Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[JAL]

More shallow, deflective responses.

But much more elaborated if one reads the entirety of each article.

Insinuating I'm misunderstating the articles but nothing specific - and not a single citation - to prove it? Fine. Show me where I'm wrong. Cite me from a reputable source of Sola Scriptura that things other than Scripture, such as visions and voices, can be authoritative.

I believe they believe what they say and that they have studied the terminology and history more than I.

Incredibly evasive and deflective. This is your "treatment" of post 151? Aren't you just wasting my time?

I don't agree with post #151.

Newsflash: Evasion, deflection, rambling, and ambiguity count neither as agreement nor disagreement. You'd have to actually say something clear to make that claim.

Although I was very wordy, I think I made that clear. I believe the Word Bible and the Spirit are parallel and the Word Bible and the Spirit will thus not contradict one another.

Rambling. How is that even the topic of post 151? Post 151 doesn't even ask that question when alleging a charge of contradiction against Sola Scriptura.

I believe the Spirit speaks of the Word and the Word of the Spirit in all matters it speaks to.

Utterly ambiguous. As I probably mentioned five times now, all advocates of Sola Scriptura pay such lip service to the enlightening work of the Holy Spirit using such empty Christian jargon which "sounds biblical" but no one really understand what it means or how exactly it's supposed to work. For example it raises the following problem (as I've pointed out again and again on this thread): If the Holy Spirit tells me something, and I have to test it via Scripture, that means I already know Scripture (presumably I'm a scholar?), in which case I didn't need His voice to teach me. (I'll come back to the scholarship issue in a moment).

That makes no sense at all. There is nothing clear about how it's supposed to work. To pledge allegiance to such unclear statements about the supernatural is precisely the behavior of a cult. Now here's my position, which is perfectly clear. As I study the Bible, the Father uses an authoritative Voice to tell me the meaning of the verses. In this framework, no advanced learning/scholarship is required. (Admittedly a general pre-familiarity with the concepts and vocabulary of the OT can accelerate the learning process).

So which is it? Scholarship-based approach? Or Direct Revelation? Again:

“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, [the bible scholars of Christ's day] and revealed them to babes.

Does a babe accept his father's teaching based on scholarly understanding and analysis? No. He trusts it because he trust his father. In other words, he accepts his father's teaching based on the perceived authority latent in his father's voice. Authoritative voice.

That's why the prophets (including Christ) understood Scripture much better than the bible scholars.

I believe the Spirit can and does give other forms of practical guidance as I discussed.

Rambling. Again, nothing clear on how that's supposed to work. I might as well be debating with a cult.

I think that puts me pretty close to SS but I don't see the Spirit discussed too much in the supplied articles. I would be surprised to see SS advocates differ much from what I've said.

You haven't said anything yet. Nothing tangible. Just empty, useless, standard Christian jargon which nobody can comprehend.

That's pretty bold. Do you have a problem with the parallelism of Prov1:23?

I complained about this to others on this thread. You cannot merely quote some obscure verse that none of us are even sure what it means, as if that alone "refutes" my whole position.

Do you not see the Spirit referring to Scripture and Scripture referring to the Spirit?

What does that even? More ambiguity? More cult-like discourse? How is that helpful?

 

[JAL]

@GDL,

You've been disparaging authoritative Voice and insinuating I'm out of balance for stressing it. While I'm ashamed to quote Darth Vader, I'm currently enjoying a tickle of laughter from his famous words. He said:

"I find your lack of faith in the Force very disturbing."

Maybe he should have said:

"I find your lack of faith in the authoritative Voice very disturbing."

Before we proceed any further, you need to understand the concept of voice. Let's start with an example. The Spirit is supposed to shed Light on Scripture, right? Yes of course. What does that mean? Suppose you read in Scripture about the joy of the Lord. What does that word "joy" mean? Do you think that attending seminary for four years will unravel it for you? Understand that God is intimately familiar with every pleasure center in your soul, nervous system, body and brain. This means He can stimulate joy beyond your wildest imaginations - an intoxication far more exhilarating than the most powerful opiates on the planet. The only way to understand this joy is to feel it. Direct Revelation.

Sola Scriptura scholarship won't help. Sola Scriptura can't even tell you whether the feeling is coming from the devil. Therefore you need to be able to apprehend it as authentic. Which means it must foster the impression that it is authoritative (authentically of God).

Is this joy important? You can bet your bottom dollar it is. "The joy of the Lord is my strength" (Nehimiah 8:10). The whole success of the church lies in large part upon the degree strengthened of God to do His work. That's exactly how revival works. People are suddenly on fire for God, eager to do His work.

All this is part of the Voice. The Voice is any impression from the Father including feelings of joy, love, and peace transcending all understanding.

Consciousness itself is voice. As a result, any and every influence of the Spirit upon me counts as God's voice. Logically, then, there is no escaping the concept of God's voice. It is a separate question altogether, admittedly, whether we can apprehend that voice as authoritative.

Why do I say that consciousness is voice? My favorite way of putting it is, "Consciousness is loudness." Meaning, it is sensory experience. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. It is an ongoing succession of impressions/sensations more or less distinct (loud and clear). The cessation of these impressions would be death/unconsciousness. Even the most abstract philosophical thought is loudness/voice. Why so? Because I can mentally sing the words of that abstract sentence to my favorite tune, and then, to comprehend it, I must visualize the word-meanings in mental images/visions more or less distinct (loud and clear). The mature prophet will not just read the word "joy" in Scripture, he will feel it. He will not just read the word "angels" in Scripture. He will see angels. He will not just read the word "heaven". He will see heaven. Thus the prophets were:

" 10 looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God...They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them [in visions] and welcomed them from a distance" (Heb 11).

The prophets didn't merely read the word "God" in Scripture. They saw God:

27By faith [Moses] left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. (Heb 11).

To summarize:
....(1) The Spirit is always a voice because consciousness itself is voice/loudness.
....(2) Any impression from the Father counts as his voice.

 

[JAL]

@GDL,

This is a follow up to post 402. Can you have a personal relationship with the Father without voice? The Lord created us for intimate "fellowship" with Him (1Cor 1:9; Philippians 2:1; 1Jn 1:3, 1Jn 1:6). Here is the only possible definition of fellowship:

Fellowship between two parties can only be defined as a mutual exchange of sensations more or less distinct (loud and clear).

Of course the canonical example is Moses:

"The Lord spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend."

You have a personal relationship with the Father only to the extent of hearing His voice, that is, only to the extent of receiving feelings, sensations, and impressions more or less distinct (loud and clear). Direct Revelation.

Notice that all my teachings are clear. No empty jargon. No cult-like discourse. I'm outlining exactly what a relationship with God looks like, feels like, and how it's supposed to work. To date I'm the only one I know of who can tell you exactly how He regenerates us (admittedly off-topic).

 

[Berserk]

The uncomfortable truth overlooked here is that biblical revelation is very incomplete. That's why we have so many scholarly journals of theology and biblical studies. Debate never ends because of ambiguity and unanswered questions left from biblical studies. For example, Paul was writing to specific congregations with issues and problems we only dimly grasp from Paul's comments. That's because Paul didn't think he was composing Scripture for the universal church! So he leaves unanswered basic questions like these:
(1) How should we "strive for spiritual gifts?"
(2) When Paul (and Acts) tell us that "the whole house" was baptized, does that include infants and toddlers? How can we tell?
(3) How can we know we are being "led by the Spirit?"

 

[JAL]

The uncomfortable truth overlooked here is that biblical revelation is very incomplete. That's why we have so many scholarly journals of theology and biblical studies. Debate never ends because of ambiguity and unanswered questions left from biblical studies. For example, Paul was writing to specific congregations with issues and problems we only dimly grasp from Paul's comments. That's because Paul didn't think he was composing Scripture for the universal church! So he leaves unanswered basic questions like these:
(1) How should we "strive for spiritual gifts?"
(2) When Paul (and Acts) tell us that "the whole house" was baptized, does that include infants and toddlers? How can we tell?
(3) How can we know we are being "led by the Spirit?"

Exactly. That's why I am so vehemently opposed to Sola Scriptura.

 

[GDL]

@GDL,

This is a follow up to post 402. Can you have a personal relationship with the Father without voice? The Lord created us for intimate "fellowship" with Him (1Cor 1:9; Philippians 2:1; 1Jn 1:3, 1Jn 1:6). Here is the only possible definition of fellowship:

Fellowship between two parties can only be defined as a mutual exchange of sensations more or less distinct (loud and clear).

Of course the canonical example is Moses:

"The Lord spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend."

You have a personal relationship with the Father only to the extent of hearing His voice, that is, only to the extent of receiving feelings, sensations, and impressions more or less distinct (loud and clear). Direct Revelation.

Notice that all my teachings are clear. No empty jargon. No cult-like discourse. I'm outlining exactly what a relationship with God looks like, feels like, and how it's supposed to work. To date I'm the only one I know of who can tell you exactly how He regenerates us (admittedly off-topic).

I'm going to assume you're able to answer direct questions apart from being offended since you're still posting. I'm also going to ask @BobRyan if he's OK with this rabbit trail from his thread. Since you're speaking against SS, even as harshly as you are, maybe he's OK since we're in some applicable context and you seem to think you are the only one who has the solution to the topic of the thread.

Are you a prophet like Moses or like the greater prophet the Messiah? Do you speak with God face-to-face? I think it important to our dicussion that you answer this.

At times God's prophets were sent by Him to issue charges against His people and make clear the need for repentance. Do you see yourself in this light?

Clarity does not mean accuracy. Full (vs. empty) can be applied to many other words and phrases. No cult thinks it's a cult. You're simply not telling me anything meaningful in these statements other than that you've probably been confronted with a few charges.

Why is anyone to accept your definitions for words used in the Bible? IMO you've already imported concepts into Scripture to build a case for your focus. If you're going to speak to people who value God's written Word (voice), then practicing eisegesis is not going to get you very far. If you think they're dogs who don't deserve pearls, you're also not going to accomplish much. If you want to inject neighbors with poison that you hear the "Voice" telling you to do, you should not expect many to go along with it (although in actuality there are probably also many that may after what's taken place over the past few years. Do you work for a government?). When you speak of possibly being the only one who can explain how God regenerates, you have to know you do sound cultish.

Based upon what I've seen professing "Christians" buy into, and upon what I read from you regarding sensations, I'm going to ask you whether or not you have experienced things I've written to you about. Have you been involved in the "moves of the spirit" that make people bark like dogs or laugh seemingly uncontrollably? You'll have to pardon such questions, but since these things take place and are flocked to, then it seems reasonable to ask you about your involvement or thoughts on the matter. They are after all about sensations and emotional experiences and your language expresses a distinctive similarity.

FWIW, I value precise definitions for words God uses and know how difficult it can be to pin them down. Many or most of my exegetical studies involve attempts at harmonizing the uses of a word or words in Scripture whether used a few times or a hundred. It's a lot of work but very gratifying and IMO extremely meaningful to understand what God means when He "speaks". Although John speaks of a physically, sensory fellowship with Jesus, he does so not only because he and others actually, physically experienced it, but also to counter the Greek philosophical concept of logos and establish a personal and even legal testimony for the true Logos to have been here in human form, actually "speaking" to them and among men. Your philosophical statements about not being able to prove that we exist are not unique, but they don't do much for comparing John's legal testimony about the physical existence of YHWH's Anointed/Messiah/Christ. John tells us that denial of such is antichrist. Of course, I'm reading this in the written Word of God and relying upon it as truth and in this sense hearing God's voice and believing something God's Spirit has convinced me of.

A final note here: I note that you do not respond to my questions about Pentecostalism and Charismatics and that you have not clarified what exactly you mean by extreme Continuism. Are you differentiating yourself from the prior by use of the latter or are you obscuring something for some reason? If you can define words like fellowship, then you seem to see the importance of being clear about the meanings of words you use, especially when you use them to refer to yourself.

 

[GDL]

The uncomfortable truth overlooked here is that biblical revelation is very incomplete.

Incomplete in what sense? The definitions of SS provided by @JAL essentially say that biblical revelation is complete or sufficient for certain vital things. They also acknowledge that the Bible does not contain everything for every matter.

The topic of the thread as I understood it has to do with the problem of interpretations. Is that what you're addressing? I think most of not all acknowledge the difficulties of completely understanding the Text.

There has been some discussion regarding a closed or open canon. Even @JAL as a Continuist to the extreme (not looking back at his actual words) acknowledges a closed canon although I'm not seeing an explanation of the extent of the prophetic. And the SS with its valuing of the written canon is not expecting it to be added to no matter what Rome's Pope might say. I don't think you're saying the canon is open, correct?

 

[JAL]

I'm going to assume you're able to answer direct questions apart from being offended since you're still posting.

"Direct" questions? You mean "tangential questions" hoping to discredit me personally in some way instead of really addressing the points of my exegesis and analysis.

Are you a prophet like Moses or like the greater prophet the Messiah? Do you speak with God face-to-face? I think it important to our dicussion that you answer this.

I am no more a prophet than you are. Prophets tend to be spawned in massive outpourings of the Spirit known as revival. And revival is usually the product of the church crying out for it. Due to centuries of Sola Scriptura teaching, the church doesn't even understand revival. On this forum I put in my two cents, hoping that a few people will begin to understand revival, understand the Voice, and start moving in the right direction.

My posthumous mentor is Andrew Murray. He insisted that the Galatian error is still the dominant situation of the church today - a failure to understand those two concepts (revival and the Voice). Only he didn't do what I do. He didn't supply any details because the church is hard hearted and people would only attack him (pearls and swine).

Clarity does not mean accuracy. Full (vs. empty) can be applied to many other words and phrases. No cult thinks it's a cult. You're simply not telling me anything meaningful in these statements other than that you've probably been confronted with a few charges.

I was very specific about why traditional statements about the Holy Spirit's enlightenment do not make any clear sense.

Why is anyone to accept your definitions for words used in the Bible?

You are free to challenge them - just please do it fairly, without cheap debating tactics and shallow responses.

IMO you've already imported concepts into Scripture to build a case for your focus. If you're going to speak to people who value God's written Word (voice), then practicing eisegesis is not going to get you very far.

Intellectual dishonesty. Insinuation without foundation/evidence. Cheap debating tactic.

Bear something in mind. If you come to a verse with a word such as "fellowship" it would indeed be eisegesis if you interpret that word in a way devoid of linguistic precedent. The definition of "fellowship" that I gave you in my recent post is how the term is normally used, both in Scripture, outside of Scripture, and even in contemporary contexts. This places a burden of proof on you. YOU are the one practicing eisegesis if you deviate from my definition without establishing due precedent in parallel verses, or at least in extra-biblical Greek texts.

That's the kind of solidity undergirding my definitions and conclusions. I can't prove anything 100%, so you are free to dispute them. But you've got to respond with statements that make sense. Not incoherent, cult-like gibberish.

If you think they're dogs who don't deserve pearls, you're also not going to accomplish much.

My conclusion was never final. All I said was that I'd like to see clear evidence that they are not dogs before I share my pearls. All I asked for was a non-evasive treatment of post 151. I'm pretty sure I never saw it after waiting 250 posts.

If you want to inject neighbors with poison that you hear the "Voice" telling you to do, you should not expect many to go along with it

This is precisely how "dogs" behave. Cheap debating tactics. They select the worst possible interpretations, or the most unlikely scenarios and extrapolations, to cast aspersions on my position. Instead of dredging up that unlikely hypothetical, why not discuss the 200,000 people slaughtered in Hiroshima that I mentioned several times now? An authoritative Voice could have informed leaders of whether the bombing was necessary and thus possibly saved their lives. The Voice could have averted numerous wars throughout history. But all you want to focus on is the negative.

When you speak of possibly being the only one who can explain how God regenerates, you have to know you do sound cultish.

Cults are unclear. As I have said repeatedly, all my doctrines are incredibly simple and clear. Traditional theologians hold to a complex of assumptions that cannot explain regeneration. And they admit they cannot explain it.

Same with the Incarnation. They start with assumptions that make it impossible to explain, for example, "God is immutable." Huh? How does an immutable God become man? This makes no sense to the human mind. Paul Tillich described the hypostatic union as a set of “inescapable contradictions and absurdities” (cited by John v Dahms, "How Reliable Is Logic?," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol 21:4 (1978), p. 373).

And when we embrace doctrines that do not make sense to us, we should ask ourselves if we are surpassing a cult.

Based upon what I've seen professing "Christians" buy into, and upon what I read from you regarding sensations, I'm going to ask you whether or not you have experienced things I've written to you about. Have you been involved in the "moves of the spirit" that make people bark like dogs or laugh seemingly uncontrollably? You'll have to pardon such questions, but since these things take place and are flocked to, then it seems reasonable to ask you about your involvement or thoughts on the matter. They are after all about sensations and emotional experiences and your language expresses a distinctive similarity.

Sounds like you've been reading John MaCarthur. Much of his writing has been discredited.

I attended charismatic churches for several years. I never saw any dog-barking. And only once do I recall uncontrollable laughter, one Sunday. It seemed forced to me at the time. And it never happened again. Not to say these things are impossible, but I can't see any relevance to this discussion except a desperate hope on your end to personally discredit me.

FWIW, I value precise definitions for words God uses and know how difficult it can be to pin them down. Many or most of my exegetical studies involve attempts at harmonizing the uses of a word or words in Scripture whether used a few times or a hundred. It's a lot of work but very gratifying and IMO extremely meaningful to understand what God means when He "speaks". Although John speaks of a physically, sensory fellowship with Jesus, he does so not only because he and others actually, physically experienced it, but also to counter the Greek philosophical concept of logos and establish a personal and even legal testimony for the true Logos to have been here in human form, actually "speaking" to them and among men. Your philosophical statements about not being able to prove that we exist are not unique, but they don't do much for comparing John's legal testimony about the physical existence of YHWH's Anointed/Messiah/Christ. John tells us that denial of such is antichrist. Of course, I'm reading this in the written Word of God and relying upon it as truth and in this sense hearing God's voice and believing something God's Spirit has convinced me of.

I have no idea what your point was there. Looks like a shallow effort to find fault with my position.

A final note here: I note that you do not respond to my questions about Pentecostalism and Charismatics and that you have not clarified what exactly you mean by extreme Continuism.

I answered it twice. For the third time, by that expression I simply mean unqualified Continuationism. Charismatics sometimes qualify it like this, "We do believe that God intended apostles and prophets for today, but not ones who are as authoritative as Paul was." Thus they don't think that oral authority is possible today, especially not for doctrine. Every doctrine must be tested by Sola Scriptura.

Please don't make me repeat this a fourth time.

 

[JAL]

@GDL,

As for this pearls-and-swine thing, this thread is the first time I ever mentioned it, and the first time I ever withheld any of my views on account of it. I've been on this forum a lot of years. I have tried to give people the benefit of the doubt. From what I can see, however, many of them haven't shown themselves to be above-board debaters.

 

[JAL]

Why do you think it necessary to place the Spirit above the Word? With all the nonsense abounding why are you so focused on promoting an inward witness - an authoritative voice - that is so horribly abused?

Let me get this straight. If something is abused, we shouldn't promote it? Like the bible for instance? You haven't seen real prophecy abused. You just haven't seen real prophecy at all.

This life isn't a game, right? There are 100 billion souls at stake since the world began. Hence there is no acceptable margin for error in our evangelism, sanctification, missions, ecclesiology, doctrine. It is therefore incumbent to ask ourselves, "Does God provide an infallible knowledge-tool ?" And we seem to find only two possible knowledge-tools:
....(A) Direct Revelation. Prophecy. Authoritative Voice. (Whichever title suits you).
....(B) Scholarly analysis of Scripture. Hm...this one is fallible. Has no proven track record of infallibility.

So the only option is A. Is a multiple-choice question really all that difficult when there is only one viable answer?

With 100 billion souls at stake, I at least need to know infallibly whether He wants me to seek prophecy. But that itself entails seeking infallible revelation known as prophecy. This makes it a no-brainer. Even to think otherwise is to insult God by insinuating, "Lord, I don't think you love those 100 billion souls enough to provide your Voice to guide our evangelism."

In the OT, the Israelites were supposed to "inquire of the Lord" before marching into battle. We saw this in David, as I posted earlier. For David, a military campaign begins with waiting on the Lord for authorization from the Voice. Failure to do this could easily result in military defeat. This OT strategy for military campaigns seems to be the same strategy expected for NT evangelistic campaigns. I gave plenty of NT examples earlier, starting with Pentecost. One of my favorite OT examples is Num 9:15-23. The cloud levitating into the sky served as a loud and clear sign to march, and each time it returned counted as a loud and clear sign to encamp. The passage is extremely redundant, repeating this theme over and over. It's like God is shouting, "If you get nothing else out of the Bible, get this." We saw the same redundance in Hebrews where the author thrice repeated his warning to hearken to the Voice "as long as it is called Today."

Military campaigns ending in defeat. Evangelistic campaigns ending in defeat. That's the prognosis, if we don't seek the Voice.

Can you not see why others are asking you about the testing of spirits? Do you not know that the adversary and his can have access to thoughts?

Gee. I never thought of that.


Get real. Again, for the millionth time, this is the wrong concern because real prophecy works. You should only be concerned with how it works, not whether it works. How can we recognize an authoritative voice? Those are my pearls. (But easy to figure out on your own).

Have you studied the Council and read of the deceiving spirits allowed to instill a thought in men in order to deceive them? You seem to be pushing too hard to minimize the canon you say is closed in favor of a voice you call the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit

The same Inward Witness that you relied on to accept the Bible? You're telling me that's the voice I shouldn't rely on, correct?

Can anyone make sense of this? I sure can't. Again, for the millionth time, this is the wrong concern because real prophecy works. You should only be concerned with how it works, not whether it works. How can we recognize an authoritative voice? Those are my pearls. (But easy to figure out on your own).

, but what exactly is it you want us to hear - healing - accepting poison shots for healing - foreign languages - gibberish - laughter - greater revelation - prophetic words of what?

You don't even have fellowship with the Father if there is no voice.

In my experience, as I've said, many Pentecostals are severely underfed in and greatly minimize the Word. That's a problem.

If something is abused, misused, or misunderstood, it must be bad for us, right? Like the bible for instance?

 

[JAL]

Why do you think it necessary to place the Spirit above the Word? With all the nonsense abounding why are you so focused on promoting an inward witness - an authoritative voice - that is so horribly abused? Can you not see why others are asking you about the testing of spirits? Do you not know that the adversary and his can have access to thoughts? Have you studied the Council and read of the deceiving spirits allowed to instill a thought in men in order to deceive them?

You're so worried that, in praying to hear the Father, as to know Him better and receive more of His Holy Spirit, the response you're likely to get is a big outpouring of the devil? You Sola Scriptura people are so intent on applying Scriptures - have you considered applying the following passage?

10For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
11What father among you, if his son asks for a fish,d will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” (Luke 11).

Notice the text does not say, "How much more will your Father in heaven give the devil to those who ask Him!”

 

[JAL]

@GDL,

For the moment, drop the word "authoritative" if it helps you swallow the medicine. Just think, "I want to hear the Father clearly/unmistakably."

That amounts to the same thing, right? If the Father speaks to you clearly/unmistakably, doesn't it mean you have to take the message seriously?

Just a suggestion.

 

[JAL]

You seem to be pushing too hard to minimize the canon you say is closed in favor of a voice you call the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit, but what exactly is it you want us to hear - healing - accepting poison shots for healing - foreign languages - gibberish - laughter - greater revelation - prophetic words of what?....What precisely are you pushing to achieve?

Freedom. One of my goals is to liberate people from the bondage of Sola Scriptura. Take yourself for example. Given your fears about demonic voices, you don't feel at liberty to pursue Direct Revelation with wholehearted, reckless wild abandon and zeal. In this respect, Sola Scriptura has you bound in chains of fear. The devil has you right where he wants you. The last thing the devil wants is for you to get a strong taste of the Lord because it could set you on fire for God, causing you to pray down a storm of the Holy Spirit.

BTW: Post 151 never asked anyone to admit to an authoritative Voice. All it was asking them to concede was, "The Bible cannot be the only final authority since, on a daily basis, I obviously continue to accept the Bible on the basis of some other/higher authority." Technically, this does not, in itself, necessarily stipulate to an authoritative Voice. For example you might have accepted the Bible on the basis/authority of solid human reasoning.

But no one on this thread seems willing to concede even that much. Since I can't make any sense of this, I kept my pearls.

 

[GDL]

"Direct" questions? You mean "tangential questions" hoping to discredit me personally in some way instead of really addressing the points of my exegesis and analysis.

Direct questions meant to solicit an honest answer because you come across IMO as being a bit cagey. I'm simply asking your specific POV to compare it to a reference point I have come to over many years in the Text and quite a bit of experience some time ago with non-cessationists. It's not that we should abandon things that are abused, but that we should be able to clearly distinguish that we are not part of the abuse. You may think you're unique to some degree, but I don't see much that I've not seen or read before. All of us can be discredited in our views in the minds of any of the rest of us. I think that's pretty much the point of this thread and the question is how to solve it if it can be solved.

One of the things that I have come to appreciate with those who work in the Text is that we can deal with something more objective than the subjectivity of those who purport to deal with the Spirit. Whether or not you like it, the repeated question to you by @Darren Court in line with the testing the spirits mandate to the Ekklesia seems very applicable. As I read you it's not unusual for you to be met with this response. Do you ever consider this at all at this point?

Honestly and FWIW, if anything at this point, The Word is the Voice. That's also the parallelism. It may be artful or cultural, but much of the parsing of the NC language speaks in present tense - e.g. and He says to... (not "said") - and the Scripture says to Pharoah (not "it's written or was written in Scripture" - or "Moses or God said to..."). I don't see anything in the Text to be arbitrary.

You may claim to exegete the Word/Voice/Spirit preserved in the closed canon, but I did not see this in your presentation of Heb3. You disagree with my response and counter without detail that it was not exegetical. This is kind of the point of the SS discussion is it not? So, why are you using Scripture to attempt to substantiate your POV that Scripture is not the authority others see it as? Do you think you've discredited Scripture in any way? IMO you're not proving your case from Scripture, so what have you got left to provide to those who value it and use it to verify what they're being told?

Beyond that you see a logic that I and I assume others do not see. So, your conclusion seems to be that others are blind, when it can just as easily be that your logic and reasoning is off. And once again, you're using logic and reasoning plus the Word to try to tell others that they are not authoritative. It seems you should just be approaching your posts with, Thus says the Lord! But then you say you're not a prophet. And then you say you have revelation - pearls - that you're not aware that anyone else has. Did the voice give them to you? Do you see them in the Word? You're articulate but I'm not reading anything that's impressive or even cohesive.

Re: #151, it seems you're looking for someone to just agree with you and that's why you suggest that no one has really dealt with it.

I see enough of your point of view by this time to have concluded that I have little further interest in it. If I see anything else in any of your postings that may be of interest, I'll chime in and of course respect your choice to answer or not. Maybe I'll look up your mentor and see if he can add or clarify anything. Thanks for the responses, some of them anyway.

 

[JAL]

You may think you're unique to some degree, but I don't see much that I've not seen or read before.

I'd like to proof of that. But establishing "my uniqueness" isn't really my agenda, except insofar as it helps people to notice the differences of my position from that of others.

Whether or not you like it, the repeated question to you by @Darren Court in line with the testing the spirits mandate to the Ekklesia seems very applicable.

You keep bringing this up. Did you not read my post where I discussed the apostle John's concern with testing the spirits? Just because YOU think the "test" is Sola Scriptura doesn't prove that was John's stance. Do just want to shove your views down John's throat? Or do you want to find out where he stood? Arguably, Sola Scriptura is largely an artifact of the printing press. For 90% of church history, the general population didn't have Bibles. Therefore you can't just presume to know that biblical exegesis was John's method of testing the spirits. In that post, I cited evidence that John's test was the authoritative Voice. Meaning, any spirit who teaches a doctrine contrary to one learned from the Voice has failed the test. Whether you agree with that conclusion or not, the fact is that my conclusion was shown (in that post) to be built on John's own words. John never mentioned scholarly exegesis in the epistle, much less identified it as the test.

Honestly and FWIW, if anything at this point, The Word is the Voice. That's also the parallelism. It may be artful or cultural, but much of the parsing of the NC language speaks in present tense - e.g. and He says to... (not "said") - and the Scripture says to Pharoah (not "it's written or was written in Scripture" - or "Moses or God said to..."). I don't see anything in the Text to be arbitrary.

The Bible is the Voice? Now you're really shoving Sola Scriptura down God's throat. You realize the divine spoken Word created the world, right? That is the Voice, not a powerless history book called the Bible.

You may claim to exegete the Word/Voice/Spirit preserved in the closed canon, but I did not see this in your presentation of Heb3. You disagree with my response and counter without detail that it was not exegetical.

Wow. Concerning this exhortation repeated three times in one epistle - bearing in mind that a three-fold repetition of anything, within a single epistle, is fairly rare:

"Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as you did during the rebellion"

You had the audacity to claim that this is NOT an exhortation to obey the voice Today. So what is it, then? An exhortation to rebel against it once again? And you say the burden of proof is on me? Can anyone make sense of this? This seems to be the cheap debating taunt, "If you can't prove your position 100%, mine is the default."

Newsflash: I can't prove anything 100%. All I can do is argue that my reading of the text is a bit more plausible than yours. Which seems to be the case here, as I can't think of anything you wrote to make one doubt it. If I missed something crucial, my apologies. Please apprise me again.

This is kind of the point of the SS discussion is it not? So, why are you using Scripture to attempt to substantiate your POV that Scripture is not the authority others see it as? Do you think you've discredited Scripture in any way? IMO you're not proving your case from Scripture, so what have you got left to provide to those who value it and use it to verify what they're being told?

I didn't get your point. Once again, you seem to imply that I need to prove my position 100%.

Beyond that you see a logic that I and I assume others do not see. So, your conclusion seems to be that others are blind, when it can just as easily be that your logic and reasoning is off.

Um...er..eh. I've always asserted that I am fallible, and my signature is ever-present to confirm it. All of us are influenced somewhat by blinding indoctrination. Yes, I think there are some very important areas where Christians are blind/indoctrinated. Do you believe the Protestant Reformation had any value? If you do, then you're admitting that the church had some blindspots for 1500 years. Does that make you arrogant? "How dare you accuse those people of being blind for 1500 years!"

Arrogance is a person assuming he is NOT blind.

And once again, you're using logic and reasoning plus the Word to try to tell others that they are not authoritative.

What are you talking about? You're saying I should be classifying everyone as authoritative? And when did this become a debate about which people on this forum are authoritative? I don't think even Paul's oral authority was 100% of the time.

It seems you should just be approaching your posts with, Thus says the Lord!

Huh? So I have more oral authority than Paul? I'm not even a prophet. I'm just a regular Christian like you.

Again, it seems like you're trying to personally discredit me - probably because you've realized by now that my exegesis has plausible foundations both logically and textually. My conclusions are not easily dismissed or discredited, if we are being honest.

But then you say you're not a prophet. And then you say you have revelation - pearls - that you're not aware that anyone else has. Did the voice give them to you? Do you see them in the Word? You're articulate but I'm not reading anything that's impressive or even cohesive.

You haven't read all my posts. I said:
...(1) Andrew Murray is my posthumous mentor.
...(2) The church has discovered these pearls, they just don't apply them broadly (e.g. don't fully extrapolate them), mostly for fear of losing their beloved Sola Scriptura doctrine. For example, they already admit to an authoritative voice called the Inward Witness for purposes of salvation. They refuse to ramify the implications as doing so would discredit Sola Scriptura.

The pearls are not unique to me alone. I just don't see much reason to share them here.

Re: #151, it seems you're looking for someone to just agree with you and that's why you suggest that no one has really dealt with it.

Nope. I was clear. To me the apparent logical contradiction seems insoluble. But I was careful to point out that I would be satisfied if someone at least proposed a plausible resolution.

I see enough of your point of view by this time to have concluded that I have little further interest in it.

That was clear to me approximately on your second post where your pretense of objectivity started to seem manifestly fake.

Maybe I'll look up your mentor and see if he can add or clarify anything.

Reading him is a great idea but don't hold your breath for more pearls. In terms of doctrine, my posts are a lot more explicit, and thus a lot more forthcoming, than his writing were. He was just trying to motivate Christians to grow in prayer and thereby draw closer to the Father. Not much explicit theology there.

 

[JAL]

@GDL,

I'm not sure we've sidetracked too far. The question is how to eliminate false doctrine. My solution is seek an infallible Voice.

 

[Darren Court]

@GDL,

I'm not sure we've sidetracked too far. The question is how to eliminate false doctrine. My solution is seek an infallible Voice.

.....and round the hamster wheel you go again.
.
And how we know if the voice is the infallible voice, the infallible voice or just nutty voices in your head?

 

[JAL]

.....and round the hamster wheel you go again.
.
And how we know if the voice is the infallible voice, the infallible voice or just nutty voices in your head?

My precondition seems fair. A couple of posts back, I repeated my request like this:

Post 151 never asked anyone to admit to an authoritative Voice. All it was asking them to concede was, "The Bible cannot be the only final authority since, on a daily basis, I obviously continue to accept the Bible on the basis of some other/higher authority" (such as Reason, or blind faith, or whatever).

 

[JAL]

Why are people so loyal to a Sola Scriptura position plagued with a logical contradiction? Do they really love Sola Scriptura more than truth? Perhaps more than God? I don't get it.

 

[JAL]

Post 151 simply raises the same challenge alleged by Catholics for centuries, "If the Bible is your only authority, on what authority do you accept the Bible?"

When Protestants deflect on this question, do they seriously consider themselves more reasonable than Catholics? If so, I don't get it.