bkmitchell — 2017-10-29T02:11:53-04:00 — #1
In your opinion has God spoken verbally/audibly to anyone since the NT times? And Why or Why not?
And, in light of your answer what does do ministers/preachers mean when they say from the pulpit that the Lord has spoken to them?
dave_l — 2017-10-29T06:17:57-04:00 — #2
I'm a cessationist believing tongues, prophecy and word of knowledge would end when "that which is perfect came". That which is perfect (complete) being the writings that now make up the New Testament.
Paul says, "for we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect [Or "when completion"] comes, the partial will be set aside." 1 Corinthians 13:9?10 (NET)
"And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13:13 (NET)
Paul contrasts tongues, interpretation of tongues, and knowledge with love, faith and hope. If as some say, prophecy, tongues and interpretation remain until the end of the world, Paul's comparison is meaningless.
Moreover Peter said; “For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:17–20)
So how does God speak today beyond scripture? He speaks through the motive of love in our hearts. If you make God's love Lord of your thoughts and actions, you made the right choice regardless. If hatred provides the motive, you did not. And Paul says; “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:13)
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-29T16:16:56-04:00 — #3
How can you answer whether or what God does for others? Has God spoken to you is the only appropriate question in my opinion.
dave_l — 2017-10-30T07:17:12-04:00 — #4
What he does will not contradict scripture.
alex_vaughn — 2017-10-30T08:55:39-04:00 — #5
I agree with @Tyrone_Howard. I can only say that I haven’t received a verbal word from God. Also, no word from God written down since the NT has been recognized by the tradition to which I subscribe. As for I Cor 13, it is not meaningless to say that the perfect does not come till the World is renewed and God puts all to rights.
dave_l — 2017-10-30T09:04:46-04:00 — #6
It doesn't fit to ascribe the perfect (Greek = complete) to the end of the world. Paul uses it to divide two epochs. The first being when tongues, prophecy and the word of knowledge function along with love, faith and hope. And the second epoch when love, faith and hope remain without tongues, prophecy and the word of knowledge. If he speaks of Heaven as being the perfect, hope and faith do not remain in that realm, only love. Because faith and hope bridge the distance between the things hoped for and those not seen (Hebrews 11:1). I.e. Heaven.
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-30T10:23:11-04:00 — #7
There is not two Holy Ghost. The same Holy Ghost Jesus has we have. He will do what he please, and doesn't care what people think they know/understand/interpret from scripture.
No it doesn't. Scripture doesn't say anything about bridging between things not seen and things hoped for. Faith is composed of these things. Its right there, word for Word.
dave_l — 2017-10-30T11:02:04-04:00 — #8
Jesus did not have the Holy Ghost. He sent the Holy Ghost in his name. Jesus was the eternal Son of God as far as his person. With two natures, one fully human though sinless, And one fully divine.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) Faith and hope disappear when that which they represent appears. = bridges the gap until God manifests the reality of what they represent.
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-30T11:07:22-04:00 — #9
You need to read your bible. John actually saw the Holy Ghost descend in Bodily Form onto Jesus. Unless of course you ignore that scripture.
No it doesn't lol. That's not even close to what this means. You need to go back to Milk Dave, this meat is too tuff' for you to eat my friend.
dave_l — 2017-10-30T11:11:42-04:00 — #10
So? This only proves the Trinity. Jesus was the Son, the Father spoke from Heaven, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him.
You need to produce scripture, not insults to bolster your claims.
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-30T11:18:03-04:00 — #11
That's not an insult. Whats wrong with Milk? Oh your pride declares you too old for milk? Everything I've stated is Milk, I'm drinking milk daily. every once and awhile Jesus gives me meat. Like I said you need to go back, you missed some lactose, some Vitamin D. that's why you keep throwing up and choking on Meat. Teeth aren't strong enough
You need to pick a stance. You can't say Jesus did not have the Holy ghost to prove one point, then say he had it to prove another. Double Minded. Makes since why the rest of your claims are unstable
dave_l — 2017-10-30T11:37:35-04:00 — #12
Why do I feel insulted?
“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:” (John 15:26)
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-30T11:54:36-04:00 — #13
I apologize then. I'm on the milk of the word. I can eat meat too, but I desire the sincere milk of the Word.
alex_vaughn — 2017-10-30T17:18:33-04:00 — #14
While your theory makes sense of those specific verses, it also imposes a great deal on them. In particular, you are postulating that knowledge or God’s word is being made complete in terms of the NT. Now you are talking about two epochs.
It could be true as you say, but other interpretations could also work here. Personally, I’m not concerned either way, which is the best.
dave_l — 2017-10-30T18:22:29-04:00 — #15
Where do you find God speaking vocally to people after Christ's ascension in the New Testament? If the NT is not the final word, what is? One verse saying the word of God is not complete would prove your claim.
God moves us inwardly directing our thoughts and actions, but since the days of the Apostles, we have a more sure word of prophecy than the audible voice they heard on the mount. “And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:18–20)
alex_vaughn — 2017-10-31T08:51:01-04:00 — #16
What of Christ speaking to Paul on his way to Damascus? What of the book of Revelation? It seems you’ve already made some large errors in your statement.
dave_l — 2017-10-31T09:55:01-04:00 — #17
I asked; "Where do you find God speaking vocally to people after Christ's ascension in the New Testament?" People = people in general. As with today's charismatics, or those who commit crimes saying god told them to. And later I qualified my position saying;
Besides, Revelation is part of the sealed canon. If you add to it or take away, no good can come from it.
alex_vaughn — 2017-10-31T23:49:02-04:00 — #18
Who declared Revelation to be a part of the sealed canon? Some in ancient and in current times believe the Shepherd of Hermas, Didache and the Aprocrypha to be a part of the canon of Scripture. Ultimately our canons of Scripture are handed down from tradition, but they are not infallible.
And, I'm not aware of anyone trying to modify the "Revelation of John* or major textual controversies with the book itself. I am aware of some early Christians that doubted its place in the canon. In particular, Clement of Alexandria did not include the book in his canon. Eusebius and Cyril of Jerusalem also had some concerns. The Apostolic Canons, Gregory of Nazianzus and the Laodicea Synod also left out the work from their canons. Finally, the biblical manuscripts Vaticunus and Peshitta do not include Revelation in their collection. Many other works (some of which are lost) are included in some of these canons as well. Who is to say that the Protestant Christian tradition has selected the only proper canon for the Scriptures (66 OT and 27 NT books)? My information for the above comes from Lee McDonald The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. Appendix C.
A little humility is needed here. As I have said, I abide by the traditional 66 OT/27 NT Protestant Canon. And, I am not willing to shut out the possibility that other works are also from the Holy Spirit however. I'm willing to consider all words that are lovely, admirable or true (Phil. 4:8).
dave_l — 2017-11-01T05:49:58-04:00 — #19
We know Jesus spoke scripture recorded by those who heard him. And the Apostles spoke scripture, having been sanctioned by Christ personally. These also referred to each other's writings being scripture. But we do not find them giving their stamp of approval to writings beyond their time, suggesting God might speak again as Mormons or other sects claim.
Does God speak to Pentecostals? Victor Budgeon in his book "Charismatics and the Word of God" reports where they recorded several tongues messages from different Pentecostal groups. And took them around to other Pentecostal groups who believed they had the gift of interpretation. But they found that none of the so called interpreters agreed.
bkmitchell — 2017-11-01T07:26:19-04:00 — #20
Alex thank your post! I think you have made some points worth discussing. Wayback I attempted to start a thread on the part this very subject. I think it would help us a lot on these forums if we actually defined what it is we each mean by canon, and if we have a canon within in a Canon.
next page →