God Told Me: A Phrase to Abandon

If I told you that God told me something, what would you be thinking? What if I say that God told me to tell you something?

Six years ago, if you told me that, I would have assumed that you heard an audible voice. In fact, I tried to listen to God in silence during my devotional and prayer times. I distinctly remember going to a prayer meeting in university where we tried to listen to God speak. I also held a prayer meeting where we sat in silence and would share any words, scriptures, or pictures that came to mind.

Today, I was talking to someone about something similar and that is exactly what he thought about God speaking. It started with him asking me about my call to ministry. "Did you receive the call to ministry or was it your thoughts?" As if my thoughts are automatically something that would be in direct conflict with the will (or call) of God. Our conversation led us to talking about this "calling" and God "speaking." It is because of such confusion that I propose we should either abandon this phrase from our Christian vocabulary, or we must qualify what we mean when we tell others that God told us (or God spoke to me, or God said).

Here are 5 additional reasons that this term should not be used:

1. The Body of Christ is being harmed with such language.
   From my own experience and from the experiences of those whom I have talked to, I get the sense that people want "more" of God because their life seems so ordinary. The problem is that they don't seem to be getting what they are hearing about.
   
   They hear about passionate people sharing about what God has been telling them. They want this literal face-to-face relationship with God that they are hearing about. But they are not getting this relationship. Instead, it is are simply praying to God and reading His word and obeying His commandments. Their prayers, they say, seem like a one way conversation with the Lord.
2. Those who hear God are prophets of God.
   In Numbers 12, the Lord responds Miriam and Aaron's envy against Moses with the following words in verse 6-8:
   And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”
   
   Notice, Moses is being compared to prophets. The contrast is that Moses has an even deeper relationship with God than any prophets of the Old Testament. Whereas the Lord speaks to the prophet in visions and dreams, Moses is spoken to "mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles."
3. Not everyone hears direct objective instructions from God.
   If we understand that there is no distinction* between OT and NT prophets, then we know that those who hear God speak are those with the gift of prophecy. And we know that not everyone are prophets (1 Cor. 12:29; Eph. 4:11).
4. Confusing your words with God's words is a dangerous thing.
   This phrase should already be enough:
   To claim that you are speaking the words of God when in fact you are not is to heap judgment upon yourself.
   
   Prophets are to be tested and are to be 100% accurate (Deut. 13:1-5; 18:20-22). The words of a prophecy are the very words of God because He puts words in the mouth of His prophets (Ex. 4:15; Deut. 18:18).
5. The focus is unnecessarily being taken away from the sole sufficient Word of God.
   When people are looking for these "extraordinary" experiences, it takes the focus away from God's word. However one tries to make distinctions, it is difficult for the one not experiencing God as he thinks he should to be content with the Spirit working by His word in an ordinary way. They want the Spirit to work extraordinarily as evidence to themselves that they are not missing out on the blessings of God.
   
   If the norm is not the working of the Spirit in the life of the believer (the changing his disposition from sin towards obedience to Christ), but dreams, visions, signs and wonders, then first of all, you misunderstood the gifts of God as defined by Scripture. Second, chasing after these voices over Christ's sufficient word is inevitable.
   
   Lastly, if an audible voice, or dreams and visions is not what you mean by "hearing from God," then you have made an unnecessary stumbling block for your brothers and sisters in Christ when you don't qualify what you mean by that.

So, please refrain from talking about "hearing from God" and saying "God told me." These statements must be followed by how you heard Him or how He told you. The Bible? Words of others? Just a thought that came to mind? What you think He told you?

Perhaps it is best to learn from Dr. MacArthur:

This is probably not a quote from him. Not surprised if he actually say it though.

*Some argue that the NT prophets are fallible, and the OT prophets are infallible. Simply put, Joel had in mind one type of prophecy when he wrote Joel 2:28-32. That is, the type of prophecy that he is gifted with, OT prophecy. When Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-21, there is no reason to think that Peter is changing the meaning of prophecy. If there is no reason for the change in meaning, then NT prophecy is the same as OT prophecy.

Can Snakes Talk?

A couple weeks ago, my coworker was talking to me about religion (specifically Christianity). In the past he asked me about my thoughts on different things, but maybe because I didn't take the view that he thinks conservative Christians take then he thought my views were liberal. (I think that must've been good from his point of view.) He came up to me and told me about someone he knew, when he was younger, who "believed the Bible is historical." At that moment, I interrupted, "I believe that." To which he responded, "Seriously? Really, Andy? You believe that snakes can talk?" (Referring to Genesis 3, when the serpent talked to Eve.)

Now let's pause. How would you respond to this question?

... tick tock, tick tock ... Ok, time to continue.

I replied by saying, "I don't believe snakes can talk." This can be observed in our everyday lives. Naturally, snakes are unable to speak as human beings do. So, snakes cannot talk.

"However, what happened there was a supernatural moment." Afterall, the snake was Satan (Rev. 12:9; 20:2), who is himself a supernatural being. Supernatural events do not happen all the time. They may or may not repeat themselves. So I believe that although it is true that snakes can't talk, it is also true that the snake in the garden did talk, provided we allow for a supernatural event to occur.

At the end of all this, it comes back to our worldview. The lens with which we see the world. Christians are supernaturalists; atheists and, generally, agnostics are naturalists. If one doesn't allow for supernaturalism in their worldview, one will never accept that it is even remotely possible that the snake in the garden of Eden talked to Eve.

There is a differentiation made here, if you ask me "Can snakes talk?", I will tell you that snakes can't (unable to) talk in human languages. However, if you ask me "Did the snake in Eden talk?", I will tell you that it did. Because the event was not purely natural.

After explaining that to my coworker, he did show appreciation that I made the distinction.

We Christians are not naturalists, we are supernaturalists. The physical world exists, the spiritual world also exists.

So, can donkeys talk? (Num. 22:28-30)

What Happens When We Die?

Disclaimer: I clearly have not done some deep digging and research on this subject, but thought it would be nice to share. I welcome any criticisms and thoughts on this topic.

For the most part, everyone knows that when they die they will either go to heaven or hell. By everyone, I mean every Bible believing Christian. People of other religions may think differently, and liberal Christians... are just wrong. The point of contention is not whether heaven or hell exists, but, chronologically, what exactly happens after death.

Here are some views:

1. The soul goes to heaven or hell immediately after death.
2. The soul goes to heaven immediately, hell comes after judgment.
3. The soul "sleeps" until the resurrection, heaven and hell comes after judgment.
   (If I remember correctly, this is also known as soul sleep. The Seventh Day Adventists believe in this.)

And there are some nuances, like how there will be a new heaven and new earth, and that God will dwell with His people on the new earth (Rev. 21). Therefore, you don't go to heaven but you stay on the new earth while God dwells among us. I believe that in the end, God will dwell with us on the new earth.

I think most people believe number 1 because they haven't given too much thought about our state of consciousness after our death. Rather, they just assume the end. (heaven = good, hell = bad)

My stance is number 2. I typed up a short email awhile ago. They were just quick short thoughts that came to my mind as I was reading Job. I reworded it so it doesn't sound like an email. 

Here it is:

Job 14:12-13, talks about dying as sleeping, but it also mentions being in Sheol. Which makes me think that the expression of sleeping is the observation that the living sees of the dead, instead of what is actually happening to the dead.  

Then my mind was brought to Jesus' story about the rich man and Lazarus, which takes place in Sheol (Gk. Hades). And the statement that Jesus made to the thief on the cross that he will be with Christ today in paradise, along with Paul's statement of being away from the body and at home with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:6).  

We also see in Rev. 20:13-14 that those in Hades will be given up for judgment (so they come out of Hades), and Hades itself will be thrown into the lake of fire (hell). Whether Hades is only reserved for OT saints and that NT saints go straight to heaven after death, I'm uncertain, but I tend to lean towards that understanding.

The strongest argument I hear for number 3 (which I don't think is really that strong after considering the Bible passages above) is the argument of the influence of Greek thinking. That the separation of soul and body is too Gnostic-like[1]. They argue that the Hebrews didn't believe in such a distinction/separation. Therefore, separation cannot happen. And to make sense of being in paradise "today", the individual must be sleeping until the day s/he enters paradise. That way, to the individual, it feels like "today" but it's not really.

Thoughts?

[1]Gnosticism believes that the spirit is good and the material is bad. That there is a secret knowledge that must be obtained to be freed from this material world. As a result, Gnostics would try to abstain from material possession and earthly enjoyment. On the other hand, there are Gnostics who would indulge themselves in the flesh because, afterall, we will be rid of our flesh after we die anyways.

Note: Gnosticism is a system of thought that had also infiltrated some small sects of Christianity. Evidenced by writings such as the Gospel of Thomas (also known as a Gnostic gospel).