Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[JAL]

. 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?

Direct revelation can't 'work' without written or oral tradition? So the Voice was incapable of speaking clearly to Adam and Eve? To the angels?

Seriously. In heaven do you expect God put you up in little room with a table, a desk lamp, a Bible, and a concordance? Is that really necessary? Why isn't the Voice adequate in your view?

I've been accused on this thread of deprecating the written Word as inadequate.
What about the divine Word as our Voice? Why do you see HIM as inadequate?

 

[HatGuy]

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'm not usually the intended audience of most CF threads, as I use the platform to learn and interact, not to proselytize.

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.

But prophecy also needs exegesis. Is there any prophecy, both Biblical and even directly in your life, that did not require some sort of interpretation? My experience is that there is always a needed level of interpretation, to one degree or another.

I don't think you can ever get away from fallible exegetical efforts, because the nature of language prevents it. Both prophecy and scripture require exegesis. I can't see how that can ever be avoided.

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.

Interesting, but I can't see how it follows that anyone should ever see themselves as infallible.

Again, the Bible is the effort of many, not just one. It is the Spirit speaking to the many that gives it authority.

Your only final authority? That is my beef.

By nature of the definition of "final" authority, you can't really have more than one "final" authority, although you can have varying levels of authority.

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.

I saw that post but don't buy it. Because, as stated above, prophecy also always requires exegesis.

The trouble with making personal direct revelation a higher authority than the Bible is it elevates my exegesis over that of the historical and present day community, which is both dangerous and foolish (IMO). However, it appears to work much more healthily when the Bible is an agreed authority amongst us. I've had plenty of people in my pastoral experience who honestly believe God told them to leave their spouse. No that's not God, that's just your own voice. But we can know it's not God because the recorded words of Jesus tell us that God hates divorce

 

[JAL]

@JAL:

The Bible also says,

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).

If the inward heart alone was a trustworthy guide spiritually, then we can go off trusting our heart to let us read the Bible. But we know how disastrous that can be. There are many men who have done evil things according to what they thought was biblical. They let their hearts guide them to destruction. They really did not surrender to God's Word, the Bible, but they surrendered to their inward selves what they wanted to hear. So the ultimate authority spiritually is God's Word and not what our heart thinks.

There is no exception to the rule of conscience. If you feel certain that action A is evil and action B is good, which shall you undertake?

 

[HatGuy]

Direct revelation can't 'work' without written or oral tradition? So the Voice was incapable of speaking clearly to Adam and Eve? To the angels?

Seriously. In heaven do you expect God put you up in little room with a table, a desk lamp, a Bible, and a concordance? Is that really necessary? Why isn't the Voice adequate in your view?

I've been accused on this thread of deprecating the written Word as inadequate.
What about the divine Word as our Voice? Why do you see HIM as inadequate?

I'll get to this post tomorrow. It's bed time for me.

 

[~Zao~]

Direct revelation can't 'work' without written or oral tradition? So the Voice was incapable of speaking clearly to Adam and Eve? To the angels?

Seriously. In heaven do you expect God put you up in little room with a table, a desk lamp, a Bible, and a concordance? Is that really necessary? Why isn't the Voice adequate in your view?

I've been accused on this thread of deprecating the written Word as inadequate.
What about the divine Word as our Voice? Why do you see HIM as inadequate?

Where would you be w/o the word written on your heart? Medieval times they would have resorted to the images painted on the walls symbolically representing what the written letter portrays to more knowledgable people. Studies on the prophets is another way of recognizing patterns. But the foundation needs to be there and it needs to be Christ. Knowing, recognizing Christ needs a beginning. Maybe when Timothy learnt of Christ at his mother’s and grandmothers knee, that may be the eye witness of what the gospel is.
Keeping our soul in safekeeping with God as our inheritance isn’t the same as using our collective or individual souls as points of contention. Try reading it from a different perspective for a change.


.

 

[~Zao~]

Btw, thanks for all the replies to the op that were not forthcoming.

 

[bmjackson]

The Bible is the fountain but not the source. God intended man to have direct communication with Him and not to depend on a book which as the OP says, was not available until later years.

So direct communication with God via the Holy Spirit is the primary authority but it is not through the conscience which is formed by the culture we live in. The means by which God communicates is through our spirit joined with His, unity with a living God, but a man needs to have reached the state of entire sanctification where the soul and spirit are divided and therefore a man is aware of what comes into his spirit without being 'contaminated' by the soul.

 

[JAL]

Both the Word and the Spirit work together, or are two sides of the same coin, working mysteriously in the believer to justify and sanctify. The Spirit uses the Word, and the Word has the Spirit.

Sorry nebulous claims won't suffice here, even though lots of people fall for sermons consisting of such unclear language. If you can't specify the precise specifics - if all you can say is that it's all mysterious - then you've ultimately said nothing useful, it's tantamount to gibberish. And hence I will turn a deaf ear to you and an active ear to the sort of clarity such as I provided in post 89, which clearly identifies the difference between exegesis and direct revelation. It's not in fact a 'mystery'.

Again, (B) is incorrect in your premise. It doesn't matter if some Protestants IMPLY that scripture is the foundation of the church.

It does matter. This assumption governs their whole approach to ecclesiology.

(C) is incorrect by your example. Your example includes the preaching of the gospel with 'great anointing / unction'. The gospel is an exegesis of scripture - of the teaching of the apostles that we are devoted to (or at least the early church was in Acts 2:42). 'Great anointing / unction' would include some sort of spirit-led clarification of the gospel to the intended audience ('exegesis' means to explain and clarify the text). In other words, exegesis on some level is required for preaching.

You're point is valid that the gospel-message always involves some kind of cognitive content. But you seem to then equate this content with the term exegesis and thus now you have 'proof' that exegesis is necessary and foundational to direct revelation. That doesn't follow. Exegesis is not a synonym for content. And the existence of content in direct revelation is hardly proof that exegesis is authoritative - authoritative over what? Conscience? Hardly.

Exegesis is not usually the task of the hearer but of the preacher. Some sort of exegesis is required from the preacher to clarify to the hearer. This doesn't require years at seminary, and I agree to that. It doesn't even necessarily require knowledge of greek words etc. But it certainly requires the Bible in some part of the equation.

See previous comment.

By the way Scripture sometimes uses the terms 'gospel' and 'scripture' as a reference to the divine Word. Thus we have:
(1) both written gospel and living Gospel
(2) both written scripture and living Scripture
(3) both written Word and divine Word.

For example the living Scripture preached (released) the living Gospel to Abraham: "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed" (Gen 3).

I don't know why you think an authoritative written Word (or some specific oral tradition) is necessary for this process of direct revelation. I do agree that some concepts won't likely be well understood if the mind has no education, no content as yet. But the Bible isn't the only possible form of education.

I also do agree that God would generally prefer our minds acquire content by studying the Scriptures as opposed to some other book. On the other hand He is well aware that we need secular education to secure jobs.

Here's the problem with this post (and the other). You're critiquing a Biblicism prevalent (it seems) in certain quarters of America, and blaming an inappropriate negation of the power of the Spirit (and the direct revelation of the Spirit) on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Just because some Protestant groups have gone extreme on the Bible doesn't mean the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is itself faulty.

But it is faulty, as I have shown.

One can attest to scripture being the final authority while also attesting to direct revelation from the Holy Spirit and direct experience of the divine. As I do.

Sola Scriptura repudiates conversion and logically contradicts authoritative conscience.

Spirit does not trump Word, and Word does not trump Spirit. There is no need to create a dichotomy between the two. Any attempt to do so always veers off into unhealthy directions. To make your own conscience your final authority is neither right nor safe, but to ignore it is neither right or safe either. An aeroplane needs two wings to fly - likewise, we need both Word and Spirit. And this is what any good reformationist knew and taught in their day.

And all you have to do is provide one clear counterexample to my rule of conscience. On what occasion, feeling certain that action A is evil and B is good, is it appropriate in God's sight for you to do A?

You should have cited Luther here. He said, 'To go against conscience is neither right nor safe' - precisely the opposite of your claim.

 

[JAL]

To make your own conscience your final authority is neither right nor safe, but to ignore it is neither right or safe either. An aeroplane needs two wings to fly - likewise, we need both Word and Spirit. And this is what any good reformationist knew and taught in their day.

The real irony on this thread is that all those supposedly repudiating the primacy of conscience actually hope to be judged on that authority alone. Why so? Because exegesis is fallible! Suppose you're standing before the throne of God, knowing that you labored day and night for the gospel, and now you're hoping for God to say, 'Well done good and faithful servant!'

Instead he says, 'You horrible servant! Because your exegesis was flawed, you labored in all the wrong areas!"

Is that how any of us really want to be judged? Please. And wouldn't it mean that the best bible scholars have a clear advantage over the intellectually less competent?

Whereas, if He judges us on whether we heeded our conscience, we all potentially stand on equal footing.

 

[~Zao~]

Revelation is always Christ revealed moreso. I personally love to see Him in the patterns of scripture. If others find that in nature or whatever then fine, but what! does that have to do with conscience? When as an individual one partakes with His divine nature what does it compare to but to what we already know about Him in a fuller way. So the question is and can always be “what do you, I or anybody else know about the GodHead”?
Then it parts from an individual revelation (what Christianity holds the key to) or collective human consciousness of God. What grounds those beliefs? Old testament patterns would be my answer so gotta say sola scriptura again.

It actually may have been a good thread if the title had been different ... but maybe not lol ... enjoyed either way.

 

[Pedra]

The Bible is the fountain but not the source. God intended man to have direct communication with Him and not to depend on a book which as the OP says, was not available until later years.

So direct communication with God via the Holy Spirit is the primary authority but it is not through the conscience which is formed by the culture we live in. The means by which God communicates is through our spirit joined with His, unity with a living God, but a man needs to have reached the state of entire sanctification where the soul and spirit are divided and therefore a man is aware of what comes into his spirit without being 'contaminated' by the soul.

The Holy Spirit in-spired the Word of God. No man reaches the state of entire sanctification this side of heaven.

 

[thecolorsblend]

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 shall 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.

Your formulation there sounds a bit like the Anglicans' scripture, tradition, reason bit.

Still, you hit upon some of the problems with "sola scriptura". Quite apart from being absolutely ahistorical, it's a logical dead end. And, one might say, its dependence upon private interpretation makes it ripe with the potential for division and disagreement... which, indeed, is precisely what it causes.

Sad.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Also, not sure why you would be arguing against me on evidences that back up the Bible. Should you not be in support of me by such a thing?

I support your freedom to make a choice in what you choose to believe. I am not a big supporter of anybody claiming that they are 100% certain unless they are in fact 100% certain. On things where there is 100% certainty there would never be a disagreement at all. But again 100% certainty is very rare. You cannot be 100% certain if you are basing your certainty on the experiences of others and not your own. But you can choose to believe. If you use the word believe you are admitting right there that you aren’t sure. And that’s ok. We make decisions to trust things that we are not certain of all the time.

 

[~Zao~]

@JAL do you think that someone who went deeply into debt (much like Detroit) and was then miraculously brought out of debt to become a millionaire is a good parental discussion? To me that’s enabling, which I don’t think anyone who is part of the Jubilee is prone to. Two sides to every coin. Even a bad penny.

 

[JAL]

I'm not usually the intended audience of most CF threads, as I use the platform to learn and interact, not to proselytize.

But prophecy also needs exegesis.

Incorrect. See below.

Is there any prophecy, both Biblical and even directly in your life, that did not require some sort of interpretation? My experience is that there is always a needed level of interpretation, to one degree or another...I don't think you can ever get away from fallible exegetical efforts, because the nature of language prevents it. Both prophecy and scripture require exegesis. I can't see how that can ever be avoided.

You're simply pointing out the fact that where a revelation is brief (i.e. isn't fully extrapolated), questions remain. You then jump to the conclusion that the ideal remedy is - fallible exegesis/interpretation? Hardly. Take a look at Numbers 12 where the unclear revelations given to immature prophets contrasts with the clear revelations unto the mature prophet Moses.

Obviously, Moses had more clarity because he got more comprehensive direct revelation, not because he was a better scholar supremely skilled in exegesis.

I do agree, as already avowed several times, that in the absence of the needed revelation, we understandably fall back on fallible exegesis/interpretation as a crutch. But that's not the ideal solution to a lack of clarity.

Interesting, but I can't see how it follows that anyone should ever see themselves as infallible.

No, not infallible in general - infallible ON A GIVEN ISSUE for which they have 100% certainty. Suppose I have 100% certainty that all angels are five feet tall. Someone asks me, 'Are angels five feet tall?" I then reply, "I'm not sure. I'm not infallible on this point." I would be LYING.

Anyone who thinks that's an appropriate response either doesn't understand 100% certainty or doesn't understand lies.

I saw that post but don't buy it. Because, as stated above, prophecy also always requires exegesis.

See above.

The trouble with making personal direct revelation a higher authority than the Bible is it elevates my exegesis over that of the historical and present day community, which is both dangerous and foolish (IMO)....

(Sigh) Again, you'll need to provide at least one clear exception to the rule of conscience.

... However, it appears to work much more healthily when the Bible is an agreed authority amongst us. I've had plenty of people in my pastoral experience who honestly believe God told them to leave their spouse. No that's not God, that's just your own voice. But we can know it's not God because the recorded words of Jesus tell us that God hates divorce

You mean sort of like, when Moses heard a voice commanding him to slaughter seven nations to possess Canaan, he new it was NOT God's voice since the recorded words of God say, 'Thou shall not kill'?

But it turns out that it WAS God's voice, despite any APPARENT contradiction to Scripture. Exegesis is fallible.

Again, you are merely pretending to have access to 'the recorded words of God'. All you really have access to, via exegesis, is your own fallible interpretations/opinions. And you know what they say about opinions. Everybody's got one. No hope for objectivity there.

I've had plenty of people in my pastoral experience who honestly believe God told them to leave their spouse.

You would seem to be a mind-reader, given these words.
And since you can read minds, did they have 100% certainty at that moment? Or at least tell me this. Obviously they were faced with two choices action A and B. One of them, in their minds, was felt to be the morally right choice. The other was felt to be the morally wrong choice.

Based on your reading of minds, which one did they go with? And if they went with the choice perceived to be morally upright, would you approve or disapprove? Why or why not?

 

[Pedra]

Your formulation there sounds a bit like the Anglicans' scripture, tradition, reason bit.

Still, you hit upon some of the problems with "sola scriptura". Quite apart from being absolutely ahistorical, it's a logical dead end. And, one might say, its dependence upon private interpretation makes it ripe with the potential for division and disagreement... which, indeed, is precisely what it causes.

Sad.

There is no private interpretation.

 

[thecolorsblend]

There is no private interpretation.

That is precisely what "sola scriptura" fosters and encourages.

 

[~Zao~]

That is precisely what "sola scriptura" fosters and encourages.

It may foster but it doesn’t encourage it. Patterns are more reliable than taking script out of context or basing it on nothing at all.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

You cannot build a spiritual foundation on inward witness. Mormons believe in a burning of the bosom to confirm what they believe to be true. So what authority do we look to? It is the Bible, and the Bible refutes the Mormon religion and their false inward witness. Many people believe they had an experience or conversion with God, as well. But they do not follow the Bible or they do not believe the whole thing. So again, it is not somebody's experience or witness, etc. that determines doctrine, instruction in righteousness, and correction, etc. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, instruction in righteousness, and correction so that the "man of God" (generically speaking and NOT TIMOTHY ALONE) may be perfect unto all good works.

 

[~Zao~]

You cannot build a spiritual foundation on inward witness. Mormons believe in a burning of the bosom to confirm what they believe to be true. So what authority do we look to? It is the Bible, and the Bible refutes the Mormon religion and their false inward witness. Many people believe they had an experience or conversion with God, as well. But they do not follow the Bible or they do not believe the whole thing. So again, it is not somebody's experience or witness, etc. that determines doctrine, instruction in righteousness, and correction, etc. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, instruction in righteousness, and correction so that the "man of God" (generically speaking and NOT TIMOTHY ALONE) may be perfect unto all good works.

What’s the formula you guys are playing with? Conscience = inner witness = Mormonism. That’s just witchcraft= rebellion against the written word. Unsubscribe.