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.
This much is clear. Your OP belongs on the Non Christian World Religions forum and not controversial Christianity. Nothing you wrote about the Buddhist “Voice” and other stuff is anything close to Christianity.Clear?
The premise is false to those viewing it. Perhaps have a conversation with that inner voice to see what others are explaining to you.The premise is false - meaning the one for which you can find not even a single exception, 140 posts deep? That's the premise you had in mind?
So in your view, I am telling you to behave like cults do. Here is what I've asked you to do:See, my friend. The problem I have with your position is that when you speak against God's Word (the Bible) as an authority and you argue for other authorities (like voices, conscience speaking moments, etc.) you make for a faith that is no different than biblical cults.
Every position can be misrepresented, misextrapolated, and taken to an extreme. That POSSIBILITY isn't sufficient to impugn it.See, my friend. The problem I have with your position is that when you speak against God's Word (the Bible) as an authority and you argue for
other authorities (like voices, conscience speaking moments, etc.) you make for a faith that is no different than biblical cults. They play it footloose and fancy free with the Scriptures and make something else on equal authority with God's Word. Your argument against the Bible as an authority for our life can lead a person to just throw their Bible in the trash and thus demolish their faith.
You are so terribly confused. You don't even realize that you advocates of Sola Scriptura are doing precisely the KIND of thing that you are forewarning me of. By elevating the written Word (the law !!!) above all, you sustain a bibliolatry that inadvertently and unavoidably deprecates the divine Word (of Direct Revelation - see Gen 15:1). You insinuate that I've dishonored God's book. Meanwhile you dishonor God Himself.You cannot speak against God's Word and elevate other things above it as if they are on the same level.
The rule of conscience is shaky? Then your job is easy it seems to me. If it is so shaky, it should be exceedingly easy for you to postulate at least one clear exception to the rule:To say that the voices in your head or your conscience is better or on the same level as Scripture is shaky at best because voices have to be tested (1 Timothy 4:1-3), and our hearts have to be checked by God's Word (the Bible). For men can defile their mind and conscience (Titus 1:15).
(Yawn). Not one exception to the rule...The premise is false to those viewing it. Perhaps have a conversation with that inner voice to see what others are explaining to you.
Buddhism? This seems to be blatant misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. I certainly did mention a voice:This much is clear. Your OP belongs on the Non Christian World Religions forum and not controversial Christianity. Nothing you wrote about the Buddhist “Voice” and other stuff is anything close to Christianity.
That was clever but you are fooling no one.Buddhism? This seems to be blatant misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. I certainly did mention a voice:
27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
I'm sorry that you don't believe the words of Jesus. Not much I can do about it.
Convinced you of what exactly? My claim is that Direct Revelation refers to the Holy Spirit speaking through conscience. Are you worried that He will direct your conscience to throw the Bible in the trash?So what if you convince me? What then? I throw my Bible in the trash and I just listen to some voice in my head and some guy's vision. Great job! You have helped me to throw away the faith (Which is the Bible).
So I'm a Buddhist in disguise? Can you even cite any evidence for this outlandish claim?That was clever but you are fooling no one.
"Is Christianity true? Is the Bible true? I don't know. According to Swordsman1, God certainly isn't going to speak to me about it. I guess I'll have to rely on my own human reasoning. No, I can't do that either, because Swordsman1 says "It's a pretty obvious deduction" that Scripture is the only revelation of truth.
Your position makes zero sense. To resolve that quandary, Calvin came up with a theory known as the Inward Witness - and pretty much every evangelical theologian in church history has agreed with him on this point. The Inward Witness is a Direct Revelation of the gospel.
For example:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." (John 6:44).
"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." (Jn 10:27).
If God were to honor YOUR claim that exegesis is the sole means of divine-human communication, it would spell disaster for anyone incapable of reliable exegesis - they could not be saved, or at least could not be expected to SUSTAIN saving faith reliably:
Why can't adolescents receive the gospel?(1) The majority of adolescents
People who are brain damaged, or severely mentally handicapped are treated as children. Not guilty until they knowingly and willingly sin.(2) The mentally handicapped (viz. Alzheimers, autism, brain damage, etc)
The deaf can read, the blind can hear.(3) The physically handicapped (mute, deaf, blind, etc).
If it God's will for them to be saved, God will find a way to get them the gospel.(4) Those too poor to receive bibles, or living in countries that ban them.
No it doesn't. Inward Witness only tells you that scripture is true.The Inward Witness cuts through all those issues - with perfect reliability.
Direct Revelation is the ONLY fully reliable revelation of truth. God is a little wiser than you are. Thus while you are quick to deprecate Direct Revelation, God, in His wisdom, stakes the entire Kingdom on it.
You could have easily straight off come out and say your beef with Sola Scriptura was that it excludes inspiration of the Holy Spirit with the believer.So I'm a Buddhist in disguise? Can you even cite any evidence for this outlandish claim?
You're still trying to divorce opinion from conscience. That makes no sense. You are evidently picturing an individual who says to himself:
(1) I know it is okay to murder. Morally, it is the right thing to do. That is my opinion.
(2) I know, by my conscience, that murder is wrong. That is my conviction.
And how did you reach the opinion that scripture is true? Oh, that's right, you benefited from a Direct Revelation known as the Inward Witness, speaking through your sense of opinion/conscience, causing you to feel certain of the gospel.
Let me get this straight. In your view, God's master-plan was to stake the salvation, sanctification, and evangelism of His people upon a book that wasn't printing-pressed for 90% of church history, on behalf of a Sola Scriptura ideology self-contradictory in nature and incapable of conferring salvation.
Therefore the Inward Witness - as Calvin and other scholars have noted - must provide a mental picture (vision) - a Direct Revelation - of the true God.
When Christians say things like, "I was an atheist until 2 years ago, when I finally met the Lord", this is precisely what they are referring to.
In effect, ALL of us had the Damascus-road experience usually ascribed to Paul, even if our vision was incredibly dim compared to that blazing Light.
Thus, you based the biggest decision of your life - the decision to convert - on Direct Revelation. Are we to entertain seriously the notion that Direct Revelation, having been entrusted with life's biggest decision, should NOT be entrusted with life's smaller decisions?
You do realize, don't you, that the biggest pushers of Sola Scriptura - both in ancient times and today - PROFIT FINANCIALLY from that ideology? They literally have a hundred thousand incentives (counted in actual dollars) per year to keep brainwashing us to their mentality. Imagine what would happen to their careers - and their pocketbooks - if the church accepted the absolute primacy of Direct Revelation in all matters. In light of this fact, you need to think carefully about what you've bought into.
Convinced you of what exactly? My claim is that Direct Revelation refers to the Holy Spirit speaking through conscience. Are you worried that He will direct your conscience to throw the Bible in the trash?
Is your claim that we should NOT look to the Holy Spirit for understanding - that we should only look to human reasoning - for fear that the Holy Spirit will lead us to throw our Bibles in the trash?
Feeling certain is the ONLY issue here. I can act only according to my current convictions, regardless of what the truth ACTUALLY is.
Romans 10:17 is exemplified at Gen 15:1. And please stop contradicting John 10:27. Thirdly, as I warned you earlier, if you're going to keep discussing voice, please provide clear definitions, for example does it include voices heard in a dream.People do not come to faith by hearing a voice, nor do they come to faith by their own reasoning. The option you missed is the biblical one. They come to faith by hearing the gospel (Romans 10:17).
Calvin called it a feeling of certainty given by the operation of the Holy Spirit. And?Calvin's inward witness is simply an internal conviction that scripture is true.
You are flatly contradicting what Calvin taught.“God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit.” - Institutes 1.7.4
It is nothing more than that. It is not direct revelation. It is not God audibly speaking to us. It is not God giving extra-biblical revelations via our thoughts or feelings. It is not God giving us a convincing opinion.
What Calvin said. A feeling of certainty, first and foremost, triggering the conversion dynamic via conscience:Tell me, what do you think it means when God "draws" people? A fuzzy feeling? A well reasoned opinion?
First and foremost, the function of the divine Voice indicated over the last 140 posts is a God-given imposition of feelings of certainty.And what is your understand of "my voice"? A literal voice in your head? A thought placed in your mind?
Scripture cannot bring someone to salvation. As Calvin held, we need a vision of God to replace our conceptual idolatry. This is Direct Revelation.The vast majority of scripture does not require extensive exegesis, Most of it, and certainly the passages that can bring people to salvation such as John 3:16, only requires a simple understanding of plain English. Even the more complex passages, where disputes occur, can be resolved by a basic understanding of hermeneutics (eg. not taking verses out of context, not reading your own ideas into the text, recognising genre etc)
When Calvin formulated the doctrine of the Inward Witness it was in answer to the question, how can we reliably and unfailingly identify the true religion and sustain saving faith - without slipping in and out of saving faith? By convictions based on exegesis? How can fallible exegesis be reliable? And how many adolescents have mastered Hebrew and Greek, as to be experts in exegesis? You're in denial. Your whole position doesn't make any sense.Why can't adolescents receive the gospel?
The claim that people can goto heaven without saving faith is an unsupported assumption that flies in the face of everything that Paul taught. The need here is not to deny the need for saving faith in the elderly (viz. Alzheimers), for example, but to ACCOUNT for it. Calvin's doctrine of the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) is the only solution.People who are brain damaged, or severely mentally handicapped are treated as children. Not guilty until they knowingly and willingly sin.
And how many of them have mastered Hebrew and Greek? Your position doesn't make sense.The deaf can read, the blind can hear.
Questions about "words" and "audibility" are not the primary bone of contention here (although I'll likely comment on it since you keep bringing it up). The main bone of contention is whether God can give us feelings of certainty and, once received, are they authoritative. I'd like to think that He HAS that ability, and I've already proven that conscience is authoritative, at least proven in the sense that we cannot imagine any exceptions to that rule.Direct revelation, as described in scripture, is God speaking directly to people with actual words. If that is your understanding, you haven't given us any evidence that God speaks in such a manner today. But my guess is your understanding of direct revelation, which you haven't fully explained, is something completely unbiblical.
No. My position is tautological.So, correct me if I'm wrong, but your idea of direct revelation is for you to have an idea and if in your own mind you feel certain it is true, then it must be God speaking to you? If that is so, I cannot think of many other such unbiblical and dangerous false teachings.
But you need not answer me and this post JAL, I see the blood in the water has brought the feeding frenzy to the thread. So I do wish you the best with 'them' and this, your ....third thread???.... along these lines. I prefer moving on.
You're putting the cart before the horse. You haven't provided any VIABLE ALTERNATIVE to revelatory epistemology. What I mean, I already ruled out Sola Scriptura as internally self-contradictory (at post 101 for example), and neither you nor anyone else has resolved those allegations.Whenever you speak against the Bible as a primary authority... it will lead others here to think you do not think the Bible is authoritative and should be followed alone as a guide. They will seek out other voices thinking it is God when it is not. They will seek out visions that are not God. They will seek out near death experiences that are not of God. They will seek to follow a false Christ. They will seek to follow some new holy book or writings when they are not of God or in line with His Word. So yes. I believe your speaking against the Bible in some small fraction or way. When you speak against Sola Scriptura you are speaking against the Bible because the Bible is sufficient for salvation, instruction in righteousness, learning about the Trinity, the blood atonement, and many other things in the faith.
You're distorting the paradigm. At Gen 15, alluded to at Gal 3:2-6, the Voice/Word/Spirit constituted one package. The HEARING referred to RECEIVING the spoken divine Word constituting an OUTPOURING of the Spirit. That's the paradigm. Abraham received the Spirit through THAT hearing of faith. Anything else is your own fabrication - has nothing to do with what Paul actually wrote.
THAT is the paradigm presented to us by Paul. If that's not the model that he wanted to convey to the Galatians, he should not have pointed them to that passage.
I'm not interested in your fabrications. I'm interested in what Paul had to say.
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?