# How does one discern God's individualized/specific will?



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Nov 28, 2005)

i.e. where to live, which job to take, which major to declare, etc.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 28, 2005)

This book is a good place to start:

Decision Making and The Will of God

And here is a good review of its strengths and weaknesses:

Review at 9 Marks Ministries


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 28, 2005)

Tim, two previous threads that might apply to this issue are here and here.

You might want to continue one or both of those threads - or if you have thoughts of a different nature than what those threads address, could you elaborate on them here?


----------



## Jie-Huli (Nov 28, 2005)

Dr. Peter Masters of London's Metropolitan Tabernacle has written a helpful book on this subject entitled "Steps for Guidance".

http://www.tabernaclebookshop.org/products.asp?partno=MAST48



> This presents the time-honoured view that Christians must seek God´s will in all the major decisions of life, and gives six biblical steps for finding God´s pathway. Attention is given to key areas of decision-making. How does the Lord guide in courtship and marriage? What scriptural passages guide in decisions about possessions and leisure activities, or career and wealth? Here is a call to authentic Christian obedience, with an abundance of pastoral advice. 184 pages, paperback



Anyone who knows of Dr. Masters knows that he is adamantly opposed to the charismatic movement including their "mystic" ideas of finding God's will. And yet he also argues against the modern notion, as put forth in Garry Friesen's book "Decision Making and the Will of God" (referenced above) that God does not have a specific will for Christians on decisions not directly governed by Biblical commands. Dr. Masters affirms the traditional view that we should seek to find the will of God in all the major specific decisions of our lives. (In fact, Dr. Masters devotes the first chapter of his book to a rebuttal of the new view).

To state the matter in the utmost brevity, I believe it is primarily a matter of really being immersed in the Scriptures and in prayer such that the principles and commands God has given us in the Bible really shape our entire thought process, that God's thoughts really become our thoughts. I believe it is rare that two choices before us (in regards to career, studies, domicile, etc.) are really equal if viewed with the full range of Biblical principles in mind. And God guides us in specific decisions by opening up the Scriptures to us and showing us how to apply them, and reinforcing such decisions through godly counsel and by His providence.

At the end of the day, I think Mr. Friessen in his book has practically recommended a similar method of decision-making, in that he emphasises making decisions according to the "way of wisdom" given in the Scriptures. But I think he errs in his explanation of the nature of God's will toward our individual decisions, effectively saying that for many specific decisions there is no one "right" decision and God is pleased to let us decide as we like as long as we do not violate any express commands of the Bible. And in doing this I believe he opens the door to much carelessness and an exaggerated sense of "liberty" among Christians (though I doubt that was his intention).

And so I would much more recommend Dr. Masters' book on this subject.


[Edited on 11-28-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## satz (Nov 28, 2005)

This is an issue I have thought over in the past, eventually coming to something resembling Mr. Friessen´s view. That being said, I do not see anything I would strongly object to in Dr Master´s view as articulated by JH (assuming I understand correctly off course).

The thing that drove me more towards Friessen´s type of understanding was many of the teachers who promoted a "˜finding God´s will for your life´ type teaching seem inevitably to me to lead to much uncertainly in the Christian life.

Assuming we are talking only about those decisions that are still "˜open´ "“ say when between two options neither is sinful and neither is expressedly commanded, than between the two options there will always be biblical supports we can find both for and against each side. Sometimes the "˜balance´, so to speak will be so overwhelming as to recommend strongly one side. Yet other times the arguments will be fairly equally stacked on either side. In that case what is the believer to do? I guess what I am opposed to is the school of thinking that promotes a "˜peace of mind´ type criteria for determining the choice God approves off.

To give a practical example, take the example of a young man decision which university course to undertake (or perhaps if he should go to university at all). How would that man come to a decision? Given the vast array of choices available and the myriad biblical considerations that might recommend or warn against each choice can he ever be sure he has made the "˜right´ decision?

Another thing that I had pondered about before was, what degree of biblical scrutiny should we give each decision we make in life? When is a decision major and when is it minor? Does God have a specific will for what college course we should take, what job to accept or which woman to marry only? Or does it extend to if we should eat out on a particular night and which restaurant we should go to. I know that is quibbling and using an extreme example, but I do feel there is not much biblical basis for differentiating decisions into types like this.

In the end, I believe that God has allowed Christians some measure of liberty in areas not expressedly condemned or commanded by his word. I understand that saying Christians can do whatsoever they want as long as it is not sin is an excessive view of liberty. But I feel that as phraseology goes, putting decisions not expressedly governed by scripture in terms of Christian stewardship (not just of money but of time, talent etc) and off our need to one day give an account to Christ for everything we have done is a better way to go than saying God has a "˜specific´ will for every decision we may make.

[Edited on 11-28-2005 by satz]


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 28, 2005)

Tim,
one important principle you need to remember is that the decision may not always be a right or wrong choice (a matter of God's revealed will). We study the scriptures and then we are able to recognize if something is morally wrong. Some decisions don't involve a moral choice. Which job should I take? As long as one is not an immoral choice then it's simply a matter of listing the advantages and disadvantages. Don't agonize over whether it is God's will if either choice does not violate a biblical principle.

I've seen to many young believers get 'paralyzed' while seeking 'God's will' when the choices didn't violate a biblical principle. Where to live, which job, what major? Most likely you will not violate God's revealed will in any of these decisions so decide based on the advantages and disadvantages and then commit your way to the Lord.

In the end, don't violate God's revealed will as expressed in Scripture and don't worry about His secret will, you can't violate that.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Nov 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> Tim,
> one important principle you need to remember is that the decision may not always be a right or wrong choice (a matter of God's revealed will). We study the scriptures and then we are able to recognize if something is morally wrong. Some decisions don't involve a moral choice. Which job should I take? As long as one is not an immoral choice then it's simply a matter of listing the advantages and disadvantages. Don't agonize over whether it is God's will if either choice does not violate a biblical principle.
> 
> ...



But do not Biblical _principles_ give guidance and direction in all decisions (such as where to live, which job to take, etc.) even if they do not involve a direct violation of a Biblical command? Since you say that it is "unlikely" one would violate God's revealed will in choices involving where to live, which job to take, etc., I take it that by "God's revealed will" you are referring to express commands in the Scriptures. Then you are saying that all we need to concern ourselves with in decision-making is making sure we do not violate express commands of Scripture, and then we are free to make whatever choices we like?

What about prayerfully wrestling with how Scriptural principles and values bear on the decisions before us? These are not always as simple as looking at direct commands which speak directly to the matter in question, but I believe that there is almost no decision in which the choices before us come up "equal" when all moral, spiritual and Biblical considerations are weighed in. I am not saying we can see into the secret will of God, I just believe that the scope of Biblical instruction is wider than your post suggests (unless I have misunderstood you). 

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 11-28-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## Casey (Nov 28, 2005)

Here are two good articles that were published in New Horizons . . . they're pretty helpful on the subject and not too long:

Finding God´s Will for Your Life by Phillip Jensen with Tony Payne
http://opc.org/old/new_horizons/NH04/01a.html

Pitfalls in Finding God´s Will for Your Life by R. B. Kuiper
http://opc.org/old/new_horizons/NH04/01b.html

Also helpful would be Warfield's article on Christian Mysticism in the Baker set; simply eye-opening


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> ...



Jie-Huli,

I guess one question would be if it would not be possible to be faced with a decision where there are more than one choice that would be accordance with God's Word?

If so, is it Biblical to have one's conscience bound by something other than the Word?


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 28, 2005)

No Jie-Huli, you understood my post perfectly. Well done.

I have found in my life that there has always been a godly plan and God's plan. The godly plan is the plan that I form based on bilblical principles. We have an obligation to form and follow a godly plan. God's plan, as you know is what will really happen, it defies formulas. We can only be faithful to God's revealed will.

Too many people have formed a godly plan and when God brought suffering into their lives they assumed that they acted outside of God's will. Not necessarily, God will use whatever means necessary to transform us into the image of Christ. There is not a lot of mystery in discovering God's will for us, it is simply a matter of planning according to God's word. 

Every decision does not need to be predicated by great spiritual wrestling, but every decision must be followed by dedication to the glory of God and an attitude of 'Thy Will Be Done'.


----------



## gwine (Nov 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> 
> Too many people have formed a godly plan and when God brought suffering into their lives they assumed that they acted outside of God's will. Not necessarily, God will use whatever means necessary to transform us into the image of Christ. There is not a lot of mystery in discovering God's will for us, it is simply a matter of planning according to God's word.



I keep reminding myself that just because a door opens you are not required to go through it. But as Bob says God *will* use that as a teaching and conforming opportunity.


----------



## DTK (Nov 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> This book is a good place to start:
> 
> Decision Making and The Will of God
> ...



Yes Fred, I think that Friesen's book is the most helpful I've read. I agree with his basic premise. My only major negative critique of it is that he is unnecessarily "wordy" in that he is redundant, repeating himself over and over. But, then, I suppose that could serve as a positive critique as well, because you do not miss his point unless you are determined to miss it. 

DTK


----------



## Jie-Huli (Nov 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Jie-Huli,
> 
> I guess one question would be if it would not be possible to be faced with a decision where there are more than one choice that would be accordance with God's Word?



Good question. My answer, in short, would be that though we might be faced with decisions in which more than one choice would be in accordance with God's Word (in the sense that these choices would not directly violate specific express commands of the Scriptures), one of the choices will almost certainly be superior according to the general principles and teachings of Scripture, and we are duty-bound to diligently and prayerfully seek to find which choice this is.



> If so, is it Biblical to have one's conscience bound by something other than the Word?



Our conscience is not to be bound by something other than the Word. However, it is not only the specific express commands of Scripture that bind the Christian, but the general principles of Scripture as well. 

To give some examples, consider the following verses, chosen at random:




> Ephesians 5:15-17: See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
> 
> Colossians 3:17: And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
> 
> 1 John 2:15-16: Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.



Now, it is clear that none of these verses give express commands as to whether I should live in City X or City Y, or whether I should work in Job X or Job Y, etc. Yet in making these decisions, I most certainly have the duty to let my decisions be guided first and foremost by these and other Scriptural considerations. Decisions are not made in a vacuum, but are directed by what is in the wellspring of our hearts, be it worldliness or conformity to the Word of God. 

I am indeed conscience-bound to make sure my decisions are made not just in accordance with the express "Thou shalt"s and "Thou shalt not"s of Scipture, but in accordance with all the principles and values taught me in Scripture. Some Scriptural principles are so far reaching that they must guide every single decision which comes before me. I am no less conscience-bound to general principles than I am to specific commands. I am conscience-bound to wrestle prayerfully with how all these general principles relate to the question before me, and again, I doubt there are any situations in which the choices are really equal when all Scriptural factors are weighed in. 

So then, we can gain assurance and confidence as to what is the will of God in individual decisions. And we shall all give an account for the decisions we make. We are imperfect and will make mistakes . . . I certainly have. God is gracious and longsuffering towards His children. But if we do not at least have the mindset that we want to follow God's will in every decision we make, or if we give ourselves the excuse that God is "neutral" towards the decision before us, I believe this is quite a perilous thing.

[Edited on 11-29-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Jie-Huli,

I think I understand your desire to choose the best of all possible alternatives. I agree with you. My question is: if there are four possible choices, and one is sinful, three are not, but one of the three is the "best" choice (that we are bound to attempt to seek out, but may not find because of our fallibility), is it sin to choose one of the remaining two choices?

If so, where does the Scripture say this?


----------



## Jie-Huli (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Jie-Huli,
> 
> I think I understand your desire to choose the best of all possible alternatives. I agree with you. My question is: if there are four possible choices, and one is sinful, three are not, but one of the three is the "best" choice (that we are bound to attempt to seek out, but may not find because of our fallibility), is it sin to choose one of the remaining two choices?
> ...



I believe it is primarily a heart issue. It is indeed a sin to choose one of the remaining two choices _if_ we make that choice because we neglected to fix our eyes on spiritual considerations and did not really diligently wrestle with the question, so far as we could with the information God in His providence brought to our attention. And so the modern philosophy which would give young Christians the idea that they need not wrestle with the questions too much because there is not necessarily one "right" answer is quite dangerous.

There are times when even the best Christians in this world make poor decisions because of fatigue, blind spots, etc. These are instances of sin, yes, to varying degrees. In the future they will normally come to see the folly of those instances, but at any rate in the general course of their lives they do seek to know God's will and to walk in line with it.

As for Scriptural support, I would turn first to Proverbs 3:5-6: "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." While this passage has perhaps been misused by some, I think it definitely supports the position that it would be sinful to make decisions without earnestly seeking to determine God's will in the matter. Verses which speak reproachfully of people turning aside unto their own ways also come to mind.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 29, 2005)

But I am not speaking of those who trust to themselves, but who earnestly seek the Lord, yet do not always make the perfect choice. Are you suggesting that God will allow the Christian to always be infallible? How many choices are we faced with each day? Is there only one non-sinful choice for each?

If not, how are they different? You suggest it is a heart issue - but the heart is to be guided by the Word of God. It is the Word that is the _rule_ of faith and life. If the Word does not tell me what to do, how can I know it? Is the Word capable of completely differing application? In other words, how do I know that _I_ have to chose Harvard over Yale, and to do otherwise would be sin (without knowing all ends), and yet for _you_ the exact opposite could be true.

I am all for diligent searching and applying the Scirptures, but I cannot see where every single decision we make has only one non-sinful choice.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> i.e. where to live, which job to take, which major to declare, etc.



Dear Tim,

I deal with this frequently as a prof and as a pastor. I have come to the conclusion that the question contains within it a false premise, namely, that we can know by some extra-canonical revelation God's prescriptive will for specific situations not specifically addressed by Scripture. 

This quest, it seems to me, seeks to know God's providence in advance. Bruce Waltke has addressed this very well in a recent volume (easily found on Amazon). It also runs afoul of Deut 29:29. The revealed things (law and gospel) belong to us and our children but the secret things belong to the Lord. 

What car to buy, where to go to school, whom to marry - none of these things is revealed in Scripture. It is, by definition hidden. If it is hidden, it is hidden. 

What we need, according to Proverbs, is _ wisdom_. That is recognizing reality for what it is and living appropriately. The fool does not recognize reality and consequently lives inappropriately. 

Confessional Reformed folk are cessationist. We confess that the Scriptures are the canon of God's special revelation. Beyond them we dare not go, yet, because of the unhappy influence of Pietism, it has become acceptable to ask, in effect, for private, extra-canonical revelation. 

To ask "this job or that job," is in effect, to ask God to open the canon ever so briefly so I can know exactly what I should do in any given situation. Then we set about looking for methods ("small, still voice" or the fleece, even though these are never given as methods whereby Christians gain revelation) whereby we may know the secret will of God after the close of the canon. We become practical Pentecostals.

My advice (as I tell my students) is to "put away your canon opener." 

There are objective, revealed truths. Which car? I don't know. Ask for wisdom. I can tell you categorically, unequivocally, "Don't steal the car." Wisdom might say, "Buy a car within your means." Red car or blue car? It is morally indifferent. 

There are those who would do away with the category _adiaphora_, i.e., things morally indifferent, but it is a valuable, biblical category (Gal 2:4; 5:1,2; 1 Cor 10:29). Yes, there are limits to freedom (1 Pet 2), but there is real freedom from the tyranny of the "Spirit-led" opinions of others.

I don't mean to sound cold or callous. Getting wisdom is serious business. It is a spiritual matter. We need the Spirit to illumine the Word and to enable us to understand and apply it. We don't need special revelation, however. 

Pray for wisdom. Seek it. Practice it, but don't ask for special revelation. Redemption is finished. The canon given to explain that redemption is finished along with redemption. 

rsc


----------



## Jie-Huli (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> But I am not speaking of those who trust to themselves, but who earnestly seek the Lord, yet do not always make the perfect choice. Are you suggesting that God will allow the Christian to always be infallible? How many choices are we faced with each day? Is there only one non-sinful choice for each?
> 
> If not, how are they different? You suggest it is a heart issue - but the heart is to be guided by the Word of God. It is the Word that is the _rule_ of faith and life. If the Word does not tell me what to do, how can I know it? Is the Word capable of completely differing application? In other words, how do I know that _I_ have to chose Harvard over Yale, and to do otherwise would be sin (without knowing all ends), and yet for _you_ the exact opposite could be true.
> ...



I think my emphasis is much more on our responsibility in making sure our _decision-making process_ is a godly, prayerful and Scripturally-centred one, more than on the choices themselves. If it is, then we can be confident in the specific choices we make.

Again, I agree completely that our hearts are to be guided by the Word of God. But my contention is that even when the Word "does not tell me what to do "directly, it provides me with all the principles I need to make the decision according to God's will.

It is true that one person might be guided by certain Scriptural principles to make a different choice than another person; this might be due to our different giftings, abilities, backgrounds, etc. The principles do not change, but the application of certain truths may change because of our different situations. One action might be sin to one person but not to another, because the motives and musings of the heart which led to the action were different.

But to me none of this undermines the fact that we are to seek diligently the one best choice most faithful to Scriptural principles, and that to neglect this diligent seeking would be sin.

Are the answers always simple and clear-cut? No, they require much self-examination and meditation. But this is the case with all Biblical commands. The Bible tells us to love our neighbours as ourselves. How can I know that I have done so in any specific situation? This requires self-examination, and it is likely I have fallen short in at least some measure, and to the extent I have this is sin, whether or not I felt at the time I was striving as well as I could to love my neighbour.

God does not make us infallible, but to the extent we do fail in anything, that is our sin.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Nov 29, 2005)

I am a bit surprised by what seems to be the consensus of others posting on this thread. Is it the general position in American reformed Christianity today that God does not guide us in regards to specific decisions such as marriage, career, etc., beyond the express positive commands and prohibitions of Scripture?

If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that so much of Scripture is written in terms of general values and principles which are meant to apply across the whole of our lives?

And if you say that those general values and principles of Scripture are what you mean by "seeking wisdom", on what basis do you believe that following this "wisdom" (which is inspired canon) should somehow be less binding on our consciences than specific commands?

Let me give one simple hypothetical which I believe shows the problem with such a view:

Suppose I know 2 young ladies, both of whom are professing believers whom I believe to be true Christians. Presumably, no specific command of Scripture would prohibit my marrying one or the other.

But suppose that one of them, while physically more beautiful, was rather shallow spiritually, while the other young lady was tremendously pious and gracious. And suppose it is my goal to be a pastor of a church, and so wife will be a pastor's wife. Would you really believe that just because I would not be directly violating an express command of Scripture, that this decision is morally neutral? I am not talking just about "wisdom" . . . there is great potential for sin and worldliness to enter into my thinking, which would not only be unwise but immoral as well, correct? And so we must agree that there are Scriptural principles which must enter into our decision-making besides the express commands, correct? And that to leave these out would be not only unwise, but sinful, correct?

If everyone can agree on these points, I do not see why anyone would want to phrase the issue in a way which implies that our moral responsibility is only to stay within the parameters of express commands, and that beyond this we can know nothing about God's specific will for our lives, and are left to our own free choices.

[Edited on 11-29-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> I am a bit surprised by what seems to be the consensus of others posting on this thread. Is it the general position in American reformed Christianity today that God does not guide us in regards to specific decisions such as marriage, career, etc., beyond the express positive commands and prohibitions of Scripture?
> 
> If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that so much of Scripture is written in terms of general values and principles which are meant to apply across the whole of our lives?
> ...



Jie-Huli,

I think you are missing the point. You have specifically set up the hypothetical to have specific Biblical guidance. I don't think anyone would doubt that where a decision is guided by Biblical principles - e.g. should I go to college and try and get an education to earn a living, or spend the next 4 years on my couch leeching off my parents - that we can say one choice is better (Biblically) than another.

Where the difficulty comes in is where in the (countless) situations where no express Biblical principle is in order. I have decided to go to law school; should I go to Cornell or Duke? Should I buy a Chevy ($12,000) or a Ford ($12,000) ? Should I marry Jane, a pious Christian woman who loves flowers, or Mary, a pious Christian woman who loves trees?

That is what Dr. Clark was referring to by Deut 29:29. Where the Bible speaks, it binds us. Where is does not (should my wife be blonde or a redhead) we should not seek some magical revelation to tell us what the future holds (e.g. only redheads for me, God says).

Does that make sense?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 29, 2005)




----------



## Jie-Huli (Nov 29, 2005)

> I think you are missing the point. You have specifically set up the hypothetical to have specific Biblical guidance. I don't think anyone would doubt that where a decision is guided by Biblical principles - e.g. should I go to college and try and get an education to earn a living, or spend the next 4 years on my couch leeching off my parents - that we can say one choice is better (Biblically) than another.



In setting up the hypothetical, this was exactly the point I was trying to get to: we should all be in agreement that decisions are guided by Biblical principles as well as by express commands. I know that you believe this, and I believe that others who have posted probably also would not argue with this when put forth in such an obvious example. 

My concern is that in their desire to separate themselves from the non-biblical approaches to "seeking God's will", some people are making statements which really seem to deny that we are conscience-bound by anything other than express commands, putting much too much emphasis on our "freedom" and "liberty" to make choices among things not forbidden, at the expense of really exhorting people to wrestle with important life decisions through prayer and study of the general principles of Scripture. I doubt that is their intention, but that is the impression I get. I am thinking in particular of Mr. Friessen's book, actually, in addition to some statements which have been posted in this thread. I really fear that in purposefully saying things in a novel way, this book and other such teachings serve to make young people less spiritually diligent and circumspect in the major decisions before them, and to make choices based on worldly, fleshly ideas even for many choices to which Biblical principles do indeed speak. You can say that this is just a misunderstanding of what Mr. Friessen and others are teaching, but I think their words lend themselves to this misunderstanding.

In short, I believe that the range of Biblical principles which should come to bear on our decisions is so wide-reaching, that to make statements to the effect that as long as we do not violate express commands we do not have to worry about being in sin in our decision-making is misleading and perilous.

That is about all I can say on the topic. I do understand what others here have said, and I doubt that our differences are great, practically speaking, but hopefully I have made clear what my concerns with the new philosophy are.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 11-29-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## Jie-Huli (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_



I will assume you had meant to post this after my earlier post, but Fred had already posted his thoughts in the middle.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> My concern is that in their desire to separate themselves from the non-biblical approaches to "seeking God's will", some people are making statements which really seem to deny that we are conscience-bound by anything other than express commands, putting much too much emphasis on our "freedom" and "liberty" to make choices among things not forbidden, at the expense of really exhorting people to wrestle with important life decisions through prayer and study of the general principles of Scripture. I doubt that is their intention, but that is the impression I get.



I am sure everyone here would strongly agree that good and necessary inference from Scripture is in fact just as binding as explicit commands from Scripture, as both are equally valid forms of special revelation. The danger so many of us (myself included) are concerned with, however, is the view that _things beyond either of those two categories_ can so often be perceived as binding the conscience as well - basically, I am concerned about the implications for the Christian's day-to-day decision-making that come from the non-cessationist view of continuing revelation.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I am sure everyone here would strongly agree that good and necessary inference from Scripture is in fact just as binding as explicit commands from Scripture, as both are equally valid forms of special revelation. The danger so many of us (myself included) are concerned with, however, is the view that _things beyond either of those two categories_ can so often be perceived as binding the conscience as well - basically, I am concerned about the implications for the Christian's day-to-day decision-making that come from the non-cessationist view of continuing revelation.



I believe I can agree with everything you say here (depending on the breadth of your concept of "good and necessary inference"). At any rate, I also am a cessationist, and am certainly strictly opposed to any form of seeking guidance through continuing revelation.

But I believe the Friessen book, and the wave of such teachings it has spawned, goes beyond simply denying guidance through continuing revelation. It belittles the very concept that God has a specific and personal plan for each of His children. It is perhaps an overreaction to the non-cessationist view, and though it is to be commended for combatting mystic ideas, it itself goes too far in the other direction, and itself presents an unbiblical view, in my opinion.

If I can just leave you with a few quotations from Dr. Masters' book "Steps for Guidance" in which he addresses the Friessen theory, I will probably leave this as my last word on the subject for now. I offer these more to encourage people to read more of Dr. Masters on the subject, than for debate. (And, again, I know few people who criticise the charismatic movement and non-cessationism more soundly and continually than Dr. Masters does).

On the effects of Mr. Friessen's book:



> "There is no doubt that this new view will damage the dedication and commitment of Christians. It is obvious that as soon as we no longer respect God's specific will for our lives, we will gain a new license and freedom and find ourselves at the mercy of our human desires. These are bound to influence our decisions more highly than they should. We will easily justify these desires, and indulge our whims. As soon as we are freed from the duty of finding and then standing loyal to God's will, we will be inclined to sheer away from hard problems and irksome situations. The new view will relieve us from straining diligently after the pathway which _God_ desires. It will liberate us from maintaining our subjection to His supreme will in all things. The Friesen-Maxon book gives us an account of how one of the authors set about seeking a new teaching post in a Bible college. Sadly, what we are given is an account belonging more to worldly careerism than to the ministry of the Word. It is clear evidence of the 'do-as-you-like' approach which comes in as soon as we cease to believe that God has a plan for us."



On the fact that the traditional view teaches that we seek God's guidance especially for _major_ decisions, not irrelevant ones:



> "In their book, Friesen and Maxson assert repeatedly that 'the idea of an individual will of God for _every detail_ of a person's life is not found in Scripture' But in making such statements, they show how much they have missed the point of the traditional view, for this has never said that God guides in 'every detail', but only in the major issues, as we shall explain . . . It is not hard, surely, to distinguish between routine matters, and matters directly relating to the journey of life. Daily food obviously does not relate to the direction of life, nor to one's spiritual calling and fruitfulness. Nor does the make of car one buys relate to the course of life (though the Lord will help the search and selection in answer to prayer). Like all expensive commodities, the buying of a car is subject to the rules of Scripture. Covetousness and unnecessary luxury and expense are to be avoided, but the decision is not central to the journey of life. On the other hand, one's marriage partner affects the entire journey of life. So does one's career. Where a person chooses to live greatly affects the journey of life, and so does the choice of a church fellowship."



Dr. Masters also references Jesus' words in Matthew 6:25, that we are to take no thought of what we shall eat, or what we shall wear. It is clear that these decisions are comparatively irrelevant to our lives, and so obviously we are not labouring over guidance for these things. But to take these examples of irrelevant things, and make jests about how silly it is to seek God's specific will for these things, and then extend this to decisions that do greatly affect the course of our lives such as marriage and career (as Mr. Friessen basically does), is surely a fallacy.

Finally, on a relevant text from the Book of James:



> The new spirit of self-determination in decision-making is strongly rebuked in James 4.13-15, where we read the words: 'Go to now, ye that say, Today or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. FOR THAT YE OUGHT TO SAY, IF THE LORD WILL, WE SHALL LIVE, AND DO THIS, OR THAT'. Here were Christian businessmen committing a year of their lives to trading away from home, without any deep consideration of the will and purpose of God in the matter. Not only did they plan entirely in terms of the profitability of the venture, but they made up their minds very speedily, deciding to go 'today or tomorrow'. A year is a long time, certainly long enough to greatly affect one's church life and service, not to mention family life . . . It is not enough to say that these businessmen were merely rebuked for lacking a _general_ respect for the sovereign will of God, as if they ought to have added the formal acknowledgement, 'God willing' at the end of their proposals. (Friessen and Maxson reduce the passage to this). The words of James have no practical purpose unless they remind believers that they have an obligation to seek God's guidance and oversight in all the major issues of life."



I just would like to make clear that although Mr. Friessen's views are apparently quite popular with many here, they are hardly the established Reformed position on the matter, and they are hardly the only answer against non-cessationist mysticism. I believe he acknowledged when he released his book in 1980 that he was putting forth a "new view", and I do not believe it is the view that has prevailed in Reformed churches historically.

[Edited on 11-29-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 29, 2005)

> ...goes beyond simply denying guidance through continuing revelation. It belittles the very concept that God has a specific and personal plan for each of His children....



There is no question whether such a thing exists, but the question is whether it is "secret" (until it comes to pass in time and space) or "revealed." Clearly, it is not revealed until it happens, if we're to believe Deut 29:29.

So the moral question is not whether God has detailed plan. The moral and epistemological question is what can I know? What I can know is his revealed will and the possibility and need for wisdom.

rsc


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 29, 2005)

Well put, Dr. Clark. Jie-Huli, since we all agree on cessationism, I think Dr. Clark's point above really gets to the heart of what is being discussed, whether it is mutual disagreement or misunderstanding. What do you think of that?


----------



## gwine (Nov 29, 2005)

[quote by _Jie-Huli_

But suppose that one of them, while physically more beautiful, was rather shallow spiritually, while the other young lady was tremendously pious and gracious. And suppose it is my goal to be a pastor of a church, and so wife will be a pastor's wife. Would you really believe that just because I would not be directly violating an express command of Scripture, that this decision is morally neutral?[/quote]

It would seem to me that the choice you have given us is a no-brainer, since God tells us that He looks at the heart and not at the outer shell. How would you respond to Fred's choice between two Godly ladies, one who loves flowers and the other who loves trees?

Please note that I am not saying that against seeking God's will. I am not sure I understand where you would stand when the choices are closer to equal than your scenario.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > ...goes beyond simply denying guidance through continuing revelation. It belittles the very concept that God has a specific and personal plan for each of His children....
> ...



I understand this perfectly. The question is whether God _guides_ us in regards to specific decisions, such as marriage and career, which are not directly answered by Scripture. This is the question I was always addressing, though apparently not clearly enough. I take for granted that everyone here believes God does have a detailed, specific plan for every person's life (though I believe Mr. Friessen makes statements which seem to call even this into question, and it was Mr. Friessen my quote above was referencing). 

You all are simply arguing that God's specific will for those questions remains hidden from us, while I am putting forward that God will guide us in all the major decisions affecting our life paths with enough clarity for us to be confident that we are following His will when we make our decisions. He does this by opening up the application of general principles of Scriptures to us as we pray and search the Scriptures diligently, in addition to guiding us through godly counsel and, no doubt, the conscience, through which the Holy Spirit will rebuke us should our choices be based on selfish or wrong motives.

Deut. 29:29 simply begs the question, it seems to me. There is no question the secret things belong unto God, but that does not negate the fact that God gives us guidance in which specific paths to take in our lives, as is shown us in other parts of Scripture.

I obviously have not put forward the full Scriptural case for specific guidance here, but I just wanted to put forward what the traditional view is, as opposed to the novel ideas put forward by Mr. Friessen and others beginning in the 1980s.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> [quote by _Jie-Huli_
> 
> But suppose that one of them, while physically more beautiful, was rather shallow spiritually, while the other young lady was tremendously pious and gracious. And suppose it is my goal to be a pastor of a church, and so wife will be a pastor's wife. Would you really believe that just because I would not be directly violating an express command of Scripture, that this decision is morally neutral?



It would seem to me that the choice you have given us is a no-brainer, since God tells us that He looks at the heart and not at the outer shell. How would you respond to Fred's choice between two Godly ladies, one who loves flowers and the other who loves trees?

Please note that I am not saying that against seeking God's will. I am not sure I understand where you would stand when the choices are closer to equal than your scenario. [/quote]

My original hypothetical achieved its purpose, in establishing that we all agree that we are guided by general principles of Scripture, even when a decision is not directly addressed by a command or prohibition. Your very assertion that this choice is "obvious" proves the point, since the verse you cite does not directly answer which girl I should marry . . . you have applied the general principle to a specific situation, and this is right. The reason I posted the exaggerated hypothetical is because I had seen in some people's post an underemphasis on the wealth of guidance that general principles of Scripture provide us, in their rush to say that "Things not addressed by Scripture are left to your choice, you will not be in sin by making either choice". But the example I used was so exaggerated that it is not useful at all beyond establishing that simple premise.

So as to Fred's hypothetical, it is of course exaggerated on the other extreme. But in real life, of course, decisions are neither skewed so much in one direction (as in my hypothetical) nor so equal that only irrelevant differences remain (as in Fred's). In real life, the two young ladies are certainly going to have a wide range of differences . . . some which should be irrelevant to our decision, and some which should be central. Obviously the spiritual factors will be most central. The ladies' spiritual character, giftings and individual burdens (for missions, for example) will all come into play. And the point is that when all Scriptural considerations are considered, it is very, very unlikely that the two choices will be equally good for me. Very rarely will only irrelevant personal idiosyncrasies remain as differences once we consider the matter prayerfully.

But to those who think the decision could be such that the Scriptures provide no clear answer for us in the end, and that God will not guide us in this decision, my question is just this: How exactly would you make your decision? If Scriptural and spiritual principles do not provide you with the guidance you need, in the end you still must make your decision. Do you just make it purely on humanistic grounds? Such an important life decision? And you cannot just say this is where you would exercise godly wisdom, for if it is not based on the Scriptural and spiritual principles mentioned above, it is surely not a godly wisdom. And if you think that the Scriptural and spiritual principles found in the Bible _can_ let you be sure which decision you should make, then I really do not know what our disagreement is such that you would deny that God gives specific guidance.

I will have no more time to address this question at present, unfortunately. Would that someone else here would defend the traditional view, but it seems a lonely road at the moment.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## gwine (Nov 29, 2005)

> And if you think that the Scriptural and spiritual principles found in the Bible can can let you be sure which decision you should make, then I really do not know what our disagreement is such that you would deny that God gives specific guidance.



 Thank you for elaborating further.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 29, 2005)

> i.e. where to live, which job to take, which major to declare, etc.



Luther to the rescue again in his keen grasp of what he called religions of glory Vs. religion of the cross.

The only place, Luther argues, that one can know the will of God toward them and one's place before God is at the cross. Seeking to read the creation, time, space and one's situation falls under the category of the religions of glory or the fallen religions. In other words all fallen religions and like philosophies have in common this idea: If things are going good for me I must be in the will of God and if not I must be out of God's will hence His wrath against me. You saw this if you watched much news after the rash of hurricanes in an interesting similarity between what appears to be two entirely different religious people. Muslims over seas cheered it as Allah's vengance against America and of course our own people like Falwell as judgment against the decandant city of New Orleans. But unless you have a Scripture that says specifically that - then it is sheer fallen religion speculation...trying to read the tea leaves so to speak.

How does this play out in day to day decision such as you asked? Very simply this; the only way you/I know our position before God is at the cross in all that we do period. Now assuming for example you are deciding between say two jobs and assuming that the jobs are not inherently sinful professions like drug dealer or thief - how does one decide knowing the will of God? Luther would say to sit and fret trying to peer at God nakedly, apart from the cross, is to again do so as a glory religion, and thus his advice, similar to Augustine would be if I might paraphrase, "Choose one, trusting in Christ (theologian of cross), and boldly go on and do it." You cannot please God apart from the cross either way and one choice is as good or bad as the other (again assuming it is not an inherently sinful profession in our example here).

Practically what does this mean? In our example, two job choices, as you may already know, you can wrack your brain endlessly trying to vainly decide, "Will job A please God better or job B." You will at length in examining the choices before you find many good benefits to choosing either in serving others via either vocation, AND you will at length find many selfish sinful motivations under each choice. Luther's point again is the cross alone is how one is total right before God and set right in His will, and thus either choice without the cross is shear sin and either choice under the cross is acceptable. It is the faith in the cross that matters, you and I are truly free in Christ. Christ takes the "load off" of glory religions attempting to make such simple choices more and less than they really are. And in reality such trying to read God via the creation or "what should I do" is superstition. So again the advice is clear choose one knowing either way you choose it is mingled with your sin for you and I are always full sinners and you are just in Christ alone. Choose boldly and move boldly on it, that's what it means to be strong in grace!

I hope that is helpful,

Larry

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by Larry Hughes]

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 29, 2005)

Dr. Scott,



> To ask "this job or that job," is in effect, to ask God to open the canon ever so briefly so I can know exactly what I should do in any given situation. Then we set about looking for methods ("small, still voice" or the fleece, even though these are never given as methods whereby Christians gain revelation) whereby we may know the secret will of God after the close of the canon. We become practical Pentecostals.



I never thought about it in those terms but that is exactly right. One side of my family nearly drove me to utter dispair searching out the "will of God" at one point early in my Christian life. They were of course trying to be helpful, I never questioned their motives, that's why I followed the advice I trusted them. But I just couldn't get the "how do you REALLY know" question resolved. Because us poor logic types will always say to ourselves, "I don't hear a voice per se" and if that silent thought is the voice we then ask ourselves, "Is it really God's voice, the devil's or my thinking". How do you know. The later 99% of the time. Then eventually if you gaze enough inwardly you will draw the conclusion that because I don't get the will of God given to me as they say they do I must not be a Christian - then the tyranny really sets in.

Larry


----------



## SmokingFlax (Nov 29, 2005)

Larry,

Your last comment regarding the despair of uncertainty that finally comes to one trying to discern God's specific Will is the stone that finally wore me out and led me to reject charismatic/pentecostalism as altogether subjective in the end.

I too could never find the certainty of KNOWING such things...after 8 years, attended by MANY fastings and pleadings, etc.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 30, 2005)

> ...while I am putting forward that God will guide us in all the major decisions affecting our life paths with enough clarity for us to be confident that we are following His will when we make our decisions.



Jie (if that is the correct form of address, forgive and correct me if it is not),

The words _guide_ and _will_ are ambiguous here. 

Regarding the latter, if you mean "secret, providential will that is not disclosed until it comes to pass in time and space," then you seem to be arguing that it is possible to know what will come to pass before it does. This is a form of temporary canon opening.

If you mean "moral will revealed in Scripture," then there is no disagreement in principle, perhaps only in practice. It might help if you could specify which of these you mean.

If by "guide" you mean "providentially make certain things possible and other things impossible," fine. If by "guide," however, you mean some sort of internal, psychological, emotional, subjective illumination or intuition, I should not want to call this the the "guiding" of the Spirit. Any such claim plunges us right back into the subjectivist, quasi-Pentecostal soup. How does one determine what is a hunch, an intuition, a personal interest, a desire (honorable or not) from the "guiding" of the Spirit?

There is certainly a place for subjective considerations. The Christian ought to make an honest inventory of gifts, interests, and inclinations, background, opportunities etc when making a decision. There is no need, however, to baptize this process by calling it the "guiding" of the Spirit. That is claiming too much for the ordinary, sanctified application of wisdom. To call an ordinary consideration of subjective factors the "Spirit's leading" or "guiding" is an attempt to confer a sort of divine approval upon personal choices. Such a move is unnecessary. Here we ought to rely solely on the objective revelation of God's moral will in Scripture and put the rest (the subjective) down to freedom. 

Otherwise we find ourselves in the morass of two competing subjective processes both claiming to be Spirit-led. I'm old enough to remember the Kansas City prophets (I was there and praying with some of those fellows in those years). It was fruitless and futile.



> He does this by opening up the application of general principles of Scriptures to us as we pray and search the Scriptures diligently, in addition to guiding us through godly counsel and, no doubt, the conscience....



This seems to be what most Reformed call _illumination_ of the Word by the Spirit. This is an ordinary (not "routine" exactly, but "ordained" and not extraordinary or supernatural) operation of the Spirit in the lives of believers. Still, judgments drawn from the illumination of the Scriptures are always tentative since we are but pilgrims dying to sin and living to Christ daily.

[i/]through which the Holy Spirit will rebuke us should our choices be based on selfish or wrong motives.[/i]

I have greater problems with this sort of language. I think we should resist the temptation to describe ordinary experiences with the language of the extraordinary or apostolic period. 

Such language has the effect of creating false impressions. One could infer from this language that one is claiming direct inspiration of the Spirit to justify this decision or that act. As I understand our view of revelation, outside of Spirit-inspired apostles and prophets such revelation has ceased.



> Deut. 29:29 simply begs the question, it seems to me.



I'm not sure how quoting Scripture assumes the conclusion. 

Many folks overlook this passage. It is widely assumed that believers can and must have direct knowledge of what is, in effect, God's secret, decretive, will. What this passage teaches is that we can only know with any reasonable certainty God's revealed _moral_ will, to wit: Don't steal, don't lust, don't commit idolatry, don't covet, don't dishonor your parents, don't break the Sabbath; love God, and love your neighbor. 

It is much more problematic to claim, "I am fully confident that it is God's moral will for me to take this job and not that job" all things being morally equal, i.e., this and that job are the same in every moral respect.

There is not, as far as I know, any biblical or confessional warrant for such claims. 

All things being morally equal, it would be much safer to say "It is wiser for me to take this job or that job."

The notion that there is such knowledge available to Christians and further that those who are genuinely spiritually sensitive (via the higher and second blessing) has done incalculable harm to sincere believers by causing them to seek to know the moral will of God beyond what is possible in this life and charging with failure those who lack such certainty or knowledge as claimed by some.

At the very least it has had the unhappy consequence of creating two classes of Christians, as they say back home, "them what has 'the blessing,' and them what don't." 

On the basis of Paul's sustained polemic against any such two-tiered view of the church, I doubt that any such distinction exists.

rsc


----------

