- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Can't hear you because actions speak louder than words.John 12:48 is above your maxim.
Upvote
0
Can't hear you because actions speak louder than words.John 12:48 is above your maxim.
That's not an insult. I actually assumed that you were not so arrogant as to place yourself on a par with Abraham or Moses. I had given you the benefit of the doubt.Insults are not become of the saints.
I see no cogent connection between your analogy and what I said. Paul said we are saved by the same faith as Abraham (See Romans 4 and Galatians 3). He didn't much comment on Noah's Ark, and I fail to see its relevance here.That is like saying that we need to build an Ark because God told Noah to build one. I am talking today and not in the past. The Bible did not exist back then. Revelation is progressive. We have something that Abraham never had. A complete Bible. There is precious treasure in the Bible, but apparently your missing it.
One of the written stipulations of the covenant was the admonition to obey the Voice. If God meant "obey written text",He would have stuck with that terminology. Is He trying to confuse us? Sorry, we've been over this already. While I can't prove my position 100%, there is hard evidence for real Voice in Scripture, while your phrase "metaphorical voice" is found NOWHERE in Scripture, it seems to be an oxymoron, it runs contrary to the purpose God created us for (He created us to speak to/fellowship with us), it seems to confuse the distinction between written Word and divine Word, etc.etc., etc. Your theory is problemmatic and just doesn't have much to go on.No, "this nation" in Judges 2:20 is Israel at the time of the judges, long after Moses went up the mountain. The covenant they had was in writing in the form of scripture. So the "voice" in this passage is a metaphor for scripture.
Exegetical error of fact. You don't believe me? Maybe you'll believe Moses:By the way, the 10 commandments were not "VOICED to Israel". It doesn't say that. It says "Then God spoke..." (Ex 20:1). There is no mention of speaking to Israel. In Ex 20:18 it says all the people heard was thunder and the trumpet. So presumably it was only Moses who heard God's words.
Nor is the word "voiced" used Ex 20:1. The Hebrew word is ḏab·bêr, to speak.
Too bad you are leaving now. I plan to soon create a summary list of the logical problems facing Sola Scriptura. Of course the main charge is that the maxim itself is authoritative and thus contradicts the idea of Scripture as the only final authority - but there are several other charges. And because my perspective is somewhat unique, you won't likely hear about them from anyone else.@JAL
I thought I could make one last ditch effort to reach you on this point with God's Word. Sorry I could not do that. I will leave you to the Lord, and I will let Him correct you. So I will let him show you the truth of what His word says.
Blessings be unto you (even if we disagree strongly on Scripture).
Please stay safe.
With loving kindness to you in Christ.
Sincerely,
~ J.
One of the written stipulations of the covenant was the admonition to obey the Voice. If God meant "obey written text",He would have stuck with that terminology. Is He trying to confuse us? Sorry, we've been over this already.
while your phrase "metaphorical voice" is found NOWHERE in Scripture, it seems to be an oxymoron, it runs contrary to the purpose God created us for (He created us to speak to/fellowship with us), it seems to confuse the distinction between written Word and divine Word, etc.etc., etc. Your theory is problemmatic and just doesn't have much to go on.
Exegetical error of fact. You don't believe me? Maybe you'll believe Moses:
"You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. 13He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. 1"
Everytime you make an exegetical error you reinforce the fact that EXEGESIS SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK. As human beings we are all far too fallible to draw conclusions reliably from religious texts. That's why we need the same gift that Paul and the other prophets relied on - Direct Revelation.
Blatant misrepresentation. Typical distortion of my position. What is a voice - even a human voice? It is words/breath sonically leaving the mouth. Based on Isaiah 55:11, I clearly defined God's voice as the divine Word sonically leaving God's mouth. I clearly repudiated any notion of a metaphorical voice. OF COURSE it makes an impression. Tell me, what kind of voice heard does NOT make an impression? The fact that it makes impressions isn't grounds for you to reduce my view of a literal, mountain-shaking sonic Voice to YOUR metaphorical nonsense. You keep re-resurrecting your silly strawman rebuttals everytime you want to save face.Now you have claimed that "my voice" in John 10:27 "my sheep hear my voice" is not a literal audible voice that believers hear, but rather a metaphor for 'impressions on the mind'. Now you just have to prove it. Where in in scripture is God's "voice" described as an 'impression on the mind'? Chapter and verse please.
Yes the language is quite clear. God chose to use a term 'voice' represented 500 times sonically in the OT. He consistently uses a term 'obey' that means 'hearken unto a sonic voice'. He couldn't make it any more clear if He tried.I don't know what verse(s) you are referring to but it doesn't have any bearing on Judges 2:20 where the language is quite clear....
You're way off. In multiple posts we discussed Galatians 3. Paul kept stressing that Abraham had no written law - he had no 'written metaphor for God's voice' to use your terminology - and thus HAD to be led by the hearing of faith. The nature of the covenant was Voice-based (otherwise known as fellowship with the Living God). Paul ALSO stated in Gal 3 that the Abrahamic covenat was INVIOLABLE - he said it remained in force because the law (properly understood) never contradicted it. The continuity is obvious - the 10 commandments HAD to be a Voice-based covenant to function as an ongoing administration of the Abrahamic Voice-covenant. Now you're asking me to throw 1,000 years of Voice-continuity out the window for some wild speculation about a 'metaphorical voice'.Judges 2:20 "So the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers and has not listened to my voice""
"this nation" is the nation of Israel at the time of the judges, long after Moses. God said that this nation has disobeyed the covenant which they had in the Torah. It then describes this act as "not listening to my voice." The Israelites in this verse didn't hear any literal audible voice, so "voice" here is a metaphor for the written covenant.
Sorry, voice is not a metaphor for voice, that's not how metaphors work. Moses defined the original 10 commandments as a Voice-covenant in the passage I cited. Here it is again:"this nation" is the nation of Israel at the time of the judges, long after Moses. God said that this nation has disobeyed the covenant which they had in the Torah. It then describes this act as "not listening to my voice." The Israelites in this verse didn't hear any literal audible voice, so "voice" here is a metaphor for the written covenant.
No you've shown 20 instances of wild speculation that fail to explain why God would consistently use sonic terms to describe a text-based covenant.I have shown you 20 other such verses where God's "voice" is not referring to his literal audible voice, but is referring to scripture.
Yeah sure. YOUR claim - while admitting that the Hebrew word there means "to speak" - is that the words weren't voiced. Huh? I'd love for you to explain to me how spoken words do not count as voice. You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.You told me to look in Exodus 20 where you said the 10 commandments were described as being "VOICED to Israel". You were wrong.
Blatant misrepresentation. Typical distortion of my position. What is a voice - even a human voice? It is words/breath sonically leaving the mouth. Based on Isaiah 55:11, I clearly defined God's voice as the divine Word sonically leaving God's mouth. I clearly repudiated any notion of a metaphorical voice. OF COURSE it makes an impression. Tell me, what kind of voice heard does NOT make an impression? The fact that it makes impressions isn't grounds for you to reduce my view of a literal, mountain-shaking sonic Voice to YOUR metaphorical nonsense. You keep re-resurrecting your silly strawman rebuttals everytime you want to save face.
Yes the language is quite clear. God chose to use a term 'voice' represented 500 times sonically in the OT. He consistently uses a term 'obey' that means 'hearken unto a sonic voice'. He couldn't make it any more clear if He tried.
You're way off. In multiple posts we discussed Galatians 3. Paul kept stressing that Abraham had no written law - he had no 'written metaphor for God's voice' to use your terminology - and thus HAD to be led by the hearing of faith. The nature of the covenant was Voice-based (otherwise known as fellowship with the Living God). Paul ALSO stated in Gal 3 that the Abrahamic covenat was INVIOLABLE - he said it remained in force because the law (properly understood) never contradicted it. The continuity is obvious - the 10 commandments HAD to be a Voice-based covenant to function as an ongoing administration of the Abrahamic Voice-covenant. Now you're asking me to throw 1,000 years of Voice-continuity out the window for some wild speculation about a 'metaphorical voice'.
Sorry, voice is not a metaphor for voice, that's not how metaphors work. Moses defined the original 10 commandments as a Voice-covenant in the passage I cited. Here it is again:
"You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. 13He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. 1"
That's a voice-based covenant regardless of whether it was subsequently facsimilied onto stone-tablets. Not only that, but the law repeatedly enjoined ongoing fidelity to the Voice. You said much time had passed unto the verse in Judges but, tell me, during all that time, when was Israel told to DISCONTINUE obedience to the Voice? To trade it in for nothing more than the printed page? It's true that the later legalistic Jews imprisoned themselves under written law, but that's precisely the sort of error that Jesus came to correct. Like the prophet Abraham, Jesus listened to His Father's voice.
No you've shown 20 instances of wild speculation that fail to explain why God would consistently use sonic terms to describe a text-based covenant.
Yeah sure. YOUR claim - while admitting that the Hebrew word there means "to speak" - is that the words weren't voiced. Huh? I'd love for you to explain to me how spoken words do not count as voice. You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.
For the millionth time, on a thread that is less than a 15-volume systematic theology, any given post can only expose particular FACETS of my position. For the millionth time, one FACET of God's voice (the subjective facet) is a subjective impression on the mind. How can there be a subjective facet if there is no objective cause stimulating it? Do you not understand the difference between the subjective and the objective? You've deliberately chosen to read my posts in the most obtuse ways in your strawmen efforts to impugn my conclusions. You're not fooling anyone.Rubbish, you are full of lies. I am not misrepresenting you at all. You said "my voice" in "my sheep hear my voice" is an impression on the mind. In post #333 I asked you what your understanding of "my voice" in John 10:37. And in post #339 you replied, "So, generally, I'd say that God's voice consists of any real-time impression more or less distinct ("loud and clear") that He imposes on the mind via His direct agency." Have you changed you mind yet again?
@swordsman1 and @All:
This post will serve as a summary list of the seemingly insurmountable objections facing Sola Scriptura.
(1) There are no conceivable exceptions to the following maxim. (I prefer to call it the rule of conscience, but the exact naming of it isn’t a vital issue).
“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B”.
This maxim is a final authority in the sense that it both can and does properly dictate all our behavior, thereby contradicting the view of Scripture as the ONLY final authority. The maxim is tautological because it defines justice. God would be unjust to dishonor this maxim because perfect justice evaluates men on whether they did what is right to the best of their knowledge, which is precisely what the maxim means.
Yes, God did speak to OT saints, and the early church believers by His audible voice. But there is no evidence that this audible voice would continue past Revelation (with the warning to not to add to the prophecy of this book - with Revelation now being a part of the end of our Bible).(2) The biblical incidents of God speaking to men presuppose the maxim. Righteous men obeyed the Voice (even when it commanded them to slaughter entire nations) because it caused them to feel certain that it was the morally right thing to do. In fact Heb 3 and 4 thrice rebuked Israel for initially abstaining from the slaughter, chastising it as disobedience to the Voice. See 1 Sam 15 for a similar example. And when Paul heard the Voice on the road to Damascus, he rightly abandoned 20 years of exegesis-based conclusions, because the Voice caused him to feel certain of the gospel. To summarize, the only viable definition of Direct Revelation is God-given feelings of certainty, because God’s voice is of no use to me if it doesn’t help me feel certain about the authenticity of the message. In fact, such dynamics form the only cogent explanation as to how biblical inspiration enabled the prophets to author the Scriptures.
(3) The Sola Scriptura position logically contradicts conversion. If biblical exegesis is the only appropriate basis for reaching religious conclusions, the prospective convert has no appropriate basis to claim, conclude, or assert that Scripture itself is inspired. The solution is to admit that the maxim defined in point #1 is the basis for conversion, meaning the agnostic converts when he feels certain that accepting the gospel is the morally right thing to do. Arguably the Inward Witness is what causes him to feel certain about the gospel. And this isn’t just an event of the past – he needs this feeling of certainty DAILY to sustain saving faith, he especially needs this help if he is or becomes mentally ill (Alzheimers), or is an adolescent, or has no access to a Bible, and so on. This means that feelings of certainty are authoritative for the duration of the Christian life, contrary to the notion of exegesis as our only authority. In fact, exegesis cannot be the basis for conversion because there was no printing press for 90% of salvation history.
(4) The Sola Scriptura position contradicts illumination. God is supposed to enlighten the human mind. He speaks to us. But the Sola Scriptura party says we should not trust a voice until we “check it out with Scripture.” This creates a logical contradiction. If I already understand Scripture well enough to determine the voice’s harmony or disharmony with it, why do I need the voice to help me understand Scripture? In the biblical view, God’s voice doesn’t need to be tested against Scripture but rather self-authenticates by causing us to feel certain about it.
(5) The Sola Scriptura position ties God’s hands from running the church. Suppose God wants me to do something right now. MUST he wait until I happen to reach that same conclusion exegetically, perhaps after four years of seminary? No. All He needs to do is give me a distinct (“loud and clear”) feeling of certainty that the action is urgently required. A humorous example will illustrate the point. Suppose your vehicle has slipped on an icy road and is about to head over an embankment. God shouts to an angel, ‘Go save that guy!’. The angel says to himself, “I don’t feel certain that was God speaking. I’ll need some time to check it out with Scripture.”
(6) The Sola Scriptura position casts unacceptably dark shadows on God’s character, because it consigns Christians to rely on exegesis – essentially play guessing games – even on life-and-death decisions. For example we are told not to expect a Direct Revelation providing us a feeling of 100% certainty whether dropping a bomb on Hiroshima (which killed 200,000 people) is the morally right thing to do. But far more than that. 100 billion have lived and died since the world began. Here too, we have to play guessing games about the most effective way to reach them with the gospel.
What conviction by the Spirit? The kind that makes us feel certain about what is morally right or wrong and thereby conforms to the maxim?You said, I quote:
"“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good,
I should opt for B”." Quote by: JAL.
This is your maxim or one of your major points against Sola Scriptura or a complete reliance on the Bible. If so, I beg to differ. A person's sinful life can defile their conscience, and so the conscience cannot be trusted unless one heeds the conviction of the Spirit (Which is talked about in Scripture)....
Where does the maxim use the word conscience? Are you saying that your advice to the sociopath is to NOT follow the maxim? That would degrade his behavior even further, to the very maximum extent of evil!...For have you never heard of a sociopath before? These are people who have no real moral convictions about anything. Hence, their conscience is defiled. So the conscience is not trustworthy all on it's own as a guide for the faith. In fact, nowhere does the Bible say that faith is a result of the conscience, either.
Yes, tons of OT saints got saved without knowing the five letters J-e-s-u-s because they knew the same Lord Jesus Christ that we know, via the Inward Witness serving as His voice (John 10:27).Yet, you think that one can be saved without hearing about Jesus, and or the cross. But as the Bible says, the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us, it is the power of God.