Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[The Liturgist]

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.

The problem with Primacy of Conscience is that it is subjective, whereas Sola Scriptura, Tradition, or a fusion of them like the Anglican model where Scripture is understood using Tradition and Reason (logical discussion and dialogue), are objective.

That said, Quakers practice a primacy of conscience, which is one of their denominationally distinctive attributes. The follow “the inner light” over external sources of authority.

 

[Albion]

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.

 

[fhansen]

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.

Just some thoughts: As humans we're limited in our understanding to begin with, and our consciences were dimmed and corrupted in some manner by the Fall. Some more teachings that relate to your thoughts here IMO:
1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47

1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

The problem, however, is that when we enter this world we're already cut off or distanced from God spiritually. This is actually an unjust or disordered state of being for man since were sick, dead, lost if not in communion with God-and we're here to learn something of that very need, like prodigals growing sick of the pigsty, so to speak, developing a longing for a home that exists in our minds as sort of a long-lost memory. At some point, God, as part of His revelation to man, would give us His law, intended as a light for the conscience. Augustine would say, "God wrote on tablets of stone that which man failed to read in his heart."

And all of our faith is based on revelation, patiently and gradually issued over centuries by this distanced God who seeks to draw us back into right relationship with Him. He gives us the information and knowledge that we lack. But it's more than knowledge about Him, of course; the ultimate purpose of our faith is for us to know Him directly, personally, a relationship-a knowledge-which begins here but is only fully realized in the next life as per 1 Cor 13:12. And John 17:3 speaks of this crucial knowledge:
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Meanwhile we struggle here to know God and His will for us. And while He does directly communicate to us in a variety of ways, often involving urgings and promptings and "whisperings" but including, depending on His purposes, direct or "private" revelations which are on a scale of profundity that go ineffably beyond the norm, these latter are rare in my understanding, and generally concern more specific knowledge given to that person for their benefit and probably the benefit of all and the advancement of His kingdom in some manner or another. These are probably the kinds of experiences granted to prophets, in most cases. And yet they reflect the kind of full and direct and certain knowledge that we're ultimately all made to have. Meanwhile, however, we kind of do the best we can in this life, seeing "as through a glass darkly" (1 Cor 13:12, again) while still growing, step by step, in His light.

 

[JAL]

The problem with Primacy of Conscience is that it is subjective, whereas Sola Scriptura, Tradition, or a fusion of them like the Anglican model where Scripture is understood using Tradition and Reason (logical discussion and dialogue), are objective.

People stumble here because they don't use the word "conscience" the same way that I do. I refer to my RULE of conscience defined thus:

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

Notice that the maxim doesn't MENTION the word conscience. Thus your objections to "conscience" (as YOU define conscience) aren't terribly relevant. The FACT is that there are no exceptions to the above rule. If Kant was looking for a categorical imperative, this is it. The PROBLEM is with Sola Scriptura because practitioners of Sola Scriptura tend to insinuate that all imperatives MUST come from the Bible. The truth is a feeling of certainty constitutes an imperative even if it DIDN'T happen to originate in a verse.

When someone tries to claim that all imperatives must come from the Bible, my objection to him is always, "Where then did we get the imperative to accept the Bible?" And the correct answer is: from my rule of conscience. We accept the Bible because we feel certain it is the morally right thing to do.

I know you want objectivity, but conscience is the ONLY way to objectivity, via Direct Revelation, whereby God can give us all feelings of certainty consistent with objective truth. Until then, we are forever stranded in our own flawed, fallible, subjective interpretations of Scripture.

 

[fhansen]

People stumble here because they don't use the word "conscience" the same way that I do. I refer to my RULE of conscience defined thus:

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

In my mind what you're saying is that we really have no choice but to go by and obey the dictates of our consciences, right or wrong.

And that Scripture, as revelation intended to enlighten and help inform our minds and consciences, still cannot, strictly on its own, impart absolute certainty if we’re honest with ourselves about it. I believe Calvin, witnessing so much variety in interpreted opinions already during his time, came to the conclusion that only qualified bible scholars should be consider eligible to correctly interpret Scripture. My problem with that is that equally qualified scholars often disagree with each other on relevant meanings; Christian truth is not a matter of may-the-best-exegete-win, until an even better one comes along.

Either way our certainty regarding supernatural truths will be at least somewhat relative in this life, with growth and even modification of our understanding always possible.

 

[JAL]

In my mind what you're saying is that we really have no choice but to go by and obey the dictates of our consciences, right or wrong.

Exactly. Admittedly we DO have a choice in the sense of free will but, in terms of obligation, we have no choice, because there is no exception to my rule of conscience.

And that Scripture, as revelation intended to enlighten and help inform our minds and consciences, still cannot, strictly on its own, impart absolute certainty if we’re honest with ourselves about it.

Correct.

Either way our certainty regarding supernatural truths will be at least somewhat relative in this life, with growth and even modification of our understanding always possible.

I believe the prophets operated on 100% certainty. Paul commanded the entire church to seek the gift of prophecy, and he placed it on the top-rung of the priority ladder alongside love (1Cor 14:1). I've also demonstrated that the NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance. For those reasons, and other reasons as well, I would say that 100% certainty - absolute certainty - was God's intention for all believers in all generations.

 

[fhansen]

For those reasons, and other reasons as well, I would say that 100% certainty - absolute certainty - was God's intention for all believers in all generations.

But are you saying that direct revelation, apart from any other source, is the only means to the knowledge itself, or the only means to certainty regarding knowledge -by whatever means that knowledge comes: Scripture, Tradition, private revelation, whatever? Prophets had certainty-or definitely a heart burning with a zeal for God, perhaps not fully knowing exactly how, as well as zeal for and the understanding of whatever specific message He had for them to tell the world. I just think that, while God wants us all to know Him, and the more fully the better, the prophet's role is unique.

 

[JAL]

But are you saying that direct revelation, apart from any other source, is the only means to the knowledge itself, or the only means to certainty regarding knowledge -by whatever means that knowledge comes: Scripture, Tradition, private revelation, whatever?

Both. Look, population studies suggest 100 billion have lived and died since the world began. With that much at stake we cannot presume any satisfactory margin of error in our beliefs, decisions, and methods, especially our evangelistic methods. A prophet is someone who always knows EXACTLY what to say, when to say it, and where to say it - the perfect description of an evangelist! How could he obtain this knowledge from Scripture or Tradition? I don't see how.

I just think that, while God wants us all to know Him, and the more fully the better, the prophet's role is unique.

But mature prophets, in virtue of superlative Direct Revelation, are precisely those individuals who knew Him the best. Accordingly, as I have argued on another thread, Paul defines spiritual maturity as mature prophethood.

 

[FredVB]

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 think your individual point of view is irrelevant to what I discuss. I have a little more certainty now, that except for rare incidents, in our grown-up lives, most of us in general are not going to learn much more for what we believe for our faith. It can be hoped that the essential gospel is already learned for the needed faith. What I yet think now is that there are things in the Bible that should have priority for believers with their faith. But other than the exceptional incidents where they learn something significant from those further they won't learn much more and have what they already had come to when younger, which may be from the Bible or an interpretation from it, or not.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe the prophets operated on 100% certainty. Paul commanded the entire church to seek the gift of prophecy, and he placed it on the top-rung of the priority ladder alongside love (1Cor 14:1). I've also demonstrated that the NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance. For those reasons, and other reasons as well, I would say that 100% certainty - absolute certainty - was God's intention for all believers in all generations.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Paul was not speaking from the perspective of the close of the canon of Scripture. Also, did Paul truly know about how the ”Book of the Lord” (the Holy Bible) would be prophesied in Isaiah 34:16, which parallels several verses mentioned to the End Times in Revelation?

See this video here:

Anyways, the point here is that the end of our Bible (i.e., the “Book of the Lord”) talks about how we are not to add any new words to it.
New prophecy would technically be new official words of God (that could be added as authorative Scripture —- that violates the warning at the end of the Holy Bible). Besides, when somebody says they have new words from God, these new words usually are problematic, and they do not line up with Scripture. At least, that has been my experience anyways. Generally, I tend to see folks who look to new prophetic messages as not taking the Word (the Holy Bible) as seriously. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God. We are living in the last days, and I believe even many in Christianity are seeking out some other words besides God’s Word (the Bible). I know the Bible is a safe harbor. But with some vision, dream, near death experience, prophecy, etcetera we get rank heresy. Granted, I am not saying God may not be operating in some small way by the miraculous gifts or He may do so in the End Times. I don’t discount that possibility (even though I see it as being a very small percentage of chance that this is so). We just need to realize that the Bible already has enough that I need to live out the faith that God desires of me. What more prophecy or new messages could I really need? Is the Bible not enough? For many in this apostate last days, I don’t think they believe the Bible is enough. For some, I mention certain verses to them (Which are new verses to their ears), and they just don’t believe what the Bible says. They immediately go off their own thoughts instead of Scripture. They just immediately reject verses they don’t like what the Word says without even being a good Berean (i.e., By studying it out - comparing Scripture with Scripture with the help of the Anointing). They want the word of their own thoughts or some other spirit to uplift themselves instead of uplifting the “Book of the Lord.” This is the problem I see with prophecy or those who are looking for some new prophetic words from God. But why are they not seeking a word from God in the Bible? Because they don’t believe the Bible is enough for them. They don’t believe the Bible can talk to them fully. But I believe it can. In fact, I know by experience that this is true.

 

[Cis.jd]

To me it is. The thing about Sola Scriptura is that it is also seems to be redefinable to the point that sometimes protestants make so much excuses about it that it doesn't sound like "scripture alone" anymore but more prima scriptura.

I was watching the recent debate between George Farmer and Allie Beth in that Candice youtube video, Ortland vs Horn, and the old James White vs Patrick Madrid debate and the definitions seem to have changed in some way. I don't get why you can deduce from scripture when adhering to solo scriptura because the moment you start claiming things not in scripture it just doesn't make sense to call it scripture alone.

It just seems like they don't want to admit that they do follow specific teachings passed down orally as well and don't want to admit it because they do not want to be connected to the previous church they left. "Scripture interprets scripture" is a ridiculous statement, because realistically it is always a human who will read and interpret it and since protestants go to church and listen to biblical messages in where their pastor is giving his interpretational thoughts about scriptural passages then they are going by the scriptures according to their teacher on the stage.

 

[FredVB]

The problem with this line of thinking is that Paul was not speaking from the perspective of the close of the canon of Scripture. Also, did Paul truly know about how the ”Book of the Lord” (the Holy Bible) would be prophesied in Isaiah 34:16, which parallels several verses mentioned to the End Times in Revelation?

See this video here:

Anyways, the point here is that the end of our Bible (i.e., the “Book of the Lord”) talks about how we are not to add any new words to it.
New prophecy would technically be new official words of God (that could be added as authorative Scripture —- that violates the warning at the end of the Holy Bible). Besides, when somebody says they have new words from God, these new words usually are problematic, and they do not line up with Scripture. At least, that has been my experience anyways. Generally, I tend to see folks who look to new prophetic messages as not taking the Word (the Holy Bible) as seriously. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God. We are living in the last days, and I believe even many in Christianity are seeking out some other words besides God’s Word (the Bible). I know the Bible is a safe harbor. But with some vision, dream, near death experience, prophecy, etcetera we get rank heresy. Granted, I am not saying God may not be operating in some small way by the miraculous gifts or He may do so in the End Times. I don’t discount that possibility (even though I see it as being a very small percentage of chance that this is so). We just need to realize that the Bible already has enough that I need to live out the faith that God desires of me. What more prophecy or new messages could I really need? Is the Bible not enough? For many in this apostate last days, I don’t think they believe the Bible is enough. For some, I mention certain verses to them (Which are new verses to their ears), and they just don’t believe what the Bible says. They immediately go off their own thoughts instead of Scripture. They just immediately reject verses they don’t like what the Word says without even being a good Berean (i.e., By studying it out - comparing Scripture with Scripture with the help of the Anointing). They want the word of their own thoughts or some other spirit to uplift themselves instead of uplifting the “Book of the Lord.” This is the problem I see with prophecy or those who are looking for some new prophetic words from God. But why are they not seeking a word from God in the Bible? Because they don’t believe the Bible is enough for them. They don’t believe the Bible can talk to them fully. But I believe it can. In fact, I know by experience that this is true.

I am sure there are new insights that God brings to groups among God's people that have support already in books of the Bible that have not had attention already. There is a lot that still gets missed in God's word, while we do already have essential things for our faith already made known, and there are more things in which to grow, for all of us.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am sure there are new insights that God brings to groups among God's people that have support already in books of the Bible that have not had attention already. There is a lot that still gets missed in God's word, while we do already have essential things for our faith already made known, and there are more things in which to grow, for all of us.

I believe that once a person opens the door to accept new words from God, then they are more likely to fall into error because most people do not even know their own Bible fully these days to be able to discern whether such prophetic new words are true (According to His Word). Again, it’s like the Bible is not enough for them, and so they want to seek out another word that is more suitable to them. But they have to know the Bible before they can see these new prophecies or words conflict with His Word in some way. In the world of prophecy, they see things that do not come to pass as not being a big deal, but in the OT, you could be stoned for that. Just do a Google search on the origins of Pentecostalism. Look at the Toronto blessing. This is why I cannot in good conscience be a miracle chaser. The most important thing in the Christian walk is loving God and others by the Word, and it’s not the miracles or a new word prophecy. His Word is enough and more than sufficient (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

 

[The Liturgist]

When someone tries to claim that all imperatives must come from the Bible, my objection to him is always, "Where then did we get the imperative to accept the Bible?" And the correct answer is: from my rule of conscience. We accept the Bible because we feel certain it is the morally right thing to do.

Firstly, I never said all imperatives come from Scripture.

I would argue that Christians in the traditional denominations like Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, traditional Methodism, Roman Catholicism, Reformed Churches and Presbyterianism, Oriental Orthodoxy, Congregationalism, the Southern Baptists and other traditional Baptists, and the Assyrian Church of the East are inspired by the Holy Spirit to accept the traditional teachings of their denomination which includes the Bible, and can include Sola Scriptura.

With regards to certain newer denominations and certain non-denominational megachurches, like the Metropolitan Community Church or Joel Osteen’s Megachurch, I have no idea how the process works because I can’t understand these churches or their doctrines.

 

[zippy2006]

Conscience is tautologically authoritative. Why so? Authority is what obligates me to a particular belief or practice. As it turns out, I am currently obligated to believe whatever I currently feel certain about. Since that is a tautology, there is no escaping this conclusion.

Since it is a tautology, it has no normative force. "I should do what I think I should do." "I should believe what I believe to be believable." It says nothing substantial. This is a form of psychological analysis, and has nothing to do with obligation or authority. That humans act for ends is a fact, not a moral theory.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Since it is a tautology, it has no normative force. "I should do what I think I should do." "I should believe what I believe to be believable." It says nothing substantial. This is a form of psychological analysis, and has nothing to do with obligation or authority. That humans act for ends is a fact, not a moral theory.

Even atheists believe in doing good on some level.
Morality without the Bible is not objective.
God’s Word (the Bible) is standard for absolute morality.

I would also encourage folks to see Time Changer (A Christian movie).
It deals with the the problem of proposing morality without Jesus Christ.

Trailer:

Full Movie (Available to Watch Free from the Director’s YouTube Channel):

 

[FredVB]

I believe that once a person opens the door to accept new words from God, then they are more likely to fall into error because most people do not even know their own Bible fully these days to be able to discern whether such prophetic new words are true (According to His Word). Again, it’s like the Bible is not enough for them, and so they want to seek out another word that is more suitable to them. But they have to know the Bible before they can see these new prophecies or words conflict with His Word in some way. In the world of prophecy, they see things that do not come to pass as not being a big deal, but in the OT, you could be stoned for that. Just do a Google search on the origins of Pentecostalism. Look at the Toronto blessing. This is why I cannot in good conscience be a miracle chaser. The most important thing in the Christian walk is loving God and others by the Word, and it’s not the miracles or a new word prophecy. His Word is enough and more than sufficient (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

In the Bible itself we are told that to do what is against our conscience is still sin. Yet things are in the Bible that reveals God's will that many Christians still disregard.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In the Bible itself we are told that to do what is against our conscience is still sin.

Not all sin mentioned in the Bible leads to condemnation in hellfire. We see this in Matthew 5:22.

Matthew 5:22 (WE) says,

“`But I tell you this. Anyone who is angry with his brother without having a good reason, will be judged in court. Anyone who says wrong things to his brother will be judged for it in the big court. Anyone who says "You fool!" will be judged to go into hell fire.”​

The two sins mentioned in blue above are sins that lead to punishment in earthly courts, while the one sin mentioned with words in red is referring to being judged in hellfire. So if one sins against their conscience and it is not a sin that the Bible specifically or clearly condemns, I do not see that as a sin that leads to hellfire. Granted, a Christian should strive to obey God in all things and treat all sin as very serious and grievous in God’s sight. Believers should strive to put away all sin from their lives and live holy unto the Lord (2 Corinthians 7:1) (Hebrews 12:14).

Yet things are in the Bible that reveals God's will that many Christians still disregard.

Yes, we are living in the last days.
Jesus said, “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:14).

 

[FredVB]

We do have different understanding of sin. All of any sins are transgressions against God and God cannot just look on sin, but there is judgment with justice on all sin. Jesus Christ bore the judgment of justice that spares those in Christ with their repentant faith. I don't talk about literal fire forever, there is fair justice absolutely though, which has just symbolic representation in God's word that could be adequate for that.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

We do have different understanding of sin. All of any sins are transgressions against God and God cannot just look on sin,

One is slicing and dicing the verse in Habakkuk in half if one takes the view that God does not look upon sin.
That part of the verse has a different meaning than the way many Christians today understand it.
They are just quoting half of the verse without believing the other half.

Check out this article here:

Does (Hab 1:13) mean that God cannot look at evil / sin? - JesusAlive.cc

Looking at this verse in 3 different ways, we will see very clearly that this verse does not mean that God cannot look on evil / sin.

jesusalive.cc

but there is judgment with justice on all sin. Jesus Christ bore the judgment of justice that spares those in Christ with their repentant faith.

Faith is not only defined as a belief (Hebrew 11:3), but faith is also define in doing things that God tells us to do like when Noah prepared an Ark to the saving of his house (Hebrews 11:7).

I don't talk about literal fire forever, there is fair justice absolutely though, which has just symbolic representation in God's word that could be adequate for that.

Yes, I believe in Dualistic Conditional Immortality, and not Eternal Conscious Torment (if that is what you are referring to).