tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post7986528250682184788..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Does the Holy Spirit Lead Believers by Talking to Them Directly?Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-66226715245280328362016-07-26T12:28:21.693-07:002016-07-26T12:28:21.693-07:00Kent,
Did you notice this from Masters? "To ... Kent,<br /><br />Did you notice this from Masters? "To return to Acts 13.2, we have a precedent for church life in every age, not in the manner by which God made known his will, but in the principle that his will is paramount in the ministerial appointments of the ongoing church. " How is that confusing on "extra scriptural revelation"?SCHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499180268365476522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-3299874309863186472016-07-25T20:06:32.131-07:002016-07-25T20:06:32.131-07:00Stephen,
To be clear to you, I have a high opinio...Stephen,<br /><br />To be clear to you, I have a high opinion of Peter Masters in many, many ways. I'm definitely no enemy of his. He's not on my radar. This relates to Jim's comparison of me to Masters on the individual will of God. Jim is getting me wrong.<br /><br />I quoted Masters on Acts 13, cut and pasted him. He mocked those who said Acts 13 was a "one off." He uses Acts 13 as a model for knowing the individual will of God today. How did Paul know the individual will of God? The Holy Spirit spoke directly. And yet it isn't the Holy Spirit speaking directly? If it isn't, then it is a "one off." You can't have it both ways. Let's start there.<br /><br />Is it a feeling or direct Holy Spirit speaking? You're saying he isn't confusing. How do you get a feeling from Acts 13. It's not a feeling there.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-3813322057152481972016-07-25T15:14:07.386-07:002016-07-25T15:14:07.386-07:00Kent,
I'm left wondering if you’ve read Dr. ...Kent, <br /><br />I'm left wondering if you’ve read Dr. Masters on Acts 13. He makes clear what parts of Acts 13 he sees as continuing to the present and it doesn't include anything ruled out by cessationism or, as you allege, any "extra scriptural revelation". As you correctly quote him, he says, "this event taught that those who are to engage in missionary service must be called by God. They expected this call to be felt by the missionary, who would have a strong inner desire for this service, and also to be ratified by the leaders of his church, who would have proved his suitability, gifts and preparation". I'm simply not aware of any church today doing the church-related things he lists here unless the candidate first in presenting himself 1) considers it to be God's plan that he enter upon this service and 2) desires to do so. Are you so aware? your articles don't explain this.<br /><br />Did you notice this from Masters? "To return to Acts 13.2, we have a precedent for church life in every age, not in the manner by which God made known his will, but in the principle that his will is paramount in the ministerial appointments of the ongoing church. " How is that confusing on "extra scriptural revelation"?<br /><br />This too: "we are not apostles in receipt of direct voices and visions" or "brash claims of some believers that they have the direct leading of the Spirit to guide them"<br /><br /><br /><br />Stephen<br /><br />PS I see in my mail today The Charismatic Deception by Peter Masters and John Whitcomb. Should be interesting!SCHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499180268365476522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-57652440843602304412016-07-24T20:47:19.475-07:002016-07-24T20:47:19.475-07:00Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
Thanks for the comments ...Dear Pastor Brandenburg,<br /><br />Thanks for the comments and the links. I'm not saying that this is what it is, but does the "said" of Acts 13 require audible speech from the Holy Spirit or could it be a non-continuationistic leading? When I read something like the Holy Spirit forbade Paul from going into Asia, I don't necessarily assume that the forbidding is audible speech – it could be providential or something else. I would not assume that the text like the following:<br /><br />Luke 12:11 And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:<br />Luke 12:12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.<br /><br />requires special revelation despite the use of the verb "teach." At the same time, I do not want to assume that "said" in Acts 13 means something other than actual speech if that is just reading into the passage and not something exegetically verifiable.<br /><br />Thanks.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-32093258805409476482016-07-24T15:51:58.133-07:002016-07-24T15:51:58.133-07:00Here's a third one from the same series I wrot...Here's a third one from the same series I wrote in 2006:<br /><br />https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/lowering-the-bar-for-preachers-theyre-called/Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-9396156255720341022016-07-24T15:47:36.254-07:002016-07-24T15:47:36.254-07:00Stephen,
I don't mind giving you that Friesen...Stephen,<br /><br />I don't mind giving you that Friesen in his book says "traditional," but in the post by Masters, he doesn't refute that. He takes up the thought that the traditional view is being opposed. I'm dealing only with Masters because I don't know what Friesen says. I've never read his book, although I've heard about it. Masters picks up the word traditional and says his view is traditional. He never proves that in the two posts to which Jim refers. Perhaps in his overall book, he proves that his position is historical. I'm telling you that I didn't get that from the two posts.<br /><br />You say that my quote is just not true. Here are three paragraphs (put in quotes):<br /><br />"Acts 13.2-3 provides a view of God exercising his sovereign direction in the sending of the first Christian missionaries out from Antioch. As the leaders of the church 'ministered to the Lord, and fasted', the Holy Spirit said to them, 'Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.' To past generations of Bible believers this event taught that those who are to engage in missionary service must be called by God. They expected this call to be felt by the missionary, who would have a strong inner desire for this service, and also to be ratified by the leaders of his church, who would have proved his suitability, gifts and preparation.<br /><br />However, to the promoters of the new view the call of Barnabas and Saul is yet another 'one-off' event. The assumption is made that they had a special call from God solely because they were the very first missionaries. It is also asserted that their call should be seen as a unique event because God's will was revealed by direct supernatural communication, which does not occur today. The conclusion is that we are no longer to look for a personal call of God, but simply to choose, by our own wisdom, the best-suited people as missionaries.<br /><br />This new 'rationalistic' approach to choosing God's servants is further justified by the strange claim that."<br /><br />OK. In Acts 13, the Holy Spirit spoke directly to leaders of the church at Antioch. Masters says without proof that past generations of believers believed that Acts 13 was not a "one-off" event. He uses the word "called" to describe what contemporary missionaries get parallel to what those in Acts 13 received. He sounds plainly like he is mocking those who do not believe "direct supernatural communication" occurs today. If you don't believe that, you are taking a rationalistic approach.<br /><br />Perhaps Masters is just confusing. That would be generous, but also true. The feeling of this strong inner desire is akin to the Holy Spirit talking to someone directly and supernaturally....or not?<br /><br />If you are going to say that Acts 13 occurs again, then you are saying that it is actually speaking by the Holy Spirit. If you are going to say that it is a "feeling" of an "inner desire," then you must show how that the Acts 13 event NOW is that. What scripture says that? You can't just make it up. Why is it the feeling of an inner desire now, when it was direct speaking before? If it is the feeling of an inner desire, then you can't use Acts 13 for that, because that isn't what Acts 13 is.<br /><br />On the other hand, just because you don't think it is the same occurrence as the Apostle Paul or the feeling of an inner desire of Masters, that it is merely rationalistic -- that is the straw man argument. I have an explanation for all this.<br /><br />Here: https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/a-primer-in-the-call-to-the-ministry/<br />And here: https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2006/12/27/how-god-calls-a-man-to-the-ministry/<br />And here: https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2006/12/20/you-call-me/Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-59316643184995044762016-07-24T15:13:51.180-07:002016-07-24T15:13:51.180-07:00"Traditional/traditionalist/tradition" i..."Traditional/traditionalist/tradition" is not Dr. Masters' terminology. It is the word used by the authors (I spent 5 minutes on amazon and did a 'look inside' search for "tradition") of the book he refutes to describe his general outlook. That is the answer to why he uses traditionalist. <br /><br />Where do you get that "His position, what he calls traditionalist, relies on extra scriptural revelation, where God talks to you."? That is just not true. You must be misreading something. If, on the other hand, I am missing something, I beg to be corrected.SCHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499180268365476522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-65933054297613208612016-07-24T10:45:29.361-07:002016-07-24T10:45:29.361-07:00I trust that I am open to correction in this, but ...I trust that I am open to correction in this, but when I read Peter Masters' book a number of years ago, I thought it was very good. I am pretty sure that he does not say you should listen to voices in your head, and also pretty sure that there are actually people who take the view that he is disagreeing with. I did not check the links, but I suspect that only part of his book is available on there, not the whole thing.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-78341827672695675292016-07-23T23:35:13.402-07:002016-07-23T23:35:13.402-07:00Hi Jim,
I'm going to be brief and by that I m...Hi Jim,<br /><br />I'm going to be brief and by that I mean that I can't deal with the two posts by Peter Masters and the passages he uses to come to his position.<br /><br />Not necessarily in any particular order.<br /><br />One, I don't know why he or you use traditionalist. <br />Tradition is not a bad word, but it goes undefined in his posts. I like using the word historical, as in historical theology. Is his position historical? Is this really how believers have approached this position? He doesn't establish that in any way. It would be of interest to hear why he thinks his position is traditional, because he gives no reason why. In the absence of that, we are left only with what the Bible teaches.<br /><br />Two, Masters exaggerates in the way he describes the two positions. One is not "no individual will" and the other "an individual will." No. His position, what he calls traditionalist, relies on extra scriptural revelation, where God talks to you. Mine relies on the Bible. Scripture is sufficient with application to make good decisions. Where the Bible doesn't speak, we have liberty. I believe my life is guided by scripture in the individual will of God. You've got to use the principles, and God does give wisdom in those decisions. My position is not like what Masters is describing. It's a straw man for my position if he were arguing against it.<br /><br />Three, Masters position misinterprets or at least misapplies most of the passages to which he refers. I don't believe it is the proper way to use scripture. Why? I can't say I know why it is Masters gets it wrong. I have a lot of respect for him. I'm happy for a lot that he does. However, he is covenant theology, I'm pretty sure he's amillennial or at least postmillennial. He takes a major approach difference to scripture. That will affect everything that he does.<br /><br />That's all I'll say for now.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-9501338584503044042016-07-23T22:15:44.165-07:002016-07-23T22:15:44.165-07:00Kent,
The article I linked referred to the "n...Kent,<br />The article I linked referred to the "non-traditionalist" view as the modern view of how God guides his people in contrast to what was the traditional view. The writer also considered the "modern/non traditionalist" view as dangerous and unbiblical. Basically the tradional view is that God has a specific will for each believer and each believer should seek Gods will. Also that a believer can be "lead of God" to do this or that assuming it doesn't violate Biblical principles. So the Traditional view would allow for a preacher to say "God lead me to preach this." The modern view was essentially that God doesn't have a specific will for us and Christians are mature adults who can make decisions based on Biblical principles so you can just make logical decisions based on Scripture. An application of this would be if a preacher was asked to come be a Pastor of a church. The Tradiontal view Pastor would seek God and ask him to show him clearly through his Word but also through circumstances and other means what God's will was. He would be exercising faith to determining God's will. In contrast the modern view Pastor would use human logic to determine if it was God's will. He would ask if any Biblical principles would be violated. He would consider if his family would feel comfortable there. He would consider other things and if it made sense and he wanted to do it he could or if he didn't want to he didn't have to. He is a mature man and can make the decision on his own.<br /><br />Other applications could be made that show the dichotomy of thinking. I.e. Sermon prep, soul winning etc.<br /><br />When I read your article Kent it sounded like you held many of the tenants of the modern view.<br />Thanks and will look for your response,<br />Jim Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-20811043918162322242016-07-20T21:52:58.877-07:002016-07-20T21:52:58.877-07:00Hi Jim,
It depends on what you mean by traditiona...Hi Jim,<br /><br />It depends on what you mean by traditionalist. I teach, I believe, what the Bible teaches on this. I'll read the articles.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-20918849526149562016-07-20T21:21:18.348-07:002016-07-20T21:21:18.348-07:00Kent,
Based on what you wrote and what the followi...Kent,<br />Based on what you wrote and what the following article states, I assume you would be considered a "non traditionalist"?<br /><br />http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Christian-Article/Steps-Guidance-in-the-Journey-of-Life-God-guides/Sword-and-Trowel-Magazine<br /><br />http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Christian-Articles/Biblical-Steps-Guidance-the-Journey-of-Life/Sword-and-Trowel-Magazine<br /><br />JimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-92081966215164127992016-06-22T15:22:46.788-07:002016-06-22T15:22:46.788-07:00Wasn't He touched Me written by Bill Gaither?
...Wasn't He touched Me written by Bill Gaither?<br />Any thoughts on my previous post Kent? Sounds like you have been busy!<br /><br />TimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-69381170736064447332016-06-20T09:03:32.940-07:002016-06-20T09:03:32.940-07:00I did some research and found out that the He Touc...I did some research and found out that the He Touched Me song is fairly new. at least in contextual comparison to Bach or Beethoven, who are from centuries ago. In good conscious, I wanted to say that I was not trying to denigrate the authors of the song in any way. I just have a disagreement with it, that's all, and was not meant to be taken as a personal statement. Actually, there are some other songs by the very same authors that I completely agree with and can wholeheartedly support! I didn't want anyone to come across my statements and misunderstand them as being uncharitable. <br /><br /> John Hansonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-8652649599978945472016-06-19T21:59:55.009-07:002016-06-19T21:59:55.009-07:00Kent,
I recently heard a man testifying that he wa...Kent,<br />I recently heard a man testifying that he was at home and was around the house when he said the Lord told him to give his neighbor a tract. At first he said no and reasoned that he was busy and just it wasn't the right time. Then moments later he said again that God was telling him again to give that man a tract, so he did, and was able to give the man some of the gospel and the man had been somewhat searching. Would you say that was the Holy Spirit speaking to him? Would you say this was a "Divine Appointment?"<br /><br />TimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-56627610515317453092016-06-16T18:10:00.696-07:002016-06-16T18:10:00.696-07:00Dear Farmer,
Thank you--I appreciate that.Dear Farmer,<br /><br />Thank you--I appreciate that.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-60692294642723736722016-06-15T17:17:39.578-07:002016-06-15T17:17:39.578-07:00Thomas , I just reread my last response to you. T...<b>Thomas </b>, I just reread my last response to you. The tone of it is not what I intended to convey. It seems smart alecky, which was not my intent. I was in a rush and did not take the time to consider the tone.<br /><br />I was trying to say is the specific will for God for me (and you or any believer) is contained in scripture.Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-16961711106955354682016-06-15T14:03:08.833-07:002016-06-15T14:03:08.833-07:00Pastor Gleason,
Thanks. Nothing to add.Pastor Gleason,<br /><br />Thanks. Nothing to add.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-22695401776578209562016-06-15T13:58:05.622-07:002016-06-15T13:58:05.622-07:00Hi David,
We want to live scripturally. The tryi...Hi David,<br /><br />We want to live scripturally. The trying of your faith is about whether you are going to hear and then obey scripture (James 1). The Holy Spirit works through the Word. I know that might sound too nebulous to some, but we know that He is what I heard someone call, the mouthpiece of the text. The Spirit uses the Word. That's how you know it is Him.<br /><br />Marriage is important. There are a lot of guiding biblical principles for marriage. Still, consider 1 Corinthians 7:39:<br /><br />The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.<br /><br />She can marry "whom she will" only in the Lord. God allows us liberty to choose what we want where scripture does not speak and we are not regulated by some biblical teaching or principle.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-43827933465637968552016-06-15T13:41:08.899-07:002016-06-15T13:41:08.899-07:00Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
My wife and I have been ...Dear Pastor Brandenburg,<br /><br />My wife and I have been discussing your article and have some questions. We definitely agree that God does not speak to people outside of the Bible. We also believe that God does actively lead His children. Where your article left things fuzzy is on how God leads us or reveals to us His will on areas of life not specifically written in Scripture. For example, what car to purchase, who to marry, where to minister, what college to attend, etc. For these, there are definitely Scriptural principles that would apply. But in the end, for one who direly wants to know and follow God's will in these areas, how does one know for sure what His will is? I have an uncle who believes we can just pick whatever we want as long as it is not outside the circle of Scriptural principles. In other words, there is not specific will of God in those areas. Can one concretely state that it was God that led them to conclusions or showed them His will in these types of decisions? Does God even care about these types of decisions as long as they do not go contrary to Scripture? Thanks for your future reply.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10691092293025211173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-15060685159305215632016-06-15T13:39:53.985-07:002016-06-15T13:39:53.985-07:00Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
My wife and I have been ...Dear Pastor Brandenburg,<br /><br />My wife and I have been discussing your article and have some questions. We definitely agree that God does not speak to people outside of the Bible. We also believe that God does actively lead His children. Where your article left things fuzzy is on how God leads us or reveals to us His will on areas of life not specifically written in Scripture. For example, what car to purchase, who to marry, where to minister, what college to attend, etc. For these, there are definitely Scriptural principles that would apply. But in the end, for one who direly wants to know and follow God's will in these areas, how does one know for sure what His will is? I have an uncle who believes we can just pick whatever we want as long as it is not outside the circle of Scriptural principles. In other words, there is not specific will of God in those areas. Can one concretely state that it was God that led them to conclusions or showed them His will in these types of decisions? Does God even care about these types of decisions as long as they do not go contrary to Scripture? Thanks for your future reply.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10691092293025211173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-30994651626948613472016-06-15T04:31:26.455-07:002016-06-15T04:31:26.455-07:00Of course we can have unexplained strong impulses ...Of course we can have unexplained strong impulses to do something, like go buy groceries. And if I follow them, God can use them, just like He can use me following common sense, or obeying a Scripture passage I read.<br /><br />Or he can use a cold to keep me from going to the gym. Maybe that's the Spirit protecting me from a heart attack, or making sure I'll be home when someone calls.<br /><br />I can give multiple stories of "unexplainables." I wrote about a fun one, My "Miriam Moment" https://mindrenewers.com/2013/04/01/my-miriam-moment/. God uses all kinds of means, including faulty memories, amazing instant recall, sudden impulses, illness and health, great ideas and bad ones, to weave together His master plan. I'm happy to call it the Spirit's leading.<br /><br />But there is no Biblical basis for confidence that these sudden impulses or feelings or whatever are "the Lord telling me to do X." They can just as well be temptations from the adversary, and if we trust these things as "the Lord telling me," we give our foe a powerful tool for deception.<br /><br />It is taking God's name in vain to announce that "God told me" if it isn't in Scripture. https://mindrenewers.com/2012/03/13/omg-and-other-ways-christians-take-gods-name-in-vain/.<br /><br />And with apologies to Kent for all the links, to claim "God Told Me to Preach This" is grievously wrong on many levels. https://mindrenewers.com/2014/02/14/god-told-me-to-preach-this/. Any preacher who does that is either false or badly confused and hasn't thought through what he's doing.Jon Gleasonhttp://www.mindrenewers.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-79309741951125544052016-06-14T21:47:00.652-07:002016-06-14T21:47:00.652-07:00Thomas, I do believe God has a specific will for m...Thomas, I do believe God has a specific will for my life. It is the exact same as the specific will for your life. I know it from scripture. He wants me to make disciples, grow in grace, keep the commandments, fear and worship him, train up my children in the way they should go, rule my family well, love my wife, live peaceably with all men, etc. The list is lengthy, too lengthy to reproduce here, but that is God's specific will for my life, just as it is for yours.Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-37543712164746610122016-06-14T21:19:59.870-07:002016-06-14T21:19:59.870-07:00Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
Thanks for the comment. ...Dear Pastor Brandenburg,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment. I agree that listening to voices in our head is foolish--at least that's what the ones in my head have told me today.<br /><br />In relation to: " You disagree with something, but you have said nothing that you do agree with," <br /><br />I sought to be clear that I agree that we ought not to listen to voices in our head. I'm not sure what in my comment was the source for "You disagree with something," so I cannot respond to it further, and I may not be able to easily respond to comments for a while, but feel free to explain what you were referring to, if you desire.<br /><br />Also, in general, there are large numbers of things that you right that I agree with, but I do not always indicate that in the comments, as it would get repetitious. I hope that is the case with others as well on posts of mine where there aren't many comments. :-) <br /><br />I agree with your comment on John 16:13 above.<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />Dear Mr. Hanson,<br /><br />I am Thomas.<br /><br />Dear Farmer,<br /><br />IMO, since Philippians 2:13 states that God works in the believer to will and do, He worked in those believers the desire to give the groceries. There is nothing continuationistic about that.<br /><br />Also, Farmer, what is wrong with speaking of God's will for one's life? If God had a plan for Jeremiah from the womb--a plan that he was not to resist (Jeremiah 1:5ff., and even a person, being born blind can be for the glory of God (John 9:2-3), why would we say that God does not have a specific will for our lives (if you are saying that--I don't want to read into your comment).<br /><br />To all:<br /><br />Some time ago I attended a wedding of two people trained at a Bible college and church that is influenced by Keswick continuationist thinking. As I recall, the groom stated that he was praying for a wife, and the name of this girl kept popping into his head. He said he did not even know her other than her name, but he had to look into the situation because her name was popping into his head. They both thought that was something from God that they were to get married, and they did, and, since God is merciful, as far as I can tell they are living happily ever after, at least as far as the doctrine of their church allows that to take place. They gave the name-popping testimony at the wedding to show that God brought them together. What popped into my head was that this name-popping method was a bit risky as a method of making the second most important decision of one's life, after conversion.<br /><br /><br />Thanks.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26095988116395147152016-06-14T15:25:50.933-07:002016-06-14T15:25:50.933-07:00Farmer,
Did God give a woman the desire to buy gr...Farmer,<br /><br />Did God give a woman the desire to buy groceries for someone? It could be that she, out of her new nature, seeing a need, had that desire, which is loving. Love is of God. It could be her conscience, trained by verses about love. It could be the Holy Spirit. It could be all of the above. Someone could be motivated by self-righteousness, as seen in 1 Cor 13, which talks about giving one's body to be burned or giving all that you have to feed the poor, except without love. In other words, you can't judge her heart. At the same time, love believes and hopes all things.<br /><br />How does the Holy Spirit lead, as Thomas referenced with regard to mortification of sin? He does lead. We can only judge what we can judge, so, again, is it scriptural? That's still the criteria. If it is scriptural, then it is the Holy Spirit. It is God. Because the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.com