Thanks for your comments, by the way. This is helping me to clarify some of the complexities.

Isn’t there a difference though between saying you’ve heard the voice of God a la Samuel or Abraham and being convicted in your interpretation of Scripture that another interpretation is erroneous? One big difference it seems to me is that with the latter everyone has access to the revelation. That’s a big tenet of the Reformation. Sola Scriptura + the priesthood of believers. Not that tradition is unimportant, but everyone’s conscience is captive to the word of God. So there isn’t a disagreement that God has spoken…

But what happens when an individual disagrees in their discernment with the community, or another individual? Besides biblical examples, isn’t this the key question with the Reformation? How is it that Luther, over against the whole church, heard the voice of God such that his discernment trumps theirs? For Luther, the church was dulled in its hearing by scholasticism, tradition, luxury, etc. But for the church, how could one German monk claim to hear the word of God over against the collective discernment of the hierarchy? It may be clear in retrospect who was truly hearing–as with Jeremiah, Jesus, etc.–but in the moment, how do we decide?

As far as examples of the actual conflicts, Scripture is rife with them. As far as officials not recognizing the word (or Word) we can see the reaction of the scribes and Pharisees to Jesus and His teaching. It seems to me that 1 Sam. 3 is saying that if a true word has been spoken, then it will not be recognized by those who do not yet yada’ the Lord, and will be recognized by those that do. Of course the question is what does it mean to yada’ the Lord etc. but perhaps 1 Sam. 3 is a starting place for that.

Just some thoughts…

I’m not quite sure how 1 Sam. 3 relates to my final question about a conflict in discernment between community and the individual. Perhaps you could explain more. I would think more of a place like Jer. 26, where you have a conflictual relation between Jeremiah’s prophecy and the reaction of Judah’s officials.

And yes, being Pentecostal, I obviously believe prophecy continues today.

Enjoyed the post and found it interesting. I have a few scattered thoughts.

I think it is important to note that throughout the ordeal Abraham had faith in the promises of the covenant (Gen. 22:5, 9; Heb. 11:17-19). Abraham knows God enough to trust His prior promise and believe that God is immutable, so placing Abraham’s obedience in the context of God’s prior revelations to him is certainly the right move to make, but I think his obedience is marked not merely by a recognition of the divine voice based on prior encounters but also a presupposition of divine faithfulness based on prior encounters.

It strikes me that the end question you raise about discernment might actually be better serviced by 1 Samuel 3, in which Samuel mistakes God’s voice for Eli. The text explains that Samuel did not yet yada’ (know) the Lord and the word of the Lord had not yet been revealed to him. The text also makes the claim that there are times when words from the Lord are rare. What are your thoughts on that text?

Of course, my being Reformed, my thoughts probably diverge from yours as to whether prophecy and direct individual revelation continue today, etc. Without getting into all that, I just thought I would throw these impressions out there.

For example, sentences like “Man is confronted in the totality of his own possibilities, and therefore in all possible conditions and attitudes” and “It is in this totality that our existence participates in the divine possibility, or else we have no part in it” can stand in well as summary explanations of “ultimate concern.” Obviously, as you point out, Barth and Tillich end up going down very different paths, and Tillich certainly has his flaws (though Barth, I think, has flaws of his own).

I think that Tillich has some great insights, such as that relationship with God does not involve just a “religious” or emotional part of human life that we can isolate and hold onto, but rather an all-encompassing relationship of love and responsibility (as you quote Barth also saying here, though in his own language). And, when he is more irenic, especially in his later work, Barth allows for fruitful dialogue with thinkers like Tillich. I tend to find that each of them is weak on specificity regarding one half of the divine-human relationship — Barth on the human half and Tillich on the divine half. But, together, they might have a lot more to offer.

So I’m basically trying to convince you to give Tillich a second chance while I try to convince myself to give Barth a second chance. Neither got to be so influential by having nothing important and true to say. (Not to distract too much from Barth here, I hope.)