by jimwalton » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:57 pm
> So you're saying those prophets were proven right by what happened later? See a problem here?
No, not exactly. That's not focused enough to say, "Yeah, that's what I was saying." The prophets received their message directly from God, and they knew it. But then that word was also established by a sign and substantiated by corroborating evidence. If it was just "proven right by what happened later," it opens the door for all kinds of abuse. As humans we are outrageously terrible at interpreting our circumstances, especially when it comes to spiritual matters, and tend more than anything to see what we want to see, hear what we want to hear, and believe what we want to believe—a recipe for fiasco. Mostly the prophets spoke the word of God because God had actually spoken to them, they knew it, and they said what they were told to say, even if there weren't accompanying signs or corroborating evidence.
But our own thoughts are outrageously unreliable when it comes to spiritual matters, and that's why the objective text is the highest and final authority. Many abuses and tragedies have come from a claim that "God spoke to me." God has spoken to people, and he does, but before you blab it around, you better know 100% that it was God. The prophets knew that; a lot of modern people don't, but they claim it anyway. There is great danger there. All the more reason not to trust the direct personal connection to God over the text created when we "know" God spoke.
So back to your original question: First of all, you are setting up a false dichotomy: Faith in the Bible is faith in God, and faith in the people God inspired to write it. So I don't have to choose between those. But I would have faith in the text 100% over anything a person said God told them. If God really did tell them something (which he does on occasion), it would blend in perfectly with Scripture. God would never tell us anything contrary to Scripture.
> So you're saying those prophets were proven right by what happened later? See a problem here?
No, not exactly. That's not focused enough to say, "Yeah, that's what I was saying." The prophets received their message directly from God, and they knew it. But then that word was also established by a sign and substantiated by corroborating evidence. If it was just "proven right by what happened later," it opens the door for all kinds of abuse. As humans we are outrageously terrible at interpreting our circumstances, especially when it comes to spiritual matters, and tend more than anything to see what we want to see, hear what we want to hear, and believe what we want to believe—a recipe for fiasco. Mostly the prophets spoke the word of God because God had actually spoken to them, they knew it, and they said what they were told to say, even if there weren't accompanying signs or corroborating evidence.
But our own thoughts are outrageously unreliable when it comes to spiritual matters, and that's why the objective text is the highest and final authority. Many abuses and tragedies have come from a claim that "God spoke to me." God has spoken to people, and he does, but before you blab it around, you better know 100% that it was God. The prophets knew that; a lot of modern people don't, but they claim it anyway. There is great danger there. All the more reason not to trust the direct personal connection to God over the text created when we "know" God spoke.
So back to your original question: First of all, you are setting up a false dichotomy: Faith in the Bible is faith in God, and faith in the people God inspired to write it. So I don't have to choose between those. But I would have faith in the text 100% over anything a person said God told them. If God really did tell them something (which he does on occasion), it would blend in perfectly with Scripture. God would never tell us anything contrary to Scripture.