God permits evil because we need to know

garee said:

If any man says he saw the lord or had a dream we are to believe not. In that way the true believer (the elect) it would be impossible to be led astray by another gospel

Click to expand...

The only revelation I have had is that the Gospel of the Kingdom trumps anything the religion has come up with.

garee said:

The Pharisees with Sadducees. called all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura) a heresy so that they could serve the oral traditions of the fathers. They hated the word of God and did not bless it by obeying it .

Born again Paul declared under the influence or inspiration of God who worked in Paul. By that which they call heresy so he worships the God of the fathers and not the legion of Father as one God. There showing they worshiped a legion of gods in the likeness of sinful men.They walked away in unbelief. No faith. Not little . . none.

Click to expand...

Oh I see. By questioning the scholarly integrity of all the Sola Scriptura parties, you can thereby maintain that biblical scholarship is a valid epistemology. Unfortunately Christ disagrees with your assessment:

"I praise you Father because you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned [the scholars] but have revealed [Direct Revelation] them unto babes"

A babe operates out of confidence in his father's voice, not out of a scholarly ability to "check it out with Scripture."

JAL said:

A babe operates out of confidence in his father's voice, not out of a scholarly ability to "check it out with Scripture."

Click to expand...

The same Scripture can be seen two ways... through the eyes of man or through the eyes of those of the Kingdom.

JAL said:

"New revelations" is an oxymoron, it is a propaganda term fabricated by the Sola Scriptura party to incite unrealistic paranoia of enlarging the canon, as a tactic leveraged to discourage Direct Revelation. How sad - and what a nightmare for men like Paul. The ONE THING the Galatians needed to mature, argued Paul, was the pursuit of Direct Revelation (the "hearing of faith") - the whole point of chapter 3.

"New revelation" is an oxymoron because the Bible is concerned with planet earth and thus everything under the sun. Direct Revelation does not and cannot introduce anything new - it can only clarify existing realities. Even Paul didn't see his writings as teaching "new revelation" - he was simply clarifying existing revelations.

Click to expand...

I would agree the hearing of the existing faith the whole or perfect ended with the last Chapter (Revelation).

The faithless foolish Galatians (no God in their hearts) where chasing after the oral traditions of the legion of fathers rather than the hearing of existing faith (Christ's) . When the perfect came then we have a perfect way for tying the spirits to see if they are of temporal man seen as oral traditions' or again the eternal perfect tradition of God.

Any prophet after the apostle John that says thus says the lord, I had a dream of out of the body vision (experience) we are to believe not. In that way it is impossible to deceive the born again believers.

JAL said:

Oh I see. By questioning the scholarly integrity of all the Sola Scriptura parties, you can thereby maintain that biblical scholarship is a valid epistemology. Unfortunately Christ disagrees with your assessment:

"I praise you Father because you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned [the scholars] but have revealed [Direct Revelation] them unto babes"

A babe operates out of confidence in his father's voice, not out of a scholarly ability to "check it out with Scripture."

Click to expand...

Yes he hides his understanding in the revealed parables/prophecy , direct revelation from God according to his poetic tongue.

garee said:

If any man says he saw the lord or had a dream we are to believe not.

Click to expand...

Then you'd better reject the writings of both Calvin and Gordon Fee (see for example 2 Cor 3:18) who rightly defined the new birth as a God-given vision of the Lord (otherwise you'd worship a conceptual idol). Calvin called it a "secret beholding of Christ".

Paul was converted by seeing the Lord on the Road to Damascus. The only difference between his vision and ours is that, as he was privy to a period of great revival, he was privileged to experience a more vivid, distinct vision than we do.

The NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance, and defines the evangelist in terms of his visions of Christ (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).

garee said:

Any prophet after the apostle John that says thus says the lord, I had a dream of out of the body vision (experience) we are to believe not. In that way it is impossible to deceive the born again believers.

Click to expand...

You are building much of your case on a strawman. Relevance? Where did I say that we are supposed to believe anyone who claims to have a revelation?

garee said:

Yes he hides his understanding in the revealed parables/prophecy , direct revelation from God according to his poetic tongue.

Click to expand...

Um..no. Scripture is not Direct Revelation. Jesus spoke with the Father face to face just like Moses did, and therefore pitied those who lacked this privilege:

"You have never heard the Father's voice, nor seen His shape" (Jn 5:37).

The only vision of Jesus I have had or need is understanding what he represents. That putting the will of the Father ahead of the will of man, thus loving all as self, trumps anything man does out of self interest, self determination and gain at the expense of others. Jesus represents a counter-culture compared to the world man has made in our own image. He is a vision of the Kingdom.

timothyu said:

The only vision of Jesus I have had or need is understanding what he represents.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your man-made opinion. Next you might want to take a look at the Bible verses discussed in those links.

timothyu said:

The only vision of Jesus I have had or need is understanding what he represents.

Click to expand...

And why are you focused exclusively on visions? Is this a strawman tactic? Direct Revelation is largely about information - in order to evangelize most effectively we must know God's intent, that is, we must know WHEN to preach, WHERE to preach, and WHAT to preach (see Acts 16:6-10).

Did you catch that definition of evangelism?

"We must know WHEN to preach, WHERE to preach, and WHAT to preach"

Do you NOT understand that the itinerant prophet was the quintessential embodiment of that ministry?

JAL said:

Thanks for sharing your man-made opinion.

Click to expand...

Mark 1: 14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Matthew 4: 23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom...

Matthew 24: 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Matthew 9: 35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom

Luke 8: 1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

etc etc etc

That's why John the Baptist - the premiere evangelist of his day - NEEDED to be a prophet in the magnitude of Elijah (see Luke 1).

JAL said:

And why are you focused exclusively on visions?

Click to expand...

I'm not. I said the only vision of (way of seeing) Jesus I have is the epitome of the Kingdom.

timothyu said:

Mark 1: 14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Matthew 4: 23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom...

Matthew 24: 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Matthew 9: 35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom

Luke 8: 1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

etc etc etc

Click to expand...

None of these verses establish sanctification/maturity sans visons.

JAL said:

We must know WHEN to preach, WHERE to preach, and WHAT to preach"

Click to expand...

See my verses above. We are to scatter seeds. It is not up to us if they grow or how they grow, That is God's domain.

timothyu said:

See my verses above. We are to scatter seeds. It is not up to us if they grow or how they grow, That is God's domain.

Click to expand...

Man-made definitions of evangelism. How sad.

Look, I'll say here what I say everywhere else: even if I'm wrong about the primacy of Direct Revelation, I'm still right about it. How so? There are 100 billion souls at stake! This leaves no acceptable margin of error in our doctrine and practice of soteriology, evangelism, sanctification, ecclesiology. Therefore we MUST pursue infallible revelation as top priority, since exegesis is foreknown to be fallible. Now, let's suppose I'm wrong about that. Doesn't matter because, with 100 billion souls at stake, I need to know FOR SURE that I'm wrong, so therefore I STILL need to seek infallible revelation.

It's a no-brainer.

JAL said:

Man-made definitions of evangelism. How sad.

Click to expand...

So you deny what Jesus said in His parable.

timothyu said:

See my verses above. We are to scatter seeds. It is not up to us if they grow or how they grow, That is God's domain.

Click to expand...

You're dead wrong. In Israel there was such a thing as unauthorized military initiatives. You weren't supposed to march into battle without a "loud and clear" heavenly sign from Yahweh, and waiting upon the Lord for such a sign was referred to as "inquiring of the Lord". You were supposed to await Direct Revelation. Num 9:16-23 is an incredibly redundant passage to this effect - it is LITERALLY the Lord repeating Himself to the effect of:

"If you get nothing else, GET THIS: Do not march out of the camp without a sign from me."

And yet the church is STILL NOT GETTING IT.

Now here's the point. That paradigm is PRECISELY the definitive strategy both in Acts and before. Examples.
(1) The disciples didn't "up and heal the sick" (that would have failed miserably) - they waited for the Lord to SEND them to heal the sick (see Luke 9 and 10).
(2) Up till Pentecost they waited on the Lord in prayer - waited for what? A "loud and clear" signal from heaven!
(3) In Acts 4 Peter waited in prayer for a sign. God responded with an earthquake!

When we fail to follow God's military strategy, we forfeit His power and thereby minimize the harvest.

timothyu said:

So you deny what Jesus said in His parable.

Click to expand...

That parable doesn't provide clear instructions on evangelism. That is why we need Direct Revelation in hopes of clear, infallible instructions.