How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura

[JAL]

With 100 billion souls at stake, God isn’t so stupid as to rely on fallible exegesis. In fact the NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180). 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.

 

[com7fy8]

"faith working through love" > in Galatians 5:6.

How God's love makes us sure.

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

"Now this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment." (Philippians 1:9)

So, my opinion is it is not only about if we are certain and feel certain, but how our character is in our certainty. Paul says if I know every mystery, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

So we need to be certain in the right spirit >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

A child grows to become able to know things. And the child's maturity or lack of it has so much to do with how well he or she understands and sees things.

And light has us seeing what no amount of words can tell. And how much do we feel what we see, or feel certain about it? There can be feeling, but this can be more our reaction. But when God first turns on the light . . . there may be more feeling, at first, but then gentle and humble loving and appreciation

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Calvin specifically defined the Inward Witness as feelings of certainty.

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).

 

[JAL]

I don't disagree with your point, but wasn't Calvin of the Sola scriptura persuasion?

Excellent point. You've nailed it on the head. Evangelicalism's doctrine of the Inward Witness, as formally defined by John Calvin, is in flat contradiction to Evangelicalism's doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This has been one of several longstanding contradictions in church history. Calvin is just as guilty of it as the rest.

 

[JAL]

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).

Of course the most critical details come from the direct revelation:
(1) Jesus died for my sins
(2) Jesus is Lord and God
(3) He plans to take me to heaven
(4) The Bible is His book.

But you feel that details beyond that should be by - fallible exegesis? Why would God want to entrust the evangelism of 100 billions souls to the fallible church practices derived from fallible exegesis?

 

[JAL]

"faith working through love" > in Galatians 5:6.
So, my opinion is it is not only about if we are certain and feel certain, but how our character is in our certainty. Paul says if I know every mystery, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

So we need to be certain in the right spirit >

Our conscience will confirm that a right spirit and righteousness form part of our overall goals. But none of that contradicts the primacy of feelings of certainty. There are no exceptions to the rule:

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

 

[JAL]

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).

So here's the problem that I see. Let's suppose God DOES want to rely on fallible exegesis to figure out how to most effectively reach 100 billion souls. In other words, what if I am wrong - what if perhaps He does NOT want us to prioritize direct revelation?

Here's my answer. With so much at stake, I need to feel 100% certain that I am wrong - I still need 100% certainty. And fallible exegesis will never bring me to that level of certainty. Thus I still need to prioritize direct revelation even if we DON'T technically need it. In other words, even if I'm wrong, I'm still right. And knowing that, God must be committed to direct revelation as top priority (see 1 Cor 14:1).

 

[HTacianas]

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.

Do we all become Mormons now based on the direct revelation of Joseph Smith?

 

[Albion]

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).

So...your thesis is that 'direct revelation' beats Scripture, and we know this to be so because of the testimony of Scripture.

Even if that were a persuasive argument, we are still facing many more verses that teach us about the "absolute primacy" of Scripture, not something else.

 

[Ricky M]

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.

I wouldn't say Paul threw it out... he re-interpreted those scriptures in light of new information. Exegesis is a continual process of adapting what we think we know in light of new evidence. Which is why truth is only available to those who are willing to question what they think they know.

 

[JAL]

I wouldn't say Paul threw it out... he re-interpreted those scriptures in light of new information. Exegesis is a continual process of adapting what we think we know in light of new evidence. Which is why truth is only available to those who are willing to question what they think they know.

You're just changing the terminology. The fact is that the feeling of certainty trumped his exegesis at that moment. Use whatever terminology that you prefer.

 

[redleghunter]

Excellent point. You've nailed it on the head. Evangelicalism's doctrine of the Inward Witness, as formally defined by John Calvin, is in flat contradiction to Evangelicalism's doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This has been one of several longstanding contradictions in church history. Calvin is just as guilty of it as the rest.

What infallible source do we test our direct revelations? One billion people all with their own personal revelations...Is there not an infallible source in order to test truth claims?

 

[Ricky M]

You're just changing the terminology. The fact is that the feeling of certainty trumped his exegesis at that moment. Use whatever terminology that you prefer.

I'm bring accurate. Something people don't care to do anymore. And the results of which we are currently living under. Not to derail, but if you don't care to be accurate about small things, how can I trust your opinion on big things?

 

[paul1149]

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.”

Conscience is not foolproof. It can be misinformed, it can be uninformed. Everything must be tested "at the mouth of two or three witnesses." Paul's revelation caused him to radically reinterpret the OT scriptures, but not to negate them. And he spent a lot of time defending his apostleship on numerous grounds, so we know his position was challenged and he had thought the issues through carefully.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Partially true. Paul when he was persecuting the church was following rabbinical tradition (their version of a magisterium of sorts) to interpret the Scriptures.

When Jesus commissioned the Apostles He indicated this:

Luke 24: NASB

44Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48“You are witnesses of these things. 49“And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”​

Then we have Paul when he taught and preached did so arguing from the Scriptures:

And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,(Acts 17:2)

​

There's much more when the "Scriptures" are explicitly mentioned and can be seen here:

NASB search in the NT "Scriptures."

How much of the Old Testament is quoted or alluded to by Jesus and the New Testament writers?

The determination of what constitutes an Old Testament quotation is not a simple matter since the New Testament abounds not only in explicit, formal citations but also in numerous allusions and reminiscences which appear on almost every page. Using the Westcott and Hort text, H. B. Swete made a rough estimate of 160 direct quotations. 2 Roger Nicole discovers 250 direct quotations with 45 additional instances of undoubted reference or a total of 295 unquestionable separate references.3 Louis M.Sweet also counts approximately 300 direct quotations.4 When scholars include allusions and probable reminiscences the totals tend to run much higher, even into the thousands. 5 A rough count of the references in the tables of Nestle's Greek Testament show ab0tit 950 separate citations, but this total includes both explicit quotations and possible allusions, even single words. In the absence of generally accepted criteria for establishing what constitutes a quotation, we must expect these calculations of the scholars to be diverse and somewhat arbitrary. While all parts of the Old Testament are quoted, the most quoted single books are Deuteronomy, Isaiah and the Psalter. E. Earle Ellis estimates that about one third of all the quotations are used by Paul, who cites 93 Old Testament references together with numerous additional allusions...
(https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a481/51a663db58afe59b33b3710543d43ad22ca0.pdf)​

More here: Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament - Holman Bible Dictionary - Bible Dictionary

Also here on the authority of OT Scriptures as they are quoted in the New Testament.

NASB references in the NT to "Scriptures"

NT quotes OT as authoritative

Here is a good chart which shows verses in parallel (not all inclusive):

Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English translation

The Book of Revelation alone has 550 references to the OT

This link is in 5 parts and is a more comprehensive OT-NT parallel

​

 

[redleghunter]

You're just changing the terminology. The fact is that the feeling of certainty trumped his exegesis at that moment. Use whatever terminology that you prefer.

Perhaps we should get the terminology correct?

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?

Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.

More: What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis? | GotQuestions.org​

From Theopedia:

Biblical exegesis is a systematic process by which a person arrives at a reasonable and coherent sense of the meaning and message of a biblical passage. Ideally, an understanding of the original texts (Greek and Hebrew) is required. In the process of exegesis, a passage must be viewed in its historical and grammatical context with its time/purpose of writing taken into account. This is often accomodated by asking:

• Who wrote the text, and who is the intended readership?
• What is the context of the text, i.e. how does it fit in the author's larger thought process, purpose, or argument in the chapter and book where it resides?
• Is the choice of words, wording, or word order significant in this particular passage?
• Why was the text written (e.g. to correct, encourage, or explain, etc.)?
• When was the text written?

Distinct from hermeneutics
Sometimes the terms exegesis and hermeneutics have been used interchangeably. However, there is a distinction to be made. Bernard Ramm describes the difference as follows:

"Hermeneutics . . . stands in the same relationship to exegesis that a rule-book stands to a game. . . . The rules are not the game, and the game is meaningless without the rules. Hermeneutics proper is not exegesis, but exegesis is applied hermeneutics."^ [1]^ In this sense, hermeneutics may also be seen as the "method of exegesis."

Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting what an author has written. In Christian theology, hermeneutics focuses specifically on constructing and discovering the appropriate rules for interpreting the Bible. These methods and principles, however, are often drawn from outside of scripture in historical, literary or other fields. It inevitably involves exegesis, which is the act of interpreting or explaining the meaning of scripture. The goal in applying the principles of hermeneutics is to "rightly handle the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15), striving to accurately discern the meaning of the text.

Applying sound principles of hermeneutics requires answers to a variety of questions:

• Who was the writer?
• To whom were they writing?
• Is the choice of words, wording, or word order significant in this particular passage?
• What is the cultural, historical context?
• What was the author's original intended meaning?
• How did the author's contemporaries understand him?
• Why did he say it that way?

General rules of hermeneutics
One original interpretation
A fundamental belief in hermeneutics is that there is one original interpretation. When the author of a book recorded history, or wrote their letter(s) or gospel, they had a single intended meaning attached to what they wrote. For example, when a person writes a letter, they are not thinking of how they can write it so that the receiving person either cannot understand it or ends up with many different interpretations. Instead, there is a particular meaning in what was written. The interpretation is restricted by the writers intentions. Thus, when doing hermeneutics, one should always be aware of what the authors intended meaning was. This should guide and direct one's studies, and should also safeguard against interpretations that do not fit the thought or flow of the book one is studying.

Application
It should be noted that although there is a single interpretation to be found in each passage, there can be more than one application. However, these applications should stem from the interpretation and be guided by what Scripture says elsewhere.

Regard for genre
"A passage might be legal, narrative, polemic, poetry, wisdom, gospel, logical discourse, or prophetic literature, each having specific guidelines for proper interpretation."^[2]^

Regard for literary devices
"Various forms of Hebrew poetry, simile, metaphor, and hyperbole need to be recognized if the reader is to understand the passage's meaning." ^[3]^

Regard for literal meaning
A text should be interpreted with the degree of precision intended by the author. It should be interpreted "according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text."^[4]^

Rules specific to the Bible
Divine accommodation
"The Bible is to be interpreted in view of the fact that it is an accommodation of Divine truths to human minds: God the infinite communicating with man the finite... We must be careful, then, not to push accommodating language about God and His nature to literal extremes. God does not have feathers and wings (e.g., Psalms 17:8); nor is He our literal Father in the same sense our earthly father is." Robert Hommel, forananswer.org

See main page: Divine accommodation

Progressive revelation
"The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed." "The Word of God is to be understood from the Old Testament to the New Testament as a flower unfolding its petals to the morning sun."^ [5]^

Harmony
"No part of the Bible may be interpreted so as to contradict another part of the Bible. The Christian presupposes the inerrancy and harmony of Scripture as a necessary result of a perfect Creator God revealing Himself perfectly to Mankind."^ [6]^

More: https://www.theopedia.com/interpretation-of-the-bible

​

Edit: More on the schools of interpretation:

Methods/schools
Allegorical
"Prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, biblical interpretation was often dominated by the allegorical method. Looking back to Augustine, the medieval church believed that every biblical passage contained four levels of meaning. These four levels were the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the eschatological. For instance, the word Jerusalem literally referred to the city itself; allegorically, it refers to the church of Christ; morally, it indicates the human soul; and eschatologically it points to the heavenly Jerusalem."^[7]^

Grammatico-historical
"[T]his method of interpretation focuses attention not only on literary forms but upon grammatical constructions and historical contexts out of which the Scriptures were written. It is solidly in the 'literal schools' of interpretation, and is the hermeneutical methodology embraced by virtually all evangelical Protestant exegetes and scholars."^[8]^ "The writings of the earliest Church Fathers (Ignatius of Antioch, Ireneaus, and Justin Martyr) indicate that they took Scripture literally, unless the context clearly militated against it."^[9]^

Letterism
"While often ignoring context, historical and cultural setting, and even grammatical structure, letterism takes each word as an isolated truth. A problem with this method is that it fails to take into account the different literary genre, or types, in the Bible. The Hebrew poetry of the Psalms is not to be interpreted in the same way as is the logical discourse of Romans. Letterism tends to lead to legalism because of its inability to distinguish between literary types. All passages tend to become equally binding on current believers."^[10]^

Postmodern
Role of the Holy Spirit
"Some have wrongly argued that knowledge of the culture and languages of biblical times is not necessary, that the Holy Spirit will interpret the text for us. The role of the Holy Spirit is to illumine the believer in order to accept and apply what is found in Scripture. The Bible says that the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14). The Greek word for "accept" means 'to take something willingly and with pleasure.' The key role of the Spirit is not to add information to the text, or to give us special translating abilities, but to soften our hearts in order to receive what is there." Don Clossom, Probe Ministries

"[W]e must not say that the Spirit adds more revelation to the written Word. This denies the sufficiency of Scripture. Further, it renders such an interpretation non-falsifiable because then the Spirit's added revelation is accessible to me only through you. Finally, it comes perilously close to Barth's neoorthodox position that the Bible becomes the Word of God in one's experience."^[11]^

See main page: Illumination of the Holy Spirit

The hermeneutics of Jesus
"Jesus condemned the Scribes and Pharisees for replacing the original intent of the Scriptures with their own traditions. Jesus took a literal approach to interpretation which took into account the literary type of the passage."^ [12]^

Source: https://www.theopedia.com/interpretation-of-the-bible​

 

[Schlauch Mann]

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 ...

If someone were to receive some kind of direct revelation today, and it directly contradicted something in Scripture, which should one follow? You want to trust that revelation that is supposedly from God, but if His Word is wrong, then why trust any other revelations from Him? Direct revelation is fine and dandy, when we can look at it in hindsight and *KNOW* it came from God (your Paul example). But today, how can one possibly trust a supposed revelation without judging it by Scripture? How can one possibly claim our "inner certainty" is more important given we already know man's heart is corrupt?

Further, Luke openly praised the Bereans for judging everything they heard by Scripture (Acts 17:11). Is there any statement in Scripture like, "they were righteous, for they trusted their own certainty over Scripture"? I'd like to see that verse if you know of one.

 

[Albion]

That's right. And we might add that "direct revelation" in practice amounts to almost anything that anyone wants to say it is.

Just here on CF we have people thinking that their dreams are divine revelation. Others insist that they heard the literal, audible, voice of God speaking to them in their bedroom. Many of the religious quacks of history have based their new religions on alleged "direct revelation" that they supposedly had received.

So if this is supposed to trump the word of God in Scripture which is eternal, unchanging, comprehensive, and agreed to by almost all Christians of whatever denomination...

we actually have nothing that we can depend on.

 

[Ricky M]

ALL revelation today should conform to scripture .. altho not necessarily our interpretation of said scriptures.

As Paul found out on the way to Damascus

 

[JAL]

Do we all become Mormons now based on the direct revelation of Joseph Smith?

Follow the rule. Which of the following three statements do you currently feel most certain about:
(1) Mormonism is true
(2) Christianity is true
(3) Both are true.

You have no exceptions to the rule. If you had one, you would have posted it.