"I'd like to suggest that this 'soft' non-cessationist sentiment is something that needs to be rejected as emphatically as the full-blown, prophetic, tongues-speaking variety."

[Larry]

communicating to us personally in a non-verbally authoritative way.

What is this? What would it look like? How would you know what it authoritatively communicates?

I missed your comment in the timing of my last post.

Here’s my stab at non-verbal communication.

I have earnestly sought God in His word and prayer in my life many times. Sometimes unusual emotional responses have welled up in me. My heart has been softened. I have been convicted of sin. I have been assured of God’s love for me and of my salvation. I have had God’s word come alive in a fresh and glorious way instilling love for Him and a greater insight into its meaning, and a greater love for others in me. All of this was without a direct verbal element. I knew God “spoke” to me. I met God. But I didn’t get a verbal communication from Him.

The same is true of the experience of God’s people down through the centuries. Read the stories of the revivals. Read the words of evangelists and others. Where does this “God spoke to me” language come from? We can chalk all of it up to a boat full of hogwash and pronounce ourselves the kings of Scriptural exegesis if we want, but I think we should be slow in doing that. (Sorry, that was a bit over the top, but it communicates what I’m thinking….)

One last point. The first point professor Snoeberger made included a very glaring “seems”. So on the basis of “it seems that in this passage….”, we turn around and write off Wallace’s point of view dogmatically. That wasn’t the only “seems” either. In this whole cessationist debate, there’s an awful lot of “seems” and a bunch of human logical conclusions (of the inevitable end of the other view) thrown in. A bit too much for us to be so dogmatic over it, in my opinion.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[mounty] I’m not so sure you can just take God out of the equation when it comes to people feeling a “leading” or “prompting” or what have you. At the end of the day, apart from those, how does one make a choice, confident he is in the will of God? I hate to parrot the argument, but if you’re going to say that the only way God speaks to the individual Christian is in the pages of Scripture, doesn’t it follow that you need chapter and verse for, say, who you’re going to marry, where you’re going to go to school, what job you’ll take, which church you’ll join, etc? … I guess I don’t understand how you can disallow a personal communicative relationship with the Holy Spirit and claim to make day-to-day decisions and still be within God’s will, unless God has no particular will about practical decisions like marriage, education, and church membership.

No because those are your decisions for you to make in light of the principles and boundaries set in Scripture for which you are free to make in such contexts. There is a very erring concept and teaching popularized by bizarre personalities in fundamentalism and Evangelicalism at large about the “leading of the Holy Spirit” and its definition. It is not some voice in your head telling you anything, that isn’t presented in Scripture. I do wish I had time for a more thorough essay on the matter but the damage done by this singular erring view is substantial in many quarters.

I do agree with you that you have to filter all options in a decision through the principles and boundaries established in Scripture, and if I read you correctly we would agree that at some point you run out of checklist items and have to make a decision based on extra-Biblical criteria. But I don’t believe that God is out of the process at that point and that it’s just up to the individual to “pick one.” Even if you go the Psalm 37:4 route and take that to mean that the desires of your heart were placed in your heart by the Holy Spirit with a far more perfect knowledge of the Scriptures than we will ever have, it’s still the Holy Spirit informing the heart of something more specific than general principles found in Scripture.

[Larry]

First, please note that the quote from Dr. Wallace is about “communications”, but Mark Snoeberger addresses Wallace’s ideas using the word “revelation”.

So how would you define the difference here for the point of your distinction?

If you are intending to point out that all revelation is communication, you are of course correct.

The point I hoped to make was that he substituted a strong word with theological connotations suggesting something on par with Scripture for a word that suggested somewhat less. I do not believe the substitution was intended to mislead, but rather that it says something about how Snoeberger read Dan Wallace’s statements.

“Revelation” in the Christian and conservative theological sense is used most commonly of “Special Revelation”, which has been classically understood as verbal and propositional in content and a communication via supernatural agency.
“Communication” is used much more broadly, and includes non-verbal communications that produce subjective impressions that are non-verifiable.
By elevating Dan Wallace’s word from “communication” to “revelation”, Snoeberger strengthens the urgency of his case, but only by making Wallace’s statement sound more like what he wants to warn us against.

[Mike Durning]

[MShep2] If we follow this paradigm I do not see any place for the Holy Spirit. If there is no relationship with God except through His Word, then apparently the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit is limited to what? However, if His presence in our lives is real and practical, there must be some room for the subjective. To equate this with full blown “signs and wonders” may be the “safest” way to go, but does this fit with what the Bible says about the ministry of the Holy Spirit in our lives? I don’t think so.

Good point, MShep2!, but I wanted to point out that the first two verses you use…

[MShep2] John 14:26 “ ‘But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.’”

John 16:13-14 “ ‘However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.”

…may in fact be directed specifically to the Apostles with their future writing of Scripture and guiding of the church in view.

The last verse you use, though, is sufficient to call into serious question what Mark Snoeberger has said.

Right, I do agree with you on that. There are a number of statements or promises of Jesus in the Gospels that cannot be adequately understood unless their primary (or only) application is to those Disciples who are there in front of Him.

I fear with this type of “distanciation” (I like that word!) we come to the logical conclusion that the person who studies the longest and understands the most is the one who will make the best decisions and be the most godly, thus leaving God out of the equation entirely, except in a very distance sense (i.e. He gave us the Word, but then left us to make the best of it on our own). If this were true, the only relationship we would have would be with a book, rather than with the Living God. This also could lead to spiritual pride and elitism since only the “best” - the most intelligent and most trained - can really know God’s will.

However, this is not what the Scriptures say:

Philippians 2:13 “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”

but this topic is interesting to me. and i’m learning to be more honest as i get older.

i remember as a teen that God “spoke” to me. I didn’t really think of it that way, though, like i didn’t know about charasmatics and visions and whatnot. usually it was in the quiet, that is how i was saved, i heard a distinct voice in my head saying “anne you need to be saved” i remember it to this day. and other times it was a thought about something or a prompting to forgive.

but it was just private, you know? never some glorified thing. i never told anyone about it, nor did i consider it the same way of God talking through the Bible.

And i was just thinking about you all and this topic as i’ve been wading through Dallas Willard’s The Divine Conspiracy. I’ll put in some quotes, but i wish the whole thing could be read:

He’s talking about how the ‘Kingdom of God’ Jesus was proclaiming was that God is here, meaning in the atmosphere surrounding us, just by us; “When Paul on Mars Hill told his Greek inquisitors that in God we “live and move and exist,” he was expressing in the most literal way possible the fact learned from the experience of God’s covenant people, the Jews… .

“The same is true when Jesus chided Nicodemus … for not understanding that birth ‘from above’—the receiving of a superhuman kind of life, from the God who is literally with us in surrounding space. To be born ‘from above,’ in NT landuage, means to be interactively joined with a dynamic, unseen system of divine reality in the midst of which all of humanity moves about—whether it knows it or not. And that, of course, is ‘The Kingdom Among Us.’ “

Willard cites OT examples of God talking to Hagar, Abraham, and Moses as just few examples. “These and many other statements from God’s chosen people make clear their understadning that God is actually here.”

… Gives examples from NT of Jesus and Peter’s vision in Acts.

“Experiences of God in space around us are by no means restricted to the biblical record. They leave many pepole skeptical or uncomfortable, but they continue to occur up to the present day… .” He sites examples. “God does show himself from time to time in the space of those who seek him, and over time he leaves among his people visible reminders of his constant though invisible presence… . The reason the Judeo-Christian witness regards surrounding space as full of God is that that is where it was from time to time expeirenced him. That is where he has manifested himself… . “

quotes from pp. 68-70

i know two ladies (i can give you names, phone numbers, e-mail) who also mentioned … ? non-cessationist activity? … in their lives—one when she was in the hospital, and the other when her child almost drowned.

it’s an interesting topic, that is for sure. we aren’t God’s gatekeepers—He can communicate how He wants; on the other hand, people shouldn’t be groping for this kind of communication either.

I am with Anne. I am not technically a cessationalist. I believe there is no Scripture, taken in context, that clearly (or even unclearly) teaches cessationalism. I know the usual arguments (IMO, “strained interpretations”) from I Cor. 13, etc.

One thing I loved about MacArthur’s book, “The Charismatics,” is that he did not mangle verses to make his points (and I halfway agree with them).

You probably know that I am a big fan of “Sola Scriptura.” In my article, I mentioned that there are many authorities besides Scripture, yet the Scriptures are the only INFALLIBLE and final authority. Prophecies in the early church (and, in theory, now) were not considered infallible revelation, just possible revelation (unless they came through an apostle).

Wayne Grudem and D.A. Carson have demonstrated that — in the OT — authority was vested in the prophets. The prophets were either completely true in their prophesying or complete fakes. In the NT, authority was vested in the Apostles. NT prophecy differed from that of Isaiah, etc., which is why every PARTICULAR prophecy was to be evaluated in the NT. Each prophecy stands on its own merit.

There are some of us who are practical cessationalists (at least, in our geographic area) simply because what is passed off as “tongues” or “interpretation” does not match what we see in the NT. We believe the evidence points to a psychological cause. And the track record for prophecy seems shaky, too (although most prophecies do not involve the future, most of those that do seem to be false). But folks like myself are open to instances of prophecy (taken with a grain of salt and a wait and see attitude) and are open to God leading in a variety of ways. But “those ways” are not infallible or absolutely certain or authoritative, as is the Word of God. God might “lead” you to tell me to sell everything I have to retreat to a cabin in Upper Michigan (the UP sounds good!), but I am NOT disobeying God if I choose not to go. I might consider it, and ask for more guidance, perhaps.

I think many more people in the “cessationist” fundamental camp have had visions or unique leadings, but are forced underground.

I have found many people cannot understand the difference between authority that may be fallible and infallible authority, the difference between possible revelation and definite revelation, the difference between revelation and Scripture.

My parents are missionaries in Africa, and I just want to jump in and say don’t forget a missions context with this discussion. I’m with Anne and Ed on this one. Growing up it seemed no one in my church had a problem with fantastic claims of missionaries and the work of the Spirit. But once you start to say that stuff could or should happen here, then everything changed. It seems Baptists particularly are scared of anything sounding remotely Charismatic. But truth be told, in most Baptist churches, an awful lot of charismatic activities are mentioned in the name of missions and nobody bats an eye.

Here’s my stab at non-verbal communication.

Though I haven’t quoted all you said (for space reasons), I think Mark makes some very good points about the implications and I wonder if you are not passing over those perhaps a bit lightly. But even at that, you said “non-verbally authoritative,” and that is my concern. How can it be authoritative? I really struggle with that. Everything you said has been said by people who did clearly wrong things. But they used the exact same type of emotional language that you use to defend it. So while I might grant the usefulness of some such experience, I am uncomfortable granting authority to it.

One last point. The first point professor Snoeberger made included a very glaring “seems”. So on the basis of “it seems that in this passage….”,

Might that be a makr of caution rather than a dogmatic interpretation?

The point I hoped to make was that he substituted a strong word with theological connotations suggesting something on par with Scripture for a word that suggested somewhat less.

But can God communicate apart from revelation? If so, how? What do we call that theologically?

“Communication” is used much more broadly, and includes non-verbal communications that produce subjective impressions that are non-verifiable.

Perhaps (or perhaps not … I am not granting the point aside from argument), but Bob referenced “authoritative” and “non-verbal.” You say “subjective impressions that are non-verifiable, and I would agree with that. But shouldn’t we realize that Satan can imitate these as well??

By elevating Dan Wallace’s word from “communication” to “revelation”, Snoeberger strengthens the urgency of his case, but only by making Wallace’s statement sound more like what he wants to warn us against.

But given Marks’ quote (as I recall it), Wallace was specifically saying that “revelation of Scripture” was not enough for him in that particular time. He needed more from God. And I think that is troubling. If the point is that the “more” is mediated through Scripture, then that is one thing … that the Spirit may take Scripture and apply it and bring it to life in a particularly appropriate way for a time in our lives. But again, it seems like some caution is needed here.

We fundamentalists are prone to use phrases like “The Lord led me” but have no real basis for attributing the leading to the Lord. We say, ‘I have peace” or “I don’t have peace” but what does that mean? It becomes very slippery. It can be a sign of fear, or a sign of arrogance.

If Scripture is sufficient to equip us for every good work, what is the need for these subjective and unverifiable impressions?

[Larry]

The point I hoped to make was that he substituted a strong word with theological connotations suggesting something on par with Scripture for a word that suggested somewhat less.

But can God communicate apart from revelation? If so, how? What do we call that theologically?

“Communication” is used much more broadly, and includes non-verbal communications that produce subjective impressions that are non-verifiable.

Perhaps (or perhaps not … I am not granting the point aside from argument), but Bob referenced “authoritative” and “non-verbal.” You say “subjective impressions that are non-verifiable, and I would agree with that. But shouldn’t we realize that Satan can imitate these as well??

By elevating Dan Wallace’s word from “communication” to “revelation”, Snoeberger strengthens the urgency of his case, but only by making Wallace’s statement sound more like what he wants to warn us against.

But given Marks’ quote (as I recall it), Wallace was specifically saying that “revelation of Scripture” was not enough for him in that particular time. He needed more from God. And I think that is troubling. If the point is that the “more” is mediated through Scripture, then that is one thing … that the Spirit may take Scripture and apply it and bring it to life in a particularly appropriate way for a time in our lives. But again, it seems like some caution is needed here.

We fundamentalists are prone to use phrases like “The Lord led me” but have no real basis for attributing the leading to the Lord. We say, ‘I have peace” or “I don’t have peace” but what does that mean? It becomes very slippery. It can be a sign of fear, or a sign of arrogance.

If Scripture is sufficient to equip us for every good work, what is the need for these subjective and unverifiable impressions?

I think saying “the Lord led me” is, 9 out of 10 times, a cop-out for taking responsibility for our choices. But let’s talk about that 1 out of 10 times, particularly that rare instances where a person who does not typically say, “the Lord led me” really feels that way.

The Scriptures are not complete in themselves. They, rather, are a complete revelation and a blueprint for the Christian and the church. So if my brother is hungry, I do not throw a Bible at him, I give him food, as the Bible says. If it comes time to nominate an elder, I don’t suggest we nominate a Bible to do the job. No, we take the verses from I Tim. 3 and try to put them to work.

The verses in Scripture about being “led by the Spirit” are real, and they mean something. The examples of people being led in the Scripture indicate something more than just determining what to do by studying a text. So if all believers are to be led by the Spirit, and if being led by the Spirit usually means a Psalm 1 kind of thing (studying and applying the Word), but if it sometimes means a more specific leading (as the Spirit telling Paul where to go), then I don’t think we should eliminate the possibility that being “led by the Spirit” can involve more than understanding the Word.

If “being led by the Spirit” simply meant “read and study the Scriptures,” I would expect to see “read and study the Word.” But if being “led by the Spirit” carried with it some of the seemingly subjective, specific direction we see in Scripture, then I would expect the phrase “led by the Spirit,” which is what we see. That’s how I understand it.

[Larry] But even at that, you said “non-verbally authoritative,” and that is my concern. How can it be authoritative? I really struggle with that.

[Larry]

“Communication” is used much more broadly, and includes non-verbal communications that produce subjective impressions that are non-verifiable.

Perhaps (or perhaps not … I am not granting the point aside from argument), but Bob referenced “authoritative” and “non-verbal.” You say “subjective impressions that are non-verifiable, and I would agree with that. But shouldn’t we realize that Satan can imitate these as well??

Just want to clarify one small point here. My phrase “non-verbally authoritative” is not quite punctuated properly. It should really read “non verbally-authoritative”. I’m still not sure that covers it I’m trying to say non-verbal communication, which is not authoritative! (the limits of a keyboard….) So I’m saying non-verbal communication is not on par with authoritative revelation (i.e. Scripture). As others have said we are called to judge prophecies and in context to cling to the ones that are good and reject those that aren’t. We are left with a lot of rules and guidelines for this kind of phenomenon. The problem is we are all finite humans and can wrongly interpret God’s working in our lives. This makes God’s one-time inscripturation work so essential and important.

As for Scripture being sufficient to equip us for every good work, doesn’t the passage says Scripture is given with that end. It doesn’t follow that nothing else is needed for that end, but that Scripture is one of the elements needed for that end.