Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[JAL]

Okay, I apologize about you not thinking that Scripture is not the written Word of God. But I don't think it is correct for you to say something like what you did here. No way do I believe that. I believe that with God, all things are possible. God can one day speak and add new words to Scripture one day. But until then, we have His Word (Scripture) to guide us. What other prophetic words, or holy books do you think we should follow if it is not the Bible alone for our sole authority on spiritual matters?

Look, I'll be the first to admit that I fall back on exegesis as a crutch since God isn't currently speaking to me clearly. I'm not a prophet as yet. Prophethood is not a status easily elicited from God. Typically it was granted mostly to very devout men.

But even though prophecy isn't easy to obtain, we need to be seeking it as a top priority (1Cor 14:1) - we need to be moving in the right direction.

Also a good start is to admit that our current and historic attitude of presumption needs repentance. Historically we've implemented fallible theories of ecclesiology and evangelism with confidence, as though we know what we're doing, thereby effectively shoving our own religion down God's throat.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Look, I'll be the first to admit that I fall back on exegesis as a crutch since God isn't currently speaking to me clearly. I'm not a prophet as yet. Prophethood is not a status easily elicited from God. Typically it was granted mostly to very devout men.

But even though prophecy isn't easy to obtain, we need to be seeking it as a top priority (1Cor 14:1) - we need to be moving in the right direction.

Also a good start is to admit that our current and historic attitude of presumption needs repentance. Historically we've implemented fallible theories of ecclesiology and evangelism with confidence, as though we know what we're doing, thereby effectively shoving our own religion down God's throat.

While God can work miracles directly Himself, I believe the miraculous gifts given to the apostles have ceased. I made some excellent points in Scripture to prove this.

Simply check out this thread here (to learn more):
Cessationism: Tongues, Prophecy, and the Gift of Miracles Have Ceased.

Besides, show me a people that are working exactly like they did in the early church days. You won't find them. At least, I have not found them. If you find them, let me know.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Look, I'll be the first to admit that I fall back on exegesis as a crutch since God isn't currently speaking to me clearly. I'm not a prophet as yet. Prophethood is not a status easily elicited from God. Typically it was granted mostly to very devout men.

But even though prophecy isn't easy to obtain, we need to be seeking it as a top priority (1Cor 14:1) - we need to be moving in the right direction.

Also a good start is to admit that our current and historic attitude of presumption needs repentance. Historically we've implemented fallible theories of ecclesiology and evangelism with confidence, as though we know what we're doing, thereby effectively shoving our own religion down God's throat.

You keep talking about how we need something else besides Scripture alone as a our spiritual authority. But what exactly is it? Do you have a holy book, a prophetic set of words, or some kind of church tradition that is on par with the Bible? If not, then you have to conclude that the Bible is your ultimate authority on matters of the faith.

 

[wonderkins]

This doesn't make sense.

You say scripture is infallible, but man's interpretation is fallible, which most Christians would agree.

But you think Sola Scriptura, or the belief that the Bible (God's Word) is our final authority, is wrong because man's interpretation is fallible.

Since the Bible is the only word of God that we have, shouldn't we only look to the Bible to learn about God? What other source are you looking to?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@JAL

The guidance of the Spirit involving us understanding His Word is a part of Sola Scriptura seeing that the Scriptures themselves were inspired by God. The Scriptures talk about how the Spirit will help us to understand the truth of His Word. Seeing this truth is covered in Scripture, it is a Scriptural truth we hold on to, and not some kind of truth revealed to us outside of Scripture like by some vision, dream, or some other holy book, or church tradition.

 

[Dave G.]

I think we need our foundations built upon truth. I say many of the things I say because I had little teaching from scripture but lots of church life from age 0-29. I believed what "the church" taught pretty much but still knew something was wrong. My life was decreasing in the spirit this way, it only looked good on the outside, inside I was a wreck. So when I was 29 in 1979 I came to Christ practically begging to give Him my life, I was completely alone in my bedroom. What came of that within reasonably short time was peace, fruit to go speak about Jesus and a profound sense that the church I had been in was missing the mark badly. A gift came to me, these things are typical of the converted heart. We become new creations internally, by the Spirit. But I never felt the Spirit even seeing my life changing, my desires changing, didn't know for certain I had the spirit until when ? When I hooked up with a couple pastors and I seriously went after the word of God. Then as things were revealed to me I came to the very evident reality that the exact things spoken of within scripture is exactly what had happened to me years before by this time in my life. I'll leave you with just one verse.
John 8:31 English Standard Version (ESV)
The Truth Will Set You Free
31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples

 

[JAL]

Apparently, it is understandable, since God gave it as revelation to mankind and declared it adequate. Obviously it would not be adequate if it were unintelligible.

Whoa. You're drawing on far too many unproven assumptions.

To begin with, this thread isn't primarily a discussion as to what Scripture's intended purpose is or whether it is adequate for that intended purpose (I'm confident that it is).

Mostly it's a challenge to the claim that Scriptura is our only final authority. And my arguments in that regard stand unrefuted.

Secondly, I suspect you have in mind 2 Tim 3:16 (after all that's where most evangelicals 'rest their case') which:
(1) Merely tells us that Scripture is profitable but doesn't call it indispensable
(2) Doesn't remedy the lack of a printing press till 1500 years later.
(3) Doesn't remedy human fallibility, precisely because the epistle is addressed to a prophet named Timothy. (Please don't arrogate this verse to yourself).

In the hands of a prophet Scripture is a profitable means of instruction. In the hands of an ordinary exegete, it is potentially a disaster in the sense of potentially corrupting instruction.

Note the phrase 'man of God' in that verse - that was an OT expression denoting a prophet.

 

[HatGuy]

And you severely misunderstand Paul. The prophet Abraham is Paul's principal paradigm of faith in both Romans and Galatians. And in both epistles, Abraham's hearing at Genesis 15:1-6 is his principal example of saving/sanctifying faith. You are right that faith comes by hearing the Word, specifically the kind of hearing-the-Word exemplified for us at Genesis 15:1-6. It was an experience of DIRECT REVELATION:

"Then the Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision" (Gen 15:1).

This is NOT the written Word. There was no written word at that time. Now, at Gal 3, Paul twice refers to this Abrahamic dynamic as 'receiving the Spirit by the hearing of faith' and he severely indicts the Galatians for deemphasizing that principle. Paul is literally insinuating that the degree of success in the church stands or falls on the emphasis of that principle.

Let's be clear. As Calvin noted, verse 6 is citing Abraham's experience at Gen 15 as the exemplar of what it means to receive the Spirit and receive miracles via the hearing of faith (direct revelation). Let's see how the passage illustrates both.

(1) The divine Word came to Abraham. That's an outpouring of the Spirit that arrived AFTER Abraham was already saved. Paul is telling the Galatians. Having begun in the Spirit, are you now matured by human effort? Meaning, having received one outpouring at the time of conversion (when the Spirit first spoke to you as Inward Witness), isn't it obvious that, to mature, you need more hearings/outpourings - more direct revelations?
(2) The reason that direct revelations arrive as outpourings is because when God speaks, he releases an outpouring (the divine Word) - see Isaiah 55:11.
(3) How did miracles apply here? Gal 3:5 implies that his experience at Gen 15 ALSO exemplified miracles-through-hearing. Abraham needed a miracle. His wife was barren and there was no known medical solution at that time. The Voice spoke to him a PROMISE of a child. (Note the emphasis on promises in chapter 3 of Galatians).

That is the paradigm. We are supposed to be prayerfully waiting upon God for direct revelations (signs, signals, promises) and such - which is precisely the function of a prophet and those who are seeking that gift. When the OT saints marched into battle without a sign from God, they were likely to be defeated. The same is true of evangelism today.

Surely the irony of using scripture to prove all this does not escape you?

And surely the irony of using (shock and horror) exegesis to do so, does not escape you?

What if I told you right now that I have a direct revelation that Paul was incorrect?

At any rate, you missed the point of my post. You are still creating a false dichotomy. I already asserted that I believe in direct revelation and direct experience of God. However, I fall back on scripture as a final authority in all relevant matters. I need direct revelation to tell me to personally go plant a church, but I use scripture as a guide so that I know if I received such a revelation it would indeed be of God.

I believe in prophecy and also exercise the gift of prophecy. In church yesterday I exercised the gift and publically asked the leaders to minister to those who came up from prayer and specifically trust God for direct words for them.

Checks and balances, checks and balances. That is the point. The Bible is my final authority because it consists of the original teaching of the Church and was birthed from the historical community that I trust. This means that, to a certain degree, tradition has a certain authority of my life as well (sometimes I wonder if I am not paleo-orthodox). I suspect that Abraham's own revelation did not occur in a vacuum but also occurred in a form of oral tradition passed down all the way from Adam. Perhaps I don't have the exegetical chops to prove that, but it seems to me, both in my personal history and in the history of the church, that the Holy Spirit does not convict or promise or speak devoid of content. And that being the case, I am asserting that you create a false dichotomy by claiming that the external content (the witness of the scriptures) carries less authority than the internal content (the inward witness). Surely you can see that both are made to work together and both need each other in order for revelation to work? Why the dichotomy?

 

[JAL]

@JAL

The guidance of the Spirit involving us understanding His Word is a part of Sola Scriptura seeing that the Scriptures themselves were inspired by God. The Scriptures talk about how the Spirit will help us to understand the truth of His Word. Seeing this truth is covered in Scripture, it is a Scriptural truth we hold on to, and not some kind of truth revealed to us outside of Scripture like by some vision, dream, or some other holy book, or church tradition.

There is a tendency on your part to conflate revelation of the Spirit with exegesis as if those two principles are inextricably - indistinguishably - subsumed into one another. Whereas I see a clear distinction.

My point of departure is the question, 'What is illumination by the Holy Spirit?'. I see two choices:

(1) Exegesis. This principle involves discerning a set of premises in Scripture and then, based on those premises, logically deducing conclusions by deductive reasoning. In this framework, illumination would be a matter of the Holy Spirit increasing our analytical skills, basically increasing our IQ, so that we become better scholars.

(2)Direct revelation. The Holy Spirit tells us the meaning of the verses, sparing us from the fallible effort of deductive reasoning. We don't draw our own conclusions. Conclusions are accepted on the perceived authority of the Voice (feelings of certainty, preferably 100% certainty when its available), and thus tentatively when less than 100%.

Now which paradigm fits better with Scripture? Are the truths of scripture unfolded mostly to:
(A) Scholars?
(B) recipients of revelation?

Jesus put it this way, 'I praise you Father, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned but revealed them unto babes.'

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Whoa. You're drawing on far too many unproven assumptions.

To begin with, this thread isn't primarily a discussion as to what Scripture's intended purpose is or whether it is adequate for that intended purpose (I'm confident that it is).

Mostly it's a challenge to the claim that Scriptura is our only final authority. And my arguments in that regard stand unrefuted.

Secondly, I suspect you have in mind 2 Tim 3:16 (after all that's where most evangelicals 'rest their case') which:
(1) Merely tells us that Scripture is profitable but doesn't call it indispensable
(2) Doesn't remedy the lack of a printing press till 1500 years later.
(3) Doesn't remedy human fallibility, precisely because the epistle is addressed to a prophet named Timothy. (Please don't arrogate this verse to yourself).

In the hands of a prophet Scripture is a profitable means of instruction. In the hands of an ordinary exegete, it is potentially a disaster in the sense of potentially corrupting instruction.

Note the phrase 'man of God' in that verse - that was an OT expression denoting a prophet.

In regards to #1: What else do you got that compares to Scripture?

In regards to #2: God's revelation is progressive. We don't know why God did not make available a Bible for believers immediately at the beginning of the church. We do know many of the letters were circulated and so it was not like they were without the Word of God. So a lack of how they received God's Word does not undermine how God's Word exists today. Jesus said to whom much is given, much is required.

In regards to #3: Well, in 2 Timothy 2:14, Timothy is told to remind the brethren of these things [i.e. the things mentioned in 2 Timothy 2:1-13] charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Jesus even quotes OT Scripture as an authority to make spiritual points. So if we are to follow His example, we can do the same with other Scripture.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There is a tendency on your part to conflate revelation of the Spirit with exegesis as if those two principles are inextricably - indistinguishably - subsumed into one another. Whereas I see a clear distinction.

My point of departure is the question, 'What is illumination by the Holy Spirit?'. I see two choices:

(1) Exegesis. This principle involves discerning a set of premises in Scripture and then, based on those premises, logically deducing conclusions by deductive reasoning. In this framework, illumination would be a matter of the Holy Spirit increasing our analytical skills, basically increasing our IQ, so that we become better scholars.

(2)Direct revelation. The Holy Spirit tells us the meaning of the verses, sparing us from the fallible effort of deductive reasoning. We don't draw our own conclusions. Conclusions are accepted on the perceived authority of the Voice (feelings of certainty, preferably 100% certainty when its available), and thus tentatively when less than 100%.

Now which paradigm fits better with Scripture? Are the truths of scripture unfolded mostly to:
(A) Scholars?
(B) recipients of revelation?

Jesus put it this way, 'I praise you Father, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned but revealed them unto babes.'

I believe both play a part. Our logic, reason, and heart in looking at the context, and cross references work in harmony with the Spirit in trying to show us a truth in Scripture. When we speak of Sola Scriptura, we are saying that Scripture is the sole source of our faith at the end of the day. This does not mean we are not guided by the Spirit, and it does not mean we shut off our brains or our hearts, either. It also does not mean we refuse to look at real world examples within the universe we live in, as well. But the Bible is our sole source of faith and spiritual guidance. If it is not, then you need to show me some kind of other holy book, holy words, vision, dream, church tradition that is on part with the Bible, etc.

 

[JAL]

Surely the irony of using scripture to prove all this does not escape you?... And surely the irony of using ...exegesis to do so, does not escape you?

Given that a fallback on exegesis (absent 100% certainty) has always been an explicitly avowed aspect of my epistemology and methodology - and a very reasonable one - it's hardly ironic.

What if I told you right now that I have a direct revelation that Paul was incorrect?

And you seriously think that scenario poses a logical problem for my epistemology?

At any rate, you missed the point of my post.

No I didn't. I simply addressed one flawed point of your post and intended to address the remaining flaws later.

You are still creating a false dichotomy. I already asserted that I believe in direct revelation and direct experience of God. However, I fall back on scripture as a final authority in all relevant matters. I need direct revelation to tell me to personally go plant a church, but I use scripture as a guide so that I know if I received such a revelation it would indeed be of God.

To begin with, I'm not even really sure that you are the intended audience of this thread, when you use the language, 'I fall back on scripture as a final authority' apparently intimating the possibility of more than one final authority. My beef is with those who regard Scripture as the ONLY possible final authority in religious matters, which contradicts conversion for starters.

I believe in prophecy and also exercise the gift of prophecy. In church yesterday I exercised the gift and publically asked the leaders to minister to those who came up from prayer and specifically trust God for direct words for them.

Checks and balances, checks and balances. That is the point. The Bible is my final authority...

To regard always-fallible exegesis as a 'check and balance' for the infallible gift of prophecy is an unacceptable epistemology. That's backwards. We need the infallible gift of prophecy as a 'check and balance' capable of correcting fallible exegetical efforts.

Apparently you believe in fallible prophecy. I do believe in fallible revelation (i.e. any revelation received at least than 100% certainty). But I tend to think that Scripture calls it prophecy only when it is at 100% certainty. At any rate, 100% certainty is the TYPE of prophecy I'm targeting on this thread. And even it should turn out that such is fallible, at least the recipient is WARRANTED in regarding himself infallible at that moment, because he feels so certain.

The Bible is my final authority...

Your only final authority? That is my beef.

...because it consists of the original teaching of the Church and was birthed from the historical community that I trust. This means that, to a certain degree, tradition has a certain authority of my life as well (sometimes I wonder if I am not paleo-orthodox). I suspect that Abraham's own revelation did not occur in a vacuum but also occurred in a form of oral tradition passed down all the way from Adam. Perhaps I don't have the exegetical chops to prove that, but it seems to me, both in my personal history and in the history of the church, that the Holy Spirit does not convict or promise or speak devoid of content. And that being the case, I am asserting that you create a false dichotomy by claiming that the external content (the witness of the scriptures) carries less authority than the internal content (the inward witness). Surely you can see that both are made to work together and both need each other in order for revelation to work? Why the dichotomy?

Again, exegesis affords me no direct access to the content of the the Scriptures, only to my fallible interpretations of it. Why the dichotomy? See my latest post #89. I see a clearly drawn distinction between direct revelation and exegesis.

 

[JAL]

I believe both play a part. Our logic, reason, and heart in looking at the context, and cross references work in harmony with the Spirit in trying to show us a truth in Scripture. When we speak of Sola Scriptura, we are saying that Scripture is the sole source of our faith at the end of the day. This does not mean we are not guided by the Spirit, and it does not mean we shut off our brains or our hearts, either. It also does not mean we refuse to look at real world examples within the universe we live in, as well. But the Bible is our sole source of faith and spiritual guidance. If it is not, then you need to show me some kind of other holy book, holy words, vision, dream, church tradition that is on part with the Bible, etc.

You are repudiating conversion. See post #2. Clearly Scripture is NOT the source of our saving faith at the end of the day. The Inward Witness was that source at the start, and remains so.

 

[~Zao~]

Isn’t exegesis as a crutch just lawlessness in another form? or is that the letter of the written word speaking? and what is the difference? is there any?

 

[Albion]

Whoa. You're drawing on far too many unproven assumptions.

To begin with, this thread isn't primarily a discussion as to what Scripture's intended purpose is or whether it is adequate for that intended purpose (I'm confident that it is).

Mostly it's a challenge to the claim that Scriptura is our only final authority.

If Scripture is adequate and is the "final authority" as you say here it is, nothing needs to be added or, for that matter, can be added. That's rather obvious.

 

[JAL]

But none of that impugns Scripture! That is what we are talking about here--the adequacy of Scripture. If Luther or Calvin or someone on online today doesn't get the message correctly, that is not the fault of the word of God--and yes, we all say that we believe it IS the word of God, not just some musings of some old Hebrews, right?

(Sigh). No one is impugning Scripture. If anything, I am impugning men. One of the things that makes exegesis so fallible is our fallen nature. Commenting on this forum, one member posted, 'Pride reigns on these fora". Given human pride, reform isn't easily obtained in the church. None of us (including me) are eager to admit when we are in the wrong. Monetary incentives further exacerbate the issue. Suppose you've invested your whole career in being a pastor or seminarian. Now suddenly someone comes along challenging your beliefs. Is it really easy to be open minded about changing your views - knowing that if you get excommunicated, you'll have to struggle to feed your family? Honestly? I couldn't do it. My heart would harden to any foreign doctrines immediately. Just being honest.

Pride plus money - that's a basically insurmountable duo!

But direct revelation has the power to penetrate all that hardness of heart.

And by the way, I am still waiting (not from you in particular GS) for the alternate source of authority that does not suffer from the same criticisms that were laid at the feet of the word of God on these pages.

I've already done that. Exegesis affords no prospect of infallibility, whereas (prophetic) inspiration has a proven track-record.

 

[JAL]

If Scripture is adequate and is the "final authority" as you say here it is, nothing needs to be added or, for that matter, can be added. That's rather obvious.

(Scratching my head). Where did I say that Scripture is a final authority - much less the only final authority? Isn't that what I'm refuting?

Scripture is NEVER a higher authority than conscience. Scripture can influence conscience, admittedly, by having an impact on my feelings of certainty. But the feelings of certainty always have the final say.

 

[~Zao~]

(Sigh). No one is impugning Scripture. If anything, I am impugning men. One of the things that makes exegesis so fallible is our fallen nature. Commenting on this forum, one member posted, 'Pride reigns on these fora". Given human pride, reform isn't easily obtained in the church. None of us (including me) are eager to admit when we are in the wrong. Monetary incentives further exacerbate the issue. Suppose you've invested your whole career in being a pastor or seminarian. Now suddenly someone comes along challenging your beliefs. Is it really easy to be open minded about changing your views - knowing that if you get excommunicated, you'll have to struggle to feed your family? Honestly? I couldn't do it. My heart would harden to any foreign doctrines immediately. Just being honest.

Pride plus money - that's a basically insurmountable duo!

But direct revelation has the power to penetrate all that hardness of heart.

I've already done that. Exegesis affords no prospect of infallibility, whereas (prophetic) inspiration has a proven track-record.

I would wonder who was the Samaritan?

 

[JAL]

Isn’t exegesis as a crutch just lawlessness in another form? or is that the letter of the written word speaking? and what is the difference? is there any?

The law of God (love) is already written in our conscience (Romans 2).

However, the specifics of God's will are not always plain. Direct revelation is the best solution for that problem but, where that is lacking, we understandably fall back on exegesis hoping for some kind of answers, fallible as this effort might be.

 

[~Zao~]

The law of God (love) is already written in our conscience (Romans 2).

However, the specifics of God's will are not always plain. Direct revelation is the best solution for that problem but, where that is lacking, we understandably fall back on exegesis hoping for some kind of answers, fallible as this effort might be.

How do you go about that exegesis? Memorization? Since to verse and text seem so readily available? I know I often resort to notes but never when questioned. That needs a different study to further support the witness. Especially when it’s a known fact that the conscience is very susceptible to being fried. No pun intended.
Burn out does not occur unless your on fire,