Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well said. Those were my thoughts as I read through this topic.But Sola Scriptura is (usually) also accompanied by Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo and Solo Deo Gloria, and cannot well be taken separately from them.
That's the same problem we find when someone supports their viewpoint with Scripture. We can all find scripture to support what we think, but what does the whole of Scripture say? God's purpose here is not to depend on nor to bring praise to the ability of man.Well said. Those were my thoughts as I read through this topic.
What happens when the "Sola Scriptura" point in the OP is expanded to include the full thought?
Yes.That's the same problem we find when someone supports their viewpoint with Scripture. We can all find scripture to support what we think, but what does the whole of Scripture say? God's purpose here is not to depend on nor to bring praise to the ability of man.
Back to the OP then, how can we but do the best we can, and ask God for wisdom and understanding as we study Scriptures rather than to rely on our take of Direct Revelation, whatever he means by that. I've watched more than one sincere person trying not to lose their mind second guessing what they felt God was "trying" to tell them.
Your advice "sounds good' on the surface but is actually not on-point (not even close), partly because you haven't been following this thread. Direct Revelation is self-authenticating, thereby obviating the need "to check it out with Scripture".Yes.
And I think these things are meant to balance each other out. It's not a matter of choosing one of the three from the list.
"Direct Revelation" is balanced with scripture. If the "revelation" is counter-biblical, it should be rejected.
I was about to debate your first paragraph when the example of Abraham being asked to offer Isaac dropped into my head. Sola scriptura would have rejected that revelation as false. (which puts the cart before the horse historically, but points to a principle) Abraham didn't need to run that by anyone.Your advice "sounds good' on the surface but is actually not on-point (not even close), partly because you haven't been following this thread. Direct Revelation is self-authenticating, thereby obviating the need "to check it out with Scripture".
If someone asked you, "How do you know Scripture is inspired", I guess you'd reply, "Because I checked it out with Scripture" ????
That doesn't make sense, right? Calvin had the solution. The Inward Witness, he claimed, causes us to feel certain that Scripture is inspired. That's how Direct Revelation works - it authenticates by creating feelings of certainty.
Why are we obligated to feelings of certainty? Due to the following inviolable, tautological rule - for years I have challenged people to find an exception - that I like to call the "rule of conscience":
"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, i should opt for B".
As we are already 500 posts deep, not sure I can afford spending the time debating this rule all over again...Suffice it to say that no one has managed to provide any exceptions.
Thanks for finding some points of cogency in my position. Seems to me there is a great deal of useful information that God might want to convey to us that is not readily testable by exegesis. For example a missionary would presumably need to know where God plans to launch the next revival:I was about to debate your first paragraph when the example of Abraham being asked to offer Isaac dropped into my head. Sola scriptura would have rejected that revelation as false. (which puts the cart before the horse historically, but points to a principle) Abraham didn't need to run that by anyone.
And I may have an advantage over many of your readers, having heard from God on several occasions. Though I don't call myself a Prophet, or even a prophet, I have enough experience to know when it self-authenticates. No need to check with anyone. I know what I heard and I know what to do. Typically short and sweet and not in violation of any scripture. "Talk to that woman." (which leads to an incredible spiritual encounter)
The reason for my knee-jerk reaction to your first paragraph is that we are told to weigh prophecy in a congregational speaking. And I suppose I do that when someone prophesies over me as well. Not something I typically seek out. Although I did make a trip to IHOP. (take a number)
So, that which is often referred to as the "loud voice" of God is indeed self-authenticating. I even remember hearing the self-authenticating (loud voice) when I was eight years old at my conversion experience. It seemed completely natural to me. I knew who it was and it didn't frighten me. The message was mind-blowing, what I needed to do was clear, and there was no discussion. Which wasn't the case with the "Talk to that woman." message mentioned above. My query, "What should I say?", went unanswered. (then we improvise) Although Matthew 10:19 comes into play here. (we are given what to say when we open our mouths and speak) Anyway...
Not say that there is no value in Tradition and Sola Scriptura, although Sola Scriptura would need to be changed to simply "scripture", I suppose. Since "Sola" indicates a singular focus. I don't suppose you are advocating a Bibleless church. Nor one that rejects all of church (small "c") history and tradition.
Just to be clear, I wouldn't advocate either of those above a self-authenticating direct revelation from God. So I suppose I would agree with the OP. I need to re-read it now and give a rating. Now that I have a bit more clarity. (thanks for listening) - lol
The REASON is that you are a fallible interpreter of the text. For example you could misunderstand how to properly evangelize…
…(and it is my personal opinion that the church has misunderstood evangelism for 2,000 years). …
Are you asking me if Direct Revelation actually works? Whether it is a proven system?You could as well misunderstand the direct revelation.
There are two issues here:You could as well misunderstand the direct revelation.
The NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).Please explain why do you think so?
So it's okay to presume to know how to evangelize instead of asking Him for clear guidance? Because that's what it boils down to.Sorry, I think Bible is enough and I want to follow Jesus and his teachings.
And by reliable you mean that you can interpret it infallibly, then?No, I think Bible is reliable communication from God.
Um...The written Word doesn't have any sanctifying efficacy. Post 492 should have already convinced of you that. Maybe this passage will help:
"Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law." (Gal 3).
Paul is talking about sanctification. The written Word doesn't accomplish it. Still not enough Scripture for you? Maybe Romans 8:
"Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you a free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh..."(Rom 8)
How many times does Paul have to say it before you'll believe it? Ten? Fifteen? Twenty?
Your post is also mixing apples with oranges. You're comparing these two things:
(1) Andrew Murray teaching me to look to the Presence instead of written Law/Word
(2) My memorizing Scripture back when I mistakenly believed that the written Word DID have a degree of efficacy.
That's a category mistake. It would be more logical to compare these two things:
(3) Andrew Murray teaching me to look to the Presence instead of written Law/Word
(4) Scripture teaches the same thing but I had missed it until I read Andrew Murray.
The fact is, we all need teachers, because all of us miss things in Scripture. If you want to fault me for looking to Andrew Murray as a mentor, that's your prerogative.
So it's okay to presume to know how to evangelize instead of asking Him for clear guidance? Because that's what it boils down to.
Thanks for saying "Sorry" to me but the Lord is the one to whom you will likely be apologizing, on the last Day.
I learned a thing or two from Andrew Murray. Is that so bad? Could you please get over it? Have you never learned anything from an instructor?Why do you equate all of scripture in the New Testament with the Old Testament law? If God's word doesn't speak to you, my I suggest that you pray earnestly for that to happen? Andrew Murray is a teacher but, unlike the perfect Word of God, he is not infallible.
Books do not speak (last I checked). You're confusing the divine Word (God) with the written Word (written laws in the NT and OT).Why do you equate all of scripture in the New Testament with the Old Testament law? If God's word doesn't speak to you, my I suggest that you pray earnestly for that to happen?
I learned a thing or two from Andrew Murray. Is that so bad? Could you please get over it? Have you never learned anything from an instructor?
Books do not speak (last I checked). You're confusing the divine Word (God) with the written Word (written laws in the NT and OT).
This distinction was clear from the 10 commandments. God voiced them to the entire nation of Israel, originally. Only later was a written copy provided to Israel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?