Respectable Arminian theologians?

[Solparvus]

For the first time ever I found myself in a concersation with a brother who seem to really know the Word, yet he was an Arminianism with a focus on previent grace... I was taken back because I just assumed He was Biblical in His understanding of unconditional election. It caused me to wonder and ask you, are there any respectable Arminianism theologians?

Also, in passing he said to me that nobody believed like Calvin when he said "Calvin (and augustine before him - but by nobody for the first 600 years of the early church)"... I havent read much back them is he correct?

It's an uphill battle to defend a position just because the early church believed it. Yes, we get some foundation for our own doctrines from them, but even where they were right their ideas are largely undeveloped and incomplete. There are also many things the early church taught which, thankfully, orthodox Christianity has left behind. Examples would be baptismal regeneration, Platonic views of the nature of God, confusion on the nature of Christ, incomplete ideas on justification and original sin, the practice of penance, monasticism, failure to affirm man's complete wickedness, among other things. Appealing to the early church as the authority doesn't hold much weight doctrinally.

As to the early church on soteriology and man's nature, their views on free will could just as well have come from Greek philosophy as from a misunderstanding of the teachings of the Bible. The first rounds of teachers and apologists attempted to harmonize the Bible with Greek philosophy, and that is one reason they held what we might call (forgive the anachronism) non-Calvinist views on free will.

Christ hadn't intended in the first place that the first few centuries would develop the full body of truth that we would need for all time. The intention of Christ according to Ephesians 4 is that the church would grow and mature like a child grows into a full adult. We leave nothing behind which was good, but we don't roll forward anything which wasn't.

 

[RamistThomist]

Platonic views of the nature of God

Could you give an example?

 

[Solparvus]

Could you give an example?

The Greek logos (not as John meant it but as the philosophers meant it) was many times the starting point in trying to explain the Trinity to the intellectuals of their time. By the logos the philosophers meant the rationality that gives order to the universe, and was seen as the source of mediation between man and a god who was too transcendent to interact with the physical world. However, the logos could only interact with the world because it was inferior to the transcendent being. Justin tried to explain Christ in terms of the logos as mediating between us and the transcendent God, but the problem with the logos parallel is that is made Christ inferior to the Father. Theophilus described God as begetting the logos in time in a similar manner to the Greeks' logos. Others believed that God was so utterly transcendent that he was absolutely attribute-less (says Seeberg), another Grecian and unbiblical idea. Tertullian held to this idea of logos for a time but eventually moved away from it and laid the foundation for our Trinitarian thought and language as we have it now. In some respects the ideas of Plato and other philosophers were the intellectual launching pad for developing their doctrine of God.

I don't think they were more Platonic or Stoic than they were Christian. I suppose if anyone becomes a Christian they initially learn doctrines by comparing it to things they already know about. The weaknesses were steadily recognized and dropped over time which proves they preferred the Word of God to their worldview when the Word corrected them. Some individuals were worse. In my church history class it seemed to me Origen was more Platonist than Christian. The worst offenders were the gnostics who were just philosophers with a Christian twist, and by no means part of the true church.

My main point is that it was something that the church moved away from with time, maturity, and greater knowledge of the Scriptures. The attributes of God and the nature of the Trinity are subjects in theology where we would not just run to the early church to establish a point, as though their proximity to the times of the apostles gives them a certain authority in the matter. If we want to assume that a non-Calvinistic soteriology is more likely to be Biblical because the early church fathers believed it, then what else ought we to believe just because they taught it?

 

[RamistThomist]

While certainly Justin Martyr crippled in his own project, I'm hesitant to say the early church's view of God was Platonic, since we confess it in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon.

 

[Solparvus]

While certainly Justin Martyr crippled in his own project, I'm hesitant to say the early church's view of God was Platonic, since we confess it in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon.

Looking at my original wording perhaps I needed a thinner brush and lighter coat, and say that originally there was a Hellenistic tincture in the doctrine of God for some to begin with that needed to be rubbed out. Thankfully it was with time and growth.

 

[RamistThomist]

Sure. There was obviously a "Greek" aspect to early Patristic metaphysics. No doubt about that.

 

[Justified]

Sure. There was obviously a "Greek" aspect to early Patristic metaphysics. No doubt about that.

Right. I always take pause when people accuse the early fathers of being Greeks, so as an as if this invalidates there theological/philosophical project. First, as Richard Muller notes, it's always funny when people abandon classical metaphysics and somehow think a post-Kantian metaphysics is more compatible with Christianity than others. Second, if the early fathers were Platonists/Aristotelians, so what? That's not an argument; you have to provide objections to the philosophy; there is much in Platonistism and Aristotelianism ripe for plundering just as the Israelites plundered the Egyptians. Third, the early fathers were in someways anti-platonic, even those seen as the most platonic of the fathers (ala Origen). For example, Origen rejected the hard-determinism of Plotinus and most Christians refused to give independent existence to universals, seeking not to undermine God's unique status as a se, unlike some contemporaries, such as Peter Van Inwagen and Plantinga.

In a word, the Christians baptized Plato. They did not join his academy.

 

[RamistThomist]

Right. I always take pause when people accuse the early fathers of being Greeks, so as an as if this invalidates there theological/philosophical project. First, as Richard Muller notes, it's always funny when people abandon classical metaphysics and somehow think a post-Kantian metaphysics is more compatible with Christianity than others. Second, if the early fathers were Platonists/Aristotelians, so what? That's not an argument; you have to provide objections to the philosophy; there is much in Platonistism and Aristotelianism ripe for plundering just as the Israelites plundered the Egyptians. Third, the early fathers were in someways anti-platonic, even those seen as the most platonic of the fathers (ala Origen). For example, Origen rejected the hard-determinism of Plotinus and most Christians refused to give independent existence to universals, seeking not to undermine God's unique status as a se, unlike some contemporaries, such as Peter Van Inwagen and Plantinga.

In a word, the Christians baptized Plato. They did not join his academy.

I always ask "Which Greeks?" Pre-Socratics? Plato? Aristotle? Middle Platonism? Plotinus? And what is particularly Greeky about their doctrine of God?

Now, there are bad hiccups. Most of the more monkish fathers feared sexual intimacy in marriage (see Methodius of Olympus for some very bad reasoning). Evagrius of Pontus instructed his monks on diet so as to avoid semen build up and thus wet dreams and lust. So the so-called Greek dualism comes out there.

 

[Justified]

I always ask "Which Greeks?" Pre-Socratics? Plato? Aristotle? Middle Platonism? Plotinus? And what is particularly Greeky about their doctrine of God?

Now, there are bad hiccups. Most of the more monkish fathers feared sexual intimacy in marriage (see Methodius of Olympus for some very bad reasoning). Evagrius of Pontus instructed his monks on diet so as to avoid semen build up and thus wet dreams and lust. So the so-called Greek dualism comes out there.

But even their views of sexuality are somewhat preferable to those that prevail in our own day (and even in their own times).

 

[Justified]

Also, sometimes saying that "the Christians were just too influenced by Greek philosophy" is just a type of non-engagement that really bothers me. Rule #1 for these guys: if you don't like something in the Fathers, just blame it on Greek philosophy and you don't have to believe it.

 

[RamistThomist]

But even their views of sexuality are somewhat preferable to those that prevail in our own day (and even in their own times).

I go back and forth on that. Methodius's arguments are just bad. Augustine is actually a breakthrough. For him sex in marriage is a good. Enjoying it too much is not.

But yes, in an overly sexualized culture perhaps there is something to it today.

 

[RamistThomist]

Also, sometimes saying that "the Christians were just too influenced by Greek philosophy" is just a type of non-engagement that really bothers me. Rule #1 for these guys: if you don't like something in the Fathers, just blame it on Greek philosophy and you don't have to believe it.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Also, sometimes saying that "the Christians were just too influenced by Greek philosophy" is just a type of non-engagement that really bothers me. Rule #1 for these guys: if you don't like something in the Fathers, just blame it on Greek philosophy and you don't have to believe it.

I hear this often, especially from the open theist camp. In a debate with Rev. Bob Enyart, a rabid open theist, a few years ago, my response was as follows:

Spoiler

Open theists frequently like to use historical arguments in attempts to undermine classical theism, arguing that classical theism depends upon Greek philosophical traditions that have somehow undermined what only the open theist thinks about the doctrine of God they have crafted.

This is what is so ironic about Open Theism, in that open theism decries the supposed influence of the Greeks, yet builds its theology atop the same philosophies, such as the assumed, but never proven, open theist philosophical assumption that determination erases relationship.

Open theist Pinnock stated that Augustine allowed neo-Platonic ideas to influence his interpretation that put God in “a kind of box” (see Pinnock’s Most Moved Mover). Boyd writes that classical theism became misguided “under the influence of Hellenic philosophy” (see Boyd’s The God of the Possible). Finally, Sanders writes that “Greek thought” and “neo-Platonic metaphysics” were a significant influence on the classical doctrine of God (see Sanders’ The Openness of God). Sanders even lumps Luther and Calvin into the camp of neo-Platonic influence that continues to “dominate conservative theology”.

Thus, with a few swipes at the Greeks and the reformers, the doctrines of God’s immutability, impassibility, and timelessness are declared paganism by the open theist trinity of Pinnock, Boyd, and Sanders (PBS). Unfortunately, a good deal of those outside of any serious theological forum making these same claims have not spent any significant time studying theological history or philosophy. Instead they merely parrot what they have seen elsewhere (in the texts of PBS) as if saying something more shrilly and loudly will make it so.

Yet, in the next breath open theist Sanders writes that, “Philosophical theology can lend clarity to concepts about the divine nature of providence that can be useful to biblical scholars” (See Sanders’ The God Who Risks). In fact, the Greeks, Epicurus, and his follower, Lucretius, spent lots of time dealing with the kind of freedom open theist would like to claim--libertarian free will. This tells me open theists clearly don’t appreciate the Aristotelian influence on the limited divine foreknowledge open theism claims. Aristotle’s views on the truth-value of future-tense statements is the philosophical basis for the open theist's views of God’s omniscience (see De Interpretatione, Ch. 9).

But, what of these claims? A closer look reveals something very different.

No one will dispute that the early Church theologians read the Greek philosopher’s and even used Greek terms to communicate biblical truths efficiently to their generation. What is significantly overlooked by open theists is that these early church theologians transformed the meanings and contents of the terms they used so as to be faithful to the truths of Scripture. I’ll say more about this below, but for those seeking to truly learn about the doctrines of God and Greek thought, see John Piper’s Beyond the Bounds, Gerald Bray’s The Personal God, and Millard Erickson’s God the Father Almighty: A Contemporary Exploration of the Divine Attributes. Moreover, rabbinic authorities confirm that the attributes of God in Judaism have been developed from the bible and not Greek thought. See D.G. Montefiore’s A Rabbinic Anthology.

Orthodox Christian doctrine history also denies the notion of open theists that classical theism is a pagan mixture. Even Boyd writes that the history of orthodox Christian doctrine has always been on the side of classical theism, concluding “I must concede that the open view has been relatively rare in church history” (see The God of the Possible, pg. 115). Such a perspective is in keeping with the Church fathers, Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, the Puritans, as well as Spurgeon, Edwards, and Hodge, all of whom confirmed the classical doctrine as God’s deposited truth.

As noted above, some open theists will trot out their barbs about Augustine’s or Aquinas’ influence by the Greeks in the development of theology. That is about the extent of what they can say, since very few have studied these theologians or Greek philosophers carefully and formally. There is no disputing that Augustine owed much to Platonic thinking. In fact, it was his studies of Plato and Plotinus that led Augustine to his conversion to Christianity. The more Augustine read these thinkers the more Augustine realized that the whole of Greek thought had to be recast within the light of the Scriptures.

Likewise, Aquinas spent much of his free time in 1268 and the next five years writing commentaries about Aristotle. These were not the task of a Dominican theologian, which he was at the time (in Paris), and they were not written to twist the texts of Aristotle into a Christian purpose. It was afterwards, when Aquinas had more fully developed understandings of the Greeks, that he began composing his “errors of Aristotle”. Few persons who have not formally studied Aquinas realize that in all his thinking, Aquinas held to the intellectual policy that a genuine conflict between what the human mind can know and the truths of the Christian faith can never arise. There are many seeming conflicts, as Aquinas’ “errors of Aristotle” plainly showed.

The fact is that the open theist's charges against classical theism are not new. In fact they are a repetition of liberal theology. Open theists are parroting the liberal theologians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These claims originated in nineteenth century Germany, and were connected to Ferdinand Christian Baur (1869) and August Neander (1850). They were picked up later by Albrecht Ritschl (1889). The exposition of these claims that resurrected them all over again came from Alfred (Adolph) von Harnack (1930) published as “What is Christianity?” Walter Bauer (1960) further developed Harnack’s thesis.

For example, open theists will frequently mock the classical theist’s doctrine of the immutability of God as being wholly derived from the Greeks. But what is the real truth of the matter? In Greek thought immutability of “god” meant not only unchangeability but also the inability to be affected by anything in any way, i.e., the unmoved mover. The Greek word for this primary characteristic of “god” was apatheia, from which we get our word “apathy”. Apathy means indifference, but the Greek term goes far beyond that idea. It means the inability to feel any emotion whatsoever. The Greeks believed “god” possessed this quality because we would otherwise have power over him to the degree that we could move him to anger or joy or grief. He would cease to be absolute and sovereign. Thus the “god” of the philosophers was lonely, isolated, and compassionless. This all makes for good, logical, philosophy, but it is not what God reveals about Himself within the Godhead in the Scriptures and classical theists categorically reject it.

So, if these arguments by open theists are not new, then what are they really about? I will let Pinnock describe the motivation by open theists to claim ancient thoughts have polluted classical theism:

“Modern culture can actually assist us in this task because the contemporary horizon is more congenial to dynamic thinking about God than is the Greek portrait. Today it is easier to invite people to find fulfillment in a dynamic, personal God than it would be to ask them to find it in a deity who is immutable and self-enclosed. Modern thinking has more room for a God who is personal (even tripersonal) than it does for a God as absolute substance. We ought to be grateful for those features of modern culture, which make it easier to recover the biblical witness.”

“We are making peace with the culture of modernity.” (The Openness of God. 107) {emphasis mine}​

In Pinnock we see the real motivation of open theism: mixing a theological system with contemporary culture which appeals to our modern world. After all, ours is a world nowadays that needs a feel-good God in its culture of egalitarianism, extravagance, and self-absorption. Philosophical humanism, liberalism, and modernism packaged up in the guise of a supposed enlightened re-thinking of the doctrine of God.

Thankfully, the topic rarely comes up anymore at the site in question (warning: numerous ninth and second commandment violations therein). When it does, others simply point them to my response with a summary "Asked and Answered."

Feel free to leverage this for your own purposes the next time someone raises the "Greek Philosophy!" canard.

 

[Stope]

I'm not sure that he's charismatic, although he did attend Assemblies of God theological seminary. I doubt he's any more charismatic than many of the popular new Calvinist types.

Even though not knowing fully what you mean by "the popular new Calvinist types" I think I might fall in this camp... How would you define these and what are their differences between the "old" types?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Even though not knowing fully what you mean by "the popular new Calvinist types" I think I might fall in this camp... How would you define these and what are their differences between the "old" types?

People like David Platt, Matt Chandler, John Piper and many others who are Calvinistic but generally accept things like continuing revelation.

 

[Stope]

People like David Platt, Matt Chandler, John Piper and many others who are Calvinistic but generally accept things like continuing revelation.

Uh oh - I do fall in that camp... But you say its because they believe in "continuing revelation", what is meant by that (and can you, if possible, give an example if you are able to call one to mind without having to go and dig up some books)?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Uh oh - I do fall in that camp... But you say its because they believe in "continuing revelation", what is meant by that (and can you, if possible, give an example if you are able to call one to mind without having to go and dig up some books)?

This comes to mind:
http://thecripplegate.com/john-macarthur-responds-to-john-piper-regarding-strange-fire/

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Uh oh - I do fall in that camp... But you say its because they believe in "continuing revelation", what is meant by that (and can you, if possible, give an example if you are able to call one to mind without having to go and dig up some books)?

The reformed view is that revelation ceased with the close of the canon of Scripture, and so prophecy has ceased in the sense of God giving new revelation. Men like the ones I mentioned are not really charasmatic in the sense that they speak in tongues or roll around the aisles in their churches, but they do believe that all of the spiritual gifts are continuing today.

With these particular men, this mostly manifests itself in terms of continuing revelation. They believe that God reveals new things to them in order to aid their ministry. Sometimes this is fairly innocuous, such as with Piper, and other times it is dangerous, as with Mark Driscoll. In either case, it is contrary to the reformed confessions.

 

[Stope]

The reformed view is that revelation ceased with the close of the canon of Scripture, and so prophecy has ceased in the sense of God giving new revelation. Men like the ones I mentioned are not really charasmatic in the sense that they speak in tongues or roll around the aisles in their churches, but they do believe that all of the spiritual gifts are continuing today.

With these particular men, this mostly manifests itself in terms of continuing revelation. They believe that God reveals new things to them in order to aid their ministry. Sometimes this is fairly innocuous, such as with Piper, and other times it is dangerous, as with Mark Driscoll. In either case, it is contrary to the reformed confessions.

Thanks! So, would it be proper to sum that the issue you have with men like this is that they still then assume the gifts continue today? As far as when you say "They believe that God reveals new things to them in order to aid their ministry", what is an example? Further, does not the Holy Spirit engage and direct us in ALL of our own lives and ministries and day to day life?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Thanks! So, would it be proper to sum that the issue you have with men like this is that they still then assume the gifts continue today? As far as when you say "They believe that God reveals new things to them in order to aid their ministry", what is an example? Further, does not the Holy Spirit engage and direct us in ALL of our own lives and ministries and day to day life?

The issue is not whether the Holy Spirit speaks to us, but whether or not God continues to give us new revelation. The reformed view is that God's word is a complete revelation and thus new revelation is not needed. Most of the new Calvinist types have been influenced by Wayne Grudem's view of "fallible prophecy." This article explains this in more detail. http://thecripplegate.com/five-dangers-of-fallible-prophecy/

 

[Stope]

The issue is not whether the Holy Spirit speaks to us, but whether or not God continues to give us new revelation. The reformed view is that God's word is a complete revelation and thus new revelation is not needed. Most of the new Calvinist types have been influenced by Wayne Grudem's view of "fallible prophecy." This article explains this in more detail. http://thecripplegate.com/five-dangers-of-fallible-prophecy/

Im sorry but I find it utterly unbelievable that John piper would in any way suggest that God has or continues to give new revelation (of the sort that is beyond the Spirit's daily influence and direction in our lives)... Might you direct me to something where Piper maintains that?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Im sorry but I find it utterly unbelievable that John piper would in any way suggest that God has or continues to give new revelation (of the sort that is beyond the Spirit's daily influence and direction in our lives)... Might you direct me to something where Piper maintains that?

Here is an article that Piper wrote explaining his view of prophecy. http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-authority-and-nature-of-the-gift-of-prophecy

 

[Stope]

Here is an article that Piper wrote explaining his view of prophecy. http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-authority-and-nature-of-the-gift-of-prophecy

Thanks for the link. Just read it. And the very first thing that Piper says, is in direct contradiction of what you accuse him of when he says "Let me begin by affirming the finality and sufficiency of Scripture, the 66 books of the Bible. Nothing I say about today's prophecies means that they have authority over our lives like Scripture does. Whatever prophecies are given today do not add to Scripture. They are tested by Scripture. Scripture is closed and final; it is a foundation, not a building in process."...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Consider:
What is the purpose of most--if not ALL--divine revelation, i.e. what God has spoken? Is it not for our counsel of the Holy? Hence, by it's very nature God's verbal testimony is Public. It is meant to be shared.

Anything we really know about what God has said/revealed is public, it's in the Bible. If there ever was a "private revelation," guess what... no one even knows about it, except for whoever received it. Apostle Paul had something of a "private revelation," so private he never spoke about it; but then later on, under inspiration of Holy Spirit he had to put the gist of it in 2Cor.

Apostle Peter writes that his revelatory experience on the Mt. of Transfiguration is of little worth, compared to the written Word that belongs to the church as a whole. The experience cannot be shared; but the Word of God must be shared.

If people are receiving "words" from God, then they belong in the Bible, stapled to the last page. But now, we have "prophets" and "prophetess" declaring all sorts of stuff (do we trust them?), either vague tripe that cannot be verified, or else littering the world with failed "prophecies" for which there is zero accountability. If they have "private revelation," they make sure to tell everyone about their gift. "I'm special, and you know because God speaks to me; sometimes just for me, but maybe for one or all of you. So, stick around."

"Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone.... The watchman of Ephraim is with my God, but the prophet is a fowler's snare in all his ways--enmity in the house of his God. They are deeply corrupted." Hos.4:17; 9:8-9.

If the "prophecy" is just what the Bible says already, then... maybe it's not prophecy at all; but the Spirit bringing back to mind personally what God has already spoken? That's called illumination.

Another issue is this matter of "prophet" in the New Covenant context. Why were there prophets in the beginning of the NT era? Because the NT wasn't complete, it didn't even exist in written form until several decades had passed, and the generation appointed to write it had gone to their reward. But the church was already being formed and the seed sown across the whole world, the apostles witnessing the Word of God by mouth. But they can't be everywhere at once...

Paul explicitly states in 1Cor.13 that "prophecies will cease." Faith, hope, and love will not; nor will the whole and complete Word fail from the earth--the power of hell cannot expunge it.

Meanwhile, Christ has fulfilled the mediatorial types of prophet, priest, and king of the OT. We have no more the latter; so why do Christians today want the former? "In these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son," Heb.1.

 

[Stope]

Consider:
What is the purpose of most--if not ALL--divine revelation, i.e. what God has spoken? Is it not for our counsel of the Holy? Hence, by it's very nature God's verbal testimony is Public. It is meant to be shared.
.

I sense often the Lord speaking to me in a very real and divine way. I do not sense Him telling me a new doctrine or telling me to add anything to the Bible or disregard what is already written. Rather, very clearly in fact, I sense the Lord saying many things, just this morning for example I believe it was the Lord saying to me, "Go back and strap down the car seats in [my wife's] car." Sure, Im happy to share that with all who are concerned and make it public.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I sense often the Lord speaking to me in a very real and divine way. I do not sense Him telling me a new doctrine or telling me to add anything to the Bible or disregard what is already written. Rather, very clearly in fact, I sense the Lord saying many things, just this morning for example I believe it was the Lord saying to me, "Go back and strap down the car seats in [my wife's] car." Sure, Im happy to share that with all who are concerned and make it public.

Am I missing something here?

What Piper means by his caveat is that prophecy in the current age is not the same as prophecy in the OT or in the time of the apostles, however he goes on to argue that prophecy does continue. It is here that he creates an unbiblical dichotomy between prophecy of old and prophecy today. The chief characteristic of this modern prophecy, according to Piper, is that it is not infallible. In other words, people can prophesy today and be wrong. The problem with this view is that the Bible is clear that the mark of true prophecy is that it always comes true.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Jason,
God assures me: Prophecies have failed; 1Cor.13:8 has been fulfilled. So... I don't know if strapping down those seats was a bad idea or a good one, but God didn't serve up a sentence to you. My Word from God is contradicting your word from God. And I know from experience that these days it's not acceptable to call somebody else' experience into question. But I'm calling your experience into question.

How long until you tell that person in your congregation they should do X, because God speaks to you? Meanwhile, they thought they were doing what God told them to do already. Is your word superseding the word they had earlier? Who gets to decide, assuming you don't just "pull rank?"

You just confidently asserted that GOD told you something. What if you and I lived next door to each other (so we actually knew each other, and talked regularly) and after you said the above to me, I said "Whoa, brother, the Lord told ME you were to switch cars, and strap those seats down in YOUR car, not the wife's." On what basis, other than you trust your own instincts more than mine, would you discern between those "prophecies?"

Yea, I know hardly anyone ever challenges the "prophecy" their neighbor got, because (generally) we are basically self-focused anyway. And, if you don't want anyone challenging YOUR prophecies then don't challenge theirs, amirite?

What is the actual argument from Scripture that we should be ascribing every impulse and premonition we have to God?

Isn't your case indiscernable (other than your claim of direct, verbal intervention) from that of a providential reminding, an evidence of God's care for you, using the gift of memory or other perception? I know, that kind of lowers everything about life into the mundane world, where my reality is not that different from my unbelieving neighbor's.


I don't think there's a detectable difference between what you decided to do (for which a Christian would and should give thanks if it was a needful thing), and what your atheist neighbor did the other day when he acted on some furtive mental prompt to check if someone remembered to turn off the stove... and hey! it was left on, sure glad he went back inside.

Christians nowadays (more so than before?) have this habit of turning everything into a supernatural (as opposed to mundane) event or activity. They are sacralizing existence as a whole, and as a result there is nothing sacred at all, nothing that is different, i.e. set apart unto God. Like the Lord's Day, for instance.

Pious Pete says, "I regard every day as holy (not like you one-day-a-week phonies); which means practically that most weeks God gets a nod from force of habit, and then--since I'm a holy guy--I get to do whatever else I want, and presto: it must be holy too!"​

Christians try selling their faith on the claim that the unbelievers of the world will get the world a little better with Jesus. And then they try selling the HigherLife to fellow Christians, on the notion that they will get Christianity a little better if they make the leap. "You don't get words from Jesus/the Spirit? Well... hmmm... I guess you haven't quite got it yet. ThasOK, bra, keep tryin!"

You don't have to tell me that selling people on the idea that becoming a Christian will make their lives harder (but THAT's OK) is much, much less appealing. Its hard to tell Christians today their lives of faith in this world were never intended of God to be a series of "breakthroughs." Most Christians are not "stagnating instead of rising up;" they are getting sold a bill of goods that robs them of genuine contentment with their lot in life.

In the long run contentment with the pure Word of God written (it already has EVERYTHING necessary for life and godliness, 2Pet.1:3-4; cf. 2Tim.3:16-17) makes for the successful Christian, measured not in influences felt or given; but in humility and peace in spite of "suffering the loss of all things."


I'm preaching a brand of Christianity that strips believers of any idea that they have "spiritual privilege" through God in this world. You aren't any different from your unbelieving neighbor next door, or that believer across the street, when it comes to getting by in everyday life; unless it is a natural advantage.

It is dangerous to attribute every good decision you make to "listening to God." Because then, of course every "bad" decision must be because you weren't listening. Or because your faith isn't good enough. Or because someone else' bad decision had more influence over business.

What we have are divine promises. What we have in the Bible is the assurance that making prayer part of our decision-making bears good fruit, no matter the outcome in worldly calculus, 1Pet.5:7; Prv.3:5-8. We are assured God will guide us, Ps.34:7; Mt.6:33. And we owe him thanks for everything that comes our way, Rom.8:28.

 

[Stope]

Jason,
God assures me: Prophecies have failed; 1Cor.13:8 has been fulfilled. So... I don't know if strapping down those seats was a bad idea or a good one, but God didn't serve up a sentence to you. My Word from God is contradicting your word from God. And I know from experience that these days it's not acceptable to call somebody else' experience into question. But I'm calling your experience into question.

How long until you tell that person in your congregation they should do X, because God speaks to you? Meanwhile, they thought they were doing what God told them to do already. Is your word superseding the word they had earlier? Who gets to decide, assuming you don't just "pull rank?"

You just confidently asserted that GOD told you something. What if you and I lived next door to each other (so we actually knew each other, and talked regularly) and after you said the above to me, I said "Whoa, brother, the Lord told ME you were to switch cars, and strap those seats down in YOUR car, not the wife's." On what basis, other than you trust your own instincts more than mine, would you discern between those "prophecies?"

Yea, I know hardly anyone ever challenges the "prophecy" their neighbor got, because (generally) we are basically self-focused anyway. And, if you don't want anyone challenging YOUR prophecies then don't challenge theirs, amirite?

What is the actual argument from Scripture that we should be ascribing every impulse and premonition we have to God?

Isn't your case indiscernable (other than your claim of direct, verbal intervention) from that of a providential reminding, an evidence of God's care for you, using the gift of memory or other perception? I know, that kind of lowers everything about life into the mundane world, where my reality is not that different from my unbelieving neighbor's.


I don't think there's a detectable difference between what you decided to do (for which a Christian would and should give thanks if it was a needful thing), and what your atheist neighbor did the other day when he acted on some furtive mental prompt to check if someone remembered to turn off the stove... and hey! it was left on, sure glad he went back inside.

Christians nowadays (more so than before?) have this habit of turning everything into a supernatural (as opposed to mundane) event or activity. They are sacralizing existence as a whole, and as a result there is nothing sacred at all, nothing that is different, i.e. set apart unto God. Like the Lord's Day, for instance.

Pious Pete says, "I regard every day as holy (not like you one-day-a-week phonies); which means practically that most weeks God gets a nod from force of habit, and then--since I'm a holy guy--I get to do whatever else I want, and presto: it must be holy too!"​

Christians try selling their faith on the claim that the unbelievers of the world will get the world a little better with Jesus. And then they try selling the HigherLife to fellow Christians, on the notion that they will get Christianity a little better if they make the leap. "You don't get words from Jesus/the Spirit? Well... hmmm... I guess you haven't quite got it yet. ThasOK, bra, keep tryin!"

You don't have to tell me that selling people on the idea that becoming a Christian will make their lives harder (but THAT's OK) is much, much less appealing. Its hard to tell Christians today their lives of faith in this world were never intended of God to be a series of "breakthroughs." Most Christians are not "stagnating instead of rising up;" they are getting sold a bill of goods that robs them of genuine contentment with their lot in life.

In the long run contentment with the pure Word of God written (it already has EVERYTHING necessary for life and godliness, 2Pet.1:3-4; cf. 2Tim.3:16-17) makes for the successful Christian, measured not in influences felt or given; but in humility and peace in spite of "suffering the loss of all things."


I'm preaching a brand of Christianity that strips believers of any idea that they have "spiritual privilege" through God in this world. You aren't any different from your unbelieving neighbor next door, or that believer across the street, when it comes to getting by in everyday life; unless it is a natural advantage.

It is dangerous to attribute every good decision you make to "listening to God." Because then, of course every "bad" decision must be because you weren't listening. Or because your faith isn't good enough. Or because someone else' bad decision had more influence over business.

What we have are divine promises. What we have in the Bible is the assurance that making prayer part of our decision-making bears good fruit, no matter the outcome in worldly calculus, 1Pet.5:7; Prv.3:5-8. We are assured God will guide us, Ps.34:7; Mt.6:33. And we owe him thanks for everything that comes our way, Rom.8:28.

Wow there's so many things I want to say to that! I think I'll take this approach:

1. If you have a desire to go either left or right, and both are equal options, you then seek God in prayer. After praying you have more of an inclination (it can be minor or major) to go left. From where did that inclination come? (Prov 16:33, 21:1)

2. Does not God put in, or speak to, the hearts of His people certain events? (Nehemiah 2:12)

3. In the most simple sense I ask you this: Does the Spirit of God guide you and direct you in your day to day life?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Jason,
Let me preface further comment with the statement of your Confession (http://files.puritanboard.com/confessions/1689lbcf.htm)

CHAPTER 1; OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
Paragraph 1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,1 although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation.2 Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diversified manners to reveal Himself, and to declare (that) His will unto His church;3 and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now completed.4

When God speaks, those who hear his Word are obligated to obey him, or else it is sin, Jas.4:17.

Let's take your first question/scenario. If you did as you recommended, and followed your new "inclination," believing you are heeding a specific, divine direction; the end being extreme negative results for you and everyone around you--what then? Do you question your formerly sure-fire answer? Does God still get credit for his leading: this misery, his will? Do you exculpate God by blaming your bent antenna?


The short answer to your first question as posed to me, "whence that inclination?" is I don't know. I assume you are not talking about God's ultimate decree (let me quote the LBC again):

CHAPTER 3; OF GOD’S DECREE
Paragraph 1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;3 in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.4

So our interest is in the immediate cause of the "inclination." There are incalculable possibilities and combinations of second-causes by which God has ordained the specific variables of my experience. The most proximate cause of my decision is ME, my will. What influences there might be on my choice could be obvious or subliminal, despite the condition you posed: that my desire appears to be equally split to begin with.

Let's not lose sight of where this discussion began. It concerned the question: Does God speak directly to people? I say there's a big difference between believing God is engaged in and influencing the world, and receiving instructions as from the mouth of the Lord. Are the majority of folks sinning by ignoring the Lord as he tries to tell them, directly, what to do?

So, when you quote passages that refer to "lots" and "the king's heart," I say they have little to do with your claim to receive verbal, intelligible, revelatory guidance. The former ways (such as lots) have ceased; and I never have questioned whether God moves men's hearts. Above all else, he must move them if they are to believe in him. Again, the issue was direct revelation, not influence (which always achieves his exact intent for it) or illumination through his antecedent Word.


In your second question to me, I'm not sure if you presume what God "put in the heart" of Nehemiah included specific instructions, like he gave Moses for the Tabernacle, or David for the Temple. I don't know if you have related that purpose to v5, where Nehemiah unburdens his heart to the Persian king. What we read there gives no indication Nehemiah experienced any divine instruction, but that his statement was an expression of his grief and passion. v12 is aftermath, the reflection of the pious mind on the previous engagement of God upon his heart. But the text gives no hint of words from God--only prayers from Nehemiah.

And this is all beside the fact that we know Nehemiah IS inspired, at some point, for we have his inspired utterance in prayer and other first person testimony, which is Scripture. So, either too much is made of the burden in his heart (going beyond the text); or too little, if such prophetic counsels from heaven are made a common benefit.

If you recognize that Nehemiah is simply acknowledging God's answer to prayer after the events, without being any more specific than the text, then we stand in agreement as far as the text is concerned. But I consider it an abuse of the text even to apply Nehemiah's redemptive-historical experience to everyday Christians; as if they may or they must start listening to their hearts, as if such spoke with divine authority. I would not trust my heart one bit. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?" Jer.17:9.

On the other hand, I'm happy to have Christians pray that God would sanctify their desires; so that as they seek to work them out under his Lordship, they may be assured that he superintends their labor. I am also much more comfortable with Christians saying, "I think or suppose that this plan, bathed in prayer and in conformity with God's plainly revealed will in his Word, is upon my heart as if from the Lord." But my supposition is not infallible. Prv.16:9 says, "A man’s heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps." That clearly implies that man proposes, but God disposes, not always as we thought his will to be.


Thirdly, it is my obligation to put myself at the Spirit's disposal. His will is written in God's Word. The Word tells me that he will employ and guide me whether my will is compliant, careless, or hostile. I have so much work to do knowing the Word that has long since been put in my hands, I have no time or energy to spare looking and listening for reasons to baptize with divine authority my conscious or subconscious, my emotions, my senses, or my gut-reactions.

Ps. 143:10, "Teach me to do Your will, For You are my God; Your Spirit is good. Lead me in the land of uprightness." What is David's need? "Cause me to know the way in which I should walk," v8. He makes his prayer predicated on the Record of divine faithfulness and promise, v5. Rom.8:14, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." Of course I want his direction in this and every day, and in all my affairs.

But HOW does he lead us today? This is the whole matter.

 

[Stope]

Let's take your first question/scenario. If you did as you recommended, and followed your new "inclination," believing you are heeding a specific, divine direction; the end being extreme negative results for you and everyone around you--what then? Do you question your formerly sure-fire answer? Does God still get credit for his leading: this misery, his will? Do you exculpate God by blaming your bent antenna?

---God isnt confused. He would never speak to someone to go against what is already revealed. If I say God told me to slap my neighbor, then we can both know God didnt really tell me that. NOTHING trumps the objective written Word of God

The short answer to your first question as posed to me, "whence that inclination?" is I don't know. I assume you are not talking about God's ultimate decree

---I am indeed actually

Let's not lose sight of where this discussion began. It concerned the question: Does God speak directly to people? I say there's a big difference between believing God is engaged in and influencing the world, and receiving instructions as from the mouth of the Lord.

---O herein lies the difference: you think there's a "big difference" whereas I think they are 100% the same. How could they not?

I never have questioned whether God moves men's hearts

---Again, this is what I mean when I say "I felt the the Lord probing me to do such and such", I could also say "I felt the Lord move my heart to do such and such"

All that said, I always maintain that I say I never know 100% for sure if God is speaking/directing/etc, but i can say I "think" He is.