Featured Charles Stanley & Mysticism

So?

The Bible does not say that God SPEAKS to the heart.

And??

Still waiting for a passage that says that God speaks to the heart.

Yes, the heart does. So?

Where is this saying that God guides us in our decision making process by speaking to our hearts, by giving us some kind of feeling about something.

YOU DON'T HAVE IT DHK. It is NOT IN THE BIBLE.

This is an extra-biblical doctrine!

 

Apparently you did not actually read her words.

 

Another glaring contribution.

Apparently... blah, blah, blah...

No case for it.

No support for this claim.

Just an unsubstantiated claim.

In order to matter, your post needs to do at least two things- it need to make a claim like "Apparently you not even read her words," AND support that claim.

An example of support would be something like: She meant it literally because...

Do you see?

Otherwise, just posting negative remarks is both stupid and inflammatory.

It is the equivalent of saying, "I know you are but what am I."

It is infantile.

 

I will answer your questions when you give me an actual definition of mysticism. So far you've been very ambiguous about what you think mysticism is.

Another question I would like answered before I interact with you on this subject: have you been called to preach?

I gave a quote early on about what the doctrine of revelation is. You apparently missed it. I would encourage you to go back to it, then give some kind of definition of what you think revelation is. I have said very clearly what revelation is. You have only criticized. (And the root of the English word "revelation" is irrelevant. The Biblical meaning is relevant, the meaning in common usage of the Greek word in the 1st century AD.)

 

What in the world are you talking about? Seriously you need to actually pay attention to what is posted and stop the sophomoric attempts and debate winning. Its just not honest.

 

A. H. Strong nailed it.

Now you.

Yes.

Now answer my questions as you promised please.

 

This is further proof that you don't know how to do anything but post claims without warrants.

BTW, the IS a debate site.

 

And he further proves my point. Well I am done with you. You have been soundly rebuked and your inconsistency exposed. What you do with it is between you and God.

 

Another claim without support.

Where have I been soundly rebuked and my inconsistency exposed?

You are one of these preachers who thinks it matters just because you say it.

As such you don't even know HOW to make a case for anything.

All you know how to do is drive-by post.

 

God does not speak to me outside of the Scriptures and I never said He did. This is you reading into my posts your own misconceptions. What God does is move people in the direction of His will. A Biblical example (which you have not yet addressed) is in Acts 16:7--"After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not."

Again, you are reading your misconceptions into my post. I have never said that the Holy Spirit leads by emotions, and do not believe He does. I have also said nothing about peace, so you are not interacting with me by bringing that subject up.

You know, things would go a lot better if you actually interacted and asked what people believe instead of projecting your misunderstandings onto their posts.

Let's get Biblical in our linguistics, not 21st century English. The Greek word is apokaluysiV. The Anlex (Friberg) definition is "literally, as an action uncovering, disclosing, revealing.... (1) generally, of what God discloses or makes known revelation, disclosure, e.g. his plan of redemption (EP 3.3)."

Now, when the Holy Spirit guides an individual in His will, He does not reveal anything about Himself or redemption. So your objection is a non sequiter.

You apparently do not agree with the Orr definition of revelation I gave or with the above Friberg definition. Please give your own definition, then.

 

I answered your questions. Now, if you were called to preach, tell me how that is not mysticism. How is it that God gave you personal guidance as to your call to preach, but that is different from say, a call to a location or God's guidance as to who to marry.

You've finally agreed to a definition of mysticism and maybe we can get back to that. Do you have a definition of the doctrine of revelation?

 

When you use the words "seem to be" you are admitting that you don't really understand what I am saying. NO, I am not advocating that the Holy Spirit guides by "subjective feelings." And yes, I have given Scripture already that you have not dealt with.

 

How does the Holy Spirit direct people in your estimation, John?

By some feeling, correct?

The passage does not support that idea at all.

Frankly, the passage does not tell us the first THING about how the Spirit prevented them. But it certainly doesn't say that the Spirit just did not give them a peace about it or made ideas pop into their heads willy nilly.

This is why I accused you of being so ambiguous.

Tell me HOW, John. Tell me HOW you believe the Spirit guides.

Is it something in your head that forms words in your mind like, "You really ought to do this or that"?

How?

Be specific.

It is not non sequitur. If the Holy Spirit is saying things in people's minds, telling them to go here or there then that is the very Word of God going off in their minds.

You gushed over a post earlier by someone who said that very thing. They "heard" I suppose in their minds the Holy Spirit say something to them. And you gushed all over your next post about it with exclamation points and the whole lot.

Now, are you for it or not?

 

John, you are so ambiguous people rarely know what you are saying about anything.
I am asking you to be a man and state very clearly HOW you believe the Holy Spirit guides people and calls people.

I would not have to SAY "it seems" about you if you had already been clear about it.

Be a man and be clear. The manly thing about being clear is that it exposes you to scrutiny. Do it. That's the only thing that makes real discussion meaningful.

Otherwise it is nothing but bloviating.

 

I will answer your questions as soon as you answer my very vital question concerning your position which remains unanswered.

How did your call to preach occur? How is it different from what you are calling mysticism on this thread?

If I used your tactics I would now be saying, "Your call was emotional, right, RIGHT? Be a man, tell us how it was different."

 

You are so ambiguous I don't know what you are saying. When are you going to define the doctrine of revelation for me? I've already given my unambiguous definition on this thread. You have not even interacted with it. You want to scrutinize me, then interact with what I've already written clearly: a definition of the doctrine of revelation, and clear Scripture backing how the Holy Spirit guides (and not by emotion).

"Be a man." Be a man yourself.

 

Are you saying the OP author needs to grow up or Stanley needs to grow up?

 

I could not NOT preach. I have been for 18 years now like Jeremiah who said, "I said I will not make mention of Him nor speak any more in his name... but his Word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones and I was weary with forbearing and I could not stay."

It had nothing to do with goosebumps or a peace or any such thing. I developed a fierce desire to win people to Christ. I was asked to give a devotion as a fifteen year old boy at a men and boys camping trip. The men expressed amazement at my ability to deliver the message and this indicated that God had gifted me to preach.

In short, he gave me the desire and the gifts for it. Wisdom dictated that that is what I should do with my life.

Not that proof is necessary and I hesitate to share this for being attacked as a braggart, but I am only answering your question. God confirmed that he called me to preach by using me to impact the lives of hundreds of people for Christ.

This is not mysticism. It is not some feeling apart from facts. Those who are gifted in math would do well to become accountants or engineers.

God made us and gave us desires and gifts to do certain things. Wisdom dictates that we pursue those things in his service.

Your turn.

Specifics.

How is it different?

 

Special or general?

Which one do you not understand? Which one do you need me to define for you?

And why do you think it is pertinent to this discussion?

It seems silly to me for me to have to define this for you. We are both seminary educated professionals. Surely you know that we both know what revelation is.

Special is direct revelation from God. It is precisely what people mean when they say God spoke to them in their hearts and told them stuff like "Go preach my word..."

It is usually some dramatic recollection of the event that goes something like this.

"And I said, "But God I am not a good speaker." Then God said to me in my heart, not in an audible voice mind you, but in my heart- "Where I guide, I provide."

And the nonsense continues and continues ad nauseum.

That is mysticism.

 

But with Jeremiah it was with great passion and much tears.
Jeremiah is known as "the weeping prophets."
If ever there was an emotional prophet, it was Jeremiah.
You are comparing yourself to the most emotional prophet in the Bible, IMO.