.

[Tree of Life]

It occurs to me now that it should be noted that we can hear the audible word of God every Sunday if we avail ourselves to it. You can hear it from the mouth of any minister preaching the gospel. When we hear the gospel preached, by the power of the Spirit we hear Jesus himself.

The hearing of this word ought to evoke heartfelt prayer in response.

Luke 10:16 - “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Ephesians 2:17 - And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

Because prayer subsumes us under the will and word of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

Because prayer subsumes us under the will and word of God.

-CryptoLutheran

What does that mean?

 

[RDKirk]

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

<snip>

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 ?

How do you know that the so-called "canon" you have in your hands is correct? How do you know that the men who compiled it were led by the Holy Spirit in their selection of which letter or gospel with apostolic claims was true?

How do you know the translations are accurate?

And only then, how do you know the interpretations of the translations of the selections from all kinds of so-called apostolic documents are accurate...if the Holy Spirit does not speak to anyone in any way except out of those interpretations of the translations of the selections from all kinds of so-called apostolic documents?

It is the enablement (John 6:44, John 6:65, John 10:27) that God has already performed in a man that causes the man to accept scripture. Thus, scripture does not confirm God, God confirms scripture.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

What specific words are those? How do you know those are Jesus' words? Who first wrote them down? Who verified that those were Jesus' words and not the words claimed to be Jesus' from other documents of the day? Who copied them later, and how do you know they copied them accurately? Who maintained the copies through the ages and accepted them generation after generation as Jesus? Who translated them to a language you can read, and how do you know those translations are accurate? How do you know you properly interpret the translations?

Presuming, as you apparently do, that the Holy Spirit is not continually involved in that process.

 

[Tree of Life]

What specific words are those? How do you know those are Jesus' words? Who first wrote them down? Who verified that those were Jesus' words and not the words claimed to be Jesus' from other documents of the day? Who copied them later, and how do you know they copied them accurately? Who maintained the copies through the ages and accepted them generation after generation as Jesus? Who translated them to a language you can read, and how do you know those translations are accurate? How do you know you properly interpret the translations?

Presuming, as you apparently do, that the Holy Spirit is not continually involved in that process.

Maybe I can dodge all those questions by saying that I fully believe that the Holy Spirit has always been involved in preserving the word of God through the ages. God providentially oversees history so that his word is accurately transmitted to his people.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What does that mean?

I'm of the position that the purpose of prayer is that it changes us, by submitting to God's will, to be hearers of God's word in Scripture, it makes us more flexible, more malleable. Prayer isn't about "hearing" an audible response, or receiving a sensation in return that we can interpret as God; it's about the invitation of God into Himself, to shape us and mold us, by submitting to His good will and allowing prayer to transform us. Prayer and worship shapes how we believe and how we live.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

Maybe I can dodge all those questions by saying that I fully believe that the Holy Spirit has always been involved in preserving the word of God through the ages. God providentially oversees history so that his word is accurately transmitted to his people.

So how did that work, precisely? How did the Holy Spirit make clear to a 2nd century or 4th century or 10th century handler of scripture that he was handling scripture properly?

If a modern translator is translating scripture to a new language today, or if an evangelist is speaking to an audience that has no native understanding of how the metaphors and analogies of 1st century Judea relate to, say, the culture of natives of North Korea, how does the Holy Spirit make it clear to him today?

Does he just keep reading scripture to them in English until they somehow "get it?" Or perhaps he should read it to them in koine Greek?

 

[Tree of Life]

So how did that work, precisely? How did the Holy Spirit make clear to a 2nd century or 4th century or 10th century handler of scripture that he was handling scripture properly?

I couldn't say. History could tell you how He did it. I recommend the work of church historian Philip Schaff.

If a modern translator is translating scripture to a new language today, or if an evangelist is speaking to an audience that has no native understanding of how the metaphors and analogies of 1st century Judea relate to, say, the culture of natives of North Korea, how does the Holy Spirit make it clear to him today?

Really through ordinary means. Such a translator would need to study to attain a good knowledge of the original languages and also a good knowledge of the language and culture that he's seeking to translate Scripture into. Even then it won't be perfect.

Does he just keep reading scripture to them in English until they somehow "get it?" Or perhaps he should read it to them in koine Greek?

No. The practice of translation is totally legitimate and necessary.

What point do you think you're making? Could you cut to the chase?

 

[RDKirk]

I'm of the position that the purpose of prayer is that it changes us, by submitting to God's will, to be hearers of God's word in Scripture, it makes us more flexible, more malleable. Prayer isn't about "hearing" an audible response, or receiving a sensation in return that we can interpret as God; it's about the invitation of God into Himself, to shape us and mold us, by submitting to His good will and allowing prayer to transform us. Prayer and worship shapes how we believe and how we live.

-CryptoLutheran

Scripture never, ever actually says anything that corresponds directly with anything anyone ever experiences in life today...unless you allow for the Counselor to be as active today as Christ claimed He would be.

Not without some significant interpretation and extrapolation. A testimony:

During a period about 25 years ago, my marriage was at an exceptionally low point. My wife and I were separately beginning to decide that our marriage had failed--indeed, it was in the process of failing. I was up in our bedroom on my knees praying to the Lord to tell me what to do to keep my marriage intact.

I was certainly not undergoing a conscious review of scriptures in my mind, but in the midst of asking "Lord, what should I do?" this scripture burst upon my consciousness: "Love your wife."

I argued with the Lord: "Look, Lord, I do what I'm supposed to do as a husband."

But in response to that came an implicit further understanding that "Love your wife" meant "as she craves to be loved" rather than "as you think you've done what you're supposed to do."

I argued further: "What if I love her that way and she still does not respond?"

The response was clear: "What she does is My business. Will you obey me?"

So I said, "Okay. I'll love her as she wants to be loved even if she doesn't respond." I got up off my knees and went downstairs to tell her exactly that.

She met me halfway up the stairs. She had been in the kitchen also praying for a way to save our marriage. She told me that the Holy Spirit had given her, "Submit to your husband." She said she had argued, "What if I submit to him and he still doesn't love me?" She said the Holy Spirit had told her, "What he does is My business. Will you obey me?"

And she was coming upstairs to tell me that she would.

 

[TillICollapse]

How do you know that the so-called "canon" you have in your hands is correct? How do you know that the men who compiled it were led by the Holy Spirit in their selection of which letter or gospel with apostolic claims was true?

How do you know the translations are accurate?

And only then, how do you know the interpretations of the translations of the selections from all kinds of so-called apostolic documents are accurate...if the Holy Spirit does not speak to anyone in any way except out of those interpretations of the translations of the selections from all kinds of so-called apostolic documents?

It is the enablement (John 6:44, John 6:65, John 10:27) that God has already performed in a man that causes the man to accept scripture. Thus, scripture does not confirm God, God confirms scripture.

But God has yet to be properly identified, especially in this context. Unless we are referring to "God" as nothing more than an author of past works or a muse. Then the identification is only so relevant as it pertains to the written works attributed to Him. For instance, it may be debatable whether Homer or Pythagoras ever existed, even though their namesakes exist as well as works attributed to them. For practical purposes, it is easier to simply continue using their namesake in historical regards to such works until evidence is provided to the contrary that they should no longer be used. However, hypothetically of course, if someone today were to claim they were channeling the spirit of Homer or Pythagoras, how would we know if they really were ? By their confirmation, through the person channeling them, of the works attributed to them ? That in and of itself would arguably not be sufficient. To those who were true believers, it would. But to the skeptical, it would not. It's not proof.

When someone claims that a being identified as "God" is speaking to them or interacting with them, what criteria is used to make that identification, especially when people who are claiming that often conflict with each other ?

If a person were able to demonstrate in some convincing manner that a voice that was interacting with them in such context had validity to it (i.e. through specific prophetic fulfillment, a display of power or miracles, etc) ... and further claimed that voice was God ... what criteria could be used to definitively identify the voice/entity as God ? If the voice were to interact in such a way that was in line with an obvious scriptural example, seemingly confirming the scriptural example, why would that be sufficient ? Similarly, if the voice/entity were to interact in such a way that was outside of more commonly accepted scriptural examples, what criteria would be used to make the positive ID ? Either way, whether confirming scripture or attempting to use scripture to confirm the voice/etc ... I still see the problem of making a positive identification.

When attempting to positively ID people/places/things/etc ... we use criteria that is often different for the criteria we use to identify "God". How can people who disagree with each other come to consensus on positively identifying God in the context of real time interactions ?

 

[ViaCrucis]

When I say that prayer subsumes us under God's word, I'm not talking about doing biblical exegesis. Likewise when I mentioned the hearing of the word of the Gospel I'm not explicitly meaning just what's written in the biblical texts.

My point about the sheep knowing Christ's voice is that they hear and receive the word of the Gospel is that when the Gospel is preached, they hear it and receive it and believe it (c.f. Romans 10:17).

I'm not going to claim what you experienced didn't happen, that's not my place and I have no reason to do so. My point, however, is that the purpose of prayer isn't to receive "feedback", that such things can happen isn't something I'll dispute (though I believe a healthy dose of caution is good), my point is that the point of prayer is to be shaped by it.

When I pray, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner." I am not only asking the Lord for His mercy, I am in faith trusting in the Christ who is, indeed, merciful on me a sinner. I am confessing my faith in the faithful promises of God in the Gospel, trusting and hoping that He who is merciful is merciful to me, a sinner.

When I ask God for peace, I am placing my trust in His peace. When I ask God for healing, I am trusting in the Great Physician and in His wisdom over the infirmities of life. Prayer shapes us, molds us, to bends us toward God.

If we engage in prayer with the assumption that we will feel certain things, or receive certain kinds of feedback from God we are likely to be disappointed and disenchanted; but we aren't engaging in prayer to hear something in return or experience something; but to lay ourselves out before God so that God might take of us and do with it how He wills. That He is the Potter, and we are the clay.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

But God has yet to be properly identified, especially in this context. Unless we are referring to "God" as nothing more than an author of past works or a muse. Then the identification is only so relevant as it pertains to the written works attributed to Him. For instance, it may be debatable whether Homer or Pythagoras ever existed, even though their namesakes exist as well as works attributed to them. For practical purposes, it is easier to simply continue using their namesake in historical regards to such works until evidence is provided to the contrary that they should no longer be used. However, hypothetically of course, if someone today were to claim they were channeling the spirit of Homer or Pythagoras, how would we know if they really were ? By their confirmation, through the person channeling them, of the works attributed to them ? That in and of itself would arguably not be sufficient. To those who were true believers, it would. But to the skeptical, it would not. It's not proof.

When someone claims that a being identified as "God" is speaking to them or interacting with them, what criteria is used to make that identification, especially when people who are claiming that often conflict with each other ?

Except that unlike any writings purportedly by Homer or Pythagoras:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever-- John 14
When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father--the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father--he will testify about me.-- John 15

And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say, For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say. -- Luke 12


Homer never claimed to send a Holy Spirit to continue to give counsel. You have to provide evidence that Jesus was lying.

 

[Arsenios]

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

You cannot separate the two.

You must...

The whole point of fallen verbal understanding is to disciple the sinner in repentance...

When one encounters God as God, words depart...

Union with God in prayer, to the degree in which it occurs, is inward without words...

In that ascent, the world is left behind, together with all our thoughts, and the experiences from which they originate, and all our senses, inward and outward, visual and audible... Anyone here who has had a genuine encounter with God will remember the inward stillness that accompanied it, how all thoughts, let alone words, vanished, and how they were no longer needed...

That said, other things can happen spiritually that do NOT comprise such an encounter, and indeed, the world itself is a constant and ongoing and lifelong teaching from God for all of us sinners wherein we acquire repentance from the world - culminating ultimately in our death, which for the unrepentant is a disaster, but for the faithful is gain, as Paul observed...

So just as repentance is not Salvation, which is union with God, but is the needed prerequisite, so also are words but the needed prerequisite in the acquisition of prayer which in its ascent to God lays all words aside...

I am but learning to pray...

Arsenios

 

[Kenny'sID]

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

OK, thanks, that's what I thought you meant, so the questions I ask remain, or maybe you were just too vague for the with your original comment.

Or maybe I'm just slow...always a real possibility.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It occurs to me now that it should be noted that we can hear the audible word of God every Sunday if we avail ourselves to it. You can hear it from the mouth of any minister preaching the gospel. When we hear the gospel preached, by the power of the Spirit we hear Jesus himself.

The hearing of this word ought to evoke heartfelt prayer in response.

Luke 10:16 - “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Ephesians 2:17 - And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near.

Good, that's not as vague, and at least now you are clear enough I can be sure I disagree. Prayer is prayer, regardless of what it is response too, and I at least hope God hears it all, and it is all important to him.

 

[Arsenios]

Scripture never, ever actually says anything that corresponds directly with anything anyone ever experiences in life today...unless you allow for the Counselor to be as active today as Christ claimed He would be.

Not without some significant interpretation and extrapolation. A testimony:

During a period about 25 years ago, my marriage was at an exceptionally low point. My wife and I were separately beginning to decide that our marriage had failed--indeed, it was in the process of failing. I was up in our bedroom on my knees praying to the Lord to tell me what to do to keep my marriage intact.

I was certainly not undergoing a conscious review of scriptures in my mind, but in the midst of asking "Lord, what should I do?" this scripture burst upon my consciousness: "Love your wife."

I argued with the Lord: "Look, Lord, I do what I'm supposed to do as a husband."

But in response to that came an implicit further understanding that "Love your wife" meant "as she craves to be loved" rather than "as you think you've done what you're supposed to do."

I argued further: "What if I love her that way and she still does not respond?"

The response was clear: "What she does is My business. Will you obey me?"

So I said, "Okay. I'll love her as she wants to be loved even if she doesn't respond." I got up off my knees and went downstairs to tell her exactly that.

She met me halfway up the stairs. She had been in the kitchen also praying for a way to save our marriage. She told me that the Holy Spirit had given her, "Submit to your husband." She said she had argued, "What if I submit to him and he still doesn't love me?" She said the Holy Spirit had told her, "What he does is My business. Will you obey me?"

And she was coming upstairs to tell me that she would.

Great story -

And a clear example of the Holy Spirit at work...

And of prayer being a conversation with God...

As well, it clearly shows that great need as one's basis for asking God for help is crucial...

"Lord, give me a chocolate instead of a vanilla ice cream cone next time" just doesn't cut it...

Great story...

Thank-you...

Did I mention it was a great story?

Arsenios

 

[Tree of Life]

Good, that's not as vague, and at least now you are clear enough I can be sure I disagree. Prayer is prayer, regardless of what it is response too, and I at least hope God hears it all, and it is all important to him.

Scripture promises that God hears prayers that are in accordance with his word. But Scripture also says that if a man has shut his ears to the word of God then neither will God hear his prayers. So I would say that prayer that is not based on Scripture and in response to Scripture is not at all pleasing to God and we should not expect that God will hear or answer such prayers.

Let me ask you only this: If a man has refused to obey God's word and set himself in opposition to God's clear commands with no intention to repent, does God hear his prayers? Does God answer the prayers of a man like this?

Now what must praying according to Scripture look like? There's a lot of freedom here. This could simply mean praying with a heart and mind that is familiar with Scripture and in submission to Scripture. We needn't literally pray the words of Scripture for our prayers to be heard, though this isn't to be despised.

 

[Kenny'sID]

In that ascent, the world is left behind, together with all our thoughts, and the experiences from which they originate, and all our senses, inward and outward, visual and audible... Anyone here who has had a genuine encounter with God will remember the inward stillness that accompanied it, how all thoughts, let alone words, vanished, and how they were no longer needed...

"Be still, and know that I am God"

 

[Kenny'sID]

Scripture promises that God hears prayers that are in accordance with his word. But Scripture also says that if a man has shut his ears to the word of God then neither will God hear his prayers. So I would say that prayer that is not based on Scripture and in response to Scripture is not at all pleasing to God and we should not expect that God will hear or answer such prayers.

Let me ask you only this: If a man has refused to obey God's word and set himself in opposition to God's clear commands with no intention to repent, does God hear his prayers? Does God answer the prayers of a man like this?

Now what must praying according to Scripture look like? There's a lot of freedom here. This could simply mean praying with a heart and mind that is familiar with Scripture and in submission to Scripture. We needn't literally pray the words of Scripture for our prayers to be heard, though this isn't to be despised.

Before I answer, if you are saying, all said and done, one needs to be a believer for God to be pleased with us, whether in prayer or otherwise, of course I agree.

Let me ask you only this: If a man has refused to obey God's word and set himself in opposition to God's clear commands with no intention to repent, does God hear his prayers? Does God answer the prayers of a man like this?

No sure why that man is even praying? What are the odds that's going to happen?