.

[sunlover1]

Maybe you were looking at the wrong part of my post. These are the examples where scripture is described as God's "voice":

I followed your link and then i looked up the first few citations.
Not sure what happened. These below are nice and do say voice
but do not say that voice is in reference to "Scripture"
You're exchanging the word "Covenant" to mean Scripture?
While His covenant is written about in the Scriptures and
while we call the NT the New Covenant, Here, He speaks of
His actual covenant and His actual commandments.
They weren't always "written down" at that time.
But i do indeed hear His 'voice' through His Word.
Of course, that's a given! Just so we don't twist
Scripture to say what it doesn't.

Deut 9:23 "Like the nations that the Lord makes to perish before you, so you shall perish; because you would not listen to the voice of the Lord your God."​

Were the Israelites barred from entering the promised land because they didn't listen to God's voice in their minds, or because they didn't believe the recorded promises given by God?

They were told by Moses. So neither.

Psalm 103:20 "Mighty in strength, who perform His word, Obeying the voice of His word!" ​

Clearly "voice" is scripture here.

Clearly it is!
And David also heard His voice in other ways.

Jer 9:13 "The Lord said, “Because they have forsaken My law which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice nor walked according to it". ​

Feelings or God's law?

STRAWMAN

Jer 26:12-13 "The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that you have heard. Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the Lord your God". ​

Inner thoughts or previous commands given by prophecy as recorded in scripture?

Strawman smh

Jer 40:2-3 "The Lord your God promised this calamity against this place; 3 and the Lord has brought it on and done just as He promised. Because you people sinned against the Lord and did not listen to His voice, therefore this thing has happened to you". ​

Did they disobey their inner impressions, or previously given prophecy?

Dan 9:10 "nor have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in His teachings which He set before us through His servants the prophets." ​

An inner voice or written teachings and prophecies?

Rev 3:19 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." ​

Are we saved by hearing an inner voice in our heads or by hearing the gospel from scripture?

[/QUOTE]
smh
Had someone present those passages as "inner voice" teachings?
You have a handful of passages that prove that our God speaks to
us in many ways. Thank you.

 

[sunlover1]

Speaking from a Lutheran perspective, it actually seems to me that modern Catholicism has more in common with the Reformers than modern Evangelicalism. That is, while there certainly remain fundamentally significant differences that can't be glossed over or ignored, if one were to transport, say, Luther, to the 21st century he would almost certainly have more issues against modern Evangelicalism than Rome.

Luther and the Reformers didn't just take issue with Rome, they were just as (if not more so) at odds with "the enthusiasts".

-CryptoLutheran

Being raised RCC for the first 18 years of my life, yet having to live in a strict (and strictly) Protestant
town/area ALL of my life, I can attest to that. Very much similar. I used to laugh to myself at how
funny it was to hear the one dis the other when in fact they were almost the same, yet couldn't see it.

 

[swordsman1]

The "voice" of the Lord was the voices of the Prophets, was it not?

The "voice" of the Lord in the examples I quoted was God's Law, God's covenants as recorded in scripture, God's commandments given by the Prophets, and the words of Christ that bring people to salvation. Not their feelings, impressions, conscience, or an inner voice in their heads.

And in the Body of Christ in these latter days, are we not ALL enjoined to seek the prophetic gifts? I mean, in the first century, following the Flames of Fire of the Holy Spirit of Pentecost upon the Apostles, the "Gift of Tongues" was given upon Baptism to all Christians... They all spoke in foreign languages... This was the given of Baptism, given to all... And to progress, one sought the Gift of interpretation, and above that and related to it was the Gift of Prophesy...

No, the gift of tongues was not given to all. 1 Cor 12:29 "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?"

Nor was the gift of prophecy.

Neither gift is active today.

We are saved by God...

Our ears do not save us...

This is how He saves us:

Romans 10:17 "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ."

 

[swordsman1]

I followed your link and then i looked up the first few citations.
Not sure what happened. These below are nice and do say voice
but do not say that voice is in reference to "Scripture"
You're exchanging the word "Covenant" to mean Scripture?
While His covenant is written about in the Scriptures and
while we call the NT the New Covenant, Here, He speaks of
His actual covenant and His actual commandments.
They weren't always "written down" at that time.
But i do indeed hear His 'voice' through His Word.
Of course, that's a given! Just so we don't twist
Scripture to say what it doesn't.


They were told by Moses. So neither.



Clearly it is!
And David also heard His voice in other ways.


STRAWMAN


Strawman smh

The point is God's "voice" in all those examples was his previously recorded revelation. So "My sheep hear my voice" is far more likely to be the recorded teachings of Christ, rather than Him giving us new revelations by our inner feelings, impressions or consciences, for which there is no biblical precedent.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Essentially, after 600 posts, we have some sound biblical exegesis on one side, and, it's true because I said so/my experience, on the other. . .

Is there any need to continue?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

OK OK... So yes, I almost DID blow my coffee all over the computer screen!

I'm hilarious with a couple of glasses of wine in me. Apologies to my Baptist brothers.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Lit- as in literal means common...
-Urg as in urgent means work...

In practice, it is a Service of Prayers chanted antiphonally...
Prayers 90% or more taken directly from the Bible...
It is not a big sermon giving a Pastor's human opinions about what he reads in the Bible...
The homily by the Priest should not normally be over 10 minutes...

I'm allergic to chanting, but every church has a liturgy, some better than others. . .

Ten minutes? I need 35 or I feel cheated.

 

[Don Maurer]

As I am a very strong defender of sola scriptura, your post doesn't make a lot of sense to me.. Perhaps you're confusing me with another.

When Arsenios made an attack on sola script, in your post, you complimented his post as a good post. See post 587. thatbrian had called for a conversation based solely upon scripture as the basis of truth. Then in post 586 Arsenios clearly denied thatbrians claim that a discussion of truth be based upon scripture alone and Arsenios stated his basis for truth is the ecclesia (the church). Arsenios clearly stated that the Church is in authority over scriptures. Then in your posted 587 you complimented Arsenios in his attack on scripture as a sole basis for truth.

More than this, you have consistently defended the concept that the word of God comes in private revelations today. Such a view is in direct conflict with the idea of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura limits the word of God to only the Bible. IT subjects all other authorities to the scriptures. Arsenios clearly stated in his post that the scriptures are not the supreme authority, but the Church is in authority over scripture, the Church created scriptures, the Church makes the canon.

I am not confusing you with another. Feel free to go back up the thread to your post 587.

 

[sunlover1]

The point is God's "voice" in all those examples was his previously recorded revelation.

No it wasn't.
In SOME of those examples it was, not in all of them.
You may SOMETIMES take the interstate to work
that doesn't mean you don't take other avenues as well.

So "My sheep hear my voice" is far more likely to be the recorded teachings of Christ,

My sheep hear my voice is far more likely to just mean what it says, We hear His voice,
IOW, we KNOW Him and aren't deceived by other voices that may try to tempt us or lie
to us. Regardless of the means that He uses to convey His will to us, be it through Scripture, or through our conscience (which is easy peasy IF you've hidden His Word (SCRIPTURE!) in your heart...

rather than Him giving us new revelations by our inner feelings, impressions or consciences, for which there is no biblical precedent.

Again, no one is talking about new revelations, so this is kind of a waste of time.
God speaks to me when He wants to and HOW He wants to.
It's really not something you can explain, but it happens.
Just as Paul couldn't understand how his experience with God in
2 Corinthians 12:13 happened, but it does. And He's never changed.
He has communicated with His children since He created Adam.

 

[Don Maurer]

I'm hilarious with a couple of glasses of wine in me. Apologies to my Baptist brothers.

LOL, we baptists are aware that where ever there are 4 presbyterians, there is usually a 5th. Your our brothers anyway.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

When Arsenios made an attack on sola script, in your post, you complimented his post as a good post. See post 587. thatbrian had called for a conversation based solely upon scripture as the basis of truth. Then in post 586 Arsenios clearly denied thatbrians claim that a discussion of truth be based upon scripture alone and Arsenios stated his basis for truth is the ecclesia (the church). Arsenios clearly stated that the Church is in authority over scriptures. Then in your posted 587 you complimented Arsenios in his attack on scripture as a sole basis for truth.

More than this, you have consistently defended the concept that the word of God comes in private revelations today. Such a view is in direct conflict with the idea of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura limits the word of God to only the Bible. IT subjects all other authorities to the scriptures. Arsenios clearly stated in his post that the scriptures are not the supreme authority, but the Church is in authority over scripture, the Church created scriptures, the Church makes the canon.

I am not confusing you with another. Feel free to go back up the thread to your post 587.

Well said, Don.

I did ask for a bibliclly-based discussion here. Arsenios does not hold to the idea of scripture alone (judging from what he has written here).

 

[sunlover1]

When Arsenios made an attack on sola script, in your post, you complimented his post as a good post. See post 587. thatbrian had called for a conversation based solely upon scripture as the basis of truth. Then in post 586 Arsenios clearly denied thatbrians claim that a discussion of truth be based upon scripture alone and Arsenios stated his basis for truth is the ecclesia (the church). Arsenios clearly stated that the Church is in authority over scriptures. Then in your posted 587 you complimented Arsenios in his attack on scripture as a sole basis for truth.

I just went back, and I see why you thought that.
Sorry, it was my mistake. I have NO idea why I
applauded that post at that time, I even suggested
that it was filled with scripture! I must have been
referring to another post and somehow quoted that one.
Because I actually do not agree with all that he stated there.

More than this, you have consistently defended the concept that the word of God comes in private revelations today.

Nope. Only personal help from our Father, and this is very common in Scripture,
regardless if you can "see it' or not at this time.

Arsenios clearly stated in his post that the scriptures are not the supreme authority, but the Church is in authority over scripture, the Church created scriptures, the Church makes the canon.

I didn't get that he was saying that, but I do not agree with him if he was.

I can certainly see now why you'd have thought that I was catholicish.
And no, I'm not catholic or ANY denomination. Denominationalism IS
directly against Scripture, so I"m sure, since you're a Sola Scriptura
adherent, you must be anti-sectarian as well.

 

[sunlover1]

Essentially, after 600 posts, we have some sound biblical exegesis on one side, and, it's true because I said so/my experience, on the other. . .

Is there any need to continue?

SOUND exegesis uhh no.
Twisting? Plenty.
Reminds me of when Paul was persecuting the Christians,
the way some in this thread persecute those who walk in
the Spiritual gifts and "hear" God.
Forgive them Lord, ...

 

[sunlover1]

What do you do about God speaking through dreams and visions Don Maurer ?
Or were those only for select few in the Bible as well?
Seriously curious to know what you make of this.

 

[Don Maurer]

I wrote nothing of authority, but wrote of interpretation of Scripture - It has a 2000 year history in Christ's Apostolic Church, from which the Catholic Church is now and has been for a thousand years an Apostate... We GAVE the Greek Scripture to the Latin Roman Catholic Church, which they translated into Latin...

First, you did deny supreme biblical authority when you made comments that stated that the Church created scripture. Did you not read my post on Ephesians 2?

Also, Jerome's Vulgate has nothing to do with the issue.

The ONLY point I am making is that there IS a 2000 year Holy Tradition of interpretation of Holy Scripture by the Body of Christ which you are ignoring in your love for the words and grammar and private interpretation... Holy Scripture was REVEALED to the Church, and you doubtless already know that Revelation is not a matter of private interpretation, but of the corporate Body of Christ...

You are misreading that text. The text you are alluding to is 2nd Peter 1:20. The text speaks of the source of prophecy, not the interpretation of scripture. The source of prophecy is not a private thing. Please notice the restatement in verse 21. It does not arise by the will of man. That whole context is about the source of prophecy. The issue of those verse is simply not forbidding someone to read the bible and think some council of bishops is wrong. The verse denies that prophets can make their own prophecy, but that it is the will of God.

Holy Writ was written FOR the worshiping Body of Christ, the Church... It was not written for anyone to just read,

Not all will be able to just read it and understand some of the deeper teachings, but all should read it. The bible is not some book for only bishops to read for me, they all get it wrong anyway.

have a spiritual experience, claim the Holy Spirit, and have their own opinions which they then try to prove against all comers... THAT line is just nuts...

Arsenios

Well, I do not believe it is our side claiming spiritual experience and having God speak to them personally. We are not experienced based, but scripture based. If the words of the bible have meaning, and they do, it is for people to read and understand. It is the word of God that is sharper than any two edged sword. It is the word of God (bible) that we should "hide its words in our heart that we might not sin against God."

Oh, by the way, feel free to look up the words of 2 Peter 1:20 in greek. The word in debate is epilusews (sorry, no greek font). What I am suggesting is totally within the semantic range of that word.

 

[Don Maurer]

What do you do about God speaking through dreams and visions Don Maurer ?
Or were those only for select few in the Bible as well?
Seriously curious to know what you make of this.

Of course God spoke in dreams and visions during revelatory times (Old Testament and New Testament). This has been explained and rebutted by others in these threads and yet you still raise the question. It seems obvious you do not understand the answer. When the canon closed, revelation (dreams and visions) ceased. Hebrews 1:1-4 and 2:1-4 talk about Christ being the means of revelation. The apostles were the ones who communicated Christ as authoritative witnesses. When the last apostle died, revelation stopped. We call it sola scriptura, the closed canon. There really is no other way to explain it. I have no other way of stating it.

 

[sunlover1]

\ When the last apostle died, revelation stopped.

You mean that God no longer speaks to us except through Scripture because ??
Why doesn't He?

 

[sunlover1]

We call it sola scriptura, the closed canon. There really is no other way to explain it. I have no other way of stating it.

Actually, SS and closed canon are two different things.
Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand

 

[sunlover1]

Well said, Don.

I did ask for a bibliclly-based discussion here. Arsenios does not hold to the idea of scripture alone (judging from what he has written here).

I know you guys hate anecdotes, and so this can be for the
readers!
My son who was homeschooled was friends with this girl who
was taking her college entrance tests. I asked my son why
he wasn't also doing the same. He said he didn't want to go.
That following week, during prayer, Father told me that He
WOULD show me what a "daddy" is like.
Following Sunday son comes in after his church service at a
Reformed church, and tells me that the youth pastor was asked
by a local business owner (church member) if my son, who
had preached the youth sermon (evidently. I was not there,
i did not attend that church. I prayed for my kids and asked
God to lead each where he belonged, once they were old enough
to "hear God" (Sorry )
Anyhow, he'd asked if my son were going to college and then
proceeded to offer him a scholarship to a very prestigious private
Reformed College!
Enough stories for now, here's some meat
OUR God is not a "mute" idol, we worship THE Living God!

1 Corinthians 12:1-2 ESV
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed.
You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols,
however you were led.

Habakkuk 2: 18, 19
“What profit is an idol
a teacher of lies?
speechless idols!
19 Woe to him twho says to a wooden thing, Awake;​

there is no breath at all in it.

Psalm 115:5
They have mouths but do not speak
Eyes but do not see

Jeremiah 10:5
They lift it to their shoulders, they carry it,
it cannot move from its place.
If one cries to it, it does not answer
or save him from his trouble.​

 

[Arsenios]

First, you did deny supreme biblical authority when you made comments that stated that the Church wrote scripture.

So who wrote Scripture?

Also, Jerome's Vulgate has nothing to do with the issue.

Then do not say we did not give you the Scriptures - We gave them to Rome too... Jerome translated the Scriptures we gave them into their Latin Vulgate...

The text you are alluding to is 2nd Peter 1:20. The text speaks of the source of prophecy, not the interpretation of scripture. The source of prophecy is not a private thing.

Exactly so - My error... The point is still valid, however, if we work from Paul telling us that the spirits of the Prophets are under obedience to the Prophets...

Scripture tells us that the Church is the Ground and the Pillar of the Truth... Of Scripture itself, it only says that it is God breathed/Spirited and profitable, but not prophetable, for all manner of good things... But Scripture is not the Ground and the Pillar of Truth - Only the Worshiping Community that is the Body of Christ Who is Her Head, the Ekklesia, IS the Ground and the Pillar of the Truth...

Don't you agree?

Arsenios