How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura

[Barney2.0]

That's personal testimony, not an explanation.

And by the way, Scripture is often cited as the evidence supporting Christian doctrine by the Church Fathers and even in the Creed. No mention is to be found of any alleged authority called "Sacred Tradition."

The Church Fathers would first quote other Father’s or teachings passed on to them then quote scripture after Words. The Father’s themselves are a part of sacred tradition, why would they mention something called sacred tradition when they are a part of it or quote something that was passed on to them from previous Fathers or the Apostles. We don’t and can’t even know how scripture was put together and who wrote what book without referring back to the Father’s or Apostolic traditions, this is even recognized by Protestant scholars, that alone pretty much proves why Sola Scriptura is doctrinally absurd. It was the Church councils that decided how scripture would be canonized and it was the faithful that did so based on Apostolic tradition, I still don’t understand how Protestants deal with that or if you even can deal with that? Since it’s pretty clear that Sola Scriptura didn’t exist till Luther and the “reformers” made it up in the 1500s. Also to believe or hold to Sola Scriptura you’d have to believe that the Church was in a major doctrinal error for centuries and all of Christianity was heretical for centuries and that’s exactly what the “reformers” believed with the notion of the “Great Apostasy”, the apostas that never was. And it is t personal testimony that the Church of Orthodoxy stands unchanged, if you actually look at her Church Fathers you will see an unbroken continuity especially in doctrinal matters.

 

[JAL]

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).

These kinds of replies are very annoying, for a reason I will make clear.

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

That was not the language that I used as I recall and, even if I did, it should be understood in the context of my statements taken as a whole. The title of this thread was never:

"Direct revelation trumps Scripture"

but rather:

"Direct revelation trumps Sola Scriptura"

and repeatedly it was reiterated this way:

"Direct revelation trumps (fallible) exegesis"

Thus, as I reminded you over and over and over again, I never expressed disbelief in the veracity of Scripture. I merely expressed distrust in fallible exegesis, and also identified the epistemological inconsistencies of Sola Scriptura - for example it contradicts the (tautological) dictatorship of conscience, and the well-established evangelical doctrine of the Inward Witness.

 

[Albion]

The Church Fathers would first quote other Father’s or teachings passed on to them then quote scripture after Words.

That's the theory. But the evidence is lacking when it comes to the statements I was referring to. The practice, common among Catholics, of saying that every non-Scriptural dogma is what the Apostles taught the next generation or owes to some alleged tradition--all of it merely stipulated--is not an answer.

 

[Barney2.0]

That's the theory. But the evidence is lacking when it comes to the statements I was referring to. The practice, common among Catholics, of saying that every non-Scriptural dogma is what the Apostles taught the next generation or owes to some alleged tradition--all of it merely stipulated--is not an answer.

That’s why it’s called Apostolic tradition, because it’s the teachings of the Apostles that was past down both orally and through the written works of the Church Father that is the dictionary definition of tradition. And it is t stipulated, after all what decided the canon of scripture, definitely not Sola Scriptura, the Church did under Apostolic tradition and popular consensus of the faithful.

 

[Albion]

That was not the language that I used as I recall and, even if I did it should be understood in the context of my statements taken as a whole. The title of this thread was never:

"Direct revelation trumps Scripture"

but rather:

"Direct revelation trumps Sola Scriptura"

So long as you say "trumps" you ARE saying that it supersedes the word of God given in Scripture.

 

[Albion]

That’s why it’s called Apostolic tradition, because it’s the teachings of the Apostles that was past down both orally and through the written works of the Church Father that is the dictionary definition of tradition.

It's called "Apostolic Tradition" because the churches and people who utilize this argument, this theory, have labelled it such in order to make their claim seem convincing. That's all. It doesn't become a tradition stemming from the teachings of the Apostles merely because a church routinely uses a term that sounds good. And, by the way, I'd say the same thing about the jargon used by some Christians of a different persuasion when they routinely call any person's off-the-wall notions or dreams by the term "prophesy."

 

[JAL]

So long as you say "trumps" you ARE saying that it supersedes the word of God given in Scripture.

This is beginning to sound like intellectual dishonesty. WHAT is being trumped? Scripture? Or the doctrine called Sola Scriptura? Again, see the title of this thread for a clue.

 

[JAL]

So long as you say "trumps" you ARE saying that it supersedes the word of God given in Scripture.

This is known as a strawmen argument. Distort the claim, and then attack the distortion, in pretense of rebutting the ACTUAL claim. This is done when there is no legitimate rebuttal available.

 

[LostMarbels]

@Al Masihi

First and foremost, if you Confess Jesus as Christ come in the flesh, then you are my brother/sister. The most important aspect of Christianity is the confession of Jesus as Lord, Christ, Savior. I cannot, Will not, and do not disparage any of my brothers or sisters in Christ for having belief contrary to my own. Except on that one and only point. If they do not confess Jesus, I will not confess them Christian. Denominational belief, dogma, edicts.... all play their own part. Even if I do not personally agree with or hold to those 'traditions'.

I came to Christ as a witch practicing Gardnerian Wicca. Occultism. Performing the Gnostic Mass written by Aleister Crowley. Within this rite is even it's own eucharist. Mind you, this is a satanic perversion and is not true gnosticism. The only caveat to my story is I was just a kid messing with stuff I didn't truly understand.

At the same time I was going to friends houses to cast spells, raise demons, talk to the dead, and get high... I was raised in a Lutheran family. I was an altar boy. My father was on the church board. I used to play Jesus in the easter church play, and Joseph at Christmas. I even carried the cross in front of our pastor in the procession. My mother was the lead Den Mother over all scouts. She was over all the meals, and planning of church events as well. My parents also headed up our Meals on Wheels and clothing donations. We were a well respected and devout family within a highly respected church of our community.

None of us knew Jesus tho. None of us were saved. None of us were ever asked to accept Jesus as savior. We were just kind of taught that if we love him, and follow his commandments we were christian, and one of his children. I was even confirmed. Which I later came to understand all that means is I agreed I was baptised. Still had not confessed Jesus. Up to this point I had never once, ever, directly asked God to forgive me. I just followed liturgy, and the church. I was a Christian. I am one of God's children because I believe in Jesus, and I get to go to heaven once I die.

It wasn't until I got in trouble with the law, and saw a man get severely shanked outside of my cell that I called out to God. So I began my walk, alone, in a Jail cell without a single other person to talk to about it. And I quickly discover God himself was there to teach me. Religion wasn't going to save me, but this God would.

This is my interpretation of Sola Scriptura. Scripture is the sole source of power, authority, edification, education, and understanding of God's word. The reason I do not care what man terms sola scriptura as, is because I believe in the scriptures more than how they are defined. My bible, as revealed to me by the holy spirit, is more powerful than any man's opinion of those revelations. Including my own.

The only crux is leaning on your own understanding. One must, go to God about those things concerning God, if one wishes to understand them.

 

[Barney2.0]

It's called "Apostolic Tradition" because the churches and people who utilize this argument, this theory, have labelled it such in order to make their claim seem convincing. That's all. It doesn't become a tradition stemming from the teachings of the Apostles merely because a church routinely uses a term that sounds good. And, by the way, I'd say the same thing about the jargon used by some Christians of a different persuasion when they routinely call any person's off-the-wall notions or dreams by the term "prophesy."

So did the Church Fathers make up the theory, it is a tradition stemming from the Apostles based on the continuity we see in the Fathers of the Church and the teachings of the Church passed on to each generation:

Irenaeus

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

I wonder if Irenaeus was merely labeling a theory, also what decided the canon of scripture if Apostolic tradition is merely an unproven theory?

 

[Albion]

This is beginning to sound like intellectual dishonesty. WHAT is being trumped? Scripture? Or the doctrine called Sola Scriptura? Again, see the title of this thread for a clue.

Wait a minute. If you had meant that there is a process, a mechanism, a system, that is better than reliance upon the word of God--which IS what Sola Scriptura means--you would have explained how it works better. That, however, was never done...and we are now into 230+ posts of discussing the matter.

 

[Albion]

So did the Church Fathers make up the theory, it is a tradition stemming from the Apostles based on the continuity we see in the Fathers of the Church and the teachings of the Church passed on to each generation:

Irenaeus

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

I wonder if Irenaeus was merely labeling a theory, also what decided the canon of scripture if Apostolic tradition is merely an unproven theory?

You have offered us a long cut-and-paste there. Please point us to the particular doctrine (or more than one) which is identified in it as resulting from a belief passed along by word of mouth from some Apostle to later Christians.

 

[JAL]

Wait a minute. If you had meant that there is a process, a mechanism, a system, that is better than reliance upon the word of God--which IS what Sola Scriptura means--you would have explained how it works better. That, however, was never done...and we are now into 230+ posts of discussing the matter.

(Sigh). Baloney. Even the first paragraph of the OP - by itself - was crystal clear, disparaging fallible exegesis in favor of feelings of certainty qua direct revelation. Not to mention dozens of posts thereafter.

Secondly, what was also made clear both in the OP and subsequent posts, is that Sola Scriptura isn't merely the claim that it is OKAY to look to Scripture. It claims that we MUST look to Scripture, that we in fact have no final imperative until we've "checked it out with Scripture". This flatly contradicts both the obligatory nature of conscience and the documented imperatives imposed by the divine Voice during the biblical theophanies such as Paul's vision on the road to Damascus. All this was clear from the OP.

Sorry but I'm going to have chalk up most of your posts to intellectual dishonesty. From what I've seen, you're too intelligent to have been incapable of comprehending my posts.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

This is known as a strawmen argument. Distort the claim, and then attack the distortion, in pretense of rebutting the ACTUAL claim. This is done when there is no legitimate rebuttal available.

Maybe you do not even understand what the definition of sola scriptura and it’s actual meaning:


The Reformation principle of sola Scripturahas to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scripturamakes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” —Westminster Confession of Faith
This excerpt is taken from John MacArthur’s contribution in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible.

 

[JAL]

Wow. All those words to say nothing of relevance. I'll focus on these words.

Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

No it's more than that. Apparently you're the one who doesn't grasp Sola Scriptura. You omitted the most essential aspect of its definition as stated at post 233.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Wow. All those words to say nothing of relevance. I'll focus on these words.
No it's more than that. Apparently you're the one who doesn't grasp Sola Scriptura. You omitted the most essential aspect of its definition as stated at post 233.

sorry there Paul’s revelation was unique one of a kind and the apostolic era ended with John.

nice try with your evasion and strawman

 

[JAL]

sorry there Paul’s revelation was unique one of a kind and the apostolic era ended with John.

nice try with your evasion and strawman

Um...To show that things have changed, you'll need to provide at least one exception to the rule of conscience (which is impossible since it's a tautology).

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

Either you didn't read the OP or chose to ignore what it said. Nice try though.

 

[JAL]

sorry there Paul’s revelation was unique one of a kind and the apostolic era ended with John.

nice try with your evasion and strawman

You'll also need to repudiate and disprove the Evangelical/Reformed doctrine of the Inward Witness. This too was explained in the OP.

 

[JAL]

sorry there Paul’s revelation was unique one of a kind and the apostolic era ended with John.

nice try with your evasion and strawman

And did I neglect to mention?
(1) The OP linked to two exegetical demonstrations that Acts defines evangelism as prophet-style utterances. You'll need to refute those arguments.
(2) The OP linked to a thread demonstrating that 1Corintians defines spiritiaul maturity as mature prophethood. You'll need to refute those arguments as well.

Sola Scriptura literally has MOUNTAINS of evidence against it. But why do I need all that evidence? It's inherently self-contradictory. Visualize:

(1) All imperatives must come from exegesis.
(2) Huh? Where then did I get the imperative to accept Scripture as inspired? From Scripture? That would be circular reasoning!

This makes no sense! Look, if you want to cling fanatically to religious nonsense, that's your prerogative. Nothing I can do about it.

 

[JAL]

sorry there Paul’s revelation was unique one of a kind and the apostolic era ended with John.

nice try with your evasion and strawman

When I read Calvin's account of how he formulated the doctrine of the Inward Witness, I realized I had myself stepped through the same thinking process that he did. He simply raised the question, as did I, how can God reliably convey to mankind things like:
(1) Which book is the true Word of God?
(2) Which religion is the true religion?
(3) What is required to be saved, if indeed there's an after life?
and I would add
(4) How do we most effectively evangelize to 100 billion people?

Calvin's answer was the same as mine - God must rely on direct revelations experienced as feelings of certainty. This isn't something for the "Pauline era" or "apostolic era". It's needed in all eras.