Is "spiritual" discernment an objective judgment of the mind, or a subjective intuition of the spirit?
By: Gregory Koukl
I had a challenge from a friend a couple days ago that I've heard many times. Maybe it's been leveled at you, too. It has to do with spiritual discernment. Am I in my "head" too much when I do spiritual discernment, and not enough "in the Spirit"? Am I discerning with my mind - with reason and rationality - and not discerning with my heart ? That was her question.
Am I in my "head" too much when I do spiritual discernment, and not enough "in the Spirit"? Am I discerning with my mind - with reason and rationality - and not discerning with my heart?
It got me thinking. Since I'm involved in offering a reasonable defense for the faith and advocating clear thinking on critical issues, since I'm skeptical of those whose religion is almost entirely emotional/intuitive, people have challenged me that I'm only "half there" not using all my spiritual faculties and therefore am at risk of running into error.
"Koukl, you're just in your head too much," they suggest. "You're too left-brained when it comes to spiritual things. You're too logical, too reasonable. You don't depend enough on your heart to discern the spiritual realm. Yes you're using your mind, but what about your spirit? Why do you always trust in your own thinking instead of what the Spirit is saying about something?"
These statements imply that somehow I'm not doing a full-blooded assessment of things because I'm only using half of my machinery. My analysis should include the subjective, not just the objective.
This kind of critique assumes a couple of things. First, it assumes that there are two types of spiritual assessment. One is a rational assessment, a kind of theological head-trip. The other is a subjective, intuitive skill that some call discernment, in which we sense deep within us that something is on target or that something is amiss.
Second, it implies that the subjective, intuitive analysis is more advanced and more accurate. It is a "higher method," a more tuned-in capability. It's a spiritual assessment and not just a mental, rational assessment. It's an ability to "hear what the Spirit has to say."
People who make these kinds of comments generally are skeptical of the rational to begin with. It strikes them as being fleshly. It's what Koukl "brings to the table," so to speak, his mind, his thinking, his own rationality, his own ideas. And all of these smack of "the ways of the world," as opposed to going to God and letting God do the analysis for us.
This distinction is incredibly pervasive in Evangelical circles, so much so that some groups have even given a name to it. Some of the so-called Word-Faith teachers distinguish between what they call sensate knowledge --that which you learn with your mind as a result of study and analysis- -and revelational knowledge --that which is mediated directly to you in the spiritual realm. You have this learned stuff you get with your head, and you have this spiritual stuff you get from somewhere "out there," from the spiritual realm.
As I did a mental inventory of the New Testament, though, it suddenly occurred to me that I couldn't think of any verses at all that supported the notion of discernment as subjective and intuitive.
The second type is definitely better, the argument goes. You need to develop the capability to learn things spiritually so you can really get the deep truth, because the sensate stuff is distorted by the flesh. At least this is implied when you hear these kinds of assessments. And isn't it really true that Evangelicals trust more in their "spirits" than in their minds when it comes to spiritual things?
When I was less than a year old in Christ, I went to a coffeehouse in the basement of a church in Pacific Palisades in California. It was so long ago that Keith Green was not even a Christian yet (for those of you who remember that fine Christian musician who died in 1982 in a plane crash). Keith was there that night playing with Randy Stonehill, who eventually was to lead Keith to Christ. But Keith wasn't a believer that night.
As I entered the door that evening, my friend Joyce paused and put her hand to her chest as if she felt something. "Gosh, I sense that something is wrong. I feel this check in my spirit," she said. And I thought, I can't wait till I get to the point in my spiritual growth where I can know things directly in the spiritual realm, and have this sixth sense and discern things like Joyce just did.
It's 23 years later and I still haven't gotten that sixth sense. Instead, I use my mind. I don't say that as a concession, like I got the last place prize. I think it's biblical. The only way to know if I'm correct, though, is to ask the questions, "Which way is really right? Which is best? Do we discern with our minds, or do we need a sixth sense for optimum spiritual discernment?"
When I was challenged this week, my first response was, "I bet if you do a scriptural analysis, you'll find there are more verses that have to do with an objective assessment than those for a subjective one." I figured that if there really are two different ways of discernment, no one could fault me for being rational if I had scriptural support, especially if more verses supported a objective method than a subjective one.
As I did a mental inventory of the New Testament, though, it suddenly occurred to me that I couldn't think of any verses at all that supported the notion of discernment as subjective and intuitive. None came to mind, so I had to do a little searching.
I went to my NASB Bible Master program and started looking up words, starting with the word "discern." There are only two verses in the New Testament that even use the word. In Matthew 16:3 Jesus says that in the morning, "...[you say] 'There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times?"
Jesus was talking about looking at particular signs - the appearance of the sky - and drawing conclusions about what the weather will be like. That's an objective, not a subjective, assessment.
The point is, when the Bible talks about discernment - when it talks about assessing spiritual things - it's talking about a rational assessment based on objective criterion.
Hebrews 5:14 chastised those who ought to have been teachers of the Word, eating meat instead of drinking milk. Then it says, "...but solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil." So the discernment here is not subjective; it's objective. It's using the knowledge and practice of the truth of the Scriptures to develop an ability to objectively discern right from wrong.
Then I looked up the word "discernment." There's only one use of it, Philippians 1:9-10. It says, "...this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ."
Here, discernment is coupled with knowledge resulting in a morally excellent life. Discernment is knowing what's right and what's wrong. We get that from the Scriptures, as Hebrews 5:14 points out. Sounds like an objective assessment to me.
Then I looked up the word "test." There are fifteen verses that use this word, but only one that applies to our issue. In I John 5:1-3 it says: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because there are many false prophets gone out into the world." Now we're getting warmer, I thought, testing the spirits. Surely now we're moving into subjective.
Not so. Read again. The next verse says, "By this you know the spirit of God. Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." Hmm...not a subjective test here, but an objective one, once again.
First Corinthians 12:10 talks about spiritual gifts. Here we might be on to something, because distinguishing of spirits is a spiritual gift. There is no hint of objective standards here; there's also no hint of subjective standards. In fact, what's curious about this verse is that it doesn't say anything else in this passage, nor anywhere else, about what it means to distinguish spirits.
I'm inclined to believe that since it's a spiritual gift, it leans more toward a subjective ability, because if this were referring to an objective way to distinguish spirits, we all could do it, and we wouldn't need the gift. So here seems to be one verse that lends itself to a subjective sense of discernment, but it's not something that everybody has, only those who are gifted. If I'm not gifted in this way, then there's no point in me trying to distinguish spirits subjectively, because I have different gifts.
Next I looked up the word "correct," but there were no entries. I looked up the word "correcting" and found II Timothy 2:25, "...with gentleness, correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth." Here the correcting has to do with having a conflict with people who disagree with you. The verse above it says, "...not being argumentative, but gracious when wronged, with gentleness correcting..." Once again we have an objective test. We see that somebody is doing something wrong and we offer correction. No intuitive pondering here or getting into a spiritual twilight zone. Rather a correction "leading to the knowledge of the truth." The truth is objective.
Here's my point. Is it true that Koukl is too much into his head, using his reason to assess spiritual things, and is not into the Spirit enough? Only if the Bible teaches that we must balance the two. But when I asked the question, "Where does the Bible teach such a thing?" I found no such teaching. I was unable to produce any scriptural support except for I Corinthians 12:10 about the distinguishing of spirits, which is a spiritual gift I have not been given, apparently, and which only a few have.
The point is, when the Bible talks about discernment - when it talks about assessing spiritual things - it's talking about a rational assessment based on objective criterion. You can't be "too much in your head" when it comes to spiritual discernment. Using your head is spiritual discernment, if you're using the truth properly.
Guy said: The blanket statement that Calvinist follow Calvin primary to Christ is completely untrue. When I said I'm sure you've not heard them say that, I did not mean that you haven't heard the occasional knucklehead say something like that. We have all heard strange things from people within our own denominations.
When you make a blanket, mis-leading remark like that, it is deceitful because it isn't true. I'm sure you didn't intentionally do it on purpose, but I your emotions got the best of you and that kind of statement only reinforces to the immature or unlearned, that "Calvinist" must be wrong because we all know Christ comes first. It would be like me saying all Pentecostals/Charismatics/etc... believe that the only sign of true belief is barking like a dog. Now, immature non-Charismatics would say "ya, they're crazy alright", but more mature believers would know they do not all believe that. Thus, when you make inaccurate blanket statements like, they only show a desire to recklessly smear the name of the other party without biblically arguing against it.
Hope that helps.
Ella says: Guy, please point out from reviewing what I SAID, as to how you came to your conclusion and understanding that I have made such an "INACCURATE blanket statement" about those who follow John Calvin, and are called Calvinists? Plus, what you have stated is not even CLOSE to what I said in my comments, therefore, you have drawn YOUR OWN conclusion and perception in defense of what I said.
There is not one thing in my comment that is remotely related to what you have stated. Also, as a mature Christian it is unlikely that my emotions got in the way of me speaking, as YOU have concluded and perceive. I have stated what is the truth about God's word, because His word is not about allowing, or expressing personal emotions. The word of God is about the speaking and correcting error when found. And its about speaking the truth of what God has said in season, which means when its proper and edifying to the hearer, and out of season, which means when it is not proper and edifying making the heaere feel good about their ways or when there is error, even if it is not as the hearer would see as being a prper time.
God's word either makes you feel good in knowing His truths, or convicts your heart and makes you feel not so good, yet it bring about repentance. The Word of God is about Jesus Christ through whom we connect with God, its not about the gospel of a man's teachings. When the gospel of Christ focuses more on the man who delivered it, this is consider a false teaching and a flse teacher... The word of God focuses on His Son, and not in defens of what Calvin MIGHT OR MIGHT HAVE SAID that has been handed down generations to generation as the gospel truth.
Therefore, your comments are rather presumptuous on your part, don't you think?... and outside of what is a known among those who follow John Calvin doctrine, and tend to lift him, up higher or equal to God, as taking Calvins teaches and interpretaion of God's word as not being in error...
Again, those who follow Calvinism tend to defend the doctrine of what the have been taught, and John Calvin's idealogy of salvation and interpretaion of Scripture.
The man's name more than they do the Word of God and the Name of Jesus Christ... you will fight for the name of Calvin, but I have yet to see a Calvinist on THIS FORUM, and among those I know to be Calvin to put up such great defnes on behalf of the gospel and Doctrine Jesus Christ and His holy name. And I speak again, John Calvin DID NOT die for the sins of the world, Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world and He uis who we should identify oursleves with as being our duivuine teacher and defend.... not John Calvin... or any other man for hat matter.
Excerpts from the comment I posted, maybe you will be able to point out what it is YOU CLAIM, that I stated that is without biblical support and/or argument. Are you speaking about what John Calvin has written that YOU and OTHERS believe God is saying in His Word because of YOUR MISINTERPARTION OF THE WORD?... OR are you speaking about what GOD SPEAK in His Word that can ONLY come by REVELATION INOT HIS WORD THROUGH HIS HOLY SPIRIT, THAT I AND OTHERS HAVE SPOKEN that lines up with what God says?
And this was my point in my other post about Calivn he did not understand God's Word spiritually for himself, so he tried to FIGURE out God and the scriptures under HIS OWN wisdom and knowledge and understanding by sysmatically techniques.
So what do you have?... CALVINISM AND PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW HIS WRITINGS WHO CALL THEMSELVES CALVINSITS, only bcause THEY have not read God's Word for themselvs and depended upon the empowerment of the Holy Spiirit of God to TEACH AND LEAD THEM INTO ALL THINGS CONCERNING GOD AND HIS WORD, and bring them inot the knowledge of Jesus Christ and the pwoer of the Holy Ghost and His works within the believer. Christians follow the Doctrines of Christ this is why we are called CHRISTIANS... Calvinist follow the doctrines of John Calvin, this is why they are called CALVINISTS...
They CALL AND ARE IDENTIFIED AS CALVINISTS, NOT AS CHIRSTIANS WHO ARE FOLLOWERS OF THE DOCRTRINE OF JESUS CHRIST, althought they SAY they believe in Jesus Christ, but they deny the WORD of God, and are followers of the doctrine and teahcings of JOHN CALVIN who is their messiah... and not that of Jesus Christ who died for their sins on the cross...
I have yet to hear a Calvinists say they are FOLLOWERS OF JESUS CHRIST... they will confess they believe in Jesus Christ, but to be a followers of Jesus Christ, is to believe everything Jesus has spoken, and what God speaks about Jesus and His doctrinem and not what Calvin has written. Plus, much of what they believe Calvin did not say, it those who took his work and wrote what they THOUGHT HE WAS SAYING, AND GAVE CALVIN CREDIT... Calvin did say a lot of the foolishness that is given to his name... incuding the Five Points, others took his notes and wrote them and assigned the Five Pints to his name from his thoughts he left behind on paper...
From my above commet... Now please point out the cause as you see it for your defense, and opposite statement to what I said...
Also, contrary to YOUR false belief, I don't have a club, but if I did, I would make sure you had to pay a higher than higher fee for enrollment to join:laugh::excited:... you most likely would have to hold up a sign on the street corner to hire yourself out to pick up cans, in order to pay for your registeration fee.:yay:
Oh, I forgot to make mention, in case you don't know... there is not ONE WORD that I post on this ofrum that I don't intend or mean to speak. Everything I said I spoken out of knowing the truth of God's Word.
It was NOT out of immaturity or ignorance, of not knowing... either the Bible or the followers of those who are obsessed with the thought of being able to say they are of the John Calvin doctrine and teachings... and pridfully think say that THEY are the so-called "elect" because of John Calvins' doctrine and teachings, because of their own limited understandiing of what God teaches. And not knowing that Calvin himself was spiritually limited in his own knwoledge and understanding of what God teaches and the doctrine of Christ.
Instead, Those who follow the teachings of Calivn do not know nor realize that ALL EVERY single person on earth WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AND RECEIVE JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS ARE THE ELECT AND IT IS THEY WHO ARE THE CALLED, AND THE CHOSEN that God Himslef... not John Calvin... BUT IT WAS GOD who made the provisions for all THOSE HE CREATED WHO BELIEVED AND WOULD COME TO BELIEVE IN HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, would not perish and would be the called, the elect, and the chosen to inherit and become His children and heirs and coheirs with Jesus Christ IN HIS KINGDOM... not John Calvin's kingdom, BUT THE KINGDOM OF GOD!
We can only pray and hope that JOHN CALVIN IS AMONG THESE THAT GOD SAID would be welcomed into His kingdom. I don't follow man's teaches if he is not speaking with sound doctrines of what God says, not his own sayings...
Oh, sum'n else... who care abot the immature and igrant getinng the worng idea or understanding about Calvin or whatever? If you are NOT a follower of Cal;vin why would you worry about his image or your image for being a Calvinist?
Should your imgae as a Chritsian take first place to the image of Jesus Christ... and the image the immature and igrant should be concerned with is the image that Jesus Christ left behind... and those who follow after himn as being called Christians... and not the image one might have of John Calvin and his followers
Kinda speaking what really is in your heart and ego aren't you, and who you are defending here... Calvin and his image and your image as a Calvinists... you are not defending the gospel fo Jesus Christ or His image, or the fact that you are a born agina Christian, or the fiath of the gospel... but the image of your true messiah John Calvin and those who follower his teachings and doctrine... get a grip Guy!:nahnah::zzzz:
You know ET, I thought you would write a mature response to my post, but I was sadly mistaken.
Your post completely proves my point on your emotions over-riding sound thinking and feedback. You posted three times to my short reply trying to justify your immature responses. I truly thought higher of you. When you self-proclaim you are a mature Christian and above acting in a immature way, that proves it. We all fall short at times and let our emotions show are short-comings. Are you truly above that? Wow! That would be quote the statement fro. A humble servant of the Lord.
You still stick by your false assumptions that "Calvinist"must all worship Calvin before Christ. Unbelievable and especially for someone who has supposedly studied for years. That is absolutely ridiculous and you know it. You may FEEL like they do, but they most certainly don't. That's very childish in your thinking and over-the-top emotional. You really believe that sober-minded people would truly believe that lie?
I thought I could agree and disagree with you on an adult level, but you've surprising let me down. I am dissapointed to say the least and I truly mean that.
1 new Guy, You have the same carnal type of response every time, just like a typical Calvinist response. Your response is the immature carnal flesh propelled response.
Let not your heart be troubled.. your personal thoughts and feelings and opinions about me matters a hill-of- beans... so what, if YOU find what I have said childish, immature, long winded, or whatever... point made, if what I spoke is not a truth about Calvinist and those who follow such teahcings, then what's your problem of defending what I said?... Nevertheless, this too shall pass... you will get over it...
This is also why God instructs us not to put our trust and faith in men (people) because people will disappoint and fail... Sorry you are more sadden over me not changing my views about Calvin and his twisted doctrine and teachings of scriptures, and my views and thoughts and opinions of those who follow after his teachings and are called and identified by his name, more than the name of Jesus Christ...than you are about any mistakes I may have made about the scirptures. so whose immature and childish, and not knowing?... I'm not impressed with trying to impress people?...
YOu have indeed proven that your comments directed at me were more personal about you defending Calvin and you being a Calvinist, and your concern was not about whether or not I or the others were in error of God's word... but that you had to get the focus off of the truth of God's word, and place it on correcting me about your real messiah John Calvin... becaseu what I spoke was truth and you have done it justice by your responses and not answering none of my questions. Oh, you gave answers, but thyour answers did not address what I had asked of you...
As I asked the question you are you defending Calvin and his theology that you and others believe and are therefore, called Calvinists... OR are you defending the name of Jesus Chirst and the error that I have done of misinterpreting God's word of truth?... of course, there is no need for you to answer because you have already done this thorugh what you say indirectly in your post
Again, its more about YOUR PRIDE AND EGO that got BUSTED concerning my thoughts about Calvin, than anything...
A person has to get up two months in advance to plan what to say to make me shame or feel guilt, or to intimidate me, and then test it out on others to see if if wiork before you bring it to me... I ain't the one, and its more than a notion...:nahnah::party::excited::goofball:
PJ, good for you! You have just as much right to speak your thoughts and opinions as anyone has...
And what you speak is just as important, or MORE than what Guy or anyone else speaks...
Guy ain't talkin 'bout nutt'n and neither are you!...so habg in there and give'em the blues... make 'em holla!:ROFL::yay::excited::ROFL::laugh::dancingp::ROFL::ROFL: ... and we'll be dancin in the street, :dancingp:...all aropund the world... :dancingp:dancin in the street
Its truly sad to see that at the end of your post you point out that its virtually impossible to get over on you. No one is trying to "Get over on you", although your pride and emotions show that you are above that even if they did. Not a humble spirit my lady.
Secondly, my whole purpose of my post was to refute the silliness and inaccuracy of your post that "all Calvinist worship Calvin before Christ". Because you stated that, it is YOU who has to prove that, not me who says that's a total misreprentation of their beliefs. I know it is not true in the broadest sense, yet you cling to it to falsely cast doubt on them. That is totally absorb to say that. Why don't you take a poll to see if Calvinist worship Calvin before Christ. I'm gathering that they would all respond '"no" to it, and that you would still say they are liars an do so anyway because that's how you see it eventhough you cannot read their heart.
Please tell me that the Holy Spirit didn't give you special privileges to read mens hearts?
Perhaps if I added the little emoticons and high-fived members of my "gang" you would take me more seriously. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. I'm like Rudolph, I don't play in any reindeer games.
When you SERIOUSLY want to discuss Biblical doctrine clearly and in a mature, uniformed way, I am all ears. Otherwise, I will not carry on with foolish, circular, unanswered arguments.
