The God Grab Bag

[Joe Sperling]

Verne---

I'm not sure I understand where Hugh was going. I thought he was making the point
that God does speak to people apart from the Word of God. I thnik that was true before
the Bible was complete. But now that there is a "complete" Word of God, God needs say
no more than he has already said. "It is finished".


--Joe

[al Hartman]

                    Yeah, how did this topic get diverted AGAIN?

One of the prevalent problems with communication on this board is the attitude that some have regarding the "diversion" of topics.  The problem, IMO, is twofold:

1. Any reasonable conversation will meander to some degree.  Reasonable people allow for this, especially in cases where open commentary has been invited and strict topical parameters have not been established.
Note: I readily admit there have been times when I might have done better to start a new thread than to comment (as I did) on a side-issue on an existing thread.  That leads directly to what I believe is the second part of the problem:

2. There needs to be a charitable attitude toward those who "err" in this regard.  For one to presume to be the authority on what is and is not germane to a thread, and to belittle those who fail to "live up to" such a one's standards, may be the mark of a supremely arrogant egoist (or, the same might be done by someone who means well but just doesn't know better).

The above observation, in turn, leads to my commentary on the following quote:
 

Tom has been taught to think naturally about God's presence and I doubt any amount of scriptural proof otherwise will move him.  A man who cannot learn anything on a spiritual level, cannot learn anything on a spiritual level.  That's about all one can do.

"That" is far from all one can do:

But I say to you, "Love your enemies, bless them who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you..."

...knowing that the trying of your patience works out patience

But rejoice, inasmuch as you are partakers of Christ's sufferings...  If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you...  Yet if anyone suffer as a Christian, let him not be  ashamed; but let him glorify God in that name.  For it is time for judgment to begin at the house of God...  Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.

The simple truth is that God is Sovereign over everything, so that this unreasonable person who has, wittingly or unwittingly, caused us such great tribulation and turmoil by "diverting" the topic or (far worse) by not capitulating to our demands to see things as we see them, did not surprise God or catch Him off-guard at all.  God is satisfied in working all things according to His will and His good pleasure, so He does not require us to punish the delinquent.  Rather, He requires us to bless them, do good to them and pray for them, and to count our suffering (if it is, indeed, for His sake) all joy, i.e. to rejoice in it, knowing that He is using the experience to work patience into us, thus perfecting us for His own pleasure.

The above may be construed by some as diversionary from the original point of this thread, but it simply consists of responses to comments that were made on this thread and went uncriticized as themselves being diversionary.

al

[Joe Sperling]

I'll state very quickly, though it is actually quite funny, that Marty actually caused the
"diversion" by making a snide comment about "die-hard followers of Tom". I responded--
unless I am not "allowed" to respond to a snide comment--but I don't think the rules
of the BB state that. Then, Marty says I need "thicker skin" and Meeko chimes in with
"How did the subject get diverted again?" Simple---Meeko, ask Marty.

But back to the subject at hand:

Hugh---

I truly am curious where you were going with the Matt. 3:16,17 reference. Can you explain
further why you asked the question you did? I'd really like to know and await your response.

--Joe



 

[Oscar]

Verne,

In the departed state, whatever "hearing" faculty that exists, has simply been separated from the physical body and existed prior to death. I hope I am not getting too technical here but I think you know these things.

As one of my professors once said, "The intermediate state is a fruitful field for unbiblical speculation". 

That the spirits of deceased Christians hear with a faculty that existed prior to death is no more than an assumption.  This assumption rests upon another, that God communicates with the dead in Christ in the same manner he does with the living.

You have made a truth claim.  How do you know it is true?

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Verne,

You are a very good thinker Tom. I am astonished that the simple point made above should have been arrived at by so laborious a method. While there is much that we do not understand about Scripture and could not logically explain, your premise regarding God's ability to communicate truth by non-sensible means has clearly been in error from the get-go.
The Scripture repeatedly shows this taking place whether in the living or departed state so it must be possible.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live...   Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, John 5: 25,28

Verne, you have been at this so long that you have forgotten what I originally said.  Our discussion arose in the context of information being transmitted by mystical means as we read our bibles.  (I am using the word according to the meaning given in Webster's, and do not mean it in a demeaning or pejorative way.)

I have never maintained that God can not nor has not communicated to people directly at times.  If you think I have, please find the post and quote it.

What I said is that God's word contains God's message to us, and that we can access that information by reading our Bibles.

You responed by claiming that God communicates the message of scripture through mystical (meaning not mediated by the words and grammatical construction of the text) means.

Argue against my position if you wish, but please argue against my position, not someone else's.

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Verne---

I'm not sure I understand where Hugh was going. I thought he was making the point
that God does speak to people apart from the Word of God. I thnik that was true before
the Bible was complete. But now that there is a "complete" Word of God, God needs say
no more than he has already said. "It is finished".


--Joe

The written Word of God indeed is our hedge against error Joe, but the written Word is all about the living Christ with whom believers have a relationship.
Do you talk to the Lord Jesus about the mundane occurrences of life?
Or do you quote Scripture to Him all day? 
Do you expect His every instruction or means of guidance and direction in your life will be only by pointing you to a Scripture? What about the way He uses providence to discipline us, for example?
The letter kills, the Sprit gives life.
Verne

[vernecarty]

Verne,
Verne, you have been at this so long that you have forgotten what I originally said.  Our discussion arose in the context of information being transmitted by mystical means as we read our bibles.  (I am using the word according to the meaning given in Webster's, and do not mean it in a demeaning or pejorative way.)

I have never maintained that God can not nor has not communicated to people directly at times.  If you think I have, please find the post and quote it.

What I said is that God's word contains God's message to us, and that we can access that information by reading our Bibles.

You responed by claiming that God communicates the message of scripture through mystical (meaning not mediated by the words and grammatical construction of the text) means.

Argue against my position if you wish, but please argue against my position, not someone else's.

Thomas Maddux

Have I?
Here, again, is your original challenge Tom:

Verne,

In our former discussion I maintained that truth was communicated through the scriptures by word meaning, grammatical construction, and sound principles of interpretation.  The natural man, (which means the unregenerate man, not the spiritually immature man) does not receive God's truth.  It doesn't mean he cannot understand it. he rejects it.

You kept saying that truth is revealed directly.  I challenged you to give an example of such truth...and you failed to do so.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

As you will recall, I provided several Scriptural examples which you ignored.
Your use of the term "mystical" is clearly emotive.
Let me restate the core question in case you have forgotten it.

Can, and does God communicate truth via other than cognitive means?

For the purposes of our discussion, cognitive versus non-cognitive is far more precise than the ambiguous and suggestive "mystical", your dictionary reference notwithstanding.

I would remind you that cognition simply refers to acquisition of knowledge via the reasoning, intuitive and perceptive processes, of which your "word meanings, grammatical contruction, and correct principles of interpretation" provide examples.
I am done with this. I clearly made some unwarranted assumptions about you Tom. My mistake.
Verne

[Recovering Saint]

Hugh---

I truly am curious where you were going with the Matt. 3:16,17 reference. Can you explain
further why you asked the question you did? I'd really like to know and await your response.

--Joe

Joe and Verne

You got it Joe.

No one knows when God will speak so they might have cause to say "Wait since Malachi no one has heard God." at the time when these words were spoken. So if God speaks now directly to someone why do we question it. If Jesus chose to speak to you would you say that isn't from God?

Secondly someone I think but I can't find it now said that God talks to believers and not unbelievers. Hence my question about the words were spoken and heard by who? I believe everyone present heard them as well. God chooses who He wants to hear I believe even Pharoh heard God didn't He? But Pharoh was not a believer.

The reason I am saying this is to say I don't believe anyone can depart from the known Scripture for understanding of whether this truly is from God but He can speak directly and choses who to speak to and even uses donkeys if He wants to give the message.

I think we go too far one way or the other and lose sight of God's ability to work outside OUR BOX. To say He doesn't speak to people directly anymore or saying I don't read Scripture because I always hear a voice both are too extreme in my view. But He still chooses the method and the person or persons He is addressing I believe.

Hope this clarifies it. I enjoyed getting people to think about it though and hope that exercise helps people as well.

Hugh

[vernecarty]

Joe and Verne

You got it Joe.

No one knows when God will speak so they might have cause to say "Wait since Malachi no one has heard God." at the time when these words were spoken. So if God speaks now directly to someone why do we question it. If Jesus chose to speak to you would you say that isn't from God?

Secondly someone I think but I can't find it now said that God talks to believers and not unbelievers. Hence my question about the words were spoken and heard by who? I believe everyone present heard them as well. God chooses who He wants to hear I believe even Pharoh heard God didn't He? But Pharoh was not a believer.

The reason I am saying this is to say I don't believe anyone can depart from the known Scripture for understanding of whether this truly is from God but He can speak directly and choses who to speak to and even uses donkeys if He wants to give the message.

I think we go too far one way or the other and lose sight of God's ability to work outside OUR BOX. To say He doesn't speak to people directly anymore or saying I don't read Scripture because I always hear a voice both are too extreme in my view. But He still chooses the method and the person or persons He is addressing I believe.

Hope this clarifies it. I enjoyed getting people to think about it though and hope that exercise helps people as well.

Hugh

Thanks Hugh. Terse and to the point. I for one, choose to let God speak exactly as he so chooses...as if He cared what I thought...
Verne

[Oscar]

Verne,

Verne,

In our former discussion I maintained that truth was communicated through the scriptures by word meaning, grammatical construction, and sound principles of interpretation.  The natural man, (which means the unregenerate man, not the spiritually immature man) does not receive God's truth.  It doesn't mean he cannot understand it. he rejects it.

You kept saying that truth is revealed directly.  I challenged you to give an example of such truth...and you failed to do so.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I see what you mean Verne.  The phrase,

You kept saying that truth is revealed directly.

does sound like I am saying that God never communicates truth directly.  

Mea Culpa

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[frank]

Marcia,

If you will re-read my post, you will see that I did not make the claim that it was just a matter of academics.  I specifically said that grace must enable our faculty of faith.  But there must be something to believe.  How did you get the information? 

Did it come through hearing with your ears or seeing with your eyes?  Was it innate, something you were born with?  Or did you receive the information
by some non-sensible means?

I don't know of any other alternatives.  Do you?  If so, say so.

All I am addressing here is the means by which revelation is communicated to us. If you, or anyone else, can show where the scriptures teach a direct, non-mediated, ie, mystical revelation at the personal level, please do so.

It is far wiser that we should believe what is actually true, rather than hoping truth will conform itself to what we want it to be.  If I am wrong, I am wrong.  However, rather than simply being annoyed with the messenger, it would be far more effecient to show that we actually do/i] receive mystical, personal revelation. 

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Here's another place where you asked the same thing Tom.  I hope this helps you remember.

You have been given numerous examples in scripture that contradict your position.  If you are wrong, you are wrong, as you say.

f

[frank]

Verne,

I see what you mean Verne.  The phrase,  does sound like I am saying that God never communicates truth directly.  

Mea Culpa

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

What does Mea Culpa mean?

[vernecarty]

Verne,

I see what you mean Verne.  The phrase,  does sound like I am saying that God never communicates truth directly.  

Mea Culpa

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

AM I DREAMING??!!!! ALL IS FORGIVEN THOMAS. We are not as far apart as one might suppose...
Verne

[Elizabeth H]

mea culpa=latin phrase meaning acknowledgment of error or guilt

[Joe Sperling]

Hugh---

Thank you for your explanation. I think you are absolutely right that God can speak any
time he wants to. I believe he can do miracles and heal just as he did in the past. You
do bring up an interesting point I had never considered before though. After Malachi
uttered his last words, the Old Testament was complete. That was the complete Word
of God up to that point in time. God literally stopped talking through prophets etc, until
the time of Christ when God again began speaking to man. People probably asked "Why
has God ceased from speaking to us?"(just as you mentioned Hugh). Could it be because
God had spoken all he was going to speak until his Son appeared? In a sense saying "I've
said all I'm going to say, and all you need to hear in my completed Old Testament"?(Though
the Old Testament in the Hebrew faith has the books in a different order).

When Jesus appeared, God began to speak again. And he spoke until the New Testament was
completed, saying all he was going to say until that day when everything in the completed Bible
is fulfilled. So, at the present time he is silent, with his Word being his revealed will and direction for all of us. I may have misinterpreted what Tom has been saying, but I think the brunt of it is this: Can
God talk directly to man? Could he give someone special revelation? Sure he could!! God can do whatever he wants to do or chooses to do!! He could lift a man to the third heaven and give him
amazing visions, etc.--of course he could. But how does God "normally" work today? How does God "normally" teach and instruct us? If he supernaturally spoke to each of us there would be no
need for preachers or teachers, for exhortation or rebuke, etc. "Could" God supernaturally heal? Of course he can--he's God. But how does God "normally" heal? Through all of the doctors and medicine
he has given us. God could provide beams of light for us to read by if he wished, but he has preferred
to allow a light bulb to be invented to do that. "Most" of the time God uses natural and normal means
to instruct and guide us---it's just a fact.

He uses the Bible, circumstances, people, events to warn us, direct us, lead us and guide us. It's like that old story about the guy on top of the house swept away by the river. A boat comes by, but he cries out "No, God will save me!!"  Then a helicopter comes by, and he cries out "No, God will save me!!"  He winds up dying and going to heaven, and God asks him "Why wouldn't you let me help you?"

I know most of this is all simplistic, and I don't mean to be preaching---just wanted to share my opinion
on the matter. Verne---thanks for you input also. And Tom, if I am way off base with what you are saying,
perhaps you could clarify.

--Joe