Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[Darren Court]

So Moses, and the Lord Himself, did not WANT them to conceive of the Voice as an actual sensory experience such as a sound or a vision. (This coming from the guy who seems to keep neglecting Acts 16:6-10, among other facts). Take a look at Ex 19.

Hello, Moses was a Prophet one of the few who actually heard the "voice" of God in various different ways!
.
...and your diverting again from the point that there is absolutely no evidence that God spoke directly to ordinary people and not just through the few. The fact God lived in the "holy of holies" and a priest could only enter once a year, has no bearing on your fanciful reality because you limit God to speaking with a "voice" despite scripture saying otherwise!

 

[BobRyan]

Sola Scriptura is one of the main causes of denominationalism.

It is how protesting Catholics found out that there was some bad doctrine in the traditions and teachings handed down to them.

It is how Christ slam hammers the bad traditions in His day in Mark 7:6-13 - this is irrefutable.
It is how the non-Christians of Acts 17:11 tested the teaching of the Apostle Paul - and were praised for doing so - by the Author of Acts 17. This too is irrefutable.

JAL said:

If all imperatives must be founded upon Scripture alone, from where did you and I obtain the imperative to accept the Bible as inspired? Surely we cannot rationally claim, “I accept the Bible as inspired because it claims to be.”

That is nonsense of the form "From where do we get the idea that God is the Creator of the World? From God? surely not! from God's Word? Surely not! We should not accept those sources for that teaching -- surely not!"

It is nonsense to argue that way - though it is interesting creative writing.

Mormons will come to your home with a lot of wild stories and then insist that you not use sola scriptura testing but rather "a burning in your bosom" which some of them claim to have as they read "Pearl of Great Price" or some other book. That is called "every wind of doctrine" not sure why you are so delighted with the method.

Luke 24:25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

What Jesus does not say in that example of sola scriptura is "slow to run to some scholar some place and ask them how to read scripture and to tell you what to think"

 

[JAL]

Oh another switcheroo!! We were talking about YOUR OT quote and you switched out to the NT, because it suited you more!

Silly deflection. For probably 100 posts, I have remained on the general theme of authoritative communications from heaven, in both testaments.

 

[BobRyan]

And Paul? Now I'm thinking he was the worst offender of them all. I mean, we're talking about a scholarly man quite familiar with the occult term ἀποκαλύψεως (revelation) employed to denote the delusional experiences of mystics - experiences that those idiots would call prophecy or Direct Revelation. And yet Paul tries to use that term in positive ways (as if all of us would be dumb enough to fall for it):

29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation [ἀποκαλυφθῇ] comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

In real life that 1 Cor 14 statement is about God controlling events in the case of prophecy where the church is commanded to allow prophets to speak - but at the same time the text shows that God is in control of that gift to such a high degree that if a prophet is speaking and God gives a vision/revelation to one who is seated then the first is to cease and let the second immediately speak.

By contrast in that same chapter -- this is an example of what should NOT be done in the case of the gift of tongues.

 

[BobRyan]

The attitude of Sola Scriptura scholars seems to be:
....(1) We can assume that Scripture alone is authoritative today.
....(2) Hence we don't even need to try to explain how voices/visions managed to be authoritative in the past.

errrr... "no".

All of them affirm the 2 Peter 1 statement that this is exactly how scripture came about.

19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

More Bible, less creative writing please.

Your creative writing - conflates "sola scriptura" with "cessationism" - two different topics entirely

Luke 24:25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

What Jesus does not say in that example of sola scriptura is "slow to run to some scholar some place and ask them how to read scripture and to tell you what to think"

 

[JAL]

No that's Jesus talking in the NT.... there's NO EVIDENCE this applied in the Old Covenant

Ridiculous. John 10:27 is prior to Christ's death and therefore WAS Old Covenant (if one even thinks in that silly dispensational way). And His voice at John 10:27 confirms the 50 instances of "Obey my voice" (qowl in the Hebrew) in the OT.

I hold to a version of Covenant Theology. Nothing changes from Genesis to Revelation. God deals with OT and NT saints the same, even if you can't see the consistency. See Romans 4 and Galatian 3.

Your Sola Scriptura bias places no burden of proof on me. The Voice spoke to Adam and Eve and the angels, long before Scripture existed. I don't have to "prove" that the voice spoke to OT saints. The burden of proof is on you prove that the Voice stopped speaking to God's people. Don't pretend that Sola Scriptura is the default position. The law certainly didn't change anything:

15Brothers, let me put this in human terms. Even a human covenant, once it is ratified, cannot be canceled or amended. 16The [covenantal] promises were spoken [by the Voice] to Abraham and to [us] his seed [and to Christ his seed]. The Scripture does not say, “and to seeds,” meaning many, but “and to your seed,”h meaning One, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law that came 430 years later does not revoke the covenant previously established by God, so as to nullify the promise...You are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise"

The Voice spoke the promises to OT and NT saints as Abraham's seed. (There's your proof, as if I really needed any). How so? For example, from the time you got saved, the Inward Witness began promising you a heavenly home, among other things. Abraham, being a prophet, heard this promise more distinctly than you and I - he literally saw/heard visions/voices of the heavenly city.

Logically, the primary covenant between God and man had to be a voice-covenant because a personal relationship with the Father requires voice. Otherwise all you've got is a dusty old textbook called the Bible. Since every command of the Law came by the Voice, the law was a continuation - not an interruption - of the voice-covenant previously established with Abraham. It actually predated Abraham because it includes any and all promises voiced to the Son (see verse 16 above).

there's NO EVIDENCE this applied in the Old Covenant

Newsflash: The burden of proof is on you. Sola Scriptura can't be the default position because it is logically self-contradictory (post 151)

 

[JAL]

In real life that 1 Cor 14 statement is about God controlling events in the case of prophecy where the church is commanded to allow prophets to speak - but at the same time the text shows that God is in control of that gift to such a high degree that if a prophet is speaking and God gives a vision/revelation to one who is seated then the first is to cease and let the second immediately speak.

By contrast in that same chapter -- this is an example of what should NOT be done in the case of the gift of tongues.

That's a laugh. (Literally, I guffawed). You conveniently ignored places like Ephesians 1:17 and Mat 11:25 where the same Greek word for "revelation" applies to believers in general. Not to mention places like 1 Cor 12:31 and 1 Cor 14:1 where Paul commands the whole church to seek the gift of prophecy.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
In real life that 1 Cor 14 statement is about God controlling events in the case of prophecy where the church is commanded to allow prophets to speak - but at the same time the text shows that God is in control of that gift to such a high degree that if a prophet is speaking and God gives a vision/revelation to one who is seated then the first is to cease and let the second immediately speak.

Pursue love, yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for edification, exhortation, and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but rather that you would prophesy​

22 So then, tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is not for unbelievers, but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church gathers together and all the people speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are insane? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.​

​

37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.​

​

39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, earnestly desire to prophesy,​

By contrast in that same chapter -- this is an example of what should NOT be done in the case of the gift of tongues.

That's a laugh. (Literally, I guffawed).

your insights have a consistent quality to them.

More Bible - less creative writing please.

Luke 24:25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.


What Jesus does not say in that example of sola scriptura is "slow to run to some scholar some place and ask them how to read scripture and to tell you what to think"

 

[JAL]

errrr... "no".

Um....Yes.

All of them affirm the 2 Peter 1 statement that this is exactly how scripture came about.

19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

More Bible, less creative writing please.

Your creative writing - conflates "sola scriptura" with "cessationism" - two different topics entirely

Luke 24:25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

What Jesus does not say in that example of sola scriptura is "slow to run to some scholar some place and ask them how to read scripture and to tell you what to think"

Um...no. Your strawman posts continually cite verses that rarely cut to the heart of the debate.

 

[BobRyan]

Um....Yes.

Um...no. Your strawman posts continually cite verses that rarely cut to the heart of the debate.

Your creative writing is not improving my friend... try responding with Bible facts.

 

[JAL]

BobRyan said:
In real life that 1 Cor 14 statement is about God controlling events in the case of prophecy where the church is commanded to allow prophets to speak - but at the same time the text shows that God is in control of that gift to such a high degree that if a prophet is speaking and God gives a vision/revelation to one who is seated then the first is to cease and let the second immediately speak.

Pursue love, yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for edification, exhortation, and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but rather that you would prophesy​

22 So then, tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is not for unbelievers, but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church gathers together and all the people speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are insane? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.​

​

37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.​

​

39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, earnestly desire to prophesy,​

By contrast in that same chapter -- this is an example of what should NOT be done in the case of the gift of tongues.

your insights have a consistent quality to them.

More Bible - less creative writing please.

Luke 24:25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.


What Jesus does not say in that example of sola scriptura is "slow to run to some scholar some place and ask them how to read scripture and to tell you what to think"

Same as always. Your strawman posts continually cite verses that rarely cut to the heart of the debate. No one's denying that 1 Cor 14 addresses some issues with tongues. However, that's clearly not the only gift mentioned in the chapter, as if we can learn nothing about Paul's stance on prophecy? Ridiculous. Your own words said it best:

less creative writing please.

 

[JAL]

Your creative writing is not improving my friend... try responding with Bible facts.

See post 267.

 

[JAL]

Your creative writing is not improving my friend... try responding with Bible facts.

We'll have more to discuss when you resolve the contradiction alleged of Sola Scriptura at post 151.

Until then, everyone is just blowing hot air.

 

[JAL]

Luke 24:25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

Let me get this straight. Here we have Christ - who is God Himself - speaking to a bunch of men, telling them the exact meanings of the verses. That's called Direct Revelation. Amazingly, in your utter confusion, you see this text as evidence of Sola Scriptura.

Don't you get it? Should Christ's Voice eventually do the same for each of us, there would be virtually zero denominations today! We'd all have correct doctrine! Isn't that the topic of this thread? That's why need to seek the gift of prophecy!

How does that verse not prove my whole position? Like I said, you habitually cite verses that lend no support to your position, are irrelevant to the debate or, in this example, establish my position.

How then can I take your posts seriously?

 

[Vanellus]

Abraham is a paradigm for how all of us should live. The NT is pretty clear on that point. That's why his name is mentioned in the NT more often than anyone except Moses.

Odd I thought Abraham was a unique human being. Am I wrong to think that? No answers from you to my simple questions of course.

 

[JAL]

Odd I thought Abraham was a unique human being. Am I wrong to think that? No answers from you to my simple questions of course.

Morality/Ethics are not unique to Abraham but are the same for us all. Your question was, "Who else lived Abraham's life?" Answer: "All of us". As Paul put it:

"No temptation has seized you except what is common to mankind" (1 Cor 10:13).

Circumstances may vary but the essence of temptation remains the same. For example, male Christians tend to lust after women.

If Abraham had lived a life different than ours, how would he be useful as a model for us to emulate? It would have been pointless for the NT writers to adduce him as an example of righteous daily living.

 

[JAL]

Odd I thought Abraham was a unique human being. Am I wrong to think that? No answers from you to my simple questions of course.

You're really missing the point of Galatians 3 and Romans 4. In choosing a model for us to emulate, Paul was careful to choose a man (Abraham) who preceded written Scripture. Paul could easily have fixated on someone who had a Bible. He did not. Fact is, most people didn't have Bibles until the printing press. All Abraham had was the Voice. That is what the Christian is supposed to fixate on. This becomes more apparent if we walk through Galatians 3:1-6 verse by verse. Maybe I'll do so later.

 

[JAL]

In Paul's letters to the churches, he doesn't encourage them to attend seminary, or even seek to become better Bible scholars. Instead he tells them to seek the gift of prophecy above all. That's a fixation upon the Voice. By way of contrast, he encouraged the prophet Timothy to continue in his studies. That should tell us where our priorities are supposed to lie.

 

[JAL]

By the way, Direct Revelation (including prophecy and tongues) is the main topic of discussion in several passages of 1 Corinthians. If you tally it up, it amounts to a whopping 90 verses, starting with chapter 2. Compare that to how many verses Paul wrote about Bible-study. And in two of those passages, as noted earlier, Paul directly correlated spiritual maturity with mature prophethood.

 

[JAL]

Paul himself is the premier NT model of the Christian life. On the Road to Damascus, he was converted by a vision/voice from Sola Scriptura to the primacy of Direct Revelation. He quickly became a prophet who never returned to the Dark Ages of Sola Scriptura. He never looked back.