Secret And Sinister Messages From God: Does God Speak Outside Of His Word? (part 1 & 2) - by MIKE ABENDROTH

Part one excerpted from here.

Part two excerpted from here.

We shall not consider part three, since it only deals with a particular person, and contains no Bible verses or Bible exposition at all.

Our comments in bold.

--------------------

Special revelation. Continuing revelation. Ongoing revelation. New revelation. Extra-biblical revelation. The author assiduously avoids calling prophecy prophecy, preferring pejorative neologisms. 

The author spends a lot of time repeating and repeating his conclusions, but these are for the most part not relevant to the discussion. Ultimately, he presumes the answer to "does God speak outside His word" as no, but never manages to document it.

And by the way, this question is a tautology. God speaking is God articulating His Word. He has never stopped speaking, so His Word is Him speaking. 

Further, the Son is the Word, and the Bible is the written Word of God. But the Son, the Word, and the Bible are not interchangeable. The Son exists independently from His titles. His Word exists independently from what has been written down. And what has been written down does not address the totality of what He has said.

And none of this means that He has nothing more to say.

-----------------

PART ONE

(...) The author has just discussed the hymn In the Garden and quoted its lyrics. That where we pick it up.

If Mr. Miles really walked and actually talked with the real (and glorified) Jesus in a real garden, I am pretty sure that he would have fallen to his face in worship. Think of Isaiah 6—prostration, undone, woe is me! (This is not a biblical argument, nor is it even explanatory. Isaiah 6 is not about the glorified Christ. There is no biblical evidence that the glorified Christ at all times caused prostration, undone, woe is me. 

It might be necessary to determine at what point Jesus becomes the glorified Jesus, since the author's argument here rests on that. There was certainly a time at which Jesus wasn't glorified:

Jn. 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

This seems to suggest that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit could not happen until Jesus was glorified. But yet we find Him being worshiped in awe and fear before His crucifixion:

Mt. 14:32-33 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshipped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

We find him being worshiped in awe and fear after His resurrection but before His ascension:

Mt. 28:8-9 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshipped him.

But then in the next verse Jesus told them to not be afraid. So at this point He preferred people to not be acting in a manner the author thinks would be required.

And then there is this account after His crucifixion but before His ascension when He was sort of a regular guy:

Jn. 21:13 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish.

So when was Jesus glorified? Perhaps it was here, although it doesn't specifically say so: 

Ac. 1:11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Later, it's already a done deal at this point:

Ac. 2:33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

We would conclude that Jesus' glorification occurred when He was seated on the Throne [Ac. 3:13, Ac. 5:31, Ph. 2:9, He. 7:26, 1Pe. 1:21].

So now we need to ascertain biblical examples of subsequent encounters with the risen Christ:

Ac. 7:55-56 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 

Ac. 9:4-5 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Ac. 9:5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 

Ac. 16:7 When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. 

Ac. 22:6-8 “About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, `Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ 8 “`Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “`I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 

Re. 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. 

Re. 4:2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.

This is the entire biblical record regarding encounters with the ascended, glorified Christ. Three are reflective of the author's assertion, three are not. We would say that the author's claim that everyone must always fall before the glorified Christ is not justified.)

At best, the lyrics are sloppy and not well nuanced. At worst, Miles is actually alleging new revelation. Strike that. He does not allege it, he claims it. Either way, Hebrews 1:1–4 is forgotten. A closed canon is opened. (Why? The author will refer to the closed canon several times, but will never explain its relevance.)

What does the Bible say about ongoing revelation? Hebrews 1 speaks clearly and concisely:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs (Hebrews 1:1–4).

According to Hebrews 1, God has stopped giving new revelation. (??? The writer of Hebrews was not discussing the cessation of prophecy. The actual topic is the superiority of the Son over the prophets and the angels. In fact, the entire opening chapter of Hebrews is written to establish the high position of the Son. His speaking is higher than others who previously spoke. It is so high that this Speaker now sits at the right hand of the Majesty.

Certain men "spoke to our forefathers." That is, they were the OT prophets who spoke to Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, and David, Jeremiah, among others. The writer of Hebrews is making a clear point. God has changed His avenue of speaking. Jesus now speaks directly. This passage is not about the final culmination of the communication of God, but rather, the apex of God's revelation to man.

In addition, we must consider the context of the passage, including how a reader in the early church would understand what was written. Would such a reader conclude that this the verse is telling him about the final culmination of God's revelation, i.e., the Bible? Of course not. There was no Bible back then.

1 Corinthians, which contains the most thorough discussion of the gift of prophecy, was written in approximately AD 55. Hebrews was written in AD 61. Are we really supposed to believe that Paul would give such extensive treatment to something that the writer of Hebrews would negate just 6 years later?

No, the first century reader would understand these plain, direct statements as presented: In the past age, God spoke to their ancestors ["forefathers," that is, the Jews] via the OT prophets. ...but in these last days... "But..." The writer of Hebrews is creating a contrast. Contrary to what He did in the past, in these last days God speaks [the Greek is present tense] directly in (en) His Son, without the intermediation of a prophet. 

When did Jesus get proclaimed as the ultimate of God's revelation? Read the verse:  ...in these last days... Jesus dispensed with intermediation of the OT prophets at the commencement of the last days. 

To whom does His Son speak? He has spoken to us via His Son. First, the Son spoke to the prophets our forefathers. Then He spoke in person to the disciples while He was on earth. After He died and rose from the dead, He spoke to the NT prophets and the apostles. He continues to speak via the gift of prophecy.

He. 1:1-4 has nothing at all to do with anything ceasing. Instead, using very particular language, the writer of Hebrews is making the same claim that both Joel and Peter claimed: What was formerly spoken to a very rare group of people is now directly and widely distributed [He. 2:4] to all flesh via the Son.

Also, if the writer of Hebrews was claiming that revelation ceased with Jesus, then the book of Hebrews should have ended right there. There should be no inspired writing after this point in history. The book of Revelation should not exist. A couple of the Gospels shouldn't have been written. Some of Paul's letters must be considered extra-biblical revelation, if the author's contention about what Hebrews chapter one means is true.)

Though songwriters might “feel” inspired or claim to hear God, when they make such claims they are denying the sufficiency of Scripture (The author brings a secondary claim, but does not explain or discuss it. We explore the idea of sufficiency in great detail here.)

and the first chapter of Hebrews. God used to speak through many ways. Now, however, in light of the fulfillment of redemption brought by Christ, dreams, audible voices and other subjective means of divine communication have ceased. Why? We are in “the last days,” which is Biblical way of speaking of the time period between Christ’s first and second advent. (Yes indeed, we are in the Last Days, but the author doesn't bother to explain how he arrived at his conclusion, which is opposite of what Peter claimed when he quoted Joel's prophecy. In fact, "the Last Days" argues against the author.  God poured out the Holy Spirit on all people:

Ac. 2:17 In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams...

...in the last days... The same phrase is used by the writer of Hebrews. We are currently in the Last Days, (present tense) so Jesus still speaks (present tense). "The last days." So in the last days He speaks to us. In the last days He pours out His Spirit. In the last days we prophesy, dream dreams, and see visions. Because we are in the last days. 

We discuss the Last Days in more detail here.) 

Can you spot the “white lie” in the following syllogism (syllogisms use propositional statements deductively to come to a reasoned conclusion):

• God is immutable and does not change.
• God has spoken in the past.
• Therefore, God speaks to us today.

Let us analyze the syllogism. God is a speaking God (so far so good). (?? This statement is not contained in the syllogism.)

God is immutable and unchangeable (true). (This is actually first statement of the syllogism as he writes it.)

Then comes the conclusion that should even make a Star Wars Wookiee yelp, “Therefore, God still speaks today.” (The author skips the second part, God has spoken in the past. And he leaves out "to us." It seems that the actual syllogism was intended to be

• God is a speaking God
• God is immutable and does not change.
• Therefore, God still speaks today. (No "to us" in this statement.)

Hmmm. This is different than the syllogism stated above. That syllogism is indeed logically flawed, but the syllogism the author seemed to intend to write but didn't is logically sufficient. And, it is biblically accurate as well because the writer of Hebrews states, 

He. 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

"His powerful word." He speaks right now to sustain creation. The word "sustains" is pheró, to bear up, i. e. uphold (keep from falling). He continues to speak, or the universe would fall apart. 

"Word" is rhéma, a spoken word, made "by the living voice." Present tense. So Jesus upholds all things by His current living voice, which resounds through the universe. "All things" includes His Church. We are also sustained by His speaking. Thus He speaks today. 

The first syllogism fails; however, the second syllogism does not because it does not include speaking "to us.")

Game. Set. Match. Winner, winner—or maybe not. What is the problem with such logic? “What are the problems?” might be a more accurate question. The major problem is that Hebrews 1:1–4 is not considered. The logical problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It assumes what it must prove, that for God to stop giving special revelation would constitute a change in God. This implies a change in God when he spoke creation into existence. The argument proves more than it intends. (The actual flaw in the syllogism is the assumption that He speaks to us. But as mentioned, he has spoken to us by his Son is actually in the present tense. So whichever syllogism we consider, flawed or otherwise, is not relevant to what the Bible teaches.

Thus this discussion of syllogisms is largely a waste of time.)

The theology of God’s whispering today is everywhere. If you listen carefully to Charles Stanley you will spot the wrong thinking. Stanley says:

Many people do not fully believe that God speaks today. If we think we get direction only through Scripture, then we miss out on much of what God has to share, because He will speak so often through His Spirit, circumstances, and other people. We must make absolutely certain that we are fully convinced and persuaded that God does speak to us personally . . . .3

Miss out? Speak personally? Haves, meet the Have-nots? (???) Though Stanley certainly knows how to play on people’s heartstrings, he tragically equates circumstances and other people with the Scriptures. Charles effectually elevates circumstances to the level of God’s Word. (???) David F. Wells encapsulates the argument:

Granting the status of revelation to anything other than the Word of God inevitably has the effect of removing that status from the Word of God. What may start out as an additional authority alongside the Word of God will eventually supplant its authority altogether.4

Like it or not, God is done giving special revelation. Case closed. (The author's smug certainty is unseemly. He provides a superficial and errant analysis and proclaims his job is done.)

Canon closed. (??? Again, what does the closed canon have to do with this?)

Notes

(...)

3. Charles Stanley, How to Listen to God (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 128.

4. David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1994), 109.

*********

PART TWO

(...)

Why are so many people prone to believing in extra-biblical revelation? (We doubt the author has actually asked someone who believes in contemporary prophecy to find out the answer.)

Though not exhaustive, I present four common reasons Christians fall prey to ongoing revelation. First, many folks are influenced by false teaching. Second, they are simply ignorant of what the Bible actually says about its sufficiency. (Dems peepl iz sooo stoopid.

The author will never explain or discuss sufficiency or how it supposedly comes to bear.)

They essentially mistake illumination for revelation. (The author will never explain or discuss the difference between illumination and revelation or why the difference is relevant.)

Third, they want something more than the Bible, and thereby demonstrate a certain level of discontentment with God for closing the canon. (This is the third time the author has referred to the closed canon, but he has yet to explain how the closed canon comes to bear on contemporary prophecy.)

Fourth, people struggle with laziness. (The author thinks it's lazy to embrace contemporary prophecy. He makes the accusation but does not demonstrate from the long discussion that follows, that laziness is somehow connected to prophecy.

We would add a fourth reason people believe in contemporary prophecy: The Bible teaches it. See our in-depth consideration of contemporary prophecy here, and our extensive discussion of the closed canon vs. prophecy here.)

Let me expand on what I mean by laziness.

Learning new languages takes time, sweat, toil and effort. Think about all that time it would take to learn Greek and Hebrew grammar, lexical studies, syntax, and historical considerations. Too many Christians are tempted to say, “Nah, don’t need it because God speaks directly to me.” (Who does this? We doubt anyone has taken a pass on learning Greek and Hebrew because of belief in contemporary prophecy. In actual fact, few Christians of any stripe have any substantial knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. 

What an odd claim.)

They take the easy way out. But what does divine revelation say regarding the study of the Bible? (Who denies studying the Bible? And what does that have to do with knowing Greek and Hebrew, or contemporary prophecy?)

Paul told his protégé, Timothy, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). He wants Timothy and every pastor and elder after him (and by implication, every Christian) properly to interpret and teach the Bible, but it takes work. Corners may not be cut. Paul tells his young apprentice, using a Greek aorist imperative, that he must not spare any effort in his study of the Bible. Proper Bible study is difficult yet rewarding. The word he uses means “do one’s best, spare no effort, work hard.”2 The ESV’s translation perfectly describes the requirement as “do your best.” The leading English-Language lexicon of the Greek New Testament defines it by saying, “to be especially conscientious in discharging an obligation, be zealous/eager, take pains, make every effort, be conscientious.”3 If this word meaning was not emphatic enough, the original language follows the word “do your best” with an infinitive to show the intensity of the command.4 Paul wants church leaders to faithfully exert themselves in the loftiest of endeavors. Paul would have you work hard as well. (Interesting, but irrelevant to the subject at hand.)

We begin to see why people could be tempted to listen for a word from the Lord. (???)

Furthermore, Timothy must present himself approved to God. The use of the second, singular, reflexive, pronoun leaves Timothy no option but to personally give an account of himself to God.5 He must be the man to execute this imperative. “Shame on you” is not anyone’s favorite thing to hear. Shame from others is one thing, but here Paul states that disobedience (e.g., lazy Bible study) (The verse is not about Bible study per se, but rather the proper cutting straight of the truth as Timothy teaches [2Ti.2:2, 2Ti. 2:14]. Paul was not telling Timothy to be a good Bible student, but rather to be a good teacher.)

would beget shame from God Himself. As one commentator noted, the word for “ashamed” is in the passive voice, so “it does not merely mean ‘unashamed,’ but ‘not forced to be ashamed,’ namely by the fatal disapproval of God.”6 Human approval, gain, popularity, and money fade in the light of being shamed before and by God Himself. We also sense the weight of this command when we understand that the term “worker” points not to the skill needed to perform the task, but to the laboriousness involved in its execution. The effort is described as an “exhausting toil.”7 (Again, interesting, but irrelevant to the subject at hand.)

How much work does it entail to “hear sweet whispers from God?” (Why does the author contrast Bible study with the prophetic word? The two are not contingent on each other.)

Why are there no commands in the Bible designed to help the readers decipher personal words from the Lord?  (This is the kind of error that comes from having a preconception and then making Scripture fit one's doctrine. The NT is replete with instruction on how to practice, discern, and apply prophecy:

Ac. 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements...

1Co. 12:10 ...to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits...

1Co. 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

1Co. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.

Ep. 5:10 ...and find out what pleases the Lord.

1Th. 5:20 do not treat prophecies with contempt.

1Ti. 1:18 Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight...

He. 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

All these involve heavy lifting in the spiritual realm, requiring maturity, discernment, and order. None of it can be characterized as lazy.)

There are no commands because they are not needed since the canon of Scripture is now closed. (The fourth claim about the closed canon, again with no explanation.)

God is no longer speaking outside of His revealed Word. (This is the issue before us, as articulated in the author's title. Finally. Yet he presumes his premise, again without explaining.)

If the charismatics were right, one would think that Timothy might be told, “Do your best to rightly divide the impressions, words from God, or still small voices.” After all, if God is speaking, you had better interpret Him rightly.8 (Why would Paul be burdened to discuss things the author wants him to discuss? Paul has a specific agenda regarding Timothy, and the fact that he talks about some things and not others is not the problem the author thinks it is.)

What does this work imply? Timothy must accurately handle the word of God by interpreting it properly. It literally means “cutting straight.”9 The question is, what does “cutting straight” mean? This word is somewhat controversial, but “recent reference works and commentaries tend to agree that the cutting imagery is less important than the idea of correctness.”10 Bauer et al., elaborate: “It…plainly means ‘cut a path in a straight direction’ or ‘cut a road across country (that is forested or otherwise difficult to pass through) in a straight direction,’ so that the traveler may go directly to his destination.”11 The Word needs to be rightly divided. (Yes, yes. Again, interesting, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.)

Impressions are simply impressions, not revelation from God. (An undocumented summary claim.)

So, treat them for what they are—simply impressions, not divine revelation.

This positive command from the Apostle also warns against handling the Word wrongly. William Hendricksen wrote that the man who is obedient to Paul is “the man who handles the word of the truth properly [and] does not change, pervert, mutilate, or distort it, neither does he use it with a wrong purpose in mind.”12 Accuracy and truthfulness are the goal of the teacher. He is to be in stark opposition to Elymas the magician, of whom Scripture says,

But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?” (Acts 13:8–10)

The preacher must blaze a trail so others might follow it. You are on that path now. Just like the pastor or teacher, you must understand the Bible correctly and that means you must first properly understand and interpret the Bible. (The author keeps hammering a point no one disputes.)

Unlike understanding impressions, Bible study takes lots of work. Do not opt for the lazy route. Some say, “We must study the Scriptures to see if our impressions match up with the Word.” Why? If the impressions agree with the Bible, you do not need the impressions because you have the Bible. (The author probably thinks he's being clever, but it's really just a dumb statement. Isaiah had the Bible. Joel had the Bible. Paul had the Bible. Agabus had the Bible. David had the Bible. Philip's four daughters had the Bible. So why did they prophesy if they had the Bible?)

Paul stresses the importance of the clear and true teaching charge when he describes Scripture as “the word of truth.” Knight explains it by saying, “The sense of the phrase here is probably best conveyed in the rendering ‘message of the truth.’ To handle the word correctly is to handle it in accord with its intention and to communicate properly its meaning.”13 Who needs all this work when the Lord whispers to us privately and personally? (Repeating one's self does not establish truth.)

Missionary Jonathan Goforth (a great name for a missionary) epitomizes a person who is committed to study the revealed Word of God. He stated, “My deepest regret, on reaching threescore years and ten, is that I have not devoted more time to the study of the Bible. Still in less than nineteen years I have gone through the New Testament in Chinese fifty-five times.”14 King David similarly wrote, “More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb” (Psalm 19:10).

Cessationists and charismatics both struggle with laziness, but avoid it at all costs in the realm of Bible study.

NOTES

1. 1 R.B. Kuiper, “Pitfalls in Finding God’s Will for Your Life,” accessed from
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH04/01b.html.

2. Barclay M. Newman, A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (United Bible Societies), s.v., “σπουδάζω.”

3. BDAG, s.v., “σπουδάζω.”

4. George Knight weighs in saying, “This imperative intensifies the command expressed by the infinitive clause that it governs, “σεαυτὸν δόκιμον παραστῆσαι τῷ θεῷ,” Pastoral Epistles, 411.

5. Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 411.

6. R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1937, 1946), 798.

7. D. Edmond Hiebert, Second Timothy (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1958), 67–68.

8. What is missing in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus)? Conspicuous by its absence is any direction for understanding new revelation. Paul knew the canon was closing and, therefore, did not need to give his protégé pointers on discerning true from false revelation.

9. Thayer’s Lexicon, s.v. “ὀρθοτομέω.”

10. alter L. Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, The NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 258.

11. BDAG, s.v., “ὀρθοτομέω”

12. Hendricksen, I-II Timothy and Titus, 263.

13. Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 412.

14. Accessed from http://www.wholesomewords.org/missions/msrevival.html