aiki
Regular Member
God can communicate with us in any way He chooses. But in the record of Scripture, we don't find God using an endless array of methods of communication. In fact, given that He could employ a near-infinite variety of methods, His means of communicating with His creatures is fairly limited. In not a single instance in Scripture do we ever read of God speaking directly into a person's mind. Not once. He speaks from burning bushes, or as an audible voice in the air, or in the midst of thunder and lightning, or through the mouth of a donkey, or in the blinding shekinah glory that filled the temple, or by the visitation of the angel of the Lord. But not once do we read in the Bible of someone hearing God speak to them directly in their mind. Why is that? I suspect it has, at least in part, to do with how easy it is for us to confuse our own thoughts and inner voice with God's.
This is entirely an assumption you're making here - in accord with what you already think is true. You presuppose God speaks directly into the minds of people and so you impose this belief on Scripture. This is eisegesis, not letting Scripture speak for itself. If you did let Scripture speak for itself, you would not have any clear, explicit scriptural grounds for thinking that God speaks directly into the minds of people and/or that He does so commonly.
Couldn't He direct the speech of His creatures much more subtly and naturally than to dictate to them each word He wanted them to say? I think so. We don't have any account in Acts, for instance, where, say, Peter or Paul first heard a voice in their head and then they began to repeat to others what they heard. No, when Peter spoke to the crowds in Acts 3, although his words were doubtless divinely-inspired, there was no hint that he was speaking things that he first heard in his head. The same is true of Paul when he stood trial before the Jewish council of Pharisees and Sadducees (Acts 22-24). What's more, when God comforted Paul during his trial by the Jews, it wasn't by a soothing voice in his head but with the visible appearance of Christ who said to Paul that he should be of good cheer because he was going to testify of Christ in Rome as well as in Jerusalem. (Acts 23:11) Why wouldn't the same be true of the Old Testament prophets? Why couldn't God have inspired the words of the prophets with the sort of subtle and natural influence that he demonstrates in the New Testament, or even with an in-person appearance? This is certainly what Scripture gives us actual cause to expect rather than a voice in one's mind.
And, again, inasmuch as God has given us the fully-sufficient word of God, the Bible, that "thoroughly furnishes believers unto every good work," that is a "lamp unto our feet and light unto our path," we have no need now of a divine voice in our head.
Here, too, you must assume the specific way in which the Holy Spirit communicated to Simeon or Paul and Timothy. And Luke 24:45 says that Christ himself, speaking directly, in person, to his disciples "opened their understanding." I'm rather puzzled by your reference to 2 Corinthians 4:4 in making your case, which says nothing about God opening the minds of people by a voice in their head, but describes the blinding influence of the "god of this world," the devil.
No mention of a voice in one's mind here.
No mention of a divine voice in one's head here, either. There are, though, visions and dreams that are mentioned. Why use such means, though, if God can speak directly into one's mind?
Jesus was speaking to his disciples here specifically. Among them were those who would become the writers of the New Testament, a unique and no longer required role. We have the words of the Spirit of Truth spoken to us through the apostles on the pages of our Bibles and so we need not look today for the sort of Spirit inspiration that was required to give them to us.
And, again, it is an assumption to say this means, "hearing a voice in your head" which would be entirely redundant when we already have God's words to us in the pages of the Bible.
This is entirely an assumption you're making here - in accord with what you already think is true. You presuppose God speaks directly into the minds of people and so you impose this belief on Scripture. This is eisegesis, not letting Scripture speak for itself. If you did let Scripture speak for itself, you would not have any clear, explicit scriptural grounds for thinking that God speaks directly into the minds of people and/or that He does so commonly.
Couldn't He direct the speech of His creatures much more subtly and naturally than to dictate to them each word He wanted them to say? I think so. We don't have any account in Acts, for instance, where, say, Peter or Paul first heard a voice in their head and then they began to repeat to others what they heard. No, when Peter spoke to the crowds in Acts 3, although his words were doubtless divinely-inspired, there was no hint that he was speaking things that he first heard in his head. The same is true of Paul when he stood trial before the Jewish council of Pharisees and Sadducees (Acts 22-24). What's more, when God comforted Paul during his trial by the Jews, it wasn't by a soothing voice in his head but with the visible appearance of Christ who said to Paul that he should be of good cheer because he was going to testify of Christ in Rome as well as in Jerusalem. (Acts 23:11) Why wouldn't the same be true of the Old Testament prophets? Why couldn't God have inspired the words of the prophets with the sort of subtle and natural influence that he demonstrates in the New Testament, or even with an in-person appearance? This is certainly what Scripture gives us actual cause to expect rather than a voice in one's mind.
And, again, inasmuch as God has given us the fully-sufficient word of God, the Bible, that "thoroughly furnishes believers unto every good work," that is a "lamp unto our feet and light unto our path," we have no need now of a divine voice in our head.
Here, too, you must assume the specific way in which the Holy Spirit communicated to Simeon or Paul and Timothy. And Luke 24:45 says that Christ himself, speaking directly, in person, to his disciples "opened their understanding." I'm rather puzzled by your reference to 2 Corinthians 4:4 in making your case, which says nothing about God opening the minds of people by a voice in their head, but describes the blinding influence of the "god of this world," the devil.
No mention of a voice in one's mind here.
No mention of a divine voice in one's head here, either. There are, though, visions and dreams that are mentioned. Why use such means, though, if God can speak directly into one's mind?
Jesus was speaking to his disciples here specifically. Among them were those who would become the writers of the New Testament, a unique and no longer required role. We have the words of the Spirit of Truth spoken to us through the apostles on the pages of our Bibles and so we need not look today for the sort of Spirit inspiration that was required to give them to us.
And, again, it is an assumption to say this means, "hearing a voice in your head" which would be entirely redundant when we already have God's words to us in the pages of the Bible.
Upvote
0
