Chapter 14.10

Biblical Characters & Mega Mysticism

Table of Topics

A) The Claims to Biblical Characters in Mega Mysticism

B) Taking Scripture Out of its Time Context

C) No Biblical Character is Described as Experiencing Mental Telepathy

D) How Biblical Characters Really Made Decisions: Reason, not revelation

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• The most common biblical support offered for mega mysticism is supposed applicable examples of it in Scripture itself. Mega mystics want to use the revelatory experiences recorded in Scripture to support two false claims: 1) The revelational experiences of biblical characters are to be interpreted as a divine prescription for how God will reveal Himself to us, and subsequently, 2) biblical characters support the view that God is using mental telepathy or the correct interpretation of our circumstances to guide us today.
• If mega mystics claimed that we were to expect God to speak to us through a donkey (cf. Num 22:28-30), they would have more biblical support than for the claim that divine revelation happens through God planting it directly in our minds through mental telepathy.
• A primary approach taken in mega mysticism to lend biblical support for their view is to suggest miraculous communication was common in the lives of biblical characters, and so it should be as well for Christians today. They are wrong on several points here.
• Any honest student of the Bible recognizes that special care must be taken when attempting to apply the events recorded in it to our own time. It is tempting, of course, to think that all that we see in the Bible is for us today, but that is shoddy hermeneutics.
• Can you think of any biblical examples that describe people receiving direct divine revelation through a “still small voice–or the interior or inner voice,” or properly interpreting a divine message through circumstances as these authors claim? The answer is a definite “No.” As demonstrated elsewhere, all cases of miraculous communication involved either apparitions the people physically saw, auditions they audibly heard, or visions and dreams that unmistakably engaged the “seeing” and “hearing” parts of their minds.
• Friesen: “The [mega mystical] view must dilute the examples to get them to illustrate inward leading. For there is no record of any direct guidance communicated through an inner impression.”
• The fact that there is not a single instance of someone seeking and receiving miraculous divine guidance in the NT is a death blow to the whole mega mystical program.

A) The Claims to Biblical Characters in Mega Mysticism

In chapter 14.1 we defined mega mysticism as: The belief that God is regularly revealing His extra-biblical will for our lives through mental telepathy, or our correct interpretation of circumstances. Mental telepathy reflects the belief that God is regularly and directly planting revelation in our mind that we could not obtain from Scripture.

We have already surveyed Church history and discovered that such mega mysticism is not the historical, orthodox position of Christendom. However, the most important question is whether or not Scripture supports such a view, and we hope to address that question in the next few chapters.

The most common biblical support offered for mega mysticism is supposed applicable examples of it in Scripture itself. Mega mystics want to use the revelatory experiences recorded in Scripture to support two false claims: 1) The revelational experiences of biblical characters are to be interpreted as a divine prescription for how God will reveal Himself to us, and subsequently, 2) biblical characters support the view that God is using mental telepathy or the correct interpretation of our circumstances to guide us today. Neither of these central tenets of mega mysticism are true, and mega mystics consistently contradict themselves on this point.

For example, notice how the Southern Baptist philosophy Professor Dallas Willard starts with descriptions of revelatory experiences and Scripture and then slips into promoting mental telepathy as a means of such revelation. Dr. Willard writes:

If we are to hear God’s voice ourselves and on an individual basis, we must above all else observe how his word came to those people described in the Scriptures. How did they experience God’s communication? What was it like for them to hear God? We must prayerfully but boldly use our God-given imaginations as we read the stories of people who encountered God.

We must ask ourselves what it would be like if we were Moses standing by the bush (Ex 3:2), little Samuel lying in his darkened room (1 Sam 3:3-7), Elisha under inspiration from the minstrel (2 Kings 3:15), Ananias receiving his vision about Paul (Acts 9:11) or Peter on his rooftop (Acts 10: 10). We must pray for the faith and for the experiences that would enable us to believe that such things could happen to us. Only then will we be able to recognize, accept and dwell in them when they come. . . . ^[1]

[A] major point of this book [Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God] is that the still small voice–or the interior or inner voice, as it is also called-is the preferred and most valuable form of individualized communication for God’s purposes. God usually addresses individually those who walk with him in a mature, personal relationship using this inner voice.^[2]

Two points can be made here. First, Dr. Willard is claiming that if we are to learn how to recognize and receive extra-biblical revelation from God “we must above all else observe how his word came to those people described in the Scriptures.” He then exposes his error by describing modes of revelation that were very obvious and experienced with the “sight” and “hearing” parts of the mind such as apparitions (Moses’ burning bush), auditions (Samuel hearing God), and visions (Ananias). ^[3]

Secondly, Dr. Willard contradicts himself by concluding that “that the still small voice–or the interior or inner voice, as it is also called-is the preferred and most valuable form of individualized communication for God’s purposes.” Which one of his biblical examples proves that? What example in all of Scripture would he have of that? The answer is absolutely none. If mega mystics claimed that we were to expect God to speak to us through a donkey (cf. Num 22:28-30), they would have more biblical support than for the claim that divine revelation happens through God planting it directly in our minds through mental telepathy.

Unfortunately, the popular Southern Baptist leader Dr. Henry Blackaby takes the same erroneous approach of claiming that biblical characters prove his perspective:

It is impossible to read the Bible without seeing a clear pattern of God speaking to people. Yet because some have not heard God speak to them personally, they conclude that God chooses not to speak today. They are choosing to view Scripture from the vantage point of their experience. Instead, people must learn to view their experience against the backdrop of the Bible. When we do not experience the truths expressed in Scripture, it is our experience that is in question, not the Bible!

Even a casual perusal of the Bible reveals a consistent pattern of God speaking to people. However, some argue that biblical history does not necessarily translate into modern experience. Talking donkeys and burning bushes are not common, contemporary occurrences. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the Scriptures reveals that while God did indeed speak on matters of great significance through supernatural means, he also clearly communicated with men and women from all walks of life regarding matters of seemingly lesser importance. . . .

Be encouraged! God, who spoke to Adam and Eve in the garden and spoke to Moses at the burning bush, said to the disciples, “But your eyes are blessed because they do see, and your ears because they do hear” (Matt. 13:16). He said to the churches in Revelation, “Anyone who has an ear should listen to what the Spirit says to the churches (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). He wants you to hear his voice, recognize it, and follow him too! ^[4]

Elsewhere, Dr. Blackaby has written:

Nowhere in the Bible are readers cautioned that they should not expect their walk with God to be like that of believers in biblical times. Nowhere in Scripture are readers informed that biblical characters were given entirely unique treatment from God. ^[5]

Has God ever spoken to Dr. Blackaby in an audible voice like He did to Adam and Eve? Has he ever audibly heard God through a burning bush like Moses? Has Dr. Blackaby heard Christ personally and physically like the disciples? And has he received specific revelation from an Apostle of Jesus Christ concerning the state of his church like those in Revelation? He never even claims to have experienced any of these things. Then why is he using them as examples of how God speaks to him? The problem with Dr. Blackaby’s perspective is that his approach to divine guidance does not involve visions, apparitions, angels, or auditions which were the methods God used with biblical characters. On the contrary, Dr. Blackaby promotes an expectation that God will speak to us through properly interpreting our circumstances or mental telepathy which are not biblical methods of divine communication.

In addition, we’re not sure what Dr. Blackaby is talking about when he claims that in Scripture God, “clearly communicated with men and women from all walks of life regarding matters of seemingly lesser importance.” On the contrary, any miraculous guidance that occurred in the biblical narrative involved either persons or monumental events involved in the salvation of His people. The kind of mundane decisions that Dr. Blackaby wants to suggest God provides miraculous guidance for today are not reflected in Scripture as he suggests.

As noted above, a primary approach taken in mega mysticism to lend biblical support for their view is to suggest miraculous communication was common in the lives of biblical characters, and so it should be as well for Christians today. They are wrong on several points here. First, occurrences of miraculous communication have never been as common as mega mysticism claims, not even in biblical times. Secondly, even if Prophets and Apostles experienced an abundance of such things, this would not constitute a divine promise or prescription for us.

NT Apostles and Prophets certainly saw divine visions and heard divine voices. So are we to expect the same? We do not think so, and for the same reason that we dare not compare ourselves with the revelatory experiences of Christ. These were very unique men, with very unique tasks in God’s plan of salvation. Accordingly, only if you can claim the position and authority of a biblical Apostle or Prophet, can you then possibly be in a place to claim their revelatory experiences as well.

B) Taking Scripture Out of its Time Context

Any honest student of the Bible recognizes that special care must be taken when attempting to apply the events recorded in it to our own time. It is tempting, of course, to think that all that we see in the Bible is for us today, but that is shoddy hermeneutics. We do not attempt to apply all of the OT commands and practices to our lives. The same is true even of the NT. For example, Christ told the disciples, “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt 10:5-6). We readily recognize this command as only applying to the Twelve disciples for a specific and unique period of time.

Likewise, the Acts of the Apostles are just that, and record the abilities and actions of a very special group of men at a very special time- the inauguration of a New Covenant and the Church. It is clear that not all of what our first century brothers and sisters experienced is to be experienced by us today and therefore a good deal of caution must be used in any modern claim to phenomena in the early Church. Acts is primarily a book of history, not instruction, devotion, or doctrine. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles was given to us so that we may witness the unique power with which the Church came into existence; but it is limited, just as the OT is, in dictating what the modern Christian experience is to be like.

There is a historical fact that many in mega mysticism ignore when they wish to make the Acts of the Apostles a doctrinal book for the modern Church. That historical fact is that the central characters of the book, Apostles, no longer exist. If Acts is a historical account of the ministry of a unique group of men, a ministry which no longer exists, then we had better be careful about what we expect to apply to our own day.

Accordingly, the respected NT scholar D. A. Carson writes:

The essential salvation-historical structure of the Book of Acts is too often overlooked by charismatics [and mega mystics]. Therefore, as [even the Pentecostal NT scholar Gordon] Fee laments, the exegesis of Acts in most charismatic circles is hermeneutically uncontrolled. The way Luke tells the story, Acts provides not a paradigm for individual Christian experience, but the account of the gospel’s outward movement, geographically, racially, and above all theologically. ^[6]

Therefore, there are all kinds of unique experiences recorded in Acts. For example, we do not feel compelled to cast lots in order to choose leaders (cf. Acts 1:26). ^[7] There has never been another recorded instance of the Spirit manifesting Himself in the sound of a rushing wind loud enough to draw thousands of people (cf. 2:1-41). ^[8] Christians do not worship today in Jewish temples (cf. 2:46; 3:1) or live communally (cf. 4:32-35). Therefore, the Church has historically recognized that the Acts of the Apostles are not to be read indiscriminately as the norm for subsequent generations of Christians.

C) No Biblical Character is Described as Experiencing Mental Telepathy

Here we must ask an important question. Can you think of any biblical examples, including the ones that Drs. Willard and Blackaby suggest above, that describe people receiving direct divine revelation through a “still small voice–or the interior or inner voice,” or properly interpreting a divine message through circumstances as these authors claim? The answer is a definite “No.” ^[9] As demonstrated elsewhere, all cases of miraculous communication involved either apparitions the people physically saw, auditions they audibly heard, or visions and dreams that unmistakably engaged the “seeing” and “hearing” parts of their minds. ^[10]

While there is no evidence in the lives of biblical characters for the kind of mental telepathy claimed in mega mysticism, there is, of course, many examples of miraculous communication such as visions, voices, dreams, etc. We have already thoroughly described these means elsewhere. ^[11] We do not deny that God can and has used such means to communicate to his people even today, in spite of the fact we have Scripture. However, the occurrence of miraculous communication is extremely rare, because as with any miracle, God only uses such means when His ordinary means of communication (i.e. Scripture, New Nature, authorities, divine deeds, conscience, etc.) are insufficient to communicate or accomplish His will, and that simply isn’t very often.

Therefore the common attempt by mega mysticism to use the numerous biblical examples of miraculous communication (e.g. visions, voices, etc.) to support the idea of mental telepathy is unfounded. For example, it is simply erroneous and irresponsible exegesis to take the examples of God speaking to Paul audibly (cf. Acts 9:3), communicating with the Apostle Peter in a vision (Acts 10:9-16), or an angel appearing to Cornelius (cf. Acts 10:3-6), and then use such examples to support the idea that God will “speak” to us through some “still small voice–or the interior or inner voice” as Dr. Willard states.

Accordingly, Gary Friesen writes:

Historical examples, such as Paul’s “Macedonian Call” and Peter’s vision of the “unclean” animals, cite instances of supernatural revelation. Direct guidance was provided, but the means always entailed divine intervention (revelatory vision, angelic messenger, physical miracle, audible voice, or prophetic declaration). The [mega mystical] view must dilute the examples to get them to illustrate inward leading. For there is no record of any direct guidance communicated through an inner impression. . . .

All of the examples which are selected [by mega mystics] to support individual [miraculous] guidance are clearly instances of supernatural [miraculous] revelation. In the book of Acts, such guidance came through visions (Acts 9:10-16; 10:3-8; 10:17; 16:9-10; 18:9; 22:17-21), angelic messenger (Acts 8:26; 12:7-8; 27:23), physical miracle (Acts 8:39), an audible voice from God (8:29; 9:3-6; 10:19-20; 23:11), or a prophet who had received direct revelation (Acts 21:10-11).

Are there other recorded examples where detailed guidance was given through some means other than supernatural [objective] revelation? No. From the examples that are given, one could argue that God may give a believer guidance that is more specific than that found in the Bible. But if He does, it will be through supernatural [objective] means. . . .

The third weakness of the [mega mystical] view on this question is that the [biblical] examples are not sufficiently comprehensive. That is, guidance was only provided for a handful of decisions. God’s [private] will for the believer’s life is supposedly to cover every decision that is made. But the [biblical] examples do not touch upon the ordinary decisions in life.

In fact, most of the instances in Acts had some direct bearing on the spread of the gospel. In other words, specific leading was given by God to insure expanding evangelistic outreach during the formative years of the church. Such a purpose is clearly seen in the guidance given to Peter, Cornelius, Philip, Ananias, Barnabas, the church at Antioch, and Paul. In the book of Acts, there is no indication of any specific word from God on the more ordinary decisions of life. . . .

The difference between “an angel of the Lord” who spoke to Philip (Acts 8:26) and an inward [subjective] impression in the heart of a contemporary believer is just too great. The absence of any indisputable examples of the [mega mystical] approach to decision making is striking. ^[12]

Likewise, M. Blain Smith reports:

When we turn to Scripture, we find no evidence supporting this extreme [mega mystical] notion of intuition. I can find no examples in either the Old or New Testament where it is clear that someone discerned God’s will through inward guidance. This may seem surprising, but I would challenge the reader to find such an instance. You might think of places in Acts where reference is made to the Holy Spirit’s guiding someone to do something, but a careful analysis of each passage shows it is more likely a reference to direct supernatural guidance [i.e. not mental telepathy] or to a rational decision. ^[13]

Along the same lines, the respected OT scholar Bruce Waltke writes:

Any time you take the Bible out of context you destroy the intent of God’s Word. That’s why you cannot take instances of special [miraculous] revelation and make them normative for the Christian experience. Paul saw a great light, fell to the ground, and was blinded when he met Jesus Christ. It was an amazing encounter, but if we try to make this experience the norm for all new Christian experiences, we leave most believers out of the kingdom of God.

By the same token, the apostle Paul took the gospel message to much of Asia Minor without ever having a specific divine intervention. When he did experience a special revelation, seeing a vision of a man calling him to Macedonia, he obeyed. But the special revelation of God was a rare and unique experience, even for Paul. . . .

And when God did miraculously intervene and lead someone to a special task, it was significant enough to be recorded in Scripture. We cannot take special circumstances and make them the norm by which we live our lives. Special revelation for guidance was not the normal apostolic experience.

And at the time it was received (by Paul, by Philip, by Peter as he lay on his roof) it was not being sought. God intervened to change the course of their lives in a dramatic way, not simply to tell them to alter their plans a bit. Special revelation came at a time when God wanted to lead them apart from the normal ways in which His people make choices. . . .

Special revelation for guidance was not the normal apostolic experience. And at the time it was received (by Paul, by Philip, by Peter as he lay on his roof) it was not being sought. God intervened to change the course of their lives in a dramatic way, not simply to tell them to alter their plans a bit. Special revelation came at a time when God wanted to lead them apart from the normal ways in which His people make choices. . . .

There are no examples of God stepping miraculously into the life of anyone in the New Testament in response to the seeking of His will. When the Lord does choose to do something miraculous, like sending a vision to Peter or transporting Philip to another town, it is not in response to a request for God to reveal His will. As a matter of fact, both of those men believed they were already doing God’s will, and the Lord stepped in to change their situations. He has the power to step directly into our lives if He so chooses, and Christians must be ready for this to happen at any time. But that is not normally how the Lord works, and it never seems to be the case that He intervenes due to a request for divine guidance in a particular situation. Divine intervention usually is limited to one of three roles: revealing a great truth, saving one of God’s children from an intolerable situation, or revealing why a Christian should act in violation of God’s normal program of guidance. ^[14]

Dr. Waltke mentions several points here that are worth repeating. First, when Moses experienced the burning bush, Gideon the Angel of the Lord, Peter his vision of unclean animals, and Paul his dream of the Macedonian man, we have no record of any of them seeking or asking God for such miraculous communication. So much then for the mega mystical claim that we must fervently seek such things if we are to experience them. On the contrary, God simply does the miraculous when He determines His ordinary means are not adequate to accomplish His will.

Secondly, Dr. Waltke reminds us that the experiences of biblical characters are intentionally unique and extreme caution must be exercised when attempting to apply particularly their revelatory experiences to ourselves. We discuss this elsewhere, more specifically regarding the book of Acts. ^[15]

Thirdly, Dr. Waltke notes that the fact that these revelatory events are recorded in Scripture, indicates their extraordinary importance and uniqueness. Many of the instances of miraculous communication in Scripture involved what we have described elsewhere as the predestined, “commanding call” of God. On this we have also written elsewhere:

[W]hile charismaticism and mega mysticism claim that the revealed “controlling call” of God to special tasks of service experienced by such men as Moses and Paul is normative for the average Christian today, they are mistaken. All such examples we have in Scripture involved people who had a very unique and predestined role to play specifically in God’s plan of salvation which was miraculously revealed to them. These examples do not in any way support the idea that God will lead us through mental impulses to make decisions on extra-biblical matters in our life. . . . As noted above, the attributes of the “controlling call” make it extremely unlikely to occur in most Christian’s lives. ^[16]

Fourthly, as discussed below, Dr. Waltke reminds us that even biblical characters usually made decisions with their reason, and not by miraculous means, just like we are to do.

Fifthly, Dr. Waltke also reminds us of the critical importance of interpreting Scripture in its proper context. Accordingly, it will be demonstrated throughout the following chapters that mega mystics habitually misinterpret God’s word in order to support their assumptions.

Finally, the fact that there is not a single instance of someone seeking and receiving miraculous divine guidance in the NT is a death blow to the whole mega mystical program. There is admittedly one example of such a thing in the life of Abraham’s servant, which we argue elsewhere would be ludicrous to believe it is intended to be normative for Christians. The fact that nowhere in the NT is there an example or instruction on how to seek and receive the kind of guidance that mega mystics claim earns them the grave label of unbiblical.

These statements deal a heavy blow to anyone wanting to claim biblical support for mega mysticism. It should instruct and alarm us that no biblical characters ever described themselves as being led in personal decisions in the way mega mysticism claims is so vital to the Christian life. Therefore, the most common biblical support that is offered for mega mysticism simply does not exist. Elsewhere we have commented on the reason for the absence of this type of revelation:

While we discuss the many practical problems with mega mysticism elsewhere, we will briefly note here why God always spoke in miraculous, objective, unmistakable ways in the Bible. It is because it is sin to disobey a revelation from God. That is why God always made sure that the people in the Bible always knew immediately and certainly that God was speaking to them. Knowing God’s will was never the struggle that mega mystics make it out to be because biblical characters were never trying to discern it from subjective impulses. Rather, biblical characters always knew for certain God was speaking to them because they relied on either Scripture or other miraculously authenticated, objective, unmistakable means, not some subjective “inner voice.” ^[17]

Nonetheless, the popularity of mega mysticism requires that we carefully evaluate the lives of biblical characters to discern any mega mysticism in their lives. We have elsewhere described in detail the revelatory experiences of ones such as Adam and Eve, Abraham and Moses, Christ, and the Apostles and have found that they experienced God either in objective physical ways such as apparitions or auditions, or obvious psychical ways such as visions. ^[18] In addition, we will study other biblical characters here as well.

D) How Biblical Characters Really Made Decisions: Reason, not revelation

Nothing is more important for humans than decision making, and nothing is more important for decision making than reason. Contrary to the claims of mega mysticism, which emphasizes the need for personal divine “inspiration,” intuition, impulses, and “signs” in order to know God’s will, the Bible teaches that we are to use our God-given reason. In other words, the “peace of God” in decision making is not something mystical or necessarily supernatural, but rather the natural result of following good moral reasoning (i.e. conscience) which resolves guilt, and correct logical reasoning which removes doubt. ^[19]

Along these lines, M. Blaine Smith corrects the popular expectation that the process of Christian decision making is all that different from how wise decisions are made in the world:

We naturally think that as Christians our experience of resolving decisions will be different–perhaps dramatically so–from the process we went through as nonbelievers. Though we may not be certain exactly how it will be different, we expect it to be different nonetheless. The whole idea of receiving [divine] guidance conveys the thought of having a mystical or obviously supernatural experience. It implies the idea of instantaneous direction which removes the need for thinking through a decision.

In reality, Scripture gives little basis for this all-too-understandable assumption. In fact, the differences between Christian and non-Christian decision making are not as great as might first be thought. . . . When we look carefully at examples of decision making in the New Testament, we find pervasive evidence for this perspective. In fact, in the overwhelming majority of personal decisions noted in the New Testament, God’s will was discerned simply through a reasoned decision. Human reason was the channel through which God’s will was normally known. In most cases discerning his will boiled down to a matter of making a sound, logical choice. ^[20]

While we certainly differ from the unregenerated in our sources of data for decision making (i.e. Scripture, New Nature), and different motives (morality), the process that regenerated Christians go through is the God-ordained process of reasoning. In other words, the revelation contained in Scripture and the gift of our Spirit-liberated reason, controlled by our Spirit-inspired desires, all fully suffice to provide us the divine guidance we need.

The place of reason in decision making is perhaps its greatest demonstration of its God-given importance. Elsewhere we note reason’s importance in enabling us to decide what Scripture says. ^[21] Here, we will mention that right reasoning is also the most important God-ordained means for making decisions for which Scripture does not give us any specific directions. ^[22] Accordingly, the OT scholar Bruce Waltke writes:

God guides us first through his Word, then through our heartfelt desires, then the wise counsel of others, and then our circumstances. At that point we must rely on our own sound judgment. . . . God gave each of us a brain, and he expects us to put it to good use. ^[23]

Likewise, Gary Friesen and J. Maxon, in their very good book, Decision Making and the Will of God, write:

We must agree with the conclusion of James Jauncy, “Guidance is largely consecrated and sanctified thinking.” While God can, if he chooses, lead us contrary to reason, we may trust that in such cases he will make his directions unmistakably clear. Apart from such dramatic guidance, our responsibility is to make as sound a decision as possible, trusting that he in his providence will give us all the information we need to decide within his will. ^[24]

One point that is being made here is that if we do not have an authenticated, certain divine revelation (e.g. Scripture, Angel, vision, etc.) to act against reason, God’s will is to be wise and act in accordance with it. We are to act according to the dictates of reason unless we know we have a divine revelation commanding us otherwise. Joshua’s instruction to merely circle Jericho thirteen times over seven days in order to demolish its walls would have been absolutely foolish, except for the fact that God miraculously and undoubtedly gave him a specific divine revelation to act against reason (cf. Josh 5:13-6:21).

Our dependence on reason is so God-ordained, that it requires nothing less than a miraculous revelation from God for us to righteously and wisely go against reason. Of course, many people today claim they have received a divine revelation to act against reason, and accordingly condone all kinds of irrational behavior in the name of God. As discussed thoroughly elsewhere, this is not biblical faith, but proud, human foolishness. ^[25]

God’s expectation that we use our reason to make important decisions is reflected in the OT as well when we read:

If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly [all of which require careful reasoning].

And if it is true and it has been proved [by reason] that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly [make a decision to] put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely . . . (Deut 13:12-15)

Notice that even in such an important decision concerning capital punishment, God did not promise some sort of direct divine revelation of His will, but rather, stated clearly that the careful and diligent use of their reason would lead them correctly (cf. Deut. 17:6; 1 Tim 5:19-20). Likewise, the Apostle Paul expected mature believers to use their reason in deciding court cases among them, with no need of divine revelation implied (cf. 1 Cor 6:1-6).

Along these lines, we should remember the high praise that wisdom receives in Scripture. One of the more common Hebrew words for wisdom is sākal which the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament defines as:

An intelligent knowledge of the reason. The process of thinking through a complex arrangement of thoughts resulting in a wise dealing and use of good practical sense. ^[26]

It is a reasoned wisdom that God intends, as reflected in the introduction to Proverbs:

The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel: for attaining wisdom [hokmâ] and discipline; for understanding words of insight [bin]; for acquiring a disciplined and prudent [sākal] life, doing what is right and just and fair; for giving prudence [ormâ] to the simple, knowledge and discretion [mezimmah] to the young. (Prov 1:1-4)

Here we see several Hebrew words that are used throughout, particularly Proverbs, to refer to right thinking. While godly wisdom certainly involves many things including, “the fear of the Lord” (Prov 1:7), it hardly needs to be said that it requires the use of our reasoning faculties. The Hebrew word ormâ translated above as “prudence” contains the idea of thinking, planning, and reasoning in order to come to a decision. It can be used negatively (cf. Exod. 21:14; Josh 9:4), or positively as in the following proverbs where it is translated “prudent.” Notice the emphasis on the need to use our reason:

Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly (Prov 13:16).

The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways, but the folly of fools is deception (Prov 14:8).

A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps (Prov 14:15).

A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it (Prov 22:3).

The repeated advice in Proverbs to obtain counsel, is nothing more than a biblical endorsement of reasoning for decision making (cf. Prov 1:5; 11:14; 12:15; 13:10; 15:22; 19:20; 20:18; 24:6). Essentially, counsel is multiplied reasoning, the convergence of the thinking faculties of more than one person, which is why it is so valuable. Along these lines, M. Blaine Smith writes:

The value of counsel, in my opinion, lies not in providing direct insight into God’s will, but in the fact that through counsel a healthy mental process occurs in which we are inspired to think more creatively, to see new alternatives and to see old alternatives in a new light. The end result is a deeper understanding of the issues at stake in our decisions. . . .

None of the proverbs listed above say we must accept counsel as unerring divine leading. . . . The proverbs simply are not that specific. They stress that there is an advantage to many advisers and imply that through counseling we’re helped to think more deeply, and we’re strengthened to make wiser decisions. ^[27]

The NT as well illustrates the importance of reason in decision making. For example, the Apostle Paul writes: “Be wise [sophia] in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity,” (Col 4:5) a process which requires careful reasoning. Likewise, we read:

Be very careful [blepete: “discern mentally, perceive, cf. 7:23 ^[28]], then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise [sophoi], making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand [suniete] what the Lord’s will is. (Eph 5:15-17)

To “be very careful” of anything obviously requires reasoning. NT scholar Peter O’Brien remarks that, “The adverb rendered ‘carefully’ signifies something done accurately, precisely, or after close attention has been given.” ^[29] Likewise, “making the most of every opportunity” for God’s purposes, foremost requires both moral and logical reasoning. So does understanding “what the Lord’s will is.” Accordingly, NT scholar F. F. Bruce (1910–1990) commented, “The doing of his will is not a matter of irrational impulse but of intelligent reflection and action.” ^[30] Accordingly, the Apostle says the way in which we will “understand what the Lord’s will is” is to “not be foolish,” suggesting the need for wise, rational thinking, not mystical impulses as some claim. We like the NLT rendering of verse 17 which reads, “Don’t act thoughtlessly.”

The Apostle Paul recognizes that moral and logical reasoning is the process by which we make many important decisions, as he implies when he says, “One man considers [krino] one day more sacred than another; another man considers [krinei: judges] every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind [nous]” (Rom 14:5).

Likewise, the significant decision of how much to give to the needy is portrayed as something we determine through reason. The Apostle writes, “Each man should give what he has decided [proērētai: “intend considerately” ^[31]] in his heart to give” (2 Cor 9:7). Likewise we read in Acts, “The disciples, each according to his ability, decided [ōrisan] to provide help for the brothers living in Judea” (Acts 11:29). All of the Greek words used in the NT to refer to decision making simply mean to determine with reason. ^[32]

The place of reason in decision making even applies to the important decision of marriage. Along these lines, Dr. Stott explains:

[T]ruths about God’s general will regarding marriage Scripture will tell you. But Scripture will not tell you whether your wife is to be Jane or June or Joan or Janet! How then are you to decide this major question? There is only one possible answer, namely by using the mind and the common sense which God has given you. ^[33]

Dr. Stott reflects the teaching of the Apostle Paul who encouraged someone considering marriage to simply settle, “the matter in his own mind [kardia]” and to make up “his mind [kardia],” (1 Cor. 7:37). Accordingly, Friesen and Maxon relate:

In a variety of ways Paul explains that the choice of celibacy or marriage is based upon spiritual expediency. He does not use the word “expediency,” but his expressions are well summed up in that term. His procedure is to enumerate some of the advantages and disadvantages that characterize both states.

Paul’s stress is upon the values of singleness. His reasons for this preference are as follows:

1. To avoid unnecessary worry (7:20-21)

2. To avoid needless troubles (7:28)

3. To make better use of limited time (7:29-31)

4. To be free from concern (7:32)

5. To be able to give undistracted attention to “the things of the Lord” (7:32)

6. To promote personal happiness (7:40)

Paul sums up the reasons for his recommendation of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:35: “And this I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is seemly, and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.” That is spiritual expediency! ^[34]

And it illustrates the use of our reason to make one of the most important decisions of our lives.

Another important decision in the Christian life is the choosing of Church leaders. Is this accomplished through a mystical direct revelation of who is called? Not in Scripture. Accordingly, we read in Acts:

So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them. (Acts 6:2-3)

It was not a direct divine revelation that told “the Twelve” that it “would not be right” to “neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.” Rather, they no doubt used their reason to recognize the problem and decide on a solution. They in turn encouraged the “brothers” to use their reason, based on certain criteria, to “choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.” And it should be noticed that the good reasoning abilities that are necessary for wisdom was a requirement for the men chosen for the task at hand.

On this issue, M. Blaine Smith writes:

There is another area where we’re given some helpful insight into Paul’s practical approach to guidance, and that is his appointment of leaders in the early church. We find a wealth of evidence that his selection of leaders was normally based not on supernatural calls but upon rational considerations. Although Paul himself received a dramatic call to the ministry, there is no indication that he ever required this same experience of others. When, for instance, he gives instructions about how to choose church leaders in I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9, there is absolutely no mention of need for a special call. Judgment is to be based purely on one’s ability and the quality of one’s Christian example. Likewise, where we see Paul choosing leaders himself, there is no indication he required a specific call.

Kenneth Pike observes two interesting examples of Paul’s using reason in leadership selection. The first is Paul’s choice of Silas and Timothy to be his missionary companions, in Acts 15:22 and Acts 161-3. From Paul’s point of view, why did he choose the two? By divine orders? . . . One finds no evidence of such, but rather sees consecrated judgment in confident action on the basis of the proved character of the two men. Silas had first been chosen by a council as trustworthy, and as one of the “leading men among the brethren” (Acts 15:22); Timothy was “well spoken of by the brethren” (Acts 16:2). These two missionary calls were based on sound judgment, not on feelings.

Regarding Paul’s disagreement with Barnabas over the selection of Mark to travel with them (Acts 16:36-41), Pike observes [that] . . . the first split of a “mission board” came on the basis of judgment over the fitness of a candidate. Neither Paul nor Barnabas argued that God had directly revealed to him that Mark should or should not go again to the field. The “sharp contention” was on the basis of judgment, since “Paul thought it not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work” (Acts 15:38). Judgment, not feeling, as to God’s guidance seems to be implied by the words “thought not good.”

It appears, then, that Paul regarded rational judgment of a person’s qualities as the prime factor constituting a call to Christian leadership. The need for a dramatic supernatural call, such as Paul himself received, was not emphasized. Likewise, our popular notion that a call may come through an inner sense of leading, without outward evidence of ability, finds no support in Paul’s teaching. ^[35]

It is instructive to study particularly through Acts and see how God guided His people. Of course there were several instances of miraculous, obvious, direct divine revelation, particularly for those designated as messengers of such revelation. Many today in charismaticism and mega mysticism insist such miraculous, divine leading is normative and necessary for all Christians today. Nonetheless, most of the personal guidance of the Apostles was accomplished through reasoning, not revelation.

Accordingly, Friesen and Maxon note:

The [mega mystical] view [regarding decision making] has some weaknesses at this point. The first weakness is that the number of recorded cases [in Scripture of miraculous guidance] is not sufficient to constitute normative experience. In the first thirty years of the church’s history covered by the book of Acts, there were at most fifteen to twenty instances of direct, personal [miraculous] guidance.

Many of these directions were given to the Apostle Paul. Yet within the framework of his total ministry, relatively few of his decisions were determined on the basis of such leading. Most of the time he had to weigh the apparent merits of various options before settling on a course of action. In other words, when he had a decision to make, he had to decide (cf. Acts. 15:36; Acts 20:16; Romans 1:10-13; 1 Corinthians 16:4-9; 2 Corinthians 1:15-2:4). The cases of direct [miraculous] guidance are clearly the exception to the rule, even in Paul’s case. ^[36]

For example, against those who would suggest that the Apostles were primarily guided by supernatural visions and impulses, Luke records, “Then the Apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided [edoxe: “to think”] to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 15:22). The Greek here literally means it simply “seemed good” to them. ^[37]

The Apostle implies decision making based on reasoning, not a divine revelation when he says, “So when we could stand it no longer, we thought it best to be left by ourselves in Athens” (1 Thess 3:1), “I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus” (Phil 2:25), and “If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me” (1 Cor 16:4).

While many in the Church today believe we need some sort of mystical peace, strong intuition, or divine sign in order to decide where to go, the Apostle’s own travel planning reveals simply careful reasoning. The Apostle’s use of human reason, not divine revelation is clearly implied in such remarks as:

Because the Jews made a plot against him just as he was about to sail for Syria, he decided [gnōmes] to go back through Macedonia. . . . Paul had decided [kekrikei: “to judge”] to sail past Ephesus to avoid spending time in the province of Asia, for he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost” (Acts 20:3, 16).

Along the same lines, the Apostle tells the Corinthians:

Because I was confident of this, I planned [eboulomēn: “to determine with oneself”] to visit you first so that you might benefit twice. I planned to visit you on my way to Macedonia and to come back to you from Macedonia, and then to have you send me on my way to Judea. When I planned [boulomenos] this, did I do it lightly? Or do I make my plans [bouleuomai] in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say, “Yes, yes” and “No, no”? (2 Cor 1:15-17)

Even the Apostle Paul made missionary plans simply with his reason, and the plans he speaks of here had changed.

In the Apostle’s decision to visit Rome, he never communicated that there was a direct divine revelation to do so, but rather mentioned personal desires and practical reasons:

So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the Gospel of Christ.  ²⁰It has always been my ambition to preach the Gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. . . . . ²² This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you. ²³ But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you,  ²⁴ I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. (Rom 15:19-20, 22, 24)

Accordingly, after a careful study of the Apostle’s decision making methods, several have noted the centrality of using his reasoning. M. Blaine Smith writes:

For Paul, discerning God’s will was mainly a matter of making sound, logical judgments, in light of what course appeared most glorifying to God. We must conclude that this process of rational discernment should also be our normal approach to discovering God’s will. ^[38]

Likewise, Friesen and Maxon conclude:

The question to which we are seeking a biblical answer is: In nonmoral areas, on what basis is the believer to make his decision? Observation of apostolic decision making has revealed that they did not attempt to discover God’s [specific, amoral] will for such decisions. Their explanations for their plans are couched in phrases such as: “We thought it best,” “I thought it necessary,” “If it is fitting,” “It is not desirable,” “It seemed good,” and simply “I have decided” (Titus 3:12). (Luke explained a decision Paul made with respect to an itinerary with the words, “for he was hurrying” [Acts 20:16].) Clearly these men were exercising their freedom of choice within God’s moral will. ^[39]

Along the same lines, Bruce Waltke remarks:

When Paul was in the city of Ephesus he saw God do a mighty work. . . . As Paul wrote to the believers in Corinth, he told them that he wanted to visit them, but he added, “After I go through Macedonia, I will come to you – for I will be going through Macedonia. Perhaps I will stay with you awhile, or even spend the winter, so that you can help me on my journey wherever I go. I do not want to see you now and make only a passing visit. I hope to spend some time with you, if the Lord permits. But I will stay on at Ephesus until Pentecost, because a great door for effective work has opened to me” (1 Corinthians 16:5-9). Notice how Paul was flexible, knowing that he was close to God and doing the work the Lord had called him to, so that he had the ability to change his schedule according to the circumstances.

We can see clearly how the decisions made in the New Testament differ from the [miraculous] means used in the Old Testament. How should Paul escape Jerusalem? Should he circumcise Timothy? Where should he go next year? Rather than cast a lot and expect God to answer miraculously, he based his decisions on sound judgment in light of the circumstances. ^[40]

Finally, in a very thorough article on this very subject, Robert Banks makes the following observations:

As for the extent of charismatic [direct, revelatory] guidance of Paul’s movements, this appears to have taken place only a few times in the many visits Paul and his colleagues made during his various journeys: (1) a divine vision or word (Acts 16:9; 18:9), confirmed by group endorsement (Acts 16a); (2) the Spirit’s largely general – or negative -guidance (Acts 13:2, 4; 16:6-7; 20:22; 21:4, 11 [through a miraculously authenticated Prophet ^[41]]), though these tend to occur at critical points such as at the beginning of the journeys, before a crucial new direction and at its culmination.

Other, seemingly noncharismatic, reasons mentioned by Luke for Paul’s taking or not taking a particular route include: (1) his personal resolution (Acts 15:36; 19:21; 20:3, 13); (2) the presence of a synagogue (Acts 13:4, 13; 14:1; 15:17; 17:1, 10; 18:4, 19), especially during the initial and follow-up journeys; (3) the city’s status and significance from a Roman or Hellenistic vantage point (Acts 16:12; 19:21); (4) a colleague’s connection (Acts 13:4; Cf. 4:36); (5) local believers’ decision (Acts 17:14-15); (6) fulfilling a promise to return (Acts 18:21 and Cf. 21:14). . . .

At other times, only with hindsight can we see how Paul’s movements were determined by the main land routes or regular sea lanes that appeared before him. Looking back, we can also take note of the fact that he always seems to work within territory governed by Rome, only passing through other regions not under its protection. ^[42]

All of this should make us wary of those who suggest we constantly need direct divine guidance from God apart from using our reason. There are, no doubt, many times that people have unnecessarily supernaturalized a decision they have made by claiming that they were prompted by the Holy Spirit when actually their thoughts were simply produced by reason. ^[43] The Holy Spirit’s primary function is controlling our reason rather than providing more revelation as the mystics claim.

The moral desires of our New Nature applied by our moral reason (conscience), and the divine revelation of Scripture interpreted and applied by our logical reason are very capable of making customized applications of God’s will in virtually every circumstance, and are ordained and provided by God to do so.

Pastoral Practices

• Much of what has been discussed here could merely be boiled down to wisdom. Good reasoning is good wisdom. Therefore, consider intentionally endeavoring to grow in wisdom. Maybe read a chapter of Proverbs every day. Maybe study through Proverbs and categorize them topically. A study of OT characters, and particularly the mistakes they made, is one certain way God would have us grow in wisdom.
• One of the ways in which God wants His family living in humble and God-glorifying interdependence is the practice of obtaining counsel from one another when making decisions. This is one of the most neglected biblical disciplines in the Christian Church today, particularly in America where independence is thought to be a virtue. It’s not, and it actually displeases God a great deal.

The exhortations in Proverbs regarding the value of wisdom can be understood to apply to counsel. Accordingly, we can read “Wisdom [wise counsel] is supreme; therefore get wisdom [wise counsel]. Though it cost all you have, get understanding [wise counsel]” (Prov 4:7).

Find wise people and spend time with them, getting frequent counsel and learning how they think. As Solomon said, “He who walks with the wise grows wise” (Prov 13:20). Determine to obtain counsel more faithfully in the future. Study the area of counsel in the Scriptures, especially Proverbs, and gain some convictions on it if you are lacking them. Determine now who are Christians that you respect enough that you would also respect their opinion on a matter. And the next time you have a decision to make, whether big or small, get counsel.

Extras & Endnotes

Devotion to Dad

Our Father in Heaven, we again recognize the temptation in mega mysticism to want You to “speak” to us apart from Scripture, but we desire to let Scripture control our understanding and expectation of divine revelation and we declare again sola Scriptura!

Gauging Your Grasp

1. What two false claims do Mega mystics want to use the revelatory experiences recorded in Scripture to support?
2. We claim that if mega mystics claimed that we were to expect God to speak to us through a donkey (cf. Num 22:28-30), they would have more biblical support than for the claim that divine revelation happens through God planting it directly in our minds through mental telepathy. Do you agree or disagree and why?
3. We claim that there are no biblical examples that describe people receiving direct divine revelation through a “still small voice–or the interior or inner voice,” or properly interpreting a divine message through circumstances as mega mystical authors claim. Do you agree or disagree and why?
4. We claim that there is not a single instance of someone seeking and receiving miraculous divine guidance in the NT, which is a death blow to the whole mega mystical program. Do you agree or disagree?

Publications & Particulars

1. Dallas Willard, Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God (Intervarsity, 1999), 36. ↑

2. Ibid., 89. ↑

3. Regarding the biblical fact that all cases of miraculous communication involved either apparitions the people physically saw, auditions they audibly heard, or visions and dreams that unmistakably engaged the “seeing” and “hearing” parts of their minds see section 10.7.C. ↑

4. Henry and Richard Blackaby, Hearing God’s Voice (Broadman & Holman, 2003), xi., 2-3, 18. ↑

5. Henry Blackaby in How Then Should We Choose, ed. Douglas Huffman (Kregel, 2009), 35 ↑

6. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Baker Book, 1987), 150. Carson is referring to Dr. Fee’s article, “Hermeneutics and Historical Precedent—a Major Problem in Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” in Russell P. Spittler, ed., Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism (Baker, 1976), 119-122. ↑

7. Although casting lots was a common practice in those days among the Jews, it became unnecessary and extinct as a means of communication from God when the Church received the Holy Spirit just a few days after this incident. However, one wonders in light of the contemporary frenzy to restore first century gifts and means of revelation, why the casting of lots isn’t included in the mix. The practice was, of course, used by John Wesley with regrettable results. See Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield, 2 Vols. (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1970), I:150, 309; 2:553. ↑

8. On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit manifested Himself as “a sound like the blowing of a violent wind” that was “heard” not only by the disciples, but by “Jews” who “were staying in Jerusalem” (Acts 2:2,5). We know that the sound was loud enough that “when they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment” (2:6). We know too that at least 3000 people had heard the sound and gathered (2:41), and undoubtedly there were many thousands more. ↑

9. It should be noted that the Bible does describe instances of divine manipulation where He controls unbelievers to do His will. But this is not divine communication or something that was even recognized by its recipients. For further discussion of this topic see chapter 4.6. ↑

10. Regarding the biblical fact that all cases of miraculous communication involved either apparitions the people physically saw, auditions they audibly heard, or visions and dreams that unmistakably engaged the “seeing” and “hearing” parts of their minds see section 10.7.C. ↑

11. Regarding miraculous means of divine communication see chapters 10.7-11. ↑

12. Gary Friesen and J. Maxon, Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 1980), 91, 258. ↑

13. M. Blaine Smith, Knowing God’s Will: Finding Guidance for Personal Decisions (Intervarsity, 1991), 166. ↑

14. Bruce Waltke, Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion? (Eerdmans, 1995, 18-19. ↑

15. Regarding the fact that revelatory experiences portrayed in Acts should not be considered as normative for our day see section 11.3.B. ↑

16. Excerpt from section 14.5.B.1.b. See also section 14.5.B.4 ↑

17. Excerpt from section 7.1.B.5.f. ↑

18. For a detailed study of the revelatory experiences of biblical characters see chapters 8.3 regarding Apostles, 9.5 regarding Prophets and chapters 10.7-10.11 regarding all the means of biblical revelatory experiences including apparitions, auditions, visions, and dreams. ↑

19. Regarding the Apostle’s reference to “the peace of God which transcends all understanding,” (Phil 4:7) see extended discussion in section 14.11.E, esp. section E.4 ↑

20. M. Blaine Smith, Knowing God’s Will (InterVarsity, 1979, 1991), 114-15. Considering all the mega mystical Christian literature concerning divine guidance, Smith’s book is fairly good. Nonetheless, his error in accepting the idea that God has a specific will for us in amoral issues is significant. For further critiques of Smith’s popular book see section 7.15.B.3-4. including important endnotes ↑

21. For further discussion regarding reason’s importance in interpreting Scripture section 2.5.E and 3.1.C and chapter 3.3. ↑

22. This refers to the God-given right and responsibility of private judgment. For further discussion regarding it see section 2.5.E and 3.1.C and chapter 3.3. ↑

23. Bruce K. Waltke, Finding the Will of God, (Eerdmans, 2002). ↑

24. Gary Friesen and J. Maxon, Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 1980), 123. The very best book on a biblical view of decision making. ↑

25. For further discussion of the difference between biblical faith and human foolishness see section 6.11.B and chapters 6.12-14. ↑

26. Louis Goldberg, “sākal,” Theological Wordbook of Old Testament (TWOT), Gleason Archer, R. Laird Harris, Bruce K. Waltke eds. 2 Vols. (Moody, 1980), 877. ↑

27. Smith, 206-7. ↑

28. William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Zondervan, 2006), 1108. ↑

29. Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Eerdmans, 1999), 380. ↑

30. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Eerdmans, 1984), 379. ↑

31. Mounce, 1253. ↑

32. See Vine’s, “Purpose” 499; “Judge, 336-7; “Think,” 627. ↑

33. John Stott, Your Mind Matters by John Stott (InterVarsity, 1973), 46. ↑

34. Friesen and Maxon, 125. ↑

35. Smith, 122-3. ↑

36. Friesen and Maxon, 90. ↑

37. Alfred Marshall, The Interlinear NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (MLT) (Zondervan, 1993), 391 ↑

38. Smith, .123. ↑

39. Friesen and Maxon, 187. ↑

40. Waltke, 157. ↑

41. Regarding our claim that all of these revelations of the Holy Spirit came through miraculously authenticated NT Prophets, a mode of revelation that no longer operates today, see section 14.13.F and chapters 9.1-9.2. ↑

42. Robert Banks, “The Role of Charismatic and Noncharismatic Factors in Determining Paul’s Movements in Acts” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins, eds. Graham Stanton et. al. (Eerdmans, 2004), 129-30. ↑

43. For further discussion on the exaggeration of the need and occurrence of personal divine inspiration for our decision making see the Book 14. ↑