Butterball1
Well-Known Member
- Dec 31, 2020
- 688
- 121
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
It's not "logical fallacy" to ask someone to provide proof of the unsubstianted, baseless, wild claims they make.
Upvote
0
When people say “God/The Father told me x, y, and z...”
- Thread starter Dkh587
- Start date
Butterball1
Well-Known Member
- Dec 31, 2020
- 688
- 121
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Those who claim God speak directly to them not only contradict each other but contradict the Bible in the things they claim God told them time and time and time again.
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2005
- 27,917
- 7,998
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The Bible does not say things like "and God will continue to speak to people/act this way even in the 22nd century."
The question is, why do you believe that God would stop talking to his children? Where's the verse that says he will do that?
When Jesus said "my sheep listen to my voice", John 10:27, why would that not apply to us today?
When Jesus told us to pray, Paul said pray without ceasing and Peter said "cast all your cares upon him", why is that not for Jesus' disciples today? Prayer is not just talking, but listening - what's there to listen to if you don't believe God speaks?
When Jesus and Paul told us to do God's will, how do you find out what that is unless you ask him? Are you saying that if you wanted to change job, move house or make some other big decision you would just go ahead and do it without involving God, because he doesn't speak to you?
My word is not proof, but I would hope that the testimony of a fellow Christian might count for something - especially as I am certain that I am not the only person to believe that God speaks today.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Stop telling lies. The passage says no such thing. You've added YOUR subjective opinion on the subject. Any passage is debatable and thus we must allow that your EXTRAPOLATION might be correct - but let's be clear that it's an extrapolation, such is my point. And a very incorrect one in my opinion.
Stop telling lies. It wasn't merely my "subjective opinion" that:
(1) Christ The Prophet attributed His superior knowledge of the Scriptures to information "revealed" (that crucial word) from the Father via the gift of PROPHECY.
(2) That He used the same word "revealed" for His apostles (Mat 11:25)
(3) That Paul applied that same word "revealed" to us (Ephesians 1).
(4) That the Reformation applied the Inward Witness as a revelation to each of us.
(5) That thought has visual and sonic qualities.
(6) That Paul commanded the whole church to seek the gift of prophecy, placing it on the very top rung of the priority ladder alongside love (1Cor 14:1).
(7) That Scripture is not solid food!
Tired old cessationists arguments. You seem unaware that most present-day theologians have abandoned those arguments. As Gordon Fee noted, “This is a dead issue in the academy. Hardly anyone is defending [cessation] anymore” (see Douglas Banister, The Word and Power Church, p. 180).
No prophecy? Then no evangelism. Here's two links showing two of my own arguments that the NT officially defines true evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180). I have a third argument which I can show you later. And, on top of that, modern scholarship has added a couple of their own to the mix.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
And yet the NT defines true evangelism as prophecy. Here's my third corroboration of that point. As follows.
My greatest objection to church history is the rampant intellectual dishonesty. Most people admit themselves to be fallible, in one breath, while, in the other, INSISTING to know the correct doctrines. They do this in the pulpit, to their children, in so-called prophetic ministry and even in evangelism. Folks, let's bear in mind that we are counseling people on their eternal destiny. In ALL these contexts, therefore, we should ALWAYS preface our message with a disclaimer to the effect, "I'm a fallible person. Don't bank your eternity on my opinions alone."
Now here's the point. I just showed you that proper "evangelism" (as I myself would do it) should be rife with disclaimers, if we are doing it with full honesty. Yet you won't find such disclaimers expressed by the apostles in Acts !!!! That's because they were NOT evangelizing as fallible men! They were speaking by prophetic utterance, as infallible men! Read Peter's speech on Pentecost, where he spews forth all kinds of doctrines as though he is some kind of expert! Because at that precise moment, in virtue of prophetic utterance, he WAS an expert!
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face" (1Cor 13:12). Hold that thought for a moment.
The Lord created us - His bride - for intimate fellowship with Him (1Cor 1:9; Phi 2:1; 3:10; 1Jn 1:3, 6). The problem is, fellowship between two parties can ONLY be defined as a mutual exchange of sensations more or less distinct (loud and clear). Any attempt to define fellowship otherwise culminates in an empty void of vacuous assertion. Thus as fellowship with the Father matures, it can ONLY look like this:
"The Lord spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaks with a friend"
Anyone who has had a friend knows that such is what friendship entails. For example the prophet Abraham, "the friend of God," had the Father come over to his house for supper, and fried Him up a beef steak, baked Him a load of bread, and chatted away with Him while He ate (Gen 18). That's friendship. That's simply what it means to be friends with someone. That's what it means to be spiritually mature, because spiritual maturity is a state of intimacy/ friendship with the Father.
If you claim that God doesn't speak today - if you say He provides no (real-time) feelings and sensations more or less distinct (loud and clear) - then you imply that He doesn't fellowship with us. Studying a 2,000 year old book of rules and laws is not fellowship with the Father. That's not what He created you for.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I've provided three arguments that evangelism is prophetic utterance. I have a fourth. It turns out that prophethood is, by its very nature, the perfect embodiment of evangelism. Let's see some reasons why - but first, as sample evangelists, consider these prophets:
(1) Jonah - evangelist to the Ninevites.
(2) John the Baptist - a prophet in the magnitude of Elijah! Evangelist to the Jews.
(3) Christ. Evangelist to the Jews.
(4) The apostles. Evangelists to both Jews and Gentiles.
A prophet makes for the ideal evangelist because, first and foremost, both have the same job: that of an itinerant minister who is supposed to know what to preach, where to preach, and when to preach. Only a prophet fulfills that role perfectly.
Secondly, the prophetic mantle/anointing is a matter of homiletic unction, that is, a divine-human synergism where the Spirit radically convinces/convicts the audience of the prophet's message. Otherwise, how would they know whether to take him seriously? If I go out and preach on a street corner, most people will ignore me. But if a prophet marches out to that same corner, most people (at least those to whom God is currently reaching out) will undergo the heart-shattering experience of feeling like the Living God is speaking directly to them.
Thirdly, population studies suggest 100 billion people to have lived and died since the world began. With so much at stake, God won't be sloppy or cavalier in His approach to evangelism - sending out regular, fallible missionaries all over the world who are not even sure what they are saying or what they are doing. The prophet is the consummate professional, in terms of teaching and ministering God's kingdom.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Miracles aren't really the focal point of this thread, but since you mentioned them:
Look, since God is omnipotent, nothing in the church is 'strictly necessary'. Hence the argument doesn't make sense. One could just as well argue that the Bible is obsolete because it isn't 'strictly necessary' for God to build a church.
Secondly, you are correct that miracles confirm the Word - in all generations. Consider a modern-day Muslim. He would be more likely to heed your message if you were performing miracles. Even the newborn Christian needs to see leaders performing miracles, to increase the odds of selecting a valid denomination.
Thirdly, strictly speaking miracles per se don't confirm the Word. You wouldn't follow someone JUST because he "seemed" to be capable of miracles because, for example, deceivers exist, and perhaps even demons can do miracles. Knowing this, the Spirit must supervise the persuasive effects of miracles. When a good man is doing real miracles, He allows it to convict our conscience accordingly. Otherwise not. What this means is that it is the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation), not the miracles themselves, ultimately responsible for winning our allegiance. Why then has God EVER bothered with miracles? Only one possible explanation - such is Yahweh's personal preference! He glories in miracles. Think about it. Suppose you had just as much power as God - and you never get to show it off? Since miracles are His personal preference - and since He is unchanging - they must be His will for all generations. And now I'm going to prove it (point four).
Fourthly, Paul is clear that miracles are God's will for all generations.
"Some of you have become arrogant, as if I were not coming to you. 19But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. 20For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. 21What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline, or shall I come in love and with a gentle spirit?" (1Cor 4).
He's talking about empirically demonstrable power - because he needs to visit them to be able to see it with his own eyes. He says that the Kingdom is DEFINED by such empirical power. Has the definition of the Kingdom changed?
This is the old cessationist argument that miracles served a purpose and thus are no longer 'strictly necessary' and therefore ceased.
Look, since God is omnipotent, nothing in the church is 'strictly necessary'. Hence the argument doesn't make sense. One could just as well argue that the Bible is obsolete because it isn't 'strictly necessary' for God to build a church.
Secondly, you are correct that miracles confirm the Word - in all generations. Consider a modern-day Muslim. He would be more likely to heed your message if you were performing miracles. Even the newborn Christian needs to see leaders performing miracles, to increase the odds of selecting a valid denomination.
Thirdly, strictly speaking miracles per se don't confirm the Word. You wouldn't follow someone JUST because he "seemed" to be capable of miracles because, for example, deceivers exist, and perhaps even demons can do miracles. Knowing this, the Spirit must supervise the persuasive effects of miracles. When a good man is doing real miracles, He allows it to convict our conscience accordingly. Otherwise not. What this means is that it is the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation), not the miracles themselves, ultimately responsible for winning our allegiance. Why then has God EVER bothered with miracles? Only one possible explanation - such is Yahweh's personal preference! He glories in miracles. Think about it. Suppose you had just as much power as God - and you never get to show it off? Since miracles are His personal preference - and since He is unchanging - they must be His will for all generations. And now I'm going to prove it (point four).
Fourthly, Paul is clear that miracles are God's will for all generations.
"Some of you have become arrogant, as if I were not coming to you. 19But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. 20For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. 21What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline, or shall I come in love and with a gentle spirit?" (1Cor 4).
He's talking about empirically demonstrable power - because he needs to visit them to be able to see it with his own eyes. He says that the Kingdom is DEFINED by such empirical power. Has the definition of the Kingdom changed?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Cessationists disparage present-day charismatic experience, supposedly preferring to rely on Scripture. Ok let's look at Scripture. Here's Paul's definition of a church - it is the ONLY definition that I accept:
"28And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues." (1Cor 12).
Hm....cessationists don't accept Scripture. They don't accept Paul's definition of a church and thus concoct their own man-made definitions. Interesting.
I see "miracles" in Paul's definition. Cessationists claim, however, that miracles only appeared at key moments in history, and the current lapse indicates cessation. This argument is a methodological contradiction. After all, cessationists say, 'Look to Scripture, not to experience' - but then they do the exact opposite, namely they:
(1) Look to history/experience.
(2) Repudiate the scripture cited above.
Secondly, the argument is self-defeating. If a historic lapse of the gifts implies their cessation, then any OT lapse would have ALREADY implied cessation. There would not have been any gifts in the NT.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Perhaps I'll end on this note.
Emphasis is an important consideration in determining doctrine. In particular, what does 1Corinthians emphasize? Direct Revelation is the main topic of discussion in chapters 2, 12, 13, and 14. That's about 95 verses of total coverage. You will NOT find 95 verses discussing seminaries, exegesis, concordances, lexicons, and bible scholarship.
Specifically, regarding those 95 verses, Paul's main point is that spiritual maturity is defined as mature prophethood. To demonstrate this fact, I have a thread on this epistle here. Relevant posts on that thread include: Post 7, and Post 33, and Post 46, and Post 47, and post 52, and post 58.
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 23,291
- 5,252
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
You guys might find this useful: Hearing God's Voice Inside and Outside of Scripture - Focus on the Family
It's very short, if you feel like checking it out, etc...?
I had a problem when I was reading through this thread, and people talking about a quote/unquote literal "audible" (can or could be heard by others possibly) (if you were not all alone at the time, etc) (anyway) quote/unquote literal "audible" "voice", "outside of you", etc, or "coming from and/or on what is being heard from the outside of you", etc, or "external", etc; vs. one that would not be audible to others and that is coming from, or is being heard on and/or from, the "inside of you" only, etc, because I have both heard and had experiences with "both" sometimes, etc, the most often of the two being the one, or ones, coming from and/or on the "inside of me", etc, or "internal", etc...
I don't know if the one or ones I have heard coming from the outside of me could possibly ever have been literally heard audibly by any others or not, etc, because "it/It", has only done "it", etc, only when I was all alone, etc, and "it/It" "wasn't very nice", etc...
But anyway, about the link I posted, however one is hearing from God/god, etc, any personal revelation or extra-biblical interpretation, that is maybe only just that, "extra-biblical interpretation", etc, does not, nor should have, ever have any kind of real "authority" for or over anyone else except maybe only the hearer who heard it personally only, etc...
And others can, of course, if they feel like it might or maybe could possibly "hold any water", so to speak, etc, or maybe possibly be worth any kind of merit worth considering, etc, at all, etc; anyway, they can and always should feel completely free to "test it", etc, either against scripture or against themselves, etc, and then after that, each decide each one for themselves only, etc; whether if should have any kind of authority or hold any merit (or water) for them personally or not personally, etc....
Anyway,
God Bless!
It's very short, if you feel like checking it out, etc...?
I had a problem when I was reading through this thread, and people talking about a quote/unquote literal "audible" (can or could be heard by others possibly) (if you were not all alone at the time, etc) (anyway) quote/unquote literal "audible" "voice", "outside of you", etc, or "coming from and/or on what is being heard from the outside of you", etc, or "external", etc; vs. one that would not be audible to others and that is coming from, or is being heard on and/or from, the "inside of you" only, etc, because I have both heard and had experiences with "both" sometimes, etc, the most often of the two being the one, or ones, coming from and/or on the "inside of me", etc, or "internal", etc...
I don't know if the one or ones I have heard coming from the outside of me could possibly ever have been literally heard audibly by any others or not, etc, because "it/It", has only done "it", etc, only when I was all alone, etc, and "it/It" "wasn't very nice", etc...
But anyway, about the link I posted, however one is hearing from God/god, etc, any personal revelation or extra-biblical interpretation, that is maybe only just that, "extra-biblical interpretation", etc, does not, nor should have, ever have any kind of real "authority" for or over anyone else except maybe only the hearer who heard it personally only, etc...
And others can, of course, if they feel like it might or maybe could possibly "hold any water", so to speak, etc, or maybe possibly be worth any kind of merit worth considering, etc, at all, etc; anyway, they can and always should feel completely free to "test it", etc, either against scripture or against themselves, etc, and then after that, each decide each one for themselves only, etc; whether if should have any kind of authority or hold any merit (or water) for them personally or not personally, etc....
Anyway,
God Bless!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 10, 2011
- 23,291
- 5,252
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
I have a great deal of anxiety in this area, over possibly making a very, very "grave mistake" in this area, etc...
But, as I said, the quote/unquote "more audible" voice/presence/voice, etc, that is sometimes heard and/or felt on the "outside of me", etc, wasn't very nice/kind at all, etc, and that is putting it way much more "mildly" then you probably possibly can ever even know, etc, but I still fear making a possibly very, very possibly "grave mistake" in this area, etc, so I have tried very, very hard "not to" yet, etc...
I'm learning more about the one, or ones, on the inside of me, etc, and they seem very, very much more like my God, etc, or the true God, etc... (See post #28-29 in this thread for more info, etc)... But the One or ones on the inside of me seem much more like God, and "my God", etc, so I'm beginning to begin to be leaning much more towards trusting "it/them/that" more now, etc...
I'm reminded of these scriptures about it, etc...?
Like that "we" possibly are the Kingdom of God, or Holy City of God now, etc...?
Luke 17:21- "nor will they say, ‘See here!' or ‘See there!' For indeed, the kingdom (city) of God is within you (is you now maybe, etc)."
And that outside of that city and/or Kingdom are the dogs, or wicked ones (spirits) maybe, etc...?
Revelation 22:15- "Outside the city are the dogs—the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie."
Matthew 7:6- "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."
Matthew 7:6 being part of the reason and I am learning to only trust only most things heard only on the inside of my mind now, etc, and not so much aloud, with the more "audible" words outside of me aloud now, etc...
And then and/or also/because, Satan possibly being the god of this world outside of it/that, or me or you, etc...?
(And trying very desperately at times sometimes, it seems sometimes, to "get in" or "break in" sometimes maybe, etc)...?
2 Corinthians 4:4- "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."
Then you/me/us being greater than that/them (those spirits) because of the God/god that is within you/me/us, etc...
1 John 4:4- "You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in (of) the (this) world."
Also we probably all know the scripture about us now being the temple of God, etc, (1 Corinthians 6:19), temple of the Holy Spirit of God anyway, etc... (1 Corinthians 6:19) (John 2:21)... Whose enemy is the Devil, the one on the outside of you/me/it/Him/that/you, etc...
But the temple, the city, the kingdom, etc, could all be "us" now maybe, etc, maybe, etc...?
Under the New Testament/New Covenant now maybe, etc...?
But like I said, in this specific area most especially, I do not want to ever make a mistake, etc, cause the consequences of that specific kind of mistake, could or might be, "very, very, much, much more, "greater or graver than grave"" maybe, etc...?
Anyway,
God Bless!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 23,291
- 5,252
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
I was hoping someone might maybe comment on these, etc...?
Anyway,
Peace,
God Bless!
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
You are obligated to heed a message or voice of any kind if, and only if, you find yourself unable to disregard it in good conscience, where "conscience" is defined as a feeling of certainty about which course of action is morally upright. I've discussed it on this thread, for example:
How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura | Christian Forums
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 23,291
- 5,252
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
I'm supposed to trust my own self above and beyond any kind of voice or voices says as to whether or not, or whatnot, is more or most "morally upright" or not, etc...?
What about times where God might ask you to do something or say something that is not or may not be totally morally upright completely according to your own conscience, etc...?
God Bless!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I provided you a link. Here it is again:
How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura | Christian Forums
On that thread I've already responded to those sort of questions and objections.
On such threads I formally define the rule of conscience like this:
"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should opt for B".
There can be no exceptions to this rule because you should never try to do evil.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
