Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[FredVB]

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.

Alright, maybe Sola Scripture is not what I am supporting or defending with my statement. But what I say does agree in the essence. I would mean that when any among us finds the basis that they put trusting faith in Christ and through him in God, with the repentance, they see that the word of God is to be trusted. And it does have basis, we find that when we look, and the Bible text as originally written being the word of God has priority over other things, for drawing conclusions of the faith.

 

[JAL]

Alright, maybe Sola Scripture is not what I am supporting or defending with my statement. But what I say does agree in the essence. I would mean that when any among us finds the basis that they put trusting faith in Christ and through him in God, with the repentance, they see that the word of God is to be trusted. And it does have basis, we find that when we look, and the Bible text as originally written being the word of God has priority over other things, for drawing conclusions of the faith.

No it doesn't. I realize it "sounds theological" to make that kind of statement - indeed it sounds especially righteous to uplift the (written) Word of God. Again, you looked to some basis (whether Conscience, Reason, Historical Research, Inward Witness) as the authoritative basis for accepting or rejecting the book. That basis is therefore a higher authority than the book since it DICTATED your decision to accept or reject the book. Therefore the written Word is not the highest authority.

In my opinion it was ultimately a matter of conscience. The divine Word - not the written Word - convicted you, causing you to feel certain that Scripture is inspired. This is Direct Revelation. Thus we can safely say:
(1) The conscience is your highest authority
(2) The divine Word, as Direct Revelation, is your highest authority (indirectly so because He convicts your conscience). Again, this conviction DICTATED your recognition of the book as inspired.

being the word of God has priority over other things,

You're elevating the written Word. You should be elevating the divine Word. The NT is pushing us to seek Direct Revelation above all - to wait upon the Lord for it, in prayer, praise, and worship. Sola Scriptura moves us in the wrong direction by shifting our focus and emphasis onto the written Word.

 

[FredVB]

I realize it "sounds theological" to make that kind of statement - indeed it sounds especially righteous to uplift the (written) Word of God. Again, you looked to some basis (whether Conscience, Reason, Historical Research, Inward Witness) as the authoritative basis for accepting or rejecting the book. That basis is therefore a higher authority than the book since it DICTATED your decision to accept or reject the book. Therefore the written Word is not the highest authority.

In my opinion it was ultimately a matter of conscience. The divine Word - not the written Word - convicted you, causing you to feel certain that Scripture is inspired. This is Direct Revelation. Thus we can safely say:
(1) The conscience is your highest authority
(2) The divine Word, as Direct Revelation, is your highest authority (indirectly so because He convicts your conscience). Again, this conviction DICTATED your recognition of the book as inspired.

You're elevating the written Word. You should be elevating the divine Word. The NT is pushing us to seek Direct Revelation above all - to wait upon the Lord for it, in prayer, praise, and worship. Sola Scriptura moves us in the wrong direction by shifting our focus and emphasis onto the written Word.

We will disagree, then. The Bible speaks for itself, as the word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Your opinion which you argue then is to be directed against what is said of the scriptures. And they are unique in many ways from any other writings, not least of all, having closer manuscripts and more abundant manuscripts to the time of the original writing than any other ancient writing.

Scripture claims the priority.

Scripture is not to be up to the interpretation of others. 2 Peter 1:21, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

[JAL]

There are so many flaws in your statement that I hardly know know where to begin. Literally.

We will disagree, then. The Bible speaks for itself, as the word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Your opinion which you argue then is to be directed against what is said of the scriptures. And they are unique in many ways from any other writings, not least of all, having closer manuscripts and more abundant manuscripts to the time of the original writing than any other ancient writing.

Scripture claims the priority.

Scripture is not to be up to the interpretation of others. 2 Peter 1:21, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

You said:

Scripture claims the priority.

Simple question for you - are you and Moses best buddies? Are you good friends? Would you say that you and Moses have a close personal relationship? Do you know him well just like, say, your wife and kids? Have you and Moses been having daily fellowship? I mean, after all, you read a book about him, didn't you? Doesn't that count as fellowship?

Several times the NT uses the term "fellowship" to encapsulate our relationship with God. The term fellowship can ONLY be defined as a mutual exchange of sensations more or less distinct ("loud and clear"). For example:

"The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend" (Ex 33:11)

You know the Lord only to the extent that He has manifested Himself to you (literally appeared to you) in all manner of mental impressions/sensations, including, for example, distinct ("loud and clear") feelings of love, joy, and peace. This is fellowship otherwise known as Direct Revelation. Jesus summarized the plight of the unsaved Jews:

"Ye have never heard his voice, nor seen his shape, nor does his (divine) word dwell in you" (Jn 5:37).

Saving faith, therefore, is a matter of meeting the Lord personally - at least hearing His voice - even if the manifestation isn't as "loud and clear" as it was for Paul on the road to Damascus. Thus faith cometh by hearing, and hearing from the divine Word of God (Rom 10:17). Here's Paul's favorite example (cited both in Rom 4 and Gal 3):

"The [divine] Word of the Lord came to Abram in a [revelatory] vision [speaking promises]...Abram believed [the spoken Word]" (Gen 15).

Thus, faith cometh by hearing the divine Word of Direct Revelation - presumably the Lord appeared to Abram in this vision as such was common for Abram's experience.

To summarize: Direct Revelation is how you come to know the Lord, and more of it is how you come to know him better.

"17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better" (eph 1).

Scripture is not to be up to the interpretation of others. 2 Peter 1:21, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Actually you will be evaluated, thank God, on whether you obeyed God to the best of your knowledge, even if you misinterpreted Scripture inadvertently. See Rom chap 14 and also 1Cor 8:1-13, also Rom 2:14-16.

We will disagree, then. The Bible speaks for itself, as the word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Such appeals to Timothy have been discredited countless times. Even a Sola Scriptura advocate on this forum has admitted that this passage lends no clear support to Sola Scriptura.

Timothy was almost certainly a prophet. Paul mentored him, after all, much like Moses mentored Joshua. In fact, in that passage, Paul refers to him as a "man of God" which is an OT designation for a prophet. In the hands of a prophet, Scripture is consistently profitable, because he has plenty of Direct Revelation to properly comprehend it. In the hands of a fallible scholar, Scripture is potentially a recipe for disaster.

Again, those letters you cited were written to ONE MAN Timothy. When Paul was speaking to the ENTIRE CHURCH, he told them to prioritize Direct Revelation - he placed it on the very top rung of the priority ladder alongside love:

"Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

We will disagree, then.

It would appear so. I have chosen to side with Paul.

 

[QvQ]

There are so many flaws in your statement that I hardly know know where to begin. Literally.


You said:

Simple question for you - are you and Moses best buddies? Are you good friends? Would you say that you and Moses have a close personal relationship? Do you know him well just like, say, your wife and kids? Have you and Moses been having daily fellowship? I mean, after all, you read a book about him, didn't you? Doesn't that count as fellowship?

Several times the NT uses the term "fellowship" to encapsulate our relationship with God. The term fellowship can ONLY be defined as a mutual exchange of sensations more or less distinct ("loud and clear"). For example:

"The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend" (Ex 33:11)

You know the Lord only to the extent that He has manifested Himself to you (literally appeared to you) in all manner of mental impressions/sensations, including, for example, distinct ("loud and clear") feelings of love, joy, and peace. This is fellowship otherwise known as Direct Revelation. Jesus summarized the plight of the unsaved Jews:

"Ye have never heard his voice, nor seen his shape, nor does his (divine) word dwell in you" (Jn 5:37).

Saving faith, therefore, is a matter of meeting the Lord personally - at least hearing His voice - even if the manifestation isn't as "loud and clear" as it was for Paul on the road to Damascus. Thus faith cometh by hearing, and hearing from the divine Word of God (Rom 10:17). Here's Paul's favorite example (cited both in Rom 4 and Gal 3):

"The [divine] Word of the Lord came to Abram in a [revelatory] vision [speaking promises]...Abram believed [the spoken Word]" (Gen 15).

Thus, faith cometh by hearing the divine Word of Direct Revelation - presumably the Lord appeared to Abram in this vision as such was common for Abram's experience.

To summarize: Direct Revelation is how you come to know the Lord, and more of it is how you come to know him better.

"17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better" (eph 1).

Actually you will be evaluated, thank God, on whether you obeyed God to the best of your knowledge, even if you misinterpreted Scripture inadvertently. See Rom chap 14 and also 1Cor 8:1-13, also Rom 2:14-16.


Such appeals to Timothy have been discredited countless times. Even a Sola Scriptura advocate on this forum has admitted that this passage lends no clear support to Sola Scriptura.

Timothy was almost certainly a prophet. Paul mentored him, after all, much like Moses mentored Joshua. In fact, in that passage, Paul refers to him as a "man of God" which is an OT designation for a prophet. In the hands of a prophet, Scripture is consistently profitable, because he has plenty of Direct Revelation to properly comprehend it. In the hands of a fallible scholar, Scripture is potentially a recipe for disaster.

Again, those letters you cited were written to ONE MAN Timothy. When Paul was speaking to the ENTIRE CHURCH, he told them to prioritize Direct Revelation - he placed it on the very top rung of the priority ladder alongside love:

"Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).


It would appear so. I have chosen to side with Paul.

It is not either/or, one or the other. God and the Word are One.
Water and gravity are revealed, manifest, self evident. A person can see, feel, taste, wallow in water and know by historical evidence and observation that water flows downhill.
I have met water and gravity personally
However I can puzzle about water and gravity but much of what I might deduce about water will be vain imaginings and best guesses. I might conclude all manner of untrue things about water and gravity unless I learned about the subjects from a reliable scientific source.
I do not discount the Fact of Water, what I know about Water and Gravity, my own personal experience, but it is a fact that water and gravity are better understood with the aid of a good book containing the word of enlightened men, the accumulated wisdom through the ages, Sola Principa Mathematica.
Yes, we can know love and serve God, simply and honestly, relying on our own experience, for the Bible states, Blessed are the Pure in Heart for they shall see God. Nothing said about a book there.
There aren't two sides to this discussion only one. God is manifest and the Book is the Word of God. If I have to rely on my perception of water and the laws of gravity, I am subject to error and vain imaginings. The Book is a defining Word of God. God and Word are not separate, one or the other but two complimentary, just as the Fact of Water and Gravity are complimented, better understood by reading the book.
Sola Scriptura means I am aware of a Living God who is present and I heed His Word, Sola Scriptura

 

[JAL]

It is not either/or, one or the other. God and the Word are One.
Water and gravity are revealed, manifest, self evident. A person can see, feel, taste, wallow in water and know by historical evidence and observation that water flows downhill.
I have met water and gravity personally
However I can puzzle about water and gravity but much of what I might deduce about water will be vain imaginings and best guesses. I might conclude all manner of untrue things about water and gravity unless I learned about the subjects from a reliable scientific source.
I do not discount the Fact of Water, what I know about Water and Gravity, my own personal experience, but it is a fact that water and gravity are better understood with the aid of a good book containing the word of enlightened men, the accumulated wisdom through the ages, Sola Principa Mathematica.
Yes, we can know love and serve God, simply and honestly, relying on our own experience, for the Bible states, Blessed are the Pure in Heart for they shall see God. Nothing said about a book there.
There aren't two sides to this discussion only one. God is manifest and the Book is the Word of God. If I have to rely on my perception of water and the laws of gravity, I am subject to error and vain imaginings. The Book is a defining Word of God. God and Word are not separate, one or the other but two complimentary, just as the Fact of Water and Gravity are complimented, better understood by reading the book.
Sola Scriptura means I am aware of a Living God who is present and I heed His Word, Sola Scriptura

You're putting the cart before the horse. People like Paul (preconversion), the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons, the Pharsees - all of them had plenty of book and worshiped the 'God' of that book - only it wasn't the correct God! Why so? No matter how much you study the Bible, the feeble human mind cannot properly conceive an ineffably holy God. You will only worship a conceptual idol, therefore, until Direct Revelation paints a mental picture (provides a vision) of the true God. Again, you must actually MEET the Lord in person. For Paul it happened on the Road to Damascus. Therefore the new birth must be defined as a vision of Christ. This, said Vincent, is the "new vision of the new man. He sees not only God, but the kingdom of God" (Vincent’s Word Studies on John 3:5) because "the new birth imparts a new vision" (Ibid., on Jn 3:11). Gordon Fee rightly insisted that 2Cor 3:18 ascribes to all believers a direct beholding of Christ in the most literal sense.

Calvin seemed to reach a similar conclusion. He commented on Heb 11:3,

"Men’s minds therefore are wholly blind, so that they see not the light of nature which shines forth in created things, until being irradiated by God’s Spirit...[whereby] they have a deep conviction fixed in their minds and behold the true God."

On John 16:16 Calvin commented that "Christ wishes to be seen by us". On John 14:19 he claimed that the Spirit enables believers to always "behold him by a secret beholding of Christ".

Your words elevate the book over personal experience. This is the exact opposite of the proper perspective.

Secondly, the book is dangerous if you lack sufficient Direct Revelation to reliably comprehend it. You said:

I might conclude all manner of untrue things about water and gravity unless I learned about the subjects from a reliable scientific source.

Thereby insinuating that:
(1) Personal experience (Direct Revelation) is not a reliable source.
(2) Exegesis is a reliable source.

Again, that's the exact opposite of the truth. I will, however, grant you this much:
(3) Unregulated personal experience is not a reliable source.
Assuming you will, in turn, grant me this much:
(4) Unregulated exegesis is not a reliable source.

How do we regulate experience? After 2,000 years of theologizing, I'm pretty sure no one has produced a better theorem than this one:

"I can accept a revelation without question only when I find it impossible to question, that is, when it has raised my level of certainty to incontrovertibility".

That's what I call 100% certainty, and there is ample evidence in the Bible that the prophets experienced it. And even when we are less than 100% certain, we can still avail of the rule of conscience:

"I can accept a revelation at least tentatively, if it has raised my degree of felt certainty to a level impossible to controvert in good conscience."

That's really just a corollary of the rule of conscience - the actual rule is this:

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

I don't care how seared, misinformed, warped, or corrupted is your conscience, the above rule is always appropriate to follow - no exceptions.

 

[JAL]

It is not either/or, one or the other. God and the Word are One.

Fine. In the eschaton you can stay down here on earth and enjoy your book. I'll be in heaven with the angels enjoying God. Look, it's largely just a history book, intermixed with some potentially useful facts about God. That's all it is. The "Sola Scriptura" movement, therefore, is an exercise in bibliolatry.

Sola Scriptura means I am aware of a Living God who is present and I heed His Word, Sola Scriptura

You should be heeding His voice (Jn 10:27) - the divine Word.

"The [divine] Word of the Lord came to Abram in a [revelatory] vision [speaking promises]...Abram believed [the spoken Word]" (Gen 15).

 

[JAL]

You consider the Bible to be somewhat like a reliable science textbook.

A person can see, feel, taste, wallow in water and know by historical evidence and observation that water flows downhill.
I have met water and gravity personally
However I can puzzle about water and gravity but much of what I might deduce about water will be vain imaginings and best guesses. I might conclude all manner of untrue things about water and gravity unless I learned about the subjects from a reliable scientific source.

The analogy of a science textbook faces a couple of problems.
(1) Misinterpreting a science textbook doesn't have eternal consequences. With 100 billion souls at stake, there is no acceptable margin of exegetical error. For example we cannot afford to misunderstood evangelism - and yet I'm convinced the church has exegetically misunderstood it for 2,000 years (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).
(2) Science has a clear objective gauge of success, namely, the (empirically verified) degree of success in applied science. Religion has no such unambiguous standard. Exactly how many of the 100 billion need to be saved to constitute evangelistic success? It's impossible to know, without Direct Revelation.
(3) The Bible isn't even written after the fashion of a science textbook. For example the NT epistles are letters of exhortation scattered with unclear references to doctrine. If God wanted the Bible to be our authoritative source of doctrine, He should have at least accompanied it with a 10-volume systematic theology as the Appendix.
(4) The lack of a printing press for 90% of human history casts considerable doubt on Sola Scriptura. Assuming God isn't an irresponsible leader, why not use a proven tool - prophecy? (Again, I'm referring to regulated prophecy, not random opinionation). You think that the Bible was given to us as a kind of science textbook. My claim is that it was given to us to confirm the preeminence of prophets and prophecy (such as Paul). Again, here's Paul's definition of a church:

"And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues" (1Cor 12:28).

 

[QvQ]

You're putting the cart before the horse. People like Paul (preconversion), the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons, the Pharsees - all of them had plenty of book and worshiped the 'God' of that book - only it wasn't the correct God! Why so? No matter how much you study the Bible, the feeble human mind cannot properly conceive an ineffably holy God. You will only worship a conceptual idol, therefore, until Direct Revelation paints a mental picture (provides a vision) of the true God. Again, you must actually MEET the Lord in person. For Paul it happened on the Road to Damascus. Therefore the new birth must be defined as a vision of Christ. This, said Vincent, is the "new vision of the new man. He sees not only God, but the kingdom of God" (Vincent’s Word Studies on John 3:5) because "the new birth imparts a new vision" (Ibid., on Jn 3:11). Gordon Fee rightly insisted that 2Cor 3:18 ascribes to all believers a direct beholding of Christ in the most literal sense.

Calvin seemed to reach a similar conclusion. He commented on Heb 11:3,

"Men’s minds therefore are wholly blind, so that they see not the light of nature which shines forth in created things, until being irradiated by God’s Spirit...[whereby] they have a deep conviction fixed in their minds and behold the true God."

On John 16:16 Calvin commented that "Christ wishes to be seen by us". On John 14:19 he claimed that the Spirit enables believers to always "behold him by a secret beholding of Christ".

Your words elevate the book over personal experience. This is the exact opposite of the proper perspective.

Secondly, the book is dangerous if you lack sufficient Direct Revelation to reliably comprehend it. You said:


Thereby insinuating that:
(1) Personal experience (Direct Revelation) is not a reliable source.
(2) Exegesis is a reliable source.

Again, that's the exact opposite of the truth. I will, however, grant you this much:
(3) Unregulated personal experience is not a reliable source.
Assuming you will, in turn, grant me this much:
(4) Unregulated exegesis is not a reliable source.

How do we regulate experience? After 2,000 years of theologizing, I'm pretty sure no one has produced a better theorem than this one:

"I can accept a revelation without question only when I find it impossible to question, that is, when it has raised my level of certainty to incontrovertibility".

That's what I call 100% certainty, and there is ample evidence in the Bible that the prophets experienced it. And even when we are less than 100% certain, we can still avail of the rule of conscience:

"I can accept a revelation at least tentatively, if it has raised my degree of felt certainty to a level impossible to controvert in good conscience."

That's really just a corollary of the rule of conscience - the actual rule is this:

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

I don't care how seared, misinformed, warped, or corrupted is your conscience, the above rule is always appropriate to follow - no exceptions.

 

[QvQ]

EXACTLY
(3) Unregulated personal experience is not a reliable source.
Assuming you will, in turn, grant me this much:
(4) Unregulated exegesis is not a reliable source.

Without water, the actual, direct, experience of water and gravity, all words about water are meaningless.
Without words, I might believe, conclude or impute wrong explanations about water.
However, personal experience regulates the Word and exegesis regulates experience.
Actually, personal experience is the reality, the hard cold fact and unless the Word matches the reality the Word or the interpretation of the Word is suspect.
Anyone can write or say anything about water and gravity but the hard facts of water/gravity are immutable. The Word must accurately reflect reality, the hard facts and be a useful guide. Newton's laws match reality and are useful when applied to water and gravity. The Bible matches reality and is useful when applied to the manifestation/reality of God.

 

[JAL]

EXACTLY
(3) Unregulated personal experience is not a reliable source.
Assuming you will, in turn, grant me this much:
(4) Unregulated exegesis is not a reliable source.

Without water, the actual, direct, experience of water and gravity, all words about water are meaningless.

Right. We need Direct Revelation to actually experience God.

Without words, I might believe, conclude or impute wrong explanations about water.

False dichotomy. It's not necessarily EITHER Direct Revelation OR words. DR often speaks words - in fact that's how we got the Bible.

However, personal experience regulates the Word...

Huh?

Actually, personal experience is the reality, the hard cold fact and unless the Word matches the reality the Word or the interpretation of the Word is suspect.

Again, with 100 billion souls at stake, there is no acceptable margin of exegetical error.

Anyone can write or say anything about water and gravity but the hard facts of water/gravity are immutable. The Word must accurately reflect reality, the hard facts and be a useful guide. Newton's laws match reality and are useful when applied to water and gravity. The Bible matches reality and is useful when applied to the manifestation/reality of God.

Again, with 100 billion souls at stake, there is no acceptable margin of exegetical error.

 

[QvQ]

You consider the Bible to be somewhat like a reliable science textbook.

The analogy of a science textbook faces a couple of problems.
(1) Misinterpreting a science textbook doesn't have eternal consequences. With 100 billion souls at stake, there is no acceptable margin of exegetical error. For example we cannot afford to misunderstood evangelism - and yet I'm convinced the church has exegetically misunderstood it for 2,000 years (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).
(2) Science has a clear objective gauge of success, namely, the (empirically verified) degree of success in applied science. Religion has no such unambiguous standard. Exactly how many of the 100 billion need to be saved to constitute evangelistic success? It's impossible to know, without Direct Revelation.
(3) The Bible isn't even written after the fashion of a science textbook. For example the NT epistles are letters of exhortation scattered with unclear references to doctrine. If God wanted the Bible to be our authoritative source of doctrine, He should have at least accompanied it with a 10-volume systematic theology as the Appendix.
(4) The lack of a printing press for 90% of human history casts considerable doubt on Sola Scriptura. Assuming God isn't an irresponsible leader, why not use a proven tool - prophecy? (Again, I'm referring to regulated prophecy, not random opinionation). You think that the Bible was given to us as a kind of science textbook. My claim is that it was given to us to confirm the preeminence of prophets and prophecy (such as Paul). Again, here's Paul's definition of a church:

"And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues" (1Cor 12:28).

The Bible is a book of laws. God's law is immutable. Consider Adam and the law of gravity. Adam and God are on a roof, high above the ground. God tells Adam the law, "don't jump off the roof or very bad things will happen." The Devil takes Adam aside and assures him that if Adam jumps, Adam can fly, never mind what God said . So Adam jumps. The law of Gravity is immutable. Adam falls.
That is written. It can be tested on the street level. There are scientific natural laws and there are Laws of God. It would be advisable to thoroughly understand Newton before jumping off the roof and also very wise to understand the Bible before jumping into sin. The wages of both can be easily demonstrated.
The real problem with Secularism or relying on our own wisdom is learning by experience, being tempted by peers or our own perception of what is lawful or not. That is what preaching the Bible is all about. Not just Christ risen but how to live a better life, without having to learn the hard way, as Adam did.
It is scientific. The wages of sin are not all in heaven or hell but right here in our bedrooms and our bars. The Bible and the experience of God are two complimentary and equally real/valid facts.

 

[JAL]

The Bible is a book of laws. God's law is immutable. Consider Adam and the law of gravity. Adam and God are on a roof, high above the ground. God tells Adam the law, "don't jump off the roof or very bad things will happen." The Devil takes Adam aside and assures him that if Adam jumps, Adam can fly, never mind what God said . So Adam jumps. The law of Gravity is immutable. Adam falls.
That is written. It can be tested on the street level. There are scientific natural laws and there are Laws of God. It would be advisable to thoroughly understand Newton before jumping off the roof and also very wise to understand the Bible before jumping into sin. The wages of both can be easily demonstrated.
The real problem with Secularism or relying on our own wisdom is learning by experience, being tempted by peers or our own perception of what is lawful or not. That is what preaching the Bible is all about. Not just Christ risen but how to live a better life, without having to learn the hard way, as Adam did.
It is scientific. The wages of sin are not all in heaven or hell but right here in our bedrooms and our bars. The Bible and the experience of God are two complimentary and equally real/valid facts.

Strawmen.

The Bible and the experience of God are two complimentary and equally real/valid facts.

Strawman. No one here is arguing that the Bible is invalid or entirely useless. It's a question of emphasis and priorities. The Sola Scriptura movement is out of balance.

Even more to the point, all your posts operate on the utterly false assumption that exegesis is reliable in the same way that empirically verifiable science is reliable.

The Bible is a book of laws

And yet oddly you are obligated to only one law - the rule of conscience (influenced by the Voice of Direct Revelation). You might recall that even the Mosaic Law began as God's Voice, before it was written down. For example God literally shouted the 10 commandments to all Israel, before writing them down on stone tablets.

 

[K Watt]

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.

Conscience is unreliable and easily bent to conform to one's desires.

The truth comes from Christ. Sola Scriptura cannot be true because the bible doesn't tell us which books are scripture.

 

[QvQ]

Strawmen. Strawman. No one here is arguing that the Bible is invalid or entirely useless. It's a question of emphasis and priorities. The Sola Scriptura movement is out of balance.

Even more to the point, all your posts operate on the utterly false assumption that exegesis is reliable in the same way that empirically verifiable science is reliable.

And yet oddly you are obligated to only one law - the rule of conscience (influenced by the Voice of Direct Revelation). You might recall that even the Mosaic Law began as God's Voice, before it was written down. For example God literally shouted the 10 commandments to all Israel, before writing them down on stone tablets.

All laws are subject to the rule of conscience or understanding including the laws of physics. A person's understanding (conscience) is limited and informed by his experience, previous education (historical) or intuitive (innate) feelings. Jumping off roofs for instance, having some experience with gravitational forces, knowing someone who fell out of an apple tree or having an innate fear of heights are all factors in a person's understanding and actions in gravity.
Empirically verifiable science is and always has been subject to grave errors. Consider the science of medicine and how not so long ago bleeding/leeches were a cure for many ills. Even now, Newton is simple and not complete in view of Einstein and the three body problem.
Considering science and the long history of more wrong that right, the Bible is a pristine example of elucidated, irrefutable truth.
As for the billions of souls, that is God's realm. God and the Holy Spirit inform both our conscience and our understanding of the Bible. It is our duty to preach the Word, it is not in our power to save or enlighten anyone. By God's grace alone...Sola Cristus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Deo Gloria and Sola Scriptura.

 

[JAL]

All laws are subject to the rule of conscience or understanding including the laws of physics. A person's understanding (conscience) is limited and informed by his experience, previous education (historical) or intuitive (innate) feelings.

I'll repeat what I said:

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

I don't care how seared, misinformed, warped, or corrupted is your conscience, the above rule is always appropriate to follow - no exceptions. You certainly can't name any exceptions, nor can anyone else.

Thus the conscience is our only obligation. On the other hand the conscience itself is aware that it might be misinformed and therefore will direct us to confirm our current set of beliefs. That's not an exception to the rule of conscience - it is precisely how the rule is supposed to work. Now, in regards to seeking confirmation of our current set of beliefs, here's a couple of possibilities:
(1) We can try to use exegesis to confirm them.
(2) We can try to seek Direct Revelation to confirm them.
#1 is problematic for reasons already stated.

the Bible is a pristine example of elucidated, irrefutable truth.

True - but unfortunately you have no direct access to the Bible, only to a version of it immensely tainted with man-made opinions, for at least three reasons.
(1) Exegesis cannot build its inferences from empirically verifiable facts of experience, unlike science.
(2) You can learn Hebrew and Greek only from man-made lexicons. The data is already tainted. For example, even though I am a Trinitarian, the term 'Spirit' - despite its popularity among the lexicons - is a travesty of translation. Thus the title of the Third Person is clearly NOT "Holy Spirit" (even though I myself use that title to avoid confusing people). This means that exegesis is so prone to error that, after 2000 years of it, the church still can't even figure out the Third Person's name !!!!
(3) Exegesis is an attempt to prove an assertion either harmonious or disharmonious with the text. Every proof is built on assumptions, however, which in turn need to be proven. This leads to an infinite regress of unproven assumptions. The only way to break out of the infinite loop is to provisionally STIPULATE some man-made presumptions. Therefore the data is already man-tainted before the process even starts.

As for the billions of souls, that is God's realm. God and the Holy Spirit inform both our conscience and our understanding of the Bible. It is our duty to preach the Word, it is not in our power to save or enlighten anyone. By God's grace alone...Sola Cristus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Deo Gloria and Sola Scriptura.

No, it is not YOUR duty to preach the word. That assumption is based on an exegetical mistake known as the Great Commission, when in fact it was the Great Omission - Jesus didn't teach that false doctrine. I already linked to a couple of posts indicating the church's misunderstanding of evangelism - here are the links again ( see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).

 

[JAL]

To summarize, for 2,000 years much of the church - the Sola Scriptura movement - has arrogantly presumed that the Bible can be easily understood by exegetical methods. And you know what assuming does, right? It eventually makes an a-s-s of u-and-me. The Direct Revelation approach is a completely different mentality - it cries out to God for answers out of recognition that, given our fallibility, we probably should not (arrogantly) PRESUME to know anything at all.

 

[QvQ]

I'll repeat what I said:

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

I don't care how seared, misinformed, warped, or corrupted is your conscience, the above rule is always appropriate to follow - no exceptions. You certainly can't name any exceptions, nor can anyone else.

Thus the conscience is our only obligation. On the other hand the conscience itself is aware that it might be misinformed and therefore will direct us to confirm our current set of beliefs. That's not an exception to the rule of conscience - it is precisely how the rule is supposed to work. Now, in regards to seeking confirmation of our current set of beliefs, here's a couple of possibilities:
(1) We can try to use exegesis to confirm them.
(2) We can try to seek Direct Revelation to confirm them.
#1 is problematic for reasons already stated.

True - but unfortunately you have no direct access to the Bible, only to a version of it immensely tainted with man-made opinions, for at least three reasons.
(1) Exegesis cannot build its inferences from empirically verifiable facts of experience, unlike science.
(2) You can learn Hebrew and Greek only from man-made lexicons. The data is already tainted. For example, even though I am a Trinitarian, the term 'Spirit' - despite its popularity among the lexicons - is a travesty of translation. Thus the title of the Third Person is clearly NOT "Holy Spirit" (even though I myself use that title to avoid confusing people). This means that exegesis is so prone to error that, after 2000 years of it, the church still can't even figure out the Third Person's name !!!!
(3) Exegesis is an attempt to prove an assertion either harmonious or disharmonious with the text. Every proof is built on assumptions, however, which in turn need to be proven. This leads to an infinite regress of unproven assumptions. The only way to break out of the infinite loop is to provisionally STIPULATE some man-made presumptions. Therefore the data is already man-tainted before the process even starts.

No, it is not YOUR duty to preach the word. That assumption is based on an exegetical mistake known as the Great Commission, when in fact it was the Great Omission - Jesus didn't teach that false doctrine. I already linked to a couple of posts indicating the church's misunderstanding of evangelism - here are the links bagain ( see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).

"If I feel certain that action A is evil and action B is good, I should opt for B"
Moral decisions are not easy or simple or yes/no in the real world. Man, everyone, is tainted by self interest, cultural values and the obfuscation inherent in complex situations. What a cannibal or a slaver is absolutely convinced is -good is, in light of the Bible, evil.
Man is easily confounded and confused. Relying Solely on his own judgement to choose good and evil is not a good idea. There must be some mitigating or moderating factor. Or some source to shed light on the subject.
The Bible is informed by the Holy Spirit. If the Book is approached with reverence and prayer the truth of the Words will be revealed. There are innumerable writings, old and new, that tear the text apart, citing every supposed error, contradiction, and claiming that the Bible is therefore, based on their scholarly analysis, hogwash.
But then, open the Book, read "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want." Ask not, "what does that mean," but consider how many myriad meanings, subtleties of thought and conscience are in every few words. The Bible is not stone. It is a jewel to be taken up, contemplated, examined in different lights to reveal the manifold and sometimes mysterious Truths within.
God is and the Bible is the Word of God.

 

[JAL]

"If I feel certain that action A is evil and action B is good, I should opt for B"
Moral decisions are not easy or simple or yes/no in the real world. Man, everyone, is tainted by self interest, cultural values and the obfuscation inherent in complex situations. What a cannibal or a slaver is absolutely convinced is -good is, in light of the Bible, evil.
Man is easily confounded and confused. Relying Solely on his own judgement to choose good and evil is not a good idea. There must be some mitigating or moderating factor. Or some source to shed light on the subject.

I've amply responded to this. You are just repeating assertions already addressed.
(1) There are no exceptions to the rule of conscience.
(2) Looking to Direct Revelation for answers isn't reliance on one's own judgment. Rather, exegesis is reliance on one's own judgment.

The Bible is informed by the Holy Spirit. If the Book is approached with reverence and prayer the truth of the Words will be revealed.

Exactly. We need Direct Revelation to comprehend the text, as opposed to the exegetical method. The difference is this:
(1) Exegesis consists of chains of man-made proofs leading up to humanly inferred conclusions. This requires extraordinary levels of Bible-scholarship, and even such scholars are prone to many errors.
(2) In Direct Revelation, God reveals the meaning of the verses. He simply tells me HIS conclusions, instead of forcing me to draw conclusions. And I accept His conclusions based on my degree of felt certainty about the authenticity of the Voice.

There are innumerable writings, old and new, that tear the text apart, citing every supposed error, contradiction, and claiming that the Bible is therefore, based on their scholarly analysis, hogwash.
But then, open the Book, read "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want." Ask not, "what does that mean," but consider how many myriad meanings, subtleties of thought and conscience are in every few words. The Bible is not stone. It is a jewel to be taken up, contemplated, examined in different lights to reveal the manifold and sometimes mysterious Truths within.
God is and the Bible is the Word of God.

Strawman. I never questioned the veracity or inspiration of Scripture. You might want to start addressing MY arguments.

 

[QvQ]

I've amply responded to this. You are just repeating assertions already addressed.
(1) There are no exceptions to the rule of conscience.
(2) Looking to Direct Revelation for answers isn't reliance on one's own judgment. Rather, exegesis is reliance on one's own judgment.


Exactly. We need Direct Revelation to comprehend the text, as opposed to the exegetical method. The difference is this:
(1) Exegesis consists of chains of man-made proofs leading up to humanly inferred conclusions. This requires extraordinary levels of Bible-scholarship, and even such scholars are prone to many errors.
(2) In Direct Revelation, God reveals the meaning of the verses. He simply tells me HIS conclusions, instead of forcing me to draw conclusions. And I accept His conclusions based on my degree of felt certainty about the authenticity of the Voice.
Strawman. I never questioned the veracity or inspiration of Scripture. You might want to start addressing MY arguments.

We do agree in that exegesis is chain of man-made proofs and the Bible is a direct revelation complimenting a person's experience of a manifest God. God is not a character found only the pages of a book.
I think we agree but I hesitate to rely on my own conscience as I am as prone to self interest, peer pressure and cultural influence as anyone is. I must use both my conscience and the Bible to understand what is truly moral or B good.