David, you recently posted this comment. 
 
There is a distinction between revelation and Biblical interpretation.  This
is the source of your disagreement with Judy, not believing that God reveals
to her knowledge through the Spirit.  You even delineate different types of
revelation, so how can you say that Biblical interpretation and revelation
are the same thing?  How can you consider yourself a Pentecostal, but you
don't distinguish between revelation and Biblical interpretation?
What did you mean by saying "You even delineate different types of revelation...."  You would think that if I did this,  I would know what you mean by these word.   Give me examples of these different revelations , please. 
 
Also,  I AM a Pentecostal and I make a difference between revelation and interpretation.    Interpretation is what I do (hopefully with God's help) with revelation.   But I suspect we use these words very differently. 
 
Interpretations from God are personal and providential in nature and content.   They are not intended for the corporate body.   As  a result of that premise,  the Church  does not speak for me and there is no such thing as ex-cathedra. 
 
Judy often presents her interpretation or understanding of the text in terms of ex-cathedra, although she would never use that terminology.    Her (and you do the same thing) understanding IS the Word of God in revelation  -- opponents have not this same truth.   A profoundly inadequate conclusion.   This is Catholic teaching and when attached to the Church and its leadership , we have the Pope and, in deed, excathedra proclamations.   but that , of course, is not why the teaching is misplaced.   Rather, it is so because   it flies in the face of biblical  example  and  presents  tradition over and above all other considerations and interpretations, bringing division and sectarianism into the Body of Christ. 
 
jd
 
 
 
 

Reply via email to