What do you think (those of you who aren't at this moment preparing to post "the Bible has no authority")?  Is the Bible the only source of revelation and authority or are their other sources?  If so, what are they?

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

Refresh my memory.  It's entirely possible that I have...but I honestly don't know to what you're referring.

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:26 pm on July 8, 2009

---

Have you, then, changed your mind about "signs" from God being only those that are told of in the Bible?

---

Refresh my memory. It's entirely possible that I have...but I honestly don't know to what you're referring.

---

I remember that topic, though I wish you could find it so I can see exactly what I said.  I will say this much, I have not ever seen anything personally that I would consider a form of ongoing Manifest Revelation.  I won't say that it can't happen, but I am unconvinced by all the attempts that have been made to demonstrate it in modern times.

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

As for tradition, it is ironic that I should exclude it from my list.  I consider tradition as a whole to be informative rather than authoritative.  It informs how we understand Manifest Revelation in that it attests to its use and transmission.  It informs our understanding of Rational Revelation in that it gives context for our attempts to come to knowledge within the greater intellectual community of faith.  It informs our understanding of Natural Revelation in a similar way (just read St. Francis).  It does not, however, stand as an independent source of revelation and authority as it does in the Roman Catholic Church.

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:42 pm on July 8, 2009

---

I can't find it, but once upon a time I made a post about a picture of a flag that showed a cross due to the light showing through it. I believe in that topic you claimed that only signs that are told of in the Bible can be considered as signs from God, ie. rainbows...

---

I remember that topic, though I wish you could find it so I can see exactly what I said. I will say this much, I have not ever seen anything personally that I would consider a form of ongoing Manifest Revelation. I won't say that it can't happen, but I am unconvinced by all the attempts that have been made to demonstrate it in modern times.

---

---

God directly injecting Himself into the world for the purpose of overt revelation.

---

I don't know that I accept the idea that it can come in an overt manner and still be only personally revelatory though, which I think is the point you're driving at (correct me if I'm wrong).

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

---

There are several nuanced differences between what I think and what the Methodists think, but the biggest one is not tradition. The Methodist understanding of experience is what I disagree with most in their system. I think it depends too much on emotional aspects of human nature that are not always as critical in the search for truth that our other faculties are. For example, there is a noted trend among Methodists now to redefine the church's stance on homosexuality on the grounds that the communal experience of the church as a whole constitutes an authoritative revelation. Even Hays' in the book I mentioned (in which he opposes abortion, homosexuality, and war in what I think is a refreshing change of pace) suggests that while the church is not yet at a point where homosexual lifestyles can be admitted on the basis communal experienced revelation, there may come a time in the future when it can. This sort of experiential revelation is based too heavily on social pressure and how "comfortable" we are with what God requires of us.

---

I guess I wasnt reading this much into experience. I understand this to be the problem of most churches in america today, but I would love to know what the original Wesleyans thought of this.  

---

As for tradition, it is ironic that I should exclude it from my list. I consider tradition as a whole to be informative rather than authoritative. It informs how we understand Manifest Revelation in that it attests to its use and transmission. It informs our understanding of Rational Revelation in that it gives context for our attempts to come to knowledge within the greater intellectual community of faith. It informs our understanding of Natural Revelation in a similar way (just read St. Francis). It does not, however, stand as an independent source of revelation and authority as it does in the Roman Catholic Church.

---