Featured Have you heard the voice of God? Or, if He talks, what ways do you hear Him?

Since, not if, God's Scriptures are sufficient, 2 Timothy 3:17, and are complete, what need is there for visions, dreams, hearing an audible/inaudible voice? I see no instruction in NT Scriptures for this hearing at all. I see lots of subjective argumentation 'I heard, I saw...' (which I believe fall under the category of myths, fables, which can be 'stories') but I've not seen one person back this notion up from NT instruction.

The word complete here is, I believe, used only once in the NT. It shows the sufficiency of Scripture, which Paul was always pointing others to. Our Lord Jesus did the same thing.

Now I said 'since' not 'if' not as if you didn't know this, I hope you understand my intentions.

 

Sola Scriptura does not mean the Bible is the final authority it means it is the ONLY authority. Scripture Alone. We dont use tradition, dreams visions, mystism etc. but the Bible Alone to know how God wants us to believe and live. It is totally Sufficient for faith and practice.

No one has said God does not answer prayers in other ways. Let's face it most prayers are for specific actions and they happen or they don't, meaning that you can infer a yes or no or not yet to your request. That is not extra Biblical revelation and that is not saying I heard God say....

 

Correct, and thanks for the clarification on final/only.

Concerning 'hearing' God in prayer, it appears that this was used (albeit in an inefficient fashion) as if it proves somehow we 'hear' God. The 'hear' portion was not elaborated upon (if I recall correctly) it seemed left as if somehow it stood on its own. We should tread cautiously in using these things to teach people. Where are the Scriptures, why aren't they being utilized, why so much subjectivity?

I certainly would not enter the pulpit with any of that!

 

Yeah I know that post was deleted for some reason so I figure I would let that go. Although I guess to be more accurate I should have asked why he thought Sola Scriptura was rubbish to be more in line with the ONLY comment. Either way my comment and thought of how tragic it is still stand.

 

I do believe that you need to go back to the common definition of "Sola Scriptures." You are taking it farther than intended.
Here is a bit of cut and past from "Theopedia" on "Scriptures alone"

Scripture alone (from the Reformation slogan Sola Scriptura) is the teaching that Scripture is the Church's only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. While the Bible does not contain all knowledge, it does contain that which is necessary for salvation. Indeed, if something is not found in Scripture, it is not binding upon the believer. This view does not deny that the Church has the authority to teach God's Word. Furthermore, while tradition is valuable, it but must be tested by the higher authority of the Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura "does not mean that the Reformers rejected everything that every Christian in earlier ages has said: indeed, they often cited the early Christians as supporters of their own positions. However, they recognized that those earlier believers were not inspired, were not inerrant, and, in fact, quite often made errors in their judgments and beliefs, just as people do today. The only infallible rule of faith, they argued, is found in the pages of Holy Writ."
(underlining mine for emphasis)​

First, I have repeatedly explained what I termed "extra biblical" and if you don't like what I explained and desire to assign some charismatic fluff, then that is not obliging me to agree.

Second, from a very personal experience, there are at least two on this board who have recorded that they heard from God.

There is no Scriptural obligation for one to believe the testimony, however there is Scripture obligation for one to admit to error.

Rather, we have witnessed a further entrenchment in opinion that is claimed as fact.

Sola Scriptures (from all accounts that I have quickly researched) is as I have presented it, which is consistent with Theopedia's statement, too.

 

Accept that such is wrongly applied. See the post I made about the definition and application.

As it is being used on this thread, the application is not consistent with the definition and common use.

Concerning 'hearing' God in prayer, it appears that this was used (albeit in an inefficient fashion) as if it proves somehow we 'hear' God. The 'hear' portion was not elaborated upon (if I recall correctly) it seemed left as if somehow it stood on its own. We should tread cautiously in using these things to teach people. Where are the Scriptures, why aren't they being utilized, why so much subjectivity?

I certainly would not enter the pulpit with any of that![/QUOTE]

I do think you need to go back to through the thread and show were anyone suggested that hearing from God was subjective and the Scriptures were not being utilized.

Such a claim (imo) is not worthy of the space it has taken up on the thread.

 

But the above is incomplete and is being misused. Is it being used here to defend your position that we hear from God outside of His Word (prayer)? I cannot see any other reasoning for using it. Of course Scripture deals with matters of salvation, but also of the nature of God, man, sin and etc.

It is like you are using the above to prove that since Scripture doesn't tell us how to change a carburetor on a Pinto (insert any subject it doesn't address) therefore one may conclude that God speaking to us mystically, subjectively is OK. There is no NT instruction giving supporting your theory.​

 

Just making such a claim above, is not proof.

Find a definition better than the historical one I submitted from Theopedia.

Until then, your statements carry about as much weight as some others who are taking "Sola Scriptura" beyond the intended use.

At least if I modify a commonly used term, I try to indicate that to the readers, and specify why it is modified and the limit of the modification. This I did when the term "extra biblical" was being published on the thread, to clarify how, in context, the term was not applicable as some would desire in attempts to mar my witness.

Sola Scriptures has been stretched out of the defined use on this thread, and I am pointing that out.

Should you or anyone else have something better to offer as a definition that can be found on the net, then go for it.

Like I said, I am not so entrenched in my statements that I am above change when shown that I am in error.

But, I do require proof.

I showed proof of how the term was being used, inappropriately, and wait either for further or better documentation that I am in error, or that those who have used the term inappropriately make such apologies as are obliged.

 

Okay, I am going to be YELLING here.

HOW DID ANY OF YOU HEAR GOD CALLING YOU FOR SALVATION? DID YOU READ THE BIBLE AND JUST DECIDE THAT YOU NEEDED TO BE SAVED? OR DID YOU HEAR HIM SOMEHOW?

 

I really don't know much about the bible so pardon any of my ignorance, but it seems to me there is a lot of scripture referring to God answering your prayers. To me it seems that the scripture says God will speak to you if you call on him.

Jeremiah 33.3
Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know.'

Psalm 91:15
He will call on me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him.

Isaiah 48:6
You have heard these things; look at them all. Will you not admit them? "From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you.

Jeremiah 23:35
This is what each of you keeps saying to your friends and other Israelites: 'What is the LORD's answer?' or 'What has the LORD spoken?'

Isaiah 30:19
People of Zion, who live in Jerusalem, you will weep no more. How gracious he will be when you cry for help! As soon as he hears, he will answer you.

 

"This is the mark, the peculiar mark of those who are Christ’s peculiar people—they hear His voice. Sometimes it truly sounds in the ministry; sometimes it thrills forth from that Book of books, which is often grossly neglected; sometimes it comes in the night watches; His voice may speak to us in the street. Silent as to vocal utterance, but like familiar tones that sometimes greet us in our dreams, the voice of Christ is distinctly audible to the soul. It will come to you in sweet or in bitter Providences. Yes, there is such a thing as hearing Christ’s voice in the rustling of every leaf upon the tree; in the moaning of every wind; in the rippling of every wave, and there are those who have learned to lean on Christ’s bosom till they have looked for all the world as though they were a shell that lay in the ocean of Christ’s love, listening forever to the sonorous cadence of that deep, unfathomed, all-mysterious main. The billows of His love never cease to swell; the billowy anthem still peals on with solemn grandeur in the ear of the Christian. O may we hear Christ’s voice, each one of us for ourselves! I find that language fails me, and metaphors too weak to describe its potent spell. One point is worth noticing, however. I think our Lord meant here that His sheep, when they hear His voice, know it so well that they can tell it at once from the voice of strangers. The true child of God knows the gospel from the law; it is not by learning catechisms, reading theological books, or listening to endless controversies that he finds this out; there is an instinct of his regenerate nature far more trustworthy than any lessons he has been taught: the voice of Jesus!" —Charles Spurgeon, "The Sheep and Their Shepherd"

 

I have answered that before but here you go again, Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Romans 10 outlines how that happens.

 

Can't say for sure but I reported it and a few others. Likely the disappearance was a result of that.

 

In no place have I ever said that other books and dead theologians were not worthwhile. In fact on the thread talking about reading dead theologians were spoke well of them. But here is the thing their words are not on par with Scripture and they don't claim to be. In fact the dead theologians I read would be appalled if someone put their writing anywhere close to Scripture. But when someone says they heard from God they are putting that equal to Scripture. And that is absolutely what Sola Scriptura is against.

Think about it the time before the Reformation, the RCC was putting their writings on the same level as Scripture and the reformers were arguing against that. Well now we have the same thing when people say they heard from God outside of Word, they are putting that on the same level as Scripture. You can argue all you want that is not what you are doing but saying thus saith the Lord automatically puts in on par with Scripture. So yes I am using Sola Scriptura correctly. The Bible is Sufficient for faith and practice.

 

In your opinion does the above validate Sarah Young's 'Jesus Calling' in that she says she writes down what Jesus says directly to her?

 

Ugh Jesus Calling. Horrible horrible book. It has no business being sold in Christian book stores as it is based on new age thought.

 

I have not read a single person who has contributed to this thread that makes such a claim. For you to post what you just said as if they did is error.

This argument is like stating a banana is a lemon because they are both yellow.
Again, there is not a single person on this thread (that I have read) that has made that claim.

That YOU don't hear from God is not obliging those that do and have to be in error.

Sorry, that you want to compare those who testify of the intimate times with the Father as comparable to Papists.

I do not know of a single person on this thread has made a claim of exalting personal experience above the Scriptures. It is obligatory for you to post and report any such claims, for (if I remember the forum terms and rules) such a claim is not allowed. But, more, it is important because YOU have made such a derogatory alignment to prove that such has been posted.

If you cannot, then your writing is as biased as the opinion you have shared. For, you are not, as I pointed out by quoting the appropriate definition, following the traditional definition. You are expanding it to include what YOU think is ungodly, and making the grand claim that the term agrees with you.

To that end, I have made now THREE times this statement: that if I am in error as to the definition that I posted and the LIMITS of the definition by the historical reading, then show me the proof that I may change my thinking.

Until then the obligation falls upon those who have made such an inappropriate enlargement to recant and make apology.

 

When someone says they have heard from God they are not putting that equal to scripture. No one has made that claim and it is an absurd statement that has no foundation in logic and no support by any means.