Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[QvQ]

The turning point for a friend has come. All the "certainties" of junk science and the ordering of the universe, he so blindly accepted, now he doubts. He said to me, "How can they be so certain and so absolutely sure they know it all?" Now we are discussing what other laws and orders are governing the universe. Doubt, the flying wedge that breaks the bonds of certainty. Magic words, "I don't know." And into that darkness, the light of truth can shine.

 

[JAL]

But many Muslims are certain...Hitler was convinced, he was certain....

A lot of mind-readers on this forum. Amazing. Is this a spiritual gift?

People have been sincerely certain about many things that were morally wrong, factually in error, or logically fallacious (or all three together). How, then, can conscience (aka a feeling of certainty) be the final arbiter of truth?

You don't seem to understand anything I write. Conscience is not the arbiter of truth but of morality.

Not necessarily. People often act contrary to their conscience.

Wow. Is it possible to do a better job of misunderstanding what I wrote? I don't think so.

But only so long as you are certain of its inerrancy, right? Which makes the inerrancy of Scripture entirely a subjective thing (for you, at least). I think the inerrancy of Scripture is an objective fact, it is true independent of my feelings about it.

And?

Is this not true, then, for all communication? If God's word is so incredibly murky, so susceptible to human fallibility, our communications with each other should be at least as murky and susceptible. Yet, here you are, making your case for your views, relying on the assumption that we will be able to understand your thoughts and arguments sufficiently to discuss them with you, perhaps even to adopt them. Why is human communication less susceptible to human fallibility than divine communication? Surely, if we cannot understand God's communications, we have no hope of understanding the communications of one another.

Non-sequitur. Could you try put a little reasoning into your rebuttals, please?

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

Calvin's Inward Witness was actually written into the official creeds of all the Reformed churches, some more explicitly than others, and I seem to recall Charles Hodge classifying as the official Protestant position. After perusing hundreds of serminary articles I found only one writer that seemed to question. So if I'm off the mark, I don't think by far.

Do you have concrete proof for this claim? It's interesting that here you make a claim without certainty. You only say it is "probably" true that theologians agree as you say they do. Given the argument about "conscience" that you're making, ought not you to speak only of certainties?

I just don't have time to address shallow readings and complete misunderstandings.

Scripture tells us that people come to faith in Christ because God draws them to him (John 6:44), God convicts them of their sin (John 16:8), God gives them repentance (2 Timothy 2:25), and imparts to them the faith to believe (Romans 12:3). It isn't a man's conscience, then, that brings him to salvation but the work of God in persuading him to trust in Christ as Saviour and Lord.

Persuasion is Inward Witness/conscience/feeling of certainty - just like I said.

Paul describes the state of every lost person in Ephesians 2:1-3. The lost are caught in the three-fold grip of the World, the Flesh, and the devil. Consequently, they are blind and deaf to God's truth, and at enmity with Him (Colossians 1:21), their conscience dulled and corrupted by sin and selfishness. No man, then, can come to God by dint of a mere feeling of certainty.

Feeling of certainty is part of the process. Saving faith is, in part, a feeling of certainty and doesn't exist without it.

I think of Gideon, too, who, with significant uncertainty, obeyed God and defeated the enemies of Israel. What, then, of the necessity of a feeling of certainty? It appears not to be as essential as you assert.

More mind-reading? I suspect you have it wrong. I think he transitoned to 100% certainty via direct revelation, althugh I haven't studied that passage much.

Yes. But the key here, it seems to me, isn't the person's conscience but the persuading work of the Spirit.

And thus conscience.

This is to make God's truth entirely subjective. But God's truth is true regardless of my feelings about it. This objectiveness of God's truth is vitally important to its authority. If God's truth is only true if I feel certain that it is, then I am the final arbiter of truth, not God.

And?

No, the rock of my faith is the Spirit of God imparting the truth of the Word of God to me, as well as the faith to believe it.

Right. Direct revelation.
My boss is calling me...

 

[aiki]

A lot of mind-readers on this forum. Amazing. Is this a spiritual gift?

Deflection.

You don't seem to understand anything I write. Conscience is not the arbiter of truth but of morality.

And morality isn't part of truth? Seems like a false dichotomy you've set up here...

Wow. Is it possible to do a better job of misunderstanding what I wrote? I don't think so.

Deflection.

Non-sequitur. Could you try put a little reasoning into your rebuttals, please?

Deflection. Explain the non sequitur you think exists in my comments.

Calvin's Inward Witness was actually written into the official creeds of all the Reformed churches, some more explicitly than others, and I seem to recall Charles Hodge classifying as the official Protestant position. After perusing hundreds of serminary articles I found only one writer that seemed to question. So if I'm off the mark, I don't think by far.

So, no concrete proof beyond your say-so. I figured. Also, Reformed theology and theologians don't constitute 99% of evangelical Christian theologians.

I just don't have time to address shallow readings and complete misunderstandings.

Deflection.

Persuasion is Inward Witness/conscience/feeling of certainty - just like I said.

And...more deflection.

Right. Direct revelation.

Via the written word of God, the Bible. So, not direct revelation in the way that you seem to mean it.

My boss is calling me...

Uh huh.

 

[JAL]

Deflection.

Actually I never intentionally deflect anything. I only had a moment to spare while on the job, I gave your post a rapid perusal (perhaps too rapid) and you sounded like one of those guys with the attidude, 'If you can't prove your position 100%, it has no weight.' If you're one of the guys, here's my response:

Look, I can't give you an apodictic proof of anything. I can't even prove that you exist. What I CAN do is strive to show my position a bit more cogent than the alternatives, which warrants the interest of a rationally minded reader.

But if you're one of those guys demanding absolute proof, I don't think I want to have a discussion with you. Such people just verbally attack and denounce everything, all the while standing on a wholly inferior position themselves. I don't have the time for that nonsense.

Gotta get back to work but - are you one of those guys? Please reassure me you're not. If not, I'll take a harder look at your replies to see what I've overlooked.

 

[ToBeLoved]

To me the main logical problem of Sola Scriptura is that it doesn't allow for the individual to be convinced by anything other than scripture. We can suppose that a person comes to an idea through reading the bible but that person is wrong. This person has, in their mind, conformed to scripture and therefore doesn't listen to any other external authority despite the fact that this lesser voice of authority is correct. Sola Scriptura justifies in the minds of many their reading of the Bible even if they are wrong.

The problem lies in scripture always being the final authority when it cannot such for anyone. Who has ever perfectly read the bible? Even if they got important aspects about it right?

Still I would say the main problem with Sola Scriptura that as a means for guiding Christendom, it doesn't work and only causes division.

If God’s Word is Truth.

And God is perfect and can only speak or be Truth.

Than how does man’s interpretation make it any less Truth?

Truth is not subjective

 

[aiki]

Actually I never intentionally deflect anything. I only had a moment to spare while on the job, I gave your post a rapid perusal (perhaps too rapid) and you sounded like one of those guys with the attidude, 'If you can't prove your position 100%, it has no weight.'

I wrote a fair number of things in response to your OP and only one of them was a request for proof of a single, very specific assertion that you made. I don't know how that becomes "You're a guy who demands apodictic proofs for everything I say."

But if you're one of those guys demanding absolute proof, I don't think I want to have a discussion with you. Such people just verbally attack and denounce everything, all the while standing on a wholly inferior position themselves. I don't have the time for that nonsense.

If you can't tell from what I wrote what sort of a guy I am, then it would be best, I think, that you don't continue to engage me. You will not find me eager to agree with much of what you've argued for. And, from what I can tell from your responses to me so far, you're very likely to quickly dismiss my views as "wholly inferior" (though not because they are, only because they are disagreeable).

 

[JAL]

I wrote a fair number of things in response to your OP and only one of them was a request for proof of a single, very specific assertion that you made. I don't know how that becomes "You're a guy who demands apodictic proofs for everything I say."

Becomes? It was a question, or a hypothetical, or something in that class. It certainty wasn't an assertion. Did you actually read that post? I mean, I have an excuse for not reading, I was being nagged by my boss here at work and just didn't have much time.

. And, from what I can tell from your responses to me so far, you're very likely to quickly dismiss my views as "wholly inferior" (though not because they are, only because they are disagreeable).

My reaction to you was based on the suspicion that you are one of those dismissive people. I admit I'm quick to reach that suspicion due to a loss of patience with such on these forums over the years.

Perhaps you and I are overreacting to each other due to similar histories on this forum. As I said, I didn't have the time to carefully digest what you wrote, what you saw was my gut reaction prejudiced by a disappointing history on this forum.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If God’s Word is Truth.

And God is perfect and can only speak or be Truth.

Than how does man’s interpretation make it any less Truth?

Truth is not subjective

God's word is perfect but man's mind is not. Thus even the perfect can be misconstrued by the human mind and error can result. I think the protestant reformation with it's fractious nature evident to all, demonstrates just how imperfect the doctrine really is. I don't believe God intended for the Church to be run by individuals reading the Bible for themselves, since it has resulted in the complete destruction of the unity of Christendom.

 

[JAL]

That Scripture is authoritative and sufficient to order Christian faith and practice is not a "theory."

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
17 That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

(See also Psalms 19:7-11; Psalms 119:105)

Your statement here takes the form of an apodictic. It has the ring of infallibility. Your reading of Scripture is not theory? It's fact? Admittedly I defend my position vigorously, but the disclaimer in my signature is ever present. When I DO assert a 'fact', it's typically because I think the audience and I already agree on it.

You've engaged in exegesis. That is an inherently fallible science. Therefore your proof based on 2 Timothy is not a fact. It is a theory - a theory that I argued, at posts 1, 2, 5, as contradictory to (A) the rule of conscience (to which I can find no exceptions to date) and (B) Christian conversion and (C) the nature of justice.

I fail to see how a conclusion plagued with 3 apparent logical contradictions should be attractive to me.

And that's just for starters. Additional objections ensued. I could make you a list, but I'd like to see you address those three first. Or perhaps you've addressed some of them in your ensuing words, which I'll take a harder look at now, as I have some time now.

 

[ToBeLoved]

God's word is perfect but man's mind is not. Thus even the perfect can be misconstrued by the human mind and error can result. I think the protestant reformation with it's fractious nature evident to all, demonstrates just how imperfect the doctrine really is. I don't believe God intended for the Church to be run by individuals reading the Bible for themselves, since it has resulted in the complete destruction of the unity of Christendom.

That’s not what the Bible says.

The Bible says that their will no longer be man teaching other men. But I think a big part of that is the Holy Spirit is given to us in the New Testament.

I also don’t think with like 35 billion people worldwide and billions of Christians God expects us to get everything right.

I don’t have that pipe dream of perfect unity. In heaven their will be perfect unity for all God’s own.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That’s not what the Bible says.

The Bible says that their will no longer be man teaching other men. But I think a big part of that is the Holy Spirit is given to us in the New Testament.

I also don’t think with like 35 billion people worldwide and billions of Christians God expects us to get everything right.

I don’t have that pipe dream of perfect unity. In heaven their will be perfect unity for all God’s own.

Except in the New Testament we are given examples of men teaching other men, particularly the Apostles and Paul whom taught and lead the Church. It didn't become a free for all when they died either because they left us a model of leadership and standards for rendering judgement within the Church.

The Bible doesn't present a Church wherein anyone can just pick up a bible, create their own Church based on their own interpretation and justly lead it.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Except in the New Testament we are given examples of men teaching other men, particularly the Apostles and Paul whom taught and lead the Church. It didn't become a free for all when they died either because they left us a model of leadership and standards for rendering judgement within the Church.

The Bible doesn't present a Church wherein anyone can just pick up a bible, create their own Church based on their own interpretation and justly lead it.

Well. In the OT their were Levitical priests. All of them from the tribe of Levi.

That specific tribe was called by God to be the spiritual advisors and priests for the sacrifices.

So that’s more where that may have been going with that.

 

[JAL]

But many Muslims are certain that cutting the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] out of a little girl is perfectly morally right and good. They are certain, too, that "honor killing" one's wife or daughter in the street is also morally right and good. Jeffrey Dahmer, a convicted cannibal serial killer, was also certain that his murderous actions were exactly what they should have been given his nihilistic worldview. Hitler was convinced, he was certain, that he had the right of things when he embarked on genocide and war against the world.

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

Romans 1 and 2 attribute the conscience to all men and assert that sinners know they are sinners.
(Be aware that when I make an assertion like that, I'm assuming you read it the same way. Which most Christians do. But you're free to rebut that reading). Yet you claim that Hitler killed 6 million Jews without any twinge of conscience? No compunctions? Seriously?

Look, it doesn't matter anyway. I see no exception to the rule of conscience. If you feel certain that action A is evil, and B is good, you're obligated to B.

There are degrees of certainty, however. As noted earlier, a psychopath could guiltlessly murder someone on less than 100% certainty, because his conscience is warped. For him, 95% certainty might be enough to assuage any compunctions in his conscience. I personally doubt there are any perfect psyschopaths in the world (people with no conscience whatsoever and thus able to guiltlessly murder at ANY level of certainty). But even if there were such people, it wouldn't refute my position. Justice makes sense only if we are judged on conscience (see post 5), for reasons that, to me, seem painfully obvious and tautological. Feel free to rebut the analogy in post 5, if you can.

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.

Let's get something straight. I don't care if you cite a million verses that 'seem' (on the face of it) to support your position, if that position has unresolved charges of internal contradictions. Either:
(A) resolve the alleged contradictions convincingly for us all to see OR
(B) find a better interpretation of the verse.
Clear?

People have been sincerely certain about many things that were morally wrong, factually in error, or logically fallacious (or all three together). How, then, can conscience (aka a feeling of certainty) be the final arbiter of truth?

It's not. Conscience is the basis on which we will be evaluated. At post 109, I argued that all Christians WANT this kind of evaluation - it seems to be a logically inescapable conclusion (notice the word 'seems'. My seeming apodictics are open to rebuttal, as my signature suggests). And if you read that post, PLEASE bear in mind it's not talking about salvation from hell (Christ's blood takes care of that much) but rather about judged faithful stewards.

I think you're not reading between the lines. To be more explicit, there is a distinction between:
(A) Morally obligatory epistemology - what my conscience is morally obligating me to believe (and do) at the moment.
(B) Objective epistemology. I don't see that I have any access to this. The Bible doesn't really give me direct access to the written Word of God, only to my fallible interpretations of it.

Note that A is tautological, if conscience is defined as feelings of certainty. The tautology is, 'I am morally obligated to currently believe that which I currently feel certain about'.

On the surface, that tautology might sound useless. In actual practice, it's the only way for God to run the church. Suppose He wants you to do something right now, say perhaps, preach to your mailman. Must He wait until you've spent 4 or 5 years at seminary mastering Hebrew and Greek hoping in vain you'll reach the same conclusion one day while reading your Bible? No. He can simply operate in your mind right now to instantly give you a feeling of certainty that, "I should speak the gospel to my mailman next time he comes by."[/quote][/quote]

 

[aiki]

Your statement here takes the form of an apodictic.

How so?

It has the ring of infallibility.

Oh? Again, how so?

Your reading of Scripture is not theory? It's fact?

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

You've engaged in exegesis. That is an inherently fallible science.

Inherently fallible? How so?

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

Therefore your proof based on 2 Timothy is not a fact.

This is a conclusion that rests upon a non sequitur. See above.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not vague or mysterious in its meaning. It says what it means and means what it says. If you want to say that a plain, natural, straightforward reading of the verses in their immediate context, that takes into account literary type, cannot properly render their meaning, then you must explain how we are to trust the communications that we have with one another to effectively impart our ideas. If divine revelation is so fraught with uncertainty, why aren't your own words far more so?

I fail to see how a conclusion plagued with 3 apparent logical contradictions should be attractive to me.

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

And that's just for starters. Additional objections ensued. I could make you a list, but I'd like to see you address those three first. Or perhaps you've addressed some of them in your ensuing words, which I'll take a harder look at now, as I have some time now.

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

 

[~Zao~]

God's word is perfect but man's mind is not. Thus even the perfect can be misconstrued by the human mind and error can result. I think the protestant reformation with it's fractious nature evident to all, demonstrates just how imperfect the doctrine really is. I don't believe God intended for the Church to be run by individuals reading the Bible for themselves, since it has resulted in the complete destruction of the unity of Christendom.

Sorry, what is the official all-encompacing declaration of the Orthodox church on conscience?

 

[JAL]

I wrote: "If I feel certain that choice A is evil, and choice B is good, I shall opt for choice B."
You responded.

Not necessarily. People often act contrary to their conscience.

I think you're the first on this thread (and actually it began on another thread so we're now almost 400 posts deep) to misunderstand what I meant by 'shall'. I am addressing not what I WILL do, but what I SHOULD do,i.e. what is my moral obligation? I used the word 'shall' because like the decisiveness/finality of it and I assumed everyone would pick that up.

Not necessarily. People often act contrary to their conscience.
Paul wrote about this in his letter to the Roman Christians:

Romans 1:18
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

It is in large part because human beings do this, they act contrary to the dictates of their moral compass, to the "law of God written on their hearts," that God condemns them.

So did Hitler have a moral compass or not? If he did, then you were incorrect to insist that Hitler felt certain he was perfectly in the right, killing six million Jews.

I don't see, then, that conscience has the power to dictate behaviour in the way you describe.

It doesn't. Again, you seem to be the only one to misunderstand me on this.

??? So far, you haven't come anywhere close to securing this conclusion. See above.

I don't see that anyone in history has provided a single cogent exception to the rule of conscience. And it would seem logically impossible.

I fail to see how a position that is so tautological as to be impervious to exception-finding for 2,000 years hasn't 'come anywhere close to securing this conclusion'. Where is the exception to the rule of conscience?

But only so long as you are certain of its inerrancy, right? Which makes the inerrancy of Scripture entirely a subjective thing (for you, at least). I think the inerrancy of Scripture is an objective fact, it is true independent of my feelings about it.

I'm not an advocate of solipsism. I do believe in objective reality. Scripture is either inerrant or not so, regardless of my degree of certainty. Again, you've misunderstood me.

Is this not true, then, for all communication? If God's word is so incredibly murky, so susceptible to human fallibility, our communications with each other should be at least as murky and susceptible. Yet, here you are, making your case for your views, relying on the assumption that we will be able to understand your thoughts and arguments sufficiently to discuss them with you, perhaps even to adopt them. Why is human communication less susceptible to human fallibility than divine communication? Surely, if we cannot understand God's communications, we have no hope of understanding the communications of one another.

That's an understandable reaction but overlooks a number of issues.

(1) This is a thread against Sola Scriptura. So let's suppose I'm wrong. Let's suppose exegesis in infallible. I would still challenge the claim that Scripture is the only authority. You do realize, don't you, that exegesis is a highly deductive endeavor? If I needed exegesis to reach all the major religious conclusions, note the repurcussions.
(A) Babes and young children can't be saved. Must they attend seminary? A single Greek verb has over 100 forms in its conjugation, which is many orders of magnitude of complexity above English.
(B) The mentally handicapped can't be saved.
(C) You might have saving faith now, but beware of Alzheimers later on.
(D) 3rd world countries have people who can't afford a Bible.
All this can be fixed by a feeling of certainty from the Holy Spirit. The Inward Witness.

(2) You're using this discussion as proof of the clarity of human communications. Except things would be a little different, for starters, if wrote my next post in a language dead for 2,000 years.

(3) Look at how many times you've misunderstood me! If anything, your 'proof' completely refutes your position.

(4) It doesn't matter whether human communications are normally successful, as there is a much larger issue. This debate between you and me perhaps need not be infallible. But 100 billion souls have lived since the world began. Infalliblity is therefore needed - we can't afford to get evangelism wrong with so much at stake. Exegesis affords zero hope of infallibility. Direct revelation (prophecy) has an established track record of infallibility. Mostly what I've done on this thread is demonstrate the probable connections between direct revelation, prophecy, and conscience as to bring clarity to a much-neglected issue in theological history.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Sorry, what is the official all-encompacing declaration of the Orthodox church on conscience?

There is none, as far as I know.

 

[~Zao~]

There is none, as far as I know.

Precisely, so don’t condemn those who are at least trying. smh

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Precisely, so don’t condemn those who are at least trying. smh

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

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

 

[~Zao~]

Ya not much

it has resulted in the complete destruction of the unity of Christendom.