SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : By what authority?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
ZekeO
Member



Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 Whose following who?

Quote:

bubbaguy wrote:
The authority of Scriptures, then, needs to be tested against our experiences with the Holy Ghost in the present.

Thats taking for Granted that the "holy spirit" is indeed the Spirit of the Word and not any other spirit.

If that is the way you are going to think use this scripture as a measuring rod.

1Jo 4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, [b]but try the spirits[/b] whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1Jo 4:2 [b]Hereby know ye the Spirit of God[/b]: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We as humans have such a limited understanding of spiritual matters our perception of aparent 'truths' can lead to deception. We now see through a glass darkly. We know in part and prophesy in part. It is admirable to be totally 'lead' by the Spirit. The questions arises are you following the right 'Spirit'?


_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2005/2/17 15:08Profile
ZekeO
Member



Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 Interesting info

"They gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and they said to them, 'you have taken too much for yourselves, for the entire nation is comprised of holy individuals, and G-d dwells among them - why, then, have you lifted yourselves above the Congregation of G-d?'" [16:3]

This is what Korach and his group said to Moshe and Aaron. And you know what? For much of what he said, Korach was right: the Jewish people are indeed a holy nation, designated to serve G-d. All of us have a connection to G-d as human beings, and the Jewish people have a special responsibility and special connection as His Nation, the recipients of His Torah. As Korach put it in the original holy tongue, all of the nation are
"Kedoshim," which means holy and also distinct, designated. We have a purpose to fulfil.

This, however, does not mean that we have no need for guidance. To say that because everyone is holy, everyone can decide for themselves what is correct makes no sense. We need guidance, and teaching.

The best way to learn to use or program a computer is to simply try various things, with a manual close at hand. If something doesn't work, you just try something else. This approach works well because computers provide instant feedback -- if something doesn't work, you know very quickly. In addition, assuming you are working on a development platform, there are no major consequences if something fails. Do-it-yourself learning is a fine approach -- yet even so, one always benefits when we can ask advice of
others with greater expertise.

Now imagine trying to learn to practice medicine the same way. If someone came in with a serious ailment, we would simply try one medicine after the other until one appeared to work. How many patients would die before we got it right? The feedback is not fast enough, and the consequences of wrong decisions are too grave, to attempt such an approach. In medicine, careful training and expert guidance are that much more important. One who approached this field with the arrogance of a hacker would be a murderer!

In spiritual matters, we are not sufficiently in touch with the higher realms to recognize immediate feedback from our actions. According to Jewish thought, there are certainly immediate ramifications. When we do
mitzvos, we create angels. But, and this is very important, we don't see them. We don't know.

Are we doing G-d's will, or not? How do we know? The answer, of course, is through our teachers. The Torah guides us, but the Torah's wisdom is locked in a chain of tradition. If everyone decides how he or she will interact with G-d, then the result is no dialogue, but a monologue. Such a person ends up worshipping himself.

The Chapters of the Fathers, Pirkei Avos, teach us [1:6]: "Yehoshua ben Prachya says: make a teacher for yourself." This even precedes acquiring a friend or partner in learning and growth. Rabbeinu Yonah explains in his commentary that you should even acquire a teacher if you know as much as he. _Make_ someone your teacher nonetheless, he says, for a person is more likely to remember that which he has been taught, and may find that the other party has better understood a topic.

Moshe and Aharon did not lift themselves up; rather, G-d placed them in that position. The nation needed teachers, and we need teachers and guidance today, in order to rise to our full potential.



_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2005/2/17 15:16Profile









 Re: Interesting info

ZekeO wrote:

"To say that because everyone is holy, everyone can decide for themselves what is correct makes no sense."

You are right about this. This is called Ranterism. Quaker reject this entirely.

Read about it here.

http://www.exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/ranters.html

Bub

 2005/2/17 15:43
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Interesting info

Thanks ZekeO,

Well said on teachers. Do feel that is in large part what is done here through the messages available as well as in this forum amongst ourselves.

What books were you drawing the verse refrences from?


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/2/17 15:50Profile
ZekeO
Member



Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 Re:

Quote:

bubbaguy wrote:
This is called Ranterism. Quaker reject this entirely.


Are you a quacker?
Quote:

Outward forms of religion were rejected. [b]Even the Bible was not the Word of God.[/b]


Are you sure youre not a Ranterist?


_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2005/2/17 15:52Profile
ZekeO
Member



Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 Re:

Quote:

crsschk wrote:
What books were you drawing the verse refrences from?



Just some online Torah teachings. I find their practical wisdom refeshing.


_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2005/2/17 16:06Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

The 'Quakers' always had a 'lunatic fringe'. (so do evangelicals, Jake, before you blow your top) So did the reformation; not all Anabaptists were reliable either!

Jake will probably answer your question with a 'yes'. It is not true. He is an adherent of a pseudo-quakerism which would have been denounced by Fox and Barclay. Pseudo-quakerism pushed past the barriers of scripture that Fox and Barclay embraced and is now adrift on an ocean of infinite speculation where it often resembles Buddhism with a Christian vocabulary more than the faith once delivered to the saints.

Jake rejects the necessity of the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ. I have still to get him to confess that Jesus Christ is 'God come in the flesh'. He will say he believes that Christ is God and that God was in Christ, but so far he will not say the God became a human in Christ; his language seems to lean towards the idea that Christ's being God is only different to our being God in measure not in kind.

He does not believe in the personality of Satan. He believes that mankind's original sin was his turning from vegitarianism, but then the Bible is a lucky dip for Jake. If it agrees with him he believes in it.

This all probably sounds hard, but I bear Jake no ill will and have never yet been cross or angry with him. I go hard on his ideas because they are contrary to what God has revealed, and are mostly sheer speculation. His supreme folly is that his inner witness confirms these notions to him and that for Jake is the end of the matter. His supreme authority is himself. I have called this idolatry and see no reason to change my opinion thus far.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/2/17 16:12Profile
ZekeO
Member



Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 Re:

Quote:

philologos wrote:
I go hard on his ideas because they are contrary to what God has revealed, and are mostly sheer speculation.



May I add that this is a public place, which is in its nature a radically Christian voice for truth.


_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2005/2/17 16:19Profile









 Re:

ZekeO

I will let James Naylor speak for me.

"There is a spirit which I feel, that delights to do no evil, nor to avenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things in hope to enjoy its own in the end. Its hope is to outlive all wrath and contention, and to weary out all exaltation and cruelty, or whatever is of a nature contrary to itself. It sees to the end of all temptations. As it bears no evil in itself, so it conceives none in thought to any other: if it be betrayed, it bears it; for its ground and spring are the mercies and forgiveness of God. Its crown is meekness, its life is everlasting love unfeigned, and takes its kingdom with entreaty, and not with contention, and keeps it by lowliness of mind."

You misunderstand. The Bible is the word of God as recorded by fallible men (and women) and handed down through the ages. What Naylor speaks to on his death bed (after suffering unimaginable tortures because of his Quaker faith) is the Inner Light of the Holy Ghost as foretold by Jesus. The collective experience of Quakers over the ages, represented by such testimonies, is a tribute to God's presence in the here and now.

bubbaguy

PS. to Ron. Fox rejected and betrayed Naylor.

 2005/2/17 16:19
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Jake
Now I know you had rejected Barclay, but now I see you turn your back on George Fox too. I once sent you a copy of Naylor's testimony and it has pride of place in my study, but Naylor rode into Bristol on the back of a donkey,with women scattering leaves before him, to show that he had the Christ-spirit. He was a gentle fool who brought the gospel into disrepute.

Fox distanced himself from Naylor for the sake of the truth. Naylor's suffering was at the instigation of Downing (the man that Downing Street is named after) not Fox. I don't believe that even Naylor would have spoken 'for you'. These men, even Naylor, had a love and respect for the scriptures which is totally lacking in pseudo-quakerism.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/2/17 16:30Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy