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.
Sorry, but no. The difference between the Gospel and the whole of Scripture is well-known and is not controversial.You're making a distinction without a difference. (Sigh).
I referred to you calling it "Direct Revelation."Your only bone of contention here is this:
(1) I call it the work of the Inward Witness.
I'm not sure you followed my reasoning. Are you debating terminology? Unlike the (rather versatile) term "gospel", the term "Direct Revelation" is especially useful in this discussion because it clearly underscores the distinction between:Sorry, but no. The difference between the Gospel and the whole of Scripture is well-known and is not controversial.
I referred to you calling it "Direct Revelation."
I'm not sure you followed my reasoning. Are you debating terminology? .
Um...my position is not so facile as to be undermined by your trivial distinctions of terminology.No. The words and terms in question have certain meanings which almost any dictionary will confirm. The Gospel is the Gospel and Direct Revelation is Direct Revelation, that's all.
I'd say to "let it go at that" except that your POV about the subject matter of this thread seems to depend on your own personal use of those terms.
(continued in next post)
I see. But the "Gospel" is the part of the Bible that records Christ's life and ministry.I was merely using the term "gospel" to refer to the occasioning of the preaching, and thus the term was neutral to the debate on epistemology.
is best explained by Direct Revelation (supernatural persuasion).
Well, you may call it "trivial" to use the correct references, but it sure makes it harder to appreciate the point you may have been intending to make when it was apparently based on an incorrect principle.Um...my position is not so facile as to be undermined by your trivial distinctions of terminology.
Again, it's probably a versatile term. Consider:I see. But the "Gospel" is the part of the Bible that records Christ's life and ministry.
I'm pretty much fine with that definition, I think. But then you expand it:Direct Revelation means a truth revealed to a person by God, directly, as opposed to the truth that any of us can access in the Bible or--as those churches which believe in ongoing prophesy...
No, I personally wouldn't put "Sacred Tradition" under that umbrella. This is not to say that I'm the authority on proper use of terminology. My main goal here, however, is to convey a point of view and I think I can do it well enough despite any imperfections in my terminology. If you're still unclear on how I am using the term "Direct Revelation" feel free to specify which aspects need more clarification.or "Sacred Tradition" as alternate means of instruction from God like to say-- as the church established by Christ sees the matter.
You mean, sort of like, Christ, Paul, Peter, and many of the prophets were thrown in prison, usually on false pretenses? That kind of thing is your big concern here?
Law is tricky. The laws of business vary from city to city, state to state, and nation to nation. I'm no attorney - and I suspect neither are you. Three things to keep in mind.
(1) He was attempting to help out his son financially. He himself, being (probably) the most successful pastor in church history, wasn't likely in any need of money.
(2) He's not an attorney. His son may have convinced him that it was a legitimate business operation. If he acted in clear conscience, he's INNOCENT in God's eyes.
(3) Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone. Are you going to assume that David's ministry of being a prophet was all false, just because he stumbled with Bathsheba?
Don't just assert your point, argue it.
Also, the term "extra-biblical" is an oxymoron. The Bible is a commentary on planet Earth and thus encompasses all possible issues. Direct Revelation doesn't introduce anything new (that's a logical impossibility) - it merely CLARIFIES existing realities and prior revelations. Therefore the term "extra-biblical" is a fabrication of Sola-Scriptura propaganda leveraged to throttle our zeal for Direct Revelation.
You guffawed me at least twice on that post. Thanks for the good laugh! It's a good thing I wasn't drinking coffee - I would have spewed it out all over the keyboard.
Yes as I recall you even argued that the Inward Witness is strictly limited to causing us to feel certain about the inspiration of Scripture (you conceded that much, which is all I really need) and thus does NOT, in your view, extrapolate to making us feel certain about anything else (such as the tenets of salvation). And I pointed out how ridiculous that assertion is. The very fact that He's caused us to feel certain about the Bible's authenticity automatically spills over into raising our degree of certainty regarding Christ's Lordship, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, heavenly inheritance, and so on. Surprised I should have to remind you how silly your conclusions are.
There again is that "extra-biblical" oxymoron. It's hardly incumbent upon me to rebut an argument predicated on an unintelligible term.
Reminder: My maxim never uses the word "conscience" and thus does not stand or fall on your definition and/or extrapolation of "conscience". I've pointed this out before. You want to disprove my maxim? Fine. Just as I have challenged you on other threads, you merely need to find one scenario that clearly warrants departure from it.
What now of your comment on the Anointing mentioned by John:
Er...um...Your misguided comments on pronouns stem from 2000 years of bad metaphysics. Suffice it to say that God is not, for example, too proud to describe Himself as Living Water, Holy Fire, Living Bread, Holy Breath/Wind, and so on - regardless of whether the associated pronouns happen to be masculine, feminine, or neuter, and regardless of whether such things normally refer to an "it" rather than a "he".
Your metaphysics isn't biblical. That's not entirely your fault. The church has been imbibed with Platonism for 2,000 years now. As a result, she still has no idea what the divine Word is. You're making a false dichotomy here. You're insisting that the Scripture always makes a sharp, fully polarized distinction between the message and the Messenger. I'll give you a couple of examples to refute that:
"The [divine] Word came to Abraham in a vision...[speaking promises]" (Gen 15).
In the above verse, God is speaking. He is delivering a message as divine Word (Isa 55:11). Because the divine Word is sonic, the message (the sound) and the Messenger are one and the same thing. Thus your dichotomy between the Anointing (the Anointed One) and the message is a myth. (And before you go confusing the subjective with the objective, as you did in our last discussion, I'm mostly focusing on the objective side of things here).
Second example. Bear in mind that when we preach the gospel, we speak. We exhale breath from our mouth. Due to (horribly) bad metaphysics, the church STILL doesn't understand what it means to TRULY preach the Word. It literally means to have one's body and lungs charged with the Word and expelled during the preaching. (The reason most evangelism isn't effective is because it isn't true evangelism). Example:
"Jesus breathed on them, and said, 'Receive ye the Holy [Breath]" (Jn 20):
Here again the divine Word goes forth - and any message that it happens to deposit in the minds of the listeners cannot be radically dichotomized from the Messenger.
Sorry, but 2,000 years of bad, unbiblical metaphysics based on Plato are not my fault.
Oh what a great light to the nations you are holding up! Luther, the apostate monk who after having rejected the authority of the Church, went on to consult and accept the authority of the Devil, ended up accepting as the only and final authority his own ever changing, baseless and simply idiotic opinions and fantasies, and to demand under pain of excommunication that everyone else accept him as the only final and infallible authority as well.Here comes a grenade!
But a helpful conversation, I believe.
I've seen many people take issue around these forums with sola scriptura - not just Catholics, but even non-traditional Protestants (for want of a better term).
Something that I've been exploring and that has been hugely helpful is understanding that the "Word of God" is not primarily the same thing as the Bible. The Word of God is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and (of course) you find that in the Bible but difficult parts of the Bible ought to be interpreted through the gospel.
The distinction is helpful (and I would argue, true) for many reasons, but when we're dealing with sola scriptura, I want to quote an article at biblicaltraining.org that talks about Luther's understanding of the "Word of God" and how he used that understanding to form a sola-scriptura outlook, and how he defended that against critics.
"We need to recognize that the notion that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself allowed Luther to respond to the main objections Catholics raised to his doctrine of the authority of Scripture over the Church. They argued that since it was the Church that determined which books to be included in the Canon of Scripture it was clear that the Church had authority over the Bible. Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church. Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."
Full article (for more context and interest) here: Free Online Bible Classes | What was Martin Luther's theology of the Word of God?. It's not a long read.
And so God is a respecter of persons? Take a look at Num 12:6-8. There we find that Moses was privy to face-to-face revelations of God in virtue of his spiritual maturity, not on account of God playing favorites.
So in your view, if a verse isn't directed to me, it cannot apply? That rules out the whole Bible, right? So much for the Great Commission. Note the inconsistency. I'm confident that you do believe in the Great Commission - but nowhere do the epistles command the church to go out and evangelize!
the command to place Direct Revelation on the very top rung of the priority ladder alongside love:
"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things [not 'gifts'] especially the gift of prophecy."
Therefore there is no acceptable margin for human error and hence we need to seek infallible revelation.
Oh what a great light to the nations you are holding up! Luther, the apostate monk who after having rejected the authority of the Church, went on to consult and accept the authority of the Devil, ended up accepting as the only and final authority his own ever changing, baseless and simply idiotic opinions and fantasies, and to demand under pain of excommunication that everyone else accept him as the only final and infallible authority as well.
Various theologians—especially the Jesuit St. Robert Bellarmine—attacked the doctrinal positions of the Protestant reformers, but there was no one to rival the theological and moral engagement evident in the writings of Luther or the eloquence and passion characteristic of the works of John Calvin. Roman Catholics tended to emphasize the beliefs and devotional subjects that were under direct attack by the Protestants—e.g., the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary, and St. Peter. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (“Index of Forbidden Books”) was established in 1559 in an attempt to combat the spread of some of the writings of the Protestant Reformation.
Counter-Reformation | Summary, Facts, & Significance
You can't imagine the irony of a Sola Scriptura proponent quoting Galatians. That epistle was written to refute Sola Scriptura on account of the primacy of Direct Revelation. Paul was furious about their regression to Sola Scriptura and called them fools for it.
and what is interesting is that in your false assumptions ... you quote only "you" --- not Paul.
Actually I discussed Paul quite a bit, in those exchanges with CJ - I mentioned not only what Paul wrote (for example 1Cor 14:1), but also what he DID, because his actions are crucial.
You know what I love about the stance I've taken? At some junctures it derives with a kind of logical rigor from axioms logically irresistible, or at least commonly held.
Indeed I can make a good case for my stance even without recourse to Scripture.
Gotcha. I didn't "prove" my position apodictally, I didn't prove it 100%.
In both Romans and Galatians, Paul chose Abraham as the paradigm of faith for all believers! Don't you see why this is significant?
(1) Abraham was a PROPHET! Had Paul WANTED to advocate Sola Scriptura - if he wanted to discourage the pursuit of Direct Revelation - he made a horrible choice of exemplar!
Do you think that Paul was this stupid - worse yet that God is that stupid?
Why this strawman? Again, I didn't debate the technical definition. I rather complained about your unwillingness to extrapolate it. You still haven't discredited my extrapolation.I already have on another thread. But I am happy to repeat the proof that the reformers doctrine of the Inner Witness is nothing more than the conviction that the bible is truly the infallible word of God, and not what you claim it to be....
Different assumptions. We're talking past each other. I can't address all possible religious concepts. I'm addressing evangelicals. Most of them agree with me that the Holy Spirit illuminates the human mind. In some sense He helps to EXPLAIN the verses instead of merely REPEATING them verbatim. Once that point is conceded, EVERYTHING (every possible topic on planet Earth) is biblical and therefore "extra-biblical" is an oxymoron. The definition you linked to is simply defining extra-biblical as any words that are not strictly a bible-verse. Totally irrelevant.Wrong. The term "extra-biblical" is neither an oxymoron nor an invention of sola scriptures proponents. It is a common term that simply means any information given outside of scripture.
What does extra-Biblical mean?
There is a clear question mark over EVERYONE's integrity. Ever heard of the sinful nature? And I take everyone's claims of direct revelations with a huge pinch of salt. But in my opinion he's still the most successful pastor in church history. You're free to discard his huge track record, but consider this:No, that is an invalid comparison. The South Korean criminal justice system has no history of falsifying convictions against Christians. And in any case Yonggi Cho's misdemeanors were exposed by the elders of his own church (themselves Christians), not the Korean authorities.
As he has been convicted of fraud, there is a clear question mark over his honesty. Therefore, at best, his claims of direct revelation can only be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
Nor does it mean he was guilty.That doesn't mean he was innocent.
Um yes it is. God's standards are better than those of men. God knows we can't all be attorneys. He has the final say whether we were negligent - not the courts. Just because the courts convict us, doesn't prove we're guilty in God's sight.Ignorance of the law is no defence.
Um...That's what I responded to. Your failure to connect the dots isn't really my problem.Strawman fallacy. You're arguing against a point I didn't make. I was addressing your interpretation of 1 John 2:27 which you have failed to answer; not metaphysics, Platonism, or any other straw man you wish to erect and ignite.
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?