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

[gwine]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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