Certainty or Truth? Recovering the Logos from Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura is a core Protestant doctrine asserting that the Bible alone is the ultimate, infallible authority for Christian faith, doctrine, and practice, superseding traditions or other sources unless aligned with Scripture, while emphasizing its sufficiency and clarity for deriving truths through study and the Holy Spirit’s guidance. The belief that Jesus is the Logos—translated as “Word” rather than “Logic”—reinforces this by prioritizing divine revelation in Scripture over human reason or philosophy, portraying Christ as the incarnate expression of God’s will that subordinates speculative thought to the revealed biblical authority.
Many people searching for a church run into a deeper problem than style or music: a collision between two ways of knowing. On one side is a reason-first approach that tests ideas, updates with evidence, and treats truth as something we earn through intellectual work. On the other is a theology-first posture—often framed as sola scriptura—that treats deductions from a sacred text as unquestionable premises and files all conflicts under “human understanding is corrupt.” The result is not only conversational stalemate; it is a clash between the love of truth and the love of certainty. The former risks revision to gain clarity; the latter resists revision to keep comfort.
Deductive rigidity refers to the strict application of fixed premises to reach conclusions, often stifling inquiry by treating those premises as unchallengeable, leading to inflexible and potentially flawed outcomes. In contrast, abductive reasoning offers flexibility by inferring the best explanation from observed facts, adapting to new evidence and context to align further with truth.
Fallibilism is the intellectual character trait that acknowledges all beliefs and knowledge are subject to error and open to revision based on new evidence. It fosters humility and critical inquiry, encouraging individuals to question assumptions while pursuing truth through reason.
A practical path to truth in everyday life is abductive reasoning—inferring the best explanation from the available evidence—paired with fallibilism, the recognition that any conclusion may need updating. This is how we diagnose illnesses, build technology, and correct ourselves when new facts appear. Deduction is valuable when premises are secure, and is great for testing an abductive hypothesis, but it becomes brittle when the premises are insulated from all challenge; this is called deductive rigidity. A community that forbids the revision of its premises must often defend them by methods that don’t actually align with truth, and may actually become hostile to the truth and by extension the messengers.
Consider the common claim that only God has the keys to truth and that reason is trustworthy only when it agrees with scripture. If that is so, no human being could ever know that scripture is true, since any act of knowing would itself rely on the “human understanding” declared untrustworthy. The stance collapses into self-contradiction. Either human minds can genuinely apprehend truth, or appeals to revelation have no rational footing. And if humans are made in the image of God, that likeness reasonably includes the capacity to know, to reason, and to create value—not mere parroting of deductions, like AI or animals do.
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that undermines the validity of an argument, often manifesting as flawed logic, irrelevant premises, or deceptive rhetorical tactics that lead to unsound conclusions. The term “fallacy” derives from the Latin “fallacia,” rooted in “fallere,” meaning “to deceive,” which underscores how such errors can mislead or manipulate through apparent but false reasoning. In essence, logical fallacies are a form of lying.
This is where logical fallacies matter. A fallacy is not just “bad form”; it is deceptive reasoning—arguments that look like they prove something without actually doing the work. Appeals to authority, circular reasoning (“scripture is true because scripture says it’s true”), and appeals to emotion can all feel persuasive while leaving the truth untouched. People often use such moves sincerely, not maliciously; but sincerity does not convert a broken method into a reliable one. If the goal is truth rather than victory, the method must be accountable to logic and evidence.
I lie to uphold the truth. ~Sola Scriptura (paraphrased)
Why are certainty-first approaches so attractive? Psychological safety. Change is demanding. Admitting “I might be wrong” can feel like standing on shifting ground. But intellectual maturity—courage, humility before facts, empathy for other minds, and fairness in argument—allows a person to trade false security for earned confidence. That confidence grows from clear standards, tested conclusions, and the willingness to revise without shame. Such virtues don’t diminish conviction; they ground it.
The dispute over “Logos” in the New Testament illustrates this tension. In Greek philosophy, Logos means reason, order, the rational principle of reality. Christian Bibles only translating Logos as “Word” narrows the meaning and obscures the bridge between faith and reason. If Logos is reason, then “the Logos became flesh” can be read as the moral-rational order of reality embodied in a life. That reading doesn’t force a denial of faith; it invites faith to respect the mind’s work and the world’s intelligibility, otherwise it is blind.
This bears on the claim that one must have a “personal relationship with Jesus” and the claim that Jesus symbolizes reason. Throughout intellectual and religious history, persons can also be symbols without ceasing to be persons—embodying virtues, principles, or ideals. There is a quiet inconsistency in denying any symbolic reading while simultaneously calling Jesus “the Word” and treating “the Word” as the Bible itself (sola scriptura); that is already a metaphor at work. If Jesus embodies Logos, then a “relationship” with him could coherently mean a lived commitment to reason, truthfulness, and morality in action. That does not reduce a person to a metaphor; it clarifies that the symbol in play matters—static scriptural text or living reason—and it enriches what following that person entails: thinking clearly, making choices in an informed manner, and aligning one’s life with reality.
From there, a practical criterion emerges: theology should serve truth, not muzzle it. When a text, interpretation, or tradition collides with established facts, contradicts basic rational principles, or leads to practices that violate rights, the responsible move is reinterpretation or correction. Many Christians already do this in areas like cosmology, medicine, and law. The same integrity should apply to ethics, the formation and defense of doctrine, fairminded and empathetic reason-based discussions, and public claims.
In conversation, progress rarely comes from frontal assault. Ask clarifying questions that surface standards: What would count as evidence against this belief? By what method do we distinguish revelation from imagination or tradition from truth? How do we avoid circularity? If human reason is “vile,” how do we justify any doctrine or translation? Keep the tone calm, the logic clean, and your boundaries firm. If a group treats honest reasoning as disloyalty, it is not a home for a mind that respects itself and the inherent natural rights of others.
The deeper choice here is between certainty and truth. Certainty is easy to promise and costly to keep; truth is demanding to earn and liberating to live by. Recovering the fuller sense of Logos offers a path where faith, if one has it, cooperates with reason rather than fearing it. And if a community refuses that cooperation, the ethical and rational course is to walk away with clarity, not bitterness. A life oriented to reality—thinking carefully, speaking honestly, and defending moral boundaries—is not only possible; it is the most respectful way to honor both oneself and any truth worthy of devotion.
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:
Bitcoin: bc1qmevs7evjxx2f3asapytt8jv8vt0et5q0tkct32
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.
