- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,778
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You have the ability to read the mind of a dead man?Conscience is not obligatory. It isn't even reliable else why Hitler? He was doing what HE wanted to do, what he believed was right. You say he had a conscience?
This is just semantic word-games. You're playing dodgeball.Jesus said: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." John 6:44
That's not conscience that's God.
I am surrounded by Hard Core Hostile Atheist Americans and it was pounded into me that Christianity was evil, rotten and Dumb. Yes, I have been taught, even as that Muslim has, that Christianity is to be held in utter contempt. So my conscience, my reason, my culture tells me to reject it and yet I embrace it. So, even though my conscience, educated, literate, and so rational tells me it is wrong and stupid, I do it anyway because Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia.Conscience didn't have the final say? So your rationale was:
- I feel certain that following Christ is an evil, wrong thing to do.
- I feel certain that following the Koran is the right thing to do.
Therefore I will follow Christ.
Sorry you're not making any sense. You are in denial about the role of conscience.
This is just semantic word-games. You're playing dodgeball.
I am referring to feelings of certainty. If you don't want to call it conscience, call it something else. But it played a role in your conversion - and that is what you are in denial about. Feelings of certainty ARE morally obligatory, and were so in your conversion, like it or not. You can deny it all you want.
How about an example where Paul prioritized conscience over Scripture - thereby repudiating Sola Scriptura by his own example? Would that satisfy your curiosity?The New Testament agrees with my conscience. If you can find an example of where the Gospel would contradict my conscience, then post it.
Exactly! See post #2. I didn't say that conscience is the AUTHOR of certainty, rather I use the term conscience as a SYNONYM for certainty. My argument is that certainty is morally obligatory (i.e. certainty as to what is evil and good) no matter WHERE it came from. Because it is never right to deliberately choose evil. Clear?Romans 8:29 "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."
Not conscience but God gives certainty.
Right. Regardless of what the culture told you, you embraced Christianity because you felt certain it was the right thing to do. That's obedience to conscience.I am surrounded by Hard Core Hostile Atheist Americans and it was pounded into me that Christianity was evil, rotten and Dumb. Yes, I have been taught, even as that Muslim has, that Christianity is to be held in utter contempt. So my conscience, my reason, my culture tells me to reject it and yet I embrace it. So, even though my conscience, educated, literate, and so rational tells me it is wrong and stupid, I do it anyway because Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia.
Certainty, the revelation of God is correct. Being careful to inform Faith with reason but conscience, no. Semantics. The resistance you feel is that many of us have been subject to attacks on Sola Scriptura, as attacks on our Faith. "How can anybody believe those old fairy tales." "Science deniers, bitter clingers," you know the riff.Exactly! See post #2. I didn't say that conscience is the AUTHOR of certainty, rather I use the term conscience as a SYNONYM for certainty. My argument is that certainty is morally obligatory (i.e. certainty as to what is evil and good) no matter WHERE it came from. Because it is never right to deliberately choose evil. Clear?
Exactly! See post #2. I didn't say that conscience is the AUTHOR of certainty, rather I use the term conscience as a SYNONYM for certainty. My argument is that certainty is morally obligatory (i.e. certainty as to what is evil and good) no matter WHERE it came from. Because it is never right to deliberately choose evil. Clear?
I believed the Bible. I knew God first. I looked for a language and a structure to that matched and the Book matches. Sola Scriptura.Right. Regardless of what the culture told you, you embraced Christianity because you felt certain it was the right thing to do. That's obedience to conscience.
I embraced Christianity because it was the Truth. I wanted to know the Truth about God. I found some truth but I didn't have a language or structure to express it. I searched different traditions and Christianity was the match. Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth and the life ." I don't know much about the churches or rituals. My Christianity is simple and plain.Right. Regardless of what the culture told you, you embraced Christianity because you felt certain it was the right thing to do. That's obedience to conscience.
When ya know ya know, Ya know?Exactly! See post #2. I didn't say that conscience is the AUTHOR of certainty, rather I use the term conscience as a SYNONYM for certainty. My argument is that certainty is morally obligatory (i.e. certainty as to what is evil and good) no matter WHERE it came from. Because it is never right to deliberately choose evil. Clear?
In what sense?No not "clear" because your arguing against scripture.
Right. You felt certain that Christianity was true. Exactly.I believed the Bible. I knew God first. I looked for a language and a structure to that matched and the Book matches. Sola Scriptura.
I embraced Christianity because it was the Truth. I wanted to know the Truth about God. I found some truth but I didn't have a language or structure to express it. I searched different traditions and Christianity was the match. Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth and the life ." I don't know much about the churches or rituals. My Christianity is simple and plain.
But this is what I've been saying all along.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.
Actually conscience is a moral standard created by God (Rom 2). And it can be misinformed or even warped. Nonetheless it must be honored because one should never deliberately do evil.JAL
Your reasoning is flawed. What was the whole message from Adam and Eve? Human beings cannot set their own moral standards.
Conscience is always involved in our moral decisions.We are broken and imperfect. Therefore, how can we construct a perfect moral system? We cannot. Therefore, to rely upon your conscience as the final arbiter of right and wrong ... is bound to lead to errors of judgment.
I'm not sure why you think you can read the mind of a dead man.A good example is Epstein, the man who recently committed suicide in a US prison. Epstein was a pedofile, he abused many young people. Did his conscience lead him to admit he was wrong, while all these crimes were ongoing. No. Epstein decided it was society that was wrong, and pedophilia was a justified behavior. He blamed society's standards, and he had no problem with his conscience.
You can't escape conscience as it underlies all our decisions. If you read the Bible, and obey it, it is because you feel certain that doing so is the morally right thing to do. That's conscience.THe Bible gives us the code of conduct laid out by God. Your conscience is not omnipotent over the Bible. Rather ... humble yourself, read the Bible daily, and learn the wisdom of God.
Blessings,
Gideon
You're really reaching here. I merely intimated that the two touch on all the same general topics of discussion, and ultimately do not mutually contradict. That's hardly grounds for placing the two on an epistemological par because, once again, exegesis affords me no direct access to the Bible, only to my fallible interpretations of it.But this is what I've been saying all along.
But if direct revelation cannot venture outside of the Bible, then that makes the Bible the final authority.
I get you, but there are still two problems here.You're really reaching here. I merely intimated that the two touch on all the same general topics of discussion, and ultimately do not mutually contradict. That's hardly grounds for placing the two on an epistemological par because, once again, exegesis affords me no direct access to the Bible, only to my fallible interpretations of it.
Let's review. Conscience is an inescapable tautology. When faced with two choices A and B, feeling certain that action A is evil and action B is good, I shall do B. This principle is self-evident, it does not beg further proof (although I provided some).
Now suppose someone put a book in front of you. He says, 'That should be your only authority'. Is that a tautological claim? Hardly. For example, wouldn't you want to investigate its contents and then DECIDE based on some evidentiary rationale - some basis - that such is true? And what will be your basis? Reason? Blind faith? Scholarship? Conscience? (Pick whatever you like).
But having selected a basis, examine now where you stand. You stand now on some authoritative basis deemed worthy of evaluating the book. In other words you've endorsed an authority OTHER than the book. Which means that the book cannot claim to be 'your only final authority', contrary to the 'Sola' part of Sola Scriptura. That's my beef with it.
ONLY authority and FINAL authority are not the same thing.That should be your only authority
You can only have one final authority by nature of the word and concept "final". How can one have two final authorities for anything? The buck has to stop somewhere.Which means that the book cannot claim to be 'your only final authority', contrary to the 'Sola' part of Sola Scriptura. That's my beef with it.
I did not know about prima scriptura. I'm sorry. That is actually more in the lines of what I'm arguing for. I'm sorry for wasting yours and others' time on this thread.While the scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of subordinate authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of a denominated church, the ecumenical creeds, the councils of the catholic church, and so on - sola scriptura, on the other hand, rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all subordinate authority is derived from the authority of the scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.
Sola scriptura is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations, and one of the five solae. It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by many of the Reformers, who taught that authentication of scripture is governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Some evangelical and Baptist denominations state the doctrine of sola scriptura more strongly: scripture is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.[1]
By contrast, Anglicanism and Methodism, also considered forms of Protestantism, uphold the doctrine of prima scriptura,[2][3] with scripture being illumined by tradition, reason, and in Methodism, experience as well, thus completing the four sides of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.[4] The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that to "accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognizes, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture".[5] The Roman Catholic Church officially regards tradition and scripture as equal, as interpreted by the Roman magisterium.[6] The Roman Catholic Church describes this as "one common source ... with two distinct modes of transmission",[7] while some Protestant authors call it "a dual source of revelation".
Actually that's not an illegitimate claim. A final authority is, for example, a judge whose adjudication of your case is final. But he isn't the only final authority on that matter. Suppose for instance he's out sick on the day of your hearing. Another judge can fill in as the final authority over that hearing.I get you, but there are still two problems here.
ONLY authority and FINAL authority are not the same thing.
You can only have one final authority by nature of the word and concept "final". How can one have two final authorities for anything? The buck has to stop somewhere.
My first response to this, at post 225, was to narrate an anecdote from Paul's life where his actions esteemed direct revelation above exegesis.The New Testament agrees with my conscience. If you can find an example of where the Gospel would contradict my conscience, then post it.
What is our final authority for both faith and practice? The two most popular theories on this have been:
(1) Tradition (the church), for example the Magisterium of Catholic tradition.
(2) Sola Scriptura - the claim that Scripture is the only final authority on all major religious doctrines.
However, both views overlook the primacy of conscience, with conscience defined as a feeling of certainty as to what is morally right or wrong.
If I feel certain that choice A is evil, and choice B is good, I shall opt for choice B.
As I can find no exceptions to this rule, I cannot controvert it, hence it needs no proof
and therefore conscience is my only final authority. This refutes Sola Scriptura.
This is not to suggest that Scripture is untrue. I accept the inerrancy of Scripture.
But exegesis provides me no direct access to Scripture, only to my fallible interpretations of it.
Whereas conscience, as we shall see, affords God a method of speaking to us in an infallible manner definitive of the prophetic experience.
The very nature of Christian conversion establishes the primacy of conscience. During conversion, which can transpire in a matter of seconds if the gospel is preached powerfully with great anointing/unction, agnostics and atheists alike draw four major religious conclusions:
(1) Jesus is God.
(2) Jesus died for my sins.
(3) Jesus plans to take me to heaven forever.
(4) The Bible is His written Word.
How is this possible? Blind faith? But blind faith is not wise as such practice would lead you to accept any and every false religion presented to you. Calvin had a better answer named the Inward Witness. Probably 99% of evangelical theologians have (rightly) agreed with him since then.
The Holy Spirit operates in in the heart or mind persuasively, causing the unbeliever to begin feeling certain of the gospel.
This confirms:
(A) That conscience (feelings of certainty) are authoritative.
If your original authority (feelings of certainty) has been impugned, then you should recant those 4 beliefs.
In other words, the Inward Witness is, on daily basis, the rock upholding our faith, and therefore feelings of certainty are STILL a final authority in our lives long after initial conversion.
(B) Direct revelation - not biblical exegesis - is the foundation of the church. Stated succinctly, Christ Himself - not His written texts - is the foundation of the church.
Exegesis is NOT preeminent in conversion.
The problem is that Greek, for example, is too complex for quick proofs. A single Greek verb has over one hundred forms in its conjugation, as opposed to a simple language like English (say 4 or 5 forms). Without spending several years at seminary mastering Hebrew and Greek,therefore, how can I really claim to have 'proof'?
During conversion, the convert reaches the 4 conclusions above without the skills needed to mount an exegetical proof.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?