You're not a prophet? Then you're not mature!

JAL · Sep 17, 2019

A_Thinker said:
You're certainly entitled to your opinion on this ...

Right. I'll stand on a rule that is incontrovertibly true - by all accounts - at all times and in all circumstances. And you are free to stand on a position full of holes, but I'm pretty sure you'll feel ashamed and embarrassed about it on judgment day.

Nobody forced Sola Scriptura down your throat. You chose to accept it. In effect, you shoved it down God's throat.

And you are free to accuse me of the same but let's bear in mind:
(1) I'm standing on a universally incontrovertible premise. I don't currently know how to improve on that.
(2) One of my most fundamental claims is that we DON'T know for sure what we are doing and therefore we NEED infallible revelation. But that's not what the church is touting of itself. They are claiming they DO know how to evangelize, they DO know how to run a church, and so on. This means they've potentially turned a deaf ear to the Voice.

topher694 · Sep 17, 2019

JAL said:
As expected. You ignored the core of the argument. Much easier to focus on ad hominum, right?

All right, how about you stop deflecting from your bad behavior to people here, which is NOT ad hominum to point out, and put your money where your mouth is.

How many people have you helped. How many people have you lead to Christ? How many marriages have you helped guide to restoration? How many depressed people have you brought hope to? For all your talk, how many have you helped?

A_Thinker · Sep 17, 2019

JAL said:
A_Thinker,

Once you reject the rule of conscience, you've got nothing left. Earlier you talked about the use of miracles to authenticate. Fine - but the function of the miracles in that case would only be to cause us to feel certain that an act of God is at work. This is conscience. Thus no matter what kind of reply you give to any of these posts, everything you say will always confirm the rule of conscience.Therefore Sola Scriptura is total nonsense.

I've said nothing about Sola Scriptura ...but I note many of the abuses which have occurred in the Church ... have occurred because the abusers thought that they could disregard the teachings of scripture.

topher694 · Sep 17, 2019

A_Thinker said:
... and it is a glaring sign of the weakness of his arguments.

Someone with a good well-founded argument does not need to resort to put-downs of his hearers.

I tried to convey that his ego was too involved in the very beginning of this (or another) discussion. He doesn't seem willing to sacrifice his ego for the truth ...

It is getting well beyond ridiculous. He tags me in a section, I respond to that section but somehow I'm ignoring the main point and attacking him? I'm wondering if a gremlin is changing our words before they get to his screen.

JAL · Sep 17, 2019

topher694 said:
All right, how about you stop deflecting from your bad behavior to people here, which is NOT ad hominum to point out, and put your money where your mouth is.

How many people have you helped. How many people have you lead to Christ? How many marriages have you helped guide to restoration? How many depressed people have you brought hope to? For all your talk, how many have you helped?

This is not supposed to be a debate about my merits. If I started bragging about my merits, you'd probably just take it as an opportunity to accuse me of arrogance.

JAL · Sep 17, 2019

A_Thinker said:
I've said nothing about Sola Scriptura ...but I note many of the abuses which have occurred in the Church ... have occurred because the abusers thought that they could disregard the teachings of scripture.

The insistence that we 'must check it out with Scripture' - is Sola Scriptura. It appears to be a nonsense claim, and it tends to weaken the confidence in direct revelation.

And that's insanity - it's insanity to weaken our confidence in a principle (direct revelation) that itself is just a corollary of conscience (an incontrovertible principle).

And it flies in the face of many many many Scriptures that do stress the eminence of direct revelation/prophecy/etc.

JAL · Sep 17, 2019

A_Thinker said:
... and it is a glaring sign of the weakness of his arguments.

Someone with a good well-founded argument does not need to resort to put-downs of his hearers.

I tried to convey that his ego was too involved in the very beginning of this (or another) discussion. He doesn't seem willing to sacrifice his ego for the truth ...

Weakness in my arguments? Still waiting for an exception to the rule of conscience. Yeah, no - that will never happen.

JAL · Sep 17, 2019

A_Thinker said:
You're certainly entitled to your opinion on this ...

No if it involves conscience it's YOUR opinion too. In everything you do - that we all do - it betrays the authority of conscience. Your understanding of what Abraham did is a testament to your belief in the authority of conscience.

The rule of conscience is incontrovertibly true.
Corollary: Sola Scriptura is incontrovertibly false.

topher694 · Sep 17, 2019

JAL said:
This is not supposed to be a debate about my merits. If I started bragging about my merits, you'd probably just take it as an opportunity to accuse me of arrogance.

You keep making all of these accusations about everyone else. The Bible says we will know them by their fruits, what is your fruit? The only fruit I've seen so far is pride and rudeness. Show me otherwise and it will strengthen your arguments. I'm happy to share mine so it wouldn't look like arrogance.

JAL · Sep 17, 2019

A_Thinker,

The Voice is our fellowship with God. The maximal extent to which we experience the Voice - any distinct ('loud and clear') kind of sensation/impact from the divine Presence - is the maximal extent to which we know God (see Num 12).

Therefore, when it comes to direct revelation, it is virtually impossible to overdo it (unless, obviously, one is intent on pursuing it for purely selfish or hostile reasons opposed to love, but of course he won't be successful).

topher694 · Sep 17, 2019

JAL said:
No if it involves conscience it's YOUR opinion too. In everything you do - that we all do - it betrays the authority of conscience. Your understanding of what Abraham did is a testament to your belief in the authority of conscience.

The rule of conscience is incontrovertibly true.
Corollary: Sola Scriptura is incontrovertibly false.

@A_Thinker, ok I think this has officially jumped the shark right here. Now he is telling us what our opinions are. Ego doesn't even begin to describe this.

I'm bowing out. Not because I'm scared or running or whatever insult is surely to follow, but because continuing with this is a colossal waste of time and is actually doing JAL a disservice. I hope he finds freedom. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to continue the conversation.

JAL · Sep 17, 2019

topher694 said:
@A_Thinker, ok I think this has officially jumped the shark right here. Now he is telling us what our opinions are. Ego doesn't even begin to describe this.

I'm bowing out. Not because I'm scared or running or whatever insult is surely to follow, but because continuing with this is a colossal waste of time and is actually doing JAL a disservice. I hope he finds freedom. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to continue the conversation.

This is silly. The inability of you yourself - and everyone else - to postulate ONE exception to the rule of conscience (despite how much everyone would love to prove me wrong in these debates) is clear evidence of your own allegiance to it.

If I see you drive a car every day, and conclude, 'This guy obviously believes in cars', your reply would be:

@A_Thinker[/USER], ok I think this has officially jumped the shark right here. Now he is telling us what our opinions are. Ego doesn't even begin to describe this

You are trying so hard me to put me down that you will say the silliest things possible.

A_Thinker · Sep 17, 2019

topher694 said:
@A_Thinker, ok I think this has officially jumped the shark right here. Now he is telling us what our opinions are. Ego doesn't even begin to describe this.

I'm bowing out. Not because I'm scared or running or whatever insult is surely to follow, but because continuing with this is a colossal waste of time and is actually doing JAL a disservice. I hope he finds freedom. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to continue the conversation.

It's been gratifying to share fellowship with you. In spite of everything, I find solace in his tagline ...

"These are just my opinions, not "the facts."

A_Thinker · Sep 17, 2019

JAL said:
A_Thinker,

The Voice is our fellowship with God. The maximal extent to which we experience the Voice - any distinct ('loud and clear') kind of sensation/impact from the divine Presence - is the maximal extent to which we know God (see Num 12).

Therefore, when it comes to direct revelation, it is virtually impossible to overdo it (unless, obviously, one is intent on pursuing it for purely selfish or hostile reasons opposed to love, but of course he won't be successful).

It is really our fellowship with God which determines our maturity in the faith. If we are close to God, listening for and to His voice, we will most readily live our lives in accordance with His will. Of course, that also means that we will not find ourselves averse to the ever unfolding revelation of God in scripture.

My relationship and fellowship with my wife is largely determined upon my being keen to hear her voice, ... but she also wants me to read the notes she leaves for me ...

JAL · Sep 17, 2019

@A_Thinker,

Let's take a look at the difference in methodology between David versus advocates of Sola Scriptura. David at one point asked God should he go up and slaughter the Philistines. It's a good question, because we generally shouldn't be killing people without infallible revelation. God said go up and fight them.

Then later, before he actually went up to fight them, he prayed again. Why? Evidently:
(1) The Voice didn't give him 100% certainty the first time. Maybe it was a little less.
(2) Or perhaps he had it, and then lost it.
Then God said again - a second time - 'Go up and fight them'. Then David proceeded to go.

You see the difference? When an evangelical is unsure of a voice, he says, 'I need to check it out with Scripture'.

When David was unsure of the direct revelation, he realized the best solution was - to pray for more direct revelation!

Exegesis can never bring you to 100% certainty. Such a state of mind requires supernatural intervention.

Could the devil do it? Doesn't make much sense for God to allow it. But if He did, He couldn't fault us for heeding conscience at 100% certainty.

JAL · Sep 18, 2019

@A_Thinker,

The Christian life pivots on faith, right? We can never have too much faith. Jesus said that anything is possible for he who believes. Our success against the enemy is wholly dependent on faith.

Now for the point. The Inward Witness (direct revelation) is our ongoing source of saving faith where faith is defined as a feeling of certainty. I discussed on how Heb 11 attributes all the great acts of faith to faith defined in that way - a feeling of certainty obtained from direct revelation.

This is straightforward. "Faith cometh by hearing" - hearing the divine Word/Voice (not Scripture). In Rom and Gal both, Paul's favorite example is Gen 15:1 where "The Word of the Lord came to Abram" speaking promises. Hearing God speak promises gives me confidence (faith) in those things.

So let's suppose it's our ambition to heal a sick person. We have to pray until we get the assurance (the feeling of 100% certainty) that God has said Yes. This is faith.

Or let's say we think God might want us to do missionary work. We have to pray until we get the 100% feeling of certainty in our heart that God has said Yes. This is faith. (Note how Paul's missionary work was directed by signs and visions - Acts 16:6-10). Charles Finney's success was based on applying this principle - thus he figured out the correct practice even though, doctrinally, he himself never explicitly formulated the correct epistemology. Pastor Yonngi Cho (arguably the most successful pastor in church history) also used the same approach even without really understanding biblical epistemology.

In particular Cho would pray for a particular individual to be saved until God said Yes. Finney often did the same thing. Cho also said that, whenever a major church decision had to be made, his staff would pray and fast with him until they got the full assurance (the 100% certainty) of which direction to take.

However, because the church for the most part has NOT been taking this kind of approach for the last 2000 years, we are very distant from God and thus stuck in a terrible dry season. This means we generally won't get answers to prayer (we won't often hear God's voice very loud and clear for example) but nonetheless we still need to practice the right approach because it's the only way to get back on course so that we hopefully can get OUT of this horrible spiritual famine.

Of course we also might get lucky. God might send us a revival out of the blue, thereby pulling us out of the dry season.

JAL · Sep 18, 2019

Christ performed an important illustration of the strategy enunciated in my last post - and then repeated it again later in His ministry. I think it's the only illustration that He did twice - He did it twice precisely because this strategy is vital for the maximal success of the church. Yet the church has, for 2,000 years, completely missed the point of the illustration. I'll cover it when I have time.

JAL · Sep 18, 2019

Another thing keeping us in a dry season is 2,000 years of man-made religious traditions. We've come up with our own definitions of churches, services, choirs, pastors, teachers, deacons, ordination, etc - and shoved them down God's throat. None of us know for sure all the correct definitions, hence we should always express them with a disclaimer (see my signature), not as fact.

To give you an example of possible man-made traditions, I think it's crazy that churches are engaging in water baptism and eucharist today, as though God were a fan of ceremonialism. God is a fan of His own voice. John the Baptist was a PROPHET, and he baptized according to the Voice - and it was NOT a ceremony, in my view, it was physical contact/fellowship with the Father as Living Water (I can't defend this ontology here). But for us to then come along 2000 years later creating a ceremony that RESEMBLES the real thing - we do this without clear authorization from the Voice - verges on witchcraft, viz, "If I perform ceremony-A, God will give me blessing-A".

God created us for fellowship, not to jump through a bunch of ceremonial hoops.

JAL · Sep 20, 2019

A_Thinker,

- I can't afford to spend much time here lately but, following up on my last couple of posts, I did want to exposit an illustration so critical that Jesus peformed it twice - to emphasize that direct revelation is supposed to govern all church work. As a background consider the following:
- In the OT, "inquiring of the Lord" meant to wait upon God for a clear sign, especially before battle.
- In Luke 9 and Luke 10, the Lord sent the disciples to heal the sick. Did they have any success? Yes, because Jesus-as-Voice sent them out. Now imagine if the disciples had self-initiated that mission, failure is a near certainty.
- The same strategy governs the whole book of Acts, starting from Pentecost when the apostles waited in prayer for a clear sign from heaven, before evangelizing. One of my favorite examples is Acts 4:30-31 which, according to Barnes commentary, was an earthquake. And there are additional earthquakes in Acts. In all such incidents, the purpose is to raise our level of certainty to 100% that the Lord has approved a mission.
- With those examples as a backdrop, the twice-repeated illustration becomes clear. I'm referring to the 2 occasions when Peter the fisherman cast out the nets without success. As a new believer I initially interpreted the illustration superficially, I thought it was merely stressing the need to evangelize - but why repeat such a simple lesson twice? After all, evangelism isn't a novel concept, every religion already has it. Plus we also have the whole book of Acts to belabor that point. Then I realized that it's actually a metaphor for SELF-INITIATED evangelism. At the outset, Peter's effort lacked authorization from the Voice. Then Jesus COMMANDED him to cast out the nets one more time. The end result? Revival! The nets are the local churches, and the overflow betokens a harvest too plentiful for them to manage.

Try to picture the look of amazement on Peter's face as the fish (the new converts) suddenly started stampeding into the churches in the thousands - you'd have that same look if it happened in your own church today.

Sorry might not be back for a while - just too busy.

JLHargus · Feb 27, 2020

JAL said:
See post 6 where I talked about being promoted to the higher gifts. Bear in mind that the apostolic church brought in a lot of new converts, spread rapidly, planted lots of new churches. As this happens, it creates a need for such promotions as there are more positions to be filled, and more people with needs to be ministered to. Just because you are today, say, a hand or foot in the body doesn't mean you can't be something different tomorrow.

Also we can speculate that God likes to mix things up. Perhaps last Sunday, Mr. Billy Bob prophesied to the church. Perhaps next Sunday, Sally will prophesy instead.

JL: What assurance do you have Billy Bob or Sally are not just making it up to be more important or perhaps Satan planted it in their mind.

You're not a prophet? Then you're not mature!

Veteran

Go Turtle!

Well-Known Member

Go Turtle!

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Go Turtle!

Veteran

Go Turtle!

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

Similar threads