- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Are you posting on the wrong thread? Whom are you addresssing? I'm not going to respond to all of this because it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my position.
In fact, a while back, in a rebuttal to you that you never addressed (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180), I demonstrated that evangelism itself is biblically defined as prophetic utterance - so then your claim is that all evangelism must be canonized? Huh?
You create this strawman for lack of any cogent rebuttal. You simply can't rebut a position that stands four-square on one universally undeniable tautology:
"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".
"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".
Technically that's all I need to say or conclude on the matter of "testing", but I think I can safely extrapolate (i.e. opine) a bit further, for the sake of a more complete epistemology. How did the prophets recognize God's voice? Feelings of certainty. All of us have feelings of certainty, but if we are men of sound conscience (i.e. we are not psychopaths), our conscience will demand absolute certainty(100% certainty) in particular kinds of scenarios, such as:
(1) The prophet Abraham's attempt to slaughter his son.
(2) The effort by prophets Moses and Joshua to slaughter 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan.
And Hebrews 11 refers to this prophetic state of 100% certainty as "faith" (so much for the theory that prophecy isn't for all believers). Let's add a third:
(3) Public proclamation of a message under the rubric, "Thus saith the Lord". This too calls for 100% certainty, for hopefully obvious reasons. Absent 100% certainty, you need not be silent, necessarily, but you will, if acting in good conscience, begin with a DIFFERENT RUBRIC. You will preface like this, "I'm not really sure that I heard God speaking, but here's what I SEEM to have heard - take it with a grain of salt."
What now of the audience? How will THEY know that your message is from God? Same way. The prophetic dynamic implies that God must ALSO copy the 100% certainty of the prophet to the hearts of His targeted members in a given audience. That's the very NATURE of the prophetic ministry, which EXPLAINS why it is the ideal ministry for evangelism. Why so? Because think of how effective you would be, as an evangelist, if your audiences often felt 100% certain that God was speaking through you.
In regard to the SPECIFIC PASSAGES about "testing" a message, I already replied to you at post 123.
I have to prove - what? What has canonization got to do with anything I wrote? The majority of prophetic utterances were never canonized (and in fact the majority of divine revelations are for individual consumption rather than public proclamation). When Paul said, "he who prophesies, edifies the church", he was referring to numerous edifying utterances that never got canonized. When Luke speaks of "Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. 9He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.", he again is referring to numerous uncanonized prophesies.Well, I am not discounting that men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, or they were inspired by the Spirit to write what they did. If such did not happen, we would not have the Bible we do today. But you have to prove that men are still speaking and writing new authoritative level of communications that needs to be added to the back of our Holy Bibles as if they should be the 67th book, 68th book, the 69th book, etc.
In fact, a while back, in a rebuttal to you that you never addressed (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180), I demonstrated that evangelism itself is biblically defined as prophetic utterance - so then your claim is that all evangelism must be canonized? Huh?
You create this strawman for lack of any cogent rebuttal. You simply can't rebut a position that stands four-square on one universally undeniable tautology:
"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".
You have ONE undeniable obligation to God. Follow the rule:Is there a way we can test your communications to show that they are truly from God?
"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".
Technically that's all I need to say or conclude on the matter of "testing", but I think I can safely extrapolate (i.e. opine) a bit further, for the sake of a more complete epistemology. How did the prophets recognize God's voice? Feelings of certainty. All of us have feelings of certainty, but if we are men of sound conscience (i.e. we are not psychopaths), our conscience will demand absolute certainty(100% certainty) in particular kinds of scenarios, such as:
(1) The prophet Abraham's attempt to slaughter his son.
(2) The effort by prophets Moses and Joshua to slaughter 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan.
And Hebrews 11 refers to this prophetic state of 100% certainty as "faith" (so much for the theory that prophecy isn't for all believers). Let's add a third:
(3) Public proclamation of a message under the rubric, "Thus saith the Lord". This too calls for 100% certainty, for hopefully obvious reasons. Absent 100% certainty, you need not be silent, necessarily, but you will, if acting in good conscience, begin with a DIFFERENT RUBRIC. You will preface like this, "I'm not really sure that I heard God speaking, but here's what I SEEM to have heard - take it with a grain of salt."
What now of the audience? How will THEY know that your message is from God? Same way. The prophetic dynamic implies that God must ALSO copy the 100% certainty of the prophet to the hearts of His targeted members in a given audience. That's the very NATURE of the prophetic ministry, which EXPLAINS why it is the ideal ministry for evangelism. Why so? Because think of how effective you would be, as an evangelist, if your audiences often felt 100% certain that God was speaking through you.
In regard to the SPECIFIC PASSAGES about "testing" a message, I already replied to you at post 123.
Upvote
0