Replies

And with that you've managed to break two Religion Forum guidelines: 1) reading the mind of another poster and, 2) accusing another poster of dishonesty.

Careful. I never attempted to read your mind. The 'sola scriptura' assumption that lies behind your methodology is one that is there objectively, whether you realize it or not. So, I'm not claiming that you are aware of it mentally. Likewise, I am not in any way accusing you of dishonesty. I believe you that you are not a Calvinist with respect to predestination. But one can be a Calvinist in one respect while rejecting some other aspect of Calvinism.

The revelation in Scripture (point 3) is cited in points 1, 2 and 4 in support of the fact that all four revelations work together as one, but in that order of authority and completeness.

You don't appeal to "Jesus" to back up these four ways. You don't appeal to the "Spirit" to back up these four ways. You don't appeal to "creation" to back up these four ways. You appeal only to Scripture to back up these four ways. Therefore, whether you realize it or not, your methodology is 'sola scriptura'. In that respect, your 'sola scriptura' methodology (in constructing and defending these four ways) actually contradicts your 'four ways theory', because (1) all four ways are based on one way [i.e. Scripture] and (2) two 'higher' ways ["Jesus" and the "Spirit"] are based on a 'lower' way [i.e. Scripture].

-A8

Not at all. Let me show you again, this time looking at the post and underlining every statement (number in brackets following) which supports another point other than [3], i.e. Scripture.

God the Father has revealed Himself to us in these four ways:

1. Through Jesus Christ who is the brightness of His glory, the express image of His person, by Whom all things that were made, were made and for Whom they exist. [4] (Hebrews 1:3, John 1, Col 1 etc.) If you know Jesus personally, [2] you have the first, most direct and most important revelation of the Father.

2. Through the indwelling Spirit who leads us into all Truth (John 14-17). He reveals Christ to us, personally. [1] If you abide in Christ [1] (John 15) and follow the Spirit's leading (Romans 8), you will have the "mind of Christ." [1] (I Cor 2)

3. Through the Scriptures. Not a jot or tittle of the law and prophets will pass until fulfilled and the new heaven and new earth begins. The indwelling Spirit brings the Scriptures alive within [2] you, revealing Christ [1] in all of this.

4. Through Creation (Psalms 19) - and we are all accountable for noting it. (Romans 1:20) Creation speaks to us that God is. [1]

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. - Psalms 19:1-3

And please note that the Magesterium is nowhere to be found on that list, neither are any other doctrines and traditions of men (Calvin, Arminius, Joseph Smith, etc.) --- because... when we wander beyond the teachings of Christ, we leave God behind.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. - Mark 7:7 That nature speaks to me about God does not make me a naturalist.

That Scripture speaks to me about God does not make me a Calvinist.

That the indwelling Spirit speaks to me about God does not make me a Pentecostal.

However, that Christ speaks to me about God the Father does indeed make me a Christian!

Now, if I were to embrace the Magesterium, I would be a Catholic. If I embraced the doctrines of Calvin, I would be a Calvinist. If I embraced the doctrines of Arminius, I would be an Arminian. If I embraced the doctrines of Joseph Smith, I would be a Mormon. If I embraced the doctrines of L. Ron Hubbard, I would be a Scientologist.

I am NONE of these. I am a Christian plain and simple.

Careful. I never attempted to read your mind. The 'sola scriptura' assumption that lies behind your methodology is one that is there objectively, whether you realize it or not.

. . .

You don't appeal to "Jesus" to back up these four ways. You don't appeal to the "Spirit" to back up these four ways. You don't appeal to "creation" to back up these four ways. You appeal only to Scripture to back up these four ways. Therefore, whether you realize it or not, your methodology is 'sola scriptura'. In that respect, your 'sola scriptura' methodology (in constructing and defending these four ways) actually contradicts your 'four ways theory', because (1) all four ways are based on one way [i.e. Scripture] and (2) two 'higher' ways ["Jesus" and the "Spirit"] are based on a 'lower' way [i.e. Scripture].
= = = =

Hmmmmm . . . obviously some MORE wholesale

WHOLESALE

EXTRAPOLATING,
INFERRING,
ASSUMING,
PRETENDING,

going on here.

Perhaps the Romanist makes such tendencies a doctrine of the faith? Is there a catechism with practice sessions on how to wild-haired extrapolate, infer and assume all within the time to say one or 3 "Our Father's?"

I think, ASSUME that I know A-G a little bit. And I don't see her that way at all.

I see her affirming Holy Spirit's communications to her directly. Certainly she has the foundational substrate of Scripture to assess such direct communications with--in her mind and spirit. But I don't see her going:

Qx version of A-G replying to Holy Spirit: "OK, Alright already yet, Holy Spirit--hold your horses--I have to get my comptuer Bible out and search several dozen verses before I can listen any further. And a few hundred before I apply what you're telling me."

Not at all. Her spirit within her--if my sense is remotely right--resonates with Holy Spirit as Scripture asserts will be the case for Believers who earnestly love God . . . And, if my sense is remotely right, she's full enough of The Word as well as The Spirit to know immediately without a lot of cogitations whether something is kosher and truly from Holy Spirit, or not.

Sounds like a fantasy, an assumption a gross extrapolation to try and squeeze A-G into some preconceived tidy little box I can't begin to see her fitting in.