How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura

[LostMarbels]

When I first got saved, and was indoctrinated into Sola Scriptura, I was absolutely mystified by these kind of verses:

"Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away" (Gen 5)

"By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” a For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God." (Heb 11).

Back then, I actually felt SORRY for men like Enoch who were plagued with the laborious task of trying to figure out how to walk with God, sans exegesis to assist them !!! I used to think, "Wow how advanced we are today over those men and how far we've come!" Now I consider myself a fool for having felt that way. The truth is that Enoch was likely a prophet in the order of Elijah - note that God took both of them away without death. Enoch probably spoke with God face to face like Moses and Abraham did, and he probably saw all the same kinds of visions that constitute the Book of Revelation, including the heavenly city, the angels, the throne of Christ, and so on. In terms of understanding God's will, he was probably LIGHT YEARS ahead of us. Thus you are just as utterly deceived as I once was, when you write:



Trust me, there's PLENTY OF TRACTION available without exegesis, if men like Abraham, Noah, Enoch, and Moses have anything to say about it.

Ok, what is the constant unabated infatuation with the word exegesi??? It's like a point you are trying to drive. An interpretation, understanding, connentation, what have you.... is the same thing fancy word or not. Why do you feel 'exegesi' has some special meaning that puts the final nail in the coffin of anything possed against your position?

We Cannot trust own understanding or feelings. They must line up with scripture. I do not understand this line of reasoning that nothing more than your own belief validates that belief.

My contention is you need divine revelation to confirm your belief is inline with scripture. Not that God has no hand in it. In fact God is the supreme authority of my faith.

 

[JAL]

I don't evade anything.

When scripture says those who belong to him will stand in agreement, and will also stand in agreement with what God revealed and caused to be recorded, then I see that recording as a final authority to which men should refer, when differences arise. Just like scripture says.

Ok so your basis for believing that the book is inspired, authoritative, and the only final authority is because it says so? That's your unimpeachable, rock-solid epistemology that totally eclipses mine?

And when drawing that conclusion from the book, what is your authority certifying that it's a correct exegetical conclusion?

 

[JAL]

How do you even know what you are saying is true? Just because you have a feeling doesn’t constitute truth.

Correct, as pointed out earlier. None of us know anything for sure. How do you know that God is not a liar? How do you know that the Bible doesn't contain divine lies? Frankly we don't. A feeling of certainty doesn't guarantee knowledge. It does, however, guarantee blamelessness. If God is just, He can't fault you if you always heed your conscience. On the contrary, He can only fault you for NOT heeding it.

And more than that. The rule of conscience also provides a framework explaining how the prophets and writers of Scripture received infallible revelation. It works like this. God simply makes a commitment to reserving the state of 100% certainty to moments of clear infallible revelation. Thus for example He commits to preventing the devil from counterfeiting 100% certainty in our minds. I can't prove that God has made this commitment, but once again, at least this theory provides a framework - it provides the only viable, cogent epistemology that I've seen to date.

Regardless, with 100 billion souls at stake, we cannot afford to risk ecclesiological malpractice. We NEED to seek infallible revelation, and exegesis will never take us there.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Ok so your basis for believing that the book is inspired, authoritative, and the only final authority is because it says so? That's your unimpeachable, rock-solid epistemology that totally eclipses mine?

And when drawing that conclusion from the book, what is your authority certifying that it's a correct exegetical conclusion?

I'm out... you don't seem to believe in Scripture, and it's silly to argue at this point just for the sake of argument.

You said once upon a time you believed that scripture was given to men by inspiration from God, but you turned away from that belief...

I'll let elders counsel you, I'm not one and you require more than I have to offer.

 

[JAL]

I'm out... you don't seem to believe in Scripture

I don't believe that Scripture is inspired? So when you lack a rebuttal, you resort to intellectually dishonest misrepresentation?

I'll let elders counsel you, I'm not one and you require more than I have to offer.

And these elders that you have in mind, do they too advocate intellectual dishonesty?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I don't believe that Scripture is inspired? So when you lack a rebuttal, you resort to intellectually dishonest misrepresentation?

And these elders that you have in mind, do they too advocate intellectual dishonesty?

If you believe that scripture is given by God, then why do you think "direct revelation" can contradict it when God is unchanging?

And if you think direct revelation can never contradict scripture, why do you think Scripture's not then an authority over revelation?

 

[JacksBratt]

With 100 billion souls at stake, God isn’t so stupid as to rely on fallible exegesis. His plan for both OT and NT saints has always been the absolute primacy of direct revelation (1Cor 14:1). Let’s see how it trumps exegesis. Prior to conversion, exegesis convinced Paul that the Messiah would liberate captive Israel . Hence he regarded Jesus neither as Messiah nor as God incarnate. Then he saw a vision and heard a voice on the road to Damascus. This direct revelation caused him to feel certain that Jesus is Lord and God, thereby trumping 20 years of exegesis – he threw it all out the window literally in a single flash of Light.

How and when does a direct revelation trump exegesis? Feelings of certainty. There are no possible exceptions to the following rule, termed here the “authority of conscience” or “the rule of conscience”:

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

In fact that’s how we got saved. The Inward Witness "convicted" us (convinced us), causing us to feel certain of the gospel. Calvin specifically defined the Inward Witness as feelings of certainty.

While the prophets often felt 100% certainty, we immature believers usually suffer mere degrees of certainty. When faced with several choices, my conscience will prompt me to opt for the one that I feel most certain about.

In my next post, I plan to show evidence that walking in faith ideally means walking in 100% certainty born of direct revelation (prophetic experience).

IMPORTANT: If you want to rebut my thinking, you’ll need to supply at least one clear exception to the above rule of conscience. And that cannot be accomplished.

Also, if you want more evidence, I have a whole thread here, demonstrating that the first epistle to the Corinthians defines spiritual maturity as mature prophethood.

The bible is all we need. It stands alone as truth. Anything that any man or woman states to be true that contradicts it... should be rejected.

What does some other mere mortal have to tell me, that they could profess to know that would trump the canon? Nothing.... they are mere human and ... as the song says... The B I B L E.. that's the book for me... and the most important part... "I stand alone on the word of GOD.

As it is stated in the verse below.... we are "thoroughly furnished"

2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[JAL]

If you believe that scripture is given by God, then why do you think "direct revelation" can contradict it when God is unchanging?

And if you think direct revelation can never contradict scripture, why do you think Scripture's not then an authority over revelation?

Look, I'm expecting everyone to read between the lines a little. I can't write a 10 volume systematic theology on one thread.

I guess what happens is that the emotional intensity of debates like this cloud our vision. We want so badly to disprove the opposing debater that we fail to take the time to really understand his position. Often I myself have been guilty of it as well.

So here goes. The first thing is to distinguish between what I believe (i.e. am currently convinced of ) versus what I absolutely know. For example I believe that God is not a liar. I'm just as sold on that belief as you are. But do I KNOW infallibly so? I don't think I do. In fact the most I aspire to is to one day feel 100% certain that He is not a liar (100% certainty is a supernaturally induced state impossible to reach without direct revelation).

If you believe that scripture is given by God, then why do you think "direct revelation" can contradict it when God is unchanging?

I do not believe that an authentic direct revelation will ever contradict Scripture. On the other hand I do believe that God has the right to issue you a revelation that SEEMS to contradict Scripture (at least from an exegetical standpoint). At this point He would likely assuage your conscience by causing you to feel certain that, in this case, appearances are deceiving. I provided two examples earlier - Peter and Paul. Based on exegesis, Peter (Acts 10) and Paul (Act 9) harbored incorrect conclusions, until a direct revelation arrived that SEEMED to contradict Scripture (exegetically speaking).

And He isn't OBLIGATED to assuage your conscience on that point. All He needs to do is leave you feeling certain that the revelation is authoritative, e.g. morally obligatory, REGARDLESS of whether it (seems to) contradicts Scripture. When dealing with you, God is bound only to honor the rule of conscience, because such defines justice.

And if you think direct revelation can never contradict scripture, why do you think Scripture's not then an authority over revelation?

For the reason just stated. The rule of conscience can impose a moral obligation even when a belief appears to contradict Scripture. Moreover, it is the rule of conscience that DICTATED your choice to even accept Scripture as inspired. How so? You currently feel certain that Scripture is God's book. If tomorrow you feel certain that the Koran is God's book, you will begin heeding the Koran. Thus the rule of conscience is a higher authority than Scripture because it dictates whether you will accept the book and try to obey the book.

This does NOT imply that conscience (a feeling of certainty) is epistemologically more reliable than Scripture, in the strictest sense of the term epistemology. Our conscience can in fact be seared, corrupted, deceived, mistaken, misled. Nonetheless the rule of conscience is still morally obligatory, for tautological reasons, no matter how confused is the conscience.

The rule of conscience, therefore, isn't an apodictic epistemology. Ultimately I don't even know 100% for sure whether God is a liar. But it is a morally obligatory epistemology and, as far as I can see, the only one that is both fully viable/practical/workable AND logically consistent.

If my position is still not clear, ask away.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Look, I'm expecting everyone to read between the lines a little. I can't write a 10 volume systematic theology on one thread.

I guess what happens is that the emotional intensity of debates like this cloud our vision. We want so badly to disprove the opposing debater that we fail to take the time to really understand his position. Often I myself have been guilty of it as well.

So here goes. The first thing is to distinguish between what I believe (i.e. am currently convinced of ) versus what I absolutely know. For example I believe that God is not a liar. I'm just as sold on that belief as you are. But do I KNOW infallibly so? I don't think I do. In fact the most I aspire to is to one day feel 100% certain that He is not a liar (100% certainty is a supernaturally induced state impossible to reach without direct revelation).
I do not believe that an authentic direct revelation will ever contradict Scripture. On the other hand I do believe that God has the right to issue you a revelation that SEEMS to contradict Scripture (at least from an exegetical standpoint). At this point He would likely assuage your conscience by causing you to feel certain that, in this case, appearances are deceiving. I provided two examples earlier - Peter and Paul. Based on exegesis, Peter (Acts 10) and Paul (Act 9) harbored incorrect conclusions, until a direct revelation arrived that SEEMED to contradict Scripture (exegetically speaking).

And He isn't OBLIGATED to assuage your conscience on that point. All He needs to do is leave you feeling certain that the revelation is authoritative, e.g. morally obligatory, REGARDLESS of whether it contradicts Scripture. When dealing with you, God is bound only to honor the rule of conscience, because such defines justice.


For the reason just stated. The rule of conscience can impose a moral obligation even when a belief appears to contradict Scripture. Moreover, it is the rule of conscience that DICTATED your choice to even accept Scripture as inspired. How so? You currently feel certain that Scripture is God's book. If tomorrow you feel certain that the Koran is God's book, you will begin heeding the Koran. Thus the rule of conscience is a higher authority than Scripture because it dictates whether you will accept the book and try to obey the book.

This does NOT imply that conscience (a feeling of certainty) is epistemologically more reliable than Scripture, in the strictest sense of the term epistemology. Our conscience can in fact be seared, corrupted, deceived, mistaken, misled. Nonetheless the rule of conscience is still morally obligatory, for tautological reasons, no matter how confused is the conscience.

The rule of conscience, therefore, isn't an apodictic epistemology. Ultimately I don't even know 100% for sure whether God is a liar. But it a morally obligatory epistemology and, as far as I can see, the only one that is both fully viable/practical/workable AND logically consistent.

If my position is still not clear, ask away.

I do not understand your "rule of conscious"...

Clearly.

I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and the law of non-contradiction (God doesn't contradict Himself) and the infallibility thereof.

I do not think my own understanding is infallible - I think God's Word is.

I think if God corrects my understanding, it will be in perfect accord with Scripture, otherwise, it's not from God.

 

[JAL]

I do not understand your "rule of conscious"...

I think you understand it well enough. For example I think at this point you've become aware that neither you nor anyone else is likely to find any clear exceptions to the rule.

I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and the law of non-contradiction (God doesn't contradict Himself) and the infallibility thereof.

I believe the same.

I do not think my own understanding is infallible - I think God's Word is.

Agreed.

It's just that I have no direct access to God's Word - only to my fallible interpretations of it. That's where direct revelation comes into play. Direct revelation is an instrument capable of delivering infallibly correct interpretations of Scripture. Don't you believe that God wants to illuminate our mind when we study the Scriptures? At post 37 I distinguished two theories of illumination.
(1) Illumination rooted in exegesis.
(2) Illumination rooted in direct revelation.

And I explained why choice #2 seems to constitute the more plausible theory of illumination.

 

[JAL]

Ok, what is the constant unabated infatuation with the word exegesi??? t's like a point you are trying to drive. An interpretation, understanding, connentation, what have you.... is the same thing fancy word or not. Why do you feel 'exegesi' has some special meaning that puts the final nail in the coffin of anything possed against your position?

As explained at post 37, I currently conceive of two theories of illumination:
(1) Illumination rooted in exegesis.
(2) Illumination rooted in direct revelation.

If you see a third option, feel free to expound on it.

If you're asking why I use that term, I think it fulfills my desire for clarity because it is a well-known and well-defined term.

We Cannot trust own understanding or feelings. They must line up with scripture. I do not understand this line of reasoning that nothing more than your own belief validates that belief.

You might want to see post 168 to help clear up your misunderstanding of me.

My contention is you need divine revelation to confirm your belief is inline with scripture. Not that God has no hand in it. In fact God is the supreme authority of my faith.

I guess this would be your option 3 but I'm not entirely clear on how your epistemology works. For starters, by what authority do you claim that Scripture is inspired?

 

[JAL]

The bible is all we need. It stands alone as truth. Anything that any man or woman states to be true that contradicts it... should be rejected.

What does some other mere mortal have to tell me, that they could profess to know that would trump the canon? Nothing.... they are mere human and ... as the song says... The B I B L E.. that's the book for me... and the most important part... "I stand alone on the word of GOD.

As it is stated in the verse below.... we are "thoroughly furnished"

2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

On what basis do you assert that Scripture is inspired? Blind faith?

 

[JacksBratt]

On what basis do you assert that Scripture is inspired? Blind faith?

Well, if it isn't..... we can all go home and this "gospel" and Christ... is a joke...

Do you trust the eternity of your soul on it? The whole book and it's contents fits together like a masterpiece of literature and wisdom... history and prophesy..

Yet.. it was written over centuries my many authors... who came from all walks of life.. all professions..different cultures and states of experience and character....

It's content alone can be understood by a child.. yet scholars argue on the depth of it's contents... It has layers and layers and no man or men or women will ever understand it exhaustively....

It is truly alive... It knows no bounds... It is the words of our creator.

 

[Albion]

On what basis do you assert that Scripture is inspired? Blind faith?

Well, if it isn't..... we can all go home and this "gospel" and Christ... is a joke...

I agree. The acceptance of the Bible as inspired is not "Controversial Christian Theology" (the name of this forum), and the topic of this thread is not about whether to accept or reject it.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I think you understand it well enough. For example I think at this point you've become aware that neither you nor anyone else is likely to find any clear exceptions to the rule.
I believe the same.

Agreed.

It's just that I have no direct access to God's Word - only to my fallible interpretations of it. That's where direct revelation comes into play. Direct revelation is an instrument capable of delivering infallibly correct interpretations of Scripture. Don't you believe that God wants to illuminate our mind when we study the Scriptures? At post 37 I distinguished two theories of illumination.
(1) Illumination rooted in exegesis.
(2) Illumination rooted in direct revelation.

And I explained why choice #2 seems to constitute the more plausible theory of illumination.

God tells us to study the Word of God.

God tells us to pray that our wills become conformed to His.

God tells us that He will, through His Holy Spirit, give us a discerning Spirit to rightly divide the Word of God if we ask.

He tells us that Scripture is sufficient for reproof and correction.

We aren't islands unto ourselves... If our thinking is divergent we must use scripture to come back to the Truth, we can be influenced in many ways that have the potential to take us away from God..

you cannot EVER put your own understanding above God's Word.

 

[LostMarbels]

If you see a third option, feel free to expound on it.

Exspond.... on.... what??? I keep asking where you even came upon your assertion. Where did you even come up with this rule you state no one can find clear exceptions to.

For starters, by what authority do you claim that Scripture is inspired?

I do not make the claim, God does. I only repeat what God stated believing in it.

It seems it is hard for you to accept I don't care about my own interpretations.

I'm not entirely clear on how your epistemology works.

It's quite simple. I confess Jesus as Christ, the word of God manifest in the flesh and the one and only True God. His teachings, the gospel, and the scripture form my doctrinal belief. If there is a conflict between what I believe, and what has been revealed to me, I pray for forgiveness and ask for wisdom so I can line up with scripture. The scripture is never wrong. If there is an error it is in me.

 

[JAL]

Well, if it isn't..... we can all go home and this "gospel" and Christ... is a joke...

Do you trust the eternity of your soul on it? The whole book and it's contents fits together like a masterpiece of literature and wisdom... history and prophesy..

Yet.. it was written over centuries my many authors... who came from all walks of life.. all professions..different cultures and states of experience and character....

It's content alone can be understood by a child.. yet scholars argue on the depth of it's contents... It has layers and layers and no man or men or women will ever understand it exhaustively....

It is truly alive... It knows no bounds... It is the words of our creator.

In other words, the impact of the book upon your mind (presumably via the aid of the Third Person) persuaded you of its veracity. This impact caused you to feel certain that the book is true. If the impact had caused you to feel certain that the book is NOT true, you would have rejected it.

This proves that feelings of certainty are a higher authority than book because they DICTATE whether you accept the book or obey the book. In fact that's why you reject the Koran - you just don't feel certain about it. Thus your claim:

The bible is all we need. It stands alone as truth.

is patently false. In order to accept the book on something more than just blind faith, you NEEDED an authoritative reason WARRANTING that acceptance. In the final analysis, feelings of certainty provided that warrant.

And note it's not just an act of the PAST. Every DAY you re-choose to continue accepting the book. Thus on a DAILY basis, feelings of certainty are, for you, authoritative. Feelings of certainty stand alone. Meaning, for example, when you initially felt certain that you should accept the book, you didn't back down stating, "I'm not sure about this feeling of certainty. I first need to check it out with Scripture to see if feelings of certainty are authoritative." That wouldn't make sense - you wouldn't have checked it out with Scripture because at that point you were still DECIDING whether to accept Scripture - that would be putting the cart before the horse. Thus the feeling of certainty was, in itself, self-authenticating and authoritative.

And thus when direct revelation CAUSES people to feel certain, it too functions as a self-authenticating, stand-alone authority. Why we do need direct revelation?
(1) Chances are a direct revelation known as the Inward Witness is precisely what is causing you to feel certain about the book.
(2)Traditional exegesis is fallible. With 100 billion souls at stake, we need to aggressively pursue a more potent epistemology.
(3) It's not just eternal salvation at stake. It's also protecting our neighbor in the here and now. "Love does no harm to its neighbor" (Rom 13:8). Since we can accidentally harm our neighbor in innumerably many ways, we need direct revelation to avoid those mistakes. In fact to suggest that God isn't committed to governing the world via direct revelation implies that He doesn't care how many people die in wars.
(4) God is unprofessional if Jesus offered His apostles anything less than 100% certainty. After all, does any of us want to be uncertain about our salvation?

 

[Albion]

In other words, the impact of the book upon your mind (presumably via the aid of the Third Person) persuaded you of its veracity. This impact caused you to feel certain that the book is true...
This proves that feelings of certainty are a higher authority than book because they DICTATE whether you accept the book or obey the book.

No, it doesn't. It only "proves" the reliability of the Bible to that particular individual.

The question about whether or not it is the ultimate authority for religious belief is not answered simply by counting noses. In theory, it could be that only 1 in 5 or 2 out of every 3 readers believe it to be God's word, but such facts neither make it be God's word or prove that it is not.

 

[JAL]

Exspond.... on.... what??? I keep asking where you even came upon your assertion. Where did you even come up with this rule you state no one can find clear exceptions to.

Andrew Murray is my mentor in the sense of how much his writings influenced me. He didn't really theologize much, however - mostly he wrote devotional books. When he talked about passages such as John 10:27, "My sheep hear my Voice", he seemed to operate under the assumption that the Voice was authoritative. I wondered by what kind of reasoning he might have reached this conclusion - as it was a position antithetical to the Sola Scriptura of my indoctrination.

I then began asking epistemological questions in my own mind, and eventually it seemed clear to me that the rule of conscience is the only sensible epistemology for a member of a monotheistic religion. My basis for this conclusion wasn't just the logic and the tautologies involved - it was also an examination of God's Voice in Scripture. For example, note how persuasive is the Voice of Christ:

"19 “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” 20 At once they left their nets and followed him.
21 Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them, 22 and immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him."

This is the same Voice that persuasively commanded Abraham to murder his son. As I meditated on such events, things just seemed to start making sense. At that point what did NOT make sense is Sola Scriptura.

It's quite simple. I confess Jesus as Christ, the word of God manifest in the flesh and the one and only True God. His teachings, the gospel, and the scripture form my doctrinal belief. If there is a conflict between what I believe, and what has been revealed to me, I pray for forgiveness and ask for wisdom so I can line up with scripture. The scripture is never wrong. If there is an error it is in me.

That's not an answer to the question. Reiterating what you believe is the same as explaining WHY you believe it. Tell you what. Don't even bother. I'm pretty sure that the rule of conscience underlies it all.

 

[LostMarbels]

is patently false. In order to accept the book on something more than just blind faith, you NEEDED an authoritative reason WARRANTING that acceptance.

I do not agree. God doesn't require my approval to be correct. God's word is the authoritative reason WARRANTING that acceptance.

And note it's not just an act of the PAST. Every DAY you re-choose to continue accepting the book. Thus on a DAILY basis, feelings of certainty are, for you, authoritative. Feelings of certainty stand alone. Meaning, for example, when you initially felt certain that you should accept the book, you didn't back down stating, "I'm not sure about this feeling of certainty. I first need to check it out with Scripture to see if feelings of certainty are authoritative." That wouldn't make sense - you wouldn't have checked it out with Scripture because at that point you were still DECIDING whether to accept Scripture - that would be putting the cart before the horse. Thus the feeling of certainty was, in itself, self-authenticating and authoritative.

You are leaving God out of this equation. This 'book' is not our salvation. The bible is not God. You keep focusing on carnal efforts to understand God forgoing all manner of promises all you have to do is ask. Seek. Knock. Find. Actions man. Verbs. That's it. Go do and God will show you. That's the entire hoop you have to jump thru. Ask God to teach you the truth about himself and your faith.