Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[JAL]

The biggest issue with your "rule of conscience" is it's useless for actually generating any true action and is effectively a denial of the existence of an actual right and wrong. It is possible to fully believe that an action is right, and for it to in actuality be the wrong action. So simply going with what seems right is flat wrong...

Then your job should be easy. Just cite one specific example where departure from my rule is clearly the correct course of action.

Oh that's right. You don't have an example. You're just blowing smoke.

...after all "there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12)

My rule of conscience is logically irrefutable. To avoid contradiction, then, it is YOUR responsibility to find an interpretation of such verses consistent with it. But I see you want me to do your homework for you. I will indulge you for the moment. Picture this:

A group of atheists, in one evening, listen to two consecutive religious presentations - two "gospels" (so to speak). The first is from a Muslim preacher. The atheists then go to a second auditorium to hear a Christian speaker. During both speeches, they feel equally unconvinced. In fact they've heard it all before, and dismiss it as nonsense. How can these people believe in a good God? Have they never heard of the Problem of Evil? However, at the very end of the second speech, God outpours His Spirit, convicting them. They begin to feel certain that the morally right thing to do is accept Jesus as Lord. What should they do?

Let's now go back to that verse: "there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12). Seems right - how?
1. From a philosophical point of view (the Problem of Evil), what seems right to them is to remain atheists.
2. From a MORAL point of view (i.e. the rule of conscience), what seems right is to convert to Christianity.

Second example. A pregnant woman is sitting in a philosophy class. Her professor convinces her that abortion is morally upright. After all, he argues, apes are more intelligent and sentient than a human fetus. If we kill apes, we can kill a fetus. She signs up for an abortion immediately. At the last moment, however, the Spirit convicts her, causing her to feel certain that the abortion is immoral. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12). Seems right - how?

1. From a philosophical point of view, the abortion seems right (i.e. her logic hasn't really changed). As Proverbs 14:12 predicts, this route will end in death - a dead baby, and possibly lifelong guilt and regret.
2. From the standpoint of the rule of conscience, keeping the baby seems to be right.

The biggest issue with your "rule of conscience" is it's useless for actually generating any true action and is effectively a denial of the existence of an actual right and wrong.

Wrong on both counts, as my two examples show.

 

[JAL]

Thank you for your discussion, and I understand that your were not taking about conscience directly, but certainty of good Vs evil.
My point is there are some people that may be 100% certain that what they are doing is good, and you cannot convince them otherwise. Does their belief make what they are doing good?
No, there is one good, and that is God in heaven
God says whoa to them that call the evil good and the good evil.
If we cannot trust the certainty of our thoughts on good and evil, what is there to do? God gave us the teachings of His Church over which He promised the gates of hell would not prevail
I agree with you that if I am 100% certain that something is good, I will always opt for the good when given a contrary choice, but there are also psychopaths that do choose the evil

You have an interesting thought process, God bless you

As expected. You cannot formulate even one specific scenario where departure from my rule of conscience is clearly appropriate.

For an obvious reason. My rule states we should never try to do evil. There cannot be any exceptions to this rule.

 

[Fervent]

Then your job should be easy. Just cite one specific example where departure from my rule is clearly the correct course of action.

Oh that's right. You don't have an example. You're just blowing smoke.




My rule of conscience is logically irrefutable. To avoid contradiction, then, it is YOUR responsibility to find an interpretation of such verses consistent with it. But I see you want me to do your homework for you. I will indulge you for the moment. Picture this:

A group of atheists, in one evening, listen to two consecutive religious presentations - two "gospels" (so to speak). The first is from a Muslim preacher. The atheists then go to a second auditorium to hear a Christian speaker. During both speeches, they feel equally unconvinced. In fact they've heard it all before, and dismiss it as nonsense. How can these people believe in a good God? Have they never heard of the Problem of Evil? However, at the very end of the second speech, God outpours His Spirit, convicting them. They begin to feel certain that the morally right thing to do is accept Jesus as Lord. What should they do?

Let's now go back to that verse: "there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12). Seems right - how?
1. From a philosophical point of view (the Problem of Evil), what seems right to them is to remain atheists.
2. From a MORAL point of view (i.e. the rule of conscience), what seems right is to convert to Christianity.

Second example. A pregnant woman is sitting in a philosophy class. Her professor convinces her that abortion is morally upright. After all, he argues, apes are more intelligent and sentient than a human fetus. If we kill apes, we can kill a fetus. She signs up for an abortion immediately. At the last moment, however, the Spirit convicts her, causing her to feel certain that the abortion is immoral. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12). Seems right - how?

1. From a philosophical point of view, the abortion seems right (i.e. her logic hasn't really changed). As Proverbs 14:12 predicts, this route will end in death - a dead baby, and possibly lifelong guilt and regret.
2. From the standpoint of the rule of conscience, keeping the baby seems to be right.



Wrong on both counts, as my two examples show.

First, your "rule of conscience" is either capable of endorsing any and all evil, so long as the person feels certain that it is the right thing to do, or it is a useless truism.

Second, your examples are nothing more than grasping at straws and inserting a deus ex machina that people will suddenly feel certain that what they believe to be right is actually wrong in alignment with what is truly right. It doesn't make your "rule of conscience" fit with the verse, nor is it my responsibility to make your pet idea fit with Scripture. Your idea seems to conflict with the Word of God, so I'm going to go with what God says not with what you say.

 

[JAL]

First, your "rule of conscience" is either capable of endorsing any and all evil, so long as the person feels certain that it is the right thing to do, or it is a useless truism.

(Sigh). Again, in that case your job is easy. Just provide one specific example of where departure from my rule is appropriate.

Oh that's right. You don't have an example because none exists, not even hypothetically, by logical necessity.

Blowing smoke. As a result, I won't even dignify the rest of your post with a response.

 

[Fervent]

(Sigh). Again, in that case your job is easy. Just provide one specific example of where departure from my rule is appropriate.

Oh that's right. You don't have an example because none exists, not even hypothetically, by logical necessity.

Blowing smoke. As a result, I won't even dignify the rest of your post with a response.

You provided two examples yourself, but then rescued them with magical epiphanies.

 

[JAL]

You provided two examples yourself, but then rescued them with magical epiphanies.

Smoke.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

As expected. You cannot formulate even one specific scenario where departure from my rule of conscience is clearly appropriate.

For an obvious reason. My rule states we should never try to do evil. There cannot be any exceptions to this rule.

I attempting to understand what you are saying, but you try to alienate everyone that talks to you. To what end? Does good thrive on insult?
What does your premise have anything to do with the Gospel? If you tell people that they would never choose to do evil, do you not tell them that their choices are good? Where does sin come into the picture? Why does sin abound in the world if we would never choose to do evil?

I really want to understand you, but if you do not wish to be understood and make no effort to do so, I do not believe that you can call that position 100% good

 

[FredVB]

Prove it. Prove no name change.

שָׁאוּל‎
Paul's Jewish name was Saul, Modern Sha'ûl, Tiberian Šā'ûl, perhaps after the biblical King Saul, the first king of all Israel, and, like Paul, a member of the tribe of Benjamin; the Latin name Paul, meaning small, was not a result of his conversion as it is commonly believed but a second name for use in communicating with a Greco-Roman audience.

According to the Acts of the Apostles, he was a Roman citizen. As such, he bore the Latin name "Paul", which translates in Latin as Paulus and in biblical Greek as Παῦλος (Paulos). It was typical for the Jews of that time to have two names: one Hebrew, the other Latin or Greek.

Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Did God change Saul’s name to Paul?

Surprisingly, God never changed Saul's name to Paul in the New Testament.

aleteia.org

Double names were widespread in the Greco-Roman world from the second century BC to the third century AD, in both Greek and Latin—as well as in Nabataean, Hebrew, Palmyrene, and Egyptian. Other than Saul/Paul, New Testament examples include Cephas/Peter (John 1:42), John/Mark (Acts 12:12; 15:37), Tabitha/Dorcas (Acts 9:36), Jesus/Justus (Col 4:11), and Simeon/Niger (Acts 13:1). Indeed, double names are still used today, such as the Brazilian soccer player Pelé, whose birth name was Edson Arantes do Nascimento.

Why Was “Saul” Changed to “Paul”?

Why does Saul's name change to Paul in the book of Acts? Dr. Steve Walton explains why there's no actual change occurring.

www.logos.com

 

[Hawkins]

I simply think that the big picture is missed here.

It's tied to how a truth shall convey among humans. All sort of truths are conveyed among humans in the same manner (humans themselves failed to recognize though).

It all starts with eyewitnesses reported their testimonies, then for an authority to recognize the validity of their stories, then for an audience-facing media to broadcast to the public.

In Judaism, the eyewitnesses are God's chosen prophets, the are reckoned by Israel as God's chosen people for their testimonies to be recorded down, then for Judaism acting as a media for the Jews in majority to keep the Word of God generation after generation. Judaism serves as a Jew-facing media till stories/testimonies from the designated eyewitnesses are fully compiled. Then the next phrase is these stories/testimonies to be broadcast to all mankind in a human-facing manner. However the Jews/Israel as the authority failed to do so. They failed to recognize Jesus and failed to record the stories/testimonies from the chosen eyewitnesses who are Jesus' chosen disciples and apostles.

God has to establish another authority and another media for the purpose. Now,

The eyewitnesses are the chosen disciples and apostles, the newly eastablished authority is God's Church on earth, the human-facing media is Christianity as a religion, with the explicit command of preaching (i.e., broadcasting) the gospel (i.e., God's news) to all nations as the ultimate mission established since day one.

Now the question boils down to who is God's Church on earth, as the role of authority for reckoning and guarding the Word of God. Humans may fail such a role, as the Jews did! That's actually why it's a necessity to establish the Church of Christianity in the replacement of the Jewish authority. In this respect, Sola Scriptura simply means the Catholics (just like the old Jews) are no longer authenticated. New authority shall be established for the role of reckoning the Word, in a more correct manner (such as the emphasis on faith alone).

Catholics are no longer authenticated in the same manner as the old Jews. In today's world, God's Church is represented by, roughly speaking, physical churches embracing the faith content stated in the Apostles' Creed.

 

[dwb001]

שָׁאוּל‎
Paul's Jewish name was Saul, Modern Sha'ûl, Tiberian Šā'ûl, perhaps after the biblical King Saul, the first king of all Israel, and, like Paul, a member of the tribe of Benjamin; the Latin name Paul, meaning small, was not a result of his conversion as it is commonly believed but a second name for use in communicating with a Greco-Roman audience.

According to the Acts of the Apostles, he was a Roman citizen. As such, he bore the Latin name "Paul", which translates in Latin as Paulus and in biblical Greek as Παῦλος (Paulos). It was typical for the Jews of that time to have two names: one Hebrew, the other Latin or Greek.

Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Did God change Saul’s name to Paul?

Surprisingly, God never changed Saul's name to Paul in the New Testament.

aleteia.org

Double names were widespread in the Greco-Roman world from the second century BC to the third century AD, in both Greek and Latin—as well as in Nabataean, Hebrew, Palmyrene, and Egyptian. Other than Saul/Paul, New Testament examples include Cephas/Peter (John 1:42), John/Mark (Acts 12:12; 15:37), Tabitha/Dorcas (Acts 9:36), Jesus/Justus (Col 4:11), and Simeon/Niger (Acts 13:1). Indeed, double names are still used today, such as the Brazilian soccer player Pelé, whose birth name was Edson Arantes do Nascimento.

Why Was “Saul” Changed to “Paul”?

Why does Saul's name change to Paul in the book of Acts? Dr. Steve Walton explains why there's no actual change occurring.

www.logos.com

So where is the proof I asked for?

Not here, but please show me the the Saul/Paul of the Bible had these two names.

I'm not saying he didn't... but you have not proven he did. You provide a compelling argument... but not proof that your argument is true in this case.

 

[FredVB]

So where is the proof I asked for?

Not here, but please show me the the Saul/Paul of the Bible had these two names.

I'm not saying he didn't... but you have not proven he did. You provide a compelling argument... but not proof that your argument is true in this case.

Yes, I provide a compelling argument. You provide nothing. You asked, I gave sufficient basis. You choose denial only with your own preference, without any basis to show. I don't need to show more. You can't rightly make demand for it, with not showing anything for doubting it. So it is your own choice to doubt it and I can leave you with that. It does not mean you do not have the gospel. But even if I told someone the gospel with basis for that and they still told me they doubt it and won't believe without being shown more basis, I owe them nothing still, and would leave them. I know some will just disbelieve anyway, there is nothing existing with enough proof, and I remember being told to not cast pearls to swine.

 

[dwb001]

Yes, I provide a compelling argument.

A compelling argument is not proof.
i askef for proof.
so you are incorrect.

You provide nothing.

i provided a question did I not?

You asked, I gave sufficient basis. You choose denial only with your own preference, without any basis to show. I don't need to show more. You can't rightly make demand for it, with not showing anything for doubting it.

i think i can demand proof if simeone makes a claim. Otherwise the claim is only opinion.

So it is your own choice to doubt it and I can leave you with that. It does not mean you do not have the gospel. But even if I told someone the gospel with basis for that

i would hope you have a stonger foundation than this for the Gospel. Based on your "proof" this far i shudder at how you would present the Gospel.

and they still told me they doubt it and won't believe without being shown more basis, I owe them nothing still, and would leave them. I know some will just disbelieve anyway, there is nothing existing with enough proof, and I remember being told to not cast pearls to swine.

Good idea... maybe that is why I ask questions and keep my valuables close until a person has shown whay kind of person they are.

 

[John Mullally]

So where is the proof I asked for?

Not here, but please show me the the Saul/Paul of the Bible had these two names.

I'm not saying he didn't... but you have not proven he did. You provide a compelling argument... but not proof that your argument is true in this case.

Acts 13:9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, 10 “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?

Before that in chapters 9-12 of Acts, the main character in Acts was either Peter or Saul. After Acts 13:9, it is Paul, the guy who used to be called Saul.

 

[dwb001]

Acts 13:9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, 10 “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?

Before that in chapters 9-12 of Acts, the main character in Acts was either Peter or Saul. After Acts 13:9, it is Paul, the guy who used to be called Saul.

So where is the proof that Saul and Paul were names held at the same time.
Was the child named Saul or Paul when born... or was his name both?
Looking for the proof and not supposition.

 

[John Mullally]

Acts 13:9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, 10 “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?

Before that in chapters 9-12 of Acts, the main character in Acts was either Peter or Saul. After Acts 13:9, it is Paul, the guy who used to be called Saul.

So where is the proof that Saul and Paul were names held at the same time.
Was the child named Saul or Paul when born... or was his name both?
Looking for the proof and not supposition.

I gave you proof.

We see in the book of Acts that Saul was also spoken about briefly in Acts 7 and Acts 8. He was the main character in Acts 9:1-31. spoken about in Acts 12:25 and a few times Acts 13, until he is no longer mentioned after Acts 13:9, and after Acts 13:9, Paul is constantly mentioned throughout the rest of the book. Its no coincidence that Acts 13:9 says "Then Saul, who was also called Paul ...". Do you have a reason to believe that the Saul in Acts 9 is not the Paul in Acts 14? I am not going to respond again for obvious reasons..

 

[dwb001]

Your post incorrectly label me as giving word you are speaking.

I never said that Paul and Saul are not the same person.
The claim that I was challenging was that Paul and Saul were both names given to the baby Saul/Paul.
Was Saul his Jewish name and Paul his Roman name?
I am asking for proof that Paul's name was not changed from Saul but was always part of his identity.

 

[John Mullally]

Your post incorrectly label me as giving word you are speaking.

I never said that Paul and Saul are not the same person.
The claim that I was challenging was that Paul and Saul were both names given to the baby Saul/Paul.
Was Saul his Jewish name and Paul his Roman name?

I am sorry. I did not understand.

Why Did God Change Saul's Name to Paul? explains that Saul. who was born outside Israel in Antioch, dusted off his Roman name Paul when he was determined to evangelize the gentiles. This seems a likely explanation as Paul was not interested in highlighting his Jewish Pharisee background. Not proof.

I am asking for proof that Paul's name was not changed from Saul but was always part of his identity.

Several biblical characters were given new names: Abraham (Abram), Jacob (Israel), Sarah (Sarai), Peter (Simon). But in those cases there was an explanation for the new name, but we don't see that here. Acts 13:9 says Saul was also called Paul.

 

[dwb001]

I am sorry. I did not understand.

Why Did God Change Saul's Name to Paul? explains that Saul. who was born outside Israel in Antioch, dusted off his Roman name Paul when he was determined to evangelize the gentiles. This seems a likely explanation as Paul was not interested in highlighting his Jewish Pharisee background. Not proof.

Several biblical characters were given new names: Abraham (Abram), Jacob (Israel), Sarah (Sarai), Peter (Simon). But in those cases there was an explanation for the new name, but we don't see that here. Acts 13:9 says Saul was also called Paul.

So there is no proof that Paul was a name change and no proof that is wasn't.
So no way to make a definitive call either way.
Interesting theory though.

 

[FredVB]

A compelling argument is not proof.
i askef for proof.
so you are incorrect.

i provided a question did I not?

i think i can demand proof if simeone makes a claim. Otherwise the claim is only opinion.

i would hope you have a stonger foundation than this for the Gospel. Based on your "proof" this far i shudder at how you would present the Gospel.

Good idea... maybe that is why I ask questions and keep my valuables close until a person has shown whay kind of person they are.

I was not even responding to you and it was another I responded to who was making the claim, that Saul's name was changed to Paul, without proof, or evidence, but you respond accusing me of making a claim without proof or evidence, instead of the claim of that earlier poster! Why? You are biased, aren't you? Nothing ever can be absolutely proven, about anything, that is a false argument to make because nothing would ever be proven. It is enough basis from the weight of evidence to say that Saul was also called Paul, just as it is said in scripture showing that, while there is no passage saying Saul's name was changed.