Deception is simply taking a piece of the truth, and twisting it. That's what makes it so convincing. It sounds right... sort of. Almost.

I believe I first read in one of C.S. Lewis's books, probably in several of them, that evil defines itself by the absence of God, just as darkness defines itself as the absence of light. Satan cannot create anything; all he can do is pervert something that God made, and intended for good.  

The introduction of Jonathan Cahn's most recent book, "The Dragon Prophecy," puts this extremely well, so I'm going to just quote him. He writes, "If God is good, then how could there be evil? And if God is evil, then how could God be good? But if God did not create evil, then how could evil exist? Or how could God be God?... If evil was created, it would not be a problem, nor would it be evil. Evil is a problem for the very reason that it was not created. It should not exist, because it was not created, and yet it does. The existence of evil defies the created order. It is not of the creation and thus exists in opposition to the created order. Evil exists in defiance of existence... evil is not simply a force, like that of an earthquake, a hurricane, or a fire. All these bring calamity and destruction. But none would constitute true evil. Serial killers are. Why? The hurricane is an impersonal force. It acts without consciousness, will, choice, volition, or intent. But the serial killer commits his acts with conscious intent, will, an volition--and so is evil. And so evil is not an impersonal force--but a personal one, requiring consciousness, volition, will, and intent. Thus in our search for an answer to evil, we are led to personhood... Evil is an inversion--an inversion of truth, of reality, of existence. Evil is, by nature, inverted and, by nature, inverts. It twists, bends, and turns existence in upon itself. It exists as anti-existence. Its being is anti-being, and its nature, anti-nature. It is a negation and therefore seeks to negate, a nullification that exists to nullify. It has no true, ultimate, or absolute existence and therefore acts to bring that which exists into non-existence... Possessing no absolute or true existence of its own, evil is, as well, by nature, parasitic... Evil must use the good. And so though good can exist without evil, evil cannot exist without good. Truth can exist without falsehood, but falsehood cannot exist without truth. Laws can exist without crimes, marriage without adultery, and life without murder. But crimes cannot exist without laws, adultery without marriage, nor murder exist without life. Destruction requires structure, immorality requires morality, and sin requires the holy. The good is primary. Evil is the parasitic inversion of the good. And so the existence of evil inadvertently testifies not against the existence of the good--but for it. It bears witness, unwillingly, to the existence of the good--the existence of God" (9-10).

So if evil itself is an inversion of something created to be good, then nearly everything God created for our pleasure and enjoyment can also become evil... but because it contains the seeds of something that was originally good, Satan can also use that kernel of goodness, or truth, to convince us that the twisted version is actually good and true, too... and if we don't know the truth well enough to tell the difference, we'll fall for it. 

The Syncretism Trend

According to Dr George Barna's research with the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University, the dominant worldview of Americans (92%) now is syncretism (https://www.arizonachristian.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CRC-Release-AWVI-2-April-23-2024.pdf): that is, an amalgamation of disparate and contradictory beliefs, pulled from multiple religious or philosophical ideologies, according to an individual's personal inclinations and emotions. Syncretism is therefore not a single worldview, but a mishmash of beliefs--hence the common phrase, "your truth" and "my truth." The implication is that these can be mutually exclusive, without any logical contradiction.

This strategy of Satan's is nothing new. He is a liar and the father of lies by nature (John 8:44). He sticks with this approach because it works. 

Syncretism in the Old Testament

Syncretism has  been around since the days of the Old Testament, and was the main reason why the Israelites couldn't seem to stay on the "blessing" side of God's covenant (Deuteronomy 28). Literally the first of the Ten Commandments was "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Ex 20:3)--and al, the Hebrew word translated "before", also means "by" or "beside." So God wasn't saying they simply had to worship Him the most, but it was okay if they occasionally sacrificed to Baal or Molech or Asherah--so long as He was the most important. No; they were to have no other gods besides Him. Period. The entire Old Testament history is a cycle of the Israelites' disobedience of this one commandment. The first example after the Ten Commandments were given is the golden calf that Aaron made with the spoils from Egypt while Moses was up on the mountain receiving God's law (Ex 32). These Israelites had spent their entire lives in Egypt, where a pantheon of gods were worshipped (many of whom God specifically humiliated by the plagues chosen to eventually force Pharaoh to let them go). When they made the golden calf, the Israelites declared that this was God--the One who had delivered them from Egypt (Ex 32:4). So they weren't exactly abandoning Yahweh for some other god; rather, they were mixing Him with the gods they had grown up with.

Then, the Israelites tended to mix worship of Yahweh with worship of the gods of neighboring nations, even before they ever got to the Promised Land. Israel's enemies feared God, and one of them (King Balak of Moab) sent for Balaam, a local seer, to curse Israel (Numbers 22-24). God wouldn't allow Balaam to curse Israel, but Balaam wanted Balak's money... so instead, he told Balak how to get the Israelites to curse themselves, by placing themselves on the "cursing" side of God's covenant (Deuteronomy 28). Numbers 25 shows the result: the Moabite harlots used sex to entice the men of Israel into idolatry. The issue in this case wasn't so much the sex, as it was that sex was used in worship of false gods. 

The cycle repeats throughout the Old Testament: Israel falls into idolatry, they fall under the 'cursing' side of God's covenant as a result (bringing themselves out from under His protection, and subject to Satan’s machinations), they get oppressed by their enemies, they cry out to God, and God delivers them. They renew their vows to and worship of the One True God in varying degrees, but then they forget again, fall into idolatry, and the cycle repeats. God had laid out very clearly that they would be blessed if they followed His laws, and cursed if they didn't (Deut 28), and the very first commandment was no gods before Him. It was the first for a reason: God knows that we were made to worship something, and we treasure what we worship. "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt 6:21), and our hearts guide the course of our lives (Prov 4:23). 

Eventually Israel split into two kingdoms (Northern and Southern, or Israel and Judah) over this very issue. Most of the subsequent kings of both nations perpetuated idolatry, though a few tried to purge the nation of idolatry to varying degrees, and enjoyed the 'blessing' side of the covenant for a time as a result (Deut 28). But God sent prophet after prophet to the Northern and Southern nations (writers of most of the major and minor prophetic books of the Old Testament), warning them of impending destruction if they did not repent of their idolatry. They ignored the warning, and eventually both nations were taken into captivity because of their idolatry: Israel to Assyria and Judah to Babylon. (Though of course, God was not done with Israel, and His promises to them still stand--Ezekiel 37 prophesied their restoration to their own land as a resurrection of dry bones, which miraculously took place on May 14, 1948. And the nation of Israel takes center stage throughout most of the book of Revelation, from chapter 5 on.) 

Syncretism in the New Testament 

Syncretism was around during the time of the early church, too, particularly in Paul's ministry. God sent him as the apostle to the Gentiles, who practiced varying forms of pagan beliefs already. They attempted to mix Jesus with these beliefs, until Paul's preaching convicted them to follow Jesus only, burning their books of magic arts and getting rid of their idols of Greek and Roman gods (Acts 19:11-20--which turned into a big riot in the city, v 21-41).

Paul described the end times as being a time of "unrighteous deception among those who perish" (2 Thess 2:10), so we can expect that as we approach that day, this will only increase. Jesus told us that in the last days, "if possible, even the elect" would be deceived (Matt 24:24).

The Greek work for deception in these verses is planao, and it means "to lead away from the truth, to lead into error." This inherently means that there is such a thing as truth. If you believe something contradictory to that truth, that is deception.

We're living in an age that largely borrows from postmodernism as part of the syncretic worldview. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "Postmodernists deny that there are aspects of reality that are objective; that there are statements about reality that are objectively true or false; that it is possible to have knowledge of such statements (objective knowledge); that it is possible for human beings to know some things with certainty; and that there are objective, or absolute, moral values." Holders of this worldview are therefore confused about even observable or mathematical truths, let alone those that are not observable (such as whether or not there is a God, and if there is, how many, and which one, how do we get to Him, etc).

So before we even approach the topic of how to avoid being deceived, we have to establish that there is such a thing as objective truth. If there isn't, then there is no such thing as deception, either, since deception derives its definition from truth (just as darkness derives its definition from light, by the absence of it).

What Is Truth (i.e. Is There Such A Thing As Objective Reality?)

The best argument I've heard on the topic of whether or not there is an objective reality comes from Dr Jason Lisle's "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" (which is a book, but here is his lecture on the argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ_UxcV-xcM). While there is an abundance of apologetic evidence for the scientific and historical accuracy of scripture (here's the first in an apologetics series I did on the subject, https://www.drlaurendeville.com/anthropic-fine-tuning/), Lisle points out that none of these arguments can be definitive, because someone who holds a different worldview can simply invoke a "rescuing device" to explain away any evidence that seems to contradict his own position. We all do this, and it's not necessarily a bad thing--for example, if someone points out an apparent contradiction in scripture, my first reaction isn't, "Oh, I guess the Bible is wrong!" Rather, I assume there's additional information I don't happen to know about yet, which resolves the apparent contradiction, and then I go look for it. Even if I can't find it at the time, I am still certain it exists, and someone will find it eventually. That's a rescuing device, to preserve an otherwise deeply held worldview without logical contradiction.

The real key to establishing which worldview is correct lies in that last statement: "without logical contradiction." There are laws that govern the way the world and the universe works--laws that we all have to believe in and abide by in order to know anything at all. C.S. Lewis expounded on this concept in "Mere Christianity" (https://www.authorcagray.com/posts/mere-christianity/) with respect to morality, in particular--the idea that we all know that there are universal laws of decency and conduct, and we further know that we don't live up to them. But, that being the case, who made those laws? Where did they come from? He argues that their very existence necessitates a lawgiver.

Lisle takes this argument further--the existence of non-moral rules that govern how the material world works, such as the laws of logic, and principles of math and science, are the presuppositions upon which all knowledge is based. Everyone has to abide by these, no matter what their worldview is, or it would be impossible to know anything at all. But who made those rules? Where did they come from? Why does math work? Why do we all assume the laws of logic in order to have a coherent conversation? This, too, necessitates a creator. Many who abide by laws of math, science, and logic (and morality, for that matter) don't happen to have a theistic worldview, but that in and of itself is a logical inconsistency; they can't account for those rules in their worldviews at all. They have to borrow from the theistic worldview in order to make any of their other arguments. 

This is the very place where postmodernism diverges, though. If there is no objective reality, then knowledge of any kind doesn't exist. Most of those who hold this worldview at least believe in morality of some kind. Lewis's argument might be most relevant here--you'll never get someone persuaded by postmodernism and religious syncretism to argue that murder, or genocide, or racism are fine, for example. They know these are wrong because they "feel" them to be wrong--and they're not just wrong for them, they're wrong for everyone. Now we have at least one absolute... which necessitates a lawgiver not only for morality, but also for at least one logical law: that of non-contradiction.

This already establishes the existence of an objective reality. If there is an objective reality, then necessarily, some statements about it must be true while others must be false. The world is round and not flat, for example. If a world exists at all, both things cannot be true about it at the same time and in the same way, simultaneously--that would be a logical contradiction.

Which Objective Reality Is It? (Can Anybody Know?)

If some objective reality does in fact exist, how do we know which one it is? How do we know that our senses are reliable, first of all, and that we're not living in a simulation a la "The Matrix," for instance--one in which the laws of morality, logic, math, and science are simply foundational to the code?

This argument goes back to Descartes, who concluded that at the very least, he must exist after some fashion, because his consciousness told him he must. C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" used a similar line of reasoning, arguing that if there were a deeper reality, one that created this reality, we couldn't possibly find out anything about it through our five senses. Of course we couldn't; those senses are of the physical world, and can thus only give us information about the physical world. Our consciousness, however, has no identifiable physical reality. (To this day, science cannot explain what consciousness actually is - https://www.drlaurendeville.com/electromagnetism-vital-force/.) So Lewis argues that, if there were anything knowable about the world beyond our own, the only place where we might possibly expect to find clues about it would be in our own consciousness. And there, in fact, we do find such clues: specifically, we all have a sense of right and wrong. While we might quibble about the details therein--someone might say that under such and such a condition, killing someone is not murder, for example--no one will seriously argue that murder is morally fine. One might have different rules surrounding the morals of sex, but nobody is going to say you can just have any person you like anytime you like. This establishes several things, according to his argument: the existence of a moral law outside of our reality, of how we ought to behave (even though we know we don't, or at least not always, and certainly not perfectly), which necessitates the implied existence of a law-giver. The very fact that we do not keep the law (even though we know we should) is the whole point of the law of the Old Testament, too (Romans 7)--but even those who didn't know the Old Testament were aware of the moral law to this extent, so that no one is without excuse (Romans 1:18-2:16).

Once we know that there is a moral law, and that we're incapable of keeping it on our own, that narrows down the possible religions considerably. We must choose one that hinges on the concept of grace, not works. There is literally only one of those. (More on that in this podcast: https://www.drlaurendeville.com/relational-apologetics/). That's why we call Christianity the gospel, which means good news: the good news is that, while you can't make yourself righteous no matter how hard you try, you don't have to make yourself righteous because Jesus did it for you. All you have to do is accept what He did on your behalf.

Once you've gotten to this place, now all the scientific apologetics (start here: https://www.drlaurendeville.com/anthropic-fine-tuning/) can fall into their proper place: as corroborating evidence for the Bible. But the Bible has to be philosophically established as authoritative first.

Once we've established that the Bible is truth (John 17:17, Psa 25:5, Psa 91:4, Psa 96:13, 100:5, 117:2, 119:142, 151, 160; 138:2, Prov 3:3, Col 1:5), we've got to learn what it says--well enough that Satan can't take it out of context and feed it back to us, or add a tiny bit to it to change the meaning. That's exactly how he works, though. He even tried that with Jesus (Luke 4:1-13). Fortunately Jesus was the Word made flesh (John 1:14), so He didn't fall for it... but the less we actually know the scripture, the more vulnerable we'll be to this strategy.

Knowing the Truth Well

Jesus warned us that as the last days approach, Satan will double down on this strategy: that false prophets will rise up and deceive many (Matt 24:11), claiming to be Jesus returned (Mark 13:6), some with signs and wonders. At the same time, Revelation suggests that in the last days, the church will become apathetic, so prosperous materially that we will be unaware of our spiritual emptiness (Rev 3:14-22). (This sounds a lot like the seeds choked by thorns in Jesus' parable of the sower: the seed is choked by "the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches, and he becomes unfruitful", Matt 13:22). Peter tells us that "scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.'" (2 Peter 3:3-4). Paul tells us that the last days will be accompanied by a great "falling away" (2 Thess 2:3).

Deception comes in many forms, but one thing they all have in common is that they act almost like a vaccine against the truth. There's just enough truth to them, mixed with a lot of untruth, that it's hard to tease apart the good from the bad. In that way, they can deceive "even the elect, if possible" (Matt 24:24, Mark 13:22).

We protect against this, in a nutshell, by knowing the truth really, really well. This is the way bankers are trained to recognize counterfeit money: they don't study every possible counterfeit (there will always be a new one). Rather, they learn what the real thing looks like so well that they'll know when something seems off, even if they can't articulate what it is.

In the same way, we're to renew our minds with the Word (Romans 12:2); that's how we will recognize truth from lies. Otherwise, it's all too easy for Satan to take a sliver of truth, mix it with a lie, and so deceive us.

An Old Testament example of this is found in 2 Kings 18. The back story: in Numbers 21:6-9, the people had sinned, had come out from under the protection of God’s covenant, and were dying from bites from poisonous snakes. God commanded Moses to make a bronze serpent on a pole, and told the people that if they would only look at the serpent, they would be healed. We know with hindsight that this was a type and shadow of Jesus, who was made sin for us, and became our substitutionary sacrifice ("by His stripes, we are healed," Isaiah 53:5). But the Jews didn't realize that; all they knew was that God ordained healing through looking at the pole, so the pole became a symbol of deliverance. But over the centuries, they made looking at the pole into a formula: the shadow without the substance of Jesus behind it. It became an idol, which they called Nehushtan. Back to 2 Kings 18, centuries later: verse 4 tells us that King Hezekiah had torn down the high places and broke Nehushtan in pieces.

Later in the chapter, Judah is threatened with destruction by a messenger from the King of Assyria, Rabshakeh. This would have been especially terrifying, since Israel (by this point they has become two nations, Israel and Judah) had already been carried into captivity by Assyria, in punishment for the fact that the people kept falling into idolatry and had forsaken God. So when Rabshakeh threatened the people with destruction, he said, "You broke down God's symbols of worship! Why would He come through for you?" (2 Kings 18:22). The people of Judah had to know God and His word well enough to know that what Hezekiah did was actually right in God's eyes (2 Kings 18:5-7). God had originally ordained the serpent on the pole, yes, but the people had made it into an idol, which broke the first of the Ten Commandments. Hezekiah's actions had placed the Jews on the right side of God's covenant (Deut 28), so they, unlike their sister nation of Israel, could trust that God would come through for them. But if the people had not understood all the back story, they might easily have believed Rabshakeh's taunts. They could have lost faith that God would come through for them, convinced that they would go the way of Israel before them, and turned against Hezekiah, thinking he'd brought them out from under God's protection.

This is how the enemy works. The serpent is subtle and cunning (Gen 3:1, 2 Cor 11:3-4). Satan tried to deceive Jesus not even by misquoting scripture, just by quoting it out of context (Matt 4:6). This happens to us today all the time. One common example is the teaching that God causes or (directly) allows sickness in order to discipline us, or to teach us something, or for the "greater good". This sounds so spiritual, and a host of out of context scriptures even seem to back it up--yet Deut 28 makes it clear that sickness is always considered a curse. Jesus became a curse for us and redeemed us from the curse (Gal 3:13-14), and even before that, He healed all who came to Him (Matt 15:30, Matt 4:23-24, Matt 8:16, Matt 9:35, Matt 10:1, Matt 12:15, Matt 15:30, Luke 4:40, Luke 10:9). Jesus He was a perfect representation of the Father (John 5:19, 5:30, 8:28, 12:49). So this cannot be right. He may take what the enemy meant for evil and turn it for good (Gen 50:20), but that doesn't mean He caused the evil in the first place. Not even close. (For more on this, see https://www.drlaurendeville.com/why-bad-things-happen-from-a-biblical-perspective/).

Truth is the foundation of the spiritual armor (Eph 6:14)--it must go on first, before anything else. The Bible can testify to us that not only is the Word truth, but God is the God of truth (Isa 65:16), that Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). Only knowing the truth will make us free (John 8:32). If we focus on knowing the truth, we will recognize deception.

It's important to also rely upon the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth (John 14:17, 15:26, 16:13, 1 John 5:6), to guide us, rather than on our own understanding (Prov 3:5-6), or the wisdom of the world (1 Cor 1:20-2:7), or any other spirit besides the Holy Spirit. The world is confused about what truth is (John 18:37-38) because they don't hear His voice--but we do. This shouldn't be a problem for us. 

Cross-Reference What You Hear

Along those lines, just because we hear a doctrine preached from the pulpit doesn't mean it's so. It's our responsibility to be like the Bereans in Acts 17--when Paul and Silas preached the word to them there, Luke writes of them, "These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed" (Acts 17:11). They didn't just take Paul and Silas's word for it; they went straight to the source text to confirm it. Paul later wrote to the Galatians, "even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:8-9). He repeats himself, because this is so important. Forget him--even if an angel preaches it, let him be accursed! We are not to blindly follow any person simply because of his or her authority. (We're to respect authority of all kinds, Romans 13:1-7--that's a different issue. But when what someone in authority says comes in conflict with God's word, we obviously go with God's word, Acts 4:19).

There are plenty of warnings about false teachers in scripture (though one important note here--there's a difference between a false teacher, and a good person doing his or her best who is simply flawed. None of us is going to get everything right. This is the reason why James says that not many should become teachers, as they will "receive a stricter judgment. For we all stumble in many things," James 3:1-2.) 

A false teacher, though, is one who will distort the truth (Acts 20:29-30, 2 Peter 3:16), by mixing it with myths/fables (Titus 1:14) or "merely human commands" (Matthew 16:1-12) or the traditions of men (such as forbidding to marry, abstaining from certain foods, 1 Tim 4:3), according to the principles of the world (Col 2:4-8). They will pretend to be godly or moral, though (2 Cor 11:13-15, 2 Tim 6:5)--so we must use discernment. There are a few criteria we're given to distinguish a false teacher from just a flawed human being, in process like the rest of us:

• Anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is a false teacher (1 John 2:22-23, 4:2-3)
• Some may lie intentionally for their own gain (Deut 18:20, Ezekiel 13:9, Jer 14:14, Jer 23:16, Titus 1:10-11) or in hypocrisy (1 Tim 4:2-5), using "godliness" as a means of their own selfish gain.
• Others may be so blind that they truly believe they are doing God a favor in persecuting His true followers (John 16:2).
• Romans 16:18: Paul said in this verse that these individuals use good words and fair speeches and deceive the hearts of the simple. This means that they flatter people (2 Timothy 4:3) and appeal to the same selfish desires that they themselves have, to draw people after themselves (Acts 20:30).

We can't judge another person's motives (Matthew 7:1-3), but we can, and should, judge the fruit of their lives and ministries (Matthew 7:15-20, 1 John 3:7-9). There are many who claim to be believers but aren't (Matthew 7:21-23) and they'll be among us until the end of the age, when God will finally separate them out (Matthew 13:24-30).

Truth, "Signs," and Our Emotions

We are the gatekeepers of our hearts (Prov 4:23), and have to guard its boundaries, careful of what we allow in. I always thought the parable of wheat and tares (Matthew 13:24-30) only referred to evil people sown amongst the good people of the church. But what if it also means good and bad ideas from good and bad spirits within a given individual-- in other words, we can bear good fruit and bad fruit from different 'trees' even within our own hearts? This might be why Jesus could tell Peter "get behind me Satan" (Matt 16:23) and James and John, "you don't know what spirit you are of" (Luke 9:55), but the men themselves were still His. This also probably goes along with the Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:3-15)... the 'tares' we allow into our own hearts are part of what can choke the word and render it unfruitful.

Truth of course must correspond to an accurate description of reality (Gen 42:16)--which should negate any postmodernist philosophy, or syncretism, blending contradictory descriptions of reality. Once we know the truth, we are to continue in what we were taught (Col 2:6-7, 1 John 2:24), not mix a little Christianity with a little of some other contrary message. Paul rails against this practice in many of his letters. In 2 Cor 11:3-4, Paul is angry that the Corinthians' minds may be corrupted so that they receive the one preaching a different Jesus or gospel from the one he preached. In Galatians 1:6-9, as mentioned earlier, the Galatians are falling prey to a perverted gospel, and Paul curses those who preach such a gospel. In Eph 4:14, he writes that only "children" in Christ are tossed about by every wind and wave of doctrine, taken in by trickery and craftiness and deceit.

We're supposed to guard against not just what we hear from other humans, but to test what the spirits say too--hence Paul's angel comment (Gal 1:8-9). John also tells us, "do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1). In a lot of denominational churches that don't believe in the supernatural gifts of the spirit (1 Cor 12), this may not come up much. But in those that do, or for individuals who might ascribe to varieties of syncretism (believing in "signs from the universe" if they seem especially coincidental, perhaps), this will become important. Just because a prophet seems to be speaking from a supernatural source doesn't mean what they're saying is from God. It might be, but we have to test it. Just because an idea out of left field pops into our minds doesn't mean it was the Holy Spirit who put it there. Just because a black crow perches on a tree doesn't mean it's an omen foreshadowing our future. Just because we see the same state license plate on every car doesn't mean God is telling us to move there, etc. Solomon writes, “A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps” (Prov 14:15). Elsewhere "simple" is used as a synonym for "fool" (Prov 7:7, 8:5, 9:13).

We have to remember that the physical world is a battleground. Until the earth lease is up, Satan is still technically the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). So God can send us signs in the physical realm, yes--but so can Satan. God can whisper thoughts to our minds--but so can Satan (in fact, this is his primary tactic, 2 Cor 10:3-6). Peter writes that the scriptures are a "more sure word of prophecy" even than hearing an audible voice from heaven (2 Peter 1:19-21), probably for this exact reason: anything using the physical realm has the potential to be counterfeited. That doesn't mean God can't use physical means to communicate with us, but it's clear that the primary means He uses for His own are the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit (John 14:17, 26), who also often speaks to us by bringing the scriptures we know to our remembrance. He also will speak through the prophets (1 Cor 12:1-11), dreams and visions (Acts 2:17-18), but we have to check all of this against the Word. Scripture will divide between soul and spirit (what originates with us vs Him, Hebrews 4:12), as well as what might originate with a malevolent spirit sent to lead us astray. David tells us it's the scriptures that make the simple wise: "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple" (Psalm 19:7).

What if an idea comes to us as an idea, a dream, a vision, a prophecy, or a "synchronicity" moment that seems supernatural, and it's something that isn't addressed in scripture at all, though? How do we know if it's from God, from us, or from the enemy then?

The first thing to check there is whether or not the message is consistent with God's character. Jesus said we can ask anything in His name and He will give it to us (John 14:14). What's in God's name (https://www.drlaurendeville.com/names-of-lord-psalm-9-9-10-meditation/)? He is Jehovah Nissi (the Lord my Banner), Jehovah-Raah (the Lord my Shepherd), Jehovah Rapha (the Lord that Heals), Jehovah Shammah (the Lord is There), Jehovah Tsidkenu (the Lord our Righteousness), Jehovah Mekoddishkem (the Lord who Sanctifies You), Jehovah Jireh (the Lord who Provides), Jehovah Shalom (the Lord is Peace), Jehovah Sabaoth (the Lord of Hosts). 

The next thing to check is the fruit that message produces (Gal 5:19-23, Romans 8:6-8). God won't lead us into anything producing negative fruit--if the fruit is bad, it's from the flesh or the enemy, and not the Spirit.

If it passes those tests, though, then as we continue to pray about the message (dream, vision, prophecy, idea, etc) then it's also biblical for us to ask for additional confirmations of the message--Paul says in 2 Cor 13:1 that every word should be established by two or three witnesses. If the message is from God, He'll make sure you know it. His Spirit guides us into all truth (John 16:13). And as you continue to seek Him and pray about it, peace (a fruit of the Spirit) should grow, confirming that the message comes from God (Col 3:15).