# Communion with God: Reformed vs Charismatic



## Deleted member 7239 (Sep 8, 2017)

I would like to hear how you would describe the difference between proper vs improper communion/intimacy with God.

It seems like intimate knowledge and fellowship with God is what the neo-Pentecostals are very successfully offering (Hillsong, IHOP, Bethel, etc.) and people are responding.

How do we properly view intimacy with God without promoting a false-intimacy?


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I would like to hear how you would describe the difference between proper vs improper communion/intimacy with God.
> 
> It seems like intimate knowledge and fellowship with God is what the neo-Pentecostals are very successfully offering (Hillsong, IHOP, Bethel, etc.) and people are responding.
> 
> How do we properly view intimacy with God without offering a false-intimacy?


Charasmatic viewpoint regarding spiritual communion with God is that they see us as not being people of the Book, but of the Holy spirit, and so while many see us as communing with God wheile reading and feasting upon the scriptures, they see that as being a more basic level, and that we need to directly be with God through the Holy Spirit now residing in us.
In the extreme forms of Charismatic experiences, they see Christians as being the same as Jesus was, as we now are "little gods".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Sep 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Charasmatic viewpoint regarding spiritual communion with God is that they see us as not being people of the Book, but of the Holy spirit, and so while many see us as communing with God wheile reading and feasting upon the scriptures, they see that as being a more basic level, and that we need to directly be with God through the Holy Spirit now residing in us.
> In the extreme forms of Charismatic experiences, they see Christians as being the same as Jesus was, as we now are "little gods".



Would you say the main difference is how we define "being led by the Spirit"?


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 8, 2017)

Communion with God comes through the means of grace: the Word, prayer, and sacraments. It doesn't come through swaying back and forth while singing "praise chorus" mantras.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 8, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> Would you say the main difference is how we define "being led by the Spirit"?


That would be one important criteria.

We have to understand that Guide is guiding us in our decision making processes, that what we are discovering as we work out things is not mere accident. I think Acts 17:16 offers an answer:

"_Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols._"

I become very worried when people start saying, "_the Lord spoke to me today_" or "_I don't do anything unless the Lord tells me to do it_", etc., as if God is actually directly speaking to someone. God does not provide special revelation outside of his Word now that the foundation of our faith is laid in it by the prophets and apostles in His Word. Furthermore, God has told us not to seek "_signs and wonders._"

Rather than seeking the Lord to give us direct revelation, we should be content with God’s provision in His word (our only infallible rule of practice and faith) to guide us as to what is his will for our lives, what He commands us and expects of us concerning Him, and to know how great the love of Christ is to us. 

Murray writes in _The Guidance of the Holy Spirit_: 

“The moment we desire or expect or think that a state of our consciousness is the effect of a _direct intimation_ of us of the Holy Spirit’s will, or consists in such an intimation and is therefore in the category of _special direction_ from him, then we have given way to the notion of special, direct, detached communication from the Holy Spirit. And this, in respect of its nature, belongs to the same category as belief in special revelation”​
Some will claim they had a vision about God's will or a burden about this or that, when what they really mean is that they had some "_impression_". If that impression is Scripturally sound, I think it proper to say the impression was a nudge by the Holy Spirit, just as Paul was "_provoked within him_" (Acts 17:16). Not a few persons expect some "_road to Damascus_" like answer from God, failing to note that Paul was not even looking for guidance from God on that fateful road!

We should also realize that not every non-moral decision facing us has a single right answer. Leveraging the factors described above, we must decide and trust that God will accomplish His will. "_for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure._" (Philippians 2:13).

To drive home the key point of _being willing to obey_ when seeking guidance, I offer this humorous illustration:

A Christian hunter is hunting bears in the woods. While walking up a hill he grabs a branch for leverage and it breaks sending the hunter tumbling down the hill, rifle flying off elsewhere. When the hunter dusts himself off he sees a huge bear charging him. The hunter begins running, but trips and falls, landing on his knees. Seizing the opportunity, and being a good Christian, the hunter begins to pray, "_Lord, make this bear a Christian_."

The woods are quiet, the hunter turns and, Hallelujah! He sees the bear on his knees, paws together, praying! Listening, he hears the bear praying, "_Father, bless this food to my body_."​
God answers prayers of the righteous, but the answer you get may not be the answer you want, but it will always be the right answer.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Sep 8, 2017)



Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Sep 8, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> That would be one important criteria.
> 
> We have to understand that Guide is guiding us in our decision making processes, that what we are discovering as we work out things is not mere accident. I think Acts 17:16 offers an answer:
> 
> ...


I agree with your assessment. I wonder if there are charismatics who subscribe to sola scriptura or if that is an oxymoron. I've heard charismatic types say that Reformed tend to downplay the leading of the Spirit. In actuality we simply have a different definition of what it means to be led by the Spirit of God.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 8, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I wonder if there are charismatics who subscribe to sola scriptura or if that is an oxymoron.


It is more Solo Scriptura for them:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/mathison.pdf

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Sep 8, 2017)

I know its hard to pinpoint where we and other theological views depart from each other, but where would you say that happens for the Reformed and Charismatic types? Is it an overall hermeneutical difference? What would you say?


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 8, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I know its hard to pinpoint where we and other theological views depart from each other, but where would you say that happens for the Reformed and Charismatic types? Is it an overall hermeneutical difference? What would you say?



The departure happens early, in my estimation. Much of the movement is _a_-theological and _a_-scholarly. Why would it be different when feelings are king? There is not one N.T. scholar, not one Systematician, not one prominent theologian from the camp we might call "Charismatic" that pops in my head. For most other groups, usually a name of someone will come to mind.....not here. The arguments I've heard from them are frequently atomistic and anti-contextual when trying for a biblical case.
Guys like Piper get much more grace from me as they are trying to be scholarly and faithful. I wouldn't put them in the same camp.....


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I agree with your assessment. I wonder if there are charismatics who subscribe to sola scriptura or if that is an oxymoron. I've heard charismatic types say that Reformed tend to downplay the leading of the Spirit. In actuality we simply have a different definition of what it means to be led by the Spirit of God.


Many in the Charismatic movement though would see God as still giving forth additional revelations in addition to the scriptures, as modern Apostles and Prophets will give forth from the Lord to us in their view. That is why they rely so much on the personal aspect of being "guided and led" by the Holy Spirit, as if the scriptures are OK to them, but that fresh and new revelation is more important.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> The departure happens early, in my estimation. Much of the movement is _a_-theological and _a_-scholarly. Why would it be different when feelings are king? There is not one N.T. scholar, not one Systematician, not one prominent theologian from the camp we might call "Charismatic" that pops in my head. For most other groups, usually a name of someone will come to mind.....not here. The arguments I've heard from them are frequently atomistic and anti-contextual when trying for a biblical case.
> Guys like Piper get much more grace from me as they are trying to be scholarly and faithful. I wouldn't put them in the same camp.....


There are among them some such as Dr Grudem, Dr Fee, and Dr Piper who at least are trying to keep to a solid foundation stance, as they see certain gifts still operating, but are solid on the Gospel and main doctrines, unlike many in the Charismatic movement that have really bad theology.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> That would be one important criteria.
> 
> We have to understand that Guide is guiding us in our decision making processes, that what we are discovering as we work out things is not mere accident. I think Acts 17:16 offers an answer:
> 
> ...


I had to deal with this truth when departing from Pentecostal circles, namely that in the scriptures God already and is still speaking to us, and that witness is always infallible.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Sep 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I had to deal with this truth when departing from Pentecostal circles, namely that in the scriptures God already and is still speaking to us, and that witness is always infallible.



I still struggle with relating to God properly and I think it's from growing up in the Roman Catholic Church. It's tough to fully recover from bad practical theology. 

What was the hardest part to adapt to when you came out of the Pentecostal church?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Sep 8, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Communion with God comes through the means of grace: the Word, prayer, and sacraments. It doesn't come through swaying back and forth while singing "praise chorus" mantras.


Good--you are saying that we should only seek to experience true communion with God through the ways he has established. This makes a good point. We shouldn't attempt to commune with God where he hasn't promised to be commune with us.

Why do you think Christians seek to commune with God apart from his appointed means? Maybe an over realized eschatology? An expectation of his presence that we only will have in glory?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 9, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> There is not one N.T. scholar, not one Systematician, not one prominent theologian from the camp we might call "Charismatic" that pops in my head.


J. Rodman Williams would be the only true systematician I could name.

(I'm only familiar with him because we were members of the same church for a while!)


----------



## St. Calvin of Berean (Sep 9, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I still struggle with relating to God properly and I think it's from growing up in the Roman Catholic Church. It's tough to fully recover from bad practical theology.
> 
> What was the hardest part to adapt to when you came out of the Pentecostal church?



The hardest part is to unlearn all the bad theologies. The best thing to do is to soak your mind with B.B. Warfield and Hodge teachings. Study church history from John Wycliffe to Jonathan Edwards. And lastly, read the bible from cover to cover 2x a year.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Sep 9, 2017)

St. Calvin of Berean said:


> The hardest part is to unlearn all the bad theologies. The best thing to do is to soak your mind with B.B. Warfield and Hodge teachings. Study church history from John Wycliffe to Jonathan Edwards. And lastly, read the bible from cover to cover 2x a year.



Yes it's definitely a lifelong process of renewal of the mind. 10 years ago I started reading the Bible in 90 days every Jan 1 and it's probably what has led to me becoming Reformed. It allows me to get the big-picture view of Genesis-Rev. Warfield's essays on the Holy Spirit are good. Scripture memory and meditation on the truths of scripture has also been indispensable to me.

All this being said, old habits die hard. It's an ongoing renewal process as with all of us.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I still struggle with relating to God properly and I think it's from growing up in the Roman Catholic Church. It's tough to fully recover from bad practical theology.
> 
> What was the hardest part to adapt to when you came out of the Pentecostal church?


There seems to be extremes on this, as some see Jesus as being their big Brother, while others see Him as the stern taskmaster and judge. We must get to a biblical based understanding on how he relates to us now once saved by the grace of God.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> J. Rodman Williams would be the only true systematician I could name.
> 
> (I'm only familiar with him because we were members of the same church for a while!)


I think that Dr Grudem also would be a ST who accepts some of the Charasmatic Movement doctrines and theology.


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I think that Dr Grudem also would be a ST who accepts some of the Charasmatic Movement doctrines and theology.



Though more a "b" level theologian, I still wouldn't put Grudem in with the run-o-the-mill charismatic movement types. I believe he wishes to come to the text for correction, even if many conclusions are wrong.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2017)

Unsuspecting Christians coming into or growing up in the evangelical, non-confessional climate, routinely hear and see it affirmed that we can expect today the same type of "leading" that Elijah (the famous still, small voice) and the apostles received. There is no understanding in that climate that we're not to expect those experiences, and why. Even evangelistic but Calvinistic/cessationist pastors I've known struggle to explain why we are no longer to expect such direct messages and direction. The Baptist and other bookstores are full of books by Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer telling women how they too can (and should) hear directly from God for guidance. It's in the PCA too, sad to say.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> Though more a "b" level theologian, I still wouldn't put Grudem in with the run-o-the-mill charismatic movement types. I believe he wishes to come to the text for correction, even if many conclusions are wrong.


Though I agree that Wayne Grudem is scholarly, his section on prayer in his systematic theology may have helped make the idea of hearing from God apart from Scripture more mainstream than ever.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 9, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Though I agree that Wayne Grudem is scholarly, his section on prayer in his systematic theology may have helped make the idea of hearing from God apart from Scripture more mainstream than ever.



Good catch, Jeri. I am unfamiliar with that work of his.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Sep 9, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Unsuspecting Christians coming into or growing up in the evangelical, non-confessional climate, routinely hear and see it affirmed that we can expect today the same type of "leading" that Elijah (the famous still, small voice) and the apostles received. There is no understanding in that climate that we're not to expect those experiences, and why. Even evangelistic but Calvinistic/cessationist pastors I've known struggle to explain why we are no longer to expect such direct messages and direction. The Baptist and other bookstores are full of books by Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer telling women how they too can (and should) hear directly from God for guidance. It's in the PCA too, sad to say.



Yes-- I was surprised how popular Jesus Calling became also. Do you think that the popularity of these types of books address a problem that we as the church should be addressing or is it just standard idolatry? It seems like they are filling an emotional need that isn't being met.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> Though more a "b" level theologian, I still wouldn't put Grudem in with the run-o-the-mill charismatic movement types. I believe he wishes to come to the text for correction, even if many conclusions are wrong.


I would classify him as being A level for today, and agree with you that he is not a full on Charismatic, but he is sympathetic to some of their views regarding sign gifts for today.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Unsuspecting Christians coming into or growing up in the evangelical, non-confessional climate, routinely hear and see it affirmed that we can expect today the same type of "leading" that Elijah (the famous still, small voice) and the apostles received. There is no understanding in that climate that we're not to expect those experiences, and why. Even evangelistic but Calvinistic/cessationist pastors I've known struggle to explain why we are no longer to expect such direct messages and direction. The Baptist and other bookstores are full of books by Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer telling women how they too can (and should) hear directly from God for guidance. It's in the PCA too, sad to say.



This is an interesting area, as while the scriptures are indeed the word of the Lord speaking to us today, and fully sufficient, we still at times due get convicted/led/nudged by the Holy Spirit to speak to someone, to become aware of a situation, for examples.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Though I agree that Wayne Grudem is scholarly, his section on prayer in his systematic theology may have helped make the idea of hearing from God apart from Scripture more mainstream than ever.


He has departed from the scriptures only tosome degree, by redefining what things such a sprayer and prophecy are for today.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> Do you think that the popularity of these types of books address a problem that we as the church should be addressing or is it just standard idolatry?


I think the teaching of those books does (harmfully) fill a void that's present. The void comes from the failure to teach what Scripture is and how the Holy Spirit works through God's word that we may know him so intimately and be sanctified and filled with wisdom. So I think many Reformed/confessional churches, thankfully, are teaching and living out experientially the warm truths summarized in our confession and written about in the Reformers' and Puritan writings. But I think it's hard to get a hearing for it in too many of the less confessional churches. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> This is an interesting area, as while the scriptures are indeed the word of the Lord speaking to us today, and fully sufficient, we still at times due get convicted/led/nudged by the Holy Spirit to speak to someone, to become aware of a situation, for examples.


The problem with using language like that- that the Holy Spirit nudges, prompts, moves us, etc. to do or say something- is that it's really, in the end, just the same as saying that he 'tells' us to do or say something. Rather, we should think of events as providential and not try to pry into the secret things of God. We are to strive to act and speak from wisdom informed by the teaching of Scripture. We got the idea of being nudged and prompted (led) by the Holy Spirit to do and say things from our wrong understanding of descriptive vs. prescriptive passages of Scripture. If you keep those distinctions in mind, you'll see that nowhere in the Bible are we directed to expect such immediate "leadings" of the Spirit. It's very freeing (as the truth always is) to grasp this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 12, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I think the teaching of those books does (harmfully) fill a void that's present. The void comes from the failure to teach what Scripture is and how the Holy Spirit works through God's word that we may know him so intimately and be sanctified and filled with wisdom. So I think many Reformed/confessional churches, thankfully, are teaching and living out experientially the warm truths summarized in our confession and written about in the Reformers' and Puritan writings. But I think it's hard to get a hearing for it in too many of the less confessional churches.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Think that the Holy Spirit still indeed does lead and prompt/convict the people of God, but whatever He is said to be doing will always lineup and fully agree with the scriptures.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 12, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> The problem with using language like that- that the Holy Spirit nudges, prompts, moves us, etc. to do or say something- is that it's really, in the end, just the same as saying that he 'tells' us to do or say something. Rather, we should think of events as providential and not try to pry into the secret things of God. We are to strive to act and speak from wisdom informed by the teaching of Scripture. We got the idea of being nudged and prompted (led) by the Holy Spirit to do and say things from our wrong understanding of descriptive vs. prescriptive passages of Scripture. If you keep those distinctions in mind, you'll see that nowhere in the Bible are we directed to expect such immediate "leadings" of the Spirit. It's very freeing (as the truth always is) to grasp this.


I understand what you are saying on this issue, and coming from a prior pentacostal background, do not see it as they would be, but still have experienced the Spirit convicted me to witness to someone, or to be guided while sharing with them about Jesus for example.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Sep 12, 2017)

There is a lot of confusion among most churches what the "leading of the Spirit" in Rom. 8 actually entails. People know we are to be led by the Spirit, and Jesus' sheep hear his voice, but I don't think it is taught very practically what this means. 

Being led by the Spirit in holy Christlikeness is a different sport than the Spirit directly speaking to us individually.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Sep 12, 2017)

Warfield:
"the first thing that strikes us is that the leading of the Spirit of God of which it speaks is not something peculiar to eminent saints, but something common to all God's children, the universal possession of the people of God."

"Thus the "leading of the Holy Spirit" is revealed to us as simply a synonym for sanctification when looked at from the point of view of the pathway itself, through which we are led by the Spirit as we more and more advance toward that conformity to the image of His Son, which God has placed before us as our great goal."

"Accordingly, we observe next that the spiritual leading of which Paul speaks is not something sporadic, given only on occasion of some special need of supernatural direction, but something continuous, affecting all the operations of a Christian man's activities throughout every moment of his life. 

It has but one end in view, the saving from sin, the leading into holiness; but it affects every single activity of every kind – physical, intellectual, and spiritual – bending it toward that end. Were it directed toward other ends, we might indeed expect it to be more sporadic."

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/warfield01.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 12, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> There is a lot of confusion among most churches what the "leading of the Spirit" in Rom. 8 actually entails. People know we are to be led by the Spirit, and Jesus' sheep hear his voice, but I don't think it is taught very practically what this means.
> 
> Being led by the Spirit in holy Christlikeness is a different sport than the Spirit directly speaking to us individually.


We all would agree that the scriptures are the infallible word of/from the Lord to us at all times, but the question is do we at times also have an urging from the Holy Spirit, leading us to do something for God at that time?


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Sep 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> We all would agree that the scriptures are the infallible word of/from the Lord to us at all times, but the question is do we at times also have an urging from the Holy Spirit, leading us to do something for God at that time?


I would never want to limit the Lord, but it seems like he has chosen to limit Himself in certain ways. I think that Warfield's perspective is convincing and I do think that the "leading" in Rom. 8 is sanctification and nothing else. 

Much of the Spirit's activity in Acts for example was extraordinary and shouldn't be attempted at home.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> We all would agree that the scriptures are the infallible word of/from the Lord to us at all times, but the question is do we at times also have an urging from the Holy Spirit, leading us to do something for God at that time?


There's only one way to find out what God's will is about this, and that's to look to the Bible. Can you find one verse or passage that teaches us to expect such an urging, or gives us permission to say that we felt or experienced such an urging? Not just asking rhetorically; asking you to really research it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 12, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> There's only one way to find out what God's will is about this, and that's to look to the Bible. Can you find one verse or passage that teaches us to expect such an urging, or gives us permission to say that we felt or experienced such an urging? Not just asking rhetorically; asking you to really research it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I think you nailed it, Jeri....

Jer 17:9 KJV
"The heart _is_ deceitful above all _things_, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

I cannot trust my "heart", for it is deceitful......


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 13, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I think you nailed it, Jeri....
> 
> Jer 17:9 KJV
> "The heart _is_ deceitful above all _things_, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
> ...



That's just the thing. We have some accounts in the NT of direct guidance received by the apostles and others ordained to ministry. We have no idea what such guidance would have felt like, or been like, because that direct guidance was for those ministers for those unique times. God's will was for Peter to see the lame man and God directly told Peter that the man was to be healed. When it came to being directly led by the Spirit in ministry, Peter's deceitful heart (Galatians 2:11-13!) was bypassed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 13, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> There's only one way to find out what God's will is about this, and that's to look to the Bible. Can you find one verse or passage that teaches us to expect such an urging, or gives us permission to say that we felt or experienced such an urging? Not just asking rhetorically; asking you to really research it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The conviction from/of the Holy Spirit for sinning is there for us, as when we are in the process of attempting to play around with sinning, He is in us urging/convicting /putting spiritual pressure on us not to do that sin. Also, He does still seem to play that conviction on us to now witness for the Lord, as when he knows is the proper and right time for that to happen.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 13, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> That's just the thing. We have some accounts in the NT of direct guidance received by the apostles and others ordained to ministry. We have no idea what such guidance would have felt like, or been like, because that direct guidance was for those ministers for those unique times. God's will was for Peter to see the lame man and God directly told Peter that the man was to be healed. When it came to being directly led by the Spirit in ministry, Peter's deceitful heart (Galatians 2:11-13!) was bypassed.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Are you saying then that the Holy Spirit never then works as He did in Acts today? I am agreeing that the Bible alone is to be the very foundation of all doctrines and practices, and to be where the Lord guides and speaks to us today, but can he not also choose at times to operate in accord with it, as He did in Acts?


----------



## jw (Sep 13, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Are you saying then that the Holy Spirit never then works as He did in Acts today? I am agreeing that the Bible alone is to be the very foundation of all doctrines and practices, and to be where the Lord guides and speaks to us today, but can he not also choose at times to operate in accord with it, as He did in Acts?


How would you discern between whether it was the Holy Ghost or "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato," (Dickens, _A Christmas Carol_, p. 17)? 

The light of nature in a rudimentary sense testifies to right and wrong concerning matters (and we _know_ this, because the Bible tells us so). We are "led by the Spirit" via the illumination of the Scriptures, and those propositions of Scripture brought to bear on our situations. We know those things from the book of Acts are from God, because they are _revealed_ to us by God to be from God in the book of Acts, His divine revelation. We have such no revelation today, and one may come to us and say, "The Lord told me," or "the Lord told me to tell _you_," and -if we adopt the mystical understanding of being "lead by the Spirit" put forth by many "non-charasmatic" evangelicals today- who are we to deny that it is the Lord? There simply is no objective way of discerning that. We have a more sure word, the Scriptures, in all its implications and applications.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 13, 2017)

Joshua said:


> How would you discern between whether it was the Holy Ghost or "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato," (Dickens, _A Christmas Carol_, p. 17)?
> 
> The light of nature in a rudimentary sense testifies to right and wrong concerning matters (and we _know_ this, because the Bible tells us so). We are "led by the Spirit" via the illumination of the Scriptures, and those propositions of Scripture brought to bear on our situations. We know those things from the book of Acts are from God, because they are _revealed_ to us by God to be from God in the book of Acts, His divine revelation. We have such no revelation today, and one may come to us and say, "The Lord told me," or "the Lord told me to tell _you_," and -if we adopt the mystical understanding of being "lead by the Spirit" put forth by many "non-charasmatic" evangelicals today- who are we to deny that it is the Lord? There simply is no objective way of discerning that. We have a more sure word, the Scriptures, in all its implications and applications.


That I can fully agree with, as the scriptures can and are always a sure word of the Lord to us today. I was just suggesting that He can still do whatever he wants in certain times and situations today. Not normative for today, but still always an option for Him as He so chooses.


----------



## jw (Sep 13, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> That I can fully agree with, as the scriptures can and are always a sure word of the Lord to us today. I was just suggesting that He can still do whatever he wants in certain times and situations today. Not normative for today, but still always an option for Him as He so chooses.


Yes. The secret things belong to the Lord our God. But how would we know -without divine revelation- that what's going on is from Him? We would not be free to speculate so. So, it defeats the purpose of entertaining what God "can" do in this day. The revealed things are ours (Deut. 29.29).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 13, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The conviction from/of the Holy Spirit for sinning is there for us, as when we are in the process of attempting to play around with sinning, He is in us urging/convicting /putting spiritual pressure on us not to do that sin. Also, He does still seem to play that conviction on us to now witness for the Lord, as when he knows is the proper and right time for that to happen.



This is an aborted, evangelical view of sin. Everything we do is corrupted by sin. It's not as though we do 9 things without sin and, whoopsies, the tenth thing was sin. There is a reason we have a 24/7 advocate with the Father and a perfect mediator......because we need one. I think it best to abandon the language and the idea behind the language as it improperly gives us less a sense to think upon and lean on Christ, not more.....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 13, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> This is an aborted, evangelical view of sin. Everything we do is corrupted by sin. It's not as though we do 9 things without sin and, whoopsies, the tenth thing was sin. There is a reason we have a 24/7 advocate with the Father and a perfect mediator......because we need one. I think it best to abandon the language and the idea behind the language as it improperly gives us less a sense to think upon and lean on Christ, not more.....


Correct, as we are all still in our sin natures while yet saved by the Lord, so i am just trying to sort out the Guidance and leading of the Holy Spirit, if that is always revealed and shown to us by the bible, or if at times can be from Him directly, but even IF that happens, always will be in agreement with the scriptures fully.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 13, 2017)

Joshua said:


> Yes. The secret things belong to the Lord our God. But how would we know -without divine revelation- that what's going on is from Him? We would not be free to speculate so. So, it defeats the purpose of entertaining what God "can" do in this day. The revealed things are ours (Deut. 29.29).


Thank you and all of the saints posting here to me in response, as just trying to get unlearned still some of the bad theology from Pentecostal times in my life.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 13, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> We all would agree that the scriptures are the infallible word of/from the Lord to us at all times, but the question is do we at times also have an urging from the Holy Spirit, leading us to do something for God at that time?


David,

Your openness to correction is admirable, brother!

I can say from experience that 95% of knowing the will of God consists in being prepared to do it before you know what it is.

*One does not divine God's will*. One lives God's will as one comes to know Him through His Word. God never calls us in the New Testament to "_seek His will_," but rather to *seek* His kingdom and *do* His will. We ought to stamp out of our vocabulary the non-biblical and misleading expression "_finding God's will_."

Determining the will of God begins by fully integrating God's will into every aspect of our lives. This comes from a thorough understanding of the Scriptures, so we can obey what God has already commanded us to do and how to live (_praxis_), see Proverbs 6:22. This walk of sanctification increases our God-given common sense, too, so that we should not be calling upon the Lord for every little decision in our lives. Studying the Scriptures helps us to know what God thinks about a myriad of topics, so we should have the answers to many important questions in front of us. This way God's will is often so clear that only _obedience_, and not _guidance_ is necessary.

*As I noted above, we also have to be willing to do what God says to do*. Sometimes a person already has an answer in mind and is unwilling to accept any other when seeking God's guidance. And guide us He will: Psalms 25:12, 32:8, Proverbs 3:6, Isaiah 58:11, Colossians 1:9.

*It should go without saying that we must very specifically ask, with a readiness to obey, for guidance when we need it (James 1:58)*. Accompany this with trusting God in the matter (Phil. 4:6,7), keeping a watch out for guidance in your daily devotionals, and seeking the counsel of the brothers and sisters in Christ (Proverbs 11:14).

*Some basic principles related to understanding the will of God*:
1. Where God commands, we must obey.
2. Where there is no command, God gives us freedom (and responsibility) to choose.
3. Where there is no command, God gives us wisdom to choose.
4. When we have chosen what is moral and wise, we must trust the sovereign God to work all the details together for good.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 13, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Your openness to correction is admirable, brother!
> 
> ...


I have heard it stated that God cannot direct you while you remain landlocked, but that we have to be willing to get out into the ocean and have Him direct our sails.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 13, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> That I can fully agree with, as the scriptures can and are always a sure word of the Lord to us today. I was just suggesting that He can still do whatever he wants in certain times and situations today. Not normative for today, but still always an option for Him as He so chooses.


Everything we are accountable to God for is revealed to us in the Scripture. We are not under an obligation to promptings and hunches, contrary to what is taught by so many. This is very liberating and is the kindness of our God. He's left nothing obscured about his will for us, and his will is the same for every believer. Providentially, we will do the good works that he has prepared beforehand for us, but it will never depend on a special prompting or urging. It will depend on knowing and understanding and doing his will as revealed in his word. We will pray and act in a way fully pleasing to him by understanding and doing this. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 13, 2017)

true, for when we obey and do what the scriptures inform and instruct us to be doing, we will always be in the will of God, and can have that assurance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 14, 2017)

The nudging from the Holy Spirit to me would be those times when He brings to mind a specific passage while witnessing to someone, or for wisom while talking to another person, for example.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 14, 2017)

Hey David, the problem with what you say here is still the language used. Why would we say, or think, that God would directly impress a Scripture (or a wise thing to say) on our minds? What makes you differ from the Christian beside you on the pew who hears your story of being nudged by the Spirit and wishes that would happen with him, too? Isn't it rather your knowledge of the Scripture that caused it to come to mind? And your right doctrine and wisdom gained from the Scripture and God's dealings with you that caused you to know it would be helpful?

So that guy on the pew next to you hears you talking about the Holy Spirit doing that for you, and in a conversation with someone a verse comes to his mind and he uses it to prove his doctrinal point. The only problem is that he has it all wrong, doctrinally. So he just misused a Scripture to prove a wrong doctrinal point. Yet he innocently tells people that he was prompted by the Spirit with that Scripture. That Scripture really did pop into his mind during that conversation and to him it fit, so what else was he to think? This happens all the time. 

In my experience, Christians expect direct guidance in conversations because of two promises Christ made to his apostles in the gospels, John 14:26 and Matthew 10:19. But again, these promises aren't meant to make us today expect to receive direct promptings or direct knowledge of what to say. The apostles did, for those unique times, receive this direct guidance and revelation, as Christ had promised. But we now have the complete canon of Scripture to give us knowledge and wisdom in speaking to people. The Holy Spirit is active in all this, applying God's word to our lives and teaching us. 

As has been said, the ways that God works in and through all these providential opportunities is his business and secret. We can give thanks for the opportunities, and give thanks that we were able to speak well and remember a pertinent Scripture or make a good point, and give thanks if someone was helped or seemed convicted. This gives the glory to God and to his word alone, and doesn't set us apart as someone able to detect and properly follow through with nudges and promptings.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 26, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Hey David, the problem with what you say here is still the language used. Why would we say, or think, that God would directly impress a Scripture (or a wise thing to say) on our minds? What makes you differ from the Christian beside you on the pew who hears your story of being nudged by the Spirit and wishes that would happen with him, too? Isn't it rather your knowledge of the Scripture that caused it to come to mind? And your right doctrine and wisdom gained from the Scripture and God's dealings with you that caused you to know it would be helpful?
> 
> So that guy on the pew next to you hears you talking about the Holy Spirit doing that for you, and in a conversation with someone a verse comes to his mind and he uses it to prove his doctrinal point. The only problem is that he has it all wrong, doctrinally. So he just misused a Scripture to prove a wrong doctrinal point. Yet he innocently tells people that he was prompted by the Spirit with that Scripture. That Scripture really did pop into his mind during that conversation and to him it fit, so what else was he to think? This happens all the time.
> 
> ...


Your point on this is very good, as I am just trying to get the biblical balance between extremes viewpoints on this issue, from either God never can lead and prompt us internally to say or do something, to God has ongoing revelation from the Holy Spirit for today.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 27, 2017)

Complicating (or clarifying) the whole matter is that the word "speak," as is our language generally, is used analogically. What real difference is there between "God speaks to me" and "God impressed this Scripture on my heart"? A lot of charismatics I know don't believe that God verbally speaks to them, but that he uses means.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 27, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Complicating (or clarifying) the whole matter is that the word "speak," as is our language generally, is used analogically. What real difference is there between "God speaks to me" and "God impressed this Scripture on my heart"? A lot of charismatics I know don't believe that God verbally speaks to them, but that he uses means.


This could be part of the problem on this discussion, as I do not see God speaking to us today in an audible voice, as he did with the OT prophets, but as the Spirit Himself speaking to us through the scriptures themselves directly.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> This could be part of the problem on this discussion, as I do not see God speaking to us today in an audible voice, as he did with the OT prophets, but as the Spirit Himself speaking to us through the scriptures themselves directly.



Sure, but either way God is communicating.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 27, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sure, but either way God is communicating.


Yes, and the truth is that only the scriptures themselves are always infallible testimony, as I can misread what God is trying to say to me if I get too much into internalizing it.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 27, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Complicating (or clarifying) the whole matter is that the word "speak," as is our language generally, is used analogically. What real difference is there between "God speaks to me" and "God impressed this Scripture on my heart"? A lot of charismatics I know don't believe that God verbally speaks to them, but that he uses means.





BayouHuguenot said:


> Sure, but either way God is communicating.


So David and Jacob, that's just what we can't claim (that God 'impressed something on my heart' or that he 'communicated something to me') for any particular instance in which an impulse, or a 'leading,' or a Scripture, or anything else comes to mind. What I meant by the problem being the language is that it's a big problem to claim any such thing, regardless of how we say it. There's no right way to claim a knowledge that any impression we receive was immediately given to us by the Holy Spirit; because there's no way we can obtain such a fact!

In the midst of some depressing things I was ruminating over the other day, a passage of Scripture suddenly came to mind that immediately helped and comforted me. I was grateful to God for the passage, and for it coming to mind. But in recounting it to someone I would not say, "and then the Lord put that passage of Scripture in my mind." I respect and revere the principle given in the Scripture that "the wind blows where it will; we hear the sound thereof, but can't tell where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone that is born of the Spirit." As before conversion, so after- we don't suddenly get privy to the secret actions of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

Jonathan Edwards speaks to this in Religious Affections, in the sections where he reasons that texts of Scripture coming to mind, much expression of praise, appearances of warmth of love and of zeal, etc. are no certain signs (of true conversion, since this is what his book is addressing. But the principle he is reasoning from is valid for what we're talking about here).

I understand how difficult it can be to untangle all this after years of charismaticism, and charismaticism can cling for a long time. But the truth of how God works is better than what charismaticism teaches. It is liberating, as Christ promised the truth will always be.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I can misread what God is trying to say to me


 And the great news is that God never *tries* to say anything to us. He has spoken, finally, once and for all in his Son. He does graciously give us ears to hear what his Son has said! You never have to listen for God's leading, prompting, or anything else internally ever again. The voice of his Son comes from outside yourself, from the Scripture. This is freedom and life indeed.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, and the truth is that only the scriptures themselves are always infallible testimony, as I can misread what God is trying to say to me if I get too much into internalizing it.



I misread what the Bible says all the time. I've been wrong on doctrine so often.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 27, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> So David and Jacob, that's just what we can't claim (that God 'impressed something on my heart' or that he 'communicated something to me') for any particular instance in which an impulse, or a 'leading,' or a Scripture, or anything else comes to mind. What I meant by the problem being the language is that it's a big problem to claim any such thing, regardless of how we say it. There's no right way to claim a knowledge that any impression we receive was immediately given to us by the Holy Spirit; because there's no way we can obtain such a fact!
> 
> In the midst of some depressing things I was ruminating over the other day, a passage of Scripture suddenly came to mind that immediately helped and comforted me. I was grateful to God for the passage, and for it coming to mind. But in recounting it to someone I would not say, "and then the Lord put that passage of Scripture in my mind." I respect and revere the principle given in the Scripture that "the wind blows where it will; we hear the sound thereof, but can't tell where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone that is born of the Spirit." As before conversion, so after- we don't suddenly get privy to the secret actions of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
> 
> ...


I have had times though when the Lord would bring to my mind a scripture passage that was a good fit for that situation speaking with another person, or when witnessing to either Mormons or JW.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 27, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> And the great news is that God never *tries* to say anything to us. He has spoken, finally, once and for all in his Son. He does graciously give us ears to hear what his Son has said! You never have to listen for God's leading, prompting, or anything else internally ever again. The voice of his Son comes from outside yourself, from the Scripture. This is freedom and life indeed.


Thank God that he gave to us His infallible scriptures to lead and direct/guide us in all things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I have had times though when the Lord would bring to my mind a scripture passage that was a good fit for that situation speaking with another person, or when witnessing to either Mormons or JW.



"The Lord would bring to my mind"...Can you think of a better way to phrase what happened in those times so you're not claiming to know what God is doing (other than what he has revealed to us in Scripture he is doing?)? People all over the world say that the Lord brings things to mind to say, but because of their ill-informed theology, the Scripture that comes to their mind actually leads to error. 
The only thing that makes you different from them is that you study the Scriptures; the Holy Spirit by means of them makes you wise and prepared for such conversations. I don't say God doesn't help us in such conversations but we are presumptuous to say that God did this or God did that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 27, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> "The Lord would bring to my mind"...Can you think of a better way to phrase what happened in those times so you're not claiming to know what God is doing (other than what he has revealed to us in Scripture he is doing?)? People all over the world say that the Lord brings things to mind to say, but because of their ill-informed theology, the Scripture that comes to their mind actually leads to error.
> The only thing that makes you different from them is that you study the Scriptures; the Holy Spirit by means of them makes you wise and prepared for such conversations. I don't say God doesn't help us in such conversations but we are presumptuous to say that God did this or God did that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How about when I have been in certain situations, the Spirit brought back to me certain scriptures to be able to use while witnessing or speaking with others?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> How about when I have been in certain situations, the Spirit brought back to me certain scriptures to be able to use while witnessing or speaking with others?



I see that I'm not communicating very well!! [emoji4] I haven't meant to press, and you obviously love the Lord so much and want to know his will. I just knew that you'd expressed that you want to get rid of remaining charismatic influences and this is one of those areas where that influence can run deep. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 28, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I see that I'm not communicating very well!! [emoji4] I haven't meant to press, and you obviously love the Lord so much and want to know his will. I just knew that you'd expressed that you want to get rid of remaining charismatic influences and this is one of those areas where that influence can run deep.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think my best option would be to just keep in the scriptures period, and tell others not the Lord showed me or told me, but that this is what I understand the Bible to mean.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I think my best option would be to just keep in the scriptures period, and tell others not the Lord showed me or told me, but that this is what I understand the Bible to mean.



I think that is sound. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Sep 28, 2017)

Scroll down to #12 in this essay by Vern Poythress.

https://frame-poythress.org/modern-...s-of-the-spirit-within-cessationist-theology/

Samuel Rutherford who helped write the Westminster Confession describes many extraordinary workings of the holy spirit. Flavel, Mather, etc. Spurgeon functioned in this way in public many times. This IS part of Reformed history.

I am sad to see people dismissing the working of the Holy Spirit in this way. I have on many occasions felt distinctly led to pray for somebody, or give some money to somebody, with zero knowledge of their current circumstances. It turned out they were in desperate need of prayer or money. I have felt led to just call people and it turned out to be the Lord leading. Once I called a lady and said I had felt greatly burdened to pray for her and was there anything going on. It turned out her daughter had just been in a car crash and fractured her skull. Mamma was in emotionally worse shape than daughter! Think what it meant to her to get that phone call, and, my prayers mattered. 

A few years ago I had come home from the bank with a large certified bank check for a young man at church who is currently on the mission field. God had enabled us to give at the time in a way we normally cannot. I had intended it to be anonymous of course and was going to take it to church. But that very day he came over to visit my son and started taking about what was going on and what his financial need was and how he couldn't see any way that the money could be earned in time or given or borrowed. He wasn't paying any attention at all to me; I was in the background.

The amount he stated was EXACTLY the amount of the check. Maybe I lose my reward in heaven for not being secret, but I went upstairs and got the check and handed it to him. My son was thrilled out of his mind for his friend, and the guy was pretty blown away. He will remember all his life that God can provide even when we don't see how. It sure thrilled me too, to see God do that.

I would be very careful here not to call the works of the Holy Spirit as something from the devil or sinful flesh. I get it- believe me I get it- that the charismatic movement is thick with false prophets and "words" that are not from God. That does not mean it can't happen and does not happen. I am grateful that I have learned to be sensitive to these leadings and to obey these promptings. It is a joy.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 29, 2017)

lynnie said:


> Scroll down to #12 in this essay by Vern Poythress.
> 
> https://frame-poythress.org/modern-...s-of-the-spirit-within-cessationist-theology/
> 
> ...


I have been trying to get the proper balance in this area, for we would not see the sign gifts operating today among us, but the Lord can still do a miracle or a healing when He chooses too, and he still can prompt us as was suggested here, correct?


----------



## lynnie (Sep 29, 2017)

My opinion David, is that he can and he does, but you note the word "extraordinary" in the essay I posted. The charismatic mentality of miracles of healing for every Christian all the time if you just have faith enough, and every Sunday service has to have prophecies and words of knowledge or else God didn't move, is error. 

I don't know what the balance is. I'd say all the advice above to center on scripture and the Lord is the right attitude. Yet be open to gentle promptings in your life; they do happen. As far as actual prophecies predicting the future like Agabus, in that Poythress essay, personally I think it could happen, but there is not one single so called prophet in the charismatic movement who I think is legitimate. And the ones claiming to be going to the third heaven and coming back with new revelation as authoritative as scripture, are clearly false. But I think it may happen again such as right before the Lord returns if not sooner, the way Rutherford described. Perhaps it will be part of a great revival.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 29, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I have been trying to get the proper balance in this area, for we would not see the sign gifts operating today among us, but the Lord can still do a miracle or a healing when He chooses too, and he still can prompt us as was suggested here, correct?



No that is not correct. God "IN TIMES PAST".


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 29, 2017)

Poythress and the Covenanters have been discussed many times.

https://www.puritanboard.com/posts/329972/

https://www.puritanboard.com/posts/276976/

https://www.puritanboard.com/posts/276816/

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/517/page-3

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/prove-cessationism-from-the-bible-please.59550/page-2

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...e-telling-and-the-scottish-covenanters.60828/

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/westminster-divines-were-continuationists.84966/

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-problem-rome-represents-to-continuationists.81993/


I haven't seen anything in what lynnie has posted about her personal experience that cannot be understood within the ordinary providence of God taking special care of his people (which includes the government of his creatures' wills and actions), and there were no actions that took place that could not have been chosen to be done within the ordinary framework of applying God's Word to the situation (as opposed to choosing listening to "promptings," which was chosen in this case) or could not be understood as too vague to directly attribute to God's working (although I'll interpret her testimony charitably, this possibility must theoretically be left open because I personally was not there; I only have lynnie's interpretation of her experience; I have seen unbelievers report their interpreted experience to "prove" all sorts of paranormal phenomena to confirm themselves in their unbelief, with their experience being of the exact same nature to what some Christians attribute to "leading of the Spirit."). We are to hear and obey the Word and its applications; and understand experience and Providence by the Word's interpretation; we are not to attribute the Word of God to "promptings" which we must "obey."

And yes, the Lord still chooses to heal or work miracles today, even in response to prayer. It might be according to "second causes" such as medicine, but we are not to trust in lawful means and instead trust in the One who makes those means effective. (Edit: By "miracles" here, I am using it in its common sense, which I assume David was using it, for something unusual that God does in his Providence. I am not using it here in its technical sense in the Bible where they are used to confirm the validity of a prophet; those have ceased.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timmopussycat (Sep 30, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I agree with your assessment. I wonder if there are charismatics who subscribe to sola scriptura or if that is an oxymoron. I've heard charismatic types say that Reformed tend to downplay the leading of the Spirit. In actuality we simply have a different definition of what it means to be led by the Spirit of God.



There are some charismatics (relatively few) who subscribe to sola Scriptura.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 30, 2017)

Yes, I was meaning Miracles and healings in the sense of God can and still does at times intervene through Himself directly causing them to happen, but also would see the normative way that God operates today is in the ordinary means and ways, such as medicine, hospitals, etc.

The only way to correctly discern and define what is happening must be to line up with the scriptures themselves, as the Lord will never act contrary to them, nor in addition to them.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 30, 2017)

timmopussycat said:


> There are some charismatics (relatively few) who subscribe to sola Scriptura.


Those who do ascribe to such a viewpoint would tend to be mong the classical Pentecostal part, as most modern Charismatics tend to see ongoing revelation from the Lord, as they see modern Apostles and Prophets still in operation today.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 30, 2017)

earl40 said:


> No that is not correct. God "IN TIMES PAST".


God can still choose to do whatever He wants to do. correct?


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 30, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> God can still choose to do whatever He wants to do. correct?



Yes, God may do whatever pleases Him.....the WCF acknowledges such. The real question is that the way He ordinarily works? That answer is no. Additionally, the special, continuing revelation of Evangelicalism, as Dr. Horton has observed and stated, makes everyone their own pope. Evangelicalism is against Rome for their pontiff (rightly so), but up the ante by having 10,000,000 of their own. This why we have the Bible, the RPW, and the "ordinary means of grace". Furthermore, as Reformed folk, we understand our hearts, our ability to "hear" clearly, and just how deep our corruption runs (and that understanding seems to grow greater over time)......we do not trust in these things, but in all those things God has told us, inerrently and infallibly through His inspired declaration to men, the holy writ. It may be that some have seen or been the recipient of God working outside the ordinary ways, I won't deny that, but it does seem to underscore our corrupt natures always looking for something "more"..........

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 30, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> Yes, God may do whatever pleases Him.....the WCF acknowledges such. The real question is that the way He ordinarily works? That answer is no. Additionally, the special, continuing revelation of Evangelicalism, as Dr. Horton has observed and stated, makes everyone their own pope. Evangelicalism is against Rome for their pontiff (rightly so), but up the ante by having 10,000,000 of their own. This why we have the Bible, the RPW, and the "ordinary means of grace". Furthermore, as Reformed folk, we understand our hearts, our ability to "hear" clearly, and just how deep our corruption runs (and that understanding seems to grow greater over time)......we do not trust in these things, but in all those things God has told us, inerrently and infallibly through His inspired declaration to men, the holy writ. It may be that some have seen or been the recipient of God working outside the ordinary ways, I won't deny that, but it does seem to underscore our corrupt natures always looking for something "more"..........


I fully agree with you that the Lord has defined things to happen normally in ordinary ways and means, just do not see the scriptures saying that God has-stated that he is no longer able and willing to once in a while break in and do something for His glory and praise.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 30, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> God can still choose to do whatever He wants to do. correct?



Of course God has _the ability_ to do anything He desires. Though to have a view of that the gifts have passed (past tense), one ought to be consistent and hold to a view of total cessationism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 30, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I fully agree with you that the Lord has defined things to happen normally in ordinary ways and means, just do not see the scriptures saying that God has-stated that he is no longer able and willing to once in a while break in and do something for His glory and praise.


Perhaps God performs miracles even today. No one should be going so far as to claim to know the secret will of God, as in "he is no longer able and willing". How exactly do we know this to make such a statement? Of course God does all that He wills to do. But to then say, "Well, that means He is willing to perform miracles" is going too far.

We have no warrant to be expecting miracles just because we ask for them. For example, where do we find warrant in Scripture for any expectation of miraculous healing? No place other than the _healing from sin_. Where are the authoritative Apostles today that could even authenticate such a miracle if it actually happened? Unless we want to swim the Tiber, they just do not exist. That God works in _extraordinary means_ at times is not warrant to claim "Miracle!"

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2017)

earl40 said:


> Of course God has _the ability_ to do anything He desires. Though to have a view of that the gifts have passed (past tense), one ought to be consistent and hold to a view of total cessationism.


Very few who would see themselves as holding to cessationsmthat would exclude the lord from at times though doing a miracle or a direct healing, if that would be part of His plans and purposes.
He ceased from any more ongoing revelation to us, but not from doing anything today.


----------



## Gforce9 (Oct 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Very few who would see themselves as holding to cessationsmthat would exclude the lord from at times though doing a miracle or a direct healing, if that would be part of His plans and purposes.
> He ceased from any more ongoing revelation to us, but not from doing anything today.



The key here, though, is what is ordinary? Yes, God could turn the sky purple in Khazakstan, yellow in Venezuela, pink in Jersey, and a nice rainbow of all the primary and secondary colors in Victoria......all at the same time. I'm not going to wait for such or think this is any more remote than people being raised from the dead every Lord's Day morning. God may do any of these, but it is not ordinary. The obsession in the human heart for "more" than what God has given us is the same as telling Him we don't like what we already have.......


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2017)

I agree with your view regarding God ways of dealing with us through mainly ordinary means, but was just suggesting that he has not totally shut down doing any more miracles or divine healings today when he so pleases.
I do see the normal way the Lord operates with us now as being for the nast majority of the time through conventional ways and means.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Oct 2, 2017)

In this thread I wanted to establish the superiority of the Reformed view of communion with God over a false Charismatic view (hearing from God, etc.). The question of hearing from God outside the scripture is a different topic I think. 

All of these questions disappear when I read the truths of our salvation and realize that God does not hold me at arm's length, but embraces me as His child. This allows for true intimacy with God and these truths are contained in the pages of scripture. 

Having a Reformed view of salvation via union with Christ and adoption by the Father is much better that waiting on a special extra biblical word from God. We can trust in His words because they are unmovable. Our experiences are weightless compared to the eternal weight of the Word of God.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 15, 2017)

St. Calvin of Berean said:


> The hardest part is to unlearn all the bad theologies. The best thing to do is to soak your mind with B.B. Warfield and Hodge teachings. Study church history from John Wycliffe to Jonathan Edwards. And lastly, read the bible from cover to cover 2x a year.


Welcome to PB.

Please update your signature per the requirements shown at the link below in my signature so that we may properly address you.


----------

