How does God speak?

solodeogloria · 04-03-2016 8:15am #1

Good morning all!

This morning I thought of a question I'd like to ask. Given the broad range of threads about both the place of the Bible and other visions of Mary. A key question I have is how does God speak today?

I'll nail my colours to the mast and say that I believe God primarily speaks to us through His Word in the Bible. I believe it is the timeless, inspired, infallible word of God and it alone contains everything we need for Christian practice and belief. It isn't an instruction book but an exhaustive account of God's relationship with mankind from creation looking forward to the great and wonderful day when Jesus returns.

I believe the teachings and the precepts of what God has spoken to us through the apostles and prophets goverms the church. I don't think any church can lord itself above what the Bible teaches.

If there's any questions about how that works I'd love to answer them.

Much thanks in Christ Jesus and His imperishable Word,
solodeogloria

Lavinia · 05-03-2016 12:20pm

I am not sure this would be the answer you would like to hear but I do believe that we - each one of us - has a personal contact with God, that is for me that what is the best in us.
So I am not of the opinion that we need any mediator in-between, as God may speak through everyone and everything in our lives, as well as the most intimately, through ourselves. To be able to hear that voice and recognize it in everything around us - well, that is another story...

Speedwell · 05-03-2016 1:15pm

Hi, Solo, as you know I'm an atheist, but I'm not planning to disrupt anything today.

When I was a Christian, I struggled with this question probably on a daily basis. Here's the story of my search for the answer.

At first I thought, as I was taught as a child, that God "spoke through prayer". With a child's literal and honest interpretation, I prayed as if I was making a phone call to an open line, and waited for God to answer me in some sort of understandable language. Later on, I prayed as if I was leaving a message on God's answering machine, expecting that God would speak intelligibly to me at some later time. Of course, we all know that if God had spoken to me in that way, as a voice that I heard or perceived as hearing, it would likely have been diagnosed as some sort of mental illness, because God evidently doesn't choose to speak that way to most people today. I gave up on expecting God to speak in actual language to my ears (or to my inner consciousness in words).

When I was a teenager, I believed, as you do, that the Bible was the source of God's speech to us; after all, it isn't called "God's Word" and "the gospel" for nothing. I tried to read my daily lesson with the expectation that it would speak to my particular needs at that particular time. I guess I was looking for some reason to believe that God was really communicating with me personally. After all, I was taught to believe that I was engaging in a personal relationship with God, and if I was relying on the written word of someone who was supposed to be my teacher and guide, I would hardly rely on their letters written to other people. I guess the effect of this was that it led me into a sort of "divination" relationship with the Bible, where I would do silly things like open the Bible at random and try to apply the verse I first saw to my own situation... not easy to do when the verse was something like, "And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes" (just for fun, I have a Bible and I pulled a real random verse in the same way I would have done at that time). I suppose I concluded that I should not restrict my expectation to the Bible.

Later in life, I thought that the way God spoke to me was in the voices of the people around me; that God's message lay in the way I interacted with other people as kindly and decently as I could. I'm sorry to say that I couldn't accept that God spoke to me in the voice of a physically and emotionally abusive ex-husband, or in the actions of the other people around me who took advantage of my trust in and generosity to them to cause great damage in my life. All of these people claimed to be Christians, as a matter of fact. I couldn't love or worship a God whose communication with me consisted of sending people to hurt me, or of leaving me to the wolves. I didn't become a better person for that; I became an anxious and angry and suspicious person for a long time. I concluded that God's voice did not lie in the way people treated or mistreated me.

After having escaped that bad period, I decided that God would either speak to me in a way I understood, or God should not expect me to understand. I did continue to pray and to try to listen. I did continue to read and wait for a communication.

I went with my mother to her Charismatic church in the Deep South. I was invited to be a soloist in the choir (music has always been one of the ways I felt close to God). During the service in which I sang, a gentleman rose from his chair and quite calmly began to speak in tongues. I did not, of course, understand him. After calling for an "interpreter" from the congregation and finding none forthcoming, the pastor chose to give the "interpretation" himself. It was an unremarkable and vague message, and it seemed as new to the gentleman who had spoken as it did to me or anyone else. I couldn't make head or tail out of the whole business, and I could only think that God was not going to "speak" through nonsense, any more than I could expect to make myself understood by "speaking" meaninglessly.

Some years later, I happened to go to a liberal Quaker meeting, where I found it very satisfying to sit in the filled and silent room, busy with stillness, and let the "Inner Light" communicate with me. It made sense that God would speak to me in my innermost being and that some aspect of being silent and expectant in harmony with others would create the right atmosphere for hearing and understanding. For the space of that hour, nothing bad was going to happen, peace could fall over the assembly, and each one could take seriously the promptings of their higher self without the world imperiously demanding their attention. They were good people, sincere and convinced of the working of the Inner Light in them, and I was glad to be accepted into their company each week.

In a few months I began to be aware of, and disappointed by, some problems in the community. Surely God could not be telling that woman that criminals should be drugged forcibly "for their own good and the good of society". Surely the Inner Light would not be instructing ten people that one thing was right, and another fifteen that something different was right, without giving some one or other of them a clue to the paradox. That bothered me, but not seriously. However, it became clear that people could hear the Inner Light distinctly or distortedly, or unconsciously or consciously mistake their own thoughts for the guidance they purported to speak in meeting. Some people who seemed very loving and kind said some of the most distressing and alarming things. How could I trust anyone's testimony? I could only conclude that the only Inner Light I could really trust was my own.

After some time of trying hard to listen to my "higher self", I discovered that I was struggling with unwanted thoughts. I started to have anxiety and panic attacks. When I was younger, I might have chalked this up to "demonic attacks", but I no longer believed that God would consent to allow Satan this cruel power over God's children in that literal way and yet ask believers to trust and love and "be of good cheer". When I looked to the Inner Light for answers, I was confirmed in my fears. Something was wrong. I went to a therapist, who taught me some of the normal, ordinary coping skills that I had forgotten or never learned. She also taught me how to evaluate my thoughts and combat the negativity. Surely if these thoughts were the guidance of God, I would not so easily be able to defeat them by thinking calmly and rationally. My Inner Light had to be the part that was doing the healing, not the part that was sowing fear and confusion. But it wasn't the Inner Light, it was patently me, working hard at it and not always succeeding.

I suppose that takes me up to the time when I became an atheist, which was not at all dramatic, and not really part of this discussion at all. Nearly every atheist is willing to admit that they don't know everything there is to know in the Universe, and if a very, very improbable God, different from any concept of God that has been postulated, were to communicate with human beings, it would be no communication at all if it wasn't understood as such by the people being communicated to. If that should ever happen to me, I promise I would admit it (how could I not?).

solodeogloria · 05-03-2016 1:20pm

Lavinia wrote: »

I am not sure this would be the answer you would like to hear but I do believe that we - each one of us - has a personal contact with God, that is for me that what is the best in us.
So I am not of the opinion that we need any mediator in-between, as God may speak through everyone and everything in our lives, as well as the most intimately, through ourselves. To be able to hear that voice and recognize it in everything around us - well, that is another story...

Good afternoon!

Thanks for your reply it's really helpful.

The reason why I ask is because I've never "heard" God speak other than those times when I've delved into the Scriptures and understood them with the help of the Holy Spirit.

I agree with you that we don't need a mediator, we can speak to the Father in prayer ourselves in Jesus' name. Jesus says this to His disciples before He goes to the cross in what's called the upper room discourse in John:

John 16:25-28 ESVUK wrote:

“I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father. In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf;for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

Jesus' death and resurrection clearly does bring us into a new relationship with the Father whereby we can pray to Him directly. The fact that we can call Him Father is because we're His children by adoption through Jesus Christ (John 1:12).

Paul is also clear that there is no mediator between God and man other than the Lord Jesus.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 ESVUK wrote:

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Not even Peter was regarded as a mediator between God and man. So I agree with you entirely.

But the question remains - how does God speak? You say in everything in our lives - can you give me an example as to how this works or could work? I believe that God can work in our lives but how can we tell what He has said or what He desires for us other than through the Scriptures?

I guess my main prooftext for my belief that God speaks in the Bible comes in Hebrews 1. I acknowledge though that my belief is dependent on the Bible being authoritative:

Hebrews 1:1-4 ESVUK wrote:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

Edit: Speedwell - thanks a lot for your post. I'll need more time to chew it over, but I want to hear and understand about your experience.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Lavinia · 05-03-2016 7:45pm

Hi, yes I understand what you mean. In a long period of my life I have been studied Bible and New Testament vigorously, and I did find so much wisdom in those words.
I read loads of other books on the topic but after a while I came to a point where I could no longer read. I craved to experience it through my own life, and I remember one afternoon I was walking along the bay in Glengarif wondering how is it possible that God hear and understands each one of us all the time constantly.
Prior to that moment I had always experienced God as separated from all of us and somewhere in some for us vague reality where it is hard for us to reach him..

But, there came a thought, and I realised then, it has to be that God is right here, right where I am, speaks my language, any language I speak?, and it is exactly so for every single man or creature or anything in this world. So either God "inhabits" us, or we are him. I do not know how to explain. This thought seemed very surprising to me and hard to believe, even heretic, but after many years again, I have to say I believe that it has to be true.

And so- if that is the truth, and Jesus also said ~ "I told you - you are Gods", then well, I believe that what religious people call "God" has to be our own higher state of consciousness. or consciousness or life in anything and everything.

Even science say we are using only few percentages of our brains potential. So it seems to me that - to experience our own godliness we have to work on it, to become more receptive, more vulnerable, more open, more sensitive, to clean and clear ourselves from impurities, from bad thoughts, deeds, etc, in order to be able to experience more and more of what and how God is. To "be like the Father in Heaven" or like children again..

So how God speaks to me? Through my thoughts, through pain, through joy. I yearn to seek him and find him or see him in everything. If the experience is painful I ask myself, what does God want to tell me with this, and then I try to listen. Also through positive, through satisfaction in beauty, in sunrise, in sunset, in nature, through peacefulness in heart. If I am in that state I fell close to "God", or that side of my nature.

It also speaks through anything else, books, through people, through my experiences, I know that I am in the beginning of this road even I am traveling it for over 2 decades now, but I always feel as it is just the beginning..

I am not sure this is one of the answers on what you asked, but that is my story..

I also watched e.g. Jesus of Nazareth so many times, it is such a powerful movie. But even some other movies such as Sirano de Bergerac, I know it may sound funny, but that movie also speaks to me about spirit. Isn't it written that the Holly Spirit is the one that will stay with us until the end of the world..

martinedwards · 06-03-2016 9:27am

God speaks in a load of ways if we would only shut up and listen!

I've never had a hand appear and write on the wall, or heard a big booming voice.

but I've felt guided as I read the bible and pray.

I've felt a sudden connection with a preacher's message.

I've felt a sudden shove to do something.

for instance, I have made a load of guitars.

90 or so, from scratch.

I took one to a festival that I was on the staff of.

I THOUGHT that i would be because one of the 2000 young folks doing Streetreach would have a disaster and smash a guitar, so I took it with me in the car when I went into Belfast.

I got breakfast there and told a few of the leaders I had this guitar if they heard of any horror stories.

Then I went across to the "overflow" hall to sit & noodle to pass the time.

There was tables & chairs set out for about 200 so that when the main hall was full folks could bring their coffee & toast over.......

anyway when I got there there were 4 people in the hall.

I went off into a far corner out of the way and started messing around, mainly with a 12 bar in E...... SRVs Mary had a little lamb with my own poor variations.

Not grandstanding in any way y'understand, noodlin with my Ausie Bush hat down over my eyes so I couldn't even see if anyone was paying attention.

So after about 20 minutes I heard a voice and looked up. A teenaged girl with a silly woolly hat on and an unusual accent that I couldn't place asked if she could listen to me play.

"you obvioulsy need psychiatric help, but feel free" I said, and she sat cross legged like a wee pixie to listen. I played a little more & then offered her the guitar. She played a little finger picky thing and said how she wasn't used to steel strings as she had a classical....

Then she asked if I minded if she played one of her own compositions.

WOW!!!!

she had a voice like a young Joni Mitchel.

I told her (truthfully) that I'd only ever heard one "unsigned" voice as good in my LIFE and that the owner of THAT voice had got a 1st class honours degree in music using her voice as her instrument and had gone on to be a session singer and was currently working on her 2nd album.

she was so chuffed by that, and really modest with it..........

she handed me the guitar back and .... It was a God thing y'know?

"you don't have a steel string?" I said

"No, I can't afford one" she said......

I put it in the case and pushed it over to her and said "Its yours".

Her name is Sasha, she was 18, grew up in South Africa but now lives in Dublin and works in TV

I've seen videos online of her playing "Ariadne" as she called it and she is superb.

it feels great to do good stuff for folks and that really felt like a push from God.

solodeogloria · 06-03-2016 9:41am

martinedwards wrote: »

God speaks in a load of ways if we would only shut up and listen!

I've never had a hand appear and write on the wall, or heard a big booming voice.

but I've felt guided as I read the bible and pray.

I've felt a sudden connection with a preacher's message.

I've felt a sudden shove to do something.

for instance, I have made a load of guitars.

90 or so, from scratch.

I took one to a festival that I was on the staff of.

I THOUGHT that i would be because one of the 2000 young folks doing Streetreach would have a disaster and smash a guitar, so I took it with me in the car when I went into Belfast.

I got breakfast there and told a few of the leaders I had this guitar if they heard of any horror stories.

Then I went across to the "overflow" hall to sit & noodle to pass the time.

There was tables & chairs set out for about 200 so that when the main hall was full folks could bring their coffee & toast over.......

anyway when I got there there were 4 people in the hall.

I went off into a far corner out of the way and started messing around, mainly with a 12 bar in E...... SRVs Mary had a little lamb with my own poor variations.

Not grandstanding in any way y'understand, noodlin with my Ausie Bush hat down over my eyes so I couldn't even see if anyone was paying attention.

So after about 20 minutes I heard a voice and looked up. A teenaged girl with a silly woolly hat on and an unusual accent that I couldn't place asked if she could listen to me play.

"you obvioulsy need psychiatric help, but feel free" I said, and she sat cross legged like a wee pixie to listen. I played a little more & then offered her the guitar. She played a little finger picky thing and said how she wasn't used to steel strings as she had a classical....

Then she asked if I minded if she played one of her own compositions.

WOW!!!!

she had a voice like a young Joni Mitchel.

I told her (truthfully) that I'd only ever heard one "unsigned" voice as good in my LIFE and that the owner of THAT voice had got a 1st class honours degree in music using her voice as her instrument and had gone on to be a session singer and was currently working on her 2nd album.

she was so chuffed by that, and really modest with it..........

she handed me the guitar back and .... It was a God thing y'know?

"you don't have a steel string?" I said

"No, I can't afford one" she said......

I put it in the case and pushed it over to her and said "Its yours".

Her name is Sasha, she was 18, grew up in South Africa but now lives in Dublin and works in TV

I've seen videos online of her playing "Ariadne" as she called it and she is superb.

it feels great to do good stuff for folks and that really felt like a push from God.

Good morning!

Thanks for this post it's very helpful.

As the years go on I've learned that feelings are very unreliable. I feel all kinds of things in a given day. I can feel enthused about something. I can feel desperately sad about something. I can feel angry about something. I can feel motivated to do something. The question is, if God can pull my feelings around the place how do I know what is from God and what isn't?

And I agree that things that happen can only happen if God permits them to happen. That of course raises all kinds of questions. Why does God allow rotten things to happen to good people. But people do all kinds of things, and people say all kinds of things. If God can speak through people (and I believe He can in so far as they can convey God's truth to us) how do we determine when God speaks through someone and when He doesn't? In Speedwell's account, this can be extremely dangerous. What if someone has an abusive husband and they believe God is speaking through them? (Speedwell - thanks for sharing, that piece in particular broke my heart just reading it!!)

If God speaks in my thoughts how do I know when my thoughts are from Him or when they are from the devil? How do I know when a vision is from God or when it isn't? How do I know when my preacher isn't teaching a false gospel?

The only sure answer for me comes to the Bible. We only get a clear picture of what God is like through His Son as the Hebrews passage above seems to suggest.

That doesn't mean I need to rubbish anything that is said above, there's truth in it all. However, when push comes to shove the only certain word we have from God is revealed through the prophets and ultimately in God's Son.

I know that's controversial, so come back at me.

Much thanks in our Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Lavinia · 06-03-2016 11:17am

solodeogloria wrote: »

If God speaks in my thoughts how do I know when my thoughts are from Him or when they are from the devil? How do I know when a vision is from God or when it isn't? How do I know when my preacher isn't teaching a false gospel?

in my experience everything is in all of us. God and "devil" are part of our human nature. it is up to us (as we have free will) to chose the level on which we will live. I am sure every single one of us had our "devil" moments or you can call it "sin" if you like. Oor call it anger, jealousy, hate, possessiveness, and so on...
We need to learn to distinguish right from wrong through ourselves, through trial and error, through choosing better next time, becoming wiser next time.
In everyone of us there is a knowledge if something we are doing is wrong, A subtle voice or feeling or thought comes to tell us what we are doing.
It is a choice if we will listen to it or not.
And we know what happened when we did not listen. When we thought "we" know better or "it is just this time" or whatever reason for exception we may tell us.
But the way of god is quite clear. It is we who need to become receptive. And it is a path. And no book can tell you really. It can inspire you yes. It can help. But it comes down to us.

looksee · 06-03-2016 11:56am

martinedwards wrote: »

God speaks in a load of ways if we would only shut up and listen! ...
I've felt a sudden shove to do something....
it feels great to do good stuff for folks and that really felt like a push from God.

I read your post with interest and would like to ask - are you able to explain why you felt it was a push from God? You said yourself 'it feels good to do good stuff for folks' so why not accept that it was a spur of the moment spasm of altruism or generosity? People do not have to believe in God to do good things, and some believers who do good things might not even think to ascribe them to God, just assuming that it is something that has to be done or they want to do.

A sincere believer might, in the case you describe, not feel the urge to give away a guitar. Nothing wrong with that at all, but why would God not give every believer a push to do good? And what inspires non-believers to do good - though I suspect you answered that with 'it feels good to do good for folks'.

j80ezgvc3p92xu · 08-03-2016 11:39pm

God speaks to us in lots of ways. His definitive Word is His Son Jesus. Look at Jesus' life to see what was said - I love you, you are precious to me, I have prepared things which ear has not heard and eye has not seen for you...

As a Catholic, I believe that God continues to speak to me through the pronouncements of His Church which has apostolic succession going back to the Apostles - "He who hears you, hears me..". The dogmas of the Church are infallible statements from God Himself and I am extremely blessed to be privy to those truths.

If you have the necessary humility and are capable of practicing holy obedience, then spiritual direction is a good way to allow God to speak to you. Masters of spiritual life often trusted the voice of their director over and above any perceived Divine revelations. St Faustina also wrote that spiritual directors receive special graces from God in directing a soul and I have even read saints who argue that God would not allow a director to err. Finding a good spiritual director is definitively a great grace.

solodeogloria · 10-03-2016 10:36am

Olivia Shallow Sander wrote: »

God speaks to us in lots of ways. His definitive Word is His Son Jesus. Look at Jesus' life to see what was said - I love you, you are precious to me, I have prepared things which ear has not heard and eye has not seen for you...

As a Catholic, I believe that God continues to speak to me through the pronouncements of His Church which has apostolic succession going back to the Apostles - "He who hears you, hears me..". The dogmas of the Church are infallible statements from God Himself and I am extremely blessed to be privy to those truths.

If you have the necessary humility and are capable of practicing holy obedience, then spiritual direction is a good way to allow God to speak to you. Masters of spiritual life often trusted the voice of their director over and above any perceived Divine revelations. St Faustina also wrote that spiritual directors receive special graces from God in directing a soul and I have even read saints who argue that God would not allow a director to err. Finding a good spiritual director is definitively a great grace.

Good morning all!

I agree with the first paragraph.

However in respect to the second? Why do you believe that every pronouncement of a particular church is infallible? Or is this referring to Papal Infallibility? If so how does that actually work? Is the Pope considered an apostle or merely a mediator? If he is a mediator who does he meditate between?

And for the third paragraph - what is a spiritual director and how can this person be infallible? Why is St Faustina a trustworthy source?

To pin my colours to the mast I am a sola scriptura, sola fide type of guy but I long to learn about these things.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Lavinia · 10-03-2016 11:15am

solodeogloria wrote: »

To pin my colours to the mast I am a sola scriptura, sola fide type of guy but I long to learn about these things.

I am not sure why but I thought you are a female, pardon me please.
</offtopic>

Speedwell · 10-03-2016 11:52am

Lavinia wrote: »

<offtopic>

I am not sure why but I thought you are a female, pardon me please.
</offtopic>

Blame Latin noun genders

I'm a poor worn-out old student and my Latin was in high school, but I would have translated "to God alone be the glory" as "soli Deo gloria". It looks more masculine in Esperanto, "al Dio sola estu la gloro". Heh.

antiskeptic · 11-03-2016 1:11pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

If God speaks in my thoughts how do I know when my thoughts are from Him or when they are from the devil? How do I know when a vision is from God or when it isn't? How do I know when my preacher isn't teaching a false gospel?

How do you know your interpretation of the bible isn't as false as that of a preacher (if his false)? It seems to me that you are always reliant on God for guidance and that the only steer you can have is from him. Your model of God is your model an you cannot escape that being subject to error due to laying your model over the reality of what and who he is.

No big deal since I don't think his aim is our getting it 100% bang on. Then again, that notion is my model of God

If you think the Spirit guides in your reading the Bible then why wouldn't you suppose the voice of God delivered by other medium couldn't have similar authority of conviction.

God doesn't speak to me in thought all that often but when he does I recognise it him, rather than me. My chief detector is that he speaks in few words - and can pack as much truth (bread) into a couple of words at the appropriate time as our needs require. The usual characteristics of his moving so are class, timing, loving direction, assurance and all the other things of God. If it's of satan it will smell of satan.

Speedwell · 11-03-2016 1:27pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do you know your interpretation of the bible isn't as false as that of a preacher (if his false)? It seems to me that you are always reliant on God for guidance and that the only steer you can have is from him. Your model of God is your model an you cannot escape that being subject to error due to laying your model over the reality of what and who he is.

No big deal since I don't think his aim is our getting it 100% bang on. Then again, that notion is my model of God

If you think the Spirit guides in your reading the Bible then why wouldn't you suppose the voice of God delivered by other medium couldn't have similar authority of conviction.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you need an objective standard, all that Christians really agree on as being one (to the extent they agree) is the Bible. How could you know it's the voice of God delivered by another medium unless you had an objective standard to compare it to? Otherwise you are resorting to "oh, I can just tell".

God doesn't speak to me in thought all that often but when he does I recognise it him, rather than me. My chief detector is that he speaks in few words - and can pack as much truth (bread) into a couple of words at the appropriate time as our needs require. The usual characteristics of his moving so are class, timing, loving direction, assurance and all the other things of God. If it's of satan it will smell of satan.

I see. OK, you really are arguing "I know it when I see it." Other posters are making really good-faith stabs at explaining how they know it when they see it.

solodeogloria · 11-03-2016 6:14pm

Good evening all!

Hi antiskeptic,

I'm not suggesting that my thinking doesn't have influences. It certainly does. My thinking is conservative evangelical in nature. I believe that God speaks primarily through His Word. I've been influenced by the Biblical theology movement and expository preaching Although I don't agree with every aspect of conservative evangelical thinking, I do agree that God speaks most clearly in the Bible. I guess some tangible influences would be the Christian Union movement at universities, John Stott, The Gospel Coalition, aspects of Sydney Anglicanism and John Piper amongst others. I'd be lying to say my faith was formed in a vacuum.

I don't rule out charismatic views on the Holy Spirit whereas other conservative evangelicals might. I admire some charismatics such as Andrew Wilson who blogs on thinktheology.org.uk. He understands that the Bible is the yardstick and that the Holy Spirit isn't a schizophrenic being. The Bible clearly defines the work of the Spirit in John, Romans and Acts amongst other places. He reaffirms the Scriptures which He also breathed. The question of other authorities or churches saying they rule the Bible or chain God's word by tradition or experience must be refuted though because God's word can't be chained! (2 Timothy 2:9)

In respect to your questions on interpreting the Bible. I think most of the Bible is fairly clear. Other passages can be understood with hard work in the passage and in the Biblical context. Some issues may result in disagreement but in my experience mostly these are in respect to secondary issues.

Let me know what you think!

Much thanks in the Lord,
solodeogloria

j80ezgvc3p92xu · 16-03-2016 10:22pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

I agree with the first paragraph.

However in respect to the second? Why do you believe that every pronouncement of a particular church is infallible? Or is this referring to Papal Infallibility? If so how does that actually work? Is the Pope considered an apostle or merely a mediator? If he is a mediator who does he meditate between?

And for the third paragraph - what is a spiritual director and how can this person be infallible? Why is St Faustina a trustworthy source?

To pin my colours to the mast I am a sola scriptura, sola fide type of guy but I long to learn about these things.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Hi SoloDeoGloria

Catholics believe that all dogmas of the faith are infallibly true. We also believe that God would not allow the Pope to err on matters of faith and morals when declaring that He is making an infallible pronouncement. Hence, these are pronouncements from God Himself. This goes back to the idea of Apostolic Tradition supplementing sacred Scripture -

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (2 Thess. 2:15),

He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me. (Luke 10:16)

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the Traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The Bible can be quite complex at times and its interpretation should not be made lightly. One could end up like the Westboro Baptists or think up doctrines like Calvinist Predestination. Tradition reigns all that in.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He represents Christ, the Head of the Church. The teachings on the Papacy are actually quite complex but well worth the read (: .

A spiritual director is a regular confessor. The idea is to expose your soul to him, so that he can best advise you on spiritual growth. It is a relationship which requires humility and its sister, obedience. Penitents trust God will advise them through the mouth of their confessor. St Faustina was a saint who held conversations with Christ and saw various visions. I would regard very highly anything she has to say.

Keep firing the questions and looking for the truth.:)

solodeogloria · 17-03-2016 8:15am

Good morning all!

Thanks for this post Olivia Shallow Sander it's helpful.

Olivia Shallow Sander wrote: »

Hi SoloDeoGloria

Catholics believe that all dogmas of the faith are infallibly true. We also believe that God would not allow the Pope to err on matters of faith and morals when declaring that He is making an infallible pronouncement. Hence, these are pronouncements from God Himself. This goes back to the idea of Apostolic Tradition supplementing sacred Scripture -

Is the Pope an Apostle? What is dogma? Is that also given by the Pope?

I agree with holding to apostolic tradition but the only reliable source of it is the Apostolic letters of the New Testament. It doesn't give license for subsequent ministers to undermine, water down or supplement to God's word in the Bible in my view. That's probably why I'm an evangelical.

Olivia Shallow Sander wrote: »

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (2 Thess. 2:15),

He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me. (Luke 10:16)

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the Traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The logical question is what were these traditions? Are they referring to communion and baptism and meeting on the Lord's day? All these are Scriptural. Or is it referring to something else.

Personally I don't mind liturgical traditions but they can never be put on par with the Bible. Jesus is quite clear about that in Matthew 15 for example.

Olivia Shallow Sander wrote: »

The Bible can be quite complex at times and its interpretation should not be made lightly. One could end up like the Westboro Baptists or think up doctrines like Calvinist Predestination. Tradition reigns all that in.

Predestination isn't Calvinist it's Biblical. You can find it in many places. Throughout John's gospel, Romans 8 and Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. I presume you know that Augustine's later works clearly present predestination. I actually studied his earlier work 'De Libero Arbitrio' (On the Freedom of the Will) but his view sharpened later towards God's sovereignty in predestination. Predestination actually is a Roman Catholic teaching surely if Augustine advocated it?

Olivia Shallow Sander wrote: »

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He represents Christ, the Head of the Church. The teachings on the Papacy are actually quite complex but well worth the read (: .

If the Bible contains everything that is sufficient for my salvation why would I need to read what the Pope writes? I might do out of interest but why would I need to? What would it add?

On the Papacy I think my conviction is that the Pope is the Roman Catholic Bishop of Rome and nothing more. What does 'Vicar of Christ' actually mean? You mentioned in a previous post that the Pope is an intermediary? Who does the Pope mediate between and why is that mediation necessary?

Olivia Shallow Sander wrote: »

A spiritual director is a regular confessor. The idea is to expose your soul to him, so that he can best advise you on spiritual growth. It is a relationship which requires humility and its sister, obedience. Penitents trust God will advise them through the mouth of their confessor. St Faustina was a saint who held conversations with Christ and saw various visions. I would regard very highly anything she has to say.

Keep firing the questions and looking for the truth.:)

I presume that by confession you mean attending confession with a priest? Why is that required? Can't I confess and repent to Christ? After all He atones and He saves and we'll all stand at His judgement seat on the last day?

Paul's advice in Colossians for those seeking to grow spiritually is to keep going as they started in Christ? Isn't that enough without mystics and directors?

Sorry for the million questions but I need to understand these things. I grew up Anglican in Ireland. I hope and pray that the Lord Jesus will use this conversation to build us up in the truth that only Christ gives.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic · 17-03-2016 4:44pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that my thinking doesn't have influences .. I believe that God speaks primarily through His Word... I'd be lying to say my faith was formed in a vacuum.

Which more or less undergirds one point being made: that you conclude as you do based on own assessment of the evidence considered by you. There is no one else on which to lay that pinnacle responsibility for the model you operate by. It is, ultimately, your own (and whatever influence you suppose God to have exerted in causing you to conclude as you do)

Remember from whence we came:

solo wrote:

If God speaks in my thoughts how do I know when my thoughts are from Him or when they are from the devil? How do I know when a vision is from God or when it isn't? How do I know when my preacher isn't teaching a false gospel?

How you figure God speaking through his word is something arrived at, as I say, ultimately by you.

If you can conclude it God speaking through the Bible (and not the devils spin) then you can conclude it God speaking through mind (and not the devil). Both conclusions are achieved the same way: by application of a personally arrived at model of how God operates and how you evaluate whether God or not.

The question of other authorities or churches saying they rule the Bible or chain God's word by tradition or experience must be refuted though because God's word can't be chained! (2 Timothy 2:9)

Earliest bird catches the worm. If you start supposing you have authority over the Bible then you can set the place of 2 Tim as it suits you. I don't disagree with you, I'm merely stating what the 'other side' would say.

I think most of the Bible is fairly clear. Other passages can be understood with hard work in the passage and in the Biblical context. Some issues may result in disagreement but in my experience mostly these are in respect to secondary issues.

I think the existence of so many, quite differing, denominations and sub-denominations testifies against what you say. Have you ever visited CARM forum? The ability to dissect to the nth degree - to the point where your brain turns to mush trying to hold the various strands together.

Are you fluent in NT era Greek? For instance.

I don't think it's clear at all. At least, it's treasures are often not only well buried, but have shades of subtlety and ability to surprise that is infinite in extent. Not surprising, given who wrote it.

antiskeptic · 17-03-2016 4:54pm

Speedwell wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you need an objective standard

There is no such thing as an objective standard. At least, all there is is your own best evaluation of the evidence (Bible, commentary, view of others, own experience)

There is little point in needing something you can't actually ascertain the existence of

all that Christians really agree on as being one (to the extent they agree) is the Bible.

That's a pretty broad highway along which a lot of different views can travel

How could you know it's the voice of God delivered by another medium unless you had an objective standard to compare it to? Otherwise you are resorting to "oh, I can just tell".

What objective standard is there that what I interpret from the word of God is what God meant me to take from it. There isn't one. There are just means of satisfying yourself that it is his word (whether those intellectual, emotional, spiritual etc). If you can evaluate the Bible then you can evaluate that which you figure to be God speaking outside the Bible

It's not as if the Bible isn't littered with God speaking outside the Bible (which for most of human existence either didn't exist or wasn't available to people.

Surely the person who supposes the Bible the only expression of God to man stand on the back foot in making that claim. It is their's to prove

I see. OK, you really are arguing "I know it when I see it." Other posters are making really good-faith stabs at explaining how they know it when they see it.

How does a person come to suppose the Bible the word of God in the first place (I am referring to those who consider themselves to have been born again). They know it because they know it - there is no other way to know it. I'm not citing my knowing it because I know it as reason for anyone else to believe me, I am simply indicating that which is good enough for me - whilst giving something of what my knowing because I know involves.

EirWatcher · 17-03-2016 8:02pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Is the Pope an Apostle? I agree with holding to apostolic tradition but the only reliable source of it is the Apostolic letters of the New Testament.
...
On the Papacy I think my conviction is that the Pope is the Roman Catholic Bishop of Rome and nothing more.

Christ established an Apostolic Church with Peter as founder.

"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" Mt. 16:18
"Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”" Jn. 21:15

The Pope is the contemporary successor to Peter.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I presume that by confession you mean attending confession with a priest? Why is that required? Can't I confess and repent to Christ?

The basis for sacramental Confession is here:

"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." Jn. 20

Jesus empowered his apostles to forgive people's sins and sent them out to do so. Also significant in this passage is that he bequeathed the Holy Spirit to guide the apostolic Church. Remember for centuries of the early Church there was no printed Bible. There was only the Word spread by the preaching of the apostles, and their successors, as shared at times such as the breaking of the bread Jesus asked them to do. So liturgy, ritual, and apostolic tradition were vital aspects of the Church before there even was scripture.

solodeogloria · 19-03-2016 8:41am

Good morning all!

Hi EirWatcher,

EirWatcher wrote: »

Christ established an Apostolic Church with Peter as founder.

"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" Mt. 16:18
"Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”" Jn. 21:15

The Pope is the contemporary successor to Peter.

I don't disagree with you that Peter was chief Apostle. I don't disagree with the claim that the church was founded by Christ and the Apostles.

However I don't believe the office of Pope was set up by Jesus. Nor do I believe Peter to have been infallible. see Galatians chapter 2 to see how Paul rebuked Peter.

I also am not sure that I believe that Peter was Pope in Rome. His ministry was to Jewish Christians. The last we see of him in the New Testament is with the Jewish Christians in Cappadocia. Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles and Paul went to Rome.

EirWatcher wrote: »

The basis for sacramental Confession is here:

"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." Jn. 20

Jesus empowered his apostles to forgive people's sins and sent them out to do so. Also significant in this passage is that he bequeathed the Holy Spirit to guide the apostolic Church. Remember for centuries of the early Church there was no printed Bible. There was only the Word spread by the preaching of the apostles, and their successors, as shared at times such as the breaking of the bread Jesus asked them to do. So liturgy, ritual, and apostolic tradition were vital aspects of the Church before there even was scripture.

This isn't what I asked. I believe that if people choose to confess to a priest that is well and good. However it is not the only way or even the required way to confess sins. I would need to look at the full context of the passage in John 20 before I could give a definitive interpretation of it.

I agree with you on communion and baptism because we can see these things in the Bible. I have no issue with tradition provided it doesn't add anything to the Bible but rather draws us to the Biblical truth we already have.

We also need to be careful. The Apostles had a special function in a way that we don't have today. Just because Apostles had the authority to do something doesn't mean that it applies to all today.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria · 19-03-2016 8:57am

Good morning all!

Hi antiskeptic,

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which more or less undergirds one point being made: that you conclude as you do based on own assessment of the evidence considered by you. There is no one else on which to lay that pinnacle responsibility for the model you operate by. It is, ultimately, your own (and whatever influence you suppose God to have exerted in causing you to conclude as you do)

Not solely. I read God's word and hear Jesus' voice in it and come to it. As a result of reading something I think about what it means and hold to it. I agree that any interpreter of Scripture has a responsibility to take it seriously and to read it rightly. I do believe that the Spirit helps us to understand the words that He Himself breathed.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How you figure God speaking through his word is something arrived at, as I say, ultimately by you.

If you can conclude it God speaking through the Bible (and not the devils spin) then you can conclude it God speaking through mind (and not the devil). Both conclusions are achieved the same way: by application of a personally arrived at model of how God operates and how you evaluate whether God or not.

Let's divide it into two.

Firstly I agree with you that there is a Biblical framework for saying that Jesus' sheep hear His voice. In a second sense though I would check what was preached against what the text says and if I didn't believe that the preaching was faithful to the text I'd talk it through politely with my pastor who presumably in preparing the sermon would have thought through the passage in more depth than I will have done.

When it comes to the Bible I agree with you in the first sense. I read the Bible and heard God's voice and came to Him. Others read the same word and are drawn away. God's word can lead to salvation for one and judgement for another and His hand is at work in both. Look to John 9 for example.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Earliest bird catches the worm. If you start supposing you have authority over the Bible then you can set the place of 2 Tim as it suits you. I don't disagree with you, I'm merely stating what the 'other side' would say.

When you come to presume authority over the Bible you render it meaningless because anything you say trumps it. Even humans do this sinfully. Whenever I do what is wrong and sin it is because I suppress God's truth in His Word in unrighteousness and think I know better when I really don't at all.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think the existence of so many, quite differing, denominations and sub-denominations testifies against what you say. Have you ever visited CARM forum? The ability to dissect to the nth degree - to the point where your brain turns to mush trying to hold the various strands together.

I'm not under the illusion that all these denominations have significant differences. If they did I'm not convinced that all of them are founded on a sincere or honest reading of the Bible.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you fluent in NT era Greek? For instance.

No, but who said I need to be? Do you think the core doctrines of the Christian faith have been lost in translation? I'm not one of these you need to understand the original language to understand the Bible people. Why? Because it's rubbish. God can speak in any language. His word isn't chained and to suggest such would be to undo the work of the Reformation. Can knowing Koine Greek help? I'm sure it could but God can still speak to us all in English just fine.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't think it's clear at all. At least, it's treasures are often not only well buried, but have shades of subtlety and ability to surprise that is infinite in extent. Not surprising, given who wrote it.

I think the core Christian doctrine of grace is very clear. I agree that there are nuances that will take a lifetime to understand but the core is clear.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

EirWatcher · 20-03-2016 8:07am

solodeogloria wrote: »

Hi EirWatcher

Hello.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't disagree with you that Peter was chief Apostle. I don't disagree with the claim that the church was founded by Christ and the Apostles.
However I don't believe the office of Pope was set up by Jesus.

Of course not: Jesus used neither of those words, and you discount the history of apostolic tradition.

(Pope is a post-Biblical word of Latin derivation, adopted to refer to the Bishop of Rome. The first Bishops of Rome, according to Tertullian were appointed by Peter himself, to ensure sound and faithful continuation of the message of Jesus as Peter and the apostles had received and understood it - especially in response to the emerging practices and heresies they did not feel true to Christ's teachings, such as Gnosticism. The first "Pope", as we call him, was assigned by Peter before even the final book of the New Testament had been written).

solodeogloria wrote: »

Nor do I believe Peter to have been infallible.

True enough, although I don't see why you bring infallibility into it.
No one (especially not Jesus) claimed Peter was.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I also am not sure that I believe that Peter was Pope in Rome. His ministry was to Jewish Christians. The last we see of him in the New Testament is with the Jewish Christians in Cappadocia. Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles and Paul went to Rome.

Sola scriptura again. The only historic context you seem to want to accept is contained within, and ends with, the pages of the Bible. If scripture is of exclusive importance, then there's little point in me adverting to anything outside it (such as Peter and Paul's martyrdom in Rome).

As a matter of interest, can I ask what is your interpretation of John 21:19?
"And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me."

solodeogloria wrote: »

This isn't what I asked. I believe that if people choose to confess to a priest that is well and good. However it is not the only way or even the required way to confess sins. I would need to look at the full context of the passage in John 20 before I could give a definitive interpretation of it.

Let us know what you find.

solodeogloria wrote: »

We also need to be careful. The Apostles had a special function in a way that we don't have today.

Catholic theology agrees - Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, so the apostles did indeed have a very special function - they were instrumental in continuing God's Revelation.
Hence the emphasis in the early Church on ensuring continuation of apostolic tradition also.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Just because Apostles had the authority to do something doesn't mean that it applies to all today.

Anglican doctrine, or personal scriptural interpretation?

antiskeptic · 20-03-2016 11:26am

solodeogloria wrote: »

Not solely. I read God's word and hear Jesus' voice in it and come to it. As a result of reading something I think about what it means and hold to it. I agree that any interpreter of Scripture has a responsibility to take it seriously and to read it rightly. I do believe that the Spirit helps us to understand the words that He Himself breathed.

You say 'not solely'? What part of what you do differs from what I said you do? That is, your input and what you reckon to be the Spirits input.

Let's divide it into two.

Firstly I agree with you that there is a Biblical framework for saying that Jesus' sheep hear His voice. In a second sense though I would check what was preached against what the text says and if I didn't believe that the preaching was faithful to the text I'd talk it through politely with my pastor who presumably in preparing the sermon would have thought through the passage in more depth than I will have done.

Part 1. You concluding (via the mechanism outlined in the point above) the Biblical framework being authentically from God.

Part 2. You concluding (via the mechanism outlined in the point above), the Bible an authority and your interpretations of it (via the mechanism outlined in the point above) being the correct one, such as to conclude the preacher out of line.

You haven't addressed the point: your concluding yourself discerning the word of God correctly in the Bible (which relies on you concluding the Bible authoritive, and you concluding the Spirit being the one directing your interpretation). But at the same time denying that same mechanism to someone who concludes the same Spirit communicating to mind/spirit, outside the Bible.

There is nothing different in mechanism, to wit: personal satisfaction that the path being navigated is a true (enough) one.

When it comes to the Bible I agree with you in the first sense. I read the Bible and heard God's voice and came to Him. Others read the same word and are drawn away. God's word can lead to salvation for one and judgement for another and His hand is at work in both. Look to John 9 for example.

To suppose your interpretation the only true one, would be an arrogance. I can, for example, be drawn to God but hold a different view to you. Again, I would point to the multitude of differing Christian positions held in relation to that same word. Is every view bar yours the wrong one?

When you come to presume authority over the Bible you render it meaningless because anything you say trumps it. Even humans do this sinfully. Whenever I do what is wrong and sin it is because I suppress God's truth in His Word in unrighteousness and think I know better when I really don't at all.

I'm not so much looking at your specific beliefs but am looking at how you arrive at concluding them the correct one. Remember: in concluding your interpretation a correct one, you are assuming an authority over the word: you suppose the Spirit/your intellect guiding you correctly and others (who arrive at an alternative view) not.

I'm not under the illusion that all these denominations have significant differences. If they did I'm not convinced that all of them are founded on a sincere or honest reading of the Bible.

Not significant? Calvinism vs. Arminianism involves substantial difference. To hold your own particular assembly of theological cards the winning hand is .. well.. very problematic.

No, but who said I need to be? Do you think the core doctrines of the Christian faith have been lost in translation?

It's not what I think that matters, it's how you yourself conclude they haven't been either lost or altered. And let's move away from what's core since to suppose anything God says's anything less than vital is to make unstable presumptions.

I'm not one of these you need to understand the original language to understand the Bible people. Why? Because it's rubbish. God can speak in any language. His word isn't chained and to suggest such would be to undo the work of the Reformation. Can knowing Koine Greek help? I'm sure it could but God can still speak to us all in English just fine.

I don't think it's necessary for there to be perfect translation because I suppose a) the Spirit active b) the issue not being about whether I have perfect theology or not c) God's word being infinite in depth: I'd have trouble enough mining the depths of an imperfect translation to worry about obtaining perfect translations. d) there isn't a perfect translation and God see's fit for that to be the case.

There would be something amiss in supposing it non-beneficial to have more insight that would be provided by an understanding of the languages the Bible written in. Do you think you'd get more out of an English translation than someone, who can only speak English brokenly, would get?

I think the core Christian doctrine of grace is very clear. I agree that there are nuances that will take a lifetime to understand but the core is clear.

The core Christian doctrine of grace is immediately unpacked by people in different ways. Grace is almost a roundabout with infinite roads leading from it. To describe each of those roads as nuance is to describe your own particular road, a nuance.

-

I'm keen to focus on the issue:

1) Your whole theology about how God communicates with you rests on you alone (i.e. your intellect and your assessment/evaluation of what you think the Spirit is saying to you). So should it be, given that it is before him you shall stand to give an account of yourself.

2) How it is that that theology differs not one jot from the basis by which my theology holds God speaking to me other than through his word.

solodeogloria · 20-03-2016 12:30pm

Good afternoon!

EirWatcher wrote: »

(Pope is a post-Biblical word of Latin derivation, adopted to refer to the Bishop of Rome. The first Bishops of Rome, according to Tertullian were appointed by Peter himself, to ensure sound and faithful continuation of the message of Jesus as Peter and the apostles had received and understood it - especially in response to the emerging practices and heresies they did not feel true to Christ's teachings, such as Gnosticism. The first "Pope", as we call him, was assigned by Peter before even the final book of the New Testament had been written).

Do we have any historical texts from the first century to confirm that as being true?

EirWatcher wrote: »

True enough, although I don't see why you bring infallibility into it.
No one (especially not Jesus) claimed Peter was.

If Peter is the Pope and the Pope is infallible, isn't this worth pointing out? Or did Papal Infallibility only come into the equation after a certain date?

EirWatcher wrote: »

Sola scriptura again. The only historic context you seem to want to accept is contained within, and ends with, the pages of the Bible. If scripture is of exclusive importance, then there's little point in me adverting to anything outside it (such as Peter and Paul's martyrdom in Rome).

We know that Paul was headed to Rome from the New Testament. However figuring out how Peter got there requires more work because we're told his ministry was to the Jews. I hold to sola scriptura position because the New Testament is the only certain account from the Apostles we have from the first century. I don't apologise for holding to sola scriptura. It's one of the best assurances that we can have that all that is necessary for salvation is in the Bible.

EirWatcher wrote: »

As a matter of interest, can I ask what is your interpretation of John 21:19?
"And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me."

It means that Peter will be martyred.

EirWatcher wrote: »

Catholic theology agrees - Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, so the apostles did indeed have a very special function - they were instrumental in continuing God's Revelation.
Hence the emphasis in the early Church on ensuring continuation of apostolic tradition also.

Would you not agree that the function of the Apostles taking the first hand account of the Gospel into the world is different from us taking the secondhand Gospel into the world? Their role and function was special.

EirWatcher wrote: »

Anglican doctrine, or personal scriptural interpretation?

Neither. It's Bible handling and reading comprehension. We need to be careful not to apply inappropriate verses to ourselves. The basic question of who this is addressing and who it is written for can help a great deal.

Much thanks in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria · 20-03-2016 12:57pm

Good afternoon!

antiskeptic wrote: »

You say 'not solely'? What part of what you do differs from what I said you do? That is, your input and what you reckon to be the Spirits input.

Let's split into two halves again. I agree that I understand that the Bible is God's word by the Holy Spirit. Jesus' sheep hear His voice.

My particular theology comes as a result of hearing God's word.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Part 1. You concluding (via the mechanism outlined in the point above) the Biblical framework being authentically from God.

Part 2. You concluding (via the mechanism outlined in the point above), the Bible an authority and your interpretations of it (via the mechanism outlined in the point above) being the correct one, such as to conclude the preacher out of line.

Part 2 uses the text that God speaks through in Part 1. It isn't a preference call. I would speak to the pastor and ask him to walk it through with me. I'm willing to be changed and convinced by what they say.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You haven't addressed the point: your concluding yourself discerning the word of God correctly in the Bible (which relies on you concluding the Bible authoritive, and you concluding the Spirit being the one directing your interpretation). But at the same time denying that same mechanism to someone who concludes the same Spirit communicating to mind/spirit, outside the Bible.

1. The Spirit convinced me that the Bible is God's Word. His function is to speak as Jesus did and to convict the world concerning sin, righteousness and judgement. This is the reason why His sheep hear His voice in the first place.

2. On reading God's word I understand a particular passage through reading it and working hard. Some things are clearer than others. Primary issues tend to be clear. Secondary issues tend not to be explicit in the same way.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is nothing different in mechanism, to wit: personal satisfaction that the path being navigated is a true (enough) one.

The key difference is objectivity versus subjectivity. The Bible insofar as it is a text that can be understood independently of a subjective revelation should have more authority.

antiskeptic wrote: »

To suppose your interpretation the only true one, would be an arrogance. I can, for example, be drawn to God but hold a different view to you. Again, I would point to the multitude of differing Christian positions held in relation to that same word. Is every view bar yours the wrong one?

Did I say that? I'm always willing to be convinced provided someone can argue on the basis of the text. However this will differ for primary and secondary issues. For example the sufficiency of the cross versus infant or adult baptism.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not so much looking at your specific beliefs but am looking at how you arrive at concluding them the correct one. Remember: in concluding your interpretation a correct one, you are assuming an authority over the word: you suppose the Spirit/your intellect guiding you correctly and others (who arrive at an alternative view) not.

I don't think this is true. My beliefs are formed on the basis of Scripture and aren't imposed on top of it. It is because of my reading of what God says in His Word that I come to X or Y position. Could I be mistaken? Yes but graciously God gives us a loving church family to work through these sort of issues.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not significant? Calvinism vs. Arminianism involves substantial difference. To hold your own particular assembly of theological cards the winning hand is .. well.. very problematic.

Agreed but it isn't on the same level as arguing the cross doesn't save. At least in respect to that issue the Bible affirms both God's sovereignty in predestination and free will. It isn't a round circle.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not what I think that matters, it's how you yourself conclude they haven't been either lost or altered. And let's move away from what's core since to suppose anything God says's anything less than vital is to make unstable presumptions.

We know that the Bible is reliable because we have tangible evidence to believe it is. Manuscripts and textual integrity for example.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't think it's necessary for there to be perfect translation because I suppose a) the Spirit active b) the issue not being about whether I have perfect theology or not c) God's word being infinite in depth: I'd have trouble enough mining the depths of an imperfect translation to worry about obtaining perfect translations. d) there isn't a perfect translation and God see's fit for that to be the case.

I've not argued that my interpretation of the Bible is perfect but rather that God speaks most clearly through the Bible by His Spirit. I think that's fair.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There would be something amiss in supposing it non-beneficial to have more insight that would be provided by an understanding of the languages the Bible written in. Do you think you'd get more out of an English translation than someone, who can only speak English brokenly, would get?

I never said it wasn't beneficial but not necessary. God graciously speaks in the vernacular. That's the cornerstone of the Reformation.

In respect to broken English I remember a number of years ago being at a Bible study with Arabic, Chinese, and a host of European nationalities who were learning English. God graciously enabled the simple English in the Bible to further their understanding of Jesus. God happily dashes down language barriers. After all didn't He erect them Himself at Babel?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The core Christian doctrine of grace is immediately unpacked by people in different ways. Grace is almost a roundabout with infinite roads leading from it. To describe each of those roads as nuance is to describe your own particular road, a nuance.

How many are based closely on the text?

antiskeptic wrote: »

1) Your whole theology about how God communicates with you rests on you alone (i.e. your intellect and your assessment/evaluation of what you think the Spirit is saying to you). So should it be, given that it is before him you shall stand to give an account of yourself.

That simply isn't true. The theology of a Bible believing Christian is based on the text, how the Spirit opens the passage to them and some work at the text on the part of the believer. It isn't a preference call.

antiskeptic wrote: »

2) How it is that that theology differs not one jot from the basis by which my theology holds God speaking to me other than through his word.

All I've said so far is that God speaks most clearly in the Bible. I'm happy to walk through how I believe that's more reliable than subjective experience or feelings. Mapping God speaking to feelings is in particular extremely dangerous.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ and His imperishable Word,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic · 20-03-2016 1:51pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Let's split into two halves again. I agree that I understand that the Bible is God's word by the Holy Spirit. Jesus' sheep hear His voice.

That's a conclusion of yours (that his sheep hear his voice). I understand his having to communicate that message such that you are capable of believing it. But you have a part to play too - accepting that that message is from God.

My particular theology comes as a result of hearing God's word.

As does mine. We're merely differing over what media his word is communicated by.

Part 2 uses the text that God speaks through in Part 1. It isn't a preference call. I would speak to the pastor and ask him to walk it through with me. I'm willing to be changed and convinced by what they say.

It is a preference call - unless you suppose that you're take inerrant. Others take different things, all supposing the Spirit leading them

1. The Spirit convinced me that the Bible is God's Word. His function is to speak as Jesus did and to convict the world concerning sin, righteousness and judgement. This is the reason why His sheep hear His voice in the first place.

2. On reading God's word I understand a particular passage through reading it and working hard. Some things are clearer than others. Primary issues tend to be clear. Secondary issues tend not to be explicit in the same way.

The Spirit convinced me that God can communicate in ways other than through his word. The Bible itself testifies to this. And doesn't testify to God only speaking through the scriptures.

The key difference is objectivity versus subjectivity. The Bible insofar as it is a text that can be understood independently of a subjective revelation should have more authority.

I've already indicated why this view is objectively incorrect. There are limitless takes on the Bible - even over major doctrinal issues. All takes invoking leading by the Spirit.

In fact, each individuals take is his own (even if he attaches himself to the views held by significant numbers of others: his choice to attach so, is his own).

Thus, all takes are subjective takes. That 100,000 share a particular view on as aspect of doctrine doesn't make it anymore correct.

Did I say that? I'm always willing to be convinced provided someone can argue on the basis of the text. However this will differ for primary and secondary issues. For example the sufficiency of the cross versus infant or adult baptism.

Whether major or minor issue, you cannot claim your own view the correct one without supposing yourself infallible. All you can do is follow the path you think most convincing for yourself. And stand before God on the basis of it.

I'm presenting argument why what you do is no different to what I do (in the matter of how we conclude how it is God communicates today). My aim isn't so much to convince you of my view but to neutralize your arguing that he doesn't communicate directly, ex-his word. By demonstrating your approach identical to mine (i.e. we follow the path we are individually convinced of, without either of our paths being demonstrably correct) your position is neutralized.

I don't think this is true. My beliefs are formed on the basis of Scripture and aren't imposed on top of it. It is because of my reading of what God says in His Word that I come to X or Y position. Could I be mistaken? Yes but graciously God gives us a loving church family to work through these sort of issues.

Work towards what? If not an ultimately subjective conclusion. That loving family is divided on all sorts of major and minor issues. This isn't something to be worried about in my view. But it is demonstrably the case

Agreed but it isn't on the same level as arguing the cross doesn't save.

I've no idea what "the cross saves" means. There's huge unpacking to be done in relation to it. And that will bring multiple paths

At least in respect to that issue the Bible affirms both God's sovereignty in predestination and free will. It isn't a round circle.

Each of those can be unpacked in numerous ways. Calvinism's predestination unto salvation vs. my predestination of those that are saved unto the badges of salvation.

We know that the Bible is reliable because we have tangible evidence to believe it is. Manuscripts and textual integrity for example.

Yet differences. Yet translational issues.

I've not argued that my interpretation of the Bible is perfect but rather that God speaks most clearly through the Bible by His Spirit. I think that's fair.

I don't agree. God speaking directly to me over a specific issue in the here and now is far more clear and powerful than general principles to be gleaned from the Bible.

I'm not diminishing the position of the word but do reject that as primary at every point of time. What did Abraham do, for instance?

I never said it wasn't beneficial but not necessary. God graciously speaks in the vernacular. That's the cornerstone of the Reformation.

Opting for that view of the Reformation is a position adopted by you by own choice. It isn't necessarily right. Objectively, you have a translation and those words, if they have any value, are words whose meaning form your views. To invoke the Spirit to always fill the gaps in translation for you would strike me as a strange view.

In respect to broken English I remember a number of years ago being at a Bible study with Arabic, Chinese, and a host of European nationalities who were learning English. God graciously enabled the simple English in the Bible to further their understanding of Jesus. God happily dashes down language barriers. After all didn't He erect them Himself at Babel?

So you would be happy to equip yourself with a Greek text and let the Spirit have at it?

How many are based closely on the text?

As many as there are folk willing to argue that they are based closely on the text. The trouble with such debate is that it is endless - since interpretation of each bit of supporting text itself is a debate in itself.

That simply isn't true. The theology of a Bible believing Christian is based on the text, how the Spirit opens the passage to them and some work at the text on the part of the believer. It isn't a preference call.

I hear what you claim. What you can argue is a different thing. If 10 people claim the Spirit opens the text but they all arrive at different conclusions then clearly it's not the Spirit alone at work.

Your view simply sits in a column of other views making same claims.

All I've said so far is that God speaks most clearly in the Bible.

..to you. As I say, I'm not trying to usurp the Bible's place, I'm simply pointing out the place of other means of communication from God. And attempting to demonstrate that you're not really doing anything different to me in arriving at your conclusions as to God's means of communications

I'm happy to walk through how I believe that's more reliable than subjective experience or feelings. Mapping God speaking to feelings is in particular extremely dangerous.

I think we have walked through things quite a bit so far. You've not given me anything objective to demonstrate you do same as me. Perhaps you could consider and simply list those objective differences?

XLR 8 · 20-03-2016 2:25pm

My tuppence worth.

I don't think God speaks I think he/she listens. They gave us the answers and gave us the planet. Maybe if instead of turning our world into a ball of consumer filled crap we use the next couple of centuries to actually restore it and change the way we live forever. Maybe just maybe we might get it and live as we should. Not killing and selling but loving and caring for each other. I live in hope but I ain't optimistic.

solodeogloria · 20-03-2016 3:24pm

Good afternoon!

Hi antiskeptic,

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's a conclusion of yours (that his sheep hear his voice). I understand his having to communicate that message such that you are capable of believing it. But you have a part to play too - accepting that that message is from God.

God determines who believes the Gospel ultimately. There is a sense in which I decide to believe but ultimately this is determined by God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As does mine. We're merely differing over what media his word is communicated by.

Yes. We're arguing which is more fruitful. I think a recorded message from God attested to over centuries that specifically informs us of who He is what He has said and what He has done over centuries is more objective and more fruitful than any vision or voice someone may hear or not hear. There is no concrete means of ascertaining if this is God other than the Bible.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is a preference call - unless you suppose that you're take inerrant. Others take different things, all supposing the Spirit leading them

Irrespective of what I say or not. Words have tangible meanings. It isn't a free for all. The words that God has spoken are physically recorded in a way that subjective apparitions, visions and voices aren't. In these last days God has spoken through His Son (Hebrews 1:1-4). I'm not one of these people who believe that physical words can mean anything to anyone. There are bounds to what they can mean. My posts are intelligible to you and yours to me. When I say that I'm going to be late to work you can't legitimately say that I'm saying I'll be early.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Spirit convinced me that God can communicate in ways other than through his word. The Bible itself testifies to this. And doesn't testify to God only speaking through the scriptures.

I haven't said God only speaks through the Bible. Rather what I've said is that the Bible is the most sure form of revelation we actually have.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've already indicated why this view is objectively incorrect. There are limitless takes on the Bible - even over major doctrinal issues. All takes invoking leading by the Spirit.

This is where we disagree. Words are objective. There can be scope for interpretation but there are logical bounds like I've said above. Ultimately you're presenting a post-modern view of language.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In fact, each individuals take is his own (even if he attaches himself to the views held by significant numbers of others: his choice to attach so, is his own).

Some do, others don't. Others consider the case from the Scriptures like the Reformers did.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thus, all takes are subjective takes. That 100,000 share a particular view on as aspect of doctrine doesn't make it anymore correct.

When have I said it did? What matters is what the text says (which isn't a free for all).

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whether major or minor issue, you cannot claim your own view the correct one without supposing yourself infallible. All you can do is follow the path you think most convincing for yourself. And stand before God on the basis of it.

This is the question. Is it "my view" or is it what the Bible says. I don't believe words are devoid of meaning. My position isn't formed a priori to coming to the Bible but a posteori. As I hear God's voice more and more I become more familiar with what He says and what He does and my view matures in Christ.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm presenting argument why what you do is no different to what I do (in the matter of how we conclude how it is God communicates today). My aim isn't so much to convince you of my view but to neutralize your arguing that he doesn't communicate directly, ex-his word. By demonstrating your approach identical to mine (i.e. we follow the path we are individually convinced of, without either of our paths being demonstrably correct) your position is neutralized.

I've not argued at all that God can't communicate with people directly. I've simply said that God communicates with us primarily by His Word. Which makes sense. That's why all sound Christian doctrine is Biblically substantiated. The dangers of both charismatic revelation and tradition trumps Bible denominationalism is that they draw attention away from what God has spoken rather than to it. Give me clear words from the Bible over any vision or voice.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Work towards what? If not an ultimately subjective conclusion. That loving family is divided on all sorts of major and minor issues. This isn't something to be worried about in my view. But it is demonstrably the case

Clearer understanding. That's what we're working for. Maturity in Christ so that we can understand His plans for us more deeply. The plans and aims are what we see Biblically. We know what God is like from how He deals with His people Biblically.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've no idea what "the cross saves" means. There's huge unpacking to be done in relation to it. And that will bring multiple paths

Not really. The mechanics of atonement are discussed in numerous passages itself in many Biblical texts. Anyone who opens a Bible earnestly and reads it can see it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Each of those can be unpacked in numerous ways. Calvinism's predestination unto salvation vs. my predestination of those that are saved unto the badges of salvation.

Or we could ignore both and read what the Bible says about it and discuss it. Predestination is mentioned in a number of books and chapters. We don't need guesswork. God has spoken. Do we want to listen?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet differences. Yet translational issues.

If you're arguing that John 8 and Mark 16 suddenly make the Bible not understandable that is. At least 99.6% on comparison is the same as was written in the first century. 40 verses are in doubt. That's better than any text in ancient history.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't agree. God speaking directly to me over a specific issue in the here and now is far more clear and powerful than general principles to be gleaned from the Bible.

I think if you believed that your beliefs would be based on what you hear independently of the Bible rather than what you hear from it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not diminishing the position of the word but do reject that as primary at every point of time. What did Abraham do, for instance?

We're at a different juncture in salvation history to Abraham. We have the things that angels longed to look into already. Abraham rejoiced at Jesus. In these last days God speaks through His Son. We've got it all.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Opting for that view of the Reformation is a position adopted by you by own choice. It isn't necessarily right. Objectively, you have a translation and those words, if they have any value, are words whose meaning form your views. To invoke the Spirit to always fill the gaps in translation for you would strike me as a strange view.

Not at all. I came to my faith after hearing and considering what God has spoken. It is on the basis of the Bible that I affirm the cause of the Reformation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So you would be happy to equip yourself with a Greek text and let the Spirit have at it?

No. We used what best we had. God helped us through what little we had as non-Arabic, non-Mandarin speakers. God speaks through human fragility.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As many as there are folk willing to argue that they are based closely on the text. The trouble with such debate is that it is endless - since interpretation of each bit of supporting text itself is a debate in itself.

Words have interpretative bounds. That's why I'm confident that I can be persuaded textually. Visions and voices don't.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I hear what you claim. What you can argue is a different thing. If 10 people claim the Spirit opens the text but they all arrive at different conclusions then clearly it's not the Spirit alone at work.

This happens by and large rarely and on secondary issues.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your view simply sits in a column of other views making same claims.

No, because we have the objective words which have interpretative bounds to deal with.

antiskeptic wrote: »

..to you. As I say, I'm not trying to usurp the Bible's place, I'm simply pointing out the place of other means of communication from God. And attempting to demonstrate that you're not really doing anything different to me in arriving at your conclusions as to God's means of communications

I think the problem with extra-Biblical revelation is that by nature it tends to supplant the rightful place of the Bible.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think we have walked through things quite a bit so far. You've not given me anything objective to demonstrate you do same as me. Perhaps you could consider and simply list those objective differences?

I've outlined a lot of reasons in the last few posts. The reasons are only effective is if you hold the view that words have interpretative boundaries and that Bible reading is not a free for all.

If it were the Bible studies I've been involved in are all pointless and God can't speak through the Bible. I refuse to believe that because it simply is a falsehood.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic · 20-03-2016 8:45pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

God determines who believes the Gospel ultimately. There is a sense in which I decide to believe but ultimately this is determined by God

How God saves and your part to play is a discussion in itself. Suffice to repeat this too an element of your own personal theology, the arrival at which is our subject of discussion

Yes. We're arguing which is more fruitful. I think a recorded message from God attested to over centuries that specifically informs us of who He is what He has said and what He has done over centuries is more objective and more fruitful than any vision or voice someone may hear or not hear. There is no concrete means of ascertaining if this is God other than the Bible.

Firstly let me suggest that it isn't an either/or I'm suggesting. If what I supposed was of God in my mind clashed with the character and way of God by all the other means I've built up a model of God then I would suppose it other than God.

Secondly, I've argued against this notion of objectivity by a) pointing to the trillion and 1 views that have been arrived at regarding what the Bible says b) there being no arguable way to assert the objectivity of any view since the arguments will rage without any landing an objectively fatal blow on other views.

Thirdly, the word itself indicates how God has chosen to communicate outside the written word. And the Bible doesn't say that God has chosen to halt communicating thus.

Irrespective of what I say or not. Words have tangible meanings. It isn't a free for all.

Yet the very many words, when combined, cause people to arrive at different conclusions as to what picture is being painted. This doesn't mean a free for all - the people coming to the conclusions they come to are genuinely trying their very best.

The words that God has spoken are physically recorded in a way that subjective apparitions, visions and voices aren't.

a) visions have been recorded and their value made manifest b) so what if they go unrecorded. It doesn't diminish their value to the person experiencing them

In these last days God has spoken through His Son (Hebrews 1:1-4). I'm not one of these people who believe that physical words can mean anything to anyone. There are bounds to what they can mean. My posts are intelligible to you and yours to me. When I say that I'm going to be late to work you can't legitimately say that I'm saying I'll be early.

So God has spoken through his Son. How does that close down God communicating via any means he likes?

I appreciate what you say about words but again point you to the objective reality of the myriad of views (regarding both 'major' and 'minor' elements of God's message).

I can, indeed, remember my own reading of a particular passage and being really struck by the message I was being introduced to, such as to underline a particular word. A number of years later I went through that passage when travelling along to an utterly different direction and criss-crossed through that earlier underlined word. It's relevance this time belonged to the new, not old, train of thought. Same word had completely different meanings, in the sense of place in the message I was being instructed on. It was this experience which opened me to the depth of the word.

I haven't said God only speaks through the Bible. Rather what I've said is that the Bible is the most sure form of revelation we actually have.

And I argue not. The certainty of anything of God's communication depends on the amount of certainty God brings out in it for us. The word itself, for one not born again is mush. Complete and utterly impenetrable. Those who are not born again, no matter how smart, are literally blind to it and get nothing from it. You've no doubt experienced this yourself.

If you get something from it, it is because a) you can read words b) you have been made alive to those words in a way that others who can read haven't been. The latter is the key element.

You can't, on the one hand suppose all the certainty you have about what is revealed to you by God in his word as concrete but all the certainty revealed by God to someone by other means suspect. You'd simply be pitting what God does for you against what God would be doing for someone else - without a way to argue yours 'better' than theirs.

Sure-ness, is a gift from God. And he can dole it out in any way he choses and there is no way to objectify it. You have faith, s'all.

This is where we disagree. Words are objective. There can be scope for interpretation but there are logical bounds like I've said above. Ultimately you're presenting a post-modern view of language.

I'm presenting the history of Christianity up to the present day. That isn't post-modernism, it's past history.

How would you know what 'sin' actually meant unless Spirit revealed what sin in you actually is. Without such life, the words would be empty, hollow, ineffective things on their own. You'd merely have an unbelievers view of sin being a religious hang up.

Christians arriving at doctrine aren't necessarily getting all the insight into the word that there is to be had. The doctrine can build up for any number of reasons outside them being actually accurate.

Some do, others don't. Others consider the case from the Scriptures like the Reformers did.

There isn't anyone who doesn't arrive at personal view. Whether they construct their own view on their own or take the view held by others (i.e. attached themselves to a movement, such as the Reformation) doesn't alter things: their choice is their own, including the choice to attach to a movement.

When have I said it did? What matters is what the text says (which isn't a free for all).

It isn't a free for all. But it does cause people to arrive at a wide variety of views on any number of issues. That simply cannot be denied.

Which is then complicated by the fact that those elements, like ingredients, can be assembled to produce a very wide variety of cake

This is the question. Is it "my view" or is it what the Bible says.

It is your view of what the Bible says. You simply cannot find a way to extract yourself from the problem faced by the whole of Christianity over all it's life - to wit: widely differing views which simply cannot all be correct (indeed, none be correct)

You are entitled, indeed you must, hold a degree of confidence in your own abilities, industriousness - trusting God will lead you home (even if by circuitous route). But you cannot presume your own particular take to be so right that it is considered inerrant.

Heck, when I started out I thought Hell involved high temperatures. Then I figured I was a Calvinist. Then an Arminian ..

I've not argued at all that God can't communicate with people directly. I've simply said that God communicates with us primarily by His Word.

Where I came in was your saying this:

"If God speaks in my thoughts how do I know when my thoughts are from Him or when they are from the devil? How do I know when a vision is from God or when it isn't? How do I know when my preacher isn't teaching a false gospel?"

My response then, as now, was that your evaluation is ultimately down to your model of God a you find fit to hold to it (that model being constructed of what makes sense to you, what you reckon God is revealing to you (however revealed), influence of those you respect, etc)

You say as much yourself:

Which makes sense.

The thing about what makes sense is that it isn't objective, it's personal.

That's why all sound Christian doctrine is Biblically substantiated. The dangers of both charismatic revelation and tradition trumps Bible denominationalism is that they draw attention away from what God has spoken rather than to it. Give me clear words from the Bible over any vision or voice.

There is biblical undergirding for the gifts of the Spirit being expressed. That folk go awry with that doesn't alter it being the case.

It's a rather strange element of your argumentation thus far: the Bible itself attests to visions, dreams, charismatic gifts, communication outside the very existence of the Bible, yet you appear to ignore these and stick to the written word alone.

That strikes me as as problematic as the problems which Charismania.

Clearer understanding. That's what we're working for. Maturity in Christ so that we can understand His plans for us more deeply. The plans and aims are what we see Biblically. We know what God is like from how He deals with His people Biblically.

Visions, dreams, gifts? All biblical. What about prayer? Is that consigned to being one way traffic if God is denied being able to communicate back for want of that being (incorrectly) biblically excluded.

Not really. The mechanics of atonement are discussed in numerous passages itself in many Biblical texts. Anyone who opens a Bible earnestly and reads it can see it.

I'm afraid the testimony of Christianity throughout it's history argues against this rather simplistic view. You don't really suppose what you've arrived at to be the last word on the matter. That all those who hold differing views to you are wrong? Surely not?

Or is it the case that you figure your view the most satisfactory for you, if no one else. This latter is the safer, humbler option, in my opinion.

Or we could ignore both and read what the Bible says about it and discuss it. Predestination is mentioned in a number of books and chapters. We don't need guesswork. God has spoken. Do we want to listen?

Calvin read what the Bible said about it. So did those who formed that body of theology. Ditto Arminius. Ditto a whole host of others. They know that predestination is mentioned in a number of chapters. They all reckoned God had spoken. They were listening. And they managed to arrive at different conclusions.

You're just another come along. As am I.

Whilst I don't agree with others, I'd stop short of being as dismissive as you appear to be here.

I think at this juncture you either recalibrate what you appear to be positing as a quasi-inerrant ability to extract the final word from the Word or we quit. I mean, discussion with someone who a priori, posits himself able to do something that the host of Christianity hasn't managed to do yet isn't really one to be attempting a discussion with.

antiskeptic · 20-03-2016 8:58pm

Solo,

Tell me one objective thing you can say about your theology that isn't rendered subjective by:

1. It's being diluted by the fact that thousands upon thousands of Christians who approach things as (even more) sincerely, intelligently and knowledgeably as you do, come to alternative, conflicting conclusions

2. Doesn't rely on your simply saying so.

3. The Bible contradicting you (at least in basic lines: such as God demonstrably communicating outside his word. Presuppose those basic instances to be thin ends of wedges that others will (have) construct(ed) caverns in your thinking out of)

4. Presuppositions of your regarding how God is to be understood (i.e. circular reasoning: "my theology says God acts this way, therefore God doesn't act as others hold he acts")

Just a single thing...

EirWatcher · 20-03-2016 11:05pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Do we have any historical texts from the first century to confirm that as being true?

No, second:
St. Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, Ch. 15
Tertullian, De Praescriptoine Haereticorum, Ch. 23

solodeogloria wrote: »

If Peter is the Pope and the Pope is infallible, isn't this worth pointing out?

I didn't see how it is relevant to a discussion on Jesus appointing special significance to the apostle Peter, and of the historical line of succession from Peter?

solodeogloria wrote: »

I hold to sola scriptura position because the New Testament is the only certain account from the Apostles we have from the first century. I don't apologise for holding to sola scriptura. It's one of the best assurances that we can have that all that is necessary for salvation is in the Bible.

The correctness and relevance of scripture is something we agree on. You are satisfied your sola scriptura tradition is sufficient for your salvation - I'm glad for it.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Would you not agree that the function of the Apostles taking the first hand account of the Gospel into the world is different from us taking the secondhand Gospel into the world? Their role and function was special.

Indeed I do, as I said in my previous response to it. It is because they were so special that it is worth considering the tradition they later established during the early Church, but I'm repeating myself.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Neither. It's Bible handling and reading comprehension. We need to be careful not to apply inappropriate verses to ourselves. The basic question of who this is addressing and who it is written for can help a great deal.

I see. I think I'm getting a clearer picture. So there is no interpretation, but, what, absolute scriptural comprehension?
One other question re. sola scriptura, if you don't mind: You mentioned infallibility. It is possible for a person to be in error (either in their interpretation or comprehension of scripture)? If so, how is that error reconciled with Truth in the Anglican faith tradition?

Thanks.

solodeogloria · 21-03-2016 7:50am

Good morning all!

EirWatcher wrote: »

No, second:
St. Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, Ch. 15
Tertullian, De Praescriptoine Haereticorum, Ch. 23

These are worth a look. I think anything beyond the first century on these issues has scope for doubt however. Do these texts explain how Peter moved from being a minister to the Jews to being a minister of the Gentiles?

EirWatcher wrote: »

I didn't see how it is relevant to a discussion on Jesus appointing special significance to the apostle Peter, and of the historical line of succession from Peter?

In fairness it's my thread and it's already meandered off topic. It is relevant if we're considering Peter as Pope and the Pope is meant to be infallible in respect to faith and morals.

EirWatcher wrote: »

The correctness and relevance of scripture is something we agree on. You are satisfied your sola scriptura tradition is sufficient for your salvation - I'm glad for it.

The thread concerns how God speaks. It's worth considering.

EirWatcher wrote: »

Indeed I do, as I said in my previous response to it. It is because they were so special that it is worth considering the tradition they later established during the early Church, but I'm repeating myself.

The key question is where do we find Apostolic tradition? The only reliable source seems to be in Apostolic writ in the New Testament. What other reliable source do we have?

EirWatcher wrote: »

I see. I think I'm getting a clearer picture. So there is no interpretation, but, what, absolute scriptural comprehension?
One other question re. sola scriptura, if you don't mind: You mentioned infallibility. It is possible for a person to be in error (either in their interpretation or comprehension of scripture)? If so, how is that error reconciled with Truth in the Anglican faith tradition?

Thanks.

No. You asked me how I distinguish between what is written for the Apostles and what is written for us. I said reading comprehension. Distinguishing the audience of a passage or a verse is crucial for understanding any text. Not just the Bible.

I agree that there is room for error between receiving God's word and understanding it. However I believe the Bible is broadly clear. Disagreements tend to arise on secondary issues. Understanding a text isn't a free for all. Language has meaning.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ and in His imperishable Word,
solodeogloria

Speedwell · 21-03-2016 8:30am

Of all of us on this thread, Solo is the one I vote "least likely to fall for some cult scam". I'm proud of him. He insists on grounding his faith in the only place a Christian can actually have a prayer (heh) of not falling for their own or other people's off-the-cuff, unsupported hallucinations.* The Bible has been exhaustively analysed and discussed to the point where theology almost mirrors a natural science. "Sola Scriptura" does not, to the best of my knowledge, translate as "Bible infallibility". But it's the best Christianity has to offer for an objective standard.

Stick to your guns, Solo. Don't settle for placing your faith in someone's say-so.

*As an ex-Christian ex-liberal-Quaker atheist, I think it's an open question whether the Bible also falls under that description, but I am not here to discuss that and I will not rise to the bait if anyone tries to engage me on it in this thread. And no, I am not trying to tempt Solo into becoming an atheist, not at all. Christianity badly needs people who are honest and sincere and compassionate.

antiskeptic · 21-03-2016 9:06am

Speedwell wrote: »

Of all of us on this thread, Solo is the one I vote "least likely to fall for some cult scam". I'm proud of him. He insists on grounding his faith in the only place a Christian can actually have a prayer (heh) of not falling for their own or other people's off-the-cuff, unsupported hallucinations.* The Bible has been exhaustively analysed and discussed to the point where theology almost mirrors a natural science. "Sola Scriptura" does not, to the best of my knowledge, translate as "Bible infallibility". But it's the best Christianity has to offer for an objective standard.

Stick to your guns, Solo. Don't settle for placing your faith in someone's say-so.

*As an ex-Christian ex-liberal-Quaker atheist, I think it's an open question whether the Bible also falls under that description, but I am not here to discuss that and I will not rise to the bait if anyone tries to engage me on it in this thread. And no, I am not trying to tempt Solo into becoming an atheist, not at all. Christianity badly needs people who are honest and sincere and compassionate.

The irony of Solo being questioned on an objective measure of his faith and an atheist supporting him in that direction can't, surely, be lost on you.

Speedwell · 21-03-2016 9:09am

antiskeptic wrote: »

The irony of Solo being questioned on an objective measure of his faith and an atheist supporting him in that direction can't, surely, be lost on you.

The irony of Christians arguing that a fellow Christian should abandon his solid Bible-based principles is certainly not lost on me.

solodeogloria · 21-03-2016 9:11am

Good morning all!

antiskeptic wrote: »

Solo,

Tell me one objective thing you can say about your theology that isn't rendered subjective by:

1. It's being diluted by the fact that thousands upon thousands of Christians who approach things as (even more) sincerely, intelligently and knowledgeably as you do, come to alternative, conflicting conclusions

My point thus far has been there are room for secondary disagreements. I agree on secondary issues there is room for disagreement. However God for the most part does speak clearly which is why I've found a great deal of consensus on the vast majority of issues. I'm happy to discuss the secondary issues. Primary issues such as the substitutionary nature of the atonement of Christ for example are clear. There are clear matters of doctrine that are derived Scripturally that can lead someone away from orthodoxy. Christianity is defined, it is something and broadly speaking we derive this primarily from the Scriptures. Probably because we realise words have meaning and interpretative bounds.

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. Doesn't rely on your simply saying so.

That's the precise point. Nothing on this thread relies on my saying so but on God's inspired Word in Scripture.

antiskeptic wrote: »

3. The Bible contradicting you (at least in basic lines: such as God demonstrably communicating outside his word. Presuppose those basic instances to be thin ends of wedges that others will (have) construct(ed) caverns in your thinking out of)

Forgive me but didn't I address your point about Abraham? It is a different point in salvation history and God speaking to him was incredibly rare. I believe he waited decades according to Genesis. His revelation wasn't in isolation either. It is bounded together with a common God spoken of by at least 40 others. I don't rule out God speaking by other means but it must line up with the Bible. I've never heard God physically speak and in a way I'm thankful. I hear God speak to me personally and that's quite enough as it is the most sure. It's physically there. I don't need to wait decades for a vision like Abraham. God speaks today and I can hear Him at will and speak to Him at will. As I read John this morning I have a personal encounter with Jesus. As I read Numbers this morning I see a God who tangibly spoke in history.

antiskeptic wrote: »

4. Presuppositions of your regarding how God is to be understood (i.e. circular reasoning: "my theology says God acts this way, therefore God doesn't act as others hold he acts")

Incorrect. What I said was that the Bible tells us about the Spirit works. He gives us clear parameters as to what His work is and what it's function is. The Spirit isn't schizophrenic. He won't contradict what He Himself breathed. One of the foundational aspects of the Lord's character in Scripture is immutability. Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday and forevermore. If the Spirit contradicts the Bible then God changes and that means our assurance in salvation in Jesus is a lot less sure. That's not my God and I hope it isn't yours either.

Speedwell: sorry to disappoint but I do believe the Bible is inerrant also.

Here's an article from a charismatic who understands God speaks primarily in the Bible to explain why:
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-i-dont-hate-the-word-inerrancy

He wrote an excellent book also. Unbreakable : What The Son of God says about the Word of God. A short little book explaining what Jesus Himself believed about the Scriptures.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus and in his certain Word,
solodeogloria

Speedwell · 21-03-2016 9:15am

solodeogloria wrote: »

Speedwell: sorry to disappoint but I do believe the Bible is inerrant also.

Heh, don't worry, I'm not disappointed. In fact I think I rather expected it. I was just pointing out earlier that "Sola Scriptura" did not necessarily entail Biblical infallibility, just that Scripture be the only standard for faith and practice. The decision of what actually constitutes Scripture and the interpretation of the admitted texts is probably a topic for a different thread.

According to the Bible and Christian tradition, Jesus was a rabbi, speaking to a People of the Book. I think it is obvious from the accepted text of the Bible that he considered Scripture as it existed in his time the ultimate authority. Even during the events of the Passion he is shown to have said very little but quotations from the writings.

antiskeptic · 21-03-2016 10:39am

Speedwell wrote: »

The irony of Christians arguing that a fellow Christian should abandon his solid Bible-based principles is certainly not lost on me.

I'm not suggesting he abandon it. I'm suggesting that others supplement it. And that his supposing that supplementation necessarily problematic is itself problematic. He depends on the Spirit to illuminate the scriptures (for without that illumination he would be at sea). Yet he rules out the Spirit illuminating as He pleases outside Scripture. This, in the face of the Spirit, per Scripture, blowing where It wills.

Speedwell · 21-03-2016 11:06am

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not suggesting he abandon it. I'm suggesting that others supplement it. And that his supposing that supplementation necessarily problematic is itself problematic. He depends on the Spirit to illuminate the scriptures (for without that illumination he would be at sea). Yet he rules out the Spirit illuminating as He pleases outside Scripture. This, in the face of the Spirit, per Scripture, blowing where It wills.

OK, fair enough. I don't mean to suggest that "sola Scriptura" is the only applicable "sola" (and I don't mean to merge these two threads, but I think it's important to bring this in here). I'm hard pressed to guess what a Christian can trust, given that mistakes in interpretation are punished so severely. I think it was right of dissenters to insist on "going to the source material", even though the Catholics preferred to establish "Christian best practices" through their own "theological engineers" the priests, and enforce them by keeping Scripture inaccessible to any but their "in-house" trained scholars. I can actually really see both sides' points. Is it worse to be wrong because you misunderstood the text, or because someone misunderstood it for you?

I suspect that there's little difference anyway, because someone who really truly honestly believes that their wrong interpretation is right is not likely to keep it to themselves even in a free Reformed-style setting. This is not uniquely a Christian problem, either; it is common to all religions that have scriptures, priests tasked with their interpretation and enforcement, and believers with opinions.

I read the Andrew Wilson article to which Solo links. To boil it down, I think that Wilson does not expect Christians to believe in what I, an American, would call literal inerrancy, the kind of thing that underlies American fundamentalism, especially given that the fundamentalists appear to give undue weight to some Scriptural passages at the expense of other passages or even of observed reality. I think Wilson wants what, for lack of a better term, I might call conditional inerrancy, which puts us back at square one, asking, "how does God tell us what he wants us to take literally and what he wants us to understand as literary license or applicable only to certain conditions?" I see many theologians engaged in the very difficult task of constructing a filter of history, interpretation, criticism, and comparison that, when applied, will actually show a Bible that is demonstrably inerrant, in perfect agreement with both observed reality and with God's law and practice. It's recursive. They have nothing but the Bible to tell them how to proceed, really. So another question is whether the Bible is a puzzle that contains the instructions for its own assembly.

I suppose the best answer to these questions will consist of some sort of assertion that the present form of the Bible is as divinely inspired as the contents themselves. In other words, God is presumed to use even forgers, theological/political maneuverers in Bible conferences, and writers of accepted canon who erroneously quote prior material as tools to work his divine will on the Bible over time. I'm not sure whether anyone here actually argues that or not.

solodeogloria · 21-03-2016 12:16pm

Good afternoon!

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not suggesting he abandon it. I'm suggesting that others supplement it. And that his supposing that supplementation necessarily problematic is itself problematic. He depends on the Spirit to illuminate the scriptures (for without that illumination he would be at sea). Yet he rules out the Spirit illuminating as He pleases outside Scripture. This, in the face of the Spirit, per Scripture, blowing where It wills.

I think you're confusing my proposition which is that God speaks primarily and most clearly through Scripture to ruling out other form of revelation entirely, which I haven't actually done.

I don't see a problem with understanding what the Bible says about the Spirit in order to understand how He works. I agree that the Spirit blows where He wills, John chapter 3 is referring to salvation.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ the true Word of God,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic · 21-03-2016 3:46pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think you're confusing my proposition which is that God speaks primarily and most clearly through Scripture to ruling out other form of revelation entirely, which I haven't actually done.

You queried how someone might tell whether a non-scriptural communication from God could be discerned as from God and not the devil. And my challenge back to you was how you do same with scriptural communication - given that you appear to hold that latter means of communication necessarily superior.

1. I don't see how you suppose primacy of scripture in any objective way.

2. I don't see how you differentiate between scriptural communication and non-scriptural communication, given it is the Spirit who would be breathing life into either of them. If he can breath into the one, then he can breath into the other - without anyone being able to objectively hold he does to either one - whatever about a persons own experience convincing them so.

3. It appears your position centres on what makes sense to you. We've seen how it is that that which makes sense to you hasn't made the same sense to plenty of other well-intentioned Christians o'er the years.

4. Whilst I hold that "what makes sense to me" is the only way each and every individual Christian can arrive at a personal theology, there is no way to objectivize this necessarily subjective approach. Nor can you objectivize the subjective conclusions arrived at by that approach

antiskeptic · 21-03-2016 4:04pm

Speedwell wrote: »

I'm hard pressed to guess what a Christian can trust, given that mistakes in interpretation are punished so severely.

It seems to me that the only thing a Christian can trust is whatever appears to make so much sense to them that the problems reduce to niggles. The subject matter is so large (I mean, God vs No God is question so large, the answer to which has such profound implications for the whole of humanity, that issues regarding this or that translation or ToE apparently blowing a gaping hole below the waterline of YEC are rendered trivial.)

This isn't a simple matter of intellectual satisfaction. It runs a course through the whole of a being.

Since there isn't any option but to go with what makes sense to you, one must suppose that good enough for God.

Is it worse to be wrong because you misunderstood the text, or because someone misunderstood it for you?

Having worked for a multinational, in which the bulk of a persons effort appears to be protecting position, I know which I'm inclined to suppose. God won't be so fooled.

As it is, a persons understanding of scripture doesn't strike me as of any necessity - else there's going to be a whole lot of people in Hell, there for the simple fact they were born before the scriptures existed or never had any access to them.

I read the Andrew Wilson article to which Solo links. To boil it down, I think that Wilson does not expect Christians to believe in what I, an American, would call literal inerrancy, the kind of thing that underlies American fundamentalism, especially given that the fundamentalists appear to give undue weight to some Scriptural passages at the expense of other passages or even of observed reality.

"Da Bye-bell sez it, ah bo-lieve it, dat settliz it (T&C's apply)"

I think Wilson wants what, for lack of a better term, I might call conditional inerrancy, which puts us back at square one, asking, "how does God tell us what he wants us to take literally and what he wants us to understand as literary license or applicable only to certain conditions?" I see many theologians engaged in the very difficult task of constructing a filter of history, interpretation, criticism, and comparison that, when applied, will actually show a Bible that is demonstrably inerrant, in perfect agreement with both observed reality and with God's law and practice. It's recursive. They have nothing but the Bible to tell them how to proceed, really. So another question is whether the Bible is a puzzle that contains the instructions for its own assembly.

My suspicion is that it doesn't actually matter. Either God speaks to his people through his word and illuminates as necessary for that particular stage in a persons walk. Or he doesn't.

I hold it a fools errand to suppose that by mere intellectual application, the Bible's purpose can be unearthed. Which isn't to say you switch your mind off. There is as much in a grain of it such as to keep a man chewing on his own dilemma even where he to live a hundred lifetimes. Like the heavens, the point isn't so much to try to gain information about every component of it such as to gain intellectual mastery of that environment, but to stand in awe of it. The awe will do more work than any purely intellectual endeavour.

Isn't our chief problem Pride? And isn't it's antidote, humility?

I suppose the best answer to these questions will consist of some sort of assertion that the present form of the Bible is as divinely inspired as the contents themselves. In other words, God is presumed to use even forgers, theological/political maneuverers in Bible conferences, and writers of accepted canon who erroneously quote prior material as tools to work his divine will on the Bible over time. I'm not sure whether anyone here actually argues that or not.

I don't think you'd be wrong. I think the flaw is to put the Bible on a pedestal and suppose it God. Rather than a tool in the hands of a very smart God who has any number of people to attempt to connect with, by whichever ways he can connect to them. He has a habit of using peoples mistakes and evil doing to that end. Why be surprised if he does the same with his word man made? I wouldn't be.

solodeogloria · 22-03-2016 7:25am

Good morning all!

antiskeptic wrote: »

You queried how someone might tell whether a non-scriptural communication from God could be discerned as from God and not the devil. And my challenge back to you was how you do same with scriptural communication - given that you appear to hold that latter means of communication necessarily superior.

Which is still a fair question. Personal revelation (which I don't rule out) must be tested against Scriptural revelation. I.E it must be placed in the context of the Biblical revelation between God and man to the prophets and Apostles over centuries. The risks of not testing personal revelation against Scriptural revelation are great because people are easily deceived or are easily led to justify their own sinfulness. I hold Scriptural revelation more highly as all Christians do when establishing what Christians believe. If a personal revelation didn't sit in a consistent manner with the Bible it'd ring alarm bells because the Bible is the yardstick.

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. I don't see how you suppose primacy of scripture in any objective way.

And this seems to be because you don't see the difference between words received for all versus a personal revelation. It also seems to be because you don't recognise that words have interpretative bounds. I agree I can't help you understand with those assumptions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. I don't see how you differentiate between scriptural communication and non-scriptural communication, given it is the Spirit who would be breathing life into either of them. If he can breath into the one, then he can breath into the other - without anyone being able to objectively hold he does to either one - whatever about a persons own experience convincing them so.

What I've bolded is my question. How do we determine if a personal revelation is of God without the Bible?

antiskeptic wrote: »

3. It appears your position centres on what makes sense to you. We've seen how it is that that which makes sense to you hasn't made the same sense to plenty of other well-intentioned Christians o'er the years.

Have we? I don't know many Christians o'er the years who would give equal weight to personal revelation and Scripture.

antiskeptic wrote: »

4. Whilst I hold that "what makes sense to me" is the only way each and every individual Christian can arrive at a personal theology, there is no way to objectivize this necessarily subjective approach. Nor can you objectivize the subjective conclusions arrived at by that approach

And I disagree with that. Christians also have the objective source of the Bible. That's part 1. Part 2 is the interpretation. Which I agree is subjective but it is still subject to the interpretative bounds of part 1.

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Da Bye-bell sez it, ah bo-lieve it, dat settliz it (T&C's apply)"

Actually as the years go on I agree with this. If the Bible does say it, it does settle it. Of course it does! God is God, I am not. Sure we can affirm it externally or with general revelation but the Bible does indeed settle it as it is God's objective Word to us. I sit under it and not over it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I hold it a fools errand to suppose that by mere intellectual application, the Bible's purpose can be unearthed. Which isn't to say you switch your mind off. There is as much in a grain of it such as to keep a man chewing on his own dilemma even where he to live a hundred lifetimes. Like the heavens, the point isn't so much to try to gain information about every component of it such as to gain intellectual mastery of that environment, but to stand in awe of it. The awe will do more work than any purely intellectual endeavour.

Did I say this?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't think you'd be wrong. I think the flaw is to put the Bible on a pedestal and suppose it God. Rather than a tool in the hands of a very smart God who has any number of people to attempt to connect with, by whichever ways he can connect to them. He has a habit of using peoples mistakes and evil doing to that end. Why be surprised if he does the same with his word man made? I wouldn't be.

Most of the time when I hear this it is from theological liberals who want to undermine what the Bible says on a certain issue. However, it's worth saying that I don't believe the Bible is God, but it is the primary means of how He has revealed Himself to us. So of course I take it seriously, and perhaps should take it more seriously!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Speedwell · 22-03-2016 9:06pm

Arkady wrote: »

An atheist can read scripture to the cows come home and it will still be incomprehensible to them.

Mmmm, think so?

Arkady · 22-03-2016 9:11pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

However, it's worth saying that I don't believe the Bible is God, but it is the primary means of how He has revealed Himself to us. So of course I take it seriously, and perhaps should take it more seriously!

Scripture is important, and a qualified, careful, authoritative, consistent, apostolic interpretation of it is even more important (or you might as well hand a monkey a machine gun) but scripture isn't the primary means God has revealed himself to us, and never has been.

An atheist can read scripture to the cows come home and it will still be incomprehensible and meaningless for them.

solodeogloria · 22-03-2016 9:53pm

Good evening all!

Arkady wrote: »

Scripture is important, and a qualified, careful, authoritative, consistent, apostolic interpretation of it is even more important (or you might as well hand a monkey a machine gun) but scripture isn't the primary means God has revealed himself to us, and never has been.

God has spoken through the prophets and most supremely in His Son. All of this is recorded for us in Scripture. I believe we need to be extremely wary of "the Bible is important but" sentence prefixes. Why should it be qualified?

Arkady wrote: »

An atheist can read scripture to the cows come home and it will still be incomprehensible and meaningless for them.

Yes because the Spirit is the one who softens hearts and the Spirit enables the reader to understand. I agree with this principle. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Bible to us. It's how God has primarily revealed Himself to us. In these last days God speaks through His Son.

I'm happy to hear alternatives but so far none have been presented.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic · 23-03-2016 12:35am

solodeogloria wrote: »

Personal revelation (which I don't rule out) must be tested against Scriptural revelation. I.E it must be placed in the context of the Biblical revelation between God and man to the prophets and Apostles over centuries. The risks of not testing personal revelation against Scriptural revelation are great because people are easily deceived or are easily led to justify their own sinfulness. I hold Scriptural revelation more highly as all Christians do when establishing what Christians believe. If a personal revelation didn't sit in a consistent manner with the Bible it'd ring alarm bells because the Bible is the yardstick.

You're repeating an assertion. I was asking how you undergird this assertion. How do you objectivize it.

And this seems to be because you don't see the difference between words received for all versus a personal revelation. It also seems to be because you don't recognise that words have interpretative bounds. I agree I can't help you understand with those assumptions.

Words received for all are more general than words received for you. There is a place for both.

The interpretive bounds of a word are x, the interpretive bounds for many words in combination is many x. Which is why you have so many different views. Your assumption appears to be (forgive me if I've got that wrong) that your particular interpretation is correct. You haven't addressed the issue of many contradictory interpretations and how you surmount the problem of your arrival at particular meaning being other than a personally arrived at meaning (whatever about the personal thought, reflection, opinions of others you personally take on board .. that might help you draw your conclusion)

You can't objectively undergird what strikes as a personal word from God by invoking what is but a personal interpretation of the Word. Personal x personal = personal.

Now, you might well copperfasten your view of what seems personal revelation by personal interpretation of the Word, view of people you respect ( a personal thing). It's all personal in the end.

What I've bolded is my question. How do we determine if a personal revelation is of God without the Bible?

How do we determine if a personal interpretation is from God full stop? In the face of multiple possibilities that is.

I'm suggesting the personal, subjective conclusion arrived at is the result of your own decision that this, all things considered, makes sense. And if you feel the Spirit is revealing to you then that copperfastens it.

The product of personal evaluation + the belief the Spirit is at work. Just the same as is applied to personal revelation outside Scripture.

Question: you receive a specific word from God regarding a specific thing: let's say an encouragement to progress past a particular situation your challenged by. Or you receive same encouragement about the same issue by reading something in the Bible that has no direct contextual bearing on the issue to hand.

How do you know the encouragement is from God. Simply because it was the Bible you were reading in the latter case? If so, then you must explain how you suppose the Bible God's word in the first place. Without using the words personal conviction.

Have we? I don't know many Christians o'er the years who would give equal weight to personal revelation and Scripture.

That wasn't the point being made. The point being made was that there are a wide variety of views held by Christians about issues large and small. The objectivity you suppose the Bible as providing you isn't in fact objective. Which makes problematic the notion that personal revelation need be subservient to the Bible. Perhaps personal revelation provides more conviction to a person than the Bible

You do accept that the conviction quotient attaching to anything you read from the Bible is decided upon by God - not yourself. And it only takes God to attach more conviction quotient to a personal word for that to have more conviction value.

Remember: the argument "but what do you measure this revelation against" is a question that is applied to your biblical interpretation to. There is no measure - merely personal conviction that you are on the right, Spirit-led track.

And I disagree with that. Christians also have the objective source of the Bible. That's part 1. Part 2 is the interpretation. Which I agree is subjective but it is still subject to the interpretative bounds of part 1.

The objective source of the Bible is problematic because of translation/versions. A subjective notion sidesteps that an supposes God ensuring it's objectively his word.

I've made the point about interpretive bounds already. I'm not quite sure, still, how you deal with the many interpretations that exist outside your own. You earlier alluded to the simplicity of the Bible message and the need to simply read it to understand it. This doesn't wash with the one objective reality in all this: multiple contradictory views extant.

Did I say this?

Not that I recall. I was posting to another.

Most of the time when I hear this it is from theological liberals who want to undermine what the Bible says on a certain issue. However, it's worth saying that I don't believe the Bible is God, but it is the primary means of how He has revealed Himself to us. So of course I take it seriously, and perhaps should take it more seriously!

This time your hearing it from someone who neither wishes to undermine what the Bible says nor wishes to follow sheep-like down a denominational/interpretive pathway simply because it is followed by many

As I observe the church at work I see the trappings of humanity all over it: the tendency to flock behind personalities, the tendency to want fixed answers, the tendency for birds of a feather to accumulate so that individual churchs (and I'm speaking of evangelical and charismatic churchs here). All forces tending the church towards the middle ground, or as a reaction to what can be a stullifying experience in the middle, to the extremes.

The Bible contains God's written revelation to man. And it contains truth, advice, comfort and hope without end. Of that I have been personally convinced. But I've not been convinced of many other things that have been supposed of it by men o'er the ages.

antiskeptic · 23-03-2016 1:08am

solodeogloria wrote: »

Yes because the Spirit is the one who softens hearts and the Spirit enables the reader to understand. I agree with this principle. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Bible to us.

And without the Spirit, as Arkady implies, the Bible would meaningless to us.

Our dependence thus, is on the Spirit for every bit of conviction we have, not on the Bible (which is dead or alive, depending on whether the Spirit active). If we are convicted in our reading it is only because He acts upon us at that point.

It follows that if we are convicted that something we have read is from God, it is only because He has acted. It is not the words on the page itself that bring the conviction.

Conviction is a state we find ourselves in. It is something done to us, not something we can do for ourselves. Without me .. and all that.

If we find ourselves convicted then we suppose the Spirit to have acted on us. There is nothing else we can suppose to have happened

It follows that the medium used by the Spirit to convict is irrelevant, since the medium itself has no convicting power whatsoever.

This point is undergirded (in the negative) by the fact that...

It's how God has primarily revealed Himself to us. In these last days God speaks through His Son.

The notion that the Bible is God's primary way of revealing himself to us hasn't a biblical foundation.

His speaking through is Son isn't his speaking through his Spirit, which is how the Bible comes alive in our hands.

I'm happy to hear alternatives but so far none have been presented.

There needn't be alternatives since there needn't be a prime means of God's communicating. There can simply be God communicating with man through whatever means God chooses to be appropriate to the person, time and place

This isn't to deny the importance of the Bible but the view of it's primacy is problematic in the extreme. How did God communicate to all the Christians people who have lived and still live, in post NT times, and who had no access to a Bible. Were there no Christians in places without the Bible? If there were, how did he communicate with them?

Or is it simply a matter of us being lucky enough to live in the time of the printing press?

antiskeptic · 23-03-2016 1:16am

Speedwell wrote: »

Mmmm, think so?

I gather from a Christian friend who did Theology in Trinity that all the Theologians there are atheists.#

Take heart: with a thousand and one different Christian takes on the Bible, there's Noah's Ark-like room for an atheists view

(You're something of a plastic atheist anyway, iirc)

How does God speak?

Comments