How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura

[LostMarbels]

Tautologies often stand reasonably well on their own merit (inner coherence) without recourse to exegesis. Mathematical axioms are a good example, and they serve as building blocks for complex theorems. When your math teacher writes a theorem on the board, do you reply, "I cannot accept it until you prove it from Scripture" ????

No. You accept the theorem because you are not aware of any exceptions to the underlying axioms. Again, if you want to rebut me, simply find one exception to my axiom:

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


Therefore since we have to start SOMEWHERE, why not start with tautological axioms?

I am of the opinion this is way too much over complication of a carnal understanding.

My claim is that all your own behavior and personal experience corroborate this axiom. You are free to provide a counterexample. Obviously you don't have one, not even a hypothetical one.

To be honest, none of this makes sense in a biblical context.

Therefore since we have to start SOMEWHERE, why not start with tautological axioms?

Because tautological axioms are not the author nor the finisher of my faith. I'm still trying to figure out if you believe you can guide your own understanding of God's word by emotion.

 

[JAL]

Christianity isn't based on feelings. While we have feelings, we must have an infallible authority - outside of us - that governs.

Good. Then your task is simple. Just show me one clear scenario, presumably a hypothetical one, that decisively warrants divergence from the rule of conscience.

So how do you know if a feeling isn't one that is drawing you away from truth instead of toward it?

How do you know that God isn't a liar? Just because the book says so? But if He's a liar, the book is lying as well. My point is that we really don't know anything for sure. And frankly we never will, in the strict sense of perfectly objective epistemology. The most we can aspire to is feeling 100% certain, and exegesis won't get us there.

If I feel like action a) is sin and action b.) is permissible what should I do?
I should go to Scripture and see what Scripture says on the topic...So if I feel something is sin, then I should look to see if Scripture agrees with the assessment. If it does, then the feeling is Godly, if it doesn't, then I'm being led into a false gospel.

That's a mischaracterization of the scenario. Here's what REALLY happened in that scenario. You were faced with a choice between action-A and action-B. You conscience warned you, "As yet you don't feel enough certainty to warrant acting upon either A or B. Therefore it might be a good move to check it out with Scripture." As a result of this warning, at that moment you felt certain that checking it out with Scripture was the best thing to do. That's not an exception to the rule of conscience. It's just an example of that rule in action, proving my point.

Perhaps the feelings are actually impressed upon me by a demonic influence or just my human feelings, or perhaps they are given me by God. Either is possible for the saved individual.

Does that possibility warrant an exception to the rule? Are you now counseling us to abandon the rule? Here it is again:

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

The Apostles and Jesus told us not to depart from the way... the only way to be assured that we will never depart is to hold tightly to Scripture, given by God,"that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" 2 Timothy 3:17

Unfortunately I have no direct access to Scripture, only to my fallible interpretations of it. And thanks for bringing up that verse - I keep forgetting to comment on it. I plan to do so shortly.

 

[JAL]

I am of the opinion this is way too much over complication of a carnal understanding.



To be honest, none of this makes sense in a biblical context.



Because tautological axioms are not the author nor the finisher of my faith. I'm still trying to figure out if you believe you can guide your own understanding of God's word by emotion.

I see no specific rebuttal of my arguments. I see no proffered exception to the rule of conscience.

 

[LostMarbels]

@EVERYONE,

Surely you don't want God to evaluate you based on your fidelity to Scripture, right? Wouldn't you prefer Him to evaluate you on your faithfulness to conscience? Bear in mind that disobedience warrants punishment/judgments from Him even in this life.

God is just in his judgment. The only thing I do not deserve is his mercy. We have all sinned.

Are you saying faithfulness to conscience remits sin? Almost sounds as if you are dictating the terms for your own salvation. Like you have a say in the matter.

Thus if He evaluates you based on your fidelity to Scripture, He can punish you for any exegetical mistakes. For example suppose you attend university-A, not realizing He wanted you to go to university-B. In fact you felt certain that A was the better choice. You acted in good conscience. Do you really want to be punished for that action?

This is way over thought, and needlessly complicating the simple grace of God.

 

[fhansen]

Unacceptably ambiguous. What Scripture was Abraham reacting to when he heard the Voice?

I agree that there must be some kind of "inner witness" or direct subjective spiritual contact between man and God; the experience of faith, itself, is just such a supernatural gift in fact: "Faith is a foretaste of the knowledge that will make us blessed in the life to come" according to Aquinas. And that "knowledge" referred to is direct and intimate, fully culminating in the next life. "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Cor 13.

Abraham presumably received an ineffably profound "taste", for God's purpose at the time, which most of us will not experience to that degree in this life. Either way I will never defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, nor the notion that exegesis can be the basis of a certain knowledge of the faith. But it's not solely about the inner witness either. The knowledge of God-or about God-must enter us from an external source. Otherwise while we have His image inside and He speaks to us in whispers and we may seek and grope and grasp for Him, our knowledge will be far from perfect due to inherent human limitations, the nature of fallen man's pride and distance from Him to begin with, and our fallen world's various own "voices" constantly overriding and drowning out and tempting us away from His witness so to speak.

Man is lost. Jesus came to reveal the true "face" of God, and we must hear the Word in order for that inner witness to have something to identify and respond to. And that external revelation comes via God's church and Scripture-otherwise we should need neither perhaps. Either way at the end of the day we must each discern or witness for ourselves the true nature and will of God with the help of His grace-and that "knowingness" will continue to involve struggle and growth to achieve throughout our lives.

 

[LostMarbels]

I see no specific rebuttal of my arguments. I see no proffered exception to the rule of conscience.

This rule of conscience is foreign to me. Where did Christ preach, live, or teach this principle? Where is it written in scripture?

 

[JAL]

Obviously you haven't, seeing the point is in contention.



No clear principle.... you say I provided no fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

I stated: "In God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. God and his scripture is the standard to apply beliefs to."

What is 'unclear' about that?

Presumably God is supposed is supposed to be my teacher. What's lacking in your words is a clear articulation of what criterion I'm supposed to use for warranting the conclusion that a particular belief is sound and actionable in harmony with His will. Whereas the rule of conscience, as I have defined it, fills precisely that void.

 

[JAL]

This rule of conscience is foreign to me. Where did Christ preach, live, or teach this principle? Where is it written in scripture?

Scripture often teaches by example, for instance Abraham's attempt to slaughter his son. I adduced several clear examples throughout this thread, none of which you've convincingly discredited.

Were did Christ preach, live, or teach this principle? Where is it written in scripture?

You're joking, right? Christ didn't live by that principle? Here it is again:

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

In other words, Christ walked by the following principle, in your view?

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

 

[LostMarbels]

Presumably God is supposed is supposed to be my teacher. What's lacking in your words is a clear articulation of what criterion I'm supposed to use for warranting the conclusion that a particular belief is sound and actionable in harmony with His will. Whereas the rule of conscience, as I have defined it, fills precisely that void.

By your own supposition one only needs self evident emotion to verify the veracity of a belief. Is it not enough for you to except my truth because I feel it is right?

Are there multiple truths? What is your constant to which variables are applied to measure their bearing?

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

I don't see how direct revelation would ever challenge sola scripture. It may challenge interpretation from sola scripture but the revelation itself should still be in fully agreement with scripture. In fact if we have interpreted scripture incorrectly in a big way I would hope direct revelation would be there to put us back on track.

Christ tells Peter that flesh and blood did not reveal to him that he is the son of God but only the Father in heaven could do this. If we accept these words still then direct revelation is a fundamental part of salvation.

 

[LostMarbels]

Scripture often teaches by example, for instance Abraham's attempt to slaughter his son. I adduced several clear examples throughout this thread, none of which you've convincingly discredited.

Because I have not even made an attempt to do so. At all. I am still trying to garner a clear understanding of your own belief.

You're joking, right? Christ didn't live by that principle? Here it is again:

Jesus lived to/by fulfilling God's requirements according to law. I do not veiw Jesus as a man of 'princaple'.

In other words, Christ walked by the following principle, in your view?

In my veiw Jesus walked by scripture. Even fulfilling it. Not to get confusing but Christ was even living scripture we now read to learn from.

A great example of Christ and emotion is the garden of gethsemane: "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

 

[Rawtheran]

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.

I do not deny that God still uses prophetic voices and gives people supernatural dreams to still speak to and guide the church. However, God does not use prophets or apostles to write scripture or add to its canon because it has been written, completed, and closed. No one can add or subtract from the Word of God. Furthermore, when someone does get a direct revelation from God it must be in line with what God has said in the scriptures. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He can't contradict himself or change something that contradicts with what he's done before

 

[JAL]

I don't see how direct revelation would ever challenge sola scripture. It may challenge interpretation from sola scripture but the revelation itself should still be in fully agreement with scripture. In fact if we have interpreted scripture incorrectly in a big way I would hope direct revelation would be there to put us back on track.

To admit that direct revelation can be a corrective to exegesis contradicts Sola Scriptura. The maxim of Sola Scriptura is, "I must check it out with Scripture, and this checking-it-out must ALWAYS have the final say."

I categorically reject that claim. Direct revelation is self-authenticating when it imparts feelings of certainty strong enough to make the conscience feel obligated. At which point there is no need to "check it out with Scripture." When Abraham heard the voice commanding him to slaughter his own son, he didn't need to "check it out with Scripture."

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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”:

As a child I never read a single word of the bible but I knew Jesus. So I agree with you to a certain point. I believe a good example would be the Bereans. They searched the scriptures to find the prophesies that proved the Gospel. Saul on the other hand was on another mission. It took an act of God to get him to repent.
Acts 17
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.

 

[LostMarbels]

To admit that direct revelation can be a corrective to exegesis contradicts Sola Scriptura. The maxim of Sola Scriptura is, "I must check it out with Scripture, and this checking-it-out must ALWAYS have the final say."

I categorically reject that claim. Direct revelation is self-authenticating when it imparts feelings of certainty strong enough to make the conscience feel obligated. At which point there is no need to "check it out with Scripture." When Abraham heard the voice commanding him to slaughter his own son, he didn't need to "check it out with Scripture."

Let me get this straight..... Your are stating an individual is correct when self-authenticating their own beliefs of what is right, but categorically reject any need to check that belief out with Scripture?

 

[JAL]

I do not deny that God still uses prophetic voices and gives people supernatural dreams to still speak to and guide the church. However, God does not use prophets or apostles to write scripture or add to its canon because it has been written, completed, and closed. No one can add or subtract from the Word of God. Furthermore, when someone does get a direct revelation from God it must be in line with what God has said in the scriptures. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He can't contradict himself or change something that contradicts with what he's done before

You're making a lot of asserts here. But none of those assertions are infallible. They are of course your opinion. But I think we can all agree on one thing - the rule of conscience.

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

Are you aware of any clear exceptions to this rule?

 

[Rawtheran]

You're making a lot of asserts here. But none of those assertions are infallible. They are of course your opinion. But I think we can all agree on one thing - the rule of conscience.

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

Are you aware of any clear exceptions to this rule?

Please enlighten me....

 

[JAL]

Let me get this straight..... Your are stating an individual is correct when self-authenticating their own beliefs of what is right, but categorically reject any need to check that belief out with Scripture?

Not sure what you mean. Doesn't seem to be what I said. Sola Scriptura is the claim that we must ALWAYS check it out with Scripture. This implies that direct revelation is NEVER self-authenticating. I categorically deny that conclusion because (to repeat what I said):

Direct revelation is self-authenticating when it imparts feelings of certainty strong enough to make the conscience feel obligated. At which point there is no need to "check it out with Scripture." When Abraham heard the voice commanding him to slaughter his own son, he didn't need to "check it out with Scripture."

Was Abraham at fault, in your view? After all, he tried to kill his own son without the benefit of a completed canon to "check it out with Scripture."

Was Moses wrong for leading the Israel in the march to slaughter 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan? Do you feel he should have refrained until he had an opportunity to "check it out with Scripture"?

 

[JAL]

Please enlighten me....

On what exactly?

 

[JAL]

Because I have not even made an attempt to do so. At all. I am still trying to garner a clear understanding of your own belief.



Jesus lived to/by fulfilling God's requirements according to law. I do not veiw Jesus as a man of 'princaple'.



In my veiw Jesus walked by scripture. Even fulfilling it. Not to get confusing but Christ was even living scripture we now read to learn from.

A great example of Christ and emotion is the garden of gethsemane: "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

To summarize, you haven't the slightest basis for suggesting that Christ deviated from the rule of conscience. And to even to SUGGEST that Jesus ever deviated it from would be blasphemy, because it would insinuate a deliberate effort on His part to do evil.