Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[bmjackson]

"THE SECOND PROPOSITION (Robert Barclay's Apology)
Of Immediate Revelation
Seeing "no man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son revealeth him"; and seeing the "revelation of the Son is in and by the Spirit" (Matt. 11:27); therefore the testimony of the Spirit is that alone by which the true knowledge of God hath been, is, and can be only revealed; who as, by the moving of his own Spirit, he disposed the chaos of this world into that wonderful order wherein it was in the beginning, and created man a living soul, to rule and govern it, so, by the revelation of the same Spirit, he hath manifested himself all along unto the sons of men, both patriarchs, prophets, and apostles; which revelations of God by the Spirit, whether by outward voices and appearances, dreams, or inward objective manifestations in the heart, were of old the formal object of their faith, and remain yet so to be, since the object of the saints' faith is the same in all ages, though held forth under divers administrations. Moreover, these divine inward revelations, which we make absolutely necessary for the building up of true faith, neither do nor can ever contradict the outward testimony of the Scriptures, or right and sound reason. Yet from hence it will not follow, that the divine revelations are to be subjected to the test, either of the outward testimony of the Scriptures, or of the natural reason of man, as to a more noble or certain rule and touchstone; for this divine revelation and inward illumination, is that which is evident and clear of itself, forcing, by its own evidence and clearness, the well-disposed understanding to assent, irresistibly moving the same thereunto, even as the common principles of natural truths do move and incline the mind to a natural assent: as, that the whole is greater than its part, that two contradictories can neither be both true, nor both false.
§I. It is very probable, that many carnal and natural Christians will oppose this proposition; who being wholly unacquainted with the movings and actings of God's Spirit upon their hearts, judge the same nothing necessary; and some are apt to flout at it as ridiculous; yea, to that height are the generality of Christians apostatised and degenerated, that though there be not anything more plainly asserted, more seriously recommended, nor more certainly attested to, in all the writings of the holy Scriptures, yet nothing is less minded and more rejected by all sorts of Christians, than immediate and divine revelation; insomuch that once to lay claim to it is matter of reproach. Whereas of old none were ever judged Christians, but such as "had the Spirit of Christ" (Rom. 8:9). But now many do boldly call themselves Christians, who make no difficulty of confessing they are without it, and laugh at such as say they have it. Of old they were accounted "the sons of God, who were led by the Spirit of God" (ibid. v. 14). But now many aver themselves sons of God, who know nothing of this leader; and he that affirms himself so led, is, by the pretended orthodox of this age, presently proclaimed a heretic. The reason hereof is very manifest, viz.: Because many in these days, under the name of Christians, do experimentally find, that they are not acted nor led by God's Spirit; yea, many great doctors, divines, teachers, and bishops of Christianity (commonly so called) have wholly shut their ears from hearing, and their eyes from seeing this inward guide, and so are become strangers unto it; whence they are, by their own experience, brought to this strait, either to confess that they are as yet ignorant of God, and have only the shadow of knowledge, and not the true knowledge of him, or that this knowledge is acquired without immediate revelation.

For the better understanding then of this proposition, we do distinguish betwixt the certain knowledge of God, and the uncertain; betwixt the spiritual knowledge, and the literal; the saving heart-knowledge, and the soaring, airy head-knowledge. The last, we confess, may be divers ways obtained; but the first, by no other way than the inward immediate manifestation and revelation of God's Spirit, shining in and upon the heart, enlightening and opening the understanding."

Read full chapter for full understanding.

 

[anna ~ grace]

@JAL , you make some good points. Scripture is indeed perfect, but we do need help as Christians if we are to understand, together, what Scripture means, and how we are to apply it. Some things are or should be, very clear. Other things, are not so clear.

We debate and debate, but clearly God meant for Scripture to be understood, and followed by His children, together, consistently. Divisions among Christians make us look foolish.

A Catholic or an Orthodox Christian would argue that the ability to interpret and help us live out the meaning of Scripture was given by God, to His Church, through men who learned from Christ, the Apostles, and the men who learned from them. And on down, century by century. You make some good points, though. About Apostles, authority, inspiration, and how we should try to figure out what is ultimately right.

God be with you on your journey.

 

[JAL]

God never intended the gifts to last forever. They were merely to authenticate the messengers of the NT were from God. This was the standard practice of all the miracle workers in the Bible beforehand. The miracles authenticated the messenger of God.

On a biblical basis, my lasts two posts equated evangelism/witnessing with prophetic utterance. The same conclusion is apparent on a logical basis, as I will now show.

Is the ministry of a prophet effective? Does it actually work? Suppose a man walks up to you claiming, "Thus saith the Lord..." Why should you believe him? And when Jesus said to the fishermen, "Leave all your things behind and follow me", why should they have believed Him? Answer: conscience (feelings of certainty). Although miracles do raise the level of certainty, the Inward Witness is God's primary technique for doing so. The point is this. The prophetic ministry is useless if it fails to elevate feelings of certainty. Hence such is part of the very nature of the gift. Do you now see why prophecy is the ideal tool for evangelism? When preaching the gospel, the optimal instrument would be the ability to instill in the audience 100% certainty that God is speaking to them. That's how Paul managed to spread the gospel halfway around the planet in a single lifetime - on foot - while today's televangelists, with all their technology, still can't manage to finish the job.

In the realm of Sola Scriptura, God's method of evangelism is sloppy and unprofessional, and thus unbecoming of a King fully concerned about saving all the 100 billion people born since the world began. In this sloppy paradigm, fallible evangelists and missionaries who don't even know what they are doing run all over the world in a disorganized manner, spewing doctrines they are not even certain of. Often they are needlessly destructive and invasive to the local culture, the economy, and the governments. In a word, they are complete amateurs. This is unacceptable. It is intuitively self-evident that evangelism is supposed to be the domain of infallible prophets and/or the gift of prophecy, people who know for sure (100% certainty) where to preach, when to preach, and what to preach. Such was Paul. Such was Christ.

Even if I'm wrong I'm still right. Here's why. I claim that revelations given at 100% certainty must govern evangelism because, with 100 billion souls at stake, we can't afford to get it wrong. Now suppose I am incorrect about that assumption. That doesn't change a thing because, with so many souls at stake, I would still need to be 100% certain that I'm incorrect. There is no way around it, logically. I must therefore seek 100% certainty - I must seek the gift of prophecy (1Cor 14:1) as a top priority - if I'm at all committed to saving the 100 billion souls.

This debate is not really a matter of 'proving' which side is right. It's more about demonstrating which side has the biblically and logically stronger position. It seems clear enough that evangelism defined as prophecy is a more defensible position than the alternative.

 

[HatGuy]

And you severely misunderstand Paul. The prophet Abraham is Paul's principal paradigm of faith in both Romans and Galatians. And in both epistles, Abraham's hearing at Genesis 15:1-6 is his principal example of saving/sanctifying faith. You are right that faith comes by hearing the Word, specifically the kind of hearing-the-Word exemplified for us at Genesis 15:1-6. It was an experience of DIRECT REVELATION:

"Then the Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision" (Gen 15:1).

This is NOT the written Word. There was no written word at that time. Now, at Gal 3, Paul twice refers to this Abrahamic dynamic as 'receiving the Spirit by the hearing of faith' and he severely indicts the Galatians for deemphasizing that principle. Paul is literally insinuating that the degree of success in the church stands or falls on the emphasis of that principle.

Direct revelation can't 'work' without written or oral tradition? So the Voice was incapable of speaking clearly to Adam and Eve? To the angels?

You are downplaying the physical manifestations that went along with the Voice, for both Adam and Eve and for Abraham. My point is to show that the external and the internal have to work together.

According to Stephen, God 'appeared' to Abraham first when he called him (Acts 7:2-3).

Genesis is clear that some sort of physical manifestation was involved in the relationship between God and Adam and Eve.

Hebrews 1 tells us that God has now once-for-all appeared as His Son, indicating no more appearances will take place.

My point is that God uses external and internal means to provide revelation. The external means carries more authority than the internal, precisely because the internal can be confused. This does not mean the internal is not authoritative, only that it requires an external to validate its authority.

I can't see how this is so difficult to understand nor how this is scripturally unsound.

Seriously. In heaven do you expect God put you up in little room with a table, a desk lamp, a Bible, and a concordance? Is that really necessary? Why isn't the Voice adequate in your view?

I'm not in heaven right now and neither are any of us. How is this relevant?

I've been accused on this thread of deprecating the written Word as inadequate.
What about the divine Word as our Voice? Why do you see HIM as inadequate?

Adequate / in adequate for what? What are you claiming I said and what are you saying exactly? Do we need a Bible? Yes or no? If so, why? If not, why?

Sorry nebulous claims won't suffice here, even though lots of people fall for sermons consisting of such unclear language. If you can't specify the precise specifics - if all you can say is that it's all mysterious - then you've ultimately said nothing useful, it's tantamount to gibberish. And hence I will turn a deaf ear to you and an active ear to the sort of clarity such as I provided in post 89, which clearly identifies the difference between exegesis and direct revelation. It's not in fact a 'mystery'.

I think you're using the word 'exegesis' way too narrowly and so are tripping over yourself, and being overly dogmatic about it. You've not answered whether exegesis is necessary for prophecy (which I stated). Have you never needed to interpret a prophecy?

You're point is valid that the gospel-message always involves some kind of cognitive content. But you seem to then equate this content with the term exegesis and thus now you have 'proof' that exegesis is necessary and foundational to direct revelation. That doesn't follow. Exegesis is not a synonym for content. And the existence of content in direct revelation is hardly proof that exegesis is authoritative - authoritative over what? Conscience? Hardly.

No, I'm saying that all content needs to be interpreted, i.e. exegesis. I'm not saying content and exegesis is a synonym. I never said exegesis is authoritative. I said it is always required. You can't escape the necessity of it. No word comes without the human being interpreting it in some way. This is a stated fact and this actually validates your thoughts on conscience. However, the conscience itself isn't the final authority - the Word is.

You have stated that an interpretation does not carry final authority. But then you mess up your own statement by claiming conscience carries final authority. But you fail to see that conscience is the thing interpreting!

You seem to be equating exegesis with worldview. I don't know how you're using the word anymore. Maybe you should clarify your definitions.

By the way Scripture sometimes uses the terms 'gospel' and 'scripture' as a reference to the divine Word. Thus we have:
(1) both written gospel and living Gospel
(2) both written scripture and living Scripture
(3) both written Word and divine Word.

Happy with this.

I don't know why you think an authoritative written Word (or some specific oral tradition) is necessary for this process of direct revelation. I do agree that some concepts won't likely be well understood if the mind has no education, no content as yet. But the Bible isn't the only possible form of education.

Because the external world validates the internal world, not the other way around. Therefore, an external word validates or invalidates an internal word. It is a much more reliable check. History shows it is more reliable - when people moved away from the scriptures and the authority of the Spirit's witness in the community, sin usually comes knocking.

But it is faulty, as I have shown.

No, you haven't.

Sola Scriptura repudiates conversion and logically contradicts authoritative conscience.

No it does not. See below.

And all you have to do is provide one clear counterexample to my rule of conscience. On what occasion, feeling certain that action A is evil and B is good, is it appropriate in God's sight for you to do A?

If A is actually good according to God's law, then it was appropriate for you to do A. How could it be otherwise? Do you think God is going to say to you, "I told you to do A, but you felt to do B. So therefore, it's okay." No! He will ask you why you didn't do A. What on earth do your feelings have to do with the rightness of A or B? Your conscience is not a good enough standard for what is good and what is not. The creator's authority overrides your conscience.

You should have cited Luther here. He said, 'To go against conscience is neither right nor safe' - precisely the opposite of your claim.

It is not the 'opposite' of my claim. You are not reading my claim. And you are forgetting that Luther said many other things about the authority of the Bible.

The real irony on this thread is that all those supposedly repudiating the primacy of conscience actually hope to be judged on that authority alone.

I don't wish to be judged by my conscience. I wish to be judged by the work of Christ. My conscience is usually quite useless and unable to distinguish right from wrong. Hence, I plead the blood of Christ!

Why so? Because exegesis is fallible! Suppose you're standing before the throne of God, knowing that you labored day and night for the gospel, and now you're hoping for God to say, 'Well done good and faithful servant!'

Instead he says, 'You horrible servant! Because your exegesis was flawed, you labored in all the wrong areas!"

Is that how any of us really want to be judged? Please. And wouldn't it mean that the best bible scholars have a clear advantage over the intellectually less competent?

It seems clear to me that you are attaching a very scholarly definition to the word 'exegesis'. It is simply interpretation and clarification. Whether one has a degree is irrelevant to this discussion.

Whereas, if He judges us on whether we heeded our conscience, we all potentially stand on equal footing.

Nope. He will judge us according to our faith in Christ. Not our conscience. Not our works. Not our interpretations. But by Christ's work on the cross. That's the gospel, remember?

 

[Hazelelponi]

One thing I'm pretty sure about. Sola Scriptura is logically problematical, and the advocates need to admit that, as such, it is quite possibly not true. I'd say it's definitely not true, as far as I can see.

There have been many well reasoned, Spirit filled responses to the conclusions you came to in this and other threads, that I know for a fact I could not have given so well.

People haven't, in largest part, used Scripture very often. Rather, they answered you using your rule for authority, conscious and Spirit. Yet in the end, you declare they should simply admit your correct in the matter.

In doing so, your declaring not that it is conscious and Spirit which should be the final authority in a dispute, but that it should specifically be your conscious and Spirit which should be the final authority in matters of dispute.

Certainly we all need to conclude one way or the other on many matters, but when we do, I think it's important that we aren't using our own ideas in the flesh, but rather God's very ideas.

The way we can be sure of what is influencing our ideas is to check with the one thing that can't change, that isn't influenced in and of itself by either emotion or circumstance - and thats the written word of God.

We all need a Savior after all, not because we are infallible, but because we are fallible beings.

Two witnesses are the requirement as a result, and not one. In our day, those two witnesses which will be in agreement is Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

Your conscious cannot witness to you, because it is a part of your flesh and thus, fallible.

 

[JAL]

You are downplaying the physical manifestations that went along with the Voice, for both Adam and Eve and for Abraham. My point is to show that the external and the internal have to work together.

According to Stephen, Godf 'appeared' to Abraham first when he called him (Acts 7:2-3).

Genesis is clear that some sort of physical manifestation was involved in the relationship between God and Adam and Eve.

Hebrews 1 tells us that God has now once-for-all appeared as His Son, indicating no more appearances will take place.

You seem to be strewing together a hodgepodge of disjointed, unclear, and seemingly unrelated claims about content, exegesis, physical manifestations and so on. It's difficult to make sense of this. For one thing, your weird conclusion that theophanies are no longer possible is a rather bogus inference based on a single versus in Hebrews. You might want to take a look at Acts 2:17 which reiterates the nature of prophetic ministry as seeing visions. Then please consider my post 180 demonstrating that evangelism/witnessing is defined in Scripture as utterances based on seeing face-to-face visions of Christ. And finally consider post 179 (the one right before it) where evangelism is further demonstrated to be defined in Scripture as prophetic ministry.

I can buttress this with several logical and biblical arguments. Few Christians realize that Christ defined 'Prayer in His name' as a revelatory vision of the Father. And few Christians realize the logical necessity of defining spiritual maturity as face-to-face visions of Christ. Considerable scholarship - including Calvin - rightly defines the new birth as a vision of Christ. Gordon Fee insisted that 2Cor 3:18 is undeniably a literal beholding of Christ. Calvin held that the discourse of Christ in chapters John 14 to 16 clearly provisions an ongoing vision of Christ for the saints. And I can demonstrate that the primary motif of the first epistle to Corinthians, starting at 2:6, is to define maturity as mature prophhethood (see 1Cor 14:1) - and we are to be prophets without visions? Nonsense. Did you not know that prophets were called seers, meaning see-ers of visions?

In a word, any attempt to deny the present-day possibility and reality of visions of God is faced with a mountain of biblical and logical problems.

My point is that God uses external and internal means to provide revelation. The external means carries more authority than the internal, precisely because the internal can be confused. This does not mean the internal is not authoritative, only that it requires an external to validate its authority.

This isn't clear. You seem to be saying that the Inward Witness isn't fully self-authenticating because it needs some external content to fully authenticate it. That's just not true. Feelings of certainty (conscience) are sufficient authentication. If a Voice leaves me feeling 100% certain that God is speaking, AND (anticipating your rejoinder below) also leaves me 100% certain that the Voice already revealed to me the correct interpretation, what more authentication is needed?

I'm not in heaven right now and neither are any of us. How is this relevant?

It's relevant because you keep suggesting some kind of external text is needed to fully authenticate the Voice. So do you plan to use your concordance in heaven? I sure don't. And do you think the angels need one now? I sure don't. And that's because you're mistaken - the Voice is indeed capable of being fully self-authenticating.

Adequate / in adequate for what? What are you claiming I said and what are you saying exactly? Do we need a Bible? Yes or no? If so, why? If not, why?

No. The church existed before the Bible and can and will continue to exist without one. God provides one for various reasons including perhaps personal preference, and perhaps for some other benefits (I myself use it as a crutch as stated), but it is hardly necessary. Were it necessary God would have seen to it that the printing press appear much earlier in history.

I think you're using the word 'exegesis' way too narrowly and so are tripping over yourself, and being overly dogmatic about it. You've not answered whether exegesis is necessary for prophecy (which I stated). Have you never needed to interpret a prophecy?

I answered that. A revelation conveys information. If it didn't convey all the needed information, then the best remedy is - fallible interpretation? Heck no! The remedy is to seek more revelation (I cited Numbers 12 as an example of this principle). Yes, as a temporary crutch, you will understandably fall back on fallible interpretation, but that's not ideal.

No, I'm saying that all content needs to be interpreted, i.e. exegesis. I'm not saying content and exegesis is a synonym. I never said exegesis is authoritative. I said it is always required. You can't escape the necessity of it...

I just did. See my last comment.

...No word comes without the human being interpreting it in some way.

Even if that were true, you're completely missing the point. So let's assume you're right. All this implies is that part of the revelation must involve providing me 100% certainty that I have reached the right interpretation. Until then, it hasn't done its job of conveying the information infallibly. Otherwise, if God had for example left it up to the biblical writers to indulge in their own fallible human interpretations of His Voice, the Bible itself would be littered with errors. Sorry your position just doesn't make any sense.

You have stated that an interpretation does not carry final authority. But then you mess up your own statement by claiming conscience carries final authority. But you fail to see that conscience is the thing interpreting!

See the last comment.

You seem to be equating exegesis with worldview. I don't know how you're using the word anymore. Maybe you should clarify your definitions.

I thought I clarified exegesis vs revelation in post 89. Not sure what was unclear there.

If A is actually good according to God's law, then it was appropriate for you to do A. How could it be otherwise? Do you think God is going to say to you, "I told you to do A, but you felt to do B. So therefore, it's okay." No! He will ask you why you didn't do A. What on earth do your feelings have to do with the rightness of A or B? Your conscience is not a good enough standard for what is good and what is not. The creator's authority overrides your conscience.

Well finally. 300 posts deep into this discussion (kicked off from another thread), and you are the first to actually even TRY to posit an exception to the rule of conscience. Except it doesn't work. Notice how your wording is short-changing my original scenario. Here was my challenge: Show me a case where, feeling certain that action A is evil and action B is good, it is right in God's sight to go with A.

Whereas your wording waters it down to the ambiguous word 'feel': "I told you to do A, but you felt to do B."

Let me be more clear on my position. Our conscience tells us that God is good. Nonetheless, if God tells me to do action A, and my conscience stands convinced that action A is evil, I am still obligated to go with action B. Clear? I must never intend on doing evil. And frankly God wouldn't want me to so intend/attempt. Is this an impasse? Not at all. If God really wants me to do action A, He simply needs to give me a feeling of certainty that action A is good. This isn't just theory. This is precisely how He moved Abraham toward an attempted slaughter of his own son. Abraham was a good man. In his eyes, killing his son was an evil thing to do, until the Voice gave him a feeling of certainty that it was the RIGHT thing to do, in his circumstance at least.

I don't wish to be judged by my conscience. I wish to be judged by the work of Christ. My conscience is usually quite useless and unable to distinguish right from wrong. Hence, I plead the blood of Christ!

Clearly dogding the objection. I clearly wasn't talking about salvation from sin. I was talking about being judged as a faithful servant/steward of Christ as a saved Christian.

Nope. He will judge us according to our faith in Christ. Not our conscience. Not our works. Not our interpretations. But by Christ's work on the cross. That's the gospel, remember?

See last comment.

 

[DM Murphy]

Nailed it. Tradition is of men, scripture is meant to help us set a direction for renewing our mind from worldly to holy. If we serve traditions we labor in vain. If we serve scripture we worship the book rather than the author.
The entire point of Christianity is a change from outward law to inward indwelling by God. He literally makes a person His place of residence and thus the Holy Spirit is our guide. This is pretty much wholly lost for the two reasons you cite above
1) tradition which removes individual expression and searching and
2) rigid obsession with the Bible which removes any real-time interaction with God for a given circumstance.
just my thoughts. but these two items remove the active leading of God in a persons life... no wonder so many people feel dry.
DM

 

[thecolorsblend]

Conscience = inner witness = Mormonism. That’s just witchcraft

Not that I think we should be governed by our consciences but I don’t see the witchcraft angle. At all.

 

[~Zao~]

Not that I think we should be governed by our consciences but I don’t see the witchcraft angle. At all.

Witchcraft = rebellion was the old fundamental teaching. Witchcraft also meant throwing someone out into deep water w/o a life raft, which is what I linked to when conscience was linked to Mormonism like an uncrossable path. I never really got the connection to witchcraft either but it seemed appropriate at the moment. I retract.

@JAL coming face to face with Christ to becoming qualified to service is revelation from Him to speak for Him but it’s still always in accordance to the full revelation of scripture. The full revelation of scripture means coming from a pattern of more than one witness and traceable thru-out the rest of the full biblical text.

There’s only one new mystery, that of Christ and the church, that was unique to Paul’s ministry in which he was responsible to convey to the body of the new church, in an understandable way. He needed to bring them to the realization of what the church was to Christ.
When his message is used to bring glory to man (interpreted by the letter of the law) it is not pointing to Christ but to man. When it’s used to bring glory to God (interpreted by the spirit of the law) it’s pointing to Christ.
Only then can it be effectively used to shine the light onto the Father for all His children to see. There is no other way to bring all His children home in less than clean robes w/o that revelation.

 

[HatGuy]

You seem to be strewing together a hodgepodge of disjointed, unclear, and seemingly unrelated claims about content, exegesis, physical manifestations and so on. It's difficult to make sense of this. For one thing, your weird conclusion that theophanies are no longer possible is a rather bogus inference based on a single versus in Hebrews. You might want to take a look at Acts 2:17 which reiterates the nature of prophetic ministry as seeing visions. Then please consider my post 180 demonstrating that evangelism/witnessing is defined in Scripture as utterances based on seeing face-to-face visions of Christ. And finally consider post 179 (the one right before it) where evangelism is further demonstrated to be defined in Scripture as prophetic ministry.

I can buttress this with several logical and biblical arguments. Few Christians realize that Christ defined 'Prayer in His name' as a revelatory vision of the Father. And few Christians realize the logical necessity of defining spiritual maturity as face-to-face visions of Christ. Considerable scholarship - including Calvin - rightly defines the new birth as a vision of Christ. Gordon Fee insisted that 2Cor 3:18 is undeniably a literal beholding of Christ. Calvin held that the discourse of Christ in chapters John 14 to 16 clearly provisions an ongoing vision of Christ for the saints. And I can demonstrate that the primary motif of the first epistle to Corinthians, starting at 2:6, is to define maturity as mature prophhethood (see 1Cor 14:1) - and we are to be prophets without visions? Nonsense. Did you not know that prophets were called seers, meaning see-ers of visions?

In a word, any attempt to deny the present-day possibility and reality of visions of God is faced with a mountain of biblical and logical problems.

Are 'visions' the same as physical manifestations?

And are you saying that without a physical manifestation of Christ, one cannot be prophetic?

It's relevant because you keep suggesting some kind of external text is needed to fully authenticate the Voice. So do you plan to use your concordance in heaven? I sure don't. And do you think the angels need one now? I sure don't. And that's because you're mistaken - the Voice is indeed capable of being fully self-authenticating.

In heaven we see face to face. This is not relevant to a discussion where we still live in an imperfect world.

No. The church existed before the Bible and can and will continue to exist without one. God provides one for various reasons including perhaps personal preference, and perhaps for some other benefits (I myself use it as a crutch as stated), but it is hardly necessary. Were it necessary God would have seen to it that the printing press appear much earlier in history.

The Bible was preached before the printing press. I don't see how your comments about the printing press (here and elsewhere) are truly relevant to the sola scriptura argument.

Well finally. 300 posts deep into this discussion (kicked off from another thread), and you are the first to actually even TRY to posit an exception to the rule of conscience. Except it doesn't work. Notice how your wording is short-changing my original scenario. Here was my challenge: Show me a case where, feeling certain that action A is evil and action B is good, it is right in God's sight to go with A.

Whereas your wording waters it down to the ambiguous word 'feel': "I told you to do A, but you felt to do B."

Excuse me bro, but your exact wording in post #108 and in this post above is 'feeling'. I quote directly from your post (emphasis mine):

And all you have to do is provide one clear counterexample to my rule of conscience. On what occasion, feeling certain that action A is evil and B is good, is it appropriate in God's sight for you to do A?

Does 'feeling' suddenly not have anything to do with 'feel' ?

So you can't tell me my wording is short-changing your scenario.

But nevertheless, I can gladly give you the benefit of the doubt as being fickle sucks on forums, and let us engage your re-wording of this phrase (and now your wording of 'stands convinced').

Let me be more clear on my position. Our conscience tells us that God is good. Nonetheless, if God tells me to do action A, and my conscience stands convinced that action A is evil, I am still obligated to go with action B. Clear? I must never intend on doing evil. And frankly God wouldn't want me to so intend/attempt. Is this an impasse? Not at all. If God really wants me to do action A, He simply needs to give me a feeling of certainty that action A is good. This isn't just theory. This is precisely how He moved Abraham toward an attempted slaughter of his own son. Abraham was a good man. In his eyes, killing his son was an evil thing to do, until the Voice gave him a feeling of certainty that it was the RIGHT thing to do, in his circumstance at least.

You're fleshing out your scenario and adding elements that weren't there before.

You are claiming now that God will give you a 'feeling' (your words, not mine) of certainty that action A is good.

Well now, you're claiming an external influence over your conscience.

And this has been my point all along: there needs to be an external influence, because your own conscience is not good enough.

Let me be clear and say I don't believe the internal witness is your own conscience. I don't see how these two are the same thing. The one is the Spirit, the other is the Flesh.

But this now changes things and makes your viewpoints clearer.

Okay, so now let me ask this question: can you name one, or perhaps even two, scenarios where God has given you revelation (outside of personal guidance) that is not in the Bible?

 

[gideon123]

OP ... original post of this thread.

Your reasoning is false.

 

[DamianWarS]

therefore conscience is my only final authority. This refutes Sola Scriptura.

It also refutes tradition. So what do we get out of this? That neither tradition or scripture is our final authority? No, we get out of this that your conclusions are in error.

 

[Halbhh]

....

Consider: do you agree that most anyone can correctly and fully understand: "Love your neighbor as yourself" ?
or some other simple but clear wordings, such as:

Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

Understandable, yes?

Now, we could allow/admit/accept that people could (potentially) understand these -- they are clear wordings -- before the separate question of whether they are willing to, such as whether they are willing to hear (accept, take in, admit, believe) them.... There can be a willingness-to-hear issue, no doubt.

But, it's always possible to listen to the Word in a truly understanding way that understands much correctly, as one reads scripture, because of what Christ said. Because He said we can --
John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.

Since He said we can, then this is merely the truth of the matter. We can therefore understand during moments of true faith and humility and listening (and accepting).

But that's not addressing the separate questions of whether a person has ever seen or heard some verses. Or whether they even want to. Or even whether they truly believe, even. Quite a few other things can affect what they end up understanding, that are not about ability to understand correctly in potential.

Now, you'd be right in a less ambitious observation though: that often people evidently aren't understanding/knowing all...or something else is happening, because they argue plenty.

I've observed that a something else does happen extensively, or several things:
that people argue doctrines, and while doing so they:
A) use the same word with different senses of meaning, and don't detect that the other person had a different sense of meaning,
and
B) that further they often don't write that clearly, and even if they do, still the other often doesn't get just what they meant.
and
C) many often reasonably guess at what the other believes or assumes, and their guessing is often wrong -- wrong guesses.

Basically, that even just communication between people is basically full of misunderstandings.

So there is plenty of argument that happens because people merely didn't understand what the other person meant.


Still, at times, simply people are showing they have entirely different conclusions, so in that case at least one party didn't understand correctly (if not both).

One thing I've noticed is often people seem willing to use a doctrine instead of listening to a book fully, use a doctrine instead of longing to read every chapter, and they actually do not hear other verses that would change their own understanding of a doctrine, or sometimes the doctrine also.

Therefore, it's extremely good advice to not only be silent and listen while one reads with true humility, letting the Word do the talking, and thinking of oneself as the student -- always. That, every much so. And, additionally, we should then believe -- thus we should not then try to undo what the words said with a doctrinal interpretation that was the old preferred way one liked better.

 

[JAL]

Are 'visions' the same as physical manifestations?

Is the dream of a physical experience the same as a physical experience. From the standpoint of experience, yes, which is all that really matters. There is no relevant distinction between an actual theophany versus a perceived one.

And are you saying that without a physical manifestation of Christ, one cannot be prophetic?

See last comment.

In heaven we see face to face. This is not relevant to a discussion where we still live in an imperfect world.

Then you missed the thrust of post 180. Face-to-face visions of Christ are definitive of the evangelist, even if that fact violates your comfort zone and bursts your theological bubble. "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face as a man speaks with his friend." The prophet Abraham is the paradigm of faith for all believers and the friend of God. What does that look like, exactly? Gen 18 is a good example. God came over to Abraham's house for supper, baked Him a loaf of bread, fried Him up a beef steak,and chatted away while God ate. The problem with the Jews, lamented Jesus, was "'You have never heard His voice nor seen His shape" (Jn 5:37).

It can be logically demonstrated that face-to-face visions of God are largely definitive of spiritual maturity.

The Bible was preached before the printing press. I don't see how your comments about the printing press (here and elsewhere) are truly relevant to the sola scriptura argument.

So actually possessing a copy of the Bible is optional in the Sola Scriptura paradigm? Is that what they teach in Evangelical churches? Isn't that just a convenient changing of the narrative for purposes of a debate like this?

Excuse me bro, but your exact wording in post #108 and in this post above is 'feeling'. I quote directly from your post (emphasis mine):

I don't recall what I posted in 108 but I restated the point numerous times starting with post #2, bro.

Does 'feeling' suddenly not have anything to do with 'feel' ?

Your rendering omitted the crucial words 'felt certain that choice A was evil'. All you said was, 'felt to do A' which is completely ambiguous in meaning. I merely pointed out that fact. So why all this indignation?

So you can't tell me my wording is short-changing your scenario.

See last comment.

You're fleshing out your scenario and adding elements that weren't there before. You are claiming now that God will give you a 'feeling' (your words, not mine) of certainty that action A is good.
Well now, you're claiming an external influence over your conscience.

I don't see where you get off suggesting that all this is new. All this was clearly posted at #2. And weren't you a participant in the original thread that got closed, where I posted the same material?

And this has been my point all along: there needs to be an external influence, because your own conscience is not good enough. Let me be clear and say I don't believe the internal witness is your own conscience. I don't see how these two are the same thing. The one is the Spirit, the other is the Flesh.

You imagine yourself to be finding tensions in my position because you have either overlooked or misunderstood the harmony between posts #1 and #2. I thought those posts were clear enough, but I'll try again now.
- (A) Firstly, conscience (feelings of certainty) are always authoritative (i.e morally obligatory), regardless whether those feelings came from yourself, exegesis, God, or the devil himself. There is NO scenario where it's okay to disobey your conscience. Clear?
- (B) Premise-A imposes a serious restriction on God's interplay with mankind. Namely, if He wants to move us in a particular direction, He must influence our conscience, because strictly speaking our conscience is our only authority. God is authoritative only in an indirect sense, namely, to the extent that the conscience is currently persuaded to honor Him.
- (C) Based on premises A and B, the proper way for God to move us to accept the gospel is to provide us with corresponding feelings of certainty, for example the feeling of certainty that Jesus is God. When God operates directly upon the heart, I call it a direct revelation.

All this was already stated in posts 1 and 2. I hope it's clear now?

Okay, so now let me ask this question: can you name one, or perhaps even two, scenarios where God has given you revelation (outside of personal guidance) that is not in the Bible?

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

Are you asking me whether direct revelation contradicts the Bible? God doesn't contradict Himself, but a message received at less than 100% certainty might be unclear and thus misheard.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Therefore, it's extremely good advice to not only be silent and listen while one reads with true humility, letting the Word do the talking, and thinking of oneself as the student -- always. That, every much so. And, additionally, we should then believe -- thus we should not then try to undo what the words said with a doctrinal interpretation that was the old preferred way one liked better.

I try to do this as much as possible. Whenever I respond to a person's quote of Scripture, and if I am not 100% familiar with the passage and or chapter, I will read the entire chapter to get a feel for what the author is saying in light of the verse or passage they raised. I remember a few rare times, I have actually changed my stance on what I was going to say because of this. I had a misconception about what Scripture was actually saying, and I was not listening entirely to what the whole chapter was saying in its entirety. I also ask the Lord for the understanding if it is a really difficult topic, or passage, too.

 

[JAL]

There have been many well reasoned, Spirit filled responses to the conclusions you came to in this and other threads, that I know for a fact I could not have given so well.

People haven't, in largest part, used Scripture very often. Rather, they answered you using your rule for authority, conscious and Spirit. Yet in the end, you declare they should simply admit your correct in the matter.

In doing so, your declaring not that it is conscious and Spirit which should be the final authority in a dispute, but that it should specifically be your conscious and Spirit which should be the final authority in matters of dispute.

Certainly we all need to conclude one way or the other on many matters, but when we do, I think it's important that we aren't using our own ideas in the flesh, but rather God's very ideas.

The way we can be sure of what is influencing our ideas is to check with the one thing that can't change, that isn't influenced in and of itself by either emotion or circumstance - and thats the written word of God.

We all need a Savior after all, not because we are infallible, but because we are fallible beings.

Two witnesses are the requirement as a result, and not one. In our day, those two witnesses which will be in agreement is Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

Your conscious cannot witness to you, because it is a part of your flesh and thus, fallible.

You keep saying 'you conscious' - but don't you mean 'conscience' since that's what this thread has emphasized?

The way we can be sure of what is influencing our ideas is to check with the one thing that can't change, that isn't influenced in and of itself by either emotion or circumstance - and thats the written word of God.

Although exegesis is potentially useful, it is also very fallible and thus less promising than direct revelation. Hence Paul commands the church to seek the gift of prophecy above all the gifts (see 1Cor 14:1)

Furthermore conscience, not Scripture, is our highest authority (see posts 1 and 2). Therefore even direct revelation succeeds only insofar as it modifies our conscience.

If your conscience tells you to study the Bible, and then the Bible exerts some sway over your conscience, only then are you obligated to do whatever the Bible seemed to be commanding you. If your conscience tells you to abstain from doing what you read, conscience trumps what you read.

This is because there are no exceptions to the rule of conscience (feelings of certainty). Meaning, if I feel certain that action A is evil, and B is good, I am obligated to go with B.

 

[QvQ]

You keep saying 'you conscious' - but don't you mean 'conscience' since that's what this thread has emphasized?

Although exegesis is potentially useful, it is also very fallible and thus less promising than direct revelation. Hence Paul commands the church to seek the gift of prophecy above all the gifts (see 1Cor 14:1)

Furthermore conscience, not Scripture, is our highest authority (see posts 1 and 2). Therefore even direct revelation succeeds only insofar as it modifies our conscience.

If your conscience tells you to study the Bible, and then the Bible exerts some sway over your conscience, only then are you obligated to do whatever the Bible seemed to be commanding you. If your conscience tells you to abstain from doing what you read, conscience trumps what you read.

This is because there are no exceptions to the rule of conscience (feelings of certainty). Meaning, if I feel certain that action A is evil, and B is good, I am obligated to go with B.

I obey the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Conscience, I met a person who didn't have a conscience. Expediency was his code. He was Innocent. No sense of guilt whatsoever. I meet people who make up their own rules based on their "feelings, rebellious and arrogant. I meet people who were taught rules who feel those laws are good, such as honor killings but are evil. I am fallible. I accept the Law written in the Book as I accept Christ. Sola Scriptura and it is not A or B. It is the Word of God

 

[JAL]

I obey the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Conscience, I met a person who didn't have a conscience. Expediency was his code. He was Innocent. No sense of guilt whatsoever. I meet people who make up their own rules based on their "feelings, rebellious and arrogant. I meet people who were taught rules who feel those laws are good, such as honor killings but are evil. I am fallible. I accept the Law written in the Book as I accept Christ. Sola Scriptura and it is not A or B. It is the Word of God

You always have at least 2 choices A and B right?
For example:
(A) Ignore the bible
(B) Read the bible

And you feel certain that action A is evil, and B is good. So you will go with B, right? That is honoring conscience. And it means that conscience is a higher authority than the Bible because it is the REASON you accept and obey the Bible.

You read and obey the Bible (action B) because you feel certain it is the right thing to do.

Similarly you repudiate the Koran because you feel certain that honoring the Koran is the wrong thing to do.

In all things, then, conscience (feelings of certainty) is lurking behind the scenes as the ultimate Ruler of your soul. I realize it doctrinally 'sounds better' (has a nicer 'theological ring' to it) to say that 'God is my authority'. But logically, it's just not true. You honor God only because you feel certain it is the right thing to do. God is your authority only indirectly, that is, only so far as He has managed to modify your conscience in His favor.

 

[~Zao~]

Ok so I just posted this on the Jesus discipleship forum. Do you think it’s wrong?

Revelation 3:21
To the one who conquers I will give a place with me on my throne, just as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.

Ezekiel 1:26-28
And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form.
Upward from what appeared like the loins I saw something like gleaming amber, something that looked like fire enclosed all around; and downward from what looked like the loins I saw something that looked like fire, and there was a splendor all around.
Like the bow in a cloud on a rainy day, such was the appearance of the splendor all around. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

When I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of someone speaking.​

Things of the natural realm, wind and rainbow, are used to explain things of the spiritual realm relating to God's spirit in splendor, seen in the crystal clear skies above. Our consciences need to be clear also, obtainable at the throne. That is in fact the result of the encounter there. Hebrews 10:22, Hebrews 9:14, Void of offences Acts of the Apostles 24:16

When the skies symbolically are gathering over our heads that's the time to bring those things to the throne, find the offending darkening and walk in the Sonshine again. Ok, a bit corny, but still true. 1 John 1:7-9

With the conscience's condemnation comes the loss of clear Christian sky, of a clear heaven above. And it remains that way until it's cleared up.

Perhaps the Lord’s anointing within is causing a sense that we need to go to Him where His blood covers and help is ready for any time of need. Hebrews 2:18, Hebrews 4:16, Hebrews 13:6 The weather changes when we go to Him and we feel alive again. Praise the Lord! His throne in the 3rd heaven is also in the renewed heart.

As His children it's only fitting to have this relationship with Him. His ruling over us will be guided far more closely (but not apart from) than by the written word because it comes from the Risen Lord. It's our personal guidance that was promised, united in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to become His people who are becoming familiar with the throne. For His own purposes as well as ours so that His will be done.

 

[QvQ]

You always have at least 2 choices A and B right?
For example:
(A) Ignore the bible
(B) Read the bible

And you feel certain that action A is evil, and B is good. So you will go with B, right? That is honoring conscience. And it means that conscience is a higher authority than the Bible because it is the REASON you accept and obey the Bible.

You read and obey the Bible (action B) because you feel certain it is the right thing to do.

Similarly you repudiate the Koran because you feel certain that honoring the Koran is the wrong thing to do.

In all things, then, conscience (feelings of certainty) is lurking behind the scenes as the ultimate Ruler of your soul. I realize it doctrinally 'sounds better' (has a nicer 'theological ring' to it) to say that 'God is my authority'. But logically, it's just not true. You honor God only because you feel certain it is the right thing to do. God is your authority only indirectly, that is, only so far as He has managed to modify your conscience in His favor.