[BBC List] how people become false prophets TO THEMSELVES!

[Mike Abendroth]

The Problems with Personal Words From God 
How People Become False Prophets to Themselves 

by Bob DeWaay 

 

The Bible tells us that God has spoken, infallibly, finally, and
authoritatively through people He chose as mediators of His revelation. This
is summarized in Hebrews 1:1, 2: "God, after He spoke long ago to the
fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last
days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things,
through whom also He made the world." The Bible further tells us that
Christ's words to us were confirmed through eyewitnesses, the apostles.
Hebrews 2:2, 3 says, "For if the word spoken through angels proved
unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just
penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was
at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who
heard." The apostles were responsible for giving us the New Testament that
constitutes Christ's authoritative words to His church-the revealed truths
that remain binding on all.

In this article let us consider this question: Can a believer receive
special revelations that become God's personal, revealed will for his or her
life? Many believe that this special revelation is real-that God provides it
today. I contend that they have not thought through some of the concept's
problematic implications. In this article: I will defend the idea that God,
since the days of the apostles, has been ruling providentially rather than
through further specific revelation-whether through authoritative mediators
or directly to individuals.

 


Personal Words From God


In considering the issue of God speaking to us, it is helpful to focus on
knowledge and divide it into two large categories: that which can be known
through observation of the creation using our physical senses, and that
which can only be known through revelation. We are free to study and learn
what pertains to the first category by using the rational minds God has
given us. The second category can be further divided into two parts: that
which God has revealed and the secret things that belong only to God
(Deuteronomy 29:29). What God has revealed is contained in the Bible. That
leaves a second category-the secret things.

With these categories established, then let us consider how to categorize
"personal words from God." These words are not observable aspects of
creation (called general revelation in theology
<http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_edn1> 1) so do not fall into
that category. Therefore, according to our categorization, they are either
special revelation from God or unrevealed secret information (the occult).
Since nearly every Christian would consider occult knowledge illegitimate,
then those who claim special words from God must consider them to be special
revelation from God. 

Considering personal words from God (throughout the rest of this article
PWFG or PWsFG will designate "personal word(s) from God") to be special
revelation is exactly what makes them so problematic. In the last issue
<http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_edn2> 2 we showed from
Scripture that special revelation came through God's chosen mediators who
spoke authoritatively for God. The only exception was when God gave ordained
means of guidance such as the Urim and Thummim (Exodus 28:30). But even
those revealed God's will only because they were ordained by God as spoken
through an authoritative mediator (Moses). The truth of God came to the
people of God through His ordained mediators. If we take PWsFG to be special
revelation, then we are implying that every believer has become an
authoritative mediator of special revelation. Now that is really
problematic.

I have discussed this matter with people who strongly believe in divine
guidance that is specific for each individual. Their answer to my challenge
is that they are not claiming to mediate special revelation to the church;
they claim these words only as personal words for their own lives. But
consider this: Prophets who spoke for God had to be 100 percent accurate
(Deuteronomy 18:22). So if indeed PWsFG are specific revelations from God to
the individual, are these also inerrant? I have yet to speak with someone
who believes in PWsFG who claimed to know that the words were perfectly
accurate and infallibly from God. Neither do they claim that these words
have the same quality as inerrant Scripture. 

If PWsFG are a mixture-some of which may be from God and some of which are
in error-then some means of telling the difference is necessary. But what
possible means are there? Since these PWsFG are specific to individuals and
cover conceivably any aspect of life, they cannot be tested by Scripture.
For example, suppose I receive a PWFG that tells me to move to Iowa and
start a church. How am I to test it? Some would say to consult other
Christians. But this really doesn't change the problem, it just diffuses it.
If the idea of moving to Iowa and starting a church may or may not be a true
word from God and it cannot be tested by scripture, since the Bible does not
dictate where we must live, then what remains is a group of people who are
not infallible prophets of God trying to receive special revelation. The
group is no more inerrant and authoritative than the individual. 

In practice, people who believe in PWsFG tend to rely on pragmatic tests.
One often hears what I call "miracle guidance stories." Generally someone
claims to have received a PWFG, took action and the result was something
significant or extraordinary. Some leaders tell so many miracle guidance
stories that they convince followers of their special status with God like
Moses or Elijah. But when pressed to defend their practice, these leaders
usually admit that if a course of action that was taken based on a PWFG did
not appear to work out well, the result was no proof their personal "word"
was not from God. 

Let's look at a pragmatic test. A person gets a special revelation to take a
certain action. This revelation is not infallible, and the person does not
claim to be an infallible prophet. The person takes the prescribed action
and something great happens, or nothing special happens. In either case they
still do not know if the word was an inerrant, authoritative word from God
because good things happen sometimes to misguided people, and bad things
happen to well-guided people. Pragmatic tests for truth are not valid. 

Consider Jeremiah for example. He was an ordained prophet of God and spoke
authoritatively for God. But his true guidance brought him a lifetime of
continual misery and personal rejection. The whole nation failed to listen
to him and in the end he was hauled away to Egypt by people who refused to
listen to his true word from God. If judged pragmatically Jeremiah would be
deemed a failure. But his true words from God were inerrant and comprise a
book of the Bible. 

Miracle guidance stories, used to make certain people appear to have "heard
from God", are of no value. They are not the Biblical test for prophets and
cannot be because they are not specifically Christian. Psychics and New
Agers have their own genre of miracle guidance stories that enhance their
credibility. My friend Brian Flynn tells testimonies of how, before he was
saved out of the New Age, he gave some very accurate psychic readings that
created "miracle" guidance stories for people.
<http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_edn3> 3 The requirements in
Deuteronomy 18 and 13 are there to protect us from "words from 'God'" that
are not from God. These tests require perfect predictive accuracy and the
teaching of correct doctrine about the "God we have known."

The failure of pragmatic tests means that in the end, once someone has
received a PWFG, whether something favorable or unfavorable resulted, the
person still cannot be sure that it was truly God who spoke. Such personal
guidance is impossible to test. This creates a very troubling side effect.
People suppose themselves to be authoritatively bound by a "will of God"
that is revealed specifically and personally to each Christian. But the
Christian can never be sure that he knows he has found this "will of God."
How can errant, non-authoritative words that may or may not be from God be
binding? They cannot. To make them so is abusive.

Someone might counter that if a person thinks a word is from God, then
"whatever is not of faith is sin." In other words, believing something to be
from God binds his personal conscience to it; and since his faith is in that
word, it would be sin to not follow it. But this means that any person who
has placed faith in a misplaced object of faith is bound to stay in that
condition. Luther argued against that position, for example, when he claimed
that people who took special religious oaths (like monks) had sworn to what
is bondage and not from God. Therefore they should renounce those vows as
based on lies and falsehood. Lies and falsehood are not proper objects of
faith. <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_edn4> 4

 


Becoming a False Prophet to One's Own Self


We have argued in previous editions of CIC that to prophesy is to speak
authoritatively for God.
<http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_edn5> 5 Special prophets
that God raised up to predict the future had to be 100 percent accurate. If
they were not accurate to that degree, people were commanded not to listen
to them. If we claim to have heard a word from God that He gave in order to
direct our lives, then the same standard applies. It is as if we prophesy to
ourselves in God's name. Doing so must meet all the Biblical tests for
prophets. If we fail the test, then we have become false prophets to our own
selves; consequently, we should not listen to ourselves! If we were wrong
even once, then we are unreliable and cannot be trusted to speak for God.
Period.

Some may object that people who prophesy in the manner of 1Corinthians 14
(unto edification, exhortation, and comfort) do not have to meet such tests.
They speak and the others judge. But this type of prophecy is to bring out
implications and applications of Scripture. Everyone has the Bible as an
objective means to judge such prophecy. If they have claimed that a certain
passage implies that certain actions or attitudes are binding on the church,
everyone can judge this because implications and applications are logically
connected to the meaning of the text. 

But PWsFG are of a different sort. If someone claims that God told him to
start a certain business, by what means are the others to judge this? The
type of prophecy that is derived from the meaning of the text is controlled
by the inerrant and authoritative word from God. So if it is a true
implication of Scripture it, too, is authoritative. But subjective words
about matters not bound by Scripture cannot be judged in this way, as we
showed earlier. These subjective revelations are neither inerrant nor
authoritative. 

So the person who got a PWFG that really was not from God is binding himself
to what God has not spoken. It is a sin to bind what God has not bound, or
loose what God has not loosed. Let me give a couple of examples. Consider
this passage: 

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from
the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by
means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a
branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods
which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and
know the truth. (1Timothy 4:1-3)

If someone spoke to the church and forbade marriage in God's name, clearly
he would be a false prophet teaching a doctrine of demons. But what if the
person speaks this word to himself? That is he determines to have a PWFG
saying he cannot marry. Why is he any less a false prophet than if he said
the same thing to the church?

A man is free to marry in the Lord or to not marry. If he chooses to not
marry as Paul did (see his discussion in 1Corinthians 7) that is within his
Christian liberty. If he marries, it is within his Christian liberty as well
("if you marry you have not sinned" - 1Corinthians 7:28a). But what if a man
says, "God spoke to me that I must not marry but remain single"? According
to 1Timothy 4:3 he is teaching a doctrine of demons to his own self. The
only way to escape the logic of this is to claim that anyone can speak in
God's name to his own self without those words fitting any Biblical test.
But that would open the door to any possible error and bondage. This same
argument applies to taking oaths such as the oath of chastity that monks
take. <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_edn6> 6 One has bound
oneself in God's name presumptuously. 

Let us consider another issue from the passage in 1Timothy 4. Suppose
someone spoke in God's name to the church, forbidding the eating of pork.
According to our passage, that is a doctrine of demons. Suppose someone
said, "God told me I am not allowed to eat pork." How is it any less a
doctrine of demons when spoken to one member of the church (i.e., one's
self) than to the whole church? Any person is free to not eat pork without
recrimination. But if they try to add God's imprimatur to this they make
themselves an invalid lawgiver.

Therefore, PWsFG that are taken to be binding and authoritative, whether
given to the church or one's own self, are false. All words that claim to be
God's inerrant and authoritative word when they are not are false
prophecies. Those who speak false words in God's name to their own selves
and thus bind themselves to those words have become false prophets to their
own selves. They should quit listening to themselves!

 


The Difference Between Special Revelation and Providence


Those who teach that PWsFG are to be the normal experience of all Christians
often write literature where Biblical characters are used as examples. They
argue that if God can speak to Moses, God can speak to us.
<http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_edn7> 7 The issue is not
God's ability to speak or God's unchanging nature, but how God has chosen to
speak. As we argued in the previous issue, people under the Old Covenant,
like Korah, made the same argument that God could speak to anyone. But God
had chosen to speak through Moses as Korah found out in a most horrific way.

God chose to speak authoritatively to the patriarchs, Moses, the prophets,
Jesus and the apostles. Their words are God's words that are binding on all.
But, is being the recipient of special revelation normative for all? Clearly
it is not. We are bound to pay attention to the words of those through whom
God has chosen to speak: "how will we escape if we neglect so great a
salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was
confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by
signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit
according to His own will" (Hebrews 2:3, 4). God spoke through them in
extraordinary ways and thus the faith was "once for all" delivered to the
saints. 

Even in Biblical times there were long periods without any record of God
giving special revelations. For example, from the time of Joseph through the
first eighty years of Moses' life, there is nothing said about God speaking
to anyone. God was fulfilling His promise to Abraham that his descendants
would be oppressed for 400 years but afterward come out with many
possessions (Genesis 15:13, 14). During those years, God's purposes were
being fulfilled just as fully as they were during the days of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob when God spoke directly to them. 

Consider the first eighty years of Moses' life. The story of his birth;
hidden for three months, placed in an ark of bulrushes, placed in the Nile,
found by Pharaoh's daughter, given back to his mother, and raised in the
royal court of Pharaoh-the story contains not one mention of God directly
speaking to anyone. In fact, after Moses killed an Egyptian and fled to
Midian, he was there for 40 years with no record of God speaking to anyone
until the incident at the burning bush. But everything that happened leading
up to that incident was God providentially working to fulfill His promises
to Abraham.

Many Christians have a poor grasp of the Biblical doctrine of providence.
This leads them to the conclusion that unless they regularly receive PWsFG,
God is not leading them or working in their lives. Moses' mother did not get
a word from God to put him in the Nile. But God used it. Consider the book
of Esther. God is never mentioned in Esther, but the entire book is about
God's providential working through Esther to save His people. The turning
point in the Esther narrative is found in Mordecai's words: "Then Mordecai
told them to reply to Esther, 'Do not imagine that you in the king's palace
can escape any more than all the Jews. For if you remain silent at this
time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and
you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not
attained royalty for such a time as this?'" (Esther 4:13, 14).
Providentially, God had placed Esther in the place of royalty, so she was
urged to take action, which she did. God providentially saved the Jews and
preserved the Messianic promises through people who heard no special word
from God.

For 400 years-from Malachi to John the Baptist-there were no authoritative
prophets in Israel-and they knew it. Several passages in the
intertestamental book of Maccabees show that they were well aware they had
no prophet. For example, "And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the
temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give
answer concerning them" (I Maccabees 4:46).
<http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_edn8> 8 But, in Daniel 11
there is detailed prophecy about what would happen during the
intertestamental period. These are given in so much detail that liberal
critics claim Daniel must have been written after the events. What this
shows us is that God is sovereignly ruling providentially to bring to pass
His purposes and that He is able to do so without someone alive who is
currently receiving special revelations to guide His people. God brought
salvation history forward from Malachi to John the Baptist exactly as Daniel
predicted and did so with no prophets during those years.

What we see from these examples is that during those periods, without any
special revelation other that what had been given previously to others, God
worked His plan through people just as effectively as He did through direct
revelation. God's providential rule is not a lesser way for God to care for
His people. 

 


Understanding Providence


Providence includes good and evil. Even wicked kings are "established by
God" according to Romans 13:1. Dreams, visions, subjective impressions, etc.
are part of God's providence. They, too, contain good and evil. They are not
inerrant specific revelation unless they are given to proven prophets who
meet all the tests. Daniel was a proven prophet. His dream (Daniel 7) was
authoritative revelation from God, not merely a part of God's providence.
The king of Babylon's dream was part of providence, but in his case there
was an authoritative prophet to interpret it. Had there not been an
authoritative prophet he could not have known the meaning.

Since providence contains good and evil, so do subjective impressions that
are part of God's providential rule. Sometimes as Christians we have dreams
that we might consider spiritually significant. Sometimes we have subjective
impressions that we may think are important. Since we are not infallible
prophets, we cannot determine that any particular dream or subjective
impression is a specific revelation from God. But we can make decisions that
are within the realm of Christian liberty. 

For example, in 1971, several weeks after my conversion, I had a dream that
I was sitting in the small country church I grew up in. In the dream I was
sitting with my brother in the back pew. A young girl was singing and it
seemed to me that her song was being used by God to touch people's hearts.
Then it struck me that the people in that church had not heard the gospel in
a clear way, so they would not know what God expected of them. So, in my
dream, I got up and preached the gospel to them. When I woke up, I clearly
remembered the dream and it made an impression on me. That fall I returned
to Iowa State University as a junior in Chemical Engineering. On Sunday
mornings and Sunday nights I attended a Pentecostal church in Ames, Iowa. I
spent a lot of time praying and seeking God. During that time the idea grew
strong in my mind that I should go to Bible College and study for the
ministry. 

During those first weeks at Iowa State I was enrolled in a class on the
philosophy of science. In one lecture the professor made the claim that the
two ways of knowing truth were divine revelation and the scientific method.
He said, "Divine revelation is hogwash." But concerning the scientific
method, this man was a very early proponent of what we now call
postmodernism. He claimed that all theories are "true" but that some don't
work so well in the universe we happen to live in. He said there is no
"TRUTH" but only theory. So I asked at the end of the lecture, "Are you
saying that it is impossible to know the truth?" He answered, "Yes." That
experience made me long to learn what I knew to be true-the words of the
Bible. Coupled with other amazing circumstances, I decided to quit the
university and enroll in Bible College.

The process partially described above is how I ended up being a preacher of
the gospel rather than a chemical engineer. That was God's providential
working in my life. But I do not consider the dream nor any other impression
or experience I had that led me to Bible College, inerrant, authoritative
revelation. I certainly am not an infallible prophet. But the doctrine of
providence describes how God uses all things as He works in us and through
us to bring about His purposes. Even our desires are part of providence. We
do not have to fear, as we make choices within the realm of Christian
liberty, that God's plan will be derailed because we failed to gain special
revelation.

In the books of Acts, we have an example of people giving Paul directional
guidance and Paul ignoring it, even though it was from the "Spirit." Here is
the passage: "After looking up the disciples, we stayed there [Tyre] seven
days; and they kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in
Jerusalem" (Acts 21:4). From Tyre they journeyed to Ptolmais and then
Caesarea. There a prophet spoke about Paul's trip: 

As we were staying there for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down
from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and
hands, and said, "This is what the Holy Spirit says: 'In this way the Jews
at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the
hands of the Gentiles.'" When we had heard this, we as well as the local
residents began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered,
"What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only
to be bound, but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus."
(Acts 21:10-13)

First the Spirit spoke through believers that Paul should not go to
Jerusalem and then a valid prophet spoke by the Holy Spirit telling Paul
what would happen if he did go. Yet Paul went. If guidance that we know
(through the inspired writer Luke) was from the Spirit was not binding on
Paul, how much less is subjective guidance that we do not know is from the
Spirit binding on decisions that are within the realm of Christian liberty?

The story of Paul's journey to Jerusalem also invalidates the idea that
decisions by the church about what the Spirit is saying are binding on the
individual. Earlier in Acts we read: "Now after these things were finished,
Paul purposed in the spirit to go to Jerusalem after he had passed through
Macedonia and Achaia, saying, "After I have been there, I must also see
Rome" (Acts 19:21). Paul's own decision to go the Jerusalem was not
overridden by future words from the Spirit or prophecy from the church.
Furthermore, once the church realized that Paul had made his own decision,
we read this: "And since he would not be persuaded, we fell silent,
remarking, 'The will of the Lord be done!'" (Acts 21:14). God's will was not
revealed by the Spirit speaking through church members or by a prophet, but
by Paul's decision. Thus God's providential will in matters of Christian
liberty is made known by the decision of the person involved.

 


We are Safe in God's Providential Care


One great section of Scripture that every Christian should learn and apply
is Romans 8:26-39. It describes the doctrine of providence and various
implications of it. <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_edn9> 9
The most important implication is that all of the Lord's people shall stay
safe in Him and shall be brought to glory and conformity to the image of
Christ. There is nothing in the section that requires specific revelations
beyond Scripture. Our security in Christ is not dependent on our gaining
revelation or personal guidance. In fact that section begins by telling us
that we do not know what we need: "And in the same way the Spirit also helps
our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit
Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who
searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He
intercedes for the saints according to the will of God" (Romans 8:26, 27).
Beyond Scripture, we do not know God's future, providential will for us. But
the Holy Spirit prays for us "according to the will of God." There is no
indication that if we gained PWsFG we then would know how to pray as we
should. The Holy Spirit Himself prays for us according to God's will. 

God will not judge us for failing to "obey" PWsFG that we cannot know to be
from Him. What God does tell us to do is ask for wisdom: "But if any of you
lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and
without reproach, and it will be given to him" (James 1:5). Contrary to what
some think, as we will see when we examine a passage later in James, this is
not a prayer for a PWFG. It is a prayer that God would so work in our lives
that we will make wise and godly decisions. This is much like the previous
verses in James which teach that trials and testing produce endurance. God
gives wisdom for decision making, but we make the decisions. The PWFG
approach assumes that God wants to make every decision for us and that we
need special revelation of God's decision. But that produces "reproach,"
which James says asking for wisdom does not. Why? Because if one thinks he
has a PWFG and follows it, and the result is disaster, he comes under the
reproach of assuming he heard wrongly. But when we ask for wisdom which is
the result of the fear of God, love for the truth, our developing a
Christian worldview and consequently developing Christian values, we make
wise decisions. <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_edn10> 10
There is no reproach because we, within our Christian liberty and in light
of our Christian values, made a decision. The outcome of our decision is
unknown until God's providential will is revealed as history unfolds. But
there is no reproach because of the way we made the decision.

This brings us to a key passage that shows that making decisions based on
special revelation is not God's normative plan for Christians: 

Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a
city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit." Yet
you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor
that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought
to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that." But as
it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil. (James
4:13-16)

This passage provides very important evidence that the PWFG approach is not
Biblical. If indeed the Biblical pattern was for all Christians to receive
special revelation from God that directs their future plans, then the
passage would say, "You ought to have asked, 'Lord tell us Your will about
whether to go into this business." But it does not. It says they should have
said (not asked) "If the Lord wills." That means they should have not
boasted about the future when they did not know what it is. To claim to know
what one does not know (God's unrevealed providential plans for our future)
is called arrogant boasting and is condemned. They were free to decide to
travel and start a business, but they were not free to claim to know the
future outcome.

If we make PWsFG normative, specific revelation about our plans and the
future when in fact these things are unknown and unrevealed, we boast about
what we do not know. We are much better off saying "I do not know" or "If
the Lord wills" than claiming God's endorsement of our plans based on
supposed personal revelations. We are safe to make plans that fit within the
realm of Christian liberty and know that God will use even our decisions to
bring about His purposes in our lives.

 


Conclusion


God never binds people to error or uncertainty. Only inerrant,
authoritative, special revelation is binding on all Christians. The only
"words from God" that fit that criteria are those found in Scripture. It is
abusive to make PWsFG to be special revelations of God's will either to an
individual or to a church. These "words" never have the quality of being
"certainly from God." When we take them to be that when they are not, then
we have become false prophets to our own selves or to the church.

God has been ruling only providentially (rather than directly through
infallible prophets) for over 2000 years and not giving further infallible,
special revelation. God could raise up infallible prophets and apostles that
meet the criteria of Deuteronomy 18 and 13, but He has not. Rather than
seeking to make errant "words from God" authoritative and binding, we would
be better off admitting God has not raised up any infallible prophets and
accepting His benevolent providential rule. We are safe in God's loving,
providential care and are not "missing God" by failing to follow PWsFG that
fail the necessary tests for being God's authoritative revelations.

 

Issue 98 - January / February 2007

 

  _____  





End Notes

1.	 <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_ednref1> Any good
systematic theology book contains a discussion of general revelation and
special revelation. For example, Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology,
(Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1932 - 1996 combined ed.) 128 - 137. Also,
sometimes one hears the phrase "specific revelation" which means the same
thing as special revelation.
2.	 <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_ednref2> Issue 97
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue97.htm
3.	 <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_ednref3> See his
book Running Against the Wind available here
http://www.onetruthministries.com/
4.	 <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_ednref4> This is
different than the case of the weak conscience discussed in Romans 14. The
person who is "weak" and eats only vegetables because of that, is not bound
by a special revelation from God, but by his own conscience. That conscience
can become better informed by the Word of God and may grow stronger. But a
"word from God" about eating vegetables cannot "grow" because if deemed to
be from God, who cannot lie, that "word" never changes.
5.	 <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_ednref5> See the
two articles in Issue 95: http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue95.htm and
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue95b.htm
6.	 <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_ednref6> See
chapter 4 of Redefining Christianity by Bob DeWaay that discusses the
problems with religious oaths.
7.	 <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_ednref7> One of the
more egregious examples of this reasoning is found in Henry T. Blackaby &
Claude V. King, Experiencing God (Broadman and Holman: Nashville, 1994).
8.	 <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_ednref8> Other
references are IMaccabees 9:27; and 14:41. These are not scripture, but part
of Jewish history. They are often cited as evidence for the uniqueness of
the canon and that the apocrypha is not the product of inspired prophets.
9.	 <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_ednref9> I wrote an
article about this section of Scripture that discusses what it means to be
"led by the Spirit": http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue76.htm
10.	 <http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue98.htm#_ednref10> See Gary
T. Meadors, Decision Making God's Way - A New Model for Knowing God's Will;
(Baker: Grand Rapids, 2003) for an excellent description of this approach to
decision making.

 

  _____  

 

 

Thanks.

 

For the King's honor,

 

Charis,

 

Mike Abendroth

 

 <http://www.bbcchurch.org> www.bbcchurch.org

 

Ephesians 3:21 auvtw/| h` do,xa evn th/| evkklhsi,a| 

 

2 Tim 1:2b  "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our
Lord."

Thomas Watson, "[Jesus] alone is the Prince of Preachers.  He alone is the
best of expositors."

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bbcchurch.org/pipermail/bbc_list/attachments/20080109/269ea868/attachment.htm