# Respectable Arminian theologians?



## Stope

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

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


----------



## Ray

Never heard of a respectable Arminian theologian. But scope this out stope.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/martin-luther-invented-justification-by-faith-alone.3362/


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

No. Typically with Arminian Theology, he's quite wrong all around. He's probably regurgitating something he heard from some other higher level Arminian. See these:

The Early Church and the Doctrines of Grace

The Early Church and Justification

Neither of these is even remotely exhaustive.


----------



## RamistThomist

There are very few "pure" Arminian theologians, if by that we mean Arminius as the standard. I guess Roger Olson would come closest. 

Thomas Oden was a fine scholar on the church fathers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Justified

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> He's probably regurgitating something he heard from some other higher level Arminian.


 I don't think this is really fair or charitable. You cannot really know this. It's not impossible to be intelligent and Arminian (even if you're wrong).



Stope said:


> Also, in passing he said to me that nobody believed like Calvin when he said "Calvin (and augustine before him - but by nobody for the first 600 years of the early church)"...


 As Jacob noted, all this depends on what you mean by Arminian. Let's suppose you only mean denying unconditional predestination. If so, there are a lot of folks (perhaps the majority of Church history) that fall into this camp. I'm somewhat leery of trying to co-opt some of the Fathers as teaching justification _sola fide _and other doctrines. Not all they say is necessarily inconsistent with it. These just weren't questions they were asking and so to force them to answer them is wrongheaded (in my opinion). Nor, perhaps contrary to the sentiments of others, do I think that not believing _sola fide _makes you doomed to hell; if it is justification by faith alone, then it is not justification by believing justification by faith alone.

In terms of the historical point, he might be right. I haven't seen a lot of evidence for double, unconditional predestination in unambiguous terms before Augustine. That doesn't mean its wrong; just a historical point. Also, I don't think Augustine taught justification _sola fide_. _Sola gratia, _yes, but not faith alone. Perhaps one believes that _sola gratia _entails _sola fide_, and that Augustine was just simply inconsistent-- fair. My own two cents, also: bringing up the fact that the Latin verb _iustificare _means in Latin literally to make righteous (_iustum-facere_) I don't think fully explains what continued as the Church's position for so long. After all, the Greek east still read the Greek and they are almost _more _inclined to deny justification _sola fide _than the West.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Justified said:


> I don't think this is really fair or charitable.



Why do you think I said what I did? Do you think I was purposefully being unfair or uncharitable, or do I have something else in mind? Or are you being unfair or uncharitable? 

Or is it that I've heard that argument before, and I KNOW why he's saying it?


----------



## jwithnell

True story: two students in a class at WTS were discussing an Arminian theologian who had recently died: they were trying to recall his denominational affiliation. The professor interjected in his broadest Scottish brogue: "He's Presbyterian now."

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum

You might try looking to a Methodist or Wesleyan seminary or college to find men who confess devotion to Christ, but who (as we think of it) put too much credence in the power of the human will.

Ben Witherington http://benwitherington.com/ and Victor P. Hamilton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_P._Hamilton are respected scholars of NT and OT respectively at Absury Theological Seminary, an historically Wesleyan-connected institution. I don't know much about the former man aside from respectful references to him by evangelicals (in the broadest sense), but the latter has commentaries in the NICOT series (Genesis, 2vols) and Baker Academic (Exodus). I have the first set, which is excellent; and the second has high praise.

School affiliation will not tell you everything, and might not tell you enough. The men I mention are not in the business of Systematic Theology, but biblical exegesis. The better they are at that, the more we can't help but like them, regardless of how they come out on Arminianism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stope

Contra_Mundum said:


> You might try looking to a Methodist or Wesleyan seminary or college to find men who confess devotion to Christ, but who (as we think of it) put too much credence in the power of the human will.
> 
> Ben Witherington http://benwitherington.com/ and Victor P. Hamilton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_P._Hamilton are respected scholars of NT and OT respectively at Absury Theological Seminary, an historically Wesleyan-connected institution. I don't know much about the former man aside from respectful references to him by evangelicals (in the broadest sense), but the latter has commentaries in the NICOT series (Genesis, 2vols) and Baker Academic (Exodus). I have the first set, which is excellent; and the second has high praise.
> 
> School affiliation will not tell you everything, and might not tell you enough. The men I mention are not in the business of Systematic Theology, but biblical exegesis. The better they are at that, the more we can't help but like them, regardless of how they come out on Arminianism.


I think Keener is there whom I have found to be excellent... I wonder where he stands


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

It seems that the philosophy camp might have the upper hand on us, but those who exegete the Bible have the upper hand as Calvinists. At the end of the day, we must side with those who correctly divide the scriptures even if those truths are hard to embrace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark

Keener and Witherington are names that come to mind.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

As well As Thomas C. Oden.


----------



## Stope

arapahoepark said:


> Keener... come to mind.


NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Beezer

Stope said:


> It caused me to wonder and ask you, are there any respectable Arminianism theologians?



Some Arminian theologians that I have enjoyed reading are:

Roger Olson
J. Matthew Pinson
F. Leroy Forlines
Robert E. Picirilli

The last three listed are Free Will Baptists and are not Arminian in the Wesleyan sense.

(Disclaimer: by saying I've enjoyed reading these guys is not to say I agree with their views.)


----------



## RamistThomist

Stope said:


> NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Explain. I"ve enjoyed some of his commentarires.


----------



## arapahoepark

Stope said:


> NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What are you talking about?


----------



## Stope

ReformedReidian said:


> Explain. I"ve enjoyed some of his commentarires.


What I mean is I LOVE Keener! I too have found his works, on many many subjects, to be ultra helpful and extremely edifying. But, to be totally honest, I cant even begin to see how a person who has truly given a reading of the Bible any significant time can truly arrive at the place where they think that there would be anything less than unconditional election...


----------



## RamistThomist

Stope said:


> What I mean is I LOVE Keener! I too have found his works, on many many subjects, to be ultra helpful and extremely edifying. But, to be totally honest, I cant even begin to see how a person who has truly given a reading of the Bible any significant time can truly arrive at the place where they think that there would be anything less than unconditional election...



That would probably be most of the Christian world today. Reformed folk are in a minority.


----------



## Pilgrim

Turning back the clock a ways, the Methodist theologian Richard Watson appears to have been held in relatively high esteem by some Calvinistic theologians. He appears to have been more orthodox than Adam Clarke, another Methodist who wrote a commentary on the whole Bible that has been reprinted many times through the years.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins

Norman Geisler is a name I'm surprised has not been mentioned. His taxonomy of Arminian and Calvinist views is quite misleading, but nevertheless, he is a very well-read scholar, and is generally respected.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## timfost

Stope said:


> But, to be totally honest, I cant even begin to see how a person who has truly given a reading of the Bible any significant time can truly arrive at the place where they think that there would be anything less than unconditional election...



I think, though certainly erroneous, it makes sense _to a degree_. If we approach God from the standpoint of human weakness and limitation, we try to reconcile God's sovereignty with human responsibility and when we have trouble doing so, _we start to sacrifice one for the other._ Reformed theology generally accepts both with open arms regardless of our inability to fully comprehend these truths. On the other hand, the Reformed (used loosely) sometimes fall into the same problem as the Arminian camp when they start to think God is subject to their logical limitations and reason away human responsibility for God's sovereignty (e.g. Tobias Crisp).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

Some Calvinistic Baptists who have tended to place more emphasis on hoping for revival have appreciated the writings of A.W. Tozer and Leonard Ravenhill. But they were moreso preachers than theologians, especially the revivalist Ravenhill. But at the time they were publishing their works, they were among the rare writers who confronted the fluff and nonsense among evangelicals head on. For a good while, contemporary popular level Calvinistic writers were few and far between. (That's one reason why A.W. Pink's books were so popular around the 50s-80s, even among non-Calvinists.)

On the philosophy/apologetics front, Ravi Zacharias is another one. I haven't listened to him in years, but I do know that he is a ordained by the Christian and Missionary Alliance, as was Tozer.

I haven't included dispensational writers from Dallas Seminary and some other places. That's because many of them, especially from what I'll term the first and second generation, were "4 pointers" who did affirm unconditional election, however inconsistently. Whether or not such people are in any sense Calvinists has been debated _ad infinitum_. Since the OP asked about those who reject unconditional election, I didn't include them. Geisler comes out of that camp, but despite the fact that he calls himself a "moderate Calvinist," (quite inaccurately, as Rev. Keister noted) from what I recall he doesn't affirm unconditional election in the way that Ryrie or Lightner would. I don't think that the latter two would write something like "God is trying to save as many as he can" as Geisler did.


----------



## Stope

Pilgrim said:


> Some Calvinistic Baptists who have tended to place more emphasis on hoping for revival have appreciated the writings of A.W. Tozer and Leonard Ravenhill. But they were moreso preachers than theologians, especially the revivalist Ravenhill. But at the time they were publishing their works, they were among the rare writers who confronted the fluff and nonsense among evangelicals head on. For a good while, contemporary popular level Calvinistic writers were few and far between. (That's one reason why A.W. Pink's books were so popular around the 50s-80s, even among non-Calvinists.)
> 
> On the philosophy/apologetics front, Ravi Zacharias is another one. I haven't listened to him in years, but I do know that he is a ordained by the Christian and Missionary Alliance, as was Tozer.
> 
> I haven't included dispensational writers from Dallas Seminary and some other places. That's because many of them, especially from what I'll term the first and second generation, were "4 pointers" who did affirm unconditional election, however inconsistently. Whether or not such people are in any sense Calvinists has been debated _ad infinitum_. Since the OP asked about those who reject unconditional election, I didn't include them. Geisler comes out of that camp, but despite the fact that he calls himself a "moderate Calvinist," (quite inaccurately, as Rev. Keister noted) from what I recall he doesn't affirm unconditional election in the way that Ryrie or Lightner would. I don't think that the latter two would write something like "God is trying to save as many as he can" as Geisler did.



Revnhill makes sense but i didnt realize (i will say, I have been blessed much by reading him)... And I had no idea that Tozer was as well (he too has been a blessing to me - mainly in my younger years)... And it makes sense that Zacarias is, but never really thought about it...

That said, yesterday at the book shop I saw a 3 vol set of Arminus' (I think it was a systematic theology?), and it had me thinking, and now pose to you: does he have good things to say? As all I have ever heard about him was his views of God's sovereignty


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Doubtless, what you saw was a collection of Arminius' "Works." He was a seminary professor, and minister in the Dutch Reformed Church. He obviously had (N.B. the Remonstrants) and continues to have people who honor his memory, methods, and the movement built upon his influence.

As for mining him for truth, you can do the same with D.Wilson. Or G.Boyd, the open theist. Or R.Warren/B.Hybels, the church-growth gurus. Perhaps, even the pope. The question is: why? When you have limited time and energy, where would you personally be best invested?

It's one thing to check out someone's work for research purposes, coming in with a critical regard. But we know of (and are pleased about) people who come to read Calvin for themselves, and are moved away from an inculcated auto-revulsion, to admiration. D.Wilson has a way with words also, and yet we regard such a gift as a snare.

Just as you have been drawn to Reformed theology based on a trajectory of life and thought; be aware that you may not have found your settled home--though it could be so if you make it so. Your curiosity may also spark an unhealthy interest (as we here would term it) in an alternate theological direction. I'm not picking on you; it could happen to anyone, including me.

I hope you are not half-way through a journey, of which Reformed theology is but a stage. But it is more dangerous for a man of fertile mind to ignore the bypaths that many other men--not so different from himself--have taken. Paths you may not believe (today) could ever appeal to you. Until you have tasted them. Some men simply fail to consider the possibility.

There is in theological inquiry an element of self-discovery. This is reflected in the insight found in Calvin's first lines of his Institutes, "We know God by that same first act by which we know ourselves." Some men have found their inner Calvin or Luther through seeking God. Others have found their inner papist, or Barth, or Arminius. Even an inner atheist, at times.

The heart of a man... "who can know it?" Don't assume you know who you are; pray you will be settled forever where you should be, and that this Reformed theology would continue to be the taste of green pastures and still waters for your soul. And as you read Arminius, or D.Wilson, or J.Osteen, or B.Ehrman, pray you will see accurately the dangers others see.

J.G.Machen went to Germany to enhance his learning and preparation. He sat under the teaching of the liberal scholar Wilhelm Herrmann, whose influence was incredible in those days. Machen was spellbound by the man, who displayed an enviable piety. He taught his students _devotionally, _and Machen confessed in letters he was nearly carried away.

But he found his footing, somehow; it was surely by the grace of God. And in the end, he shook off the rhetorical and philosophical influence of the man and of that whole modernist movement, the end whereof was bleakness (as K.Barth also discovered; but he ended up co-creating neo-modernism with a new generation of theologians, rather than returning to the old-paths orthodoxy).

I'm neither encouraging nor discouraging you from reading Arminius. I'm talking to you about human nature, about the wisdom of a bit-and-bridle on the charger that is your intellect. There is a kind of man who dispenses with all discipline, and who rides out into the wilderness determined to be led only by his impulses and instincts. A few such men return.

Meditate upon the metaphor.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1 | Edifying 5


----------



## Pilgrim

Stope said:


> Revnhill makes sense but i didnt realize (i will say, I have been blessed much by reading him)... And I had no idea that Tozer was as well (he too has been a blessing to me - mainly in my younger years)... And it makes sense that Zacarias is, but never really thought about it...
> 
> That said, yesterday at the book shop I saw a 3 vol set of Arminus' (I think it was a systematic theology?), and it had me thinking, and now pose to you: does he have good things to say? As all I have ever heard about him was his views of God's sovereignty



The 3 vols may have been the works of Arminius, some or all of which may be online in some form. I'm more familiar with Wesleyan Arminianism than I am of the "Reformed" or "Classical" Arminianism of Arminius. There are some differences, and maybe not just on sanctification, with Wesleyan's traditional emphasis on entire sanctification and second blessing. But perhaps someone else here can provide some help. It also depends on what you're trying to do. I don't know that picking up something like that would be advisable unless you're wanting to dig really deep. There is a lot of Arminian stuff online now as well. [*EDIT*: See Rev. Buchanan's post above. By "dig really deep" I basically meant someone pursuing a doctorate in theology. Most people who have to work a regular job (and even many pastors) and have family responsibilities don't have time to really dig into that kind of stuff, especially when there is plenty of material to study from your own tradition, assuming you have a settled one at this point.]

But one thing to know is that the "real" Arminians (whether Wesleyan or Classical) actually believe in original sin as well as maybe a form of depravity that isn't total but is closer to that than the average non-Calvinist preacher. They get around this with their teaching of prevenient grace, which is universal instead of particular. It is a calling that is not not necessarily effectual and is resistable, (as opposed to the Calvinist irresistible grace and effectual calling) but they nevertheless teach that man cannot come to God without the aid of the Holy Spirit. Early on in my walk I attended a Wesleyan church where the pastor was really closer to Calvinism in his doctrine and practice than he was to the average Southern Baptist preacher. He simply couldn't get around the warning passages in Hebrews and couldn't embrace the Calvinistic view of the perseverance of the saints. (That being said, he wasn't really on board with some of the emphases of Wesleyanism either, such as entire sanctification, so that probably made a difference.)

Many Baptist preachers and similar types (along with some in officially Arminian churches) are really more accurately termed Semi-Pelagian than Arminian. Even if they aren't quite Semi-Pelagian, they are closer to that than Arminianism. If you ask the right questions or listen to the right sermon, they often talk as if man can come to God completely unaided by the Holy Spirit even though they often deny it if you ask them directly. You can see this in the "Traditional" SBC statement on soteriology that was produced about 5 years ago as well as the discussion that followed. Many of them deny original sin or what they would call original guilt, and say that man is not held guilty by God until he reaches the age of accountability. They seem to do this because they think that affirming original sin means that all dying infants and others who cannot make a decision for Christ due to cognitive issues go to hell.

One of these days, I'm going to ask one of these folks (i.e. a typical non-Cal Baptist) about their belief in eternal security, which traditional Arminians reject. "What's happened to your almighty free will now, friend?" In their system, you can check in any time you like, but you can never leave even though the virtues of libertarian free will are endlessly praised.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Stope said:


> That said, yesterday at the book shop I saw a 3 vol set of Arminus' (I think it was a systematic theology?), and it had me thinking, and now pose to you: does he have good things to say? As all I have ever heard about him was his views of God's sovereignty



That might be partly Pop-culture Calvinists (or what I call Conference Calvinists) fault. there is a tendency to reduce everything to the 5 Points. Yes, Arminius deals with far more than just God's sovereignty. I would actually recommend getting Richard Muller's book on Arminius: God and Creation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stope

Contra_Mundum said:


> Doubtless, what you saw was a collection of Arminius' "Works." He was a seminary professor, and minister in the Dutch Reformed Church. He obviously had (N.B. the Remonstrants) and continues to have people who honor his memory, methods, and the movement built upon his influence.
> 
> As for mining him for truth, you can do the same with D.Wilson. Or G.Boyd, the open theist. Or R.Warren/B.Hybels, the church-growth gurus. Perhaps, even the pope. The question is: why? When you have limited time and energy, where would you personally be best invested?
> 
> It's one thing to check out someone's work for research purposes, coming in with a critical regard. But we know of (and are pleased about) people who come to read Calvin for themselves, and are moved away from an inculcated auto-revulsion, to admiration. D.Wilson has a way with words also, and yet we regard such a gift as a snare.
> 
> Just as you have been drawn to Reformed theology based on a trajectory of life and thought; be aware that you may not have found your settled home--though it could be so if you make it so. Your curiosity may also spark an unhealthy interest (as we here would term it) in an alternate theological direction. I'm not picking on you; it could happen to anyone, including me.
> 
> I hope you are not half-way through a journey, of which Reformed theology is but a stage. But it is more dangerous for a man of fertile mind to ignore the bypaths that many other men--not so different from himself--have taken. Paths you may not believe (today) could ever appeal to you. Until you have tasted them. Some men simply fail to consider the possibility.
> 
> There is in theological inquiry an element of self-discovery. This is reflected in the insight found in Calvin's first lines of his Institutes, "We know God by that same first act by which we know ourselves." Some men have found their inner Calvin or Luther through seeking God. Others have found their inner papist, or Barth, or Arminius. Even an inner atheist, at times.
> 
> The heart of a man... "who can know it?" Don't assume you know who you are; pray you will be settled forever where you should be, and that this Reformed theology would continue to be the taste of green pastures and still waters for your soul. And as you read Arminius, or D.Wilson, or J.Osteen, or B.Ehrman, pray you will see accurately the dangers others see.
> 
> J.G.Machen went to Germany to enhance his learning and preparation. He sat under the teaching of the liberal scholar Wilhelm Herrmann, whose influence was incredible in those days. Machen was spellbound by the man, who displayed an enviable piety. He taught his students _devotionally, _and Machen confessed in letters he was nearly carried away.
> 
> But he found his footing, somehow; it was surely by the grace of God. And in the end, he shook off the rhetorical and philosophical influence of the man and of that whole modernist movement, the end whereof was bleakness (as K.Barth also discovered; but he ended up co-creating neo-modernism with a new generation of theologians, rather than returning to the old-paths orthodoxy).
> 
> I'm neither encouraging nor discouraging you from reading Arminius. I'm talking to you about human nature, about the wisdom of a bit-and-bridle on the charger that is your intellect. There is a kind of man who dispenses with all discipline, and who rides out into the wilderness determined to be led only by his impulses and instincts. A few such men return.
> 
> Meditate upon the metaphor.


Wow. That was very kind and insightful. Thank you for taking the time to write that.


----------



## bookslover

arapahoepark said:


> Keener and Witherington are names that come to mind.


Isn't Keener some sort of charismatic?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

bookslover said:


> Isn't Keener some sort of charismatic?



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


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


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



Charismatic connotes the Benny Hinn types. Keener is most certainly a continuationist. He is very clear on that at his blog.


----------



## deleteduser99

Stope said:


> For the first time ever I found myself in a concersation with a brother who seem to really know the Word, yet he was an Arminianism with a focus on previent grace... I was taken back because I just assumed He was Biblical in His understanding of unconditional election. It caused me to wonder and ask you, are there any respectable Arminianism theologians?
> 
> Also, in passing he said to me that nobody believed like Calvin when he said "Calvin (and augustine before him - but by nobody for the first 600 years of the early church)"... I havent read much back them is he correct?



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

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

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


----------



## RamistThomist

Harley said:


> Platonic views of the nature of God



Could you give an example?


----------



## deleteduser99

ReformedReidian said:


> Could you give an example?



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

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

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


----------



## RamistThomist

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


----------



## deleteduser99

ReformedReidian said:


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



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


----------



## RamistThomist

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


----------



## Justified

ReformedReidian said:


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


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

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


----------



## RamistThomist

Justified said:


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



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

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


----------



## Justified

ReformedReidian said:


> I always ask "Which Greeks?" Pre-Socratics? Plato? Aristotle? Middle Platonism? Plotinus? And what is particularly Greeky about their doctrine of God?
> 
> Now, there are bad hiccups. Most of the more monkish fathers feared sexual intimacy in marriage (see Methodius of Olympus for some very bad reasoning). Evagrius of Pontus instructed his monks on diet so as to avoid semen build up and thus wet dreams and lust. So the so-called Greek dualism comes out there.


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


----------



## Justified

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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Justified said:


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



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

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


----------



## RamistThomist

Justified said:


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

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Justified said:


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


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



Spoiler



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

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

Open theist Pinnock stated that Augustine allowed neo-Platonic ideas to influence his interpretation that put God in “_a kind of box_” (see Pinnock’s _Most Moved Mover_). Boyd writes that classical theism became misguided “_under the influence of Hellenic philosophy_” (see Boyd’s _The God of the Possible_). Finally, Sanders writes that “_Greek thought_” and “_neo-Platonic metaphysics_” were a significant influence on the classical doctrine of God (see Sanders’ _The Openness of God_). Sanders even lumps Luther and Calvin into the camp of neo-Platonic influence that continues to “_dominate conservative theology_”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We are making peace with the culture of modernity.” (_The Openness of God_. 107) {emphasis mine}​
In Pinnock we see the real motivation of open theism: mixing a theological system with contemporary culture which appeals to our modern world. After all, ours is a world nowadays that needs a feel-good God in its culture of egalitarianism, extravagance, and self-absorption. Philosophical humanism, liberalism, and modernism packaged up in the guise of a supposed enlightened re-thinking of the doctrine of God.


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

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

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Stope

Bill The Baptist said:


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


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


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Stope said:


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



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


----------



## Stope

Bill The Baptist said:


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


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


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Stope said:


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


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

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Stope said:


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



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

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


----------



## Stope

Bill The Baptist said:


> The reformed view is that revelation ceased with the close of the canon of Scripture, and so prophecy has ceased in the sense of God giving new revelation. Men like the ones I mentioned are not really charasmatic in the sense that they speak in tongues or roll around the aisles in their churches, but they do believe that all of the spiritual gifts are continuing today.
> 
> With these particular men, this mostly manifests itself in terms of continuing revelation. They believe that God reveals new things to them in order to aid their ministry. Sometimes this is fairly innocuous, such as with Piper, and other times it is dangerous, as with Mark Driscoll. In either case, it is contrary to the reformed confessions.


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


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Stope said:


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



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


----------



## Stope

Bill The Baptist said:


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


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


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Stope said:


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



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


----------



## Stope

Bill The Baptist said:


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


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


----------



## Contra_Mundum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Stope

Contra_Mundum said:


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



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

Am I missing something here?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Stope said:


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



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

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Pious Pete says, "I regard every day as holy (not like you one-day-a-week phonies); which means practically that most weeks God gets a nod from force of habit, and then--since I'm a holy guy--I get to do whatever else I want, and presto: it must be holy too!"​
Christians try selling their faith on the claim that the unbelievers of the world will get the world a little better with Jesus. And then they try selling the HigherLife to fellow Christians, on the notion that they will get Christianity a little better if they make the leap. "You don't get words from Jesus/the Spirit? Well... hmmm... I guess you haven't quite got it yet. ThasOK, bra, keep tryin!"

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

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


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

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

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

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Stope

Contra_Mundum said:


> Jason,
> God assures me: Prophecies have failed; 1Cor.13:8 has been fulfilled. So... I don't know if strapping down those seats was a bad idea or a good one, but God didn't serve up a sentence to you. My Word from God is contradicting your word from God. And I know from experience that these days it's not acceptable to call somebody else' experience into question. But I'm calling your experience into question.
> 
> How long until you tell that person in your congregation they should do X, because God speaks to you? Meanwhile, they thought they were doing what God told them to do already. Is your word superseding the word they had earlier? Who gets to decide, assuming you don't just "pull rank?"
> 
> You just confidently asserted that GOD told you something. What if you and I lived next door to each other (so we actually knew each other, and talked regularly) and after you said the above to me, I said "Whoa, brother, the Lord told ME you were to switch cars, and strap those seats down in YOUR car, not the wife's." On what basis, other than you trust your own instincts more than mine, would you discern between those "prophecies?"
> 
> Yea, I know hardly anyone ever challenges the "prophecy" their neighbor got, because (generally) we are basically self-focused anyway. And, if you don't want anyone challenging YOUR prophecies then don't challenge theirs, amirite?
> 
> What is the actual argument from Scripture that we should be ascribing every impulse and premonition we have to God?
> 
> Isn't your case indiscernable (other than your claim of direct, verbal intervention) from that of a providential reminding, an evidence of God's care for you, using the gift of memory or other perception? I know, that kind of lowers everything about life into the mundane world, where my reality is not that different from my unbelieving neighbor's.
> 
> 
> I don't think there's a detectable difference between what you decided to do (for which a Christian would and should give thanks if it was a needful thing), and what your atheist neighbor did the other day when he acted on some furtive mental prompt to check if someone remembered to turn off the stove... and hey! it was left on, sure glad he went back inside.
> 
> Christians nowadays (more so than before?) have this habit of turning everything into a supernatural (as opposed to mundane) event or activity. They are sacralizing existence as a whole, and as a result there is nothing sacred at all, nothing that is different, i.e. set apart unto God. Like the Lord's Day, for instance.
> 
> Pious Pete says, "I regard every day as holy (not like you one-day-a-week phonies); which means practically that most weeks God gets a nod from force of habit, and then--since I'm a holy guy--I get to do whatever else I want, and presto: it must be holy too!"​
> Christians try selling their faith on the claim that the unbelievers of the world will get the world a little better with Jesus. And then they try selling the HigherLife to fellow Christians, on the notion that they will get Christianity a little better if they make the leap. "You don't get words from Jesus/the Spirit? Well... hmmm... I guess you haven't quite got it yet. ThasOK, bra, keep tryin!"
> 
> You don't have to tell me that selling people on the idea that becoming a Christian will make their lives harder (but THAT's OK) is much, much less appealing. Its hard to tell Christians today their lives of faith in this world were never intended of God to be a series of "breakthroughs." Most Christians are not "stagnating instead of rising up;" they are getting sold a bill of goods that robs them of genuine contentment with their lot in life.
> 
> In the long run contentment with the pure Word of God written (it already has EVERYTHING necessary for life and godliness, 2Pet.1:3-4; cf. 2Tim.3:16-17) makes for the successful Christian, measured not in influences felt or given; but in humility and peace in spite of "suffering the loss of all things."
> 
> 
> I'm preaching a brand of Christianity that strips believers of any idea that they have "spiritual privilege" through God in this world. You aren't any different from your unbelieving neighbor next door, or that believer across the street, when it comes to getting by in everyday life; unless it is a natural advantage.
> 
> It is dangerous to attribute every good decision you make to "listening to God." Because then, of course every "bad" decision must be because you weren't listening. Or because your faith isn't good enough. Or because someone else' bad decision had more influence over business.
> 
> What we have are divine promises. What we have in the Bible is the assurance that making *prayer* part of our decision-making _bears good fruit,_ no matter the outcome in worldly calculus, 1Pet.5:7; Prv.3:5-8. We are assured God will guide us, Ps.34:7; Mt.6:33. And we owe him thanks for everything that comes our way, Rom.8:28.



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

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

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

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


----------



## Contra_Mundum

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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Reactions: Edifying 2


----------



## Stope

Contra_Mundum said:


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


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



Contra_Mundum said:


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


---I am indeed actually



Contra_Mundum said:


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


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



Contra_Mundum said:


> I never have questioned whether God moves men's hearts


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

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


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Stope said:


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


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

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

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

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

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




Stope said:


> ---I am indeed actually


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

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

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

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




Stope said:


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


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

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

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




Stope said:


> ---Again, this is what I mean when I say "I felt the the Lord probing me to do such and such", I could also say "I felt the Lord move my heart to do such and such"
> All that said, I always maintain that I say I never know 100% for sure if God is speaking/directing/etc, but i can say I "think" He is.


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

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

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

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 2


----------



## arapahoepark

Contra_Mundum said:


> Your comment didn't really address my scenario. You seem to be asserting in advance that you can't possibly err in interpreting the "correct" inclination, and cannot end up bringing misery to yourself and those around you.
> 
> And yet, objectively speaking we can find plenty of examples of people who claimed at one point they were doing as God spoke to them (not plainly contradicting a scriptural command), and the result evidently ruins lives.
> 
> I mean to say, I hope you never follow that "still, small voice" that for sure tells you (hypothetically) to uproot your family and move them to Hawaii to do ministry, whereupon misery follows.
> 
> And how does your God-is-always-consistent rule fit this scenario: if your name (about 1800 B.C.) is Abraham, and God tells you to sacrifice as a burnt offering your son, your only son, whom you love... and this goes against everything you know about the character and promises of God? Can we both know God didn't really tell you that, based on previous revelation alone--as your comment seems to suggest?
> 
> My meaning being, your "out" is apparently ad hoc, in order to save your prior commitment to private revelations.
> 
> 
> OK, so what do you believe about God's intermediate methods of expressing his will (other than direct revelation)? How often does God do direct speech, and how do we know when to tune in? Or is he constantly speaking and personally, verbally (attempting?) to influence our every act at every moment, we just only hear him when the tuner is keyed to the right frequency? Or do we always need to be on edge, because we don't know when the moment is ripe? Or is he constantly waiting on us to pause, and put out a fleece for him?
> 
> According to 1Ki.22:19-23, God has used a spirit to "influence" a man to his death. The man had two voices in his ears, both of divine origin, the one warning him from death the last and most immediate; and yet the inclination he followed was to his ruin; it was three steps removed from God, and the good word he ignored was two steps removed.
> 
> Is tuning in a spiritual skill? If you don't practice, are you sinning? Honestly if you believe you constantly receive direct revelation--your tuner is so good--then it would not seem strange to me that soon you would be telling others what God wants of them when you think you are directed to do so. Why stop with the car seats? "Hey, follow me; I've got heavenly GPS, people; it's always pinging." And how do ordinary shmucks like me tell the difference between the real deal, and the pied pipers? The rule up above isn't reliably going to give the kind of discernment necessary.
> 
> The reality is, this world is filled with voices. And I have been warned against trusting in them all--both internal and external--except for the written Word.
> 
> 
> Well, I was hoping you would see them as distinguishable. You say the Bible is in a special class. But here you equate personal revelation with Scripture as if to blur the distinction. How is this any different from the papist claim that they have revelation on par with Scripture, just always in line with it?
> 
> One of the elements that once clearly distinguished the Protestants from Rome was our commitment to the finality of revelation, at least in all ordinary circumstances. ("Extraordinary" might be where the church was denied the Bible; clearly we are not talking about such here). You're basically saying Rome is correct on the principle; they're just not the right practitioners.
> 
> Ordinarily, God operates in the world according to his laws. The reliability of the world is a permanent witness to his presence and government. And appealing to constant direct divine intervention is a functional denial of the doctrine of Providence. The difference is the difference between standard operating procedure, and miracle. That's a huge and meaningful difference. It is not just a semantic adjustment.
> 
> 
> OK, but you didn't actually say those quotes before; rather, you claimed a specific and distinct verbal Word from the Lord. I don't think "feeling" can be any more clearly of God directly, than we can attribute it to angels, or to an irrational second-cause that could still be used by God.
> 
> And if you (wisely) hesitate to claim the direct prompting of God, or qualify your confidence in some respect, at least I can be glad for that element of self-doubt. Because it implies humility, or at least a willingness to consider you might be in error (not infallible).
> 
> Because, we do not have a promise from God he will use any other means to guide us than Holy Scripture.


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


----------



## Contra_Mundum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

I hope this is helpful.

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

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 2


----------



## arapahoepark

Contra_Mundum said:


> Trent,
> I hope I'm being perfectly clear: I *believe *in divine intervention, God's guidance, answers to prayer; man, I even believe miracles happen.
> 
> If I pray, being a believer, then anything at all that follows that is identifiable as some kind, _any kind,_ of answer--even if the answer is other or _contrary _to my request--is *by definition *my answer from on high. I should thank God for hearing and answering according to his promise.
> 
> I don't even have to find out a result, to know my prayer was heard and answered. Walking out of the mall, "Lord, please be with that mom back there just inside the Nordstrom's, with her crying kid; help him get over it." Faith tells me it is heard and answered.
> 
> What I'm specifically objecting to is the idea that I know, that I can be sure that some "feeling" or "nudge" or "word" is instruction or prompting directly from God. Maybe, as I sat at the intersection looking left and right scratching my head, praying, imperceptibly my left air vent let in a strong gust of cooler air making me inadvertently wince; and that caused my eye to catch sight of what I thought was my friend's car speeding through an intersection further south. "Man! that's a sign," so I go left.
> 
> Was it "God?" If I catch up to the other car, was it "God" if it was my friend's car? What if it wasn't? Turning left, saying "Thank you, God," _because I was sure it WAS Joe's car _and _God literally turned my head see him--_only to find out it wasn't; and on top of it, I should have turned right in order to optimally love my neighbor--my flase approach is, is simplest terms, a blasphemy. I made a mistake as a direct result of expecting to have my steering wheel guided as if by a Ouija-board (or a still, small voice). We used to call that "superstition."
> 
> Now, how could I have practically the same experience, and not sin (in that way)? I pray for God to help me figure my way, show me somehow, being careful not to presume on his methods or summon him to act in any manner he has not promised. I turn left because of those influences mentioned above. If I catch up the car, and it is my friend, my hope in prayer being fulfilled, I can thank God for all the influences known and unknown that brought me to that answer.
> 
> If I don't catch the car, or it is not my friend when I do, I may still be in "prayer mode," pursuing my goal. Or, I may have now to face the fact the goal I sought is beyond what can be gained. I must pray then for contentment. I can also recognize that, in some sense (despite what I thought was a noble goal now foiled) I must thank God for my error. He meant me to go half-way, or 90% there, and come up empty. In retrospect, I accept that as his providence for me. Perhaps I am rebuked for leaving too late, causing extra problems for myself and maybe others. I accept that _in repentance_.
> 
> 
> God is always *for me*, as his child, in Christ. He is on my side, no matter if I win or lose. He's foreordained all my joys, and all my sorrows. He's even using my sins and failures (for which I bear full responsibility in commission) and their temporal consequences (which may or may not be relieved in part or whole) for my good. And for that I should be thankful to him.
> 
> God is always helping me, saving me. But I can only thank him for an answer to prayer _if I pray. _Doesn't that make perfect sense? Suppose I do not pray, and I turn left instead of right, and am frustrated in my purpose. Well, for sure I have to say I have not, because I asked not. Suppose I turn left and am rewarded for my effort. I should thank God--for blessing me despite my inattention to prayer. I ignored him, and he saved me anyway. If I did pray, my walk with God was strengthened in the effort, and the outcome is my answer and another cause for prayer. Pray without ceasing, right?
> 
> Many times, when by prayer we obtain what we joyfully call his blessing, we take time to view and reflect on his acts as just so many evidences of his meticulous care of us. We ponder his inscrutable paths by which he brought the blessing. We marvel at all the interlocking pieces that had to be planned for the one, and then the many other blessings which all are a tapestry of his mercy. Our prayers (from the Spirit within) are woven into that work, being his appointed means for attaining his own ends.
> 
> Our "looking out" for him in action is just an essential part of our everyday life of faith. My life looks a lot like my unbelieving neighbor's life. The difference is: I walk by faith, not by sight. I know God is with me moment by moment (and will be in the next moments) not because he's sustaining me with feelings, nudges, and words; but because Christ is mine. And because he is, I look back on a long trail of his blessing, never once failing. My unbelieving and unthankful neighbor is missing out. He doesn't have much of an excuse, either.
> 
> I hope this is helpful.
> 
> edit: don't miss this: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/be-sure-to-pray-over-the-promises.92128/


It is a tremendous help!


----------



## Stope

Contra_Mundum said:


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


This is a great summary. I too believe this.

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


----------

