Posts: 15,025
Joined: April 2001
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,348
Posts56,543
Members992
| |
Most Online2,383 Jan 12th, 2026
|
|
|
#35782
Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:16 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 176
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 176 |
Kathy2 said: Does it fit in your scriptural understanding to say that God does speak to individuals, when things are called to mind, i.e., to see goodness, sins brought to mind, or apologize or various things that the Spirit may lead one to deal with? And this may be a stretch to you, but doesn't God speak to us via his creation, ie. beauty (not pantheism)... and in others? Hi Kathy2, The Bible is a book FULL TO THE BRIM with a God who speaks to people. The problem begins when you get folks who gather these sayings together in one book and say, "No more, we have heard enough." Or we have systematized it, and are convinced that this is it. Print, bind and seal. The problem is when a translator or group of translators attempt to extract the meaning and a little human colouring is brought into it. The Old Testament was copied in a more regimented way, though it was not without it's difficulties. I love the part where in NT textual criticism, they might decide that a particular passage should be deleted or moved somewhere else....this in the name of cleaning up the Scritures. It is said that this cleaning up now means we have it almost 99.99998 % accurate. (excuse my little giggle..hehehe) The original autographs are not with us but the Spirit of Christ who inspired them is, and pity that the fear of allowing Him to move as He was allowed to move in the NT Church. A read through Acts reveals the Holy Spirit in intimate dialogue with the disciples (obviously not every household conversation is recorded) and this book of Acts continues into this very moment. To shut up the book or seal it in the name of King James, or Revised Standard, or New American Standard, or Message Bible is to do a great harm to the flow of the Holy Spirit and small wonder that the Body of Christ is so divided over this issue. It is time let go of the cruddy old books and open up to the meaning that the Holy Spirit wants to give us for NOW for this GENERATION... The 1600's are back then, we are living in the year 2007 and God has something to say to us, but we would prefer to pull out the journals of yesteryear and believe it is all SO AMAZING... To say no to Rome's solo verbo Dei is hypocritical if one retains the writings of Protestant Fathers. Are we afraid that God the Holy Spirit might say something that requires repentance (change) or are we just recycling the old masters out of fear of letting go into the flow of the Holy Spirit. Stiff necked and hard heartedness are all a result of quenching the flow of the Holy Spirit. To attempt to print, bind and seal God into 66 books and then remove all the apparent contractions by years of filtering is dishonest. What this is all about is taking His spoken word and recording it and then worshipping it. The only one we are suppose to worship is God in Spirit and in Truth. The Bible only idea just is a vexation to the Spirit and so is the Spirit only (hyper Mystical vs hyper Scripturulist) what is needed is a little thinking here. To do this is to always fight not only with one another but with our own minds. We are not only intellectual, we are also spiritual and as such we long to have a personal relationship with the God of the Bible, that is the goal after all, that is why the Word became Flesh, the danger here is making the Flesh word again and missing the point altogether. What you are speaking of is what is known in THEOLOGICAL terms as the GENERAL revelation. Scripturalist minimize this in order to facilitate their narrow minded approach. The creation ANNOUNCES GOD and we the crown of His creation, ANNOUNCE GOD. The Scripturalists will accuse those who enjoy this revelation to much as been Mystics etc...silly, God created all this first and for good reason it is HIS HANDIWORK, and we are FEARFULLY AND WONDERFULLY made. A person would have to either be blind or indoctrinated, brainwashed not to see....'in every leaf that trembles, and in every grain of sand' - There is no way to the Father through these things, but they are BOLD and GLORIOUS and we are encouraged to offer praise to Him out of the wonder of these things. The Scripturalists over express the SPECIAL revelation, and even neuter it. They will happily prescribe the Westminster Confession, and any number of Systematic Theology there own too in an attempt to make as did Rome ONE INTERPRETATION as correct theirs. The truth is that there is MEANING and God the Holy Spirit never intended this dry letter stuff, it kills who He is, it takes away the Lord Jesus Christ's Spirit out of our hearts and makes it a document. In the end all that is done then is to memorize the document over and over in the hope that it will change one. Oh shame, oh shame, shame, shame ... to lose this priceless gift of God's Spirit in us, leading, guidig, comforting and YES, YES, YES...speaking to us. We have built a wall of books around us and now we wonder why we reject the idea that GOD is able to speak personally to people. Are you listening ? Lord, what do you want to say to me ? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/chatter.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
|
|
|
|
|
Entire Thread
|
Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
John_C
|
Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:19 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerreancy - working definition
|
Tom
|
Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:35 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
John_C
|
Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:44 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Wes
|
Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:18 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
John_C
|
Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:28 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Tom
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:52 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Pilgrim
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:22 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Tom
|
Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:58 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
tartanarmy
|
Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:25 AM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
John_C
|
Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:16 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Pilgrim
|
Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:25 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
tartanarmy
|
Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:24 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Wes
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:36 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
tartanarmy
|
Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:43 AM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Wes
|
Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:04 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
straw
|
Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:43 AM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Young Catholic
|
Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:31 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Pilgrim
|
Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:22 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Pilgrim
|
Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:41 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
straw
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:28 AM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Wes
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:30 AM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Pilgrim
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:57 AM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Anonymous
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:44 AM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Robin
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:27 AM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
straw
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:16 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
William
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:57 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Kathy
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:15 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
William
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:05 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
Kathy
|
Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:17 AM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
straw
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:06 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
CovenantInBlood
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:51 AM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
straw
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:25 PM
|
Re: Partial Inerrancy - working definition
|
CovenantInBlood
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:55 PM
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
178
guests, and
41
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|