Do you hear "still small voices"?

Woohoo, interesting discussion, bound to ruffle a few feathers among the psychically (I didn’t say schizophrenically) inclined.

Anyways, just commenting on the title of the topic, it would seem in the context that the “still small voice” in 1 Kings 19 refers ultimately not to any inner voice or impression (as hath been said of [recent] old) but the faithful remnant of 7,000 Yahweh worshippers in Israel. Through a double 4-series pairing multimedia phenomena (earthquake, fire, tornado, and a “still small voice” puff of air) with prophetic propositions (commands to go anoint 3 people and revelation of a hitherto unknown remnant), the Lord responds to Elijah’s lament that put himself, as sole patriot, at the centre of things with a backhanded rebuke.

So perhaps rather than “hearing” the still small voice, we should endeavour to be found as and among that oft-overlooked still small voice.

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.

what do you think about questions of conscience, for example?? that God will not show you what He wants you in particular to do?

Is that God somehow communicating through the Holy Spirit to His child? And it is not saying that the Bible is not sufficient at all.

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.

can and sometimes does communicate to us on a private level. and yes, this is a very “dangerous” thing to say, but i think it really doesn’t mean that the Bible is insufficient.

for example, God *convicted* me very clearly that I needed to forgive someone. I mean, it was not audible, but it was very clearly stated, like You need to forgive XX.

Also, God *convicted* me in different way that I needed to give money to a refugee. And I really felt that if I did not do it, I would be harming the work of the Holy Spirit in me.

I also started midwifery school, but I didn’t have any *conviction* that is was God’s imperative will for my life at that time… .

What I am saying is that I think God has, at times, somehow clearly communicated things to me that are not black and white written in the Bible. I don’t think these things should be sought or even spoken about, but I think they do happen. And saying that God will never do this, I feel men are putting muzzles on God in ways they are not allowed to do.

And yes, I say this knowing that this issue can be very abused, but I dont think that means it’s off limits for God to do.

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.

around minute 34, the man tells a story about how the Spirit specifically led him to talk about a particular subject in witnessing to a mormon—just like what i am describing.

and well shew for me, they say as long as we dont call it revelation or a miracle or a prophecy, it’s OK and what God does. They call it a “remarkable providence.”

;)

[Anne Sokol]

around minute 34, the man tells a story about how the Spirit specifically led him to talk about a particular subject in witnessing to a mormon—just like what i am describing.

and well shew for me, they say as long as we dont call it revelation or a miracle or a prophecy, it’s OK and what God does. They call it a “remarkable providence.”

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?

i personally have had to learn to discern if what I am feeling/thinking/hearing is the Spirit or not.

I have had to do this a lot in regards to my conscience especially. I think with time and experinece and deep saturation in the word of God, a person learns the level of seriousness or source of these types of communication.

[Anne Sokol]

i personally have had to learn to discern if what I am feeling/thinking/hearing is the Spirit or not.

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.

I have had to do this a lot in regards to my conscience especially. I think with time and experinece and deep saturation in the word of God, a person learns the level of seriousness or source of these types of communication.

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.”

[Anne Sokol] i personally have had to learn to discern if what I am feeling/thinking/hearing is the Spirit or not.

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

Anne,

Be careful not to read into the conversation what you want to hear. First, I have read all three of these men on this topic, so I am familiar to one degree or another with where they come down on it. My understanding from all three is that they do not accept the notion that God communicates with men apart from scripture. This should be evident from the initial exchange they have about the sufficiency of scripture.

In the section you highlight, they speak of providence, and specifically deny it is a miraculous event they are speaking about. By definition, providence indicates God’s working within the natural laws of the universe, whereas, a miracle is God’s temporary suspension of the natural laws and working outside of them. This providence they speak of is simply God orchestrating events as the Sovereign of the universe to accomplish His purposes. As Johnson says, God is providentially at work in all things at all times. It is decidedly not a reference to some special communication from God according to the discussion. That’s why they all agreed that this is not something you can seek out from God, nor is it something you can determine before hand is even from God, nor can you even determine definitively afterwards that is was providence at work.

I don’t have time to watch the entire 90 minutes of the video, but I watched the entire section you marked and significant sections throughout. I did not see anything in the discussion other than various aspects of exactly what I said in the earlier post (#52480).

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.

[Anne Sokol]

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.

Speaking hypothetically and not trying to be insensitive to the situation at all, had the child not been discovered till too late and the town repented at the funeral, would that have been Providence?

Basically, which part of the lives of Romans 8:28 God lovers is not providential?

It is providence when our gut feel turns out right; and it is providence when it turns out wrong, I say. Same God, same providence, same promise. So we’re to rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything.

But to expect “just that little bit more” of divine guidance … I dunno. Seems to separate Christians into the haves and have-nots of some extrabiblical treacle.