---------------------------------
Ms. Prata is reliably cessationist. But it isn't a biblical or rational position, it's reactionary. She doesn't like certain doctrines but is unable to intellectually articulate, from the Bible, her doctrines.
Ms. Prata is reliably cessationist. But it isn't a biblical or rational position, it's reactionary. She doesn't like certain doctrines but is unable to intellectually articulate, from the Bible, her doctrines.
A cessationist believes that God no longer speaks, among other things. But apparently there is some level of revelation from God that is acceptable, though Ms. Prata draws the line arbitrarily. So the Holy Spirit pricks the conscience, but doesn't inform us about the decisions we face. He warns us about sin, but not about danger around a street corner. He informs us about the contents of the Bible, but not about discerning someone's need.
None of this parsing is backed up by Scripture. She's inventing the whole scenario.
We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
-------------------------------------
Can we detect whether a prompt from the Holy Spirit is legitimate or if it’s your own imagination? (Let's see if Ms. Prata answers this question.
Can we detect whether a prompt from the Holy Spirit is legitimate or if it’s your own imagination? (Let's see if Ms. Prata answers this question.
If one expects her to answer with the Bible, she won't.)
Many lady ministries focus on this, offering in their videos, essays, and books, certain steps to determine how to sort out whether internal promptings, whispers, or allegedly divine conversations are from the Spirit. Do these steps work? No.
Beth Moore wrote,
Yes, the Spirit does warn us via the conscience when we sin, (oh. Ms. Prata immediately concedes. The Holy Spirit does prompt us.)
Beth Moore wrote,
Yes, the Spirit does warn us via the conscience when we sin, (oh. Ms. Prata immediately concedes. The Holy Spirit does prompt us.)
He pricks our conscience as to moral decisions and wayward thoughts. (Ms. Prata concedes again. The Holy Spirit does prompt us.)
And sometimes the warning doesn’t persist, because our conscience becomes seared. But this isn’t that discussion. (Um, what? Then why did you mention it?)
We do not rely on the timing of mystical feelings in order to make decisions. (?? Who has mentioned the issue of the timing? And how are the promptings of the Holy Spirit different than "mystical feelings?")
We do not rely on the timing of mystical feelings in order to make decisions. (?? Who has mentioned the issue of the timing? And how are the promptings of the Holy Spirit different than "mystical feelings?")
We don’t even have to wonder if it is our imagination if we read it in the Word of God. (Non-sequitur.)
Here is what she should have written-
“Take caution not to override a command of the Lord in His word. Pray persistently in seeking the strength from the Lord you need to obey what is written. Mind the Lord.”
Nothing in the Bible says what she said or many of these other women-owned and led ministries say. (Nothing in the Bible says what Ms. Prata has written up to this point.)
Priscilla Shirer wrote a whole book on the subject, “Discerning the Voice of God” which is “about learning how to recognize when God is speaking and how to respond with confidence”.
Shirer wrote: “I can completely relate to that. I know exactly what it’s like to hear nothing but silence after I’ve prayed and prayed about something, or to be so confused by flying thoughts and voices that I couldn’t pick God’s voice out of the crowd. I know the kinds of feelings and attitudes that go along with not really expecting Him to show up and leave directions. … I mean, come on, do you really think He loved you enough to die for you, but not enough to talk to you?“
After Prophet Malachi finished speaking God’s word to the People, God was literally silent for 400 years. No Prophets. No scriptures. No pre-incarnate visits from Jesus. Total silence. (This is categorically false. God is never silent. Period:
Shirer wrote: “I can completely relate to that. I know exactly what it’s like to hear nothing but silence after I’ve prayed and prayed about something, or to be so confused by flying thoughts and voices that I couldn’t pick God’s voice out of the crowd. I know the kinds of feelings and attitudes that go along with not really expecting Him to show up and leave directions. … I mean, come on, do you really think He loved you enough to die for you, but not enough to talk to you?“
After Prophet Malachi finished speaking God’s word to the People, God was literally silent for 400 years. No Prophets. No scriptures. No pre-incarnate visits from Jesus. Total silence. (This is categorically false. God is never silent. Period:
Heb. 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.
Simply because we have no recorded prophecies during this period does not mean that God was silent. The Bible is not a record of every single thing God ever spoke anywhere at any time. In fact, it is very clear that the Bible doesn't contain the totality of what God has spoken.
Ms. Prata is a false teacher. She is disqualified.)
So let’s rephrase Shirer’s question. Do we really think God would rescue his enslaved Hebrews, send a pillar of fire and a pillar of smoke, part the Red Sea, give plagues to Pharaoh’s Egypt, and never speak again to His People? He was silent for 400 years until He sent John the Baptist to speak for Him again. (Oh, so because God was silent before He could be silent again? This is not a biblical argument, it's simply speculation. And removing the false idea that He was silent for 400 years completely negates whatever shreds of an argument remains.)
Shirer used the verse from Hebrews 13:8, Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever and unpacked it to say if He is the same, and He spoke directly in the past, He is still speaking now.
Hers is a wrong explanation. God IS the same. But He varies His methods. We see the verse which confirms this 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 He also made the world.
In the past, He spoke many ways. Now He spoke (past tense) (nope, it's in the aorist tense, Ms. Prata. Bible.org, ironically a cessationist website, tells us about what the word "spoken" means:
The aorist indicative means “it happened,” but we cannot legitimately extrapolate from that a meaning, “and it doesn’t happen now.” The aorist can’t be used to state a negative in the present time.
In other words, the Greek tense does not support translating it "spoken." Grammatically speaking, this verse does not tell us what cessationists like Ms. Prata think it does. Which means Jesus has not ceased speaking.)
one way- through His Son. He does not speak through a donkey, He does not send angels to directly give messages. He has not lit a bush on fire to speak to passersby.
What solid and credible Bible teachers do is teach their pupils to go externally and seek the source of all truth from the Word of God, which is where God spoke through His Son. (God has said much more than what is contained in the Bible. Any elementary Bible student knows this.
What solid and credible Bible teachers do is teach their pupils to go externally and seek the source of all truth from the Word of God, which is where God spoke through His Son. (God has said much more than what is contained in the Bible. Any elementary Bible student knows this.
The Son is the Word and the Bible is the written down 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 Jesus has said.)
Lady ministries like Moore’s and Shirer’s and others teach women to go internally and rely on mystical warnings, feelings, and prompts. What they are actually teaching is the insufficiency of scripture (Why is the sufficiency of Scripture endangered by Holy Spirit promptings?
And why did the OT prophets not rely on the sufficiency of Scripture? Why did Agabus not rely on the sufficiency of Scripture? Why did Paul teach the Corinthian church to not rely on the sufficiency of Scripture? Was the Bible not enough for them?)
and the sufficiency of ourselves to parse personal feelings, prompts, and internal suggestions.
I replied to the screen shot of Moore’s tweet above. I received several comments, one of which asserted that I’d misunderstood the tweet. The tweet was plain enough in what it was saying.
Another commenter tried to to convince me that there was room for direct revelation. (What is "direct revelation?" How is it different from Holy Spirit promptings?)
I replied to the screen shot of Moore’s tweet above. I received several comments, one of which asserted that I’d misunderstood the tweet. The tweet was plain enough in what it was saying.
Another commenter tried to to convince me that there was room for direct revelation. (What is "direct revelation?" How is it different from Holy Spirit promptings?)
She knows there’s room, she said, because though 99% of the time scripture is enough, sometimes God speaks “very clearly” to her and she knows it’s Him because what He says comes true according to her wishes and wants at the time.
If scripture isn’t sufficient 100% of the time, it is not sufficient at all. (This is a nonsense statement. We discuss sufficiency here.)
If scripture isn’t sufficient 100% of the time, it is not sufficient at all. (This is a nonsense statement. We discuss sufficiency here.)
God is not speaking to anyone in any form, not in…
- whispers
- prompts
- visions
- impressions on our heart
- ‘told me’
- audibly
…because the Bible says that God has spoken through His Son, who is the Word. (Hebrews 1:2). And what is the Word? The Bible. (Arrrrgh! Jesus is not the Bible!
First of all, Hebrews 1:2 doesn't mention the "Word." Further, we previously quoted the very next verse, and it contradicts Ms. Prata:
Heb. 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.
Here the Greek word is rhéma, which means a spoken word, made "by the living voice"... This cannot be the Scriptures, it's the voice of Jesus. He is speaking right now to sustain creation.
We deal with this verse in more depth here.)
Peter said personal experience is never a proper validation of God’s authority, because the word is more sure. (2 Peter 1:19). (Sigh... Ms. Prata misreads this verse. Let's quote:
2Pe. 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain...
She thinks this is referring to the sureness of the Bible vs. personal experience. We emphatically disagree. Peter was not claiming the Bible was superior to prophecy, he was appealing to what he witnessed as confirming the messianic prophecies.
but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty. [vs. 16]
His experience made the OT prophecies about Jesus more certain. This caused him to assert that the prophetic word is even more guaranteed. It was the profound, earth-shaking proclamation of affirmation: “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” [vs. 17]
His experience confirmed the prophecies of the OT, because Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies.
The logical string:
- Peter didn't make up a story
- He was an eye witness
- he actually heard God's voice from heaven
- This event made the prophets more certain
Ms. Prata has it exactly backwards.
Let's quote the whole passage:
2Pe. 1:16-19 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
We shall paraphrase:
It's not a fable; we witnessed these things. We heard God's voice telling us Jesus was His son. We were there. The things we saw and heard make the words of the prophets more solid and believable. We are now more convinced than ever that those prophecies are real, because what we experienced confirms without a doubt that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah.
Ms. Prata is mistaken.)
I notice in these kind of discussions that people assert that it must be God is telling them stuff because what they wanted is coming true.
However, do you notice it never seems to be the case that ‘the Lord told me very clearly I will die from cancer’, or ‘the Lord told me very clearly that I will never have children,’ or ‘the Lord told me that I should stop sinning via pornography.’ (What? This never happens? How does Ms. Prata know?)
However, do you notice it never seems to be the case that ‘the Lord told me very clearly I will die from cancer’, or ‘the Lord told me very clearly that I will never have children,’ or ‘the Lord told me that I should stop sinning via pornography.’ (What? This never happens? How does Ms. Prata know?)
No, the direct leading of the Spirit people claim they receive are never that kind, the type that brings bad news against their wish list, or commands the person to mortify their besetting sin. (Then how exactly does the Holy Spirit bring conviction to a sinner? Please explain.)
Worse, women who claim “He told me very clearly that…” means the woman is claiming prophet status – which elevates her to a position she does not have, because prophecies have ceased and no office of prophet now exists. (This is a claim of substantial import, underpinning her entire presentation, but Ms. Prata just breezes by.)
Worse, women who claim “He told me very clearly that…” means the woman is claiming prophet status – which elevates her to a position she does not have, because prophecies have ceased and no office of prophet now exists. (This is a claim of substantial import, underpinning her entire presentation, but Ms. Prata just breezes by.)
Again, the Bible says God has spoken through His Son, the Word, which is the word as written in the pages of our Bible. (!!! The Son is the Bible? What nonsense.)
Moreover, it discourages other women who have not had the so-called experience of “hearing directly from God”. (It does? How does Ms. Prata know this?)
Moreover, it discourages other women who have not had the so-called experience of “hearing directly from God”. (It does? How does Ms. Prata know this?)
They begin to doubt their salvation when they aren’t given such personal, clear commands and it seems to them like that is what happens if you believe in Jesus. (The insecure feelings of people is not a biblical argument.)
It’s not only women who claim to hear from God. Praying to God then ‘listening’ for His response is not a viable way to communicate. Here, Todd Friel explains what prayer is and what to do after we pray (and waiting to hear His voice isn’t part of it).
One commenter did ask a good question, which formed the basis for this post. She asked, “Where does the Holy Spirit come into it?” Her question is a good one. An entire generation of women have been taught by the Beth Moores and Sarah Youngs and Joanna Gaines’ and Jennie Allens etc. that we should expect to be directly (or audibly) led by God in making career choices, moment by moment mothering decisions, or even where to go to buy your turkey for Thanksgiving, that they do not know what to be led by the Spirit actually means. So tomorrow will be the second half, a post on what it means to be led by the Spirit. (We wait with bated breath...)
Further Reading-
Dave Mathis unpacks the Hebrews verse: “So, in the past, God spoke (verse 1). And in these last days, God has s”poken (verse 2). This is the kind of God he is. He is a speaking God, a communicative God. We might say God is talkative. In verses 1–2, God’s speaking is cast into two eras: “long ago” and “in these last days” — a past era, an old era, and then a later era, a new era.
It’s not only women who claim to hear from God. Praying to God then ‘listening’ for His response is not a viable way to communicate. Here, Todd Friel explains what prayer is and what to do after we pray (and waiting to hear His voice isn’t part of it).
One commenter did ask a good question, which formed the basis for this post. She asked, “Where does the Holy Spirit come into it?” Her question is a good one. An entire generation of women have been taught by the Beth Moores and Sarah Youngs and Joanna Gaines’ and Jennie Allens etc. that we should expect to be directly (or audibly) led by God in making career choices, moment by moment mothering decisions, or even where to go to buy your turkey for Thanksgiving, that they do not know what to be led by the Spirit actually means. So tomorrow will be the second half, a post on what it means to be led by the Spirit. (We wait with bated breath...)
Further Reading-
Dave Mathis unpacks the Hebrews verse: “So, in the past, God spoke (verse 1). And in these last days, God has s”poken (verse 2). This is the kind of God he is. He is a speaking God, a communicative God. We might say God is talkative. In verses 1–2, God’s speaking is cast into two eras: “long ago” and “in these last days” — a past era, an old era, and then a later era, a new era.
Justin Peters video: Inigo Montoya series- The Still, Small Voice
Justin Peters video: Inigo Montoya Series: My Sheep hear my Voice
No comments:
Post a Comment