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.
If only we had something like the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Oh well, guess we may as well give up because we have no trustworthy source.The potential pitfalls of Sola Scriptura seem countless. For a long time I've warned people that we cannot 100% fully rely on anything man-made: translations, concordances, lexicons, grammar books, etc.
Thanks for confirming.
A reliable Bible in the hands of unreliable people is a problem. The solution is a reliable type of person known as a prophet (1 Cor 14:1). You might recall that Christ was one.God did not leave his people an unreliable word.
There is more than enough there to accomplish the purpose for which it was given.
See post 1962.If only we had something like the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Oh well, guess we may as well give up because we have no trustworthy source.
So what superior alternative do you have to offer?A reliable Bible in the hands of unreliable people is a problem. The solution is a reliable type of person known as a prophet (1 Cor 14:1). You might recall that Christ was one.
Well, you are certainly correct in the fact that omniscience is far beyond us. Thus a lot of the picture we can't see because we just don't have the capacity to see it."it's the simplest answer that makes the most logical sense!" Or, at least, the one that makes the most sense to God is the simplest, to God.
I like your way of looking at this. I use "subset within a set", yet somehow the notion that the real, i.e. God's economy, can be called a set, just doesn't 'set' right with me. Maybe your "sphere" is better. I know that the reality of himself is the default fact, and everything else is outside that, in some way. Yet it all came from him, so... In the end, I have to conclude, at least, that Simplicity is the beginning. The complications come with our need to arrange thought, I think. Consider the notion, for example that God needn't consider whether something he is going to do is good or not; he is good, and he just does it. The definition of the term, "brute fact", feels good to us; it refers to something solid that doesn't move around on us, but just simply 'is'. But in the strictest sense, God is the only "brute fact". He is the only necessary truth.
One of my favorite quotes I posted below in an answer to JAL, #1,927 deals with this, our inability to approach full knowledge of God during this temporal dependence. We are simply ignorant, presumptuous, like children full of noise and emotion in an adult world, thinking life is about us. Worse, actually.
Here's a quote from CS Lewis' "Till We Have Faces - (A Fable Retold)" that I hope you can take without too much indigestion (Lewis is not saying there are gods (plural).)
“I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer... Why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?”
My view doesn't count, only God's view counts.What is the best end, in your view? 75% of the world in a pit of fire? This is the best that a predetermining God can do?
In relation to the gift of tongues to which the gift of prophecy is being compared there, yes, prophecy which can at least be understood, is more desirable than tongues.A reliable Bible in the hands of unreliable people is a problem. The solution is a reliable type of person known as a prophet (1 Cor 14:1).
I recall that he was also God (Jn 1:1).You might recall that Christ was one.
...(1) That the church have the same priority list as Paul - 1 Cor 14:1 - place the pursuit of prophethood at the top very rung of the priority ladder alongside love.So what superior alternative do you have to offer?
Deflection. You have interpreted Scripture in a way that YOU think is the best interpretation and thus the best outcome. I'm just asking you to clarify what is "best" about 75% of people being thrown in a pit of fire.My view doesn't count, only God's view counts.
And whatever his view is, I wouldn't have it any other way.
How do you know the preachers are not prophets speaking for God?...(1) That the church have the same priority list as Paul - 1 Cor 14:1 - place the pursuit of prophethood at the top very rung of the priority ladder alongside love.
....(2) That leaders build on honesty. Stop lying from the pulpit, "This is what the Bible says." Instead say, "This is merely my opinion on the Bible."
How do we expect God to pour out revival and the gift of prophecy if we are liars?
Thanks! Sounds correct! How about the Ante-Nicene Fathers or Apostolic Fathers?Neither of those are doing a word study. Lexicons/concordances are decent supplements but ultimately they tend to reflect theological traditions especially on contentious words like "foreknow" and rarely are the result of original research. A word study requires independently searching where the word is used in the Bible, and possible other 1st cenury Greek sources(usually the LXX, Josephus, and Philo) to determine a range of meaning for the word.
For one thing, the preachers disagree. Secondly prophecy cannot conceivably function without the impartation of convinction/certainty. The Spirit must convict.How do you know the preachers are not prophets speaking for God?
So...some may be prophets, and others not. How did you determine none of them are?For one thing, the preachers disagree. Secondly prophecy cannot conceivably function without the impartation of convinction/certainty. The Spirit must convict.
Where did you get this idea?If a true prophet has a word from God for me, I will immediately feel 100% certain of it.
Why not apply the test from Deuteronomy 18?Otherwise, what use is a prophet if I don't know for sure he is speaking a word from God?
BTW, since prophecy involves conviction by the Spirit, the NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance. (I can furnish exegetical proof).How do you know the preachers are not prophets speaking for God?
Suppose I walked up to you and commanded you to slaughter 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan. That's what the prophets Moses and Joshua commanded, right?So...some may be prophets, and others not. How did you determine none of them are?
Where did you get this idea?
I've heard that passage is not as clear as it seems. Also it seems to pivot on foretelling, which is only a subset of prophetic utterance.Why not apply the test from Deuteronomy 18?
I don't mean 100% proof. I can't prove anything 100% - I can't even prove that you exist.Didn't you kick this ladder over already?
I'm pretty sure God's display in Egypt was fairly convincing. And the fact that Moses was questioned by the wilderness generation seems to disagree with your 100% conviction thing.Suppose I walked up to you and commanded you to slaughter 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan. That's what the prophets Moses and Joshua commanded, right?
Prophecy doesn't make sense without the Spirit convicting/convincing us at 100% certainty.
It's clear enough, and the foretelling is only one of the three tests.I've heard that passage is not as clear as it seems. Also it seems to pivot on foretelling, which is only a subset of prophetic utterance.
Sure, but isn't your "exegetical proof" just your opinion? Which is it, is Biblical exegesis a trustworthy source or isn't it?I don't mean 100% proof. I can't prove anything 100% - I can't even prove that you exist.
Exactly. Convincing to the level of 100% certainty.I'm pretty sure God's display in Egypt was fairly convincing.
Rebellion disproves conviction? You've got it backwards. Conviction is what makes it rebellion. They knew they were supposed to submit to Moses but rebelled against the truth.And the fact that Moses was questioned by the wilderness generation seems to disagree with your 100% conviction thing.
Again, not all prophecy is foretelling.It's clear enough, and the foretelling is only one of the three tests.
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?