Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[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.

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

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).



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

Just say what you think is your disagreement yourself, instead of expecting a link off-site being used to make your point that would be used to change a belief will be looked at. A link off-site can be used as a footnote for support.

I do not disagree in what I said, about faith spoken of in passages. Do you think I mean something different about repentance that I mentioned?

You can explain your meaning for dualistic conditional immortality, I am pretty sure I would not use that phrase for any of what I believe. I believe there is God's fair judgment with justice with the consequences of any sin... all of them. Christ bore what would be just consequences for those who come to him and are then in Christ. The just consequences come to those remaining apart from Christ, without repentance. I would rarely use the word torment speaking about it, that is not how I think of it, though I know whatever is involved in that is what God really wanted to deliver any of us from.

 

[The Liturgist]

Just say what you think is your disagreement yourself, instead of expecting a link off-site being used to make your point that would be used to change a belief will be looked at. A link off-site can be used as a footnote for support.

I do not disagree in what I said, about faith spoken of in passages. Do you think I mean something different about repentance that I mentioned?

You can explain your meaning for dualistic conditional immortality, I am pretty sure I would not use that phrase for any of what I believe. I believe there is God's fair judgment with justice with the consequences of any sin... all of them. Christ bore what would be just consequences for those who come to him and are then in Christ. The just consequences come to those remaining apart from Christ, without repentance. I would rarely use the word torment speaking about it, that is not how I think of it, though I know whatever is involved in that is what God really wanted to deliver any of us from.

Firstly, I do think in this case @BibleHighlighter made use of the offsite resource in a manner that I would not object to if I were debating with him.

Secondly, regarding eternal torment, this is self-inflicted, but in a sense the Orthodox argue that banishment to the Outer Darkness is a mercy, for those given over to a sinful God-hating disposition, being in the presence of God who is a consuming fire of Love and who illuminates the World to Come like the Sun illuminates the day, would be unbearable. The great fourth century preacher St. John Chrysostom wrote that the worst aspect of damnation is actually simply the inability to participate in the unlimited joy of those who are saved.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Just say what you think is your disagreement yourself, instead of expecting a link off-site being used to make your point that would be used to change a belief will be looked at. A link off-site can be used as a footnote for support.

I do not disagree in what I said, about faith spoken of in passages. Do you think I mean something different about repentance that I mentioned?

You can explain your meaning for dualistic conditional immortality, I am pretty sure I would not use that phrase for any of what I believe. I believe there is God's fair judgment with justice with the consequences of any sin... all of them. Christ bore what would be just consequences for those who come to him and are then in Christ. The just consequences come to those remaining apart from Christ, without repentance. I would rarely use the word torment speaking about it, that is not how I think of it, though I know whatever is involved in that is what God really wanted to deliver any of us from.

If I was in your shoes, I would have looked at the verse in several translations to see what I was talking about.
You did not even bother to do that (Which means that you are not really interested in what the text is saying here).
The website merely explains the verse in what it plainly says. You can either read that or the Bible and get back to me.
I say this because the Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

See my latest post #19.
Conscience is obligatory. I can think of no occasion where faced with choices A and B, and I feel certain that A is evil and B is good, it is right for me to go with A. Can you?

You believe that truth is governed by feelings? Is that what you are saying?

The Bible says that there is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death

Jesus tells us to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. We surrender our feelings to reason, because narrow is the way, straight is the gate that leads to life. It is not broad and easy as we would like it.
There are many times that I thought that I was so right and would have consented to martyrdom for it, but God in His mercy showed me my error and I had space to repent.
God founded a Church, He did not hand us a book, and He tells us that He desires obedience rather than sacrifice. Do we obey conscience? If you do, you may be right and may be wrong and not know it. It is safer to obey Peter and the Apostles which is the magisterium, and properly form my conscience by study and obedience rather than rushing headlong to follow feelings and possibly end up in error. I followed conscience, was in error, God gave me space to repent, but now I think of the wasted years of rebellion which would have been avoided by obedience

 

[FredVB]

Firstly, I do think in this case @BibleHighlighter made use of the offsite resource in a manner that I would not object to if I were debating with him.

Secondly, regarding eternal torment, this is self-inflicted, but in a sense the Orthodox argue that banishment to the Outer Darkness is a mercy, for those given over to a sinful God-hating disposition, being in the presence of God who is a consuming fire of Love and who illuminates the World to Come like the Sun illuminates the day, would be unbearable. The great fourth century preacher St. John Chrysostom wrote that the worst aspect of damnation is actually simply the inability to participate in the unlimited joy of those who are saved.

It is not for you to tell me if I should not want one engaged in responding to me to speak for himself. I am not going to dialogue with someone else who posted material on another site, I only had interest to respond to one who responded to me, who should speak for himself, or herself.

That was a fair guess at what the hereafter will be for those apart from Christ. But I do not know about it other than what I said, still, and do not know that others do know a good deal more about it. God's fair justice is still assured.

If I was in your shoes, I would have looked at the verse in several translations to see what I was talking about.
You did not even bother to do that (Which means that you are not really interested in what the text is saying here).
The website merely explains the verse in what it plainly says. You can either read that or the Bible and get back to me.
I say this because the Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not.

Well thanks for telling me what you would do, and indicating what you are sure I have not been doing. You still do not communicate what you disagree on and your explanation of your belief, and that's your failure still.

 

[Aaron112]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Every one goes to hell in their own hand basket
A friend once said there was a quote that the Devil's disciples are the minions of

righteousness, meaning that many seduced by Satan have been convinced of their own righteousness. Moral, good and evil, in the cold light of day are complex and require not only my own conscience but the wisdom of the Bible.

Also, IF the Word is not the Word received, as in what Paul wrote and what he actually heard or being something else in Hebrew and not precisely the same in Latin, however, since

a living God has control of the written word. the meanings He wants to convey in English are what He wills. You consider it mistakes, however God is the Author and Editor of that Book, aye?

Or to put this another way: Jesus Praises Abba Yahweh , for Revealing the Truth/ Salvation, to infants ... The Creator IS the Author of All Life, and All (true) Scripture.
His Own Word.

Hearing Jesus's Voice is not nearly so rare nor difficult as a lot of people seem to think.

Yet who listens ?

 

[FredVB]

Or to put this another way: Jesus Praises Abba Yahweh , for Revealing the Truth/ Salvation, to infants ... The Creator IS the Author of All Life, and All (true) Scripture.
His Own Word.

Hearing Jesus's Voice is not nearly so rare nor difficult as a lot of people seem to think.

Yet who listens ?

I agree it does seem that there is much of Christianity talking about salvation who do not observe what Jesus really says, which is shown, even though he is Lord, which many of them say. As Jesus is Lord, all the things he is shown saying is for us to follow and do, certainly though being careful that it is really from him and not one of the things added into passages later.

 

[JAL]

You believe that truth is governed by feelings? Is that what you are saying?

The Bible says that there is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death

Jesus tells us to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. We surrender our feelings to reason, because narrow is the way, straight is the gate that leads to life. It is not broad and easy as we would like it.
There are many times that I thought that I was so right and would have consented to martyrdom for it, but God in His mercy showed me my error and I had space to repent.
God founded a Church, He did not hand us a book, and He tells us that He desires obedience rather than sacrifice. Do we obey conscience? If you do, you may be right and may be wrong and not know it. It is safer to obey Peter and the Apostles which is the magisterium, and properly form my conscience by study and obedience rather than rushing headlong to follow feelings and possibly end up in error. I followed conscience, was in error, God gave me space to repent, but now I think of the wasted years of rebellion which would have been avoided by obedience

You side-stepped my direct question. As expected. This always confirms my point.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

You side-stepped my direct question. As expected. This always confirms my point.

My apologies. Conscience rules our actions, but sometimes people act contrary to it. For it to be effective, conscience must be well formed, or it is prone to deception. That is what I meant by my post.
A situation where I feel certain something is evil, will I act contrary to it? No! that is why evil tries to deny its substance and say that it is good. The serpent told Eve that the fruit was good, and she sinned.
The example that best fits your question that I can think of is Saul of Tarsus. He felt certain that Christians were evil and acting contrary to the law of God, so he persecuted them and had them arrested and approved of their death, so that he could purge them from what he believed to be the truth of Old Covenant Judaism. Saul did become a Christian, and changed his name to Paul or others changed the name. One could say that he acted against conscience because he was now practicing what he once believed to be evil.
Why did he believe Christianity to be evil? Because his conscience was not well formed and it took an act of God Himself to change it. He was lucky that he did not start arguing with God that Christians are evil and his conscience told him to purge them from Israel for God’s glory. He thought about that at first, but when he saw God before him, and He told Saul that he was persecuting Him, sauls heart melted.
So should we be with our conscience. If we believe that a Church teaching is evil, then we must confront it, and study it until we exhaust all arguments. Why is this taught? Why am I calls to ascent with faith? My conscience tells me it is bad or evil. Why should I pay attention to it? Because the Church teaches it and there is only one Church. We have no right to start a new Church just as we have no civil right to ask for a new mother and father.
Study, wrestle and pray that your conscience may be well formed

 

[FredVB]

Conscience does direct us, when it doesn't we are hardened. Believers should see they are directed toward what the Bible has for believers to believe including what would be moral for them. It certainly does not eliminate having a conscience, though some seem to respond like it does, but it would have the conscience of any believer conform more to morals the Bible has for believers to believe.

No one actually changed Saul's name to Paul, not even himself. He actually already had both names which were given to him, it was common then for his people to be given a Hebrew name and a Greek name, as it was done for him.

 

[dwb001]

Conscience does direct us, when it doesn't we are hardened. Believers should see they are directed toward what the Bible has for believers to believe including what would be moral for them. It certainly does not eliminate having a conscience, though some seem to respond like it does, but it would have the conscience of any believer conform more to morals the Bible has for believers to believe.

No one actually changed Saul's name to Paul, not even himself. He actually already had both names which were given to him, it was common then for his people to be given a Hebrew name and a Greek name, as it was done for him.

Prove it. Prove no name change.

 

[Fervent]

Prove it. Prove no name change.

That's a strange request, probably impossible to actually meet. As a citizen of Rome, Paul would have had a Roman name prior to conversion though chances are he didn't use it until he began corresponding with Gentiles regularly. Just as Peter also had the name Cephas, it was a common practice of the day to have multiple names.

 

[dwb001]

That's a strange request, probably impossible to actually meet. As a citizen of Rome, Paul would have had a Roman name prior to conversion though chances are he didn't use it until he began corresponding with Gentiles regularly. Just as Peter also had the name Cephas, it was a common practice of the day to have multiple names.

If you.make a claim... then you gotta prove it.

 

[The Liturgist]

If you.make a claim... then you gotta prove it.

The fact the Greek original text of the Bible refers to him initially as Saul and then as Paul, and that histories of the early church written by its own members document this name page, is proof enough.

Frankly, we have more solid evidence that St. Paul changed his name than we do that Socrates existed or was executed by being forced to drink hemlock.

 

[Fervent]

If you.make a claim... then you gotta prove it.

Proof only exists in mathematics, FredV8 supported his claim with a statement about the customs of the day. I added fursthr support, and explanation.

 

[JAL]

I am not really sure what you are addressing in these posts. My rule of conscience doesn't actually mention the word conscience, hence anything negative said about conscience isn't a corrective to my position. My rule of conscience is:

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

See? Never mentions the word conscience. And there are no exceptions to that rule.

Yet you speak verbosely about conscience. And this is supposed to be a response to me?

You seem to want find exceptions to my rule. That is not possible. Whatever Paul did - before or after conversion - if he conformed to my rule he was acting righteously. If he disobeyed it, he acted unrighteously. You can draw your own conclusions from there.

My apologies. Conscience rules our actions, but sometimes people act contrary to it. For it to be effective, conscience must be well formed, or it is prone to deception. That is what I meant by my post.
A situation where I feel certain something is evil, will I act contrary to it? No! that is why evil tries to deny its substance and say that it is good. The serpent told Eve that the fruit was good, and she sinned.
The example that best fits your question that I can think of is Saul of Tarsus. He felt certain that Christians were evil and acting contrary to the law of God, so he persecuted them and had them arrested and approved of their death, so that he could purge them from what he believed to be the truth of Old Covenant Judaism. Saul did become a Christian, and changed his name to Paul or others changed the name. One could say that he acted against conscience because he was now practicing what he once believed to be evil.
Why did he believe Christianity to be evil? Because his conscience was not well formed and it took an act of God Himself to change it. He was lucky that he did not start arguing with God that Christians are evil and his conscience told him to purge them from Israel for God’s glory. He thought about that at first, but when he saw God before him, and He told Saul that he was persecuting Him, sauls heart melted.
So should we be with our conscience. If we believe that a Church teaching is evil, then we must confront it, and study it until we exhaust all arguments. Why is this taught? Why am I calls to ascent with faith? My conscience tells me it is bad or evil. Why should I pay attention to it? Because the Church teaches it and there is only one Church. We have no right to start a new Church just as we have no civil right to ask for a new mother and father.
Study, wrestle and pray that your conscience may be well formed

 

[JAL]

My apologies. Conscience rules our actions, but sometimes people act contrary to it. For it to be effective, conscience must be well formed, or it is prone to deception. That is what I meant by my post.
A situation where I feel certain something is evil, will I act contrary to it? No! that is why evil tries to deny its substance and say that it is good. The serpent told Eve that the fruit was good, and she sinned.
The example that best fits your question that I can think of is Saul of Tarsus. He felt certain that Christians were evil and acting contrary to the law of God, so he persecuted them and had them arrested and approved of their death, so that he could purge them from what he believed to be the truth of Old Covenant Judaism. Saul did become a Christian, and changed his name to Paul or others changed the name. One could say that he acted against conscience because he was now practicing what he once believed to be evil.
Why did he believe Christianity to be evil? Because his conscience was not well formed and it took an act of God Himself to change it. He was lucky that he did not start arguing with God that Christians are evil and his conscience told him to purge them from Israel for God’s glory. He thought about that at first, but when he saw God before him, and He told Saul that he was persecuting Him, sauls heart melted.
So should we be with our conscience. If we believe that a Church teaching is evil, then we must confront it, and study it until we exhaust all arguments. Why is this taught? Why am I calls to ascent with faith? My conscience tells me it is bad or evil. Why should I pay attention to it? Because the Church teaches it and there is only one Church. We have no right to start a new Church just as we have no civil right to ask for a new mother and father.
Study, wrestle and pray that your conscience may be well formed

I don't want to totally discount what you said. Let me clarify my positoin. The ideal scenario would be this:

If I feel 100% certain that action-A is evil, and 100% certain B is good, I should opt for B".

Since most of us aren't prophets, however, we are not 100% certain of anything. In that case we should do what is MOST certain. For example Saul probably had to ask himself three questions:

1. I feel most certain that Christians should be killed or persecuted?
2. I feel most certain that Christians should be supported in their endeavors?
3. Maybe I should seek more certainty, as I don't seem to have enough to warrant either 1 or 2?

I'm willing to bet that oftentimes choice 3 was the best fit for Saul. In other words, for him, action-B (what is most certain) was to seek more certainty, and doing that would have conformed him to my rule of conscience. But as an evil act of rebellion against my rule of conscience, he persecuted Christians. Hope that helps.

 

[JAL]

So yes I agree that we should seek a well-formed conscience, as you said - but bearing in mind that my rule of conscience is always obligatory.

 

[Fervent]

I don't want to totally discount what you said. Let me clarify my positoin. The ideal scenario would be this:

If I feel 100% certain that action-A is evil, and 100% certain B is good, I should opt for B".

Since most of us aren't prophets, however, we are not 100% certain of anything. In that case we should do what is MOST certain. For example Saul probably had to ask himself three questions:

1. I feel most certain that Christians should be killed or persecuted?
2. I feel most certain that Christians should be supported in their endeavors?
3. Maybe I should seek more certainty, as I don't seem to have enough to warrant either 1 or 2?

I'm willing to bet that oftentimes choice 3 was the best fit for Saul. In other words, for him, action-B (what is most certain) was to seek more certainty, and doing that would have conformed him to my rule of conscience. But as an evil act of rebellion against my rule of conscience, he persecuted Christians. Hope that helps.

The biggest issue with your "rule of conscience" is it's useless for actually generating any true action and is effectively a denial of the existence of an actual right and wrong. It is possible to fully believe that an action is right, and for it to in actuality be the wrong action. So simply going with what seems right is flat wrong, after all "there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12)

 

[boughtwithaprice]

So yes I agree that we should seek a well-formed conscience, as you said - but bearing in mind that my rule of conscience is always obligatory.

Thank you for your discussion, and I understand that your were not taking about conscience directly, but certainty of good Vs evil.
My point is there are some people that may be 100% certain that what they are doing is good, and you cannot convince them otherwise. Does their belief make what they are doing good?
No, there is one good, and that is God in heaven
God says whoa to them that call the evil good and the good evil.
If we cannot trust the certainty of our thoughts on good and evil, what is there to do? God gave us the teachings of His Church over which He promised the gates of hell would not prevail
I agree with you that if I am 100% certain that something is good, I will always opt for the good when given a contrary choice, but there are also psychopaths that do choose the evil

You have an interesting thought process, God bless you