Just wondering if anyone knows of reliable critiques of Spiritual Formation leaders such as Dallas Willard and Richard Foster. This movement seems to be affecting many churches, and I am not convinced it is Biblically grounded. Thoughts?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just wondering if anyone knows of reliable critiques of Spiritual Formation leaders such as Dallas Willard and Richard Foster. This movement seems to be affecting many churches, and I am not convinced it is Biblically grounded. Thoughts?
They would seem to be into the reflection upon the scriptures inwardly, but that does tend to open the door to start experiencing non biblical situations, for the objectivity of the scriptures being true gets watered into subjective voices, hearing from God, etc.Both men promote the mystical practice of listening inwardly for God's voice for specific guidance, approbation, confirmation, and such. They promote an unbiblical mysticism and they subtly undermine and denigrate the written word of God. I think they've done a lot of damage to the church, even though many wouldn't recognize their names. If you google their names, include "listening for God" with it, and maybe add "discernment" or "critiques" you'll likely find something. A few years ago it was talked about quite a bit.
They would seem to be into the reflection upon the scriptures inwardly, but that does tend to open the door to start experiencing non biblical situations, for the objectivity of the scriptures being true gets watered into subjective voices, hearing from God, etc.
The Baptist version of this was from Dr Blackabee, under His Experiencing God.
There is a way to biblical meditate upon the scriptures, as the Psalmist himself instructs us to do just that, be just make sure this does not wandering into forbidden areas such as visualization and other things.Subjectivity will always be in the Man-Bible relation. There is no such thing as a Platonic deposit of pure interpretation which we can tap into. That's inevitable. Further, they also say that if your subjective experience contradicts the Bible, then it is wrong.
I have some issues with "contemplative" spirituality, but there are ways to soak one's being in meditative reading that isn't Papist (which everything seems to be these days).
Willard is very clear that you shouldn't be expecting God to audibly speak to you. That's a red herring that gets thrown around. What he is getting at is you are always already hearing different subjective impressions almost every minute of the day. He offers some guidelines on weeding out bad ones.
No, he doesn't teach to expect that God will audibly speak, but he teaches to expect that one or some of your subjective impressions is God trying to guide or communicate with you, and that you must learn to distinguish God's 'voice' inside you from the other inner, subjective 'voices.' This teaching has become so widespread, helped along also by Henry Blackaby as David mentioned, Beth Moore, Priscilla Shirer, and others, that even cessationists believe this is a biblical spiritual activity.Willard is very clear that you shouldn't be expecting God to audibly speak to you. That's a red herring that gets thrown around. What he is getting at is you are always already hearing different subjective impressions almost every minute of the day. He offers some guidelines on weeding out bad ones.
No, he doesn't teach to expect that God will audibly speak, but he teaches to expect that one or some of your subjective impressions is God trying to guide or communicate with you, and that you must learn to distinguish God's 'voice' inside you from the other inner, subjective 'voices.' This teaching has become so widespread, helped along also by Henry Blackaby as David mentioned, Beth Moore, Priscilla Shirer, and others, that even cessationists believe this is a biblical spiritual activity.
I may not be tracking with what you're saying. My understanding of God 'speaking to us in the Bible' doesn't have much of a subjective quality as far as guidance- he tells us what is good and what he requires of us. We make our best decisions accordingly. Maybe I'm not getting what your meaning.I know. I've read the book. Let's take the Macarthurite Cessationist claim:
C1: God only speaks to me through the Bible.
Let's then say we are presented with two (non-sinful) alternatives (career choices, etc). The Bible says zero about that. Nonetheless, I go to the Bible for guidance and wisdom
C1* God gives me guidelines from his word.
Most cessationists I know probably go with C1* instead of C1. I just did that to show they are indeed two different claims.
Yet, any time I go to God's revelation (which also includes nature), and assuming he doesn't talk to me, I am going to have to make subjective logical inferences that may not always be accurate.
The cessationist can be just as sloppy as the continuationist. If we think that "God speaks to us" through the Bible, then we are going to conceptualize that "speaking" in a subjective manner.
My understanding of God 'speaking to us in the Bible' doesn't have much of a subjective quality as far as guidance- he tells us what is good and what he requires of us. We make our best decisions accordingly.
A great many broadly evangelical, maybe even broadly reformed, have been influenced by the spiritual formation movement in ways they don't realize.I see. That's a bit more restrained than what most cessationists would say. My point was that our response to God's communication, especially on issues that he hasn't spoken in the Bible, is always going to involve subjectivity.
I agree on contemplative prayer.
When I hear the phrase "Spiritual Formation" I think of the Roman Catholics.
It also seems to have allowed for some such as a Dr Grudem and Piper to see some type of prophecy to be present today, as a more subjective understanding of the Spirit making impressions on some that they then give forth to the body.No, he doesn't teach to expect that God will audibly speak, but he teaches to expect that one or some of your subjective impressions is God trying to guide or communicate with you, and that you must learn to distinguish God's 'voice' inside you from the other inner, subjective 'voices.' This teaching has become so widespread, helped along also by Henry Blackaby as David mentioned, Beth Moore, Priscilla Shirer, and others, that even cessationists believe this is a biblical spiritual activity.
It also can get into things such as visualization and journaling thoughts to us from the Holy Spirit, and that can become very dangerous activities.I may not be tracking with what you're saying. My understanding of God 'speaking to us in the Bible' doesn't have much of a subjective quality as far as guidance- he tells us what is good and what he requires of us. We make our best decisions accordingly. Maybe I'm not getting what your meaning.
Anyway, that's not what contemplative prayer is for (covered in the second link I posted above). It's a mystical stillness and tuning in to an inner voice in order to 'hear from God.' It's done quite apart from the Bible.
Not until we have mastered their beginning techniques and practices.I think they phrase it as "Faith Formation". No Holy Spirit needed?
I think they phrase it as "Faith Formation"
And, Jacob, good background habits? Background for what, may I ask?
One night I woke up singing a Taylor Swift song
But don't confuse Puritan meditation (which is a blessed Reformed approach) with the modern mystical spiritual formation. Joel Beeke's helpful book on biblical meditation is clear on this distinction.We mustn't ditch the baby with the bathwater. I think what many of the Puritans did for meditation could lead one into prayer. Not such a bad thing.