Critiquing: Does Numbers 12:6–9 Indicate God Doesn’t Always Speak Clearly?

May 15, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Clear Communication — Prophetic Methods — Vision vs. Direct — Role of the Holy Spirit — Mystical Methods

---

Introduction

The content discusses whether Numbers 12:6-9 indicates that people don’t always hear God clearly and how one should approach a Christian school promoting mindful meditation and mystical methods for hearing from God. The primary argument is centered on the clarity and methods of divine communication.

Clear Communication

Key Argument:
The primary claim is that God’s communication is always clear when He desires to communicate, regardless of the method used. The speaker asserts, “Whenever God desired to communicate with anyone, he accomplished that desire…God doesn’t try. He does.”

Logical Inconsistency:

• The argument that God’s communication is always clear contradicts the example of visions and dreams, which require interpretation. For instance, the speaker mentions, “Sometimes there are dreams that you have to, in a sense, decipher.” This admission conflicts with the assertion of unambiguous communication.

Substantiation:

• The content lacks empirical evidence or a clear definition of “clarity” in divine communication. Without a clear benchmark for what constitutes “clear communication,” the claim remains subjective and unsubstantiated.

Prophetic Methods

Key Argument:
The distinction between different prophetic methods is highlighted, with Moses receiving direct communication, while others receive visions or dreams. “With [Moses] I speak mouth to mouth, even openly and not in dark sayings.”

Logical Inconsistency:

• The claim that all communication is clear contradicts the distinction made between direct communication and dreams or visions, which are inherently indirect and often require interpretation.

Cognitive Bias:

• Confirmation Bias: The speaker selectively interprets texts to support the premise that God’s communication is always clear, ignoring instances that suggest otherwise.

Vision vs. Direct Communication

Key Argument:
The content posits that while some prophets receive messages through visions or dreams, these are still clear. “The point I’m making is in either case, whether it’s a vision or direct… it is a direct clear communication.”

Logical Fallacy:

• Equivocation: The term “clear” is used ambiguously. Direct communication and visions/dreams are treated as equally clear without acknowledging the interpretative steps involved in understanding visions and dreams.

Substantiation:

• The speaker fails to provide concrete examples or criteria for evaluating the clarity of dreams and visions, leaving the claim unsubstantiated and vague.

Role of the Holy Spirit

Key Argument:
The content argues against the necessity of developing a skill to hear from God, emphasizing that the Holy Spirit provides wisdom and conviction without requiring active listening skills. “We’re just saying it’s not that we have to learn some skill of trying to hear what God is saying.”

Logical Inconsistency:

• This argument conflicts with the acknowledgment that understanding dreams and visions requires a form of interpretative skill, thus indirectly suggesting that some level of discernment or skill is necessary.

Cognitive Bias:

• Anchoring Bias: The speaker anchors on the idea that God’s communication is inherently clear, discounting any need for skill or interpretation, which contradicts earlier points about interpreting dreams.

Mystical Methods

Key Argument:
The content criticizes mystical methods of hearing from God, suggesting they are unbiblical and not supported by scripture. “There is no instruction on hearing the voice of God. There’s none.”

Unsubstantiated Claims:

• The assertion that mystical methods are unbiblical lacks thorough scriptural analysis or contextual evidence. The speaker does not provide a detailed exegesis of relevant passages to substantiate this claim.

Potential Testing Methods:

• To test the alleged promises of God, one could propose systematic documentation of instances where individuals claim to receive divine communication, followed by an analysis of the outcomes versus the claimed messages. This empirical approach would help substantiate or refute the effectiveness and clarity of such communication.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

Key Argument:
The need to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence is critical in evaluating claims about divine communication.

Application:

• The content emphasizes the importance of scripture but does not adequately address the varying interpretations and the evidence supporting these interpretations. A balanced approach would consider empirical evidence and diverse theological perspectives to map belief to evidence effectively.

Conclusion

The content asserts that God’s communication is always clear, that no special skill is required to hear from God, and criticizes mystical methods as unbiblical. However, several logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims undermine these arguments. The distinction between direct communication and visions or dreams inherently suggests varying degrees of clarity, contradicting the assertion of uniform clarity. Additionally, the criticism of mystical methods lacks a robust scriptural foundation, and the role of interpretative skills in understanding visions and dreams implies that some level of skill or discernment is necessary.

---

I invite further discussion on these arguments in the comments section.