tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post3695224475126696840..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Is this the central issue in Christian thought, life and ministry? — 1Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-17705646385451454142010-05-05T18:19:32.034-07:002010-05-05T18:19:32.034-07:00Daryl: like absolutely every Bible verse Halo and ...Daryl: like absolutely every Bible verse Halo and Bobby have thrown out, and like bp's story, Jeremiah 32:8 has absolutely nothing to do with buttressing their notion of the inadequacy of Scripture or the critical need for ongoing sorta-revelation never described in the Bible.<br /><br />Jeremiah identifies what he was writing as the word of Yahweh (32:1, 6), no doubts whatever. In verse 8, he says <i>nothing like</i> "Then I knew that I had spoken the word of Yahweh... because, before that, I wasn't really sure."<br /><br />Jeremiah is saying is that at that point he saw Hanamel's coming as the fulfillment of the word of Yahweh. He knew that <i>that situation</i> was the word of Yahweh coming to pass. He does not indicate the least shadow of a doubt that it would happen; he simply did not know when, until it in fact did happen.<br /><br />So far, the Scriptures that provide a basis for according any authority to ongoing inner mumbly voices, feelings and experiences apart from Scripture stands at zero. Lord willing, we'll continue the series tomorrow, look at what Scripture claims for itself.<br /><br />We're done here.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44325163045822142392010-05-05T17:58:07.951-07:002010-05-05T17:58:07.951-07:00Halo,
I see what you mean about Jerermiah 32:8. T...Halo,<br /><br />I see what you mean about Jerermiah 32:8. The translation I was looking at said "Just as the Lord has said" but I've since found 2 or 3 common ones that say "Then I knew..."<br /><br />As far as stoning the false prophets. My point, as I made it, wasn't to stone them now, but that the text in Deuteronomy goes on to say that they are not a prophet.<br />I agree, stoning is out, thank the Lord.<br />But I don't think it allows for "honest" mistakes. God is not to be toyed with, and by Deuteronomy's definition, punished or not, the guy is not a prophet gets it wrong even once.<br /><br />Bobby,<br /><br />For the record...I flinch at those stories... :)<br />May the Lord be with you as you head into surgery. His will be done.<br /><br />I agree with bp's last statement that the issue of modern day prophets and God's speaking outside if Scripture being different issues. But I only agree with that because I think people want to make them separate issues.<br />Most of us here don't want to say that there are prophets among us, but claims of God speaking do make that difficult, if we believe those claims.<br /><br />I think Dan's direction, as to how this impacts our belief in the sufficiency of Scripture, is the right one.<br /><br />I bet we can agree on this at least...<br />As Bobby has said, whether you believe God speaks outside of Scripture or not, asking and expecting Him to do so, is flat wrong. (I don't say wishing He would is wrong, who hasn't wished for that from time to time?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41659276384986543302010-05-05T14:04:43.063-07:002010-05-05T14:04:43.063-07:00Amen Bobby. Well said. And I think there are two s...Amen Bobby. Well said. And I think there are two subjects in this thread. <br /><br />1. God speaking to/through someone to encourage, exhort or direct them.<br /><br />2. Whether there are modern-day prophets.<br /><br />They're not the same thing, right? How is a "prophet" defined?bphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265050268204322057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89766582625486438602010-05-05T11:42:42.581-07:002010-05-05T11:42:42.581-07:00Bobby:
I disagree with you on certain other issue...Bobby:<br /><br />I disagree with you on certain other issues (like the whole Scottish-vs.-Scholastic dichotomy), but in my totally fallible and personal opinion, you've made some interesting observations on this topic.<br /><br />Personally, I lean more towards Jim Pemberton's position, with a healthy dollop of Daryl's caution.<br /><br />Okay, yesterday the verification word was "cessest." Today it's "dessess." I take this to mean that I should cease and desist on this topic, because I'm tired, spent, and have things to do! (Note: I am NOT serious about taking the verification words literally, but I am serious about needing to move on to other things.)<br /><br />I'll be praying for you.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68640089324043181762010-05-05T11:36:41.030-07:002010-05-05T11:36:41.030-07:00Btw,
For the record, I don't believe that ton...Btw,<br /><br />For the record, I don't believe that tongues are being credibly practiced today. In fact from my reading, tongues in the Bible reflect a known/spoken language --- not a mystical "angelic" language.<br /><br />Just wanted to clarify that point in re. to other things I've said --- not that anybody cares :-).Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45333761107450917062010-05-05T10:34:42.346-07:002010-05-05T10:34:42.346-07:00Talking about prophets in the OT and "hearing...Talking about prophets in the OT and "hearing from God" today are separate issues; unless someone is claiming to be a prophet today.<br /><br />I think it is wrong to interpret scripture or even this issue using modern day American style/Azusa street inspired pentecostalism as the foil for how we approach this issue --- as if they embody what the categories and issues are, Biblically. And yet this seems to be the "fear" that is driving the rejection of the LORD speaking to the hearts of His people. "Reactionary exegesis" is wrong every time. <br /><br />As Jim Pemberton notes there are too many stories of Christians like in China (read "The Heavenly Man" the story of Brother Christian Yun) who are indeed "hearing from the LORD" (through visions, dreams, etc.); and who are seeing many miracles. They aren't "seeking" these things, they are seeking Jesus Christ; and Jesus is meeting their "needs" in the way that a compassionate Savior does (total opposite of what goes on with ministries like Hinns). <br /><br />Thus far noone has made a case for refuting that the LORD does not or cannot work as He did in Acts for His people. The problem comes when people seek for the signs and wonders; instead of seeking Jesus, if He sees a need, then He is freely able to meet that need the way he wants. In fact He's been doing many "miracles" in our situation (I should actually be dead right now --- given the normal pathology of my cancer).<br /><br />I understand the fear of opening the door to anything "supernatural" --- not wanting to be associated with charismania (I don't either) --- but they aren't representative of how the Lord really works. I don't think "hearing from the Lord," miracles, etc. are normative; but I do think He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and He is free to do what He wants when He wants (esp. to comfort His suffering saints).<br /><br />I find it interesting (I'm a good ole' Baptist boy myself) that missionaries can come and share amazing stories about miracles and things the Lord has done for them on the "field;" and we won't even flinch, even as "cessationists" at what they're saying --- instead we'll typically praise the Lord for His faithfulness to them. But when it comes to the Lord working in our daily lives --- being lived out for Him --- we baulk at any notion of God speaking or working miraculously here in the West (as if God is limited by our space or locale in the world). I find this a strange phenomenon (probably more of a cultural one than scriptural).<br /><br />And the canon being closed, in my estimation, has nothing to do with this discussion.Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87314841804296025922010-05-05T10:12:55.815-07:002010-05-05T10:12:55.815-07:00"Did they find this in the BIBLE , or did the..."Did they find this in the BIBLE , or did they get the "call " some other way?"<br /><br />I know a Reformed pastor, who is full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and as a 17 year old, growing up an an agnostic home, he heard an audible voice, while kneeling in his bedroom, crying out to God.<br /><br />Never before did he, nor ever since.<br /><br />He's a solid man of God, and so...donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82437570297539735352010-05-05T09:27:22.947-07:002010-05-05T09:27:22.947-07:00I'm late commenting (just read the article), b...I'm late commenting (just read the article), but I am REALLY looking forward to this series, Dan! It is so needed! Several people have commented that the problem lies in the way we read the Bible: Man-centered (reading it for tips on how to get through life) vs. God-centered (seeing the Bible as God's authoritative, inerrant, sufficient manifestation of Himself). <br /><br />Teach me the God-centered way, Dan!Janicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00068730909608389307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5724989887746904382010-05-05T08:58:12.887-07:002010-05-05T08:58:12.887-07:00This has been a helpful discussion. I'm not fu...This has been a helpful discussion. I'm not fully settled on the issue, but this is helping refine my thinking on this. However, I want to point out a possible and interesting tension at play.<br /><br />I'm reformed soteriologically and tentatively cessationist understanding the cannon to be closed yet holding that God can and does still speak directly to his people. There are way too many accounts of Christ appearing and speaking to people in closed countries in recent times calling them to faith to discount this.<br /><br />But it would be odd to hear one who is reformed who holds to a "hyper-cessationist" view who would claim that God doesn't today direct his people by other than naturalistic means.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46974762532250727572010-05-05T08:50:36.324-07:002010-05-05T08:50:36.324-07:00Bobby,
Your reference to Gal. 3 reminded me of Ca...Bobby,<br /><br />Your reference to Gal. 3 reminded me of Calvin's good words. <i>"What did the Law and the Prophets deliver to the men of their time? They gave a foretaste of that wisdom which was one day to be clearly manifested, and showed it afar off. But where Christ can be pointed to with the finger, there the kingdom of God is manifested. In him are contained all the treasures of wisdom and understanding, and by these we penetrate almost to the very shrine of heaven."</i><br /><br />Source: Calvin, J. Institutes of the Christian religion. (II, xi, 5).Rick Potterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12525495561013100331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-77821447018902783582010-05-05T08:46:39.220-07:002010-05-05T08:46:39.220-07:00Daryl:
1) Jeremiah 32:8 says: "Then I knew t...Daryl:<br /><br />1) Jeremiah 32:8 says: "<b>Then</b> I knew that this was the word of the Lord." This grammar implies that before '<i>then</i>' he was *not* so certain that the prophecy he received in vs6 was from God.<br /><br />Another similar example is Zechariah 4. Read the context and note what the angel says to him in verse 9: "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. <b>Then</b> you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you." This clearly implies that prior to the prophecy taking place he would not be as certain that this was really God.<br /><br />There are also many places in scripture where God admonishes a person for not fully believing a divine revelation. See Jer 32:24-27 for example. Or Gideon and the fleece (Judges 6:36). Or Sarah the wife of Abraham (Gen 18:9-15). Or John the Baptist's father (Luke 1:20). <br /><br />2) The aforementioned examples contradict your claim that a prophet is always certain whether a revelation they receive is from God or not. <br /><br />I would like to know the biblical basis for this claim of yours. Where is it clearly taught in scripture?<br /><br />3) It is also clear that in the New Testament people may not be sure if a prophecy is real or not. That is why Paul instructs the Corinthians to 'weigh what is said' concerning prophecy and to 'test' it. (1Cor14:29 and 1Thess5:20). Are prophets exempt from this command to test their own revelations? If not, then it implies they might get it wrong.<br /><br />Daryl also said: "<i>Remember something...the punishment in the OT for claiming to be a prophet, when you aren't, is death.</i><br /><br />I don't think that is totally accurate. Read Deut 13:1-5 and Deaut 18:20-22. I don't think you can conclude from this that the honest person who genuinely thought he had a true prophecy but was repentant when he was mistaken must be put to death. Rather it is speaking of those who 'because he taught rebellion' and 'speaks in the name of other gods' and because he speaks 'presumptuously'. <br /><br />Now I think this would make a lot of modern day 'prophets' guilty, but not the honest saint who made a mistake just like the mistaken saints in Acts 21:4. <br /><br />Also, punishment for adultery in the OT was also death. I assume you do not think that applies in the New Covenant. Do you think think a modern prophet should be killed if gets it wrong? Why did Paul only tell the Corinthians and Thessolonians to 'weigh' and 'test' what the prophets said - why did he not command that they should be stoned also?Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16392425937306301072010-05-05T07:44:39.188-07:002010-05-05T07:44:39.188-07:00Daryl:
Even if my interpretation were correct (an...Daryl:<br /><br />Even if my interpretation were correct (and I'm not saying that it is or isn't), it still doesn't legitimate categorically assigning hunches, leadings, words, etc. to God. But John Gill agrees with me, for what that's worth.<br /><br />I was also wrong about saying that Jeremiah said these words to Zedekiah. Most commentators seem to place verses 6 and following in prison, after Jeremiah was brought before Zedekiah.<br /><br />All the same, this much is clear:<br /><br />(1) Jeremiah did not do a "God told me to buy this property."<br /><br />(2) When Hanamel came to him (if not before), Jeremiah knew unambiguously that this was from God.<br /><br />(3) The unworldly and metaphorical nature of the transaction totally goes against every charismatic teaching.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64361003152214479352010-05-05T07:18:19.572-07:002010-05-05T07:18:19.572-07:00Stefan,
Not to belabour this point...but verse 6 ...Stefan,<br /><br />Not to belabour this point...but verse 6 says "The word of the LORD came to me: Hanamel son of Shallum your uncle is going to come to you and say, 'Buy my field at Anathoth, because as nearest relative it is your right and duty to buy it.'<br /><br />I don't see any testing or uncertainty there at all. I see God telling Jeremiah that Hanamel was going to come and tell Jeremiah to buy a field. And then it happened.<br /><br />I have to wonder if Halo was looking for a verse the legitimized not being sure that God was really talking...if so, I don't think that's the verse to use, and I don't think such a verse exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68302929019292235732010-05-05T06:59:09.633-07:002010-05-05T06:59:09.633-07:00And to synch up my reply with Daryl's:
Until ...And to synch up my reply with Daryl's:<br /><br />Until Hanamel came to Jeremiah, there is no indication that Jeremiah was certain that what he had discerned had come from God.<br /><br />And so he did NOT go to Hanamel and say, "God told me to buy this property."<br /><br />But when Hanamel came to him and said exactly what had been foreseen, then Jeremiah knew it was from God—all the more so because of the totally improbable and metaphorical nature of the property transaction involved.<br /><br />So that when Jeremiah was reciting all this to Zedekiah after the fact (see verses 1 to 6), he could say with certainty to the king that this had come from God—even though he was already in prison and knew that prophesying doom and destruction to an unrighteous absolute monarch is a dumb idea (in worldly terms), and even though he knew that the biblical punishment for blasphemously claiming to be a prophet of God is death.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83996930812584257582010-05-05T06:49:28.373-07:002010-05-05T06:49:28.373-07:00Halo, read the whole passage...here's just a b...Halo, read the whole passage...here's just a bit of it:<br /><br />Jeremiah 32:8-9<br /><br />"Then, just as the LORD had said, my cousin Hanamel came to me in the courtyard of the guard and said, 'Buy my field at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. Since it is your right to redeem it and possess it, buy it for yourself.' <br /> "I knew that this was the word of the LORD; so I bought the field at Anathoth from my cousin Hanamel and weighed out for him seventeen shekels of silver.<br /><br /><br />There's nothing there about Jeremiah not knowing it was God. In fact, he begins in verse 7 by saying "The word of the Lord came to me saying..."<br /><br />All Jeremiah was saying there was that since he knew it was the word of the Lord, he bought the field.<br /><br />Remember something...the punishment in the OT for claiming to be a prophet, when you aren't, is death.<br />Remember also, that the same passage that calls for your head, also says "Do not fear him, he is not a prophet."<br />Do you really thing that Jeremiah, a faithful prophet if ever there was one, would put it all on the line for a "it might have been God but I don't know" moment?<br /><br />It's clear, if you don't know 100% for sure, you're not a prophet. And if you're not a prophet, it's not God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-17858908403402080012010-05-05T06:44:18.994-07:002010-05-05T06:44:18.994-07:00Halo:
Okay, so that's a good counter-example....Halo:<br /><br />Okay, so that's a good counter-example.<br /><br />But what does it mean? It means that Jeremiah had to test the prophecy in 32:7, to know whether it was from God or not (Deuteronomy 18:22).<br /><br />When it came to pass, then he knew that it was from God, whereas before (implicitly), he couldn't be sure.<br /><br />And there is no indication that between the time when he heard the prophecy and when it came to pass, that he told anyone, "Thus says the Lord," because (implicitly) in this case he wasn't sure whether it was from God or not, until it came to pass.<br /><br />It's also noteworthy that even though this prophecy was related to the purchase of a property, it was the polar opposite of a Joel Osteen-style real estate transaction.<br /><br />The purpose of the purchase was not to enrich Jeremiah—in fact, this was a losing deal: 17 shekels of silver for a property that would soon be as inaccessible to him as some nice swamp lots in Florida.<br /><br />The purpose of the transaction was rather to demonstrate God's covenantal faithfulness to the remnant of Israel, even in light of the impending devastation at the hands of the Babylonians, and the impending 70-year exile.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-72602907832464830592010-05-05T05:48:53.962-07:002010-05-05T05:48:53.962-07:00Most Pastors that I know have said that they were ...Most Pastors that I know have said that they were "called" to preach the WORD and be in the ministry full time.<br /><br />Did they find this in the BIBLE , or did they get the "call " some other way?davidinfloridahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619061489422219897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71090140608841795342010-05-05T03:53:32.454-07:002010-05-05T03:53:32.454-07:00Daryl said:
in Scripture, the prophets always kne...Daryl said:<br /><br /><i>in Scripture, the prophets always knew without question. And not just in hindsight either.</i><br /><br />That is not true. Read Jeremiah 32:8 for example.Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85808717578399642162010-05-05T00:50:40.650-07:002010-05-05T00:50:40.650-07:00BP, Bobby, Daryl:
First of all, I'm just a si...<b>BP, Bobby, Daryl:</b><br /><br />First of all, I'm just a sinner saved by the grace of God, so nobody should take my word for anything. I just didn't want BP to think she was out to lunch.<br /><br />Secondly, Daryl's caution is well advised.<br /><br />Thirdly, I would not consider anything I wrote in previous comments to come within a football field's length of Joel 2 or Acts 2.<br /><br />Fourthly, I still agree with Dan's statement, that "the Bible the one fully-sufficient source for all we need to know as Christians."<br /><br />Fifthly, we should certainly not make decisions based on experientialism, but only by dwelling in the Spirit-breathed, revealed, all-sufficient, written Word of God. ...Meaning reading it, studying it, hearing it taught from a competent teacher, and praying on it.<br /><br />The Holy Spirit might work through all kinds of means to guide, comfort, convict, or strengthen us, and we can look back on certain situations and thank God for His providence.<br /><br />But we all know the damage and deceit that is done in the name of "God told me to..."—to individuals, families, churches, and our witness to the world.<br /><br />Oh, and one more thing. How many times is a theophany in the Bible accompanied by terrible fear and dread in the human witness? (E.g., Isaiah 6:5; Daniel 10:10; Matthew 17:6.) How many injunctions are there against false prophecy? And what about Nadab, Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-2) and Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:7)?<br /><br />Why do we Christians have so little fear in worshipping God so cavalierly, or in claiming that we have some kind of direct revelation from God?<br /><br />When some big name TV preacher says something like, "I saw the Lord last night in blinding light and fire, surrounded by fearsome angels, and I was so filled with dread that I got down on my hands and knees and repented for my sins and the sins of my congregation...," then I'll listen.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75742254206460793622010-05-04T23:51:36.197-07:002010-05-04T23:51:36.197-07:00In response to...
You should tell that to Phillips...In response to...<br /><i>You should tell that to Phillips daughters</i>...<br />DJP said...<br /><i>There's only one Phillips daughter, and she affirms the sufficiency of Scripture</i>...<br /><br />Ba-Dum-Tish!<br /><br /><i>Squirrel</i>The Squirrelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14082708506676251152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42368629929078222432010-05-04T22:33:26.798-07:002010-05-04T22:33:26.798-07:00Rick,
Thank you for the prayers, brother!
I tota...Rick,<br /><br />Thank you for the prayers, brother!<br /><br />I totally agree with you on the inheritance point; there is no doubt that the context speaks to that.<br /><br />In the past I have often used this passage as a prooftext to counter the idea that God speaks to us today (i.e. in the pentecostal sense). But as I look at the context further --- both near and far --- the author certainly is contrasting the revelation provided by the son as "ultimate" or supreme to the "penultimate" (the prophets, and by tradition the "angels" see Gal 3) revelation that "only" (in shadow like form) <em>pointed us to Him</em> (thinking of passages like Jn 5:39 as well). Considering that the argument of the book is to undercut the idea that going back to the "old" (covenant and Judaism) is good idea; I would say the author kicks this off just right by making clear His thesis statement --- The Son is greater than the prophets who spoke of Him and the angels who are "only" ministering servants (1:14). So we should hear Him.<br /><br />Given the context of this passage, and understanding the basic arguement of the book, then; can it be applied to counter the idea that God "speaks" today (at least in the ways I've tried to highlight above)? I would say strictly speaking, no.<br /><br />I'll have to do a deeper study on this when I get the chance. I appreciate your insight, Rick; the inheritance is well taken, and certainly the main part of the authors arguement to kick it off, so to speak.<br /><br />Again, I appreciate your prayers; and I appreciate HIS prayers too (Heb. 7:25 ;-).Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79207257265485899592010-05-04T21:46:15.861-07:002010-05-04T21:46:15.861-07:00Bobby Grow: says "I guess my question is on w...<b>Bobby Grow</b>: says "<i>I guess my question is on what basis do folks say that God does not "speak" to His children. The context of Heb. 1:2, since this is a crux passage on this, needs to be exegeted or developed further to understand what in fact that means in its context.</i>"<br /><br />I like this. It's a very good question. As I look at Hebrews and think of the many passages that speak of "inheritance" (such as 1:14; 6:12, 17; 9:15; 11:7–8; 12:17) as a key theme, I'm guided to Ps. 2:7,8 which speaks of the Son's coronation. (Heb. 1:5 quotes Ps. 2:7). So, in my thinking, God, as He has "spoken to us by His Son", is a reminder to me of my inheritance "in Him" (1 Peter 1:4 and especially Rev. 21:7) especially due to the eschatological import of Ps. 2:8.<br /><br />I'm sure this is much less than Dan will show. Just my thoughts.<br /><br />I will be praying for you also.Rick Potterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12525495561013100331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-69177279334679209172010-05-04T20:52:28.423-07:002010-05-04T20:52:28.423-07:00Don, Stefan, and BP
Thank you for the prayers, gu...Don, Stefan, and BP<br /><br />Thank you for the prayers, guys; yeah, only two days away -- nervous and excited at the same time.<br /><br />Daryl said:<br /><br /><em>Is it not possible for him to provide encouraging stuff, almost as a setup for later attempts at delusion?</em><br /><br />That's why we have the Word of God to test "our thoughts" against God's. But like scripture says, His sheep know His voice. <br /><br />I guess my question is on what basis do folks say that God does not "speak" to His children. The context of Heb. 1:2, since this is a crux passage on this, needs to be exegeted or developed further to understand what in fact that means in its context. I'm hoping Dan addresses this passage and develops it further in his next post/postings on this.<br /><br />In fact Acts 2 says that:<br /><br /> <em>'In the last days, God says, <br /> I will pour out my Spirit on all people. <br /> Your sons and daughters will prophesy, <br /> your young men will see visions, <br /> your old men will dream dreams. <br /> 18Even on my servants, both men and women, <br /> I will pour out my Spirit in those days, <br /> and they will prophesy.</em><br /><br />The question this at least raises is if this should be viewed as normative or only particularized to the situation that Peter is addressing in the context there; relative to what the Lord would be doing in His Church in the "Last Days" (which we've been in since Christ ascended, and will be in until He comes again). <br /><br />The context seems to universalize this given Peter's application and reference to "Last Days," as if the Lord would be communicating this way during and throughout the "Last Days." If in fact God does communicate this way --- given the "need" --- it could in no way contradict or go beyond what He has already established as "His Word" (the canon of scripture); since presumably any "visions or dreams" would be from the same God.<br /><br />Of course given the narrative nature of Acts we have a "descriptive" thing going on here; so we would, again, have to flesh out how this passage should be taken --- wondering if it has "prescriptive" or "normative" force today.<br /><br />These are some of the things I'm thinking through.Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86244339583638117402010-05-04T20:26:50.966-07:002010-05-04T20:26:50.966-07:00While I didn't have the time to read all the c...While I didn't have the time to read all the comments, I just wanted to say that I'm so glad you're doing this. I've been wanting to go back and take a critical look at the Blackaby stuff (EG) that I did in college, because I'm hoping my hindsight will be 20/20 to be able to see the problems with it that I just couldn't see back then. My parents are going through the EG stuff right now and enjoying it, but I mentioned to them my reservations about it, and questioning how much of it is actually scriptural. I'll have to do some homework (read your previous stuff/links) to prepare for your next installment. With anticipation.Merrilee Stevensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12770625841767761025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44697149769665887582010-05-04T20:06:02.504-07:002010-05-04T20:06:02.504-07:00Was the word of God sufficient to the people of Is...Was the word of God sufficient to the people of Isaiah's day when Isaiah 28:11-12 was given? What happened when they would not listen? Isn't it Paul's theological conclusion in 1 Cor. 14:21 that the inappropriateness of the use of tongues in congregational setting is based exactly on Israel's salvation history? Was not this "stammering speech" the stigma of alienation?Rick Potterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12525495561013100331noreply@blogger.com