Do you hear "still small voices"?

I hate the way people present this topic. 

Because, while I believe in sola scriptura, i don't agree with the premise that this host states,

that: "“If God talks to you then the Scriptures are deficient.”

Does this bother anyone else?

I will be back after I listen to more. 

I think what the panel were saying was basically what's often claimed as God talking is really you talking to yourself.

And the onus to assert otherwise if difficult to back up.

having charismatic acquaintances, even friends, who I think are a little too out there and off track, looking for meanings in every remembered dream, etc. So Im not being naive about how this is abused. 

I'm okay with saying God showed me the way in a very loosy goosy way in those circumstances because we don't know how it might have turned out if he'd used his usual evangelistic apologetic--James White it was, I believe. He was basing it on a felicitous outcome--but what if he'd done it differently and the guy gets baptized the same day? So, while there's an assurance that God foreordained and governs and guides our lives in some sense (making us do of His good pleasure even), I'm not sure we could attribute all our impulses--all our apparently good ones even--to Him. Lacking 20/20 vision and infallibility, we need certain disclaimers.

As for things that the Spirit helps us understand in the Word or reminds us of, can't we reclaim the use of the term illumination? I believe its definition disclaims the infallibility and inspiration that attach to terms like inspiration and prophecy.

The other thing is to use the passive voice or to take personal responsibility for particular impulses and inclinations. E.g. I felt concerned for this situation, I was led to believe such and such, I have been burdened to share whatever. This kinda leaves the agency open, which isn't terrible if we want to avoid dragging the Lord into what may turn out to be not quite true later on. For instance, can't we all remember pastors and leaders who've proclaimed, "The Lord showed me this would be the ministry/calling for me for the rest of my life" only to see them move on to some other "Lord showed mes" a few years, or even months, later?

We all have had to do that. It's tempting in all religions to claim divine involvement for the numinous.

But I think we do need to hold ourselves to a higher standard who are blessed for not seeing and yet believing (what is already revealed), who have the sufficient Word in our hands, who have the illuminating Spirit as we read and meditate upon that Word.

Ah, conscience. That's something I think should be considered apart from the Spirit's direct work of convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. Conscience is one's sense of guilt or innocence in respect of one's knowledge of what's right, and both that sense and that knowledge are subjective and fluid. Rather than to attribute one's feelings directly and hastily to the Spirit, I suppose we could just attribute them to "conscience" or "how I feel is."

watch the video from about 33:45 to 38:15 and tell me what you think about "remarkable providence."

I'm not talking about anything "miraculous" either. I just think it's normal. 

I think the Scriptures are sufficient. I think it has nothing to do with the sufficiency of Scripture issue. 

So, let's take this man's example: 

He was witnessing to one particular mormon, and got the distinct "impression" or "leading" to talk about archeology, something he would never ordinarily do. And turns out the man was an archeologist. 

So, I really find it hard to say that this was "entirely human in origin" as you say it must be. I think the Holy Spirit led him very specifically. 

i wouldn't call it a miracle. I see nowhere that this is an attack on Scripture sufficiency. However, I think it was a type of personal communication by God's Spirit. Call it a "remarkable providence." 

I know of several examples of this type of thing occurring. I am not disturbed by it. 

I will give you another example--a friend (and I can give you her name, phone, FB contact) was in her house with guests over and she suddenly has this very insistent thought or command that she must go look in her pool. She would never have otherwise gone. She goes, and her adoped Chinese child is at the bottom, drowning. They were able to save her. I don't think it was "entirely human in origin." I am not threatening the sufficiency of Scripture by thinking that God communicated this to her, either by angel or His Spirit. I dont even call it a miracle, as such. 

Yes, I am disturbed by my charismatic friend who tries to read for God's meaning into her dreams. Yes, it's weird when sitting in a leaders' meeting with my pentacostal pro-life friends and we pause for 20 minutes with bowed heads waiting for God to give us visions--and they shared them! I was the only baptist Sure it bothers me when a binge drinking charismatic guy regularly visiting our church says he "by faith" went through our 6-month rehab program. 

But "remarkable providences" don't bother me. 

I don't really like how these men handle this question entirely however. 

how this could even be doubted. Does not God specifically lead us into His will for our lives in individual ways? Are we saying the Scriptures are insufficient if I'm praying and asking God what college to go to or if I should marry X or not, knowing already that the answer is not written on the pages of the Bible? 

Ann,

Not to make light of your scenario, because it is serious- but how is that different from when you have young children, and it grows strangely quiet, and you have a "mother's intuition" moment when you just know it's too quiet and you get up to find that little junior is ____________________? 

Would your perspective change at all if some unbelieving parent described the same kind of thing?

Do we hold God as actively responsible for sudden, traumatic deaths as we would sudden rescues?

I think one could be thankful to God in the situation you describe without necessarily concluding that God communicated to her in direct fashion. For that matter, the story probably doesn't end with the rescue. God uses trials to teach. I imagine your friend's awareness of where her child is (not to mention the ability to access the pool) probably changed to some degree after that.

In Mueller's case, it is an evident answer to prayer. God works through the prayers of His people.

Query: If we are supposed to accept your position purely on the basis of anecdote, why are you unwilling to accept your charismatic friends' positions on the same basis? I am sure they can provide you with names, phone numbers and facebook contact lists of people who will tell personal stories of how God spoke to them in a dream or vision. I think you have argued against yourself without realizing it.

I just see that there are personalized ways that God somehow communicates things to an individual child. My BJ friend once said that he heard a BJ teacher saying that when you look for God's will about something, go back and examine how He's shown you His will in the past. So I did that, and I saw that whenever I had to make a life-altering decision, God did 2 things 1) He gave me an overwhelming desire that was not fulfilled for a while and 2) a moment of conviction from the Holy Spirit would come where I would know that this is what I must do. 

For example, I wanted to be a missionary for years, years, years. I finished college, . . . went to grad school, worked for 2 years afterwards. At all those junctions, i desperately wanted to leave for the mission field. I had every imaginable open door. I even applied to various boards . .. but every single time, I would come to a point where God would just somehow but very definitely in a quiet knowing communicate to me that this was not His will for me, and I would be sinning if I kept further on this path. 

... then, one day I opened my email and read a letter from a BJ grad asking or someone to come teach English, and that very particular conviction came to me that this was God's will for me. I consider this a ministry of the Spirit to me. (It has nothing to do with you.) 

And I look back on this now, and I see that my entire life today depended on that exact ordering of my steps. 

I used this pattern with marriage then, too. And I asked God very specifically for this sense of conviction, and I waited months and fasted a lot. And He did give it. But I don't use this anymore at this time in my life, having a husband to work these things through with.

Now, I am giving you only one example. I will also tell you, my parents are BJ grads, I have never had hooey-hooey influences on my life, I went to the Wilds for pete's sake And how was i saved? As a child, i remember praying often to ask God to save me. But one day I was home alone working quietly, and these words distinctly came into my head, Anne, you need to be saved. So I knelt down and asked God to save me, and that was the moment I grasped or had given to me saving faith. And I never told anyone else about it for over a year. It didn't occur to me to tell even my parents. I have told this testimony, for one, in Mount Calvary BC in Greenville, SC, and no one, no one ever anywhere, ever mentioned it was an "entirely human experience." That it must have been the fruit loops I had for breakfast. ... Call it remarkable providence. 

The thing is, I dont expect God to do that. I dont tell others that anyone should expect God to do that for them. That is crazy. God didn't have to do it for me. it's just what he did. I dont consider it in the realm of authoritative in the way the Bible is. 

This is why, for me, these types of issues are not sola scriptura issues. 

But sure I understand why it could be. I mean, I live in the same town as Sunday Adelaja, pastor of the largest charismatic church in Europe. and the number of believers generally is so small here, it's like a village knowing each other's business sometimes. ;) 

I do have a problem with demanding, expecting, teaching, elevating "personal communication from God." calling it prophesy, revelation, vision, telling other people God's will for their lives and money, speaking as though God has communicated canon-status stuff to you. 

...just observing that people have "deja vu" kind of moments or similar times where parents will say, "Hey, wait a minute... where's my kid?" I know we've had more than a few of those times over the course of our seven, and will likely have more as time goes on...

I'm not even going so far as to say that your impressions and so forth that you describe as a voice in your head don't happen in some way or another. People respond and conceive of things differently. I don't talk out loud to myself, but some people do, for example- and it doesn't mean that they're crazy or anything, but perhaps they are trying to organize a list of ideas or something. What I may think and describe as a moment of inspiration or sudden impulse, you articulate as a voice, maybe even a distinct one.

Such impulses may be even be used of God. The level of subjectivity, however, should make us hesitant to identify the experience as authoritative. The story of how you met your husband, for example- I would describe it as wrestling and deliberating, accompanied by appropriate prayer. In the end, though, would you have been disobedient to God to have been more "impulsive" and just have said yes to his proposal at the beginning?

A sense of confidence is great, and when it comes from a heart of submission to God and compliance with His commands, it is truly a wonderful experience. But if we over-emphasize the experience, what can end up happening is people rely on their impulses rather than the basis of revelation God has provided. I have heard firsthand anecdotes somewhat similar to yours, for example, but with people justifying how God was leading them to divorce their spouse. I have people tell me about how God sent a particular bird outside their window to remind them of a deceased relative or loved one.

The experience may not be completely irrelevant, but it must not be the basis for why we forge ahead. Our confidence rests in the promises of God.

although, i have an acquaintance dealing with the tragic death of her 2 yo, listening to her grief, and who knows, maybe God sends a bird to comfort them . . . ?

Does God provide sunsets for one specific person? Again, I'm not saying a bird can't be a source of comfort. I would strongly hesitate to assure someone that it was God's intent to personally deliver said bird to that person, any more than I would assure someone God had Paul write Romans 8 just for them in their personal time of need. 

I'll see what I can do about the review. 

*You will not find any examples of a feeling (peace or whatever) used as communication in scripture.

*James one is not a promise of communication.

*The rest of the supernatural communication you see in scripture is much more like your charismatic friends' than yours. There were visions (pictures) and conversations (two-way speech) in almost all of them. In rare instances, like Paul's restriction on travel, we are not told how the communication happened, only that it happened. You cannot appropriate that and claim something scripture doesn't say.

Scripture simply doesn't support this kind of communication. No examples. No instructions. No warnings. No expectations. 

This is a core problem. In the first sentence, you accept what scripture teaches about itself. In the second sentence, you want to promote something scripture never teaches. The second statement is implied in the first which renders the second inoperable. If the first statement is true, then no further communication is ever needed. If further communication is ever needed, then the first communication is not true. This is the heart of the doctrine of sufficiency of scripture which is the heart of sola scriptura.

Here is just an example touching upon what I am talking about, Hudson Taylor's mother:

Little did he [Taylor] know what was going on at that very time in the heart of his mother, who was on a visit seventy or eighty miles away. That very afternoon she went to her room with an intense yearning for the conversion of her son, turned the key in the door and resolved not to leave the spot until her prayers were answered. Hour after hour she continued pleading, until at length she arose with glad assurance that the object of her prayers had already been accomplished.
. . .
Several days later he told his sister of his new-found joy in Christ and secured her promise not to speak of it to anyone. When the mother returned a fortnight later, he met her at the door and told her he had a piece of good news for her. Writing many years later, Hudson Taylor said: "I can almost feel that dear mother's arms around my neck, as she pressed me to her bosom and said, 'I know, my boy. I have been rejoicing for a fortnight in the glad tidings you have to tell me.' 'Has Amelia broken her promise?' I asked in surprise. 'She said she would tell no one.' My dear mother assured me that it was not from any human source that she had learned the tidings and went on to tell the incident mentioned above."

But that's precisely the kind of theology-by-anecdote we're trying to address.

What does it do to countless examples of saints who've experienced otherwise?

Or worse, the experience of martyrs who've seen their expectations defeated while tied to the stake?

Can we really separate those listed before Hebrews 11:35a from those listed thereafter?

Or do they belong to that one cloud of witnesses?

Unless we have a systematic view of theology, we risk creating a Word-of-knowledge/Word-of-faith/revelational haves vs have-nots dichotomy.

Anne,

I don't think I have rationalized or explained away anything. I have repeatedly gone to the scriptures to deal directly with what they teach. You have admitted that you can't really find what you are describing in the scriptures and have turned instead to stories. This also is at the heart of sola scriptura and the sufficiency of scripture. We have one, single trustworthy guide which you agree claims that it is "all we need for life and godliness." If that is so, and what you are describing is even an occasional part of the godly life, we should be able to identify it in scripture.

Thanks, Anne. I think we just have different ways of approaching the same phenomena, whether they're experienced by Charismatics or reputable and "mature Christians."

We don't have to deny the experiences of others. It's just how we interpret those claims/testimonies that divide. I mean, people "see Jesus" in every age, most notably ex-Muslims of recent history who're apparently leaving that religion by the droves without needing to hear the gospel message. And, of course, there's George Mueller and his kind already mentioned--I could include Chinese evangelist Dr John Sung as well, whose services were purported to have been accompanied by a great white cross in the sky, healings, and conversions/revivals galore. Some have testified he even raised the dead on occasion--and he was anything but Charismatic, being a hardline Fundamentalist who reacted against his run-in with Harry Emerson Fosdick in his student days.

I guess some of use are more hesitant in assigning such phenomena--wonderful ones, too, it seems--to the Lord. Perhaps He did them; but perhaps not.

And if He did, it only shows He's not boxed; He's sovereign. But what implication for our lives? Basically none. Sola scriptura--He still wants us to walk by faith and not by sight, to focus on His Word and not on phenomena. Nor to exclude those who don't have that experience--is one's life as a quiet deaf-blind Christian (as one of my friends is) any less precious or blessed than a D.L. Moody's or John Sung's?

If we're able to answer those questions, we have a system of theology--only maybe more implicit than explicit.

i don't think though, that James White would call it a hunch, He pretty clearly says it was not an idea coming out of him.

Okay. At the same time, he does call it a distinct impression. Webster's defines that as "an often indistinct or imprecise notion or remembrance." In other words, there's that sense of not knowing where that thought came from. I'm not saying God can't use those moments- but I am saying that having a moment like that doesn't necessarily mean God was the first-person active agent, any more than He is the one Who directly led me to take the church here five years ago. He used His people here, and they had to make decisions, extend a call, and so on... Whatever else he is saying, it took the scenario to play out more to get more of a sense that it was something he would attribute to God. It wasn't precise. This wasn't Abraham getting up and going to points unknown because God had commanded it. It was an impression... a hunch.

The Bible says that God communicates to us, for example, though His creation (Psalm 19 a prominent example of this). At the same time, we don't usually come back from a night out gazing at the stars and say God was showed me His artwork tonight. I mean, He did, but not just you. He was working through nature, through the created order.

Like Chip has been saying so well, there is no reason to conclude that God would be communicating with anyone in a direct fashion as you attribute. Yes, you can argue that God gives wisdom. God supplies our needs, too- but even in your example of Mueller cited, He does so through natural agents. Money or food never appeared spontaneously out of thin air, or in his pockets when it wasn't there just a second before, or on the table when everyone had their back turned for a split second. God used people and natural processes. Why is it doubting God, in your reasoning, if someone says God can use intuition, even though He isn't the primary agent?

I just don't think, as you are doing, that we have to find a human-faculty explanation for everything that hints at supernatural.

Maybe.  Well, I don't think that we need to call supernatural what can easily be identified as a phenomena of human faculties...

Thanks for the conversation. I think this has gone about as far (if not farther) as could be profitable, at least for me. Or, so I have a hunch, anyway...

Be well, and may God bless your service to Him on the other side of the world.

Anne,

I think one of the problems here is a disconnect on what sola acriptura means.

You wrote:

One guy puts it this way: "In the end, the doctrine of sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the final and only infallible source of divine revelation and is, therefore, the ultimate guide for the conscience of the Christian.

I firmly believe that God through His Spirit mainly speaks to us through His Word and always in line with His Word.

Notice your definition says only, but you change that to mainly. Among other things, sola scriptura says there is no other direct revelation available today outside of the cannon. Here are some other random definitions of sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.

 

Sola Scriptura is the teaching and belief that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible, and that consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature as being inspired by God the ultimate authority for the Church.

Is the Bible the sole and infallible rule of faith for the Church?  Or must we have other revelation from God?   Do we need the Book of Mormon, or the writings of the Watchtower, or Mary Baker Eddy, or the so-called Apostolic unwritten traditions of Rome?  Does the Bible teach its own sufficiency to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church?...The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church.  All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source.  That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.  To be more specific, I provide the following definition: The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church.   The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement.

 

...‘sola scriptura,’ namely, the position that “Scripture [is] the sole source of revelation; that it [is] the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; that it [is] to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it [is] to be interpreted according to the regula fidei.”

Scripture, however, is the only inspired and inherently infallible norm

Each of these bear some striking similarities with the definition you provided. Scripture is the (1)only source of (2)direct revelation available today. Sola scriptura leaves absolutely no room for further communication from God at this time.

Anne,

Ok, a lot here. I will tackle some of it before I have to go to work.

Conviction of sin is an application of the Word of God - still communication via the scriptures. That is how the Spirit communicates to believers today - via scripture. 

Again the anecdotes (White, friend and the pool). I don't assume they are communication from God. I assume they are not communication from God because that would run contrary to scripture.

You are trying again to divide communication from God into canonical and non-canonical. What is your basis for two levels of communication? 

Regarding your fundraising: first, let me say I appreciate your spirit about fundraising and your desire to do right with it. About a decision, Friessen's book deals with this exact type of scenario. I will nutshell it here, but I cannot do it justice in a short post. Bottom line is that God has given us a pattern since the perfection of the garden that we have great freedom within the moral boundaries God has outlined. Adam and Eve were given a couple of commands. Apart from breaking those commands, they were given freedom to do whatever they wanted without fear of sinning. That same pattern follows throughout scripture, even after the fall. Within the moral boundaries laid out by God, man is free, without fear of sinning, to do what he wants. That's the nutshell version. Maybe others familiar with Friessen's book can provide better clarity.

You did not interact at all with the meaning of sola scriptura. If those definitions are accurate, then this whole discussion moves outside the parameters of sola scriptura and undermines (contradicts) the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture.

Youngblood offers these key principles for biblical decision-making and guidance:

(1) We do not need to know God’s sovereign will and how He is providentially bringing it about before we make a decision (Deut. 29:29).

(2) The Holy Spirit’s role is to convict, teach and conform us—all through the vehicle of the Word of God (John 16:8; 17:17).

(3) God only guides or leads His people today:
       (a) By providence (which we know after the fact)—Prov. 16:9; 21:1
       (b) By Scripture (which we can know before we act)—Ps. 73:24; 119:9-11; Prov. 3:1-8.

(4) God is a gracious God who has provided everything we need in order to do what He wants us to do (2 Peter 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:15-16).

(5) God holds us fully responsible to search out and follow His moral will (God’s written Word) in all of life (2 Tim. 2:15).

(6) If we make a decision based on biblical commands and principles alone, we can fully trust that we are pleasing God in our decision, and fully trust that He will providentially (by circumstances outside of our control) change our choice if it is not within His sovereign will (Ps. 119:30; Prov. 16:9).

(7) To rightly interpret and apply the Word of God we must use a prayerful, literal, historical, contextual, and grammatical method of studying it (2 Tim. 2:15; 2 Peter 1:20).

(8) No one is ever outside of God’s sovereign plan (Lam. 3:37-38; Rom. 8:28-29; Eph. 1:11).

(9) Every believer needs pastoral oversight and the body of Christ to help him stay true to God’s Word (Prov. 18:1-2; Heb. 13:17).

— from Kirk Youngblood, Free to Be Wise: A Guide to Biblical Decision Making

God has given us His Word to guide us, filled with commands, prohibitions, exhortations, principles, etc.

We are responsible to study the Word and apply it to every aspect of our lives.

 

The illumination of the Spirit in our hearts and mind helps us to both understand and apply the Word. (The Spirit's guidance is always through the Bible).

God has given us the responsibility and freedom to choose within the parameters of scripturally informed wisdom to make a decision.

 

Therefore, when faced with a specific decision, we are to gather information about the options, examine them in light of Scripture, pray to God for wisdom, seek counsel from godly men/women, etc. and make a decision.

And then, trust God to providentially guide our steps through His sovereignty.

 

OK, my basis for canonical/non-canonical communication from God:

The revelation of creation is also binding--romans 1.

There were lots of prophesies happening, in Corinth, for example, and they are not "canon-status" communications from God, but that there were prophecies from God is not questioned in the Bible. I think God revealed himself before abraham, too, (king/priest of Salem), but we don't know what it was.

here's a site that talks about what sola Scriptura does not mean, and I checked their belief statement, and they seem like a sound source, and I would like to talk about this particular point:

Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Scriptures are an exhaustive source for us to know how to live our lives each day.

Think about how many things the Bible does not tell us. It does not tell us any particulars about where to work, whom to marry, what to eat, how often to shower, how many elders to have, or how, exactly, to conduct a Sunday morning service. It gives us general principles and then extends lots of freedom for the wisdom in each of us to work out the details.

The Scriptures equip us spiritually for every spiritual service (2 Tim. 3:17). There is no knowledge deposit or missing database which contains essential information about how to have a right relationship with God. In this, Scripture is completely sufficient for every spiritual task.

In the end, the doctrine of sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the final and only infallible source of divine revelation and is, therefore, the ultimate guide for the conscience of the Christian.

So, if God, through the Spirit, moves a man to witness using architecture it does not seem to me to be under the source of "divine revelation," by that I mean canon-level communication from God  I'm not sure why it is to you.

Like fundraising. i do not feel myself free to do whatever I want (as long as it's not anti-scripture, like committing robbery). In what particular way God wishes to lead me in this endeavor--am I sinning by asking Him to lead me in accordance to His particular will for my life? Were Taylor and Muller and others sinning by asking God to move in particular on the lives of others in specific, not-defined-in-Scripture ways to move people to give to them and what exact amount?

Am I free to marry whomever I please as long as he is just a Christian? can God not give me the conviction that I am not to marry someone who is not a missionary? Can He do that or not? You are saying not.

I think your view has a lot of holes, too.

What about matters of conscience, where a person has to look at his range of personally-faith-level-acceptable options and ask God what to do? Is the answer entirely human in origin? I think you would be hard-pressed to follow that out to its conclusions. 

When we pray, what is happening? Are any motions or leadings or insights entirely human in origin?

I think we have to come to acceptable lines of reasoning here. I really disagree with what the charismatics and others have done to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. But I don't see that totally writing off the possibility of his ministry into our lives alongside the Bible is entirely forbidden.

Sorry. Diving back in.

Am I free to marry whomever I please as long as he is just a Christian? can God not give me the conviction that I am not to marry someone who is not a missionary? Can He do that or not? You are saying not.

If such a communique were given by God, to disobey would be sin, would it not? Do you go that far?

It would seem to me, then, that in the marriage scenario, or the fundraising one you mention, you are getting matters of personal commandments, that to disobey=sin. How is that not revelation? God is giving new instructions beyond the parameters of His Word, if you follow your position to its logical end.

Again, if you follow the inclinations, and see God's blessing, there is no problem at all in thanking God for His supply and direction through the ordering of natural events. God can use a sense of determination in regards to a marriage partner, sure- and in one sense, you could say that God "gives" that impulse if it is within the parameters of Scripture (such as the partner with a common ministry goal). At the same time, my wife as a girl prayed for a husband who would be a missionary, and together they would farm and run an orphanage, among other things. Did she disobey God's direction when she accepted my proposal? How would you even begin to counsel someone who approached you with that kind of a question?

Well, I know how I would. I would point someone struggling there to determine if the potential husband was a believer, does he demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit, does he care for others, is he a good steward...? Do you share compatible goals- can you follow where he leads? Can you give yourself to him in the way God wants a wife to? I mean, there might be a few more specific considerations, but nowhere would I see any sound Scriptural reason to say to someone- "Ah! Be careful! God did give you that impression when you were 12..."

Anne,

From your definition of sola scriptura:

"In the end, the doctrine of sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the final and only infallible source of divine revelation and is, therefore, the ultimate guide for the conscience of the Christian."

There's that pesky "only" again.

I also think the marriage thing is a little weird, but I've heard it before, more than once. And I am not the one to say, "God, you had no part in this" in every case.

And I have heard a lot of weird things, and things where I would definitely say, um, that really doesn't line up with Scripture--although not on salvation-level issues.

I would still be interested to know if you think Muller, Taylor and others were sinning by the way they expected the Spirit to move very specifically in the hearts of people concerning giving. It seems that you think God does not do this in a specific way.

So, I will just say, I disagree with you. I think that there can be times when the Holy Spirit specifically leads us (even just helping us now what Bible option is for us) or gives us wisdom on a topic. And I don't think it compromises the doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture for life and godliness.  I think this really has to do with the cessationist teachings also in some way.

MacArthur has a book about sola scriptura, and summarizes it like this:

The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible with enough clarity that the ordinary believer can find them there and understand. p.2

If you look at the meat example in corinthians, did the knowledge that these gods didn't exist immediately free everyone's conscience so they all started eating meat? It doesn't seem so. To some it was still sin, even though Scripture said otherwise. So is the Word insufficient? Sure, it's not. But the Spirit works in different ways and paces with people. So there is some kind of even subjective type, God-controlled Spirit-led work going on in people.

anyway, i'm not sure where else to go now

on Kindle, I'll let you know what I think

decision-making is sort of a zebra of anther stripe, but somewhat related, and I'm sure it has lot of relevant stuff.

Will be back.

I am reading in order, so I haven't read ch 15, which he references at the end, but is this not like something I have been saying? (Kindle has his latest edition, so it might not be in the first edition.)

Question: In this chapter you state that the moral will of God is fully revealed in the Bible. But wouldn’t special revelation expand the content of God’s moral will beyond what is contained in the Bible?

Yes, it would. And that did happen during the biblical era. For example, when the Spirit directed the church at Antioch to send out Barnabas and Saul as missionaries (Acts 13: 1– 2), that instruction represented an addition to the great commission. And it became God’s moral will for them— they were obliged to obey. Later, the “Macedonian vision” (Acts 16: 9– 10) did the same thing for Paul. His travel options were reduced by special guidance that expanded God’s moral will for him. So any divine guidance to an individual by means of supernatural revelation is God’s moral will for that person.

Is special revelation being given today? Some Bible scholars rule out that possibility. They maintain that with the closing of the canon of Scripture, God’s revelation has ceased until the second coming of Christ. While I understand the arguments for that position, I don’t see a conclusive case in the Bible itself. It seems preferable to leave open the possibility of divine revelation and subject specific claims to biblical tests— including supernatural means of communication and harmony with existing Scripture. Accordingly, in the first edition of this book, I included another category of God’s will— special guidance: “In unique cases God may supernaturally guide believers by divine voice, angel, dream, or miracle according to special revelation.”

On the other hand, while special guidance is possible, it is not promised nor do most believers have reason to expect it. When the Bible instructs us with principles for decision making (which is what this book is about), it directs us along other lines as explained in this chapter and the ones that follow. The theoretical possibility of special guidance concerns us less than the concrete, practical guidance already supplied. So when Peter writes that “[ God’s] divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness” (2 Peter 1: 3, NIV, italics added), I take that to include the moral will of God fully revealed in the Bible.

 

A more extended discussion of special revelation is presented in chapter 15, “Special Guidance and Decision Making.”

Friesen, Garry; Maxson, J. Robin (2009-10-05). Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View (Kindle Locations 2239-2258). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

I just finished through ch 11, and that will probably be all for today.

My initial thoughts, though I want to finish the book:

In my personal experience, he is creating too much of a gap between doing things traditional way vs. wisdom way. like, there's no in-between? I have experienced that some decisions, even major ones, didn't require a lot of thought or expenditure, maybe just my dad sitting down and outlining the options then stating what he thought best, for one example. (and Anne then stayed to get her masters degree.) Other decisions required a lot from me personally. So just painting it as if every decision in the traditional view is not wisdom-oriented and somehow requires vast amounts of agony somewhat false, although sure, there may be people who go to that extent.

I think his view also denies the possibility that some issues are more important for some people than others, and this is probably planned by God for personal reasons. Like other missionaries have no issues with asking for money, but I do. On the other hand, I have no theological  issues with practicing family planning, though other Christians consider this a major issue. So, this view sort of denies that God can purposefully create these differences in our faiths for a reason. (or maybe I just haven't read that part yet?)

Also, his chapters on wisdom, esp ch 11--well, it's a lot of the same elements as what he calls the "traditional" way of knowing God's will. At the end, he clarifies that the key difference is just that:

The wisdom view believes that in the area of freedom, wisdom is determinative— we must be wise. We must be able to defend decisions by wisdom when no moral command determines the decision. The traditional view will elevate inward impressions over wisdom. The logic is simple. If the impression comes from the Spirit, it must have precedence over any wisdom discerned by man. Proponents will even emphasize how some inward directives from God contradict human wisdom. (If inward impressions equaled revelation, that logic would hold. But they don’t; so it doesn’t.) The wisdom view argues that impressions do not have God’s authority, but the command to be wise does.

Friesen, Garry; Maxson, J. Robin (2009-10-05). Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View (Kindle Locations 3116-3121). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

. . . . Is that really clear? And I need to still read what he considers revelation in ch 15.

If you use the wisdom way, you can also feel a lack of peace? This sounds a little familiar. About lack of peace, he says:

Question: What if I make a decision that I believe to be wise, but then feel no peace afterwards?

How you respond to that circumstance will depend on the reason for the lack of peace. If you made the decision hastily, you may need to rethink or modify it. On the other hand, the lack of peace may be an indication that you don’t really believe that the way of wisdom is biblically correct. Or you may have become intellectually convinced that the way of wisdom is valid, but you haven’t had time to retrain your conscience. In either of these events, making a decision based on wisdom (rather than the “leading of the Lord into His individual will”) would not be “from faith” (Romans 14: 23), and that would produce inner conflict. 7 Getting used to a new paradigm for decision making can take some time. If a review of one’s theology and the factors involved in the decision expose no violation of God’s moral will or of wisdom, it would seem appropriate to follow through on the decision. Christians are to take their feelings into account; but in the end, we are not to be governed by them.

Friesen, Garry; Maxson, J. Robin (2009-10-05). Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View (Kindle Locations 3101-3110). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Also, the wisdom examples of the O&NT apply to us, but the being Spirit-led ones don't?  

Anyway, there are things I like about the book. i should say, it gives a perspective that can be valid--my first question on many good issues is just 'what do you want to do?" and my mom used to say to "just flip a coin" ... not saying that to promote that as law or anything, ha ha, but just that maybe no one has final grip on how to help others know God's will.

I haven't forgotten. I ordered a new edition which should be here in the next few days. I want to compare the two side by side to see what changes have been made. I'll be back when I have had a chance to do that. I will say, i obviously don't remember that part of the discussion in the book. I was struggling with the dot idea 15+ years ago when I read the book initial, and came away convinced of the big idea of the book. I will read what he says carefully, but I have not seen anything yet that convinces me to change my mind on anything I have said so far. I am glad the book has been beneficial to you; hopefully, it becomes a resource you can return to over the years.