Speaking of the Lord as one’s Shepherd, Psalm 23:2 says, “He leadeth me beside still waters.” When we follow Jesus Christ through His Word in the Bible, He is leading us. Then in Romans 8:14, the Apostle Paul writes, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” He also writes in Galatians 5:18, “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” The idea of being led by God, by Jesus, and by the Spirit is true. Believers are led by God, by Jesus, and by the Spirit.
Last week I was sitting with another pastor and he told me the story of how he came to his church. Someone asked him to come to pastor where he was, and this man said he would pray about it. When the one asking called back later, this pastor said that he had silence from the Holy Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit had not told him anything. When the Holy Spirit did begin to talk to him, He told him to go someplace else. I never asked him follow-up questions, but is this an experience we should expect, and if the Holy Spirit is talking to people, how is this occurring today?
From conversations I have had with other independent Baptists, it isn’t unusual that some, perhaps many, believe that the Holy Spirit talks to them directly and in a very specific way. Very often, if you question one of them, he will react like a Charismatic does when challenged about his experience. On many various occasions, a young lady has said to me that a young man had informed her that the Holy Spirit had told him to marry her. A young lady doesn’t agree, but how could she question God? He apparently told the young man to marry the girl.
Parallel to the “leading of the Spirit” is also “the Spirit teaching.” 1 John 2:27 says, “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,” and 1 Corinthians 2:13, “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” What I’ve heard here is that when someone looks at a passage in sermon preparation, he prays and the Holy Spirit “gives him a message” or “tells him what to say.” A never before heard teaching very often emerges from this tack. Ordinary means of word usage, grammar, and syntax give way to what the Holy Spirit reveals someone.
What is the basis for believing a voice in your head is the Holy Spirit talking to you, telling you something, or teaching you? As you look at the above few passages, that’s not what they are saying. That goes beyond what they are saying. We have a scriptural basis for not believing that is how God works. That teaching from those verses contradicts other scripture, so that can’t be what they are saying.
The Holy Spirit is a Person, so He can speak, but He is not continuing to reveal a message directly to anyone since the completion of the canon of scripture (Jude 1:3, Heb 2:3-4). The man in the office of the prophet and then the apostle was given direct revelation on par with scripture. Scripture itself is that to which 1 Corinthians 2:13 refers. That did occur at one time, but only before AD96 — not since then. 1 John 2:27 says that you can understand the Bible on your own and in a technical, doctrinal way, this has been called illumination. Illumination does not function apart from the ordinary means of study. However, believers filled with the Holy Spirit are not closed off from comprehending what the Bible teaches.
To what should one attribute a voice in one’s head? No one should assume that the voice given credit as the Holy Spirit speaking is in fact the Holy Spirit speaking. We don’t have any basis for either knowing or not knowing whether the voice we hear is the Holy Spirit. We do know that the “sword of the Spirit is the Word of God” (Eph 6:17). We know that in verbal gifts, that it is the Holy Spirit when someone speaks as the oracles of God (1 Pet 4:10-11). If it is what the passage from scripture says, then we know it is the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not going to tell you who to marry. He isn’t going to inform you of the brand of toilet paper you should buy. He won’t tell you whether you should build a new auditorium or not. He won’t counsel you on when to buy a new car.
The voices in your head are either your conscience or your talking to yourself. If it is your conscience, the message will still be whatever is your highest perceived standard, which might be teaching you’ve heard in the past, whether scriptural or unscriptural. The voice can tell you that you’re doing something wrong when you aren’t doing something wrong. The conscience functions as a warning device that operates according to a regulation already plugged into your brain. It won’t feed you something that isn’t already there.
If the voice is your talking to yourself, then it can be a lie. It is especially lying if it is telling you that it is the Holy Spirit talking. That is yourself believing something that isn’t true. The voice might be telling you the truth, but it isn’t the truth that the Holy Spirit is saying this directly to you. If you are controlled by the Holy Spirit, you are controlled by the Word of God, which is content that has already been written for two thousand years (Eph 5:18, Col 3:16).
When someone decides to build an auditorium, he wanted to build the auditorium. It wasn’t the Holy Spirit telling him to build it. He wants to build it, but he’s telling people that the Holy Spirit told him. The Holy Spirit will not tell you who to marry. You marry who you want to marry. Can you know if the marriage is scriptural? If it is scriptural, then it is scriptural. You have to look at scripture to see if something is scriptural.
Someone might ask, “What about the conviction of sin?” Again, the Holy Spirit uses the Word of God to do that. He does not skirt around scripture to convict anyone. It all comes right from the Bible. There is no basis for your knowing whether it is your conscience, you talking to yourself, or the Holy Spirit helping you remember and then apply scripture. What matters in the end is if it was biblical.
What if someone wants to go to Thailand and he really shouldn’t go? We have many different checks and balances against doing something that God doesn’t want us to do. Pastoral leadership might have scriptural reasons for not going. We don’t have the right to disobey church authority. The rest of the church may know of character deficiencies. Someone may not fulfill the qualifications. Others may have good reason to say that it is an unwise decision, using biblical principles. Perhaps someone else preaching the gospel lives just down the street in Thailand, to where we think we should go. God isn’t telling anyone to go to Thailand today.
What about the Apostle Paul? Didn’t God send him places? Didn’t God send Jonah to Nineveh? I’ve said this before, but God doesn’t function in an identical way through all history. God is the same, but He does things differently depending on the era in which we live. God spoke directly to prophets and apostles. Now we base what we do on the completed Word of God. God has told us that He is finished revealing new things, so when we say that we are getting something new like Paul did, then we are not trusting what Paul wrote.
Some of what people say the Holy Spirit told them is actually good. What it is that “God told them to do” is actually the right thing to do. They say God told them to pastor. God already said that the desire to pastor is a good desire. Someone might desire that, but God didn’t tell the person to do it. We read the Bible and it talks about the necessity of pastors. People can read that and desire it. They know that there is a reward for faithful pastors. They still might not be one, because other people have to see that they could be one, that they fulfill the qualifications.
This claim that God speaks to you directly is wrong and it is dangerous. It adds or takes away from scripture and from the sufficiency of the Bible. It is a lie, not necessarily on purpose, but we won’t really know what the motive is. God either causes or allows everything, but that doesn’t mean that He approves of what we want to do, the thing that we are saying He told us to do.
If you need a new building, don’t pray that God will direct you to a new building. Make a good decision based upon what God already said. Getting a new building might just be what you want to do. The feeling you get, that you are saying is Him, might just be your own feeling.
Many unscriptural ideas revolve around these revelations people say they get from God. You can get a new building, for instance, but it might be a waste of money. It might make things more convenient for people, but Christianity itself isn’t convenient. If someone won’t come, because he needs his church to be more comfortable or a larger choice of seating, that’s not a good reason. He should be dealt with for his disobedience or wrong attitude.
While talking to a man from a new-evangelical church, he testified that God gave them new property for a huge new auditorium right next to the highway. He was convinced of it. Shortly thereafter the city built a highway exit right by their property to make it more convenient than ever. Was this God sending everyone a message about their legitimacy? This man testified that it did.
It is my opinion that many professing Christians trust this mystical voice more than they do the Bible. They would rather consider what they think Jesus would do than what the Bible says He did do. They like the concept that God is telling them things. They feel more important from that and, of course, more spiritual too.
From listening to many pastors through the years, I know they don’t know how to prepare a sermon. They don’t know how to study the Bible. They are flawed in many different ways, but they still keep preaching unscriptural ideas, because they think they got them from the Holy Spirit. A lot of false worship is justified because of how it makes them feel, a feeling they attribute to the Holy Spirit. What I’m contending is that this doctrine of continued direct revelations from the Spirit has led to many false beliefs and either damaging or destructive practices in churches.
This problem is huge even among independent Baptists. It's almost like 2 Peter 1 dropped out of the Bible. Even an Apostle said the Bible is a more sure word and the voice they heard was God Himself. We really need more preaching on this. AMEN
Paul
The Spirit led me to preach the perfect text for several people in our congregation yesterday. I defy anyone to prove He didn't.
I never heard His voice, I never felt a burning in my bosom, I didn't feel queasy in my belly when I thought about preaching something else, and I never felt the earth move. In fact, I felt lousy. Nor did I have the sheer, unmitigated gall to tell our congregation that "God told me to preach this today."
I was just continuing my current series on II Corinthians. I didn't know people would need me to get to that passage this very week. I didn't even know, when I planned the series, that I'd have a guest speaker recently that changed my schedule, or that another possible guest speaker would decline. I didn't know I was going to extend the prior series by two weeks and start this one later than planned. I could never have planned this sermon to fall this week, nor known it needed to.
I was just getting on with my responsibility of preaching / teaching the Word, in a letter to the Corinthians that I hadn't taught previously in our church. It needed to be taught, so I was doing so. And the Lord used that obedience to lead me.
Pretty neat, huh? Who ever thought God would use obedience rather than flashing lights in the sky? It's almost as if He wants to encourage that obedience stuff. Who'd have thought it?
The Beatles generation seems to think the Spirit's leading is a Magical Mystery Tour or something. He does a lot of things beyond our comprehension or ability, but He doesn't have to use bizarre means to do it. The reason we'd want those bizarre means is we want the ego boost of claiming great experiences or some special line with God that others lack.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
While I disagree with some of the things on this site, this is one area I think we can all agree on: God does NOT speak to us or anyone today. Anyone who says God "told" him or her who to get married to, where to move, what kind of job to have, etc. is a nutbag. There is also too much of an emphasis on prayer in many of our circles. I suppose prayer may be ok in limited quantities, but so many people are looking for "answers" to their questions and expect God to "speak" to them. As a general rule, any church that places an emphasis on the Holy Spirit is probably a church that anyone should go to. I think the emphasis on the Holy Spirit "talking" to us is even more dangerous than the encroaching CCM that is starting to infiltrate our churches.
Travis, would you care to elaborate? Why do you just pick a verse out of context and leave no other comments?
Hi Bro Burke,
The historic understanding and application of John 16:13 is seen in this paragraph of the London Baptist Confession:
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (John 16:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27)
"the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts"
Here's what Henry Morris writes on this in his Defender's Study Bible (with which I agree):
Christ had yet “many things to say” (John 16:12) to His disciples, but these would be revealed through the coming Spirit of truth. Not only would the Holy Spirit enable them to remember all Christ had said (John 14:26), but would eventually through divine inspiration by the Spirit reveal “all truth” needed for the future ministry of Christians in the world. These promises amount to Christ’s promise of the continuation and completion of God’s written Word. He had already on various occasions authenticated the Old Testament (e.g., Matthew 5:18; Luke 24:44; John 10:35); now He also authenticated the yet-to-be-written New Testament.
I believe that primarily John 16:13 speaks of what Morris writes in his comment. Secondarily, believers through the centuries will know what scripture is, essentially the canonization of what was already written through the internal witness of the Spirit.
Mr. Gleason,
Thank you for your practical example. I don't think any pastor would say that God "lead" him to preach a certain passage or topic on any given time. (By the way, if any pastor does way this, please run from that church!) The timing was just right that your study schedule was on par with what people needed to hear at that time. That makes sense. But for an pastor to say that "God specifically told me to preach on this topic" would be an altogether different story. Why do we have to make things so complicated by trying to that that "God told me this"?
I was traveling on business a few years back and I heard a pastor say that "the spirit led him to change the topic of the message this morning to….." I was just visiting the church because I was in the area, thousands of miles from my own church. But, if I had been a member this church, this would be a sign that the pastor is a false teacher. Ironically, the church also had quasi-Southern Gospel music as well. That should have been my first hint that this was not a true Bible-believing church. I do have occasion to travel for business one in awhile on a weekend, depending on the project, so do get into different churches. What is up with churches somehow thinking it's ok to use CCM or praise music if they somehow clean it up and make it more IFB? I know this isn't a music thread, so don't want to go offtrack, other than to simply point out that some of these things go hand in hand. If a church uses cleaned up Southern Gospel, should we really be surprised that the pastor can have the audacity to say, from the pulpit, that "God told me to change the topic of this message"?
Anyone reading,
Everyone hears voices. When you hear a voice, how do you know who or what it is? We're not receiving revelation from God any more, so it isn't inspiration. Let's say there are these possibilities (without saying these are the possibilities, just as a thought experiment):
1) You
2) Your conscience
3) Satan or a demon
4) the Holy Spirit
I have for a long time told folks that we don't know who or what that voice is. We must test it by scripture. That's how we know if it is the will of God. Scripture.
Verses as those I referenced in the post and the one in a comment — of course, I believe those verses.
If it is a scriptural thought or voice in the head, how do those who are saying that it is the Holy Spirit really know that it is the Holy Spirit?
I would like to hear the biblical means of determining how someone knows it is the Holy Spirit's voice and not one of the other three. Just quoting a verse doesn't give that information, doesn't give anything beyond what I am saying is occurring.
To the "Anonymous" who said the following:
There is also too much of an emphasis on prayer in many of our circles . . .
I do not know if you are serious in this affirmation. If you are, you have not paid much attention to the book of Acts. If you are a non-Christian or atheist, then this comment does indeed make sense. If you are seeking to make the topic of this post look ridiculous with affirmations such as the one you made, because you are someone in favor of listening to voices in your head, I think you should be called out on it.
In a previous post where you said nobody has fellowship with God, you did not say a word when I challenged you with 1 John 1:3 and 2 Corinthians 13:14.
Please study the book of Acts carefully, with its statements such as that pastors are to give themselves continually to prayer, before making such utterly wrong statements in the future.
Thank you.
A more general comment, with which I am quite sure Pastor Brandenburg would agree:
Saying not to trust voices in our head does not, of course, mean that God does not guide His people today. Proverbs 3:5-6 is entirely valid for us today:
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
I think it is important for readers to keep this in mind, lest they think that the recognition that the leading of the Spirit in Romans 8:14 is His leading to mortify sin in Romans 8:13, not a voice in the head, means that we cannot have God guide us.
Thanks.
This Particular Anonymous,
I'm not going to keep publishing your comments anonymously. Just give your name. Be courageous. As dogmatic as you are about things, especially coming with the attitude, then tell who you are. I'm not publishing any more of your comments without your name, especially with your type of attitude.
Regarding prayer, it's a horribly wrong statement to say there is too much emphasis on prayer. Absolutely wrong. The Bible teaches, pray with ceasing. So if people are not praying without ceasing, would you emphasize that, or just let it go? That statement is an ungodly, unscriptural, wrong statement. It also has nothing to do with this post.
Thomas,
If by "guide," you mean "direct" of Proverbs 3:5-6, then I agree. However, we were referring to a particular verse, John 16:13, and the word "guide" there. Do you think that "guide" in John 16:13 is the same as "direct" in Proverbs 3:5-6? I'm asking that, because you could be confusing some people here.
My point is not that God doesn't direct people. My point is how He directs people. You disagree with something, but you have said nothing that you do agree with. Are you saying that what I'm writing is wrong? Are you fine with the abuses I'm exposing. You are writing like you disagree with something, because you said nothing of it. You give the impression that you disagree. I think what I'm writing about is a legitimately big problem among professing believers today. People are often more connected with that voice in their head, than they are the Bible. It also confuses the will of God for someone.
When someone is led by the Spirit, he is obedient to the Spirit. If he is disobedient, then he isn't being led by the Spirit. I'm joyous and agreeable and supportive of the mortification of sin. Do you have something from that to apply to what I've written about?
Who is this Thomas guy? I don't see any comments by him.
Are you referring to me? I think you misunderstood me. I don't think God leads us in personal and direct ways, and to pray that he can is foolish. Yes, God does direct and guide us, but not in this self-serving, selfish way where he talks to "me specifically." I'll give an example. Does God tell us what job to have? Of course not. At least not if you mean should you be an accountant, an engineer, an architect, etc. But yes, God does "speak" to us in that in scripture we are told to be honest, so this tell us that we probably shouldn't have a job as a mafia kingpin who gets ahead by theft and deceit. I think you and I and KJB and most of the blog posters agree with me, or I with them. I apologize if I have come across as crude or gruff. You guys have explained it much better than I have.
Kent, I still don't know who you're referring to, but maybe it's me. I'm the guy who wrote that the songs like "He Touched Me" are off track because people think God can speak to them specifically and individually and actually "touch" them. Again, yes God can speak to us, but in a general, corporate sense, not specifically and individualyy, such as "Should I wear a red or a green tie today?" That is all I meant by that comment. I would agree with the majority of people here that God does not speak to us individually. I did not mean to say that prayer is bad. I'm just saying it's selfish and delusional to say that the WRONG KIND of prayer is bad, where you actually think God is going to specifically speak to you about such trivial, specific matters. I like your blog and appreciate that you allow conversation. I thought from my comments that everyone knew I was talking about that kind of prayer and that's what I was referring to. Being more specific is something that I will try to do so as not to cause further confusion.
John,
The reason you are not sure who I'm talking to is because you were writing anonymously. I don't know who I'm talking to when it is someone anonymous. I have to go by writing style, etc., which you actually have, and it is one that is very in your face. If you are going to write like that, you should tell us who you are. When you say something like, we shouldn't emphasize prayer so much, that is as bad or worse than what I'm pointing out. It isn't helpful. I agree with some of your sentiments, but it is not super clear, and when it isn't clear, the people who need help with what I'm writing could be confused.
You are welcome to come here, but that doesn't mean you're going to have everything you write accepted, of course.
Kent, I think that many times these terms and reasons are used so people have someone to blame other than themselves, in the event the plan fails. For example, a pastor leaves his struggling church to become a "missionary". This seems dubious, and his people are unhappy. His "mission" plan looks nothing like the Bible.
To combat this, he says the Lord is leading him to go. He has received "the call". This is convenient.
If after he goes, the church falls apart, not his fault. He was called. If the plan to go into "missionary" work fails, not his fault. The Lord works in mysterious ways. Whatever fallout occurs from him self-serving decisions can be laid at the feet of the Lord, because He was the one who called him.
Farmer Brown,
I can't agree with you more. Some of what you are describing may have started with the Bible not being obeyed in the first place. His church might be "failing," because his church isn't preaching the gospel to everyone. When I say "failing," I don't mean "staying the same size." I mean that he's there to preach the gospel and he hasn't been, but instead trying to see the church get bigger. When it doesn't, he has "failed," so the Lord "calls him" somewhere else. No one can question it, because the voice told him. Some of the pressure on him to quit is imposed also by extra-scriptural entities. He has been attributed a failure. He feels it. There are pressures sometimes in the church that use this failure when they bring criticism, which discourages him. He is ready to eject from the situation rather than face that.
If he kept "success" totally around whether people did what God's Word said, and just kept on and on and on that, then when someone comes with an unscriptural judgment, that judgment can be judged.
Obeying the Bible isn't good enough for most Christians anymore. That's an opinion as I see it. They covet something more.
By me writing out John 16:13, I was just giving you the bone you were wanting to chew on. I agree with Pastor Brandenburg. Those voices many hear are mostly feelings. Feelings are a great servant, but a terrible master. When we are saved, the Spirit of God Indwells us. He will only lead us in truth. We are welcome to pray and ask God for wisdom, and it will be shared. If I may give an example, you can ask me what the speed limit is or you can look at the speed limit sign. If I am leading only in truth, I will just tell you what the sign says. We are to try the spirits, and we know what spirit is Truth, by the Word. Anyways, again, I was just throwing out that passage everyone was waiting to pounce on. Good day.
Hi Bro Burke,
Hopefully my comment to you didn't come across as pouncing. I didn't know what you were saying by quoting the verse, so I gave a very objective comment, I thought.
Others, it is true, then read into the comment, I believe, and I still don't know what they were saying or trying to say.
I agree, by the way, with everything you said in your last comment. Everything. And I agree with John 16:13.
Thanks. I appreciate you. Have a good day.
Everyone,
We know now that the one of the anonymous people was John Hanson. I don't know John at all, don't know where he's from. He has written some unelegant comments here that have some things that are false, but here's my read on John (and John, bear with me as I talk about you in the third person). John gets what I'm writing about. He just reports on what he has seen in a way that is not entirely accurate. I have to correct what he says, but I believe that he is seeing things that concern him and he disagrees with.
For instance, he criticizes the song, He Touched Me. People want to think that God touched them, literally touched them, and they love the song and how it makes them feel. This is the kind of thing I am actually talking about. He doesn't get commended in a comment for saying such a thing, but he is right. He does get what I'm writing about, just that he writes some error, because he's not accustomed to writing in this type of theological way or setting.
I can't vouch for everything John Hanson has said, but I think his spirit is in the right place. I didn't publish two of his comments because they had some of the things in them that were slightly off, but I don't think in a purposeful way. I'm saying take what he writes with a grain of salt. He's basically agreeing with the point I'm making, as did Jon Gleason, it seemed, and Farmer Brown.
I would like to relate a story. I know all the parties well and know the details to be true. A man and his wife moved, found a good pastor, and joined that church. This man had grown up in a Baptist church that shunned sappy charismatic emotionalism. He was never one to talk about "God's will for his life" or "the Lord leading him in a special way." They appreciated the new pastor and his wife, who were quite poor.
One evening after the Wed PM service, the man and wife were both filled with a desire to buy groceries for the pastor and family. They had never felt that desire before or since. They regarded this desire as of the Lord. They went to Walmart and bought several weeks worth of groceries. They dropped them on the back porch, knocked on the door, and left. This is something that never happened to the pastor before, and the man and his wife had never done before or since.
The next week the pastor's wife spoke to them. She related her husband gave her $30 per week for groceries. Unbeknownst to anyone else, she had committed a small part of that small amount to the Lord, and slipped it into the offering. The week they gave the groceries, for the first time, she had kept back that small part, believing she needed it for the groceries.
She regarded the gift as a heartbreaking rebuke from the Lord. She should have trusted him and should have given what she committed, because he already was already taking care of the shortfall.
I know all the details of this story to be accurate. How would you regard the strong desire that prompted the trip to the grocery store?
Hi Farmer,
God can do and does do things out of His providence. We see this all over scripture. Righteous souls are vexed by the existence of certain circumstances that remind them of their pledges to God. If I was a Job, for instance, and made a covenant with my eyes, and I broke that covenant, I would be vexed. Still, the disobedience to scripture is always the problem. A properly functioning conscience can scream about something not even in the Bible. Joe Schmoe Christian says he won 25 last week and I won zero, and I feel guilty about it. Is that God speaking to me?
I am with you on this. It was not until I went to a christian college that I first heard someone talk about "the leading of the Lord". The pastor of the church in which I grew up wholeheartedly rejected all that. I became somewhat infected with it in college, but my pastor reproved that thinking.
I also understand we do not use anecdotes to create doctrine. However, I am curious what you have to say about this sudden and unique desire to buy groceries.
Would you allow this desire, not being contrary to any scripture, could be prompted by the Lord? Obviously any desire that is contrary to scripture cannot be of the Lord. What about a desire that is in accordance with the scripture? Is it all of your own creation, or could the Lord work in us to create these types of desires?
Farmer,
Did God give a woman the desire to buy groceries for someone? It could be that she, out of her new nature, seeing a need, had that desire, which is loving. Love is of God. It could be her conscience, trained by verses about love. It could be the Holy Spirit. It could be all of the above. Someone could be motivated by self-righteousness, as seen in 1 Cor 13, which talks about giving one's body to be burned or giving all that you have to feed the poor, except without love. In other words, you can't judge her heart. At the same time, love believes and hopes all things.
How does the Holy Spirit lead, as Thomas referenced with regard to mortification of sin? He does lead. We can only judge what we can judge, so, again, is it scriptural? That's still the criteria. If it is scriptural, then it is the Holy Spirit. It is God. Because the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God.
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
Thanks for the comment. I agree that listening to voices in our head is foolish–at least that's what the ones in my head have told me today.
In relation to: " You disagree with something, but you have said nothing that you do agree with,"
I sought to be clear that I agree that we ought not to listen to voices in our head. I'm not sure what in my comment was the source for "You disagree with something," so I cannot respond to it further, and I may not be able to easily respond to comments for a while, but feel free to explain what you were referring to, if you desire.
Also, in general, there are large numbers of things that you right that I agree with, but I do not always indicate that in the comments, as it would get repetitious. I hope that is the case with others as well on posts of mine where there aren't many comments. 🙂
I agree with your comment on John 16:13 above.
Thanks.
Dear Mr. Hanson,
I am Thomas.
Dear Farmer,
IMO, since Philippians 2:13 states that God works in the believer to will and do, He worked in those believers the desire to give the groceries. There is nothing continuationistic about that.
Also, Farmer, what is wrong with speaking of God's will for one's life? If God had a plan for Jeremiah from the womb–a plan that he was not to resist (Jeremiah 1:5ff., and even a person, being born blind can be for the glory of God (John 9:2-3), why would we say that God does not have a specific will for our lives (if you are saying that–I don't want to read into your comment).
To all:
Some time ago I attended a wedding of two people trained at a Bible college and church that is influenced by Keswick continuationist thinking. As I recall, the groom stated that he was praying for a wife, and the name of this girl kept popping into his head. He said he did not even know her other than her name, but he had to look into the situation because her name was popping into his head. They both thought that was something from God that they were to get married, and they did, and, since God is merciful, as far as I can tell they are living happily ever after, at least as far as the doctrine of their church allows that to take place. They gave the name-popping testimony at the wedding to show that God brought them together. What popped into my head was that this name-popping method was a bit risky as a method of making the second most important decision of one's life, after conversion.
Thanks.
Thomas, I do believe God has a specific will for my life. It is the exact same as the specific will for your life. I know it from scripture. He wants me to make disciples, grow in grace, keep the commandments, fear and worship him, train up my children in the way they should go, rule my family well, love my wife, live peaceably with all men, etc. The list is lengthy, too lengthy to reproduce here, but that is God's specific will for my life, just as it is for yours.
Of course we can have unexplained strong impulses to do something, like go buy groceries. And if I follow them, God can use them, just like He can use me following common sense, or obeying a Scripture passage I read.
Or he can use a cold to keep me from going to the gym. Maybe that's the Spirit protecting me from a heart attack, or making sure I'll be home when someone calls.
I can give multiple stories of "unexplainables." I wrote about a fun one, My "Miriam Moment" https://mindrenewers.com/2013/04/01/my-miriam-moment/. God uses all kinds of means, including faulty memories, amazing instant recall, sudden impulses, illness and health, great ideas and bad ones, to weave together His master plan. I'm happy to call it the Spirit's leading.
But there is no Biblical basis for confidence that these sudden impulses or feelings or whatever are "the Lord telling me to do X." They can just as well be temptations from the adversary, and if we trust these things as "the Lord telling me," we give our foe a powerful tool for deception.
It is taking God's name in vain to announce that "God told me" if it isn't in Scripture. https://mindrenewers.com/2012/03/13/omg-and-other-ways-christians-take-gods-name-in-vain/.
And with apologies to Kent for all the links, to claim "God Told Me to Preach This" is grievously wrong on many levels. https://mindrenewers.com/2014/02/14/god-told-me-to-preach-this/. Any preacher who does that is either false or badly confused and hasn't thought through what he's doing.
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
My wife and I have been discussing your article and have some questions. We definitely agree that God does not speak to people outside of the Bible. We also believe that God does actively lead His children. Where your article left things fuzzy is on how God leads us or reveals to us His will on areas of life not specifically written in Scripture. For example, what car to purchase, who to marry, where to minister, what college to attend, etc. For these, there are definitely Scriptural principles that would apply. But in the end, for one who direly wants to know and follow God's will in these areas, how does one know for sure what His will is? I have an uncle who believes we can just pick whatever we want as long as it is not outside the circle of Scriptural principles. In other words, there is not specific will of God in those areas. Can one concretely state that it was God that led them to conclusions or showed them His will in these types of decisions? Does God even care about these types of decisions as long as they do not go contrary to Scripture? Thanks for your future reply.
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
My wife and I have been discussing your article and have some questions. We definitely agree that God does not speak to people outside of the Bible. We also believe that God does actively lead His children. Where your article left things fuzzy is on how God leads us or reveals to us His will on areas of life not specifically written in Scripture. For example, what car to purchase, who to marry, where to minister, what college to attend, etc. For these, there are definitely Scriptural principles that would apply. But in the end, for one who direly wants to know and follow God's will in these areas, how does one know for sure what His will is? I have an uncle who believes we can just pick whatever we want as long as it is not outside the circle of Scriptural principles. In other words, there is not specific will of God in those areas. Can one concretely state that it was God that led them to conclusions or showed them His will in these types of decisions? Does God even care about these types of decisions as long as they do not go contrary to Scripture? Thanks for your future reply.
Hi David,
We want to live scripturally. The trying of your faith is about whether you are going to hear and then obey scripture (James 1). The Holy Spirit works through the Word. I know that might sound too nebulous to some, but we know that He is what I heard someone call, the mouthpiece of the text. The Spirit uses the Word. That's how you know it is Him.
Marriage is important. There are a lot of guiding biblical principles for marriage. Still, consider 1 Corinthians 7:39:
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
She can marry "whom she will" only in the Lord. God allows us liberty to choose what we want where scripture does not speak and we are not regulated by some biblical teaching or principle.
Pastor Gleason,
Thanks. Nothing to add.
Thomas , I just reread my last response to you. The tone of it is not what I intended to convey. It seems smart alecky, which was not my intent. I was in a rush and did not take the time to consider the tone.
I was trying to say is the specific will for God for me (and you or any believer) is contained in scripture.
Dear Farmer,
Thank you–I appreciate that.
Kent,
I recently heard a man testifying that he was at home and was around the house when he said the Lord told him to give his neighbor a tract. At first he said no and reasoned that he was busy and just it wasn't the right time. Then moments later he said again that God was telling him again to give that man a tract, so he did, and was able to give the man some of the gospel and the man had been somewhat searching. Would you say that was the Holy Spirit speaking to him? Would you say this was a "Divine Appointment?"
Tim
I did some research and found out that the He Touched Me song is fairly new. at least in contextual comparison to Bach or Beethoven, who are from centuries ago. In good conscious, I wanted to say that I was not trying to denigrate the authors of the song in any way. I just have a disagreement with it, that's all, and was not meant to be taken as a personal statement. Actually, there are some other songs by the very same authors that I completely agree with and can wholeheartedly support! I didn't want anyone to come across my statements and misunderstand them as being uncharitable.
Wasn't He touched Me written by Bill Gaither?
Any thoughts on my previous post Kent? Sounds like you have been busy!
Tim
Kent,
Based on what you wrote and what the following article states, I assume you would be considered a "non traditionalist"?
http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Christian-Article/Steps-Guidance-in-the-Journey-of-Life-God-guides/Sword-and-Trowel-Magazine
http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Christian-Articles/Biblical-Steps-Guidance-the-Journey-of-Life/Sword-and-Trowel-Magazine
Jim
Hi Jim,
It depends on what you mean by traditionalist. I teach, I believe, what the Bible teaches on this. I'll read the articles.
Kent,
The article I linked referred to the "non-traditionalist" view as the modern view of how God guides his people in contrast to what was the traditional view. The writer also considered the "modern/non traditionalist" view as dangerous and unbiblical. Basically the tradional view is that God has a specific will for each believer and each believer should seek Gods will. Also that a believer can be "lead of God" to do this or that assuming it doesn't violate Biblical principles. So the Traditional view would allow for a preacher to say "God lead me to preach this." The modern view was essentially that God doesn't have a specific will for us and Christians are mature adults who can make decisions based on Biblical principles so you can just make logical decisions based on Scripture. An application of this would be if a preacher was asked to come be a Pastor of a church. The Tradiontal view Pastor would seek God and ask him to show him clearly through his Word but also through circumstances and other means what God's will was. He would be exercising faith to determining God's will. In contrast the modern view Pastor would use human logic to determine if it was God's will. He would ask if any Biblical principles would be violated. He would consider if his family would feel comfortable there. He would consider other things and if it made sense and he wanted to do it he could or if he didn't want to he didn't have to. He is a mature man and can make the decision on his own.
Other applications could be made that show the dichotomy of thinking. I.e. Sermon prep, soul winning etc.
When I read your article Kent it sounded like you held many of the tenants of the modern view.
Thanks and will look for your response,
Jim
Hi Jim,
I'm going to be brief and by that I mean that I can't deal with the two posts by Peter Masters and the passages he uses to come to his position.
Not necessarily in any particular order.
One, I don't know why he or you use traditionalist.
Tradition is not a bad word, but it goes undefined in his posts. I like using the word historical, as in historical theology. Is his position historical? Is this really how believers have approached this position? He doesn't establish that in any way. It would be of interest to hear why he thinks his position is traditional, because he gives no reason why. In the absence of that, we are left only with what the Bible teaches.
Two, Masters exaggerates in the way he describes the two positions. One is not "no individual will" and the other "an individual will." No. His position, what he calls traditionalist, relies on extra scriptural revelation, where God talks to you. Mine relies on the Bible. Scripture is sufficient with application to make good decisions. Where the Bible doesn't speak, we have liberty. I believe my life is guided by scripture in the individual will of God. You've got to use the principles, and God does give wisdom in those decisions. My position is not like what Masters is describing. It's a straw man for my position if he were arguing against it.
Three, Masters position misinterprets or at least misapplies most of the passages to which he refers. I don't believe it is the proper way to use scripture. Why? I can't say I know why it is Masters gets it wrong. I have a lot of respect for him. I'm happy for a lot that he does. However, he is covenant theology, I'm pretty sure he's amillennial or at least postmillennial. He takes a major approach difference to scripture. That will affect everything that he does.
That's all I'll say for now.
I trust that I am open to correction in this, but when I read Peter Masters' book a number of years ago, I thought it was very good. I am pretty sure that he does not say you should listen to voices in your head, and also pretty sure that there are actually people who take the view that he is disagreeing with. I did not check the links, but I suspect that only part of his book is available on there, not the whole thing.
"Traditional/traditionalist/tradition" is not Dr. Masters' terminology. It is the word used by the authors (I spent 5 minutes on amazon and did a 'look inside' search for "tradition") of the book he refutes to describe his general outlook. That is the answer to why he uses traditionalist.
Where do you get that "His position, what he calls traditionalist, relies on extra scriptural revelation, where God talks to you."? That is just not true. You must be misreading something. If, on the other hand, I am missing something, I beg to be corrected.
Stephen,
I don't mind giving you that Friesen in his book says "traditional," but in the post by Masters, he doesn't refute that. He takes up the thought that the traditional view is being opposed. I'm dealing only with Masters because I don't know what Friesen says. I've never read his book, although I've heard about it. Masters picks up the word traditional and says his view is traditional. He never proves that in the two posts to which Jim refers. Perhaps in his overall book, he proves that his position is historical. I'm telling you that I didn't get that from the two posts.
You say that my quote is just not true. Here are three paragraphs (put in quotes):
"Acts 13.2-3 provides a view of God exercising his sovereign direction in the sending of the first Christian missionaries out from Antioch. As the leaders of the church 'ministered to the Lord, and fasted', the Holy Spirit said to them, 'Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.' To past generations of Bible believers this event taught that those who are to engage in missionary service must be called by God. They expected this call to be felt by the missionary, who would have a strong inner desire for this service, and also to be ratified by the leaders of his church, who would have proved his suitability, gifts and preparation.
However, to the promoters of the new view the call of Barnabas and Saul is yet another 'one-off' event. The assumption is made that they had a special call from God solely because they were the very first missionaries. It is also asserted that their call should be seen as a unique event because God's will was revealed by direct supernatural communication, which does not occur today. The conclusion is that we are no longer to look for a personal call of God, but simply to choose, by our own wisdom, the best-suited people as missionaries.
This new 'rationalistic' approach to choosing God's servants is further justified by the strange claim that."
OK. In Acts 13, the Holy Spirit spoke directly to leaders of the church at Antioch. Masters says without proof that past generations of believers believed that Acts 13 was not a "one-off" event. He uses the word "called" to describe what contemporary missionaries get parallel to what those in Acts 13 received. He sounds plainly like he is mocking those who do not believe "direct supernatural communication" occurs today. If you don't believe that, you are taking a rationalistic approach.
Perhaps Masters is just confusing. That would be generous, but also true. The feeling of this strong inner desire is akin to the Holy Spirit talking to someone directly and supernaturally….or not?
If you are going to say that Acts 13 occurs again, then you are saying that it is actually speaking by the Holy Spirit. If you are going to say that it is a "feeling" of an "inner desire," then you must show how that the Acts 13 event NOW is that. What scripture says that? You can't just make it up. Why is it the feeling of an inner desire now, when it was direct speaking before? If it is the feeling of an inner desire, then you can't use Acts 13 for that, because that isn't what Acts 13 is.
On the other hand, just because you don't think it is the same occurrence as the Apostle Paul or the feeling of an inner desire of Masters, that it is merely rationalistic — that is the straw man argument. I have an explanation for all this.
Here: https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/a-primer-in-the-call-to-the-ministry/
And here: https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2006/12/27/how-god-calls-a-man-to-the-ministry/
And here: https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2006/12/20/you-call-me/
Here's a third one from the same series I wrote in 2006:
https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/lowering-the-bar-for-preachers-theyre-called/
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
Thanks for the comments and the links. I'm not saying that this is what it is, but does the "said" of Acts 13 require audible speech from the Holy Spirit or could it be a non-continuationistic leading? When I read something like the Holy Spirit forbade Paul from going into Asia, I don't necessarily assume that the forbidding is audible speech – it could be providential or something else. I would not assume that the text like the following:
Luke 12:11 And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
Luke 12:12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.
requires special revelation despite the use of the verb "teach." At the same time, I do not want to assume that "said" in Acts 13 means something other than actual speech if that is just reading into the passage and not something exegetically verifiable.
Thanks.
Kent,
I'm left wondering if you’ve read Dr. Masters on Acts 13. He makes clear what parts of Acts 13 he sees as continuing to the present and it doesn't include anything ruled out by cessationism or, as you allege, any "extra scriptural revelation". As you correctly quote him, he says, "this event taught that those who are to engage in missionary service must be called by God. They expected this call to be felt by the missionary, who would have a strong inner desire for this service, and also to be ratified by the leaders of his church, who would have proved his suitability, gifts and preparation". I'm simply not aware of any church today doing the church-related things he lists here unless the candidate first in presenting himself 1) considers it to be God's plan that he enter upon this service and 2) desires to do so. Are you so aware? your articles don't explain this.
Did you notice this from Masters? "To return to Acts 13.2, we have a precedent for church life in every age, not in the manner by which God made known his will, but in the principle that his will is paramount in the ministerial appointments of the ongoing church. " How is that confusing on "extra scriptural revelation"?
This too: "we are not apostles in receipt of direct voices and visions" or "brash claims of some believers that they have the direct leading of the Spirit to guide them"
Stephen
PS I see in my mail today The Charismatic Deception by Peter Masters and John Whitcomb. Should be interesting!
Stephen,
To be clear to you, I have a high opinion of Peter Masters in many, many ways. I'm definitely no enemy of his. He's not on my radar. This relates to Jim's comparison of me to Masters on the individual will of God. Jim is getting me wrong.
I quoted Masters on Acts 13, cut and pasted him. He mocked those who said Acts 13 was a "one off." He uses Acts 13 as a model for knowing the individual will of God today. How did Paul know the individual will of God? The Holy Spirit spoke directly. And yet it isn't the Holy Spirit speaking directly? If it isn't, then it is a "one off." You can't have it both ways. Let's start there.
Is it a feeling or direct Holy Spirit speaking? You're saying he isn't confusing. How do you get a feeling from Acts 13. It's not a feeling there.
Kent,
Did you notice this from Masters? "To return to Acts 13.2, we have a precedent for church life in every age, not in the manner by which God made known his will, but in the principle that his will is paramount in the ministerial appointments of the ongoing church. " How is that confusing on "extra scriptural revelation"?