Experiencing God

I had said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But since Friesen's book also sees the Word of God as authoritative...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

swaimj replied:

Yes, but Friesen puts it like this...
God's Word
Advice/Counsel
Experience
Circumstances

Good for him! Friesen rightly acknowledges the pre-eminence of the infallible Word of God over the advice of fallible men and our fallible interpretation of our experiences and circumstances.

The subjective/mystical paradigm (which Friesen calls the "traditional" approach to decision making) seems to pay lip service to the Scriptures by saying that God would not lead you to do anything he has declared to be sinful, but unfortunately Blackaby, LaHaye (e.g. Finding the Will of God in a Crazy, Mixed-up World), and other proponents of the "traditional" paradigm seem to downplay the application of Scripture to non-moral decisions. But if the Bible tells us (for example) that involving ourselves in the mission field or overseeing a church is a "good work," who is Blackaby or LaHaye to tell us that unless all the fallible signs point to "yes," we ought not to involve ourselves at the risk of being "out of God's will"?

I think that this approach to decision making sets up a secondary, "non-moral morality" that is completely foreign to the Scriptures.

Blackaby has a more integrated view that combines God's Word, advice, prayer (would Friesen include this at all?),

If you have indeed read Friesen four times (which is probably once more than I have read the book, and I own two copies!), then you already know that Friesen does include prayer.

This view encourages one to integrate himself into the body of Christ and relate himself properly to the Word andto people in positions of spiritual authority.

Again, where does Friesen not do this? The difference is, Friesen places circumstances and the advice of people in authority in their proper place: worthy of consideration (you would be a fool to disregard your circumstances or the godly advice of spiritually mature believers when making important life decisions), but not infallible.

As far as "integrating oneself into the body of Christ" goes, the most obvious example is the final two chapters of the book on "wisdom when Christians disagree" - again, an application of the Scriptures to a very real concern both within a local assembly and the Body as a whole. How do we related to the rest of the Church when we don't agree on something? Of course, it goes without saying that chapters on giving, missions, and ministry are inextricably linked with the body of Christ - you cannot be a missionary without support or a minister without a flock, nor can you give without a church to give to.

It is this emphasis on intellectual knowledge of Scripture that Friesen emphasizesthat alarms me.

Again, this cuts both ways: why should I not criticize Blackaby for anti-intellectualism: de-emphasizing knowledge of the Scriptures in favour of personal, subjective, fallible, and mystical feelings?

God forbid that Christians should know the Scriptures and be able to apply them in very practical ways to their lives! I thought our rule of faith was the Bible alone, not the Bible plus circumstances or the Bible plus our feelings.

God speaks to us in the Word and through the H.S. We have a personal relationship with him, not an intellectual one. God can and does speak to us individually and he can and does give men specific guidance which is not necessarily found objectively in the scripture.

If God gives individuals specific guidance, how come the language used to describe it is never "specific"? My first post to this thread was a list of examples from Experiencing God of people "believing" God had told them to do something (why not just say outright that "God told us"?). We hear of people "feeling led" to a course of action; of "the Holy Spirit impressing on my heart that I ought to" do something; of making an important decision and "feeling a peace about it."

Jonah had specific guidance; God told him, "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before me" (Jonah 1:2). He wasn't out of God's will because he had certain circumstances to read, counsel to heed, a "fleece" laid out, or a "peace" about going, and he misread or disregarded them; he was out of God's will because God told him specifically what to do, and he did the very opposite.

If God has personal, individual, particular assignments that we are to do, as Blackaby asserts, why do you never hear of someone saying something like, "I heard the audible voice of God last night. He said, 'Scott!' I answered, 'Here I am.' God told me, 'I want you to enroll in Bible college for a year starting next September, and when you graduate, you are to go to Africa as a missionary for ten years'"? Isn't it funny that if I told someone that (say, a hypothetical mission board at a hypothetical church), I'd be branded a Charismatic or worse, but if I tell them "I felt God was calling me to Bible college and then the mission field," I'd probabably go with their blessing and some cash?

Neither I nor Friesen denies that we have a personal relationship with God (and, again, Friesen devotes an entire chapter to the fact that God's guidance is personal even in his paradigm of decision making). I simply deny that this personal relationship is necessarily such that you and Blackaby are describing.

God has a personal individual will for my life only if He is sovereign. If he isn't then he doesn't.

Exactly, and it is because God is sovereign that I know I have my bases covered. I don't have to worry about making a poor (non-moral) decision and thereby falling short of "the centre of God's will for my life" if God foreknows, or actively decrees, all that comes to pass. How can I take him by surprise by making the wrong choice? How can I thwart whatever purpose he has for my life when he has known all along what my choices would be, and he has had an eternity to plan for it?

This whole idea of being "out of God's will" or "settling for God's second best," as the buzzwords go, almost presupposes some sort of view of God that is akin to the "openness" heresy. There is no "plan B" for an omniscient God who knows the future.

I know that Friesen takes Biblical examples of people who received guidance and mocks it as an application for today.

Friesen does not "mock" the Bible, and it is wholly unfair of you to misrepresent him in this way.

He demonstrates, quite convincingly through close study of the Word of God, that the examples of specific guidance in the New Testament are actually few and far between, limited to a handful of people (the Apostles for the most part), and they were clear and specific instructions, not inward impressions. The Biblical examples are not normative now because they were not normative then.

In fact, there are more examples in the New Testament of the Apostles applying Scripture and plain reason to situations, than there are of them listening to God's specific and personal instructions.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Ransom said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Friesen rightly acknowledges the pre-eminence of the infallible Word of God over the advice of fallible men and our fallible interpretation of our experiences and circumstances. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, Ransom, the Word of God is infallible and men are fallible. Because we are fallible, sometimes we do not understand God's Word, though we want to. That is why God sometimes guides us through wise people and circumstances in spite of ourselves. II Tim 3:16,17 often gets quoted and we conclude that all we need to do God's will is know God's' Word. Ideally, this is true. Realistically, we are all in process in knowing, understanding, and obeying God's word. In the preceeding context of II Tim, Paul also told Timothy to "continue in the things you have learned and become sure of because you know those from whom you learned it."Wow, some of what he was to do in the course of obedience is what he saw in fallible men. A balanced view is that God uses a combination of things to guide us through life, not just the Bible.

And <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Friesen places circumstances and the advice of people in authority in their proper place: worthy of consideration (you would be a fool to disregard your circumstances or the godly advice of spiritually mature believers when making important life decisions), but not infallible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No one disagrees with this. The question is, in practical terms, how does God combine all of these elements to guide us. Again, I think Blackaby integrates these things well and balances God's soveriengty and our freedom in Christ very well.

And Ransom said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God forbid that Christians should know the Scriptures and be able to apply them in very practical ways to their lives! I thought our rule of faith was the Bible alone, not the Bible plus circumstances or the Bible plus our feelings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now you're engaging in a little bit of rhetorical histrionics. Come on Ransom, who said the Bible is not important? The rule of faith is the Bible. It is our objective source to check everything, but God also uses other subjective things to guide us. I have learned much from men, haven't you? God has shown me things through circumstances, hasn't he you?

And <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Neither I nor Friesen denies that we have a personal relationship with God (and, again, Friesen devotes an entire chapter to the fact that God's guidance is personal even in his paradigm of decision making). I simply deny that this personal relationship is necessarily such that you and Blackaby are describing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fair enough, but I have difficulty seeing how you can have a personal relationship with a God who only works through impersonal means. In your view, God can't speak to me thorugh the Holy Spirit, he can't guide me through circumstances, and he can't respond to me when I pray because he is in a sovereingty strait-jacket. A man hasn't had a personal relationship with another being like that since Dr. Frankenstein fell in love with Frau Bleucher!

And <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't have to worry about making a poor (non-moral) decision and thereby falling short of "the centre of God's will for my life" if God foreknows, or actively decrees, all that comes to pass. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh brother! I'm afraid Paul didn't see God's soveriengty this way when he considered the weakness of his own flesh. Cf. I Cor 9:24-27

And <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Friesen does not "mock" the Bible, and it is wholly unfair of you to misrepresent him in this way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Come on, Ransom, that's not what I said. I said that Friesen mocks the applications his opponents make of passages that deal with God's guidance. Since he disagrees with them, mocking is his prerogative, and he uses it skilfully to make his point.

 

I looked over the course. It seems the author attended the "Gothard Seminar," (The Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, now the The Institute in Basic Life Principles) took notes, gave it a Southern Baptist flavor and re-released it as "Experiencing God."

Yes, I agree with Ransom on this one. It is primarily about personal experience and not primarily about simply obeying the the Scriptures.

 

swaimj said:

Yes, Ransom, the Word of God is infallible and men are fallible. Because we are fallible, sometimes we do not understand God's Word, though we want to.

Please don't confuse the issue. I was speaking of the Bible's authority, not its perspicuity. You are treading close to a standard Roman Catholic objection to sola scriptura - that without someone to interpret the Scriptures infallibly, they can have no infallible authority (and hence the "need" for a Teaching Magisterium).

Yes, some parts of the Scriptures are less clear than others and more subject to misinterpretation or abuse (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16). But the Word of God remains the Word of God whether it is clear or not. It remains authoritative whether we understand it properly or not. It remains infallible whether we are infallible or not. It remains the rule of faith whether we follow it or not.

On the other hand, neither circumstances nor our ability to read them are infallible. Isa. 41:22-23 says that not only the ability to predict the future, but to explain the significance of the past (i.e. to read circumstances) is God's. Jesus told the Pharisees that they could not discern the signs of the times (Matt. 16:2-3). And James said it was presumptuous to make plans without acknowledging that they are subject to the Lord's will in allowing them to be carried out (Jas. 4:13-17); how much more presumptuous is it to say "based on such and such circumstances, I feel God is calling me to do this or that"? If your plans fall through, you are guilty of taking the name of the Lord in vain because you have ascribed plans to him that never came to pass.

Clearly, circumstances are an inferior guide to God's will. How can we enhance our understanding of God's infallible Scriptures with an inferior supplement? Multiplying uncertainties makes you more uncertain, not less.

(As an aside, I would also be remiss if I did not point out that I believe attempting to discern the will of God in circumstances comes dangerously close to the occultic practice of augury - interpreting events, omens, etc. as signs - one of the practices that falls under the Biblical condemnation of divination [Deut. 18:10].)

That is why God sometimes guides us through wise people and circumstances in spite of ourselves. In the preceeding context of II Tim, Paul also told Timothy to "continue in the things you have learned and become sure of because you know those from whom you learned it."

Learned what? The teachings of the holy Scriptures, of course, which he had been taught from childhood (2 Tim. 3:15). "Those from whom [Timothy] learned" were teaching him the Scriptures. It doesn't say they were offering him guidance in discerning "God's will for his life" in circumstances. I do not see Paul commending Timothy because he surrounded himself with wise counselors who told him when they "felt God was leading" him to something or other. It all comes back to the revealed Word!

And, of course, no one is denying that we sometimes must rely on the teaching of fallible men to explain the Scriptures to us. The Bible says that God has appointed some men for that very purpose (1 Cor. 12:28); nowhere does it say they are infallible, and on the contrary, gives warning of stricter judgment for abusing the privilege (Jas. 3:1). When Paul, an apostle who received the Gospel directly from Christ himself, brought the good news to Berea, the Scriptures call the locals "noble" (Acts 17:11) for verifying his teaching against the infallible Scriptures. It all comes back to the revealed Word!

Friesen places circumstances and the advice of people in authority in their proper place. . . .

No one disagrees with this. The question is, in practical terms, how does God combine all of these elements to guide us. Again, I think Blackaby integrates these things well and balances God's soveriengty and our freedom in Christ very well.

No, the question is, in Biblical terms, does God tell us that he has an individual plan for our lives which it is our responsibility to discover and follow? If this individual plan exists, does the Bible say it can be discerned through the convergence of circumstances, inward impressions, prayer, Scripture, wise counsel, common sense, and so forth?

Blackaby assumes this to be the case. I submit to you that the Bible says no such thing; this teaching is only assumed to be Biblical but does not stand up to close Biblical scrutiny. Blackaby is not the only offender here; it is generally taken for granted. And, as I said last post, if I am right, then Blackaby's whole method of "experiencing God" falls apart.

I have learned much from men, haven't you? God has shown me things through circumstances, hasn't he you?

Not the issue. Even if I allow that God can teach through fallible men or fallible circumstances (which I already have said, see above), does it necessarily follow that the Christian life consists of discovering the decisions God has already made for me and following them? Or to put it in Blackaby's terms, waiting for God to assign me work and then doing it?

Fair enough, but I have difficulty seeing how you can have a personal relationship with a God who only works through impersonal means.

So do I, which is why I never said God only works through impersonal means.

God convicts us of sin through the Holy Spirit. That is personal (i.e. God doesn't convict every Christian of my sin). The Holy Spirit illuminates the Scriptures for us as we read, confirming their truth. That is personal (no one is reading exactly what I am at any given time). The Holy Spirit comforts us. That is personal (no one else grieves in the same way for the same reasons at the same time). All of these are personal, subjective, inward, experiential, and (dare I say it) mystical acts of God within us.

Moreover, God the Father chose me to be one of his children from the foundation of the world. That is personal. God, in his providence, works all things out for the good of those who love him. That is personal; my good is not necessarily someone else's good.

Finally, as a Calvinist I believe in particular redemption; I believe that Christ, God the Son, died for me personally; for you personally; for Henry Blackaby personally. You can't get much more personal than that; I find it ironic that those who believe in an impersonal, universal atonement most often speak of "accepting Christ as your personal saviour" when the death they believe Christ died is no more "personal" than the rotation of the Earth.

So all of this is beside the point. Of course I believe God speaks to us personally; what Blackaby assumes, and what I dispute, is that the Christian walk consists of receiving specific assignments or instructions that we must discover and do by interpreting inward feelings and circumstances.

I don't have to worry about making a poor (non-moral) decision and thereby falling short of "the centre of God's will for my life" if God foreknows, or actively decrees, all that comes to pass.

Oh brother! I'm afraid Paul didn't see God's soveriengty this way when he considered the weakness of his own flesh. Cf. I Cor 9:24-27

I don't see the application you are trying to make.

Come on, Ransom, that's not what I said. I said that Friesen mocks the applications his opponents make of passages that deal with God's guidance. Since he disagrees with them, mocking is his prerogative, and he uses it skilfully to make his point.

As I said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He demonstrates, quite convincingly through close study of the Word of God, that the examples of specific guidance in the New Testament are actually few and far between, limited to a handful of people (the Apostles for the most part), and they were clear and specific instructions, not inward impressions. The Biblical examples are not normative now because they were not normative then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Just my little side here:

My Sunday School Class did Experiencing God for Couples and I thought it was a great study. I would recommend it for any Couples Sunday School class.

Our Church did Experiencing God: The Musical and it was just so inspiring, and very moving, still brings me to tears every time I think of it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steveninetx:
I just started taking a discipleship class called "Experiencing God:Knowing and Doing the Will of God" It looks like it will be a wonderful and fulfilling class. I was wondering if anyone had taken this class before and what you all thought of it.

Steven <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The bottom line on this, and just about any other discipleship study, is that if you do not have the tools (speaking more of technique than materials) to do an indepth study of the Bible on your own, you run the risk of being swept along by the agendas of either the writer or the class leader.

I have lost count of the folks who drifted toward charismatic theology after studying Experiencing God (and Blackaby is no charismatic).

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Please don't confuse the issue. I was speaking of the Bible's authority, not its perspicuity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No one is questioning the Bible's authority. Both Friesen and Blackaby hold to biblical authority. The issue is how God guides us. The answer is that while the Bible is our objective guide, God uses subjective means to give us guidance. This is why God puts us in a church and in relationshipa with other believers. We are not spiritual Lone Rangers who need only the Bible and the Holy Spirit and we thereby become self-sufficient. We are weak humans and easily deceived sheep who need much assistance from others to live the Christian life effectively.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Learned what? The teachings of the holy Scriptures, of course, which he had been taught from childhood (2 Tim. 3:15). "Those from whom [Timothy] learned" were teaching him the Scriptures. It doesn't say they were offering him guidance in discerning "God's will for his life" in circumstances <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But the effect of the teaching resulted in something far deeper than an intellectual knowledge of scripture. It resulted in him meeting Paul(a divinely directed circumstance) and becoming a co-worker with Paul and later a pastor (a calling he received, not merely a vocation he chose). God used the Word, people, and circumstances to guide him into his calling in life. An Excellent pattern!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, the question is, in Biblical terms, does God tell us that he has an individual plan for our lives which it is our responsibility to discover and follow? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>what Blackaby assumes, and what I dispute, is that the Christian walk consists of receiving specific assignments or instructions that we must discover and do by interpreting inward feelings and circumstances. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>These quotes reflect a misreading of Blackaby on your part. What Blackaby says is that God is sovereignly at work in the world. Rather than the believer going off in his human wisdom and making his own plans, we are to seek to know God personally and to seek wisdom to understand what he is doing in the world (in my immediate world) and then join God in what God is doing.It is not about me finding personal fulfillment or self-actualization, it is about joining God in what Heis doing. I find it strange that you are a Calvinist and hold God's sovereignty in high esteem, yet you are following a model of doing God's will that de-emphasizes God's sovereignty in favor of the exercise of human free will. Friesen's approach is a decidedly non-Calvinistic. People who are pretty Calvinistic in their theology have been quite hostile to Friesen's approach (i.e. John MacArthur).

 

Well, of the two major contributors to this thread, Ransom and swaimj, I am inclined to agree with swaimj's understanding of things.

I hope the two of you are as quick and diligent to love as you are to argue.

God bless.