I’m sorry, Tim, but I found the Dan Phillips piece to be one of the most appalling things I have ever read on the Internet. He has completely discounted that God can ever lead by an individual revelation by the Holy Spirit despite the reality that God does lead that way ( Acts 8:29, Acts 13:2, Acts 9:10-19—and notice Ananias’s questioning of whether he is hearing this correctly from God).

We have the Holy Spirit as a guide. We have the Bible as a guide. The Bible speaks to all the general and some specific needs of men. The Holy Spirit will not violate the general and specific revelations of the Bible when He speaks, but He does still speak. His speaking is how we know the specifics of what we are to do for God when those specifics are not laid out by the Scriptures.

For instance, the Holy Spirit speaking to us is how we know which people are ready to come to Christ and which are not. He is the one who points out which part of the harvest is ready. He tells us whether we should go here or there. His speaking to the individual hearts of men is why Hudson Taylor goes to China or why Jim Elliot goes to Ecuador.

How does Phillips discern the gifts of an individual who says he has a calling on his life? By giving him a written test to see if his doctrine lines up? Is this the only means by which the Spirit sets apart someone for ministry? If so, it explains why so much of the Church is ineffectual.

Lastly, I find Phillips’s criticism of Chan to be presumptive and haughty. Phillips says that Chan could not have possibly received a call from God to do something other than what he has been doing. Did Phillips suddenly inherit (an impossible, at least to him) prophetic gift to know exactly what God said to Francis Chan? Phillips seems to allow that Abraham can hear God but Chan can’t? Is that the promise of God that He can never again speak to our specific need or guide us in a specific direction like He did Abraham, Phillip, or Ananias?

I need to agree with DLE.

It’s almost as if Dan Phillips just ignored several passages in Acts. It might be that I’ve read too much of Wayne Grudem, but I really do see a difference between what happens in Acts and what happens in the Old Testament (with Abram, for example). In either case, we can’t just pretend that stuff God directing people in certain directions does not exist. In the name of saving Biblical authority, I believe he has ignored the Bibles clear witness on this subject.

And I should say, I’m not a charismatic by any stretch of the imagination. I just can’t ignore Acts.

Andrew,

I would argue that Phillips’s statements don’t even make sense from a cessationist viewpoint. It’s one thing to claim that the charismata no longer function, but taken to their logical end, Phillips’s arguments seem to deny that the Holy Spirit can lead or guide anyone at all!

Even if we give him the points that the Scriptures are the final absolute authority and trump anything that even remotely smacks of charismatic gifts, how does the Spirit illumine those Scriptures? By what means does He help the believer understand the deep revelations of the Word if He cannot communicate in any way? And Phillips has essentially prevented Him from ever communicating to the believer, because the second He does, Phillips wants to make that communication into Scripture. It’s an argument that seems to utterly fly in the face of how God works in the life of the believer.

Although I am in agreement with Dan concerning Chan and what he seems to be saying. Perhaps I missed it, but has he or someone else asked him personally what he meant and what it seems like he is saying?I know I wouldn’t want to find out through the grape vine, that people have misunderstood what I had said. Regardless of whether I worded something right or not.In a way, it reminds me of the “Lordship Controversy”.Although John MacArthur was not guilty of the things that his critiques accused him of. It was also true that some of his wording was responsible for a lot of misunderstanding.If I remember correctly, I believe Dr. Michael Horton did a great job of fleshing these facts out.

Chan has always danced to a different drummer . But if he truly feels its time to leave his pastoral charge , why not just say it is his decision , period . I have seen way too many Christians crash and burn saying the Lord is leading me here or there or whatever. The bigger question is how does God lead one to life altering decisions . A mind and heart acted upon by the word of God will be lead by the Holy Spirit but I do not buy into the Lord still speaks today in the same way he spoke through the early church. Most of the time we act based upon pure subjectivity , nothing else.Chan is a big boy and if he feels like he needs a change say so straight up without all the mystical mumbo jumbo . The one question I would have for Chan is did he seek counsel apart from his comfort zone. Someone outside his bubble. Lets face it when you get within the “rockstar” preacher status , way too many yes men will be around .I do like Chan and hope whatever he does will bear fruit but his explanation leaves much to be desired.

@ Michael (#12) - Yes, I’m not just implying it, I’m flat-out saying it.

Fact is, it’s impossible to be a Christian and not receive revelation by the Holy Spirit. That’s the lifeblood of Christian experience. The NT is filled with examples of this kind of communication by the Holy Spirit.

An everyday example: I’m reading a passage of Scripture. Suddenly, I understand it in a way I never did before. Is this simply my own cleverness or is it the action of the Holy Spirit? And if it is the action of the Holy Spirit (which I believe it must be - see 1 Cor 2:12-14; 1 John 2:20, 27, John 16:13-15), in what way is He enlightening my understanding apart from a communicated revelation?

@ Andrew (#10) who wrote: “You’ve misconstrued Phillips some. He does think the Spirit guides believers individually in all the ways that you mention- He just does that behind the scenes as opposed to telling you exactly what He’s saying and how He’s saying it.”

Phillips can’t have that cake and eat it too, though. He is against all forms of extra-Biblical revelation. That must include circumstance. If God opens doors that give us insight into His direction for our lives, is that not an extra-Biblical revelation? How can it not be?

In addition, is the Holy Spirit not the one who helps us piece together those circumstances into a meaningful understanding of God’s guidance? In what way does he reveal that understanding except through extra-Biblical revelation?

DLE,

There’s a difference between the Spirit giving us wisdom & insight, and giving us the grounds to say, “God told me ____”.

If you want to seriously consider what people who disagree with you have to say—including what they say about the guidance of the Spirit in Acts—then I would highly recommend Greg Koukl’s mp3s on “Decision-Making and the Will of God”. Unfortunately, it costs $10, but I hope you’ll give it a chance: Greg carefully walks through what Scripture says about the leading of the Spirit, without being personally inflammatory or overstating his case, as I think some do.

DLE, You wrote: I found the Dan Phillips piece to be one of the most appalling things I have ever read on the Internet.

You cannot be serious.

If you are appalled at his post shouldn’t you be taking that up with him at his blog?

@ Jugulum

Is there really a difference between God giving wisdom and insight and the ability to say, “God told me____”?

I don’t think there is. If God gives me wisdom and insight, could I not say, “God told me something I did not previously know about _______”? Would that be a lie to say He did?

Let’s also take a look at Acts:

But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. “—Acts 2:16-18

It reads “in the last days.” Would anyone disagree that we are in the last days still?

Does Peter qualify Joel’s prophecy by saying, “And during a brief time during the last days…”? No, he doesn’t say that. There is no qualification. As the last days are not yet concluded, is not Joel’s prophecy still fully in effect?

Concerning dreams and visions, aren’t they an extra-Biblical revelation? Do they not impart wisdom and understanding when properly interpreted? What wisdom did God’s dream given to Joseph concerning his brothers bowing down to him impart to the protector of Egypt? Did that dream not give him hope too? Was the individual kind of direction that dream gave Joseph (and others around him, whose dreams he interpreted) any less necessary today for believers to walk into their God-given futures?

In the case of Ananias, was his vision from God to go meet a man named Saul and pray for him something Ananias could have gleaned from reading the Scriptures alone? Is our case any different today? Don’t we need the Lord to speak to us in dreams and visions still today for us to meet those highly specific cases of calling that the Bible does not specifically address?

Could it be the case that in dismissing this kind of communication from God that we have diminished what the Church can accomplish because we miss specific directions in which God wishes to lead us?

Yet Benny Hinn continues to utter false prophecies as do many others. Where is the discipline?

At what point is a false prophet told to “shut up” so to speak?

I think of Todd Bentley who was nothing short of a wild man on stage. He was allegedly restored by a group of people claiming to be modern day apostles in every sense of the word.

Let me clear up one thing . Do I think the Holy Spirit continues to act in the same manner as was functioning in the Apostles era , no I do not . By This I mean in terms of a way the Apostles were uniquely inspired to write scripture . Does the Holy Spirit still guide and give us instruction , yes but I do not think apart form scriptures leading.Plus why has the canon been closed for 2000 years. If God is still speaking and leading people in the same manner as was the New Testament times , why not add on . Also was not the context of Peter mentioning Joel that God’s Spirit would be poured out on all flesh including gentiles and the purpose of the prophecy was the gospel of Christ. The word of God is completely sufficient to instruct and guide us in the paths of righteousnesses . We do not need a new word , or leading to share the gospel,to feed the poor ,care for the oppressed and love our neighbor . Its very plain to see .

@ Reg,

I wonder why it is so hard for people to consider that God intended both the Scriptures to have a time of writing that would one day end and that He would still communicate to His followers through His own Spirit living in them. I don’t see those as mutually exclusive. I mean, the God of the universe lives inside you and me! Isn’t it strange to think that God lives in His followers but has nothing to say to them should they lack a Bible? His Spirit is inside us yet He is mute? But that is what some people seem to believe, even if the Bible says differently.

Your definition of prophecy that it is solely restricted to Gospel preaching seems to ignore big chunks of Scripture. Prophecy has other functions besides preaching. Here is a for instance:

Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.—Acts 11:27-30

Here is a prophetic word that is predictive and resulted in the proactive response of the Church to meet the need before it became one.

A few questions regarding this:

1. Was this NT prophecy strictly preaching the Gospel?

2. Did the existing Scriptures at that time speak of this famine? If we had a famine like this today, would our existing Scriptures necessarily speak of it?

3. Has the need for a proactive response from the Church ever changed, either pre-canon or post-canon?

4. If God saw fit to warn the Church ahead of time about this famine, why would such a warning not be needful today, should another famine (or other disaster that would require a proactive response) occur?

There is no argument from me regarding the Scripture’s ability to prep men and women to meet the requirements of righteousness. If I do all the Scriptures say, then I will be prepped for every good work. But does this cover readying food and provisions in advance of a disaster to send to fellow brothers and sisters in specific place so they will not suffer amid calamity? Does it cover selecting which elders in a church should minister to the elderly, which should go on missions trips, and which would best serve the poor?

The Spirit spoke to the Church and told them to set aside Paul and Barnabas for the work He had for them. Among all the righteous men who could have done this work, the Spirit made a distinction. Today, we do not rely on the Spirit to make these kinds of decisions. We tend to rely on our intellects instead. We make “informed” decisions. Given what we know of the early Church, would one of our informed decisions result in us choosing Paul, the former persecutor of the Church, and Barnabas?

I believe the Bible makes it eminently clear that we DO need the Spirit speaking to the Church today to meet the unique, individual circumstances that daily life brings us. The Spirit spoke to the early Church then in order to meet specific needs. Why would that be any different today? And He WOULD do the same today if we had the faith to take Him at His word. Instead, we say, “This cannot happen.” So we rely on our “informed” decisions. Perhaps this explains why so many of our efforts have such poor outcomes.

DLE,When confronting people who think differently from you, tacfulness and love matter. Remember the Golden Rule? Can anyone say that’s the hallmark of some of those sites?

How does that square with stating that Dan’s post is one of the most appalling things (you) have ever read on the Internet…presumptive and haughty?

You have also put plenty of words in his mouth and misrepresented his post in several places.

I’m not feeling the love.

@ DLE … “Phillips even questions Piper. Seriously, who is going to be left standing once all the heretics are purged? Just the Pyros?

“When confronting people who think differently from you, tacfulness and love matter. Remember the Golden Rule? Can anyone say that’s the hallmark of some of those sites?

“Tim has a great blog. He tries very hard to keep the discourse civil. His readers are not the kind that have “perfectly arrived.” His readers wrestle hard with tough subjects and don’t display a fanboy attitude. That means a lot. That’s why I would rather be here.”

You’re displaying a complete disregard for Christ’s clear instructions in Matthew 18:15.

@ Stan,

I was appalled. I don’t see how that was tactless or unloving to say so.

There is a high level of “snark” on some Web sites. They almost revel in their beatdowns, especially of the unseasoned believer who stumbles in and says something that is either wrong or simply not the prevailing view.

If you sense the same thing out of what I have written here, then I am either communicating poorly or I am truly guilty of not living up to how the Lord would have me best comment.

Jules,

I am asking people biblically based questions worthy of the discussion and doing so in a way that is not haughty or prideful. I don’t see how that is a beatdown.

I am replying in full to others when they ask me questions. I don’t see how that is a beatdown either.

As to Matthew 18:15, Dan Phillips has not sinned against me. His view differs from mine, but this is not a sin against me.

Stan -

What gossip have I shared? If you would, please be specific as I really would like to not be in sin, and I mean that sincerely. And if I have, I apologize.

If, however, you mean that I am being critical of Dan Phillips’ and other Pyros blog, I’m not sure how that differs from what you have been saying about Francis Chan or others on this very site. It seems sort of contradictory.

And finally, as to why I am here instead of the Pyros blog or Dan’s blog; that is for reasons that I have already shared. I have been there, I have engaged with others on those boards, and I have determined that trying to engage in meaningful discussion on some of the other aforementioned issues, at times, ends up feeling fruitless. Because on those sites there is one master rule, the author of the blog is always right. If you disagree, you do not have a Biblical view of Christianity. This has been pointed out several times, not merely by the authors, but by all those who prescribe to the same viewpoint. It makes it pretty difficult to engage in honest dialog.

I have found that this site, among others (Justin Taylor, when he decides to open up comments, LOL) are more even handed and open to discussion without as much rhetoric and snarky arrogance.

@ Stan,

The questions are worthy because they are on-topic. Disagreeing with Phillips’s statements is not gossip, by any means.

When a conversation such as this one starts going in the direction it has taken, perhaps it is better to end it.

@ DLE, MCKim’s Westminster Dict. of Theological Terms defines biblical revelation as: the self-disclosure of God through the biblical writings.Yet the canon of Scripture is closed. The Holy Spirit does not reveal things that “add to” or is outside of the revelation of God’s Word.

Otherwise, we would all be writing our own Bibles every day, and we’d have billions of different Bibles. The Holy Spirit can speak to our hearts, but he is confirming Scripture or the message implied in Scripture.

Are you implying the canon of Scripture is not closed or are you saying the Holy Spirit speaks to you in a way that adds to the Scriptures?