Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[Hawkins]

What is our final authority for both faith and practice?

It is our Church as Jesus' body which is intangible. Jesus built this Temple in three days. It's not corruptible, while RCC as a physical assembly can go just as corrupt as the Jews were.

 

[JAL]

What are you talking about there? Priority of scriptures, which are showing communication from Yahweh, does not preclude relationship to Yahweh that believers should come to and have, through Christ (shown in the Bible). There is communication in relationship still.

Priority? You're entitled to make vague statements that do not really convey anything. And if I assume that's what you've been doing, I have no quarrel with you. But if you're insisting that I attempt to take your assertions strictly, then here you're reasserting points already refuted in earlier responses to you. You used that same word "priority" at post 321:

"The word of God has priority over other things, for drawing conclusions of the faith."

No it does not. Again, it depends on how I take your words. Yes it has more priority in determining doctrine than, say, apple juice (duh) - is that all you're trying to say? Again, if so, I have no quarrel with you. But if you're claiming it has THE SINGULAR PRIORITY in drawing religious conclusions, such is patently false, as I've shown time and again. For most Christians, they drew their two biggest religious conclusions before reading the Bible:
(1) The conclusion that the Bible itself is inspired.
(2) The conclusion that Jesus is Lord and God

Hence there must be an authority of HIGHER PRECEDENCE than the Bible, for all that to work. I've made this point over and over and over again, but it seems you'll just keep denying it, or responding with vague statements that SEEM to deny it (although it's hard to tell how strictly to take your words, as I said).

But at least you're in good company. Like you, all evangelical theologians have been in denial of this fact for the last 500 years. That's the heart and soul of the Sola Scriptura movement - it's one big act of denial, as Catholics, for example, have demonstrated for centuries, leveraging a slew of arguments that include mine but go beyond them. (I'm not a Catholic but it's clear enough that their objections to Sola Scriptura are valid).

 

[JAL]

It is our Church as Jesus' body which is intangible. Jesus built this Temple in three days. It's not corruptible, while RCC as a physical assembly can go just as corrupt as the Jews were.

Your statement isn't terribly useful because it's too vague. Sort of reminds me of a statement that my first Christian mentor used to say, "Pleasing God is simple. Just be Spirit-led in all things." When I tried to pin him down on the specifics of what that means, he never produced anything clear.

 

[FredVB]

Priority? You're entitled to make vague statements that do not really convey anything. And if I assume that's what you've been doing, I have no quarrel with you. But if you're insisting that I attempt to take your assertions strictly, then here you're reasserting points already refuted in earlier responses to you. You used that same word "priority" at post 321:

"The word of God has priority over other things, for drawing conclusions of the faith."

No it does not. Again, it depends on how I take your words. Yes it has more priority in determining doctrine than, say, apple juice (duh) - is that all you're trying to say? Again, if so, I have no quarrel with you. But if you're claiming it has THE SINGULAR PRIORITY in drawing religious conclusions, such is patently false, as I've shown time and again. For most Christians, they drew their two biggest religious conclusions before reading the Bible:
(1) The conclusion that the Bible itself is inspired.
(2) The conclusion that Jesus is Lord and God

Hence there must be an authority of HIGHER PRECEDENCE than the Bible, for all that to work. I've made this point over and over and over again, but it seems you'll just keep denying it, or responding with vague statements that SEEM to deny it (although it's hard to tell how strictly to take your words, as I said).

But at least you're in good company. Like you, all evangelical theologians have been in denial of this fact for the last 500 years. That's the heart and soul of the Sola Scriptura movement - it's one big act of denial, as Catholics, for example, have demonstrated for centuries, leveraging a slew of arguments that include mine but go beyond them. (I'm not a Catholic but it's clear enough that their objections to Sola Scriptura are valid).

What still gives you higher authority than God's word, which is showing from the Bible?

"Sola scriptura" is about "testing" all doctrine - it is not an argument for "there is no useful information outside of scripture".
But all tested by scripture so it is in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF the things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" we see both the usefulness of "things spoken by Paul" an apostle of the first order - of the first century -- and also the "testing of it" that is "sola scriptura".

No one here has stated that the church has no authority.
Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.
Even the church is under the infallible authority of Scripture.

Thanks to both of you, defining Sola Scriptura this way does help. I was avoiding defending Sola Scriptura with the straw man argument to me that is not my position, but I agree the Bible has precedence for us when will see its authority as God's word for us, it certainly does not exclude communion through Christ with God, any more than it does other ways to know things.

 

[JAL]

What still gives you higher authority than God's word, which is showing from the Bible?

Again:
(1) You have no direct access to 'God's Word' - only to a man-tainted, opinionated, fallible interpretation of it. For example you can only learn Hebrew and Greek from a man-made lexicon. Exegesis is thus already man-tainted before it even begins.
(2) On what authority/basis do you accept Scripture as inspired? Tell me, why do you believe the Bible is inspired? You will predictably evade this question since attesting to a religious authority/basis other than Scripture repudiates Sola Scriptura automatically.

 

[JAL]

What still gives you higher authority than God's word, which is showing from the Bible?

And if you won't give ME a direct answer to my questions, would you at least provide an answer to an agnostic? Suppose an agnostic asks you, "On what basis/authority should I accept the Bible as inspired?"

What would be your response? Do you even have a viable response?

 

[JAL]

What still gives you higher authority than God's word, which is showing from the Bible?

Here again is the challenge I just raised.

Suppose an agnostic asks you, "On what basis/authority should I accept the Bible as inspired?" What would be your response?

I'll help you out on this. For the last 500 years, evangelical theologians seem to be unanimous with Calvin on this point. Calvin's claim is that the Inward Witness - the Holy Spirit - is our basis/authority for accepting Scripture as inspired. Calvin argued that He simply causes us to feel certain that the Bible is true. The implication of all this - which evangelical theologians have been in denial about for 500 years - is that feelings of certainty are authoritative. And this is tautological, for there are no possible exceptions to the following rule, which I call "the rule of conscience" (but note that it doesn't actually use the word 'conscience' so please don't start raising objections about unreliable conscience):

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

So in answer to your question:

What still gives you higher authority than God's word, which is showing from the Bible?

Feelings of certainty ('conscience') are our highest authority. This is obviously a higher authority than Scripture, since it ultimately DICTATED your decision whether to accept or reject the Bible. For example, if tomorrow you feel certain that the Koran is God's Word instead of Scripture, you'll reject Scripture forthwith.

I know it doesn't sound "theologically neat and tidy" to admit that feelings of certainty rank higher in your life than (fallible !!!) biblical exegesis. Nonetheless it's an unavoidable truth. But I suspect you will prefer to continue indulging in the same game of denial ubiquitous to evangelical theologians for 500 years.

 

[JAL]

And that's how all Direct Revelation works. It's a two-pronged process:
(1) God sees to it that a message is conveyed whether by His voice directly, or by an angel, or by a prophet, or whatever.
(2) The Holy Spirit causes you to feel certain that the message is true.

It's not rocket science. It's not complicated.

 

[Hawkins]

Your statement isn't terribly useful because it's too vague. Sort of reminds me of a statement that my first Christian mentor used to say, "Pleasing God is simple. Just be Spirit-led in all things." When I tried to pin him down on the specifics of what that means, he never produced anything clear.

It's not vague. It is a fact that the Jews went corrupt that the gospel fell to the hands of Christians instead of the Jews. Do you call this vague? It is crystal clear instead.

Matthew 16:19 (NIV2011)
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

"Bind and loose" is a Jewish term of authority. From the point Jesus said the above, the authentication of God's earthly representative goes to Christians from the hands of the Jews.

Back then Judaism is represented and enforced by the Pharisees (with the Great Sanhedrin as the physical assembly within which only the Pharisees are putting Judaism into their hands). It is a fact not a vague that the Pharisees went corrupt. They are the deaf and blind to the message of God sent through Jesus Christ.

 

[JAL]

It's not vague. It is a fact that the Jews went corrupt that the gospel fell to the hands of Christians instead of the Jews. Do you call this vague? It is crystal clear instead.

Matthew 16:19 (NIV2011)
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

"Bind and loose" is a Jewish term of authority. From the point Jesus said the above, the authentication of God's earthly representative goes to Christians from the hands of the Jews.

Back then Judaism is represented and enforced by the Pharisees (with the Great Sanhedrin as the physical assembly within which only the Pharisees are putting Judaism into their hands). It is a fact not a vague that the Pharisees went corrupt. They are the deaf and blind to the message of God sent through Jesus Christ.

Utterly vague. It's all relative of course. Relative to THIS discussion it is vague. This thread is a discussion of epistemology - meaning how specifically do we make decisions as to what to believe regarding both doctrine and practice. And not just the little things but even the big ones such as:
(1) What is my basis for believing that Jesus is Lord?
(2) What is my basis for believing that Scripture is inspired?
(3) How do I make ethical decisions from moment to moment?

In respect to which I provided an infallible maximum that provides VERY specific instructions:

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

RELATIVE to that kind of specificity, your statements were indeed vague, especially your initial post.

 

[FredVB]

What still gives you higher authority than God's word, which is showing from the Bible?

I was avoiding defending Sola Scriptura with the straw man argument to me, that is not my position, but I agree the Bible has precedence for us when will see its authority as God's word for us, it certainly does not exclude communion through Christ with God, any more than it does other ways to know things.

Again:
(1) You have no direct access to 'God's Word' - only to a man-tainted, opinionated, fallible interpretation of it. For example you can only learn Hebrew and Greek from a man-made lexicon. Exegesis is thus already man-tainted before it even begins.
(2) On what authority/basis do you accept Scripture as inspired? Tell me, why do you believe the Bible is inspired? You will predictably evade this question since attesting to a religious authority/basis other than Scripture repudiates Sola Scriptura automatically.

The Bible I have access to is not so badly altered as to be of no use to me. There are a great many important things shown to me from it. I can still recognize some things changed from what was in the Bible, to not be influenced by being guided from the change in it. I can answer, there is our conscience, God-given to start with, that we must go by in any case. When we are presented with the Bible, preferably around the time we are presented with the gospel, there is some testimony to us for that, in some way. As many of us look at it more, we learn of more testimony to it. That doesn't need to stop, there happens to be a great deal of testimony for it, to trust the Bible, for revelation from God. We can learn it is Yahweh who is God. That some things have changed is a small matter when more has changed in any comparable ancient writing, of which there is nowhere near the same amount of manuscripts for basis, anywhere as near to the time of the original writing. We can learn from the Bible to trust giving God's word which we have with it priority, that is still not dismissing other things, many other things, experienced, which we can learn from.

And if you won't give ME a direct answer to my questions, would you at least provide an answer to an agnostic? Suppose an agnostic asks you, "On what basis/authority should I accept the Bible as inspired?"
What would be your response? Do you even have a viable response?

Well, I did answer. To an agnostic I will do as I have done, discussing the reality of God, which is a separate thing to know which is important. When we know of the reality of God, which our conscience will testify to, we can consider characteristics of God that would be enough to consider that there would be communication from God to us, who are made for that communication being possible, with expectations. When that is recognized, the Bible may be shown as having better basis to trust the claim of it being that.

Here again is the challenge I just raised.
Suppose an agnostic asks you, "On what basis/authority should I accept the Bible as inspired?" What would be your response?
I'll help you out on this. For the last 500 years, evangelical theologians seem to be unanimous with Calvin on this point. Calvin's claim is that the Inward Witness - the Holy Spirit - is our basis/authority for accepting Scripture as inspired. Calvin argued that He simply causes us to feel certain that the Bible is true. The implication of all this - which evangelical theologians have been in denial about for 500 years - is that feelings of certainty are authoritative. And this is tautological, for there are no possible exceptions to the following rule, which I call "the rule of conscience" (but note that it doesn't actually use the word 'conscience' so please don't start raising objections about unreliable conscience):
"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".
So in answer to your question:
Feelings of certainty ('conscience') are our highest authority. This is obviously a higher authority than Scripture, since it ultimately DICTATED your decision whether to accept or reject the Bible. For example, if tomorrow you feel certain that the Koran is God's Word instead of Scripture, you'll reject Scripture forthwith.
I know it doesn't sound "theologically neat and tidy" to admit that feelings of certainty rank higher in your life than (fallible !!!) biblical exegesis. Nonetheless it's an unavoidable truth. But I suspect you will prefer to continue indulging in the same game of denial ubiquitous to evangelical theologians for 500 years.
And that's how all Direct Revelation works. It's a two-pronged process:
(1) God sees to it that a message is conveyed whether by His voice directly, or by an angel, or by a prophet, or whatever.
(2) The Holy Spirit causes you to feel certain that the message is true.

Conscience is important for that. As I showed, it is not exclusive. There are really abundant evidences for it, and that inner witness, God's Spirit working with us, perhaps the inner light that Quakers speak of, which you might mean, can work for that as well. Bases for what we think otherwise do not go away, I certainly am thinking more than many people to figure things out anyway. But with knowing to come to the Bible I do not put things in priority over what God says.

 

[JAL]

Your response is too ambivalent. You're trying to say that epistemology is a mixture, that is, a "little of this" (such as conscience) and a "little of that" (such as Bible) without being specific as to what that means. (The end result is that you're rambling). Look, I myself am not entirely opposed to a somewhat eclectic epistemology (indeed my own is such) as long as there are some clear, unambiguous guidelines - and preferably tautological ones.

The Bible I have access to is not so badly altered as to be of no use to me.

Well I wasn't alleging it is altered. I said our lenses are tainted.

There are a great many important things shown to me from it. I can still recognize some things changed from what was in the Bible, to not be influenced by being guided from the change in it.

Yes. Exegesis is potentially useful, albeit too fallible to be considered reliable. But yes, exegesis is part of my own eclectic approach.

I can answer, there is our conscience, God-given to start with, that we must go by in any case.

Agreed. Another part of my eclecticism. But when all is said and done - are any of these 'parts' authoritative? If not, we remain stranded in a (high-stakes) guessing-game that arrives NOWHERE

When we are presented with the Bible, preferably around the time we are presented with the gospel, there is some testimony to us for that, in some way. As many of us look at it more, we learn of more testimony to it. That doesn't need to stop, there happens to be a great deal of testimony for it, to trust the Bible, for revelation from God. We can learn it is Yahweh who is God.

What's authoritative here? Fallible exegesis? Nothing? Again, you seem to be rambling.

Well, I did answer. To an agnostic I will do as I have done, discussing the reality of God, which is a separate thing to know which is important.

No you haven't clearly satisfied/answered the agnostic's request for an authority/basis on which to justifiably conclude that the Bible is inspired.

When we know of the reality of God, which our conscience will testify to...

Vague statements that "sound theological", that have a "religious ring" to them but are not really clear/specific as to what they mean. What do you mean we "know" - on what basis/authority should we claim to "know" something? How does this kind of vague statement quench the agnostic's thirst for clear answers?

When that is recognized, the Bible may be shown as having better basis to trust the claim of it being that.

Shown how? So this is your answer to the agnostic's doubts about biblical inspiration? That's not particularly clear - and it's still not addressing the larger issue. Suppose your claim is, "I will use a show of REASON to prove to the agnostic (or recent convert) that Scripture is inspired."

So is Reason, then, authoritative? Reason is what dictates YOUR decision to:
(1) Dismiss most books as uninspired.
(2) Accept each of the 66 biblical books as inspired.

But in so claiming, you've now touted Reason as a higher authority than the Bible because it dictates your decision to accept or reject those books. Meaning, if tomorrow your reasoning leads you to believe that the Koran is inspired, you'll reject the Bible.

So again, what is authoritative? Reason? Historical analysis? Conscience? Blind faith? Nothing?
(1) If any of these are authoritative, it contradicts Sola Scriptura (Scripture as the only authority).
(2) If nothing is authoritative, we have no basis for drawing the conclusion that Scripture is inspired.

You still haven't made a clear commitment to ANYTHING as being authoritative. Whereas I gave you a clear answer. I said that the following principle is ALWAYS authoritative because there is no possible scenario that would warrant departure from it:

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

I call it 'conscience' but it doesn't actually use the word conscience (and thus should not be "rebutted" with complaints about the unreliability of conscience).

Conscience is important for that.

Merely "important" ? Not authoritative? Not definitive? We still have no definitive answers from you - no real commitment - 370 posts deep? And 2,000 years post-Christ? How much longer should I wait for you? Another 2,000 years?

As I showed, it is not exclusive.

Yes, you clearly indicated that epistemology is a "little of this" and a "little of that". But that itself is not clear, and expresses no real commitment to anything definitive.

There are really abundant evidences for it, and that inner witness, God's Spirit working with us, perhaps the inner light that Quakers speak of, which you might mean, can work for that as well. Bases for what we think otherwise do not go away, I certainly am thinking more than many people to figure things out anyway. But with knowing to come to the Bible I do not put things in priority over what God says.

Lovely. 370 posts deep and the most I'm able to elicit from you is a big "perhaps". Wonderful.

 

[Hawkins]

Your statement isn't terribly useful because it's too vague. Sort of reminds me of a statement that my first Christian mentor used to say, "Pleasing God is simple. Just be Spirit-led in all things." When I tried to pin him down on the specifics of what that means, he never produced anything clear.

It's not vague. Jesus said it Himself that He's the temple built in three days. His body is the intangible temple. You failed to comprehend it correctly if you think that it is equivalent to RCC.

You usually bring in a lot of false accusations, such as the term vague. In a normal discussion this can be avoided. In fact, your comprehension is "vague" when you think that Jesus body as the Temple has nothing to do with our earthly Church today.

 

[Hawkins]

Utterly vague. It's all relative of course. Relative to THIS discussion it is vague. This thread is a discussion of epistemology - meaning how specifically do we make decisions as to what to believe regarding both doctrine and practice. And not just the little things but even the big ones such as:
(1) What is my basis for believing that Jesus is Lord?
(2) What is my basis for believing that Scripture is inspired?
(3) How do I make ethical decisions from moment to moment?

In respect to which I provided an infallible maximum that provides VERY specific instructions:

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

RELATIVE to that kind of specificity, your statements were indeed vague, especially your initial post.

You are even against the basis of Christianity. Jesus is first to contact the Jews instead of the gentiles. Jesus is rejected by the Jews generally speaking that the apostles are thus authenticated to preach without the authentication from the Jews' authority such as the Great Sanhedrin.

Historically, Judaism is enforced by the Pharisees as an authority. The Jews are corrupted enough to reject Jesus as led by the Pharisees. This is a historical fact. Whatever you said here is either irrelevant or vague (using your own word) to confuse the topic.

Jews/Judaism/Pharisee are corrupt that Jesus is rejected as result. This is fact in Christianity. Nothing vague as you claimed.

RCC historically went just as corrupt as the Jews/Pharisees, this is another fact which resulted the emergence of Protestants. This is yet another historical fact, nothing vague but only stated facts. Your false accusations won't help that much though everyone can tell that you are professed in throwing them out.

 

[FredVB]

The Bible I have access to is not so badly altered as to be of no use to me. There are a great many important things shown to me from it. I can still recognize some things changed from what was in the Bible, to not be influenced by being guided from the change in it. I can answer, there is our conscience, God-given to start with, that we must go by in any case. When we are presented with the Bible, preferably around the time we are presented with the gospel, there is some testimony to us for that, in some way. As many of us look at it more, we learn of more testimony to it. That doesn't need to stop, there happens to be a great deal of testimony for it, to trust the Bible, for revelation from God. We can learn it is Yahweh who is God. That some things have changed is a small matter when more has changed in any comparable ancient writing, of which there is nowhere near the same amount of manuscripts for basis, anywhere as near to the time of the original writing. We can learn from the Bible to trust giving God's word which we have with it priority, that is still not dismissing other things, many other things, experienced, which we can learn from.

To an agnostic I will do as I have done, discussing the reality of God, which is a separate thing to know which is important. When we know of the reality of God, which our conscience will testify to, we can consider characteristics of God that would be enough to consider that there would be communication from God to us, who are made for that communication being possible, with expectations. When that is recognized, the Bible may be shown as having better basis to trust the claim of it being that.

Conscience is important for that. As I showed, it is not exclusive. There are really abundant evidences for it, and that inner witness, God's Spirit working with us, perhaps the inner light that Quakers speak of, which you might mean, can work for that as well. Bases for what we think otherwise do not go away, I certainly am thinking more than many people to figure things out anyway. But with knowing to come to the Bible I do not put things in priority over what God says.

Your response is too ambivalent. You're trying to say that epistemology is a mixture, that is, a "little of this" (such as conscience) and a "little of that" (such as Bible) without being specific as to what that means. (The end result is that you're rambling). Look, I myself am not entirely opposed to a somewhat eclectic epistemology (indeed my own is such) as long as there are some clear, unambiguous guidelines - and preferably tautological ones.
Well I wasn't alleging it is altered. I said our lenses are tainted. Yes. Exegesis is potentially useful, albeit too fallible to be considered reliable. But yes, exegesis is part of my own eclectic approach.
Agreed. Another part of my eclecticism. But when all is said and done - are any of these 'parts' authoritative? If not, we remain stranded in a (high-stakes) guessing-game that arrives NOWHERE

What's authoritative here? Fallible exegesis? Nothing? Again, you seem to be rambling.

No you haven't clearly satisfied/answered the agnostic's request for an authority/basis on which to justifiably conclude that the Bible is inspired.

Vague statements that "sound theological", that have a "religious ring" to them but are not really clear/specific as to what they mean. What do you mean we "know" - on what basis/authority should we claim to "know" something? How does this kind of vague statement quench the agnostic's thirst for clear answers?

Shown how? So this is your answer to the agnostic's doubts about biblical inspiration? That's not particularly clear - and it's still not addressing the larger issue. Suppose your claim is, "I will use a show of REASON to prove to the agnostic (or recent convert) that Scripture is inspired."

So is Reason, then, authoritative? Reason is what dictates YOUR decision to:
(1) Dismiss most books as uninspired.
(2) Accept each of the 66 biblical books as inspired.

But in so claiming, you've now touted Reason as a higher authority than the Bible because it dictates your decision to accept or reject those books. Meaning, if tomorrow your reasoning leads you to believe that the Koran is inspired, you'll reject the Bible.

So again, what is authoritative? Reason? Historical analysis? Conscience? Blind faith? Nothing?
(1) If any of these are authoritative, it contradicts Sola Scriptura (Scripture as the only authority).
(2) If nothing is authoritative, we have no basis for drawing the conclusion that Scripture is inspired.

You still haven't made a clear commitment to ANYTHING as being authoritative. Whereas I gave you a clear answer. I said that the following principle is ALWAYS authoritative because there is no possible scenario that would warrant departure from it:

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

I call it 'conscience' but it doesn't actually use the word conscience (and thus should not be "rebutted" with complaints about the unreliability of conscience).

Merely "important" ? Not authoritative? Not definitive? We still have no definitive answers from you - no real commitment - 370 posts deep? And 2,000 years post-Christ? How much longer should I wait for you? Another 2,000 years?

Yes, you clearly indicated that epistemology is a "little of this" and a "little of that". But that itself is not clear, and expresses no real commitment to anything definitive.

Lovely. 370 posts deep and the most I'm able to elicit from you is a big "perhaps". Wonderful.

It was not at all ambivalent, nor was it rambling. You seem to want to disagree with what is posted otherwise, but make argument with what was not said. You show you want something recognized as authoritative, but would argue that it cannot be scriptures. You are not recognizing that we can have various things authoritative. With this, those things cannot be equally authoritative, if there is any conflict, one thing is necessarily more authoritative than another. So our conscience is authoritative in our lives. Of we have not numbed ourselves to it, our conscience is subject to God revealing things. When scriptures from God are made known to any of us, we can be led to trusting what we learn from them. And with learning more we can find that God's word is more authoritative, while it instructs us to still answer to our conscience, that then does not lose its authority with us, and there is further reasoning we are not to turn off, so there are still other authorities for us, and we can continue to learn in many things. The scriptures do not limit us from that. If you say that is not Sola Scriptura that is fine. But what I hear is that what you say Sola Scriptura must be is not what it actually is. We can have other authorities to guide us, and we can be in some communication with God. But the word of God has authority over it all, so that with any conflict there may be, priority belongs to God's word. Of course if it is conflict with our conscience, we can carefully check on whether any of those original scriptures were changed in copying and in translating to other interpretations, which may have happened in certain cases.

The response for agnostics is not trying to give reason to believe the Bible. I would not try as there is no reason for one who does not trust God is there to trust the Bible. So I discuss God being there with them, which I can do effectively. That would be it. With any trusting God is there, I can have discussion of the Bible with them.

I have read the Koran as well. I would not give up the Bible for trusting its authority.

The 'perhaps' is recognition that you may be in agreement with Quakers' understanding, and I am not arguing over that.

 

[JAL]

It was not at all ambivalent, nor was it rambling. You seem to want to disagree with what is posted otherwise, but make argument with what was not said. You show you want something recognized as authoritative, but would argue that it cannot be scriptures. You are not recognizing that we can have various things authoritative. With this, those things cannot be equally authoritative, if there is any conflict, one thing is necessarily more authoritative than another. So our conscience is authoritative in our lives. Of we have not numbed ourselves to it, our conscience is subject to God revealing things. When scriptures from God are made known to any of us, we can be led to trusting what we learn from them. And with learning more we can find that God's word is more authoritative, while it instructs us to still answer to our conscience, that then does not lose its authority with us, and there is further reasoning we are not to turn off, so there are still other authorities for us, and we can continue to learn in many things. The scriptures do not limit us from that. If you say that is not Sola Scriptura that is fine. But what I hear is that what you say Sola Scriptura must be is not what it actually is. We can have other authorities to guide us, and we can be in some communication with God. But the word of God has authority over it all, so that with any conflict there may be, priority belongs to God's word. Of course if it is conflict with our conscience, we can carefully check on whether any of those original scriptures were changed in copying and in translating to other interpretations, which may have happened in certain cases.

Rambling. Total ambivalence. On the one hand you speak of multiple authorities:

"You are not recognizing that we can have various things authoritative. "

but then contradict yourself with:

"But the word of God has authority over it all"

If the word of God is the only final authority (which is the essential definition of Sola Scriptura) then those other so-called authorities are NOT authorities (in the final analysis). This leaves you with a problem (as Catholics have been stressing for 500 years) that you have left yourself with no authority/basis for asserting that Scripture is inspired. You NEED an authority higher than Scripture to vouch, to your heart/mind, for the veracity of Scripture - like it or not. Obviously you DON'T like this fact, and therefore persist in denial - and much rambling. I don't see much point to this discussion with you.

Despite the fact that evangelical theologians contradict themselves on these points, and continue to live in denial, they DO at least, in some sense, acknowledge the authority of the Inward Witness. They accept Calvin's claim that the Inward Witness (experienced as a feeling of certainty) is authoritative to us (on a daily or even continual basis) in authenticating the inspiration Scripture. YOU, on the other hand, haven't even acknowledged THAT much - precisely because you don't want to concede to me , on this thread, an authority higher than biblical exegesis.

The response for agnostics is not trying to give reason to believe the Bible.

You continue to convieniently ignore the nature of the questions raised, phrased variously as for example when I asked it this way:

"[How to establish] to the agnostic (or recent convert) that Scripture is inspired."

Or when I asked you directly, what is YOUR basis for holding to the inspiration of Scripture? Again, no clear definitive answer from you. Just rambling. You won't admit to any authoritative basis for accepting the Scriptures, because to do so would contradict your assumption that the Bible is the only FINAL authority. Yes, you are DEFINITELY advocating the Sola Scriptura position - and, like everyone else, you don't much care how self-contradictory it is. Sad, because in your misplaced zeal to elevate the written Word of God, you inadvertently deprecate the divine Word of God. Here's how you got saved. The divine Word pierced your heart, convicting (convincing) your conscience of the truth - this is the Inward Witness. Thus, GOD is my authority (by virtue of His ability to influence conscience efficaciously). So here's where we differ:
(1) Your claim is that the Bible is our highest authority.
(2) My claim is that GOD is my highest authority.
(3) My claim isn't self-contradictory.

 

[FredVB]

Rambling. Total ambivalence. On the one hand you speak of multiple authorities but then contradict yourself.

Whatever. You say so, I say no. Is english a second language for you? It seems it might be. You definitely have a different understanding of authority. Let me illustrate. If your mother tells something to you while you are a child, she has authority, doesn't she? But if your father is with you too, he has authority. What if they disagree? What if you got in trouble with the law when you were out and away from their supervision? There are other authorities, those might bring you home to your mother and father. They do have authority. Right? And some have greater authority than others.

If the word of God is the only final authority (which is the essential definition of Sola Scriptura) then those other so-called authorities are NOT authorities (in the final analysis). You NEED an authority higher than Scripture to vouch, to your heart/mind, for the veracity of Scripture - like it or not.
YOU haven't even acknowledged THAT much - precisely because you don't want to concede to me , on this thread, an authority higher than biblical exegesis. You continue to convieniently ignore the nature of the questions raised, phrased variously as for example when I asked it this way:
"[How to establish] to the agnostic (or recent convert) that Scripture is inspired."
So here's where we differ:
(1) Your claim is that the Bible is our highest authority.
(2) My claim is that GOD is my highest authority.
(3) My claim isn't self-contradictory.

This is all false. There are authorities, and not just the Bible, I do not say otherwise. You show a false dichotomy, at the least, not considering other things. Other things that are authoritative can lead us to the Bible. We might come to learn of the greater authority of God's word after that. The Bible does not show us to ignore other things, like authorities, or logic, any more than others' needs. If what you have for authority to you does not lead you to the Bible, it is very wrong, and you are deceived. It is wrong to say my highest authority is the Bible and your highest authority is God, it is you who are then self-contradictory. The Bible does not contradict God, it is the revelation of God, and God is the authority. If what you have for authority is not leading you to that but keeping you from it, it is false. And you were wrong in saying you asked me what you show there. You did not ask me that. It is very different dealing with a new convert than with an agnostic person. The new converts in Christ need to know about reading and listening to the Bible. It does not seem that you learned of that. Agnostic people are not ready for that. They would probably not benefit from the Bible while dismissing that God is there.

 

[JAL]

Whatever. You say so, I say no. Is english a second language for you? It seems it might be. You definitely have a different understanding of authority. Let me illustrate. If your mother tells something to you while you are a child, she has authority, doesn't she? But if your father is with you too, he has authority. What if they disagree? What if you got in trouble with the law when you were out and away from their supervision? There are other authorities, those might bring you home to your mother and father. They do have authority. Right? And some have greater authority than others.

None of this reflects your position. You're just contradicting yourself. Let's take a look at one of your specific examples - your mother. YOUR position is that Scripture has supreme authority. Therefore if in any scenario you believed that Scripture would have you to disobey your mother (for example if she told you to worship idols), you would do so. This proves that she is (ultimately) NOT authoritative in your view. This follows from your traditional Sola-Scriptura assumption that Scripture is our final authority.

This is all false. There are authorities, and not just the Bible, I do not say otherwise. You show a false dichotomy, at the least, not considering other things. Other things that are authoritative can lead us to the Bible. We might come to learn of the greater authority of God's word after that. The Bible does not show us to ignore other things, like authorities, or logic, any more than others' needs.

See above.

If what you have for authority to you does not lead you to the Bible, it is very wrong, and you are deceived. It is wrong to say my highest authority is the Bible and your highest authority is God, it is you who are then self-contradictory. The Bible does not contradict God, it is the revelation of God, and God is the authority.

Rambling. On what authority/basis do you make these assertions? 370 posts deep, and you still haven't addressed the issue raised in the OP (of which I've literally reminded you probably 20 times now), namely what is your basis/authority for believing in the Bible? If we continued this discussion for 500 more posts, you would continue to ignore this question, because any possible response contradicts your Sola Scriptura position.

If what you have for authority is not leading you to that but keeping you from it, it is false. And you were wrong in saying you asked me what you show there. You did not ask me that. It is very different dealing with a new convert than with an agnostic person. The new converts in Christ need to know about reading and listening to the Bible. It does not seem that you learned of that. Agnostic people are not ready for that. They would probably not benefit from the Bible while dismissing that God is there.

Huh? Agnostics are not ready to hear the gospel? The number one most anticipated question/response when preaching to an agnostic is, "Why should I believe in the Bible?"

All I've done is ask you:
(1) How are you going to respond to that question, on his behalf?
(2) And what is your own response, on YOUR behalf?
And yet here we are, 375 posts deep, and you just continue dancing, pretending to respond to me but ignoring even the fundamental issues of the OP...

 

[FredVB]

None of this reflects your position. You're just contradicting yourself. Let's take a look at one of your specific examples - your mother. YOUR position is that Scripture has supreme authority. Therefore if in any scenario you believed that Scripture would have you to disobey your mother (for example if she told you to worship idols), you would do so. This proves that she is (ultimately) NOT authoritative in your view. This follows from your traditional Sola-Scriptura assumption that Scripture is our final authority.

On what authority/basis do you make these assertions? 370 posts deep, and you still haven't addressed the issue raised in the OP (of which I've literally reminded you probably 20 times now), namely what is your basis/authority for believing in the Bible? If we continued this discussion for 500 more posts, you would continue to ignore this question, because any possible response contradicts your Sola Scriptura position.

Huh? Agnostics are not ready to hear the gospel? The number one most anticipated question/response when preaching to an agnostic is, "Why should I believe in the Bible?"

All I've done is ask you:
(1) How are you going to respond to that question, on his behalf?
(2) And what is your own response, on YOUR behalf?
And yet here we are, 375 posts deep, and you just continue dancing, pretending to respond to me but ignoring even the fundamental issues of the OP...

You know, I am going to have to tell you to stop with 370 or 375 posts deep stuff, and you telling me something 20 times. I am not someone you have been in dialogue with through the whole thread. I checked and I see I have only posted in the thread ten times, starting with this year. And you certainly do not represent me properly. The way of arguing with putting down others is not suitable for believers who should be godly, either. I respond to your latest posts, not the start of the thread now.

I was not a believer when little, and do not envision that little ones generally are, or that conflict is normal. Authorities change for us. We do not wind up with the same authority highest for us that we started with. That should not be a difficult concept.

And I can share the gospel and trust in the Bible with unbelievers, but those are not all agnostics.

 

[JAL]

You know, I am going to have to tell you to stop with 370 or 375 posts deep stuff, and you telling me something 20 times. I am not someone you have been in dialogue with through the whole thread. I checked and I see I have only posted in the thread ten times, starting with this year.

Whether the 20 implorations were accross 20 posts or 10 is immaterial.

And you certainly do not represent me properly.

I can't represent someone with consistency if he himself is not consistent. I've already charged you with (still) unresolved contradictions.

The way of arguing with putting down others is not suitable for believers who should be godly, either. I respond to your latest posts, not the start of the thread now.

I don't much engage in ad hominem. But when an adduced "rebuttal" repeatedly sidesteps the force of my arguments, I will call you out on it. That's not going to change.

I was not a believer when little, and do not envision that little ones generally are, or that conflict is normal. Authorities change for us. We do not wind up with the same authority highest for us that we started with. That should not be a difficult concept.

Wrong. When you were little, there was no moral culpability, no accountability to God. Sola Scriptura is understood to apply to all of us old enough for accountability. Your claim, in consistency with Sola-Scriptura, is that the Bible is the final authority for us all. I've merely pointed out the contradictions inherent within that stance.

And I can share the gospel and trust in the Bible with unbelievers, but those are not all agnostics.

Dancing, sidestepping, rambling - you name it. Here AGAIN, you've circumlocuted the challenge to clearly explain:
(1) On what basis/authority should the agnostic repent, i.e., accept the Bible?
(2) On what basis/authority do YOU accept the Bible?

As predicted. I promised you'd continue to dodge this question (as you did the first 20 times), and here you go again. The only real question remaining is, how much longer I can afford to continue in these repetitious exchanges.