Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[JAL]

Well the Bible is pretty clear that it is sola scriptura testing in Acts 17:11, Isaiah 8:20, Gal 1:6-9.

You have free will of course and go to some non-bible source aas you wish.

You are conflating two different things again.

Prophets that are shown to be in line with God's Word - the Bible - can be as 2 Peter 1:19-21 states - as I quoted it to you earlier.

That is still the case.


You are switching topics again. Both agree that you are quoting scripture - are you trying to "test scripture" to see if "scripture is scripture"???

Too much deflection here, and reassertions based on verses already addressed. This is how you win a debate, by exhausting your dissenters?

 

[JAL]

BobRyan said:
ok - one morte time - slowly and with meaning. Pay close attention to the details. We will use your example above.

Gal 1:6-9
. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed

So then "yeah" the very thing you seem to doubt/reject -- yeah... that thing

Peter should check to see if the angel speaking to him is contradicting scripture - and if not -- only then take it seriously.

I addressed Galatians in depth. Paul was refuting the Sola Scriptura mentality in favor of the Abrahamic "hearing of faith".

You are conflating two different things .... "again". The method of getting an objective meaning from the text and the fact that as we see in Gal 1:6-9 those spirits are to be tested against known scripture -

That's your eisegesis. Paul told them to follow Abraham's example of depending on the Voice.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things SPOKEN to them by the Apolstle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

They were to study without the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation) ????? Jesus begs to differ:

"You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

It was all based on sola scriptura testing. And then that which was tested and approved became an additional part of that known and tested teaching from God such that even the Angel is to be tested. Which was the very thing you claimed to doubt.

You haven't shown how the kind of messages delivered at 1 Ki 20 can be tested via Sola Scriptura. Again:

35By the word of the Lord one of the company of the prophets said to his companion, “Strike me with your weapon,” but he refused.
36So the prophet said, “Because you have not obeyed the Lord, as soon as you leave me a lion will kill you.” And after the man went away, a lion found him and killed him.
37The prophet found another man and said, “Strike me, please.” So the man struck him and wounded him. (1 Kings 20).

And to tell me that I'm "conflating issues" is a cheap debating tactic. Sheer deflection. But why should I expect intellectual honesty from you? You won't even confess your basis/authority for accepting the Bible !!!!

This is irrefutable.

Paul never says that he can make stuff up and they have to believe it. Rather "IF WE (apostles)" so here Paul puts HIMSELF in that list of those to be tested "OR an ANGEL" should come to you with a VOICE TEACHING A DIFFERENT doctrine of salvation -- then Paul argues that HE HIMSELF in that case should be "Accursed".

Already addressed. Moreover, you're just pushing the problem back one step further. Let's suppose that Paul wanted them to depend on the Sola Scriptura method. On what basis/authority were they supposed to accept the Bible to begin with? Why not some other religion/book?
If not on the basis of an authoritative voice? Or some other authority? Your position doesn't make sense. You're trying to put the cart before the horse.

You post as if you are not actually reading the text in the post you are responding to.

What he did not do - is go the Mormon route of "whatever the burning in your bosom tells you is right"

What's your basis/authority for believing in the Bible? A burning bosom?

I'm throwing the bosom-theory right back at you because, with your typical intellectual dishonesty, you initiated the insinuation that such is my view, putting words in my mouth. Read my lips: I have no idea how the bosom-theory is supposed to work, I don't believe in it, and I want no part of it.

Will that repudiation reduce your dishonest strawmen going forward? I'm not holding my breath.

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan,

Your rampant dishonesty is very frustrating and disturbing. I was perfectly clear that prophets don't always speak authoritatively, and in these cases their messages are to be tested. Yet you keep making the dishonest allegation that the Berean testing of Paul's message refutes my position. You also ignore the other comments I made about the Bereans - such as the fact that the Bereans accepted the original gospel message without testing it. They only tested the auxiliary doctrines delivered subsequently by Paul. Here are the Bereans accepting the gospel:

"11Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day [every day subsequent to that acceptance] to see if what Paul said was true."

As Catholics have pointed out for centuries, they accepted the original gospel on Paul's oral authority. They only tested those Pauline messages that did not come forth authoritatively from him.

Here's another fact that you like to gloss over. While I believe that ideally the best test of a message is to compare it with the teachings of the Voice, that is usually not possible for we immature believers because we don't hear the Voice clearly. Therefore we naturally fall back on exegesis as a crutch. But reliance on this crutch was never God's original desire, intent, or master plan for the church.

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan,

Paul's oral authority at work:

"Cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter" (2 Th 2:15).

Notice Paul did not say, "Disregard obedience to my instructions until such a time as you are able to successfully, thoroughly, and exhaustively verify them using the Sola Scriptura method."

 

[JAL]

@bob

ok - one more time - slowly and with meaning. Pay close attention to the details. We will use your example above.

Gal 1:6-9
. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed

Angels do not necessarily speak authoritatively.

In those days, the gift of prophecy was prolific:

"[Paul] found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?...6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues b and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.” (Acts 19)

Prophets were called "seers" meaning see-ers of visions. Since visions are rare today, Christians misunderstand Gal 3:1:

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified." (Gal 3:1)

When Paul preached the gospel to the Galatians, they saw prophetic visions, including visions of the crucifixion. Thus in the next verse:

"Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith [in visions]? 3Are ye so foolish?"

He's asking them to remember a distinct moment of the Spirit falling upon them with visions, as happened to the prophet Abraham.

"The [outpoured] word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision [speaking promises]" (Gen 15:1).

These visions are all part of the authoritative Voice. Paul is saying, "You know what gospel was preached to you authoritatively. Therefore, if even an angel from heaven should preach to you a different gospel, let him be an anathema."

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan,

Suppose Adam and Eve had never sinned. What was God's master plan? To govern the world via Sola Scriptura? And that is His plan for the next life as well? I find it mind-boggling that anyone could trust in a written document to sustain world peace. They forget the conflicts over land, resources, private rights, state rights, federal rights, animal rights, child rights, employer rights, employee rights, taxation, welfare, environmental protection (etc, etc, etc). If God cares about us, He must be committed to proliferating His authoritative Voice.

 

[JAL]

I can predict your response to 346. You'll say, "The Holy Spirit will guide people. You're the only one who defines Sola Scriptura as no-Holy-Spirit."

Again, this misses the point. If the Holy Spirit tells a person to do something, the Sola Scriptura method must "test" the voice. The problem is:
...(1) An infinite number of situation-specific circumstances are not explicitly addressed in any verse.
...(2) His omniscience takes into account a million factors unknown to you. For example you could unknowingly make a business/manufacturing decision harmful to the environment. Since you cannot fully comprehend His will, you cannot rely on the Sola Scriptura method to properly test the voice.

 

[JAL]

FYI: Richard Gaffin, as far as I can tell, is indeed a no-Holy-Spirit proponent of Sola Scriptura. Admittedly he's probably the only one. In trying to be perfectly consistent with his own cessationism, he rejects any notion of the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation) for today. The only Light for today is the Bible itself, in his view. He writes, “Scripture thoroughly suffices as ‘a lamp to my feet and a light to my path’” (see Richard Gaffin’s essay in Grudem, Wayne. Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: 4 Views (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) (p. 339). Zondervan. Kindle Edition).

I have no idea how Gaffin reconciles this strange position with Eph 1:17-18:

17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened...

 

[GDL]

@BobRyan Interesting thread & good topic. Is it fair to summarize it as: What's the problem and What's the solution? Pardon me for finding this thread so late, but such a question(s) has been on my mind for 3-4 decades - actually from when I first entered The Faith and began observing what seemed to me to be very questionable organizations calling themselves "Church" compared to what I was reading in the Biblical Text. This highly fractured thing commonly called "Christianity" is a tragedy IMO and I too am finding the problem to be occupying my thinking more and more.

@JAL As you are so actively involved here, your posts are prominent. I've read 50%+ of the 18 pages of posts and would like to ask you if you'd categorize your position as Charismatic. Sorry to ask this as I usually don't like to deal with such labels, but your identity just says "Christian" which I actually prefer no matter our theological camps.

Another quick question so I don't misread you: Do you consider the canon closed? In your discussions maybe with @Darren Court you pointed to your post #151 which I did read. You seem to state the canon is not closed and that [new] mandates can be received via the "Voice". I didn't want to jump in after all these posts and foundationally misread you.

______________________________

The gist of what I'm ending up getting seems like the basic Charismatic/Pentecostal vs. Word (SS) oriented views. FWIW, I'm Word oriented but think it's impossible to be Word oriented apart from being Spirit oriented. There's a Hebrew parallelism in Prov1:23 that parallels the pouring out of God's Spirit with His making His Word known. His Word and His Spirit are paralleled.

FWIW, being Word and study oriented while always seeking enlightenment in God's Word by God's Spirit and noting the work of God in bringing us to Christ in the first place, it doesn't seem to me that most who I interact with who are Word oriented deny in any way the primacy & vital work of God's Spirit in any of the Salvation Process from beginning to end.

My many experiences with Charismatics have been that they under-value the importance of God's Word and are typically seeking some new experience, new revelation, new personality to excite, new "move" of the Spirit.

On the one hand, I appreciate the question by @Darren Court that basically boils down to the testing of spirits. On the other hand, I'm cautiously open to a greater understanding and relationship with God's Spirit. At this point after decades of study, manly Greek exegesis, some lengthy teaching experience from and in the Word, I go back to the beginning of the @BobRyan OP - and ask what's going on?

Denominationalism seems to be increasing (not including "churches" degenerating into extreme false doctrine and support of evil). The tradition of "church" whether it be Roman or Protestant or ??? does not seem to be taking us to the single-minded maturity discussed in Eph4 (although His Ekklesia within or apart from churches may well be growing and advancing). The traditional process of teaching Scripture once or more per week seems to make fewer changes in many than I expected it would. The ever-changing traditional forms of "worship" in "churches" is a tragedy IMO as it more and more mimics the world's entertainment. Is there one group that has it all correct? I highly doubt it. Is it a necessity to have it all correct? Again, and based upon history, I don't think so. Should we be ever seeking and striving for accuracy? Yes. Should this accuracy include doctrinal accuracy and the correct relationship and reliance on God's Spirit? Certainly.

It's fascinating how all the current camps-based separations approach this from the seeming position that they each have things correct, or mostly correct as has been noted on this thread. Honestly and admittedly, all I find is a personal desire to be separate from all of it and available to take from whatever seems to compare to His Word as I am led (?) by His Spirit to do. Again, honestly, most times I experience an interest in reading some instructional writing, I may gain some interesting insights but inevitably disagree with something or just find more of a record of historical disagreements on certain things Scripture.

It's an odd time. We have easy access to almost countless writings and verbal teachings that expose us immeasurably to different interpretations. Almost anybody can get or take a position of authority in some "church" somewhere and expound widely their point of view. IMO it is a time of great immaturity at best. The problem with widespread spiritual immaturity and unlearnedness in Scripture coupled with temporally advanced age is that arrogance abounds. The problem with seeking the Spirit without caution is that one can end up in some part of the USA and find people barking like dogs and promoting it as a move of the Spirit.

I'm cautiously open to points of view and there are some interesting ones in this thread, but is SS the final solution? If it is, and I do greatly value God's Word/Spirit (which I see mostly as completely parallel and as two-witnesses), then I admittedly find it more and more rare, with limited exceptions, to find agreement out there and hope more and more for His return and end to all of this. Until then, maybe we can find the solution I think @BobRyan is posting for. Is anybody here seeing it yet or think they truly have it?

 

[JAL]

@JAL As you are so actively involved here, your posts are prominent. I've read 50%+ of the 18 pages of posts and would like to ask you if you'd categorize your position as Charismatic. Sorry to ask this as I usually don't like to deal with such labels, but your identity just says "Christian" which I actually prefer no matter our theological camps.

I am a Continuationist to the extreme. As I said several times, Paul defines spiritual maturity as prophethood, nay, mature prophethood. Make a list of the most mature saints in the bible. Don't be surprised if the people on your list happen to be prophets, Christ Himself for example.

Another quick question so I don't misread you: Do you consider the canon closed? In your discussions maybe with @Darren Court you pointed to your post #151 which I did read. You seem to state the canon is not closed and that [new] mandates can be received via the "Voice". I didn't want to jump in after all these posts and foundationally misread you.

Post 151 dealt with the closed canon issue? I don't recall that it did.

I'm not infallible, but I'm fairly confident that God has no desire to extend the canon. We don't need more Scripture but more Voice.

So how do you resolve the contradiction alleged at post 151? On what authority do you accept the Bible?

 

[JAL]

At one point I did say that if God wanted to test me, like Abraham, he could command me to contradict His moral law, and then revoke the command at the last moment. I also said that you can neither test nor ascertain the specifics of His moral law from Scripture because life is too complicated. For example the Voice could command me to inject my neighbor with a poison because God alone happens to know that this particular neighbor has a terminal virus destructible by that poison, thereby saving his life.

 

[JAL]

FWIW, being Word and study oriented while always seeking enlightenment in God's Word by God's Spirit and noting the work of God in bringing us to Christ in the first place, it doesn't seem to me that most who I interact with who are Word oriented deny in any way the primacy & vital work of God's Spirit in any of the Salvation Process from beginning to end.

Yes, as I said repeatedly, Sola Scriptura proponents pay lip service to the Holy Spirit. They even acknowledge an authoritative Voice (John 10:27), known as the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit, as the basis for accepting Scripture. However:
...(1) In terms of daily living, their lip service amounts to empty Christian jargon. Nobody knows how "enlightenment" is supposed to work in a Sola Scriptura framework. If the Holy Spirit tells you something, and you have the skills to exegetically test it, then you didn't need the voice because you already understood Scripture quite well.

....(2) SS proponents do NOT acknowledge the possibility of authoritative voice for daily living. This logically contradicts the Inward Witness, and flies in the face of the biblical data (if you read all my posts), AND is logistically untenable because life is too complex to exegetically determine morality.

 

[GDL]

I am a Continuationist to the extreme. As I said several times, Paul defines spiritual maturity as prophethood, nay, mature prophethood. Make a list of the most mature saints in the bible. Don't be surprised if the people on your list happen to be prophets, Christ Himself for example.


Post 151 dealt with the closed canon issue? I don't recall that it did.

I'm not infallible, but I'm fairly confident that God has no desire to extend the canon. We don't need more Scripture but more Voice.

So how do you resolve the contradiction alleged at post 151? On what authority do you accept the Bible?

A Continuationist to the extreme, so precisely what are the gifts for if they don't add to the canon? Strictly for evangelism and/or? since you seem to be saying evangelism is prophetic? Here is the statement that prompted my assumption and question. Is this a new mandate based upon a Continuationist view or a past new mandate now contained in the NC?

Therefore a proposed mandate is merely a suggestion, it doesn't actually count as a real imperative until we have located an authoritative basis for it in Scripture.

I'm not certain I see a contradiction as inferred in my post re: the parallelism between God's Word and God's Spirit. Scripture like John6 tells us God is drawing us to His Son by teaching. In that context His Son was doing the speaking and was filled with God's Spirit without measure. Elsewhere we're informed of the ministry of the Spirit post ascension. The parallelism for me means the Word and the Spirit will not be in disagreement, which may or may not mean to me what it means to others who use the SS terminology the same or differently than I might (although I don't really use it in general practice, and for various reasons I've grown very cautious of arbitrarily accepting the "faith alone in Christ alone" statements used by many - another & side discussion though).

If you/we see the canon as closed, then much to maybe all of the testing we saw in Abraham and the revelatory work to establish the canon seems fairly moot now. I know this can be conceptually Cessationist, but I'm attempting to understand your POV better and my views my or may not be hardline Cessationist because I see (last I looked some time ago) the language of the Text about this to be difficult to interpret.

Even Abraham's testing was met with his understanding of God's promises for his seed and the nations, so his testing was in line with previous revelation. Gen26:5 speaks of Abraham keeping God's Laws so being willing to sacrifice his son is an interesting consideration, but God's Law is truly something to deal with. Jesus in one instance took His challengers through 2-3 levels of Law to deal with His disciples picking & eating grain on Sabbath (picking & eating grain on Sabbath < David and troops eating the sacred bread when hungry < the Priests breaking Sabbath to do their jobs). IOW, what all was Abraham dealing with in this test and as one who was dealing with the voice of God in a way that is much different than most thereafter, how much of it really has implications for us all today?

Hopefully you will agree that we see today a lot of bogus claims of prophetic gifts by a lot of charlatans. I see that this was evident in OC times also (but maybe not as rampant due to mandated capital punishment for false prophets). "Continuationist to the extreme" raises my Cautionist antennae. But I'm not overly concerned about being misled, so write on if you care to.

 

[GDL]

At one point I did say that if God wanted to test me, like Abraham, he could command me to contradict His moral law, and then revoke the command at the last moment. I also said that you can neither test nor ascertain the specifics of His moral law from Scripture because life is too complicated. For example the Voice could command me to inject my neighbor with a poison because God alone happens to know that this particular neighbor has a terminal virus destructible by that poison, thereby saving his life.

Glad I'm not your neighbor. Rather than respond to it I'll see where it goes from my just previous post. Maybe someone else will comment.

 

[JAL]

A Continuationist to the extreme, so precisely what are the gifts for if they don't add to the canon? Strictly for evangelism and/or? since you seem to be saying evangelism is prophetic?

Why would gifts to add the canon? So if I heal someone today, we must make an entry in the canon?

Yes the gifts would be for things like evangelism, healing, encouragement, world peace, world hunger (viz a God-directed economy), etc.

The last thing they would be needed for is to extend the canon. I see no need for that at all.

Here is the statement that prompted my assumption and question. Is this a new mandate based upon a Continuationist view or a past new mandate now contained in the NC?

Huh? I didn't get you. I guess I'm not a very intuitive reader and quickly lose patience trying to understand posts.

I'm not certain I see a contradiction as inferred in my post re: the parallelism between God's Word and God's Spirit. Scripture like John6 tells us God is drawing us to His Son by teaching. In that context His Son was doing the speaking and was filled with God's Spirit without measure. Elsewhere we're informed of the ministry of the Spirit post ascension. The parallelism for me means the Word and the Spirit will not be in disagreement, which may or may not mean to me what it means to others who use the SS terminology the same or differently than I might (although I don't really use it in general practice, and for various reasons I've grown very cautious of arbitrarily accepting the "faith alone in Christ alone" statements used by many - another & side discussion though).

You say you do not "see" a contradiction but have not clearly addressed post 151. Sure, if you put blinders on, you won't see any contradiction. If you address post 151 carefully, I think you'll see the problem.

This looks like more deflection. I'm not sure I want to go around in circles with you like I've already done with others on this thread.

If you/we see the canon as closed, then much to maybe all of the testing we saw in Abraham and the revelatory work to establish the canon seems fairly moot now.

The question of whether an authoritative voice is possible is hardly a moot point. Sola Scriptura proponents certainly think it's an important issue, since they adamantly argue against it.

Even Abraham's testing was met with his understanding of God's promises for his seed and the nations, so his testing was in line with previous revelation.

Murdering my own son is consistent with God's promised seed? So the nations that burnt their children in the fire - a practice which God hated - were really doing God's will? Look please don't fixate on Abraham alone. If you read all my posts, you'll find that there are a number of examples like him - examples of authoritative Voice. In both testaments. For example I mentioned that Mathew 2 features four authoritative dreams in one chapter.

Hopefully you will agree that we see today a lot of bogus claims of prophetic gifts by a lot of charlatans. I see that this was evident in OC times also (but maybe not as rampant due to mandated capital punishment for false prophets). "Continuationist to the extreme" raises my Cautionist antennae. But I'm not overly concerned about being misled, so write on if you care to.

That's the wrong concern. Prophecy has a proven track record. It's how we got the Scriptures to begin with. Therefore you shouldn't be concerned with whether an authoritative voice is possible. At most you should be concerned with how it is possible, that is, how it works.

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan Interesting thread & good topic. Is it fair to summarize it as: What's the problem and What's the solution?

yes that is it! Welcome to the thread!

Pardon me for finding this thread so late, but such a question(s) has been on my mind for 3-4 decades - actually from when I first entered The Faith and began observing what seemed to me to be very questionable organizations calling themselves "Church" compared to what I was reading in the Biblical Text. This highly fractured thing commonly called "Christianity" is a tragedy IMO and I too am finding the problem to be occupying my thinking more and more.

Yes it is a big problem. As almost everyone here will admit the NT church was considerably more united in their doctrine than Christendom is today and that is not to say there were no indications of error creeping it - just that it was better situated to deal with it because they were off to a fresh start with Christ and the Apostles pointing them in the right direction including strong affirmation of God's Word to test all future claims, future doctrine, future speculation.

The gist of what I'm ending up getting seems like the basic Charismatic/Pentecostal vs. Word (SS) oriented views. FWIW, I'm Word oriented but think it's impossible to be Word oriented apart from being Spirit oriented.

Amen - there is no war between the Holy Spirit and His Word which He authored through His prophets. Nor is He at war with his influence on the conscience of mankind convicting us of sin and righteousness and judgment.

My many experiences with Charismatics have been that they under-value the importance of God's Word and are typically seeking some new experience, new revelation, new personality to excite, new "move" of the Spirit.

There is that - and if they yield to that temptation to the point of removing the Word of God from its place as the test of the spirits, test of Angels, test of doctrine, test of tradition and experience - then that ends up as "every wind of doctrine"

At this point after decades of study, manly Greek exegesis, some lengthy teaching experience from and in the Word, I go back to the beginning of the @BobRyan OP - and ask what's going on?

Denominationalism seems to be increasing (not including "churches" degenerating into extreme false doctrine and support of evil). The tradition of "church" whether it be Roman or Protestant or ??? does not seem to be taking us to the single-minded maturity discussed in Eph4

Agreed - simply "entrenching" is not the solution.

(although His Ekklesia within or apart from churches may well be growing and advancing). The traditional process of teaching Scripture once or more per week seems to make fewer changes in many than I expected it would. The ever-changing traditional forms of "worship" in "churches" is a tragedy IMO as it more and more mimics the world's entertainment

True. But notice the pattern of church growth in Truth as found in Bible history. When God sends a prophet like Noah, Moses, Jesus, Paul, the Apostles - the growth of the church in doctrinal understanding about what is coming, about the judgment of God, about the truth of the Gospel - grows by leaps and bounds.

. Is there one group that has it all correct? I highly doubt it.

In the OP we have two options given the fact that "opinions vary" across all denominations on at least one point of doctrine then really there are only two choices, either all are wrong on at least one doctrine or at most - one is right.

Is it a necessity to have it all correct?

If you were told that on most airlines at least one part of the landing gear is technically in a state of failing or full failure but on one airline the landing gear is all working... would you go with "well all of it working is not that big a deal"??

Obviously in that scenario the fact that all are in some state of failure does not mean that all airplanes crash land. But when it comes to you and our family taking a plane to a destination -- how much would it matter to you to get on the one that was fully checked out?

There are a number of indicators in the NT text that not all the Jews were lost, not all had rejected Christ, yet not all were being informed fully on the ministry of Christ and the Gospel - so they had "some flaws" in their doctrine yet were not enemies of Christ. Even Peter had some flawed doctrine in Acts 10 that was being corrected by God about whether the gospel should be given to Gentiles. The main thing is Peter was "Correctable" and had enough love of the Truth to seek out more.

Should we be ever seeking and striving for accuracy? Yes. Should this accuracy include doctrinal accuracy and the correct relationship and reliance on God's Spirit? Certainly.

Indeed - and that is also true of non-Christian Jews in the days of John the baptizer and the days of his parents. Always be open to correction in our understanding of God's Word, yet not movable from the actual truth we do have.

 

[JAL]

Glad I'm not your neighbor.

That comment makes no sense. So if a prophet knew from the Voice a way to heal you from an otherwise incurable disease, you'd be glad he's not your neighbor? I don't believe you.

 

[BobRyan]

It's fascinating how all the current camps-based separations approach this from the seeming position that they each have things correct, or mostly correct as has been noted on this thread.

Everyone should at least hope that whatever group they belong to is the one that is Biblically affirmed, correct, accurate. The when they find that they do have problems in doctrine as compared to the Bible -- be ready to admit it and find where God is leading them.

Honestly and admittedly, all I find is a personal desire to be separate from all of it and available to take from whatever seems to compare to His Word as I am led (?) by His Spirit to do.

That is a good step. I had to do that when I was a young adult as soon as I realized that I was not at all sure how the things I believed actually fared in the Bible if you just let the Bible speak. In the end that experiment turned out be a great blessing.

For example Matt 10 'He who does not hate mother or father,,, is not worthy of me". I could just take that at face value and say "I suspect there is more to it that this - but for now I will write that down and then see how quickly it is updated by God's Word to get a more accurate understanding of what it is saying"

It's an odd time. We have easy access to almost countless writings and verbal teachings that expose us immeasurably to different interpretations. Almost anybody can get or take a position of authority in some "church" somewhere and expound widely their point of view. IMO it is a time of great immaturity at best.

As Eph 4 says "Every wind of doctrine" is out there.

The problem with widespread spiritual immaturity and unlearnedness in Scripture coupled with temporally advanced age is that arrogance abounds. The problem with seeking the Spirit without caution is that one can end up in some part of the USA and find people barking like dogs and promoting it as a move of the Spirit.

yep!

I'm cautiously open to points of view and there are some interesting ones in this thread, but is SS the final solution? If it is, and I do greatly value God's Word/Spirit (which I see mostly as completely parallel and as two-witnesses), then I admittedly find it more and more rare

I agree that while exegesis and the sola scriptura testing method are the right tools and methods to include in searching for truth, it does not completely eliminate "pilot error" in that our preferences, traditions, family, friends will always influence us to be "less accurate" to some degree and we will need to ask God to lead us step by step.

, with limited exceptions, to find agreement out there and hope more and more for His return and end to all of this. Until then, maybe we can find the solution I think @BobRyan is posting for. Is anybody here seeing it yet or think they truly have it?

When something is posted and a Bible text given -- do you see responses of the form "here is why you can't trust that scripture" , "lets go look at this other source instead since that text does not work very well with my preference" etc and sometimes it is in the form "lets not look at that scripture as it speaks to this topic, lets look at one that fits my preference better".

In other words do you find responses where it appears you "need to not look" at certain texts for a given idea to survive?

If so - then that is a clue.
.

 

[BobRyan]

JAL said:
At one point I did say that if God wanted to test me, like Abraham, he could command me to contradict His moral law, and then revoke the command at the last moment. I also said that you can neither test nor ascertain the specifics of His moral law from Scripture because life is too complicated. For example the Voice could command me to inject my neighbor with a poison because God alone happens to know that this particular neighbor has a terminal virus destructible by that poison, thereby saving his life

Glad I'm not your neighbor. Rather than respond to it I'll see where it goes from my just previous post. Maybe someone else will comment.

good point - if someone's doctrine is without an anchor, such that any Bible-contradicting idea can be accepted as if it is a legit command of God, then one is led to a very wide field fully at risk of "every wind of doctrine"

Notice that in that top post the assumption is something like "just like Abraham ignored scripture and went with a command as if from God no matter how it contradicted God's Word - so I would do the same thing". Yet Abraham actually had no such text of scripture being contradicted by the voice of God.

By contrast we do have that text and it is the written Word of God so we can know not to kill our children, or offer child sacrifice etc. And of course God did not allow Abraham to actually do the act of child sacrifice - since that is a sin.

 

[JAL]

Even Abraham's testing was met with his understanding of God's promises for his seed and the nations, so his testing was in line with previous revelation.

In effect, you're saying that Abraham's decision to murder his son was actually an application of Sola Scriptura - at least of sorts? In other words Abraham examined "previous revelation" as you call it and, from that, determined that killing his son was the morally right thing to do? You're being consistent, right? Because, after all, Sola Scriptura means to test a voice against previous revelation, and you're saying that's what he did.

Now here's the problem with that logic. If Abraham, based on previous revelation, concluded that the first Voice was correct in commanding him to slaughter his son, then he should have finished the job. Meaning, he should have concluded that the second voice was that of a deceiver.

You cannot have two mutually contradictory voices both being a perfect match to "previous revelation."

The only way to make sense of Abraham's behavior is two equally authoritative voices. The first one said to kill him. And so he tried. Then the second one told him to desist from the effort. And so he did.

Maybe you could come up with an alternative reading, but it would be a huge stretch of the text. Look, I can't prove anything 100%. I can't even prove that you exist. But I think I just gave you the most plausible understanding of the text.