Are revelation and communication the same?

[Jim1999]

a story:

I am a young Bible College student. I have gained a personal interest in foreign missions. The interest is so strong my mind and heart are so directed to think nothing but missions. Now, where do I go? Then, as this thought is heavy on my heart, a missionary from an African Mission Society is the guest speaker at chapel service. I go to my home church's mid-week meeting, and Levison Muchunga of Africa is the surrise guest speaker,,,,,and he speaks of Africa.............Could this be a "revelation" or " communication" about where I should serve?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[swaimj]

100% sure of the call without a doubt? I just don't think this is the case nor is it necessary.

For starters, the examples of "the call" that we see in scripture are not patterns for today because THEY DO involve direct revelation. Moses' does, Elijah's does, Paul's does, etc.

Also, many who were called by a special revelation had periods in which they doubted the call (think Elijah), and one even refused the call (Jonah). Certainty without a doubt seems to be out.

The examples of people being called in the NT have less to do with an individual feeling called and more to do with a congregation sensing godly character and special giftedness in a person and then commissioning that person for service. Examples are the congregation that commissioned Paul and Barnabas and the fact that Paul recruited Timothy for his team based upon Timothy's character.

In the qualifications for a bishop in I Timothy, a man must have a desire for the office, but the stress in that passage is less on his "calling" (which absent objective revelation revealing his call requires a measure of subjectivity) and more on his demonstrated capacity to lead others (specifically his family) spiritually and his history of ethical behavour before the unsaved.

If a man has a godly family, a good testimony and a demonstrated gift for teaching, his pastor and congregation should notice that and encourage him to consider ministry. I think this pattern is the NT version of "a call".

 

[John of Japan]

a story:

I am a young Bible College student. I have gained a personal interest in foreign missions. The interest is so strong my mind and heart are so directed to think nothing but missions. Now, where do I go? Then, as this thought is heavy on my heart, a missionary from an African Mission Society is the guest speaker at chapel service. I go to my home church's mid-week meeting, and Levison Muchunga of Africa is the surrise guest speaker,,,,,and he speaks of Africa.............Could this be a "revelation" or " communication" about where I should serve?

Cheers,

Jim

It is important to distinguish between a call and a burden. This Bible college student may have had a burden, but I do not see a call here. In my own case, I heard a missionary from Japan preach, and out of the blue God spoke to my heart (not audibly) to the effect that He wanted me in Japan. I struggled with it (as do almost all missionaries) before finally saying yes to God, but it certainly was not my idea to be a missionary!

I believe every single believer, in light of the Great Commission, should be burdened about the mission field and willing to go anywhere if God should call them. My own parents were surrendered to go to Tibet under the old CIM in the late 1940's, but were unable to go because of the Communist takeover. I have always been proud of their dedication, since there were at that time more graves of missionaries on the borders of Tibet than Christians in the entire country. However, I realize they must not have been called there since the door closed.

 

[John of Japan]

100% sure of the call without a doubt? I just don't think this is the case nor is it necessary.

For starters, the examples of "the call" that we see in scripture are not patterns for today because THEY DO involve direct revelation. Moses' does, Elijah's does, Paul's does, etc.

Then are you saying that simple communication from God is always revelation? That differs from the usual theological definition of revelation as given in my OP. Can you give a Scriptural use of the word "revelation" which is not universal truth or physical revealing?

In the qualifications for a bishop in I Timothy, a man must have a desire for the office, but the stress in that passage is less on his "calling" (which absent objective revelation revealing his call requires a measure of subjectivity) and more on his demonstrated capacity to lead others (specifically his family) spiritually and his history of ethical behavour before the unsaved.

I consider the desire to preach a sign of a call, or even a type of call. Look at Isaiah in the OT. Can anyone doubt his call to be a prophet? Yet he described it in terms of volunteering in Is. 6:8. God looked around for a volunteer (all the time knowing who He wanted), and Isaiah raised his hand and said, "Here am I. Send me."

 

[Allan]

I agree that a burden is not a call.

Burdens IMHO are when God is opening us up to be apart of or help in some way a ministry already there or beginning.

A Call IMHO is when God is leading you towards a ministry that from the first you were created, gifted, and empowed for. It is something God is calling you to.

There is IMO a kind of hazy line between them as both are about Gods prompting toward us to be active in some means or way, but it becomes a much more clear line as it distinguishes itself as something YOU must do, or that you are to ASSIST with in any means from prayer, money, or time.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree that a burden is not a call.

Burdens IMHO are when God is opening us up to be apart of or help in some way a ministry already there or beginning.

A Call IMHO is when God is leading you towards a ministry that from the first you were created, gifted, and empowed for. It is something God is calling you to.

There is IMO a kind of hazy line between them as both are about Gods prompting toward us to be active in some means or way, but it becomes a much more clear line as it distinguishes itself as something YOU must do, or that you are to ASSIST with in any means from prayer, money, or time.

Well said, Allan! I couldn't have said it as well myself!

I just hope no one comes out to my mission field with a burden but no call. I've seen that happen, and the burdened missionary wannabe with no call didn't last, with the field missionaries having to close things up for him and a Japanese pastor taking over his fledgling church as a branch work. The man was a good man, and I felt badly for him, but he didn't have what it took. When I told him about my call to Japan one day he said he didn't have one, he just came out "under the Great Commission" (exactly what Friesen advocates on p. 331). It almost killed him--literally. His stress level was so great the doctor in the States told him if he went back to Japan he would die.

I admit that before making it to the field I may not have had 100% assurance of the call to Japan. However, after coming here and ever since, I have been 100% sure that I am where God wants me. I have truly not had a doubt about the call in these 25 1/2 years.

I have wanted to quit many times, but always knew I'd be out of God's will if I did. Where is my basis for that? Seeing the calls of the Bible. Seeing God calling and leading so clearly in the book of Acts. If the book of Acts is not to tell us how to do missions, most of its revelation is only theoretical.

Did God create me or not? If He did, He knows everything about me and He knows exactly where I could serve Him best because He is omniscient. But I am not. As I said on the recent thread about God's will, I would never have known I have a gift for language if I had not answered His call and become a missionary. I am doing exactly what God made me to do from the womb!

 

[Allan]

I agree, The difference is that a call instills in the person a resolve not to give up, leave or quit as God has Called them to it and therefore their commitment is based on what God asked of them.


Those with burdens but no call are the ones who charge out but when it gets rough they have no commitment to what they came into since there no calling that ensured them as God desiring them to be there. All they know is there was/is a yearning in their heart but little to no resolve.

 

[Jim1999]

Long story short. That student, on that burden, served the Lord faithfully, in the Congo, for 30 years. He only left the Congo as the rebellion took over that country.

I agree that a "call" is involved, but without the "burden" planted in his heart he might have remained in Canada.

Whilst we are busy debating semantics, he was busy serving the Lord. There are many factors that can enter into a "call". From a burden, we develop a vision, and without a vision the people perish.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Marcia]

Long story short. That student, on that burden, served the Lord faithfully, in the Congo, for 30 years. He only left the Congo as the rebellion took over that country.

I agree that a "call" is involved, but without the "burden" planted in his heart he might have remained in Canada.

Whilst we are busy debating semantics, he was busy serving the Lord. There are many factors that can enter into a "call". From a burden, we develop a vision, and without a vision the people perish.

I agree with part of what you say, Jim, but the word "vision" in Prov 29.18 I don't think means what you mean by "vision." I think in this passage it is about the revelation of God's law to the people, as we see in the phrase, "happy is he who keeps the law." It's not about our vision but God's revelation of his law.

Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint;
But happy is he who keeps the law. NKJV

Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint,
but blessed is he who keeps the law. ESV

 

[Allan]

It appears that those of us debating semantics are ones who had a burden that revealed itself as a call.

I think we stand on a common ground, it is just when someone can't set their personal opinion above some else they to out the - while your doing this they are serving the Lord - silliness.

I can tell you from experience as can the South Dakota Convention who has had almost every pastor and or church planter leave that came with a "burden" and then realize just how hard it is here (I am a church planter here) and after this realization they leave.

No calling, no purpose, no God centered vision (except great commision), no resolve

 

[Jim1999]

Marcia, IF I were doing a translation of Prov 29:18, I would quite agree with you....and add moral restrant as well, or even naked, another possibility from the Hebrew. I, however, still like the phrase....without a vision, the people perish.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[John of Japan]

Long story short. That student, on that burden, served the Lord faithfully, in the Congo, for 30 years. He only left the Congo as the rebellion took over that country.

I agree that a "call" is involved, but without the "burden" planted in his heart he might have remained in Canada.

Whilst we are busy debating semantics, he was busy serving the Lord. There are many factors that can enter into a "call". From a burden, we develop a vision, and without a vision the people perish.

Cheers,

Jim

You tricked me, Jim! I thought for sure that was a hypothetical! :laugh: Anyway, I think it is obvious that he was called sometime in that story. As I mentioned to Swaimj, I believe the desire to volunteer can be a call in itself, as witness Isaiah in Is. 6:8.

As for semantics, what may be semantics to you is the very fiber of my life. If you were that missionary to Africa (you don't say you weren't :smilewinkgrin you will understand what I am saying here. I see faces in my heart: J and M, men who came to Japan with a burden but no call and failed miserably (someone had sold J on that "tent-making" idea); A and R, men who had a call but lost their burden and quit after just one or two terms; F, who recently retired after 35 years in Japan. F obeyed his call, carried his burden all the way to the end, spent himself for the Lord Jesus, and went back to the homeland exhausted and ill of body. He will no doubt hear when he reaches Heaven, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." He's a role model of mine! :type:

 

[swaimj]

John of Japan, I am really confused as to what you are saying on the matter of revelation. In my understanding, God's speaking to Moses was revelation. His speaking to Isaiah was revelation. His speaking to Paul was revelaion. Earlier you stated that God's speaking to Moses was revelation. You seem to be saying that God calls people today but not through revelation. Yet you cite these biblical characters as examples of the means by which we should receive a call though their call was revelatory and ours is not. I don't see how these biblical calls can simultaneously be examples of the call we should receive and distinct from the call we should receive. Maybe its just me, but I am not following your argument.

As for the matter of the "burden" verses the "call". I once heard a famous preacher preach an entire sermon on this at a Sword conference in Chattanooga, TN without citing any scripture. (I'll give you three guesses who it was and the first two don't count!:laugh: It was in 1986. Perhaps you were there!) I don't know of a biblical basis for making this distinction though I have often heard fundamentalists make it.

Here is my basic problem with "the call" as I have heard it traditionally presented. The call is a very specific event between God and an individual. The person cannot verify the event, they only know that they heard a sermon or read a verse of scripture, and experienced some strong feeling, emotion, or moving from the Lord telling them that they must undertake a certain task or engage in a certain mission. Once they get it they must act upon it. Nothing can stop them or deter them. To fail to follow through is to be out of God's will irretrievably for the rest of your life.

I believe that this concept is patterned after OT prophetic calls and the apostolic call of Paul and other revelatory events of the book of Acts. Hoever, if one is a consistent cessationist these revelatory events are not the pattern for us in the NT. I believe the model that I outlined earlier in this thread is the pattern that we should seek as believers under the New Covenant.

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan, I am really confused as to what you are saying on the matter of revelation. In my understanding, God's speaking to Moses was revelation. His speaking to Isaiah was revelation. His speaking to Paul was revelaion. Earlier you stated that God's speaking to Moses was revelation. You seem to be saying that God calls people today but not through revelation. Yet you cite these biblical characters as examples of the means by which we should receive a call though their call was revelatory and ours is not. I don't see how these biblical calls can simultaneously be examples of the call we should receive and distinct from the call we should receive. Maybe its just me, but I am not following your argument.

What God said to Biblical characters was revelation because it was (1) verbal, and (2) became Scripture. All of Scripture is revelation. Even when we learn the words of Satan in Job 1-2, it is revelation about the character of Satan.

Fundamentalists have never believed that the call of God or His leading was revelation. God's will is not revealed to us nowadays verbally, nor is how we are led revelation in the Biblical sense. Go back and look at the verses I listed at the beginning of the thread. There are only two meanings there for "revelation": (1) a physical revealing, and (2) universal truth from God, such as the Gospel as revealed to Paul.

As for the matter of the "burden" verses the "call". I once heard a famous preacher preach an entire sermon on this at a Sword conference in Chattanooga, TN without citing any scripture. (I'll give you three guesses who it was and the first two don't count!:laugh: It was in 1986. Perhaps you were there!) I don't know of a biblical basis for making this distinction though I have often heard fundamentalists make it.

I may have been at that conference, since I was on furlough and based in Chattanooga in the Spring of that year. We may have shaken hands! :wavey:

I know the man and the sermon you are talking about. However, there is plenty of evidence in the Bible that a call and a burden are different, if you just study it out, even if said preacher didn't use the passages! The word "burden" occurs 66 times in the Scriptures, sometimes as physical but usually as a spiritual heaviness or heaviness of the heart for some particular matter. The call of God in Scripture, though, in the sense in which we are using it, occurs meaning God's direction to an individual as to future location or vocation. Thus, the two are different in meaning.

Here is my basic problem with "the call" as I have heard it traditionally presented. The call is a very specific event between God and an individual. The person cannot verify the event, they only know that they heard a sermon or read a verse of scripture, and experienced some strong feeling, emotion, or moving from the Lord telling them that they must undertake a certain task or engage in a certain mission. Once they get it they must act upon it. Nothing can stop them or deter them. To fail to follow through is to be out of God's will irretrievably for the rest of your life.

I believe that this concept is patterned after OT prophetic calls and the apostolic call of Paul and other revelatory events of the book of Acts. Hoever, if one is a consistent cessationist these revelatory events are not the pattern for us in the NT. I believe the model that I outlined earlier in this thread is the pattern that we should seek as believers under the New Covenant.

Whether or not such events are revelatory are exactly the point of this thread. To say they are revelatory (without being verbal or inscripturated) is a new definition of the term "revelation" which is not in Scripture and is not the usual theological definition. I've never seen such a definition anywhere except Friesen, and no one on this thread has yet given me one from a doctrines book, Bible dictionary or systematic theology. Anyone have one for me?

 

[EdSutton]

No, the two things are not the same, but are related.

From my days at Bible College where I managed to 'cram' a four year degree into five and a half years amassing a GPA of 2.35 (out of a 4.0) in the process, this definition from my eight hours of Systematic Theology classes, where I somehow managed to get an 'A' for both semesters.

"Revelation" - God making known what must otherwise remain unknown.

I'd add that communication is closer akin to 'illumination', as God, the Holy Spirit, illumines or 'opens' our minds and/or understanding to receive what He has 'revealed' in Scripture.

Works for me; how about the rest of you?

Ed

 

[Allan]

I've never seen such a definition anywhere except Friesen, and no one on this thread has yet given me one from a doctrines book, Bible dictionary or systematic theology. Anyone have one for me?

IN truth I have never "really" looked or looked that hard to find it.
I will do so in the morning, since it helps to have the majority of your library on the Computer. However I do like the hard back books they just get to heavy and expensive. :tongue3:

 

[John of Japan]

Go for it, Allan. :thumbsup:

In the meantime, here is a tidbit from the original ISBE article, "Revelation":

"The religion of the Bible, thus announces itself, not as the product of men's search after God, if haply they may feel after Him and find Him, but as the creation in men of the gracious God, forming a people for Himself, that they may show forth His praise. In other words, the religion of the Bible presents itself as distinctively a revealed religion. Or rather, to speak more exactly, it announces itself as the revealed religion, as the only revealed religion; and sets itself as such over against all other religions, which are represented as all products, in a sense in which it is not, of the art and device of man."

The theology books usually discuss revelation this way, as it relates to the truths of religion, not as it relates to individuals. Note this from Revelation and Inspiration (1910), the classic work on the subject by James Orr: "There is probably no proposition on which the higher religious philosophy of the past hundred years is more agreed than this--that all religion originates in revelation" (p. 2; emphasis in the original).

 

[Allan]

Eastons Bible Dictionary.
Revelation
AN UNCOVERING, A BRINGING TO LIGHT OF THAT WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY WHOLLY HIDDEN OR ONLY OBSCURELY SEEN. GOD HAS BEEN PLEASED IN VARIOUS WAYS AND AT DIFFERENT TIMES (Heb. 1:1) to make a supernatural revelation of himself and his purposes and plans, which, under the guidance of his Spirit, has been committed to writing. (See WORD OF GOD.) The Scriptures are not merely the “record” of revelation; they are the revelation itself in a written form, in order to the accurate preservation and propagation of the truth.

Call:
(2.) God calls with respect to men when he designates them to some special office (Ex. 31:2; Isa. 22:20; Acts 13:2),

Believe it or not, there is nothin I can find in my theology books that does not relate to the revelation scripture. I actually don't know if there has ever been much of real study done on this area. There is lots of philisophical ideas but nothing I can find but these two basic definitions on anything relating to a burden, (or fire in the bones of Jerimiah), Unction is sort of close as we are secondarily annointed like Christ was Annointed for His ministry.

Wow, we may have an area of study that has not been definitively defined and or maybe we just are not able to access it (hidden or lost) for further understanding.

 

[John of Japan]

Alan, I've been looking in my books on inspiration and systematic theologies, and I also don't find much other than what I've given so far. Very strange!

I'm going to look more in the book by James Orr I mentioned before, and maybe find some more good points. Also, the revised ISBE had a long article replacing the original ISBE article. Maybe there are some insights there. :type:

Aha! I just found a short definition in Rene Pache's The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, p. 45: "Revelation is the act by which God makes Himself known to His creatures." This seems inadequate to me, though. Much truth of the Bible deals with making God's creatures known to God's creatures. Is that not revelation?

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan, I am really confused as to what you are saying on the matter of revelation. In my understanding, God's speaking to Moses was revelation. His speaking to Isaiah was revelation. His speaking to Paul was revelaion. Earlier you stated that God's speaking to Moses was revelation. You seem to be saying that God calls people today but not through revelation. Yet you cite these biblical characters as examples of the means by which we should receive a call though their call was revelatory and ours is not. I don't see how these biblical calls can simultaneously be examples of the call we should receive and distinct from the call we should receive. Maybe its just me, but I am not following your argument.

Swaimj, Looking back, I may not have answered you completely here. You asked how the Bible characters can be an example for us, and I didn't address that.

I have found 9 types of God's call in Scripture (there may be more), and I will list them here:

1. Through the will of man, volunteering (Is. 6:8, 1 Tim. 3:1)
2. By force through the power of the Holy Spirit (Ez. ch. 2)
3. Through preparation from the womb (Jer. 1:4-10, Luke 1:15, Gal. 1:15)
4. Through a vision (Amos 1:1, Nahum 1:1, Acts 16:9-10, 26:19).
5. Through the Word of God (Jonah 1:1-2)
6. By a miracle (Ex. 3:1-10)
7. By the laying on of hands (Deut. 34:9)
8. Through the words of a man (1 Kings 19:15-21, Matt. 4:18-21, 9:9)
9. Through special revelation (Moses and Paul)

As I see it, God no longer uses #4 and #9 because of the cessation of special revelation. However, I don't see why any of these others cannot happen today. I still believe in miracles, though I don't believe in miracle workers. I believe miracles today occur through prayer. Now, we are specifically told to pray that the Lord of the harvest will send laborers into the harvest. Why would that not mean calling people to serve in the harvest? Again, in Acts 13, it specifically says that Paul and Barnabas were sent forth by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I believe God calls today much as He did in Bible times, with the above exceptions.