Respectable Arminian theologians?

[Contra_Mundum]

---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

Your comment didn't really address my scenario. You seem to be asserting in advance that you can't possibly err in interpreting the "correct" inclination, and cannot end up bringing misery to yourself and those around you.

And yet, objectively speaking we can find plenty of examples of people who claimed at one point they were doing as God spoke to them (not plainly contradicting a scriptural command), and the result evidently ruins lives.

I mean to say, I hope you never follow that "still, small voice" that for sure tells you (hypothetically) to uproot your family and move them to Hawaii to do ministry, whereupon misery follows.

And how does your God-is-always-consistent rule fit this scenario: if your name (about 1800 B.C.) is Abraham, and God tells you to sacrifice as a burnt offering your son, your only son, whom you love... and this goes against everything you know about the character and promises of God? Can we both know God didn't really tell you that, based on previous revelation alone--as your comment seems to suggest?

My meaning being, your "out" is apparently ad hoc, in order to save your prior commitment to private revelations.

---I am indeed actually

OK, so what do you believe about God's intermediate methods of expressing his will (other than direct revelation)? How often does God do direct speech, and how do we know when to tune in? Or is he constantly speaking and personally, verbally (attempting?) to influence our every act at every moment, we just only hear him when the tuner is keyed to the right frequency? Or do we always need to be on edge, because we don't know when the moment is ripe? Or is he constantly waiting on us to pause, and put out a fleece for him?

According to 1Ki.22:19-23, God has used a spirit to "influence" a man to his death. The man had two voices in his ears, both of divine origin, the one warning him from death the last and most immediate; and yet the inclination he followed was to his ruin; it was three steps removed from God, and the good word he ignored was two steps removed.

Is tuning in a spiritual skill? If you don't practice, are you sinning? Honestly if you believe you constantly receive direct revelation--your tuner is so good--then it would not seem strange to me that soon you would be telling others what God wants of them when you think you are directed to do so. Why stop with the car seats? "Hey, follow me; I've got heavenly GPS, people; it's always pinging." And how do ordinary shmucks like me tell the difference between the real deal, and the pied pipers? The rule up above isn't reliably going to give the kind of discernment necessary.

The reality is, this world is filled with voices. And I have been warned against trusting in them all--both internal and external--except for the written Word.

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

Well, I was hoping you would see them as distinguishable. You say the Bible is in a special class. But here you equate personal revelation with Scripture as if to blur the distinction. How is this any different from the papist claim that they have revelation on par with Scripture, just always in line with it?

One of the elements that once clearly distinguished the Protestants from Rome was our commitment to the finality of revelation, at least in all ordinary circumstances. ("Extraordinary" might be where the church was denied the Bible; clearly we are not talking about such here). You're basically saying Rome is correct on the principle; they're just not the right practitioners.

Ordinarily, God operates in the world according to his laws. The reliability of the world is a permanent witness to his presence and government. And appealing to constant direct divine intervention is a functional denial of the doctrine of Providence. The difference is the difference between standard operating procedure, and miracle. That's a huge and meaningful difference. It is not just a semantic adjustment.

---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.

OK, but you didn't actually say those quotes before; rather, you claimed a specific and distinct verbal Word from the Lord. I don't think "feeling" can be any more clearly of God directly, than we can attribute it to angels, or to an irrational second-cause that could still be used by God.

And if you (wisely) hesitate to claim the direct prompting of God, or qualify your confidence in some respect, at least I can be glad for that element of self-doubt. Because it implies humility, or at least a willingness to consider you might be in error (not infallible).

Because, we do not have a promise from God he will use any other means to guide us than Holy Scripture.

 

[arapahoepark]

Your comment didn't really address my scenario. You seem to be asserting in advance that you can't possibly err in interpreting the "correct" inclination, and cannot end up bringing misery to yourself and those around you.

And yet, objectively speaking we can find plenty of examples of people who claimed at one point they were doing as God spoke to them (not plainly contradicting a scriptural command), and the result evidently ruins lives.

I mean to say, I hope you never follow that "still, small voice" that for sure tells you (hypothetically) to uproot your family and move them to Hawaii to do ministry, whereupon misery follows.

And how does your God-is-always-consistent rule fit this scenario: if your name (about 1800 B.C.) is Abraham, and God tells you to sacrifice as a burnt offering your son, your only son, whom you love... and this goes against everything you know about the character and promises of God? Can we both know God didn't really tell you that, based on previous revelation alone--as your comment seems to suggest?

My meaning being, your "out" is apparently ad hoc, in order to save your prior commitment to private revelations.


OK, so what do you believe about God's intermediate methods of expressing his will (other than direct revelation)? How often does God do direct speech, and how do we know when to tune in? Or is he constantly speaking and personally, verbally (attempting?) to influence our every act at every moment, we just only hear him when the tuner is keyed to the right frequency? Or do we always need to be on edge, because we don't know when the moment is ripe? Or is he constantly waiting on us to pause, and put out a fleece for him?

According to 1Ki.22:19-23, God has used a spirit to "influence" a man to his death. The man had two voices in his ears, both of divine origin, the one warning him from death the last and most immediate; and yet the inclination he followed was to his ruin; it was three steps removed from God, and the good word he ignored was two steps removed.

Is tuning in a spiritual skill? If you don't practice, are you sinning? Honestly if you believe you constantly receive direct revelation--your tuner is so good--then it would not seem strange to me that soon you would be telling others what God wants of them when you think you are directed to do so. Why stop with the car seats? "Hey, follow me; I've got heavenly GPS, people; it's always pinging." And how do ordinary shmucks like me tell the difference between the real deal, and the pied pipers? The rule up above isn't reliably going to give the kind of discernment necessary.

The reality is, this world is filled with voices. And I have been warned against trusting in them all--both internal and external--except for the written Word.


Well, I was hoping you would see them as distinguishable. You say the Bible is in a special class. But here you equate personal revelation with Scripture as if to blur the distinction. How is this any different from the papist claim that they have revelation on par with Scripture, just always in line with it?

One of the elements that once clearly distinguished the Protestants from Rome was our commitment to the finality of revelation, at least in all ordinary circumstances. ("Extraordinary" might be where the church was denied the Bible; clearly we are not talking about such here). You're basically saying Rome is correct on the principle; they're just not the right practitioners.

Ordinarily, God operates in the world according to his laws. The reliability of the world is a permanent witness to his presence and government. And appealing to constant direct divine intervention is a functional denial of the doctrine of Providence. The difference is the difference between standard operating procedure, and miracle. That's a huge and meaningful difference. It is not just a semantic adjustment.


OK, but you didn't actually say those quotes before; rather, you claimed a specific and distinct verbal Word from the Lord. I don't think "feeling" can be any more clearly of God directly, than we can attribute it to angels, or to an irrational second-cause that could still be used by God.

And if you (wisely) hesitate to claim the direct prompting of God, or qualify your confidence in some respect, at least I can be glad for that element of self-doubt. Because it implies humility, or at least a willingness to consider you might be in error (not infallible).

Because, we do not have a promise from God he will use any other means to guide us than Holy Scripture.

Rev. Buchanan,
Thank you for your comments.
I have a follow up question that is related. In what sense would this relate to looking out for answers to prayer or guidance in one's life with regard to 'temporal' things?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Trent,
I hope I'm being perfectly clear: I believe in divine intervention, God's guidance, answers to prayer; man, I even believe miracles happen.

If I pray, being a believer, then anything at all that follows that is identifiable as some kind, any kind, of answer--even if the answer is other or contrary to my request--is by definition my answer from on high. I should thank God for hearing and answering according to his promise.

I don't even have to find out a result, to know my prayer was heard and answered. Walking out of the mall, "Lord, please be with that mom back there just inside the Nordstrom's, with her crying kid; help him get over it." Faith tells me it is heard and answered.

What I'm specifically objecting to is the idea that I know, that I can be sure that some "feeling" or "nudge" or "word" is instruction or prompting directly from God. Maybe, as I sat at the intersection looking left and right scratching my head, praying, imperceptibly my left air vent let in a strong gust of cooler air making me inadvertently wince; and that caused my eye to catch sight of what I thought was my friend's car speeding through an intersection further south. "Man! that's a sign," so I go left.

Was it "God?" If I catch up to the other car, was it "God" if it was my friend's car? What if it wasn't? Turning left, saying "Thank you, God," because I was sure it WAS Joe's car and God literally turned my head see him--only to find out it wasn't; and on top of it, I should have turned right in order to optimally love my neighbor--my false approach is, is simplest terms, a blasphemy. I made a mistake as a direct result of expecting to have my steering wheel guided as if by a Ouija-board (or a still, small voice). We used to call that "superstition."

Now, how could I have practically the same experience, and not sin (in that way)? I pray for God to help me figure my way, show me somehow, being careful not to presume on his methods or summon him to act in any manner he has not promised. I turn left because of those influences mentioned above. If I catch up the car, and it is my friend, my hope in prayer being fulfilled, I can thank God for all the influences known and unknown that brought me to that answer.

If I don't catch the car, or it is not my friend when I do, I may still be in "prayer mode," pursuing my goal. Or, I may have now to face the fact the goal I sought is beyond what can be gained. I must pray then for contentment. I can also recognize that, in some sense (despite what I thought was a noble goal now foiled) I must thank God for my error. He meant me to go half-way, or 90% there, and come up empty. In retrospect, I accept that as his providence for me. Perhaps I am rebuked for leaving too late, causing extra problems for myself and maybe others. I accept that in repentance.


God is always for me, as his child, in Christ. He is on my side, no matter if I win or lose. He's foreordained all my joys, and all my sorrows. He's even using my sins and failures (for which I bear full responsibility in commission) and their temporal consequences (which may or may not be relieved in part or whole) for my good. And for that I should be thankful to him.

God is always helping me, saving me, disciplining me. But I can only thank him for an answer to prayer if I pray. Doesn't that make perfect sense? Suppose I do not pray, and I turn left instead of right, and am frustrated in my purpose. Well, for sure I have to say I have not, because I asked not. Suppose I turn left and am rewarded for my effort. I should thank God--for blessing me despite my inattention to prayer. I ignored him, and he saved me anyway. If I did pray, my walk with God was strengthened in the effort, and the outcome is my answer and another cause for prayer. Pray without ceasing, right?

Many times, when by prayer we obtain what we joyfully call his blessing, we take time to view and reflect on his acts as just so many evidences of his meticulous care of us. We ponder his inscrutable paths by which he brought the blessing. We marvel at all the interlocking pieces that had to be planned for the one, and then the many other blessings which all are a tapestry of his mercy. Our prayers (from the Spirit within) are woven into that work, being his appointed means for attaining his own ends.

Our "looking out" for him in action is just an essential part of our everyday life of faith. My life looks a lot like my unbelieving neighbor's life. The difference is: I walk by faith, not by sight. I know God is with me moment by moment (and will be in the next moments) not because he's sustaining me with feelings, nudges, and words; but because Christ is mine. And because he is, I look back on a long trail of his blessing, never once failing. My unbelieving and unthankful neighbor is missing out. He doesn't have much of an excuse, either.

I hope this is helpful.

edit: don't miss this: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/be-sure-to-pray-over-the-promises.92128/

 

[arapahoepark]

Trent,
I hope I'm being perfectly clear: I believe in divine intervention, God's guidance, answers to prayer; man, I even believe miracles happen.

If I pray, being a believer, then anything at all that follows that is identifiable as some kind, any kind, of answer--even if the answer is other or contrary to my request--is by definition my answer from on high. I should thank God for hearing and answering according to his promise.

I don't even have to find out a result, to know my prayer was heard and answered. Walking out of the mall, "Lord, please be with that mom back there just inside the Nordstrom's, with her crying kid; help him get over it." Faith tells me it is heard and answered.

What I'm specifically objecting to is the idea that I know, that I can be sure that some "feeling" or "nudge" or "word" is instruction or prompting directly from God. Maybe, as I sat at the intersection looking left and right scratching my head, praying, imperceptibly my left air vent let in a strong gust of cooler air making me inadvertently wince; and that caused my eye to catch sight of what I thought was my friend's car speeding through an intersection further south. "Man! that's a sign," so I go left.

Was it "God?" If I catch up to the other car, was it "God" if it was my friend's car? What if it wasn't? Turning left, saying "Thank you, God," because I was sure it WAS Joe's car and God literally turned my head see him--only to find out it wasn't; and on top of it, I should have turned right in order to optimally love my neighbor--my flase approach is, is simplest terms, a blasphemy. I made a mistake as a direct result of expecting to have my steering wheel guided as if by a Ouija-board (or a still, small voice). We used to call that "superstition."

Now, how could I have practically the same experience, and not sin (in that way)? I pray for God to help me figure my way, show me somehow, being careful not to presume on his methods or summon him to act in any manner he has not promised. I turn left because of those influences mentioned above. If I catch up the car, and it is my friend, my hope in prayer being fulfilled, I can thank God for all the influences known and unknown that brought me to that answer.

If I don't catch the car, or it is not my friend when I do, I may still be in "prayer mode," pursuing my goal. Or, I may have now to face the fact the goal I sought is beyond what can be gained. I must pray then for contentment. I can also recognize that, in some sense (despite what I thought was a noble goal now foiled) I must thank God for my error. He meant me to go half-way, or 90% there, and come up empty. In retrospect, I accept that as his providence for me. Perhaps I am rebuked for leaving too late, causing extra problems for myself and maybe others. I accept that in repentance.


God is always for me, as his child, in Christ. He is on my side, no matter if I win or lose. He's foreordained all my joys, and all my sorrows. He's even using my sins and failures (for which I bear full responsibility in commission) and their temporal consequences (which may or may not be relieved in part or whole) for my good. And for that I should be thankful to him.

God is always helping me, saving me. But I can only thank him for an answer to prayer if I pray. Doesn't that make perfect sense? Suppose I do not pray, and I turn left instead of right, and am frustrated in my purpose. Well, for sure I have to say I have not, because I asked not. Suppose I turn left and am rewarded for my effort. I should thank God--for blessing me despite my inattention to prayer. I ignored him, and he saved me anyway. If I did pray, my walk with God was strengthened in the effort, and the outcome is my answer and another cause for prayer. Pray without ceasing, right?

Many times, when by prayer we obtain what we joyfully call his blessing, we take time to view and reflect on his acts as just so many evidences of his meticulous care of us. We ponder his inscrutable paths by which he brought the blessing. We marvel at all the interlocking pieces that had to be planned for the one, and then the many other blessings which all are a tapestry of his mercy. Our prayers (from the Spirit within) are woven into that work, being his appointed means for attaining his own ends.

Our "looking out" for him in action is just an essential part of our everyday life of faith. My life looks a lot like my unbelieving neighbor's life. The difference is: I walk by faith, not by sight. I know God is with me moment by moment (and will be in the next moments) not because he's sustaining me with feelings, nudges, and words; but because Christ is mine. And because he is, I look back on a long trail of his blessing, never once failing. My unbelieving and unthankful neighbor is missing out. He doesn't have much of an excuse, either.

I hope this is helpful.

edit: don't miss this: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/be-sure-to-pray-over-the-promises.92128/

It is a tremendous help!

 

[Stope]

If I pray, being a believer, then anything at all that follows that is identifiable as some kind, any kind, of answer--even if the answer is other or contrary to my request--is by definition my answer from on high. I should thank God for hearing and answering according to his promise.

This is a great summary. I too believe this.

Wanted to ask is the following statement true for you:
If I pray and seek God and His council, and after praying I sense council was given, then there is a chance that it was God who provided that council (but it also might not be as we cant know for sure, but there is a possibility so long as it doent go against any already known truth of the Word)?