AFFIRMING DIVINE GUIDANCE:
A MODEL FROM ACTS 10
Many Christians throughout the centuries
have believed that God guides his children by giving specific and varied kinds
of communications. Wayne Grudem
effectively captures this reality when he writes:
I
know that there is a small minority among Christians today who hold that God
does not and will not guide us through the work of the Holy Spirit prompting us
and leading us to choose one thing instead of another in our daily lives, not
even occasionally. But surely the vast majority of Christians throughout all
history have known and experienced the guidance of the Holy Spirit in making
decisions, especially while they are praying and reading the words of
Scripture, and they have known that this guidance includes not only the
directions and commands and principles of Scripture, but also subjective
impressions of God’s will and also additional thoughts or specific memories
that the Lord brings to mind.[1]
The fact that God is personal and engages in a personal
relationship with his children practically necessitates there be some sort of
relational guidance as specified by Grudem. Furthermore, as Dallas Willard reasons:
It is
simply beyond belief that two persons so intimately related as indicated in
Jesus’ answer to Thaddaeus [John 14.23] would not explicitly speak to one
another. The Spirit who inhabits
us is not mute, restricting himself to an occasional nudge, a hot flash, a
brilliant image or a case of goosebumps [sic].[2]
For
purposes of this paper this idea of divine guidance will be assumed.[3] The focus will, rather, be on
understanding the nature of this guidance. It will be argued that the kind of guidance as specified by Grudem
fits under the general category of “revelation” in the New Testament. This is to be understood within the
parameters of New Testament prophecy which allows for the introduction of
errors in reception, interpretation, and communication. Furthermore, this paper will develop a
model of guidance by a focused look at the narrative of Acts 10. This model will provide corrective instruction to both
those who deny divine guidance for today because of its alleged subjectivity
and for those who overly rely on the subjective elements inherit in some facets
of guidance.
The
issue of New Testament prophecy is too large to be thoroughly reviewed in this
paper but a few comments about a specific understanding of this subject will
provide a basis for the discussion to follow regarding divine guidance of a
specific and revelational nature. For
over three decades Wayne Grudem has championed a New Testament prophecy model which
is defined as: “Speaking merely human words to report something God brings to
mind.”[4] This is to be distinguished from Old
Testament prophets who spoke the very inerrant words of God—words with a
Scripture-level authority.
Theologian Sam Storms has adopted this model and further specified why
the nature of this prophecy is sometimes “fallible:”
The
key is in recognizing that with every prophecy there are four elements, only
one of which is assuredly of God: There is the revelation itself; there is the perception
or reception of that revelation by
the believer; there is the interpretation
of what has been disclosed or the attempt to ascertain its meaning; and there
is the application of that
interpretation. God is alone
responsible for the revelation.
Whatever he discloses to the human mind is altogether free from
error. It is as infallible as he
is. It contains no falsehoods; it
is wholly true in all its parts.
Indeed, the revelation, which is the root of every genuine prophetic
utterance, is as inerrant and infallible as the written Word of God itself (the
Bible). In terms of the revelation alone, the New Testament
prophetic gift does not differ from the Old Testament prophetic gift.
Error
enters in when the human recipient of a revelation misperceives, misinterprets
and/or misapplies what God has
disclosed. The fact that God has spoken perfectly does not mean that
human beings have heard
perfectly. They may interpret and apply, without error,
what God has revealed. But the
mere existence of a divine revelation does not in itself guarantee that the
interpretation or application of God’s revealed truth will share in its
perfection.[5]
In
light of these comments this view of New Testament prophecy will be called the
“Grudem/Storms” model. As can be expected, this view has not gone unchallenged.[6] This model will be utilized to
understand the nature of contemporary guidance.[7]
Two
aspects of the Grudem/Storms model are relevant to the notion of divine
guidance. The first is that God can
give clear revelation but this can be misunderstood by the recipient or something
from the receiver can be added into the revelation as an interpretative gloss. This is most clearly seen, for example,
in Acts 21.4[8]
The second aspect is when a revelation from God is not clear so there is
interpretative ambiguity inherent in the process. Critics of the Grudem/Storms model deny the possibility of
this second notion but, as will be shown below, there is biblical evidence to
support such a possibility. These
two insights from the Grudem/Storms model help elucidate the notion of
contemporary divine guidance as seen and developed from Acts 10.
Acts 10 provides an extended narrative for
insight into the way guidance can function. Although it is not Luke’s main intent to teach an explicit
model for guidance, there is, enough information from which to construct a
usable model for guidance today.
By looking at the whole complex of factors that make up the decision
making process in Acts 10 one can begin to answer some objections to divine
guidance as well as to provide scripturally sound boundaries for those who are
prone to overemphasize the subjective elements in divine guidance. Space constraints will not allow a full
exegetical discussion of Acts 10 but a brief view of this narrative along with
a look at how this narrative is spoken of elsewhere in the book of Acts will
suffice to show the multi-faceted approach to divine guidance.
Acts
10 begins with a revelation to Cornelius about his need to send for Peter. This chapter ends with Cornelius and
his household being baptized. This
narrative features Peter’s experiences which bring him to the change in his
thinking that allow him to fully participate in God’s plan of Gentile
inclusion. In Acts 10.9 Peter is
engaged in a discipline of set prayers.
In the midst of this praying he falls “into a trance” (v. 10). Next, a revelatory event happens in
which unclean animals are shown to
Peter and a divine voice commands him to “kill and eat” (v. 13). Peter is emphatic in his refusal but the
voice clearly states, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.”[9] This sequence happens three times. It is important to note this revelatory
experience does not bring with it an inherent sense of clarity as noted in
verse 17—“Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he
had seen might be.” The perplexity
causes Peter to “reflect on the vision” (v. 19) which obviously engaged his
rational faculties. In the midst
of this reflection the Holy Spirit “speaks” to Peter about three men looking
for him (vv. 19-20). Simultaneous
with this, the three men from Cornelius are at the front gate in a uniquely and
providentially timed event.[10] When Peter finally comes to Cornelius’
house he says the following: “God has shown me that I should not call any man
unholy or unclean” (v. 28). But
how is it that God “has shown” this to Peter? At no point in the narrative did God explicitly say these
words. Peter’s conclusion is a
result of multiple factors including disciplined prayer, a revelatory vision,
the direct speech of the Holy Spirit, rational thought processes, and
providential events. Putting all
these factors together allowed Peter to come to his conclusion regarding how he
is to view Cornelius and, by extension, all Gentiles. The visionary experience by itself did not yield this
clarity; it was one factor among many that led Peter to his conclusion.
Before
continuing on with an examination with how this narrative of Acts 10 plays out
in the rest of the book of Acts, it will helpful to consider a common objection
to modern day revelatory guidance.
As indicated above, the Grudem/Storms model of prophecy allows for potential error to enter into the
process of interaction between the divine revelation and the reception,
interpretation, or communication of that revelation. In responding to this view, Richard Gaffin queries: “This
poses a question (which, unless I have missed it, is not really addressed by
advocates of this view): Why would God reveal himself in such an ambiguous, not
to say ‘inefficient’ way?”[11] Greg Koukl, in a series of articles
arguing against “hearing God’s voice,” develops this objection further. Koukl labels his objection as, “Does
God Try?” and argues that any view which says that God is speaking but somehow
the human recipient fails to “hear” properly compromises the character of
God—either his knowledge or power.
Koukl argues, “What God attempts, He accomplishes.”[12] He adds:
The
same is true for hearing God’s voice.
If human limitation interferes with God’s communication, we surrender
our argument for the inerrancy of Scripture. If, however, God is big enough to secure word-for-word
accuracy of the text, the same rationale applies to hearing the voice of
God. It is impossible for man to
short-circuit God’s design.[13]
In
responding to this objection Timothy Bayless argues God may have aims that are
best achieved only by allowing a person to hear his revelation but without full
comprehension.[14] Bayless lists the following
hypothetical examples to substantiate his point:
·
God
could make his own communicative efforts less-than-clear in order to help train
[a person named] 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.[15]
Peter’s experience in Acts 10 provides
support to Bayless’ viewpoint. God
provided Peter with an initial revelatory experience that did not yield
immediate clarity. Why did not God
simply tell Peter, “Don’t call any man unclean”? Why the vision?
One potential reason God did it this way was that this process allowed
Peter to develop in his thinking and practice in a way which would not occur if
God simply told Peter the end result.
In light of the visionary experience Peter is existentially challenged
and disturbed. This prepares Peter
for further insights that will need to be taken into the depths of his theology. This can be no mere toying with the
peripheral edges of Peter’s thinking; a major change must take place within his
thought and praxis. In light of
this, both Gaffin’s “inefficiency” objection and Koukl’s “does God try?” objection
lose their force. God may, in his
sovereign intentions, allow for a lack of clarity in reception of a revelation
without compromising his perfect character nor the inerrancy of inscripturated
revelation.
Returning
to Acts 10 and its development in later chapters it is instructive to note there
are a number of “confirmations” regarding God’s revelation that follow in the
subsequent narrative. In Acts
10.30-33 Cornelius relates his experience to Peter. This provides epistemic confirmation for Peter: “I most
certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality” (Acts
10.34). Later, as Peter is
preaching the gospel, the Holy Spirit falls upon those who were listening. The fruit born by this preaching is a
supernatural confirmation with vivid, visual results. Furthermore, there is a measure of communal confirmation in
verse 45—“All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed,
because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.”[16] In Acts 11 Peter relates the whole
story to the Jerusalem church. In
his narration Peter stresses the confirmations mentioned above. He mentions the six brethren with him
(Acts 11.12), Cornelius’ report (11.13-14), and the Holy Spirit falling upon
them (11.15). He then adds a
further confirmation in verse 16—“And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he
used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy
Spirit.’” This is a confirmation
by consistency with the teaching of Jesus—a form of confirmation by
Scripture. The opposition to
Gentile inclusion quiets down in Acts 11.18 but it comes back again in Acts
15.1-2. Peter again relates his
story in short form (Acts 15.7-9).
Then James mentions Peter’s story (15.14) and points to the Old
Testament scriptures to show confirmation and agreement (Acts 15.15-18).
The
following chart summarizes the relevant elements from the above discussion:
Factors in Peter’s Acts 10 Experience
|
Confirmations
|
1. Disciplined prayer
|
1. Experience—Cornelius’ experience
|
2. Revelatory vision
|
2. Fruit of ministry
|
3. Direct speech of Holy Spirit
|
3. Communal—others see the reality
|
4. Rational thought processes
|
4. Jesus’ words
|
5. Providential events
|
5. Old Testament Scriptures
|
All
these elements are derived from the text and provide a framework from which to
build a model for guidance today.
The
model of guidance being offered here is multi-faceted in nature but it ought
not to be seen as check-list in which a decision is simply run through a rigid
theological algorithm. Rather,
these various components found in Acts 10 are to be in kept in
perspective. By so doing this model
provides guidance and boundaries for both those who deny contemporary guidance
and those who readily affirm it.
Both views can fall into error regarding this issue.
Those
who deny divine guidance are often motivated by a good desire to uphold the
centrality of God’s written word.
They hesitate to affirm subjective elements in the guidance process
because these are thought to be beyond rational and scriptural controls. They often stress the objective nature
of Scripture and its clarity; what is needed is reflection on the text of
Scripture with the illumination of the Spirit. The Acts 10 model developed above recognizes subjective
elements. More importantly, the
model allows for revelatory elements that do not have immediate clarity. God can, and has, revealed himself in
such a way as to not be immediately understood. When this insight is combined with the Grudem/Storms model which
indicates the possibility of adding faulty interpretative thoughts to a
revelation it goes along way to answering the charge of radical subjectivity. Acts 10 thus speaks of (1) revelation
that is not immediately clear, (2) the possibility of misinterpreting the
revelation, and (3) the need for a whole complex of factors to effectively hear
what God is saying.
On
the other side are those who readily affirm God’s revelatory activity in
guidance. The danger is some might
so focus on this aspect that they forget the importance of the other elements
of guidance. The immediacy of a revelatory
incident can lead a believer to downplay the need for rational analysis, scriptural
confirmation, or communal involvement.
There is also the danger of illegitimately seeking revelatory insights
for virtually every aspect of one’s life instead of learning to how to live
with wisdom. Dallas Willard calls
this the “message-a-minute” view of guidance and wisely notes:
According
to this first view, either God is telling you what to do at every turn of the
road or he is at least willing and
available to tell you if you would only ask him. . . . There is no evidence in
the life of Peter or Paul, for example, that they were constantly receiving communication from God.[17]
Sam
Storms, in his defense of New Testament prophecy, urges caution on this point
as well. He looks at a number of
passages which speak to the need of using rational capacities and wisdom in
decision-making (Philippians 1.9-10; 2.25; 1 Corinthians 6.5; 16.4; Colossians
1.9; Romans 12.2).[18] In light of the elements uncovered in
Acts 10 it is readily apparent that reasoning can and should be used in
reflecting on revelatory moments.
This is not unspiritual or a demonstration of a lack of faith. It is to simply recognize that God uses
an entire range of elements to guide his people.
God’s
guidance has been recognized throughout the history of the church. By examining the dynamics of this
guidance in light of the work of Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms on New Testament
prophecy enables guidance to be placed on a firmer foundation. New Testament revelations are not
necessarily of the same authority as Old Testament prophecies. The New Testament contains examples of
revelations that (1) are unclear (Acts 10) and (2) may contain errors of
interpretation and addition (Acts 21.4).
Recognizing these realities helps understand how divine guidance should
be understood today. The narrative
in Acts 10 demonstrated a number of elements in both the experience and the
confirmation of guidance. Using
the full spectrum of elements places guidance on a more sure footing. The multi-faceted nature of divine
guidance also provides a corrective to both those who affirm and those who deny
divine guidance today.
*NOTE: This paper (and appendix) is also available at my page on Academia.edu.
[1]
Wayne Grudem, “A Response to O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word” n.d., 3. Online: http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Robertson-O-Palmer-response-by-WG.pdf.
[3]
Besides the piece by Grudem listed above (footnote #1) and the book by Willard
(footnote #2) one could read with profit philosopher J. P. Moreland’s piece
entitled “’Hearing God’: A Biblical Case?” J.
P. Moreland’s Web (November 29, 2011), n.p. Online: http://www.jpmoreland.com/2011/11/29/hearing-god-a-biblical-case/.
[4]
Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the
New Testament and Today (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988), 67. Grudem uses the definition “telling
something that God has spontaneously brought to mind” in Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Downers
Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 1994), 1049.
In an earlier work he spoke of “two types of NT prophecy, the one
thought to have a divine authority of actual words, and the other only thought
to have a (divine) authority of general content…” The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock
Publishing, 1999 [1982]), 111.
[6]
As well as the presentations and responses by Gaffin and Saucy in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views
see also Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. The
Charismatic Gift of Prophecy: A Reformed Response to Wayne Grudem (Memphis,
Tenn.: Footstool Publications, 1989) and O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the
Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today (Carlisle, Penn: Banner of Truth,
1993).
[7]
See the Appendix of this paper for a brief discussion of the nature of the
Grudem/Storms model and how one of its main insights as developed from Acts
21.4 is presupposed by even some of its most vocal critics. This Appendix is available HERE.
[9]
In Acts 10.14 Peter answers the voice by saying: “By no means, Lord, for I have
never eaten anything unholy and unclean.”
There may be an echo of Ezekiel 4.14 here in that Ezekiel’s response to
the Lord’s directive to cook his food over human dung provokes this response
from Ezekiel: “But I said, ‘Ah, Lord God!
Behold, I have never been defiled; for from my youth until now I have
never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has any unclean meat
ever entered my mouth.’” In
Ezekiel’s case the Lord allows Ezekiel to substitute cow dung in the place of
human dung (Ezekiel 4.15) and maintain some sense of ritual cleanliness. For Peter, however, the vision is
repeated three times to confirm God’s intentions. Peter is not allowed to maintain his notions of “clean” and
“unclean.” These notions are to be
radically re-oriented as the subsequent narrative shows.
[12]
Greg Koukl, “Does God Whisper? (part three),” Solid Ground (November/December 2011), 6. Online: http://www.str.org/Media/Default/Publications/DigitalSG_1111_New-1.pdf.
[14]
Timothy Bayless, “Objections to Hearing God (part five): A Response to ‘Does
God “Try”?’” J. P. Moreland’s Web July
19, 2012, n.p. Online: http://www.jpmoreland.com/2012/07/19/objections-to-hearing-god-part-five-a-response-to-does-god-try/.
[17]
Dallas Willard, Hearing God: Developing a
Conversational Relationship with God (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity
Press, 1999), 57. That this is a
real problem is seen by those who ask God for revelation about what to wear on
a daily basis and what kind of shampoo to buy; examples that are found in T. M.
Luhrmann, When God Talks Back:
Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God (New York:
Vintage Books, 2012), 76, 94.
