(4) In seeking Direct Revelation, are you really afraid that God is going to allow you to be deceived to the absolute full extent of 100% certainty? Let's get some perspective here. You are His child. With sincerity, you are crying out to Him for advice. What kind of response are you anticipating? The most evil, horrible kind of deception possible? Is that your understanding of the heavenly Father? Listen carefully to what Jesus says:

"9“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" (Mat 7)

11“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11).

Take a look at the OT concept of "Inquiring of the Lord" - it means a request for Direct Revelation. You'll find that God was disappointed when men acted without consulting Him first.

(5) What do you mean "it contradicts Scripture" ? 100% certainty means that you are sure it does NOT contradict the truth and thus does NOT contradict Scripture. Maybe you're referring to something like this:
(A) A Voice has left me 100% certain that the Koran is true.
(B) AND, the Voice has left me 100% certain that the Bible is false.

In that case, you're no longer a Christian! As a non-Christian, your current set of beliefs, by definition, will most definitely contradict Scripture. No doubt about it.

Let me know if I'm overlooking the sense of your objection somehow.

QvQ · May 10, 2020

JAL said:
(1) Impossible to check it. 100% certainty is a supernatural state - it is a mind-controlled state of certainty so absolute that you CANNOT cognitively entertain any notion of questioning it. (It doesn't control all aspects of your mind, however).
(2) And even if you could question it, you wouldn't. Here's why. How many times a day do you pull out your birth certificate to recheck your name? Fact is, you've reached a level of certainty inconducive to "checking it twice" - and that's not even a supernaturally induced state!
(3) 100% certainty leads to blamelessness because, per the rule of conscience, God cannot fault you for acting according to 100% certainty. Remember, as I implied at post 348, God doesn't punish people for being stupid, ignorant, or misinformed - rather He punishes them for deliberate acts of evildoing.
(4) In seeking Direct Revelation, are you really afraid that God is going to allow you to be deceived to the absolute full extent of 100% certainty? Let's get some perspective here. You are His child. With sincerity, you are crying out to Him for advice. What kind of response are you anticipating? The most evil, horrible kind of deception possible? Is that your understanding of the heavenly Father? Listen carefully to what Jesus says:

"9“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" (Mat 7)

11“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11).

Take a look at the OT concept of "Inquiring of the Lord" - it means a request for Direct Revelation. You'll find that God was disappointed when men acted without consulting Him first.

(5) What do you mean "it contradicts Scripture" ? 100% certainty means that you are sure it does NOT contradict the truth and thus does NOT contradict Scripture. Maybe you're referring to something like this:
(A) A Voice has left me 100% certain that the Koran is true.
(B) AND, the Voice has left me 100% certain that the Bible is false.

In that case, you're no longer a Christian! As a non-Christian, your current set of beliefs, by definition, will most definitely contradict Scripture. No doubt about it.

Let me know if I'm overlooking the sense of your objection somehow.

All right, A 100% certainty cannot contradict Scripture. Then the Scripture and reality match. Either one is a valid guide and complimentary.
Real Ethics are more complicated however. A person in a loveless marriage may feel 100% certain that love conquers the commandment against adultery or a poor hungry person who steals to eat may feel 100% certain that theft is an exception to the Law of the Scripture.
We can be justified in our own mind, 100% certain but if it is not Scripture then Scripture must be the final authority, the last Word.

JAL · May 10, 2020

My epistemology is intended to address both doctrine (theology) and practice (ethics). Yet somehow you seem to think that it overlooks ethics.

QvQ said:
Real Ethics are more complicated however. A person in a loveless marriage may feel 100% certain that love conquers the commandment against adultery or a poor hungry person who steals to eat may feel 100% certain that theft is an exception to the Law of the Scripture.
We can be justified in our own mind, 100% certain but if it is not Scripture then Scripture must be the final authority, the last Word.

As noted in my last post, a person who is already 100% certain is not going to bother with a seemingly superfluous effort to "check it out with Scripture." And God cannot fault him for heeding 100% certainty. He is blameless.

Also I don't think you're being realistic. I don't think a person can rise to 100% certainty without supernatural aid. 100% certainty means an inability to question. Since you keep mentioning the ability to question things against the test of Scripture, it seems pretty clear that you refer to something less than 100%.

Urgency plays a huge role in our lives, admittedly. Often pressing circumstances force me to act on less than 100% certainty. Again:
(1) In such cases my conscience will incline me to go with the option that I feel MOST certain about.
(2) This does not exempt me from the lifelong pursuit of 100% certainty. With regard to ethics, any goal less than 100% is an unsatisfactory ambition.
(3) Since exegesis is fallible by definition, our only real hope of 100% certainty lies in the pursuit of Direct Revelation, on an essentially top-priority basis per Paul's command (1Cor 14:1).

QvQ · May 12, 2020

JAL said:
My epistemology is intended to address both doctrine (theology) and practice (ethics). Yet somehow you seem to think that it overlooks ethics.

As noted in my last post, a person who is already 100% certain is not going to bother with a seemingly superfluous effort to "check it out with Scripture." And God cannot fault him for heeding 100% certainty. He is blameless.

Also I don't think you're being realistic. I don't think a person can rise to 100% certainty without supernatural aid. 100% certainty means an inability to question. Since you keep mentioning the ability to question things against the test of Scripture, it seems pretty clear that you refer to something less than 100%.

Urgency plays a huge role in our lives, admittedly. Often pressing circumstances force me to act on less than 100% certainty. Again:
(1) In such cases my conscience will incline me to go with the option that I feel MOST certain about.
(2) This does not exempt me from the lifelong pursuit of 100% certainty. With regard to ethics, any goal less than 100% is an unsatisfactory ambition.
(3) Since exegesis is fallible by definition, our only real hope of 100% certainty lies in the pursuit of Direct Revelation, on an essentially top-priority basis per Paul's command (1Cor 14:1).

We agree in main and differ in particulars . I would not be 100% certain of anything that contradicted Scripture but then you make the point that it would not be possible to be 100% certain therefore it would fail the test set forth. I do agree that 100% certainty is only possible with guidance from the Holy Spirit. So beyond our meager words and understanding, I think we are arguing the same truth.

JAL · May 13, 2020

QvQ said:
We agree in main and differ in particulars . I would not be 100% certain of anything that contradicted Scripture but then you make the point that it would not be possible to be 100% certain therefore it would fail the test set forth. I do agree that 100% certainty is only possible with guidance from the Holy Spirit. So beyond our meager words and understanding, I think we are arguing the same truth.

Sure. My beef isn't necessarily with you - it's with a Sola Scriptura movement that has historically eclipsed the primacy of Direct Revelation. Let's take a closer look at 1Cor 14:1, note the word "things" since the Greek lacks the word "gifts".

"Eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

In English, a "gift" is typically a bonus, i.e. something superfluous. Actually Paul used here the word spiritual - that's his synonym for mature! (See 1Cor 3:1-2). What does it mean to be "spiritual"?

"Now about spiritual things, brothers, I would not have you ignorant" (1Cor 12:1).

What follows is a list of gifts! That's what indicates maturity! He called them unspiritual at chapter 3 in contrast to giftedness at chapter 12. (I prove this point on another thread, across about six posts (see Post 7, and Post 33, and Post 46, and Post 47, and post 52, and post 58). In that study, I even cited cessationist scholars who found themselves forced to admit that such was Paul's formula!

Someone will say, "How can this be? I thought love was the only indicator of maturity?" I challenged a poster on this point. I said suppose your son were terminally ill. You take him to two reputable church leaders.
(1) The first one treats you with great loving kindness.
(2) The second one is rather abrupt and impolite, but you find him performing miracles before your very eyes, healing the sick everywhere he goes.

Which of these two leaders would most likely monopolize your confidence for intercessory aid to your son? He refused to give me a direct answer to this question.

1Corinthians is quite candid about the clearest indicator of maturity. Look at verses 4:19-20:

"I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. 20For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power" (1Cor 4).

But don't be misled. By "power" he is including prophetic utterance, in fact most of the gifts listed in chapter 12 are oral manifestations. In fact in chapter 2, oral power is what separates the mature from the immature. Many people wrongly suppose that 1Cor 14 spent 40 verses on tongues vs prophecy just to correct Corinthian bad practice. That doesn't make much sense. Paul spent a whopping 40 verses on the topic because (maximal) oral power is definitive of maturity. A good example of oral power is when you know the secrets of men's hearts by Direct Revelation:

"If an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying...the secrets of their hearts are laid bare" (1Cor 14).

QvQ · May 14, 2020

JAL said:
Sure. My beef isn't necessarily with you - it's with a Sola Scriptura movement that has historically eclipsed the primacy of Direct Revelation. Let's take a closer look at 1Cor 14:1, note the word "things" since the Greek lacks the word "gifts".

"Eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

In English, a "gift" is typically a bonus, i.e. something superfluous. Actually Paul used here the word spiritual - that's his synonym for mature! (See 1Cor 3:1-2). What does it mean to be "spiritual"?

"Now about spiritual things, brothers, I would not have you ignorant" (1Cor 12:1).

What follows is a list of gifts! That's what indicates maturity! He called them unspiritual at chapter 3 in contrast to giftedness at chapter 12. (I prove this point on another thread, across about six posts (see Post 7, and Post 33, and Post 46, and Post 47, and post 52, and post 58). In that study, I even cited cessationist scholars who found themselves forced to admit that such was Paul's formula!

Someone will say, "How can this be? I thought love was the only indicator of maturity?" I challenged a poster on this point. I said suppose your son were terminally ill. You take him to two reputable church leaders.
(1) The first one treats you with great loving kindness.
(2) The second one is rather abrupt and impolite, but you find him performing miracles before your very eyes, healing the sick everywhere he goes.

Which of these two leaders would most likely monopolize your confidence for intercessory aid to your son? He refused to give me a direct answer to this question.

1Corinthians is quite candid about the clearest indicator of maturity. Look at verses 4:19-20:

"I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. 20For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power" (1Cor 4).

But don't be misled. By "power" he is including prophetic utterance, in fact most of the gifts listed in chapter 12 are oral manifestations. In fact in chapter 2, oral power is what separates the mature from the immature. Many people wrongly suppose that 1Cor 14 spent 40 verses on tongues vs prophecy just to correct Corinthian bad practice. That doesn't make much sense. Paul spent a whopping 40 verses on the topic because (maximal) oral power is definitive of maturity. A good example of oral power is when you know the secrets of men's hearts by Direct Revelation:

"If an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying...the secrets of their hearts are laid bare" (1Cor 14).

Love is not a word. Love is an action. Maturity and reflection are necessary to find the perfect love. Love is not an obligation. Once when someone said "I love you" the person replied "What do I owe you for that?"
Love is an action, not a thought or a feeling or a word. In reality, everyday, direct revelation would be necessary to find the loving action suited to any given situation. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" from a person who is self destructive or seeking to gain advantage by quoting that verse may be speaking according to Scripture but not acting according to the Spirit of the Law.

JAL · May 14, 2020

QvQ said:
In reality, everyday, direct revelation would be necessary to find the loving action suited to any given situation.

Agreed.

FredVB · Jun 10, 2020

JAL said:
There are so many flaws.

Scripture claims the priority.

Click to expand...

Simple question for you - are you and Moses best buddies? Are you good friends? Would you say that you and Moses have a close personal relationship? Do you know him well just like, say, your wife and kids? Have you and Moses been having daily fellowship? I mean, after all, you read a book about him, didn't you? Doesn't that count as fellowship?

What are you talking about there? Priority of scriptures, which are showing communication from Yahweh, does not preclude relationship to Yahweh that believers should come to and have, through Christ (shown in the Bible). There is communication in relationship still.

Several times the NT uses the term "fellowship" to encapsulate our relationship with God. The term fellowship can ONLY be defined as a mutual exchange of sensations more or less distinct ("loud and clear"). For example:

"The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend" (Ex 33:11)

You know the Lord only to the extent that He has manifested Himself to you (literally appeared to you) in all manner of mental impressions/sensations, including, for example, distinct ("loud and clear") feelings of love, joy, and peace. This is fellowship otherwise known as Direct Revelation. Jesus summarized the plight of the unsaved Jews:

"Ye have never heard his voice, nor seen his shape, nor does his (divine) word dwell in you" (Jn 5:37).

Saving faith, therefore, is a matter of meeting the Lord personally - at least hearing His voice - even if the manifestation isn't as "loud and clear" as it was for Paul on the road to Damascus. Thus faith cometh by hearing, and hearing from the divine Word of God (Rom 10:17). Here's Paul's favorite example (cited both in Rom 4 and Gal 3):

"The [divine] Word of the Lord came to Abram in a [revelatory] vision [speaking promises]...Abram believed [the spoken Word]" (Gen 15).

Thus, faith cometh by hearing the divine Word of Direct Revelation - presumably the Lord appeared to Abram in this vision as such was common for Abram's experience.

To summarize: Direct Revelation is how you come to know the Lord, and more of it is how you come to know him better.

"17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better" (eph 1).

That is all good, and I would not argue with that. But it does not eliminate going by the Bible at all.

Actually you will be evaluated, thank God, on whether you obeyed God to the best of your knowledge, even if you misinterpreted Scripture inadvertently. See Rom chap 14 and also 1Cor 8:1-13, also Rom 2:14-16.

Of course, I will be, and so will you be, and everyone else will be. So we should learn as we are shown what we should be doing and how we are to understand things for telling any others. Thank God for the truth that can be shown.

Such appeals to Timothy have been discredited countless times. Even a Sola Scriptura advocate on this forum has admitted that this passage lends no clear support to Sola Scriptura.

What discredit is there to the epistle to Timothy, or anything in it? I have already said I am not arguing for sola scriptura anyway. I have said that scriptures have priority, which then is not the same thing, though you do not acknowledge that either. All scriptures are useful to us, as is shown.

Timothy was almost certainly a prophet. Paul mentored him, after all, much like Moses mentored Joshua. In fact, in that passage, Paul refers to him as a "man of God" which is an OT designation for a prophet. In the hands of a prophet, Scripture is consistently profitable, because he has plenty of Direct Revelation to properly comprehend it. In the hands of a fallible scholar, Scripture is potentially a recipe for disaster.

Again, those letters you cited were written to ONE MAN Timothy. When Paul was speaking to the ENTIRE CHURCH, he told them to prioritize Direct Revelation - he placed it on the very top rung of the priority ladder alongside love:

"Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

We will disagree then.

Click to expand...

It would appear so. I have chosen to side with Paul.

And Paul, who wrote to Timothy, you know, said the scriptures are profitable, so they are, and not to one man. The scriptures already show within them they are addressed to many people. What use are commandments if they are not? But it seems you don't want to give consideration to any commandments.

Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

Veteran

Member

Veteran

Member

Member

Veteran

Member

Veteran

Member

Veteran

Veteran

Member

Veteran

Member

Veteran

Member

Veteran

Member

Veteran

Regular Member

Similar threads