Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

Again, you would not know about anything that Scripture teaches without Scripture. So you are attacking the very thing you say you are for. Any time you say that you don't get a particular thing from Scripture, the Bible already talks about it and thus it is under the Bible that we know about it.

We would not know about being born again without the Bible talking about such a thing. No Bible, and we would be clueless as to what that means. Also, a changed heart by God to want to love others is merely proof that the Bible is true, and such a truth is not trying to lead you away from the Bible or to trust in your feelings apart from God's Word. We build doctrine, and instruction and spiritual truth on what God's Word says. No outside thing builds doctrine or teachings that can be added to the Bible. Any truth God teaches us by His Spirit is in line with what His Word already says. God will always seek to glorify what His Word says. We go to the Bible, and pray to God to confirm what His Word says and not to confirm something we want to hear or think.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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?

I will look first to the Bible and not what I feel is right alone. There are were times I did things that I thought were right or okay, and God later convicted me by His Word that it was not okay.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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

What do you mean "You guys"? I am not on the side of the OP. I am for Sola Scriptura. Did you read my post? My point is that a person should not seek to build an inner witness as their authority like the Mormons do.

 

[QvQ]

Conscience is what? I believe that Faith is the abiding presence of God. Now, the Will of God, that is Faith informed by reason. Conscience, at least the secular version, is too governed by emotions, expediencies, culture. To carry that moral compass into the Christian life? I prefer Faith informed by reason. Sola Scriptura!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

So when Scripture says that Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness, he was not exactly sure that he believed in God?

 

[~Zao~]

What do you mean "You guys"? I am not on the side of the OP. I am for Sola Scriptura. Did you read my post? My point is that a person should not seek to build an inner witness as their authority like the Mormons do.

The conscience is an excellent inner witness for a healthy Christian. But it cannot authoritative because it can be seared /without witness in an unhealthy state, as can the semi-regenerated mind cannot be an authority. Especially over scripture. I know nothing of Mormons.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

Actually in the KJV, we are told to study to show ourselves approved unto God (2 Timothy 2:15).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The conscience is an excellent inner witness for a healthy Christian. But it cannot authoritative because it can be seared /without witness in an unhealthy state, as can the semi-regenerated mind cannot be an authority. Especially over scripture.

You do realize I am a Sola Scriptura Christian, right?
You do realize I am arguing against the poster of this thread, right?
This means I am in agreement with you that we cannot trust our inner witness alone and we need Scripture as our ultimate authority.
At the end of the day, it is not ourselves that determines the truth, but it is God's Word that determines the truth.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I know nothing of Mormons.

Mormons believe that they can pray and seek confirmation by having some kind of burning in the bosom type feeling. This is a false inner witness. The Bible mentions nothing about this and we look to His Word as the ultimate authority on spiritual matters and not what we feel, think, and do, etc. Granted, good things in life do line up with the Bible, like morality, and the creation, etc. but these good things are mentioned already in Scripture. The cat is already out of the bag in the fact that the Bible already speaks of them. Scripture is our highest authority. It is our sole ultimate authority on all matters concerning the faith.

 

[~Zao~]

Conscience is what? I believe that Faith is the abiding presence of God.

Aware of His presence so therefore a witness to what the conscience reflects, is that what your saying?

Now, the Will of God, that is Faith informed by reason.

Taken the above conscience agrees with renewed nous as to what the spiritual receptor of conscience is receiving. Perceived thru the intellect so as to inform the body of it’s service to carry it out.
Or that which belongs to the soul-life.

Conscience, at least the secular version, is too governed by emotions, expediencies, culture. To carry that moral compass into the Christian life? I prefer Faith informed by reason. Sola Scriptura!

 

[~Zao~]

You do realize I am a Sola Scriptura Christian, right?
You do realize I am arguing against the poster of this thread, right?
This means I am in agreement with you that we cannot trust our inner witness alone and we need Scripture as our ultimate authority.
At the end of the day, it is not ourselves that determines the truth, but it is God's Word that determines the truth.

At the end of the day it’s what my E-motions tell me about my peace of mind according to my reaction to what the word and the Spirit have instructed me to during the day.

My irritation with this subject is the entanglement of pitting conscience against sola scriptura. Stop, your both right. Metals for heroes at the next check-out.

 

[JAL]

I will look first to the Bible and not what I feel is right alone. There are were times I did things that I thought were right or okay, and God later convicted me by His Word that it was not okay.

Sure. But if at that moment you felt certain that choice A was evil, and choice B was good, and so you went with choice B, wasn't that the correct choice?

Are you saying that is proper to choose A when you are convinced that A is evil?

Of course not. Starting from the other thread, we are now 250 posts deep into this discussion, and no one has managed to provide a viable exception to the rule of conscience. No one in history has accomplished it, as far as I know. It is tautological.

 

[JAL]

Mormons believe that they can pray and seek confirmation by having some kind of burning in the bosom type feeling. This is a false inner witness. The Bible mentions nothing about this and we look to His Word as the ultimate authority on spiritual matters and not what we feel, think, and do, etc. Granted, good things in life do line up with the Bible, like morality, and the creation, etc. but these good things are mentioned already in Scripture. The cat is already out of the bag in the fact that the Bible already speaks of them. Scripture is our highest authority. It is our sole ultimate authority on all matters concerning the faith.

Repeating your position doesn't make it true. Find me a clear exception to the rule of conscience.

 

[~Zao~]

Sure. But if at that moment you felt certain that choice A was evil, and choice B was good, and so you went with choice B, wasn't that the correct choice?

Are you saying that is proper to choose A when you are convinced that A is evil?

Of course not. Starting from the other thread, we are now 250 posts deep into this discussion, and no one has managed to provide a viable exception to the rule of conscience. No one in history has accomplished it, as far as I know. It is tautological.

C=the escape always provided by God G’night

 

[JAL]

Again, you would not know about anything that Scripture teaches without Scripture. So you are attacking the very thing you say you are for. Any time you say that you don't get a particular thing from Scripture, the Bible already talks about it and thus it is under the Bible that we know about it.

We would not know about being born again without the Bible talking about such a thing. No Bible, and we would be clueless as to what that means. Also, a changed heart by God to want to love others is merely proof that the Bible is true, and such a truth is not trying to lead you away from the Bible or to trust in your feelings apart from God's Word. We build doctrine, and instruction and spiritual truth on what God's Word says. No outside thing builds doctrine or teachings that can be added to the Bible. Any truth God teaches us by His Spirit is in line with what His Word already says. God will always seek to glorify what His Word says. We go to the Bible, and pray to God to confirm what His Word says and not to confirm something we want to hear or think.

You're saying that theology isn't possible without Scripture. That's historically false. God gave the prophets direct revelations, which they then wrote down. Their knowledge originated in direct revelation, not in exegesis.

We build doctrine, and instruction and spiritual truth on what God's Word says.

Right, the church has been reliant mostly on exegesis. That's a mistake. Like evangelicals, you assume that the very existence of Scripture implies Sola Scripture. I disagree. Scripture exists largely as a historical record of the prophetic paradigm thereby hoping to spur us on to the same.

Anyone who is a follower of Jesus needs to walk as Jesus walked. He was The Prophet of God.

 

[QvQ]

Aware of His presence so therefore a witness to what the conscience reflects, is that what your saying?
.

I am defining conscience as a moral code, what compels a person to righteousness. If you consider the old blood feuds, those men felt compelled by conscience, by their code to avenge. When a person becomes a Christian, then that person is in the abiding presence of God and accepts His Word as the moral code. However, reason must be applied. Charity is the moral code of the Christians, right there in the Word, but it must be done informed by reason which means you don't give money to alcoholic panhandlers. That is simple but the best illustration I can provide offhand.

 

[QvQ]

Aware of His presence so therefore a witness to what the conscience reflects, is that what your saying?
.

I am defining conscience as a moral code, the inner compass that compels a person to righteousness. If you consider the old blood feuds, those men felt compelled by conscience, by their code to avenge. When a person becomes a Christian, then that person is in the abiding presence of God and accepts His Word as the moral code. However, reason must be applied. Charity is the moral code of the Christians, right there in the Word, but it must be done informed by reason which means you don't give money to alcoholic panhandlers. That is simple but the best illustration I can provide offhand.

 

[~Zao~]

You're saying that theology isn't possible without Scripture. That's historically false. God gave the prophets direct revelations, which they then wrote down. Their knowledge originated in direct revelation, not in exegesis.

Right, the church has been reliant mostly on exegesis. That's a mistake. Like evangelicals, you assume that the very existence of Scripture implies Sola Scripture. I disagree. Scripture exists largely as a historical record of the prophetic paradigm thereby hoping to spur us on to the same.

Anyone who is a follower of Jesus needs to walk as Jesus walked. He was The Prophet of God.

Anyone who is a follower of Jesus needs to walk as Jesus walked. He was The Prophet of God.

Actually He is now our King and Priest as well as our Apostle according to the Book of Hebrews. Because He is Risen as apostle He is represented by His followers as ministers of reconciliation. His prophetics can be gleamed from many sources, when it is His words being spoken, according to His life given to others. That’s how rebirth occurs is within the revelation, but then, we regress to square one.

 

[charsan]

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.

Agreed and t is not conscience that needs to help us but the Church, as the Bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth not a book.

To me the main logical problem of Sola Scriptura is that it doesn't allow for the individual to be convinced by anything other than scripture. We can suppose that a person comes to an idea through reading the bible but that person is wrong. This person has, in their mind, conformed to scripture and therefore doesn't listen to any other external authority despite the fact that this lesser voice of authority is correct. Sola Scriptura justifies in the minds of many their reading of the Bible even if they are wrong.

The problem lies in scripture always being the final authority when it cannot such for anyone. Who has ever perfectly read the bible? Even if they got important aspects about it right?

Still I would say the main problem with Sola Scriptura that as a means for guiding Christendom, it doesn't work and only causes division.

Exactly

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.

As seen in GT and elsewhere on the forums day in and day out

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

Exactly

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

So when Scripture says that Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness, he was not exactly sure that he believed in God?

To believe something means that you are taking someone else’s word for it. I would not say “I believe I’m posting from my smartphone right now”. I would say “I’m posting from my smartphone” because I now I am. When you enter in the word believe it means that there is a level of uncertainty but you have chosen to believe anyway. So was Abraham sure he believed? I’m guessing he was.