How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura

[HTacianas]

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.

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.

If you ask a third or fourth generation protestant what the basis for their beliefs are, you will hear "the bible" in every case. But then if you repeat a simple statement found in the bible, expressed in simple terms using simple language, they will resort to their own tradition and claim it means something entirely different.

 

[JAL]

What you are apparently failing to realize is that what you are calling conscience simply points you towards Scripture.

Direct revelation alerts you to your misunderstanding of Scripture. And because feelings of certainty are authoritative ("obligatory" if you prefer that term), direct revelation is in itself a FINAL AUTHORITY, contrary to the Sola-Scriptura claim that Scripture is the only final authority. I mentioned how direct revelation trumped exegesis for Paul on the road to Damascus. Peter furnishes a similar example. Based on exegesis, he shunned Gentiles most of his life. Then he saw a vision (Acts 10) causing him to feel certain about preaching to the Gentiles. At that point he threw his earlier exegesis out the window.

We can state the difference this way. Sola-Scriptura insinuates that, if I experience a direct revelation, I MUST "check it out with Scripture." This claim is falsified from the Garden going forward. The fact is that the Voice is self-authenticating. When Adam and Eve heard the Voice, they didn't need to check it out with Scripture. Thus if a direct revelation has made me feel 100% certain, I will NOT "check it out with Scripture." For example if I feel 100% certain that my name is Bob, am I really going to dig up my birth certificate every day to check it out?

To summarize: self-authenticating direct revelation trumps exegesis.

 

[Albion]

If you ask a third or fourth generation protestant what the basis for their beliefs are, you will hear "the bible" in every case. But then if you repeat a simple statement found in the bible, expressed in simple terms using simple language, they will resort to their own tradition and claim it means something entirely different.

That is another example of an idea that is taught to converts and students in churches that teach "Sacred Tradition" instead of Scripture Alone. But it is a misuse of words.

Sacred Tradition (the substitute for Scripture) is a theory about how God supposedly inspired the whole church to believe something or other although it is not answered or identified in Scripture. But despite the name that those churches have given that theory (Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition) it is NOT what the word "tradition" means in normal use. That is something customary or longstanding, etc.

In your post here, you say that believers in Sola Scripture do, in fact, believe in a tradition, i.e. to think the Scriptures to be the ultimate source of religious authority. Yes, there are some beliefs are traditional, well-established, of longstanding. BUT that doesn't mean that they are dogmatizing something simply because it is old!

Of course not. It is that they believe in the authority of Scripture and have been doing so for a long time.

That's not "Sacred Tradition," the alternative TO Scripture in certain church bodies.

 

[JAL]

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


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.

Again, you're concocting a strawman by connoting "veracity" where my emphasis is on "obligation". Scripture has veracity, but exegesis doesn't define my obligations. Conscience does.

I'm not questioning biblical "authority" in the sense of veracity. I'm questioning whether exegesis has the highest possible jurisdiction over me. It does not. That preeminence belongs to feelings of certainty.

 

[Albion]

Direct revelation alerts you to your misunderstanding of Scripture.

Even if that were agreed to by us both, it has Scripture as the authority and our perception of it or understanding of it be simply a problem that we have when dealing with the authority. It doesn't make something else BE the authority.

 

[Albion]

Again, you're concocting a strawman by connoting "veracity" where my emphasis is on "obligation". Scripture has veracity, but exegesis doesn't define my obligations. Conscience does.

All you are talking about here is YOUR RESPONSE to Scripture. It's still Scripture that is the authority.

I'm not questioning biblical "authority" in the sense of veracity.

I get that.

I'm questioning whether exegesis has the highest possible jurisdiction over me. It does not. That preeminence belongs to feelings of certainty.

But again, the question concerned WHAT IS the doctrinal authority. You just said that you have been trying to make a point about how you can relate to it.

Okay, but that's not to say that anything you bring to bear in the process of making sense of Scripture is itself a replacement for Scripture or does the work of Scripture.

 

[JAL]

Even if that were agreed to by us both, it has Scripture as the authority and our perception of it or understanding of it be simply a problem that we have when dealing with the authority. It doesn't make something else BE the authority.

(Sigh). For the millionth time, you're defending the veracity of Scripture. That's NOT in debate here. I'm discussing authority in the sense of our obligations. If you are in the army, your military general is your authority. You are obligated to obey him.

 

[JAL]

All you are talking about here is YOUR RESPONSE to Scripture. It's still Scripture that is the authority.

Incorrect. God's Voice was authoritative - and self-authenticating - even to angels before the world began.

An angel doesn't hear God's voice and say, "Not sure that was God. Better check it out with Scripture." Rather, an angel's ONLY authority is a feeling of certainty induced by the voice. In the same way, when the prophet Abraham heard a voice commanding him to murder his son, he didn't need to check it out with Scripture.

When Moses heard a voice commanding him to slaughter 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan, he didn't need to check it out with Scripture.

Scripture has authority in the sense of veracity but it is not our "authority" in the sense of governing our actions.

Okay, but that's not to say that anything you bring to bear in the process of making sense of Scripture is itself a replacement for Scripture.

Another moot point, for reasons explained already.

 

[Albion]

(Sigh). For the millionth time, you're defending the veracity of Scripture. That's NOT in debate here. I'm discussing authority in the sense of our obligations. If you are in the army, your military general is your authority. You are obligated to obey him.

I don't think that is where we started, however.

If you remember, you said that "direct revelation" trumped Scripture.

That is not what you are saying now when you say that you are talking about authority only in the sense of knowing our "obligations" (to the authority).

 

[HTacianas]

That is another example of an idea that is taught to converts and students in churches that teach "Sacred Tradition" instead of Scripture Alone. But it is a misuse of words.

Sacred Tradition (the substitute for Scripture) is a theory about how God supposedly inspired the whole church to believe something or other although it is not answered or identified in Scripture. But despite the name that those churches have given that theory (Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition) it is NOT what the word "tradition" means in normal use. That is something customary or longstanding, etc.

In your post here, you say that believers in Sola Scripture do, in fact, believe in a tradition, i.e. to think the Scriptures to be the ultimate source of religious authority. Yes, there are some beliefs are traditional, well-established, of longstanding. BUT that doesn't mean that they are dogmatizing something simply because it is old!

Of course not. It is that they believe in the authority of Scripture and have been doing so for a long time.

That's not "Sacred Tradition," the alternative TO Scripture in certain church bodies.

The tradition I was referring to stems from changing the meaning of scripture to fit some extra biblical teaching. One example is the idea of once saved always saved. We are warned throughout the new testament against falling away. But someone holding to once saved always saved will simply state that any or all of those warnings actually mean something other than what they plainly state. Another example is Jesus giving the apostles the authority to forgive sins. It's a plain and direct statement that people will argue against solely based on their tradition. Their tradition teaches that no man can forgive sins so when Jesus said to the apostles “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" it doesn't mean what it says because the bible teaches something else.

 

[Albion]

The tradition I was referring to stems from changing the meaning of scripture to fit some extra biblical teaching. One example is the idea of once saved always saved. We are warned throughout the new testament against falling away.

Yes, but there is plenty of evidence in Scripture that seems to go the opposite way.

All you are saying here is that your own--or your church's own--interpretation of Scripture leads to a different conclusion. That's not the same claim as "changing the meaning of scripture" and "to fit some extra biblical teaching."

But someone holding to once saved always saved will simply state that any or all of those warnings actually mean something other than what they plainly state.

Rather than make OSAS the go-to example all the time, explain how Protestants who do NOT believe in OSAS (which is most of them) fall under your criticism.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

When you have time to digest it is more than that.

Thanks.

 

[friend of]

What about 2 Peter 1:20?
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things (NIV)

 

[Ilikecats]

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

46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" John 5:46-47

 

[martymonster]

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.

Firstly, God can use direct revelation, but generally he uses revelation from scripture, since everything he wants to say is already in there.

Secondly, billions of souls are not at stake. Was Christ running around furiously trying to warn people, before it was too late? No, he walked around teaching in parables, because he was not trying to save everybody.

 

[Albion]

The tradition I was referring to stems from changing the meaning of scripture to fit some extra biblical teaching.

Yes, I understand that, but it is a claim that is used to rebut Sola Scriptura. When that is done--as you did--it misrepresents the meaning of Holy Tradition and, therefore also, Sola Scriptura.

And of course, no one is "changing" Scripture anyway. But it's that oft-heard charge that confuses Holy Tradition with tradition(s) that I was mainly commenting on.

One example is the idea of once saved always saved.

Didn't I ask you to use a different example? Most Protestants don't believe in OSAS anyway and even for those who do, it's not a matter of "changing" Scripture but of which verses to go by and how to interpret them. The same as with dozens of other issues that divide Catholics and Protestants...interpretation.

Another example is Jesus giving the apostles the authority to forgive sins. It's a plain and direct statement that people will argue against solely based on their tradition.

No, it isn't. Apostolic Succession is what's based on tradition.

Their tradition teaches that no man can forgive sins so when Jesus said to the apostles “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" it doesn't mean what it says because the bible teaches something else.

Again, you are not speaking of a doctrine based upon tradition. It's based on a reading of Scripture, whether or not we agree with that interpretation.

And even if it were based on tradition, that is not "Holy Tradition," which is the opposite of Sola Scriptura. All churches have some traditions or customs, and very few of them define any doctrine.

 

[PaulCyp1]

There is no scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura. Jesus said "by their fruits shall ye know them". The fruit of Sola Scriptura has been the ongoing fragmentation of Protestantism into thousands of denominations, each claiming to be teaching from "the Bible alone", but the teaching of each one contradicting the teaching of the others. Truth cannot contradict truth, so obviously a tremendous amount of untruth is being taught by these unauthorized manmade churches. Their very existence violates the clearly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers, which was and still is "that they all may be ONE, even as I and My heavenly Father are ONE". He knew that truth can exist only in unity. Which is why the one Church He founded, to which He promised the fullness of God's truth. remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship, ONE in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years.

 

[Albion]

There is no scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura.

As was discussed on previous threads dealing with this same topic, there are at least 19 different Bible verses that state, in one way or another, that the Holy Scriptures are of the highest worth or authority.

Of course we already know that the Bible states that the contents of Scripture are the word of God, so merely to argue that the word of God, divine revelation, is inferior to something else would make for a difficult proposition to defend. But here the claim was "There is no scriptural basis of Sola Scriptura." That view is simply uninformed.

The fruit of Sola Scriptura has been the ongoing fragmentation of Protestantism into thousands of denominations, each claiming to be teaching from "the Bible alone", but the teaching of each one contradicting the teaching of the others.

The truth of Scripture is not diminished simply because readers of it disagree. Scripture is what it is, regardless of the misunderstandings of some people.

Similarly, there is only one denomination out of the thousands that exist which believes in an infallible Papacy, but that disagreement in itself does not make the idea of a Pope be either true or untrue. Or do you disagree?

 

[JAL]

Firstly, God can use direct revelation, but generally he uses revelation from scripture, since everything he wants to say is already in there.

Unacceptably ambiguous. What exactly is "revelation from scripture" ???

In post 37 I laid out two possible theories of illumination numbered 1 and 2. Clarify which of them you have in mind or, if you have a third theory, explain what it is.

Secondly, billions of souls are not at stake. Was Christ running around furiously trying to warn people, before it was too late? No, he walked around teaching in parables, because he was not trying to save everybody.

You're making exegesis-based educated guesses on evangelistic ideology. And I'm sure you'll draw reasonable conclusions. But with 100 billion souls potentially going to hell if you're mistaken, there's too much at stake here. We need 100% certainty. We need direct revelation. And I think you, and most other students of the Bible, recognize the tie between direct revelation and prophethood.

May I give you a counter-exegesis? May I show you a demonstration that the NT actually defines evangelism as prophetic utterance? In fact I have two separate arguments/demonstrations on this point - see post 179 on another thread, and post 180 on that thread. Now here's the clincher. I don't really NEED those two demonstrations because, in my mind, it's a matter of common sense that, with 100 billion souls at stake, evangelism MUST be handled correctly and therefore informed by direction revelation/prophecy.

I don't NEED the Bible to effectively ground the core of my conclusions because if we are honest with ourselves, common sense demands them regardless which religion turns out to be true.

For example, in order for the prophetic Word to be effective, God had to actually impart 100% certainty in TWO parties:
(1) The prophet
(2) His audience
Thus the very NATURE of the prophetic gift is that it "convicts" (persuades/convinces) the audience. This means that the prophet is the ideal evangelist. A good example is the prophet Jonah preaching the gospel to Nineveh. Or the prophet John the Baptist preaching the gospel to the Jews. That's just how it's supposed to work.

 

[JAL]

@EVERYONE,

The Great Commission was actually the Great Omission. It never happened. Neither Jesus nor Paul commanded the churches to go out and evangelize. That command was given to selected individuals known as prophets, for reasons explained in my last post (59).

What did Paul command the churches to do? "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).