Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[JAL]

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

You then go on to links pertaining to a John Murray? Wrong Murray again?

Anyway eventually you get to the correct Andrew Murray, where he was apparently criticized by a Sola Scriptura scholar and cessationist named B.B. Warfield. His review

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

looks like drivel to me. Case in point:
....(1) I challenged you to take a look at Acts 16:6-10. Still waiting. Show me how it fits better with "scholarly exegesis" than "authoritative voice". Shouldn't B.B. Warfield have addressed such matters in his shoddy review?
....(2) Shouldn't he have addressed the charge of contradiction I raised in post 151? I wasn't the first one to initiate it. Catholics have been complaining for centuries about it. They have always argued, "If Scripture is your only authority, by what authority do you accept the Bible?"

At points it doesn't look like he understood Andrew Murray in the least. Like I cited:

"You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

So it wouldn't surprise me that B.B. Warfield was possibly incapable of understanding Andrew Murray.

My particular favourite is his view that we should all be completely healthy!
http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/vee/v30n1/15.pdf

Probably depends on what you mean. Revival is supposed to be progressively increasing - and since Israel blew it from the start, even Pentecost couldn't fully compensate for the loss. We Gentiles seem to have floundered as much as Israel, if not worse. As a result, Murray was probably well aware that we'd never see quite as much healing as God originally intended.

Yes, ideally, pretty much everyone should be healed. (If we could go back to Israel and start all over again, everyone getting things right this time). I fully agree with Murray on that point.

 

[JAL]

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

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

And you seem confident that this belief is entirely outlandish? Once again this is Nuttersville, right? And yet:

"26 If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee. (Ex 15)

Hm...The way it reads to me is: If we wholeheartedly seek the authoritative Voice of the Lord, and obey all that He commands, we won't have to worry much about disease. That being the case, I wonder where the Sola Scriptura party went wrong. Boy, that's a tough one!

 

[Vanellus]

Calling Abraham "unique" ultimately amounts to deflection because it evades the root issue as to why he heeded the Voice - and was celebrated for it by the books of Hebrews and James, not to mention God Himself in Genesis.

Moreover, your argument of "no scriptures existed back then" just pushes the issue one step back further. As mentioned in post 151, you need to specify on what basis/authority you accept the Scriptures today. And once you've done that, you've already admitted to the existence of a basis/authority other than Scripture. Which is precisely what happened to Abraham - and to all the other prophets in church history. He was hardly "unique".

Sola Scriptura simply doesn't work because it contradicts both the historical record and common sense.

Your answer is an attempted deflection away from the obvious lack of applicability of your Abraham hypothetical example and has no connection to the point I am making.

 

[Vanellus]

God wants unbelievers to get saved today, right? Take a hard look at this statement by Paul:

24 If an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!” (1 Cor 14).

In charismatic churches, they used to refer to this miracle as reading someone's mail. The secrets of a man's heart are not exegetically available. The only way to be informed of them is via an authoritative voice known as prophecy. Abraham was hardly "unique".


As I said, Paul was much too smart to counsel the churches to go out and evangelize the world. He knew a more effective means to that end: just seek the gift of prophecy.

A huge number of prophecies were not exegetically verifiable. (I'm not the only member of this forum to point this out). For example:

"The one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort" (1 Cor 14:3).

If God tells you something unestablished in Scripture, He must be using an authoritative voice.

You are again failing to respond to the simple point I made and going off on a tangent instead.. It is irrelevant to ask what if Abraham had the scriptures when he didn't have them. Try addressing that simple point.

 

[Vanellus]

As for the prophet Abraham, please be cautious about presuming his experiences unique. After all:

....(1) In Romans 4 and Gal 3 and Heb 11 (not to mention James), Abraham is said to model the life of faith for all believers to emulate.
....(2) In Rom 10:17, Paul says that faith comes from hearing the Word of God - the enscripturated Word ??? We already know that the prophet Abraham was Paul's favorite model of faith. At both Rom 4 and Galatians 3, Paul cites Gen 15:

"The [divine] Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision [speaking promises]....Abraham believed [the spoken promises] and his faith was credited to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:1-6).

His faith came by hearing the spoken Word (Rom 10:17). An authoritative voice/vision not exegetically verifiable. This is no different than John 10:27:

"27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."

Again this is irrelevant. Who else lived Abraham's life? Who else was asked to sacrifice Isaac? Another two simple questions. Will you be able to answer them or will you go off on yet another tangent?

 

[Darren Court]

And you seem confident that this belief is entirely outlandish? Once again this is Nuttersville, right? And yet:

"26 If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee. (Ex 15)

Hm...The way it reads to me is: If we wholeheartedly seek the authoritative Voice of the Lord, and obey all that He commands, we won't have to worry much about disease. That being the case, I wonder where the Sola Scriptura party went wrong. Boy, that's a tough one!

Yes, more Nuttersville absurdity... You can't help it, you probably keep hearing voices!
...
In the thousands of years of history that is covered by the OT, how many people actually heard the "voice" of God? It's contestable because many verses that talk about hearing the voice of God are implied and not specifically audible. Irrespective, the number is less than 30! That's 30 people across thousands of years and the whole Jewish population..... Infact, there is no scriptural evidence (oops that's me relying on that unreliable thing again) that God actually spoke to ordinary people at all. Yet they studied the Torah that contains Ex 15:26. They must have been so confused being directed to hear God's voice and not actually hearing it!
.
Wow, those silly Jews. Thank goodness the Lord sent them lots of prophets over these years, that corrected them and showed them how to hear the voice of God! Wait a sec, He didn't! Oops God must have messed up to then.
.
Unless of course, they understood that voice doesn't mean God directly speaking to them, although He could and it's only revisionists who think they know better than the Jews themselves and God Himself! Wait a sec, the truth of this is even contained in the verse you quoted!

"If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee. (Ex 15) "WILT GIVE EAR" is the word אָזַן (a.zan)... it means LISTEN. So the Jews had the commandments on audible recording so that they could LITERALLY listen to the commandments and the statues that God gave them on tablets and through prophets!
.
Nutters in that day like you would have been sitting around listening for the Lord to speak His commandments to you and wouldn't hear God saying, "I wrote them down for you, you idiots, I didn't mean literally"
.
Then you desperately try to use this verse to justify Murray's nonsense about sickness... when this verse ONLY talks about the diseases that the Lord put on the Egyptians.... no other diseases or sicknesses!
.
I am so glad we got around to this Nutty stuff that I suspected underpinned your arguments. I truly felt God directing me to pursue this despite the hamster wheel in the Egyptian River and we finally outed the nuts!

 

[JAL]

Again this is irrelevant. Who else lived Abraham's life? Who else was asked to sacrifice Isaac? Another two simple questions. Will you be able to answer them or will you go off on yet another tangent?

Abraham is a paradigm for how all of us should live. The NT is pretty clear on that point. That's why his name is mentioned in the NT more often than anyone except Moses.

 

[Darren Court]

Your answer is an attempted deflection away from the obvious lack of applicability of your Abraham hypothetical example and has no connection to the point I am making.

Again this is irrelevant. Who else lived Abraham's life? Who else was asked to sacrifice Isaac? Another two simple questions. Will you be able to answer them or will you go off on yet another tangent?

You seriously won't believe where Jal is coming from because he won't come right out and say until you push him hard!
.
What Jal believes is that Abraham heard God's "authoritative voice", as opposed to God's squeaky not so authoritative voice one must presume, and that the only test of any truth is if we hear God's "authoritative voice".... and the way we check if things are consistent with God's will is not to look into scripture but to seek and check out God's "authoritative voice".
.
In other words, it's God's "authoritative voice" that confirms everything even if that "authoritative voice" contradicts scripture because God cannot be constrained by His word.
.
He'll now try to justify this view with misuses and misinterpreted scriptures, which is ironic since we can ignore scripture and just ask God to tell us with His "authoritative voice".
.
Jal's posthumous mentor is a chap called Andrew Murray and whilst he was a sincere man, he was sincerely deluded. Three classical errors Murray believed and taught i) Mysticism ii) We can be like Christ iii) We should be completely healthy if we follow God - none of which can actually be found in the bible.. so not surprising Jal and Murray can't rely on God's word!

 

[JAL]

Yes, more Nuttersville absurdity... You can't help it, you probably keep hearing voices!
...
In the thousands of years of history that is covered by the OT, how many people actually heard the "voice" of God?

All believers hear it to some extent (Jn 10:27). It's just that the prophet hears it rather distinctly.

It's contestable because many verses that talk about hearing the voice of God are implied and not specifically audible. Irrespective, the number is less than 30! That's 30 people across thousands of years and the whole Jewish population..... Infact, there is no scriptural evidence (oops that's me relying on that unreliable thing again) that God actually spoke to ordinary people at all.

No evidence? So all they had was written law? No voice, and thus no personal relationship with the Father?

Unless of course, they understood that voice doesn't mean God directly speaking to them, although He could and it's only revisionists who think they know better than the Jews themselves and God Himself!

So Moses, and the Lord Himself, did not WANT them to conceive of the Voice as an actual sensory experience such as a sound or a vision. (This coming from the guy who seems to keep neglecting Acts 16:6-10, among other facts). Take a look at Ex 19.

16On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. 17Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. 18Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire.

That's called a vision. But we're not done yet. In this same blaze of visible glory, the Lord spoke in a loud voice to the entire nation:

"And God spoke all these words...[the ten commandments]" (Ex 20).

The Hebrew word for "voice" is qowl present 500 times in the OT and always in sonic contexts without exception. It always refers to a literal sensory experience. Of those 500 occurrences, 50 of them are the Lord stating, "Obey my voice" (or something close, to the same effect). (You won't see this in the NIV but it's clearly indicated in the KJV). The alternative Hebrew expression, "Obey my laws" is almost never found in the OT. On top of that, even the Hebrew word for "obey" is sonic, it literally means to hearken unto a voice.

The writer of Hebrews noted that, on that day (Ex 19), the Voice literally quaked Mount Sinai. Such is the effect of a literal sonic voice. Augustine insisted that these theophanies were physical apparitions of the divine Glory.

You're probably not aware of these physical, sonic dynamics because Sola Scriptura scholars got their metaphysics all wrong. The church fathers misconstrued God as an immaterial, intangible being - except for Tertullian who got it right. But we're getting off topic.

 

[JAL]

You seriously won't believe where Jal is coming from because he won't come right out and say until you push him hard!
.
What Jal believes is that Abraham heard God's "authoritative voice", as opposed to God's squeaky not so authoritative voice one must presume, and that the only test of any truth is if we hear God's "authoritative voice".... and the way we check if things are consistent with God's will is not to look into scripture but to seek and check out God's "authoritative voice".
.
In other words, it's God's "authoritative voice" that confirms everything even if that "authoritative voice" contradicts scripture because God cannot be constrained by His word.
.
He'll now try to justify this view with misuses and misinterpreted scriptures, which is ironic since we can ignore scripture and just ask God to tell us with His "authoritative voice".
.
Jal's posthumous mentor is a chap called Andrew Murray and whilst he was a sincere man, he was sincerely deluded. Three classical errors Murray believed and taught i) Mysticism ii) We can be like Christ iii) We should be completely healthy if we follow God - none of which can actually be found in the bible.. so not surprising Jal and Murray can't rely on God's word!

Thanks so much once again. You are so very entertaining even when you insult and misrepresent me. Laughter is good medicine.

 

[JAL]

Yes, more Nuttersville absurdity... You can't help it, you probably keep hearing voices!

Nutters in that day like you would have been sitting around listening for the Lord to speak His commandments to you and wouldn't hear God saying, "I wrote them down for you, you idiots, I didn't mean literally".

They were supposed to merely practice Sola Scriptura via scholarly exegesis? They weren't supposed to patiently wait on the Lord to hear the voice? And if they did seek the Voice, they were total idiots as you say - complete Nutters? Rather odd, in that case, was the behavior of the prophet David.

"David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And the LORD said unto David, Go, and smite the Philistines…Then David enquired of the LORD yet again. And the LORD answered him [again]…I will deliver the Philistines into thine hand" (1Sa 23:2, 4, KJV).

Why did he wait on the Lord? Couldn't he have figured out from scholarly exegesis whether now (or never) was the right time to attack the Philistines? Maybe you're right. Maybe David was a complete idiot. Strange though that his name functioned in the OT as typology for the Christ. Maybe Christ was a total idiot too? At least that would be consistent with the typology. Here's more of David's idiotic behavior.

"David inquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And the LORD said to him, Go up. And David said, Where shall I go up? And he said, To Hebron" (2Sa 2:1, KJV).

You're right. Seems David really was living in total Nuttersville. I'm not sure even a modern psychiatrist could have rescued him. Here is David at it again (when will he ever learn):

"And David inquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up to the Philistines? Will you deliver them into my hand? And the LORD said to David, Go up: for I will doubtless deliver the Philistines into your hand" (2Sam 5:19, KJV).

You know the other thing I find confusing? When Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews refer to these men obeying the Voice, they depict it as examples of the life of faith. Evidently the biblical writers were total idiots as well. Thanks for clearing that up. Before, I thought you were contradicting yourself. Now I see how consistent you are. Every godly man in the Bible was a total idiot, in your view! (Sorry it took me so long to connect the dots).

 

[JAL]

Voice doesn't mean God directly speaking to them...

Part of the disconnect here is that Sola Scriptura scholars have never understood the concept of voice. For example they tend to assume that a sonic voice, from the standpoint of human subjectivity, is existentially distinct from a voice heard in a vision or dream.

They have overcomplicated matters. These distinctions break down into a phenomenology incredibly simple. As I said, all my conclusions are no-brainer simplicities. Maybe I'll explain "voice" a bit later, if I have the time.

 

[JAL]

Nutters in that day like you would have been sitting around listening for the Lord to speak His commandments to you and wouldn't hear God saying, "I wrote them down for you, you idiots, I didn't mean literally"

And in that post you were only being kind, gentle, and conservative. Such noble restraint on your part! You could really have shown how idiotic were some of these people, had you taken the time to lambast them for waiting on the Lord for signs from heaven. Which is probably more stupid than waiting to hear voices! Had you wanted to be unkind, you could easily have mentioned Pentecost, for example:

14They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brother....1When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.

And, of course, what did they do next? Like the complete nutcases they were, they began to behave as though crazy visions from heaven actually mean something. They took it took to mean the fulfillment of Christ's promise of outpoured Power !!! How stupid! They should have relied on scholarly exegesis alone to determine whether the Power had finally arrived. Idiots!

 

[JAL]

Nutters in that day like you would have been sitting around listening for the Lord to speak His commandments to you and wouldn't hear God saying, "I wrote them down for you, you idiots, I didn't mean literally"

I'm so glad for your wake-up call. Felt painfully like a rude awakening, but seems I desperately needed it, to finally escape Nuttersville. You know what else I just learned? The problem is insidious. It's essentially contagious - when one fool such as Moses starts waiting on the Lord for voices, others are soon to follow!!!! How do we put a stop to it !!!

7Now Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the “tent of meeting.” Anyone inquiring of the Lord would go to the tent of meeting outside the camp. 8And whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose and stood at the entrances to their tents, watching Moses until he entered the tent. 9As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the Lord spoke with Moses. 10Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshiped, each at the entrance to their tent. 11The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.

Look what tragic effect Moses' behavior had on Joshua! It completely ruined him! Sent him totally to Nuttersville - for life! Poor guy. Seems there was no coming back from that insanity.

 

[JAL]

Nutters in that day like you would have been sitting around listening for the Lord to speak His commandments to you and wouldn't hear God saying, "I wrote them down for you, you idiots, I didn't mean literally".

Absolutely. And after that tomfoolery known as Pentecost, you'd think that at least Peter, if no one else, would have wisened up. Unfortunately, no. Instead of allowing scholarly exegesis to determine his every move, here he is again, already in Acts 4 (just two chapters later, for crying out loud), again waiting prayerfully on the Lord for another sign. This guy is a real numbskull.

[They prayed] 30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

Were those idiots asleep in science class? They didn't know that an earthquake is merely a freak of Nature? In their idiocy, they took it as another clear sign that God had outpoured more Power to preach the gospel!!! Talk about the Dark Ages of evangelism! Fortunately modern evangelists and missionaries are smart enough to rely on scholarly exegesis to plan and execute their evangelistic campaigns. Thank God we've come a long way.

Of course Peter wouldn't make the same stupid mistake a third time. No way, right? You guessed it - wrong. He did it again at Acts 10. Instead of putting boots on the ground, here we find him on a rooftop (of all places) waiting in prayer for signs and instructions. He apparently fell into some kind of drunken stupor rife with bizarre visions and nightmares and, like the imbecile he was, he took it to mean that God was speaking! And it only gets worse. Whereas in the past, Jews like him used to shun the Gentiles based on scholarly exegesis, he now regarded the voice as authorization to contradict Scripture !!!! As to how he managed to become a leader without taking the Theology 101 class, I guess we'll never know. We can only speculate.

Why is there virtually no coming back from Nuttersville? Well as the saying goes, "There but for the grace of God, go I" - that and your timely intervention. Thanks again.

 

[JAL]

Nutters in that day like you would have been sitting around listening for the Lord to speak His commandments to you and wouldn't hear God saying, "I wrote them down for you, you idiots, I didn't mean literally"

And Paul? Now I'm thinking he was the worst offender of them all. I mean, we're talking about a scholarly man quite familiar with the occult term ἀποκαλύψεως (revelation) employed to denote the delusional experiences of mystics - experiences that those idiots would call prophecy or Direct Revelation. And yet Paul tries to use that term in positive ways (as if all of us would be dumb enough to fall for it):

29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation [ἀποκαλυφθῇ] comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

And doesn't stop there. Instead of praying for the Ephesians to become better Bible scholars, or at least obtain more bibles, Paul instead prayed like this:

"17I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation [ἀποκαλύψεως] so that you may know him better. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19and his incomparably great power for us who believe.

You'd think a bible scholar like Paul would have known better - and gotten his priorities straight! Although I can hardly believe it myself, Paul never once prayed that God's mighty hand facilitate a widespread circulation of Bibles !!!! Instead he squandered his energy and wasted his efforts praying for ridiculous, occult things like spiritual gifts and Direct Revelation !!!! How could someone so smart be so entirely stupid?

 

[Darren Court]

Absolutely. And after that tomfoolery known as Pentecost, you'd think that at least Peter, if no one else, would have wisened up. Unfortunately, no. Instead of allowing scholarly exegesis to determine his every move, here he is again, already in Acts 4 (just two chapters later, for crying out loud), again waiting prayerfully on the Lord for another sign. This guy is a real numbskull.

[They prayed] 30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

Were those idiots asleep in science class? They didn't know that an earthquake is merely a freak of Nature? In their idiocy, they took it as another clear sign that God had outpoured more Power to preach the gospel!!! Talk about the Dark Ages of evangelism! Fortunately modern evangelists and missionaries are smart enough to rely on scholarly exegesis to plan and execute their evangelistic campaigns. Thank God we've come a long way.

Of course Peter wouldn't make the same stupid mistake a third time. No way, right? You guessed it - wrong. He did it again at Acts 10. Instead of putting boots on the ground, here we find him on a rooftop (of all places) waiting in prayer for signs and instructions. He apparently fell into some kind of drunken stupor rife with bizarre visions and nightmares and, like the imbecile he was, he took it to mean that God was speaking! And it only gets worse. Whereas in the past, Jews like him used to shun the Gentiles based on scholarly exegesis, he now regarded the voice as authorization to contradict Scripture !!!! As to how he managed to become a leader without taking the Theology 101 class, I guess we'll never know. We can only speculate.

Why is there virtually no coming back from Nuttersville? Well as the saying goes, "There but for the grace of God, go I" - that and your timely intervention. Thanks again.

Oh another switcheroo!! We were talking about YOUR OT quote and you switched out to the NT, because it suited you more!

 

[Darren Court]

They were supposed to merely practice Sola Scriptura via scholarly exegesis? They weren't supposed to patiently wait on the Lord to hear the voice? And if they did seek the Voice, they were total idiots as you say - complete Nutters? Rather odd, in that case, was the behavior of the prophet David.

"David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And the LORD said unto David, Go, and smite the Philistines…Then David enquired of the LORD yet again. And the LORD answered him [again]…I will deliver the Philistines into thine hand" (1Sa 23:2, 4, KJV).

Why did he wait on the Lord? Couldn't he have figured out from scholarly exegesis whether now (or never) was the right time to attack the Philistines? Maybe you're right. Maybe David was a complete idiot. Strange though that his name functioned in the OT as typology for the Christ. Maybe Christ was a total idiot too? At least that would be consistent with the typology. Here's more of David's idiotic behavior.

"David inquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And the LORD said to him, Go up. And David said, Where shall I go up? And he said, To Hebron" (2Sa 2:1, KJV).

You're right. Seems David really was living in total Nuttersville. I'm not sure even a modern psychiatrist could have rescued him. Here is David at it again (when will he ever learn):

"And David inquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up to the Philistines? Will you deliver them into my hand? And the LORD said to David, Go up: for I will doubtless deliver the Philistines into your hand" (2Sam 5:19, KJV).

You know the other thing I find confusing? When Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews refer to these men obeying the Voice, they depict it as examples of the life of faith. Evidently the biblical writers were total idiots as well. Thanks for clearing that up. Before, I thought you were contradicting yourself. Now I see how consistent you are. Every godly man in the Bible was a total idiot, in your view! (Sorry it took me so long to connect the dots).

No wonder you are confused... you poor thing!
.
You read a "man of God" inquiring of the Lord and think that must be everyone despite the fact that there's no scripture that supports that in the OLD TESTAMENT!

 

[Darren Court]

All believers hear it to some extent (Jn 10:27). It's just that the prophet hears it rather distinctly.

No that's Jesus talking in the NT.... there's NO EVIDENCE this applied in the Old Covenant

 

[Darren Court]

No evidence? So all they had was written law? No voice, and thus no personal relationship with the Father?

No all they had was the Torah then later scriptures and PROPHETS... don't you read the bible?