.

[Tree of Life]

"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock." Matthew 7:24.
It's pretty clear here that God speaks to us audibly.

When Jesus said "these words of mine" he meant these specific words - i.e. the Sermon on the Mount. There's nothing in here about hearing the audible voice of God.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

True prayer should be a response to the word of God so there is a dialogical sense to it. God is always the first speaker in true prayer. We talk back to him.

I agree with you to a point, but what about the example of the Lord's Prayer?

 

[Tree of Life]

I agree with you to a point, but what about the example of the Lord's Prayer?

Even the Lord's Prayer is a response to the prior word of God. To pray according to the Lord's Prayer is to pray the prior word of God. In the Lord's Prayer God himself gives us the kind of words that we ought to pray to him. If it were not for God taking the initiative to speak to us we would have no idea how to address him properly or in a manner acceptable to him.

For example, we only know to address God as Father because Jesus gives us the permission and courage to do so.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Even the Lord's Prayer is a response to the prior word of God. To pray according to the Lord's Prayer is to pray the prior word of God. In the Lord's Prayer God himself gives us the kind of words that we ought to pray to him. If it were not for God taking the initiative to speak to us we would have no idea how to address him properly or in a manner acceptable to him.

For example, we only know to address God as Father because Jesus gives us the permission and courage to do so.

I see your point.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[TillICollapse]

Long time no post

I would look at this issue from what I would consider a more practical standpoint, perhaps.

If President Obama were to appear at my door, and speak to me, I would recognize him as such. Even if his voice were off, due to sickness for example, it would have some "tell-tale" signs to it I imagine. I have heard it enough times now via the media, that I'm guessing I could recognize it as his, especially so if we were face to face. Now, could the person in front of me be a look-alike ? Yeah maybe. A celebrity impersonator perhaps ? Perhaps. But there would be other factors that may help me to decide, "Yup, this is really the POTUS at my door." The presence of Secret Service, perhaps other media, etc ... all factors used for me to help determine if this is really, in fact, Obama. Do we live in a day and age where someone's physical appearance can be altered to such a degree that I may not be able to distinguish an impersonator from the "real deal" ? We may finally have reached that point, depending on the person being impersonated. But still. There is a good chance, I would recognize and correctly identify the POTUS. Unless he was intentionally trying to alter or hide his appearance and voice.

Now, if I got a phone call from the POTUS ... that is a different situation. Without any face to face, and only a voice ... how do I know it's really him ? Voice impersonations can be mimicked extremely well. What if it's simply someone whose good with voices ? A comedian for that matter ? In order to know that the voice on the other end of the line were really his voice, I would most likely need him to verify it separately, to endorse what was said, to verify what was said, etc. To clarify. Similarly, if I saw something online or written on paper, that was claiming to be attributed to President Obama ... how would I know he really wrote it ? Getting him to clarify, would be important. Otherwise, I could attribute something to him falsely, that he never said nor endorsed. Or, if I was confident it was him, either in letter or over the phone (for example), I could go ahead and assume I suppose. But in order to have that confidence, I would most likely need to really know him, on a personal level. Not study him and watch him on TV, but interact with him, on a personal level. Get to know him personally. Not as an observer, but as a participant with him personally. And after having built that experience and time with him, I may be able to know his nuances and mannerisms to such a degree, that simply by hearing his voice over the phone, I could perhaps tell correctly if it was really him, or if it was an imposter. Consider a close relative or family member, or best friend, someone you are really close with ... you can recognize them and correctly identify them in written word quite often, over the phone, from a quick glance. Why ? Because you know them, intimately ... your familiarity with them is personal.

But that familiarity takes time, and experience. Without that ... how could you even say with confidence, if such a person were standing before you, that you could even correctly identify them ? Even if they were famous for that matter and a well known celebrity ?

The issue of identifying, therefore, someone standing before you, verses a voice over a phone, or something written down ... are wildly different.

There are accounts, all throughout history, of individuals claiming to speak with supernatural or spiritual entities and beings (i.e., this would include "God"). Whether we are dealing with modern major world religions with millions of adherents who believe they are correct, or ancient polytheistic accounts we mostly now recognize as "myth". Whether we are dealing with someone who believes they can channel dead relatives and psychically interact with extraterrestrials from other parts of the universe, or they believe they are hearing God tell them how to win a football game against another team that is also praying for a win ... an issue which is often over looked, I think, is of *identification*. Because suppose you could verify, with evidence, that a person was communicating with an entity of some sort that the average person would consider spiritual/supernatural/etc (i.e. God would fall into this category) ... how would you positively identify the speaker ? And if the speaker identified his/her/itself, how would you know it wasn't a false identification ? An imposter ?

In the scriptures, there are accounts which suggest that people interacted with a physical being they identified as God/Yahweh/etc. Not only in the Garden, but outside the Garden accounts (Abraham, etc). So let's say a physical being appeared at your door, and said, "I am God." What would it take for you to positively identify this being as "God" ? Miraculous and powerful acts performed ? Would this being need to prove their identity by referencing scriptures to you that you interpret a certain way ? If they referenced 99 scriptures in agreement with the way you interpret them, but claimed that 1 scripture you interpret to mean one thing actually means another or was even a mistake ... would you no longer identify them as God based on that one issue ?

Moving down the chain of communication ... let's say you had no physical being appear at your door, rather, you had a voice start talking to you in your mind, and your body started having certain types of feelings as a response to the voice. What would it take for you to identify the voice as "God" and not just your own thoughts and feelings ? Now, let's say you heard the voice outside your mind, with your physical ears, audibly ... but still no physical entity appeared before you. How would you know it was "God" and make the positive ID ?

For those who believe they could identify said voice/being/etc as "God" based solely on their interpretation of certain scriptures ... even if said voice/being/etc were to perfectly affirm every belief you currently hold and seem to be in agreement with every interpretation you currently hold to be "God's truth" ... how do you know it's not some other entity being a really good impersonator ? How do you know it's not Satan, demons, angels, aliens from another galaxy, a ghost, etc ... and they are saying exactly what you want to hear, to convince you they are God so you'll positively ID them as such ?

See ... if Obama were to appear before us, in general, we would probably not question that it were really him. A conspiracy theorist may go the route of "he's an imposter, a reptillian shapeshifter, a clone," etc ... but those people are more likely to be looked at with scorn or skepticism, than accepted. A letter claiming to be penned by Obama, or a phone call claiming to be Obama, would be met with more general skepticism perhaps, depending on the content. But again, it could be clarified by simply asking Obama himself, and getting him "on the record".

So all of that to say, practically speaking ... to make a positive ID on "God spoke to me" ... be it through an audible voice, a manifestation, a thought in your head, a feeling you get, inspiration you feel when reading a text you hold to be endorsed by God/inspired by God/written by God/etc ... to make that positive ID, you would ultimately need to get clarification somehow. You would need to get "God on the record". Lots of people claim to hear God, and quite often those people do not agree with each other that they did in fact hear God. One will say they did, another will say they did not. Lots of people try to use holy texts in order to make the positive ID, but people disagree on what the holy texts imply, and which texts are even to be considered as proper measuring tools for that matter.

So, practically speaking, how does one make a positive ID on God in an "I interacted with God" scenario ? Whether you're claiming to have heard God, seen God, or even claim you know what God meant by something God is claimed to have said ? To me, the OP issue goes beyond those who claim to hear God audibly or any other type of experience along those lines ... it cuts right to something even more foundational: how do you even know God said this or that in the Bible ?

 

[sunlover1]

I could never choose a church without first consulting the scriptures and considering if a prospective church has a biblical world view and doctrinal position for me to become a member. I must admit surprise here. Does the scriptures really mean so little to you that you would not consult biblical doctrine to see if it matches a church that you would attend?

Not sure why you misrepresent me just because I say
that I ask God to lead me to which church to attend.
I am sad to see this. :/

I John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
Of course Scripture cannot give an unction, that is a function of the Holy Spirit, or "Holy One." However, if you are a Christian, you already have an unction from the Spirit. All Christians do.

That's what I've been saying.

I see some views of yours here that show that we are very very far apart.

I have to agree.

We would not even agree on the nature of scriptures.

I believe you're probably right

I would not see the bible itself as some sort of little "personal/individual instruction."

PLEASE don't misrepresent me.
I am not cavalier with Scripture.

That would be to rob the Bible of its majesty and wonder. The Bible is not about us, but about Christ.
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Notice how Moses and the prophets was about Christ. The passages with David and Abraham are not little "personal/individual instructions to guide them what Church to choose, those passages are about Christ.

This makes no sense in light of your opening statement where you say
"I could never choose a church without first consulting the scriptures..."
Evidently implying that I do/would.

I think you're right and our thoughts about God
are light years apart.
No problem, I don't blame you for your views.
But please don't misrepresent me again with
strawman red herring statement(s) which have
no place in a Christian community, because it's
kind of dishonest.
My reputation is very important to me because i
take God's word very seriously and He wants us
to represent Him.

 

[sunlover1]

True prayer should be a response to the word of God so there is a dialogical sense to it. God is always the first speaker in true prayer. We talk back to him.

AMEN! Well said.
Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
That is how it works! Regardless of if it's the Written Word
of God or the spoken Word of God (into our ear) either way,
THIS is the key to GIANT faith.
If I know that GOD wants something, then that's what I want
to pray for!
Because man lives by EVERY Word that PROCEEDS from the mouth of God!
Thank you Tree of Life!
“The content of all true prayer originates in the heart of God. So it is He who inspires the preayre in the heart of man, and the answer to every God inspired petition is already prepared before the prayer is uttered. When wer are convinced of this, then our faith for the answer is easy- far easier than it would be otherwise."
~ Paul E. Billheimer

 

[sunlover1]

Long time no post

I would look at this issue from what I would consider a more practical standpoint, perhaps.

If President Obama were to appear at my door, and speak to me, I would recognize him as such. Even if his voice were off, due to sickness for example, it would have some "tell-tale" signs to it I imagine. I have heard it enough times now via the media, that I'm guessing I could recognize it as his, especially so if we were face to face. Now, could the person in front of me be a look-alike ? Yeah maybe. A celebrity impersonator perhaps ? Perhaps. But there would be other factors that may help me to decide, "Yup, this is really the POTUS at my door." The presence of Secret Service, perhaps other media, etc ... all factors used for me to help determine if this is really, in fact, Obama. Do we live in a day and age where someone's physical appearance can be altered to such a degree that I may not be able to distinguish an impersonator from the "real deal" ? We may finally have reached that point, depending on the person being impersonated. But still. There is a good chance, I would recognize and correctly identify the POTUS. Unless he was intentionally trying to alter or hide his appearance and voice.

Now, if I got a phone call from the POTUS ... that is a different situation. Without any face to face, and only a voice ... how do I know it's really him ? Voice impersonations can be mimicked extremely well. What if it's simply someone whose good with voices ? A comedian for that matter ? In order to know that the voice on the other end of the line were really his voice, I would most likely need him to verify it separately, to endorse what was said, to verify what was said, etc. To clarify. Similarly, if I saw something online or written on paper, that was claiming to be attributed to President Obama ... how would I know he really wrote it ? Getting him to clarify, would be important. Otherwise, I could attribute something to him falsely, that he never said nor endorsed. Or, if I was confident it was him, either in letter or over the phone (for example), I could go ahead and assume I suppose. But in order to have that confidence, I would most likely need to really know him, on a personal level. Not study him and watch him on TV, but interact with him, on a personal level. Get to know him personally. Not as an observer, but as a participant with him personally. And after having built that experience and time with him, I may be able to know his nuances and mannerisms to such a degree, that simply by hearing his voice over the phone, I could perhaps tell correctly if it was really him, or if it was an imposter. Consider a close relative or family member, or best friend, someone you are really close with ... you can recognize them and correctly identify them in written word quite often, over the phone, from a quick glance. Why ? Because you know them, intimately ... your familiarity with them is personal.

But that familiarity takes time, and experience. Without that ... how could you even say with confidence, if such a person were standing before you, that you could even correctly identify them ? Even if they were famous for that matter and a well known celebrity ?

The issue of identifying, therefore, someone standing before you, verses a voice over a phone, or something written down ... are wildly different.

There are accounts, all throughout history, of individuals claiming to speak with supernatural or spiritual entities and beings (i.e., this would include "God"). Whether we are dealing with modern major world religions with millions of adherents who believe they are correct, or ancient polytheistic accounts we mostly now recognize as "myth". Whether we are dealing with someone who believes they can channel dead relatives and psychically interact with extraterrestrials from other parts of the universe, or they believe they are hearing God tell them how to win a football game against another team that is also praying for a win ... an issue which is often over looked, I think, is of *identification*. Because suppose you could verify, with evidence, that a person was communicating with an entity of some sort that the average person would consider spiritual/supernatural/etc (i.e. God would fall into this category) ... how would you positively identify the speaker ? And if the speaker identified his/her/itself, how would you know it wasn't a false identification ? An imposter ?

In the scriptures, there are accounts which suggest that people interacted with a physical being they identified as God/Yahweh/etc. Not only in the Garden, but outside the Garden accounts (Abraham, etc). So let's say a physical being appeared at your door, and said, "I am God." What would it take for you to positively identify this being as "God" ? Miraculous and powerful acts performed ? Would this being need to prove their identity by referencing scriptures to you that you interpret a certain way ? If they referenced 99 scriptures in agreement with the way you interpret them, but claimed that 1 scripture you interpret to mean one thing actually means another or was even a mistake ... would you no longer identify them as God based on that one issue ?

Moving down the chain of communication ... let's say you had no physical being appear at your door, rather, you had a voice start talking to you in your mind, and your body started having certain types of feelings as a response to the voice. What would it take for you to identify the voice as "God" and not just your own thoughts and feelings ? Now, let's say you heard the voice outside your mind, with your physical ears, audibly ... but still no physical entity appeared before you. How would you know it was "God" and make the positive ID ?

For those who believe they could identify said voice/being/etc as "God" based solely on their interpretation of certain scriptures ... even if said voice/being/etc were to perfectly affirm every belief you currently hold and seem to be in agreement with every interpretation you currently hold to be "God's truth" ... how do you know it's not some other entity being a really good impersonator ? How do you know it's not Satan, demons, angels, aliens from another galaxy, a ghost, etc ... and they are saying exactly what you want to hear, to convince you they are God so you'll positively ID them as such ?

See ... if Obama were to appear before us, in general, we would probably not question that it were really him. A conspiracy theorist may go the route of "he's an imposter, a reptillian shapeshifter, a clone," etc ... but those people are more likely to be looked at with scorn or skepticism, than accepted. A letter claiming to be penned by Obama, or a phone call claiming to be Obama, would be met with more general skepticism perhaps, depending on the content. But again, it could be clarified by simply asking Obama himself, and getting him "on the record".

So all of that to say, practically speaking ... to make a positive ID on "God spoke to me" ... be it through an audible voice, a manifestation, a thought in your head, a feeling you get, inspiration you feel when reading a text you hold to be endorsed by God/inspired by God/written by God/etc ... to make that positive ID, you would ultimately need to get clarification somehow. You would need to get "God on the record". Lots of people claim to hear God, and quite often those people do not agree with each other that they did in fact hear God. One will say they did, another will say they did not. Lots of people try to use holy texts in order to make the positive ID, but people disagree on what the holy texts imply, and which texts are even to be considered as proper measuring tools for that matter.

So, practically speaking, how does one make a positive ID on God in an "I interacted with God" scenario ? Whether you're claiming to have heard God, seen God, or even claim you know what God meant by something God is claimed to have said ? To me, the OP issue goes beyond those who claim to hear God audibly or any other type of experience along those lines ... it cuts right to something even more foundational: how do you even know God said this or that in the Bible ?

Wow, this is a good point! But i do indeed believe Scripture just on faith.
I have a wee bit of difference of opinion but similar analogy.
For me it's BECAUSE of hiding Scripture in my heart for the past 30+ years, that I would know His voice
anywhere! (exaggeration probably, but close)
If someone phoned me saying he was Obama, I might be tricked. If someone phoned me claiming to be
my daughter, I would know immediately because i know the sound of her voice, but more importantly,
i know HER. I know what she would or would not DO and SAy.
It's only through studying His word AND spending time with Him, IMO, that one can be pretty sure
not to get tricked.
We all know that the enemy disguises himself as an angel of light.
But it also says that we KNOW His voice (Voice of the Good Shepherd)
Great post, and bless you for taking the time to try to help others to
grow in their faith.

 

[Kenny'sID]

True prayer should be a response to the word of God so there is a dialogical sense to it. God is always the first speaker in true prayer. We talk back to him.

When I pray, I've never heard the word of God first, so am I to take it, none of my prayers are true. and by true, do you mean not real, not heard? And where is the biblical back up for what you say?

Maybe I should ask what you mean by "in response to the word of God"? Audible word? Written word? An example may help.

 

[TillICollapse]

Wow, this is a good point! But i do indeed believe Scripture just on faith.
I have a wee bit of difference of opinion but similar analogy.
For me it's BECAUSE of hiding Scripture in my heart for the past 30+ years, that I would know His voice
anywhere! (exaggeration probably, but close)
If someone phoned me saying he was Obama, I might be tricked. If someone phoned me claiming to be
my daughter, I would know immediately because i know the sound of her voice, but more importantly,
i know HER. I know what she would or would not DO and SAy.
It's only through studying His word AND spending time with Him, IMO, that one can be pretty sure
not to get tricked.
We all know that the enemy disguises himself as an angel of light.
But it also says that we KNOW His voice (Voice of the Good Shepherd)
Great post, and bless you for taking the time to try to help others to
grow in their faith.

Do you see where the rationalization of using your interpretation of scripture can fall apart ?

Two people interpret the scriptures differently. One believes they say one thing about God (for example, that He does not audibly speak to anyone, or if He did, He does so no longer, etc), another believes they say yet another (He does audibly speak still to people, or if not audibly, He is able to speak in other ways, apart from a person reading the scriptures only). So both people are at odds, using their interpretation of scripture as the litmus test, to recognize what is of God, and what isn't. Yet, both are at odds in their identification. So simply saying "I believe scripture on faith" doesn't resolve the issue, because lots of people do that, and are unable to collectively identify interactions with God. And the scriptures themselves show this very issue within the accounts in their pages: both the well-learned and the hardly-learned were unable to agree on identifying the nature of Jesus. Many, obviously, got the identification incorrect. Likewise, the scriptures themselves attest to false prophets, those claiming things that are merely the fabrication of their dreams and not of God, those who have "lying spirits", etc.

And again, in a LITERAL sense of "hearing a voice", a voice is audible in some fashion. The scriptures are written, and by multiple authors at that, over hundreds of years, whose author's often have a unique style of their own. If they were all written by a single individual, with a familiar style across their entirety, that would be one thing. But they aren't ... so much so, that there is still debate amongst those who *do* hold the scriptures to be the Word of God, as to whether or not some of the books within them are even inspired.

Let's say that the apostle Paul was alive, in the flesh. Now, three random males are hiding behind a barrier which prevents you from seeing them, but you can hear them, and they start to read to you from one of Paul's books ... they are merely reading verbatim what is written in the books. How would you identify which one is Paul, and which one's aren't, merely from their voice ? They are reading Paul's words, verbatim, and all you have is their voice to identify which one is the actual Paul.

Now imagine you have to choose between 1 million men all doing the same thing, reading from one of Paul's books, verbatim. Could you pick out which one was the one and only Paul the apostle from voice alone from 1 million options ?

With so many people claiming to interact with God, while using interpretation of scripture as their litmus AND still disagreeing with each other on what is actually being said by God to them or not ... how does this issue get resolved ?

And back to the "angel of light" scenario ... how do you know you aren't hearing and interacting with an "angel of light" who is merely saying all the right things to you ?

 

[Don Maurer]

Not sure why you misrepresent me just because I say
that I ask God to lead me to which church to attend.
I am sad to see this. :/

If I misrepresented you, it was unintentional. But I do not think I misrepresented you. The reason I think that is because you changed your language and have a change in concept. How did I misrepresent you?

Below is your previous statement....

Unfortunately, I can't ask Scripture (God's written Word) which church to attend in the new town Im moving to.

..... and now for your current statement.

I ask God to lead me to which church to attend.

Your first statement was in the context of direct revelation. I do not think any concept of current direct revelation today is Christian. Your first statement seemed clear that you would not use the scriptures to find Gods will on which Church to attend. I disagreed, it is only the scripture (sola scripture) that I would use to determine which Church to attend. Your second statement is watered down and much more vague. When you use the term "lead" that leaves it open for either something revelatory (which is wrong), or something related to what the old puritans called the providence of God (which is fine).

PLEASE don't misrepresent me.
I am not cavalier with Scripture.

Please do not consider this a personal attack, but sitting where I am with my theology, anyone who proposes that God is still speaking today... I would see them as making an attack on the sufficiency of Scripture. The key word is "sufficiency." That was why I quoted 2 Tim 3:17.

If you need another special revelation along side scripture, then scripture is not the only inerrant/infallible authority for practice and living. If scripture is the only special revelation, it is the only final authority and this would be the highest view of scripture. To have a 2nd source of revelation outside scripture means that scripture is insufficient and more revelation is needed. If the bible is sufficient, why do you need another revelation?

This makes no sense in light of your opening statement where you say
"I could never choose a church without first consulting the scriptures..."
Evidently implying that I do/would.

If you say you would consult scriptures at this point, that is fine. However, this by no means settles the difference. I would still understand you to imply that a special revelation outside scripture would be needed to know which Church you would choose. Even if you consult the scriptures first.

The Bible alone is the word of God.

I think you're right and our thoughts about God
are light years apart.

Yes, a quite different world view with serious differences. In fact I would have no problem recognizing the different positions and completely different religions. I am aware there are some moderates in your camp that would be within the boundaries of orthodoxy and would be Christian. However, their associations usually incline toward those who deny at least some of the basics of what I would consider the gospel (Sola fide-- the trinity-- the correct nature of Christ; etc).

No problem, I don't blame you for your views.
But please don't misrepresent me again with
strawman red herring statement(s) which have
no place in a Christian community, because it's
kind of dishonest.
My reputation is very important to me because i
take God's word very seriously and He wants us
to represent Him.

I did not misrepresent the words you typed. You might be able to say I did not grasp everything you said, you are welcome to explain to me in more detail how I did this. And if I did misrepresent you, it was unintentional. I do not believe I misrepresented the words you typed. In fact, I cannot help but think your accusation is an attempt to throw some emotion and fog into the conversation. I will assume that this is not true.

Of course there is a reformed doctrine that lies in back of this. Even behind the OP was the doctrine of sola scriptura, and a closed Cannon. If fact the author of the OP even used the term "closed cannon." This is the real issue. I would suggest you write an article attacking those doctrines.

 

[Arsenios]

I truly believe that while God continues to speak to His children,
they are afraid to believe that it's His Voice that they hear.

The problem is discernment - Knowing which witch is which...

I mean, believing something spiritually given is no automatikker... Dark spirits can show up pretty light... And God is not in the earthquake... And the still, small voice can be a demonic charade...

That is why purification of the heart, which holds both Good AND evil, is the first stage of discipleship, and talking with God comes only much later, IF at all... Purification of the heart is also the last stage of discipleship... For those living lives of repentance, at least... Obedience to "them that have the Rule over you", as Paul instructs, is the basis of preparation for encounters with God, and without being discipled in denial of self by those who have walked that path, the risks attendant on self-direction are pretty much guaranteed to slip off left or right in deception unto delusion...

The Good Samaritan bound and treated the wounds of the fallen man left for dead by demonic powers that had assaulted him, and THEN took him to the Church [Inn] for his full recovery from those grievous wounds... Hence the Call to repentance in an encounter with Christ, and then Baptism where He enters you into the Inn [Church] wherein one is instructed in the Way of Christ that recovery find completion...

Without this discipleship BY the Body of Christ Who is Her Head, where the wounded think that they were fixed by their encounter with Christ, and refuse the rest of the regimen of the Ekonomia of Christ in the Household of the Church that is His Body, the recovery process which He initiated will normally be stillborn, and there will generally accompany the proud soul a lot of "visions and revelations" which may or may not turn out to be physically verified, but whose source is concerned with keeping us in their vainglory, and hence far from God...

Back to the OP - The "still small voice" of God is not audible - If you are hearing voices audibly in your mind, you have other issues... God CAN be hear audibly, Barlam's donkey comes to mind... But Elijah is the better standard - Where the key word is not voice, nor small, but still... Be still and know that I AM God...

Agitation of soul not from God...

Arsenios

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If I misrepresented you, it was unintentional. But I do not think I misrepresented you. The reason I think that is because you changed your language and have a change in concept. How did I misrepresent you?

Below is your previous statement....

..... and now for your current statement. Your first statement was in the context of direct revelation. I do not think any concept of current direct revelation today is Christian. Your first statement seemed clear that you would not use the scriptures to find Gods will on which Church to attend. I disagreed, it is only the scripture (sola scripture) that I would use to determine which Church to attend. Your second statement is watered down and much more vague. When you use the term "lead" that leaves it open for either something revelatory (which is wrong), or something related to what the old puritans called the providence of God (which is fine).


Please do not consider this a personal attack, but sitting where I am with my theology, anyone who proposes that God is still speaking today... I would see them as making an attack on the sufficiency of Scripture. The key word is "sufficiency." That was why I quoted 2 Tim 3:17.

If you need another special revelation along side scripture, then scripture is not the only inerrant/infallible authority for practice and living. If scripture is the only special revelation, it is the only final authority and this would be the highest view of scripture. To have a 2nd source of revelation outside scripture means that scripture is insufficient and more revelation is needed. If the bible is sufficient, why do you need another revelation?




If you say you would consult scriptures at this point, that is fine. However, this by no means settles the difference. I would still understand you to imply that a special revelation outside scripture would be needed to know which Church you would choose. Even if you consult the scriptures first.

The Bible alone is the word of God.


Yes, a quite different world view with serious differences. In fact I would have no problem recognizing the different positions and completely different religions. I am aware there are some moderates in your camp that would be within the boundaries of orthodoxy and would be Christian. However, their associations usually incline toward those who deny at least some of the basics of what I would consider the gospel (Sola fide-- the trinity-- the correct nature of Christ; etc).


I did not misrepresent the words you typed. You might be able to say I did not grasp everything you said, you are welcome to explain to me in more detail how I did this. And if I did misrepresent you, it was unintentional. I do not believe I misrepresented the words you typed. In fact, I cannot help but think your accusation is an attempt to throw some emotion and fog into the conversation. I will assume that this is not true.

Of course there is a reformed doctrine that lies in back of this. Even behind the OP was the doctrine of sola scriptura, and a closed Cannon. If fact the author of the OP even used the term "closed cannon." This is the real issue. I would suggest you write an article attacking those doctrines.

Well written and very helpful post. I wish I were half as eloquent as you are, Don.

 

[Arsenios]

Sitting where I am with my theology, anyone who proposes that God is still speaking today...
I would see them as making an attack on the sufficiency of Scripture.
If you need another special revelation along side scripture,
then scripture is not the only inerrant/infallible authority for practice and living.
If scripture is the only special revelation, it is the only final authority
and this would be the highest view of scripture.

To have a 2nd source of revelation outside scripture
means that scripture is insufficient
and more revelation is needed.

If the bible is sufficient, why do you need another revelation?

The Bible alone is the word of God.

Yes, a quite different world view with serious differences.

Scripture was written by holy ones of God who had not read it...

Christ alone is the Word of God...

He incarnated that we should become by Grace...
That which He IS by nature...

In the Great Mystery of the Marriage of the Lamb...

For the Kingdom of Heaven...
Is at hand!

And this Eternal Life IS...
To be KNOWING the One True God...
And His Son, Jesus Christ.

God alone is sufficient unto Union with Him...

Scripture is ABOUT the Word of God Who is Christ...

Ontological Union with Christ is FAR beyond ANY words,
Whether by thought, or spoken, or written...

Arsenios

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Ontological Union with Christ is FAR beyond ANY words,
Whether by thought, or spoken, or written...

You cannot separate the two.

 

[RDKirk]

The idea the God talks back to us when we pray has become so accepted that it's difficult to challenge, but is it true or a cliché?

The poll question and your OP question are not the same.

If I ask a question during prayer and then think of the scripture that answers it, is that God "speaking" to me or not? Did the Holy Spirit (who is God) bring that scripture to my mind? Did God in His omniscience provide for that scripture to exist knowing that I would have read it when I asked the question and thus would think of it at the right time?

God doesn't answer all my prayers (or even most of them) by means I can clearly identify as a specific answer to a specific prayer.

But on some occasions, God has brought scripture to my mind that answers a prayerful question, and then clearly demonstrated that indeed, He did it at that time for the specific reason of my clearly knowing He was responding.

And there have been rare times I have heard a voice in my head that was not my own mental voice that was not explicitly scripture, but was in line with scripture, for me to accomplish a particular action.

And there was one occasion that I heard a voice that seemed to be aural--outside my mind heard through my ears--that was the voice of an angel (which was a short time after hearing the voice of a demon the same way).

 

[RDKirk]

Because I do not believe it is "scriptural". God's revelation ended with the completion of the cannon of scripture.

Is that scriptural?

 

[RDKirk]

"My sheep know My voice"

Yes, when the sheep hear the voice of the Shepherd in His word of Gospel they hear it, believe it, and trust it. Jesus never said He'd speak privately to us, His voice is public, in the word of His Gospel preached and proclaimed in and by the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

So why pray at all? Why not merely engage in scriptural scholarship?

 

[Tree of Life]

When I pray, I've never heard the word of God first, so am I to take it, none of my prayers are true. and by true, do you mean not real, not heard? And where is the biblical back up for what you say?

Maybe I should ask what you mean by "in response to the word of God"? Audible word? Written word? An example may help.

What I mean by "word of God" is either God's written word in Scripture or his audible word in the preaching of Scripture.