Special Rules... Why?

[POI]

I don't subscribe to the notion that people receive divine revelation to the extent that the discussion suggests anyway. God doesn't talk to people like he did Moses. He doesn't tell them to go forth and convert the heathens running amok on internet forums. If someone tells me "God told me" or they received something through "divine revelation" I'm pretty sure they are lying or delusional. Or perhaps even under demonic influence.

For debate: Why give the Bible special circumstances, special privileges, special pleading, or special rules? Why not just apply the exact same reasoning in bold, as quoted above? Meaning, no one is receiving any revelation; direct or indirect. It's all instead self-deception/other.

[Purple Knight]

If you think it's possible that God talked to Moses or Mohamed, then it's also possible he talks to Bob Blobertson who wants to scour all the heathens from the internet.

The harmonisation is that God indeed might be talking to Bob Blobertson but you don't have to believe him. I mean, he at least could be lying, couldn't he? Well let's check. I, Purple Knight, am inspired by God. Hmm. A lightning bolt didn't strike me and I intentionally lied. It looks like God does indeed allow people to lie about this. So mistrust is to be expected.

If God wants you to trust Bob Blobertson, he could 1) just give the same revelation to you or 2) give you some proof that this fellow is divinely inspired.

Sadly though, this applies to the entirety of the Bible. If God put a lock inside of you, to which the Bible was the key, and this fit was apparent when you read it and studied it, more power to you. But if this didn't happen then mistrust should be expected just the same as it is for some rando who says they have the word of God.

[POI]

No response Christians? Why do you guys think God exchanged with Moses, but does not (in the same way) today? Why not just assume they were/are ALL delusional/lying/other?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #3]

The writer to the Hebrews tells his audience at the time,

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son."

Notice here how this is all in the past tense. In other words, "in the past" God communicated in such ways, but in "these last days He has SPOKEN (again past tense) by His Son." I take this to mean the talking is over in that God has said all that needs to be said, and we are not to look for any more revelation.

Moreover, the author of 2 Peter tells his audience,

"And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit".

It seems here the author is instructing his audience to pay heed to the Word already spoken. He does not instruct his audience to expect to hear from God directly.

Simply because there have been those in the past who may have heard directly from God, is not any sort of instruction for us to expect to hear directly from God. The Biblical authors never instruct Christians to expect to hear directly from God. Rather, their instruction is to pay heed to the Word already spoken. Why in the world would one suppose that simply because an author reports on hearing directly from God, that we should expect to do the same?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Good post, Purple Knight.

If you think it's possible that God talked to Moses or Mohamed, then it's also possible he talks to Bob Blobertson who wants to scour all the heathens from the internet.

Yes.

But that is when testing the inspired expression comes into it.

Does Bob claim God told him to scour heathens from the internet, or is that just something Bob wants to do but God spoke to him anyway (via Christ). Because you have to have the inspired expression (the content of what was received) before you can test the expression.

"God spoke to me" is just a claim.

"God told me that we should hate our enemies" is a claim that can be tested (because the inspired expression - 'hate your enemies' - can be tested).

We test that expression - holding all things up to the Light - by holding that expression up to Christ (the Light). Is hating our enemies something that Christ taught us to do? Is it something He did? Or did He in fact command us to love our enemies (Matt 5:44); to bless those who curse us (Luke 6:28); to do good to those who wrong us? Since this message 'hate your enemies' is in conflict with Christ, we can know that Bob got this one wrong. Either he is lying (he is just making things up for whatever reason: money, power, attention, etc), or he is listening to a lying spirit, or he misunderstood (perhaps he even mistook his own desire as an instruction or approval from God).

We can also test against love (God is love and what comes from Him is going to be from love).

The harmonisation is that God indeed might be talking to Bob Blobertson but you don't have to believe him. I mean, he at least could be lying, couldn't he? Well let's check. I, Purple Knight, am inspired by God. Hmm. A lightning bolt didn't strike me and I intentionally lied. It looks like God does indeed allow people to lie about this. So mistrust is to be expected.

Yes.

Hence we are told (even in the bible) to TEST the inspired expressions.... because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1John 4:1). Even if a person did hear from God (or rather, His Son), they could have misunderstood, or not shared "JUST SO" (not shared exactly as the words were given, instead adding to the message or withholding part of it).

If God wants you to trust Bob Blobertson, he could 1) just give the same revelation to you or 2) give you some proof that this fellow is divinely inspired.

God could give you the same revelation (though you should still hold it up against the Light/Christ), thereby confirming the revelation Bob Blobertson received. But the one you should be trusting and listening to is Christ (Mark 9:7; Matt 17:5). Bob Blobertson would be a witness to Christ. Meaning directing people to come to and listen to Christ. If you're looking at Bob Bloberston and following him, trusting him in all things, then when he makes a mistake, won't you follow his mistakes as well?

Take an example with Peter, for instance. Peter heard Christ (the vision of clean and unclean animals for instance Acts 10:9-16). That didn't make Peter perfect though. Paul called Peter out at one point because Peter would eat with gentiles when no Jews were around, but not eat with them when Jews were around, and people following him (Peter) were being misled (Galatians 2:11-13).

Hold all things up against the Light (against Christ).

Sadly though, this applies to the entirety of the Bible. If God put a lock inside of you, to which the Bible was the key, and this fit was apparent when you read it and studied it, more power to you. But if this didn't happen then mistrust should be expected just the same as it is for some rando who says they have the word of God.

Christ is the key, not the bible. But I get and understand your point.


Peace again to you.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #3]

The writer to the Hebrews tells his audience at the time,

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son."

Notice here how this is all in the past tense. In other words, "in the past" God communicated in such ways, but in "these last days He has SPOKEN (again past tense) by His Son." I take this to mean the talking is over in that God has said all that needs to be said, and we are not to look for any more revelation.

Moreover, the author of 2 Peter tells his audience,

"And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit".

It seems here the author is instructing his audience to pay heed to the Word already spoken. He does not instruct his audience to expect to hear from God directly.

Simply because there have been those in the past who may have heard directly from God, is not any sort of instruction for us to expect to hear directly from God. The Biblical authors never instruct Christians to expect to hear directly from God. Rather, their instruction is to pay heed to the Word already spoken. Why in the world would one suppose that simply because an author reports on hearing directly from God, that we should expect to do the same?

Why not just assume that ALL claimed "contact" is fraudulent/self-deception/lies/delusion?

[POI]

[Replying to tam in post #5]

1) Do you believe Jesus/God still communicates today, via direct revelation (yes or no)?
2) Based upon your logic, anyone who claims Jesus/God speaks to them, and relays a 'loving' message, means it's likely legit?
3) What is Jesus/God's definition of 'love' exactly?
4) Why not just instead assume that all claims to direct revelation, (past and present), are lies or delusion?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #5]

1) Do you believe Jesus/God still communicates today, via direct revelation (yes or no)?

I don't know what you personally mean when you say revelation, but God still communicates today through His Son. (visions, dreams, words...)

2) Based upon your logic, anyone who claims Jesus/God speaks to them, and relays a 'loving' message, means it's likely legit?

No.

But if the message holds up against love (and does not contradict Christ), then it could be, yes. I would certainly have no reason to take issue with that message.

If the message fails against love and contradicts Christ, then no.

3) What is Jesus/God's definition of 'love' exactly?

I don't know if I know how to explain to you what love is.

Love forgives, love gives to the one in need, love serves others, love is kind, etc.

4) Why not just instead assume that all claims to direct revelation, (past and present), are lies or delusion?

Why would I do that?

Your op is asking why make a special exception, but in the OT, there were false prophets... and true prophets; there were lying spirits... and there was the Word of God; there were people who claimed to hear from God but did not... and there were people who DID hear and receive the Word of God.

It is the same today. I am not making a special exception.

Peace again to you.

[POI]

I am not making a special exception.

Yes you are. If the implied message comes with 'love', then it might be real.

Why not instead just assume all implied "external messages" are either counterfeit or lies -- (some "good" and some "bad")?

[tam]

Peace to you,

I am not making a special exception.

Yes you are. If the implied message comes with 'love', then it might be real.

Not with. From. But so what? There were conditions attached in the OT as well.

No special exception.

Why not instead just assume all implied "external messages" are either counterfeit or lies -- (some "good" and some "bad")?

Again, why would I do that?


Peace to you.