Quote
Link said:
It appears I touched a sacred cow when I said I was not concerned with the Westminster confession. It is only valid to the extent it teaches what the scriptures teach. And Pilgrim, if what I say is supported by scripture, then of course you should be concerned with what I say.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" /> you touched a "sacred cow" indeed and it is called God's inspired written Word and not as you mistakenly thought, the WCF.

Men and creatures have been twisting the Word of God to suit their own fanciful ideas since Adam walked the face of the earth when Satan tempted he and his wife. Because something is in the Bible doesn't mean what you are doing with it is the teaching of the Bible. Wes also included the Scriptural texts upon which that section of the WCF was based. Funny how you blew right by them and chose rather to try and go around them by constructing the proverbial "straw man", aka: sacred cow tactic. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

Lastly, if case you didn't notice, my cogent rebuttal of your silliness, contra: WCF being a sacred cow was only a preface to all else which followed, which included a number of biblical references and relevant logical conclusions from both them and your position, re: perpetual direct divine revelation. Funny that you didn't bother to even mention any of that never mind actually deal with it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

What is obvious to me and I probably can assume many others here is that you hold to a low view of the inspired written Word. For accordingly any revelation which comes to you and which you can somehow justify by finding something relevant in Scripture to attach it to, then it is to be accepted as infallible and authoritative. (see my argument in my previous reply which you circumvented) What is true is that there have been many who have taken your approach or one similar to it, i.e., to relegate the Scriptures to being but one of several different ways which God has or continues to communicate with mankind. For example, the RCC puts "oral tradition" on par with the Bible. And by inference, those who hold to a non-cessationist position put "aural and/or optical revelation" on the same level as the Bible, of course with the qualification that such revelation is in agreement with [your interpretation] the Bible.

On a more personal note, I simply can't seem to bring myself to trust someone who says they hear voices, particularly one who says it is God's voice and even more so that God spoke to them with a note of interest that applies to me. [Linked Image]

In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]