Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[FredVB]

I have an admitted faith in what I can't prove to another, that God cares to communicate to us. Yet if God did, there would be evidences. The Bible has evidences abundantly, like nothing else, that it is writing that is revelation from God, in many ways, such as astonishing manuscript evidence, prophecy fulfilled in Christ is the greatest, as I see.

 

[Michael Garrett Andrews]

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

Amen , Amen, and Amen. I Am Praying Now for God to raise me up as a true prophet with wisdom and understanding to govern God's people. Also with great wisdom concerning God's Word and God's Spirit. I believe a true Elijah test is in order today , but my name is Michael.

 

[Hawkins]

It boils down to who is God's appointed earthly representative. God all the times has an earthly representative acting as a guardian to basically protect the Canons from being altered by human wills.

The OT is the Jews' testimonies. It is their canonization. The NT is the Apostles' testimonies, it is the Christians' canonization.

The Jews is upholding the OT Canon correctly till they failed their job in conveying the NT. Then God's earthly representative has been shifted from the Jews to the Christians (Catholics back then). Thus the Catholics are upholding a correct NT Canon.

Similarly when the Catholics failed the role as the Jews did, God shifted the authority from their hands to the Protestants'. Thus the Protestants have both a correct NT and a correct OT Canon.

Imaging if there's only RCC in today's world, those for a reason disagree with RCC may have to leave Christianity as a whole. However in the existence of Protestant churches one can pick a church suiting him and to be saved.

Sola Scriptura is often comprehended as the Bible can be authenticated by itself. This is a bit superficial. It rather means a denial of the RCC authority which drives for a new authority.

 

[QvQ]

I came in the backdoor. I was an atheist who asked a simple question of whatever Gods May Be. I asked "Does God have an objective reality?" Yes, God Is. God does exist the same as gravity and there are laws. I can see (understand) God as patterns in random, as a shadow or an ant's view of an elephant. I was fascinated and I started to look for information about that Being and those laws. The closest match was the Gospel. I had discovered God was the Truth and the Gospels were the Word of God. I had faith but I didn't have the coherent structure or words until I read the Bible Definitely backdoor seeing and believing but blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.

 

[BobRyan]

What is our final authority for both faith and practice? The two most popular theories on this have been:
(1) Tradition (the church), for example the Magisterium of Catholic tradition.
(2) Sola Scriptura - the claim that Scripture is the only final authority on all major religious doctrines.

However, both views overlook the primacy of conscience, with conscience defined as a feeling of certainty as to what is morally right or wrong. If I feel certain that choice A is evil, and choice B is good, I should opt for choice B. As I can find no exceptions to this rule, I cannot controvert it, hence it needs no proof (although I will provide some), it is thus self-evidently/tautologically true at all times, and therefore conscience is my only final authority. This refutes Sola Scriptura.

This is not to suggest that Scripture is untrue. I accept the inerrancy of Scripture. But exegesis provides me no direct access to Scripture, only to my fallible interpretations of it. Whereas conscience, as we shall see, affords God a method of speaking to us in an infallible manner definitive of the prophetic experience.

Seared in their conscience as with a branding iron.

The heart is deceitfully wicked who can know it.


1 Tim 4
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Jer 17
Jeremiah 17:9 9The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

Proverbs 21:2, Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

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

A person can choose to be guided by the Holy Spirit and read the Bible... or not.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Neither tradition nor sola anything can help if sola Jesus? , i.e. "follow Jesus", is missing.

 

[JAL]

Seared in their conscience as with a branding iron.

The heart is deceitfully wicked who can know it.


1 Tim 4
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Jer 17
Jeremiah 17:9 9The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

Proverbs 21:2, Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

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

A person can choose to be guided by the Holy Spirit and read the Bible... or not.

Regardless of how wicked the human heart is, there are no exceptions to the stated rule:

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

Can you show me any exceptions? No you can't. Therefore Sola Scriptura is a lie. Sola Scriptura claims that a religious/moral imperative must pass the test of exegesis to be legit. But the above rule refutes that nonsense - anything I feel certain about is ALREADY an imperative.

Example. Where did you get the imperative to accept Scripture as inspired? From exegesis? That's circular reasoning! In reality that imperative was given to you from the Inward Witness as a feeling of certainty. You accept Scripture as inspired because you feel certain it is God's book.

 

[FredVB]

Regardless of how wicked the human heart is, there are no exceptions to the stated rule:

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

Can you show me any exceptions? No you can't. Therefore Sola Scriptura is a lie. Sola Scriptura claims that a religious/moral imperative must pass the test of exegesis to be legit. But the above rule refutes that nonsense - anything I feel certain about is ALREADY an imperative.

Example. Where did you get the imperative to accept Scripture as inspired? From exegesis? That's circular reasoning! In reality that imperative was given to you from the Inward Witness as a feeling of certainty. You accept Scripture as inspired because you feel certain it is God's book.

The basis of Christian faith is actually the resurrection of Christ. There is great certainty that Christ rose after being killed, as he said he would before, as hard as it is to understand how anyone did, there are no other explanations of what actually happened then which are anywhere nearly as credible. That scriptures foretell this and other things about Christ shows that the scriptures are to be trusted. We can be open to things that disprove any of it, but there hasn't been success of doing that yet.

 

[JAL]

The basis of Christian faith is actually the resurrection of Christ.

Huh? The OT saints were not true believers?

The basis of the Christian faith - for both OT and NT saints - is feelings of certainty given by the Inward Witness. You yourself used the word 'certainty':

There is great certainty that Christ rose after being killed, as he said he would before, as hard as it is to understand how anyone did, there are no other explanations of what actually happened then which are anywhere nearly as credible.

So the basis of saving faith is Reason grounded in historical evidence? Note:
(1) Even if I were to agree, it would further disprove Sola Scriptura because it would show that Reason provides imperatives without recourse to Sola Scriptura.
(2) Reason is a problemmatical basis for saving faith. What about the uneducated, and the mentally handicapped (viz. Alzheimer's)? Can't they acquire - and retain - saving faith? Again, the basis of the Christian faith - for both OT and NT saints - is feelings of certainty given by the Inward Witness. This is direct revelation.

 

[FredVB]

The basis of Christian faith is actually the resurrection of Christ.

Huh? The OT saints were not true believers?
The basis of the Christian faith - for both OT and NT saints - is feelings of certainty given by the Inward Witness. You yourself used the word 'certainty':
So the basis of saving faith is Reason grounded in historical evidence? Note:
(1) Even if I were to agree, it would further disprove Sola Scriptura because it would show that Reason provides imperatives without recourse to Sola Scriptura.
(2) Reason is a problemmatical basis for saving faith. What about the uneducated, and the mentally handicapped (viz. Alzheimer's)? Can't they acquire - and retain - saving faith? Again, the basis of the Christian faith - for both OT and NT saints - is feelings of certainty given by the Inward Witness. This is direct revelation.

That statement was not speaking of all believers inclusive of those of the old testament times. It was about Christian faith. Christian faith occurred only after the resurrection of Christ. And not all who believe do so with the reasons for basis. We should just trust God. But you cannot be in the dark that there are atheists looking for a field day attacking faith of Christian believers which has no basis in reason. There is certainty with inward witness, that still comes from somewhere. And the Christian faith is not without abundant evidence, and the resurrection of Christ is the greatest of all, with the empty tomb of Jesus Christ after he died, according to his claim before that he would rise from death, his appearance to many followers who all saw him, and those testifying to their death to that, with the changed life of followers with their faith. People of old testament times saw miracles from God which encouraged faith, so they would have faith with their bases, but they didn't understand things of Christ who was yet to come, so they would not have been Christian believers. And faith in Scriptures from God does not do away with reasoning that we should have, so there is not that sola Scriptura that is valid, but with bases the Scriptures can be trusted to be revelation from God, as such, what is shown from them takes priority.

 

[JAL]

That statement was not speaking of all believers inclusive of those of the old testament times. It was about Christian faith. Christian faith occurred only after the resurrection of Christ. And not all who believe do so with the reasons for basis. We should just trust God. But you cannot be in the dark that there are atheists looking for a field day attacking faith of Christian believers which has no basis in reason. There is certainty with inward witness, that still comes from somewhere. And the Christian faith is not without abundant evidence, and the resurrection of Christ is the greatest of all, with the empty tomb of Jesus Christ after he died, according to his claim before that he would rise from death, his appearance to many followers who all saw him, and those testifying to their death to that, with the changed life of followers with their faith. People of old testament times saw miracles from God which encouraged faith, so they would have faith with their bases, but they didn't understand things of Christ who was yet to come, so they would not have been Christian believers. And faith in Scriptures from God does not do away with reasoning that we should have, so there is not that sola Scriptura that is valid, but with bases the Scriptures can be trusted to be revelation from God, as such, what is shown from them takes priority.

Your words seem open to the possibility that our confidence in the canon stems from either Reason, Historical Evidence, or Inward Witness. Frankly it doesn't matter which of the three you pick - the point is that, once you've identified one (or more) such factors as the basis for your confidence in the canon, it undermines the 'Sola' in Sola Scriptura - it proves that, for you, there is some basis ('factor') OTHER than Scriptura alone for drawing religious conclusions. That's why Sola Scriptura doesen't make sense.

 

[JAL]

See here for a 16-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

For those interested...

WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A 16 POINT REBUTTAL OF THE OP'S CLAIMS (linked)

God bless.

 

[JAL]

For those interested...

WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A 16 POINT REBUTTAL OF THE OP'S CLAIMS (linked)

God bless.

Right, for those interested in a shallow reply masquerading as a rebuttal - it's just a regurgitation of the Sola Scriptura position without any direct refutation of the 16 points. (Numbering your statements 1 to 16 doesn't prove you're actually addressing my 16 arguments).

 

[LoveGodsWord]

For those interested...

WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A 16 POINT REBUTTAL OF THE OP'S CLAIMS (linked)

This is a detailed rebuttal point by point showing the logical fallacies in relation to God's Word not being the only source of God's guidence. It also show the claims made in each point are simply man made opinion that are not based on scripture and directly showing how the WORD of God alone addresses every claim and point being made in the OP here and in the controversial theology sections on the forum. Hope it is helpful to those interested. I did not wish to post it here as it would just get lost in pages. The link provided shows why the OP is in error for those interested.

God bless.

 

[JAL]

No

For those interested...

WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A 16 POINT REBUTTAL OF THE OP'S CLAIMS (linked)

This is a detailed rebuttal point by point showing the logical fallacies in relation to God's Word not being the only source of God's guidence. It also show the claims made in each point are simply man made opinion that are not based on scripture and directly showing how the WORD of God alone addresses every claim and point being made in the OP here and in the controversial theology sections on the forum. Hope it is helpful to those interested. I did not wish to post it here as it would just get lost in pages. The link provided shows why the OP is in error for those interested.

God bless.

No it's not a detailed rebuttal of my 16 points. It's a detailed definition of the Sola Scriptura position that doesn't bother to specifically address my 16 complaints. You numbered your points 1 to 16 to make it look like you've actually bothered addressed MY points, but you haven't.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

No

No it's not a detailed rebuttal of my 16 points. It's a detailed definition of the Sola Scriptura position that doesn't bother to specifically address my 16 complaints. You numbered your points 1 to 16 to make it look like you've actually bothered addressed MY points, but you haven't.

We will have to agree to disagree dear friend and let others make up their minds

WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - A 16 POINT REBUTTAL OF THE OP'S CLAIMS (linked)

 

[QvQ]

One Point 1) Water runs or falls down. I know this by reason, historical evidence or intuitively. Intuitively is, if all the water I know goes down, then it is the nature of water or will of the universe that this is so.
NOW, that is Truth. That is the Law of Physics and what I don't see or know directly I can read in a book. I can read the Word of Newton and Fully Understand the entire Laws of Gravity and Water Flow.
I can know God by reason, historical evidenc or intuition but to fully understand God's Will, the Law of God I read the Bible, the Word of God. That is the Truth
Sola Newton's Principia Mathematica for the laws of gravity, Sola Scriptura for the Word of God.

 

[JAL]

One Point 1) Water runs or falls down. I know this by reason, historical evidence or intuitively. Intuitively is, if all the water I know goes down, then it is the nature of water or will of the universe that this is so.
NOW, that is Truth. That is the Law of Physics and what I don't see or know directly I can read in a book. I can read the Word of Newton and Fully Understand the entire Laws of Gravity and Water Flow.
I can know God by reason, historical evidenc or intuition but to fully understand God's Will, the Law of God I read the Bible, the Word of God. That is the Truth
Sola Newton's Principia Mathematica for the laws of gravity, Sola Scriptura for the Word of God.

A simple math equation is 2 + 2 = 4. Laws of science such as gravity are given in that format. Yes it's pretty clear that the mind could easily conceive them, memorize them, apply them, and so on.

However, the mind can't know an ineffably holy God without Direct Revelation - God must manifest Himself because printed words on a page cannot properly convey him to the mind.

And words printed 2,000 years ago do not capture the specifics of His will for YOUR particular life. Here too, we need Direct Revelation in order to be sure that we are living in harmony with His desires, from moment to moment.

 

[QvQ]

A simple math equation is 2 + 2 = 4. Laws of science such as gravity are given in that format. Yes it's pretty clear that the mind could easily conceive them, memorize them, apply them, and so on.

However, the mind can't know an ineffably holy God without Direct Revelation - God must manifest Himself because printed words on a page cannot properly convey him to the mind.

And words printed 2,000 years ago do not capture the specifics of His will for YOUR particular life. Here too, we need Direct Revelation in order to be sure that we are living in harmony with His desires, from moment to moment.

Man cannot know water or gravity without Direct Revelation. Without the objective reality of water, if water was never revealed then Newton's words would have no meaning. God and water are self evident Truths, revealed in fact and fully explained in the Book.