Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[GDL]

Here again you emanate an air of objectivity:

You just want the truth, right? Or say you say. And yet like everyone else on this thread, you don't seem to want to deal effectively with post 151. On top of that, when I asked you upon what authority you accept Scripture, you seemed to ignore me just like everyone else.

I'm not buying it. I don't believe you're showing any more objectivity than anyone else.

I think my case actually gets stronger if we consider the specifics of how the authoritative Voice works, but earlier I refused to share those pearls because no one seemed to honestly deal with post 151. (Not that it's hard to figure out). And that's where I remain for now.

Sola Scriptura doesn't match the biblical data and doesn't make sense. I have a viewpoint that does both. Why should I share those pearls if I will only be attacked? People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. And yet that's exactly what happens on this forum, time and again.

I'm not selling anything and have already stated in detail my thinking and intentions. It's obviously your choice to receive and think of it and me what you will.

I haven't gone back to #151 because I've been answering other things and I didn't respond to it before because I needed some clarification of what you meant by a few things. I noted you clarified something in another post above. I just haven't gotten there yet, and I was just signing off but noticed you just posted so stopped to reply at least to it.

FWIW, suggesting you have some pearls you're not sharing and not posting a link to where I think you said you've posted before, seems a little childish. If you've got something to say, say it and be open to accolades or critique. In my experience this forum provides mostly critique, ad hominem, and even outright hostilities. Agreement seems a rare commodity. I think this is part of what this thread is discussing.

 

[JAL]

I'm not trying to trick you. I approached you with questions to get a more grounded understanding of your thinking. I objectively have problems with your correlations to Abraham's experience.

And yet I doubt you have a good response for post 375.

Your view of hypothetically being led to inject a neighbor with a poison only God knew would heal, although I can understand the outcome you speak of, has to assume a relationship with God that may or may not be actual.

The only thing it has to assume is that real prophecy works. Is God capable of reliable revelation? History proves that He is. Otherwise we wouldn't have a Bible. Again, your concern isn't the correct one. Your concern shouldn't be whether prophecy is reliable but, at most, how can it be reliable, how exactly does an authoritative voice work.

Charlatans have always existed in both testaments. This doesn't change the fact that real prophecy works.

Sure, I think many if not most of us would like to be so vitally tapped into such omniscience and be faithfully available for any service even in things that don't make sense. I'm attempting to get a sense of how you might be different from those who prophecy things that do not happen and how you view your Continuationism (I'm more used to Charismatic and Pentecostal labels and don't yet know how and why you're rather an extreme Continuist - the closed canon seems a good partial clarification) and what it actually means practically and, yes, how it compares to my read of Scripture and how I may be open to a better understanding.

By extreme Continuationism (sorry if that's the wrong term), I simply mean that God wanted the full continuation of the apostolic church, led by apostles equally as authoritative as Paul and Moses were. Logically that doesn't necessitate an open canon, therefore I favor a closed one.

 

[JAL]

I'm not trying to trick you. I approached you with questions to get a more grounded understanding of your thinking. I objectively have problems with your correlations to Abraham's experience.

And yet I doubt you have a good response for post 375.

Your view of hypothetically being led to inject a neighbor with a poison only God knew would heal, although I can understand the outcome you speak of, has to assume a relationship with God that may or may not be actual.

The only thing it has to assume is that real prophecy works. Is God capable of reliable revelation? History proves that He is. Otherwise we wouldn't have a Bible. Again, your concern isn't the correct one. Your concern shouldn't be whether prophecy is reliable but, at most, how can it be reliable, how exactly does an authoritative voice work.

Charlatans have always existed in both testaments. This doesn't change the fact that real prophecy works.

I'm attempting to get a sense of how you might be different from those who prophecy things that do not happen

From what I can see, a tradition has flourished in the charismatic church, namely, if you're a godly man immersed in the Scriptures, then you pretty much have the right to conclude that any godly thoughts that come to your mind - as long as they pass the Sola Scriptura test - are the voice of God. That's why you see so much false prophecy. Like almost everything else bad in the church, the root problem is Sola Scriptura.

and how you view your Continuationism.

By my extreme Continuationism (sorry if that's the wrong term), I simply mean that God wanted the full continuation of the apostolic church, led by apostles equally as authoritative as Paul and Moses were. Logically that doesn't necessitate an open canon, therefore I favor a closed one.

 

[JAL]

FWIW, suggesting you have some pearls you're not sharing and not posting a link to where I think you said you've posted before, seems a little childish.

So Jesus was being childish when He said:

6“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Mat 7)

Take it up with Him. I have shared those pearls on other threads and only been attacked. I'm fine with that - but from people who debate dishonestly, and won't address the flaws in their own position, and only seem to be stone cold and hard hearted?

I've done plenty of sharing on this thread. No one's even admitted that I supplied a reasonable amount of biblical evidence for the existence of an authoritative voice in both testaments.

You want my pearls? Show me some evidence that you're not hard hearted.

....seems a little childish.

Forcing me to continue waiting on you to address post 151 - created 230 posts back - seems a little childish to me.

 

[JAL]

@GDL,

Here's another example of the authoritative voice. The scenario originated in the OT - but isn't it interesting that Hebrews treats it as a lesson for how we are to behave today.

Not just Moses and Joshu, but all Israel, participated in the mandate to slaughter 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan. Since murder is normally a shock to the moral sense, clearly every Israelite needed an authoritative Voice sanctioning such a violent mission. That is exactly what the author of Hebrews confirms - he repeated this confirmation three times:

7So, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you hear his voice, 8do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the wilderness. (Heb 3)

That's the first confirmation. He continues:

12See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” (Heb 3)

Today is still in effect? Today we still are supposed to heed the authoritative Voice? He continues:

15As has just been said: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion.” 16Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt?"

All heard the Voice. That's two confirmations so far that the Voice applied back then and still applies Today. But two is not enough. It's like he's shouting at us, "I am going to repeat this warning three times. If you get nothing else from this epistle, at least get this part." Here's the third confirmation:

6Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience, 7God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” (Heb 4).

It's an everlasting Today. The Voice obligatory to them is still obligatory to us Today.

 

[BobRyan]

At this point I don't live by such hopes even though I do watch or listen for certain things to pay attention to and possibly be involved in. I've had my views changed through personal exegetical studies. I've found most to be camp loyalists who exhibit what looks almost like a fear to consider something different than what they've already accepted over the years.

But at every stage... at each step you should be able to say "This is it.... this one is doing the best". And that is true - until you find a better one -- then go ahead "take the next step".

I've seen those who attempt to shift from the Word to personal experience and to extra-biblical sources of this or that type. I was trained and ordained in a camp and taught the views of other camps but from a perspective with its commentary. I've read exegetical studies from various camps. I've watched and read the Messianic progress since the 80's. I was surrounded by Pentecostals to some degree. Frankly it's all preferences or loyalties or ??? which seems to be one of the points of your thread.

Indeed it can easily melt down to preference - but it is better to let the Word of God stand as the rule as the guide. That is the only way that the Acts 17:11 system works "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things taught to them by the Apostle Paul -were SO". Those folks had their own church leaders in their own camp telling them that Paul was an apostate, his doctrine was all wrong, Jesus was not the Messiah - yet they "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things taught to them by the Apostle Paul -were SO".

And in so doing - changed denominations. You see that happen in Acts 13, in Acts 17:1-5 and in Acts 18:4-12 -- it is over and over again that way in the book of Acts. They were doing the very thing some folks here say - can't possibly happen.

From day 1 my being led was basically that if our standard is not His Word in Christ by His Spirit, then it's a free-for-all,

Yep -- it ends up being "every wind of doctrine" that way.

Honestly, Bob, the what's the problem point within your thread is high in my interest list as I've said. It occupies my mind and my prayers to a fair degree. I had an intense prayer experience not too long ago where it was highly impressed upon me greater than ever before how far gone this world is and how different things are meant to be and will be in virtually every respect and system. I'm sure you know how our realizations can come in degrees or levels over time. This was an escalation I wasn't really expecting. Since then, I'm also looking more and more critically at our Church traditions and practices and questioning Him about them.

The Jews were ideally designed/suited/situated with the right Bible in the right nation-church to prepare the way for the Messiah at Christ's first coming and they botched it all up -- They got it all wrong. They misinterpreted their own prophetic texts. They rejected their own Messiah. But even so - some of them made the switch - became desciples of Christ and started the "persecuted church" that did not dump OT scripture but rather used it as a foundation and built on it.

Your thread is timely. There is really something wrong IMO. As I said earlier, I'm cautiously open to reading input from other points of view because I know I don't know the solution or have it all right. But there's so much squirrely stuff out there and my contentment has only come, and vividly so, in private times with Him immersed in His Word at His feet for lengthy periods in Spirit.

Thanks for the interaction.

I am glad to do it.

There are truths for this time in the Bible - pertaining to how the world ends and what we are supposed to do.

Take a look at Rev 15 and 16---- almost everyone agrees that in Rev 16 we have the seven last plagues.

Rev 15:8 says that the ministry of intercession in the temple in Heaven - ends so that the 7 plagues can occur.

Then backing up from there - Rev 14 has 3 angels (a symbol) giving 3 messages (literal in many ways) -- which is the last warning message to mankind (the way Revelation presents it) before that seven-last-plagues event in Rev 16.

IT might be interesting to find a group whose mission it is -- to explain and proclaim that Rev 14 final warning message to mankind.

 

[BobRyan]

While working in the computer industry about 40 years ago we used to watch for "cockpit problems" - as you say "pilot (operator) error" instead of hardware or software issues they were suggesting. It's really no different in this Faith arena and I'm sure you know the more we learn the more we know we don't know. In addition, as you note, the distractions and influences are ever present, although I did go through a fairly lengthy period of a decently isolated time in my early years of studies.

...
From day 1 my being led was basically that if our standard is not His Word in Christ by His Spirit, then it's a free-for-all, which is pretty much what I saw going to different churches in S.CA. It didn't seem much different than the world. I was not temporally young, had a fair degree of life and professional experience & personnel management on a national basis behind me, some international experience, then my own business, was not naive in many respects,

Computer industry for over 40 years and a significant amount in professional capacity as well as international - but still I focus on the call of God for each of us - given that we all live at the end of time for planet Earth.

 

[GDL]

Computer industry for over 40 years and a significant amount in professional capacity as well as international - but still I focus on the call of God for each of us - given that we all live at the end of time for planet Earth.

Agree on the call. Left business to follow the call about 40 years ago. Point was "pilot error" was similar in computers as is in Bible arena. Difference is the error is all pilot error at least for those who agree the original Text is inspired. Studies & interpretations involve pilots. Translations involve pilots. Manuscripts research involves pilots researching pilots (copyists). Some separate to various degrees from teachers (pilots) to get personally closer to the inspired Text and pay attention to selected teachers and researchers (pilots) and do the Berean method while retaining the understanding we are all pilots - guided and led pilots likely to varied degrees.

 

[BobRyan]

Agree on the call. Left business to follow the call about 40 years ago. Point was "pilot error" was similar in computers as is in Bible arena. Difference is the error is all pilot error at least for those who agree the original Text is inspired. Studies & interpretations involve pilots. Translations involve pilots. Manuscripts research involves pilots researching pilots (copyists). Some separate to various degrees from teachers (pilots) to get personally closer to the inspired Text and pay attention to selected teachers and researchers (pilots) and do the Berean method while retaining the understanding we are all pilots - guided and led pilots likely to varied degrees.

I think "pilot error" maps closer to people with Bibles not paying close attention to what the Bible says when making decisions about doctrine, worship, practice etc. And while it is true that a lot of translations are out there - the overall result is that people can always check out two or three good translations for free at BibleGateway online.

 

[BobRyan]

@GDL,

Here's another example of the authoritative voice. The scenario originated in the OT - but isn't it interesting that Hebrews treats it as a lesson for how we are to behave today.

Not just Moses and Joshu, but all Israel, participated in the mandate to slaughter 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan

1. God told them HE would drive out the other nations with plagues and bees and animals -- but then Israel rebelled against God - wandered for 40 years in the wilderness as punishment and could not celebrate passover for those 40 years nor practice circumcision.
2. Then God put them in the position of having to fight the wars instead of the original plan to have plagues and animals do the work.
3. And that was the case of a theocracy running the nation.

All of those are "exceptions" to our current circumstance which is why in over 2000 years God never commands Christians to slay every human in a village just because they are not Christian... etc ... etc. Nor does He allow Christians to steal property or lands of non-Christians, heretics etc.

You are conflating two entirely different contexts/dispensations/systems setup by God.

 

[JAL]

1. God told them HE would drive out the other nations with plagues and bees and animals -- but then Israel rebelled against God - wandered for 40 years in the wilderness as punishment and could not celebrate passover for those 40 years nor practice circumcision.
2. Then God put them in the position of having to fight the wars instead of the original plan to have plagues and animals do the work.
3. And that was the case of a theocracy running the nation.

All of those are "exceptions" to our current circumstance which is why in over 2000 years God never commands Christians to slay every human in a village just because they are not Christian... etc ... etc. Nor does He allow Christians to steal property or lands of non-Christians, heretics etc.

You are conflating two entirely different contexts/dispensations/systems setup by God.

There are no dispensations or changes to ethics/morality. Moral relativism is not a fact of Scripture. You are fabricating artificial distinctions to explain away the facts that militate against your view. Funny how you say to abide by Scripture when you think you've found a verse that supports your view. But if it contradicts? Oh suddenly it's dispensational! Then why do you cite Christ's statements in favor of Sola Scriptura? Didn't He make most of those statements before His death and thus, on your assumptions, in the Old Covenant dispensation?

Secondly, the author of Hebrews clearly recapped that OT incident as a lesson for our behavior Today. Three times he warned us to obey the same voice Today. This destroys your dispensationalism.

Thirdly, Galatians 3 destroys any dispensationalism because we're under the Abrahamic Covenant.

Fourth, Hebrews 11 destroys it because the chapter includes the OT violence in its elaboration of how faith is supposed to operate today:

"By faith they conquered kingdoms" (Heb 11:33).

What kind of faith? Faith comes by hearing the Word voiced authoritatively (compare Rom 10:17 with Genesis 15:1). Notice verse 17:

"17By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac on the altar." (Heb 11:17).

Since Abraham's murderous attempt does not make sense without an authoritative Voice, it's clear that the expression "By faith" in Hebrews 11 always has reference to such. With that in mind, read the whole chapter and explain to me how I can take seriously the notion that the Voice isn't for Today. What a joke.

Bob, here is what you don't get. You think that Christ builds the church primarily on a powerless history book called the Bible. He has always built His church primarily on His powerful spoken divine Word (Isa 55:11; John 10:27). You might begin to realize this fact if you'd finally admit to yourself that you accept the Bible on an authoritative Voice known as the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit.

YOU have chosen to remain in denial about this fact. YOU have chosen to keep the blinders on. That's your prerogative.

 

[GDL]

OK, looking at #151 as promised. Beginning at the conclusion:

Thus the Bible can never be legitimately construed as our highest authority because some higher authority clearly dictates our decision to accept or reject this book.

But the Bible can be viewed as the highest authority because it is God's Word and thus God's Spirit (Prov1:23) to the degree He has revealed Himself and His will in this form. One question related to this is whether God will guide us contrary to His Word. This seems tantamount to asking if God's Spirit will contradict God's Spirit, or God will contradict God. The answer seems clear.

As to whether God can and will give special guidance or assistance apart from His Word, I see the answer as, yes, if it is His will to do so. The Bible does not cover everything and every decision we face. The problem for us in this era with the canon of Scripture preserved for us, and with His Spirit in us and so on, is what this relationship with His Spirit looks like and what gifts are necessary and active.

Personal experience based upon what I see in His Text and what I have actually experienced: I am a devout student of His Word. I've redeemed time in learning Greek exegesis to some fair degree. I learned some Hebrew but have not used it so I'm back closer to where I started. Most of my advance towards maturity I attribute to His discipling me in His thinking by His Spirit. The work of His Spirit in this process is not something someone else can tell me is lip service or any such thing. I know my interactions with Him and the understandings that have come through them. I've seen the practical tests I've found myself in at times some instruction was being drilled deeper into me. On another note, I've experienced things that are beyond hard to naturally explain - things that have kept me alive and apart from harm where you just have to say, huh? and look up and say Thank You. Then there are the seemingly more mundane things where the seemingly Jewish phrase rings true - coincidence is not a kosher word. And the saying I once heard that goes something like: I find it fascinating how the God and Creator and Sustainer of the Universe can pay attention to all that and still take time to pay attention to my little red bicycle. Then there's the realization that over time and studies and prayers I wake one day and find repulsion for something I had just previously found very attractive. Then....

Re: Cessation & Continuation: I find the cessation background teachings informative. I find the 1Cor language difficult and the timing correlations to the close of the canon to be interesting but theoretical. I'm cautiously open. As I've told a few fellow studiers along the way, I know you and know you speak only English. If I hear you all of a sudden speaking another language to someone and I get a translation of some godly message having been spoken, I'll know where to side. I used to live close to the national headquarters of TBN. I've seen and heard a lot. I once was walking in a beautiful outdoor mall and saw the son of Oral Roberts walking with a few others. He was wearing a sling on one arm. This is the same guy who was always touching the TV camera to pass healing on to large TV audience. Someone restrained me from asking him some pointed questions. I've had a local lady we assisted with a car problem one day notice us at the beach & stop and say some very nonsensical thing about our mutual(?) Faith. When I told her politely, I disagreed with her, she ducked and began looking around while saying she was sensing some disagreeing spirits around - hovering around us apparently. I had to tell her politely that she didn't have to sense anything. All she needed to do was look at me and hear me say I disagreed with her and ask her if she'd like me to explain why. She walked on.

I hope you get my point. Lines need to be drawn today. We can't stone false prophets. We have a church population that continues to cheer and support them no matter how many times or how severely they fail. We have charlatans & showmen slapping people on the head and supposedly healing them. We have muscular guys doing circus acts and claiming the Spirit just gave them the strength to the cheers of the crowd. We have musicians mimicking low quality secular music with infantile and even secular lyrics while praising God and leading in "worship". We have claims of outpourings of the Spirit making people bark like dogs or roll around laughing hysterically, and speak gibberish without interpretation in full stadiums of the mesmerized, and....

And so on...

JAL, I'm cautious but open enough to ask questions even possibly beyond someone maybe inferring I may be a dog unworthy of pearls.

simply ask yourself: on what basis/authority do I accept the Bible? This might help you understand how an authoritative voice operated in all the prophets such as Abraham, and still in all the angels today.

I have no doubt God spoke to many people in history. I believe I heard Him say 5 words to me once that both startled me and then relaxed me and brought tears to my eyes. It was somehow perfect in way that I've never experienced in human communications. It was localized like someone sitting next to me. Cessationism can't take that from me. But it was simple. Not about morality. Not about guidance, healing, eschatology, injecting someone with poison that would actually heal them. It was simple, personal, loving, and only once in several decades of life here.

I was evangelized over a period of time through events and people and readings that I do not remember. God and Christ made sense to me at some point. I read the Bible a few times before that. Circumstances & decisions in life brought me to the point of acceptance, faith, turning myself over to Him. There was no authoritative voice I can pinpoint, no prophet, no alter call. There was a series of things over years. There was a strange event - again a very personal experience that resulted in a realization of something going on that I did not understand until something took place 6 months later. It was just gradual life with some special and harsh times. His Spirit's involvement? Absolutely. His Word in my mind to some degree? Absolutely.

I accept the authority of the Bible because by His Spirit and His Word I came to Him in Faith, and He convinced me His Word is His Word like He convinced me His Son is His Son as He says in His Word. It's really quite circular argumentation and I accept that even if it doesn't win debates. He is the Authority. His Spirit and His Word are part of Him. I don't try to separate them. I heard His voice. I read His words and thereby hear Him as He makes His words clear to me. It's His timing and His process. I repeatedly ask Him for more & faster. I'm continuously made aware He is the Father and I'm a son. Hierarchy.

SS regards the Bible as the only final authority for both doctrine and practice.

Sorry, as I've thought this through in writing, I don't believe this is generally true. There are always outliers to whom it may apply.

Generally speaking, I value His Word and His Spirit and see them much in parallel. I see my understandings of His Word as being taught by His Spirit. As I have more of His Word, I have more of His Spirit (recall Jesus being filled without measure).

As @BobRyan has stated, there are those who agree with SS that know that they need to be open to better understanding. This again to me sounds circular in that some value the Word while knowing that they don't know everything about it and that the Spirit is involved in teaching us. To me that puts us right back into the parallelism expressed in Prov1:23 and the fact that God's Spirit and God's Word will not be in disagreement. This does not seem to mean that God will not assist us in some special circumstance that I won't read in His Word.

This may or may not explain all the disparity in interpretation. I've heard and read some speak historically how it took 500 years to come to some degree of consensus on a certain doctrine. Also, there are always degrees of immaturity working up to maturity - spiritual infancy to adulthood - and even advance beyond that, so views are wide.

I don't know how many mature or even true Christians exist on the earth now or have at any point in history in how many places on earth in or out of any churches. I've come to see His Ekklesia - those who He knows are His that were granted to Him by our Father - as likely being here and there and everywhere, interspersed among a lot of nonsense, wheat among the [very vocal] darnel.

SS regards the Bible as the only final authority for both doctrine and practice. 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.

Sorry. I still don't understand your point here. We have in the neighborhood of 2,000 commands to read through in Scripture. Some no longer apply. I think the ones that do apply are real imperatives because they're written in His Word. This does not prevent me from unattentively hearing in my ears or mind a command to not step off the curb in front of a vehicle, nor do I think I have to scan His Word before stopping my advance.

I'm not trying to be glib. I just don't know how else to exemplify what I think we're talking about.

Sorry for the book. I wanted to answer your post.

 

[Aaron112]

This does not seem to mean that God will not assist us in some special circumstance that I won't read in His Word.

It seems to me you agree that God will never, ever, not even once, contradict His Word, ..... His Plan, His Wisdom, His Perfect Knowledge, His Knowing All Things Forever Unchanging, His Directions, His Instructions, His Revelations of Salvation and of His Word and Concerning Everything,
will never be at odds with Himself in any way - but always in Perfect Harmony Forever .

 

[BobRyan]

OK, looking at #151 as promised. Beginning at the conclusion:

But the Bible can be viewed as the highest authority because it is God's Word and thus God's Spirit (Prov1:23) to the degree He has revealed Himself and His will in this form. One question related to this is whether God will guide us contrary to His Word. This seems tantamount to asking if God's Spirit will contradict God's Spirit, or God will contradict God. The answer seems clear.

True .. Sola scriptura works because it is the Bible that teaches us about the Holy Spirit, and how to test the spirits as 1 John 4:1-5 points out. Instead of saying "ignore the spirit" - God says to test what is being said. The false either-or-dichotomy that some try to promote is not something that the Bible teaches. It is both-and. But the Bible is the test.

If someone show up at your door and declares doctrine that the Bible condemns -- it is not "they" who are the test of the Bible as if they are a reliable source for knowing when to ignore the Bible. ... Rather that Bible tests THEIR message as Paul points out in Gal 1:6-9

 

[JAL]

OK, looking at #151 as promised. Beginning at the conclusion:

But the Bible can be viewed as the highest authority because it is God's Word and thus God's Spirit (Prov1:23) to the degree He has revealed Himself and His will in this form. One question related to this is whether God will guide us contrary to His Word. This seems tantamount to asking if God's Spirit will contradict God's Spirit, or God will contradict God. The answer seems clear.

As to whether God can and will give special guidance or assistance apart from His Word, I see the answer as, yes, if it is His will to do so. The Bible does not cover everything and every decision we face. The problem for us in this era with the canon of Scripture preserved for us, and with His Spirit in us and so on, is what this relationship with His Spirit looks like and what gifts are necessary and active.

Personal experience based upon what I see in His Text and what I have actually experienced: I am a devout student of His Word. I've redeemed time in learning Greek exegesis to some fair degree. I learned some Hebrew but have not used it so I'm back closer to where I started. Most of my advance towards maturity I attribute to His discipling me in His thinking by His Spirit. The work of His Spirit in this process is not something someone else can tell me is lip service or any such thing. I know my interactions with Him and the understandings that have come through them. I've seen the practical tests I've found myself in at times some instruction was being drilled deeper into me. On another note, I've experienced things that are beyond hard to naturally explain - things that have kept me alive and apart from harm where you just have to say, huh? and look up and say Thank You. Then there are the seemingly more mundane things where the seemingly Jewish phrase rings true - coincidence is not a kosher word. And the saying I once heard that goes something like: I find it fascinating how the God and Creator and Sustainer of the Universe can pay attention to all that and still take time to pay attention to my little red bicycle. Then there's the realization that over time and studies and prayers I wake one day and find repulsion for something I had just previously found very attractive. Then....

Re: Cessation & Continuation: I find the cessation background teachings informative. I find the 1Cor language difficult and the timing correlations to the close of the canon to be interesting but theoretical. I'm cautiously open. As I've told a few fellow studiers along the way, I know you and know you speak only English. If I hear you all of a sudden speaking another language to someone and I get a translation of some godly message having been spoken, I'll know where to side. I used to live close to the national headquarters of TBN. I've seen and heard a lot. I once was walking in a beautiful outdoor mall and saw the son of Oral Roberts walking with a few others. He was wearing a sling on one arm. This is the same guy who was always touching the TV camera to pass healing on to large TV audience. Someone restrained me from asking him some pointed questions. I've had a local lady we assisted with a car problem one day notice us at the beach & stop and say some very nonsensical thing about our mutual(?) Faith. When I told her politely, I disagreed with her, she ducked and began looking around while saying she was sensing some disagreeing spirits around - hovering around us apparently. I had to tell her politely that she didn't have to sense anything. All she needed to do was look at me and hear me say I disagreed with her and ask her if she'd like me to explain why. She walked on.

I hope you get my point. Lines need to be drawn today. We can't stone false prophets. We have a church population that continues to cheer and support them no matter how many times or how severely they fail. We have charlatans & showmen slapping people on the head and supposedly healing them. We have muscular guys doing circus acts and claiming the Spirit just gave them the strength to the cheers of the crowd. We have musicians mimicking low quality secular music with infantile and even secular lyrics while praising God and leading in "worship". We have claims of outpourings of the Spirit making people bark like dogs or roll around laughing hysterically, and speak gibberish without interpretation in full stadiums of the mesmerized, and....

And so on...

JAL, I'm cautious but open enough to ask questions even possibly beyond someone maybe inferring I may be a dog unworthy of pearls.

I have no doubt God spoke to many people in history. I believe I heard Him say 5 words to me once that both startled me and then relaxed me and brought tears to my eyes. It was somehow perfect in way that I've never experienced in human communications. It was localized like someone sitting next to me. Cessationism can't take that from me. But it was simple. Not about morality. Not about guidance, healing, eschatology, injecting someone with poison that would actually heal them. It was simple, personal, loving, and only once in several decades of life here.

I was evangelized over a period of time through events and people and readings that I do not remember. God and Christ made sense to me at some point. I read the Bible a few times before that. Circumstances & decisions in life brought me to the point of acceptance, faith, turning myself over to Him. There was no authoritative voice I can pinpoint, no prophet, no alter call. There was a series of things over years. There was a strange event - again a very personal experience that resulted in a realization of something going on that I did not understand until something took place 6 months later. It was just gradual life with some special and harsh times. His Spirit's involvement? Absolutely. His Word in my mind to some degree? Absolutely.

I accept the authority of the Bible because by His Spirit and His Word I came to Him in Faith, and He convinced me His Word is His Word like He convinced me His Son is His Son as He says in His Word. It's really quite circular argumentation and I accept that even if it doesn't win debates. He is the Authority. His Spirit and His Word are part of Him. I don't try to separate them. I heard His voice. I read His words and thereby hear Him as He makes His words clear to me. It's His timing and His process. I repeatedly ask Him for more & faster. I'm continuously made aware He is the Father and I'm a son. Hierarchy.


Sorry, as I've thought this through in writing, I don't believe this is generally true. There are always outliers to whom it may apply.

Generally speaking, I value His Word and His Spirit and see them much in parallel. I see my understandings of His Word as being taught by His Spirit. As I have more of His Word, I have more of His Spirit (recall Jesus being filled without measure).

As @BobRyan has stated, there are those who agree with SS that know that they need to be open to better understanding. This again to me sounds circular in that some value the Word while knowing that they don't know everything about it and that the Spirit is involved in teaching us. To me that puts us right back into the parallelism expressed in Prov1:23 and the fact that God's Spirit and God's Word will not be in disagreement. This does not seem to mean that God will not assist us in some special circumstance that I won't read in His Word.

This may or may not explain all the disparity in interpretation. I've heard and read some speak historically how it took 500 years to come to some degree of consensus on a certain doctrine. Also, there are always degrees of immaturity working up to maturity - spiritual infancy to adulthood - and even advance beyond that, so views are wide.

I don't know how many mature or even true Christians exist on the earth now or have at any point in history in how many places on earth in or out of any churches. I've come to see His Ekklesia - those who He knows are His that were granted to Him by our Father - as likely being here and there and everywhere, interspersed among a lot of nonsense, wheat among the [very vocal] darnel.

Sorry. I still don't understand your point here. We have in the neighborhood of 2,000 commands to read through in Scripture. Some no longer apply. I think the ones that do apply are real imperatives because they're written in His Word. This does not prevent me from unattentively hearing in my ears or mind a command to not step off the curb in front of a vehicle, nor do I think I have to scan His Word before stopping my advance.

I'm not trying to be glib. I just don't know how else to exemplify what I think we're talking about.

Sorry for the book. I wanted to answer your post.

I plan to respond to this post a little more, but I'm not sure what you're addressing here. Post 151 alleges a contradiction in Sola Scriptura defined, for example, on R.C Sproul's website as:

"Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks."

What Does “Sola Scriptura” Mean?

The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply

www.ligonier.org

Another evangelical website states:

"Sola scriptura [means]...the Bible is the supreme authority, sufficient, and clear."

The Real Meaning of Sola Scriptura

Sola scriptura is a simple phrase. But it contains truths which are essential to the life of God’s people.

au.thegospelcoalition.org

The Wikipedia article states:

"The Bible [is] the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice."

That's the same definition stated in three ways. It implies that we cannot wholeheartedly rely on something else such as Reason, visions, and voices as authoritative (and thus as a final authority in itself) - neither for doctrine nor for practice (I'm talking about religious doctrines and practices, not so much how best to upkeep your motor vehicle).

....(1) Do you believe that's what Sola Scriptura means? If you disagree, can you give me an example of a scholar who identifies himself as Sola Scriptura and yet believes in final authorities other than Scripture?

....(2) I gave you the STANDARD definition of Sola Scriptura (even if you yourself believe in multiple final-authorities). Do you agree that Post 151 identifies a logical contradiction in the standard definition? If not, can you explain how to resolve the charge?

...(3) What exactly do YOU believe? The standard definition? Unsure at this point? (If you feel that post was clear enough, just say so and I'll try reading it again)

 

[JAL]

True .. Sola scriptura works because it is the Bible that teaches us about the Holy Spirit, and how to test the spirits as 1 John 4:1-5 points out. Instead of saying "ignore the spirit" - God says to test what is being said. The false either-or-dichotomy that some try to promote is not something that the Bible teaches. It is both-and. But the Bible is the test.

If someone show up at your door and declares doctrine that the Bible condemns -- it is not "they" who are the test of the Bible as if they are a reliable source for knowing when to ignore the Bible. ... Rather that Bible tests THEIR message as Paul points out in Gal 1:6-9

Test based on what Bible? The Koran? Oh that's right. You look to the Bible authenticated to you by an authoritative voice known as the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit. In that case, seems the Bible isn't the only authority.

Just to be clear. Clear that Sola Scriptura is a lie from hell.

 

[GDL]

@GDL,

Here's another example of the authoritative voice. The scenario originated in the OT - but isn't it interesting that Hebrews treats it as a lesson for how we are to behave today.

OT Scripture used for lessons in the NC is not unusual.

Not just Moses and Joshu, but all Israel, participated in the mandate to slaughter 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan. Since murder is normally a shock to the moral sense, clearly every Israelite needed an authoritative Voice sanctioning such a violent mission. That is exactly what the author of Hebrews confirms - he repeated this confirmation three times:

Killing in war and especially what is called Holy War in the OC is not unusual. I think God has a handle on what is and is not murder as He defines it and knows what He's doing in mandating the killing He did.

7So, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you hear his voice, 8do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the wilderness. (Heb 3)

That's the first confirmation. He continues:

Are you saying the "mandate to slaughter" is what Heb3 is talking about? Heb3 is talking about the incident at Meribah regarding water and Moses striking the rock.

Heb3:7-11 are quoting Psalm 95 in regard to that historical incident. Are you certain the writer of Hebrews is saying the HS is commanding this to us today, or is the writer saying the HS was ultimately the writer of that Scripture? If the Holy Spirit is taking us to a Scripture to learn something applicable to us today, then what is the Holy Spirit using as the authority and the lesson - is it not the written Word?

Listening to the voice of God is common terminology in the OC Scriptures. Not so in the NC.

12See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” (Heb 3)

Today is still in effect? Today we still are supposed to heed the authoritative Voice? He continues:

Verses 12-13 are one sentence. "As long as there is a today", the commands in 12-13 are commanded us based upon the OC lesson we just learned. There's no command here to listen to the voice of God. The commands are to beware and exhort one another so we don't fall into unbelief and be hardened by deceitful sin.

15As has just been said: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion.” 16Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt?"

All heard the Voice. That's two confirmations so far that the Voice applied back then and still applies Today. But two is not enough. It's like he's shouting at us, "I am going to repeat this warning three times. If you get nothing else from this epistle, at least get this part." Here's the third confirmation:

Again, Hebrews is pointing back to the OC Scripture. The lesson is mainly about the rebellion and there is simply a quote of Scripture and not a mandate to hear the voice of God or anything saying we will hear it.

Yes, all those who came out of Egypt with Moses heard and rebelled. That does not mean we will all hear as they did.

There are really no confirmations as you say. It's really just a matter of not rebelling today as it was the same matter back then.

6Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience, 7God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” (Heb 4).

It's an everlasting Today. The Voice obligatory to them is still obligatory to us Today.

The rest was not obtained by Israel. The rest was still being discussed some hundreds of years later in the Psalms. The rest is still being discussed in Hebrews. There is still a "certain day" of rest called "today" as there was unrealized in Moses' time and "a long time later" in David's time. The main point is the rest, not the voice being carried over by and from David concerning Moses' time when the people heard and rebelled.

At best, if/when we all hear the voice of God as Israel did offering us this "rest" the message is that we best not rebel and along the way we best be diligent to enter into it and not sink into disobedience, which Heb3 parallels to unbelief. But we've already heard quite a bit about the rest in Heb3-4 and a rest is also discussed in Rev14. And the rest really ties back to the 7th day of creation, and the rest in the promised land for Israel that they did not get due to disobedience was illustrative. Hasn't God's voice via His Spirit in His Word already given us these truths? And aren't we to be living in Faith-Obedience until the "today" of the eternal state in Christ?

I'm not seeing your 'authoritative voice" mandated or confirmed as you are. I'm open to correction hopefully from someone who knows Hebrews much better than I. But this is what I see apart from really digging into it further. The main points here are Faith-Obedience until our Rest. This Faith-Obedience is discussed extensively in the NC as I'm sure you know.

 

[GDL]

That's the same definition stated in three ways.

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

....(1) Do you believe that's what Sola Scriptura means? If you disagree, can you give me an example of a scholar who identifies himself as Sola Scriptura and yet believes in final authorities other than Scripture?

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

....(2) I gave you the STANDARD definition of Sola Scriptura (even if you yourself believe in multiple final-authorities). Do you agree that Post 151 identifies a logical contradiction in the standard definition? If not, can you explain how to resolve the charge?

I don't agree with post #151. Although I was very wordy, I think I made that clear. I believe the Word and the Spirit are parallel and the Word and the Spirit will thus not contradict one another. I believe the Spirit speaks of the Word and the Word of the Spirit in all matters it speaks to. I believe the Spirit can and does give other forms of practical guidance as I discussed. 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.

...(3) What exactly do YOU believe? The standard definition? Unsure at this point? (If you feel that post was clear enough, just say so and I'll try reading it again)

Pretty much asked and answered.

Test based on what Bible? The Koran? Oh that's right. You look to the Bible authenticated to you by an authoritative voice known as the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit. In that case, seems the Bible isn't the only authority.

Just to be clear. Clear that Sola Scriptura is a lie from hell.

That's pretty bold. Do you have a problem with the parallelism of Prov1:23? Do you not see the Spirit referring to Scripture and Scripture referring to the Spirit? 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 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?

You said you are Continuationist to an extreme. What exactly does that mean? Are you Pentecostal, Charismatic, some derivation or similarity? What exactly are the gifts of the Spirit you as a Continuationist, whatever your definition, believe in?

In my experience, as I've said, many Pentecostals are severely underfed in and greatly minimize the Word. That's a problem. They and whoever or whatever they hear from are the authoritative voice and emotional experiences are their spirituality. I've had them call me a Pharisee if I asked them questions about Scripture. One of the primary things I've seen them do is push strongly against the authority of the Word. I hate to color them all with this because I do not and cannot know them all. This is one of the reasons I asked you questions to open a dialog. Maybe there's a mature view among them. You're sounding more like the one's I'm used to.

What precisely are you pushing to achieve?

 

[concretecamper]

Looks like someone is on a one man crusade to take down His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church

 

[JAL]

OT Scripture used for lessons in the NC is not unusual.

The lesson is for Today. Why keep pointing us back to a circumstance inapplicable to Today? Waste of words? Why keep pointing us back a Voice inapplicable - non-authoritative -for Today? Is the Bible a stupid book? Is that what you think?

BTW, I don 't buy into OC-NC distinctions. We're all under the Abrahamic Covenant (see Gal 3 and Romans 4). I dealt with Galatians in depth. Maybe I should point you to those posts.

Killing in war and especially what is called Holy War in the OC is not unusual. I think God has a handle on what is and is not murder as He defines it and knows what He's doing in mandating the killing He did.

This is a shallow comment. It's right to slaughter 7 nations just because war is not unusual? Moses, Joshua, David, Samuel - they slaughtered nations on the authority of the Voice. You're apparently trying to fabricate a Moral Relativism wherein genocide was normal, expected, even normative behavior "back then under the OC" but not under the NC. Newsflash: Ethics doesn't change. "Thou shall not murder" is just as true today as it was back then.

Are you saying the "mandate to slaughter" is what Heb3 is talking about? Heb3 is talking about the incident at Meribah regarding water and Moses striking the rock.

That was surely part of it. That's not really my main concern except to point out that the authoritative Voice led them from place to place - and directed them to obtain water from a rock (actually it was Water from the Rock, if you understand 1 Cor 10:1-5).

5The Lord answered Moses, “Go out in front of the people. Take with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. 6I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.” (Ex 17)

Two chapters earlier:

"25Then Moses cried out to the Lord, and the Lord showed him a piece of wood. He threw it into the water, and the water became fit to drink." (Ex 15).

It's a good thing that Moses and his followers they didn't rely on Sola Scriptura. They would have died from dehydration and starvation in the desert. Not to mention disease:

"If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God...I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee " (Ex 15).

I wonder how much suffering and disease over the last 2,000 years is the result of Sola Scriptura. And how many wars could have been prevented if people diligently sought the authoritative Voice. God alone knows.

Heb3:7-11 are quoting Psalm 95 in regard to that historical incident.

Miscellaneous rebellions are probably included, but perhaps the most important one prompted the Lord to remark, "I swoar an oath in my anger; they shall never enter my rest". This refers to Num 14:26-35 where Israel refused to go up and execute the mandated slaughter. A nice parallel is 1 Sam 15 where King Saul failed to slaughter all the Amalekites, he left the king alive. The prophet Samuel classified it as disobedience to the Voice, pulled out a sword, and immediately hacked the foreign king to shreds. Let's take a look:

1Samuel also said unto Saul...Hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD...3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass....9But Saul and the people spared [king] Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen,...10Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, I am sorry I made Saul king...[Samuel said to Saul] 23For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft...Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee as king. (1 Sam 15).

On the authority of the Voice, king Saul should have slaughtered everything including the sheep. He hesitated - and lost his kingship.

Are you certain the writer of Hebrews is saying the HS is commanding this to us today, or is the writer saying the HS was ultimately the writer of that Scripture? If the Holy Spirit is taking us to a Scripture to learn something applicable to us today, then what is the Holy Spirit using as the authority and the lesson - is it not the written Word?

It's the same lesson of 1 Sam 15. I think the writer of Hebrews is clear enough about the lesson. Hebrews was probably written to a Jewish audience acquainted with the OT and therefore somewhat cognizant of incidents where disobedience to the Voice was punitive.

Listening to the voice of God is common terminology in the OC Scriptures. Not so in the NC.

See John 5:37; John10:27 for examples. Where there is no voice, no personal relationship with the Father, just a dusty old book. Maybe I'll elaborate on this fact later. The more you hear the voice, the better you know the Father. That's how fellowship works even among men.

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

Thus, Direct Revelation is a direct correlation to knowing the Father intimately. Paul put it like this:

"I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit f of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better" (Eph 1).

That's pure common sense. What does Paul mean by revelation? Sola Scriptura? Guess again:

"29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is seated, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged" (1 Cor 14).

Verses 12-13 are one sentence. "As long as there is a today", the commands in 12-13 are commanded us based upon the OC lesson we just learned. There's no command here to listen to the voice of God. The commands are to beware and exhort one another so we don't fall into unbelief and be hardened by deceitful sin.

This is shallow. Why need there be a command to listen to the voice? Why not just a command to obey it? The call to obedience is clear enough.



Ridiculous. There's no point in three times repeating a warning to obey the Voice of God, if it is inapplicable today.

Again, Hebrews is pointing back to the OC Scripture. The lesson is mainly about the rebellion and there is simply a quote of Scripture and not a mandate to hear the voice of God or anything saying we will hear it.

The message is specifically about rebellion against the Voice for Today. The Today is clearly a perpetuity.

Yes, all those who came out of Egypt with Moses heard and rebelled. That does not mean we will all hear as they did.

Weird. Seems Jesus got it wrong at John 10:27. Okay. I'll correct Him someday. Seems there is no Inward Witness after all. And Paul? He was hearing voices in his head. Should have seen a psychiatrist:

"Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take [the thorn] away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”

Poor guy. He really had it bad. He even commanded the whole church to seek the gift of prophecy above all the other gifts!!! What a fool!

At best, if/when we all hear the voice of God as Israel did offering us this "rest" the message is that we best not rebel and along the way we best be diligent to enter into it and not sink into disobedience, which Heb3 parallels to unbelief. But we've already heard quite a bit about the rest in Heb3-4 and a rest is also discussed in Rev14. And the rest really ties back to the 7th day of creation, and the rest in the promised land for Israel that they did not get due to disobedience was illustrative. Hasn't God's voice via His Spirit in His Word already given us these truths? And aren't we to be living in Faith-Obedience until the "today" of the eternal state in Christ?

The Bible is the Word? Wrong. The bible is an inspired history book. Don't confuse it with the spoken divine Word (Isaiah 55:11; Psalm 33:6; John 1:14).

I'm not seeing your 'authoritative voice" mandated or confirmed as you are.

Sure if you ignore most of my posts, turn a blind eye to both testaments, and ramble aimlessly about your world-based theories of religion. For example you ignore the fact that Direct Revelation is the main topic of several passages of 1 Corinthians (about 90 verses in all), thereby making it one of the top themes of the entire NT.

I'm open to correction hopefully from someone who knows Hebrews much better than I. But this is what I see apart from really digging into it further. The main points here are Faith-Obedience until our Rest. This Faith-Obedience is discussed extensively in the NC as I'm sure you know.

Right. You'll never see what you don't want to see.