Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[Dave L]

All thought is voice. Not convinced? Take the most abstract, obscure theological sentence you can find.Now sing those words mentally to your favorite tune. See what I mean?

Consciousness is loudness as I explained earlier. Everything - all doctrine, all theology - must be understood in those terms. Therefore if you admit that the Holy Spirit illuminates the mind (Eph 1:8), if He contributes to your understanding in ANY way, He's putting a voice in your head. Please do not be hypocritical about it. Meaning, don't say to the charismatics, 'It's okay that God does this for ME, but don't claim He does it for YOU.'

Secondly, in that same post, I argued that it is impossible to define 'fellowship' with God (a biblical term) without reference to loudness. If you disagree with that argument, show me why it's wrong. Explain to me - without recourse to a bunch of nebulous language comprised of cliches - precisely what it means to have a personal relationship with the Father, without loudness. I'm sure you'll find this task impossible.

So much for your theory that we shouldn't be chasing after the Father's voice. Seems you might want to take John 5:37 to heart. Apparently, Jesus actually meant what He said there.

Have you ever sought professional help? Are you on any medication?

 

[Saint Steven]

Perhaps I was perplexed for a moment, but that was not anger.

Okay, good. Thanks.
The question, as I understood it was about what to call "healing ministry". (when not the gift)
To which you replied:
"Call it a Prayer Language, Saint Steven!"

 

[Saint Steven]

If we understand sheep to be an analogy in that verse, not actual sheep in the field, it should follow that "listen to my voice" is an analogy also.

Uh... an analogy for what?

 

[Saint Steven]

If God still calls apostles, i would like to know where they are, i have a few questions.

I consider any missionary to be an apostle. Maybe check with any one of them.

 

[Albion]

Okay, good. Thanks.
The question, as I understood it was about what to call "healing ministry". (when not the gift)
To which you replied:
"Call it a Prayer Language, Saint Steven!"

This is what I answered to:

For instance, I speak in tongues, but I do not consider it to be the "gift" of tongues which is used to address the whole congregation with a prophetic message. What should I call it?

As you can see, it is specifically about tongues-speaking, not healing.

 

[Dave L]

I consider any missionary to be an apostle. Maybe check with any one of them.

This is not an accurate analogy. They are evangelists.

 

[Saint Steven]

Have you ever sought professional help? Are you on any medication?

Are you declaring all the prophets to be psychotic?
Why would you trust their word?

 

[Dave L]

Are you declaring all the prophets to be psychotic?
Why would you trust their word?

Today? yes.

 

[Albion]

Uh... an analogy for what?

Sheep> the elect/believers.
Voice> divine guidance.

 

[Albion]

How does that equate to never hearing God's voice?

If you own a Bible and read it, you have his "voice" coming to you.

 

[Saint Steven]

This is not an accurate analogy. They are evangelists.

As in the spiritual gift of evangelism? Or have your "standard" theologians killed that one too?

Here is part of the dictionary definition of apostle:
the first successful Christian missionary in a country or to a people

 

[Saint Steven]

Sheep> the elect/believers.
Voice> divine guidance.

Divine guidance how?

 

[Dave L]

As in the spiritual gift of evangelism? Or have your "standard" theologians killed that one too?

Here is part of the dictionary definition of apostle:
the first successful Christian missionary in a country or to a people

Some gifts are permanent, the others were temporal. If you had the gifts you mimic, you would see a vast difference.

 

[Albion]

Divine guidance how?

However God chooses to call. It may be a feeling or seem like intuition or something read in Scripture or how another human interacts with you. Could be a variety of ways, but it is not that we hear voices in our heads which are the literal voice of God.

 

[W2L]

I consider any missionary to be an apostle. Maybe check with any one of them.

No, apostles are not simply missionaries. They could drink poison and not die, and handle deadly snakes. You cant say that about anyone but an apostle

 

[JAL]

If we understand sheep to be an analogy in that verse, not actual sheep in the field, it should follow that "listen to my voice" is an analogy also.

Funny how the advocates of Sola Scriptura are so quick to abandon their own epistemology whenever it suits them. I've already pointed out some of the methodological contradictions, but here we have a hermeneutical issue.

Hermeneutics is an imperfect science and in fact useless - pure chaos - if it lacks cogent rules. ONE of these rules pertains to the preponderant usage of a Greek or Hebrew word. When Jesus used the Greek word at John 10:27, it was before His death and therefore in an Old Testament context (although personally I don't distinguish between the testaments). So how was the term voice used in the OT? I commented on this in post 396. Here's what I observed:

"Many Christians live under the delusion that the OT saints were under the written law. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Hebrew word qowl (voice) occurs 500 times in the OT, it is consistently sonic with perhaps one exception. The expression, 'Obey my Voice (qowl)' occurs some 50 times in the OT. Moreover, the word 'obey' in Hebrew literally means 'Hearken as unto a voice'. Whereas The expression 'obey my laws' is almost never found in the OT (unless you're reading the misleading NIV translation and such). Nothing has changed. In both testaments, the Voice, insofar as it speaks through conscience (see my post 273), is authoritative."

The point is this. Out of 500 instances, 450 are decisively sonic. The OTHER remaining 50 instances are in the phrase, 'Obey my voice' where even the word 'Obey' means to 'hearken unto a voice' in the usual sonic sense.

Given that preponderance of sonic meaning,nay, MONOPOLY of meaning, it is inconceivable on a hermeneutical basis to dismiss God's voice as figurative. The ONLY way to arrive at that conclusion is pure eisegesis informed by misguided Platonic assumptions about God. Also see post 599 where I discuss that all thought is voice.


Not to mention the evidence of the PHYSICALITY of God's voice, as for instance when it sonically shook Mt Sinai, as Hebrews attested.

 

[NBB]

And angels stand guard over our beds at night. We all have wonderful imaginations, but God gave us his guidance in his holy word. If and when he occasionally chooses to reveal himself to some mortal in another way, that is his choosing, but we are very wrong to start thinking that it is something that happens to every believer, more or less all the time. Nothing in Scripture supports that notion.

It would be a shame, if a christian didn't at least got something understood or told in a way in their inside by God. We are supposed to have a relationship with God.
How can we have one if he doesn't interact with us???
I find it horrible, those christians that are 'bible only' and not looking more from God himself.

 

[JAL]

Have you ever sought professional help? Are you on any medication?

Hmm...Earlier you said:

I know my personal head voice. And there is only me.

There's a voice in your head? Dave, have you ever sought professional help? Are you on any medication?

 

[Albion]

Not to mention the evidence of the PHYSICALITY of God's voice, as for instance when it sonically shook Mt Sinai, as Hebrews attested.

Whoa. None of us said that God cannot reveal himself vocally--literally vocally. We also affirm that he can show himself in the physical form of a human.

BUT to think that this is routine or even commonplace is neither reasonable nor scriptural.

 

[W2L]

It would be a shame, if a christian didn't at least got something understood or told in a way in their inside by God. We are supposed to have a relationship with God.
How can we have one if he doesn't interact with us???
I find it horrible, those christians that are 'bible only' and not looking more from God himself.

Sola scripture can be an intimate relationship with God and His written teaching. Those who love Him also love His words. John 14:23-24