Discernment

Just read this great piece from the Coming Home Network. It is an article discussing a question every Christian asks him/herself, "how can I know exactly what Gods will is in every decision I make?" It's quite long, but filled with great Truth.

Discernment

by Peter Kreeft

Does God have one right choice for me in each decision I make?

When we pray for wisdom to discern God’s will when it comes to choosing a mate, a career, a job change, a move, a home, a school, a friend, a vacation, how to spend money, or any other choice, big or little, whenever there are two or more different paths opening up before us and we have to choose, does God always will one of those paths for us? If so, how do we discern it?

Many Christians who struggle with this question today are unaware that Christians of the past can help them from their own experience. Christian wisdom embodied in the lives and teachings of the saints tells us two things that are relevant to this question.

First, they tell us that God not only knows and loves us in general but that he cares about every detail of our lives, and we are to seek to walk in his will in all things, big and little. Second, they tell us that he has given us free will and reason because he wants us to use it to make decisions. This tradition is exemplified in Saint Augustine’s famous motto “Love God and [then] do what you will.” In other words, if you truly love God and his will, then doing what you will, will, in fact, be doing what God wills.

Do these two pieces of advice pull us in opposite directions, or do they only seem to? Since there is obviously a great truth embodied in both of them, which do we emphasize the most to resolve our question of whether God has one right way for us?

I think the first and most obvious answer to this question is that it depends on which people are asking it. We have a tendency to emphasize one half of the truth at the expense of the other half, and we can do that in either of the two ways. Every heresy in the history of theology fits this pattern: for instance, emphasizing Christ’s divinity at the expense of his humanity or his humanity at the expense of his divinity; or emphasizing divine sovereignty at the expense of free will or free will at the expense of divine sovereignty.
Five general principles of discernment of God’s will that apply to all questions about it, and therefore to our question too, are the following:

1. Always begin with data, with what we know for sure. Judge the unknown by the known, the uncertain by the certain. Adam and Eve neglected that principle in Eden and ignored God’s clear command and warning for the devil’s promised pig in a poke.

2. Let your heart educate your mind. Let your love of God educate your reason in discerning his will. Jesus teaches this principle in John 7:17 to the Pharisees. (Would that certain Scripture scholars today would heed it!) They were asking how they could interpret his words, and he gave them the first principle of hermeneutics (the science of interpretation): “If your will were to do the will of my Father, you would understand my teaching.” The saints understand the Bible better than the theologians, because they understand its primary author, God, by loving him with their whole heart and their whole mind.

3. Have a soft heart but a hard head. We should be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves,” sharp as a fox in thought but loyal as a dog in will and deed. Soft-heartedness does not excuse soft-headedness, and hard-headedness does not excuse hard-heartedness. In our hearts we should be “bleeding-heart liberals” and in our heads “stuck-in-the-mud conservatives.”

4. All God’s signs should line up, by a kind of trigonometry. There are at least seven such signs: (1) Scripture, (2) church teaching, (3) human reason (which God created), (4) the appropriate situation, or circumstances (which he controls by his providence), (5) conscience, our innate sense of right and wrong, (6) our individual personal bent or desire or instincts, and (7) prayer. Test your choice by holding it up before God’s face. If one of these seven voices says no, don’t do it. If none say no, do it.

5. Look for the fruits of the spirit, especially the first three: love, joy, and peace. If we are angry and anxious and worried, loveless and joyless and peaceless, we have no right to say we are sure of being securely in God’s will. Discernment itself should not be a stiff, brittle, anxious thing, but—since it too is part of God’s will for our lives—loving and joyful and peace-filled, more like a game than a war, more like writing love letters than taking final exams.

Now to our question. Does God have just one right choice for me to make each time? If so, I must find it. If not, I should relax more and be a little looser. Here are some clues to the answer.

The answer depends on what kind of person you are. I assume that many readers of this page are (1) Catholic, (2) orthodox and faithful to the teachings of the church, (3) conservative, and (4) charismatic. I have had many friends—casual, close, and very close—of this description for many years. In fact, I fit the description myself. So I speak from some experience when I say that people of this type have a strong tendency toward a certain character or personality type—which is in itself neither good nor bad—which needs to be nourished by one of these emphases more than the other. The opposite personality type would require the opposite emphasis.

My first clue, based on my purely personal observation of this kind of people, is that we often get bent out of human shape by our desire—in itself a very good desire—to find God’s perfect will for us. We give a terrible testimony to non-Christians; we seem unable to relax, to stop and smell God’s roses, to enjoy life as God gives it to us. We often seem fearful, fretful, terribly serious, humorless, and brittle—in short, the kind of people that don’t make a very good advertisement for our faith.

I am not suggesting that we compromise one iota of our faith to appeal to unbelievers. I am simply suggesting that we be human. Go watch a ball game. Enjoy a drink—just one—unless you’re at risk for alcoholism. Be a little silly once in a while. Tickle your kids—and your wife. Learn how to tell a good joke. Read Frank Schaeffer’s funny novel Portofino. Go live in Italy for a while.

Here’s a second clue. Most Christians, including many of the saints, don’t, in fact, have the discernment we are asking about, the knowledge of what God wills in every single choice. It’s rare. Could something as important as this be so rare? Could God have left almost all of us so clueless?

A third clue is Scripture. It records some examples—most of them miraculous, many of them spectacular—of God revealing his particular will. But these are reported in the same vein as miracles: as something remarkable, not as general policy. The “electronic gospel” of health and wealth, “name it and claim it,” is unscriptural, and so is the notion that we must find the one right answer to every practical problem, for the same reason: we are simply never assured such a blanket promise.

Darkness and uncertainty are as common in the lives of the saints, in Scripture as well as afterwards, as pain and poverty are. The only thing common to all humanity that the gospel guarantees to free us from is sin (and its consequences, death, guilt, and fear), not suffering and not uncertainties. If God had wanted us to know the clear, infallible way, he surely would have told us clearly and infallibly.

A fourth clue is something God did in fact give us: free will. Why? There are a number of good reasons—for instance, so that our love could be infinitely more valuable than instinctive, unfree animal affection. But I think I see another reason. As a teacher, I know that I sometimes should withhold answers from my students so that they find them themselves, and thus appreciate and remember them better—and also learn how to exercise their own judgment in finding answers themselves. “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” God gave us some big fish, but he also gave us the freedom to fish for a lot of little ones (and some big ones) ourselves.

Reason and free will always go together. God created both in us as part of his image. He gives supernatural revelation to both: dogmas to our reason and commandments to our will. But just as he didn’t give us all the answers, even in theology, in applying the dogmas or drawing out the consequences of them, so he didn’t give us all the answers in morality or practical guidance, in applying the commandments and drawing out their consequences. He gave us the mental and moral equipment with which to do that, and he is not pleased when we bury our talent in the ground instead of investing it so that he will see how much it has grown in us when he returns.

In education, I know there are always two extremes. You can be too modern, too experimental, too Deweyan, too structureless. But you can also be too classical, too rigid. Students need initiative and creativity and originality too. God’s law is short. He gave us ten commandments, not ten thousand. Why? Why not a more complete list of specifics? Because he wanted freedom and variety. Why do you think he created so many persons? Why not just one? Because he loves different personalities. He wants his chorus to sing in harmony, but not in unison.

I know Christians who are cultivating ingrown eyeballs trying to know themselves so well—often by questionable techniques like the enneagram, or Oriental modes of prayer—so that they can make the decision that is exactly what God wants for them every time. I think it is much healthier to think about God and your neighbor more and yourself less, to forget yourself—follow your instincts without demanding to know everything about them. As long as you love God and act within his law, I think he wants you to play around a bit.

I’m happily haunted by Chesterton’s image of the playground fence erected around the children on top of the mountain so that they could play without fear of falling off the side. That’s why God gave us his law: not to make us worried but to keep us safe so that we could play the great games of life and love and joy.
Each of us has a different set of instincts and desires. Sin infects them, of course. But sin infects our reason and our bodies too; yet we are supposed to follow our bodily instincts (for example, hunger and self-preservation) and our mind’s instincts (for example, curiosity and logic). I think he wants us to follow our hearts. Surely, if John loves Mary more than Susan, he has more reason to think God is leading him to marry Mary than Susan. Why not treat all other choices by the same principle?

I am not suggesting, of course, that our hearts are infallible, or that following them justifies sinful behavior. Nor am I suggesting that the heart is the only thing to follow. I mentioned seven guidelines earlier. But surely it is God who designed our hearts—the spiritual heart with desire and will as much as the physical heart with aorta and valves. Our parents are sinful and fallible guides too, but God gave them to us to follow. So our hearts can be worth following too even though they are sinful and fallible. If your heart loves God, it is worth following. If it doesn’t, then you’re not interested in the problem of discernment of his will anyway.

Here is a fifth clue. When we do follow Augustine’s advice to “love God and then do what you will,” we usually experience great relief and peace. Peace is a mark of the Holy Spirit.

I know a few people who have abandoned Christianity altogether because they lacked that peace. They tried to be super-Christians in everything, and the pressure was just unendurable. They should have read Galatians.

Here is a sixth clue. If God has one right choice in everything you do, then you can’t draw any line. That means that God wants you to know which room to clean first, the kitchen or the bedroom, and which dish to pick up first, the plate or the saucer. You see, if you carry out this principle’s logical implications, it shows itself to be ridiculous, unlivable, and certainly not the kind of life God wants for us—the kind described in the Bible and the lives of the saints.

Clue number six is the principle that many diverse things are good; that good is plural. Even for the same person, there are often two or more choices that are both good. Good is kaleidoscopic. Many roads are right. The road to the beach is right and the road to the mountains is right, for God awaits us in both places. Goodness is multicolored. Only pure evil lacks color and variety. In hell there is no color, no individuality. Souls are melted down like lead, or chewed up together in Satan’s mouth. The two most uniform places on earth are prisons and armies, not the church.

Take a specific instance where different choices are both equally good. Take married sex. As long as you stay within God’s law—no adultery, no cruelty, no egotism, no unnatural acts, as, for example, contraception—anything goes. Use your imagination. Is there one and only one way God wants you to make love to your spouse? What a silly question! Yet making love to your spouse is a great good, and God’s will. He wants you to decide to be tender or wild, moving or still, loud or quiet, so that your spouse knows it’s you, not anyone else, not some book who’s deciding.

Clue number seven is an example from my own present experience. I am writing a novel for the first time, and learning how to do it. First, I placed it in God’s hands, told him I wanted to do it for his kingdom, and trusted him to lead me. Then, I simply followed my own interests, instincts, and unconscious. I let the story tell itself and the characters become themselves. God doesn’t stop me or start me. He doesn’t do my homework for me. But he’s there, like a good parent.

I think living is like writing a novel. It’s writing the story of your own life and even your own self (for you shape your self by all your choices, like a statue that is its own sculptor). God is the primary author, of course, the primary sculptor. But he uses different human means to get different human results. He is the primary author of each book in the Bible too, but the personality of each human author is no less clear there than in secular literature.

God is the universal storyteller. He wants many different stories. And he wants you to thank him for the unique story that comes from your free will and your choices too. Because your free will and his eternal plan are not two competing things, but two sides of one thing. We cannot fully understand this great mystery in this life, because we see only the underside of the tapestry. But in heaven, I think, one of the things we will praise and thank God the most for is how wildly and wonderfully and dangerously he put the driving wheel of our life into our hands—like a parent teaching a young child to drive.

You see, we have to learn that, because the cars are much bigger in heaven. There, we will rule angels and kingdoms.

God, in giving us all free will, said to us: “Your will be done.” Some of us turn back to him and say: “My will is that your will be done.” That is obedience to the first and greatest commandment. Then, when we do that, he turns to us and says: “And now, your will be done.” And then he writes the story of our lives with the pen strokes of our own free choices.

This article appears online at http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/discernment.htm. Used with permission of the author.

Baptism: Where Sins are Forgiven

There is an issue with the substance of Baptism between the Catholic and Protestant believers. Getting straight into the lesson here is the positions of each:

Protestant: Baptism is the public display of faith done as a Christian’s willingness to follow the example of Jesus. It is not required but should be accomplished early in one’s conversion. As a pastor once stated, “it is an outward symbol of an inward change.” NOTE: Protestants are not unified on this or any definition.

Catholic: Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word" (CCC, #1213). NOTE: Catholics are united on this definition.

The Catholic Church is a huge advocate of scripture and also are protestants. I would love to give the many references from first, second, and third century Christians regarding their agreement with the current Catholic view, but as I know I am defending the Catholic view to Protestants, primarily, I will stick to the Bible. I think personally that John and Acts are the two most stalwart scriptures referencing the need for Baptism. To begin, the Gospel of John mentions the act of Baptism with the word “baptize” four times in just the first chapter; two more times in Ch. 3. John the Baptist says that he baptized with water, but the Messiah will baptize with the Holy Spirit. In Ch. 3 we have the well-known conversation with Nicodemus about being born again. Jesus says, “I assure you, unless someone is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is born of the flesh, and what is born of the spirit is born of the spirit.”  Jesus says these things in response to Nicodemus simply looking at the flesh perspective and not the spiritual perspective. There are in fact two separate baptisms in the Gospel of John: one of the spirit and one of water; one from John and one from Jesus. We know from John 1:31 and especially Acts 19:4 that John’s baptism was to prepare hearts for the coming of the Lord. He preached in this order: 1) repent, 2) be baptized (also reflected in Matt 3:6, Mark 16:16). This is part of “Gods plan” in Luke 7:30 and part of “Gods way of righteousness” in Luke 7:29.

Before we leave the gospels we need to remember an important thing. The Catholic Church has sacraments. These are seven things the RCC holds that Christ instituted.  As an important supplement to this conversation, do not forget that before Jesus left the disciples, He then instituted baptism, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And that’s what Catholics do. Jesus gave three things for them to do as a closing statement: 1) baptize, 2) teach, 3) remember He is there with them forever.

All of this is echoed in Acts. 2:38, the crowds asked, “brothers, what must we do.” “Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Again, the story of the Eunuch in Ch.8 shows how the man had to believe “with all his heart” and then could be and was baptized. Peter in 10:48 commands the people to be baptized. Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18:8, 19:5 all show how baptism was urgent to the Apostles, and also could not be accomplished without believing. I would look up those and see the narrative conveying urgency and requirement. We continually see a common “when they heard this, they were baptized.” Finally, we observe as Acts closes in 22:16, “…be baptized, wash away your sins by calling on His name.”  

I see a continual message: believe, be baptized. I opened by pointing how the RCC views baptism, and that its purpose is twofold: 1) for the remission of sins, and 2) to be raised with Christ. The second is a tradition of the protestant churches as well, which I don’t think you will disagree with. So, the real contention is the first point – that baptism is for the remission of sins. When I was baptized, and I have heard this put no other way besides in the RCC, I was told that it was a mere symbol and that we only do it cause we should, and to follow Gods example. In that opinion I do not see the urgency, the requirement, and I do not hear remission of sin.

I have reviewed the Catechism, #1213-1284, which discuss baptism as a whole issue (it is well worth the read) and do not see where it states that Baptism is required for salvation. I do see however in #1281 that “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.” This is one of several misconceptions about the Roman Catholic Faith, that baptism is required to be saved. You said “if baptism is a requirement for salvation…” but please do not be confused by my words, I was pointing out that baptism is for the remission of sins, and not a requirement for salvation.    

The thief on the cross! This was my last straw against the Catholic teaching of Baptism (finding out later that I was mistake in what they actually teach). I looked at everything, and the last stand I took versus baptism the RCC way was the question, “if the thief on the cross was saved and guaranteed entrance into paradise, why was he not baptized?” First, there is no telling that he was not baptized. Many, many, Jews were baptized by John and others. The other important factor many overlook is that the Gospel was not in effect until Jesus was raised from the grave, which is the chief reason we are baptized – to be raised again with Christ, in His baptism (Romans 6:3). Again, John’s baptism was not for remission of sin but for the preparedness of the coming of the messiah; Jesus baptism was for the remission of sin. Third, and most importantly, baptism by the Church and the Apostles in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, was not in effect until Pentecost.  How could the thief have been baptized by a Church that was not existent? How could the thief be baptized in Christ’s death and resurrection before Jesus had died? He didn’t need to be and he probably wasn’t. 

                For a more comprehensive understanding of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches regarding the sacrament of baptism, see The Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can find this online, and look for particularly #1312 thru 1380ish.

The Largest Pillar to Fall

A devout protestant argues for months, becomes Catholic. Oh Lordie, there is so much to tell. and here is the first:

The Largest Pillar to Fall

Martin Luther said, “Justification is the article on which the Church stands or falls.”

                If the reader of this knows anything about the reformation, he/she should know that Luther was not the whole reformation, but got a serious ball rolling for others. So I will often refer back to Luther, and you might say “but I don’t like or agree with Luther.” That doesn’t matter. What matters first is why the reformation happened at all. Bear this in mind.               

                Before Luther, there were many reformers. Most of these reformers wanted a moral reformation – a challenge to a 700 year problem for corrupt positions in the Church, including the Pope.  Luther was a solid advocate of a reformation against the corruptions of the Holy Catholic Church. In his well heard of “95 Theses” there were several issues Luther addressed boldly.  Ever read them? They are available online these days. Have a look. You will see him pointing out three recurring problems: 1) the power of a Pope, 2) the corruption of the church, 3) the issue of indulgences.  Indulgences were the chief issue, but I see three common topics. Either way, these were the mainstream issues he spoke out against in the beginning of his ministry. Even during this time, Luther often was heard speaking that there was no single issue that should cause him to break free from Rome (the Roman Catholic Church). Bear in mind he was no layman, he was indeed a devout monk turned priest ordained and anointed. He wanted the unity of the Church to remain integral in whatever happened. But, his invocation as the Diet of Worms “here I stand,” and the “article on which the Church stands or falls” are central to the reformation.  Why the change of heart? He was probably angry as the years went by. Trying to have someone kidnapped, misleading them to a castle tower, and other things might do that…

                So what was the position on justification exactly? Luther’s view was Justification by “Faith Alone.” In the Latin it is “Sola Fide.” To fill the reader in, the Catholic view of Justification is and has always been ‘Faith + Works.’ To me, as a protestant at the time, this didn’t seem too foolish. Of course salvation was from Faith alone!  I recall to my mind what St. Paul says in Romans 3, about not boasting of works, because it has nothing to do with salvation. When Luther was challenged by scripture such as James 2:24, “you see that a man is justified by works and not faith alone.” Luther responded by calling the Book of James “an Epistle of Straw,” inciting it should be burned. Well there is a serious contention there between Paul and James, right? Does Paul not also say in Galatians 5:6, “what is important is faith expressing itself in love.” Does James not echo this saying, “faith without works is dead” (James 2:27). You can check out the Greek if you please about what I am saying but the best thing to do is take into context the scripture here. Paul, when he says works have nothing to do with salvation was speaking of works of the law, and later is referring to charitable works. Well, hey, so is James. James also is referring to obedience to God in the works.

                Any plain reader can see that the Catholic view is clearly derived explicitly from scripture. This is rare. I will write about it another time, but the doctrines of Christianity are very rarely explicit from the Scriptures; rather they are very implicit. It was only with new heresies that the Church saw the need to define, dogmatize, or opinionate the Churches official position. A perfect example is the Trinity. For now, just know, or learn to see that the primary reason Luther gave us for the Schism is completely unbiblical itself. Heavens knows how this actually took off as an academic apology for Christendom, but I can see where people wanted away from the corruptions of the Church. What’s terrible is that the reason for this break, “faith alone” is found nowhere in the Bible. But, don’t rush into the judgment. Catholics do not count faith as important as works, or vice versa. Any Deacon, Priest, Bishop, or Pope will tell you that the faith-filled relationship is the utmost important! It is a huge misunderstanding that the Catholic Church weighs so heavily on works.

                So I have pretty simply laid it out for the reader. You can do as I did, and check out the debates on youtube, or the ones in text. They are all over the Internet. You will see that neither back down, but I think it is easily discernible that the Catholic tradition of “faith and works” for justification is a better argument, and is biblical as well. And that brings up a big point on the benefit of the Catholic view. They have +2000 years of this belief in faith and works. It is no modern opinion, or a response to Luther, or anything else; it was echoed throughout the ages from the very beginning. This is so important as you will hear many these days say, “well, the Catholic Church does not look like the New Testament Church we observe in scripture.” Point taken. But according to whom? This can drag out a whole separate issue, but really, if we look at scripture only, and ignore traditions, we wind up in a very harmful spot. I know, I will be blasted for that, but I will explain the scripture and tradition thing another day. Stick with me for now.

If you followed along, you saw where in scripture we observe faith and works and not just faith alone. Paul said, “do not get into vein arguments.” Some would call this a stupid argument, “they both teach the same thing.” Well, yes, Protestant pastors will teach that faith without works is dead faith, but will not include works in justification. Whatever the case, if it is such a silly topic then that should certainly create some doubt in your mind for Luther’s and the other reformers (who all agreed, by the way, with Luther) reason for starting the reformation and deciding that a schism with the Church was more important.

That is the greatest pillar to fall for my foundation for Protestantism. I was not the first or the last, but after I realized that Luther was not in sync with the historical church, all of Protestantism began to make much less sense, and was much less necessary, and much less truthful.  So don’t get me wrong, Protestant churches are great, and they preach, mostly, the Truth, but it is not the whole truth. In fact, there is only one Church that says it is infallible.

Please write me with questions: shaunmc04@gmail.com