How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura

[JAL]

By your own supposition one only needs self evident emotion to verify the veracity of a belief. Is it not enough for you to except my truth because I feel it is right?

Are there multiple truths? What is your constant to which variables are applied to measure their bearing?

In our search for truth, the most anyone can aspire to is feeling 100% certain. Even the exegete strives for this goal, although exegesis will never actually achieve it.

Are there multiple truths?

No there are not multiple truths. Reality/truth does not self-contradict.

What is your constant to which variables are applied to measure their bearing?

Look, you seem skeptical that direct revelation can reliably convey truth. Fine. If you don't believe it's reliable, throw away your Bible. It's useless. The writers, after all, were guided by direct revelation which, according to your insinuations, is an unreliable system.

Oh wait a minute. That's not really your position, is it? You believe the Scriptures are reliable PRECISELY IN VIRTUE of their origin in direct revelation !!!!

Care to desist from contradicting yourself?

 

[LostMarbels]

Sola Scriptura is the claim that we must ALWAYS check it out with Scripture.

Yup.

This implies that direct revelation is NEVER self-authenticating.

Not in this current day.

I categorically deny that conclusion because (to repeat what I said):

Direct revelation is self-authenticating when it imparts feelings of certainty strong enough to make the conscience feel obligated. At which point there is no need to "check it out with Scripture." When Abraham heard the voice commanding him to slaughter his own son, he didn't need to "check it out with Scripture."

Was Abraham at fault, in your view? After all, he tried to kill his own son without the benefit of a completed canon to "check it out with Scripture."

I do not know whether you are conflating or confusing issues here.

First off.... people tend to forget this verse:

Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Abraham had both the faith to know he would not be required to sacrifice his son, and the obedience to follow thru with it. Also, Abraham was living in scripture. There are no new revelations except was already given concerning this.

Secondly, the bible and scripture was not even written at this point in time to refer to. The 'thou shalt's' haven't even been given to Abraham at this point to cananise. None of the priesthood, sacred rites, laws, observance or any such structure even existed.

To summarize, you haven't the slightest basis for suggesting that Christ deviated from the rule of conscience. And to even to SUGGEST that Jesus ever deviated it from would be blasphemy, because it would insinuate a deliberate effort on His part to do evil.

I do not recognise your supposed authority to make such a claim.

 

[Hazelelponi]

To admit that direct revelation can be a corrective to exegesis contradicts Sola Scriptura. The maxim of Sola Scriptura is, "I must check it out with Scripture, and this checking-it-out must ALWAYS have the final say."

I categorically reject that claim. Direct revelation is self-authenticating when it imparts feelings of certainty strong enough to make the conscience feel obligated. At which point there is no need to "check it out with Scripture." When Abraham heard the voice commanding him to slaughter his own son, he didn't need to "check it out with Scripture."

Let's use this thread as an example.

Your stated belief is that all direct revelation trumps scripture and thus is your infallible source of authority.

I believe it is scripture that is the infallible authority and that all revelation that stands in direct contrast to Scripture must be dismissed as false.

What authority do you believe trumps both our opinions on the topic, so that we can come to an agreement that is in agreement with the Father? To what authority is your appeal so that we may come to know the Truth?

 

[dqhall]

I don't see how direct revelation would ever challenge sola scripture. It may challenge interpretation from sola scripture but the revelation itself should still be in fully agreement with scripture. In fact if we have interpreted scripture incorrectly in a big way I would hope direct revelation would be there to put us back on track.

Christ tells Peter that flesh and blood did not reveal to him that he is the son of God but only the Father in heaven could do this. If we accept these words still then direct revelation is a fundamental part of salvation.

The law (Torah) is scripture. How is it that the apostles decided the Gentiles should not be subject to the law in Acts 15? They openly opposed part of the scripture. They recognized Paul’s authority from Jesus. Christians do not sacrifice animals or stone people for Sabbath violations because the scripture in Acts opposes part of Biblical scripture. Scripture contains good and bad. It is not homogeneous. Paul was critical of the law even though it is scriptural. He approved of prophesy more than some of these verses in Leviticus. Jesus affirmed murder and adultery is wrong. Jesus was against anger and lust too. Peter approved of helping the poor and abolishing fornication. Fornication is sexual immorality and includes porn, prostitution, extra-marital affairs, premarital sex, lust and sex addiction. Paul also opposed homosexuality. These precepts are also found in Deuteronomy even though the law is imperfect.

 

[LostMarbels]

In our search for truth, the most anyone can aspire to is feeling 100% certain. Even the exegete strives for this goal, although exegesis will never actually achieve it.

Because Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. One can not discern biblical truth by their own scholarly efforts. Exegesis, traditions, dogma.... none of which will lead to truth in of itself unguided by God's word.

There needs to be an uncontestable, unmoving standard to which all these things are to be applied. Jesus, and scripture is that standard.

Look, you seem skeptical that direct revelation can reliably convey truth. Fine. If you don't believe it's reliable, throw away your Bible. It's useless. The writers, after all, were guided by direct revelation which, according to your insinuations, is an unreliable system.

I never stated I do not believe in direct revelation. I do not believe what you are presenting about direct revelation. A refutation of what is posted concerning a topic does not necessarily repudiate the topic itself, mind you.

Oh wait a minute. That's not really your position, is it? You believe the Scriptures are reliable PRECISELY IN VIRTUE of their origin in direct revelation !!!!

The days of direct revelation without the necessity of scripture ended with the bringing of the holy ghost; who guides us in accordance to the gospel/scripture. We know it is correct when a revelation aligns with scripture in the presence of the holy spirit.

Care to desist from contradicting yourself?

You have prejudged my understanding, and already came to your own conclusion. That is the basis for the supposed contradictions.

 

[JAL]

Not in this current day.

You just threw the rule of conscience out the window, along with the Inward Witness. Sorry your position isn't making sense.
You're making gratuitous claims simply because you don't like my conclusions.

I do not know whether you are conflating or confusing issues here.

First off.... people tend to forget this verse:

Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Abraham had both the faith to know he would not be required to sacrifice his son, and the obedience to follow thru with it. Also, Abraham was living in scripture. There are no new revelations except was already given concerning this.

Abraham was living in scripture? Completely ambiguous, meaningless statement. Conveys nothing.

Secondly, the bible and scripture was not even written at this point in time to refer to. The 'thou shalt's' haven't even been given to Abraham at this point to cananise. None of the priesthood, sacred rites, laws, observance or any such structure even existed.

Precisely my point. You might want to check out Romans 4 and Galatians 3 which tout the prophet Abraham as the paradigm of faith for all believers. It is precisely his lack of a canon that made him the perfect paradigm for all us to emulate. He knew ONLY the divine Voice - he knew ONLY direct revelation. He knew nothing of exegesis. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the (voiced) Word of God" (Rom 10:17). The prophet Abraham exemplified the life of saving faith, and righteousness, possibly better than anyone. You want a sure route to righteousness? Emulate Abraham. As Louis Berkhoff noted in his Systematic Theology, God appeared to him again and again and again. His whole lifestyle was defined by direct revelation.

And if we study Moses and Paul, we find the same thing. But Abraham was Paul's favorite example largely because Abraham preceded exegesis.

 

[JAL]

Because Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. One can not discern biblical truth by their own scholarly efforts. Exegesis, traditions, dogma.... none of which will lead to truth in of itself unguided by God's word.

There needs to be an uncontestable, unmoving standard to which all these things are to be applied. Jesus, and scripture is that standard.

And direct revelation is the only known way to access that standard infallibly. Case closed.

I never stated I do not believe in direct revelation. I do not believe what you are presenting about direct revelation. A refutation of what is posted concerning a topic does not necessarily repudiate the topic itself, mind you.

Actually you haven't articulated a clear position at all.

The days of direct revelation without the necessity of scripture ended with the bringing of the holy ghost; who guides us in accordance to the gospel/scripture.

Dispensationalism and Cessationism. (Yawn). I'm a subscriber to Covenant Theology and Continuationism.

We know it is correct when a revelation aligns with scripture in the presence of the holy spirit.

At that point you feel certain? Just as my rule advocates. Thanks for confirming.

You have prejudged my understanding, and already came to your own conclusion. That is the basis for the supposed contradictions.

You challenged the rule of conscience. I merely exposed the inherent contradiction.

 

[JAL]

Let's use this thread as an example.

Your stated belief is that all direct revelation trumps scripture and thus is your infallible source of authority.

These kinds of loaded statements, misleading and misrepresentational, are really inappropriate. Care to rephrase that in accordance with what I actually said?

It's understandable on the outset of the thread, but now we are 125 posts deep.

I believe it is scripture that is the infallible authority and that all revelation that stands in direct contrast to Scripture must be dismissed as false.

Empty words. How can fallible exegesis determine - anything?

What authority do you believe trumps both our opinions on the topic, so that we can come to an agreement that is in agreement with the Father? To what authority is your appeal so that we may come to know the Truth?

Scripture itself says to walk as Jesus did. Show me one case where Jesus violated the rule of conscience.

“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

 

[Hazelelponi]

These kinds of loaded statements, misleading and misrepresentational, are really inappropriate. Care to rephrase that in accordance with what I actually said?

It's understandable on the outset of the thread, but now we are 125 posts deep.

Empty words. How can fallible exegesis determine - anything?


Scripture itself says to walk as Jesus did. Show me one case where Jesus violated the rule of conscience.

“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

So in this situation you would tell me to appeal to how I feel about my beliefs and you will appeal to how you feel and thereby never agree since it's our feelings which are the determination of right and wrong, so we are both equally right in following two different belief sets?

There are no absolutes of right or wrong in this, and no authority greater than opinions and feelings. In short, you believe in no factual basis for anything.

 

[JAL]

So in this situation is to tell me to appeal to how I feel about my beliefs and you will appeal to how you feel and thereby never agree since it's our feelings are the determination of right and wrong, so are both equally right in following two different belief sets?

Wow. You just don't get it. We'll never agree based on direct revelation? And the solution is exegesis? Time to wake up and smell the coffee. Here are the empirical facts of the case. During conversion, the Inward Witness causes the unbeliever to feel certain of several major doctrines:
(1) Jesus is Lord and God
(2) He died for my sins, and rose again
(3) The Bible is His book
(4) He plans to take me to heaven.

These are the things we all agree on! And they all came by direct revelation! The only thing that DOESN'T usually work - the thing that DOESN'T unify us - is biblical exegesis !!!!

So what do we need more of, if we are to be unified? More exegesis? Or more direct revelation? Boy, that's a tough one !!! Looks like I won't get any sleep tonight, mulling over THAT conundrum.

There are no absolutes of right or wrong in this, and no authority greater than opinions and feelings. In short, you believe in no fact.

Exegesis affords me no direct access to the facts of Scripture, only to my fallible interpretations.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Wow. You just don't get it. We'll never agree based on direct revelation? And the solution is exegesis? Time to wake up and smell the coffee. Here are the empirical facts of the case. During conversion, the Inward Witness causes the unbeliever to feel certain of several major doctrines:
(1) Jesus is Lord and God
(2) He died for my sins, and rose again
(3) The Bible is His book
(4) He plans to take me to heaven.

These are the things we all agree on! And they all came by direct revelation! The only thing that DOESN'T usually work - the thing that DOESN'T unify us - is biblical exegesis !!!!

So what do we need more of, if we are to be unified? More exegesis? Or more direct revelation? Boy, that's a tough one !!! Looks like I won't get any sleep tonight, mulling over THAT conundrum.

Exegesis affords me no direct access to the facts of Scripture, only to my fallible interpretations.

If everyone's direct revelation is equally correct then Mohammed is right, Jesus is right, The Jews who don't believe the Messiah came are right, the Hindus are right..

we are all right if there is no higher authority than our own "direct" revelations.

 

[Rawtheran]

On what exactly?

Ok so I read your post on how you believe that direct revelation trumps Sola Scriptura. Firstly Scriptura Alora is the belief that Christians should base their faith, teaching, and doctrine first and foremost on the word of God because we believe that it is a direct revelation from God to the world. The majority of Christians also believe that direct revelation is completed through the Bible. So I ask you what do you mean that direct revelation trumps scritura alora? Especially when anyone can come and claim that they received a direct revelation from God? For example say I claim to be a prophet and I say that God revealed to me when the world is going to end. I know the exact day and hour when it will end. Yet when we go to test this "revelation" with the word of God it clearly says that "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" - Matthew 24:36. Either God is contradicting himself or I'm a false prophet. We know for sure that God does not contradict himself or change his mind when he has spoken so how on earth does your sense of divine revelation trump the divine revelation as seen and heard in the Bible?

 

[LostMarbels]

And direct revelation is the only known way to access that standard infallibly. Case closed.


Actually you haven't articulated a clear position at all.

Dispensationalism and Cessationism. (Yawn). I'm a subscriber to Covenant Theology and Continuationism.


At that point you feel certain? Just as my rule advocates. Thanks for confirming.


You challenged the rule of conscience. I merely exposed the inherent contradiction.

The complete arrogance you display and the lack of common decency is a big tell for me. Your going to "yawn" at what I say and thank me for confirming your rule? Case closed? You are presenting nothing more of substance than your own acertian of being unfalisable by your own standards you have set forth.

Abraham was living in scripture? Completely ambiguous, meaningless statement. Conveys nothing.

Where are you even going here? Is it not his life we find in Genesis (aka: 'scripture') that is in question? Yes, Abraham was living in the days of recorded scripture we rely on. How is this ambiguous?

 

[LostMarbels]

If everyone's direct revelation is equally correct then Mohammed is right, Jesus is right, The Jews who don't believe the Messiah came are right, the Hindus are right..

we are just all right if there is no higher authority than our own "direct" revelations.

Good post. This reminds me of the Coexist movement. All ways are ways to god.

 

[JAL]

If everyone's direct revelation is equally correct then Mohammed is right, Jesus is right, The Jews who don't believe the Messiah came are right, the Hindus are right..

we are just all right if there is no higher authority than our own "direct" revelations.

Loaded, misrepresentational statements flatly contradicting my actual position. Ignored.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Loaded, misrepresentational statements flatly contradicting my actual position. Ignored.

So where is the authority you appeal to, to determine the absolute standard?

 

[JAL]

The complete arrogance you display and the lack of common decency is a big tell for me. Your going to "yawn" at what I say and thank me for confirming your rule? Case closed? You are presenting nothing more of substance than your own acertian of being unfalisable by your own standards you have set forth.

The yawn was meant to convey that your "rebuttal" was based on highly questionable , highly controversial assumptions on your part - and yet you delivered it with an air of effective rebuttal.

Where are you even going here? Is it not his life we find in Genesis (aka: 'scripture') that is in question? Yes, Abraham was living in the days of recorded scripture we rely on. How is this ambiguous?

How is it NOT ambiguous, in terms of extrapolating a clear rebuttal of the rule of conscience, for example?

 

[JAL]

So where is the authority you appeal to, to determine the absolute standard?

What is your authority for claiming that Scripture is inspired? Oh that's right. The rule of conscience has the final say. As in all matters.

 

[Schlauch Mann]

Maybe I can clarify a little better for you. Most people are not psychopaths. Which means their conscience will not condone capriciously killing someone unless they feel 100% certain that:
(1) Doing so is morally upright.
(2) Refraining is morally evil.

At 100% certainty, what other choice do you really have? Are you saying you would still need to check it out with Scripture? If so, for what purpose - would your purpose be to achieve a level of certainty higher than 100%?

100% certainty is a level of certainty beyond your wildest dreams. I cannot even imagine reaching it without supernatural aid. It means an absolute inability to have any doubts, reservations, questions, or concerns about the message. It guarantees that you will be UNABLE to bring yourself to check it out with Scripture - at least not in good conscience. Your conscience will be telling you that checking it out with Scripture - questioning the message in any way - is pure evil.

What now of the psychopath? Suppose he feels 95% certain that murdering someone is good. Is that enough certainty? Depends: If he feels 96% certain that 95% certainty is not enough, it trumps the 95%. Of course that means he has some measure of conscience. Personally I don't believe in absolute psychopaths - people with no conscience whatsoever. Anyway the bottom line is that the rule of conscience means that everyone should do what is right to the best of his or her knowledge.

“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

That is the most that God can expect of anyone.

Once again, this hits the same roadblock - you claim the fallible mind can't be trusted to read, but CAN be trusted that a feeling of 100% certainty is true.

That certainty is a product of the same fallible mind.

 

[LostMarbels]

The yawn was meant to convey that your "rebuttal" was based on highly questionable , highly controversial assumptions on your part - and yet you delivered it with an air of effective rebuttal.

How is it NOT ambiguous, in terms of extrapolating a clear rebuttal of the rule of conscience, for example?

This is nothing more than an argument. All I see is an insistent pronouncement that you are correct outside of biblical proofs. I see no real questions or even seeking for answers. Matter of fact, you state you don't even need scripture to validate your claims. I cannot do anything with that. So, have at it. God's will be unto you.