Posted on 07/19/2005 9:48:25 PM PDT by sionnsar
Studying the Word of God is profitable, so that the Will of God can be properly understood. Prophecy, however, serves no purpose but to reveal the will of God, which has already been revealed.
"Prophecy, however, serves no purpose but to reveal the will of God, which has already been revealed."
What of the other side of the equation, God Himself? His will may have been revealed, but that does not mean we listened or, even if we did, that we do not need additional help in order to understand His will. Most importantly, it does not in any way restrict Almighty God.
Who are you to tell God, "I say you cannot send any more prophets because your will is already revealed. If you do, I'm telling everyone I know of to ignore them."
One of us needs to get off of his high horse my friend.
I am not on a high horse. Prophecy is not needed to help us understand His will. The Holy Spirit works to help us understand His will.
The Bible clearly states that prophecy, speaking in tongues, and other miraculous deeds were to cease. A careful study of the Scriptures shows that those things have already ceased.
Knowledge has not passed away.
"I am not on a high horse." Well, one of us certainly is.
The type of knowledge being specified in the passage (1 Corinthians 13) has, which was supernatural knowledge. The real important point is that the passage says that hope and faith will last past the time of those miraculous gifts ceasing.
Some people claim that the miraculous gifts would last until the return of Christ. However, hope and faith will cease at that point, since we will no longer have any need for them, considering our Lord and Saviour will have returned. Therefore, the return of Christ is not a proper understanding of that to which "that which is perfect" (1 Corinthians 13:10) is referring. The word that is translated "perfect" in many translations actually could be translated as "complete". This is in reference to the completion of the written Word of God.
One of us, the one on his high horse, is now presuming to interpret the Holy Scriptures for himself by use of his own reason(Greek wisdom?): "The type of knowledge being specified...of the written Word of God."
Worse yet is that one of us is also telling everyone else to interpret the Holy Scriptures exactly as he does.
What next, a papal encyclical maybe?
I would only say to let the Bible interpret itself. If you disagree, that is fine. I am not forcing you to believe anything. I am just defending my belief.
The type of knowledge being specified in the passage is simply gnosis. You are reading into the text in order to arrive at a predetermined meaning.
I have observed those with stong gifts of prophecy. I personally have been told by God to expect certain outcomes, outcomes that I believed were not possible, I have seen and experienced what you say is not possible.
The passage you refer to is meant to explain the importance of Love and the importance of the return of Christ. The HS has given us gifts to be used until Christ returns. Of course these gifts will not be needed when he returns. To assume that the HS is withholding his gifts while we wait is illogical, contrary to the experience of Christians and a tortured reading of scripture.
Grave's point is a good one.
He is saying that if what you claim is true that its not possible to have "supernatural knowledge", which I assume is knowledge from God, then its not possible to "know" scripture.
By your own definition, your own knowledge of the bible cannot be from God because that has ceased to exist.
"I would only say to let the Bible interpret itself."
This has been said for centuries. ". the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself [but]...owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another" (St. Vincent of Lerins, probably in A.D. 434).
By now, of course, the number of possible interpretations seems to have increased exponentially, especially among those who say, "let the Bible interpret itself."
I have already pointed this passage out to you in this thread, but here it is again.
2Ti 3:16-17
(16) Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
(17) That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
Apparently, Paul was under the impression that a "man of God" did not need extra-Biblical revelation in order to "be complete, furnished completely unto every good work".
"Apparently" to whom? "Apparently" to youm, that's whom.
If you do not agree, please offer your understanding of the passage. Just saying you don't agree doesn't help anyone understand your position.
"If you do not agree, please offer your understanding of the passage. Just saying you don't agree doesn't help anyone understand your position."
That's fair.
Here's my position.
"Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles[i.e. the Holy Scriptures] should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation...ll possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at certainly nearly all bishops and doctors alike"(St. Vincent of Lerins, op. cit.)
You did not offer what you think the passage teaches, which is what I was asking.
"You did not offer what you think the passage teaches, which is what I was asking."
Well, to be honest with you, I don't have a clue. This much I do know, as an Orthodox Christian, and that is that the prophetic gifts never ceased. If you will go to the link I provided, and here again provide, there are many examples of Orthodox prophecy from the apostolic age to the present.
http://www.geocities.com/kitezhgrad/prophets/index.html
If you don't have a clue what the verse teaches, then on what basis do you claim that I am wrong about what it teaches?
I visited the link, but I don't have time to look through it in detail. If you could provide one or two specific examples, that would help. Also, in order for someone to be a prophet according to the Biblical standard, that person would have to be 100% accurate on every prophecy that they have ever made. Keep that in mind when listening to those who claim to be prophets.
"...on what basis do you claim that I am wrong about what it teaches?"
I don't think I said you were wrong. What I think I said was that you were presuming.
"I don't have time to look through it in detail..."
Machts nichts to me.
"If you could provide one or two specific examples, that would help"
Do it yourself. I'm not your personal tutor. You want me to do your work? Then send me check for my time, $200 and hour.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.