Pages

Sunday, April 28, 2013

"Hearing God"

I’m going to comment on Moreland’s argument:



Sometimes I am asked to provide a biblical case for my belief that everyday believers can regularly hear God speak to them in various ways.

That’s equivocal. Moreland’s contention isn’t merely that everyday believers can regularly hear God speak to them in various ways, but that Christians must cultivate the ability to hear God’s voice through trial-and-error and practice.


Thus, the examples of God speaking to people (including ordinary people—Gen 25:23, Acts 6:5, and 8:6, Acts 19:1-7, esp. v. 6) throughout both Testaments are meant to teach us how we can expect God to speak (without, of course, expecting God to continue to give authoritative scripture to the whole church).

i) God doesn’t speak to anyone in Acts 6:5 and 8:6. Why is Moreland so careless?

ii) God doesn’t speak to anyone in Acts 19:6. Rather, they prophesy and speak in tongues. Perhaps Moreland considers that equivalent to God speaking to them.

But even if some Christians prophesy in Acts 19:6, that hardly warrants the “belief that everyday believers can regularly hear God speak to them in various ways.” Even in Acts, every Christian is not a prophet.

iii) Rebekah is not an “ordinary person.” Rather, she’s a key link in the chain of redemptive history.

Moreover, the oracle in Gen 25:23 isn’t only or primarily for her benefit. That oracle figures in the narrative arc. And it is there for the benefit of the reader, so that he can track God’s unfolding plan.


God speaks to us to give us guidance (Isaiah 30:21, John 10:3,4,16,27, Acts 13:2, 16:6, James 1:5).  In the John texts, Jesus says his sheep hear his voice.  Some have understood the context to imply that this means that the unsaved hear God’s effectual call to come to salvation.  But this has the odd result that we can hear God’s speech/drawing/prompting before we are saved but not afterwards.

i) Jas 1:5 doesn’t say God speaks to Christians. Why is Moreland so careless?

ii) Acts 16:6 doesn’t say God spoke to anyone. It doesn’t specify how God restrained them. Why is Moreland so careless?

And even if it were a word from God, God speaking to Paul hardly warrants the “belief that everyday believers can regularly hear God speak to them in various ways.” Ditto: Acts 13:2.

iii) Moreland seems to be assuming that Isa 30:21 denotes the unmediated voice of God. But God normally speaks through prophets. Indeed, Isaiah is a case in point: God conveys this promise through the mouth of his prophet Isaiah.

iv) Moreland seems to think Jn 10 denotes literal divine speech. But in context, that’s part of the parable. The sheep hear the shepherd calling to them.

There’s no more reason to take the voice literally than taking the sheep or shepherd literally. That’s all a part of the parabolic world story.


Jesus explicitly says that we will do greater works than he did (John 14:12). 

How does that comparison apply to his claim that “many believers are mistaken about what exactly is God’s biblical speech”? Was Jesus mistaken about what exactly is God’s biblical speech? Did Jesus have to perfect hearing God’s voice through trial-and-effort and constant practice?


God sometimes speaks by placing impressions in our minds (Nehemiah 2:12) and through a still small voice (I Kings 19:12).

i) There’s more than one way to render Neh 2:12.

ii) The fact that God made his will known to Nehemiah hardly warrants the “belief that everyday believers can regularly hear God speak to them in various ways.”

iii) Likewise, the fact that God “whispered” to Elijah hardly warrants the “belief that everyday believers can regularly hear God speak to them in various ways.”

These are individual descriptions, not general promises.


Regarding the claim that when God speaks, it is clear and we don’t have to learn to hear his voice, (A) it seems that Samuel needed to learn to distinguish/hear God’s voice (I Sam 3:1-21);

I’ve discussed this before, but I’ll say a bit more:

i) There’s no justification for extrapolating from this case to believers in general. It’s not a promise. And Samuel was not an “everyday” believer.

ii) In this account, God initiates contact with Samuel. And God intensifies contact until Samuel recognizes God. God first speaks to Samuel, then appears to Samuel–in what I take to be an angelophany.

This has nothing to do with Samuel having to cultivate the ability to hear God’s voice. The success of the divine communication is not contingent on Samuel. God unilaterally controls the transaction. God determines the outcome. And this is true of Moreland’s other examples.


(B) there was a school of prophets in the Old Testament and, among other things, it would seem natural to think that they were learning to discern/hear God’s voice;

Moreland offers no reason to agree with his claim.


 (C) In the NT, prophesy is a gift that, as will other gifts like teaching or evangelism, grows and develops with time and experience as one learn to enter more fully into the practice of that gift.

Moreland offers no reason to think prophecy is the sort of gift that grows and develops if you practice that gift. Why think prophecy is something you can “practice”? Do we dictate to God when, where, and how often he reveals himself to us?  Do we compel God?


That is why there were tests of prophesy (I Cor 14:29, I Thes 5:19-22), viz., that as people learned to hear God, they sometimes made mistakes and gave words sincerely though they were mistaken.

That’s equivocal.

i) Does it mean knowing whether God has spoken?

ii) Does it mean God is unclear even when he speaks?

iii) Does it mean we are unclear on how to apply a prophecy?


(D) We have to learn God’s most authoritative speech, the Bible, through hermeneutics, exegetical practice and so forth, and many believers are mistaken about what exactly is God’s biblical speech (in debates in textual criticism and differences between Catholics and Protestants about which books belong in the canon). If God has allowed there to be differences about what belongs in Holy Scripture and we have to work hard to learn to rightly divide it, why can’t there be differences about whether a personal communication was/was not from God and effort needed to learn how to understand such communication?

Catholics and Protestants don’t differ over the scope of the canon because it’s hard to rightly divide it. Rather, they differ over the scope of the canon because Catholics have a dogmatic precommitment to whatever their denomination formally teaches–evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. 

21 comments:

  1. With regard to episodes where Moreland claims to be hearing from God, Moreland says, “when God speaks to me, I’m somewhere between 50/50 and 90/10 [that it’s the Lord’s voice]…” (14:45ff in the video Annoyed Pinoy previously referenced).

    That being said, don’t the extraordinary results of the examples he provides of his hearing from God demonstrate that there is something supernatural going on? The examples Moreland cites include God telling Moreland to tell "Mike" the Korean to confront his pastor and there being a Korean named Mike in the audience who needed to confront his pastor, God telling him that students are being demonized and kept up at night, God telling Moreland to ask Him for $5,000 and receiving it shortly thereafter, God telling Moreland that he will edit a series of books for IVP and that coming to fruition (despite initial rejection), God telling Moreland to tell a pastor that God sees him and approves of his ministry and that apparently being the terminology the pastor used in praying to God (i.e., do You even see me; do You approve of my ministry), etc.

    Are you saying that because what Moreland claims to have heard from God was ambiguous (anywhere from 50/50 to 90/10 from the Lord in Moreland’s mind) that he was not hearing from God?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For starters, if Moreland heard God speaking to him via his trial and error process, it doesn't necessarily mean all Christians would likewise do well to cultivate the ability to hear God’s voice thru Moreland's trial and error process. God speaking to Moreland may have nothing to do with Moreland's trial and error process.

      Delete
    2. I don't object to the idea that God speaks to some Christians sometimes.

      I object to the idea that we can/should cultivate hearing God, as if that's a spiritual technique.

      I also object to the idea that God is an ineffective communicator.

      Delete
  2. "I also object to the idea that God is an ineffective communicator."

    Do you object to Moreland saying God was speaking to him even though it was admittedly ambiguous?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find that dubious.

      Delete
    2. What do you do with the examples that Moreland provides of God speaking to him? Don't they reduce the dubiousness of his claim?

      Delete
    3. All claims aren't equal. "50/50" isn't "In answer to prayer, I heard God speak to me in an audible voice," or, "I had a premonitory dream," or, "I desperately needed $375, and someone mailed me $350 out of the blue, explaining in the cover note that they sensed I was in financial straits."

      Delete
    4. I think Moreland may well have some genuine miraculous experiences. I also think he's imagining the hidden hand of God in other cases. Squinting to see a pattern, which amounts to projecting a pattern onto something that isn't there.

      Delete
    5. If even one of the specific examples of Moreland's hearing God is a "genuine miraculous experience," wouldn't that count as evidence that God spoke, at least in that case, ambiguously.

      Delete
    6. Why do you equate a genuine miraculous experience with ambiguous divine speech? Consider the many cases of special divine guidance in the Book of Acts which aren't ambiguous.

      That's one of my problems with Moreland: he's charismatic, he reads the Bible charismatically, but his 50/50 examples don't match Biblical examples of special divine guidance.

      In addition, he says "God speaks to us to give us guidance," but then he talks about 50/50 cases. Well, if God is speaking to us to guide us, then ambiguous guidance is counterproductive. Isn't the point of divine guidance to resolve ambiguity rather than generate a new layer of ambiguity?

      Why are you so invested in the notion of ambiguous divine speech? Why is that so important to you? One can be charismatic without believing in ambiguous divine speech.

      Delete
    7. “Why do you equate a genuine miraculous experience with ambiguous divine speech?”

      I don’t. But if even one of the specific examples Moreland provides of hearing from God in an ambiguous manner represents a miraculous experience, then that seems to allow that God may, on occasion, speak ambiguously.

      “Why are you so invested in the notion of ambiguous divine speech?”

      I’m not invested in the notion, but it’s an area of interest because of people I know. My thinking is: if you want to hear God speak to you, read the Bible; if you want t hear God speak to you audibly, read the Bible out loud. But it is difficult to dismiss men like Moreland as wrong regarding how to hear God, especially when the evidence they provide from their own experience is compelling.

      Delete
    8. stell

      "But if even one of the specific examples Moreland provides of hearing from God in an ambiguous manner represents a miraculous experience, then that seems to allow that God may, on occasion, speak ambiguously."

      There's no reason I should credit reports of hearing God communicate ambiguously. To the contrary, for me that's a good reason not to credit reports of that nature.

      It's easy to dismiss reports like that since, by their own admission, the evidence that God was communicating is 50/50. Well, why should I think God communicates in that Delphic fashion?

      Delete
    9. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Biblical paradigm demonstrates conclusively that God never speaks ambiguously, and suppose, for the sake of argument, that what happens when Moreland “hears from God” in an ambiguous manner is truly supernatural (i.e., the evidence is too extraordinary to be dismissed as imagining the hidden hand of God, squinting to see a pattern, or projecting a pattern). What are we to conclude? That something supernatural is happening that is not from God? That something nefarious is happening?

      Delete
    10. stell, you might be interested in this post from a few years back.

      Delete
    11. rockingwithhawking, I skimmed the post you recommended and will (Dv) read it more closely later. Just out of curiosity, how would you respond to my comment immediately above (4/30/2013 4:33 PM)?

      Delete
    12. Hey stell,

      I'm sure I'm not a good person to answer your question. But since you asked... ;-)

      If we assume it's true "God never speaks ambiguously," and if we assume it's true someone like Moreland has heard something "truly supernatural" but that's also "ambiguous," then I'd say the following:

      1. Not that you're saying otherwise but just to be clear I don't think there's any sort of, say, universal principle applicable to every such person in every situation. Rather I think we should take it on a case by case basis. We should examine each case on its own merits and/or demerits.

      2. It could be the person is deluded about the "truly supernatural" event. Maybe it's a merely subjectively real phenomenon. Maybe it's in their head so to speak. Maybe they had an acute or have a chronic neurological or psychiatric disorder or somesuch. A brain malfunction that could be indicative of an underlying pathophysiological process.

      3. It could be the person has natural or acquired psychic or paranormal abilities.

      4. It could be the person is hearing from a demonic source, which in turn may or may not overlap with the previous point.

      I'm sure others would have better answers though.

      Delete
    13. stell

      "Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Biblical paradigm demonstrates conclusively that God never speaks ambiguously, and suppose, for the sake of argument, that what happens when Moreland 'hears from God' in an ambiguous manner is truly supernatural (i.e., the evidence is too extraordinary to be dismissed as imagining the hidden hand of God, squinting to see a pattern, or projecting a pattern). What are we to conclude? That something supernatural is happening that is not from God? That something nefarious is happening?"

      I don't think that's supernatural, but natural. Moreland begins with a false expectation, then imagines patterns that aren't there based on his false expectation.

      Delete
  3. How should he describe his apparently extraordinary experiences so that they would be less objectionable? Should he not mention them at all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm charitably evaluating the claims here.

      (1) I appreciate the "50/50" and "90/10" humility displayed by JP Moreland here. He's simply not "absolutely" certain.

      (2) At the same time, there are fairly strong rebuttals against the seeming oxymoron "Fallible Prophecy."

      (3) What would be helpful is when someone who claims "fallible prophecy" shares those times when he was 50/50 to 90/10 sure it was God's voice, and it turns out it wasn't. I'd like to read about those cases.

      Delete
    2. i) Moreland is not the standard of comparison. It's hardly incumbent on me to salvage his position.

      ii) You're confusing "extraordinary experiences" with the claim that Christians can regularly hear God's voice if they practice hearing God's voice. The claim that God speaks to people doesn't entail the claim that successful divine communication is contingent on our trial-and-error methodology.

      iii) Moreland's position is ad hoc. We have charismatics who interpret the Bible charismatically. Okay, be consistent.

      Don't interpret the Bible charismatically, then turn around and make excuses for allegedly charismatic experiences that fall short of what the Bible describes.

      Delete
    3. stell, I recommend reading the articles on J.P. Moreland's website that deal with the objections to God "trying" to communicate here at THIS LINK.

      As the articles point out, God could have good reasons for why He may sometimes communicate ambiguously. Some of the examples given are...



      As applied to hearing/missing God's voice,

      God could intend that if Barbarelli is willing to act on what he hears, then God will allow his voice to come from the periphery to the focus of Barbarelli's attention.
      He could decide that Giorgione hear his voice with greater frequency only if Giorgione stops doing some action that violates his conscience.
      He could will that Tully hear his voice with greater clarity only if Tully stops distracting himself.
      God could act such that, if Cicero chooses to familiarize himself better with some aspect of biblical revelation, then Cicero will recognize God's voice as God's voice.

      Moreover, God can also form an unconditional intention to be heard/missed (unconditional relative to the intended hearer's immediate response). That is, God can have aims that are best achieved only by allowing some person to hear/miss it, come what may.

      Thus, for example,

      God could make his own communicative efforts less-than-clear in order to help train Orcutt in an ability—that of recognizing what God's voice is like; or that of helping Orcutt discern God's voice from among competing distractions.
      God could allow Orcutt to miss his voice at various times, or in various ways, in order to help Orcutt form certain habits of character—courage to act in faith on the basis of good reasons, for instance; or as incentive for cultivating a less distracted life.
      He could allow Orcutt to miss it in some fashion in order to maintain what some have called "epistemic distance" from Orcutt—this plausibly being the only way in some cases to preserve human freedom or moral responsibility.

      The point to notice in the examples above is that the intended hearer misses it in some fashion, yet the situations, so described, are compatible with God's being omnipotent.

      Delete