How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura

[Hazelelponi]

In other words, the impact of the book upon your mind (presumably via the aid of the Third Person) persuaded you of its veracity. This impact caused you to feel certain that the book is true. If the impact had caused you to feel certain that the book is NOT true, you would have rejected it.

This proves that feelings of certainty are a higher authority than book because they DICTATE whether you accept the book or obey the book. In fact that's why you reject the Koran - you just don't feel certain about it. Thus your claim:


is patently false. In order to accept the book on something more than just blind faith, you NEEDED an authoritative reason WARRANTING that acceptance. In the final analysis, feelings of certainty provided that warrant.

And note it's not just an act of the PAST. Every DAY you re-choose to continue accepting the book. Thus on a DAILY basis, feelings of certainty are, for you, authoritative. Feelings of certainty stand alone. Meaning, for example, when you initially felt certain that you should accept the book, you didn't back down stating, "I'm not sure about this feeling of certainty. I first need to check it out with Scripture to see if feelings of certainty are authoritative." That wouldn't make sense - you wouldn't have checked it out with Scripture because at that point you were still DECIDING whether to accept Scripture - that would be putting the cart before the horse. Thus the feeling of certainty was, in itself, self-authenticating and authoritative.

And thus when direct revelation CAUSES people to feel certain, it too functions as a self-authenticating, stand-alone authority. Why we do need direct revelation?
(1) Chances are a direct revelation known as the Inward Witness is precisely what is causing you to feel certain about the book.
(2)Traditional exegesis is fallible. With 100 billion souls at stake, we need to aggressively pursue a more potent epistemology.
(3) It's not just eternal salvation at stake. It's also protecting our neighbor in the here and now. "Love does no harm to its neighbor" (Rom 13:8). Since we can accidentally harm our neighbor in innumerably many ways, we need direct revelation to avoid those mistakes. In fact to suggest that God isn't committed to governing the world via direct revelation implies that He doesn't care how many people die in wars.
(4) God is unprofessional if Jesus offered His apostles anything less than 100% certainty. After all, does any of us want to be uncertain about our salvation?

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall bear witness of Me" John 15:26

Jesus said, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me” John 5:39

We have internal and external witness - the external is scripture and others who have the Holy Spirit.

God did not leave us without both things - because both are necessary. What is written trumps because it is written down for all time, and thereby can judge whether we are led astray or led by the Spirit.

Whenever we become overconfident - either way - we can be overtaken by pride, which is a sin and then we will fall from a great height.

 

[JAL]

No, it doesn't. It only "proves" the reliability of the Bible to that particular individual.

Right. To that particular individual, his submission to the feelings of certainty acknowledges those feelings to be dictatorial over literally the most important decisions and doctrines of his life. Having so succumbed, he shouldn't later contradict himself by trying to recant the dictatorial authority of those feelings in his own life.

 

[JAL]

I do not agree. God doesn't require my approval to be correct. God's word is the authoritative reason WARRANTING that acceptance.

Ok fine. You needed no warrant to accept the book? Great. So it's fine to accept the book on blind faith. Woops - I guess that leads to a problem. If blind faith is okay, then it's okay to accept other books on blind faith, such as the Book of Mormon.

You are leaving God out of this equation. This 'book' is not our salvation. The bible is not God. You keep focusing on carnal efforts to understand God forgoing all manner of promises all you have to do is ask. Seek. Knock. Find. Actions man. Verbs. That's it. Go do and God will show you. That's the entire hoop you have to jump thru. Ask God to teach you the truth about himself and your faith.

That's not a clear maxim. And Jesus may have used such unclear words, but that's precisely why we need direct revelation to be sure we've properly understood them.

 

[JAL]

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall bear witness of Me" John 15:26

Jesus said, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me” John 5:39

We have internal and external witness - the external is scripture and others who have the Holy Spirit.

God did not leave us without both things - because both are necessary. What is written trumps because it is written down for all time, and thereby can judge whether we are led astray or led by the Spirit.

Whenever we become overconfident - either way - we can be overtaken by pride, which is a sin and then we will fall from a great height.

You (and everyone else) keep denying my conclusions while conspicuously showing yourselves unable to find any exceptions to the rule of conscience. What gives?

 

[JAL]

I agree. The acceptance of the Bible as inspired is not "Controversial Christian Theology" (the name of this forum), and the topic of this thread is not about whether to accept or reject it.

That wasn't the question. The question asks the poster to specify the epistemological basis for his decision to accept Scripture. Because he needs to espouse a consistent epistemology to avoid contradicting himself.

 

[Hazelelponi]

You (and everyone else) keep denying my conclusions while conspicuously showing yourselves unable to find any exceptions to the rule of conscience. What gives?

In the book of Revelations there are TWO witnesses, not only one.

Everything requires the testimony of two witnesses.

 

[JAL]

In the book of Revelations there are TWO witnesses, not only one.

Case in point.

 

[JacksBratt]

In other words, the impact of the book upon your mind (presumably via the aid of the Third Person) persuaded you of its veracity. This impact caused you to feel certain that the book is true. If the impact had caused you to feel certain that the book is NOT true, you would have rejected it.

Yes.. and I would be an atheist and give absolutely no confidence in the bible, that being absolutely none of it.. not pieces of it.... being any different than "War and Peace".

This proves that feelings of certainty are a higher authority than book because they DICTATE whether you accept the book or obey the book. In fact that's why you reject the Koran - you just don't feel certain about it. Thus your claim:

No, I have put my faith in the beliefs that I have received from the content of the scriptures and they have not failed.... It's not a hunch... a feeling... it's solid fact backed up by evidence in my life, and the lives of my loved ones.

is patently false. In order to accept the book on something more than just blind faith, you NEEDED an authoritative reason WARRANTING that acceptance. In the final analysis, feelings of certainty provided that warrant.

And note it's not just an act of the PAST. Every DAY you re-choose to continue accepting the book. Thus on a DAILY basis, feelings of certainty are, for you, authoritative. Feelings of certainty stand alone. Meaning, for example, when you initially felt certain that you should accept the book, you didn't back down stating, "I'm not sure about this feeling of certainty. I first need to check it out with Scripture to see if feelings of certainty are authoritative." That wouldn't make sense - you wouldn't have checked it out with Scripture because at that point you were still DECIDING whether to accept Scripture - that would be putting the cart before the horse. Thus the feeling of certainty was, in itself, self-authenticating and authoritative.

And thus when direct revelation CAUSES people to feel certain, it too functions as a self-authenticating, stand-alone authority. Why we do need direct revelation?
(1) Chances are a direct revelation known as the Inward Witness is precisely what is causing you to feel certain about the book.
(2)Traditional exegesis is fallible. With 100 billion souls at stake, we need to aggressively pursue a more potent epistemology.
(3) It's not just eternal salvation at stake. It's also protecting our neighbor in the here and now. "Love does no harm to its neighbor" (Rom 13:8). Since we can accidentally harm our neighbor in innumerably many ways, we need direct revelation to avoid those mistakes. In fact to suggest that God isn't committed to governing the world via direct revelation implies that He doesn't care how many people die in wars.
(4) God is unprofessional if Jesus offered His apostles anything less than 100% certainty. After all, does any of us want to be uncertain about our salvation?

Good luck in your quest for what ever it is you're looking for...

 

[Hazelelponi]

Case in point.

No, because your giving your own revelations primacy to what is written for all time.

What is written must have primacy because the Spirit cannot stand in contradiction to it, and it is written for all time - meaning we can always check against it, whereas you cannot check against Spirit without something more concrete to check against.

 

[Albion]

Right. To that particular individual, his submission to the feelings of certainty acknowledges those feelings to be dictatorial over literally the most important decisions and doctrines of his life.

All right, but he might just as easily have the same feeling(s) upon reading the Book of Mormon or the Koran.

Obviously, the fact that this individual is convinced doesn't mean that the book in question is either true or false.

 

[JAL]

No, I have put my faith in the beliefs that I have received from the content of the scriptures and they have not failed.... It's not a hunch... a feeling... it's solid fact backed up by evidence in my life, and the lives of my loved ones.

Is it blind faith? Or do you feel certain? Either option lends credence to my position.

 

[JAL]

All right, but he might just as easily have the same feeling(s) upon reading the Book of Mormon or the Koran.

Obviously, the fact that this individual is convinced doesn't mean that the book in question is either true or false.

Which is precisely what I myself have stated. Multiple times.

And yet the rule of conscience always - well - rules.

 

[Barney2.0]

I do not believe Christianity was intended by God to be an organized religion as man views it.

Php 2:13
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

God is actively working in our walk with him. We are encouraged to seek out wisdom, and promised in James God will give knowledge to all who ask of him. We are promised by Jesus a helper and teacher in the form of the holy ghost that will teach us, and guide us in the ways/knowledge/wisdom of God. We are taught to find wisdom, and seek truth in God. Ask about our faith and lean not on our own understanding.

Nowhere are we taught to rely on another man for witness and revelation. In fact, God hates both religion and tradition. Many of us like to disregard that fact as if it is not recorded in the bible as spoken from God himself.

Mind you, the Pharisees went after Jesus's apostles for nonconformity to the canons of their church when they ate bread with unwashed hands.

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for (as) doctrines the commandments of men.

Red my edit.

Point being is they placed a great deal of religion in, supposing that the meat they touched with unwashed hands would be defiling to them. The Pharisees practiced this themselves, and with a great deal of strictness imposed it upon others, not under civil penalties, but as matter of conscience, and making it a sin against God if they did not do it.
Matthew Henry

But God never made that command making eating with unwashed hands a sin. That was a tradition of man passed off as a doctrine of God. Thusly they were controlling the masses with the threat of damnation by God for not following the edicts of the church. That is why Jesus rebuked them so harshly. They lied. God is not going to dam you for eating with unwashed hands.

The doctrine of the Pharisees has nothing to do with the traditions of the Aposltes, the Pharisees has no Church. Scripture states that the faithful relied on the oral teachings of the Apostles:

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.” (1 Thess. 2:13)

The words of the Aposltes passed down orally as Holy Tradition were also inspired by God.

There were also many things that Christ said and taught that were not written down in the New Testament and were passed down orally through Apostolic tradition.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”

John 20:30

And in John 21:

“25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.”

In Acts 20:35 we see Paul quoting Christ as saying that “it is more blessed to give then to receive”, this saying not found in any of the four Gospels nor do we find it written in the New Testament as having been said by Christ. I wonder where Paul got it from, why wasn’t he thinking in Sola Scriptura terms?

Thus we see that Sola Scriptura is both absurd from a historical, and scriptural context, the Bible was always meant to be a liturgical book, not one for personal devotion, could it be used for personal devotion and readings, yes, was it made for that, no.

 

[JAL]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Evangelicals regard 2Tim 3:16-17 as the unshakable foundation for Sola Scriptura. Evangelicals will continue clinging to this unwarranted conclusion because they are IN LOVE WITH the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. All I can do is explain why this passage fails to warrant said conclusion.

(1) It doesn’t say that Scripture is sufficient. It is profitable. Even if it had said “sufficient”, it would actually be referring to the Old Testament canon.

(2) It doesn’t even say in what SENSE Scripture is profitable. In my understanding Scripture is profitable precisely in the sense of emphasizing the primacy of direct revelation. Unfortunately the church has in large part turned a deaf ear to it.

(3) The passage isn’t even addressed to the church. It is addressed to Timothy, described here as a “man of God”, which is an OT rubric for a prophet. That’s because Scripture IS INDEED consistently profitable when placed in the hands of a prophet reading it under the light of direct revelation. Whereas in the hands of a fallible exegete, Scripture is potentially a recipe for disaster.

(4) Aside from Paul’s instructions to Timothy, his command to the church was very different. At 1Cor 14:1, he ordered the church to seek prophecy above all other “spiritual things” (he did NOT say spiritual gifts). This is because Paul, unlike the church of today, had his priorities straight.

(5) I myself have already explained that Scripture is profitable both didactically and apologetically because, for example, a debater can levy an opponents’ own favorite verses against him in a debate. Hence there is no need to stretch this passage to the incoherent extent known as Sola Scriptura.

(6) To cite such a verse in support of Sola Scriptura is shaky epistemology to put it mildly. It’s like concluding, “The Koran must be the Word of God because it says so.”

(7) Sola Scriptura is an exceedingly unlikely epistemology given that the printing press remained unavailable until just 500 years ago. Apparently evangelicals consider God far too incompetent or negligent a leader to provide a viable epistemology for the first 6,000 years of the church. Oh woops I forgot. He DID provide an epistemology. He provided direct revelation otherwise known as prophecy.

(8) Given the fallibility of exegesis, how can the evangelical tout this passage as “definite proof” of Sola Scriptura? Here too, it’s a self-contradictory epistemology.

(9) And that for yet another reason. Exegesis is about proof. A proof is built on assumptions, which in turn need to be proven, leading to an infinite regress of unproven assumptions. To avoid that endless regress, one must inevitably STIPULATE some unproven assumptions. The end result is guaranteed fallibility. Is that really the best God is willing to offer, with the well-being of 100 billion souls at stake both now and in the hereafter? Doesn't He care enough to offer more?

Conclusion: The very fact that evangelicals misunderstand and misuse 2Tim 3:16-17 counts as proof that exegesis isn't sufficiently reliable to properly build the church.

 

[LostMarbels]

Ok fine. You needed no warrant to accept the book? Great. So it's fine to accept the book on blind faith. Woops - I guess that leads to a problem. If blind faith is okay, then it's okay to accept other books on blind faith, such as the Book of Mormon.

There is no blind faith concerning a living God that wants nothing more than to be in fellowship with you. This notion of being spiritually blind isn't even a Christian precept. You have to act in faith if you even want God to answer you. God is not okay with wishy washy white knuckled 'hope'. As in hoping something might maybe could happen. That doesn't fly with God.

When you go before God you you ask in faith claiming promises you know God will answer.

That's not a clear maxim. And Jesus may have used such unclear words, but that's precisely why we need direct revelation to be sure we've properly understood them.

If Jesus spoke the words, and I ask Him about them, that is direct revelation as confirmed by the holy spirit. They bear witness to each other as a triune Godhead.

But neither of the 3 will ever act outside of scripture. That is the litmus test you can apply to direct revelation. We are told to test the spirits for a reason. We are also guaranteed certain results for the same reason.

 

[JAL]

There is no blind faith concerning a living God that wants nothing more than to be in fellowship with you. This notion of being spiritually blind isn't even a Christian precept. You have to act in faith if you even want God to answer you. God is not okay with wishy washy white knuckled 'hope'. As in hoping something might maybe could happen. That doesn't fly with God.

You seem to be rambling, and certainly not addressing the objections raised.

If Jesus spoke the words, and I ask Him about them, that is direct revelation as confirmed by the holy spirit. They bear witness to each other as a triune Godhead.

Your epistemology is somewhat less than clear, to put it mildly. That's fine for the pulpit, but doesn't really wash in a theology forum.

But neither of the 3 will ever act outside of scripture. That is the litmus test you can apply to direct revelation...We are told to test the spirits for a reason.

God's recommended litmus test is fallible exegesis? Oddly I don't see any clear mention of exegesis in the epistles of John. So how do we test the spirits? How do we discern those who are trying to lead us astray? The Inward Witness, and thus direct revelation:

"26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

In other words, if someone comes along preaching something contrary to what the Inward Witness already stipulated, reject it.

 

[LostMarbels]

In Acts 20:35 we see Paul quoting Christ as saying that “it is more blessed to give then to receive”, this saying not found in any of the four Gospels nor do we find it written in the New Testament as having been said by Christ. I wonder where Paul got it from, why wasn’t he thinking in Sola Scriptura terms?

Assuming Paul is mistaken or outright lying you mean....Didnt you just say: "There were also many things that Christ said and taught that were not written down in the New Testament and were passed down orally through Apostolic tradition."

The doctrine of the Pharisees has nothing to do with the traditions of the Aposltes

Just like the traditions of men have nothing to do with the doctrine of Christ.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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?

Egopapism, everyone becomes their own personal pope.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LostMarbels]

You seem to be rambling, and certainly not addressing the objections raised.

Your epistemology is somewhat less than clear, to put it mildly. That's fine for the pulpit, but doesn't really wash in a theology forum.

God's recommended litmus test is fallible exegesis? Oddly I don't see any clear mention of exegesis in the epistles of John. So how do we test the spirits? How do we discern those who are trying to lead us astray? The Inward Witness, and thus direct revelation:

"26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

In other words, if someone comes along preaching something contrary to what the Inward Witness already stipulated, reject it.

It has literally become time to knock off the dust on move on. Have a good one.

 

[Barney2.0]

Assuming Paul is mistaken or outright lying you mean....Didnt you just say: "There were also many things that Christ said and taught that were not written down in the New Testament and were passed down orally through Apostolic tradition."



Just like the traditions of men have nothing to do with the doctrine of Christ.

So Paul an Apostle of Christ is mistaken and outright lying, but Luther and the so called “reformers” got it right? Apostolic tradition aren’t traditions of men, but traditions of Christ and as much inspired by him as scripture is.