It is Easter Monday. The last day of the Easter period (mainly noted here because Easter Sunday is a bank holiday and so it stands in lieu of a proper day off for most people). And me and my family have been sick the whole way through!
I preached on Maundy Thursday evening (on Jesus' comments about washing from John 13) and Good Friday (on the three crosses and respective responses of two criminals either side of Jesus). If you are interested, you can listen back to those here and here.
I had planned to speak on Easter Sunday about Matthew's account of three very different responses to the resurrection event. Sadly, having croaked my way through Good Friday (I edited out the coughing fits for the online upload) it all proved too much and a contingency speaker was drafted in last minute on Sunday morning (who I am told did a stellar job). Instead of sitting under some uplifting ministry on the resurrection of Christ, I had the joy of sitting in a medical walk-in centre - wife and son in tow - to find out whether we had an infection that required antibiotics or just a horrible virus that we had to wait out (for those that care, it was the latter - which really stinks because not only is it hanging around but there is nothing we can adequately medicate with either!)
But here is what encouraged me. I felt totally sick and ill, had to help look after my family who felt much the same, and had no hope of preaching Sunday morning (that's not the encouraging bit). I also know the gentleman who stepped into the breach to cover the preaching was not looking forward to delivering an off-the-cuff word or having to deliver my poorly planned, inadequate notes that he wouldn't get sight of until about 10 minutes before the service started (his servant heart and willingness to do so is more encouraging but that's not quite it either). What was so encouraging is that despite every reason for everything to fall apart, the church was full, the service went ahead and the word was well received.
Often what we plan to be great isn't as great as we might hope. Other times, what doesn't go to plan at all and ought to be a disaster is no such thing. I am reminded time and again of Christ's words to the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:9 “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” You don't get much weaker than a preacher that physically can't deliver the sermon and a stand-in working from notes he has neither seen nor prepared!
And what more appropriate day than Easter Sunday for such things to happen. What looked like a disaster to the disciples on Good Friday, the death of their Lord on a shameful Roman cross, proved at Easter Sunday to be the plan of salvation God had ordained before the foundation of the world. What would have never been the plan of you and me was the appointed means by which God brought salvation to the world. What, by rights, should have been a total disaster and the end of the Jesus cult was God's greatest glory and the beginning of his 2000 year old church.
All that is to say, what may appear disastrous and seem destined to failure may be the very means by which God brings glory to himself. Whether that is in the small (or slightly bigger) parts of a church service or in the huge, grand sweep of salvation-history, God chooses the weak things by which to glorify himself. He chooses not to conform to human convention and wisdom. He chooses a virus to knock-out a church pastor and stop him preaching the word in order to glorify himself through another man taking his place and doing a far better job because he is almost certainly relying on the Lord in a way this pastor probably wasn't going to because his "power is made perfect in weakness".
Showing posts with label Providence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Providence. Show all posts
Monday, 6 April 2015
Monday, 2 December 2013
Middle Knowledge, Free Will and the Reformed Schema
I previously outlined a theodicy which sought to integrate the Molinist conception of Middle Knowledge into a framework of compablist free will that would synchronise with the reformed schema.
I argued a framework of libertarian free will, as postulated by Molinism, presumes there exist freedom permitting circumstances under which one can ever freely respond to the call of the gospel. Similarly, on this framework, the grounding objection has traction. True libertarian free will, by definition, means God cannot know how an agent would freely act because he has no grounds for knowing. The Molinist argues circumstance as a basis for decision making makes any choice, the circumstances around which had been set by God, a compatiblist notion. As such, an agent's decision making becomes totally arbitrary. Conversely, on a compatablist framework, such objections do not arise. God's middle knowledge is grounded in an agent's nature and their decision making is not arbitrary but flows from the deepest desires of the agent, now rooted in an inherited sin-nature.
However, given that sin is grounded in an agent's deepest desire rooted in their nature, such a view leads us to suggest Adam and Eve must have been made with an inclination to sin before the fall. Therefore, I argued Adam and Eve had libertarian free will prior to the fall but, following Adam's sin, humankind was limited to compatablist free will. This meant that pre-fall Adam and Eve were capable of neutral moral decision making thus initially acted without specific inclination toward sin and without God being the author of sin. Post-fall, humankind lost libertarian free will and inherited a sin nature such that any agent now has an inclination to sin and God merely permits their desire to sin for sufficient reason without being the author of the sin itself. You can view the full argument here.
For issues of space, there were a couple of questions I left unanswered and it seems right to address those now. The two key questions are these: (1) if pre-fall Adam and Eve had libertarian free will, how can God conceive his salvific plan in accordance with the reformed schema; (2) if the grounding objection has traction, is it not special pleading to exclude pre-fall Adam and Eve from its scope?
The first of these objections has a relatively straightforward answer. The concept of Middle Knowledge contends that God's foreknowledge not only extends to what he knows will happen but also what would have happened across an infinite number of possible worlds. If God conceived a possible world in which he foreknew Adam and Eve would fall, it is fairly easy to see how - having used his middle knowledge to conceive of such a world - this would also extend to his salvific plan post-fall. Libertarian free will contends that, given freedom permitting circumstances, an agent can act in any way they choose. Middle Knowledge argues that under such freedom permitting circumstances, although an agent can freely choose to act in any way, God conceived a world in which he knows they will act in a particular way. If we leave aside the grounding objection for a moment, God's salvific plan on a reformed schema still holds if we posit libertarian free will for pre-fall Adam and Eve. God merely conceived of a world, using his middle knowledge, in which Adam and Eve would freely sin, lose their libertarian free will such that God could enact a greater plan of salvation through compatiblist means.
The second question is much more difficult. I am convinced the bigger problem for the Molinist is not the grounding objection but the argument there exist any freedom permitting circumstances under which an agent can freely choose to respond to the gospel call given our inherited sin-nature. Nevertheless, if the grounding objection is valid (and I think it probably is), is it not special pleading to allow Adam and Eve libertarian free will whilst claiming the grounding objection rules out libertarian free will for everybody else?
It strikes me there are three possible solutions to this problem:
(1) The most straightforward solution is that there were no possible worlds in which Adam and Eve would not have sinned given free choice. Therefore, God had to conceive a possible world each of which involved Adam and Eve's fall.
(2) The second possible solution is that whilst Adam and Eve had libertarian free will, God nonetheless grounded his middle knowledge in the nature of Adam and Eve. Although their nature was not, at this point, a sin-nature and was therefore not inclined to sin, it is at least possible their neutral moral nature - being unique in human history - was created in such a way that God could ground his middle knowledge.
(3) The third possible solution: God's conception of any possible world begins with the question of whether Adam and Eve obey God or fail to follow the single command he gave them. However long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden pre-fall and whatever they did prior to their disobedience is really of no moral importance. The only moral question was whether they would obey God or not. As such, there was no reason for God to give Adam and Eve compatablist free will because their every decision was morally neutral except in respect to God's one command. For the reformed schema, this means God had to conceive a world in which he foreknew Adam and Eve would sin without making the circumstances in which they were placed the sole basis of the decision itself. It seems possible, given their freedom to act neutrally entirely apart from God's command, that a world could be conceived in which Adam and Eve would sin of their own free volition given passage of time foreknown by God. In fact, this argument is backed up by God's guarding of the tree of life, the inference being that further passage of time would have likely allowed Adam and Eve to also eat of this tree too. Therefore, God conceived a world in which he foreknew Adam and Eve would sin allowing him to enact a greater plan of salvation that depended on the loss of libertarian free will.
I am thoroughly unconvinced of solution (1). This solution fails because freedom permitting circumstances insist Adam and Eve could act another way but will act in a particular way. This solution leaves absolutely no room for that. Equally, it does nothing to take us away from the problem that Adam and Eve must therefore have been inclined to sin prior to their inherited sin-nature.
Nevertheless, I think (2) and (3) may be valid solutions. The central problem with (2), however, is that one cannot take the argument any further. I cannot go any of the way to explaining the inclinations of this neutral moral nature. Whilst it is possible to show the inclinations of a post-fall sin-nature and how this affects action I cannot do the same with this moral nature. Nonetheless, that there is an element that cannot be readily explained does not necessarily make it an invalid solution. One must accept that Adam and Eve had a unique nature in human history and the biblical writers, especially Paul, tend to emphasise inherited sin nature rather than Adam's unique pre-fall nature. It is also possible to argue that in grounding the pre-fall nature this way we effectively posit a compatablist framework pre-fall and are led back to the same initial issue: that Adam and Eve were created with an inclination to sin. Nevertheless, it still seems valid that God could ground his middle knowledge in Adam and Eve's pre-fall nature whilst still granting them libertarian free will.
The central weakness in (3) is that it could be read as God guessing that over the course of time Adam and Eve would probably fall at which point he could enact his real plan. Such a reading leads us to the God of Open Theism - a conception totally rejected by reformed theologians. Nonetheless, it still strikes me as eminently possible that God could conceive a world in which he knew, with clarity, that Adam and Eve would freely sin given passage of time. This is not guess work on God's part but certain knowledge that Adam and Eve's freedom permitting circumstances would lead them to sin thus necessitating a conceived world in which they would fall, libertarian free will would be restricted and the reformed schema of God's salvific purposes are enacted from a plan conceived in eternity past. This third option seems the most compatible with both the reformed schema and the concept of middle knowledge.
I argued a framework of libertarian free will, as postulated by Molinism, presumes there exist freedom permitting circumstances under which one can ever freely respond to the call of the gospel. Similarly, on this framework, the grounding objection has traction. True libertarian free will, by definition, means God cannot know how an agent would freely act because he has no grounds for knowing. The Molinist argues circumstance as a basis for decision making makes any choice, the circumstances around which had been set by God, a compatiblist notion. As such, an agent's decision making becomes totally arbitrary. Conversely, on a compatablist framework, such objections do not arise. God's middle knowledge is grounded in an agent's nature and their decision making is not arbitrary but flows from the deepest desires of the agent, now rooted in an inherited sin-nature.
However, given that sin is grounded in an agent's deepest desire rooted in their nature, such a view leads us to suggest Adam and Eve must have been made with an inclination to sin before the fall. Therefore, I argued Adam and Eve had libertarian free will prior to the fall but, following Adam's sin, humankind was limited to compatablist free will. This meant that pre-fall Adam and Eve were capable of neutral moral decision making thus initially acted without specific inclination toward sin and without God being the author of sin. Post-fall, humankind lost libertarian free will and inherited a sin nature such that any agent now has an inclination to sin and God merely permits their desire to sin for sufficient reason without being the author of the sin itself. You can view the full argument here.
For issues of space, there were a couple of questions I left unanswered and it seems right to address those now. The two key questions are these: (1) if pre-fall Adam and Eve had libertarian free will, how can God conceive his salvific plan in accordance with the reformed schema; (2) if the grounding objection has traction, is it not special pleading to exclude pre-fall Adam and Eve from its scope?
The first of these objections has a relatively straightforward answer. The concept of Middle Knowledge contends that God's foreknowledge not only extends to what he knows will happen but also what would have happened across an infinite number of possible worlds. If God conceived a possible world in which he foreknew Adam and Eve would fall, it is fairly easy to see how - having used his middle knowledge to conceive of such a world - this would also extend to his salvific plan post-fall. Libertarian free will contends that, given freedom permitting circumstances, an agent can act in any way they choose. Middle Knowledge argues that under such freedom permitting circumstances, although an agent can freely choose to act in any way, God conceived a world in which he knows they will act in a particular way. If we leave aside the grounding objection for a moment, God's salvific plan on a reformed schema still holds if we posit libertarian free will for pre-fall Adam and Eve. God merely conceived of a world, using his middle knowledge, in which Adam and Eve would freely sin, lose their libertarian free will such that God could enact a greater plan of salvation through compatiblist means.
The second question is much more difficult. I am convinced the bigger problem for the Molinist is not the grounding objection but the argument there exist any freedom permitting circumstances under which an agent can freely choose to respond to the gospel call given our inherited sin-nature. Nevertheless, if the grounding objection is valid (and I think it probably is), is it not special pleading to allow Adam and Eve libertarian free will whilst claiming the grounding objection rules out libertarian free will for everybody else?
It strikes me there are three possible solutions to this problem:
(1) The most straightforward solution is that there were no possible worlds in which Adam and Eve would not have sinned given free choice. Therefore, God had to conceive a possible world each of which involved Adam and Eve's fall.
(2) The second possible solution is that whilst Adam and Eve had libertarian free will, God nonetheless grounded his middle knowledge in the nature of Adam and Eve. Although their nature was not, at this point, a sin-nature and was therefore not inclined to sin, it is at least possible their neutral moral nature - being unique in human history - was created in such a way that God could ground his middle knowledge.
(3) The third possible solution: God's conception of any possible world begins with the question of whether Adam and Eve obey God or fail to follow the single command he gave them. However long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden pre-fall and whatever they did prior to their disobedience is really of no moral importance. The only moral question was whether they would obey God or not. As such, there was no reason for God to give Adam and Eve compatablist free will because their every decision was morally neutral except in respect to God's one command. For the reformed schema, this means God had to conceive a world in which he foreknew Adam and Eve would sin without making the circumstances in which they were placed the sole basis of the decision itself. It seems possible, given their freedom to act neutrally entirely apart from God's command, that a world could be conceived in which Adam and Eve would sin of their own free volition given passage of time foreknown by God. In fact, this argument is backed up by God's guarding of the tree of life, the inference being that further passage of time would have likely allowed Adam and Eve to also eat of this tree too. Therefore, God conceived a world in which he foreknew Adam and Eve would sin allowing him to enact a greater plan of salvation that depended on the loss of libertarian free will.
I am thoroughly unconvinced of solution (1). This solution fails because freedom permitting circumstances insist Adam and Eve could act another way but will act in a particular way. This solution leaves absolutely no room for that. Equally, it does nothing to take us away from the problem that Adam and Eve must therefore have been inclined to sin prior to their inherited sin-nature.
Nevertheless, I think (2) and (3) may be valid solutions. The central problem with (2), however, is that one cannot take the argument any further. I cannot go any of the way to explaining the inclinations of this neutral moral nature. Whilst it is possible to show the inclinations of a post-fall sin-nature and how this affects action I cannot do the same with this moral nature. Nonetheless, that there is an element that cannot be readily explained does not necessarily make it an invalid solution. One must accept that Adam and Eve had a unique nature in human history and the biblical writers, especially Paul, tend to emphasise inherited sin nature rather than Adam's unique pre-fall nature. It is also possible to argue that in grounding the pre-fall nature this way we effectively posit a compatablist framework pre-fall and are led back to the same initial issue: that Adam and Eve were created with an inclination to sin. Nevertheless, it still seems valid that God could ground his middle knowledge in Adam and Eve's pre-fall nature whilst still granting them libertarian free will.
The central weakness in (3) is that it could be read as God guessing that over the course of time Adam and Eve would probably fall at which point he could enact his real plan. Such a reading leads us to the God of Open Theism - a conception totally rejected by reformed theologians. Nonetheless, it still strikes me as eminently possible that God could conceive a world in which he knew, with clarity, that Adam and Eve would freely sin given passage of time. This is not guess work on God's part but certain knowledge that Adam and Eve's freedom permitting circumstances would lead them to sin thus necessitating a conceived world in which they would fall, libertarian free will would be restricted and the reformed schema of God's salvific purposes are enacted from a plan conceived in eternity past. This third option seems the most compatible with both the reformed schema and the concept of middle knowledge.
Friday, 9 August 2013
Interested in health, wealth and happiness? Here are 10 things God promises to reward
Here is a great article outlining 10 things God promises to reward.
If you are interested in health, wealth and happiness this article shows you exactly how such things can be obtained*
*Promises of health, wealth and happiness may only apply posthumously. Financial rewards not a guarantee.
If you are interested in health, wealth and happiness this article shows you exactly how such things can be obtained*
*Promises of health, wealth and happiness may only apply posthumously. Financial rewards not a guarantee.
Monday, 6 December 2010
Principles for guidance
Most Christians agree that seeking God's guidance in their lives is thoroughly important and worthwhile. In the Bible, the words 'guide' and 'guidance' tend to refer either to the physical guidance of God's people from one place to another (e.g. Exo 13:21) or, the guidance of the Holy Spirit as pertaining to teaching and authority (e.g. John 16:13). In a number of the psalms, reference is made to God guiding his people (see 48:14, 67:4, 73:24) but such instances are non-specific. There are also references to God's guidance in the proverbs, however, this usually relates to walking in 'the paths of justice (2:8, ESV)' and 'delivering you from the way of evil (2:12, ESV)'. Whilst all these things are important and require guidance from God of one sort or another, this is generally not what people mean when they speak of guidance.
What most people mean by 'guidance' is God making known to them what they should do in the specifics of everyday life. This can relate to large life-changing decisions, for example: 'Where should I live?'; 'For which job should I apply?'; 'Who should I marry?'. However, it may also relate to less life-changing, yet still significant things, such as: 'Which church should I attend?'; 'To whom should I give money?'; 'How should I serve my church?'. In all these things, the Bible does not offer a definitive answer e.g. you should work in London, attend a particular church and give money to a particular charity. Given this, how do we seek God's guidance and how can we know where God is leading?
In the first instance, we should turn to the Bible. Although the question 'where should I work?' is not directly answered, the Bible lays down some principles that impact upon this decision. For example, although working in a brothel is never specifically outlawed in the Bible particular principles and commands that directly relate to such work would make this an occupation incompatible with a plain understanding of scripture (1). In a less obvious sense, the scriptural principles relating to work may affect the area of the country in which we live and the type of work we will find. For example, the Bible makes a number of comments on those who will not work (2). If we are able to work but we make excuses for not accepting particular jobs this would appear to cut across the principles laid down in scripture (3). If we are able to work and appropriate jobs appear in places which are not ideal but in which we are able to live, or that do not relate to our preferred area of training but for which we are nevertheless trained, then the Bible makes clear that we should accept such work even though it does not conform to our preconceived specifications of that which we hoped for. In this sense, the Biblical principle of working when we are able should have an effect on both where we live and what we do. So, in the first instance, we should see what scriptural principles have an impact upon the area in which we are seeking guidance.
Of course, there are still undefined decisions we may face for which there is either no directly applicable principle or, for which there are two or more equally valid routes for us to take. Having considered all relevant scriptural principles, in the second instance we can turn to circumstance. For example, in seeking work, we may have a preferred geographical area and specific specialism in mind as our ideal - there is nothing wrong with this nor with actively pursuing it. However, if no jobs in our preferred area become available or we receive no interviews for that place our circumstances suggest the Lord would have us elsewhere (especially if he has provided the opportunity for work in another place). Likewise, if the Lord wants us to have a specific job in our particular area of preference he will set the circumstances such that we will be able to take that job. Therefore, where our decision is not otherwise prohibited by scripture, we can look to our circumstances to see what the Lord would have us do. If he would have us in a particular area he will open the doors to allow it and if he would not he will remove those opportunities from us.
Through prayer we can also know God's guidance. If there is a particular situation which we are keen to actively pursue we can pray that, if it is His will, God would open the doors for that specific set of circumstances to come about. If it is not his will for us, for whatever reason, the Lord will not cause such circumstances to come about. Alternatively, we may not have a specific set of circumstances in mind but simply wish to follow wherever the Lord may lead. In this case, we can pray that He would only grant us the set of circumstances in which He would have us go. In either case, if we are truly seeking God's guidance and not our own predisposed ideals, we should be earnestly and honestly praying for God to grant us opportunities in the way he would have us go and we should pursue those things when they arise.
Finally, it is worth noting that sometimes we have a number of perfectly valid options available to us, none of which go against scripture and all of which are within an acceptable set of circumstances. If we have committed the decision to prayer and have sought God's guidance on the matter, we are free in this case to choose whichever option seems best to us. In truth, we can rest assured that by His sovereign nature we cannot act entirely outside God's will. If we have made every effort to act in accordance with God's expressed will and all options still appear viable we have liberty to act in whichever way appears best to us. In such circumstances, simply by laying an option in front of us that he knows we will freely choose, God can guide us through our own intellect and volition.
So, there are three ways that work together for guidance. Firstly, we look at the principles laid down in scripture. If what we are aiming to do goes against commands and principles in the Bible then God is clearly guiding us away from such things. Secondly, we can know by our circumstances what God would have us do. Where he is clearly guiding us away from something he will close doors and prevent those opportunities from arising; where he is guiding us towards a particular area our circumstances will be such that opportunities to do something else will be removed. Thirdly, we can pray that God will make clear to us where he would have us go and what he would have us do. Above all else, God is sovereign. Where the three ways of knowing God's guidance have been met, all options remain and each appear valid we have liberty to choose the option which seems best to us as God can still guide through our own volition. Through these things we can know God's guidance.
Notes
1. Such as Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18; Proverbs 6:32; Matthew 5:27-32; Matthew 5:19; etc
2. Proverbs 6; Proverbs 20:4; Proverbs 21:25; Proverbs 26:13-16; 2 Thessolonians 3:10-15; etc
3. Of course, there are many through illness, lack of available jobs, etc who want to work but cannot
What most people mean by 'guidance' is God making known to them what they should do in the specifics of everyday life. This can relate to large life-changing decisions, for example: 'Where should I live?'; 'For which job should I apply?'; 'Who should I marry?'. However, it may also relate to less life-changing, yet still significant things, such as: 'Which church should I attend?'; 'To whom should I give money?'; 'How should I serve my church?'. In all these things, the Bible does not offer a definitive answer e.g. you should work in London, attend a particular church and give money to a particular charity. Given this, how do we seek God's guidance and how can we know where God is leading?
In the first instance, we should turn to the Bible. Although the question 'where should I work?' is not directly answered, the Bible lays down some principles that impact upon this decision. For example, although working in a brothel is never specifically outlawed in the Bible particular principles and commands that directly relate to such work would make this an occupation incompatible with a plain understanding of scripture (1). In a less obvious sense, the scriptural principles relating to work may affect the area of the country in which we live and the type of work we will find. For example, the Bible makes a number of comments on those who will not work (2). If we are able to work but we make excuses for not accepting particular jobs this would appear to cut across the principles laid down in scripture (3). If we are able to work and appropriate jobs appear in places which are not ideal but in which we are able to live, or that do not relate to our preferred area of training but for which we are nevertheless trained, then the Bible makes clear that we should accept such work even though it does not conform to our preconceived specifications of that which we hoped for. In this sense, the Biblical principle of working when we are able should have an effect on both where we live and what we do. So, in the first instance, we should see what scriptural principles have an impact upon the area in which we are seeking guidance.
Of course, there are still undefined decisions we may face for which there is either no directly applicable principle or, for which there are two or more equally valid routes for us to take. Having considered all relevant scriptural principles, in the second instance we can turn to circumstance. For example, in seeking work, we may have a preferred geographical area and specific specialism in mind as our ideal - there is nothing wrong with this nor with actively pursuing it. However, if no jobs in our preferred area become available or we receive no interviews for that place our circumstances suggest the Lord would have us elsewhere (especially if he has provided the opportunity for work in another place). Likewise, if the Lord wants us to have a specific job in our particular area of preference he will set the circumstances such that we will be able to take that job. Therefore, where our decision is not otherwise prohibited by scripture, we can look to our circumstances to see what the Lord would have us do. If he would have us in a particular area he will open the doors to allow it and if he would not he will remove those opportunities from us.
Through prayer we can also know God's guidance. If there is a particular situation which we are keen to actively pursue we can pray that, if it is His will, God would open the doors for that specific set of circumstances to come about. If it is not his will for us, for whatever reason, the Lord will not cause such circumstances to come about. Alternatively, we may not have a specific set of circumstances in mind but simply wish to follow wherever the Lord may lead. In this case, we can pray that He would only grant us the set of circumstances in which He would have us go. In either case, if we are truly seeking God's guidance and not our own predisposed ideals, we should be earnestly and honestly praying for God to grant us opportunities in the way he would have us go and we should pursue those things when they arise.
Finally, it is worth noting that sometimes we have a number of perfectly valid options available to us, none of which go against scripture and all of which are within an acceptable set of circumstances. If we have committed the decision to prayer and have sought God's guidance on the matter, we are free in this case to choose whichever option seems best to us. In truth, we can rest assured that by His sovereign nature we cannot act entirely outside God's will. If we have made every effort to act in accordance with God's expressed will and all options still appear viable we have liberty to act in whichever way appears best to us. In such circumstances, simply by laying an option in front of us that he knows we will freely choose, God can guide us through our own intellect and volition.
So, there are three ways that work together for guidance. Firstly, we look at the principles laid down in scripture. If what we are aiming to do goes against commands and principles in the Bible then God is clearly guiding us away from such things. Secondly, we can know by our circumstances what God would have us do. Where he is clearly guiding us away from something he will close doors and prevent those opportunities from arising; where he is guiding us towards a particular area our circumstances will be such that opportunities to do something else will be removed. Thirdly, we can pray that God will make clear to us where he would have us go and what he would have us do. Above all else, God is sovereign. Where the three ways of knowing God's guidance have been met, all options remain and each appear valid we have liberty to choose the option which seems best to us as God can still guide through our own volition. Through these things we can know God's guidance.
Notes
1. Such as Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18; Proverbs 6:32; Matthew 5:27-32; Matthew 5:19; etc
2. Proverbs 6; Proverbs 20:4; Proverbs 21:25; Proverbs 26:13-16; 2 Thessolonians 3:10-15; etc
3. Of course, there are many through illness, lack of available jobs, etc who want to work but cannot
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)