Caroline
Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree we should be careful in calling our impulses 'judgments of the Spirit'. Absolutely. Do you deny that it is possible to make a judgment in the Spirit?
Well, I'm Reformed now, so I guess my answer is 'it depends on how we define these terms'. I believe that there is such a thing as illumination--that we pray, ask for wisdom, etc, and in some sense God will help us, grant us wisdom, etc. BUT I do not believe in revelation--the idea that we can just empty out our minds and wait for a guiding impulse to strike us or speak words into our minds.
My experience with these things is that 'I feel a leading from the Lord' and 'I'm stepping out on faith' are the two most common phrases people utter before they do something really stupid. (Well, the second and third most common maybe. The top one is probably, "Hey, everybody watch this!")
And the reason is that these things are treated as infallible. If I get an urge to do something weird that I can't explain, I might tend to think that it must be from God, and so I say to you, "dr_parsley, I really feel led by God to jump in front of this train" or whatever. And at that point, there probably is no way to stop me. You can say, "Sister, that is unwise." And I would say, "But I am led by God." It is the ultimate conversation-stopper, because no one would dare to argue with God, nor am I free anymore to even change my mind (now that I have said God is leading me) lest I disobey God.
Do results prove whether it was 'from God'? As I always tend to say, things are complicated. It is rarely a straight if-then premise on anything. Question #1 would be, "How do you define results?" It is quite easy to 'convert' people if you make God out to be whoever they want Him to be, but in that case, you haven't really converted them so much as given them a false god to worship. There are people who feel quite blessed by the sight of the image of the Virgin in a grease-spot on their driveway, but I don't know that this indicates real spiritual progress.
Question #2 would be, "Are positive results always the indicator of God's approval?" The response to Stephen's preaching was that he was stoned, whereas there were many false prophets who swayed the hearts of Israel. There are many small churches that are faithful to the gospel and yet Benny Hinn can draw huge crowds.
On the other hand, I have known people to go through stages in their spiritual walk. For example, one of my dearest friends is a pastor who was converted in a Oneness (meaning they don't believe in the Trinity) Pentecostal church. Up to that point, he had been an atheist and a dreadful sinner, but his conversion was instant and profound. But it was not until many years later, as a pastor of a Oneness church, that he came to a better understanding of the Bible and the Trinity. He was baptized in the Trinity in front of his congregation and turned his church into a Reformed church (although, admittedly, a slightly unusual and eccentric one). He and I both would fully agree that his original conversion was a real work of God, even though it was based upon incomplete and faulty knowledge at the time. In the end, it served as a stepping-stone to a better understanding.
BUT I think my friend and I would also both agree that it is NOT (as a general rule) a good idea to introduce people to God that way. Neither my friend nor myself would ever say to ourselves, "I think I'll take Fred over to Oneness Church of the Crazy Heretics so that they can convert him, and I'll just explain about the Trinity at some later time."
However, at this point, what is done is done in regard to your father. So I'll just say, "May God indeed use it for good." I have known God to use weirder stuff than The Shack to turn someone in the right direction. BUT if God does indeed use it for good, let it not be said that it is because The Shack is a good idea ... but just that God is a merciful God.
_____________________________
As a side note to another line of thought here .... after thinking this over ....
I'm not really sure that the 'strip-club' analogy is appropriate (although it does make sort of a point). I think that it would be very difficult for any normal healthy adult male to avoid breaking commandments at least against adultery in one's heart in that type of an environment. However, I think most mature Christians can avoid blaspheming God even while reading something blasphemous. In other words, the sin is not in READING the blasphemy and saying, "What dreadful blasphemy!" The sin would be actually blaspheming.
This is just to reflect what I said earlier about how I am uncomfortable with people being very restrictive in regard to what Christians are allowed to read. I think one is at liberty to refuse to read blasphemy and say, "I'm not going to waste my time with that." But there is no sin in reading it either, and one might even have good cause to do so (for example, to explain to others why it is blasphemous). My two cents.
Last edited: