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.
Do you have any exceptions to the rule?So...your thesis is that 'direct revelation' beats Scripture, and we know this to be so because of the testimony of Scripture.
It's more than persuasive. It's tautological. It's intuitively self-evident that the rule has no exceptions.Even if that were a persuasive argument...
Really? You have Scripture that disproves a tautology? And you found an exception to the rule? Tell me about it. I'm all ears.....we are still facing many more verses that teach us about the "absolute primacy" of Scripture, not something else.
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?
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.
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:Edit: More on the schools of interpretation:
Distinct from hermeneutics
- 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?
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:
General rules of hermeneutics
- 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?
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
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
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.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.
If the rule is Scripture, and there are no exceptions to the rule, how does noting that there are none constitute "blowing smoke?"Do you have any exceptions to the rule?
Of course not. Which means those words of yours are blowing smoke.
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.Scripture is not primary. You read Scripture because you feel certain it is God's Word.
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:You cited Scripture in order to "prove" that there is something more authoritative than Scripture.
That fact, if true, would neither prove not disprove the authority of 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.
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).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.
Again, you're using loaded words to concoct a strawman. I'm not questioning the veracity of Scripture.That fact, if true, would neither prove not disprove the authority of Scripture.
Are you suggesting that direct revelation is not reliable? You know of some exception to the rule, then?Do we all become Mormons now based on the direct revelation of Joseph Smith?
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.There are no exceptions to the rule. Therefore in all circumstances, the rule of conscience IS my authority.
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.
Quibbling over terminology.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.
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.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?
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.Now, you should know that I do not believe in sola scriptura and neither does anyone else for that matter.
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.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.
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.Now, you should know that I do not believe in sola scriptura and neither does anyone else for that matter.
No, it's not simply a matter of terminology.Quibbling over terminology.
Fine. However, that doesn't make what is IN the book be either true or false.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?