Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, this is not in any way a "better scenario." First of all, a person may move a Bible closer for reading in a multitude of different ways. Myopia does not necessarily require a pedestal for reading. If the myopic person crouched down on the floor, the fallen Bible could still be read, though uncomfortably.
Deflection. You're focusing on the irrelevant parts of the analogy as to conveniently overlook the thrust of the objection.

It isn't removed, though. I still employ reason in the exercise of my Christian faith all the time. But insofar as defining what is proper, basic, Christian belief and practice is concerned, God's word is entirely sufficient.
Deflection. It's not an issue of 'defining'. The issue is epistemological justification for belief. If you're reason to believe in the Bible is that the Bible says to do so, that's circular reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Humans don't exist in the moral vacuum in which animals do even if they are fully psychopathic and have no internal sense whatever of right and wrong. They still may be informed of God's Moral Law by the revelation of God's word, the preaching of it by Christians, and at least some of the laws governing the society in which they live. Animals have no such moral environment in which they move. Making comparisons as you have, then, doesn't really work.
Deflection. Basically, "I don't like the implications of the animal analogy so I will just dismiss it as invalid." There's no need for that analogy for starters. A plenal psychopath is self-evidently innocent (although I don't believe such exist). You can't rightly punish someone for doing wrong if he has zero-conscience, zero sense of right and wrong. That's tautological justice which even you basically conceded recently when you admitted that wrongdoing is when a man knows that A is evil and B is good but does A anyway.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I don't agree. Whose definition of "conscience" we use makes a significant difference, I think, to the logic of your arguments.
Only to you because you can't seem to grasp anything I'm writing. I'm not aware of any terminology that can fix it.

Here I'd like to say that the logic is simple no matter what terminology we use but I can't seem to convey that simpliciity to you. You always misunderstand me.

I guess I'll keep trying. What gives me hope is that you used similar language to mine recently. You basically said that wrongdoing is when I know A is evil and B is good but I do A anyway.

Therefore B imposes on you a moral obligation (an expectation in God's sight to do B).

What do you mean by 'know' that A is evil? Don't you realize that to claim you know something means, at least in part, that you feel certain that A is evil?

Now, I call that experience conscience. I'm not really sure whether we 'really' 'know' anything (epistemology is after all a complex topic when you delve into the subtleties of subjective experience vs objective fact), but regardless of that, the claim 'I know' means at least in part that 'I feel certain'

You might prefer a different term for that 'feeling of certainty' - maybe you don't want to call it conscience, but I don't think we need to go back to post 1 and start the whole discussion again just because you don't like my terminology. The logic of my position remains the same regardless of terminology. Again, the logic is, 'I am always morally expected to do action B'. That's my foundational claim here.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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.
I rebutted that analogy (you gave it in response to post 5) but I want to further emphasize a problem there. My rebuttal, to summarize, is that, now you are still standing on SOMETHING. You haven't lost your footing. In other words, you've replaced the gangplank with another footing (or so you imply), thus you now have a new authoritative basis for believing in the Bible. Either:
(1) That basis is the Bible, which leads to circular reasoning OR
(2) It's some other basis, contrary to the claim that Scripture is your only final authority.

But either way, you claim to have abandoned the original authoritative basis (that was your rebuttal to my charge that you can't have Scripture as your only basis).

You've abandoned the gangplank? But it's re-usable right? It's still an authoritative basis. Suppose tomorrow you find yourself on the shore again, or have the need to dismount to another shore. After all, we're talking about epistemological foundations here, for example Reason. You don't get to say, for example, 'I used Reason to recognize the gospel but have abandoned it since then.' So then Reason is no longer an authoritative (i.e. legitimate) basis? That makes zero sense. You can't just randomly switch on and off your epistemological underpinnings (basically changing the narrative) for the sake of winning a debate like this. It isn't reasonable to claim, 'Reason was a legitimate tool for reaching a major conclusion BEFORE I got saved, but now it's useless.' That's logically incoherent. Why so? Well suppose you wanted to reenact, in your mind, the basis for your own conversion, in other words suppose you mentally replay that original set of reasoning processes. NOW, after conversion, that same set of reasoning processes is no longer valid? Sorry that's incoherent.

Again, this debate isn't an effort to prove my position 100% apodictically true. It's an effort to show my position a bit more cogent than the alternatives. And given that your claim is logically incohorent...

To recap. The argument at post 5 is that the 'Sola' in Sola Scriptura is false because we need at least one more authoritative basis, for example a basis for accepting the Bible as inspired.

You might reply, 'Well I don't use Reason as my basis anymore' - that would miss the force of the objection. Whether you still use it or not, your prior usage sanctions it as a legitimate authority, contrary to the claim that Scripture is the only legitimate authority.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
@aiki,

Paul wrote to the Ephesians (note espeicaily the word 'revelation'):


7 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[f] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.


And he made a similar petition for the Colossians.

For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives,[e] 10 so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, 11 being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, 12 and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you[f] to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light

Here's what i find interesting - he never qualifies it. He never says he expects God to give them less direct revelation than he himself had.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm not responsible for your opinions. You don't think the analogy fits. Okay. But it's your responsibility to explain why, not my responsibility to guess why and then mount a counter-argument. As far as I'm concerned, the analogy works very well.
That's what I proceeded to do. You'd didn't detect that those words were a preface?

I've not contended for blind faith. This is your Strawman of what I put forward.
That wasn't the argument. The words about blind faith was preface to the argument that Reason is re-usable. I mentioned blind faith to rule it out ahead of time as a possible solution to the epistemological dilemma.

No, this is not in any way a "better scenario." First of all, a person may move a Bible closer for reading in a multitude of different ways. Myopia does not necessarily require a pedestal for reading. If the myopic person crouched down on the floor, the fallen Bible could still be read, though uncomfortably. Second, the matter in question isn't merely the reading of the Bible but the way in which it is regarded, what it is understood to be. Reason and the various other things that convince me that the Bible is the divinely-inspired and authoritative word of God, sufficient to define proper Christian belief and practice, cease to be necessary in the way they were in bringing me to this conviction once the conviction is secured. I don't rely upon them for defining proper Christian belief and practice, but the Bible. This is not to say that I've suspended the use of reason, evidence, etc across the board, only that in defining Christian belief and practice, the word of God is entirely sufficient. And so, I think, my gangplank and ship analogy is a much better analogy to this state of affairs.
Deflection. The issue isn't about defining Christian faith and practice. It's about your CURRENT epistemological basis for your CURRENT foundational beliefs such as the belief that Scripture is God's written Word.
It isn't removed, though. I still employ reason in the exercise of my Christian faith all the time. But insofar as defining what is proper, basic, Christian belief and practice is concerned, God's word is entirely sufficient.
Deflection. See prev comment.

This isn't what I've contended for. See above.
Deflection? You spoke of removal of the gangplank, didn't you? How is that not what you contended?

The Moral Law written on my heart is not subjectively derived as a mere feeling of certainty is. The Moral Law forming my conscience, is placed there by the Moral Law Giver, not generated through my own reason, or intuition, or preferences, or whatever.
(Sigh) Are you making any effort to read between the lines? For me, conscience can be seen from 2 aspects:
(1) The objective inscription, upon our hearts, of the Moral Law by the Moral Law Giver (Romans 2). Personally I suspect that the very physiological/electrochemical structure of our brain and emotions is engineered in a way that implements such inscription.
(2) The subjective experience of that inscription in daily human experience. After all, if it has no impact on my conscious mind, what good is it? Now, HOW precisely does it impact my conscious experience? Feelings of certainty! It causes me to feel certain that action A is evil and action B is good.


You keep insisting that I need to change my terminology because I evidently don't know what conscience is, and I keep begging and pleading with you to read between the lines, to make a sincere effort to comprehend my posts. You're in so much of a rush to refute my position that you're not taking the time to understand it.

My boss is calling me...
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Not at all. And, anyway, I don't believe God wants to dictate every single move we make in any situation. He may have particular things He wants us to do and if He does, He'll make that crystal clear. But, generally speaking, He expects that I'll apply the spiritual principles, and wisdom, and truth and commands He's given to me in His word to the circumstances in which I find myself.
How? In what sense clear? Let's consider an example. He wants you to preach to your mailman today. How to make that clear? He needs to operate in your mind in a way that causes you to feel certain that you should do so. How are your words not further proof of my position?

A rather...ironic quotation. I assume you're as fallible as the next guy, yet you are able to discern the errors born of the fallibility of others without apparent difficulty. Strange, it seems to me, if you're just as fallible as they are. How are you to trust your own judgment when this is so? How is it that your own fallibility doesn't bring you to serious errors of your own, as human fallibility has to those who constructed the Nicene Creed? How is it that your arguments in this thread aren't fraught with unseen errors like the Creed in which you perceive so much error? Are you not as fallible as the ancient creators of the Creed? Smarter, perhaps? More insightful?
Very shallow analysis. Points of rebuttal.
(1) I write with confidence because any fallibility in me only further confirms my conclusion - that we need infallible revelation. How much theological ingenuity is really needed to conclude that I am fallible? Not much. Hence my confidence.
(2) A second basis for my confidence stems from a very distinctive emphasis in my hermeneutic,namely the law of non-contradiction. There are two major weaknesses in traditional hermeneutics:
(A) A deemphasis of that law whenever it conflicts with dogmatic assumptions, i.e. assumptions deemed non-negotiable (basically assumptions presumed infallible). I'm not dogmatic. I see dogmatics as anti-Christian in spirit and anti-Reformational. How will there be reform if we are dogmatic?
(B) A deemphasis of that law whenever it seems to conflict with exegesis. Their attitude is, 'If I see it in Scripture, it must be true.' Mine is, 'If I seem to see it in Scripture, but it leads to logical contradictions, it cannot be true.' Typically, it takes virtually zero brains to recognize a logical contradiction. For example if you tell me that God is immutable, yet became man, I will call you on it. Anyone with a low IQ and middle-school education, therefore, could easily challenge, with confidence, some of the popular doctrines.
(3) I am not actually launching from ground zero. All I'm doing is looking at theological edifices erected by others and looking for holes/contradictions. This is brainless work. Hence my confidence.

And I could go on to talk about other no-brainer aspects of my hermeutic that give me confidence. But I'm getting off-topic, I think.

No, I used it as an example of how man can be correct while still being fallible. Our fallibility doesn't necessitate or guarantee error. Sometimes, humans get things perfectly right. Like 2+2=4.
Deflection. That doesn't meet the force of the objection, namely that your analogy needs a better example than 2+2=4 to carry any weight. I used hyperbole to show how poor the example was. You can't realistically use 2+2=4 as an analogy for the perspicuity of Scripture (it clearly doesn't prove your point) because exegesis is ineffably more complex than that. I thought I spelled that out. Either find a convincing example or withdraw the analogy. As it stands, it's invalid.

It's like arguing, 'I can carry a mountain on my shoulders. Want proof? Watch me put this pebble on my shoulders and carry it.'

Why would anyone make an argument like that in a serious debate? You want me to believe that Scripture is clear? But you can't even seem to comprehend my posts on this thread written in the same language that you speak - much less Greek and Hebrew?

See, this isn't what I as a person who holds to Sola Scriptura believes. I don't believe that direct leading from God is never needed or never happens. I only hold that God's main way of communicating to us His will is through His word, particularly where the core doctrines and practices of the faith are concerned. I don't regard God's personal leading of someone and the primacy of Scripture in defining Christian doctrine and practice as an Either-Or situation but a Both-And one. It isn't either direct leading or Sola Scriptura but both direct divine leading and Sola Scriptura.
Completely misses the bone of contention. The bone of contention is whether exegesis is always a required court of appeals. Is it ever optional? May I draw a religious conclusion solely on the authority of direct revelation? Or even on the authority of conscience alone? That's my contention, in refutation of Sola Scriptura. Here again, your words convey a misunderstanding of the whole point of my posts.

My boss is calling...
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Of course I can't know the specifics of future unknown circumstances ahead of time. But once I am in them, I have all I need in Scripture, in the revelation of God to me in His word, to properly navigate them.
Deflection. As usual, you sidestep the force of the objection. The objection doesn't depend on an alleged need for foretelling, it's rather based on the human inability to recognize and process all the myriad elements that factor in God's specific will. For example you do realize that most people are strangers to you, right? Meaning you know virtually nothing specific about them? Which makes it impossible for you to know how to minister to their needs appropriately, or what combinations of words will best encourage, what language might offend them, and so on. Exegesis can't supply all this information, it requires an omniscient God who then relays the information via direct revelation.

You'll reply, 'But I do believe in direct revelation. It's Both-And'. Again, the bone of contention is whether exegesis is mandatory to authenticate the Voice. It is self-evidently impossible for exegesis to verify the specifics of God's will (the kinds of specifics I just mentioned) because it simply doesn't furnish such encyclopedic amounts of needed information.

And there just isn't time. If God has to wait for you to pull out your concordance every time He wants to do something right now, He forfeits the ability to run the church.

Simple solution: A self-authenticating Voice, i.e. authenticated by feelings of certainty.


Not at all. And, anyway, I don't believe God wants to dictate every single move we make in any situation. He may have particular things He wants us to do and if He does, He'll make that crystal clear. But, generally speaking, He expects that I'll apply the spiritual principles, and wisdom, and truth and commands He's given to me in His word to the circumstances in which I find myself.
see above.

But if they need to be proven, why are they then assumed? Clearly, they can (must) be assumed without proof. Such assumptions have been referred to as "brute givens."
Deflection. Completely ignores the force of the argument. Axioms of some kind have to be assumed, in exegesis, because exegesis HAS TO MAKE UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS to avoid infinite regress as I mentioned (the infinite regress of a proof built on assumptions yet to be proven).

Hermeneutics isn't a set of 'brute givens' (i.e. essentially tautological assumptions). It involves a LOT of questionable premises. And with 100 billion souls at stake, it is theologically irresponsible to rest content with that methodology, that is, to pretend, both in the pulpits and in the seminary textbooks, that everything is copacetic.

But they aren't unreasonable assumptions. Some may be quite reasonably deduced without concrete proof. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" is a good example. In fact, much of modern science derives, not from man-made assumptions but from the belief in a rational God who made a rational universe into which we humans endowed by God with rationality could delve and discover more about God.
Sure. Let's all the theologians have a party and toss around the latest opinions on reasonable assumptions. I mean, why not? After all, there's only 100 billion souls at stake, right? What could possibly be detrimental about resting content with our conclusions and then broadcasting a (false) sense of security about them both in the pulpits and in the seminaries? What possible harm might there be in that? Gee, I dunno.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Unbelievable. Is this deflection? You seem to be the only person on this thread completely unable to grasp my position.
For the millionth time, I am not saying that conscience PHYSICALLY FORCES them to choose B. All I'm saying is that conscience imposes on them the moral obligation (read this is 'an expectation in God's sight') to do B.

Man, you're a piece of work. Not seeing a lot of the Spirit in the character of your remarks. Almost none at all, actually. Lots of snarky sarcasm, though, and impatience and temper.

Anyway, I'm glad to know you don't think certainty equates to compulsion. It sounded to me like maybe you did:

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

"If you feel certain that action A is evil, and B is good, you're obligated to B."

I looked back over your responses and see that you clarified your meaning. Your posts have been coming so thick-and-fast, I'm missing some of what you're writing. The following I didn't see at all until just now (I'm leaving the snarky bit out):

"...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 I like the decisiveness/finality of it and I assumed everyone would pick that up."

Looks like many of your subsequent responses to me are based on that total misunderstanding of my views. To save time I will ignore those particular responses.

But thanks, you're doing wonderful job of confirming to me that human intercommunications are utterly unreliable/fallible, which further cements my conviction on the need for infallible direct revelation.

From my end, your posts confirm once again how obnoxious some believers can be when they are communicating online.

- Faith is a fruit of the Spirit (per Galatians). Therefore it seems utterly implausible to credit it to exegesis. It's the work of the Inward Witness.

??? Romans 12:3 says that God has given to every man a measure of faith. And so it is that people who are not indwelt by the Spirit exercise faith in a wide variety of things everyday. They exercise faith in their spouses, doctors, dentists, barbers, other drivers on the road, etc.

The KJV uses the word "faith" in Galatians 5:22 but more up-to-date Bible versions have "faithfulness" instead, that is, constancy, enduring commitment. In light of what Romans 12:3 indicates and what is clearly in evidence in the lives of non-believers concerning the exercise of faith, "faithfulness" makes more sense in Galatians 5:22 than "faith."

In any event, I don't think I have credited faith to exegesis. Since I believe what Romans 12:3 says and the evidence of faith at work in all people, lost and saved alike, crediting faith to exegesis would be a strange thing for me to do. I suspect your tilting at a windmill of your own making (or, perhaps, another Strawman).

- The primacy of direct revelation becomes self-evident when we consider biblical categories such as 'joy inexpressible' and 'peace transcending all understanding'. Because God knows your brain and body, He is capable of calming your anxieties, and influxing degrees of joy in you, beyond your wildest imaginations. Now, imagine trying to arrive at those levels of joy, peace - and heartfelt love/compassion for your neighbor - by exegetical efforts. To even so attempt is total nonsense.

Not sure how any of this applies to what I wrote. I don't believe faith is the by-product of exegesis but is given to all people by God.


@aiki
"Love does no harm to your neighbor" (Rom 13). In this fragile world fraught with dangers, there are an infinite number of ways to accidentally harm my neighbor.

Some more hyperbole here, I think. There aren't an "infinite number of ways" you can harm your neighbor. If you simply interact with others as the Bible prescribes, you'll be fine. Which fact prompts the question: Why has God taken pains in His word to explain how to love well when He intends to direct you personally at every moment in how to do so? Doesn't make a lot of sense, it seems to me... It seems evident to me, rather, that God gives us such a HUGE amount of scriptural material to work from regarding how to love because, of course, it is central to Christian living, but also because He doesn't speak to us through personal revelation at every moment. He doesn't need to, having shown us the proper way to love in the Bible already.

Deflection. You're focusing on the irrelevant parts of the analogy as to conveniently overlook the thrust of the objection.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

Deflection. It's not an issue of 'defining'. The issue is epistemological justification for belief. If you're reason to believe in the Bible is that the Bible says to do so, that's circular reasoning.

Not a deflection; a clarifying aside.

I have not argued for the circular thinking you describe. I believe the Bible is the word of God for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with the claims Scripture makes for itself about its divine origin. But these means of being convinced about the divine origin of Scripture, do not themselves produce the structure of Christian doctrines and practices the Bible lays out. Fulfilled prophecy, thematic unity, survivability, historicity, impact upon individuals and cultures, and so on give me cause to trust the Bible is truly the word of God, but these things do not create the content of the Bible.

Deflection. Basically, "I don't like the implications of the animal analogy so I will just dismiss it as invalid."

I'm not sure how my explanation of the inappropriateness of your comparison to animals amounts to "deflection" and dismissal. One does not bother with explanations when one is being dismissive.

A plenal psychopath is self-evidently innocent (although I don't believe such exist). You can't rightly punish someone for doing wrong if he has zero-conscience, zero sense of right and wrong. That's tautological justice which even you basically conceded recently when you admitted that wrongdoing is when a man knows that A is evil and B is good but does A anyway.

I have already responded to this. Even without an internal sense of morality, the psychopath may be informed of morality by external means: God's word, the preaching/dissemination of that word by the Church, the expression of God's Moral Law in the fundamental morality to which non-psychopathic people frequently appeal, the "laws of the land." Thus, a psychopath is justly punished for his wrongdoing even though he has no inner sense of right and wrong. So, using the psychopath to argue your point doesn't appear to work well. Do you have another better example?

I rebutted that analogy (you gave it in response to post 5) but I want to further emphasize a problem there. My rebuttal, to summarize, is that, now you are still standing on SOMETHING. You haven't lost your footing. In other words, you've replaced the gangplank with another footing (or so you imply), thus you now have a new authoritative basis for believing in the Bible. Either:
(1) That basis is the Bible, which leads to circular reasoning OR
(2) It's some other basis, contrary to the claim that Scripture is your only final authority.

See above.

I have no time to respond further. I may return to this thread. I may not. It has been rather unpleasant interacting with you and I am not so invested in the thread that I feel compelled to endure more of your sarcasm and jabs to continue with it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The Bible has noted that not everything is recorded. Meaning to say, there is more truths out there that the bible just could not contain for it's page limit. Jn 21:25 and 21:30 notes this. Then you have the amount of translations the scriptures have went through, in where certain phrases can't be accurately written in english, spanish, russian, or whatever bibles we have now.

So how is it logical to just live on scripture alone? Living on scripture alone has not only destroyed christianity by making countless sects to even off-shoot cults but it has also gave christianity a very unintelligent reputation due to some representatives refusing to be open to reason or just facts that seem to contend with their bible study made views.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: charsan
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Where did I put forth a "theory about the clarity of human communications"?
At post 240. Your argument seems to be this syllogism (although it's arranged largely in negation-statements).
(1) Human communications are reliable/clear.
(2) The Bible is one form of human intercommunication.
(3) Therefore the Bible/exegesis is clear enough, no need for infallible revelation.

Here are your exact words:

"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."

Of course you might reply, "I wasn't saying anything about human communications,I was merely exposing your own assumptions to form an argument against your solution". But when I read that last line, I'm pretty sure it includes your own views, meaning, you do believe in the possibility of clear human communication and therefore in biblical clarity.

As a result of that statement (and I doubt it was the only one), I've been reminding you that human intercommunications are not in fact lucid, they are very fallible, as demonstrated by the number of times you've misunderstood my posts.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Man, you're a piece of work. Not seeing a lot of the Spirit in the character of your remarks. Almost none at all, actually. Lots of snarky sarcasm, though, and impatience and temper.
You were forewarned at the outset about my impatience born from a consistent history of deflection and such seen on this forum.


Anyway, I'm glad to know you don't think certainty equates to compulsion.
But that would seem to be an inane position, right? You don't give people the benefit of the doubt, taking the time to read between the lines?

From my end, your posts confirm once again how obnoxious some believers can be when they are communicating online.
Forewarned, when I think I'm seeing deflection, I lose patience.


The KJV uses the word "faith" in Galatians 5:22 but more up-to-date Bible versions have "faithfulness" instead, that is, constancy, enduring commitment. In light of what Romans 12:3 indicates and what is clearly in evidence in the lives of non-believers concerning the exercise of faith, "faithfulness" makes more sense in Galatians 5:22 than "faith."
Fair enough.

In any event, I don't think I have credited faith to exegesis. Since I believe what Romans 12:3 says and the evidence of faith at work in all people, lost and saved alike, crediting faith to exegesis would be a strange thing for me to do. I suspect your tilting at a windmill of your own making (or, perhaps, another Strawman).
The reality is that, 300 posts deep, your still ambiguous as to your epistemological underpinnings - despite every opportunity to clarify them.

Fact is, anything you supply as an authoritative basis for foundational beliefs (e.g. belief that the Bible is inspired) undermines the 'Sola' in Sola Scripture. That was the argument at post 5, and your comparative reticence (or in some cases verbose ambiguity) only serves to confirm.



Some more hyperbole here, I think. There aren't an "infinite number of ways" you can harm your neighbor. If you simply interact with others as the Bible prescribes, you'll be fine.
The other day I wanted to purchase some insect poison to destroy a wasp's nest on my porch. Given that I'm fallible, how can I possibly know for sure whether it will adversely affect drinking water? Yes, there are indeed a potentially infinite number of ways to harm your neighbor.

I can harm my own family by investing savings in a faulty investment fund. In fact every decision that I make potentially harms my family. With statements like that, it's hard to tell whether you're really that myopic,or just deflecting.

Which fact prompts the question: Why has God taken pains in His word to explain how to love well when He intends to direct you personally at every moment in how to do so? Doesn't make a lot of sense, it seems to me... It seems evident to me, rather, that God gives us such a HUGE amount of scriptural material to work from regarding how to love because, of course, it is central to Christian living, but also because He doesn't speak to us through personal revelation at every moment. He doesn't need to, having shown us the proper way to love in the Bible already.
LOL. Exegesis is a crutch (a fallback in the absence of revelation), so why not make it a good one? Why does it have to be a small pamphlet?

An equally pertinent question is, if Sola Scriptura were God's intent, why all the allusions to direct revelation? Seems to me He's a poor instructor, on your assumptions. I mean, the very definition of a church is couched in terms of revelation-based offices.

"In the church God has appointed first of all apostes, then prophets, then teachers, then workers of miracles...Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 12:28, 14:1);

And I haven't even shown you most of the biblical basis for a prophecy-based ecclesiology (we never got that far). Especially 1 Cor 2 and 3. I did discuss some of the basis for it in Acts (posts 179 and 180) where I talked about witnessing, or as Jesus put it, "It will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you." Why all these verses if Sola Scriptura is true?

Interesting that when Jesus said, "My sheep know my voice", he didn't hedge it with, "But don't believe the Voice until you've checked it out exegetically." Rather His words betoken a self-authenticating voice.

I have not argued for the circular thinking you describe. I believe the Bible is the word of God for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with the claims Scripture makes for itself about its divine origin. But these means of being convinced about the divine origin of Scripture, do not themselves produce the structure of Christian doctrines and practices the Bible lays out. Fulfilled prophecy, thematic unity, survivability, historicity, impact upon individuals and cultures, and so on give me cause to trust the Bible is truly the word of God, but these things do not create the content of the Bible.
More ambiguity. Just tell us WHY YOU BELIEVE THE BIBLE, after 300 posts. You don't seem to want to tell us your authoritative basis, as it would undermine the 'Sola' in Sola Scriptura.


I have already responded to this. Even without an internal sense of morality, the psychopath may be informed of morality by external means: God's word, the preaching/dissemination of that word by the Church, the expression of God's Moral Law in the fundamental morality to which non-psychopathic people frequently appeal, the "laws of the land." Thus, a psychopath is justly punished for his wrongdoing even though he has no inner sense of right and wrong. So, using the psychopath to argue your point doesn't appear to work well. Do you have another better example?
That argument makes no sense at all. You asked about my confidence? Your complete inability to defend your position against the charges - something I've witnessed here for many years - cannot help but buttress confidence.

It makes no sense because, if he has no sense of right and wrong, why should he honor the laws of the land? If he has no moral compunction, life is nothing more than survival of the fittest, in his eyes. Your position is completely ludicrous. I highlighted the words 'informed of morality' because you really have only two logical options here:
(1) Admit that at some point he does become informed of morality (i.e acquires a sense of right and wrong) OR
(2) Admit that God has no basis for punishing him for any alleged wrongdoing, until he does acquire that moral sense.

Basically the words in bold are a blatant contradiction to the premise of a plenal psychopath who supposedly does NOT have a sense of morality. You're equivocating.

Yes, I'm confident in my views because everyone who tries to refute them seems riddled with contradictions.

I have no time to respond further. I may return to this thread. I may not. It has been rather unpleasant interacting with you and I am not so invested in the thread that I feel compelled to endure more of your sarcasm and jabs to continue with it.
Uh huh. I suspect if you were winning this debate, you'd be in no hurry to depart.[/quote][/quote]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
@aiki,

I had to laugh at this one:
Man, you're a piece of work. Not seeing a lot of the Spirit in the character of your remarks. Almost none at all, actually. Lots of snarky sarcasm, though, and impatience and temper.
You don't see the irony of those words?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God all the time designates an earthly representative to guard His Word, especially the part containing the salvation message. The Bible contains everything God would like to say, especially about His message of human salvation. The Apostle's Church guards its contents, including the interpretations.

All left is for Christian individuals to discern which churches are within God's earthly Church, of which the Apostle's Creed acts as a basic guide for the recognition of an earthly church still possessing the power of salvation. This basic guideline says that a church no longer possess the power of salvation once it's faith statement doesn't stick to the Apostle's Creed. Usually, the more conservative and less controversial churches are the reliable ones.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The Bible has noted that not everything is recorded. Meaning to say, there is more truths out there that the bible just could not contain for it's page limit. Jn 21:25 and 21:30 notes this. Then you have the amount of translations the scriptures have went through, in where certain phrases can't be accurately written in english, spanish, russian, or whatever bibles we have now.

So how is it logical to just live on scripture alone? Living on scripture alone has not only destroyed christianity by making countless sects to even off-shoot cults but it has also gave christianity a very unintelligent reputation due to some representatives refusing to be open to reason or just facts that seem to contend with their bible study made views.
If your worried about English translations, I would recommend using Biblehub website

They have Hebrew, Greek and all sorts of tools.

I don’t think it is correct to assume that English translations are the issue though, when most people are not studying the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If your worried about English translations, I would recommend using Biblehub website

They have Hebrew, Greek and all sorts of tools.

I don’t think it is correct to assume that English translations are the issue though, when most people are not studying the Bible.
Not worried about it. However, i'm just detailing the massive academic complications with in the Bible which makes "scripture alone" nearly impossible, much more at this time.

Not everybody started with an english translated Bible. Some may have started with a Bible translated in Japanese to Spanish or whatever, and even cross translating those languages to modern day English will not come out accurate in terms of phrases and other terminologies. If modern day languages have this difficulty, what more for an ancient language? So aside of this, and even the Bible telling everyone that it doesn't record anything, in addition to scientific discoveries that many christians just dismiss ignorantly due to it not matching what they grew up to believe.. sola scriptura isn't just biblically wrong but academically fallacious.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: charsan
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Have many of us been duped? Maybe fleeced, even? Think about it. Seminaries place perhaps 90% emphasis on exegesis, and 10% on direct revelation. But what if that's actually a reversal of the proper emphasis, as I have argued? And what if conscience is our highest authority, as already shown at Post 1? To concede such propositions would spell financial suicide both for the theological institutions and the individual faculty members. I'm not saying it's a conscious conspiracy, but I do suspect that there's a kind of subconscious denial transpiring. After all, probably most of us have at least one element in our history that we've been somewhat in denial about. And even if we can't identify that element right at this moment, chances are that a highly skilled psychologist could find in us at least one such element given a sufficient number of sessions.

I'll be honest. If I had already staked my whole financial career on biblical scholarship, and then later was approached with a new theory more solid than Sola Scriptura, my heart would harden. I would go into denial. There's no way I would have sufficient excellency of character to open my mind to a new way of thinking.

And I think that's largely why it took 1500 years to reform the church, and why a significant amount of reform is still needed.
 
Upvote 0