Discerning God' will

Please, don't lump me with those who think of "peace" as a tool to find the will of God. I have said specifically that I believe God's peace is a sign that you have followed (past tense) the will of God, not a tool to use to find the will of God. To me there is a huge difference.

If you will go back to the Mueller quote I posted, you will see that he said, "I do not leave the result to feeling or simple impression. If so, I make myself liable to great delusions." This includes the "peace" that some claim they feel.

 

We're on the same page here!

We grew up differently. In the 1950's and 1960's, I did not grow up with a "peace" view of the will of God in the IFB churches I went to. My pastors (Dad and Grandpa) made much of "dedication" and "rededication," saying that then the Lord would lead you. The peace of God was incidental, something that came when you followed God, not something that led you to follow God. One of my Dad's favorite passages was Rom. 12:1-2, and I "surrendered to the Lord" in a revival meeting where the evangelist challenged us to give everything to the Lord and do His will, whatever it may be.

Well, it has probably been more than ten years since I read Friesen, so I hope I'm not misrepresenting him. (If I am, sorry, Dr. Friesen, wherever you are.) But the "happiness" thing is the impression I get when complete and total dedication to the Lord is not made a part of the quest for the will of God. According to the index, Friesen mentions the great cross-bearing passage of the Synoptic Gospels only once, on p. 331, and it is connection with the desire to become a missionary. I believe that is very misleading. Why should not you folk in the homeland have every bit the dedication I have as a missionary? How could it be that a whole 430 page book on the will of God says so little about complete commitment?

But in the Friesen quote you gave, he is only citing James 1 to get us to pray for wisdom, not to pray for God’s will to be done, as the Lord’s model prayer says we should: “Thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven.” Friesen briefly mentions this verse on p. 216, but limits it strictly to God’s moral will, a limitation found nowhere in the context.

I have to admit that Friesen is thought-provoking. But once again, his view that the call is revelatory is not the traditional (and I believe correct) view of revelation. This is a new teaching. This is such an important point (along with your objections that peace as an indicator of God’s will is a form of revelation) that I think it deserves a whole thread on its own. Hopefully we can do that soon.

God communicated with Elijah, yes, but Elisha didn’t know that. From Elisha’s view, the call was strictly man to man. But that is moot if you consider the call to Matthew—unless you believe that Jesus could not speak without being revelatory.

The more we talk, the more I think that this difference (me vs. you and Friesen) in the definition of revelation is our main difference.

This is precisely where we differ. I maintain that the traditional view of revelation is not simply that it is communication from God, but that, as in the Easton’s Bible Dictionary definition I gave previously: “Revelation is the supernatural communication of truth to the mind.” If truth that is applicable to all is not revealed in the communication, it is not revelation but only communication. Thus, I can be a cessationist but still believe that God calls and leads individual believers today as He did in Bible times.

And you have given me no Scriptures connecting peace with revelation—because there are none! If simple communication from God is revelation, then why is it not revelation when God communicates to the missionary that he is to go to Africa? What about the Holy Spirit communicating conviction to the heart of a sinner? Is that revelation?

My question to Joe and Mary would be not do you have peace but do you have a call? And are you willing to die in Africa for the Lord Jesus Christ because of that call? Who is it that calls? It is the Lord of the harvest, the Holy Spirit Who “thrusts forth” (ekballo, literally to cast out) laborers (Luke 10:2). It is unbiblical to say as Friesen seems to that the missionary himself sends himself. Look at Acts 13. The church sent the missionaries and the Holy Spirit sent them. They did not send themselves.

I wouldn’t mention the peace. I would ask him if he is dedicated enough to his call to preach without Suzie. If not, he counts himself unworthy of the call. I prayed for 9 years for God’s will for a wife, and passed up three chances at one because all three would have hindered up my service for Christ in Japan by illness or a lack of education. “A prudent wife is from the Lord” (Prov. 19:14), and I truly thank God for the wife he gave me, leading us together in an amazing way and even communicating to both of us separately the day we should be married. God has gotten great glory from our love story as we have shared it with young people often. They always give the credit and glory to God, not us!

I would agree with you. God’s revealed will (what Friesen calls “moral will”) must always take precedence over individual leading which, after all, may be wrong (James 4:13-15).

 

I guess that I'll expand a wee bit on my earlier opinion, that peace and outward evidences are complementary.

God has been blamed for more nonsense than probably anybody. "God led me to..." "I had a peace about ..." "If ever God spoke to a man, he spoke to me that night ..." Pastor Larry is right to be skeptical, but I don't think that inward leading can be altogether excluded just because of abuses.

As I mentioned earlier, a lot of writing has been done on this subject. Ever notice how little has been written about how to receive the Lord's Supper? You put it in your mouth and swallow it, duh! There just aren't that many options to work through. God's will, on the other hand, is learned through many channels.

The many channels can be divided into two categories: outward and inward. Inward states are easy to counterfeit. Outward evidences are easy to misinterpret. There needs to be a convergence of evidences. This protects against presumption.

Sometimes some channels are illegitimate. A boy in love has no business allowing his peace to overrule the counsel of others who aren't presently driving under the influence of testosterone. You don't allow a drunk to decide if he's capable of driving home on his own.

I believe that all of Pastor Larry's objections may be met by including the principle of convergence. It can't be reduced to a formula, so there's still room for more books to be written. But I think that JoJ's plea to exclude such leading from the category of "revelation" is absolutely correct. Although "universal" revelation has ceased, we're talking about something different here.

If we subordinate outward evidences to inward states, we are, indeed, descending into that pagan mindset currently called "charismatism," and that problem is rampant and its influence may be felt every time some airhead bubbles forth "My toilet was stopped up and I didn't know what to do and Jesus just told me [you always include "just"] flush it again and I did and it all went down, praise the Lord!" That mentality needs to be fought against today, and that fight might need more emphasis than some of us traditionalists have given it.

But some confusion will always be with us. In college, we might spot some attractive girl and want to date her, so we'd take it to the dorm and ask "Waddya know about this girl?" A guy might say:

Ah, she's the "Lord's will" type.

What's that?

Oh, you know: "The Lord wants us together." "The Lord wants us to break up." The Lord wants us to get back together." She'll drive you nuts.

 

Good, thoughtful post, Pipedude. :thumbsup:

And Thjplgvp, praise the Lord for what He is doing in your life!!

Here in Japan, it is well past my bedtime. :sleep:Have a good day at church, everyone, and then, Oyasumi nasai ("Sleep well," everyone). :sleeping_2:

 

I remember hearing this from the director of a mission society some 50 years ago:

"You take care of your spiritual relationship and God will take care of your geographical location."

Cheers,

Jim

 

Very true, Jim. And this is proven by how Paul, walking in the Spirit, simply waited for God's further guidance when the Spirit wouldn't let him go into Bithynia in Acts 16. It was shortly after that when Paul saw his Macedonian vision.