Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

ripple the car said:

Good questions. I do think that Sola Scriptura poses some massive and unavoidable questions. Whose inward witness is ultimately correct? Yours? Mine? John Calvin's? Martin Luther's? Benny Hinn's? You know? We all see and read and come away with vastly different theologies, yet we read the same Bible.

We do, truly, need help.

Click to expand...

From whom? Fallible men citing human tradition that changes over the years?

Are you trading inward witnesses for ones you have never met, know little about?

What makes Calvin wrong and the man in the throne of the pope right? If not Inerrant Holy Scripture?

FredVB said:

Everyone is missing some truth, no one on earth has truth absolutely. So rather than fully trust what any others tell us that the Bible reveals, we should give priority to studying the Bible about what we heard, remembering that we are fallible too, and we might need to double check with further passages, making sure we don't miss something for understanding those by looking at them out of context, using more than one translation, in which there may be divergence, and especially being open as we can understand more reading all the Bible, with comprehension of what we read and continually doing so, seeing things in it over and over, that we are familiar with the Bible. And that's still not infallibility.

Click to expand...

What you say is true. You do not describe infallibility. In fallibility comes from God, as He is not a man that He should lie.
He promised the Holy Spirit to His church, not to everyone that reads the Bible. Satan showed Jesus in the desert that the Bible can be used against the will of God.

It’s only with full context that we have understanding and that was promised to His Church, not to individuals. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but deceiving spirits can use the Bible to frequently lead individuals astray.

JAL said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are you trading your “fallible interpretations” for another man’s interpretations that are just as fallible as yours.

As for the prophetic experience that you speak of how do we determine if something given in prophecy is accurate? It has to line up with the word of God.

The Word of God and The Spirit of God are one. There is no disagreement between them.

JAL said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Bible is infallible in a sense that it's crafted with best human/Christian effort. It is a valid account of human testimony deemed legitimate in the court of Heaven. The Bible remains the only source for the secular world to hear from God. To Christians it is the same sole source but we have the Holy Spirit with us as an additional advantage. So to Christians the Bible is the only source of detailed information God put into, and supposed to be better read through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That boils down to how close one or a church is with God, or alternatively how close with sin. The closer to God the better being guided by God the Holy Spirit. The closer to the influence of sin, the more rebellious to the guidance.

Today the number of Protestants almost matches that of the Catholics. So the question is are the Protestants saved? If so it begs question what happened to begin with. When the Jews failed to keep the distance to God and failed their job, God established Christianity. By the same token, when the Catholics failed to keep the distance and failed their job, God estabilished Protestant, wth same validity in terms of salvation.

The implication of the validity and authentication of Protestant is,
The Jews owns the OT Canon as it is their testimony and their caonization.
The Catholics owns the NT Canon as it is Christians' testimony and Christians' canonization.
Only the Protestants own both.

boughtwithaprice said:

What you say is true. You do not describe infallibility. In fallibility comes from God, as He is not a man that He should lie.
He promised the Holy Spirit to His church, not to everyone that reads the Bible. Satan showed Jesus in the desert that the Bible can be used against the will of God.

It’s only with full context that we have understanding and that was promised to His Church, not to individuals. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but deceiving spirits can use the Bible to frequently lead individuals astray.

Click to expand...

There isn't such a church. A church that tells you it is the church has the exclusive access to all the truth from the Bible is not being honest about everything to you, not showing all that was done from that church, and isn't the honest church, and anything used from the Bible for that claim is being misused without regard to context. The Bible is the word of God to all, and we who are believers with access to it have responsibility to seek out what is in it, with whatever we have to enable it. Blue Letter Bible information to original words that were used is readily available for any believers with internet access, and just comparing a couple of translations of the Bible for certain passages is not hard.

FredVB said:

There isn't such a church. A church that tells you it is the church has the exclusive access to all the truth from the Bible is not being honest about everything to you, not showing all that was done from that church, and isn't the honest church, and anything used from the Bible for that claim is being misused without regard to context. The Bible is the word of God to all, and we who are believers with access to it have responsibility to seek out what is in it, with whatever we have to enable it. Blue Letter Bible information to original words that were used is readily available for any believers with internet access, and just comparing a couple of translations of the Bible for certain passages is not hard.

Click to expand...

God would beg to differ with you, as well as the Bible. God said He would build His Church on Peter, and it has continued in the Apostolic tradition for 2000 years. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail.
The Bible says the Church is pillar and foundation of truth 1Tim 3:15

If there were no such Church and we had to rely on our own understanding, that would be a contradiction

boughtwithaprice said:

God would beg to differ with you, as well as the Bible. God said He would build His Church on Peter, and it has continued in the Apostolic tradition for 2000 years. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail.
The Bible says the Church is pillar and foundation of truth 1Tim 3:15

If there were no such Church and we had to rely on our own understanding, that would be a contradiction

Click to expand...

He did not say He would build His church on Peter, but on the truth that Peter had just affirmed:

“Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."” (Mt 16:16 NKJV)

If the church of Christ was to be built on Peter, it's surprising that not once do any of the letters/epistles to local churches in the New Testament make any mention of the fact. Indeed, one mention of Peter goes against such a notion:

“Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;” (Ga 2:11 NKJV)

You said that if there were no such Church and we had to rely on our own understanding, but we don't - we have the Word of God. Yes, of course there are differences in how various people understand the bible, but the same is true of how different people understand church teaching.

Regarding the OP,

You are leaving out one very important person: the Holy Spirit. It is by other people most often that people respond to God in a favorable way. It has been that way since the creation of Adam and Eve. The problem is that the vast majority of the time, people do not respond to God in a favorable way. So something besides words is at work in a person's conversion. That is a person. The person at work in the person's life to accept Christ is the Holy Spirit. Further, you do not need cartesian certainty to be saved. You only need to be reasonably confident that Christianity is true. It is very common for people to doubt things pertaining to their faith. This does not mean they are not saved. It means they have unanswered questions about said faith. Where do they go to have those questions answered? Largely the Bible and the study of theology.

The real story here is how fallible we are as human beings. I see virtually no reason to think that the Pope is any less infallible than I am as nature dictates. I say this with the awareness that it is entirely possible, and probably even, that the Pope knows more about Christianity than I do. But that is not the question. The question is if you were to rob both the pope and I of all our experiences we would both be equally likely to be fallible given any set of information. And bias has a nasty way of creeping into our lives even if we are diligent to try and thwart it. Rather, being biased is like bacteria in our stomach in that it is fundamental to life as humans to be biased and it is not something you can reason yourself out of because it is literally part of you. And the same applies to me as it does to the Pope.

Prayer and the answers to prayers are sola.
Jesus never said, "Peter will pray in your stead and tell you what God answers. God doesn't want individuals praying to Him, just Peter and his appointees."

The pope, the priest or the preacher cannot answer for God directly. The Bible is the word of God, directly

David Lamb said:

He did not say He would build His church on Peter, but on the truth that Peter had just affirmed:

“Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."” (Mt 16:16 NKJV)

If the church of Christ was to be built on Peter, it's surprising that not once do any of the letters/epistles to local churches in the New Testament make any mention of the fact. Indeed, one mention of Peter goes against such a notion:

“Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;” (Ga 2:11 NKJV)

You said that if there were no such Church and we had to rely on our own understanding, but we don't - we have the Word of God. Yes, of course there are differences in how various people understand the bible, but the same is true of how different people understand church teaching.

Click to expand...

And all of them go astray like sheep. Bible alone is not looking too good. Why were solid Christian teachings abandoned? It was human understanding that would not submit to the Church Christ built. It was not reformed, rather discarded.

Christ gave us His flesh and blood for us to eat and drink. For 1500 years it was clearly understood that the Lord’s supper was His real flesh and blood. In fact to figuratively eat someone’s flesh and drink their blood meant to persecute, assault and destroy that person. The modern day equivalent is to urinate on someone’s grave. To translate a Jesus’ words in John 6 as figurative or symbolic is absurd. Would you really contend that Jesus said unless you urinate on my grave, you have no life in you?

Modern men could not accept the literal translation of John 6. They became as the scoffers, How can this man give is his flesh to eat? Ooo I know it’s symbolic. Wrong

We believe God said let there be light and there was light, in the same way we believe that God said this is my body and it is. That teaching was abandoned after 1500 years. Transubstantiation is only an attempt to explain the consecration. It was not invented. The Church believed it to be the flesh and blood of Christ all along. God said it, we believe it, it is so.

The so called reformed church abandoned clear teaching

The teaching on holy living was abandoned in favor of muttering a few words and thereby legally binding God to save a soul, and that soul does nothing
I can only say as Paul did my good man, who has bewitched you? We do not earn justification. That is a free gift given at baptism. The gift given also is not Faith alone, rather Faith, Hope and Charity. Those three come from God alone, by grace alone. Once we have them, we are required to develop them out of love. The virtues we develop by works of love are justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude. They are the cardinal virtues and must be developed by human effort cooperating with God’s grace
Do you not read scripture that says we will be judged by our works? Some gold, silver, precious stones, others wood, hay and stubble?

The Bible says that there is an elect, but we do not have divine knowledge to know who those elect are, but we know from whom they will come. Those that strive to make their calling and election sure by walling the narrow path and entering the straight gate. Jesus says if you love me keep my commandments, they can be summed up in Matthew 5-7. Jesus also says to follow Him, we must give up everything and take up our cross, mortify the deeds of our flesh. We are dead to the world, how can we continue to live for material things and esteem of the World?

Thar teaching is abandoned by modern reformed teaching in favor of dead works. Tithing is a dead work. In apostolic teaching, everything belongs to God. According to tithing, 90% belongs to you. Instead of being the widow that gives all she had, we think it is cool to give 10% and pat ourselves on the back The born again Christian is a babe in Christ who should begin good works to bear fruits of repentance. The simple works are prayer fasting and almsgiving, which sacrifices our time, talent and treasure to God. That teaching has been abandoned in favor of some word play game, where we say to God, I have said these words, now you have to save me, even though he clearly says not everyone that says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. Why was that teaching abandoned ?

The teaching on sexuality was abandoned after 1900 years. Now they say contraception is ok, even though it is clearly against the teaching to mortify the deeds of the flesh. To keep it holy, sexual intercourse cannot be deliberately separated from procreation. Contraception is a sin against temperance, and it is a failure to restrain the lust of the flesh, yet that teaching has been abandoned. Is it any wonder that there is the problem of homosexuality today? If sex is just about pleasure, what is the difference between contraceptive sex and homosexual sex? It becomes a matter of taste only. If sex is just for pleasure, we may as well argue the morality principle the taste of chocolate over vanilla. It’s absurd. When we understand that God gave us genitals to pro-generate, and to profane that purpose for useless pleasure of contraception and homosexuality is to gravely sin
Human understanding scratched that teaching after 1900 years in 1930 at the Lambeth conference of Anglicans and all Protestants quickly followed suit, and failed to note that a contraceptive mentality gave us the logical conclusion of abortion. Way to go. Still think Bible alone is sufficient?

Another teaching abandoned is that of Our Blessed Mother. She is abandoned and shamed in five ways.

Deny her immaculate conception. God says in Genesis that He would make Mary and Satan enemies. If Mary was a sinner, she would not be Satan’s enemy, rather his slave, as anyone that sins is a slave to sin. Could you not hear Satan crying from hell that God is unjust? Satan says God is unjust, he let himself be brought forth in sin and has the nerve to condemn me? No that will not happen. God created Eve sinless. God made Mary sinless and Satan’s enemy not his slave. Mary proclaims God her savior because He kept her from sin by His grace, as she had it to the full

Deny her perpetual virginity. Some say Mary had other children and think nothing of it. Well what do you call a woman that has children from two fathers while both fathers are still alive? That is an adulteress by definition. Can you hear the cries of Satan from hell again? For all eternity Satan screams God commands adultery a sin, yet is an adulterer himself. That is not going to happen. Mary is a perpetual virgin and the Ark of the New Covenant. Compare Luke 2 with the book of Samuel when David welcomes the Ark. no one can touch the Ark and live. Mary did not have a child with anyone but God.

Deny her divine maternity. This is easy because if Jesus is God, Mary is His mother and therefore the mother of God. Well you say she did not predate God and my mother predates me. Ok, who created your soul? God did, not your mother, but the fact that she did not create you does not make her any less your mother. Same for Mary


Teach children to mock and hate Mary for one of the three reasons refuted above. It is pure ignorance to do that and I grieve for children taught this way

Profane her images. Well I have to stand against idolatry. Ok what is an idol? An image made by human hands to be adored as God.
Mary is made for us by God and not human hands, nor do we worship her as God. She is the queen of heaven that stands at the right hand of Christ as described in Psalm 45 (44 Douay/Rheims). It says beside you stands the queen in gold of Ophir

Mary was the first and only Christian on holy Saturday as Jesus lay in the tomb. She was present for His birth, His first miracle, His death and resurrection, and was present in the hope room when the tongues of fire came on the Apostles.

She is the mother of the Church and our Mother.
Why didn’t she teach? She did so without words. The primary Christian virtue is humility, as Christ said he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. God wanted the Apostles to teach, and Mary obediently took a supporting role.

Why was this Church teaching abandoned, some early Protestants had no problem believing Mary to be sinless and had no children but Jesus

Mary is not an idol. She was made by God’s hands and she is our mother as she bore Christ our savior

So far this Bible only stuff has abandoned a lot of teaching

boughtwithaprice said:

God would beg to differ with you, as well as the Bible. God said He would build His Church on Peter, and it has continued in the Apostolic tradition for 2000 years. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail.
The Bible says the Church is pillar and foundation of truth 1Tim 3:15

If there were no such Church and we had to rely on our own understanding, that would be a contradiction

Click to expand...

I do not trust one bit someone who tells me that God differs with me, with only a personal understanding of one verse they use for that. We each need to know what God says for us and we will not by just leaving it to any other or others to tell us all things that is said for us in the Bible.

The gospel in the Bible is about Jesus being the mediator between God and the human creature. This contradicts any other being the mediator for us, effectively that would put such regarded as that in the place of Jesus, that would be abominable. Only Jesus is right for that, regardless of church or no church. What is church good for? Fellowship, worship, the word from the Bible being shared, prayer among each other. But not for being the responsibility of what we learn from God. We each have responsibility ourselves, and we each need relationship with God.

FredVB said:

I do not trust one bit someone who tells me that God differs with me, with only a personal understanding of one verse they use for that. We each need to know what God says for us and we will not by just leaving it to any other or others to tell us all things that is said for us in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Who do you trust then? Your own understanding? The Bible tells you not to do that so that can be it. Right?

FredVB said:

The gospel in the Bible is about Jesus being the mediator between God and the human creature. This contradicts any other being the mediator for us, effectively that would put such regarded as that in the place of Jesus, that would be abominable. Only Jesus is right for that, regardless of church or no church. What is church good for? Fellowship, worship, the word from the Bible being shared, prayer among each other. But not for being the responsibility of what we learn from God. We each have responsibility ourselves, and we each need relationship with God.

Click to expand...

If what you say is true, then it makes these scriptures false:

2Peter 1:20-21, and 2 Peter 3:15-16

Since I know scripture is right, I don’t believe you

You claim private interpretation and your own understanding over the Apostles. You may not realize it, but that it the position you put yourself in

Proverbs says lean not to your own understanding and the Lord will light your path

ripple the car said:

Good questions. I do think that Sola Scriptura poses some massive and unavoidable questions. Whose inward witness is ultimately correct? Yours? Mine? John Calvin's? Martin Luther's? Benny Hinn's?

Click to expand...

Apparently Christ and all the Jews could figure it out in Mark 7:7-13
And apparently even the non-Christians in Acts 17:11 could figure it out.

It is amazing to me that so many Christians wish to claim that they do not have the ability to do what even non-Christians were doing in Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:7-13

Maybe we need a thread on that one.

ripple the car said:

You know? We all see and read and come away with vastly different theologies, yet we read the same Bible.

We do, truly, need help.

Click to expand...

I think with a small amount of effort we can manage to keep up with the non-Christians reading the Bible "and getting the point" in Acts 17:11

FredVB said:

The gospel in the Bible is about Jesus being the mediator between God and the human creature. This contradicts any other being the mediator for us, effectively that would put such regarded as that in the place of Jesus, that would be abominable. Only Jesus is right for that, regardless of church or no church. What is church good for? Fellowship, worship, the word from the Bible being shared, prayer among each other. But not for being the responsibility of what we learn from God. We each have responsibility ourselves, and we each need relationship with God.

Click to expand...

True - and it is "The main point" in Heb 8:1-5

boughtwithaprice said:

If what you say is true, then it makes these scriptures false:

2Peter 1:20-21, and 2 Peter 3:15-16

Click to expand...

How so??

BobRyan said:

True - and it is "The main point" in Heb 8:1-5

How so??

Click to expand...

Bob, I really think you mean well and believe what you say, but your logic is inconsistent. You make a small error.
I do not say that to Lord it over you. I am zealous for God and His kingdom. In it the last are first and the first last. He has revealed it to me in prayer that if anyone would come to repentance because of what I said, they are to receive a greater honor in heaven than mine, as that is what God wants for you.

You frequently bring up the Bereans that searched the scriptures day and night to see if what Paul said is true, and you think that proves sola Scriptura.
It proves scriptura but not sola scriptura. They used the scriptures to test Paul and his apostolic authority. They did not listen to Paul, then run with the scriptures and start their own sect.
There were no sects in the firsts few centuries of Christianity that did not submit to apostolic authority and remain orthodox. The ones that did not submit were all heretics and lead people astray from the truth. What you say it means is not logical.

2 Peter 1 says scripture is of no private interpretation but holy men spoke as they were lead by the Holy Spirit. This verse directly contradicts what you say about the Bereans.

2 Peter 3 says that Paul’s apostolic teaching was hard to understand and some ran with his words on their own. They did not do well because they broke from apostolic authority .

If you were to imitate the Bereans, then you would get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and search the scriptures day and night to see if what is said is true, not read the scriptures day and night to make up your own path

When I study history and see what is recorded as to what happened in the Church of the apostles, I do not see what you preach.
I read the apostolic teaching of the second century and see that the sabbath is no longer necessary because Christ is in us always. We do not need to go to the temple once a week. He is in our hearts. This does not profane the sabbath, because the sabbath has been fulfilled. I read that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of our Lord, it is not symbolic. We all believe God said let there be light and there was light. Is it so hard to believe that He said this is my body, and it is?

The Bible itself says God planted one garden, and Satan sowed tares in it. That does not give us authority to say the garden apostacized and we have to go to another one. There is no where else to go, because there is only one

Peace be with you

boughtwithaprice said:

If what you say is true, then it makes these scriptures false:

2Peter 1:20-21, and 2 Peter 3:15-16

Since I know scripture is right, I don’t believe you

You claim private interpretation and your own understanding over the Apostles. You may not realize it, but that it the position you put yourself in

Proverbs says lean not to your own understanding and the Lord will light your path

Click to expand...

You communicate to others like myself as if we never pray to God, and like we are not in Christ. Don't I know that I am fallible? I have changed some things I was believing when finding something I missed or something to be in error that I previously believed. It would never have me being more in agreement with others, but drawing closer to God is important and seeing what is revealed as God's will is important for that. God knows I am fallible, I trust God's leading as other believers do and know that what things we still do not have right do not separate us from being in Christ. But it seems in communication I see there are some, who I also think are believers, who don't know that. But I should examine what things to believe from the Bible testing what is said in a church, and what I see from the Bible takes precedence. A church is not less fallible. Even what is seen in a Bible translation might be checked in comparison with another translation, or using the Blue Letter Bible with original words and meaning included found online for that, for some changes that happened since, though really small and minor, as far as I see.

FredVB said:

You communicate to others like myself as if we never pray to God, and like we are not in Christ. Don't I know that I am fallible? I have changed some things I was believing when finding something I missed or something to be in error that I previously believed. It would never have me being more in agreement with others, but drawing closer to God is important and seeing what is revealed as God's will is important for that. God knows I am fallible, I trust God's leading as other believers do and know that what things we still do not have right do not separate us from being in Christ. But it seems in communication I see there are some, who I also think are believers, who don't know that. But I should examine what things to believe from the Bible testing what is said in a church, and what I see from the Bible takes precedence. A church is not less fallible. Even what is seen in a Bible translation might be checked in comparison with another translation, or using the Blue Letter Bible with original words and meaning included found online for that, for some changes that happened since, though really small and minor, as far as I see.

Click to expand...

Your desire for God is laudable as is your desire for self correction.
I only point out that we as individuals are incapable of discerning all mysteries. The Bible itself does not promise that.

In the early Church there was was no Bible, and there were many Gospels and Epistles circulating claiming to be inspired, and some of those we take for granted as part of the canon of scripture, were not regarded as inspired by some.

How is this? Christ founded a Church. He did not hand His followers a book and say, have at it.
He called apostles and set Peter above them.
He anointed them with the Holy Spirt and with fire as promised. They went out to preach the Gospel and to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There was no authority of scripture as there was no canon of scripture

The Church was built on Apostolic authority, and the canon of scripture came from that authority.

If you are baptized, you are in Christ, but then you decide to lean to your own understanding, which is against the advice of scripture, and ignore the apostolic teaching. The apostolic Church is there for 2000 years, but you don’t avail yourself of it. It is God’s house, His gift to you, but for some reason you think your own understanding is better.

I pray for you that you may know the love of Christ and all He has waiting for you in His Church. When you look at it, there are no errors like you have been told. Why not look at it?

You do not know my past, and not aware that much of my youth, into early adulthood, I was going to Catholic church, as a Catholic, and saw the conflict of believing that and believing what I saw from the Bible myself, that was in disagreement. And the priest attending the last time I went to mass said something that directed me to look to other churches. And I can say no church has exclusive hold on truth.