Jeri Tanner

What a strange challenge to an argument. I fail to see how the example given is not directly in line with the Bible’s command to exhort each other.

I will say this about that, there is most definitely a mystery to God. I don’t see how we can discount that. He is supernatural, He is sovereign and He can do whatever He wants to!

I don’t see how we can say that God will never do this or He won’t do that. He can certainly speak audibly if He so desires.

As I posted here (or maybe on Rob’s blog), I love where God has me now! I’m in the reformed theology camp, and I believe the gifts are alive and well today. If it’s in His word, then it’s applicable today.

Thanks so much for your insight into so many things!

I think it’s interesting at best that your strongest proof for “an audible voice from God” comes from a personal anecdote. Your cheerleaders like to help you qualify your arguments by saying “never in contradiction to Scripture.” What I see, though, is that the very thought that God speaks to believers in an audible voice is contrary to Scripture. You can justify much by saying “Where does it say this is wrong?” The tenor of the Bible, though, seems to tend toward “Where does it say this is right?”, at least in matters of theology and belief. Did you ask the person in question if God had spoken to him directly? If so, what was the answer? If God did speak to him directly, it seems the only purpose served was to make you feel better about your circumstances. Is that not the Spirit’s job (comfort)? And don’t the examples in the Bible of unique revelation tend toward benefitting more than just one person’s bruised feelings? Again I come back to the thought that you are making God into a genie who speaks to man only to grant wishes. Again I ask, what purpose does the finalized canon serve then? Should it not still be open with each of us adding the unique revelation that’s given to us to it? After all, God chose to include some of these individual-specific, task-oriented examples in the canon to teach the rest of us lessons from them. Why not include them all?

Part of believing in the inspiration of Scripture is believing that it is unique - that it alone is meant to be regarded as inspired. I don’t want to become too repetitive here, but Revelation 22. I still don’t understand how you fit what you’re saying into the clear command to add nothing to Scripture. This is not a discussion of gifts. We both agree that gifts exist today. We also both agree that God reveals Himself today - through His Word. The Spirit does draw men to God, but it’s not by using special, new revelation. It’s through enlightening the mind and heart to the truth of the Bible. The Spirit does comfort and teach believers, but it’s not by speaking directly to them outside of Scripture or by speaking directly to one of their buddies to impart special knowledge. Again, it’s through giving understanding of Scripture. No man is more special than another that God would speak to Him directly and impart new information. Again, using Bible examples of special revelation to prove it happens today makes no sense to me, since all those examples were included as part of general revelation, just as the recording of them as events was included by the Spirit-inspired authors. There was never any indication that those things would continue. Those examples were both witnessed and verified by other believers and by God Himself (they’re included in the canon, aren’t they?). And how is God speaking in an audible voice even a discussion of gifts?

God does speak to us today through the inspired Scriptures. If you must have audible, maybe try the Bible on CD?