nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How does God speak?

solodeogloria

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Lavinia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.