# "God told me!"



## Daniel Haley (Nov 16, 2009)

I was a telling a friend about a buddy of mine who had been frustrated in talks with his family. They are Oneness Pentecostal. My friend then asks the question, "Did God tell your buddy to talk with his family about this? Or did he decide to do this on his own?" My reply was along the lines of, "Yes, he has been spoken to through scripture to renounce false doctrines, etc (gave scriptural references)." She then tells me that the frustration is probably stemming from the fact that the Holy Spirit didn't verbally tell him to do so. I asked her if the Holy Spirit has done this for her and she responded yes. I asked for an example and this is what I got in condensed form.

"I was driving down the street and the Holy Spirit told me to turn left, but I decided to turn right, and I ran into traffic. God tried to lead me around the traffic but I disobeyed."

Two questions: 1. What type of revelation would this be categorized as? My question is not whether or not her "experience" was legitimate, I just want to know if someone can place a label on it for me. 2. I don't doubt she had this experience, but I do doubt that this was the Holy Spirit talking to her. Can anyone direct me to scripture first, and secondly to any good books dealing with professing Christians of this variety?

If I've muddled this post in any way let me know and I'll try to clarity.


----------



## Berean (Nov 16, 2009)

Does she have an audible GPS system in her car?


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 16, 2009)

Daniel Haley said:


> I was a telling a friend about a buddy of mine who had been frustrated in talks with his family. They are Oneness Pentecostal. My friend then asks the question, "Did God tell your buddy to talk with his family about this? Or did he decide to do this on his own?" My reply was along the lines of, "Yes, he has been spoken to through scripture to renounce false doctrines, etc (gave scriptural references)." She then tells me that the frustration is probably stemming from the fact that the Holy Spirit didn't verbally tell him to do so. I asked her if the Holy Spirit has done this for her and she responded yes. I asked for an example and this is what I got in condensed form.
> 
> "I was driving down the street and the Holy Spirit told me to turn left, but I decided to turn right, and I ran into traffic. God tried to lead me around the traffic but I disobeyed."
> 
> ...




*Personal Direct Revelation from God* _circa A.D. 68_


----------



## Grillsy (Nov 16, 2009)

Daniel Haley said:


> I was a telling a friend about a buddy of mine who had been frustrated in talks with his family. They are Oneness Pentecostal. My friend then asks the question, "Did God tell your buddy to talk with his family about this? Or did he decide to do this on his own?" My reply was along the lines of, "Yes, he has been spoken to through scripture to renounce false doctrines, etc (gave scriptural references)." She then tells me that the frustration is probably stemming from the fact that the Holy Spirit didn't verbally tell him to do so. I asked her if the Holy Spirit has done this for her and she responded yes. I asked for an example and this is what I got in condensed form.
> 
> "I was driving down the street and the Holy Spirit told me to turn left, but I decided to turn right, and I ran into traffic. God tried to lead me around the traffic but I disobeyed."
> 
> ...



Dear Brother. Your answer was unquestionably correct. But those caught up in this kind of error have very strong presuppositions. Pray that the Spirit gives your friend eyes to see and ears to hear.


----------



## Andres (Nov 16, 2009)

Her response was classic pentecostal teaching in which a greater emphasis is placed on "feelings" rather than the truth of God's Word. It is false doctrine yet pentecostalism is steeped in it, so again, no surprise she believes this way. The truth is God has chosen to reveal Himself to us through His Word. His Word is living, so it is not as if it those who rely solely on His word are in a "dead" faith as the pentecostals will tell you. As for the whole "holy spirit told me to turn left" business, Josh pretty much summed it up - silliness (and that's being kind). Jesus said He was giving the Holy Spirit to the church to convict the world of sin, righteousness, & judgment and to lead us into all truth (John 16:8-13). Nowhere in there did our Lord say anything about the Holy Spirit telling us which route to take to avoid traffic.


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 16, 2009)

> Two questions: 1. What type of revelation would this be categorized as? My question is not whether or not her "experience" was legitimate, I just want to know if someone can place a label on it for me. 2. I don't doubt she had this experience, but I do doubt that this was the Holy Spirit talking to her. Can anyone direct me to scripture first, and secondly to any good books dealing with professing Christians of this variety?



*1 Kings 13 The account of the Man of God being fooled by an old “prophet” who claimed that God spoke to him.*

Regarding the cessation of Direct Immediate Revelation from God:
*1 Corinthians 13:8-12
*
The context of this passage is that concerning the ignorance of the Christians in the church at Corinth regarding the relationship between gifts and graces. Paul reminds them that they can have extraordinary, phenomenal gifts and yet be destitute of love and thus be lost in their sins (vss. 1-3).
“He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” ( 1 John 4:8)

Paul states at the end of the chapter in verse 13 that “love is the greatest”. Why is love the greatest? Because love never fails. Love will accompany you all the way into the eternal state. Not so with all the flashy phenomenal gifts that they were desiring.

1 Corinthians 13: 8 Love never fails εκπιπτει. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail καταργηθησονται; whether there are tongues, they will cease παυσονται; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away καταργηθησονται. 

Verse eight contains a triad __ prophecy, tongues, and knowledge __ which are contrasted with another triad in verse thirteen __ faith, hope, and love. The second triad consists of things that remain, whereas the first triad consists of things that cease, fail, or vanish away.

With what are faith, hope, and love contrasted? They are contrasted with prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. It should be apparent that if we make both of these triads continue throughout this present age until Christ returns then the apostle’s intended contrast is destroyed!

Paul says that love never fails [εκπιπτει ] the word means to fall down from or out of. So the meaning is that Love will never fall from its exalted position.

• But prophecies (the extraordinary gift) shall be καταργεω “reduced to inactivity”.

• Tongues shall παυω “stop, cease, leave off”. Compare the use of the word in Heb. 10:2 and in 1Pet 4:1.

• Knowledge likewise shall be καταργεω “reduced to inactivity”. In this context just what knowledge is Paul talking about? Not spiritual and divine knowledge in general for surely there will be such knowledge hereafter in heaven as well as now on earth, and vastly more … knowledge of God, Christ, and spiritual things shall not vanish away but shall gloriously increase. By the phrase ‘knowledge shall pass away’ is meant a particular miraculous gift (see 1Cor 12:8) that was in operation in the Church of God in those days.

This knowledge was a Revelatory gift, i.e. it involved revealing directly to the possessor of the gift the mind and will of God. This is evidenced by its association with prophecy and tongues.

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 

Paul says that we know, literally “we are presently knowing” εκ μερους “out of that which is partial” or “out of a portion of the whole.” Knowledge and prophecy were then coming forth in the period of Partial Revelation as contrasted with Completed Revelation as is seen in the following verses.

10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. 

“But” says Paul by way of contrast “when comes that which is perfect …” . This phrase το τελειον that which is perfect is pivotal to the interpretation of the passage. The two Greek words are Neuter in gender and should be rendered the perfect thing. Whatever Paul had in mind when he wrote το τελειον it was, in its grammatical identity something neuter. If he had in mind Christ he would no doubt have written the masculine ο τελειος He who is perfect . If what he was referring to was Christ’s return he would have written the feminine η τελεια as in the feminine τη παρουσια “the coming of our Lord” (1Thess 5:23). Whatever Paul did have in mind he alludes to it with the neuter το τελειον that perfect thing.

So what is that perfect thing? The meaning of το τελειον is that which is brought to its end; finished; wanting nothing necessary to completeness; perfect.

Again the question comes: what is that perfect, that completed thing that the apostle was pointing to? It must be something apposite and juxtaposed to that which is partial mentioned in the previous verse. It is Revelatory, and since the category of the partial is Revelation then the category of the complete must be Revelation.

That Perfect Thing is the completed, inscripturated Revelation; the finished Word of God in both the Old and New Testaments.

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 

Paul here, by way of illustration, administers a rebuke to the Corinthians. They have been behaving childishly in regard to the Extraordinary Gifts in general and Speaking in Tongues in particular. He illustrates this by saying that when he was a child he spoke, understood, and thought as a child, i.e. childlishly!

When however, “he became γεγονα [perfect tense] a man ” ανηρ that is, he completely entered manhood, he remained a man and did not return to childhood. He put away childish things. So too he is telling the Corinthians that the Church would one day reach Revelatory maturity and never return to childhood again.

It is a sign of spiritual childishness to want to go back to the time of the Church’s childishness. The time of the church’s childishness was the time of the extraordinary phenomenal gifts!

12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. 

Paul gives explanation here saying “For” or “Because” “we see now, at this present time, by means of a mirror [εσοπτρον _ a piece of highly polished metal ] dimly { αινιγματι literally, in an enigma, indistinctly}…

Paul’s point is that in their day the Corinthians, along with all other believers, had an uncompleted Bible; a partially polished metal shield in which they could dimly behold themselves. James had already taken up the imagery of a mirror in reference to the Word of God saying in chapter One and verse Twenty-three of his epistle “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror εσοπτρον.

Paul again takes up this same imagery, although he employs a synonym of εσοπτρον in his second epistle to this same Corinthian church saying:

14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.
15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.
16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror [κατοπτριζω participle from κατοπτρον ] the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

So here in (13:12) Paul is showing them that in this era of partially completed revelation they see things dimly; they know things out of a part of an as yet uncompleted whole. But he points this out in order to bring out the contrast. This partiality and dimness have continued up to their present time, but….

Contrast relative to Time

“but then …” τοτε When? When that perfect thing i.e. the completed Scriptures have come. The Corinthians were seeing in their Hebrew bibles dimly, but then τοτε face to face προσωπον προς προσωπον 

Contrast relative to Quality

“face to face” How? Clearly as contrasted with dimly.

This phrase “face to face” has been popularly interpreted to mean the beholding God by the saints in glory. But the phrase as used in Scripture never refers to that glorious event. Rather the biblical usage consistently refers to the clear propositional revelation of the Word of God as contrasted with the less clear revelation of visions and dreams.

Numbers 12:6 Then He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. 7 Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. 8 I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant Moses?"

See also __ Exodus 33:9-11, 18-23; Deuteronomy 5:1-4

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians that then, when that perfect, completed thing has come their knowing shall no longer be dim but shall possess the precision that comes from the clear propositional revelation of God’s Word inscripturated and preserved to the Church to the end of the age.

13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Even though the phenomenal gifts of prophecy (direct revelation from God), tongues (languages known without being learned), and knowledge (intelligence never acquired by study) would not continue to abide in the Church throughout this age, and at the end of the age faith becomes sight (2Cor 5:6-7) and hope becomes fulfillment (Rom 8:22-25), nevertheless Love continues throughout eternity.


----------



## Daniel Haley (Nov 16, 2009)

Thanks rbc!


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 16, 2009)

Generalities can be dangerous, but often folks who fall into this kind of error do not have a solid understanding regarding the effect of sin on man -- the more people distrust their own impulses and motives, the more they are likely to cling to the purity of God's word. 

What's exasperating, is that this false view of revelation is presented as highly spiritual -- of 'trusting God moment by moment' rather than doing the hard work of pouring over the scripture and seeking the Holy Spirit to illuminate the word God has already given us.


----------



## jambo (Nov 17, 2009)

Daniel Haley said:


> Two questions: 1. What type of revelation would this be categorized as? My question is not whether or not her "experience" was legitimate, I just want to know if someone can place a label on it for me. 2. I don't doubt she had this experience, but I do doubt that this was the Holy Spirit talking to her. Can anyone direct me to scripture first, and secondly to any good books dealing with professing Christians of this variety



Label 1: Psuedo-spirituality: I would find it is part of the pentecostal/charismatic mindset particularly with the focus on prophecy. If you meet with a group of people often enough you end up talking like them. Sometimes it is a psuedo-spirituality and comes from anything that departs from word based to feeling based.

Label 2: Lawlessness. Refusing to accept the role of scripture in a persons life one can simply say "the Lord me to to..." and immediately you turn onto a very dangerous path. I am sure you have heard cases from the law courts of someone who committed a heinous crime because "The Lord told me to." Such people maybe unbalanced individuals that are not typical but I recall friends who married and within months of the wedding the wife left because "the Lord told her to" If we are word centred we know what the Lord would want us to do and we act accordingly, _your will not mine_. If we live according to subjective feelings of what we think the Lord is saying (or even what we want the Lord to say) then we have an excuse to do absolutely anything, _my will not yours_.

Label 3: Immaturity. I think as people get to grips with scripture they are in awe of the might, holiness and transcendency of God and humbled by their own weakness, sinfulness and the utter undeserved mercy and grace God bestows on an individual. Often such people who use these are youngish in the faith and I am somewhat embarrased as I think back 30 years to a time I would have used such terms, although partly to impress the listener. Praise the Lord for his grace, his mercy, his patience and his word! It reached me just in time.

I am reminded of a comment made by Spurgeon on this topic made in typical forthright manner. He said "You can be sure that those who say 'the Lord told me this and the Lord told me that' did not receive it by divine revelation but rather through a slight aperture in their cracked brain"

I would not be as forthright as Spurgeon but I think he has a point.

In terms of good books, Garry Friesens 'Decision Making and the Will of God' lays down important biblical principles.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Nov 17, 2009)

I told someone once that was telling me God told him something that God told me he didn't tell him that. He really didn't know how to respond. I was being truthful, because what he was advocating was contrary to scripture. Normally, they don't know what to do, if you them that God told you he didn't tell them that.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 17, 2009)

Check Jeremiah 23 on gut or heart prophecy i.e. sinful false "prophecy".

Where was the vision or dream? Where was the calling to be a prophet?

God still says, _I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. (Jer. 23:21)_


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 17, 2009)

I posted this in the other thread as well:

God speaks to his people through his word. We use scripture to know what God wants and mold our lives according to the teachings of scripture. I don't believe that God speaks to anyone other than through his word in this age.


----------



## Ron (Nov 17, 2009)

I know a PCA minister who visits this site that _constantly_ uses the language "God told him" x and so. To add insult to injury, in the last few months I was having lunch with a mutual friend of ours, also an elder in the PCA, who had just come back from a trip on which he visited the minister; the elder told me during lunch that God had _revealed _something to him regarding a church matter.  I had never heard the elder speak that way before. It's a terrible thing and somehow it has crept into certain Reformed circles. 

Back to what you were doing.......

Ron


----------



## ewenlin (Nov 17, 2009)

Ron said:


> I know a PCA minister who visits this site that _constantly_ uses the language "God told him" x and so. To add insult to injury, in the last few months I was having lunch with a mutual friend of ours, also an elder in the PCA, who had just come back from a trip on which he visited the minister; the elder told me during lunch that God had _revealed _something to him regarding a church matter.  I had never heard the elder speak that way before. It's a terrible thing and somehow it has crept into certain Reformed circles.
> 
> Back to what you were doing.......
> 
> Ron



Side question to Elder Ron,

Would the Holy Spirit bringing to remembrance or conviction of certain things (eg. previous sins) be considered God _revealed_ this?

Example: If I were unaware that I was doing certain things in certain manners that ought not to be so, and I was suddenly brought to knowledge and conviction of it, could this be considered God revealing it to me?


----------



## Ron (Nov 18, 2009)

ewenlin said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> > I know a PCA minister who visits this site that _constantly_ uses the language "God told him" x and so. To add insult to injury, in the last few months I was having lunch with a mutual friend of ours, also an elder in the PCA, who had just come back from a trip on which he visited the minister; the elder told me during lunch that God had _revealed _something to him regarding a church matter.  I had never heard the elder speak that way before. It's a terrible thing and somehow it has crept into certain Reformed circles.
> ...



Brother,

It's hard to know where to start... God has an eternal decree. Accordingly, whatever occurs in time is the unveiling of that decree. Accordingly, in common (non-theological) parlance one might call that unveiling “the _revealing_ of the decree”. However, that is a very dangerous way of putting the matter, which I’ll try to explain. First, a more precise way of to speak of our understanding of the sin we commit would be in terms of God _illuminating_ us to what he has revealed to us by nature, or revealed to us in his word. So for instance, if you were breaking a law that was written on your heart from inception, then you wouldn’t be receiving a new “revelation” regarding your sin, but rather you’d be getting illuminated by the Spirit to what you already knew by nature (through general revelation of God’s natural law). For example, if you murdered, any conviction you might have would not be due to God revealing to you that you did something wrong, but rather any conviction would be due to God illuminating you to what he had _already_ revealed to you as his image bearer. If the sin was not one that was written on your heart but rather only revealed in his word (like sanctifying the Lord’s Day), your conviction of desecrating the Sabbath would not be a revelation but rather an _illumination_ of what God had already _revealed in his word_. 

To call knowledge “revelation” is to suggest that God is communicating something he had not yet communicated already. But God has communicated all he is going to communicate; if he chooses to communicate more upon our passing, then so be it but for now, we have his full and final revelation in his Son (so to speak). Now, of course, the prophets received revelation - for what they received was hot off the presses! Given a closed canon, there is no more revelation. We are now left to understand (become illuminated to) what God has _already_ revealed. So, to say that God revealed to me that I sinned is very dangerous, even if I am being illumined to the truth of my sin. The reason being, if God is revealing to me my sin, then what else might we call revelation? People will often say, “I prayed about it and God showed me…” Where’s the humility in that? Indeed, we may have great peace after we pray about a decision, but to call what we believe we should do “knowledge” (or a revelation from God) is simply spiritual pride. 

I don't doubt that others can put this better than I just did. 

Thoughts?

Ron


----------



## darrellmaurina (Nov 18, 2009)

Many who have spent much time with Korean Presbyterians will know the jarring feeling of hearing a person who is clearly Reformed in their view of total depravity, God's sovereignty, biblical inerrancy, etc., and whose favorite authors are men like R.C. Sproul and Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Charles Spurgeon, saying things that we're more used to hearing from Pentecostal mouths.

This is not a minor problem, and it's going to get worse in Reformed circles.

I've found only two things to be helpful with such people:

1. If the person is clearly a brother in the Reformed faith and clearly affirms the doctrine of total depravity, ask him how he can be so sure his "feelings" or "impressions" come from God and not from somewhere else.

2. If the person is advocating predictive prophecy, ask him if his standard is 100 percent accuracy, and also ask whether he believes a false prophet who doesn't meet that standard should be executed or just excommunicated.

Often one or both of those two questions will jar people back to their senses who are basically Reformed but have gone off the track. If the answers to those questions are not in line with biblical teaching, then there's a much deeper problem than just charismatic-sounding language.


----------



## ewenlin (Nov 18, 2009)

Ron said:


> Brother,
> 
> It's hard to know where to start... God has an eternal decree. Accordingly, whatever occurs in time is the unveiling of that decree. Accordingly, in common (non-theological) parlance one might call that unveiling “the _revealing_ of the decree”. However, that is a very dangerous way of putting the matter, which I’ll try to explain. First, a more precise way of to speak of our understanding of the sin we commit would be in terms of God _illuminating_ us to what he has revealed to us by nature, or revealed to us in his word. So for instance, if you were breaking a law that was written on your heart from inception, then you wouldn’t be receiving a new “revelation” regarding your sin, but rather you’d be getting illuminated by the Spirit to what you already knew by nature (through general revelation of God’s natural law). For example, if you murdered, any conviction you might have would not be due to God revealing to you that you did something wrong, but rather any conviction would be due to God illuminating you to what he had _already_ revealed to you as his image bearer. If the sin was not one that was written on your heart but rather only revealed in his word (like sanctifying the Lord’s Day), your conviction of desecrating the Sabbath would not be a revelation but rather an _illumination_ of what God had already _revealed in his word_.
> 
> ...



God's eternal decree (as it pertains to mankind) has been fully revealed since the close of the canon. No one can then say "God revealed to me..." since what has already been made known cannot be said to be again revealed. The word ought to be illuminate. Am I understanding it correctly?

Accordingly, the question remains does God communicate apart from his revealed Word? Is there any avenue where an attainment of knowledge can take place outside of natural and direct revelation (the Bible)? As I think about this, I suspect much of what the charismatics claim as "God revealed to me..." is simply providence. Would it be surmise to think that?


----------



## Bern (Nov 18, 2009)

I was listening to a John Piper sermon yesterday, and he used Phillip talking to the Ethiopian as an example of special extraordinary guidance. His point was that 99% of the time we must go by scripture alone to make decisions, but sometimes God leads us step by step in very direct actions.

I don't believe he was equating that with pentecostal teachings, but it doesn't seem that far off to me...


----------



## ewenlin (Nov 18, 2009)

Bern said:


> I was listening to a John Piper sermon yesterday, and he used Phillip talking to the Ethiopian as an example of special extraordinary guidance. His point was that 99% of the time we must go by scripture alone to make decisions, but sometimes God leads us step by step in very direct actions.
> 
> I don't believe he was equating that with pentecostal teachings, but it doesn't seem that far off to me...



How do you account for the fact that we now live in an age with a closed canon whereas Philip and the Ethiopian didn't? Coupled with the historical narrative nature of Acts. It's a stretch to say because it happened that way, it would still happen today even if it's 1% of the time.

Can you clarify what "step by step in very direct actions" looks like?


----------



## Ron (Nov 18, 2009)

ewenlin said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> > Brother,
> ...



Pertaining to your 1st paragraph: No, God's decree has not been fully disclosed to mankind in providence. What you will do ten minutes from now has not been disclosed by God as of yet, but it is part of God's decree. 

No, the term for God's disclosure of the eternal decree should not In my humble opinion be called illumination but rather knowledge through providence. In other words, I believe the apprehension of providence is best referred to as knowledge, not illumination. (see below)

Pertaining to your 2nd paragraph: There is much we can know outside the Bible and natural revelation. For instance, I can know I am saved. I would only refer to such knowledge as revelation in a very qualified sense, for to speak in such terms is to open up a . 

Knowledge of one's salvation is not an illumination of what is recorded in God's word (though it is based on that); nor is such knowledge an illumination of what can be found in general revelation. Rather, in its most basic terms it is simply _knowledege of God's decree_, which comes to us through providence. I prefer to leave it there. 

At the end of the day, I would call knowledge of Scripture and natural law, illumination of revelation. I would call all other knowledge simply knowledge through providence. I would refer to revelation as that which is general and special (i.e. Scripture alone). 

Ron

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 07:58:09 EST-----



Bern said:


> I was listening to a John Piper sermon yesterday, and he used Phillip talking to the Ethiopian as an example of special extraordinary guidance. His point was that 99% of the time we must go by scripture alone to make decisions, but sometimes God leads us step by step in very direct actions.
> 
> I don't believe he was equating that with pentecostal teachings, but it doesn't seem that far off to me...



I hope Piper didn't say that. Scripture _alone_ does not tell us where to drill for oil or get the best price for eggs. Indeed, our rationale behind doing both should be based on Scripture but that is not to say that Scripture _alone_ is all we need to consult for 99% of our daily decisions.

Ron


----------



## puritan lad (Nov 18, 2009)

The obvious question I would have is, if she was convinced that the Holy Spirit told her to turn left, why in the world would she even consider turning right? Wouldn't that be sinful?

I personally doubt that she had this experience at all. It's easy to believe that she should have turned left AFTER she ran into traffic.


----------

