How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura

[JAL]

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

Do you have any exceptions to the rule?
Of course not. Which means those words of yours are blowing smoke.

Even if that were a persuasive argument...

It's more than persuasive. It's tautological. It's intuitively self-evident that the rule has no exceptions.

....we are still facing many more verses that teach us about the "absolute primacy" of Scripture, not something else.

Really? You have Scripture that disproves a tautology? And you found an exception to the rule? Tell me about it. I'm all ears.

 

[JAL]

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?

I was being accurate. Are you saying that Paul broke the rule, on the road to Damascus? Or did he follow the rule? Here again is the rule:

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

So if that's not accurate, then apparently the following is your paraphrase of Paul's cogitation:

"I feel certain that obeying this vision is evil, it is a lying vision, my original exegesis was correct that Jesus is not Lord and God, but since I hate God, I'm going to obey this lying vision. I'm going to worship this false god named Jesus."

Is that what happened? Don't you think my OP was a better description of what happened to him?

 

[JAL]

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.

You can't depend on the rule of conscience? You found an exception to the rule? Tell me about it. I'm all ears.

 

[JAL]

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​

I'm at work so I had to read all that in a hurry. Not seeing the relevance as yet. Maybe I missed something. It seems to be clarifying the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. That's not in debate here.

 

[JAL]

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.

Scripture is not primary. You read Scripture because you feel certain it is God's Word. Feelings of certainty are primary. In fact, if starting tomorrow you feel certain that the Koran, instead of the Bible, is God's word, then you'll start reading the Koran.

Fortunately the Inward Witness is here to protect us against that mistake. On a daily basis, the Third Person causes us to feel certain that
(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.

Thus, direct revelation is the ABSOLUTE BEDROCK of the church. Christ Himself (His Voice per Jn 10:27) - not the book - is the Rock upon which we stand.

If exegesis were God's master plan, one wonders why He did not provide the printing press until just 500 years ago. Is He an incompetent leader?

 

[Albion]

Do you have any exceptions to the rule?
Of course not. Which means those words of yours are blowing smoke.

If the rule is Scripture, and there are no exceptions to the rule, how does noting that there are none constitute "blowing smoke?"

 

[Albion]

Scripture is not primary. You read Scripture because you feel certain it is God's Word.

You cited Scripture in order to "prove" that there is something more authoritative than Scripture. Besides, the verse* cited does not speak to the idea of "direct revelation" being superior to Scripture, anyway. It merely advises that prophesy is an important gift.

*"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy."

 

[JAL]

@EVERYONE:

The "faith" of Hebrews 11 refers to feeling 100% certain by direct revelation. This is what it means to walk in faith after the fashion of the great men of God. How so? Consider that the prophet Abraham is one of the exemplars in that chapter, specifically his attempt to murder his own son.

The prophet Abraham heard a Voice so commanding him. Faith comes by hearing the divine Word speak (Rom 10:17). How do I know that, in his case, the degree of faith imparted was 100% certainty? For the following reason.

A psychopath could definitely murder his own son at less than 100% certainty. But Abraham was no psychopath. He was a good man. And even if he were a psychopath, Heb 11 wouldn't have celebrated the attempted slaughter as one of the most righteous acts in human history.

It follows that the prophet Abraham felt 100% certain. And according to Hebrews 11, THAT was an example of what it means to walk in faith.

And we know that fallible exegesis will never bring us to 100% certainty/faith. Therefore, if we are to walk in faith, as stipulated in Hebrews 11, waiting upon God for direct revelation must be our top priority. Based on 1Cor 14:1, Paul had his priorities straight.

In fact Abraham and his "faith" probably constitute the principal paradigm for the Christian to follow as laid out in the NT, other than Christ.

The prophet's ministry is best understood in terms of 100% certainty. Why so?
(1) We should not tell others, "Thus says the Lord" if we are not 100% sure (unless we're honest enough to admit that we are not sure).
(2) And, if or when we are 100% sure that God wants us to speak, we should not remain silent.

 

[JAL]

You cited Scripture in order to "prove" that there is something more authoritative than Scripture.

First, all your replies are based on the authority of Scripture. But I have no direct access to Scripture, only to my fallible exegesis of it. Thus your words are misleading and misrepresentational. Basically you concoct the strawmen:

"Your view is challenging Scripture's veracity. Therefore it must be wrong."

I'm challenging fallible exegesis, not Scripture.

You do realize, don't you, that even exegesis honors feelings of certainty? The exegete studies hoping to achieve a satisfying degree of felt certainty that his conclusions are true.

Secondly, you think I'm involved in a methodological contradiction. How can I appeal to exegesis if it's not the highest authority? For 2 reasons:
(1) I'm not a prophet as yet. I don't currently hear God's voice clearly. Exegesis is thus a useful crutch.
(2) It frankly doesn't matter what I believe about Scripture. In a debate, I challenge you to show yourself consistent on YOUR assumptions. Since YOU believe in Scripture, how do you explain the various incidents in Scripture where feelings of certainty seem to trump exegesis? Paul used that same strategy of debate.

 

[Albion]

@EVERYONE:

The "faith" of Hebrews 11 refers to feeling 100% certain by direct revelation.

Even if that were so, it doesn't make "direct revelation" be the ultimate authority in itself. It merely serves to assure us of the authority of Scripture.

 

[Albion]

First, all your replies are based on the authority of Scripture. But I have no direct access to Scripture, only to my fallible exegesis of it.

That fact, if true, would neither prove not disprove the authority of Scripture.

 

[JAL]

Even if that were so, it doesn't make "direct revelation" be the ultimate authority in itself. It merely serves to assure us of the authority of Scripture.

There are no exceptions to the rule. Therefore in all circumstances, the rule of conscience IS my authority. The voice of conscience is what I must hearken to. Thus for all practical purposes, it IS my authority. You'll continue to quibble over the terminology. But to do so is merely to split theological hairs. What should be of concern here is, What entity is supposed to govern me from moment to moment? And that "ultimate" (to use your term) governor is my conscience (feelings of certainty).

Otherwise God's hands are tied. He has no mechanism to run the church. Why so? Suppose wants you to do something right now. Must he wait until you HAPPEN to reach that very conclusion exegetically? Maybe after 4 years of seminary? Not at all. He can give you a feeling of certainty right now, as He did for Paul on the road to Damascus.

 

[JAL]

That fact, if true, would neither prove not disprove the authority of Scripture.

Again, you're using loaded words to concoct a strawman. I'm not questioning the veracity of Scripture.

 

[JAL]

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

Are you suggesting that direct revelation is not reliable? You know of some exception to the rule, then?

Maybe you're right. Ok, guess I have to throw out my Bible, then. The authors were influenced by direct revelation. If it's not reliable, the Bible is a useless book. Too bad.

 

[Albion]

There are no exceptions to the rule. Therefore in all circumstances, the rule of conscience IS my authority.

What you are apparently failing to realize is that what you are calling conscience simply points you towards Scripture. It doesn't replace it or supersede it as the authority.

And if somehow conscience were to replace Scripture, what would it--on its own--tell every person? About the creating of mankind? About Christ's resurrection from the dead? And a thousand other facts that form our faith as Christians?

 

[HTacianas]

Are you suggesting that direct revelation is not reliable? You know of some exception to the rule, then?

Maybe you're right. Ok, guess I have to throw out my Bible, then. The authors were influenced by direct revelation. If it's not reliable, the Bible is a useless book. Too bad.

I am suggesting that your question is a fallacy. If you'd like to see an example of direct revelation read the canons of the first seven ecumenical councils.

Now, you should know that I do not believe in sola scriptura and neither does anyone else for that matter.

 

[JAL]

What you are apparently failing to realize is that what you are calling conscience simply points you towards Scripture. It doesn't replace it or supersede it as the authority.

Quibbling over terminology.
What governs me from moment to moment? Feelings of certainty - they determine when, if, and how much I read Scripture, they determine whether I even accept that book, and determine whether or not I will feel obligated to obey the dictates of that book.

This is in direct rebuttal of Sola Scriptura defined as: "Scripture is the only final rule of faith and practice."

And if somehow conscience were to replace Scripture, what would it tell every person? About the creating of mankind? About Christ's resurrection from the dead? And a thousand other facts that form our faith as Christians?

So if there were no Bible, it would be impossible to learn these things? Thus in order to know, for example, the facts of Genesis, one NEEDs a Bible? That's odd, because Moses didn't have a Bible when he learned such things. He learned them from direct revelation.

Secondly, who is asking to replace Scripture? What I want is reliably interpret it. When the Third Person enlightens me, I call it direct revelation. After all, when I open the book to read it, there are only two plausible frameworks of enlightenment:

(1) Exegesis-dominant. In this framework, I'm supposed to examine grammar, context, and history, hoping to produce a chain of deductive reasoning culminating in correct conclusions. In this framework, role of the Third Person in enlightenment would be to improve my analytic skills, making me a better scholar, essentially raising my IQ.

(2) Direct revelation. In this framework, I don't deductively infer conclusions. Rather HE tells me the meaning of the verses, and I accept HIS conclusions based on the perceived authority of the voice, i.e., do I feel certain that this is God speaking and that I heard Him correctly.

Now, which of these two frameworks represents the primary model of divine illumination as God intended it? Again, the two choices are:
(1) Scholarship.
(2) Direct revelation.

Note that, if #1 is correct, scholars would surpassingly unravel all the mysteries of Scripture, leaving the prophets in the dust, and in comparative darkness. But it isn't that a reversal of the facts? Jesus put it this way:

"At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children" (Mat 11:25)

Interesting. Seems like the scholar is totally out of luck compared to those who abound in direct revelation.

 

[Albion]

Now, you should know that I do not believe in sola scriptura and neither does anyone else for that matter.

It is particular churches which teach their people that idea, but it is predicated upon revising the meaning of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and/or Sola Gratia.

In no case does the "alone" (sola) mean that the factor named is alone in the universe. On the contrary, the meaning is that it alone defines or determines X (doctrine in the first case, our salvation in the second, and the cause of our coming to faith and being saved in the third) to the exclusion of the factors that some church bodies had promoted instead.

Quite obviously, I would say, it is more than possible to believe that each of these does perform the function that's identified.

 

[JAL]

I am suggesting that your question is a fallacy. If you'd like to see an example of direct revelation read the canons of the first seven ecumenical councils.

Um....no. Direct revelation refers to direct interaction/fellowship with the living God. "My sheep hear my voice" - in real time. It's not reading a document several hundred years old.

Now, you should know that I do not believe in sola scriptura and neither does anyone else for that matter.

The Orthodox church doesn't believe in Sola Scriptura, but evangelicals consider it axiomatic and non-negotiable. Admittedly evangelicals self-contradict on this point, because the Inward Witness contradicts it, but that's their position nonetheless.

 

[Albion]

Quibbling over terminology.

No, it's not simply a matter of terminology.

What governs me from moment to moment? Feelings of certainty - they determine when, if, and how much I read Scripture, they determine whether I even accept that book, and determine whether or not I will feel obligated to obey the dictates of that book.

Fine. However, that doesn't make what is IN the book be either true or false.

Your own feelings about the Bible do not make the Bible be authoritative or, on the other hand, not so. It either is authoritative--or isn't--whether or not any of us has even read it.