Critics attack those who use an “inward witness” to discern the will of God. They say that we must look to the word of God to learn the will of God, and not to a feeling or a hunch, or something like that. However, these same people would accept a symptom of sickness as the will of God and not accept what the Bible says about it. They would attack those who think that they are spiritually discerning the will of God, who claim to listen to their spirits for signals that agree with the word of God. But they would defend themselves when they are physically discerning the will of God, when they surrender to their symptoms even when these things disagree with the word of God. They would defend this kind of thinking as good old orthodoxy. This is textbook religious hypocrisy.

Just because something happens does not mean that it is “the will of God” in the sense we mean here. For example, Jesus called Peter to walk out to him on the water, and at first Peter was successful, but then he saw the wind, he was afraid and began to sink. Jesus did not say, “This must be the will of God, so just sink and die.” Rather, he reached out and held up Peter. Then he did not rebuke the Father for the will of God, but he rebuked Peter for his lack of faith. He told Peter to walk to him on the water. He told Peter to experience the miracle. He gave him his word. When the miracle failed, Jesus did not use the will of God as the explanation, but the lack of faith as the explanation.

We must not allow the circumstances to dictate to us the will of God, and then proceed on that basis, but we must allow the scriptures to dictate to us the will of God, and then proceed on that basis. Peter had God’s word on walking on the water. He had no excuse to sink. He should have said, “Jesus gave me his word, therefore it is his will for me to walk on the water. So I refuse to sink, but I will act on his word and live this miracle.” Likewise, if we have God’s word on the healing of the body, we have no excuse to be sick. Do not be like the religious frauds. Never look at your feelings and circumstances as divine revelations.

The symptoms of sickness offer no indication of “the will of God.” What about the words of God? What do they say? If they say, “Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses,” if they say, “They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover,” if they say, “The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up,” if they say, “He forgives all our iniquities, and heals all our diseases,” if they say, “He sent his word and healed them,” and if they say many other things like these, then get up and be healed. That is the will of God. Stop hiding behind “the will of God” when the problem is your lack of faith.

Even what appears to be ineffective prayer is not an indication of the will of God. The disciples failed to cast out a demon from a boy. Was it the will of God for the boy to suffer? No. Jesus cast out the demon, and then rebuked the disciples for their unbelief. This is not bad news, but good news. It means that if God says you can have something, then you can have it. Even if you do not receive it after prayer, you do not have to accept that as the will of God. Get some faith, then march right back in there and get what you want.

The man of unbelief says, “I am suffering this thing. Since this is happening, then it must be the will of God for me. Therefore, I will accept it and consider how to live with it. The Bible promises healing from God, but God is sovereign, so although God is contradicting his own promise, he is still sovereign, and I should submit to this situation as the will of God regardless of what the Bible teaches me to believe or to do about it.” On the other hand, the man of faith says, “I am suffering this thing. Since God says something else in his word, and since this thing contradicts what God says I can have, I refuse to accept it as the will of God. Therefore, I will reject this and follow the word of God in how to confront it and destroy it. God is sovereign, and if he has chosen me for salvation by Jesus Christ, then he has given me faith in his word. Therefore, if he has chosen me, I am surely able to believe his word on miracle healing, and I will look at his word and not at the symptoms of sickness. I will look to the word of God as the will of God, rather than to circumstances as the will of God. I will not be like someone who does not know God or his word.”

Concerning Abraham, the Bible says, “Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead — since he was about a hundred years old — and that Sarah’s womb was also dead.” He was informed about his physical condition. He was aware of the symptoms. But he also knew that God had said something about it. “Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.” He did not accept the natural circumstances as “the will of God.” To accept his situation would not have been a sign of humility or submission, but it would have been to “waver through unbelief.” Instead, he looked to the word of God, and the word of God said that he would have a son. He gave “glory to God,” not by stupidly repeating the phrase like some people do, and not by accepting the situation as “providence,” but he rejected the existing reality, because God had said something about it.

God has also said many things concerning us, about our health, about our money, about our relationships, about our ministries, about miracles, about prophecies, and about many other things. Do we take our symptoms of sickness as revelations from God about his will for us, or do we take his promises of healing as revelations from God about his will for us? Do we take our current circumstances as extra-biblical revelations of “the will of God,” or do we accept existing biblical revelations about the will of God?

The Bible describes Abraham’s faith, a faith that rejected circumstances but believed the word of God instead. Then it says, “This is why ‘it was credited to him as righteousness.'” In the same place, the Bible says, “So then, he is the father of all who believe…in order that righteousness might be credited to them…who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had.” Abraham is our model of faith. Those who walk in his footsteps of faith are saved. This kind of faith is how anyone can have righteousness credited to him. He believed in God’s promise against his physical condition. He was counted as righteous by believing in healing. Of course, it was because he believed God, but God said something about healing. God also said something about healing to us, more than what he said to Abraham. Do we believe? If this is the kind of faith that is credited with righteousness, and if we do not have the same kind of faith, what is the necessary implication?

False teachers claim that they accept the Bible as the will of God, and not manifestations. They are liars. They reject supernatural manifestations, even those that agree with the Bible, but they accept natural manifestations as if they are revelations of the will of God. They allow their thoughts and their lives to be dictated by what happens to them and around them, instead of by what the word of God says to them. Doesn’t this force us to make certain conclusions about them? Do we have a choice?

Suppose a man commits sin, and he says that it is the will of God, and then he continues in that direction, when the Bible tells him that he is wrong, and tells him what to do instead. He rejects Jesus Christ, but he says that this is because it is the will of God, and then he keeps on rejecting Christ, when the Bible tells him that he is wrong, and tells him what to do instead. What would we call such a person? We would indeed acknowledge the sovereignty of God, and we would say that everything has happened according to God’s decree, including this man’s unbelief. But we would not call him a saint. What would we call such a person? We would call him a reprobate. He is destined for hell. He has rejected the word of God, and his appeal to divine sovereignty is the excuse of a reprobate. He could even be correct in terms of metaphysics, but this does not save him, does it? His appeal to divine sovereignty is only an ontological explanation of his reprobation. The fact that he offers a description of his reprobation does not cancel the reprobation.

Now suppose another person suffers sickness, and he says that it is the will of God, and then he continues in that direction, when the Bible tells him he is wrong, and tells him what to do instead. He teaches against receiving healing by faith in Jesus Christ, but he says that sickness happens by the will of God, when the Bible tells him what to believe and what to teach instead. The Bible tells him to receive healing by faith, and that the Father would be glorified when he receives what he asks in the name of Jesus. But this man does the opposite. He enshrines the sickness and calls it the will of God, and tells everybody how he suffers it for “the glory of God.” However, to appeal to an ontological principle to explain his unbelief does not exempt him, but rather condemns him, because he is in fact appealing to his own reprobation as the explanation. If we call the first person a reprobate, what would we call this second one? A brave pilgrim? A theologian extraordinaire? Or shall we admit the obvious conclusion? You say, “There is a difference! There is a difference!” Really? Would you stake your salvation on it? Come on, let us stop deceiving ourselves.