If the Catholic Church and their sex scandals are in your view the “authority” I’ll pass.
Now God’s Word and Jesus Christ. I like God’s authority.
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.
If the Catholic Church and their sex scandals are in your view the “authority” I’ll pass.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.
You insinuated that your exegesis is fact, not theory. And then below you have the gall to say that I am the one full of my own high opinions. Wow. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black...How so?
Oh? Again, how so?
Of course not. We've already established that. Your reading is Authoritative by default (but I'm the one full of my own high opinions, right?). Whatever.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?
I really need to explain why exegesis is fallible? Oh I forgot. You've already indicated that you're infallible.Inherently fallible? How so?
To begin with, you have no direct access to the written Word. Where does one learn Greek and Hebrew today? From men! From man-made lexicons! You really think God is dumb enough to stake the success of His kingdom on fallible men? Nope. He intended direct revelation (1Cor 14:1).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?
Thanks. I guffawed on that one. YOUR reading is the indisputably correct one. Wow.2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not vague or mysterious in its meaning. It says what it means and means what it says...
I commented on this perspective shortly back.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?
Um..all contradictions are apparent contradictions. I'm not infallible so it is (obviously) true that my charges of contradiction might be incorrect. But to ignore them instead of resolving them betrays the inferiority of your position."Apparent" is the right word (as opposed to "actual").
Said the Authority on Scripture.I think you might be a little to 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.
And when I called you a mind-reader for these conclusions, you charged me with deflection? Seriously?
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.
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).
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.
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.
Conscience is tautologically authoritative. Why so? Authority is what obligates me to a particular belief or practice. As it turns out, I am currently obligated to believe whatever I currently feel certain about. Since that is a tautology, there is no escaping this conclusion.
Is Sola Scriptura a tautological position? Suppose someone put a book in front of you. He says, 'That should be your only authority'. Is that a tautological claim?
But having selected an authoritative basis, examine where you now 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'. This is the basic logical inconsistency in Sola Scriptura.
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.
It's not. Conscience is the basis on which we will be evaluated.
Note that A is tautological, if conscience is defined as feelings of certainty.
(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.
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.
I don't know anything for 100% certain. See my signature.So, how do you know 99% of evangelical theologians accept your idea about the "Inward Witness"?
Necessitates conscience. You're just highlighting how the Inward Witness persuades conscience. If you feel certain that Christianity is true, you'll likely commit to it. Otherwise, probably not. I covered this in post 2 already.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.
And? I see no exception to the rule of conscience.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. Even those who do exert faith in Christ may do so with significant remaining uncertainty:
Matthew 9:24
24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, "Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief."
Are we getting into semantic issues here? If so, try looking at post 89 which clearly distinguishes between exegesis vs direct revelation.But all of what is written in the Bible is direct revelation.
That's hardly a monumental observation. Obvious points like that is what I'd expect you to read between the lines. Here I can't always spell out everything as they would do in a 1500 page systematic theology textbook.I agree, of course, that Christ is the foundation of the Church. But, you appear to be conflating his direct revelation of himself to people with his very person. But Christ's revelation of himself and his truth is no more Christ himself than my autobiography is me. My autobiography is about me, but it is not me myself. I would not, then, say that direct revelation is tantamount to the foundation of the Church.
Conversion occured before the Bible. We are of the same kind of saving faith as Abraham (Rom 4 and Gal 3). It was Spirit-based, not exegesis based. The Abrahamic covenant hasn't changed one iota (Gal 3).But is nonetheless essential to it. No one is truly converted without the truth propositions expressed in the Gospel. And those truths, under the illuminating work of the Spirit, must be "exegeted" by every person who encounters them.
Right. Those fallible men.Thanks for reminding me.But there are men who have done the necessary language work to be expert in both Hebrew and Greek who have translated Scripture so that you and I don't have to be experts ourselves in these languages to properly understand Scripture.
When 100 billion souls are stake, we need reliable conclusions.But does an "exegetical proof" have to rely upon personal expertise in the original languages of the Bible? I don't see, given what I've pointed out above, that it does.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave..."
You insinuated that your exegesis is fact, not theory. And then below you have the gall to say that I am the one full of my own high opinions. Wow. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black...
Of course not. We've already established that. Your reading is Authoritative by default (but I'm the one full of my own high opinions, right?). Whatever.
I really need to explain why exegesis is fallible? Oh I forgot. You've already indicated that you're infallible.
To begin with, you have no direct access to the written Word. Where does one learn Greek and Hebrew today? From men! From man-made lexicons! You really think God is dumb enough to stake the success of His kingdom on fallible men? Nope. He intended direct revelation (1Cor 14:1).
2+2=4 is your proof of infallible exegesis?
Seminary is a waste then, right?
It's all as simple as 2 + 2 = 4.
Can we get back to reality here?
And you seriously expect me to regard this process as reliable - with 100 billion souls at stake? You need to rethink your position - don't do it for me. Do it for them.
Thanks. I guffawed on that one. YOUR reading is the indisputably correct one. Wow.
For one thing, I don't see how that squares well with Rom 1 and 2 which DOES seem to attribute a moral compass (conscience) to men.Yes, seriously. I have heard Muslims talk very frankly about the moral necessity of female genital mutilation and honor killing. I have heard Hitler in his recorded public speeches declaring the tenets of the Third Reich with ferocious certainty and conviction. No mind reading necessary...You're asking me if I'm seriously contending that Hitler had moral unease while he killed six million Jews? Your incredulity borders on the comic. I think the very fact that Hitler killed six million Jews establishes the certainty of his mind about doing so. One does not kill six million people while doubting that one ought to. This seems very obvious to me...
I give up. Evidently you believe that we should all try our hardest to do evil. (But I'm the myopic one hear). If everyone disobeyed conscience, this world would self-destruct in a matter of hours. Darn good thing that people don't 'see' the world the way you do. But that's not sight,it's myopia.As I've already said, this doesn't mean there aren't any. It seems to me you're suffering under some serious philosophic myopia that is constricting your ability to see the flaws in your views.
(Sigh) Morally obligated. We are morally obligated to try to do what is righteous versus opting to deliberately follow evil.What does "obligated to B" mean? Obligated to act in accord with B? I've shown that doesn't always happen.
And? How does that suspend the rule of conscience? How does that prove that I should make it my goal to do all the evil I can, to the best of my knowledge and ability?Obligated to acknowledge that B is morally right? That may happen but Scripture indicates that a person can so bruise their ability to discern right from wrong that the ability ceases to function and they become "reprobate." As you've acknowledged, psychopaths act in this way.
Regardless of how much you continue to misunderstand me, as you just did yet again (so much for your theory about the clarity of human communications), please understand this. A failed theodicy is not a viable position. You can't coherently take a position that contradicts justice. Animals kill without compunction, for lack of conscience. That's not sin. To punish them as though it were sin would be unjust. The same is true of a psychopath. If a plenal psychopath existed (and I don't believe such is possible), that is, a person with zero conscience who REALLY BELIEVES it's okay to murder anyone and everyone, somewhat like an animal, God cannot punish him for it. That would be unjust.What do you mean by "guiltlessly"? The psychopath murders without a sense of guilt, or that he is guiltless of having done an evil thing because he was certain it was okay to do it? I know of no Scripture that suggests that God withholds His judgment of the wicked because they were inured to the immoral character of their deeds.
Comic? Do you realize what you just insinuated? You just implied that the devil himself is well intentioned!You're asking me if I'm seriously contending that Hitler had moral unease while he killed six million Jews? Your incredulity borders on the comic. I think the very fact that Hitler killed six million Jews establishes the certainty of his mind about doing so. One does not kill six million people while doubting that one ought to. This seems very obvious to me...
You've wandered off into the semantics of 'authority' and, in doing so, overcomplicated the simplicity of the conscience-argument. Should we try to do the most evil we can? Or the most good? No need to complicate the argument."Authority obligates me to a particular belief or practice"? I see criminals flout civic authority on a regular basis; children rebel against the authority of their parents (in thought and deed) regularly; people act against the "authority" of their God-given (and thus authoritative) moral sense very frequently. It doesn't appear to me, then, that authority does obligate one to a particular belief or practice.
Justice doesn't make sense without conscience. You don't punish an animal for sin. It has no conscience. Sin (evil) is when you feel certain that action A is evil, and yet you do it anyway. That involves conscience.Says who? I don't see this established in Scripture. And since it is God's evaluation I assume you're talking about, it is His word that ought to guide what we think about His evaluation.
I don't think this analog fits. Feel free to show me why I'm wrong.If I've used a gangplank to come aboard a ship, I don't stand any longer upon the gangplank but the ship. The gangplank has aided me in coming to stand upon the boat but, having done so, it no longer is what I'm standing upon. In the same way, I may come to stand upon the "ship" of the word of God as my sole authority in matters of doctrine and practice by the "gangplank" of reason, and/or arguments from the nature of the biblical text itself, and/or by virtue of the Early Church's recognition of the Bible as God's word, or whatever. But having come to stand upon the word of God in matters of Christian belief and practice, I no longer stand upon these other things in matters of Christian belief and practice. I see no logical inconsistency in this whatsoever.
There are multiple unresolved charges of contradiction here.Well, let me get something straight with you: I will refer to Scripture in support of my views whether or not you accept God's word as authoritative. I do, and so will argue for my views accordingly. If you don't like this, argue with someone else.
As for "internal contradictions": So far I haven't seen that you've shown any. Clear?
You say tomato, I say tomaaaato. No need to get entrenched in terminology debates. I refer to feelings of certainty. If you'd rather use a different term for it than conscience, that's fine, but largely irrelevant. The logic of the arguments remains the same.I don't think that it is properly so-defined. "Conscience" as I understand it has always referred to my God-given moral sense, the "law of God written on my heart" by which I distinguish moral from immoral, not a mere feeling of certainty.
Deflection. That doesn't meet the force of the objection.The force of the objection is that God might want you to do specific tasks to specific people in specific places at specific points of time, and there is no way you could know all those specifics by Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura pretty much ties God's hands as far as dictating every move we make, on those occasions when He might want to do this.False dichotomy. These aren't the only two options. I already explained that there have been men who were experts in the languages of the Bible who have properly rendered the text of Scripture in English so that we may get at its truth without being experts in Greek and Hebrew ourselves. As I become familiar with God's word through regular study of it, I come to understand the truths, wisdom, commands and spiritual principles that are in it that I may apply on-the-go to any situation throughout each day. I don't need to hear directly from God via some direct, personal revelation, but need only apply what I already know of His revelation to me in Scripture.
You haven't heard the half of it. Although I accept the Nicene Creed, there are a number of popular doctrines that seem to be errors born of our fallibility. Generally I can only discuss them in the controversial forum, however.I don't think God has "staked the success of His kingdom upon fallible men." But, He does use them to preserve and transmit His inspired word to us. Your radical mistrust of "fallible men" in correctly preserving and transmitting God's word to us is without good basis, as far as I'm concerned. It seems born mostly out of your desire to promote modern-day prophetic revelation.
My hyperbole was a reaction to yours. You used 2+2=4 basically as grounds for the comparative ease of exegesis. If exegesis is that easy, it SHOULD be infallible. In reality, exegesis is quite difficult and, as such, very error-prone. And that's a big problem, given 100 billion souls at stake.Where did I say my mathematical example was "proof of infallible exegesis"? No where.
But this is the kind of response I so frequently get from you. Let's recall what these words are in response to. I made a simple logical argument. Here it is again"
So far, you haven't given me any good reason to "rethink my position." Just a lot of tangled thinking and rhetorical jabbing.
If the Catholic Church and their sex scandals are in your view the “authority” I’ll pass.
Now God’s Word and Jesus Christ. I like God’s authority.
For one thing, I don't see how that squares well with Rom 1 and 2 which DOES seem to attribute a moral compass (conscience) to men.
But again, why is this relevant to the current debate? If a man feels certain that action A is evil, and B is good, what do you want him to do? Should he try his hardest to 'faithfully' do evil? Isn't the correct answer B?
Is that how YOU live? is it how you counsel others to live? For example, do you read the Bible because:
(A) You think reading the bible is an evil thing to do OR
(B) You think reading the bible is a good thing to do.
You have done nothing to impugn the rule of conscience. And this where I've stood for 30 years - I just can't find anyone able to undermine the concept of conscience. It's surely a tautology.
At any given moment, all I can do is make my very best effort to do what is right, to the best of my knowledge. What possible exception is there to this good rule? None. You're just blowing hot air.
I give up. Evidently you believe that we should all try our hardest to do evil.
If everyone disobeyed conscience, this world would self-destruct in a matter of hours. Darn good thing that people don't 'see' the world the way you do. But that's not sight,it's myopia.
And? How does that suspend the rule of conscience? How does that prove that I should make it my goal to do all the evil I can, to the best of my knowledge and ability?
Regardless of how much you continue to misunderstand me, as you just did yet again (so much for your theory about the clarity of human communications),
You can't coherently take a position that contradicts justice. Animals kill without compunction, for lack of conscience. That's not sin. To punish them as though it were sin would be unjust. The same is true of a psychopath. If a plenal psychopath existed (and I don't believe such is possible), that is, a person with zero conscience who REALLY BELIEVES it's okay to murder anyone and everyone, somewhat like an animal, God cannot punish him for it. That would be unjust.
The rule of conscience is just a corollary of the definition of justice. It's all tautological. You've done nothing to disprove this.
All you've done is danced around my charges of logical contradiction expressed since post 1. You haven't resolved them because you apparently cannot.
Comic? Do you realize what you just insinuated? You just implied that the devil himself is well intentioned!
After all, no one would kill 6 million Jews unless he really believed it was a noble act, right? Isn't that what you just said?
Now I'm angry at myself - for all those times I get angry at the devil. What's wrong with me? All this while he's been one heck of a righteous dude, I'm kicking myself for not realizing it.
You've wandered off into the semantics of 'authority' and, in doing so, overcomplicated the simplicity of the conscience-argument. Should we try to do the most evil we can? Or the most good? No need to complicate the argument.
Justice doesn't make sense without conscience. You don't punish an animal for sin. It has no conscience. Sin (evil) is when you feel certain that action A is evil, and yet you do it anyway. That involves conscience.
I don't think this analog fits. Feel free to show me why I'm wrong.
Groundless faith - a sort of blind faith - doesn't make for a coherent epistemology. Were blind faith a good thing then it would be just fine for me to accept the Koran tomorrow on blind faith
Thus there needs to be a basis for our faith. So here's a different analogy that seems to better depict the scenario. Suppose a person is myopic. He wants to read the Bible but, in order to do so, he has to mount it on pedestal sufficiently close to his eyes for visibility.
Suddenly the pedestal is removed. What's holding it up now? If nothing, it hasn't been replaced, he is in dire straits. The book will fall to the ground, thus inaccessible.
And if you have a different underpinning in mind (such as Reason) that's fine. But if that mount has been removed, then your conclusions now rest on nothing more than blind faith. And it would then be hypocritical of you to suggest that it's wrong to switch to different religion on blind faith.
Your point isn't totally invalid. I have no objection to the gangplank (let's say Reason) being removed.
If you now claim, 'My new mount is the written Word of God. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God because that book says so. It claims to be such'. Then it seems obvious to me that you've engaged in circular reasoning.
Now maybe it isn't as high as 99%, but I'm pretty sure the majority of theologians would say that our faith rests on one permanent mount - the Inward Witness.
Look, I said before I can't give you absolute apodictic proof of my views. I can't even prove that you exist. But I think I'm right about my position being a bit more cogent than the alternatives.
You say tomato, I say tomaaaato. No need to get entrenched in terminology debates. I refer to feelings of certainty. If you'd rather use a different term for it than conscience, that's fine, but largely irrelevant. The logic of the arguments remains the same.
Deflection. That doesn't meet the force of the objection.The force of the objection is that God might want you to do specific tasks to specific people in specific places at specific points of time, and there is no way you could know all those specifics by Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura pretty much ties God's hands as far as dictating every move we make, on those occasions when He might want to do this.
You haven't heard the half of it. Although I accept the Nicene Creed, there are a number of popular doctrines that seem to be errors born of our fallibility. Generally I can only discuss them in the controversial forum, however.
You used 2+2=4 basically as grounds for the comparative ease of exegesis.
Because with that many souls at stake, I at least need to reach 100% infallibly certainty that direct revelation is not needed.
So one way or another, the most responsible thing to do is seek it. Paul put it like this, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).
Exegesis is the steps taken to build a Bible-based argument to prove some conclusions. The problem is that all proofs are built on assumptions - that need to be proven!
The only way out of the regress is to begin with some man-made assumptions - unproven!
This pretty much guarantees that nothing can be reliably proven from the Bible.
Instead of responding with a cogently stated, well-reasoned, critical evaluation and rebuttal, you reply with a bunch of empty rhetoric - that accuses me of being full of empty rhetoric! Amazing.
Par for the course. I've seen this kind of behavior for years on this forum. This is why I quickly get impatient on this forum. You asked why I seem to react so sensitively and indignantly - that's why.
Note the difference. When you carefully laid out your gang plank analogy, I responded in kind. I gave you a carefully reasoned response (whether you agree with it or not).
Unbelievable. Is this deflection? You seem to be the only person on this thread completely unable to grasp my position.I've tried to point out that whatever the correct moral stance ought to be in a given situation, people regularly violate it. However certain a person is that A is immoral and B is not, they don't necessarily choose to act in accord with A. Often they choose B. And this is a big part of why people stand guilty before God. They knew they ought to have done A but did B instead. So, then, certainty does not always necessarily constrain us in the way you seem to think it does.
No, it is the ONLY reason they stand guilty before God. That's the tautological nature of justice that I've been trying to convey for 275 posts. I thought it was clear at least by post 5 but you're still not getting it.This is a big part of why people stand guilty before God.
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?