Again nature points TO God and speaks OF God.
That is not the same as God speaking to us. The Bible is how He speaks to us today.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Have you heard the voice of God? Or, if He talks, what ways do you hear Him?
- Thread starter righteousdude2
- Start date
- Status
That is not the same as God speaking to us. The Bible is how He speaks to us today.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
That's fine resort to attacking me
But the verses you quoted do not prove God is speaking outside of His Word."The heavens declare..." The heavens are not God, they are pointing to God's glory.
"the sky above proclaim..." The sky is not God but the Sky is pointing to His handiwork.
So unless you want to go on record and say that the Sky is God and that the heavens are God which I don't think you do, it doesn't prove your point.
That's fine resort to attacking me
"The heavens declare..." The heavens are not God, they are pointing to God's glory.
"the sky above proclaim..." The sky is not God but the Sky is pointing to His handiwork.
So unless you want to go on record and say that the Sky is God and that the heavens are God which I don't think you do, it doesn't prove your point.
How are his words any more an attack than you accusing people of attacking the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Your posts are inconsistent.
Also, do you believe Charles Spurgeon attacked the doctrine of Sola Scriptura since he believes that we hear from God? How about A.W. Tozer?
That's fine resort to attacking me
It's not outside of his Word. Saying that nature speaks about God IS IN HIS WORD. God speaks to us through nature. Day after day speech pours forth. Sheesh.
Wow. I looked in the dictionary for "convoluted argument" and "moving the goalposts" and there was your post!
I think that Spurgeon and Tozer were godly men but not infallible therefore their words have to be shifted through Scripture. Now I have not had a chance to Google those quotes to get the full context which I am curious about but in the end their words are not Scripture plain and simple.
Now to quote another dead theologian:
Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures... I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.
OK I did not ask if you agreed with them. I already know the answer. My question is do you also accuse them of attacking the doctrine of Sola Scriptura just as you have a number of people in this thread?
Like you said nature speaks ABOUT God.
No one is arguing against general revelation. And we know about general revelation from His Word as you said. None of that disproves Sola Scriptura though.
Aw that's cool that I'm in the dictionary I'm honored
That's fine resort to attacking me
"The heavens declare..." The heavens are not God, they are pointing to God's glory.
"the sky above proclaim..." The sky is not God but the Sky is pointing to His handiwork.
So unless you want to go on record and say that the Sky is God and that the heavens are God which I don't think you do, it doesn't prove your point.
Neither is the Bible God. However, God uses all of those things to communicate (speak) to use.
I want to see those quotes in context first before I say anything. But throwing different theologians at me is not going to convince me to abandon Sola Scriptura.
Yeah the Bible is the Word of God. No one is arguing that.
Ok I have not asked you to abandon your personal view of Sola Scriptura. I have simply asked you to indicate if you believe Spurgeon and Tozer have attacked Sola Scriptura since they believe as others do who you have made that accusation against.
Again I want to look at those quotes in context.
Ok you missed my point entirely,. You said "The heavens are not God," and you said "The sky is not God" in post # 203. Thses statement were used to suggest that they cannot be considered God talking to us because they are not God. This argument you made in direct debate with ITL who suggested that those things, according to scripture, are used to communicate (speak) to us by God.
So, I pointed out that neither is the BIble God and in the same way God uses scripture to communicate to us He also uses His creation to communicate (speak) to us. They do not all say the same thing but they do communicate (speak) to us by God all the same. Therefore your argument against them is invalid.
Ok, I eagerly wait your response to my question.
I'm not arguing against general revelation. I would think I have made that clear at this point.
Beside are really going to argue against me saying that the Sky is not God? I assumed that would be agreed by everyone here?
And if you do not see how the living and active word of God is unique from the sky then I'm not sure how to help.
I did not say any of those things. You made the point that the sky and the heavens are not God. Ok, it was not necessary but we agree. You also spoke about them as being general revelation. On this we agree as well.
My point is that general revelation is no less God speaking to us than is special revelation. You defended your point by saying that general revelation is less than special revelation and cannot be considered God speaking to us. This you argued by saying that the heavens and the sky are not God.
I am saying your argument is invalid because the Bible also is not God. So you have nothing to stand on at this point.
So I read all of Spurgeon's sermon that was posted and it is just as I expected it to be, a wonderful sermon from the prince of preachers. I lost count of how many times he directed people back to the word of God. He made it clear over and over again that God speaks to us though the Scriptures. Now he did also talk about how the Spirit Illuminates the Scripture which I guess some might argue that is God speaking outside of the Bible. But I see that as one of the wonderful things the Holy Spirit does for us, illuminating God's word, helping us understand what God is communicating through His word. So for me that is another support for Sola Scriptura not a mark against it since the Spirit Illuminates the Bible. He also talks about General Revelation, but as has been stated multiple times, and Romans 1 makes abundantly clear General Revelation does not teach you anything about faith and practice.
Now Tozer: well that was just an example of why I don't like short devotionals. There was too much that I wanted him to define and it just is not enough space to do so. And I will be honest I'm not very familiar with Tozer so I don't even have the rest of his work to all back on to know how he uses words.
Ok here is Spurgeon once again:
That statement is in direct opposition to your personal position on Sola Scriptura.
So I answered your question (even if you don't like the answer ) now I'm still curious to your answer to Icons question of what doctrine you consider weak?
- Status