Featured Charles Stanley & Mysticism

Nobody is against emotions, DHK.

I am against being guided by emotions.

Jeremiah loved the Word of God. It burned in him. There was every reason that it should. It was the word of GOD- the Maker and Sustainer of the vast universe. In the Word of God is the blueprint to human happiness and a Jewish Utopia. Imagine if you lived in a communist land. Would you not be driven to speak out for the cause of freedom? Sure. Why? Because you know the wonders of it. It might cost you, but you will find it difficult to hold your peace. Jeremiah was not guided by emotions- he was emotional about the facts that guided him.

There is a very big difference between the two.

 

Good! In my studies I have seen eight different patterns for the call in Scripture, and as you say yours is like the Jeremiah call, a fierce urgency. Mine was similar to the Ezekiel call. There was an invitation, and without my knowing how it happened I was up front saying God had called me to preach. I had no emotions of joy, thrill, anything. There was just the complete knowledge that this is what God called me to do.

My call to be a missionary was like the Elisha call. First of all, I heard a missionary speak about Japan, and the Holy Spirit invited me (without words) to be a missionary to Japan by a certain knowledge of that being His will. I had no emotions that I remember. I did resist the call at first, but yielded to God.

Now, note that I believe such calls are only directional, meaning that this is the direction God wants the believer to take when he is called. We cannot know the future and are directed in the Word to never say, "To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain." Instead we are to wait on God day by day (James 4:13-16).

 

Defining revelation is very important for this discussion. You say that when people are individually guided by God it is a form of revelation. Yet you give no definition of revelation by which that can be true.

You have not yet refuted the two definitions of revelation I have given, both of which allow for the Holy Spirit to individually guide believers. You say "Special is direct revelation from God." But you are defining a term, "special revelation," by using that same term, "revelation." That's not allowed in lexical semantics.

The call you have just described is similar to the call of Moses in the Bible. Why is it you can relate your call to the Biblical call of Jeremiah, but you criticize someone who relates their call to the Biblical call of Moses. How is that right?

 

Now I will answer your questions since you have answered mine.

Absolutely not. I have not said so, and have actually said the opposite.

Well of course it does not support an emotional guidance from God. I never said it did! What it supports is the very concept of guidance--what I call locational guidance in this case, where one should go or not go to for ministry.

The passage teaches us that God guided Paul and his team specifically, yet not necessarily with words or a miracle, neither of which are mentioned. By the way, I should have quoted the previous verse also: "Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia."

Note that you can guide or forbid someone without lexical units. Words or even gestures are not needed. It could be with a look, with a barrier, an impression (such as your call to preach) or something else.

You must admit that your call to preach was based on an impression from the Holy Spirit--not words, not revelation, simply the Holy Spirit's guidance.

Since you are finally interacting with me and asking questions instead of accusing me of positions I don't hold or telling me to "Be a man" (I need that silliness at age 61?), I'll now be more specific.

God guides by giving knowledge within the heart, certain and sure knowledge, about His will. This is not His specific will for the future, which James informed us we cannot know, but His will about the current direction our lives should take.

To quote George Mueller on the subject (I'll give his entire quote below), "I do not leave the result to feeling or simple impression. If so, I make myself liable to great delusions." (Answers to Prayer, p. 4).

Once again, I see a clear difference between individual guidance (whatever form it takes) and special revelation, which according to the two definitions I have given is knowledge about God Himself and His nature and His plan of redemption.

If you are asking me to criticize Ann for her way of telling how God guided her, I refuse to. I rejoice at everyone guided by God, even if they may mistake the exact mechanism of that guidance. I would much rather have people who are longing to do God's will think they had heard His voice than a dry, empty Christianity that never seeks God's will for one's life.

I'm going to do another post now giving George Mueller's method for determining God's will, which has had a good influence on me.

 

How To Ascertain the Will of God
George Mueller​

(1) I seek at the beginning to get my heart into such a state that it has no will of its own in regard to a given matter. Nine-tenths of the trouble with people generally is just here. Nine-tenths of the difficulties are overcome when our hearts are ready to do the Lord’s will, whatever it may be. When one is truly in this state, it is usually but a little way to the knowledge of what His will is.
(2) Having done this, I do not leave the result to feeling or simple impression. If so, I make myself liable to great delusions.
(3) I seek the Will of the Spirit of God through, or in connection with, the Word of God. The Spirit and the Word must be combined. If I look to the Spirit alone without the Word, I lay myself open to great delusions also. If the Holy Ghost guides us at all, He will do it according to the Scriptures and never contrary to them.
(4) Next I take into account providential circumstances. These often plainly indicate God’s Will in connection with His Word and Spirit.
(5) I ask God in prayer to reveal His Will to me aright.
(6) Thus, through prayer to God, the study of the Word, and reflection, I come to a deliberate judgment according to the best of my ability and knowledge, and if my mind is thus at peace, and continues so after two or three more petitions, I proceed accordingly. In trivial matters, and in transactions involving most important issues, I have found this method always effective.

(Answers to Prayer, p. 6)

 

It is not similar to the call of Moses in the Bible. Moses call was audible call and accompanied by visible real physical miracles. There was a voice that could have been recorded on a digital recorder had the technology existed back then.

They are not remotely similar.

 

"10 And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. 11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? 12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say" (Ex. 4:10-12).

 

Locational Guidance?

That is nothing more than kicking the can down the road. How does the Individual come to know or be guided to the appropriate location?

You seem to be advocating some kind of implantation of knowledge.

Knowledge is typically received through observation and meditation. But you seem to be arguing for some kind of divine importation of knowledge completely apart from Study, investigation, or meditation.

Again, I challenge you to show where this is in the Bible.

I contend that there is not a passage of scripture in the Bible that advocates being guided by some divine impartation of knowledge.

The only exception to that might be the word of knowledge which was one of the apostolic gifts that departed with tongues and all other types of extra biblical revelation.

 

Yes that is the passage that people usually refer to when they embark on their dramatic recollection of how God spoke to them in their minds.

What is your point?

 

So then when you were called to preach, you had no certain knowledge from the Holy Spirit that preaching is what you should be doing? That seems rather ambiguous. Do you have the Ambiguous Spirit within?

The Holy Spirit always deals in knowledge. He is even called the Spirit of knowledge. Isa 11:2--"And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD."

Spurgeon disagrees with you. "But the blessed Spirit does more than this, he will often direct the mind to the special subject of prayer (emphasis is Spurgeon's). He dwells within us as a counselor, and points out to us what it is we should seek at the hands of God. We do not know why it is so, but we sometimes find our minds carried as by a strong under current into a particular line of prayer for some one definite object. It is not merely that our judgment leads us in that direction, though usually the Spirit of God acts upon us by enlightening our judgment, but we often feel an unaccountable and irresistible desire rising again and again within our heart" (The Holy Spirit, by Spurgeon, in a sermon, "The Holy Spirit's Intercession").

By your definition (not Strong's), this is mysticism, is it not?

 

Yes and the spirit of wisdom is to make wise decisions based on wise investigation.

Wisdom is not waiting on some knowledge to pop in your head and say that it has been planted there by the Holy Ghost.

There is no biblical precedent for that at all.

There is absolutely no reason To conclude that the spirit wisdom is some knowledge that pops in your head that you attribute to the Holy Ghost.

 

You are confusing wisdom and knowledge. They are two separate subjects. I was talking about knowledge.

 

So there is a parallel between your straw man and Scripture, if not a perfect parallel. The defense rests.

 

No, there is no parallel between a voice bouncing around in the head and an ACTUAL voice coming out of a bush that burns and is not consumed.

 

Wisdom is the ability to make good choices.
Knowledge is what you need to employ wisdom.

Neither just pops into your head and is to be called the Holy Ghost.

There is no Bible for this thing you advocate.

 

I'll comment on this and your previous post when and if you tell me if you believe Spurgeon was a mystic or not based on the quote I gave.

 

Spurgeon probably was a mystic.

I love Spurgeon. Spurgeon was a genius. But Spurgeon was just like every other man that I have ever read after- imperfect.

 

The Holy spirit speaks to us thru the Bible, and that is His PRIMARY way to give us Hid wisdom, guidance, direction, leading etc, but NOT the only ways and means...

it is not just being still, and chanting som kind of Ommmmm, its being able to have widom and discernement to be able to see the lord at work in the midst of our trials, situations, settings, etc...

He is the same God that told us that there is safety in thewisom of a multitude of couselors, and that thegodly man very steps are orsdained and led by the lord...

Again, the Holy spirit ALWAYS does what is in full agreement with the written revealtion of the bible, but he cam also prompt chrsitians, giving inner witness and confirmation, grant wisdom to a couselor etc, he is active and the Third person of the truine God, and he is more than just the Bible, for it is not the totality of how and what he can send to us, but is the ONLY infallible one, the one that all of His promptings.quickening/urgings etc must line up and be in agreement with!

For example, say you or DHK were dealing with deciding if you should stay or go in your situation of living in the land God planted you in for now, and stay in the scriptures and pray, but the Lord also might justdirect you to seek out experience counsel to talk it over with them, and the Lord just might give that person wisdom in how to address the scriptures to your specific circumstances! More of confirming what you also senses how he was leading and guiding you to go!

 

"Probably a mystic"? You're waffling. By your standards he was absolutely a mystic. So according to you in post #66 he has: "...abandoned 'Sola Scriptura' for 'lod spoke to me in my heart and told to.. blah,blah,blah...' Furthermore, according to you in post #67 Spurgeon is "hurting the church."

But then you accepted Strong's definition. Here it is again. "Mysticism, however, as the term is commonly used, errs in holding to the attainment of religious knowledge by direct communication from God, and by passive absorption of the human activities into the divine. It either partially or wholly loses sight of (a) the outward organs of revelation, nature and the Scriptures; (b) the activity of the human powers in the reception of all religious knowledge; (c) the personality of man and, by consequence, the personality of God" (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 32).

By this definition, which you accepted, Spurgeon was not a mystic because he did not believe in extra-Biblical revelation.

Which brings up the point which you said had no bearing on the subject: what is revelation? Please give me your definition because it has everything to do with this subject. Either people are receiving revelation from God when they say the are guided by knowledge from the Holy Spirit, or they are not. It all depends on your definition.

I have given two definitions which you have yet to interact with, one from a theologian and the other from a Greek linguist. Here they are again.


"It is customary to speak of the decay of faith in divine revelation, and in the sense intended, such a weakening of faith musts be acknowledged. In a wider respect, there is probably no proposition on which the higher religious philosophy of the past hundred years is more agreed than this--that all religion originates in revelation. Man can know God only as, in some way, God reveals, or makes Himself known, to man" (Revelation and Inspiration, James Orr, p. 2, emphasis in the original).
apokaluysiV. The Anlex (Friberg) definition is "literally, as an action uncovering, disclosing, revealing.... (1) generally, of what God discloses or makes known revelation, disclosure, e.g. his plan of redemption (EP 3.3)."

Do you agree or disagree? What is your definition?

 

I'll agree with your definition of wisdom. Your definition of knowledge is very weak. You really need to work on it.

Knowledge involves the facts about any one thing. You seem to be saying this this in your post #105:

But now you are denying my position that the Holy Spirit gives knowledge about what an individual should do for God. Which is it? Is knowledge good or bad? Can the Holy Spirit give personal knowledge to someone or is He limited in that area?

Once again here is Acts 16:6-7, becaused I'm not at all satisfied with your response--"Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, 7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not."

By what mechanism did the Holy Spirit inform them (give them the facts) that they were not to go to these areas?