How does God speak?

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're repeating an assertion. I was asking how you undergird this assertion. How do you objectivize it.

No - I'm explaining why the Bible is objectively revealed and objectively spoken. This is part 1. In so far as you have the Bible before you as well as I do that is evidence that God has objectively spoken into this world. The Bible is here, what do we make of it? That is part 2. I agree it is subjective but the interpretative bounds are stronger than what you think. You know what my posts mean for example because the interpretative bounds of the words I use are tight. Why do you presume God can't do the same with His Word?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Words received for all are more general than words received for you. There is a place for both.

The Bible can and does speak to people personally. As I read Deuteronomy and John every morning God speaks to me and challenges me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The interpretive bounds of a word are x, the interpretive bounds for many words in combination is many x. Which is why you have so many different views. Your assumption appears to be (forgive me if I've got that wrong) that your particular interpretation is correct. You haven't addressed the issue of many contradictory interpretations and how you surmount the problem of your arrival at particular meaning being other than a personally arrived at meaning (whatever about the personal thought, reflection, opinions of others you personally take on board .. that might help you draw your conclusion)

We've combined quite a lot of words together so far and we're doing OK. My view is simple and established by centuries. God speaks most clearly and primarily in the Bible. All spiritual things must be tested. You've even just said that the Bible is a general revelation (objective to all).

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can't objectively undergird what strikes as a personal word from God by invoking what is but a personal interpretation of the Word. Personal x personal = personal.

See my answer above explaining the distinction between parts 1 and 2 and what I said about interpretative bounds.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do we determine if a personal interpretation is from God full stop? In the face of multiple possibilities that is.

You've acknowledged above that the Bible is a general revelation. That's a good place to start and since the interpretative bounds are significantly narrower it seems a logical place to start also.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Question: you receive a specific word from God regarding a specific thing: let's say an encouragement to progress past a particular situation your challenged by. Or you receive same encouragement about the same issue by reading something in the Bible that has no direct contextual bearing on the issue to hand.

How do you know the encouragement is from God. Simply because it was the Bible you were reading in the latter case? If so, then you must explain how you suppose the Bible God's word in the first place. Without using the words personal conviction.

I acknowledged in full that I don't hear voices or have vision. I hear God speak to me as I read His Word but I'll walk with you.

The way I would check this would be as follows:
1) Is the word consistent with the Bible?
2) is the behaviour that I am being encouraged for consistent with the Bible?
3) is the character of God revealed in this "specific word" consistent with the Bible?

I would need to test the spirits as the Bible says. There's been quite a lot of issues when people take a "specific word" and contradicts the Bible with it. The simple answer then is that it is not of God as we're told God is immutable by nature Biblically. He remains the same and thank God for that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That wasn't the point being made. The point being made was that there are a wide variety of views held by Christians about issues large and small. The objectivity you suppose the Bible as providing you isn't in fact objective. Which makes problematic the notion that personal revelation need be subservient to the Bible. Perhaps personal revelation provides more conviction to a person than the Bible

Objective = part 1
Subjective = part 2

antiskeptic wrote: »

You do accept that the conviction quotient attaching to anything you read from the Bible is decided upon by God - not yourself. And it only takes God to attach more conviction quotient to a personal word for that to have more conviction value.

Yes. But God primarily has spoken through His Son this side of the cross. It is very dangerous to not test the spirits against God's general revelation. This is the tangible Biblical context we find ourselves in. Right now if it is post cross, pre return of Jesus. I suspect that if the "specific word" doesn't draw us to Jesus that it ought to be questioned.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Remember: the argument "but what do you measure this revelation against" is a question that is applied to your biblical interpretation to. There is no measure - merely personal conviction that you are on the right, Spirit-led track.

I don't believe it does in the same way. The buck stops with the Bible. It is the only general account of God's character we see revealed. That's why it is the yardstick and rightly so.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The objective source of the Bible is problematic because of translation/versions. A subjective notion sidesteps that an supposes God ensuring it's objectively his word.

At the end of the day we have the manuscripts to compare if you doubt the authenticity of the Bible. We can have confidence thanks to the evidence that God has graciously given. Pop down to the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin if you've not been.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've made the point about interpretive bounds already. I'm not quite sure, still, how you deal with the many interpretations that exist outside your own. You earlier alluded to the simplicity of the Bible message and the need to simply read it to understand it. This doesn't wash with the one objective reality in all this: multiple contradictory views extant.

I've mentioned primary and secondary issues. Primary issues are Biblically clear, the rejection of which lead to heresy. For example denial of the Trinity or the rejection of Christ's divinity. Secondary issues are matters which are not Biblically clear. Like adult baptism or infant baptism. As Paul says in Romans and 1 Corinthians there's freedom on these issues.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I observe the church at work I see the trappings of humanity all over it: the tendency to flock behind personalities, the tendency to want fixed answers, the tendency for birds of a feather to accumulate so that individual churchs (and I'm speaking of evangelical and charismatic churchs here). All forces tending the church towards the middle ground, or as a reaction to what can be a stullifying experience in the middle, to the extremes.

I've seen quite a number of church related train wrecks myself. This is what can happen when sinful people who wouldn't normally hang around together otherwise (myself included!) are brought together by Jesus. All the more need for us to focus on Jesus by looking to His character in His Word. This is where Biblical focus is required.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Bible contains God's written revelation to man. And it contains truth, advice, comfort and hope without end. Of that I have been personally convinced. But I've not been convinced of many other things that have been supposed of it by men o'er the ages.

The only difference is that I regard it as supremely authoritative and you don't. I'm happy to disagree on this issue but I believe there are clear dangers in it.

Edit:

antiskeptic wrote:

This isn't to deny the importance of the Bible but the view of it's primacy is problematic in the extreme. How did God communicate to all the Christians people who have lived and still live, in post NT times, and who had no access to a Bible. Were there no Christians in places without the Bible? If there were, how did he communicate with them?

They had the Apostolic witness of the Apostles until the Scriptures came in final form.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Speedwell

antiskeptic wrote: »

I gather from a Christian friend who did Theology in Trinity that all the Theologians there are atheists.#

Take heart: with a thousand and one different Christian takes on the Bible, there's Noah's Ark-like room for an atheists view

(You're something of a plastic atheist anyway, iirc)

Must you do this? If I'm a plastic atheist, it's a good thing I'm PTFE, or I might take offense.

Instead I'll just ask why, if Scripture is so impenetrable to atheists, Christians automatically and consistently appeal to it when attempting to convert/debate non-Christians?

EirWatcher

solodeogloria wrote: »

The key question is where do we find Apostolic tradition? The only reliable source seems to be in Apostolic writ in the New Testament. What other reliable source do we have?

That is the crucial question, and is directly relevant to the thread topic: how does God speak to us.

Where do we find apostolic tradition? Firstly in the Bible.
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15)
"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).
This second passage, in particular, shows Paul's concern that apostolic tradition be continued after the death of the apostles,
through subsequent generations. It also tells of the importance of the early spoken ministry of the apostles in passing on the Word of God, (at least equal to what they had written).

It was the importance of those who considered themselves to be pursuing that apostolic tradition that lead to the Councils of Carthage, the outcomes of which were documented. At one of these, the canon of the Bible was determined (which also formed the basis of the later re-translated/abridged Protestant Bibles).

Now if the Bible is the the Word of God, then surely those who were deciding on the bounds of that Word, must have been doing so inspired by God through the Holy Spirit? So this demonstrates the Holy Spirit remaining with Christ's Church (beyond the initial apostles), at least in part through the observance of apostolic tradition.

It may also be of interest to you, that in the early church there were other very popular writings of the early Church Father's at the time (such as Clement's letters to the Corinthians) that the Council decided in their wisdom to *exclude* from sacred scripture and limit it to writings only of those disciples who had direct revelation from Jesus.
Over one and a half millennia ago, the followers of the apostles shared your concern for care in the sacredness of holy scripture.

It can make the faithful from the Protestant traditions uneasy, I know, to have to consider apostolic succession in the tradition of the Church, especially as information is only available outside the bounds of Bible scripture (partly by the early Church father's self-censorship of their own writings from the Bible), but their writings are still there, and the workings of apostolic tradition can be seen in the church still today in the synod's and councils of Rome. I doubt the Spirit left Christ's community of disciples after one or two generations!

solodeogloria wrote: »

Do these texts explain how Peter moved from being a minister to the Jews to being a minister of the Gentiles?

To the best of my knowledge, that information isn't out there.
Scripture - even though its content has historical context and is interpreted within that context - has gaps in its own historical information.
Christians were under persecution, so some apostles may have been circumspect about leaving uncoded written evidence of their movements (such as Peter's cryptic greetings from "Babylon" in Peter 5:13).
From scripture we know of the Council of Jerusalem and what was indicated for which apostles would minister to which communities.
We also know that scripture hints at some subsequent emerging differences:
"When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision." (Gal 2:11-12)

Its intriguing, but can only lead to some un-biblical speculation.

Did something happen in Jerusalem, or Rome? Perhaps some events, or all-too-human rivalries drove them to the same location. Whatever the reason, historical context, post-scriptural texts, and archaeological evidence indicate that both Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome - the two strands of the Pauline and Petrine ministries brought into the heart of the Roman empire, the Holy Spirit of the Church leading them to unity as sacrificial witnesses to Jesus Christ. All differences set aside. We may never know. We may never have been meant to know. But even the not knowing opens us up to the mystery and enlightenment of faith.


It's been an interesting thread - thank you.


Happy Easter to you also. May the Spirit of the risen Christ bring you great joy and peace.

solodeogloria

Good evening all!

EirWatcher:

Thanks for this.

I was going to break down your post piece by piece. But your first point didn't answer my question about what source other than the New Testament we can reliably consult to ascertain what Apostolic tradition is.

I have no issue with Apostolic succession but I would understand it differently to you. I don't believe it is confined to the Roman Catholic Church because early Christianity predates Rome. Every Christian can trace a line of conversion back to the Apostles. That doesn't make Apostolic Succession as remarkable as many would point out other than that God graciously saves people in every generation.

On the second question you've simply stated that we have archaeological evidence that Peter was in Rome. I'd be interested to see this as others claim he died in Israel. I don't believe that Peter was considered a Pope in the same sense as in the modern Catholic Church. Peter erred on inclusion of the Gentiles and Paul rebuked him.

Let me know if you've got any thoughts that can answer the questions.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

No - I'm explaining why the Bible is objectively revealed and objectively spoken.

The (repeated) assertion I'm asking you to undergird is this: how you hold the Bible to be Gods Word in the objective sense. How, as in, what is your objectively demonstrable argument. Let me say I don't have an objective argument myself - I was merely convinced by, what I believe to have been, God.

In so far as you have the Bible before you as well as I do that is evidence that God has objectively spoken into this world.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. How does us having the Bible before us constitute evidence that the Bible is an instrument (let's call it) of God. As opposed to what atheists consider it to be?

The Bible is here, what do we make of it? That is part 2. I agree it is subjective but the interpretative bounds are stronger than what you think. You know what my posts mean for example because the interpretative bounds of the words I use are tight. Why do you presume God can't do the same with His Word?

Because the Bible is full of concepts that are utterly alien to the world? Because it's written in any number of styles that people aren't as conversant with as vernacular language? And when we do write in those other styles (such as in poetry or song) different interpretations arise in the listener. Witness U2: do you think the words of one of the most popular bands in the world are understood for what they actually mean? That thousands flock to their gigs understanding what the subject matter of so many of their songs are?

You seem too, to forget that the Bible's most valuable worth lies in it's being revealed by the Spirit. This can't be said of yours or my posts.

My view is simple and established by centuries. God speaks most clearly and primarily in the Bible. All spiritual things must be tested. You've even just said that the Bible is a general revelation (objective to all).

Your view is your view and it's age (and the fact it is shared, presumably by many) doesn't render it correct. Ever open a bad bottle of wine stored for an age in a cellar?

You seem bent on sidestepping the fact that alternative views are also held by many and have been around for centuries. Calvinism for example (I'm supposing you not a Calvinist). You might address this fly in the ointment?

Spiritual things must indeed be tested. We're discussing the supposition of yours that the Bible is the primary measure.

General as in 'considered to contain fundamental theology and principles and more'. Extracting what that theology, principles, etc. are is quite an other matter. As the body Christianity, with it's myriad of views, testifies to.


I'll use the U2 analogy again: U2 had a meaning in mind when writing the words to a song. People, on the other hand, might extract all kinds of meaning from it, many probably not even close to the mark.

You've acknowledged above that the Bible is a general revelation. That's a good place to start and since the interpretative bounds are significantly narrower it seems a logical place to start also.

I've clarified generality (as I consider God's intent to have been). I've restated my requesting you dealing a bit more rigorously with 'interpretive bounds' (given the Everest-like problem it faces by way of multiple views among Christians.

The way I would check this would be as follows:
1) Is tI acknowledged in full that I don't hear voices or have vision. I hear God speak to me as I read His Word but I'll walk with you. he word consistent with the Bible?
2) is the behaviour that I am being encouraged for consistent with the Bible?
3) is the character of God revealed in this "specific word" consistent with the Bible?

I would need to test the spirits as the Bible says. There's been quite a lot of issues when people take a "specific word" and contradicts the Bible with it. The simple answer then is that it is not of God as we're told God is immutable by nature Biblically. He remains the same and thank God for that.

You didn't address the question. I didn't ask you how you apply the presumption that the Bible is God's primary measure. I asked how you conclude it the primary measure in the first place.

(This is a repeat of the question posed again to you at the head of this post so no need to repeat here, unless you haven't addressed it there.)

Objective = part 1
Subjective = part 2

Awaiting clarification on both points in above queries.

Yes. But God primarily has spoken through His Son this side of the cross. It is very dangerous to not test the spirits against God's general revelation.

This is the tangible Biblical context we find ourselves in. Right now if it is post cross, pre return of Jesus. I suspect that if the "specific word" doesn't draw us to Jesus that it ought to be questioned.

Whoa! You've morphed from "through His Son" to "through the Bible" without showing your work. You were speaking earlier of 'interpretive boundaries'. Perhaps this is the time to show how you arrive at such an interpretation so that these boundaries can be examined for their obviousness.

I would accept that we are post-Cross, pre-return but don't see how that informs the leap from through his Son to biblical primacy.

For me, interpretive boundary would go something like "The words of scriptures past, this epistle and the epistle of my fellow apostles constitutes, from this day forth, God's primary communication with man" inserted somewhere around the end of the book of Romans.

I don't believe it does in the same way. The buck stops with the Bible. It is the only general account of God's character we see revealed. That's why it is the yardstick and rightly so.

I'm less after what you believe and more after how you undergird that belief in rigorous fashion. Various challenges have been set you in this regard: how you consider the Bible God's objective instrument. How you circumvent the fact that interpretive boundaries are wide enough to allow buses to drive through. Those kind of things..

At the end of the day we have the manuscripts to compare if you doubt the authenticity of the Bible. We can have confidence thanks to the evidence that God has graciously given.

At the end of the day we have numerous was of translating those manuscripts (and will no doubt have more). Folk far smarter and well-positioned that you or I have examined those manuscripts, evaluated the differences between them, evaluated the overall weight of evidence this way and that ... and have come up with different versions. Your simple assertion dodges the weight of objective reality.

There is no authority to say which translation is the authority.

I've mentioned primary and secondary issues. Primary issues are Biblically clear, the rejection of which lead to heresy. For example denial of the Trinity or the rejection of Christ's divinity. Secondary issues are matters which are not Biblically clear. Like adult baptism or infant baptism. As Paul says in Romans and 1 Corinthians there's freedom on these issues.

Primary is in the eye of the beholder. I would have thought the way in which a person is saved to be a primary issue. Indeed, I can't imagine God being as concerned about our understanding of the Trinity as he would be about our understanding of our need to be saved.

The way of salvation, the place of baptism, the structure of the church, the role of prayer, the spiritual gifts, healing, personal relationship, our dealing with our sin, the role of works ... the list is as literally endless as is the variety of view on any of these issues. Then you have to meld your views on each of these into a coherent theology? For that reason I suppose everyone's theology (who aren't simply licking it wholesale off a particular denomination) their own

And you say "simple, just read it"?? The sheer weight of historical, present and, until He comes again (add that one to the list above whilst you're at it), future reality regarding multiple viewpoints, squashes this notion to a sub-nanometre wafer.

The only difference is that I regard it as supremely authoritative and you don't. I'm happy to disagree on this issue but I believe there are clear dangers in it.

I'm happy for you to begin to undergird your view in concrete fashion. There are a number of areas in which you've:

- relied on simply stating such and such the case.

- where you fly in the face of the reality as it is on the ground

- don't address the issue.

If you want me to compile a summary list I will but most are contained in this post. One which hasn't been addressed (and which I don't think is contained here) is how you differentiate you be spoken to via the Bible differs from you been spoken to any other way. I think you might be relying on the argument that the Bible is supreme. So if not providing objective reasons for supremacy, that issue again lies open for you to address.

antiskeptic wrote:

This isn't to deny the importance of the Bible but the view of it's primacy is problematic in the extreme. How did God communicate to all the Christians people who have lived and still live, in post NT times, and who had no access to a Bible. Were there no Christians in places without the Bible? If there were, how did he communicate with them?

Solo wrote:

They had the Apostolic witness of the Apostles until the Scriptures came in final form.

That's a pretty limited audience. Are you telling me you believe either that:

a) there are no Christians outside those rendered thus by apostolic witness / exposure to the Bible

b) there were Christians outside those rendered above, but God didn't communicate with them

The former strikes as utter madness (or to put it less strenuously: an example of a view for which there are plenty of Christian alternatives). The latter raises the question of how they became Christians without God communicating with them?

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

antiskeptic - I've already explained to you the distinction between one and two. Firstly the Biblical texts were objectively spoken into this world. We have it in front of us. That's what I'm arguing is in front of us.

Secondly - the subjective bit is indeed how we interpret this. I can't help you if you think that nothing in the Bible is clear. I disagree with you. I think there are quite a lot of concepts that are clear. I believe that God spoke for the most part clearly in revealing it. I also can't help you if you think that words have very loose interpretative bounds.

I've explained what I've meant at length and I don't see much fruit in continuing.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly the Biblical texts were objectively spoken into this world.

The biblical texts are objectively in front of us. God included as co-author isn't objectively demonstrable. If supposing God involved then that's a matter of faith, not objectivity.

Would you deal with that directly?

Secondly - the subjective bit is indeed how we interpret this. I can't help you if you think that nothing in the Bible is clear.

I've given you an objective (and very longstanding) reason why your view must be considered incorrect. You haven't addressed that reason. Mere disagreement and the claim of 'interpretive boundaries' side steps it.

So, why do you suppose there are so many different and conflicting views on so many, many issues. When the interpretive boundaries you say exist would ensure harmonious views?

It is somewhat staggering to hear someone suppose their own view more of less correct and simply handwave away the views of all of Christianity which doesn't agree with them. It's okay to have different views, I think. But to handwave others away and not suppose for an instant that you might be wrong and they right is .. quite disrespectful.

Could you address the issue of multi-contradictory views long existent in Christianity directly?

solodeogloria

Good morning.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The biblical texts are objectively in front of us. God included as co-author isn't objectively demonstrable. If supposing God involved then that's a matter of
It is somewhat staggering to hear someone suppose their own view more of less correct and simply handwave away the views of all of Christianity which doesn't agree with them. It's okay to have different views, I think. But to handwave others away and not suppose for an instant that you might be wrong and they right is .. quite disrespectful.

antiskeptic - The only thing which is quite disrespectful is your suggestion that I've precluded my possibility of being wrong. I've not done this and I acknowledged this early in the thread. Either you have not read them or you're being disingenuous. I want to presume the former rather than the latter.

I think it's best that we leave this here.

Much thanks in the Lord,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

antiskeptic - The only thing which is quite disrespectful is your suggestion that I've precluded my possibility of being wrong.

How wrong are you open to being about the items on the long list posted a few posts ago? If accepting your view on these can be wrong and one of the alternative views right, then I don't understand your 'interpretive boundaries' argument anymore. You appeared to be supposing interpretive boundaries would ensure you're essentially on the right track in these matters.

Accepting that one can be wrong but supposing one isn't requires the basis on which you stand to be solid. If that basis can't be explained to anyone else then it might suffice for your own personal purposes, but it can't be used to counter anothers view.

At this remove, it seems clear that you don't intend to address the fairly obvious problems that trickle out from your position, so I'm happy to call it a day.

Auntie.

Lavinia

Well, as I see it, the words in the Bible are written down by man. nobody can negate that fact.
So it was "the voice of God" heard by some man/men in the past.
So God talked to them via/through them, or through their visions, or voice etc...

Same way as it always was, is and always will be, no?

Limiting the message from God to one book is very limiting from my point of view... If you have "eyes to see, and ears to hear", you would see it everywhere... if you want to...

"lift the stone and I am there" etc...

antiskeptic

Lavinia wrote: »

Well, as I see it, the words in the Bible are written down by man. nobody can negate that fact.
So it was "the voice of God" heard by some man/men in the past.
So God talked to them via/through them, or through their visions, or voice etc..

Good point. Some non-scriptural special pleading from sola scripturalists to come?

Lavinia

Well it was also written - Haven't I told you - you are the Gods...

Lavinia

In relation to this:

Lavinia wrote: »

Well, as I see it, the words in the Bible are written down by man. nobody can negate that fact.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/bible-discovery-pottery-earliest-version-israel-a6980006.html

alma73

God speaks directly to us. For example take Mother Teresa.

On the dusty train to Darjeeling, Mother Teresa heard a "call within call" --- "I was sure it was God's voice. The message was clear. I must leave the convent to help the poor by living with them. This was a command, something to be done. Something definite. I knew where I had to be. But I did not know to get there." To serve the "poorest of the poor" was her idea. This was her hedgehog concept that would serve her for the rest of her life.

The sacred Scriptures of the Church are pivotal to understand God, however in them one must understand Gods call in his/her life and follow it. Always good to have a spiritual director to help you understand the it is indeed God talking and not the other fella.

NIMAN

I was thinking on that young girl from my home town who died in that earthquake last week.

She was 33. Dedicated her life to God, went off to be a nun, yet (if you believe he exists) felt the need to kill her in an earthquake. What did she do to deserve this? What purpose did her death serve?

EirWatcher

NIMAN wrote: »

I was thinking on that young girl from my home town who died in that earthquake last week.

She was 33. Dedicated her life to God, went off to be a nun, yet (if you believe he exists) felt the need to kill her in an earthquake. What did she do to deserve this? What purpose did her death serve?

God "feels the need" to kill us all someday. What purpose does anyone's death serve? God chooses the time and place and the circumstances. We only choose how to respond. How she responded in her final moments, how she was prepared to meet her maker, how many others she saved during the incident, we don't know.
What we do know is that we would not have heard of her, and her life of selfless love and devotion, had she died otherwise.

It is a dangerous business for us to start declaring how people should die.

recedite

EirWatcher wrote: »

What we do know is that we would not have heard of her, and her life of selfless love and devotion, had she died otherwise.

Well, next time you are speaking with the big guy, would you mind mentioning to Him that I am quite happy living my life in relative obscurity.

antiskeptic

EirWatcher wrote: »

God "feels the need" to kill us all someday. What purpose does anyone's death serve? God chooses the time and place and the circumstances. We only choose how to respond. How she responded in her final moments, how she was prepared to meet her maker, how many others she saved during the incident, we don't know.
What we do know is that we would not have heard of her, and her life of selfless love and devotion, had she died otherwise.

It is a dangerous business for us to start declaring how people should die.

Is there a scriptural basis for God choosing the time and circumstances of a person's death. In the sense of that being universally applied. It strikes me as problematic that idea: smoking doesn't actually cause cancer unless God decides that in this particular instance it will and in another not?

solodeogloria

Good afternoon antiskeptic,

Why are you insisting on a Scriptural basis on this?

I thought you weren't convinced that God speaks primarily and most clearly in His Word?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria