Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[Darren Court]

Anyone? Meaning, everyone? That would be nuts. Agreed.

However, I do believe that God's authoritative power can utilize a prophet to speak authoritatively to his audience. Remember I said that NT evangelism is prophetic utterance? That's the whole point. Suppose I go out to a street corner to preach the gospel. Chances are, most people will ignore me for lack of confidence in my credibility. Now suppose a prophet marches out to the same street corner. The very nature of the prophetic gift is that God tends to speak authoritatively first to the prophet and then, as he delivers the message, secondly to his audience. Chances are high, then, that many of them will recognize an authoritative voice (John 10:27) and accept the gospel accordingly. Since this is the most effective way to win souls, the church needs to fix their epistemology.

So feel free to keep insulting me as to continue "winning" this debate. One day God should be able to provide you a decent estimate of how many souls were lost accordingly.

...and you still evade the point. It's like some kind of super power for you!
.
So you change the dialogue away from interpretation of scripture to preaching on the street corner because it fits your delusional narrative. We are not now, nor ever have been in this thread been talking about preaching.
.
The fact is you haven't come forth to say how you think we can decide and on what authority, how we can judge when someone claims God given prophet insight into scripture.
.
..and sorry buddy but saying you're delusional isn't an insult if you are.... and frankly, if you think I could do ANYTHING to cause souls to be lost in direct conflict to God's plan, just demonstrates the delusion itself!

 

[JAL]

Indeed they do. I know many who have done that very thing including members of my own family.

I am sure if you ask how many "former...." something are here today - you will find a great many who made a change.

You need to get out more.

I am aware that people make changes - usually on their own terms, at their own convenience, when their pride is not threatened. Two problems:
....(1) That's not the same as being generally receptive to correction.
....(2) The changes are often on peripheral issues. As far as the big issues, they tend to cling very tightly to traditional beliefs, even if those beliefs are somewhat less than coherent.

 

[JAL]

...and you still evade the point. It's like some kind of super power for you!
.
So you change the dialogue away from interpretation of scripture to preaching on the street corner because it fits your delusional narrative. We are not now, nor ever have been in this thread been talking about preaching.
.
The fact is you haven't come forth to say how you think we can decide and on what authority, how we can judge when someone claims God given prophet insight into scripture.
.
..and sorry buddy but saying you're delusional isn't an insult if you are.... and frankly, if you think I could do ANYTHING to cause souls to be lost in direct conflict to God's plan, just demonstrates the delusion itself!

I thought I was clear. You want me to show all my pearls? Deal thoroughly with post 151. (Not some shallow and superficial treatment). That was my offer - and it still stands.

 

[Darren Court]

I am aware that people make changes - usually on their own terms, at their own convenience, when their pride is not threatened. Two problems:
....(1) That's not the same as being generally receptive to correction.
....(2) The changes are often on peripheral issues. As far as the big issues, they tend to cling very tightly to traditional beliefs, even if those beliefs are somewhat less than coherent.

So when diversion doesn't work, it's insults. When insults don't work it's back to diversion.
.
You're on a hamster wheel in the middle of an Egyptian river!
.
It's not about big things little things.... central things or peripheral things (as if you get to be arbiter of such things anyway) but about the "voice" you like to harp on about, and upon what authority we decide if that "voice" is God's, Satan's or just the ramblings of an idiot that sound sane!
.
It seems you have no answer despite your inflated ego.

 

[Darren Court]

I thought I was clear. You want me to show all my pearls? Deal thoroughly with post 151. (Not some shallow and superficial treatment). That was my offer - and it still stands.

Post 151 was supposed to be an answer to my question but failed to actually deal with my question, but you insist 151 should be the main item on the agenda.... because you either will not or can not deal with my question upon which authority you rely upon to discern whether that "voice" is God's or not.
.
Come on with your vastly superior knowledge and intellect, coupled with your enormous pride, you surely should be able to keep focused and answer a simple question like this one!

 

[JAL]

Almost all Bible scholars affirming sola scriptura principles - also admit Prophets, visions, dreams are a key mechanism used by God to produce scripture and guide the church.
Are you saying this is "news"?

The attitude of Sola Scriptura scholars seems to be:
....(1) We can assume that Scripture alone is authoritative today.
....(2) Hence we don't even need to try to explain how voices/visions managed to be authoritative in the past. We simply don't care.
.....(3) Paul says to follow his example in all things, we are frankly not supposed to follow the examples of Paul (Acts 9) and Peter (Acts 10) where they responded to authoritative voices/visions.
...(4) We don't even have to resolve the blatant contradiction created by this mentality (post 151). We simply don't care.
...(5) We can preach to people, "Be led by the Spirit," but we fail to tell them that such is possible only if an authoritative voice indicates His leadings. We don't focus on that part because it would undermine Sola Scriptura.
....(6) We cherish our beloved Sola Scriptura doctrine. Therefore we are not interested in hearing about how many souls are possibly being lost on account of it.

 

[Darren Court]

The attitude of Sola Scriptura scholars seems to be:
....(1) We can assume that Scripture alone is authoritative today.
....(2) Hence we don't even need to try to explain how voices/visions managed to be authoritative in the past. We simply don't care.
.....(3) Paul says to follow his example in all things, we are frankly not supposed to follow the examples of Paul (Acts 9) and Peter (Acts 10) where they responded to authoritative voices/visions.
...(4) We don't even have to resolve the blatant contradiction created by this mentality (post 151). We simply don't care.
...(5) We can preach to people, "Be led by the Spirit," but we fail to tell them that such is possible only if an authoritative voice indicates His leadings. We don't focus on that part because it would undermine Sola Scriptura.
....(6) We cherish our beloved Sola Scriptura doctrine. Therefore we are not interested in hearing about how many souls are possibly being lost on account of it.

We can see that Jal's argument is
1) Scripture isn't reliable
2) God is an idiot who failed to say what He wanted in His "living and active" word
3) Voices from God are voices from God even if it's an idiot saying it because we have no means to judge
4) Relying on scripture is causing souls to be lost even though scripture says otherwise
5) Jal knows better than anyone in the last 2,000 years but is in no way arrogant or prideful.
.
I think we finally get it... the only authority upon which we can rely is JAL

 

[JAL]

Post 151 was supposed to be an answer to my question but failed to actually deal with my question, but you insist 151 should be the main item on the agenda.... because you either will not or can not deal with my question upon which authority you rely upon to discern whether that "voice" is God's or not.
.
Come on with your vastly superior knowledge and intellect, coupled with your enormous pride, you surely should be able to keep focused and answer a simple question like this one!

I'd be surprised if your deflection is fooling anyone. First of all, you have not resolved the charge of contradiction alleged at post 151. Secondly, you act like there is a burden of explanation on me. Why me? Scholars have known about the biblical visions and voices for 2,000 years. Why haven't they explained how an authoritative voice works? Why don't you explain it now, for the rest of us to hear?

Since you waited 2,000 years on them, and got nothing, you should be able to quickly address one alleged contradiction in one short post (151). Do that, and I will show you all my pearls. You won't have to wait another 2,000 years.

 

[JAL]

We can see that Jal's argument is
1) Scripture isn't reliable
2) God is an idiot who failed to say what He wanted in His "living and active" word
3) Voices from God are voices from God even if it's an idiot saying it because we have no means to judge
4) Relying on scripture is causing souls to be lost even though scripture says otherwise
5) Jal knows better than anyone in the last 2,000 years but is in no way arrogant or prideful.
.
I think we finally get it... the only authority upon which we can rely is JAL

Great! You finally got it! So if I could talk you into sending me some funds to cover my personal expenses...

Just kidding.

 

[Darren Court]

I'd be surprised if your deflection is fooling anyone. First of all, you have resolved the charge of contradiction alleged at post 151. Secondly, you act like there is a burden of explanation on me. Why me? Scholars have known about the biblical visions and voices for 2,000 years. Why haven't they explained how an authoritative verse works? Why don't you explain it now, for the rest of us to hear?

Since you waited 2,000 years on them, and got nothing, you should be able to quickly address one alleged contradiction in one short post (151). Do that, and I will show you all my pearls. You won't have to wait another 2,000 years.

You persist in trying to drive the agenda in order to avoid the question asked so many times.
.
You say you answer it in 151 but clearly you didn't.
.
Now you offer to answer it, if I play your game. I won't.
.
Either answer the question directly and stop wasting time or accept the reality is that you have no answer.
.
Why is the obligation on you? Well, you're the one who dismisses any scriptural authority and so unless you're the kind of person who just likes to criticise without any answers, it's all on you.
.
Why haven't scholars explained for 2,000 years? Maybe they have, you just don't know or like their answers. Maybe they haven't because God has been waiting for you to be born! It doesn't really matter because the question is just yet another one of your diversions to avoid you answering the question!

 

[Darren Court]

Great! You finally got it! So if I could talk you into sending me some funds to cover my personal expenses...

Just kidding.

Aha, the problem is that in every kid there is always some truth... and you let it out of the bag!

 

[JAL]

You persist in trying to drive the agenda in order to avoid the question asked so many times.
.
You say you answer it in 151 but clearly you didn't.

Where did I say that? In post 151, I myself classified post 151 itself as a clue to how an authoritative voice works. I said the clue emerges from the realization that Sola Scriptura has an obvious logical contradiction. And I outlined the contradiction in that same post. Since then, I've simply asked you to either resolve the contradiction, or admit that Sola Scriptura does indeed, as far as you can see, have an insoluble contradiction.

 

[JAL]

And then later I explicitly said I would likely not share the pearls until you addressed the contradiction alleged in post 151.

I'm pretty sure I was clear about all this, and even explained my rationale.

 

[JAL]

We can see that Jal's argument is
1) Scripture isn't reliable
2) God is an idiot who failed to say what He wanted in His "living and active" word
3) Voices from God are voices from God even if it's an idiot saying it because we have no means to judge
4) Relying on scripture is causing souls to be lost even though scripture says otherwise
5) Jal knows better than anyone in the last 2,000 years but is in no way arrogant or prideful.
.
I think we finally get it... the only authority upon which we can rely is JAL

All your joking and insults aside, Andrew Murray is actually my (posthumous) mentor. Most of my conclusions are his - all credit belongs to him. He wasn't explicit on his beliefs (I had to read between the lines), because he knew that the church of his day was too stubborn and hard-headed to be entrusted with his beliefs.

Here's a nice quote where he implies that life is too complicated to exegetically verify the specifics of God's will. We need an authoritative voice:

“Obedience depends on hearing the voice. Do not imagine you know the will of God. Pray and wait for the inward teaching of the Spirit.”(Andrew Murray, The Believer's Secret of Holiness (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984), p. 57).

 

[Darren Court]

Where did I say that? In post 151, I myself classified post 151 itself as a clue to how an authoritative voice works. I said the clue emerges from the realization that Sola Scriptura has an obvious logical contradiction. And I outlined the contradiction in that same post. Since then, I've simply asked you to either resolve the contradiction, or admit that Sola Scriptura does indeed, as far as you can see, have an insoluble contradiction.

Precisely, you FAILED to answer the question in playing our pious and arrogant games to give out clues!
.
Who gave you the authority to treat others with such contempt so as to decide if you answer a question or just give out clues? LOL!
.
The way communication works in the real world is that you exchange meaningful answers and if someone asks a question you answer it.... not give a clue and then ask your own question to expect a reply.
.
..but here I'll play YOUR game. In answer to the apparently obvious Sola Scriptura contradiction, I think you will find a clue resides where you consider the true authority lies.
.
So answer the question on the authority upon which we can rely or keep going round the hamster wheel on the Egyptian River!

All your joking and insults aside, Andrew Murray is actually my (posthumous) mentor. Most of my conclusions are his - all credit belongs to him. He wasn't explicit on his beliefs (I had to read between the lines), because he knew that the church of his day was too stubborn and hard-headed to be entrusted with his beliefs.

Here's a nice quote where he implies that life is too complicated to exegetically verify the specifics of God's will. We need an authoritative voice:

“Obedience depends on hearing the voice. Do not imagine you know the will of God. Pray and wait for the inward teaching of the Spirit.”(Andrew Murray, The Believer's Secret of Holiness (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984), p. 57).

Oh so you're saying Andrew Murray is the authority upon which we must all rely because you couldn't possibly be avoiding the question again could you?
.
or rather what you're actually saying is that we can't actually validate or verify something is or is not God's voice at all.
.
We eventually arrived at our destination.... Nuttersville. Sorry I'll leave you here and journey back to the land of reality and truth!

..and your mentor? Andrew Murray (trade unionist) - Wikipedia Why should we not be surprised?

 

[JAL]

Precisely, you FAILED to answer the question in playing our pious and arrogant games to give out clues!
.
Who gave you the authority to treat others with such contempt so as to decide if you answer a question or just give out clues? LOL!
.
The way communication works in the real world is that you exchange meaningful answers and if someone asks a question you answer it.... not give a clue and then ask your own question to expect a reply.
.
..but here I'll play YOUR game. In answer to the apparently obvious Sola Scriptura contradiction, I think you will find a clue resides where you consider the true authority lies.
.
So answer the question on the authority upon which we can rely or keep going round the hamster wheel on the Egyptian River!

Oh so you're saying Andrew Murray is the authority upon which we must all rely because you couldn't possibly be avoiding the question again could you?
.
or rather what you're actually saying is that we can't actually validate or verify something is or is not God's voice at all.
.
We eventually arrived at our destination.... Nuttersville. Sorry I'll leave you here and journey back to the land of reality and truth!

Ok. (Yawn).

 

[Darren Court]

Ok. (Yawn).

Yawn for a Communist, an antisemitic or your authority?

 

[Darren Court]

Yawn for a Communist, an antisemitic or your authority?

If you'd just been honest and forthright about this from the start, so much time could have been saved!
.
...but I guess I can understand you being a bit embarrassed about it!

 

[JAL]

.
We eventually arrived at our destination.... Nuttersville. Sorry I'll leave you here and journey back to the land of reality and truth!

Even your insults are surprisingly entertaining. I needed a couple of laughs today, so thanks for your wit. Honestly.

..and your mentor? Andrew Murray (trade unionist) - Wikipedia Why should we not be surprised?

No, that's the wrong guy.

Andrew Murray (minister) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So let me get this straight. My belief in authoritative Direct Revelation as the means to be "led by the Spirit" places me squarely in Nuttersville. That means, in the following passage, Paul's every move was governed strictly by scholarly exegesis:


6 Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. 7 When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. 8 So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. 9 During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. (Acts 16).

Is that really how you read it? Because I think Andrew Murray's reading is more plausible. Maybe it's just me.

 

[Darren Court]

Even your insults are surprisingly entertaining. I needed a couple of laughs today, so thanks for your wit. Honestly.



No, that's the wrong guy.

Andrew Murray (minister) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So let me get this straight. My belief in authoritative Direct Revelation as the means to be "led by the Spirit" places me squarely in Nuttersville. That means, in the following passage, Paul's every move was governed strictly by scholarly exegesis:


6 Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. 7 When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. 8 So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. 9 During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. (Acts 16).

Is that really how you read it? Because I think Andrew Murray's reading is more plausible. Maybe it's just me.

Sorry wrong Murray but it seems Murray's are a particular breed and I guess they attract a particular kind of nutter!

[TCP] Mr. Murray unmask'd. In which among other things, is shewn, that his doctrine of universal salvation, is inimical to vertue, and productive of all manner of wickedness; and that Christians of all denominations ought to be on their guard agains

"A Vice Very Common with Books of This Class" -- B. B. Warfield's "Review" of Andrew Murray's "Spirit of Christ" — The Riddleblog

The first review discussed was "Children in the Hands of the Arminians". The second was Warfield's review of C. F. W. Walther's book, Gesetz und Evangelium (Law and Gospel), Warfields Review of C. F. W. Walthers' "Law and Gospel". For this installment, I have chosen Warfield's

www.kimriddlebarger.com

.
My particular favourite is his view that we should all be completely healthy!

http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/vee/v30n1/15.pdf

but there are lots that unmask the problems of following Murray's mysticism that you have fell for, hook, line and sinker!
The ultimate irony is that many have come to see that Murray no more spoke for God than my cat. His piousness that urged us to be like him and be more Christ speaks in direct conflict to the scriptures! That either makes God an idiot for writing something that would conflict with his "voice" to Murray or it makes Murray a fraud, albeit a really sincere one!

False Teacher - Andrew Murray: Christlike AntiChrist

False Teacher Exposed on The Path of Truth - Andrew Murray: Christlike AntiChrist. There is not a more horrible sight to Heaven than men trying to appear heavenly. It is the arrogance of men who say in their hearts, 'I will be as God,' whereas Jesus Christ is God saying, 'I will become a man.'...

www.thepathoftruth.com