Chapter 14.15

Mega Mysticism & “Spirit” Passages

 

Table of Topics

A) Being “Led by the Spirit”: Rom 8:12-14; Gal 5:16-18

B) The Spirit’s Annointing: 1 John 2:20, 27

C) “What the Spirit Says to the Churches”: Rev 2:7

D) Speaking By the Spirit: Luke 12:11-12; Eph 6:19-20

E) “Testing the Spirits”: 1 John 4:1

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• When Paul speaks of being “led by the Spirit” he is referring to a lifestyle, not life decisions, a New Nature to live by, not new revelations to be guided by.
• Accordingly, “the fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22) is virtue, not divine insight or revelation on amoral extra-biblical decisions.
• The mega mystic’s interpretation of the “annointing” in 1 John 2:20, 27 is a fine argument in support of ancient Gnosticism, but not historical orthodox Christianity.
• Contrary to mega mysticism, the seven churches in Revelation heard “what the Spirit says to the churches” (Rev. 2:7) through the writings of an Apostle, not the mega mystical means they claim.
• Christ’s promises of direct revelation in the context of Apostles, speaking before pagan leaders during a period of great persecution (Luke 12:11-12; cf. Luke 21:14-15; Matt 10:19-20; Mark 13:11), is quite different from the claim of inward guidance for personal, extra-biblical, amoral decisions in everyday life.

A) Being “Led by the Spirit”: Rom 8:12-14; Gal 5:16-18

There are two passages in which Paul says that Christians are “led by the Spirit.” First, we read in Romans 8:12-14:

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. (Rom 8:12-14)

The rightly respected Evangelical leader Bill Hybels applies such Scripture in the following way:

Listening to God speak to us through his Holy Spirit is not only normal; it is essential. Paul wrote, “You … are controlled … by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ” (Romans 8:9). He told believers to “live by the Spirit, “to be “led by the Spirit, ” to “keep in step with the Spirit” (Galatians 5). . . .

It is possible to develop a similar sensitivity to the Holy Spirit’s still, small voice. It is possible to be aware throughout the day, even while going about your daily work, of God’s gentle promptings. That’s what it means to “live by the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16). ^[1]

Likewise, the Charismatic theologian Wayne Grudem writes:

Scripture talks . . . about a day-to-day guidance by the Holy Spirit-being “led” by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 5:18), and walking according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:4; Gal. 5:16). ^[2]

It is being implied here that the Spirit is constantly “speaking” to us throughout the day to provide guidance in virtually every decision we make through some sort of subjective impulses. We are again asking the question if there is biblical support here for the idea that the Holy Spirit guides us in our extra-biblical decision making through direct divine revelation recognized in mental impressions? The answer is yes and no. The kind of guidance being promised here is moral (i.e. love, holiness, etc.) not amoral (who to marry or what job to choose). The Spirit here is not a source of constant and specific divine guidance but a “nature to live according to” (Rom 8:12; cf. vs. 4-5, 12). When we are “led by the Spirit” we take on a virtuous personality, “the new self” (Eph 4:24) who leads us in righteousness, not amoral decision making, which is the kind of guidance Christian mystics claim.

Paul is specifically saying that the Spirit leads us in a lifestyle, not life-decisions. Accordingly, we have discussed elsewhere, both the important distinction between being led by our New Nature and mystical revelation ^[3] and the difference between the moral direction provided by Scripture, our New Nature, and conscience and the extra-biblical sources of revelation claimed by mega mystics. ^[4]

Proof of our interpretation of Romans 8 as referring to moral guidance provided by our New Nature is found in the connection of verse 14 with the previous verse 13. The phrase reads: “if by the Spirit you put to death the [moral] misdeeds of the body, you will live, because (gar) those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.” The specific purpose of being “led by the Spirit” here is to combat the immoral desires of the sinful nature. And the way the Spirit does this and leads us is by giving us a New Nature to live by, not new revelations to be guided by. Accordingly, NT scholar Thomas Schreiner writes:

The gar, (Gr. “for”) in verse 14 signals that the verse clarifies and restates in different terms the substance of verse 13. . . . The “leading” (agontai) of the Spirit does not refer to guidance for everyday decisions in determining the will of God. It refers to being “controlled by” or “determined by” or “governed by” the Spirit. (Murray 1959: 295; Lloyd-Jones 1975: 175; Byrne 1979: 98; Moo 1991: 533; Fee 1994: 563). ^[5]

Likewise, NT scholar Douglas Moo writes:

To be “led by the Spirit” probably means not to be guided by the Holy Spirit but, as in Gal. 5:18, to have the direction of one’s life as a whole determined by the Spirit. The phrase is thus a way of summarizing the various descriptions of the life of the Spirit that Paul has used in vv. 4-9. Paul may well want to include in this “being led” an “inner compulsion” and the involvement of the emotions, but the context and the parallel in Gal. 5:18 make it unlikely that the idea is specifically “ecstatic” or “charismatic.” ^[6]

Along these lines, Gary Friesen reminds us of the broader context of this statement in Romans 8:

What the Apostle Paul is discussing in this passage is righteous living. The answers to the problems of slavery to sin (raised in Romans 7:7-25) are given in chapter 8:1-17. The issue in question is not anything like the choice between two possible home sites or the decision to buy a new suit. The issue is set forth in a series of vivid, mutually exclusive contrasts: good versus evil (7:19); the law of sin and death versus the law of the Spirit of life (8:2); life according to the flesh versus life according to the Spirit (8:5); being hostile to God versus pleasing God (8:7-8); being in the flesh versus being in the Spirit (8:8-9); being indwelt by the Spirit versus not having the Spirit of Christ (8:9); and, finally, living according to the Spirit versus putting to death the deeds of the body (8:13, which is the immediate context). What Paul is talking about is experiential conformity to the moral will of God. ^[7]

Even the Pentecostal NT scholar Gordon Fee comments:

This phrase has no connotation either of “ecstasy” or “Spirit seizure,” on the one hand, or of “guidance” in the sense of direct help for the details of one’s life, on the other. As always in Paul, the primary place to turn for such usage is to the OT, where in a whole variety of ways God is said to “lead” the people of God in the ways of God. Thus, for example, Ps 23:3: “He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.” That is almost certainly what Paul intends here, that God’s people are led by the Spirit of God “into paths of [moral] righteousness for the sake of God’s name,” and such. ^[8]

Accordingly, J. I. Packer comments:

Twice Paul speaks of being “led” by the Spirit (Romans 8:14; Galatians 5:18). Both times the reference is to resisting one’s own sinful impulses as the flip side of one’s practice of righteousness (see the contexts, Romans 8:12-14 and Galatians 5:16-18). Leads is rightly taken to mean “guides,” but the guidance in view here is not a revealing to the mind of divine directives hitherto unknown; it is, rather, an impelling of our wills to pursue and practice and hold fast that sanctity whose terms we know already.

Thus to be led and guided, says Paul, is the mark of a Christian. “All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God,” shown and known to be such by the direction of their lives. “If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law”; your life shows you to be sharers in the new creation, now living under grace (Galatians 6:15; see also Romans 6:14). If a person was not being so led, it would be altogether uncertain whether he (or she) was a believer at all. And you certainly cannot keep in step with the Holy Spirit in respect of ministry if by your failure to pursue righteousness you are grieving him (see Ephesians 4:30) in the matter of sanctity. First things first! ^[9]

Finally, we quote Sinclair Ferguson who writes:

The ‘leading of the Spirit’ in view here does not refer to mystical elements in divine guidance, but to the moral character of Christian behaviour: God’s sons are to exhibit the family trait of holiness, and this implies putting sin to death through the power of the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:13). ^[10]

There is little doubt that Paul has the same thing in mind in both passages where he explicitly speaks about being “led by the Spirit,” and the fact that he is talking about virtue rather than decisions is made even clearer in Galatians 5:16-18 where Paul writes:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.  ¹⁷For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.  ¹⁸But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

Paul goes on to describe this leading of the Spirit as “the fruit of the Spirit” (v. 22) which is virtue, not divine insight or revelation on amoral extrabiblical decisions. So indeed the Spirit does lead us, but in right living, not the right decisions. Again, the Pentecostal Fee helps us understand that the context deals exclusively with moral issues that our New Nature guides us in, without the mystical revelation that others deem so necessary:

Although at the popular level “being led by the Spirit” is sometimes understood to refer to direct guidance by the Spirit, Paul’s concern lies elsewhere. In context it functions as the other side of the coin to the imperative “walk by the Spirit” in v. 16. That is, believers who walk by the Spirit do so because they are following where the Spirit leads; and the Spirit leads in “the law of Christ,” in ways that both reflect and pattern after Christ himself-whom Paul has earlier described as “the one who loved me and gave himself for me” (2:20).

This is why Torah observance is totally irrelevant; for the one led by the Spirit in “the law of Christ” the aim of Torah has been fulfilled. Thus, even though the main concern in this section is with the sufficiency of the Spirit over against the flesh, it is equally important for Paul to underscore the Spirit’s sufficiency in a context where Torah observance no longer obtains. “It is all right to be done with Torah,” he says, “because the Spirit can handle the flesh; indeed, to be led by the Spirit eliminates the need to be under Law.” ^[11]

B) The Spirit’s Annointing: 1 John 2:20, 27

In his first letter the Apostle John writes:

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.  ²¹I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. . . .

²⁴See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.  ²⁵And this is what He promised us—even eternal life. ²⁶I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.  ²⁷As for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in Him. (1 John 2:20-21, 24-27)

 

As noted elsewhere, Dallas Willard comments on this Scripture:

John became so confident of the inner teacher that he could tell his children in the faith–even as he was warning them about those trying to deceive them-that they had no need of anyone other than the inner teacher, the Holy Spirit. ^[12]

Likewise, the Charismatic leader Michael Green writes concerning this passage:

This means that if a man is truly brought to faith in Christ, he is not dependent on human teachers to lead him on, helpful though these may be. He has the heavenly Spirit to be his teacher. ^[13]

Here, again, we have full-blown mega mysticism. A faithful application of the interpretation of Willard and Green would conclude that we do not need Scripture, Pastors, or even the Church, but can expect the Holy Spirit to speak directly to us apart from all these things. In other words, the claim here is that the Holy Spirit alone is sufficient and superior, not Scripture. Does John’s statement support such a thing?

First, we would simply ask why must we assume that the “annointing” John speaks of refers to a promise that God will guide us through mystical mental impulses as Dr. Willard suggests? In light of the rest of the Bible’s teaching on such a matter, the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of mega mystics to prove this verse supports their view.

In fact, when the literary context of 1 John is known, a mega mystical interpretation is impossible. While interpreting the “anointing” as direct revelation from the Spirit poses problems for the authority of Scripture in the Church today, such an interpretation would have presented difficulties in John’s day as well. This is because there is virtually universal agreement that the false teachers whom John was combating were Gnostics, and, as noted in a previous chapter, one of their central heresies was the claim to direct, divine revelation apart from Scripture. ^[14]

John’s attack on common Gnostic teaching is apparent even in the passage under discussion. First, John stresses that all the Christians he is writing to have knowledge of the truth (v. 20). He then directly addresses the false teachings in Gnosticism that Jesus was not the Son of God (vs. 22-23). Thirdly, he points his readers to the teachings they had received when they were converted (v. 24) instead of some direct, subjective revelation.

Our first problem with the mega mystic’s interpretation of 1 John 2:20-27 then is that it does not fit the context of 1 John. John is writing to protect these early Christians from Gnostic teaching which centered around the idea of direct, individual, mystical revelation that gave them superior knowledge (gnosis). It is difficult then to interpret John as saying virtually the same thing as his opponents, and insisting that Christians receive this kind of subjective, mystical revelation too. Willard’s interpretation is a fine argument in support of Gnosticism, but not historical orthodox Christianity.

This fact needs to be noticed when attempting to interpret what John means by saying that the recipients of his letter “do not need anyone to teach” them (v. 27). An unbalanced mega mystical interpretation makes John contradict himself and the NT on the importance of teaching. As NT scholar John Stott notes, “we must see this verse in the context of a letter in which John is, in fact, teaching.” ^[15]

Just three verses earlier, John had reminded them, “As for you, let that abide in you which you heard [from Teachers/Evangelists/Apostles] from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father” (v. 24 NASB). We quote the NASB here because it better reflects the Greek text which repeats the reminder to remember their former teaching twice, which is rather missed in the more stylistic NIV.

Later in this same letter John will write, “We [true Teachers as opposed to false teachers, cf. 4:1-5] are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us” (1 John 4:6). Therefore, John claims that a refusal to listen to Christian Teachers was an indication that such a person neither knows God or is from God. In John’s second letter he writes, “Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 1:9). And the source of this “teaching” was no doubt the Apostles and Teachers mentioned in the verses noted above.

Finally, John surely would not have contradicted the rest of the NT which repeatedly refers to the importance of Teachers in the Church (cf. Acts 4:18; 5:28, 42; 2 Tim. 2:24; 1 Cor. 12:29; Eph – 4:11; Rom 12:6).

It is possible that his reference is to the Gnostic teachers who insisted that the Christians needed their teaching in order to possess some supposed secret knowledge from God in addition to what they had been taught by their Christian teachers. However, it is more likely that John is referring to the ability of the indwelling Spirit to lead us in a virtuous life as we simply live according to, and under the control of, the New Nature He has given us. Accordingly, we have written concerning a parallel passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:9:

The Spirit Who lives within us through our New Nature instinctively knows when and how to love God and people in every circumstance of life that we encounter, thus fulfilling the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2), the Great Commandments (Matt 22:36-40), and God’s whole will for our life. . . .

We believe this sufficiency of the indwelling Spirit to provide divine revelation from God is also underscored when the Apostle explains to the Thessalonians, “Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other” (1 Thess 4:9). We suggest the Apostle is referring to the “teaching” of the Holy Spirit through the New Nature as he just reminded them in the previous sentence, “God . . . gives you His Holy Spirit” (v. 8). ^[16]

Therefore, we would simply suggest that the “annointing” that John is speaking of refers to the spiritual regeneration that all Christians experience at the time of conversion. That conversion regenerates our conscience and will, and gives us a New Nature that instinctively knows the truth about God’s moral will. ^[17] We do not believe that John is speaking of any kind of revelation that goes beyond Christian morality. Our view would not only fit well with John’s consistent appeal in this letter for love and holiness, but would address another Gnostic tendency, the teaching that morality doesn’t matter. Accordingly, we have written elsewhere:

The Scripture-like authority of the New Nature is not only found in that it is likewise equated with God Himself, but it is also similarly sufficient as a divine revelation of God’s will. If we conform our life to it we will, “be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:24). We believe this sufficiency of the indwelling Spirit to provide divine revelation from God is also underscored by the Apostle John when he writes:

[Y]ou have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth . . . ²⁷As for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in Him. (1 John 2:20, 27)

We would suggest that the “anointing of the Holy One” is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This indwelling is an important concept in John’s letter (cf. 3:24; 4:1-3, 6, 13; 5:13, 16). . . . Indeed, the divine revelation received through our New Nature, the Holy Spirit, “teaches [us] about all things” necessary for a God-pleasing life. This “teaching” of the New Nature particularly applies to the love and holiness that John emphasizes throughout the epistle and which the Gnostic teachers he is battling against denied the need for.

Of course, mega mystics claim that the more general moral revelation provided by the New Nature simply isn’t specific enough to be adequate. What they seem to be forgetting is the great ability that our Holy Spirit-renewed mind has in determining customized applications of the nature of Christ in all kinds of circumstances. We do not need new, divine, direct revelations of God’s will for our life, but rather, because God Himself lives in us, we have been given the capability of knowing what to do in a given situation in order to please God. ^[18]

C) “What the Spirit Says to the Churches”: Rev 2:7

The rightly respected Southern Baptist leader Dr. Henry Blackaby writes:

He [Christ] 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! ^[19]

Unfortunately, Dr. Blackaby does not suggest that the “voice” of Christ is found in Scripture, but rather other, mega mystical means. Is this what Christ intended to promote when He said this in 90 some A.D. to seven churches in Asia Minor? Not at all. In fact, we need only ask how did the Spirit “speak” to these churches in their own day? A letter from an Apostle of Jesus Christ. And that is precisely where we will hear “what the Spirit says to the churches” (Rev 2:7).

D) Speaking By the Spirit: Luke 12:11-12; Eph 6:19-20

In Luke 12:11-12 Jesus is recorded as saying:

When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say. (Luke 12:11-12; cf. Luke 21:14-15; Matt 10:19-20; Mark 13:11)

 

This would seem to be a clear description of the direct divine revelation unique to Apostles and Prophets. However, this promise was not for the purpose of teaching God’s people or writing Scripture, but rather, testifying before unbelieving, persecuting authorities.

In fact, the same author Luke records a precise fulfillment of this very promise in Acts 4 where the Apostles had healed a man:

The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem [the “synagogues, rulers and authorities” of Luke 12:11].  ⁶Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest’s family.  ⁷They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?”

⁸Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: ^[20] “Rulers and elders of the people!  ⁹If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed,  ¹⁰then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Whom you crucified but Whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.  ¹¹He is “‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. ¹²Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under Heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

¹³When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. (Acts 4:5-13)

Accordingly, I. H. Marshall comments on this passage in Acts: “The promise of Jesus in Luke 12:11f; 21:14f. is fulfilled as Peter receives a special inspiration from the Spirit to enable him to reply effectively in the court.” ^[21]

If we desire to apply such a promise beyond the Apostles, then we need to at least recognize the special circumstances that it applies to. Such a promise does not involve divine revelation for the daily decisions that disciples make on a myriad of things in the course of a normal day. Rather, the context here is severe persecution in which believers are being called before high-ranking government and religious officials to give an account of their faith. In addition, the promise may apply more specifically to the Endtime persecution of the Great Tribulation (cf. Luke 21:12-15). In such a circumstance, we would not wish to deny that God may provide special assistance. ^[22] Accordingly, we have written elsewhere regarding this promise:

Matt 10 . . . would not provide a proof text for mega mystical claims. A promise originally given to Apostles, for the specific purpose of speaking before pagan leaders during a period of great persecution, is quite different from the claim of inward guidance for personal, extra-biblical, amoral decisions in everyday life. ^[23]

The context is quite similar when Paul writes the Ephesians:

Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the Gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should. (Eph 6:19-20)

Most commentators place Paul in a Roman prison awaiting trial before Nero at the time he wrote Ephesians (cf. Eph 3:1; Acts 25:11-12). ^[24] It does not surprise us then that such an “ambassador in chains” before such government authorities, would claim the promise Jesus had given for such circumstances as described above.

This gives us an opportunity to reiterate our position on the miraculous. Elsewhere we have defined a miracle as an extraordinary occurrence of God’s supernatural power or communication by which He intervenes in the ordinary and natural processes He has ordained because they are not sufficient to accomplish or communicate His will. ^[25] Normally, direct divine revelation by the Holy Spirit is not necessary for a Spirit-filled, knowledgeable Christian to effectively communicate the Gospel. And Paul knew that. However, he anticipated a circumstance for which ordinary means would not be sufficient, such as the possibility that he would be defending Christianity before the most politically powerful person in the world, the Roman Emperor. God had already given Paul what he needed in order to effectively preach the Gospel, as he had done countless times with no need or experience of additional revelation. However, Paul knew that in the rare case that God’s ordinary means were not sufficient to accomplish His will, God would provide a miracle such as revealing the exact words he was to say when he communicated the Gospel to Caesar.

E) “Testing the Spirits”: 1 John 4:1

M. Blaine Smith relates yet another common proof text for mega mysticism when he writes:

Another largely misunderstood verse is 1 John 4:1: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God.” It’s widely held that the testing of spirits in this verse refers to judging personal feelings as to whether they are divinely produced or not. In context, however, the reference is to judging the doctrinal teachings of teachers who call themselves Christian. ^[26]

In addition, it is clear that John did not expect his readers to judge spirits by some subjective flutter in their gut, but rather, gave them an objective test. Accordingly, we have written elsewhere:

Something as subjective as the mere claim of the presence of the Holy Spirit cannot be the ground of certainty for a human. ^[27] How do we know that it is the Holy Spirit? By objective tests. This is precisely what the Apostle John was claiming when he wrote:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. (1 John 4:1-3)

For the Apostle, not even God the Holy Spirit was self-authenticating. And he did not instruct us to authenticate divine revelation (whether from a prophet or otherwise) through subjective feelings, but rather objective evidence, such as a verbal confession of the Incarnation. ^[28]

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1. What is a common interpretation/application of Paul’s references to being “led by the Spirit” in Romans 8 and Galatians 5? What is our interpretation/application of these verses and why? Do you agree or disagree and why?
2. What is a typical mega mystical interpretation/application of the “annointing” in 1 John 2:20, 27. What would be the practical ramifications of such a teaching? What is it in the original context of 1 John that makes such a view unlikely? What is our interpretation/application of this passage? Do you agree or disagree and why?
3. What is a typical mega mystical interpretation/application of the reference to the seven churches in Revelation hearing “what the Spirit says to the churches” (Rev. 2:7)? What do we claim is wrong with such a view? Do you agree or disagree and why?
4. We claim that Christ’s promises of direct revelation in the context of Apostles, speaking before pagan leaders during a period of great persecution (Luke 12:11-12; cf. Luke 21:14-15; Matt 10:19-20; Mark 13:11), is quite different from the claim of inward guidance for personal, extra-biblical, amoral decisions in everyday life and should not be used to support mega mystical teaching. Do you agree or disagree and why?

Publications & Particulars

1. Bill Hybels, Too Busy Not to Pray (Intervarsity, 1998), 136, 152. ↑

2. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 642. A fuller quote reveals that Dr. Grudem is confusing the fruits of the Spirit that effect us through our New Nature, with some supposed extra-biblical, amoral guidance from the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, all that he says in the following can be explained by the former without believing the latter:

   Scripture talks rather about a day-to-day guidance by the Holy Spirit being “led” by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8: 14; Gal. 5:18), and walking according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:4; Gal. 5:16). Now it is possible to understand Paul here to be referring only to obedience to the moral commands of Scripture but this interpretation seems quite unlikely, especially since the entire context is dealing with emotions and desires [which our New Nature produces] which we perceive in a more subjective way, and because Paul here contrasts being led by the Spirit with following the desires of the flesh or the sinful nature [indeed, and why he is referring to the new nature].

   The contrast between “desires of the flesh” and “desires of the Spirit” implies that our lives should be responding moment by moment to the desires of the Holy Spirit, not to the desires of the flesh. Now it may be that a large part of responding to those desires is the intellectual process of understanding what love, joy, peace (and so forth) are, and then acting in a loving or a joyful or peaceful way. But this can hardly constitute the whole of such guidance by the Spirit because these emotions are not simply things we think about; they are things we also feel and sense at a deeper level. In fact, the word translated “desires” is a word that refers to strong human desires, not simply to intellectual decisions [the moral fruits of our New Nature are not just “intellectual decisions” and certainly can be “strong human desires”].

   Paul implies that we are to follow these desires as they are produced by the Holy Spirit in us. Moreover, the idea of being “led” by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:18) implies an active personal participation by the Holy Spirit in guiding us. This is something more than our reflecting on biblical moral standards, and includes an involvement by the Holy Spirit in relating to us as persons and leading and directing us [indeed, through the indwelling of the New Nature in us!] ↑

3. Regarding the important distinction between being led by our New Nature and mystical revelation see section 7.12.C. ↑

4. Regarding the difference between the moral direction provided by Scripture, our New Nature, and conscience and the extra-biblical sources of revelation claimed by mega mystics see sections 7.8.H, 7.12.C, and 4.4.A respectively. ↑

5. Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Baker, 1998), 422. See also John Stott, The Message of Romans (Intervarsity, 1994), 230. ↑

6. Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Roman (NICNT) (Eerdmans, 1996), 498-99. ↑

7. Gary Friesen and J. Maxon, Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 1980), 137-8. ↑

8. Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Hendrickson, 1994), 563. ↑

9. J. I. Packer, Keep in Step With the Spirit (Revell, 1984), 118. ↑

10. Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Intervarsity, 1996), 183. ↑

11. Fee, 438. ↑

12. Dallas Willard, Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God (Intervarsity, 1999), 168. ↑

13. Michael Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans, 2004), page number unavailable. ↑

14. Regarding the mega mysticism in ancient Gnosticism see section 14.8.B. In reference to the background of Gnosticism in I John specifically, Donald Guthrie writes: “It is, at least, certain that these false teachers came within the general category of Gnosticism.” (New Testament Introduction [Intervarsity, 1990], 865.). Dr. Stott makes a lengthy and convincing argument for this, detailing specific false teachings among the Gnostics, and comparing them with what is being addressed in 1 John (see The Letters of John, TNTC, rev. ed., [Eerdmans, 1988], 48-55). ↑

15. Stott, Letters of John, 119. ↑

16. Excerpt from sections 7.12.B.1-2. ↑

17. For further discussion of the guiding revelation provided by the indwelling Spirit and the application of this interpretation of 1 John 2:20, 27 see section 7.12.B.2. ↑

18. Excerpt from sections 7.12.B.2. ↑

19. Henry and Richard Blackaby, Hearing God’s Voice (Broadman & Holman, 2003), 18. ↑

20. NT scholar F. F. Bruce comments concerning Acts 4:8:

    A distinction should be made between this use of the aorist participle passive, denoting a special moment of inspiration, and the use of the adjective (“full”) to denote the abiding character of a Spirit-filled person (like Stephen in 6:5). (The Book of Acts (NICNT) [Eerdmans, 1988], 92. ↑

21. I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (TNTC) (Eerdmans, 1980, reprint, 1999), 100. ↑

22. The possibility that this promise of direct divine revelation extends beyond the Apostles is suggested by D. A. Carson who writes:

    This promise is neither a sop for lazy preachers nor equivalent to the promises given the Twelve in the farewell discourse (John 14-16) that the Spirit would recall to their memory all they had heard from Jesus (John 14:16, 26). It is a pledge to believers who have been brought before tribunals because of their witness. . . . The history of Christian martyrs is studded with examples of the fulfillment of this promise. (“Matthew” in the Expositors Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. CD-ROM (Zondervan, n.d.), Matt 10:19-20)

    However, martyrs past the first few centuries of Christianity have rarely even claimed divine revelation for their parting words. Nonetheless, the parallel promises found in Matthew 10:17-23 and Luke 21:13-14 suggest the possibility that this may have some future application in the Endtime. ↑

23. Excerpt from section 4.6.C.4. See here for arguments against the idea that the revelation being described here came through the type of divine/human mental telepathy that mega mystics claim. ↑

24. See F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians NICNT (Eerdmans, 1984), 309-10, 412; Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Eerdmans, 1999), 226, 487-88; and John Stott, The Message of Ephesians (Intervarsity, 1986), 114, 285. ↑

25. Regarding a biblical definition of a miracle see section 10.1.C. ↑

26. M. Blaine Smith, Knowing God’s Will: Finding Guidance for Personal Decisions (Intervarsity, 1991), 166-7.

    ↑

27. The uselessness of the kind of subjective authentication in the “testimony” is illustrated when Dr. Ramm writes:

    Because it is in the heart or spirit, it has been called a secret witness or an inner witness. It is common to all Christians but not to all men. It is inner and therefore not a datum available to psychologists or philosophers. There is a great objectivity here and at the same time a real subjectivity. All Christians have sympathetic rapport with those fellow Christians who have the same witness in their hearts. Yet this witness can in no sense be made a public object. Therefore most philosophers and psychologists will always suspect its integrity, which need cause Christians no concern. If it is true that only the pure in heart can see God, then there is nothing more to say except that spiritual realities must be spiritually discerned. (Witness, 52)

    It may be noticed that we start with the same kind of subjective claims concerning the superiority of the Christian faith in chapter 2.2 when we point out that we have experienced regeneration and no one following other faiths has. If we would have left it at that, our argument would have had the same subjective weakness as Dr. Ramm’s description of the “testimony.” However, we add to our subjective claims an attempt to prove them with the objective evidence of virtue apologetics in Book 5. Dr. Ramm seems to glory in the fact that he does not even attempt the same thing in his defense of the “testimony.” ↑

28. Excerpt from section 3.4.C.4. ↑