Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[FredVB]

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 before this time, 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.

Whether the 20 implorations were accross 20 posts or 10 is immaterial.
I can't represent someone with consistency if he himself is not consistent. I've already charged you with (still) unresolved contradictions.
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.

It is relevant. If I ever answered with ad hominem verbal attack, or disparage, I will not be justified ... no matter what. You were just charging a great deal more than what there could possibly have been. And for what? You have said it is argument about sola scriptura, but you actually argue against authority of the Bible. And as I write in response what I believe, I am not contradicting myself, unless there is cognitive dissonance, or I am crazy. But I explain myself, and you do not show proven contradiction.

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.
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.

Not at all twenty times... The agnostic should repent of denial of God... Because God is really present. This can be known, without the Bible. I know it, without the Bible. So it is not wrong to say that should be addressed. With acknowledging God the basis for believing the Bible can be discussed, which is still dismissed while God's presence is denied. My faith is in the Bible being the word of God, and the word of God, being from God, is the highest authority, this is the case whether it yet known or not. Individual people do not already know it from the start. Those of us who are guided to it learn that it is. And there are bases, though the bases are not higher authority because of that, they are only guides. There is basis to see God provides for us, with design from divine intelligence for that, and that we have an internal desire to find how to communicate with God. It is rational to see God could provide a revelation that is communication from God to us. Various writings exist and are available with claim to that. The scriptures of the Bible are unique, to uniquely qualify for that, in many ways, more than I will say here. But a good distinction I certainly want to mention is the manuscript evidence, many times greater than anything ever. No other writing from antiquity has any manuscripts within centuries of the originals, and the new testament of the Bible has many many manuscripts for it still existing, even while hostile forces were trying to destroy them all early on. The Bible speaks to us, as believers, clearly convicting us of the truth, speaking to our conscience, and guiding us to changed lives if we really look to it faithfully, with that, we grow in godliness, being helpful to others and not belittling others. And the Bible repeatedly shows itself right in historical matters where it was contested. Jesus, in who we believe, spoke for faith in the scriptures.

 

[JAL]

Because God is really present. This can be known, without the Bible. I know it, without the Bible. So it is not wrong to say that should be addressed. With acknowledging God the basis for believing the Bible can be discussed, which is still dismissed while God's presence is denied. My faith is in the Bible being the word of God, and the word of God, being from God, is the highest authority, this is the case whether it yet known or not. Individual people do not already know it from the start. Those of us who are guided to it learn that it is. And there are bases, though the bases are not higher authority because of that, they are only guides. There is basis to see God provides for us, with design from divine intelligence for that, and that we have an internal desire to find how to communicate with God. It is rational to see God could provide a revelation that is communication from God to us. Various writings exist and are available with claim to that. The scriptures of the Bible are unique, to uniquely qualify for that, in many ways, more than I will say here. But a good distinction I certainly want to mention is the manuscript evidence, many times greater than anything ever. No other writing from antiquity has any manuscripts within centuries of the originals, and the new testament of the Bible has many many manuscripts for it still existing, even while hostile forces were trying to destroy them all early on. The Bible speaks to us, as believers, clearly convicting us of the truth, speaking to our conscience, and guiding us to changed lives if we really look to it faithfully, with that, we grow in godliness, being helpful to others and not belittling others. And the Bible repeatedly shows itself right in historical matters where it was contested. Jesus, in who we believe, spoke for faith in the scriptures.

Finally! You've finally admitted to a basis/authority for believing that the Bible is inspired!

And what I want you to understand is the IMPLICATIONS of that concession - already stated but worth repeating. First let's summarize what you said. Your basis/authority, in a word, is persuasion. You are persuaded (i.e. feel certain about it) due to:
(1) Reason. You've apparently seen enough manuscript evidence, fulfilled prophecies, and other evidences such that any rational mind, in your opinion, would deduce that Scripture is inspired.
(2) Conscience. You feel convicted (feel convinced, feel certain) by Scripture.

You've just admitted that feelings of certainty ultimately DICTATE your religious beliefs (as they should). For example, if the above types of evidences, if further examined tomorrow, suddenly cause you to feel certain that the Koran is inspired, you would believe the Koran instead of the Bible. Therefore feelings of certainty are a higher authority IN YOUR LIFE than the Bible - because they DICTATE your decision to accept or reject the Bible. They literally PRESIDE over that decision.

It doesn't make sense to say that the Bible is my highest authority. As just noted, some higher authority PRESIDED over my decision to accept or reject the Bible. You (and all other advocates of Sola Scriptura) DISLIKE this conclusion because it doesn't sound "theologically sophisticated" or "sufficiently reverent to God" to admit that your feelings of certainty are a higher authority, in YOUR life (and mine), than Scripture. But it is nonetheless true. Evangelical theologians have been denial about this fact for 500 years.

 

[FredVB]

Finally! You've finally admitted to a basis/authority for believing that the Bible is inspired!

I was already saying there were bases for believing the Bible, the difference here is just spelling out what I had reason to think you have heard before.

And what I want you to understand is the IMPLICATIONS of that concession - already stated but worth repeating. First let's summarize what you said. Your basis/authority, in a word, is persuasion. You are persuaded (i.e. feel certain about it) due to:
(1) Reason. You've apparently seen enough manuscript evidence, fulfilled prophecies, and other evidences such that any rational mind, in your opinion, would deduce that Scripture is inspired.
(2) Conscience. You feel convicted (feel convinced, feel certain) by Scripture.
You've just admitted that feelings of certainty ultimately DICTATE your religious beliefs (as they should). For example, if the above types of evidences, if further examined tomorrow, suddenly cause you to feel certain that the Koran is inspired, you would believe the Koran instead of the Bible. Therefore feelings of certainty are a higher authority IN YOUR LIFE than the Bible - because they DICTATE your decision to accept or reject the Bible. They literally PRESIDE over that decision.
It doesn't make sense to say that the Bible is my highest authority. As just noted, some higher authority PRESIDED over my decision to accept or reject the Bible. You (and all other advocates of Sola Scriptura) DISLIKE this conclusion because it doesn't sound "theologically sophisticated" or "sufficiently reverent to God" to admit that your feelings of certainty are a higher authority, in YOUR life (and mine), than Scripture. But it is nonetheless true. Evangelical theologians have been denial about this fact for 500 years.

Sure, those things are bases, that you might call authorities, these things lead to knowing what the Bible tells us. You yet miss, or disregard, that I have said, "Various writings exist and are available with claim to that. The scriptures of the Bible are unique, to uniquely qualify for that." So as Scriptures of the Bible give claim to being the word of God, they give claim to being the authority over such other things. It does not matter that we had other things to go by already, while we did not know that, to go by it, and we were led to the Bible. It has authority already and it is for us to learn that it does. Then the other things do not override it. The Bible continues to show it is right.

And as mentioned, I have read the Koran before. I would not give trust of the Bible, which I see why to believe, up for the Koran. If the Bible didn't have that authority, meaning it is not the word of God, it would not be worth that.

 

[JAL]

I was already saying there were bases for believing the Bible, the difference here is just spelling out what I had reason to think you have heard before.

No sir. You're trying to weaken the import of the concession. Again, the implication is that Scripture is NOT our highest authority. Feelings of certainty are. While Sola Scriptura sounds "theologically proper and sophisticated" it boils down to nonsense since it is contrary to the real state of affairs.

So as Scriptures of the Bible give claim to being the word of God, they give claim to being the authority over such other things. It does not matter that we had other things to go by already, while we did not know that, to go by it, and we were led to the Bible. It has authority already and it is for us to learn that it does. Then the other things do not override it. The Bible continues to show it is right.

Nope. See above.

And as mentioned, I have read the Koran before. I would not give trust of the Bible, which I see why to believe, up for the Koran. If the Bible didn't have that authority, meaning it is not the word of God, it would not be worth that.

Again, trying to weaken the import. You trust the Bible over the Koran because you feel certain of the Bible. If you felt certain of the Koran you'd trust the Koran. Therefore feelings of certainty rank higher - are more authoritative - than the Koran, the Bible, or any book.

And it's a good thing. The primacy of certainty is what facilitates Direct Revelation - it allows God to speak clearly to us. He merely needs to induce within us feelings of certainty that the true God is speaking. Without this dynamic, there could be no clear communication between God and man, neither in this life nor the next.

I would ask you to stop trying to weaken/downplay the import of your concessions, but why waste my breath? I'm pretty sure the admonition would fall on deaf ears.

 

[thecolorsblend]

There's a thread going on right now over in the Baptist section where members are debating whether or not masturbation is a sin. A lot of members claim that it's not because something something muh Bible.

They're attempting to use "sola scriptura" to settle something that Sacred Scripture doesn't address, either directly or indirectly. As a Catholic, I trust my Church when she sees that it is a sin. She is a living authority and can address matters like this.

But Sacred Scripture can't possibly be comprehensive on every single possible thing, every new social trend, every broken social taboo, every new (and unforeseeable) technology, etc. And if scripture is one's sole source for authority then it results in conflicts that scripture can't possibly be used to address.

"Sola scriptura", not even once.

 

[FredVB]

You're trying to weaken the import of the concession. Again, the implication is that Scripture is NOT our highest authority. Feelings of certainty are. While Sola Scriptura sounds "theologically proper and sophisticated" it boils down to nonsense since it is contrary to the real state of affairs.

I think we need to deal with definitions that are different for each of us for our terms. If we mean "our highest authority" to be what we right then consider our highest authority, it would be right that the Bible cannot already be that. If you argue "our highest authority" right then must always still be our highest authority, that is flawed reasoning. None of us can have the same thing for "our highest authority" throughout life from cradle to the grave. It will necessarily change, if we grow at all, which we generally all do. There are things that are of higher authority for us that we learn along the way.

Again, trying to weaken the import. You trust the Bible over the Koran because you feel certain of the Bible. If you felt certain of the Koran you'd trust the Koran. Therefore feelings of certainty rank higher - are more authoritative - than the Koran, the Bible, or any book.

You are misunderstanding what I have said about it. I don't say feelings are bad or to not take into account. But nothing is all about feelings. At least they are not for many of us. I felt, and that time yes it was feelings, challenged by a Muslim I met one time, that the Koran should be given a chance. I could not give it that chance as a nonbeliever not knowing about Christianity already. But I found a translation in the library, and I read it. Of course it took a long while. In real fairness, beyond any mere feelings, it did not have what the Bible has. I could really see what the Koran has. But with speaking in a compelling urgent way it did not have what the Bible has, giving it basis. This is just what can be found in fact, beyond feelings.

And it's a good thing. The primacy of certainty is what facilitates Direct Revelation - it allows God to speak clearly to us. He merely needs to induce within us feelings of certainty that the true God is speaking. Without this dynamic, there could be no clear communication between God and man, neither in this life nor the next.

I am not in fact arguing against taking feelings into account, nor against even God speaking to us with direct revelation, with what I have of this still I find I cannot speak of it to other believers, who do not see those things at all. But I can find passages in the Bible relating to those things, to speak from to others.

I would ask you to stop trying to weaken/downplay the import of your concessions, but why waste my breath? I'm pretty sure the admonition would fall on deaf ears.

You are making quite a bit of assumption about me without really knowing me. Perhaps you have run across plenty of such individuals. I can admit I saw I could have assumptions about you that came to my mind, but I do my best to dismiss those as such, and do not speak such things that are assumptions. If I hear persuasive logical reasoning, I am in fact open to it. These things won't contradict scriptures, but I have in fact changed my thinking in many ways from that of other believers around me. But I speak with Bible passages in agreement in some things, not with going contrary to the Bible.

And it is too bad you go on about my concessions. I said nothing that I was not already aware of, and consider to be knowledge that is more general than just my own.

 

[JAL]

Again non-responsive, FredVB. Again, you are simply talking in circles and dancing and so forth. This isn't productive. I raise specific objections and issues and, instead of either agreeing or disagreeing, you respond with nonspecific generalities utterly peripheral or tangential to what I said. For example, I've been talking about a SPECIFIC feeling of certainty since Day 1 on this thread - and predicating most of my assertions on it:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil and B is good, I should go with B"

and, instead of simply agreeing or disagreeing with that maxim, you respond with random general statements like this:

You are misunderstanding what I have said about it. I don't say feelings are bad or to not take into account. But nothing is all about feelings.

Obviously your response has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything, certainly it has nothing to do with the specific kind of statements that I make. And probably 99% of the sentences in your replies are strawmen of that sort. Total rambling.

When someone cannot address the force of my arguments, it's clear to me that he has no cogent objections or rebuttal. All that does is bolster my confidence in my view.

I won't likely waste more time on your so-called "responses" - as they are not responses at all.

It's not just you - I run into this nonsense all the time on this forum. That's why I have so much confidence in my views.

 

[FredVB]

Again non-responsive, FredVB. Again, you are simply talking in circles and dancing and so forth. This isn't productive. I raise specific objections and issues and, instead of either agreeing or disagreeing, you respond with nonspecific generalities utterly peripheral or tangential to what I said. For example, I've been talking about a SPECIFIC feeling of certainty since Day 1 on this thread - and predicating most of my assertions on it:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil and B is good, I should go with B"

and, instead of simply agreeing or disagreeing with that maxim, you respond with random general statements.
Obviously your response has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything, certainly it has nothing to do with the specific kind of statements that I make. And probably 99% of the sentences in your replies are strawmen of that sort. Total rambling.

When someone cannot address the force of my arguments, it's clear to me that he has no cogent objections or rebuttal. All that does is bolster my confidence in my view.

I won't likely waste more time on your so-called "responses" - as they are not responses at all.

It's not just you - I run into this nonsense all the time on this forum. That's why I have so much confidence in my views.

"I run into this nonsense all the time."
That really says it. When you have no answer to sensible statements that show basis, just putting down the communication of the poster works for you. But sure, it is the fault of everyone else, but not you. So if you cannot make further points that refute what is said, you would bolt with saying you won't waste time on that useless communication of the others, you might as well, it is better when there is nothing else to it.

There cannot be a specific feeling for certainty without basis. That is all there is to it. If God directly reveals things, there is still basis to trust it is from God, beyond just a feeling no matter how certain, by itself. Even when I have the feeling, the feeling was never by itself. God provides good basis for what should be certain.

It is why there are statements in the Bible, which has the bases to be trusted and not dismissed, like Isaiah 1:18, God says, "Come now, and let us reason together," and, "if you are willing and obedient." God wants us to have basis, and we should use reasoning, that feelings will not be enough to tell any others with being persuasive. Certainty for that needs the real bases. And then there needs to be willingness and obedience from that. Christ enables that for believers.

Ephesians 4:15, "But speaking the truth in love, we may grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ."

Galatians 5:22-23, "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."

 

[JAL]

There cannot be a specific feeling for certainty without basis.

So God cannot simply command you to do something? He must ALWAYS - no exceptions - take the time to explain His rationale for asking you to do it? That's total nonsense because His rationale is often a fabric of a million interrelated factors beyond our ability to connect the dots. Secondly, AGAIN you conveniently ignore the relevant points of debate - you shift to a peripheral issue because your afraid to concede the cogency of my arguments. It's peripheral because it doesn't escape the maxim:

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

You have not been able to cite a SINGLE specific scenario - not even in your own life - calling for exception to this maxim. This proves that you LIVE by the rule in every decision you make. And yet you're gonna sit here spewing some nonsense about "there needs to be a basis" ????? Totally contradicting yourself?

Again, endless rambling and dancing, attempting to evade the force of my arguments. But on this forum, it's typically par for the course.

 

[FredVB]

So God cannot simply command you to do something? He must ALWAYS - no exceptions - take the time to explain His rationale for asking you to do it? That's total nonsense because His rationale is often a fabric of a million interrelated factors beyond our ability to connect the dots. Secondly, AGAIN you conveniently ignore the relevant points of debate - you shift to a peripheral issue because your afraid to concede the cogency of my arguments. It's peripheral because it doesn't escape the maxim:

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

You have not been able to cite a SINGLE specific scenario - not even in your own life - calling for exception to this maxim. This proves that you LIVE by the rule in every decision you make. And yet you're gonna sit here spewing some nonsense about "there needs to be a basis" ????? Totally contradicting yourself?

Again, endless rambling and dancing, attempting to evade the force of my arguments. But on this forum, it's typically par for the course.

I have really been trying to show the sensibility of my position as well as I could see how to. Still that gets these unreasonable personal responses. I see at this point I will have to spell everything out carefully, seeing still you dismiss everyone who has tried to reason with you, and you are persisting in this divisive topic criticizing any who disagree with you on this one topic. It will have me concerned the Bible is being dismissed.

You ask our position on your statement, "If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

My response is I would not say the feeling is what determined for me if action A is evil or action B is good. Feelings are important, again I don't say otherwise, but there has to be basis already for understanding action A is evil and action B is good. If your conscience tells you action B is good, you should do that instead of action A if your conscience tells that is evil. You would have basis for what your conscience tells you. Whenever you would see basis to trust the Bible is the word of God, your conscience would naturally lead you to see it is a higher authority to you, being the word from God, than anything else. Of course, there are people who resist their own conscience, and there are people who resist evidence to see things differently. If your conscience tells you the Bible is higher authority, it won't contradict the Bible. If there seems to be contradiction, it should lead you to investigate more closely. I have, and found things for how I should live that other believers do not. So I admonish, look carefully with more investigation. You are not necessarily already living in the will of God, as it is in heaven. By the way, I think you are right about some things. We should not need to see something written for it when our conscience already tells us something is wrong. It is when the Bible seems to contradict that when we should check more thoroughly, as many of us misunderstand some things said in the Bible. I see that too much. Context and consistency with the rest of scriptures is important for understanding in the right way.

So God can simply command us in things. Why would you say that excludes God doing that through the revelation of the Bible, God's word?

 

[Tradidi]

@FredVB and @JAL,

Every man has been given a conscience to guide him in discerning between good and evil. Some people say "feeling" but I think conscience is the correct term.

A man can follow his conscience, and if or when he does he commits no sin, no matter what it is that his conscience tells him to do. Or, a man can go against his conscience, and if or when he does he commits a sin, no matter what it is that his conscience tells him.

Whether an action is sinful or not, in and of itself, is called the objective morality. Whether someone is guilty of sin, personally, is called the subjective morality.

For example, if a man's conscience tells him that he can steal, then he will not be guilty of the sin of stealing, even though stealing is objectively sinful. And if a man's conscience tells him that eating broccoli is sinful, then he commits a sin when he eats broccoli, even though eating broccoli is not objectively sinful.

A man has a duty to form his conscience, and it is possible to neglect or refuse to do this duty, or even worse, to deform our conscience. Neglecting to form our conscience correctly is sinful.

So, the man who follows his conscience and steals, does not sin by stealing, but he has sinned, even before and apart from the act of stealing, by neglecting to form his conscience properly. The term we use for this category is ignorance. We have no right to remain in ignorance. But if the ignorance is through no fault of the person involved, we call it invincible ignorance, and then the ignorance is no longer sinful.

And the man who eats broccoli, even though his conscience tells him that eating broccoli is sinful, sins by neglecting to form his conscience properly, but he also sins by choosing something he believes to be evil. The term we use for this category is scruples, i.e. seeing sin in things that are not objectively sinful.

I hope this helps to reconcile your positions and focus on the real issue: how can we properly form our conscience? In other words, how do we know what is objectively sinful and what is not. If our subjective rule of faith is our conscience, then what is our objective rule of faith?

 

[JAL]

You ask our position on your statement, "If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

My response is I would not say the feeling is what determined for me if action A is evil or action B is good. Feelings are important...

As expected. Totally irrelevant comments. The maxim doesn't care about what "determined" what. My whole case - as you well know - is built on whether the maxim applies to all scenarios. You still can't find one specific scenario calling for departure from the maxim - you LIVE by it in all YOUR scenarios - and yet you continue to sit here and pretend that you are "objecting" to my point of view !!! Sheer dancing. Sheer dodging.

 

[JAL]

You haven't contributed anything to the maxim. You say:

@FredVB and @JAL,

So, the man who follows his conscience and steals, does not sin by stealing, but he has sinned, even before and apart from the act of stealing, by neglecting to form his conscience properly.

Yes, if by "negligence" you mean he deliberately violated the maxim. Otherwise it's not real "negligence" (no intentional evil on his part) wherefore he remains innocent. Here again we see that the maxim, as I defined it, exhaustively defines all sin, and all righteousness. You can't really contribute anything "new" to it, all you can do is further clarify and ramify it.

 

[FredVB]

As expected. Totally irrelevant comments. The maxim doesn't care about what "determined" what. My whole case - as you well know - is built on whether the maxim applies to all scenarios. You still can't find one specific scenario calling for departure from the maxim - you LIVE by it in all YOUR scenarios - and yet you continue to sit here and pretend that you are "objecting" to my point of view !!! Sheer dancing. Sheer dodging.

In my experiences since posting here before, I find I have more doubts. Whatever direction I take through this, I am still sure that it could not be based on feelings alone. I will have to keep learning as I do, and any good chance of working through doubts could be just through that, if there are any certainties to resolve any of the doubts I have come to.

I am more sure of what will not resolve such doubts. Other Christian believers are not good for that, they have indeed generally learned what they are going to learn, still not all agreeing in all or almost all things, save, from what I have seen of any around me, if they are going to church, whatever they will learn there that they are going there for.

Of course, learning will happen just with still being open to learn further, and not being so sure of what is considered to be known.

 

[JAL]

In my experiences since posting here before, I find I have more doubts. Whatever direction I take through this, I am still sure that it could not be based on feelings alone. I will have to keep learning as I do, and any good chance of working through doubts could be just through that, if there are any certainties to resolve any of the doubts I have come to.

I am more sure of what will not resolve such doubts. Other Christian believers are not good for that, they have indeed generally learned what they are going to learn, still not all agreeing in all or almost all things, save, from what I have seen of any around me, if they are going to church, whatever they will learn there that they are going there for.

Of course, learning will happen just with still being open to learn further, and not being so sure of what is considered to be known.

Doubt exists because feelings of certainty vary in degree, it is always less than 100% except, in my opinion, for those experiencing Direct Revelation at the level of prophethood-type experience. The existence of doubt does not impugn my maxim that you and I have been discussing. Your conscience will always prompt you to choose the course of action that you currently feel MOST certain about (the one you have the least doubts about).

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

So I'll repeat what I said before: You still can't find one specific scenario calling for departure from this maxim - you LIVE by it in all YOUR scenarios - and yet you continue to sit here and pretend that you are "objecting" to my point of view !!!

 

[Clare73]

Doubt exists because feelings of certainty vary in degree, it is always less than 100% except, in my opinion, for those experiencing Direct Revelation at the level of prophethood-type experience. The existence of doubt does not impugn my maxim that you and I have been discussing. Your conscience will always prompt you to choose the course of action that you currently feel MOST certain about (the one you have the least doubts about).

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

So I'll repeat what I said before: You still can't find one specific scenario calling for departure from this maxim - you LIVE by it in all YOUR scenarios - and yet you continue to sit here and pretend that you are "objecting" to my point of view !!!

Sola Scriptura is simply that Scripture is the judge of all Christian doctrine and teaching.

 

[JAL]

Sola Scriptura is simply that Scripture is the judge of all Christian doctrine and teaching.

In practice, Sola Scriptura is taken to mean that all imperatives must come from Scripture. This leads to an obvious contradiction - where then did we get the imperative to accept the Bible?

Answer: My maxim is the only legitimate imperative. We accepted the Bible because we felt certain that it was the right thing to do. This feeling of certainty was, in my opinion, provided by the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Clare73]

In practice, Sola Scriptura is taken to mean that all imperatives must come from Scripture. This leads to an obvious contradiction - where then did we get the imperative to accept the Bible?

Answer: My maxim is the only legitimate imperative. We accepted the Bible because we felt certain that it was the right thing to do. This feeling of certainty was, in my opinion, provided by the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit.

Agreed! . . .but Sola Scriptura is not about the Bible being the boundary, but rather the judge of everything.

 

[fhansen]

Doubt exists because feelings of certainty vary in degree, it is always less than 100% except, in my opinion, for those experiencing Direct Revelation at the level of prophethood-type experience. The existence of doubt does not impugn my maxim that you and I have been discussing. Your conscience will always prompt you to choose the course of action that you currently feel MOST certain about (the one you have the least doubts about).

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

So I'll repeat what I said before: You still can't find one specific scenario calling for departure from this maxim - you LIVE by it in all YOUR scenarios - and yet you continue to sit here and pretend that you are "objecting" to my point of view !!!

I entered into this discussion late but, if I understand correctly you’re saying that the conscience is king, so to speak, and that whatever we believe to be true is what we must follow. And this is true, we must follow our consciences whether in interpreting scripture or deciding that one creed or set of teachings or another are true or whatever. Ultimately we as individuals must, of necessity, sit on the throne, so to speak, judging the truthfulness of any given claim, regardless of where it comes from. But certainty doesn’t mean that we’re right; it only means that we’re certain. Anyway, FWIW here are some teachings I’m familiar with that might add to the discussion.

1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:
Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.51

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

 

[JAL]

I entered into this discussion late but, if I understand correctly you’re saying that the conscience is king, so to speak, and that whatever we believe to be true is what we must follow. And this is true, we must follow our consciences whether in interpreting scripture or deciding that one creed or set of teachings or another are true or whatever. Ultimately we as individuals must, of necessity, sit on the throne, so to speak, judging the truthfulness of any given claim, regardless of where it comes from. But certainty doesn’t mean that we’re right; it only means that we’re certain. Anyway, FWIW here are some teachings I’m familiar with that might add to the discussion.

1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:
Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.51

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

Correct. Your conscience, even though it is obligatory, can be in error.


It's precisely conscience which affords the only way, in my view, to escape error. The only way for God to reliably convey truth to us, in my opinion, is Direct Revelation, which works through conscience. Meaning, the prophets knew God's voice because He caused them to feel 100% certain about it. Thus when a person reaches 100% certainty:
(1) He is WARRANTED in believing himself correct (we can't fault him for his conviction). Operating at 100% certainty is really the best one can do. He is blameless.
(2) It is LIKELY that he is indeed correct because it is not likely that God would allow the devil to deceive us to that extent. Given that 100% certainty seems to be the only reliable way of letting us know that He is speaking, why would He allow the devil to undermine it?