How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura

Schlauch Mann said:

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?

Click to expand...

Again, follow the rule:

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

First, do you know any exceptions to the rule? No you don't, because it's a tautology.

Secondly, what do you mean by "contradict Scripture"? Being fallible, you don't really KNOW for sure what Scripture says. Both the exegete and the prophet, in the final analysis, are looking for feelings of certainty. Are you envisioning the following unlikely scenario?

"I see a vision, and I feel certain that it contradicts Scripture, but also I feel certain that the vision is correct."

That's unlikely because the Inward Witness has already convinced you that Scripture is true. Therefore any vision from Him is likely to leave you feeling certain that the vision is correct, and that YOUR (former) exegesis was just a misreading of Scripture. I already provided 2 examples - Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, and Peter's vision on the rooftop. Both visions served as correctives to faulty exegesis.

Further, Luke openly praised the Bereans for judging everything they heard by Scripture (Acts 17:11).

Click to expand...

Ideally every word that came from Paul's mouth was delievered to the audience at 100% certainty - and remained at 100% certainty. But such was not the case and, furthermore, some of his teaching was delivered textually rather than orally. I'll say it again, when certainty is less than 100%, naturally your conscience will sometimes move you to fall back on exegesis as a crutch.

Secondly, you're ASSUMING that the Bereans were attempting to analyze Scripture with primary recourse to the exegetical approach. In post 37 I laid out a second approach grounded in direct revelation. It is fairly reasonable for me to speculate that the Bereans were trusting in the power of revelatory illumination to clarify the verses.

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.

Click to expand...

I gave two examples already: Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, and Peter's vision on the rooftop. Both visions served as correctives to faulty exegesis. And frankly every righteous man and righteous act preceding the canon confirms that righteousness isn't dependent on exegesis. The prophet Abraham's righteousness can only be defined in terms of obedience to the Voice - that's direct revelation.

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.

Click to expand...

In the gospels we find a striking contrast between the bible scholars of that day, whose teaching was often faulty, versus the accurate teaching of Christ, which came from His Father by direct revelation. Again, Jesus Himself underscored that contrast like this:

"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).

In terms of understanding Scripture, bible-scholars are completely outclassed by those who abound in direct revelation. You've read the Book of Hebrews, right? Let's be honest. That writer's amazing level of insight was clearly rooted in direct revelation.

redleghunter said:

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

Click to expand...

In post 37 I laid out two possible theories of how the Third Person illuminates our minds to comprehend the Scriptures:
(1) The exegetical system.
(2) Direct revelation.
Your post obviously favors 1 over 2. The main reason it gives for this conclusion is the argument that subjective experience doesn't work, that it cannot be a reliable medium of objective information. That stance is self-contradictory, isn't it? If direct revelation cannot and does not work:
(1) Then we have to throw away the entire Bible, right? After all it was authored by direct revelation.
(2) And we have to reject the doctrine of the Inward Witness, right?

Is this really the direction you want to go? Seems to me a logically consistent approach is to regard direct revelation as viable insofar as we adhere to the rule of conscience:

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

Schlauch Mann said:

So, we can't trust our fallible minds to understand Scripture, but we CAN trust our fallible minds to give us the correct feelings about a supposed revelation? Not sure how that works.

Click to expand...

Not sure how it works? I thought I was clear on how it works:

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

Is this rule unclear to you? If so, can you be specific as to what part is unclear?

@EVERYONE:

In my OP I linked to my thread on 1Corinthians. That epistle distinguishes between babes milk in contrast to solid food for the mature. What is solid food? After all, Hebrews 5 makes the same distinction. On that other thread, I demonstrate that solid food refers to premium direct revelations - in fact superlative direct revelations - available only to mature prophets. It is PRECISELY the contrast drawn in Num 12 between ordinary, relatively immature prophets versus the mature prophet Moses.

martymonster said:

Revelation from scripture, is exactly what it sounds like.

Click to expand...

Again, it sounds unacceptably ambiguous to me. I gave you two clear options as to what that means, and even encouraged you to identify other options. Since you ignored that request for clarification, I'm not sure where you stand.

Schlauch Mann said:

I think I understand you. As long as someone feels certain that going out and shooting a bunch of people is good, they should definitely do it. Got it.

Click to expand...

You mean, like the prophet Abraham's feeling certain that he was supposed to slaughter his son?
The prophet Moses feeling certain that he was supposed to slaughter 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan?
Saul and the prophet Samuel feeling certain about annhiliating the Amalekites?
The prophet David feeling certain about slaughtering the Philistines?

Is that the sort of scenario you had in mind? The scenarios which Hebrews 11 celebrated as "conquering kingdoms" in faith - that is, as exemplary faith as a paradigm for us all to follow?

Recall that, the first time around, Israel did not go up and slaughter their enemies. The writer of Hebrews thrice classified this refraining as disobedience to the Voice. The prophet Samuel (1Sam 15) likewise reprimanded King Saul for sparing one of the Amalekites. He classified it as disobedience to the Voice.

Schlauch Mann said:

I think I understand you. As long as someone feels certain that going out and shooting a bunch of people is good, they should definitely do it. Got it.

Click to expand...

Just want to be clear. Are you postulating this scenario as an exception to the rule?

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

So the rule is NOT valid in your opinion? For example, are you suggesting that Hebrews was in the wrong for celebrating Abraham's attempt to murder his own son? For celebrating the prophets who "conquered kingdoms" on account of hearing a voice and feeling certain about it?

Schlauch Mann said:

I think I understand you. As long as someone feels certain that going out and shooting a bunch of people is good, they should definitely do it. Got it.

Click to expand...

Maybe I can clarify a little better for you. Most people are not psychopaths. Which means their conscience will not condone capriciously killing someone unless they feel 100% certain that:
(1) Doing so is morally upright.
(2) Refraining is morally evil.

At 100% certainty, what other choice do you really have? Are you saying you would still need to check it out with Scripture? If so, for what purpose - would your purpose be to achieve a level of certainty higher than 100%?

100% certainty is a level of certainty beyond your wildest dreams. I cannot even imagine reaching it without supernatural aid. It means an absolute inability to have any doubts, reservations, questions, or concerns about the message. It guarantees that you will be UNABLE to bring yourself to check it out with Scripture - at least not in good conscience. Your conscience will be telling you that checking it out with Scripture - questioning the message in any way - is pure evil.

What now of the psychopath? Suppose he feels 95% certain that murdering someone is good. Is that enough certainty? Depends: If he feels 96% certain that 95% certainty is not enough, it trumps the 95%. Of course that means he has some measure of conscience. Personally I don't believe in absolute psychopaths - people with no conscience whatsoever. Anyway the bottom line is that the rule of conscience means that everyone should do what is right to the best of his or her knowledge.

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

That is the most that God can expect of anyone.

Schlauch Mann said:

Just because there are specific examples of a rule being right at specific times, it doesn't follow that it is *THE* rule to ALWAYS follow. A broken clock is right twice a day, but the times it is wrong are much more frequent.

Click to expand...

A broken clock is not the same thing as a tautological principle.

Abraham felt is was right to have a son with Hagar. How'd that work out? Moses felt it was right to strike a rock instead of talking to it. How'd that work out?

Click to expand...

Are you saying these are exceptions to the rule? Ok let's take a look. In your view, Moses underwent the following two cogitations:

(1) Talking to the rock is utterly evil (this is action-A).
(2) Striking the rock is utterly good (this is action-B).

And, according to you, Moses went with option 2. He tried his very best to do what is good. And you are saying that he acted wrongly. You are saying that he SHOULD have gone with option 1 - he should have tried his hardest to do evil.

So you've taught us all a valuable lesson. When I feel certain that something is evil, that is precisely what I should do.

And you still haven't explained why our fallible minds can't be trusted to read correctly, but our fallible minds can be trusted to feel correctly. Simply stating "I thought it was clear" isn't explaining much.

Click to expand...

The rule of conscience obtains regardless of human fallibility.

GaveMeJoy said:

exactly. Additionally, 1, 2, 3, 4 come from the book too.

Click to expand...

Typically a prospective convert accepts those 4 conclusions before he goes to seminary to learn Hebrew and Greek. In fact, many have never even read the Bible in their own language. This happens because the Inward Witness provides a feeling of certainty that those 4 propositions are true.

These are four doctrine conclusions typically reached on an authority (feelings of certainty) OTHER than exegesis. This refutes Sola Scriptura because it refers to conclusions reached without first having to "check it out with Scripture."

GaveMeJoy said:

In other words "IMPORTANT: I can't and won't argue my opinion openly, I will only discuss it if I'm allowed to define terms, and you accept my presuppositions.

Click to expand...

On the contrary I challenged the readers to rebut the axiom. To do this, all they have to is produce one convincing hypothetical scenario that discredits the axiom.

Schlauch Mann said:

I think I understand you. As long as someone feels certain that going out and shooting a bunch of people is good, they should definitely do it. Got it.

Click to expand...

Let's take a brief look at an example from the life of the prophet David:

"David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And the LORD said unto David, Go, and smite the Philistines…Then David enquired of the LORD yet again. And the LORD answered him [again]…I will deliver the Philistines into thine hand (1Sa 23:2, 4).

Why a second inquiry? Either the level of certainty on the first iteration was less than 100%, or was indeed so but subsequently waned. But note carefully what David did NOT do - he did not believe that the best solution was to "check it out with Scripture." Note the difference in methodology:

(1) When an evangelical of today feels somewhat uncertain about a direct revelation, his solution is to "check it out with Scripture."
(2) When David felt somewhat uncertain about a direct revelation, his solution was - to seek more direct revelation !!!!!

And clearly this strategy wasn‟t an aberration but a way of life for David. At 2 Sam 2:1 we read:

"David inquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And the LORD said to him, Go up. And David said, Where shall I go up? And he said, To Hebron (2Sa 2:1, KJV)."

Notice there are two separate inquiries in that one verse. The first direct revelation wasn't specific enough. It didn't specify which city to go up to. So did David solve it by "checking it out with Scripture?" No. He petitioned God for more direct revelation. Just three chapters later we read:

"And David inquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up to the Philistines? Will you deliver them into my hand? And the LORD said to David, Go up: for I will doubtless deliver the Philistines into your hand" (2Sam 5:19, KJV).

The pattern seems clear. Wait on the Lord for direct revelation and, when that fails - seek more direct revelation !!!!

Do I really need Scripture to teach me this lesson? Not from where I'm standing. To me it seems like pure common sense. God knows stuff. I don't know anything. I just have mere opinions, for example mere opinions as to proper exegesis. Therefore I need to ask God to TELL ME what He knows. I need direct revelation.

@EVERYONE:

If God intended us to base our doctrines on exegesis understood as our singular authority, what then is the plight of:
(1) The mentally handicapped including those with Alzheimer's?
(2) Children?
(3) People in 3rd world countries too poor to own a Bible or study it? No access to seminary libraries?

For such people, saving faith would be impossible to obtain or sustain on an exegetical basis. The Inward Witness solves this problem by causing them to feel certain that the gospel is true.

redleghunter said:

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?

Click to expand...

In other words, the Inward Witness doesn't work? It's too subjective? God would be a fool to base His kingdom on something that subjective, right? I mean, after all, like you said - one billion people with their own personal experience! And yet He did. Perhaps maybe He's a bit wiser than you are? Did you ever consider THAT possibility?

Is there not an infallible source in order to test truth claims?

Click to expand...

You mean exegesis? Oh that's right I forgot. It's fallible. Seems we're out of luck - we don't have an infallible source. Oh wait a minute. Forgot something else. Since the prophets wrote infallible Scripture, seems we CAN envisage an infallible source, namely the gift of prophecy. Maybe that's why Paul wrote:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

Conclusion. You're absolutely correct. We DO need an infallible source. Why not go with the only one that we know of? How about that?