.

[jimmyjimmy]

If you feel too ill to respond, no worries, but hopefully you continue to recover.

Back to the convo ... so if you were healed in the manner in which you requested, is the only explanation a miracle of God ? Were you serious in that you would "repent/recant" should your standards be met in such an instance ? And what would you repent/recant of/from ?

Yes. I would only be able to credit God with my healing, had it happened. No, I wouldn't be able to prove that.

My temp was over 102 when I wrote that post, and I hadn't slept well in 3 days.

 

[TillICollapse]

Yes. I would only be able to credit God with my healing, had it happened. No, I wouldn't be able to prove that.

My temp was over 102 when I wrote that post, and I hadn't slept well in 3 days.

Why would you credit God as the reason and not some other explanation ? And you say you couldn't prove it ... could you "prove it" to another believer ?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Why would you credit God as the reason and not some other explanation ? And you say you couldn't prove it ... could you "prove it" to another believer ?

There is no way to prove something like that. You know that. I would not even attempt to.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

And this proves what, exactly?

So you make no distinction between a historical/descriptive text and a didactic teaching/instructional text? We should read both in the same way? Is that what you are saying?

The Bible is a very special Book...

Yes, it is.

So are you calling sunlover1 a contemptuous narcissist for applying the Bible to herself and her life?

You are twisting my words. Finding application from reading a historical account of how God or men acted in time and circumstances is not the same thing as reading yourself into the plot. The latter is narcissistic.

It most assuredly IS about each and every mother's son and daughter ever born...

Jesus said that scripture was all about Him, so I'll take His word on it.

 

[TillICollapse]

There is no way to prove something like that. You know that. I would not even attempt to.

You're not answering all my questions.

Why would you credit God as being the reason in such an instance ?

And no, I don't know that you can't "prove" something like that. What are your standards for proof ? Can you prove whether or not your local grocery store has apples ?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

You're not answering all my questions.

Why would you credit God as being the reason in such an instance ?

And no, I don't know that you can't "prove" something like that. What are your standards for proof ? Can you prove whether or not your local grocery store has apples ?

First of all, I was not healed, which means I'm still not feeling well. Secondly, if I were healed after posting a prayer request on a Christian forum, myself being a Christian, it would only be reasonable that I would give God credit for it. Why would I not? As far as proof, that would not be possible. I would be objective healed, but I could not prove who or how, which is also why I wouldn't try to sway other Christians with stories about my hypothetical healing, which directs the conversation back to the OP. . .

 

[TillICollapse]

First of all, I was not healed, which means I'm still not feeling well. Secondly, if I were healed after posting a prayer request on a Christian forum, myself being a Christian, it would only be reasonable that I would give God credit for it. Why would I not?

One of the reasons you may not, is because you'd choose to use critical thinking in an examination of the truth. A critical thinker may realize, "I'm already biased to view things a certain way, so what if I'm wrong ? What other explanation is there for this ?"

Are you suggesting that if you were a Hindu, on a Hindu forum, that you may give credit to another entity ?

As far as proof, that would not be possible. I would be objective healed, but I could not prove who or how, which is also why I wouldn't try to sway other Christians with stories about my hypothetical healing, which directs the conversation back to the OP. . .

Why can't you prove who healed you or how you were healed ? We can demonstrate who-did-what quite often. I can probably provide substantial evidence as to who or what is responsible for any number of events or occurences (sp).

I think what you are showing with your perspective, is that you are in the same camp that you, yourself, are pointing out as being most likely mistaken. One person's personal threshold of belief, is to babble word salad and claim it's a miracle of God. Whether it is REALLY God or not, is seemingly debatable. Another person's personal threshold of belief is to be healed in a specific way, in a specific manner, and then it's a miracle of God as well. Whether it is or not, again, is debatable. Thus, the method you are using to determine what is true, seems self centered. Furthermore, if you don't believe it would be possible to prove your own belief, then what is your point in trying to get others to do the same ? Is that really exercising critical thinking and a desire for the truth, or is it serving your own self ? Are you desiring to know what IS true concerning all of reality ... or just what is true for you ?

Please note, that I am not trying to dump on you for desiring to be healed in a certain manner, and requesting that people demonstrate their claims. I am discussing what this reveals about *you* and the answers to your own questions in the OP, etc.

 

[Peter J Barban]

One of the reasons you may not, is because you'd choose to use critical thinking in an examination of the truth. A critical thinker may realize, "I'm already biased to view things a certain way, so what if I'm wrong ? What other explanation is there for this ?"

Are you suggesting that if you were a Hindu, on a Hindu forum, that you may give credit to another entity ?

Why can't you prove who healed you or how you were healed ? We can demonstrate who-did-what quite often. I can probably provide substantial evidence as to who or what is responsible for any number of events or occurences (sp).

I think what you are showing with your perspective, is that you are in the same camp that you, yourself, are pointing out as being most likely mistaken. One person's personal threshold of belief, is to babble word salad and claim it's a miracle of God. Whether it is REALLY God or not, is seemingly debatable. Another person's personal threshold of belief is to be healed in a specific way, in a specific manner, and then it's a miracle of God as well. Whether it is or not, again, is debatable. Thus, the method you are using to determine what is true, seems self centered. Furthermore, if you don't believe it would be possible to prove your own belief, then what is your point in trying to get others to do the same ? Is that really exercising critical thinking and a desire for the truth, or is it serving your own self ? Are you desiring to know what IS true concerning all of reality ... or just what is true for you ?

Please note, that I am not trying to dump on you for desiring to be healed in a certain manner, and requesting that people demonstrate their claims. I am discussing what this reveals about *you* and the answers to your own questions in the OP, etc.

TillICollapse, good luck with your inquiry. Pride and self awareness rarely go hand in hand. Those who are proud can easily find fault in others, yet even when they look in a mirror they quickly forget what they look like.

There are many humble people who hear from God and just accept it, even though they cannot explain it. There are many humble people who do not hear from God, yet they accept that others do. It takes a special arrogance to deny the testimony of faithful and fruitful Christians over the centuries that God still speaks.

 

[TillICollapse]

TillICollapse, good luck with your inquiry. Pride and self awareness rarely go hand in hand. Those who are proud can easily find fault in others, yet even when they look in a mirror they quickly forget what they look like.

There are many humble people who hear from God and just accept it, even though they cannot explain it. There are many humble people who do not hear from God, yet they accept that others do. It takes a special arrogance to deny the testimony of faithful and fruitful Christians over the centuries that God still speaks.

I was not calling anyone proud, or arrogant, or even humble for that matter.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I was not calling anyone proud, or arrogant, or even humble for that matter.

I agree, you weren't.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

TillICollapse, good luck with your inquiry. Pride and self awareness rarely go hand in hand. Those who are proud can easily find fault in others, yet even when they look in a mirror they quickly forget what they look like.

There are many humble people who hear from God and just accept it, even though they cannot explain it. There are many humble people who do not hear from God, yet they accept that others do. It takes a special arrogance to deny the testimony of faithful and fruitful Christians over the centuries that God still speaks.

All of orthodox Christianity for the past 2,000 believes that the canon of scripture is closed, and most of them understand that to mean that God does not speak directly to men any longer. Even when He did speak in the past, it was only to a very select group and only for a very specific purpose in redemptive history. This is the view of the vast majority of Christianity, so I'm not the one holding to an unusual or heterodox position. You are.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Why can't you prove who healed you or how you were healed ?

How would you prove it?

I think what you are showing with your perspective, is that you are in the same camp that you, yourself, are pointing out as being most likely mistaken.

The OP is addressing God speaking directly to people today. As I have explained, I (along with most of Christendom) hold that to be an errant view; however, I never said that God did not or would not physically heal people today. There's the distinction.

 

[TillICollapse]

How would you prove it?

You said it would not be possible, so you can explain your claim if you like. However we can also avoid going in circles ... I will drop it.

The OP is addressing God speaking directly to people today. As I have explained, I (along with most of Christendom) hold that to be an errant view; however, I never said that God did not or would not physically heal people today. There's the distinction.

We can drop this part of the convo.

Hope you are feeling better and continue to recover.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I found a good teaching on the points that I have been advocating by John Piper. In his definition of NT prophecy,

Prophecy in this “third category” (the New Testament gift of prophecy) is a regulated message or report in human words usually made to the gathered believers based on a spontaneous, personal revelation from the Holy Spirit for the purpose of edification, encouragement, consolation, conviction or guidance but not necessarily free from a mixture of human error, and thus needing assessment on the basis of the apostolic (Biblical) teaching and mature spiritual wisdom."​

I believe that hearing from God in prayer is essentially the same, "a spontaneous, personal revelation from the Holy Spirit for the purpose of edification, encouragement, consolation, conviction or guidance but not necessarily free from a mixture of human error".

The revelation may be audible, internal voice, feelings, etc. The Bible certainly does not forbid hearing from God in these ways.

 

[swordsman1]

I found a good teaching on the points that I have been advocating by John Piper. In his definition of NT prophecy,

Prophecy in this “third category” (the New Testament gift of prophecy) is a regulated message or report in human words usually made to the gathered believers based on a spontaneous, personal revelation from the Holy Spirit for the purpose of edification, encouragement, consolation, conviction or guidance but not necessarily free from a mixture of human error, and thus needing assessment on the basis of the apostolic (Biblical) teaching and mature spiritual wisdom."​

I believe that hearing from God in prayer is essentially the same, "a spontaneous, personal revelation from the Holy Spirit for the purpose of edification, encouragement, consolation, conviction or guidance but not necessarily free from a mixture of human error".

The revelation may be audible, internal voice, feelings, etc. The Bible certainly does not forbid hearing from God in these ways.

Although John Piper is generally a sound expository preacher, his views on prophecy are off base.

Prophecy is never described in scripture as a feeling that is put into human words. Quite the opposite. That is the definition of false prophecy...

Prophecy is audibly hearing the very words of God (Ezekiel 2:2, Gen 17:1, Joshua 1:1-2 etc). The boy Samuel, when he first started out as a prophet, even mistakenly thought it was the priest Eli speaking to him (1 Sam 3). Prophecy is never described as a feeling. If it comes from your mind it is regarded as a false prophecy (Jer 14:14, Jer 23:26)

Once the revelation is received the prophet's duty is to pass the message on word for word. It usually takes the form 'The Lord said "<exact words here>".' If the Lord didn't actually say those words then all the passages in scripture that say 'The Lord said' are a lie. If the prophet uses his own words rather than God's words he is declared a false prophet and put to death (Deut 18:20)

Nowhere in the NT is the nature of prophecy redefined. Paul uses the same word (prophétés) to describe NT prophets (eg 1 Cor 14:29) as he does OT prophets (eg Rom 3:21). Prophets in the NT audibly heard the voice of God in the same way as OT prophets. The very words spoken by God are often recorded for us (eg Acts 9:10-16, Acts 21:10-11, Acts 10:13-19).

Being the very word of God all prophecy is infallible and authoritative. NT prophecy had a very important role in the early church due to the absence of the NT canon. It was more important than teaching and 2nd only to apostleship (1 Cor 12:28). How can it be more important than bible based teaching if prophecy is error prone and non-binding as Piper suggests?

Paul told the Corinthians to test prophecies, not because it is a mixture of genuine prophecy and human error, but because false prophets had infiltrated the church (2 Peter 2:1), just as they have today.

Even if someone did claim to audibly receive a prophecy today, I would dispute it. The bible says the age of prophecy is over (Heb 1:1-2, Eph 2:20, 1 Cor 13:9-10).

But anyway we are not talking about prophecy, we are talking about God's common means of speaking to believers today.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Although John Piper is generally a sound expository preacher, his views on prophecy are off base.

Agreed. Piper (and Grudem) is engaging in eisegesis in this instance.

Prophecy is never described in scripture as a feeling that is put into human words. Quite the opposite. That is the definition of false prophecy...

This is at the heart of the matter. The world and his wife are running around attaching "God said" to their feelings and dreams.

Prophecy is audibly hearing the very words of God

This is very definition of a prophet. He heard the voice of God and he passed along the exact content of what he heard. Or, in some cases, he acted out what he was told to.

Nowhere in the NT is the nature of prophecy redefined.

Key point that is ignored by the with an agenda.

Paul told the Corinthians to test prophecies, not because it is a mixture of genuine prophecy and human error, but because false prophets had infiltrated the church (2 Peter 2:1), just as they have today.

Yes! It's illogical to understand this as anything else. There is no way to test a prophesy if is not doctrinal. You can only test prophets, not prophesies.

Even if someone did claim to audibly receive a prophecy today, I would dispute it. The bible says the age of prophecy is over (Heb 1:1-2, Eph 2:20, 1 Cor 13:9).

God has revealed all to us. He has revealed Himself to us. There is nothing else to say. "The Word became flesh".

But anyway we are not talking about prophecy, we are talking about God's common means of speaking to believers today.

Yes. Thank you. That was the point of the OP.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Although John Piper is generally a sound expository preacher, his views on prophecy are off base.

Prophecy is never described in scripture as a feeling that is put into human words. Quite the opposite. That is the definition of false prophecy...

(Ezekiel 2:2, Gen 17:1, Joshua 1:1-2 etc). The boy Samuel, when he first started out as a prophet, even mistakenly thought it was the priest Eli speaking to him (1 Sam 3). Prophecy is never described as a feeling. If it comes from your mind it is regarded as a false prophecy (Jer 14:14, Jer 23:26)

Once the revelation is received the prophet's duty is to pass the message on word for word. It usually takes the form 'The Lord said "<exact words here>".' If the Lord didn't actually say those words then all the passages in scripture that say 'The Lord said' are a lie. If the prophet uses his own words rather than God's words he is declared a false prophet and put to death (Deut 18:20)

Nowhere in the NT is the nature of prophecy redefined. Paul uses the same word (prophétés) to describe NT prophets (eg 1 Cor 14:29) as he does OT prophets (eg Rom 3:21). Prophets in the NT audibly heard the voice of God in the same way as OT prophets. The very words spoken by God are often recorded for us (eg Acts 9:10-16, Acts 21:10-11, Acts 10:13-19).

Being the very word of God all prophecy is infallible and authoritative. NT prophecy had a very important role in the early church due to the absence of the NT canon. It was more important than teaching and 2nd only to apostleship (1 Cor 12:28). How can it be more important than bible based teaching if prophecy is error prone and non-binding as Piper suggests?

Paul told the Corinthians to test prophecies, not because it is a mixture of genuine prophecy and human error, but because false prophets had infiltrated the church (2 Peter 2:1), just as they have today.

Even if someone did claim to audibly receive a prophecy today, I would dispute it. The bible says the age of prophecy is over (Heb 1:1-2, Eph 2:20, 1 Cor 13:9-10).

But anyway we are not talking about prophecy, we are talking about God's common means of speaking to believers today.

You are declaring things as true, that the Bible does not.

Can you show your following statements are proven in the Bible:
1. "Prophecy is audibly hearing the very words of God"
Where does the Bible say this is always true?"

2. "Prophecy is never described in scripture as a feeling that is put into human words. Quite the opposite. That is the definition of false prophecy..."
Where does the Bible define false prophecy as feeling that is put into human words?

3. "If it comes from your mind it is regarded as a false prophecy" Modern prophecy is not from our minds, rather it enters our minds from the Holy Spirit. Where in the Bible is the Holy Spirit speaking to our minds forbidden/impossible?

4. "If the prophet uses his own words rather than God's words he is declared a false prophet and put to death (Deut 18:20)"

Does the New Covenant tell us to kill false prophets or continue in the OT laws which tell us to kill false prophets? If you really believe that this is applicable today, are you willing to kill those who say "God told me..."? If not, then don't try to trick us by using verses that you don't believe or apply.

5. "Prophets in the NT audibly heard the voice of God in the same way as OT prophets." Does the Bible tell us this is the only way to hear God's voice? Do you know how Agabus and the daughters of Phillip heard God's voice. Do you know if prophecies in the Corinthian church were audibly received?

It's time to put up or shut up.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Is this true of false prophesy? How can you tell?

 

[swordsman1]

Can you show your following statements are proven in the Bible:
1. "Prophecy is audibly hearing the very words of God"
Where does the Bible say this is always true?"

I've already given you several examples of where prophecy is described as the Lord speaking actual words which the prophet hears and quotes verbatim. I can give you dozens more if you wish. There are no examples of prophecy being described as feelings or impressions popping into a prophet's head which he then verbalizes using his own words.

Where does the Bible define false prophecy as feeling that is put into human words?

As I said...If it comes from your own mind it is regarded as a false prophecy (Jer 14:14, Jer 23:26). If the prophet uses his own words rather than God's words he is declared a false prophet and was put to death (Deut 18:20)

Where in the Bible is the Holy Spirit speaking to our minds forbidden/impossible?

With God nothing is impossible. But your argument that God speaks through feelings because such a method is not impossible is the common fallacy of an argument from silence. It is not impossible for God to communicate via smoke signals or shapes in the clouds. But does He communicate in such a way? Are there any biblical instances of such revelations, let alone be the common method of revelation?

Does the New Covenant tell us to kill false prophets or continue in the OT laws which tell us to kill false prophets? If you really believe that this is applicable today, are you willing to kill those who say "God told me..."? If not, then don't try to trick us by using verses that you don't believe or apply.

I never suggested that we should kill false prophets today. I was simply quoting what Deut 18:20 said. The point being that false prophecy is a very serious sin and from the condemnation it gets in the bible is clearly not something to be taken lightly.

Does the Bible tell us this is the only way to hear God's voice? Do you know how Agabus and the daughters of Phillip heard God's voice. Do you know if prophecies in the Corinthian church were audibly received?

Agabus quoted verbatim what the Holy Spirit said:

Acts 21:11 “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’”.​

So yes Agabus's prophecy was given in the same manner as OT prophecies. No details are given about how the prophecies were received by Philips daughters or the Corinthians, but there is no reason to suppose it was any way other than the normal biblical method.

It's time to put up or shut up.

Indeed. I have quoted extensively from scripture to support my argument. You haven't. The burden of proof now lies with you to prove that God gives new revelation via our feelings.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I've already given you several examples of where prophecy is described as the Lord speaking actual words which the prophet hears and quotes verbatim. I can give you dozens more if you wish. There are no examples of prophecy being described as feelings or impressions popping into a prophet's head which he then verbalizes using his own words.



As I said...If it comes from your own mind it is regarded as a false prophecy (Jer 14:14, Jer 23:26). If the prophet uses his own words rather than God's words he is declared a false prophet and was put to death (Deut 18:20)




With God nothing is impossible. But your argument that God speaks through feelings because such a method is not impossible is the common fallacy of an argument from silence. It is not impossible for God to communicate via smoke signals or shapes in the clouds. But does He communicate in such a way? Are there any biblical instances of such revelations, let alone be the common method of revelation?



I never suggested that we should kill false prophets today. I was simply quoting what Deut 18:20 said. The point being that false prophecy is a very serious sin and from the condemnation it gets in the bible is clearly not something to be taken lightly.



Agabus quoted verbatim what the Holy Spirit said:

Acts 21:11 “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’”.​

So yes Agabus's prophecy was given in the same manner as OT prophecies. No details are given about how the prophecies were received by Philips daughters or the Corinthians, but there is no reason to suppose it was any way other than the normal biblical method.




Indeed. I have quoted extensively from scripture to support my argument. You haven't. The burden of proof now lies with you to prove that God gives new revelation via our feelings.

I believe that the NT teaching on prophecy is still applicable today. The New Testament Bible is my proof.

I think Piper is right that NT prophecy is a different category from OT prophecy. The same words can be used for different things. For example the way Paul uses the word, "law" can change even within one paragraph.

I think that most people use the word "feel" because they don't have training to use more biblical words like "discern". I certainly agree that no one should prophesy based on vague feelings. In a pastoral manor, we should help these people understand better how God speaks today.

You make a serious error in assuming that every prophet heard the audible voice of God. The Bible is silent on many cases. I think 90% of your argument comes from silence, including the closing of the canon. Is the closed canon a fallacy, too?

Finally, we are not under the OT, so we can lay aside its commands. Don't try to force New Covenant prophecy to fit the OT mold. Also, don't throw out NT teaching of prophecy based on the "argument from silence" that we no longer need it. Your opinion of what we need is not authoritative.