The Traditional View Critiqued
In the second part of Decision Making & the Will of God, Garry Friesen and J. Robin Maxson stop the fictional seminar form of the first part and proceed in a more typical fashion. The book contains many excellent summarization areas, which help to reinforce the main points. I found the critique of the traditional view quite convincing.
Individual Will Debunked: The Issue of Biblical Examples
The authors agree with the traditional view that God has a sovereign will, “God’s secret plan that determines everything that happens in the universe,” and a moral will, “God’s revealed commands in the Bible that teach how men ought to believe and live.” However, they disagree that God has an individual will, that is, an “ideal, detailed life-plan uniquely designed for each person.”
The traditional view argues from Biblical examples of God giving specific instructions to believers. Examples of this include the instruction to Peter to go to Cornelius’s house, and the instruction to Ananias to find Saul after his experience on the road to Damascus.
The book points out the problems with depending on these accounts to prove the traditional idea of God’s individual will. One problem is that there isn’t a sufficient number of examples of this type of leading, as most decisions made by people in the Bible were made without specific divine guidance. Another problem with the examples is that they are not comprehensive.
The traditional view holds that God’s individual will covers every decision a believer faces, but that is not shown in scripture. For instance, most of the examples of specific leading in Acts had to do directly with key decisions in the spread of the gospel, but not decisions of lesser import.
Perhaps a more serious problem is that the traditional view holds that special guidance is not to be a common experience for believers. However, all the examples of detailed guidance in the book of Acts did come through supernatural means, such as angels, visions, and God’s audible voice. Perhaps just as telling are the phrases used today by people who believe in the traditional view even though these phrases are not seen in Acts. For example, “I did thus and such because I knew it was God’s will for me,” or “I felt in my heart that God wanted me to do it.”
Individual Will Debunked: Is it Taught in Scripture?
The authors next turn to examine some of the various proof texts that people use to justify the traditional view of the individual will of God. They argue that the verses instead more correctly apply to God’s moral will. I’ll address just one of the specific passages, Proverbs 3:5-6 (quotations are from the NASB).
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.
The book points out that noun “path” is used by Hebrew writers to describe the general course of life. Thus, the verse basically means: “He shall make the course of your life successful.” This fits the immediate context and the general context of the book of Proverbs, exemplified by Proverbs 11:5:
The righteousness of the blameless will smooth his way, but the wicked will fall by his own wickedness.
The point then of Proverbs 3:5-6, is that those who trust in God’s wisdom and not their own, and acknowledge God in their whole life, “will reap a life that is successful by God’s standard.” It teaches God’s moral will, not an individual one, which the authors maintain is true of all the proof texts that are used to justify the traditional view (they examine many such passages).
Individual Will Debunked: Problems with the Traditional View
After examining the Biblical evidence, the authors then discuss some of the problems with the traditional idea of God’s individual will. One problem is the great anguish that faces believers when they earnestly seek specific direction from God and it is not forthcoming. Even more telling is that the traditional view cannot be used consistently. It takes considerable time and effort to discern what God’s will is, and thus cannot be used for everyday decisions. In practice, it has to be abandoned for most of life’s decisions.
Sometimes a choice will have options that are equally valid. The traditional view’s insistence on just one correct option leads to worries about missing God’s will rather than thankfulness for the opportunities.
The traditional view teaches that the “inner witness of the Holy Spirit” is available to all believers, but this can lead to unwise decisions justified on the grounds that “God told me to do it”, especially by new believers. It can also lead to costly delays due to uncertainty about God’s will.
Probably the biggest problem with the traditional view is its reliance on inward impressions. That is because of the subjectivity of inward impressions (which is addressed in the aptly named chapter “Impressions are Impressions”). People who use the signs that the traditional view recommends cannot be certain that they have actually found God’s will. Scripture often is not specific enough to provide the guidance they are looking for, supernatural guidance is not to be expected, circumstances, personal desire, and common sense cannot be trusted completely. In practice, the followers of the traditional view must depend upon inward impressions to make decisions. Yes, the Holy Spirit does lead believers (Romans 8:14, Galatians 5:18), but this leading is to assist believers in putting “to death the deeds of the flesh,” and is not guidance in the sense of the traditional view individual will.
Next week: The Wisdom View Explained
These articles have been tremendously insightful. I have been taught nothing besides variations of the “traditional view” my entire life. I will definitely be reading this book.
I haven’t read this book. But if Jasen’s summary of its contents are accurate, I see a number of problems with it. If we just looked at the New Testament alone (apart from the Acts examples that are narrative), I think we could debunk some of the arguments presented here.
One point I would like to make has to do with the common analogy of the human body in relation to the church. I could quote scriptures, but I think most of us are familiar with the concept. To summarize, the body is made up of many members that all have a particular function. The members of the body function according to their individual gifts. If individual members cannot receive guidance from the Holy Spirit as to which gifts they possess, how could those gifts ever be made manifest? Logically the whole is made up of collectively of individuals.
Yeah, I know some people are novices in the things of the Spirit. And they can say that God told them to do some very ridiculous things. But that doesn’t mean that because of the actions of an unlearned few that the rest of us should conclude you have to be a flake to say God told you to do something. That doesn’t mean that everyone has frequent visions and revelations, but Christ’s sheep hear His voice and the sons of God are led by the Spirit of God. On the whole people have trouble discerning the leading of the Spirit because they don’t know the Word. The Spirit and the Word agree.
I will flatly tell you that I never make major decisions without the aid of the Holy Spirit. I just won’t. And I have lived this way for years. I know the difference between being guided by the Holy Ghost and my own selfish ambitions. It really just doesn’t compare. And I’m not proud enough to tell you I’m the exception and not the rule. If you are truly a son or daughter of God, who has been born of the Spirit, you have a right to expect guidance from within.
Chris said, “I know the difference between being guided by the Holy Ghost and my own selfish ambitions.”
Chris, I’d be interested to know your take on the book if you get a chance to read it through. Jasen’s 5-part review will take a while to get to the main point of the book, but I can say that when I read it a long time ago, I found it very helpful.
The authors do not say that the HS never leads people. But they do note that there are many decisions in life where it seems we don’t get divine guidance, some large and many small.
When you say “my own selfish ambitions” you aren’t talking about a non-moral decision really because a non-moral decision wouldn’t have anything to do with selfishness; rather you are talking about God’s moral law where there really is a right and a wrong (shown to us in scripture, at least in scriptural principles). The point of the book is how to deal with nonmoral decisions. The silly example I always go back to–did the HS tell you what color of socks to wear today? That’s a nonmoral decision where God doesn’t have a “perfect individual will” for us, if I understand the book correctly.
Thainamu,
You know what? I re-read the article and have determined that I misunderstood it partially and overreacted. My bad. I guess I was sort of taken aback by the use of the word “debunking” in relation to the inner witness of the Spirit and so forth. I just really don’t like that word “debunk”.
After taking another look, I seemed to agree more than I disagreed. And I would second what was said about most of the Acts examples of supernatural guidance were in relation to facilitating the preaching of the Gospel. So yeah, maybe I would do well to read the book. Maybe I will someday.
I suppose my overreaction was the result of my understanding that the book suggested that the Spirit’s guidance was for a select few. That doesn’t seem to be accurate.
But if I can offer more perspective (without sticking my foot in my mouth this time), Christianity is two-fold in this respect: theology and experience. Certainly we cannot base our theology on our experience. But if we are all theology absent experience, we have yet to freely drink of the waters of life. I wholeheartedly agree that the direction of the Spirit is many times the result of us laboring together with God in the ministry of reconciliation. But I can tell you a number of times where I was warned by the inner witness. And had I not heeded the warning I might have ended up injured or dead.
If I can go back to the body analogy, I think this might help with regards to individual guidance. Not all of the functions of the body have been appreciated. Giving, for instance, is an actual gift listed in Romans 12 along with other ministry gifts. Of course, giving is a big subject. You can give food, you can give of your time, you can give money. But if this ministry of giving correlates to the message Paul gave the Corinthians in his second epistle, it probably has more to do with money. And I think even the broader context of Romans would confirm this. (I’m specifically thinking about Romans 10.) You know, how can they go unless they are sent? etc. So if a person finances the Gospel, should he not expect the Holy Spirit to guide him in business deals if he is a businessman? We don’t usually think of that in a ministry context, but I know of people who have poured literally millions of dollars into Gospel ministry - and never would they do it without the leading of the Spirit.
What was/is for a select few is the type of supernatural guidance recorded in the bible. God speaking audibly, visit by angels, etc.
The author’s contention is the what is often spoke of as leading today, inward impressions, is not something that is supported biblically. For instance, Paul did not tell people to “give as you fell led” and never did anything “because I felt in my heart God wanted me to.”
“The author’s contention is the what is often spoke of as leading today, inward impressions, is not something that is supported biblically.”
I have to disagree. The Bible doesn’t use use the word “impression” but I think the concept is definitely there. And yes, I agree that the Bible doesn’t support the idea of giving as you “feel led”, although I don’t think it is beyond reason that a person could be led to give something. Let’s look at the apostles’ response to the early Gentile believers.
“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things” (Acts 15:28)
Notice they didn’t say the Lord appeared to us in a vision or spoke to us through prophecy, or a tongue with interpretation. They just said it seemed good to both the Holy Ghost and them. I think it would be fair to characterize this as an impression in our modern vernacular. Then there is Acts 16:6,7.
6Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,
7After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.
We know that Paul was commissioned to preach the Gospel. And he just obeyed that commission. But when he wanted to go to Asia, the Holy Ghost did not allow him. When he wanted to go to Mysia the Holy Ghost wouldn’t let them go there either. In neither of these instances do we have any indication of a vision or any such spectacular event. But when we get to verse 9 there was a vision.
9And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.
10And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.
So what did Paul mean when he said “The Spirit suffered them not” to go to those other two places? I think he meant that inwardly it did not seem well. There was a red light in their spirits telling them not to go there. That’s happened to me a number of times. I’ve proved this out over and over again. I’ve had some experience with the more spectacular manifestations of the Spirit, but those things have not been as common as just the inward knowing.
Basically what the book says: (scripture from NASB which the book uses throughout.)
Acts 15:28 - Acts 15 is “The Council of Jerusalem” where the Church debated what to do about Gentiles who wanted to be Christians. The phrase “it seemed good” appears 3 times in the chapter, and only included the Holy Spirit once. It does not say how they found out it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, but rather than assume a supernatural guidance not stated, or an inward impression, it’s better to assume that were referring to previous acts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in verses 7-18.
The decision-making process that was used included debate, scripture application, and what seemed good to do. Note the decision was later modified.
Acts 16:6-7 - The book assumes that the “forbidden by the holy spirit” and “Spirit of Jesus did not permit them” happened by some means of supernatural revelation. It is probably too quick to do so, but it seems equally wrong to jump to the conclusion that it was via an inward impression. And it can just as easily be assumed that from the example in verses 9-10, that something similar happened in verses 6-7 instead of something different.
As for your personal experience, such things can be tricky. I get things like that occasionally, sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are not. But the “feel” exactly the same. Either I am extraordinarily unable to interpret the Spirit, or the impulse comes from myself.
For things like this people tend to remember the times it is right and forget those when it is wrong (or often by avoiding the situation they never find out if they were wrong or not). Also, when they impression is proved correct, it could just as easily be a conclusion you came up with yourself that was based on a good reason, but you thought it through automatically so it came out as an impression instead of a logical reason.
I would challenge you to record your impressions before you find out (if you can) rather they are correct or not. Your impressions may not have as good of a track record as you think.
“As for your personal experience, such things can be tricky. I get things like that occasionally, sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are not. But the “feel” exactly the same. Either I am extraordinarily unable to interpret the Spirit, or the impulse comes from myself.”
It is true, as you say, these things can be tricky. And I’m sure I’ve been wrong many times. But having lived both ways, being guided by my own human impulses and by those that come from the Spirit of God, its easy for me to tell the difference - especially after years of experience.
Let me give you an example of when I was right on. Once at a place of employment there was this guy who always had a smile on his face. By outward appearances, he was the happiest fellow there. But inside I sensed there was something wrong with him. I tried to engage him in conversation but never got much further below the surface small talk. But by an inward voice, I knew that he was having thoughts of suicide. I know I didn’t think that up, and when it came to me it was frightening. I knew that such information presented an obvious opportunity for prayer, and I believe this is why the Lord showed me this. So I did pray under my breath that day and probably other times. After a while this guy stopped showing up for work. A couple of months went by. One day a coworker came in and asked whether I had heard the news about Pete. She said he had gotten really drunk and blew his head off. Then she showed me the newspaper article that confirmed what she said.
As I said before, I’ve had some experience with the greater manifestations of the Spirit. But I can say with absolute certainty that the same Spirit by whom I receive impressions is the same Spirit that has come upon me in more remarkable ways.
As for recording these impressions, I have to decline. Some things I do write down for other purposes, but there is nothing clinical or scientific about following the Holy Ghost. This is just the way I live. It is the natural result of being connected to the Vine from which I draw vitality.