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.
Right, for those interested in a shallow reply masquerading as a rebuttal - it's just a regurgitation of the Sola Scriptura position without any direct refutation of the 16 points. (Numbering your statements 1 to 16 doesn't prove you're actually addressing my 16 arguments).
...You cannot just ASSUME that faith comes from reading the bible, or ASSUME that such distinctions don't matter. ...
If you're content disobeying Paul's command to seek Direct Revelation (1Cor 14:1), there is significant reason to believe that Paul would be very frustrated and disappointed in you, much like he expressed his frustration with the Galatians. What YOU want or like is not the only issue. 100 billion souls are at stake here and therefore we need to be open minded as to what Paul's advice was on how to most effectively pursue sanctification and evangelism.The reason I believe and want to be loyal to God is the Bible. By what the Bible tells, I have learned to know God and His will. And because of what the Bible tells, I want to be loyal (faithful) to God. Without it, I probably would be a non-believer. And certainly, I wouldn’t know Bible God by the teachings of the Church in my country, because they are really far from what the Bible teaches.
If you're content disobeying Paul's command to seek Direct Revelation (1Cor 14:1), there is significant reason to believe that Paul would be very frustrated and disappointed in you, much like he expressed his frustration with the Galatians. What YOU want or like is not the only issue. 100 billion souls are at stake here and therefore we need to be open minded as to what Paul's advice was on how to most effectively pursue sanctification and evangelism.
The reason I believe and want to be loyal to God is the Bible. By what the Bible tells, I have learned to know God and His will. And because of what the Bible tells, I want to be loyal (faithful) to God. Without it, I probably would be a non-believer. And certainly, I wouldn’t know Bible God by the teachings of the Church in my country, because they are really far from what the Bible teaches.
When I first got saved, I was indoctrinated into Sola Scriptura. That almost wrecked my life. Why so? At that time I was dealing with some serious emotional issues and I knew I needed help from God - or from medication (wasn't thrilled with the latter). So I read every book I could find on how to draw strength from the Holy Spirit. Accordingly I also memorized several books of the NT because those Holy-Spirit books claimed that Scripture was critical to drawing strength from God. And it failed miserably, over the course of several month. I was in despair. Then I started reading the writings of Andrew Murray, who seemed to imply that the Presence of God is a Direct Revelation, and if all you seek is the written Word, you might NEVER experience a strong influx of His strength. Murray made it clear to me what I needed to do and, within a few days, it became a reality. Even today, I am literally sustained by a measure of the Presence that I was never privy to during my days of Sola Scriptura.This is a very harsh and incorrect response to another Christian! If you're saying that you can't get inspiration from God through the Bible then I suggest you open yours once in a while.
When I first got saved, I was indoctrinated into Sola Scriptura. That almost wrecked my life. Why so? At that time I was dealing with some serious emotional issues and I knew I needed help from God - or from medication (wasn't thrilled with the latter). So I read every book I could find on how to draw strength from the Holy Spirit. Accordingly I also memorized several books of the NT because those Holy-Spirit books claimed that Scripture was critical to drawing strength from God. And it failed miserably, over the course of several month. I was in despair. Then I started reading the writings of Andrew Murray, who seemed to imply that the Presence of God is a Direct Revelation, and if all you seek is the written Word, you might NEVER experience a strong influx of His strength. Murray made it clear to me what I needed to do and, within a few days, it became a reality. Even today, I am literally sustained by a measure of the Presence that I was never privy to during my days of Sola Scriptura.
You might be using terms indiscriminately. Reading the Bible isn't inspiration. You might find it "somewhat inspiring" (like any well-written or well-directed movie) but it's not inspiration in the theological sense.That's an interesting story but remember that it's YOUR story; it doesn't apply to everybody.
I, and I'm sure others, derive A LOT from reading the Bible, which is, after, the Word of God. When I read the Bible, which I do extensively these days thanks to COVID-19 isolation, I receive a lot from the Holy Spirit. This doesn't eliminate prayer or praying on tongues, but it is my main source of inspiration.
Actually I have defended my position across almost 500 posts by showing it superior logically, exegetically, contextually, and so on.Because you have found inspiration from the writer Andrew Murray doesn't mean that he replaces God's Word to everybody.
You might be using terms indiscriminately. Reading the Bible isn't inspiration. You might find it "somewhat inspiring" (like any well-written or well-directed movie) but it's not inspiration in the theological sense.
Actually I have defended my position across almost 500 posts by showing it superior logically, exegetically, contextually, and so on.
Here's some Scripture not yet mentioned. Here's what Paul actually says about the written Word - the same written Word that the Sola Scriptura party elevates above the divine Word:
"For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death....Sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good" (Rom 7)
And again:
"God has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory..." (2Cor 3).
The divine Word (the Holy Spirit) brings Life. The written Word frequently brings DEATH - the written Word does have some benefits but if the divine Presence is insufficiently strong in us to shield us from its potentially deathly side-effects, we're in trouble. I'm sorry if you don't like what Paul said.
Um...Yes it does. Spiritual principles are somewhat like laws of nature. They apply everywhere. Paul's claim is that written commands bring death because a written command both tempts you and condemns you without providing the sanctifying grace to (efficaciously) MOVE and EMPOWER you to obey the command. That applies wherever a shortage of grace exists.That's quite a distortion of Scripture. Paul wrote about the written law, i.e. the Torah and how trying to keep it brings spiritual death. This by no means applies to the entire Bible.
Absolutely it does apply to Andrew Murray's writings. Here are some things that you need to understand. (1) Andrew Murray was well aware of this fact, hence his writings are not really a book of commands. On the contrary, his treatises are generally trying to get us to STOP understanding sanctification as obedience to commands and instead as waiting on the Lord for sanctifying outpourings received via Direct Revelations.If the letter kills, why doesn't this also apply to Andrew Murray's writings? You put down God's word and elevate one man's ideas. Couldn't that be construed as cultish?
Um...Yes it does. Spiritual principles are somewhat like laws of nature. They apply everywhere. Paul's claim is that written commands bring death because a written command both tempts you and condemns you without providing the sanctifying grace to (efficaciously) MOVE and EMPOWER you to obey the command. That applies wherever a shortage of grace exists.
Absolutely it does apply to Andrew Murray's writings. Here are some things that you need to understand. (1) Andrew Murray was well aware of this fact, hence his writings are not really a book of commands. On the contrary, his treatises are generally trying to get us to STOP understanding sanctification as obedience to commands and instead as waiting on the Lord for sanctifying outpourings received via Direct Revelations.
(2) He's saying that the NT writers had the same priority in mind but the Bible scholars missed it. Point #3 below is one reason they missed it.
(3) The commands in the NT are addressed to Paul's generation of revival which ALREADY DID have plenty of sanctifying grace to obey those commands. (Also I personally believe that even Paul's written messages, in those days, shipped with an extra dosage of anointing even as the anointing that rubbed off his body onto cloths healed the sick).
Again, I'm sorry if you don't like what Paul said.
Irrelevant. He was an excellent expositor of the Bible. I never said that his writings are Scripture.I very much like what Paul said in all his writings. I disagree with with what you say concerning Andrew Murray's secular writings. He is just another person expressing his thoughts, but his writings are NOT the Bible.
Irrelevant. He was an excellent expositor of the Bible. I never said that his writings are Scripture.
If you're content disobeying Paul's command to seek Direct Revelation (1Cor 14:1)...
Um...The written Word doesn't have any sanctifying efficacy. Post 492 should have already convinced of you that. Maybe this passage will help:No, but you discount the efficacy of Scripture in favor of an expositor's writing about Scripture.
"So I read every book I could find on how to draw strength from the Holy Spirit. Accordingly I also memorized several books of the NT because those Holy-Spirit books claimed that Scripture was critical to drawing strength from God. And it failed miserably, over the course of several month. I was in despair. Then I started reading the writings of Andrew Murray, who seemed to imply that the Presence of God is a Direct Revelation, and if all you seek is the written Word, you might NEVER experience a strong influx of His strength." [emphasis mine]
The REASON is that you are a fallible interpreter of the text. For example you could misunderstand how to properly evangelize (and it is my personal opinion that the church has misunderstood evangelism for 2,000 years). And with 100 billion souls at stake, there's no acceptable margin for error. We need to seek infallible revelation.Paul says in that:
Follow after love, and earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
1Cor 14:1
I don’t think that is commandment to seek Direct Revelation. But, I am not against direct revelation. I think there is all important said in the Bible, no reason why God should repeat it to me personally.
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?