Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree but man no matter who they are often redefine good and evil to suit their purposes including religious. Scripture speaks clearly without the need to be defined.Also, remember who comes up with dictionary definitions...
To me it's usually not God's children.
Again, I don't define theology by how we as men tend to define it.
I define it by "Theo" = God.
"-ology" = study of, understanding of, knowing.
Also, remember who comes up with dictionary definitions...
To me it's usually not God's children.
Exegesis is exceedingly fallible. For example, Paul was a bible-scholar prior to getting saved and, as a result, was steeped in error. Inspiration (Direct Revelation) is our only hope of infallible doctrine - that's what worked for Paul.Human fallibility is precisely why I accept the idea of "Sola Scriptura" ( Scripture Alone ) versus the teachnigs some have of "Scripture plus.....".
No I can't. I frankly can't make sense of unnecessary suffering. Look, we weren't sitting around asking God to bring us to into a world of suffering. He should have let the matter rest, if that were an option. Also two issues.Adventure, mettle, courage... can you seriously not find good reasons to exist in a world such as this for a Time?
Anyone who chooses to sell their soul for money. Yet society glorifies these people like they are something special. I can't believe all the fans and people who reject that notion and say " its just art" or " its their expression". No, it is evil. It is apparent.A free will does eliminate evil. Think about it, we learn about evil to loathe it, not to get to choose it. Who would desire to be able to choose evil?
If you're arguing for the presence of the Holy Spirit, then I agree.Exegesis is exceedingly fallible. For example, Paul was a bible-scholar prior to getting saved and, as a result, was steeped in error. Inspiration (Direct Revelation) is our only hope of infallible doctrine - that's what worked for Paul.
The part that is not a myth is that "Sola Scriptura" was originally stated in opposition to an institution's teaching that men need help from other men ( scholars ) in order to properly understand God's word.Also Sola Scriptura is a myth. You don't rely on the Bible alone. For example how do you know the Bible is inspired? Via the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) by which you reached all your major conclusions (the Spirit convicted/convinced you of the major truths).
To me it's unmistakable.Anyone who chooses to sell their soul for money. Yet society glorifies these people like they are something special. I can't believe all the fans and people who reject that notion and say " its just art" or " its their expression". No, it is evil. It is apparent.
Agreed. Where I disagree with the Sola Scriptura movement is primarily on one crucial tenet - the question of final authority.I disagree with them and hold that believers do not need men to help me...
I need God to help me.
So when someone defends "Scripture Alone" as their authority, that is what they mean, JAL.
In other words, as a believer, I don't need a church or an institution of men to explain to me what the Bible teaches, and I don't need men to pass down their understanding of it to me through "systematic theology".
I can get that for myself.
The Holy Spirit is the only way anyone can ever hope to understand the Bible ( 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, 1 John 2:20-27 ).
But He will never guide one of God's children into something that is not the truth.
I first saw the reply-quote below, then this one ....A free will does eliminate evil. Think about it, we learn about evil to loathe it, not to get to choose it. Who would desire to be able to choose evil?
A few years ago, it came out in the news nationwide about (surprisingly) the large number of hollywoodsters (actors/etc) who agreed to and did sell their souls to the devil (literally) in exchange for being "funny", or "popular/successful" in theater, movies, etc, This does not necessarily even include the ones relying on the , what was it, mob? syndicate? powerful men in position to "make them" or "break them" ?Anyone who chooses to sell their soul for money. Yet society glorifies these people like they are something special. I can't believe all the fans and people who reject that notion and say " its just art" or " its their expression". No, it is evil. It is apparent.
It's how the term 'free' is qualified that defines what type of "free will" we're talking about. Free from what? The only truly free will is one that is free from sin.Anyone who chooses to sell their soul for money. Yet society glorifies these people like they are something special. I can't believe all the fans and people who reject that notion and say " its just art" or " its their expression". No, it is evil. It is apparent.
Perhaps I'll read the thread later.How can we recognize a revelation as final? How did the prophets recognize this? I believe there is, logically speaking, only one feasible answer to this question, discussed for example on this thread:
I understand your concern but given my rather voluminous treatment of this topic, for example on the link I gave you, your words can only strike me as incredibly patronizing (unintentionally) . The cautions you've just expressed are considerations that I ruminated on starting 30 years ago - and I've seen literally NOTHING on any debate forum that would shake my confidence in my epistemology. I'm just as firm in my beliefs now as I was 30 years ago.Perhaps I'll read the thread later.
For now, I would advise caution, my friend.
Not everything that pops into one's head, even supernaturally, is of God.
I've had my own dealings with the spiritual realm, and not all of them were good.
That is why I hold that we must test all things by what is written.
God's Spirit will never tell us something or guide us into something that is not true and not in character with what He has already revealed in His word.
But I also think that I understand where you're going, in your thinking.
" The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together." ( Romans 8:16 ).
Which is out and out rebellion. The degree of clarity in a Direct Revelation is the extent to which it raises your level of certainty. When it is quite clear - i.e. when you feel fully persuaded that you heard God clearly - He will interpret any delays in your obedience (e.g. to check it out with Scripture) as deliberate stalling/rebellion. That can make Him angry. Recall God's anger with Moses at the burning bush.Perhaps I'll read the thread later.
For now, I would advise caution, my friend....That is why I hold that we must test all things by what is written.
Adam and Eve were given all the time they wanted to obey God's direct command (or not). Jesus when told to turn stone into bread, cast Himself down, or accept all the world as His, did not jump at the chances but weighed who it was that was commanding these things by using scripture to show those commandments were bogus. Today people are being told not to question but accept the Great Reset and any who don't are being ridiculed and censored. But guess what? Scripture shows them to be bogus also.He will interpret any delays in your obedience (e.g. to check it out with Scripture) as deliberate stalling/rebellion.
Um...generally one eats when he is hungry, not necessarily at the first opportunity. Your point is moot.Adam and Eve were given all the time they wanted to obey God's direct command (or not).
Irrelevant. Re-read my post. There is no such "weighing" possible for a high-clarity Direct Revelation.Jesus when told to turn stone into bread, cast Himself down, or accept all the world as His, did not jump at the chances but weighed who it was that was commanding these things by using scripture to show those commandments were bogus.
Even if we could find a few advocates of Sola Scriptura willing to admit that Direct Revelation is possible today, they would likely insist that exegesis is a higher priority. Yet Paul urged the pursuit of Direct Revelation as top priority, placing it on the top rung of the ladder alongside love (1Cor 14:1).
"New revelations" is an oxymoron, it is a propaganda term fabricated by the Sola Scriptura party to incite unrealistic paranoia of enlarging the canon, as a tactic leveraged to discourage Direct Revelation. How sad - and what a nightmare for men like Paul. The ONE THING the Galatians needed to mature, argued Paul, was the pursuit of Direct Revelation (the "hearing of faith") - the whole point of chapter 3.God is no longer bringing any new revelations in any manner.
Um...generally one eats when he is hungry, not necessarily at the first opportunity. Your point is moot.
(1) Yes there may be occasions where God affords you a window of time to comply. So?
(2) Does He not also have the right to ask you to do some things immediately and without further question? Sure. Again, recall God's anger with Moses at the burning bush.
Irrelevant. Re-read my post. There is no such "weighing" possible for a high-clarity Direct Revelation.
And please don't use Christ's citations of Scripture as evidence for Sola Scriptura nonsense. Take a look at ALL His references to Scripture. Guess what you'll soon realize? That He consistently read between the lines, unearthing profundities in Scripture overlooked by all the Sola Scriptura scholars of His day (Pharisees, Sadducees, teachers of the law). That's because He was a PROPHET who, as such, read Scripture under the light of Direct Revelation from the Father.
One thing you're right about - Christ's example is paradigmatic for us today.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?