• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,953
3,863
50
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Luther and the so called “reformers” got it right? Only Apostolic tradition aren’t treadtions of men, but traditions of Christ and as much inspired by him as scripture is.

I realy do not know. It's your statement.

I hold to no denomination, no building called a church, nor religious movement. I fellowship with the body of Christ. That is my church.

I don't think any of us got it all right. Myself included. All I know for fact is Jesus is Christ, and I have chosen to follow him. Please forgive me for any offence. I have no intention of bringing either of us into condemnation by judging one another.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,115
3,436
✟993,421.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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."
You don't need to check it out with scripture or even know scripture but it still should be in agreement with scripture. Abraham had no scripture so had no ability to reference it but what he was told still agrees with scripture that was to come.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,115
3,436
✟993,421.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.
The incarnation starts the transition from old covenant to new, arguably through direct revelation even with Christ's own words. But the new does not contradict the old, the new fulfills the old and there is direct parallels in both creating a type of chiastic agreement between new and old. All revelation from God does not contradict or abrogate previous revelation from God (or future) and is in full agreement. If you think otherwise then you have misunderstood the revelation.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You don't need to check it out with scripture or even know scripture but it still should be in agreement with scripture. Abraham had no scripture so had no ability to reference it but what he was told still agrees with scripture that was to come.
Agreed. I don't believe for a moment that God would contradict Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
11,796
11,206
USA
✟1,037,338.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
So Paul an Apostle of Christ is mistaken and outright lying, but Luther and the so called “reformers” got it right? Only Apostolic tradition aren’t treadtions of men, but traditions of Christ and as much inspired by him as scripture is.

Paul had something none of us have. The ability to go and visit one or all of Jesus disciples; and the disciples could do something too. The disciples could correct untruths or false teachings about the faith in real time, in their lives.

It's why we know anything at all about these earliest heresies, because people like John were standing against a false teaching or two when they wrote about it.

When the disciples thought Paul was going too far, we read in Acts 15 they sent for Paul to come to council, and in defense he spoke of what the Holy Spirit was doing in the Gentiles (exactly the same work the Spirit had done in the believing Jews) sans works of the law, and how the Scriptures prophesied about this day.

They argued it out, likely for hours, until they came to a firm decision.

We don't have disciples now 2,000 years later who heard directly from Jesus who can correct us, we have their writings. People can think whatever they want about these writings I suppose, but those writings are what we have for our Jerusalem council.

And if we don't use it we are more likely to go astray then not.. that was Luther's point. That has been the point of all the reformers and it's our point today. We have scripture and this far removed from the disciples we must make use of it as foundational to our beliefs because when our practices are so far removed from the disciples it can, at some point, no longer be considered the same faith.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,172
Florida
Visit site
✟811,723.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The incarnation starts the transition from old covenant to new, arguably through direct revelation even with Christ's own words. But the new does not contradict the old, the new fulfills the old and there is direct parallels in both creating a type of chiastic agreement between new and old. All revelation from God does not contradict or abrogate previous revelation from God (or future) and is in full agreement. If you think otherwise then you have misunderstood the revelation.
Those who think the Old Testament is 100% revelation from God may be contradicting the validity of the New Testament by giving precedence to the old.

I am not required to sacrifice of doves, sheep or bulls (oxen). I am not required to go to Jerusalem for the Passover as the Jews of Jesus’ times were (Deuteronomy 16:1-8). I may not need to rest from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, even though the Bible tells me to. I do not recognize circumcision as a sign of righteousness. Even Muslims circumcise. The ancient Egyptians circumcised before Israel was a nation. I do not believe in Biblical rules concerning niddah. I shall not pay 10% of my income to a supposed descendent of Levi. I shall not stone a woman who commits adultery even though the Bible tells me to.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟473,721.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I realy do not know. It's your statement.

I hold to no denomination, no building called a church, nor religious movement. I fellowship with the body of Christ. That is my church.

I don't think any of us got it all right. Myself included. All I know for fact is Jesus is Christ, and I have chosen to follow him. Please forgive me for any offence. I have no intention of bringing either of us into condemnation by judging one another.
Your implying somehow that the “reformers” were correct and Paul is in error. There’s just one problem Christ founded a Church, and that Church has a fellowship just like you said and that Church is organized as a denomination and that denomination doesn’t hold to Sola Scriptura. The Church never has and never will hold to unbiblical doctrines.
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,953
3,863
50
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Your implying somehow that the “reformers” were correct and Paul is in error.

I do not imply. I will speak plainly if I have something to say. There is a miscommunication here because I do not think Paul is wrong.

There’s just one problem Christ founded a Church, and that Church has a fellowship just like you said and that Church is organized as a denomination and that denomination doesn’t hold to Sola Scriptura.

That's not a problem. They are allowed to do that. I do not trust organized religion.

The Church never has and never will hold to unbiblical doctrines.

All denominations and peoples have errors.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟473,721.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I do not imply. I will speak plainly if I have something to say. There is a miscommunication here because I do not think Paul is wrong.



That's not a problem. They are allowed to do that. I do not trust organized religion.


All denominations and peoples have errors.
Then you’d have a problem since Paul refutes the notion of Sola Scriptura in his own plain words. Then Only Christianity is an organized religion and historically always has been and functioned as such. The true Orthotox Catholic Church of Christ is free from error.
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,703
1,536
New York, NY
✟153,657.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If someone were to receive some kind of direct revelation today, and it directly contradicted something in Scripture, which should one follow?

We follow where the evidence leads. If some guy is making claims and he cant back it up, then we will stick to any form of physical evidence against him and based on your scenario it would be scripture.

However as history shows, most of these insane claims where all based or backed up by someones distorted views of the scripture. Just look at the JW websites, their doctrines have verses cited.. listen to the lunatic end of the world radio host frauds, they always cite verses.

Muslims even take verses in the NT to show that the Bible doesn't teach the Holy Trinity. Do you really think that egging them back with other verses is going to be effective?

No, we go outside of scripture and look for the evidence. We have historical facts such as Nero’s reign showing Christians believing in the Trinity.. so this not only shuts down any Claims of it being a later invention but adds more weight as to why our interpretation of scripture is correct.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Hmm. I don't think I've ever met a "Sola Scriptura fanatic." Would that be something like a "Eternity fanatic" or an "Incarnation fanatic?"

There could hardly be anything more 'cut and dried' than accepting that the Bible is what it says it is. You don't have to go through any rituals because of it or "do it" every day, once a week, or 'whatever' because of it. ;)

No, we go outside of scripture and look for the evidence. We have historical facts such as Nero’s reign showing Christians believing in the Trinity.
….meaning that we can verify that Scripture is true or that Christians have always believed it. That, however, is not "Sola Scriptura."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Then you’d have a problem since Paul refutes the notion of Sola Scriptura in his own plain words. Then Only Christianity is an organized religion and historically always has been and functioned as such. The true Orthotox Catholic Church of Christ is free from error.
That's personal testimony, not an explanation.

And by the way, Scripture is often cited as the evidence supporting Christian doctrine by the Church Fathers and even in the Creed. No mention is to be found of any alleged authority called "Sacred Tradition."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,703
1,536
New York, NY
✟153,657.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Hmm. I don't think I've ever met a "Sola Scriptura fanatic." a

Go talk to a few Calvinists here.
….meaning that we can verify that Scripture is true or that Christians have always believed it. That, however, is not "Sola Scriptura."
If some guy is making claims with out evidence and is even empty of a scriptural basis, then logically he should not be listened to.

For example, Joseph Smith.. we know too much about him to take him seriously. We dont need any form of scriptural confirmation for his claims. Regardless, how many people in history have made revelation claims with out using scripture as citations for their doctrines, none. All of them have scripture as their source of back up, including Joseph Smith.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,115
3,436
✟993,421.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Those who think the Old Testament is 100% revelation from God may be contradicting the validity of the New Testament by giving precedence to the old.

I am not required to sacrifice of doves, sheep or bulls (oxen). I am not required to go to Jerusalem for the Passover as the Jews of Jesus’ times were (Deuteronomy 16:1-8). I may not need to rest from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, even though the Bible tells me to. I do not recognize circumcision as a sign of righteousness. Even Muslims circumcise. The ancient Egyptians circumcised before Israel was a nation. I do not believe in Biblical rules concerning niddah. I shall not pay 10% of my income to a supposed descendent of Levi. I shall not stone a woman who commits adultery even though the Bible tells me to.
It seems you fall under the latter which is misunderstanding the revelation of God. If you don't understand the old covenant why do you think you can understand the new? God's revelation does not contradict or abrogate any prior revelation of his own. If it did then scripture is worthless.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LostMarbels
Upvote 0

Schlauch Mann

Active Member
Jan 5, 2020
58
19
52
Midwest
✟23,871.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Those who think the Old Testament is 100% revelation from God may be contradicting the validity of the New Testament by giving precedence to the old.
That simply doesn't follow.

The Old Testament being 100% God's revelation does not require everything in it to be considered a direct instruction for me. God making a covenant with one set of people doesn't require an identical covenant with a different set of people.
 
Upvote 0