Many pastors, during their sermon on Sunday, might say something like, “And you know, I want to say something the Holy Spirit just spoke to me to tell you…” It is implied that what comes next is most certainly more important than everything else said, right? Yes? No? I would think so.
Here is why that kind of statement - “And you know, I want to say something the Holy Spirit just spoke to me to tell you…” - is very problematic. It implies that everything else said in a sermon is not (as) authoritative. Perhaps only that one statement is actually to be trusted as true and from God. But isn’t the whole sermon meant to be authoritative in so far as it comes from the Word of God? While a sermon is not the Word of God, a sermon is meant to explain the Word of God and thus be authoritative in that regard. A sermon that transgresses the Word of God is not authoritative. But when a preacher shares a thought he says is “from the Holy Spirit”, a whole new layer is introduced, calling into question everything else that is said in the sermon.
In that moment, the preacher is implying that everyone ought to really perk up because they are finally about to hear from God. They haven’t been hearing from God through the preacher until now. And what does that imply about the rest of the sermon? That it is not from God, not really. That it may not be true at all. Imagine leaving church every Sunday and thinking, “I’m not sure about the rest of the sermon but the part that was ‘from the Holy Spirit’ I can trust.”
A preacher who does this might respond and say, “No, the whole sermon is from the Word of God. It’s all authoritative in that regard. But that one moment was directly from the Holy Spirit to me.” Alright, let’s roll with that. Are you, preacher, now saying that you receive revelation from God directly that is as equally authoritative and binding as the very Word of God?
To that most preachers would say, “No, of course not! Secret messages to me from the Holy Spirit are not binding like the Word of God.” Alright, let’s roll with that. If that’s the case, then what’s the point in saying, “The Holy Spirit just spoke to me…”. Because if you really believe the Holy Spirit, God himself, told you to tell your church something, then it is a binding word of God on them, carrying as much authority as the Bible. And if it’s not, then whatever you think the Holy Spirit spoke to you is just like everything else you’re saying in the sermon and therefore what’s the point in telling everyone you think the Spirit just spoke to you?
Here’s the point: we either have (1) the Word of God and (2) sermons that teach and preach it or we have (1) the Word of God, (2) sermons that teach and preach it, and (3) binding secret messages the Spirit gives directly to preachers that have the same authority as the Bible.
“Ok but I make clear to my church that messages to me from the Spirit could be wrong, so they don’t have the same authority as the Bible,” a preacher may add here. And to that Christians ought to respond, “Well, if they could be wrong, then why should I remotely trust that they are from God? If they can be wrong, saying they are ‘from the Spirit’ does not mean anything.” In other words, if they could be wrong, then I don’t care whether you think they are from the Spirit or not. Just say the thought and I’ll test whether it accords with the Bible or not. Adding “This is from the Holy Spirit…” actually changes nothing about the authority of the idea if “it could be wrong” or if “it doesn’t carry the same authority as the Bible”.
Christians can rest knowing they are hearing from God when they read the Bible and when they hear a sermon expounding the Bible. They can rest knowing they don’t need their preacher to also receive a secret message from the Spirit in order to hear from God. They can rest knowing they have everything they need to know and walk with God, right there in the Bible.
