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.
I just covered that. The direct message is the Voice. A subsequent copy of that message is an indirect medium of communication.In case you haven't checked recently, the written Word is much, much more than "written laws in the NT and OT". The Bible is the direct message from God to people.
I just covered that. The direct message is the Voice. A subsequent copy of that message is an indirect medium of communication.
The difference? The divine Word is the sanctifying power of God. The written Word is powerless to sanctify although, like Paul said, it does do a good job of working death in our members.
Um...I cited Paul as proof for my position, not Andrew Murray. Clearly, what I indicated is that Andrew Murray caused me to investigate some aspects of Paul (et. al) that I had overlooked. Also I'm a huge fan of logical consistency and common sense. For example, if you tell me that 2 plus 2 equals 5 and claim to have a thousand verses to back you up, I'm not likely to accept your conclusion. I found that Andrew Murray's writings exposed logical contradictions in traditional theology.If you really feel that way I pity you. The Bible has been the mainstay of the Judeo-Christian world for thousands of years, and you believe somebody like Andrew Murray? He has been dead for over 100 years so I know you didn't hear him in person; you must have read his books. Like Paul said, the written word does indeed do a good job of working death in your members.
False dichotomy. It's not necessarily believe EITHER the Bible OR Andrew Murray. If an instructor has correctly expounded Scripture with respect to an issue, then it is only appropriate to believe the instructor on that issue. If you don't see why, let me know, and together we can work through the math. I'm not being harsh here - it's just that I'm at a loss for words to account for the fact that, for about 10 posts now, you've insinuated that it's inappropriate for me to learn anything from a Bible expositor named Andrew Murray.If you really feel that way I pity you. The Bible has been the mainstay of the Judeo-Christian world for thousands of years, and you believe somebody like Andrew Murray?
And thanks for conceding that the written Word does have that kind of effect. Not sure why we've been debating a point that Paul stated so clearly.Like Paul said, the written word does indeed do a good job of working death in your members.
Um...I cited Paul as proof for my position, not Andrew Murray. Clearly, what I indicated is that Andrew Murray caused me to investigate some aspects of Paul (et. al) that I had overlooked. Also I'm a huge fan of logical consistency and common sense. For example, if you tell me that 2 plus 2 equals 5 and claim to have a thousand verses to back you up, I'm not likely to accept your conclusion. I found that Andrew Murray's writings exposed logical contradictions in traditional theology.
False dichotomy. It's not necessarily believe EITHER the Bible OR Andrew Murray. If an instructor has correctly expounded Scripture with respect to an issue, then it is only appropriate to believe the instructor on that issue. If you don't see why, let me know, and together we can work through the math. I'm not being harsh here - it's just that I'm at a loss for words to account for the fact that, for about 10 posts now, you've insinuated that it's inappropriate for me to learn anything from a Bible expositor named Andrew Murray.
No, I made points such as the following.You have put Andrew Murray's writings above the Word of God. You said, "The written Word is powerless to sanctify although, like Paul said, it does do a good job of working death in our members. One inspires you, the other "works death..." Are you changing your mind now?
If I had said that Andrew Murray's books confer Life, you might have a point. Only the Spirit confers Life.You have put Andrew Murray's writings above the Word of God. You said, "The written Word is powerless to sanctify although, like Paul said, it does do a good job of working death in our members. One inspires you, the other "works death..." Are you changing your mind now?
This kind of statement is patently false, of course.The Bible doesn't tell me the exact specifics of God's will from moment to moment. All it does is confirm that the Law of Love underlies those specifics.But in the 66 books of the Bible, every issue that we are likely to encounter is already dealt with somewhere among those books.
The Holy Spirit illuminating the mind's understanding of Scripture is precisely what I call Direct Revelation.Is Bible not clear guidance? How can it be so, if you have the Holy Spirit from God?
No, I made points such as the following.
(1) Please don't use the term inspiration indiscriminately. Inspiration is ALWAYS a Life-giving infusion of the Holy Spirit that has nothing to do with a book - neither the Bible nor Andrew Murray's books. (The Spirit doesn't shove a canon into my body and soul).
(2) All books work death, including Andrew Murray's, insofar as they provide written commands. This is mostly due to the existence of the sinful nature. In fact the conscience is the main repository of God's commands (Romans 1 and 2). Thus, even the commands written on our conscience are a source of death, due to the sinful nature.
(3) Not all of Andrew Murray's writings are written commands.
(4) Not all of Scripture is written commands.
(5) SOME of Scripture, far from being a written command, is pointing us toward Life (Direct Revelation)
(6) Andrew Murray was the first writer to awaken me to points 1 to 5.
(7) The deadly side-effects of written commands are nullified if there is sufficient Life-giving Spirit present within a believer. (Life is the antidote to death). And, in my opinion, Paul's letters originally shipped (sacramentally) with such dosages, in those days of revival. (Same in Moses' day). Thus for his original audience, the letters worked Life (sacramentally speaking). We can't presume the same is true for us today.
I'm sorry you resent the fact that teachers such as Andrew Murray can help us understand Scripture better.
That's all you've got? You see this is what confirms my arguments - when fellow posters have nothing more than a pretense of rebuttal. Thanks for the confirmation.Since you say "All books work death", I will not continue to discuss this matter with you. Bye.
Oh I forgot to mention - the name pescador presumably means fisherman? Excellent choice. Are you aware that Christ twice repeated the fisherman scenario? Since He seldom repeated the same parable twice, this suggests that it was a lesson of paramount importance. And what was the lesson? The primacy of Direct Revelation! (Unfortunately the church still hasn't realized this).Since you say "All books work death", I will not continue to discuss this matter with you. Bye.
I've done a couple of threads on this issue, but I still feel that virtually no one gets it. Let's try this again.
This time, I'll begin by showing that Sola Scriptura faces the same logical difficulty as Tradition. Once again, our basic choices are:
(1) Tradition
(2) Sola Scriptura
(3) Conscience, informed by Direct Revelation (my position).
Tradition is the claim, "Never rely on your own opinions, instead believe what the Catholic church teaches" (or Orthodox church). The logical difficulty here is obvious:
Are you saying that Jesus is opposed to illumination (as discussed at post 531) and the new birth (as discussed at 528)? Here's a 10-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura if you'd like more info.(1)Christ slam hammers the "tradition" idea in Mark 7:6-13 "sola scriptura" when he opposes the magesterium of the one true nation church started by God at sinai "sola scriptura".
(2) sola scriptura is the Bible-approved model in Isaiah 8:20, in Mark 7:6-13 and in Acts 17:11... I am with the Bible on that one.
I'm not defending Tradition. Also I'm not sure why you would speculate, even for an instant, that any passage in Scripture is opposed to divine illumination (Direct Revelation). In the passage that you cited, Jesus shed some light on an OT command, "Honor your father and mother." Similarly, when the Holy Spirit speaks to me today, telling me the meaning of a verse, it is illumination/revelation (again, see post 531 if you're not clear on this).(1)Christ slam hammers the "tradition" idea in Mark 7:6-13 "sola scriptura" when he opposes the magesterium of the one true nation church started by God at sinai "sola scriptura".
I postulate only one rule (one maxim) that I like to call the rule of conscience:(3) Feelings, conscience, supposed direct revelation to an individuals "must be tested" against scripture... "sola scriptura" -- for as scripture says there are those who are "seared in their conscience' and who then unwittingly follow "doctrines of demons" 1 Time 4:1-5
You alluded to the Bereans at Acts 17:11. Again, there are at least two ways to read the Scriptures:(2) sola scriptura is the Bible-approved model in Isaiah 8:20, in Mark 7:6-13 and in Acts 17:11... I am with the Bible on that one.
I fixed the earlier link to the 10-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura.
...After all, "new revelation" is an oxymoron (there is no such thing because it's a contradiction in terms), due to the fact that any post-Adam revelation can only serve to merely clarify existing revelation and thus cannot be new. ....
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?