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.
Mea culpa. Maybe the right person will see my post.Um...I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I have always assumed the singular. I was objecting to another poster who proposed the plural.
I didn't say that Sola Scriptura is against praying to God for understanding (although it does lead to a logical contradiction per point# 4 in my Summary of Objections). What I implied, rather, is that SS is a movement infertile to Direct Revelation, for reasons such as:I don't think Sola Scriptura is against praying to God for the understanding on His Word. Many times, other Christians who are Sola Scriptura have told me to pray over the meaning of His Word. I see no evidence in the official teaching from a reputable source that says that Sola Scriptura is against praying to God for understanding Scripture or to know that it is true by God's Spirit. You keep making this false assertion that it is the official teaching of Sola Scriptura. Sure, I imagine some out there have come to rely more on the scholars, etc. I have seen that on the forums. They think that is the way to understand God's Word when it is not the way. But this is not mentioned in Sola Scriptura.
...via "the hearing of faith" (which is the literal rendering of the Greek). ....
You're responding to my reference to the "hearing of faith" in Galatians. You should rather begin with my initial exegesis of the passage at post 15 where I point out, for example, that at Gal 3:6, Paul turns us back to Gen 15 as the paradigmatic example of what it means to "receive the Spirit via the hearing of faith" (Gal 3:2, 5). It's a Direct Revelation - a revelatory vision.And by that we know that the message in Bible is correct and we should remain in the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32
Unless obviously, if you don’t want to be a disciple of Jesus, but rather follow someone else.
I agree. The problem with sola scriptura being discredited by Protestants (we know and accept that Catholics include tradition along with Scripture and this is not really relevant to the OP, so our Catholic brethren can make a sigh of relief!If it wasn't for scripture you wouldn't have a gospel. And believing the gospel is not a matter of opinion, it is simply believing the facts presented in scripture.
Agreed. Because handwritten copies were relatively rare and expensive, normal people often didn't have a copy and had to depend on their ministers to make them aware of what the Scriptures taught. This is why the Reformers and Puritans in the 17th Century did mainly expository preaching, to make their people as fully trained in the Scriptures as possible. Some preached for hours at a time, and sometimes several times in one day.Before the printing press, the scriptures were copied by hand. Every church would have had access to a copy and/or had a teacher who could relay the content. In the very early church, before the canon was fully distributed, they relied on prophecy (which was still active at the time) to guide them in the faith .
Members of churches, listening to their pastor or minister preaching the sermon, has to exercise a lot of trust in the preacher to preach sound doctrine. This puts the pastor or minister in a very serious position of trust, and this is why the Scripture says not to become many teachers, because teachers of the Scripture will be judged more strictly than ordinary congregation members."hearing with faith" simply means believing what you heard. Nothing to do with direct revelation. The word "hearing", akoēs, is the normal word for physical hearing with your ears, as any lexicon will tell you. The Galatians received the Spirit because they believed what they heard, the gospel. It is nothing to do with extra sensory perception or any such like.
Any unregulated religious quest tends to be chaotic and thus disastrous. It happens with exegesis, for example on this forum - even on the current thread - I've seen examples of "exegesis" unregulated by cogent hermeneutical rules, resulting in seemingly bizarre conclusions. At least the seminaries have insisted on some kind of standards here - therefore don't expect to get published in their journals if you are a chaotic writer.I know, as a Pentecostal, I have heard preaching consisting of "new" revelation that the preacher has "heard" from the voice of the Holy Spirit. After 48 years in the faith, I tested many things I was taught as a Pentecostal and found that they were missing from the New Testament! That sort of turned my theology on its head, and I learned that if it ain't in the NT then it ain't true.
I researched the prophetic by reading nearly every book written about it - or else the ones I could purchase from my favourite Christian second hand bookshop over a year. I actually filled up most of a bookcase with them by the time I had finished buying and reading them all. Through that I got a very good picture of the range of belief and opinion concerning the prophetic, the voice of God, the difference between the voice of the Holy Spirit and that of the world, flesh and the devil. It didn't make me an expert in the practice of the prophetic, and probably gave me more head knowledge than actual practical skills. But it showed me the possible minefields in it, and believe me, there are plenty of them, and if one is not careful, one can step on a mine and have things blow up in one's face! Consequently, I don't go rushing into giving prophecies these days, because often I don't know when it is the Holy Spirit or just me wanting to give a helpful word to someone. I learned very early on not to give prophetic words on demand, because that is not how it works.Any unregulated religious quest tends to be chaotic and thus disastrous. It happens with exegesis, for example on this forum - even on the current thread - I've seen examples of "exegesis" unregulated by cogent hermeneutical rules, resulting in seemingly bizarre conclusions. At least the seminaries have insisted on some kind of standards here - therefore don't expect to get published in their journals if you are a chaotic writer.
Fine. But when we turn to the arena of Direct Revelation, the church has ignored the one regulation that is both critical and common-sense based. And the inevitable result is the sort of chaos that you apparently witnessed for 48 years as a Pentecostal.
If you've been following this thread, you already know what regulation I have in mind - 100% certainty.
(1)A leader should prescreen any messages. He shouldn't allow someone to tout a message as prophetic unless it was first delivered to himself the leader at 100% certainty.
(2) The congregation shouldn't accept a message as prophetic until it is delivered to them at 100% certainty.
Exceptions can be made in the following sense. Suppose a leader is prescreening a message and feels something VERY CLOSE to 100% certainty. In this case he should see to it that the message is at least prefaced with a disclaimer to the effect that "we are not sure this is a Word from God."
To summarize. Please don't base your theology on unregulated chaos. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let me ask you this: The last time you felt the love, peace, and joy of God wash over you distinctly ("loudly and clearly") during the praise-and-worship part of a church service, did you seriously question it? Did you feel an urgent need to "check it out with Scripture" because it might be a counterfeit of the devil? No, because it elevated your level of certainty too high for that. You immediately felt something close to 100% certainty that it was a true work of God. That's Direct Revelation at work.
Treat every "revelation" with the highest skepticism until it becomes incontrovertible - until it raises your level of certainty so high that you find it IMPOSSIBLE to question in good conscience.
Again, it's not complicated.
You're just confirming everything I wrote in my previous response to you. You are referring to controvertible experiences. The real mark of an authentic revelation is incontrovertibility. You said it yourself:I researched the prophetic by reading nearly every book written about it - or else the ones I could purchase from my favourite Christian second hand bookshop over a year. I actually filled up most of a bookcase with them by the time I had finished buying and reading them all. Through that I got a very good picture of the range of belief and opinion concerning the prophetic, the voice of God, the difference between the voice of the Holy Spirit and that of the world, flesh and the devil. It didn't make me an expert in the practice of the prophetic, and probably gave me more head knowledge than actual practical skills. But it showed me the possible minefields in it, and believe me, there are plenty of them, and if one is not careful, one can step on a mine and have things blow up in one's face! Consequently, I don't go rushing into giving prophecies these days, because often I don't know when it is the Holy Spirit or just me wanting to give a helpful word to someone. I learned very early on not to give prophetic words on demand, because that is not how it works.
My view is that most prophecies given are from the flesh - through a natural desire to help someone at best, or at worst, wanting to be seen and heard for the praise of men for one's "wonderful gift of prophecy". I have learned that if anyone starts a prophecy by saying, "This is what the Lord is saying" it is more likely to be of the flesh than of the Spirit. If the Lord is really saying it, then that will be obvious to the listener and so the "prophet" doesn't have to take the Lord's name in vain by adding an authority on to it he doesn't have.
I know that many won't agree with me, but I have read it all, and seen it all over my years associated with the Pentecostal movement, and my view comes from that experience of the good, bad, and ugly that I have observed over the years.
…
This "Word" was not the written Word - it was not a Bible dropped on Abram's head. It was the divine Word - an outpouring of the Holy Spirit…. …Thus faith cometh by hearing the divine Word (Rom 10:17)….
…And you assume that the Word here is the written Word? Why can't it be the same divine Word who came to Abraham?
I believe that Scripture is inspired and true. I personally don't know any Christians who would disagree.But, I think it is disturbing, if disciples of Jesus belittle or revokes what is said in the Bible. I for example believe that Bible has the words Jesus declared as God had commanded him to speak. And now, if someone claims to be a Christian (disciple of Jesus) and tells that things are not really as Jesus said, I think that is wrong and not something Christian should say. So, what do you say, is Bible wrong? If you don’t think Bible is wrong, then I think we don’t have really any problem.
Paul was furious with the Galatians - he called them fools because he perceived their error as catastrophic to the maturation of believers. In my understanding, the error of the Galatians was to fall into the practice of Sola Scriptura!Firstly, I want to say, I don’t really understand why make a problem of this Sola Scriptura matter.
That's the Sola Scriptura position! It advises us, "Want to hear God? Look to the Bible!"I agree with the idea that faith comes by hearing God’s words. I think God’s words are in the Bible, and if person receives them, he can become faithful/loyal to God. Before hearing or reading, it would be difficult to be loyal to something, because one doesn’t know for what to be loyal.
I call reading up all I can about a topic to check whether my thoughts about it are sound or not and according to Scripture, being teachable. I have found that in the main, those who purport to receive "special revelation" from God tend to be unteachable, because "I got this from God and not from man". Therefore they don't listen to correction when they need it. All you have to do is watch Kenneth Copeland get very aggressive when someone tries to advise him about some of the wacky "revelations" he gets. And Benny Hin saying that he is "God's anointed" and anyone who criticises him, God will destroy.You're just confirming everything I wrote in my previous response to you. You are referring to controvertible experiences. The real mark of an authentic revelation is incontrovertibility. You said it yourself:
"If the Lord is really saying it, then that will be obvious to the listener."
In your research you apparently read hundreds of articles on the prophetic, but I am confident that most of them did not stress incontrovertibility defined, for example, as follows:
"You should accept a revelation without question when in fact you are UNABLE to question it."
That's a tautology - therefore I don't need to study 48 years worth of books and articles on the prophetic, as you did, to evaluate its veracity. And it holds true both for the speaker and for the audience.
And we don't need anything to confirm it - the evidence from the Bible is icing on the cake. Let's pretend we're having a conversation before the Bible was written. Topics include:Jal, allow me to play devil's advocate if you will, in order to clear up some things for me and help solidify your doctrine.
I think we may have overlooked something concerning direct revelation. At the end of the day, we are using our interpretation of the bible to confirm this doctrine. When in fact if this doctrine is true we would not need the bible at all. We would need nothing to confirm it!
Right. I can't prove it 100%. Would you say the same about all communication? Would you say:Nobody alive today has a clue how God communicated to Abraham, we can say we know it was an audible voice or vision ( like the bible says!) but We can't prove this.
Don't be short-sighted. In the IMMEDIATE SHORT TERM the doctrine of Direct Revelation doesn't gain you much. But things would likely be different if the church had been cultivating prophets for the past 2,000 years. It's much easier to become a Joshua if you've got Moses as your mentor. The point is to begin moving in the right direction.I agree, direct revelation trumps sola scriptura, but i'm still right where i started if God doesn't speak to me directly/Vision/ Audibly.
I disagree. Abraham did not need to have that faith in resurrection. Nice that he had it, but what he really needed, from the Voice, was 100% certainty that killing his son was the morally right thing to attempt.By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense." - hebrews 11 . So he at least had to have faith he would raise him from the dead. I wonder if in reality, we have the same information about God that Abraham did?
Okay. Let's say I get a revelation that I say comes from the Holy Spirit that says Christians should be always prosperous and that healing is guaranteed, and if a person is in poverty and doesn't get healed, he must have sinned in some way and displeased God. How are you going to test whether I am right on wrong, and what would be the basis of your test?Mike, don't worry about offending me. As long as you have sincere, reasonable objections, I'm happy to address them.
And we don't need anything to confirm it - the evidence from the Bible is icing on the cake. Let's pretend we're having a conversation before the Bible was written. Topics include:
(1) Does God exist?
(2) Which religious document did He sponsor, if any?
(3) How do I know, even if I read the right document, whether I'm picturing the correct God? Maybe I'm praying to a conceptual idol, not to the real God (viz. today this brings to mind Mormons, JW's, unsaved Jews, etc).
(4) How do I know my faith is of the right kind and strong enough to have eternal life?
(5) How is my fallibility to be overcome, for example when reading God's book? Or when making moral decisions that could harm the world in ways that my feeble mind could not possibly have anticipated? (For example going on vacation to another country without realizing I'm spreading Covid-19 to that nation).
Direct Revelation solves these problems - notice at this point I've drawn this conclusion without the Bible. I don't need the Bible to confirm. I don't even need to know which religion is the correct one, to reach the conclusion that God, if He exists, would need to leverage Direct Revelation. (But it's nice that the Bible seems to confirm that hypothesis over and over and over again).
I used simple reasoning to reach that conclusion. It's not infallible, but we're all agree on that point, right? Currently none of us participating in this discussion are infallible, for example no one on this thread has claimed to be a prophet.
Those who dissent with this conclusion are free to provide a more well-reasoned theory. Certainly the Sola Scriptura theory isn't an improvement.
I think you're pointing out that I can't PROVE my theory 100%. True. I can't even prove that you exist. Neither can the Sola Scriptura party. All we can do, in our current state of fallibility, is pick the most reasonable theory presented to date.
Right. I can't prove it 100%. Would you say the same about all communication? Would you say:
"Nobody has a clue how men speak to men."
I don't think you'd be that skeptical. And if you understand my metaphysics, I'm saying, based on Isaiah 55:11 for example, that God speaks to men the same way that men speak to men. Sound waves (Energy/Matter). Of course, shortly before impact, He can reshape the divine Energy/Matter into Light Waves, or Water Droplets (see John 3:5), or whatever He likes. But that's not really anything new because Cable TV can send a fiber optic wave, for example, that eventually gets converted into sound waves.
"Fiber optic cables carry communication signals using pulses of light generated by small lasers or light-emitting diodes."
Is Fiber Faster Than Traditional Cables? Learn All About Fiber Optics
If even human beings can convert light waves to sound waves, can't God convert His Sound Waves to any kind of material impact? But I've digressed into metaphysics. Sorry!
Don't be short-sighted. In the IMMEDIATE SHORT TERM the doctrine of Direct Revelation doesn't gain you much. But things would likely be different if the church had been cultivating prophets for the past 2,000 years. It's much easier to become a Joshua if you've got Moses as your mentor. The point is to begin moving in the right direction.
And not just because "infallible doctrine" is important. For example, I tried to demonstrate, a few posts back, that Paul, in Galatians, defined sanctification as an ongoing sequence of Direct Revelation.
I disagree. Abraham did not need to have that faith in resurrection. Nice that he had it, but what he really needed, from the Voice, was 100% certainty that killing his son was the morally right thing to attempt.
I'll now prove this point. Suppose Abraham attempted to kill his son simply because he reasoned that God could raise him from the dead. In other words, suppose the Voice wasn't the decisive influence. This creates 2 problems.
(1) If he lacked 100% certainty that the slaughter was the morally right thing to do, we cannot celebrate him. Anyone who tries to kill his son on less than 100% certainty has opted for evil and merits contempt and imprisonment (unless you really want to maintain that Abraham was a man with a warped conscience, that is, a psychopath).
(2) If Abraham was driven by reasoning he should have completed the slaughter! What stopped him? The Voice! Thus we see a parallel:
(A) The Voice is what started him along that path.
(B) The Voice is what ended his trek along that path.
You're asking a question that I've answered several times already. I'm still at work - if I can't find you a good link right now, I'll have to do it later.Okay. Let's say I get a revelation that I say comes from the Holy Spirit that says Christians should be always prosperous and that healing is guaranteed, and if a person is in poverty and doesn't get healed, he must have sinned in some way and displeased God. How are you going to test whether I am right on wrong, and what would be the basis of your test?
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?