How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura

[Jesus is YHWH]

This is so funny. You obviously can't find one exception to the rule of conscience! All you can do is make lame efforts save face!

the only thing embarrassing here is your "feelings" doctrines absent from scripture. its nothing but vain human philosophy and reasoning.

 

[JAL]

nothing about your false doctrine of FEELINGS.

Terminology doesn't matter. "Full persuasion and assurance" does NOT involve feeling certain? That's your position?
Please tell me you don't intend to make a claim so inane. The following two assertions contradict each other:

(1) I am fully persuaded that the bible is the written Word of God.
(2) I do not feel certain that the bible is the written Word of God. In fact I feel completely uncertain as to that book's status.

That's your position? You ignored Calvin the first time I mentioned him. Then you finally sensed the absurdity of your position, so you quoted J.I. Packer's approval of Calvin's doctrine. But you're still trying to ignore the part where Calvin talked about feelings of certainty. This means you've still got one foot submerged in logical absurdity.

 

[JAL]

Give scripture for your feelings doctrine not your human reasoning which is foolishness to God.

Excellent point, actually. Glad you brought this up. I'm actually thrilled about your recognition that fallible human reasoning is a recipe for disaster. Have you ever read a seminary journal? I don't mean just 1 or 2 articles but at least a few dozen of them? If so, you know that scholarly exegesis resorts to a HUGE amount of human reasoning to adjudicate between the innumerable competing interpretations of a passage. What we want, nay, what the church NEEDS, is a divine delivery of truth accomplished sans human reasoning. Agreed? There's actually a name for that kind of delivery. As post 37 pointed out, its name is NOT exegesis but rather direct revelation (please review post 37). Thanks for confirming my entire position. Your disparagement of human reasoning is infinitely welcome here, infinitely warranted, and infinitely probative of my epistemology. Thank you so much!

In fact, such was the entire thrust of 1Corinthians 2:6-16. As I said, I covered this epistle on another thread, but I don't mind adding a blurb here as well. That epistle is all about direct revelation - if you didn't notice this fact in chapters 12 to 14, take a look at chapter 2:

"God has REVEALED [His truths] to us [i.e. to "us the apostles" - see 4:9] by his Spirit...For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God" (2:10-11).

Did you catch that? Note Paul didn't say:

"No one knows the thoughts of God except the Bible scholar."

The APOSTLES knew God's deepest truths by direct revelation. You'll reply, "Paul wrote them all down for us." No he didn't. Read the chapter as it spills into chapter 3. You'll see that Paul could only give the immature Corinthians the epistle itself (babes milk), not the solid food in view here (premium direct revelation for "the mature" - see verse 2:6). Chrysostom remarked on solid food that not even “Scripture hath anywhere discoursed to us of these things" (NPNF, Part 1, Vol 12, Homily 34).

Ordinary people like you and I who are not yet apostles and prophets - we who are immature like the Corinthian babes - are still deficient in direct revelation (solid food) and thus naturally we fall back on exegesis as a crutch. And exegesis involves human reasoning. How then can you fault me for leveraging reason? Are you asking me to perform an irrational, illogical, self-contradictory exegesis? I absolutely refuse. I won't do it. Every time I find a logical contradiction in traditional thinking, I will seek reform. Anything less would be exegetically irresponsible.

 

[NBB]

the only thing embarrassing here is your "feelings" doctrines absent from scripture. its nothing but vain human philosophy and reasoning.

You can say when Paul was revealed the gospel by God, 'he felt something with his spiritual senses', the letters of his are all based on those revelations.

Today there is a lot of things about our lives that are not in the bible, and we should seek guidance from God.

 

[JAL]

I don't disagree with your point, but wasn't Calvin of the Sola scriptura persuasion? I was under the impression that the doctrine of Sola scriptura tacitly accepted that it was the revelation of the Holy Spirit that draws us and confirms in us the Gospel, and that the scriptures are the means by which the Holy Spirit teaches us (the details).

Prophets were sparse among the Jews, during the centuries leading up to Christ, creating fertile ground for the rise of exegetical scholars who proceeded to shape and dictate their religious practices. Thus the Pharisees and teachers of the law largely constituted the Sola Scriptura party of Christ's day.

How productive was their endeavor? Jesus classified their work as nothing more than a cluster of man-made religious traditions. He Himself avoided their mistakes by relying on His Father's voice, for example:

"You have never see His shape, nor heard His voice, nor does His Word dwell in you" (Jn 5:37).

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak" (Jn 12:49).


They say that history repeats itself. When the apostles and prophets of Acts went into decline, it again created fertile ground for the rise of exegetical scholars. The result, of course, is the last 2,000 years of man-made traditions - embodying an ecclessiology contrary to Paul's definition of a church:

"In the church God has appointed first of all apostles, then prophets, then teachers, then miracles..."(1 Cor 12:28).

Actually I condone man-made institutions as a necessary crutch because we must start somewhere, as we wait prayerfully upon God to raise up fresh apostles and prophets. What I resent is the constant presumption and pretense that these are divinely sanctioned, bona-fide churches, leaders, and liturgies.

 

[JAL]

The Bible should be the authority. Not everyone will hear directly from God.

Jn 10:27 seems to confirm that all Christians do hear from God. The doctrine of the Inward Witness seems logically inescapable and implies the same. Moreover the biblical data indicates that even the OT saints were enjoined to obey His sonic voice, not His written law. I can also demonstrate the point logically without recourse to Scripture.

But in our immaturity, we admittedly do not hear God loud and clear. This is precisely the distinction made at Num 12 between immature prophets versus the mature prophet Moses. For we who are immature, exegesis can be a useful crutch - but a very dangerous crutch, given our fallibility.

 

[Michael Garrett Andrews]

Hi, JAL I agree with you that direct revelation trumps sola- scriptura! I think you do a wonderful job defending this truth!
Can you help me understand something I have been struggling with? My question is : Were the Native Americans who were living in North America affected by Jesus death and resurrection and outpouring of the Holy Spirit afterwards as mentioned in Acts at the exact same time? In other words : If they didn't have the bible or anyone to tell them about Jesus, were they judged by their conscience? or did the Holy Spirit tell them? I'm assuming that before Jesus death, resurrection, and outpouring of the Holy Spirit, that those who worshiped the Creator were judged by their conscience. Did that remain the same until the White Man told them of Jesus Im guessing reformed theology might say, oh well, they went to hell, but i don't accept that! The reason i ask this question is because I'm having a hard time coming to grips, that I must be saved/ know Creator/Jesus/HolySpirit a different way than them.
So mainly, How did direct Revelation apply to indigenous peoples on other continents at the time of Jesus? thank you so much for your time!

 

[JAL]

Hi, JAL I agree with you that direct revelation trumps sola- scriptura! I think you do a wonderful job defending this truth!
Can you help me understand something I have been struggling with? My question is : Were the Native Americans who were living in North America affected by Jesus death and resurrection and outpouring of the Holy Spirit afterwards as mentioned in Acts at the exact same time? In other words : If they didn't have the bible or anyone to tell them about Jesus, were they judged by their conscience? or did the Holy Spirit tell them? I'm assuming that before Jesus death, resurrection, and outpouring of the Holy Spirit, that those who worshiped the Creator were judged by their conscience. Did that remain the same until the White Man told them of Jesus Im guessing reformed theology might say, oh well, they went to hell, but i don't accept that! The reason i ask this question is because I'm having a hard time coming to grips, that I must be saved/ know Creator/Jesus/HolySpirit a different way than them.
So mainly, How did direct Revelation apply to indigenous peoples on other continents at the time of Jesus? thank you so much for your time!

Your stance on this issue will largely depend where you stand on free will. And that's a difficult question. Let's assume people have enough free will to choose God. In that case, I'll explain how I think it works.

You don't need to know the name "Jesus" to be saved. Many OT saints probably didn't even know about the Trinity. Yet they knew Yahweh. There are actually two possible revelations of Yahweh:
(1) "General Revelation" (the official name of such doctrine). Most theologians understand Romans 1 and 2 to imply General Revelation. This means that our conscience is designed in such a way that, at least periodically, the natural realm stirs up within us a mental portrait of Yahweh. Have you ever trembled at lightning and thunder? Did it ever put the fear of God in your heart? Or have you ever seen a smiling face and wondered whether you perceived in it, the kindness of God? That's General Revelation.
(2) "Special Revelation" (the official name of such doctrine). This is the work of the Holy Spirit providing a clearer picture than General Revelation.

Presumably if the Indian submitted to God #1 by free will, then He received revelation #2 as well. He was saved (still without knowing the name "Jesus"). Now here's the test. If you preach Jesus to such an Indian, he will almost certainly accept the gospel immediately because Special Revelation (#2) is operating within him to confirm it.

Thus we can safely assume that any Indian who rejected the name "Jesus" was almost certainly unsaved.

Not sure if that helps.

 

[JAL]

To summarize: Yes, ultimately it comes down to conscience, for everyone including those who have never heard the gospel.

 

[topher694]

Another thread hijacked by pride

 

[JAL]

Another thread hijacked by pride

Sorry to hear that. Who hijacked it?

 

[Michael Garrett Andrews]

You know, the stories in the bible don't get us any closer to truth. Because they are not in our experience. While i agree with direct revelation. It's unfortunate that of the ~ 8 billion souls alive today, I'm not aware that any of them are true prophets with 100% certainty from the Most High. With 100% of their words from the Most High coming true. And certainly not I. I understand why we use exegesis as a crutch. We want God to interact with us more and be more real in our daily lives, not something we imagine or make-believe. So without direct revelation. It is difficult to proceed. Without direct revelation, we are not any closer to truth. I can say this : THE ONE THING I DO FEEL 100% CERTAIN ABOUT IS LOVE. I feel like all of our research and studies about God keep coming back to this simple truth. We are to Love God and each other. It is a very simple idea. Something that we can all test out ourselves. I will sign off now, and go be the hands of God as I practice Love with 100% certainty 1 cor 14:1 Pursue Love. = Step 1.

 

[JAL]

You know, the stories in the bible don't get us any closer to truth. Because they are not in our experience. While i agree with direct revelation. It's unfortunate that of the ~ 8 billion souls alive today, I'm not aware that any of them are true prophets with 100% certainty from the Most High.

Sadly, I feel the same way. On the other hand, when I review the life of Charles Finney, I surmise that one needn't rise to the full level of Moses or Paul to function as an incredibly effective evangelist. The key to Finney's success was a (primordial) prophet-like anointing that regularly informed him where to preach, what to preach, and when to preach. In other words he went forth with the favor of God because he walked in the will of God. That's really what I want most for the church.

The point, then, is that there is much potential benefit in pursuing the ideal of becoming a Moses or a Paul even if such never fully materializes. We just need to be moving in the right direction. Unfortunately we've largely been moving in the opposite direction for the last 2,000 years.