Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

JAL · May 20, 2018

I just noted that the excert

Der Alter said:
Are these quotes from your own research or copy/paste from another source? I happen to have ISBE and K&D and I want to know who to blame for deliberate misrepresentation. Here is what K&D actually says.

Der Alter said:
[Gen 1:1]The verb בָּרָא, indeed, to judge from its use in Jos_17:15, Jos_17:18, where it occurs in the Piel (to hew out), means literally “to cut, or new,” but in Kal it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine creation, the production of that which had no existence before. It is never joined with an accusative of the material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent material unconditionally, but is used for the creation of man (Gen_1:27; Gen_5:1-2), and of everything new that God creates, whether in the kingdom of nature (Num_16:30) or of that of grace (Exo_34:10; Psa_51:10, etc.). In this verse, however, the existence of any primeval material is precluded by the object created: “the heaven and the earth.”

What the ISBE actually says.

Creation 5. Matter Not Eternal
The Old Testament and the New Testament, in their doctrine of creation, recognize no eternal matter before creation. We cannot say that the origin of matter is excluded from the Genesis account of creation, and this quite apart from the use of bārā', as admitting of material and means in creation. But it seems unwise to build upon Genesis passages that afford no more than a basis which has proved exegetically insecure. The New Testament seems to favor the derivation of matter from the non-existent - that is to say, the time-worlds were due to the effluent Divine Word or originative Will, rather than to being built out of God's own invisible essence. So the best exegesis interprets Heb_11:3.
I wonder how many more errors/misrepresentations I would find if I researched every alleged "quote" that was posted?

The writer goes on to say that there's no hard evidence for preexisting matter - but likewise there is no hard evidence for creation ex nihilo. He's just expressing his bias. His only appeal is to Heb 11:3 which I already refuted.

JAL · May 20, 2018

I edited that last post, I was in the middle of something and read the excerpt too quickly.

JAL · May 20, 2018

Der Alter said:
Are these quotes from your own research or copy/paste from another source? I happen to have ISBE and K&D and I want to know who to blame for deliberate misrepresentation. Here is what K&D actually says.

[Gen 1:1]The verb בָּרָא, indeed, to judge from its use in Jos_17:15, Jos_17:18, where it occurs in the Piel (to hew out), means literally “to cut, or new,” but in Kal it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine creation, the production of that which had no existence before. It is never joined with an accusative of the material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent material unconditionally, but is used for the creation of man (Gen_1:27; Gen_5:1-2), and of everything new that God creates, whether in the kingdom of nature (Num_16:30) or of that of grace (Exo_34:10; Psa_51:10, etc.)

Just re-read the excerpt and still don't see the problem. Notice he says that the Hebrew word for 'create' is applied to creating Adan and Eve. How did He create Adam? Out of nothing? Nope. Out of the dust of the earth. And Eve? From Adam's ribs.

How is that not confirming what I said? And what Charles Hodge said? Namely that Genesis provides no hard evidence for creation ex nihilo.

It's been many years since I've looked at my own sources. I just noticed this logical argument from the excerpt:

In this verse, however, the existence of any primeval material is precluded by the object created: “the heaven and the earth.”

His logical argument here seems to be that heaven and earth are themselves raw material and therefore cannot be touted as made from prior raw material. Interesting argument, but the conclusion isn't logically rigorous. In fact it flatly contradicts today's manufacturing processes. One plant can use raw materials to produce a product such as clay, which then serves as the raw material in another plant to make a more complex product.

JAL · May 21, 2018

Der Alter said:
What the ISBE actually says.

Creation 5. Matter Not Eternal
The Old Testament and the New Testament, in their doctrine of creation, recognize no eternal matter before creation. We cannot say that the origin of matter is excluded from the Genesis account of creation, and this quite apart from the use of bārā', as admitting of material and means in creation. But it seems unwise to build upon Genesis passages that afford no more than a basis which has proved exegetically insecure. The New Testament seems to favor the derivation of matter from the non-existent - that is to say, the time-worlds were due to the effluent Divine Word or originative Will, rather than to being built out of God's own invisible essence. So the best exegesis interprets Heb_11:3.
I wonder how many more errors/misrepresentations I would find if I researched every alleged "quote" that was posted?

I meant to give this excerpt more attention and then forgot about it. Unfortunately this treatise in the ISBE uses needlessly opaque language at times. Not terribly clear. The key statement is this, "It seems unwise to build upon Genesis passages that afford no more than a basis which has proved exegetically insecure." In other words, Genesis provides no secure basis for a doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Yes the writer also points out that Genesis provides no hard evidence of preexisting matter when he says, "The Old Testament and the New Testament, in their doctrine of creation, recognize no eternal matter before creation." The following statement expresses an open-mindedness to the POSSIBILITY that Genesis is expressing creation ex nhilo, "We cannot say that the origin of matter is excluded from the Genesis account of creation" but as I pointed out, the writer goes on to say that Genesis doesn't CLEARLY spell out such a doctrine. Eventually the writer appeals to Heb 11:3 which I already refuted. In the final analysis, the writer's conclusion in favor of creation ex nihilo is an expression of personal philosophical opinion rather than a product of hard biblical evidence.

So that's my commentary on a rather difficult-to-understand commentary. I certainly didn't intend to misrepresent the writer, and I still don't believe that I did so.

2tim_215 · May 25, 2018

Same argument as how does something come from nothing? Yet this brings us back to the chicken and egg theory as to which came first? This is impossible to answer which brings us to the first verse in Hebrews 11 which is very interesting:

Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
There's two key words in this verse: substance (hupostasis) and evidence (elenchos). Hupostasis can be used as a scientific term and elenchos as a legal term. If we go to the Strong's we find:
substance - G5287 from a compound of <G5259> (hupo) and <G2476> (histemi); a setting under (support), i.e. (figurative) concrete essence, or abstract assurance (object or subject) :- confidence, confident, person, substance
evidence - G1650 from <G1651> (elegcho); proof, conviction :- evidence, reproof.

This is where most science fails. They only take into consideration what they can see, touch or feel. They choose to discount anything supernatural which cannot be observed in the natural. and which requires a "sixth-sense" so to speak. It should be obvious that it requires a certain amount of faith, that sure be quite clear to anyone who believes and studies the Word of God. Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of God (Rom 10:17). According to the Word, man has been given a spirit which cannot be seen or touched to go along with his soul and his physical body. God Himself is a spirit as are angelic beings which live in a different unseen realm (John 4:24).

Substance based on hope and evidence based on things unseen. That's what the Christian faith is based upon. What is it that you hope for? And what evidence do you have to support your belief, material or unmaterial?

JAL · May 26, 2018

2tim_215 said:
Same argument as how does something come from nothing? Yet this brings us back to the chicken and egg theory as to which came first? This is impossible to answer...

Well my answer is that it is impossible to get matter out of nothing. See? It's not impossible to answer.

You believe God has always existed. So do I, except that I believe the 'God' in question to be tangible/material.

...which brings us to the first verse in Hebrews 11 which is very interesting:

Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
There's two key words in this verse: substance (hupostasis) and evidence (elenchos). Hupostasis can be used as a scientific term and elenchos as a legal term. If we go to the Strong's we find:
substance - G5287 from a compound of <G5259> (hupo) and <G2476> (histemi); a setting under (support), i.e. (figurative) concrete essence, or abstract assurance (object or subject) :- confidence, confident, person, substance
evidence - G1650 from <G1651> (elegcho); proof, conviction :- evidence, reproof.

This is where most science fails. They only take into consideration what they can see, touch or feel. They choose to discount anything supernatural which cannot be observed in the natural. and which requires a "sixth-sense" so to speak. It should be obvious that it requires a certain amount of faith, that sure be quite clear to anyone who believes and studies the Word of God.

Actually Hebrews 11 is teaching the opposite. It's teaching that faith is supposed to be based on seeing/hearing the (typically) unseen realm (via visions), otherwise it's blind faith which is foolishness. A good example is verse 27 where Moses "By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen." Moses saw God, for example, in the burning bush, and heard his voice (His promises). Based on this vision, he had confidence/faith against the king of egypt.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of God (Rom 10:17).

But not the written word. This is the divine voice - Paul's favorite example is Gen 15:1-6 (a passage that he refers to both in Romans 4 and Gal 3). "After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying [promises]...Abraham believed [the promises], and God credited to him as righteousness." The divine Word came to him and created a vision in his head - his faith wasn't based on memorizing bible verses.

So was Abraham's faith blind? Nope, it was the same as Moses' faith. These men were prophets. As such, they saw the same kinds of visions that John saw (see the whole book of Revelation). Hence verse 10, '[By faith] Abraham looked forward to the city with foundations' - he looked forward to the heavenly city because he saw it in visions, just like John did. His faith/confidence was based on what he saw.

According to the Word, man has been given a spirit which cannot be seen or touched to go along with his soul and his physical body. God Himself is a spirit as are angelic beings which live in a different unseen realm (John 4:24).

Actually that's not what the (written) Word teaches, if we go by the biblical evidence. As shown on this thread, the biblical evidence indicates that 'spirit' is a mistranslation of the Greek and Hebrew and that all numinous reality is physical/material.

Substance based on hope and evidence based on things unseen. That's what the Christian faith is based upon. What is it that you hope for? And what evidence do you have to support your belief, material or unmaterial?

Faith is not a 'substance' - 'substance' is a poor translation used in KJV. Faith is a state of mind (a degree of confidence/certainty) and is supposed to be based on what is seen and heard (in visions).

2tim_215 · May 28, 2018

JAL said:
Well my answer is that it is impossible to get matter out of nothing. See? It's not impossible to answer.

Only possible for God.

JAL said:
You believe God has always existed. So do I, except that I believe the 'God' in question to be tangible/material.

God tells us otherwise. He says he's a spirit and I believe Him. That's why Jesus came to earth and manifested Himself as a human being in material form unlike God since He’s a spirit.

JAL said:
Actually Hebrews 11 is teaching the opposite. It's teaching that faith is supposed to be based on seeing/hearing the (typically) unseen realm (via visions), otherwise it's blind faith which is foolishness. A good example is verse 27 where Moses "By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen." Moses saw God, for example, in the burning bush, and heard his voice (His promises). Based on this vision, he had confidence/faith against the king of egypt.

The evidence of things "not seen". When you see or hear something what faith is needed? Then there would be no need for faith. You have it wrong, Visions are nothing unless they come true. Moses left Egypt by faith before seeing the burning bush. And as for turning on Pharaoh as far a I can tell he didn't have any visions. Another way to look at faith, it's believing in and by trusting in someone. You say you believe in God but do you trust Him? And do you trust that He left us an un-corrupted Bible that we can believe in and trust in as well? Is He not powerful enough to do this for us?

JAL said:
But not the written word. This is the divine voice - Paul's favorite example is Gen 15:1-6 (a passage that he refers to both in Romans 4 and Gal 3). "After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying [promises]...Abraham believed [the promises], and God credited to him as righteousness." The divine Word came to him and created a vision in his head - his faith wasn't based on memorizing bible verses.

The Living Word, the Word of Truth, the Logos you seem to want to diminish. Do you hear voices? If so, how do you know those voices are coming from God? The only way to be sure is by lining them up with the Word of Truth, that is the Bible. Unfortunately, there’s lot of people who are hearing voices and dreaming dreams that they believe are coming from God and are committing murder and suicide throughout the world. How do they truly know whether they are truly hearing from God? By discerning whether or not what they're hearing lines up with scripture. So don't try to belittle the Bible by referring to it as "the letter".

JAL said:
So was Abraham's faith blind? Nope, it was the same as Moses' faith. These men were prophets. As such, they saw the same kinds of visions that John saw (see the whole book of Revelation). Hence verse 10, '[By faith] Abraham looked forward to the city with foundations' - he looked forward to the heavenly city because he saw it in visions, just like John did. His faith/confidence was based on what he saw.

Who said anything about faith being blind? No one (other than perhaps Daniel) saw the same kind saw the same kinds of visions as John which predicted in detail the last days. Abraham met God in the form of Melchizedek and also met the Angel of the Lord prior to God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Jacob also met the Angel of the Lord (preincarnate Jesus) whom he wrestled with before having his name change to Israel. The Angel of the Lord appeared to Joshua during one of the battles.

The Lord (Jesus) spoke to Saul on the Damascus Road before he was converted to Saul. Moses when he experienced the burning bush just saw “God’s backside” (he turned completely white as a result) which I believe was also preincarnate Christ (as was Melchizedek). My question to you is why was it necessary to have all of these physical manifestations if God was a material being?

JAL said:
Actually that's not what the (written) Word teaches, if we go by the biblical evidence. As shown on this thread, the biblical evidence indicates that 'spirit' is a mistranslation of the Greek and Hebrew and that all numinous reality is physical/material.

Your opinion, but not true. You mention "biblical evidence" but then claim that it's a "mistranslation". You seem to be contradicting yourself. Which is it? Is the Bible true or is it not? We live in a physical/material world but God and His angelic host live in a different realm which is spiritual. Please don’t ask me why. That’s just the way it is based on what the scriptures tell us.

JAL said:
Faith is not a 'substance' - 'substance' is a poor translation used in KJV. Faith is a state of mind (a degree of confidence/certainty) and is supposed to be based on what is seen and heard (in visions).

Faith is not "just" substance, it's what Hebrews 11:1 says it is. What substance? You seem to have left something out. It's the things hoped for and to give you an example: you hope for a material God when God Himself says He's a spirit and yet you have faith that He is material. You want a material God? You don't have to look too far. Just look at Jesus. He was a physical presence here on earth for 33 1/2 years. And I'm sorry if you don't respect the King James. I'll take the opinions of the King James Translators over you (or any other translator) any day of the week.

As for Mainstream Christianity, I'm not sure what that even is. I think Paul may have come across this. He said in 1 Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 14:36-38 (KJV)
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
How are we to acknowledge what Paul wrote without using our Bible if it contains mistranslations as you suggest?

JAL · May 28, 2018

2tim_215 said:
Only possible for God.

God can do anything? Can he make 2 + 2 = 5? No. Can He change the Trinity into a Quadrinity? No. And can He create something out of nothing? No. Prove me wrong on this. Prove to me that God can create matter out of nothing. You make a lot assertions in this post, but I don't see much proof. This thread is about proof.

God tells us otherwise. He says he's a spirit and I believe Him.

Nope. God says that He is a Pneuma. He didn't use the English word 'spirit'. Prove to me that Scripture was referring to an immaterial spirit. As I demonstrated starting at posts 3 and 5 (and throughout this thread), the contextual evidence overwhelmingly favors (physical) Wind/Breath over spirit.

The evidence of things "not seen".

Correct. These things remain unseen - to the spiritually blind. As I demonstrated in posts 186, 187, 192, and 224, the spiritually mature believer (the mature prophet) is one who sees. He's not blind. In the OT, in fact, prophets were called 'seers' meaning one who sees, as noted in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
Seer Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

When you see or hear something what faith is needed? Then there would be no need for faith.

Blind faith is foolishness. If you don't believe me, step out on 'faith' off a building to walk on air even as Peter (supposedly) stepped out onto the water on blind faith. Before you hit the ground, hopefully you'll realize that Peter's faith wasn't blind.

The church has been advocating blind faith for 2,000 years. This is ludicrous. The term 'faith' can also mean 'belief' - in this case based on what is seen.

You have it wrong, Visions are nothing unless they come true.

Most visions are not foretelling. You seem to have tunnel-vision here (pardon the pun).

Moses left Egypt by faith before seeing the burning bush.

The burning bush was one of many visions. The point is that Heb 11:27 predicates his confidence on visions. The NIV puts its like this, "By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible."

And as for turning on Pharaoh as far a I can tell he didn't have any visions. Another way to look at faith, it's believing in and by trusting in someone. You say you believe in God but do you trust Him? And do you trust that He left us an un-corrupted Bible that we can believe in and trust in as well? Is He not powerful enough to do this for us?

Depends what you mean by trust. Trust in human, fallible exegesis? You're getting into epistemological questions.

The Living Word, the Word of Truth, the Logos you seem to want to diminish. Do you hear voices? If so, how do you know those voices are coming from God?

Epistemological question.

The only way to be sure is by lining them up with the Word of Truth, that is the Bible.

Horrible epistemological stance. Doesn't make sense. So when the prophet Noah saw a vision of an ark, he needed a Bible to confirm it? Perhaps four years of Hebrew and Greek courses at seminary?

And when Abraham heard a voice commanding him to murder his own son, should he have first pursued a doctorate in biblical theology to authenticate it? Problem is - no bibles back then!

Direct revelation must be self-authenticating in order to be viable. The church has largely ignored this fact for 2,000 years. Maybe I'll discuss self-authentication in more detail later, but I'm quite confident, to put it in a nutshell, is that the only realistic theory of self-authentication is elevated certainty, ideally 100% certainty. This seems to be the only logically viable/defensible epistemology. Thus when a person (such as a prophet) felt 100% certain that God was speaking, he was in fact morally obligated to regard the message as inspired, and act accordingly. It is the role of the Holy Breath to elevate certainty. This is called 'convicting' (convincing) the believer.

Unfortunately, there’s lot of people who are hearing voices and dreaming dreams that they believe are coming from God and are committing murder and suicide throughout the world. How do they truly know whether they are truly hearing from God? By discerning whether or not what they're hearing lines up with scripture. So don't try to belittle the Bible by referring to it as "the letter".

Paul referred to the written law/Word as the letter that brings death in 2cor 3, not to mention Romans 7. The writer of Hebrews said it was only a shadow of the heavenly realities.

Who said anything about faith being blind?

You did. Here's what you just said:

When you see or hear something what faith is needed? Then there would be no need for faith.

No one (other than perhaps Daniel) saw the same kind saw the same kinds of visions as John which predicted in detail the last days.

That's a naive assumption, for starters, and really misses the point. The point is that he saw visions of angels, God, and the heavenly city - and there is plenty of evidence that all the prophets, at least the mature ones, shared in such visions. Example is Jacob's ladder in Gen 28:
"And he dreamed, and behold, there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven. And behold, sthe angels of God were ascending and descending on it!"

Abraham met God in the form of Melchizedek and also met the Angel of the Lord prior to God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Jacob also met the Angel of the Lord (preincarnate Jesus) whom he wrestled with before having his name change to Israel. The Angel of the Lord appeared to Joshua during one of the battles.

More examples. Thank you.

The Lord (Jesus) spoke to Saul on the Damascus Road before he was converted to Saul. Moses when he experienced the burning bush just saw “God’s backside” (he turned completely white as a result) which I believe was also preincarnate Christ (as was Melchizedek). My question to you is why was it necessary to have all of these physical manifestations if God was a material being?

To help refute people like you who would later try to misconstrue Him as an immaterial spirit.

Your opinion, but not true. You mention "biblical evidence" but then claim that it's a "mistranslation". You seem to be contradicting yourself. Which is it? Is the Bible true or is it not?

I'm not aware of any contradiction in my thinking. You'll need to be specific. I said that the English word 'spirit' is a mistranslation of the Greek word 'pneuma' - did you read posts 3 and 5?

You seem to be suggesting that to question the credibility of a particular TRANSLATION is to question Scripture itself. You're very confused.

We live in a physical/material world but God and His angelic host live in a different realm which is spiritual. Please don’t ask me why. That’s just the way it is based on what the scriptures tell us.

. Nope. That's YOUR opinion of the Greek word pneuma. But this thread isn't about your opinions - it's about what you can demonstrate from Scripture.

Faith is not "just" substance...

It's not a substance at all. Can you pour yourself a glass of faith?

...it's what Hebrews 11:1 says it is.

Exactly. Assurance/certainty - based on what is seen and heard from God.

What substance? You seem to have left something out. It's the things hoped for and to give you an example: you hope for a material God when God Himself says He's a spirit and yet you have faith that He is material. You want a material God? You don't have to look too far. Just look at Jesus. He was a physical presence here on earth for 33 1/2 years. And I'm sorry if you don't respect the King James. I'll take the opinions of the King James Translators over you (or any other translator) any day of the week.

The translators of the KJV were infallible men? But this is a self-contradictory epistemology isn't it? Because if they were infallible, then they all were unanimous on doctrine. But I think you'll find that they were regular human theologians who did not agree on all matters of doctrine.

As for Mainstream Christianity, I'm not sure what that even is. I think Paul may have come across this. He said in 1 Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 14:36-38 (KJV)
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
How are we to acknowledge what Paul wrote without using our Bible if it contains mistranslations as you suggest?

Again, you seem to be suggesting that to question the credibility of a particular TRANSLATION is to question Scripture itself. You're very confused.

JAL · May 28, 2018

Edited the previous post - forgot to mention post 192 as one of the bases for my claim that spiritually mature believers are not blind to visions.

JAL · May 30, 2018

2tim_215 said:
The evidence of things "not seen". When you see or hear something what faith is needed? Then there would be no need for faith. You have it wrong, Visions are nothing unless they come true.

Time for Part 4 of my proof that all mature believers see visions. (Anyone joining this thread may refer to posts 186, 187, 192, and 224 for Parts 1 to 3).

Luke recorded, "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and they SHALL prophesy. Your young men SHALL see visions, your old men SHALL dream dreams" (Acts 2:17-18).

Interestingly most Christians put words in Luke's mouth. Tacitly, they essentially read it like this...

"I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and they just MIGHT prophesy. Your young men just MIGHT see visions, your old men just MIGHT dream dreams" (Acts 2:17-18).

...in order to boast the Lukan evangelistic anointing even without prophecy/visions. How sad - 'having a form of godliness but denying its power' (2 Tim 3:5).

In the past century, several evangelical scholars realized that Luke-Acts defines evangelism as prophetic utterance. But instead of rehashing their arguments, here I want to focus on a related point still under-emphasized - namely Luke's definition of 'witness' as vision-based.

God didn't HAVE to choose the term 'witness' to denote an evangelist. He must have had a special reason for selecting this term, since it's a rather odd term for evangelism. Try to remember your pre-Christian days. In those days, the term 'witness' evoked in your mind a WITNESS TO AN EVENT rather than 'evangelist'.

In fact the Greek term occurs about 120 times in the NT, and CONSISTENTLY refers to a witness to an event. A witness is someone who has seen and heard a reality and then testifies (“witnesses”) about it. An unacceptable witness is one too far distanced from the event to have witnessed it with accuracy. An excellent witness, therefore, is one who beheld it in face-to-face proximity - saw and heard it 'loud and clear'.

Now what precisely is Acts wanting men to witness about? CHRIST. “Ye shall be MY witnesses” (Acts 1:8). You have to see Christ to witness about Him. If the risen Christ has never appeared to a person face to face, he or she is not a witness. Thus God’s plan was that Paul, for example, visibly “see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his [prophetic70] WITNESS unto all men of what thou hast SEEN and HEARD” (22:14-15, KJV, italics added). And again, “I have appeared [visibly and audibly] unto thee [Paul] for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a WITNESS both of these things which thou hast SEEN, and of those things in which I will [later] APPEAR unto thee” (26:16, KJV). These verses are a description of Paul’s ONGOING MINISTRY. They quite explicitly DEFINE witnessing as relaying to others things seen and heard face-to-face with Christ.

What sort of men had an ongoing ministry of relaying messages seen and heard face-to-face with Christ? PROPHETS. Naturally, then, Peter said that the OT PROPHETS bore witness to Christ (Acts 10:43). In a similar vein, several parallel verses alluded to being witnesses of His resurrection, namely Lk 1:2; Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39, 40-41; 13:31; 14:3; 22:18; 23:11; 26:16. For example Peter said, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses [of His resurrection]” (Acts 2:32, KJV). Thus “Peter claims the whole 120 as personal witnesses to the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead and they are all present as Peter calls them to witness on the point. In Galilee over 500 had seen the Risen Christ at one time (1Co 15:6)” (Robertson’s Word Pictures on Acts 2:32; cf. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on Acts 2:32; Albert Barnes’ Notes on Acts 2:32; John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on Acts 2:32).

Take me for instance. I have never seen and heard the risen Christ face to face. Therefore, I'm not a witness. Period.

JAL · Jun 2, 2018

2tim_215 said:
Do you hear voices? If so, how do you know those voices are coming from God? The only way to be sure is by lining them up with the Word of Truth, that is the Bible.

What was John's technique to detect lying spirits? Attend seminary?

"I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. (1John 2)."

Self-authenticating revelation - the Inward Witness. In fact most Christians didn't have a Bible until about 1500 A.D. when the printing press finally arrived.

Until we become prophets, the Inward Witness isn't exceedingly loud and clear. Naturally, then, we immature Christians often have to rely on biblical exegesis, which is an imperfect science, for obvious reasons. For example it depends on men - you have to learn Greek and Hebrew from fallible men.

Self-authenticating revelation succeeds by elevating certainty because certainty ('conscience') is our only authority. Our authority is neither God nor Scripture - it is conscience alone, defined as a feeling of certainty about our moral obligations. Any attempt to avoid this conclusion leads to a self-contradictory ethics. For example suppose, when you're evangelizing, that the Holy Breath convinces ('convicts') the audience of the gospel. They now have a feeling of certainty that Jesus is Lord. What is their moral obligation? Heed the feeling, right? And once you admit this fact, you've already conceded the authority of conscience.

A God who is good and just can at most demand, at any moment, that I do what is good to the best of my knowledge - which is precisely the doctrine of authoritative conscience/certainty.

What happens when certainty is less than 100%, i.e., when the Voice of conscience isn't 100% loud and clear? At these moments I must opt for whichever decision I feel MOST certain about.

"Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the (100%) CERTAINTY of things unseen" (Heb 11:1). Hebrews 11 is primarily concerned with 100% certainty because it's mostly referring to prophets. A good example is verse 17 where the prophet Abraham, 'By faith, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice.' This 'faith' was definitely a case of 100% certainty. How do I know this? Suppose Abraham had said to himself, "I'm not 100% certain that was God speaking, but I'm going to murder my son anyway." That would make him a MONSTER. Problem is, Heb 11 is NOT A LIST OF MONSTERS - it's a list of exemplary believers.

Or consider verses 32 and 33: "Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, David and Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms." Conquered kingdoms? Was it on blind faith? Or on 100% certainty? What kind of a monster slaughters a nation on less than 100% certainty? In fact the divine Voice commanded Moses and Joshua - speaking at 100% certainty - to slaughter seven nations to possess Canaan. Angels ALWAYS hear the voice of God at 100% certainty and therefore don't need to attend seminary.

I can further corroborate these concepts in at least three ways.
(1) I can demonstrate that the main thesis of 1Corinthians is to define spiritual maturity as mature prophethood - a fact still missed by all Bible scholars even after 2,000 years of exegesis. (So much for exegesis being a fully reliable science).
(2) Although I already discussed 'witness' in Luke-Acts, I can leverage several more weighty arguments to the effect that Luke defined evangelism as prophetic utterance.
(3) I can demonstrate from Galatians 3 that God's dealings/covenant with both OT and NT saints is grounded in the divince Voice - thereby confirming self-authenticating revelation. As John put it, "My sheep know my voice" (Jn 10:27).

he-man · Jun 2, 2018

JAL said:
It seems that Staff deleted my earlier thread for being too hostile. Hopefully everyone will find this new thread less offensive.

"You foolish Galatians!" (Gal 3:1). As human beings of very limited knowledge, all of us are potentially susceptible to doctrinal error. In fact, I will argue that a few mainstream doctrines seem needy of reform. Indeed the motto of the Reformation was, "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda," (Reformed, AND ALWAYS REFORMING).

The mainstream teachings in question here are problematical for various reasons. Seemingly, at least:
- They do not appear to always cast Yahweh in the best possible light, potentially leaving an uninformed reader with doubts about the supreme excellency of His character and His unqualified desert of praise.
- They seem unaware of Yahweh's most costly, unselfish, altruistic sacrifice, mistaking it for the cross. Sadly, Yahweh doesn't seem to be getting any credit/praise for His most self-sacrificial work.
- They seem unaware of why Yahweh created us.
- They seem unaware of the Third Person's true name and nature. Surprisingly, after 2,000 years the church still refers to Him as "The Holy Spirit" or "The Holy Ghost". As a result of such apparent mistakes, mainstream theologians are still mystified even by a verse as lucid as John 3:5.
- They seem unaware of what an intimate relationship with the Father entails and thereby potentially steer our prayer lives in inappropriate directions.
- They seem to favor the same erroneous approaches to sanctification, evangelism, and missions that triggered the writing of the Galatian epistle.

The most important point of all, however, is that church leaders should abstain from any pretense of infallibility in their teachings. When a pastor preaches a sermon with the aura or disposition of, "I've studied my Bible and therefore KNOW exactly what I'm talking about", he's actually hindering revival by building on a platform of intellectual dishonesty. The truth is that he merely has OPINIONS (see my signature), just like the rest of us.

Yes, they are like pastors of Jer. 23:1-2 [ KJV] and do not teach the words of God; who are ravening wolves seeking whom they might devour with false beliefs in seducing spirits and devils, demons. Matthew 7:15; Ezekiel 22:25-27; Luke 11:39; 1 Timothy 4:1; 1Pet 5:8 your adversary as a roaring lion, the accuser seeking whom they may devour

JAL · Jun 3, 2018

2tim_215 said:
Do you hear voices? If so, how do you know those voices are coming from God? The only way to be sure is by lining them up with the Word of Truth, that is the Bible.

Two factors mandate self-authenticating revelation. First, "Love does no harm to its neihgbor" (Rom 13). Even our most well-intentioned decisions can injure others, for example a man can pain his family by investing their savings in a fund doomed to suffer losses. This is especially a problem for political decisions. Take for example a soldier. Should he obey orders in ALL situations - even obey Hitler? Consider the soldier who dropped a bomb on Hiroshima slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people. To claim that God isn't committed to granting the soldier 100% certainty in such situations is to cast aspersions on His character. It suggests He doesn't much care about those who died.

Secondly, without self-authenticating revelation, God cannot run the church. Suppose He wants you to do a specific action immediately (such as lay hands on someone). Must he wait until you arrive at this conclusion exegetically? Doesn't make sense.

2tim_215 · Jun 6, 2018

JAL said:
Two factors mandate self-authenticating revelation. First, "Love does no harm to its neihgbor" (Rom 13). Even our most well-intentioned decisions can injure others, for example a man can pain his family by investing their savings in a fund doomed to suffer losses. This is especially a problem for political decisions. Take for example a soldier. Should he obey orders in ALL situations - even obey Hitler? Consider the soldier who dropped a bomb on Hiroshima slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people. To claim that God isn't committed to granting the soldier 100% certainty in such situations is to cast aspersions on His character. It suggests He doesn't much care about those who died.

Secondly, without self-authenticating revelation, God cannot run the church. Suppose He wants you to do a specific action immediately (such as lay hands on someone). Must he wait until you arrive at this conclusion exegetically? Doesn't make sense.

It should line up with scripture, certainly not contradict it. If it's something that doesn't line up, it should at least be suspect. I don't know what you mean about self-authenticating? I'd say if scripture doesn't support it then at the very least you should pray about it before taking action. In your examples does scripture support it? Jesus does tell us that in the last days we will be arrested and we should even defend ourselves and just speak whatever words the Holy Spirit tells us. Not saying that it will be easy but that's what He says.

2tim_215 · Jun 6, 2018

JAL said:
What was John's technique to detect lying spirits? Attend seminary?

See if it lines up with scripture, that's really the only way and even then that's sometimes difficult as those lying spirits are lying spirits and just like Satan did when Jesus was on the mountain with him he's used scripture (slightly modified) to try and tempt him.

JAL said:
Things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. (1John 2).

John 14:16-17 (KJV)
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
John 14:25-26 (KJV)
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
1 John 2:26-27 (KJV)
26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

JAL said:
Self-authenticating revelation - the Inward Witness. In fact most Christians didn't have a Bible until about 1500 A.D. when the printing press finally arrived.

Where/how does the anointing come? From study of the Bible, doesn't it? And who is the teacher? The Holy Spirit according to what my Bible tells me. This is not self-authenticating, it comes from God through our study of the word.
John 16:12-13 (KJV)
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
And the King James Bible was published in 1611, the same year that the printing press was created.

JAL said:
Until we become prophets, the Inward Witness isn't exceedingly loud and clear. Naturally, then, we immature Christians often have to rely on biblical exegesis, which is an imperfect science, for obvious reasons. For example it depends on men - you have to learn Greek and Hebrew from fallible men.

JAL said:
Self-authenticating revelation succeeds by elevating certainty because certainty ('conscience') is our only authority. Our authority is neither God nor Scripture - it is conscience alone, defined as a feeling of certainty about our moral obligations. Any attempt to avoid this conclusion leads to a self-contradictory ethics. For example suppose, when you're evangelizing, that the Holy Breath convinces ('convicts') the audience of the gospel. They now have a feeling of certainty that Jesus is Lord. What is their moral obligation? Heed the feeling, right? And once you admit this fact, you've already conceded the authority of conscience.

Yes, conscience is a very important word. This is something God has instilled in all of us. And it's the means by which God communicates with us, believer or not. If you that word up in the Strong's conscience means co-perception. The problem id, if you just go by your own definition of morality, that might not be a good thing since we have a tendency to find ways of justifying our own actions. This I believe is one of the reasons that He gives us His word, so that we can truly test our actions and determine if they line up with the way God wants us to live our lives, as left to ourselves things usually don't go well, either for ourselves or others.

JAL said:
A God who is good and just can at most demand, at any moment, that I do what is good to the best of my knowledge - which is precisely the doctrine of authoritative conscience/certainty.
Yes, we can claim ignorance and although I don't He will necessarily hold it against us, it doesn't prevent things going haywire and thus there could be consciences as a result of us making bad choices even if we're not aware of that.

JAL said:

What happens when certainty is less than 100%, i.e., when the Voice of conscience isn't 100% loud and clear? At these moments I must opt for whichever decision I feel MOST certain about.

Click to expand...

Well you just said you're not 100%. Perhaps it's the best of all the option? If you're not certain, you're not certain.

JAL said:

"Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the (100%) CERTAINTY of things unseen" (Heb 11:1). Hebrews 11 is primarily concerned with 100% certainty because it's mostly referring to prophets. A good example is verse 17 where the prophet Abraham, 'By faith, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice.' This 'faith' was definitely a case of 100% certainty. How do I know this? Suppose Abraham had said to himself, "I'm not 100% certain that was God speaking, but I'm going to murder my son anyway." That would make him a MONSTER. Problem is, Heb 11 is NOT A LIST OF MONSTERS - it's a list of exemplary believers.

Click to expand...

I prefer the King James translation:
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
I don''t agree that the word should be "certainty". Evidence does not mean certainty. It could be a high probability based on the evidence and that might not even be the case. You make your best decision based on the evidence. The only way that I can think that it might be certain is if you hear from a confirming voice which wold come from the Holy Spirit and of course you'd have to be sure that it was the Holy Spirit in fact and not some demonic spirit trying to deceive you. The most important thing in my opinion is that it lines up with scripture if you wish to be certain.

JAL said:

Or consider verses 32 and 33: "Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, David and Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms." Conquered kingdoms? Was it on blind faith? Or on 100% certainty? What kind of a monster slaughters a nation on less than 100% certainty? In fact the divine Voice commanded Moses and Joshua - speaking at 100% certainty - to slaughter seven nations to possess Canaan. Angels ALWAYS hear the voice of God at 100% certainty and therefore don't need to attend seminary.[/quotes]
That's angels and just as all free moral agents (which includes men) they stlll have free choice which enables them to choose right or wrong and just s men they don't always choose right.
Those men that you mention heard directly from God (they didn't need the Holy Spirit like we do, He doesn't speak directly to us). Those men were all anointed and had special access which we don't, at least not in the same way. When it comes to faith after you've seen a few miracles you'd know you were hearing from God.

JAL said:

I can further corroborate these concepts in at least three ways.
(1) I can demonstrate that the main thesis of 1Corinthians is to define spiritual maturity as mature prophethood - a fact still missed by all Bible scholars even after 2,000 years of exegesis. (So much for exegesis being a fully reliable science).

Click to expand...

I don't believe we have modern day prophets (at least the way they were in the Old Testament)

JAL said:

(2) Although I already discussed 'witness' in Luke-Acts, I can leverage several more weighty arguments to the effect that Luke defined evangelism as prophetic utterance.

Click to expand...

I believe that a modern day prophet is someone who can interpret the word. Revelations tells us
Revelation 19:10 (KJV) And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
When we testify of our belief in Jesus, we are exercising the spirit of prophecy in today's society according to scripture.

JAL said:

(3) I can demonstrate from Galatians 3 that God's dealings/covenant with both OT and NT saints is grounded in the divince Voice - thereby confirming self-authenticating revelation. As John put it, "My sheep know my voice" (Jn 10:27).

Click to expand...

That voice comes through the Holy Spirit. Not like in the days of the OT Prophets (God walked and talked with Adam and Abraham and others). The authentication should come through the scriptures.
Psalms 11:3(KJV) If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
I believe that the only way we can authenticate and be certain is through the scriptures. The Bible (in more than one case) tells us that we're not to "lean on our won understanding". That could be rather dangerous.

And BTW, I do agree with you that the organized church is pretty messed up today in a number of ways. But I wouldn't make that a gross generalization. There's still some good as far as the churches are concerned, some better than others and there's a wide variation between good and bad. Something to keep in mind: we are the church. Meditate on that a bit. Be blessed.

Click to expand...

JAL · Jun 6, 2018

2tim_215 said:
It should line up with scripture, certainly not contradict it. If it's something that doesn't line up, it should at least be suspect.

Like a voice commanding me to slaughter my own son? Would that contradict Scripture in your view? If so, then do you think Abraham acted wrongly by attempting to murder his son?

Your assumption is wrong. The problem is, we don't KNOW whether a particular voice lines up with Scripture because the world is too complex for us to second-guess God's voice. Hence His voice needs to be self-authenticating.

I don't know what you mean about self-authenticating?

Thought I was clear. How did Abraham know he was really supposed to try to kill his son? The divine Voice must have convicted (convinced) him - produced feelings of certainty on the matter.

I'd say if scripture doesn't support it then at the very least you should pray about it before taking action. In your examples does scripture support it?

You're missing the point. The puny human mind can't know, merely on the basis of Scripture, whether a particular deed is God's will. You can neither obtain nor verify/authenticate God's SPECIFIC will from Scripture - at best His GENERAL will (love).

Jesus does tell us that in the last days we will be arrested and we should even defend ourselves and just speak whatever words the Holy Spirit tells us. Not saying that it will be easy but that's what He says.

Actually that's a good example of self-authentication. This is inspired, impromptu speech (prophesying) on the spur of the moment - hence there is no time to try to 'line it up with Scripture'.

JAL · Jun 6, 2018

2tim_215 said:
See if it lines up with scripture, that's really the only way and even then that's sometimes difficult as those lying spirits are lying spirits and just like Satan did when Jesus was on the mountain with him he's used scripture (slightly modified) to try and tempt him.

Read the passage from John again - it says NOTHING about lining it up with Scripture. You're putting words in his mouth. Moreover christians of those days had no Bibles as to 'line it up with Scripture'.

Yes, conscience is a very important word. This is something God has instilled in all of us. And it's the means by which God communicates with us, believer or not. If you that word up in the Strong's conscience means co-perception. The problem id, if you just go by your own definition of morality, that might not be a good thing since we have a tendency to find ways of justifying our own actions.

Misses the point. God can only judge you on conscience, even if it is confused on morality, because He has to judge you based on whether you did the right thing TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE.

Therefore my conscience is my ONLY authority. If He wants to move me to do something, therefore, he must influence my conscience/certainty (as already mentioned). This is self-authentication.

This I believe is one of the reasons that He gives us His word, so that we can truly test our actions and determine if they line up with the way God wants us to live our lives, as left to ourselves things usually don't go well, either for ourselves or others.

Nope. Won't work, for reasons stated in the last several posts. We need a self-authenticating divine Voice - but since most of us are immature (we are not yet prophets), we don't hear that Voice loud and clear. Naturally, then, we fallback on Scripture/exegesis as a crutch - but it doesn't work very well and it was not God's original plan.

Exegesis is very fallible. If God were to put all His eggs in that basket, He wouldn't be very wise (to put it mildly).

Heart2Soul · Jun 6, 2018

JAL said:
Like a voice commanding me to slaughter my own son? Would that contradict Scripture in your view? If so, then do you think Abraham acted wrongly by attempting to murder his son?

Your assumption is wrong. The problem is, we don't KNOW whether a particular voice lines up with Scripture because the world is too complex for us to second-guess God's voice. Hence His voice needs to be self-authenticating.

Thought I was clear. How did Abraham know he was really supposed to try to kill his son? The divine Voice must have convicted (convinced) him - produced feelings of certainty on the matter.

You're missing the point. The puny human mind can't know, merely on the basis of Scripture, whether a particular deed is God's will. You can neither obtain nor verify/authenticate God's SPECIFIC will from Scripture - at best His GENERAL will (love).

Actually that's a good example of self-authentication. This is inspired, impromptu speech (prophesying) on the spur of the moment - hence there is no time to try to 'line it up with Scripture'.

I must say I enjoyed reading all of what you are saying here. I would like your full teaching if MOD removes any others....blog it or PM it to me...thank you and God bless for your revelation knowledge of His Word as given to you by the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth....I wonder can you mentor someone to understand the hidden wisdom and the mysteries of God.....I am praying for this.....I think sometimes my doctrinal teaching from church growing up interferes with the revelation the Holy Spirit is trying to show me.....Good teaching.....God Bless!

2tim_215 · Jun 7, 2018

JAL said:
Like a voice commanding me to slaughter my own son? Would that contradict Scripture in your view? If so, then do you think Abraham acted wrongly by attempting to murder his son?

You don't get it. Abraham was going to kill Isaac by faith. He trusted God.
Hebrews 11:17-19 (KJV) By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Abraham, who was being tested by God, trusted God enough and knew His character that he believed that if God had let him go through with it, He could raise Isaac from the dead even though God wouldn't let him go through with it. That is why God labeled him "the Father of our faith".

JAL said:
Your assumption is wrong. The problem is, we don't KNOW whether a particular voice lines up with Scripture because the world is too complex for us to second-guess God's voice. Hence His voice needs to be self-authenticating.

Too hard for you maybe. It either lines up or doesn't. That's why God put it in writing for us. How can you know that a voice lines up with what's right and what's wrong? How can you be sure without it matching up with the written word?

JAL said:
Thought I was clear. How did Abraham know he was really supposed to try to kill his son? The divine Voice must have convicted (convinced) him - produced feelings of certainty on the matter.

It was obedience. He had walked with God for many years and knew Him well. He knew His character and He knew God couldn't lie and since God had promised him that he would have offspring that would match the number of the sand in the sea, even if he had allowed Abraham to kill Isaac, He would (and could) resurrect Isaac. Of course this took a great deal of faith and God stopped him from completing the act.

JAL said:
You're missing the point. The puny human mind can't know, merely on the basis of Scripture, whether a particular deed is God's will. You can neither obtain nor verify/authenticate God's SPECIFIC will from Scripture - at best His GENERAL will (love).

The word and the Holy Spirit (the correct voice) is how you verify/authenticate.

JAL said:
Actually that's a good example of self-authentication. This is inspired, impromptu speech (prophesying) on the spur of the moment - hence there is no time to try to 'line it up with Scripture'.

If you're a serious Bible student, then you should know it and how to apply it.

JAL · Jun 7, 2018

2tim_215 said:
You don't get it. Abraham was going to kill Isaac by faith. He trusted God. Hebrews 11:17-19 (KJV) By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

What kind of faith? Blind faith? Isn't that nonsense precisely what I've been repudiating throughout this discussion?

Ok go out and kill your son on blind faith. Then we'll see whether God celebrates you even as Hebrews 11 celebrated Abraham and the others.

Abraham, who was being tested by God, trusted God enough and knew His character that he believed that if God had let him go through with it, He could raise Isaac from the dead even though God wouldn't let him go through with it. That is why God labeled him "the Father of our faith".

So if I opine that God is testing me, it's okay to obey a voice commanding me to slaughter my son? Even without 100% certainty? That was my claim - you can't really claim to KNOW the will of God without 100% certainty functioning as your voice of conscience.

Anything less than 100% certainty is (at least partially) blind faith because it is something less than fully warranted behavior.

I'm going to prove you wrong right now. The two claims in contention are:
(1) My position. Abraham's ULTIMATE rationale was a self-authenticating voice (a voice granting 100% certainty).
(2) Your position. Abraham's ULTIMATE rationale was that he reasoned based on God's character and thus took a LEAP of faith (i.e. he lacked 100% certainty).

Now aside from the fact that your position makes him out to be a monster (as only a monster would slaughter his son based on reasoning, or hearing voices, at less than 100% certainty), it also leads to the following logic contradiction. You're saying that Abraham, based on reasoning, regarded the slaughter as the RIGHT THING TO DO. Well, then, why didn't he follow through with it? Why did he finally abstain?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say:
(1) Abraham reasoned it was the right thing to do.
(2) Abraham reasoned it was the wrong thing to do.

That doesn't make sense. Whereas it makes PERFECT sense to claim:
(1) Abraham heard a persuasive voice (persuaded him at 100% certainty) to kill his son.
(2) At the last moment, he heard a persuasive voice (persuaded him at 100% certainty) to NOT kill him.

I'm not going to contradict Hebrews - I'm not going to suggest that Abraham never engaged in reasoning. All men reason. I'm merely pointing out that his ULTIMATE warrant was a self-authenticating (i.e. persuasive) voice.

Your approach doesn't explain how Abraham KNEW that it was the true God speaking, versus a deceiver.

Too hard for you maybe. It either lines up or doesn't. That's why God put it in writing for us. How can you know that a voice lines up with what's right and what's wrong? How can you be sure without it matching up with the written word?

Abraham is the principal OT paradigm of faith for all NT saints to emulate - and he had nothing in writing! You don't get it. You fail to see that God has ultimately called us to a Voice-based covenant, not a (written) law-based covenant.

It was obedience. He had walked with God for many years and knew Him well. He knew His character and He knew God couldn't lie and since God had promised him that he would have offspring that would match the number of the sand in the sea, even if he had allowed Abraham to kill Isaac, He would (and could) resurrect Isaac. Of course this took a great deal of faith and God stopped him from completing the act.

Um...how could he be sure it wasn't a deceiver speaking? There are a lot of religions out there - AND MOST OF THEM BELIEVE IN DOING GOOD DEEDS. And yet these religions are fostered by - demons! How does one really know God's voice unless it's persuasive?

For the last 500 years, most - perhaps all - evangelical scholars have concurred with Calvin's doctrine of the Inward Witness - that our faith germinates in, and is daily sustained by, a self-authenticating inner voice. You're the one who doesn't get it.

The word and the Holy Spirit (the correct voice) is how you verify/authenticate.

But The prophet Abraham is our paradigm - and he had no Bible!

Do you think God is stupid? Why make Abraham the paradigm if he doesn't fit the bill?

If you're a serious Bible student, then you should know it and how to apply it.

That simply doesn't work. Are you an INFALLIBLE Bible student? Exegesis has no hope of infallibility. Only prophetic inspiration can proffer it.

Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

he-man

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Similar threads