Chapter 14.4

Mega Mysticism & Divine Revelation

Table of Topics

A) Mega Mysticism Disparages the Authority of Scripture

B) Mega Mysticism Fails the Test of Superior Virtue

C) Mega Mysticism Ignores the God-given Place of Spirit-liberated Reason

D) Mega Mysticism Misunderstands Biblical Faith

E) Mega Mysticism Ignores the Authentication of Divine Revelation

F) Mega Mysticism Ignores the Progress in Divine Revelation

G) Mega Mysticism Ignores the Communal Nature of Divine Revelation

H) Mega Mysticism Disparages Legitimate Sources of Extra-biblical Revelation

H.1) Divine revelation through our New Nature

H.2) Divine revelation through spiritual gifts

H.3) Divine revelation through God-ordained authorities

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• Mega mystics simply cannot claim to hold to the historic, orthodox understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture.
• God’s will for our life is virtually confined to morality. Those who insist on how much extra-biblical revelation we need for the purely amoral decisions we make, don’t understand God.
• It is as if God is saying, “Needs that you see are a nudge from Me.” This is not some sort of mystical divine revelation, but rather, God has already communicated His specific will in such circumstances in Scripture, and we therefore have a great deal of direction for our lives in the repeated commands to love others. If we just love we will be doing essentially all of God’s will for our life in essentially every circumstance.
• Those who would make a case that the Holy Spirit may “prompt” us with specific thoughts or extra-biblical direction from God, must admit that such a position is essentially useless. This is because on this side of Heaven, we can rarely be sure of the source of our thoughts apart from Scripture. No matter how good or gripping a thought, idea, or desire may be, if there is not a particular verse of Scripture that would verify God as the source, we must always admit that it may only be simply our own human, and possibly mistaken thought. And if we cannot trust our thoughts beyond clear statements of Scripture then we are back to the fact that the only direction that can be fully trusted is the written Word of God, not our impulses or impressions. While mega mysticism claims a more personal relationship with God in extra-biblical matters, they lose something even more important: certainty in their relationship with God.
• While mega mysticism claims more direct revelation from God and intimacy with Him, their failure to exercise or prove more spiritual fruit or maturity in their lives exposes their fraud.
• Contrary to much in mega mysticism, God intends for us to use our brains to make good decisions.
• Most of the personal guidance of the Apostles came through reasoning, not revelation.
• A God of the senses and a God of faith are incompatible. We cannot see, hear, or touch the God we love, serve, adore, and would die for. And that is precisely how He wants it. . . for now.

Primary Points

Continued

• The reason that the best and clearest divine revelation we currently have is a Book, is because of the great value God places on faith.
• Mega mysticism is a rebellion against God’s desire for us to live by faith instead of sight.
• God’s intention is to always unmistakably authenticate divine revelation making it obvious to its intended recipients. This is contrary to the mega mystical idea that recognizing communication from God is rather difficult, requires practice, and can be missed.
• Mega mysticism promotes the idea that God desires to micromanage our lives like small children, giving us detailed, extrabiblical guidance about virtually every aspect of our life. It is children, both spiritually and physically speaking, that need to be told everything. Those with more maturity know what their Father wants. While mega mysticism suggests that it is the more mature Christian who will experience a continual “conversation” with God, we would respectfully suggest it may be a more immature Christian who would need one.
• Contrary to mega mysticism, the Master would rather have a community of His people be united under the direction of His ordained authorities. Doing almost any good thing in unity with others is much more God’s plan for us than individual, unique revelations.
• The divine revelation provided by the New Nature is a Person, not mere inspirations, impressions and impulses telling us to do things beyond what Scripture says. God has given us a, “new self created to be like God” (Eph 4:24), not an oracle to whom we can ask amoral extrabiblical questions about our present and future decisions. The divine revelation we possess through the New Nature comes to us as an incarnation within us, not an inspiration from outside of us.
• Spiritual gifts are usually the most specific divine revelation of God’s will for our life.

We have defined mega mysticism as: The belief that God is regularly revealing an extra-biblical will for our lives through mental telepathy, or our correct interpretation of circumstances. Such a doctrine obviously involves many different topics under the headings of epistemology (how do we know what we know?), divine revelation (how does God communicate to us?), and theology (what is the will of God?). Accordingly, addressing the topic of mega mysticism is a culmination of a great amount of what has been written in Knowing Our God (KOG) thus far.

In what follows we will provide excerpts from previous books of KOG that illustrate the unbiblical nature of mega mysticism. We have tried to be as brief here as possible, so a great deal of supporting Scripture, commentary, and quotes will be left out here, but can be read in the referenced sections.

A) Mega Mysticism Disparages the Authority of Scripture

It should be obvious to any unbiased observer that mega mysticism is an attack on the historical doctrine of the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. So much so that in chapter 14.9 we argue mega mysticism is sinning against God in this very way. ^[1] No mega mystic can claim on one hand that God is granting them extra-biblical revelation through directly planting extra-biblical thoughts in their head and still claim to agree with the Church’s historical understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture.

We have written a great deal elsewhere on the sufficiency and relevancy of Scripture in relation to mega mystical claims. ^[2] There are several ways to illustrate the sufficiency of Scripture in both biblical and practical ways. For example, it is very important to notice that in the Apostle Paul’s last letters, the Pastoral Epistles, he emphasizes that the spiritual health of the Church and the Christian depends on the protection and proclamation of the written Scriptures, not the use of other means of divine revelation thought to be so important today by particularly those subscribing to mega mysticism and prophetism. In fact, it must be admitted by all that by far the most prescribed method of life transformation in Scripture is the preaching of Scripture.

The sufficiency of Scripture is supported throughout Scripture itself. For example, Moses illustrated it in everyday life situations when he explained: “the people come to me to seek God’s will. Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and laws” (Exod 18:15-16). Even the great Prophet believed that “God’s decrees and laws” which are available to us all, were sufficient to find “God’s will” and reconcile “a dispute.”

Likewise, there are the famous words to Joshua:

Be careful to obey all the law My servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful. (Josh 1:7-8)

God’s advice to Joshua in order to be “prosperous and successful” in all the incredible challenges facing him was to “obey,” recite, and “meditate” on written Scripture.

The sufficiency of Scripture is illustrated by God’s repeated command to “not add to it or take away from it” (Deut 12:32; cf. Rev 22:18-19). The reason being that nothing as authoritative as Scripture can be added to Scripture, nor is there anything that needs to be added because it is all God intended to say.

Practically speaking, we can understand why Scripture is so sufficient. Whatever is not addressed in some way by the commands, examples, principles, and Proverbs of Scripture, may very well be one of those issues that God really would not have an opinion on, apart from what He has already said in the Bible. This fact points to another reason that the biblical revelation to love is so sufficient for the direction of the Christian: God’s will for our life is virtually confined to morality. ^[3] Those who insist on how much extra-biblical revelation we need for the purely amoral decisions we make, don’t understand God. And it is this very view of God’s will for our life that leads mega mysticism to claim we need more revelation directly from God than what Scripture tells us.

The commands, examples, and principles of Scripture give us an abundance of objective and dependable guidance from God for life’s decisions. The Psalmist proclaims: “Your [written] word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path” (Ps 119:105, cf. Prov 6:23). Accordingly, we are given an abundance of divine guidance for our life when we read, “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified” (1 Thess 4:3). Because God’s will for our life is essentially moral in nature, such a statement could be said to communicate God’s whole will for the Christian’s life. ^[4]

Likewise, the Apostle writes to the Philippians, “This is my prayer, that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern [reason] what is best” (Phil 1:9-10). The Apostle makes it clear that if one simply follows the divine revelation to love, that they will “be able to discern what is best,” evidently in virtually any situation, apparently being enabled to “be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness,” resulting in “the glory and praise of God.” How many decisions in life become crystal clear when we make love for God and people the priority? The knowledge of this one command to love, is closer to being all of the divine revelation we need than many people think.

The reason that the greatest commandments are to love God and people is not only because they are the most important revelation from God, but also the most comprehensive, because, “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matt 22:40). Do these, and hardly any other divine revelation is needed in order to live for God.

And the King’s “Golden Rule” is extremely helpful as well, when we understand that God’s will in a particular situation can be as simple as remembering that, “in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matt 7:12).

Accordingly, any Christian who finds themselves in the place of the Good Samaritan does not need a miraculous revelation from Heaven to know for certain it is God’s will to help someone in need (cf. Luke 10:30-37). Along these lines, the Apostle writes, “as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal 6:10). Likewise, our Lord said, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me (Matt 25:40).

It is as if God is saying, “Needs that you see are a nudge from Me.” This is not some sort of mystical divine revelation, but rather, God has already communicated His specific will in such circumstances in Scripture, and we therefore have a great deal of direction for our lives in the repeated commands to love others. If we just love we will be doing essentially all of God’s will for our life in essentially every circumstance. It is the sufficiency of love to please God that is one reason Scripture is such a sufficient revelation of His will.

Therefore, we would claim that biblical commands, always resonating with our Spirit-indwelled New Nature, give us all the divine revelation we need. As a result, we are left with asking the question, “How many decisions in our life would we claim the Scriptures are insufficient for, in terms of knowing what would be pleasing to God?” Again, God’s will for our life is virtually confined to moral issues. Those who insist on how much extra-biblical revelation we need for the purely amoral decisions we make, don’t understand God. If we apply the general moral direction of Scripture to decisions such as what job, house, church, or spouse to choose, then it is impossible to miss God’s will in such decisions, and reason and personal preferences become much more important than some additional “signs,” or impulses supposedly from God providing us with extra-biblical amoral revelation. ^[5]

All of this would seem to expose the folly of the many who claim that God “spoke” to them apart from Scripture to do this or that good deed. God does not need to give an additional, immediate revelation of such direction, because Scripture has already told us to love God and others. More importantly, as we demonstrate elsewhere, there is no biblical support at all for claims to such a “conversational” relationship with God apart from hearing God in the written text of Scripture. ^[6]

So it is clear that when God provided the Scriptures, He intended to give us a dependable, complete, and objective body of truth that would communicate everything that He wanted to say to His people. Therefore, all the objective, clear, and dependable means of guidance offered through the Scriptures, diminishes (if not completely abolishes) the need for any of the subjective, obscure, questionable, and might we say, quite inferior means of guidance that are promoted among many in the Church today.

We could wish that the divinely designed process for either physical or spiritual nourishment were more direct. Imagine a world in which all we needed to do was point our face heavenward, open our mouths, and catch a few power-packed raindrops once in awhile to sustain us. Fascinating idea, and God could have certainly designed things that way, but aren’t we glad we get to eat fruit, steak, pasta, and pizza (notice vegetables are not mentioned), regardless of the extra cost and effort involved.

Likewise, we could wish that God’s very own voice could be directly and constantly available to our very own ears, just like “The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend” (Exod 33:11). Another fascinating idea, and one which a few humans have experienced and that all of God’s people are destined to experience when, “we shall see Him just as He is” (1 John 3:2) and, “the dwelling of God [will be] with men, and He will live with them” (Rev 21:3).

And indeed, even in the physical realm, God has at times chosen to sustain His people apart from His normal means through falling manna and quail (cf. Exod 16:13ff), food bearing ravens (cf. 1 Kgs 17:6), reproducing oil and flour (cf. 1 Kgs 17:16), and multiplying fish and bread (cf. Matt 14:17ff). And while admittedly God is free to physically sustain someone through such extraordinary means today, we recognize that such extraordinary events occurred at extraordinary times to a few very extraordinary people. We too might expect the same exceptional sustenance if we were chosen by God to fulfill the same uncommon, once-for-all-time ministries of ones like Moses, Elijah, and Christ.

However, the vast majority of people have not been able to claim such God-ordained purposes, and therefore their expectation, and God’s own design, has been to feed them through what we might unfortunately consider the more mundane means of dirt, water, seed and someone’s sweat.

In the same way, while God is certainly free to speak to us by any method, our expectation, and God’s own design, is to speak to us through the the written word of God. While there will always be some people who claim that God speaks consistently to them in a more direct way than the rest of us, the rest of us are more willing to recognize our own great vulnerability to self-deception, let alone the demonic kind, and we are thankful and more than satisfied with the sure written word God has given us.

Recognizing that the earliest Scripture was written some 3500 years ago, and that even the newest portions are almost 2000 years old, it is understandable why some might be tempted to suggest that its contents are too old and stagnant to be the best means of divine revelation available today. For example, we have already noted the statement of the popular charismatic author Jack Deere who has said: “In order to fulfill God’s highest purpose for our lives we must be able to hear His voice both in the written word and in the Word freshly spoken from heaven.” ^[7] It is those who claim we need “fresh words from God” that particularly attack the relevancy of Scripture and therefore its authority and sufficiency in our lives.

And yet we notice that even ones such as Christ and Paul who, although uniquely and authentically possessed other means of divine revelation, (even new revelation!), are often (about 75 times!) recorded as referring to what “is written.” Even for them, the Scriptures were still several hundred years old, and yet it held a primary place in their lives and it should all the more for us.

The primary reason that Scripture remains so relevant is the same reason it is so sufficient: God’s revealed will only includes moral matters and Scripture contains commandments to love and live holy. Therefore, the words of the King and Apostles recorded in Scripture remain just as relevant today as when they were spoken.

Accordingly, NT scholar James White speaks to this issue when he writes:

Someone conceivably could suggest that changing times have made it necessary for God to give new revelation, but the Scriptures teach that God is eternal and has infallible knowledge of the future; He surely knew every situation the church would face when He inspired the Scriptures long ago. Are we to believe that He is incapable of giving a revelation that would be sufficient throughout the church age? . . . . [W]hile our technology may be far ahead of our ancestors’, our hearts and minds are the same. We remain the fallen sons and daughters of Adam, with the same needs and desires. ^[8]

Those who would make a case that the Holy Spirit may “prompt” us with specific thoughts or extra-biblical direction from God, must admit that such a position is essentially useless. This is because on this side of Heaven, we can rarely be sure of the source of our thoughts apart from Scripture. No matter how good or gripping a thought, idea, or desire may be, if there is not a particular verse of Scripture that would verify God as the source, we must always admit that it may only be simply our own human, and possibly mistaken thought. And if we cannot trust our thoughts beyond clear statements of Scripture then we are back to the fact that the only direction that can be fully trusted is the written Word of God, not our impulses or impressions. While mega mysticism claims a more personal relationship with God in extra-biblical matters, they lose something even more important: certainty in their relationship with God.

Promoters of mega mysticism would seem to have a difficult time explaining why we would even need Scripture if direct extra-biblical revelation from God is readily available. ^[9]

Likewise, many in the Church today, particularly those adhering to mega mysticism, simply cannot claim to hold to the historic understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture. ^[10]

In perhaps the most popular systematic theology of our day (Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology), we are told that God will speak to us through “promptings in our hearts” if we wait and listen for Him, and that such a practice is what thinking Christians need “most” if they are to have “a more vital . . . relationship with the Lord.” For Dr. Grudem, Spirit-liberated reason applied to Scripture by a Spirit-filled believer with the New Nature is not enough, and we are to look for the continuing revelations that God is granting, apparently “everyday.” It is difficult to interpret Dr. Grudem in any other way than that he advocates “balancing” the “objective” written word of God with our own “subjective” extra-biblical thoughts.

We confess that there seems to be a great contradiction in Dr. Grudem’s understanding of personal divine revelation from God and we are at a loss as to how he and other mega mystical teachers fail to see it. Again, even this fine theologian is unable to avoid the automatic contradictions in promoting the sufficiency of Scripture on one hand, and the importance of subjective “promptings from God” on the other. We would wish for an honest admission by mega mystical teachers that they cannot simultaneously promote the Church’s orthodox and historical position on the sufficiency of Scripture and the modern, popular doctrines and practices of mega mysticism. It is simply insincere and deceptive to give the impression that they are championing both.

Unfortunately, while mega mysticism is rather forced to publicly support the historic view of the sufficiency of Scripture in order to be accepted by orthodox Christians, many of its members do not practice it. In spite of warnings even from within, extra-biblical “revelations” are commonly and rather automatically considered to be divine revelation. What else would leaders of mega mysticism expect from their doctrines? If a “subjective” prompting truly is intended to be a direct communication “from God,” as Dr. Grudem claims, then why wouldn’t people expect it to possess Scripture-like authority?

B) Mega Mysticism Fails the Test of Superior Virtue

Let us pause for a moment and notice that mega mystical Christians are claiming to experience more direct divine revelation from God and intimacy with Him than other Christians who do not believe or practice their claims. In other words, the claim it that mega mysticism provides a closer relationship with God. Is this true?

Perhaps the best way to determine this is by the test of virtue that we write extensively about in Book 5: Biblical Apologetics. In other words, it is practically certain that anyone really experiencing more personal direct revelation from God, more specific divine guidance for their life, and more intimacy with God, would have more spiritual fruit and maturity in their lives. Unfortunately for mega mystics, they do not have, nor can they prove, any such thing. In fact, in the author’s experience, more mega mystical Christians are typically less spiritually mature because they live so much according to their feelings.

While the God-ordained test of supernatural virtue allows us to biblically evaluate the authentic Christianity of ourselves, others, and churches, it does the same in regards to movements. For example, the central claim of mega mysticism is that they are experiencing the Holy Spirit of God to a greater degree than other Christians. The test of virtue clearly helps us discern whether or not this is true because any work of the Holy Spirit will be evidenced by the fruits of the Spirit. Are mega mystical Christians in general significantly more loving, patient, humble, sacrificial, and holy than other Christians? Obviously not, and therefore mega mysticism has no biblical ground to claim that they are experiencing the Holy Spirit more than others. ^[11]

C) Mega Mysticism Ignores the God-given Place of Spirit-liberated Reason

Contrary to much in mega mysticism, God intends for us to use our brains to make good decisions. But this is not spiritual enough for mega mystics. Nonetheless, throughout KOG we have demonstrated the God-ordained primacy of a Christian’s reasoning faculties.

In Book 2: Biblical Philosophy we specifically address this in chapter 2.4. In view of the biblical perspective on our reason, it is both ironic and unfortunate to note the contemporary and consistent slander against it in the Church today. While thinking is often thought to be unspiritual, God deems it as one of the most valuable potential virtues. Despite the fact that God gave us reason, His people are constantly encouraged in much of contemporary Christianity to distrust it or neglect it. We are in great need of being reminded that everything God does to or through us He does to or through our reason. It is because logical and reasonable thinking is so much a part of God, that being illogical and rejecting reason is so much a part of the devil. Accordingly, disparaging the place of a Christian’s reasoning faculties is demonic. ^[12]

For further on the disparagement of the God-ordained place of Spirit-liberated reason see section 14.9.D.

In Book 3: Biblical Authority, we explain further how the Christian’s reason acts as our God-ordained final subjective authority deciding everything about our life including our interpretation of Scripture and whether or not we will believe or obey it. ^[13] This is essentially the Protestant Reformation doctrine of the right and responsibility of private judgment. For example, we describe the God-ordained place of our conscience in God-pleasing decision making, something again, that does not seem spiritual enough for mega mystics. ^[14]

Likewise, and contrary to mega mysticism, we do not need some sort of additional revelatory experience in order to understand Scripture. ^[15] The Scriptures are already the revelation of the Spirit and we do not need another revelation of the Spirit to properly understand and apply this revelation. Scripture is not in some secret divine code for which we need supernatural “illumination” in order to decipher it. The Spirit revealed Scripture, and now it requires the diligent use of our Spirit-liberated reason to fully understand that revelation and to apply it. While a reference to an “illumination of the Spirit” certainly sounds more spiritual, it is an unnecessary misunderstanding of something that actually occurs more naturally for the born again Christian. ^[16]

What is commonly ignored on the issue of interpreting and applying Scripture is the God-given and God-glorifying capability and creativity of our Spirit-liberated reason. Our minds are well aware of our current emotional/spiritual needs and personal circumstances, and it is not unspiritual to point out that our Spirit-liberated reason is able to make encouraging, insightful, and mind/heart transforming connections between those needs and circumstances, and what we read in Scripture or hear in a sermon. Who would really doubt that the Christian’s mind would be perfectly capable of doing this without needing additional revelation from the Spirit? We do the exact same thing constantly and correctly in all sorts of ways in every day life. ^[17]

In Book 4: Biblical Psychology, we defend specifically the place of the Christian’s reason in decision making: 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.

[T]he 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. [R]ight reasoning is the most important God-ordained means for making decisions for which Scripture does not give us any specific directions.

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. Along these lines, we should remember the high praise that wisdom receives in Scripture.

Most of the personal guidance of the Apostles was accomplished through reasoning, not revelation. 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. ^[18] The Holy Spirit’s primary function is morally 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. ^[19]

D) Mega Mysticism Misunderstands Biblical Faith

In Book 6: Biblical Faith, we write a great deal that applies to mega mysticism including the fact that: we are to live by the dictates of reason & love unless there is a revelation otherwise. This statement is a very important point that will bear repeating throughout KOG and which corrects a great deal of error in American Christianity concerning faith, reason, and revelation. As demonstrated elsewhere, God gave us reason in order to keep us from doing foolish things. And the only time He would want us to act apart from human reason is if He gives us a revelation, authenticated by our reason, to do otherwise. ^[20]

Unfortunately, often times Christians attempt to cover up their foolishness by calling it faith. In reality they had no divine revelation to obey, and they did not use the reasoning faculties God gave us to make wise decisions that go beyond what Scripture tells us.

Far too many Christians talk, believe, and act as if doing foolish things is exhibiting great faith in God. What they leave out is the fact that God has not appeared to them and told them to do what they are doing like he did to all biblical characters who appeared to act against reason.

Obeying the commands, and believing the promises of God in Scripture is faith, not simply pursuing our own fancies and impulses. And if we do not have a sure and specific divine revelation from God, then He expects us to act according to the command to love everyone, and the wisdom of our reason.

God wants our faith to be in His Word, not our “idle notions” from an “unspiritual mind” which “puffs” us “up” (Col 2:18). When we understand that the only foundation for biblical faith is a concrete revelation from God, it should be obvious that it was never intended to be some foolish “leap in the dark” based on some humanly trumped up confidence by which we assume God is going to do this or that. It is not such wishful thinking that pleases God, but a faith in the doctrines, promises, and commands He has actually revealed. ^[21]

Living by faith in our relationship with God essentially means that God does not directly reveal Himself to our physical senses. We do not see Him, hear Him, nor can touch Him. The reason that the best and clearest divine revelation we currently have is a Book, is because of the great value God places on faith.

The fact is, God is not as real to us as we would like Him to be. Not even to the most spiritual and godly Christians. This is because faith is never as real as sight. Do we doubt for a moment that God was more real to Adam, Moses, and Isaiah than He is to us? And He was more real to them for the simple reason that they saw something of His Person with their human senses that very few of God’s people have throughout the Church Age.

It is natural to envy such men, and unfortunately the parade of people today claiming to have seen or heard God as well does not help. Let us admit it. We despise living by faith instead of by sight. We yearn to pierce the veil that God Himself has established between us and Him and interact with Him as we are accustomed to interacting with humans. This is why contemporary Christian music is full of songs that ask God to let us see, hear, and even touch Him. Indeed, we envy the Prophets and Apostles who have, and chafe under the obligation that in this life, “we live by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7).

It is natural for us as humans to desire the intimacy we had with God in the Garden. Adam and Eve did not need to live by faith, but could live by sight and sound. But that was lost. This is now the Age of Faith in which we do not see or hear God. And in the mean time He has given us His Book and prayer. But the Day is coming when the Age of Faith will be over and we will go back to the Garden, experiencing God as we do any other person. But that time is not now.

It is only when we understand how much God is pleased with faith, that we can begin to embrace it. While the time will come when faith will not exist, in this age “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6). It is only now that we have an opportunity to live by faith. Not even Angels or demons live by faith. Only we have the awesome opportunity and privilege to live by faith and not by sight, hearing, or touch in our relationship with God. While we might envy the very few in human history who have seen or heard more of God’s Person than we, we are reminded that Christ told such people, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). ^[22]

A God of the senses and a God of faith are incompatible. We cannot see, hear, or touch the God we love, serve, adore, and would die for. And that is precisely how He wants it. . . for now. . . . Therefore, God Himself will rarely, if ever, reveal Himself personally in a voice, vision, etc. . . .

The promotion of mega mysticism (i.e. God is constantly prompting us with direction), super-supernaturalism (i.e. the miraculous should be normal), and charismaticism in the Church today is in danger of being a rebellion against God’s desire for us to live by faith instead of sight. The mantra within these theological camps is to live by sight or feeling or circumstances, not by faith. This is why emotional impressions and impulses, dreams, and mere coincidences or natural occurrences are quickly interpreted as the direct inspiration or hand of God, because it makes God seem more real. The popular charismatic author Jack Deere is quite typical of this perspective when he says:

[T]here is something very wrong in our relationship with God when we do not see, hear, and feel from him, and yet leave our “time with him” feeling satisfied. . . . In order to fulfill God’s highest purpose for our lives we must be able to hear His voice both in the written word and in the Word freshly spoken from heaven [which would be what?]. ^[23]

On the contrary, there would be “something very wrong in our relationship with God” if we did “see, hear, and feel” Him in the Age of Faith we live in. That is not the stuff that God-pleasing faith is made of. We would forfeit the one brief, exclusive opportunity we have to live by faith now. For all the great “faith” claimed in these movements, their doctrine and practice encourages us to experience God with our senses, the very opposite of faith. Consequently, they, and those who would follow them, are in danger of being among those who have the least faith.

What did the Apostle say? “Though you have not seen Him, you love Him; and even though you do not see Him now, you believe in Him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy” (1 Pet 1:8). The Apostle seems squarely at odds with the mega mysticism, super-supernaturalism, and charismaticism of our day, and it is time for God’s people to decide if they will seek the God of the senses through visions, voices, miracles, impulses, and mere feelings, or the God of faith.

Our mega mystical, super-supernatural, and charismatic brothers and sisters need to be reminded that when, “the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to Him [Jesus], “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from You.” He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign!” ^[24] And yet Christians are commonly encouraged to seek a “miraculous sign” of God’s love, working, or guidance.

God decides what we need to see, hear, and feel in order to have the necessary evidence to believe what He wants us to believe, and therefore, many in the Church today need to be a lot more content with the revelation He has already provided. Isn’t “faith . . . being certain of what we do not see” (Heb. 11:1)? And isn’t this the faith that without which “it is impossible to please God” (v. 6)? In this day where experience is exalted over faith we need to be reminded that God likes it when we see, hear, and feel nothing, but still believe, trust, obey, and adore Him.

We naturally are like “some Greeks” who told the Apostle Philip, “we would like to see Jesus” (John 12:21)! But we will not simply ignore the fact that there are no biblical promises or normative precedent for such a thing, that it has not been the experience of the vast majority of the most spiritual, godly, and influential Christians throughout Church history, that such unverifiable claims are open to a great deal of self-presumption, that those who claim such things are no more holy, loving, or fruitful than those who do not, that Scripture and our New Nature are very sufficient means of divine revelation, and we are not in Heaven yet!

As another writer has put it, “This road of our earthly pilgrimage is headed for a reunion [and revelation] that cannot be rushed.” ^[25] All of these things are constantly ignored by the unbiblical revelatory isms in our day.

Here we are reminded of something Alexander Mackie wrote many years ago in the conclusion of his study on claims to miraculous events and communication throughout Church history:

Men are eager for the supernatural. The ordinary way of morality as a school for spiritual development is often irksome. The bringing in of the Kingdom of God through patient toil is not an undertaking which commends itself to many minds. Cataclysmic religion is far more interesting. Voices, visions, and miracles are a much more simple and attractive method of solving the problems of life than is to be found along the bare and sometimes unattractive path of duty. The lure of the presence of the supernatural is a will-o’-the-wisp that many minds follow gladly, never stopping to investigate claims or pretensions as to the reality of the supernatural. ^[26]

As for us, we will “live by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7) because this is what God wants, this is our only opportunity to do so, we are the only beings that can do so, it puts a smile on the King’s face, and it makes us anticipate all the more that Day when we will see Him smiling at us with our own eyes. ^[27]

We would add here that a dependence on finding an extra-biblical word from God for extra-biblical issues reveals a lack of trust in the character of God. If we simply believed in His promises to be good to us and provide for us, a fear of our future or decision-making that prompts divination and mega mysticism would turn to peace. If Scripture promises, “that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose,” how much do we really need to know some extra-biblical will?

E) Mega Mysticism Ignores the Authentication of Divine Revelation

Elsewhere in KOG we have demonstrated God’s intention to always unmistakably authenticate divine revelation making it obvious to its intended recipients. This is contrary to the mega mystical idea that recognizing communication from God is rather difficult, requires practice, and can be missed. Fortunately, mega mystics are wrong on this point.

Because of our obvious inability to recognize supernatural revelation without supernatural authentication, God always accompanies divine revelation with divine authentication when He desires the revelation to be recognized as such. Accordingly, when ones like Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the Apostle Paul received direct divine revelation from God, they knew for certain the source was divine because it was always divinely authenticated to them as such.

How else could Moses and the Levites know that God wanted them to “strap a sword” to their side and “Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor” which was “about three thousand of the people” (cf. Exod 32:25-29)? Likewise, without divine authentication of some kind to the Prophet Hosea, how could he know that God told him to marry “an adulterous wife” (Hos 1:2-3), something that would have been otherwise sinful? ^[28] The same is true of the divine revelation that Abraham received to murder his son (cf. Gen 22). Without some kind of divine authentication of such divine revelations, the actions of such men would rightly be considered perverted and insane, instead of obedience and faith. ^[29]

Here, we can again briefly address the claims of mega mysticism. Mega mysticism includes the belief that God is leading and guiding us on a rather continual basis on extra biblical matters through divinely inspired impressions and impulses. Typically in mega mysticism this divine revelation is said to occur rather directly through a kind of divine/human mental telepathy which plants divine thoughts directly into the human mind. While super-supernaturalism over-emphasizes the need, expectation, and occurrence of miraculous deeds from God, mega mysticism does the same with miraculous communication from God, and likewise ignores the need for divine authentication for their claims. Unfortunately, such mega mysticism exaggerates not only our need for such extrabiblical divine revelation, but also leaves us constantly unsure if God truly is providing it because divine authentication in such matters is not taken seriously enough.

While we discuss the many practical and biblical problems with mega mysticism elsewhere, we will briefly note here again why God always spoke through obviously miraculous and unmistakable ways in the Bible. It is because it is sin to disbelieve or 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 the nature of subjective impulses or “trial by error” experience as mega mystics suggest. Rather, biblical characters always knew for certain God was speaking to them because they relied on either Scripture or other miraculously authenticated, unmistakable means, not some subjective “inner voice.”

It is vitally important to distinguish our own extra-biblical thoughts from divine revelation because if we think those thoughts are actually God’s thoughts, then we will give them a weight and authority they do not deserve, leading to great error and harm. ^[30]

F) Mega Mysticism Ignores the Progress in Divine Revelation

The Old and New Covenants, and the divine revelation contained in them, reveal a progression of how God desires to interact with His people, treating those in the former primarily as beloved, but immature children, and those in the latter more like empowered adults. ^[31]

Accordingly, one of the most striking differences between the OT and the NT is how God micromanaged the lives of His people in the former. In the OT God told His people what food to eat, how to eat it, and even how to prepare it (cf. Lev 11:1-12; Exod 12:8-11, 15). Accordingly, you could eat beef, but it was sin against God to eat rabbit or camel meat, or to cook a young goat in its mother’s milk (cf. Lev 11:4, 6; Exod 23:19). God instructed them on what to wear, prohibiting them from clothes made from two different kinds of fabric, and insisting that everybody’s clothing had tassels attached to its four corners (cf. Lev 19:19; Deut 22:12).

God also told them when to wash their clothes (cf. Exod 19:10; Lev 11:24) and bodies (Lev 5:15). God told them when and how to celebrate holidays (cf. Exod 23:14-17). He dictated what tribes were to own what land and it was not up to the Israelites to even decide the order they would march out of camp, but God gave detailed instructions on this as well (cf. Deut 3:12; Num 2). God told the Israelites when to travel, how far to go, and when and where to stop (cf. Num 19:17-23). God told them exactly what and how much they were to give Him at the temple (cf. Lev 12:6-8).

It was sin against God to touch a dead animal or human excrement (cf. Lev 5:2-3). God required all houses to be built with a parapet on the roof (cf. Deut 22:8). God even prescribed how His people were to cut their hair and trim their beards (cf. Lev 19:27). And we haven’t even touched on the many chapters of intricate laws concerning the temple, sacrifices, and the priesthood. As Martin Luther wrote in his introduction to the Old Testament: “It is to be observed, in the first place, that Moses provides so exactly for the organization of the people under laws as to leave human reason no room to choose a single work of its own.” ^[32]

However, with the inauguration of the New Covenant, the quantity of specific divine commands decreased drastically. We are no longer under the law of Moses, but of Christ (cf. Rom 6:14-15; 7:1-6; 1 Cor 9:21; Gal 3:10-13, 24-25; 5:18; 6:2;). Accordingly, while the Law of Moses included hundreds of specific instructions, the Law of Christ can essentially be summed up in the command to love God and others (cf. Matt 7:12; Gal 6:2; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 9:21).

Accordingly, the vast majority of OT laws have no authority over us. Even one of the Ten Commandments (the Sabbath) has been rescinded as a law for the Christian (cf. Col 3:16-17; cf. Rom 14:5-6).

Rather than minutely dictating direction for virtually every aspect of our life as a loving father would do for his little child, God now interacts with His people as empowered adults, indwelled with His Holy Spirit. This indwelling is manifested in our New Nature, which is, “the new [moral] self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:24), and in essence “pre-programmed” with the will of God because it is God. ^[33]

The transition from spiritual childhood to adulthood in the covenants is also reflected in the increased emphasis on conscience in the NT.

Accordingly, it was not a steady stream of extrabiblical divine inspirations being made to us that the Apostle Paul was referring to when he wrote of being, “led by the Spirit,” (cf. Rom 8:12-14; Gal 5:16-18), but rather he was describing the “pre-programmed” moral New Nature in us. Instead of specifics, God has decided to simplify all of His will into the basic command to love God and people in whatever you do (cf. Matt 22:37-40). This is the Law of Christ that we are now under (cf. Gal 6:2). Accordingly, the King said, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 7:12). Is it possible that the reason both the King and the Apostle Paul viewed the OT law as such an oppressive burden was not only because of its unattainable requirements, but its excessive specificity?

While God would appear to desire to move from detailed commands to more general ones, mega mysticism, in particular, promotes the opposite because it encourages the idea that God’s will is much more specific than the general commands recorded in Scripture and that we need extrabiblical revelation in order to know this will. In other words, instead of allowing the decrease of specific commands and increase in freedom that God intended for the New Covenant, mega mysticism exponentially adds to the commands, and decreases our freedom, suggesting that God has a specific will for virtually every area of our life like OT times. It encourages us to enter again a covenant of spiritual childhood, rather than one of adulthood in which our Father has given us general instruction on what He wants and expects us to use the decision-making tools He has given us to make “the most of every opportunity” (Eph 5:16). And as addressed elsewhere, God, like any good Father, often wants us to simply follow the free will desires of our own heart if they are not sinful or otherwise foolish. ^[34]

[M]ega mysticism promotes the idea that God desires to micromanage our lives like small children, giving us detailed, extrabiblical guidance about virtually every aspect of our life. It is children, both spiritually and physically speaking, that need to be told everything. Those with more maturity know what their Father wants. While mega mysticism suggests that it is the more mature Christian who will experience a continual “conversation” with God, we would respectfully suggest it may be a more immature Christian who would need one.

The mega mystics who claim they are especially spiritual because God is continually telling them what to do, need to take note of the progress of directional revelation. The Father’s OT people were spiritual toddlers, needing God to dictate detailed direction for virtually every aspect of their life. However, because we possess the “last will and testament” of our Father in Scripture, and God’s entire will is moral in nature, and the indwelling Spirit in the New Nature instinctively knows that moral will, NT believers are spiritual adults and the Father treats them as such. He essentially tells us to live in the Spirit, exercising His fruits, love others, and use our Spirit-liberated reason to make decisions. ^[35] Who would argue that the divine micromanaging way of life in the OT is more spiritual? Only the mega mystic.

An apparent lack of value for the covenant of spiritual adulthood we live in would seem to also be reflected by Dr. Gordon T. Smith, Dean of Regent College, when he writes:

While I am sympathetic in many ways to the wisdom approach to guidance [which emphasizes the importance of Scripture, the new moral nature, reason, conscience, and freedom in decision making] and grant that we have much to learn from this perspective about what it means to grow in wisdom and exercise wisdom with sanctified minds before God, certain questions must be asked. I have reservations about the conclusions of the wisdom school.

First, I doubt that God is so removed from our life situations. The wisdom approach has been called a practical deism: God sets us on our way, gives us a Bible by which to live and then wishes us bon voyage, leaving us on our own. Klaus Bockmuehl has made an apt observation: as Christians we must deny the principle of self rule, even when that rule is carried out in accordance with Scripture. Christ himself clearly lived by the Spirit in submission to the Father-a relationship that was intimate and dynamic. ^[36]

Several responses are in order. First, what Dr. Smith gives the rather derogatory label of “practical deism,” we would refer to as the relationship between a father and his mature son, and what is meant by the historical perspective on the great sufficiency of Scripture. Call it deism if you want, but it is God’s way of ruling His people on Earth. While many Christians assume that God intends to constantly and supernaturally interject direct guidance to them, God is much more apt to implement more consistent, reliable means to govern His people.

For example, He initially and miraculously set all of Creation in motion, giving it what it needed to thrive, purposely making miraculous interventions usually unnecessary. The fact that God does not constantly and personally intervene in the created order does not mean that He cares less for it. On the contrary, He took exceptional pains at the outset to provide Creation with all the laws and power it would need to fulfill its purpose. Such is the same with the divine guidance of our lives. God has provided Scripture to teach us how to live, and a New Nature to live by. He has also given us a Spirit-liberated mind to think wisely, and the freedom to have personal desires.

Secondly, Dr. Smith’s definition of “self rule” as a life lived in obedience to Scripture, but apparently lacking continual, miraculous guidance, is a rather strong statement. Not only does it seem absurd, but it completely ignores the fact that people who claim to be living by direct, private inspiration from God are commonly the best examples of a presumptuous and human-centered “self rule” themselves.

Also, is there a sense of maturity reflected in a proper idea of “self-rule”? If God truly desires to treat us more like adults than little children, then He is content to give us the general outline of what He wants in Scripture, and have us decide the specifics which He rarely cares about anyway. ^[37]

Finally, as we argue elsewhere under the title, “Let Us Dare Not Compare Ourselves with God the Son,” it is neither reasonable, biblical, nor humble, to think that the way in which God on Earth interacted with God in Heaven is what we are to expect or imitate ourselves. ^[38]

G) Mega Mysticism Ignores the Communal Nature of Divine Revelation ^[39]

It is important in our day to notice that the progression of divine revelation from Christ, Prophets and Apostles, to Scripture, is also a progression from God speaking to individuals privately, to dealing with people in community. In fact, the revelatory history of both the OT and NT reflect this general pattern. In the OT we encounter personal revelation from God through theophanies ^[40] experienced by individuals such as Adam, Noah, and Abraham. These revelations were primarily for the sake of the individuals, because God’s covenants at this time were initially confined primarily to individuals.

However, when God’s plan of redemption expanded to a covenant with a nation, God changed His means of covenant revelation from “private” personal encounters to “public” revelations through Prophets, starting with Moses. Accordingly, we read in Hebrews, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the Prophets at many times and in various ways” (1:1). The author does not mention some kind of personal, private revelation to the people, but rather reflects the fact that revelation was through a chosen intermediary. While the Prophets themselves experienced direct, divine revelation, the people in general did not. However, the reason for the Prophet’s divine encounters was for the sake of the people, passing on to them what God had told the Prophet. And the Prophet was to complete the covenant process by ensuring that the covenant revelation he had received privately was recorded publicly.

Often charismatic and mega mystical teachers attempt to describe God’s use of Prophets such as Moses to communicate with His people as a divine mistake or judgment on the people. K. Jentoft notes the error of a popular mega mystical writer, Mark Virkler:

The scripture verse Virkler quotes on the cover of his book Hearing God’s Voice, is “We have heard His voice . . . We have seen this day that God speaks to man.” In fact, the passage in Deut. 5:24-8 [refers to] objective [revelation- not the mystical kind Virkler promotes]. . . .

Virkler’s comment on this passage is:

They didn’t expect that the voice of God would come with the fire of God, and they decided they would rather not have a relationship with Him if He was going to be that way! Instead they chose to send Moses to God as their representative, to let him have the relationship and find out what God wanted them to do.

Virkler’s book claims that the people decided against having a relationship with God when they requested that Moses be the mediator. How could God say, “They have done well in all that they have spoken,” [Deut 5:28] if they were rejecting God as Virkler claims? Obviously God was pleased because He desired to speak to His people through a man as a mediator, and the first official mediator was Moses. ^[41]

Also, in addition to Scripture, God raised up Teachers after Prophets in order to further communicate the written word publicly to the people. Thus, in the OT we see a transition from individuals like Noah, to Prophets like Moses, to Teachers like the Levites and Ezra (cf. Ezra 7:10; Neh 8:7-8), all illustrating a progression in divine revelation from a private, individualistic focus and purpose to a public and communal one.

The same is true of NT revelatory history. We no longer have Apostles and Prophets proclaiming direct divine revelation from God to the people. Rather, we have the record of these revelations and therefore their ministries have ceased, and the ministry of an Apostle like Paul and a Prophet like Agabus was replaced by a Teacher like Timothy (cf. 1 Cor 12:28).

Accordingly, the Apostle directs in his last recorded piece of divine revelation to Timothy: “the things [revealed to me by divine revelation and which] you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Tim 2:1-2). The Apostle did not expect Timothy to receive direct, divine revelation for the Church, let alone for himself, but the Apostle constantly pointed him to the written revelation Timothy was to teach from (cf. 1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 3:15-4:2). . . .

Therefore, individualized private divine revelation for merely personal purposes is the exception, rather than the norm in biblical religion. Likewise, from God’s perspective, the pinnacle of divine revelation in the Church age is not the mystical kind directed privately to the individual for their own personal use, but the divine revelation that is directed to and for the community of His people.

This is something we would ask our more mystical brothers and sisters to consider more carefully. It is natural to yearn for personal, private, individualized communication from God, especially if we view this as an important way in which God must demonstrate His love for us. The thought is that surely a God Who cares for us and wants a relationship with us would prioritize personal, individual contact with us. However, God didn’t even communicate the Gospel to us directly, which is the most valuable, vital, and personal revelation imaginable.

Of course there are some very attractive aspects of mega mysticism, but it is in danger of making our pre-Heaven relationship with God what we want it to be, rather than what it is supposed to be by God’s own current design. The revelatory experiences of Christ, Prophets, and Apostles were not intended to tell us how God will interact with us, but rather, to teach us that in Scripture we communally have a direct, divine revelation.

While mega mystics are searching for a private, individualized, divine inspiration of God’s will, the Master would rather have a community of His people be united under the biblical, moral, and common sense direction of His ordained authorities. Doing almost any good thing in unity with others is much more God’s plan for us than individual, unique revelations and plans. It is our concern that the popular disregard for biblical unity and human authorities is at least part of the reason that mega mysticism has become so popular itself.

This same unbiblical individualism is what has influenced far too many Christians to neglect the automatic divine guidance that comes from living in community and being committed to meeting the needs found there. This independent spirit has also devalued the great importance God places on getting counsel from others and obeying God-ordained authorities “in everything” (cf. Col 3:20, 22; Eph 5:24) including their mere preferences. ^[42]

In other words, we are to experience and “hear” God through others much more than many Christians believe. Consequently, many Christians have forsaken important God-intended means of divine guidance because they require humble interdependence. In addition, because they have forsaken these means of divine guidance, and they crave independence, the mega mystical approach of discovering a direct, personal revelation of a private will has flourished.

We are here reminded of an episode in the life of the Apostle. He relates to the Corinthians:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, ⁴ Who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. (2 Cor 1:3-4)

Sounds like he had some amazing “quiet time” and private individual experience with God doesn’t it? But we believe careful study reveals otherwise. First, Paul goes into more detail about his “troubles” when he writes:

We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about the hardships we suffered in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. (2 Cor 1:8)

Of this time in Asia, Paul writes:

Now when I went to Troas to preach the Gospel of Christ and found that the Lord had opened a door for me, ¹³ I still had no peace of mind, because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I said good-by to them and went on to Macedonia. (2 Cor 2:12-13)

Notice that the Apostle’s distress was so great that he left a place where he had found “the Lord had opened a door for” him “to preach the Gospel.” And why could he not find any “peace of mind” there? “Because I did not find my brother Titus there.” Shouldn’t the presence of God been enough to comfort the Apostle and enable him to do ministry? Apparently not.

On leaving “Troas” and going “on to Macedonia” the Apostle writes:

For when we came into Macedonia, this body of ours [still] had no rest, but we were harassed at every turn—conflicts on the outside, fears within. ⁶ But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus, ⁷ and not only by his coming but also by the comfort you had given him. He told us about your longing for me, your deep sorrow, your ardent concern for me, so that my joy was greater than ever. (2 Cor 7:5-7)

What was “the comfort” the Apostle had “received from God” 1:4)? What enabled the Apostle to go from despairing “even of life” (1:8) to “joy . . . greater than ever” (7:7)? A private revelation from God? An ecstatic, emotional experience when alone with God? No. The presence, love, and encouragement of another human being. And this is precisely why “we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God.” Not because we have had some sort of mystical experience, but because we have the ability to share the love and written word of God for the encouragement of one another. ^[43]

God created us to need one another. He does not want a personal, private relationship with Him to be enough, not even for the Apostle Paul. Authentic Christianity is to be lived out in community. In fact, there are few things in American Christianity more opposed to Authentic Christianity than its deeply ingrained individualism. Our relationship with God is thought to be primarily a private matter, just between us and Him. Likewise, today, personal quiet times and individual Bible study are emphasized as being as important as the collective hearing of the preached word of God, a perspective that would lack any substantial biblical precedent or support. ^[44]

In fact, apart from texts concerning our salvation, there is a much greater emphasis in Scripture on our personal relationships with people, than on an intimate, private relationship with God. In our individualistic private culture do not miss the importance of that fact. When the King said the greatest commandment was to love God, He immediately added the identical ^[45] command to love others (cf. Matt 22:36-40; cf. Matt 25:31-46; 1 John 4:19-21). The greatest commandment is not to love God, but rather to love God and people. This is because we are greatly limited in being able to love God apart from loving people. Not even our love for God is as personal and direct as we would like, for the primary way to love Him is to love a person.

In fact, a relationship with God that is merely upward, is in reality inward and ultimately selfish. Loving God directly the mystical way is often a much easier, if not artificial, kind of love than that required to love people. Unlike pagan mysticism in general, biblical Christianity on this side of Heaven is not only, or perhaps even primarily about a personal, experiential intimacy with God, but is equally and inseparably about our relationships with His image bearers and children.

The communal nature of God’s dealings with His New Covenant people is reflected in the divine revelation recorded to seven local churches in Revelation. First, the King did not speak directly to individuals in these churches, let alone their leaders. Instead, He revealed His messages to the Apostle John, who was then to write and send His revelation to the Pastor ^[46] of the church (cf. Rev 2:1), who in turn would communicate it to the gathered congregation. That is a conspicuously indirect route for Christ to take in order to speak with these churches. Too indirect for mega mystics to appreciate.

Secondly, the Lord consistently addressed His people in the churches as homogeneous groups, rather than individuals. For example, He speaks as if all the members of the Ephesian church could be commended for perseverance and reproved for waning love (cf. Rev 2:1-7). Perhaps there were people in the Ephesian church who did not reflect either of these descriptions. Yet no matter, Christ saw them as a body, inseparably linked to one another, such that He could stereotype them. Such was the case with all of these churches so that whatever Christ wanted to say to these believers, He could say it to them all and He had no need to provide individual revelation. God does not view us simply as individuals, but as inseparably connected to one another, such that our relationship with others directly affects our relationship with God (cf. Matt 5:23-4; 6:12-14). God Himself lives in a Trinity of community, and not merely as individuals.

This distinctly indirect and communal nature of divine revelation is reflected in how the New Covenant and Christianity itself was founded. God did not, nor ever has, directly revealed the Gospel to the vast majority of His people as He did to the Apostles (cf. Gal 1:12-13). Notice in 1 John 1:1-5 that the Apostle is celebrating the fact that we can have fellowship with Christ and complete our joy through the indirect relationship provided through the Apostolate. He does not apologize for being an intermediary, nor suggest that something more personal and direct is available to the believers he is writing to. Commenting on the Apostle’s description of the indirect and communal nature of divine revelation in the current Church age, the great Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) wrote . . . “[E]very child of God must exercise communion with the Father and the Son through the apostolate.” ^[47]

We should not only affirm, but rejoice in the Christ-like authority that the revelatory Apostles and their writings have, because they are our only link to hearing everything Christ would have us believe and obey. Perhaps we have over-emphasized the “friendship” nature of our relationship with Christ (cf. John 15:15) which would imply continual, personal, individual communication. On the other hand, when we remember that Christ is the King, and we are His subjects, perhaps the God-ordained method of generally communicating to us through representatives will be more acceptable. Regardless, the communal nature of divine revelation is biblical, primary, and increasingly disparaged in American Christianity.

According to how the gifts are described in 1 Corinthians 12-14 it seems unlikely that the Apostle could conceive of God habitually granting revelation to just an individual, which was not also intended to be of value to the body. This is precisely why he insists throughout 1 Corinthians 14 that any private revelations are to be made public, because the Apostle assumes that any revelations that may come from God to individuals will not be intended for only private use, but for the community (cf. 1 Cor 14:5, 13, 26-28).

We are not saying that such individual, direct, private revelation cannot happen. We believe even in our times God has personally revealed Himself to individuals through visions, for example. ^[48] But these occurrences are extremely rare and there is a biblical bias against it because of the communal nature of God and divine revelation.

God does not value individualized, private, divine communication like independent humans do because He yearns for community. Contrary to the core values of mega mysticism, God would have us living in unity around Scripture and the direction of His ordained authorities in our family and the local church, rather than giving us independent revelations for personal direction. Therefore, He is not likely to very often provide the type of private, direct, personalized revelation that so many seek, but which would promote the very independence that is harmful to our soul, and which God is so opposed to. In fact, because of the particularly independent nature of Americans, we are probably the most unlikely recipients of mega mystical revelation.

Another illustration of the communal rather than individualistic nature of divine revelation concerns the popular topic of divine guidance. While Scripture emphasizes humbly seeking the counsel of flesh and blood people (cf. Prov 11:14; 12:15; 15:22; 19:20; 20:18), and submitting ourselves to the desires and preferences of the God-ordained authorities in our life (cf. Rom 13:1-5; Eph 5:21-24; 6:1-2, 5-8; 1 Pet 5:6), ^[49] mega mysticism in particular emphasizes the value and expectation of getting our direction directly from God. In fact, it is often emphasized that one should seek extrabiblical direction directly from God first and foremost, compared to getting direction from other people God has placed in our lives for this very purpose.

We are reminded here of the familiar parable about the man who expected God to save him from flood waters in a miraculous and direct way. After refusing help from a number of mere people, he drowned and discovered that God had expected him to be rescued by people. There is no doubt that in American Christianity the individualistic mega mystical means of divine guidance is much more “center stage” than seeking counsel and submission to authorities, and it could not be clearer that the biblical emphasis is exactly the opposite. In the end, mega mystical guidance can be accurately summed up in the description of God’s people at the end of Judges: “everyone did as he saw fit” (Judg 21:25).

Consequently, too many American Christians believe the biblical virtue of being “dependent on God” can be primarily fulfilled in their own private relationship with God without a biblical dependence on others. And that is precisely what happens when we allow a culture that so highly values individualism and independence to pervert our understanding of Authentic Christianity. As a result, God’s intended means of personal revelation such as Scripture and public teaching are devalued and distracted from by so called “prophets,” private revelations, and even private Bible study.

It is perhaps because the primary communal nature of divine revelation has been so lost in our day, that modern, confident, and articulate statements regarding it are rare. Thankfully, we are not confined to only contemporary theology and can be instructed by our predecessors. Accordingly, Dr. Warfield wrote:

It might, indeed, be a priori conceivable that God should deal with men atomistically, and reveal Himself and His will to each individual, throughout the whole course of history, in the penetralium of his own consciousness. This is the mystic’s dream. It has not, however, been God’s way. He has chosen rather to deal with the race in its entirety, and to give to this race His complete [written] revelation of Himself in an organic whole.

And when this historic process of organic revelation had reached its completeness, and when the whole knowledge of God designed for the saving health of the world had been incorporated into the living body of the world’s thought-there remained, of course, no further revelation to be made, and there has been accordingly no further revelation made.

God the Holy Spirit has made it His subsequent work, not to introduce new and unneeded revelations into the world, but to diffuse this one complete revelation throughout the world and to bring mankind into the saving knowledge of it. ^[50]

More succinctly, and with some exaggeration, Dr. Warfield wrote elsewhere: “We may be mystics, or we may be Christians. We cannot be both,” ^[51] again, reflecting the communal nature of divine revelation. Likewise, the entire history of divine revelation overwhelmingly supports the perspective of Warfield’s counterpart in Europe, Dr Kuyper, when he wrote:

To speak plainly, there is no inspiration which goes out directly from God to the consciousness of every one of the elect separately, and offers the same content to all, one by one; on the contrary, there is one central revelation given for all, and it is from this central revelation that every elect one is to draw for himself his knowledge of God.

Public charity may provide each poor man a sum of money with which to buy provisions for himself, or may spread in a hall a common table from which all poor people may be fed. And thus it might be conceived that God should give to every sinner whom He chose a special light in the soul, an individual inspiration in his consciousness, and that every one should have enough of this for himself. This is what the mystics of every sort affirm.

But such has not been the will of God. God the Lord has spread one table for His entire Church, has given one organically connected revelation for all, and it is from this one revelation designed for all, and which neither repeats nor continues itself, that the churches of all places and times, and in those churches every child of God, has to draw his knowledge of the Eternal Being. And the witness of this one central revelation which neither repeats nor continues itself, lies for us in the Holy Scripture. ^[52]

H) Mega Mysticism Disparages Legitimate Sources of Extra-biblical Revelation

Elsewhere, we discuss biblically prescribed “extra-biblical” sources of personal divine revelation apart from Scripture including our New Nature, spiritual gifts, and God-ordained authorities. ^[53] By labeling them “extra-biblical” we are referring either to the fact that they operate apart from the method of Scripture or that they provide direction in addition to that found in Scripture, but never unbiblical revelation.

H.1) Divine revelation through the New Nature ^[54]

One of the most remarkable, and also overlooked, means of divine revelation that God has provided in the New Covenant is our New Nature. Like Scripture, the authority of the New Nature as a means of divine revelation is founded on the fact that it is equated with God Himself. The fact that God lives in us is repeated throughout the NT. Why would we doubt that the personal presence of Christ in us would be a revelation of Christ in us? While the Scriptures are the outward, external revelation of Christ, the Spirit within us is the internal revelation of Christ.

In addition, the New Nature provides divine revelation to us of God’s will. When we allow Christ and the Spirit to control us through our New Nature, we are immediately and perfectly guided in the moral will of God. So much so that we put on Christ Himself (cf. Rom 13:14). Accordingly, the Apostle implies that the result of living according to the “new self” as commanded in Ephesians 4:23-24 will be obedience to the multiple commands regarding God’s will that follows throughout the rest of the epistle. It is not that the New Nature will simply provide empowerment to obey this instruction, but it will also provide a knowledge of, and desire to do these things.

When we allow the Holy Spirit to control our lives, “the new self [within us] created to be like God” (Eph 4:24) will dictate our thoughts and desires in accordance with God’s will. So then, 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 essentially God’s whole will for our life. Rather than minutely dictating direction for virtually every aspect of our life as a loving father would do for his little child, God now interacts with His people as empowered adults, indwelled with His Holy Spirit. This indwelling is manifested in our New Nature, which is, “the new [moral] self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:24), and in essence “pre-programmed” with the will of God because it is God. ^[55]

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).

This is why so many Christians in the first 250 years of the Church could be so loving, holy, fruitful, and powerful even though they did not possess the NT Scriptures. The moral will of God was immediately known and empowered by the Holy Spirit living in them. Perhaps this is why God provided less NT Scripture than we would have expected or definitely would desire. There is about 350% more written revelation provided for the Old Covenant compared with the New. ^[56]

Of course, mega mysticism claims 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. ^[57] In addition, mega mysticism’s preoccupation with seeking some kind of amoral divine will, can distract them from the glory and importance of the moral will of God which He has revealed. It may also reveal a misplaced definition of success in that mega mystics think it involves amoral issues, when from God’s perspective, it is moral ones.

Everything that our New Nature will desire to do will always and only be precisely what Scripture tells us to do. This apparent redundancy between what the Scriptures tell us to do and what the New Nature in us instinctively desires to do is not without purpose. As God has said, “A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Deut 19:15; cf. Matt 18:16). Accordingly, the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22) produced by our New Nature, and the commands of Spirit-given Scripture authenticate one another as authoritative divine revelation from God. The objective revelation of Scripture authenticates the more subjective guidance of the New Nature, and the more direct revelation of the New Nature (being God in us) personalizes the more indirect revelation of Scripture.

It is important at this point to distinguish the divine revelation provided by the indwelling Spirit through our New Nature and the constant, extra-biblical, amoral revelations being claimed by mega mysticism. First, the New Nature does not communicate anything beyond Scripture. Mega mysticism, however, claims that the indwelling Spirit guides them in all sorts of extra-biblical revelation such as which godly Christian person to marry, which moral job to choose, even whether or not to go fishing, and a myriad of other commands one could not obtain from Scripture.

Secondly, the promptings of the New Nature can be thoroughly tested with the commands of Scripture, but the extrabiblical messages of the Spirit claimed by mega mysticism cannot.

Thirdly, while mega mysticism claims the revelation of the Spirit provides direction for various kinds of amoral issues, the revelation of the Spirit we are advocating through the New Nature is confined to moral guidance. We do not believe we normally need, nor does God grant, revelation for amoral extrabiblical decisions, but simply expects us to use Scripture, counsel, and reason to make wise moral decisions in such matters. ^[58]

Finally, the way in which the communication of the indwelling Spirit occurs is to be distinguished from mega mysticism as well. Proponents of this view claim continual private inspiration and an ongoing conversation with God in which he communicates with them through some sort of divine/human mental telepathy.

Here we wish to point out that the divine revelation provided by the New Nature is a Person, not mere inspirations, impressions and impulses telling us to do things beyond what Scripture says. God has given us a, “new self created to be like God” (Eph 4:24), not an oracle to whom we can ask amoral extrabiblical questions about our present and future decisions. The guidance of the indwelling Spirit that Scripture teaches occurs not so much through constant new divine “inspiration” that is “whispering” direction to us, but more so through simply the provision of a God-like nature to live by. The divine revelation we possess through the New Nature comes to us as an incarnation within us, not an inspiration from outside of us. This, again, was what God had promised in the New Covenant when He described spiritual regeneration as, “I will put My law in their minds and write it on their hearts” (Jer 31:33).

We know the answer to “What would Jesus do?,” not because we are having a continual conversation with God, but because by simply obeying the New Nature within us, we will think, act, and talk like Christ, because the New Nature is Christ. The Spirit’s primary ministry in our lives is not to provide us with new revelations, but a New Nature that instinctively knows what God’s will is. Living according to the New Nature is not described as a continual new revelation being communicated to us in some “still small voice” as the mystics put it. Rather, it is simply a matter of living according to the New Nature which automatically provides a knowledge of God’s will and a desire to do it. This is the real, ongoing, revelation of the Holy Spirit.

Accordingly, the Apostle describes it in Romans as “live according to . . . the Spirit” resulting in our “minds [being automatically] set on what the Spirit desires” (Rom 8:4-5). In Galatians, to “live by the Spirit” (5:16) is to be “led by the Spirit” (v. 18) and to “keep in step with the Spirit” (v. 25). But again, this leading is not through a continual divine “inspiration” of direction, but rather the production of the moral, “fruit of the Spirit” (v. 22) and the instinctive knowledge, desire, and nature of the New Nature in us to be loving, joyful, peaceful, good, faithful, and self-controlled. The New Nature spontaneously produces the “fruit of the Spirit” in the form of God-pleasing virtues, not extrabiblical insights and ideas. God has chosen to rule us from the inside by a nature, not mystically through “inspiration.”

And in living this way we fulfill God’s will for our life because, “the kingdom of God is not a matter of” extrabiblical decisions like what we should be “eating and drinking, [or what job to have or which Christian of the opposite gender to marry] but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men” (Rom 14:17-18). ^[59]

With all of these wonderfully sufficient means of divine guidance that God has provided, why do mega mystics claim such a great need for mystical revelation? And why do they feel they have to illegitimately and deceptively super-supernaturalize their decisions?

For example, Bill Hybels writes: “I can usually sense that a leading [mental impulse] is [directly] from the Holy Spirit when it calls me to humble myself, serve somebody, encourage somebody or give something away.” ^[60] No kidding. But why not call such a prompting the fruit of the Spirit, instead of implying some sort of direct, divine revelation? It would seem because merely seeing the Christian life as living according to our knowledge of Scripture and the desires and power of the New Nature is not supernatural enough for Mr. Hybels.

H.2) Divine revelation through serving gifts ^[61]

Spiritual gifts supernaturally provide a Christian with certain desires and even abilities and energy that they would not have otherwise. While the New Nature certainly provides desires to love God and people, our unique spiritual gifts give us desires to love God and people in a particular way. This will therefore direct the portion of our life devoted to serving the Church.

For example, someone with the serving gift of mercy will have a significantly different ministry in the Church than the person whom God has given the gift of leadership. The one will find themselves spending their time with the very needy, while the other will be devoted to the most spiritually healthy. And because these are gifts given by God, these emphases in ministry are known to be God’s specific will for that person. Therefore, these gifts can serve as a divine revelation of God’s more specific will for us, particularly through the unique ministry desires they produce.

In fact, we would suggest that our spiritual gifts are usually the most specific divine revelation of God’s will for our life. This is why there is so much NT instruction concerning them (cf. Rom 12:6-8; Eph 4:11-12; 1 Pet 4:10-11). While Scripture and our New Nature reveal God’s general moral will, our spiritual gifts reveal more specifically God’s “ministry will” and our ordained and unique function in the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:7-29).

The divine guidance of the Spirit through His gifts is quite personal because He alone decides which gift(s) you receive. This same guidance is quite precise as there are not only “different kinds of gifts,” but there are “different kinds of service” (ministries), and “different kinds of working” (effects) (1 Cor 12:4-6). This results in a large variety of ministries and, in our opinion, the most specific divine revelation of God’s will for our life.

Therefore, we are not surprised to find a discussion of spiritual gifts in the context of knowing God’s will for our life in Romans 12. ^[62]

Because of the popularity of mega mysticism we need to again distinguish our view from it. First, the desires produced by our spiritual gifts are much more general than the specific revelation claimed by this view. Contrary to mega mysticism, God is normally perfectly content with giving us the specific serving gift and accompanying desire to evangelize, teach, pastor, serve, lead, and encourage without specifying exactly who we minister to or where. For example, the number of churches that a Pastor could minister in and be perfectly in God’s will is probably much larger than the one best option that mega mysticism insists he must discern. God simply and normally wants us to be diligent and faithful with the desires and abilities He has provided through our serving gift in the context we find ourselves in (cf. 1 Pet 2:11). ^[63]

H.3) Divine revelation through God-ordained authorities ^[64]

Both American independence and mysticism have blinded Christians in America to the significance and blessing of God’s institutions of divine/human authority. The King desires everyone in His Kingdom on Earth to be living under multiple divine/human authorities in their life. While the American attitude finds this constraining, it is intended by God to simplify and clarify a life lived in the center of His will.

What has been the result of Christians abandoning faithful, careful, respectful obedience to His ordained divine/human authorities? The loss of a great deal of peace concerning God’s will, and a grasping at mega mystical techniques to find that peace. It is especially interesting to note the apparent independent and rebellious attitude evident in American Christianity in which the authority of God-ordained human authorities is consistently ignored, while the supposed authority of one’s personal impulses and private impressions are exalted. God intended to provide a great deal of guidance for our lives as we diligently pursued pleasing our authorities in every way possible. Instead, we are more concerned about what pleases us, and have therefore inherited a guilty conscience about whether or not we are truly following God.

In order to appease our conscience, and fill the need for divine guidance that has been left because of our abandonment of divine/human authorities, we have bought into the mega mystical dogma that God wants to lead us independently as individuals through personal impressions and “signs.” Isn’t it interesting how often those impulses and “signs” confirm what we wanted to do all along? It’s tragic that often our personal impulses and supposed divine “signs” are given more authority than the divine/human authorities God has put in our life.

God would have us guided by the mere preferences of our authorities more often than most think. As a result, it is rather ludicrous for a Christian to expect any further guidance, let alone blessing, from God unless they are honoring and obeying their God-given authorities. Many of those who complain of a lack of specific divine guidance for their lives are the very ones who do not properly respect their God-given authorities, thus forsaking an essential means of knowing God’s will. ^[65]

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1) What responses to mega mysticism in this chapter did you find most compelling and important? Why?

2) Were there any arguments above that you felt were not convincing or important? Why?

Publications & Particulars

1. Regarding mega mysticism’s sin of disparaging the sufficiency and authority of Scripture see section 14.9.C. ↑

2. Excerpt from section 7.9.A.3 ↑

3. For further discussion of the fact that God’s will for our life is essentially moral in nature, and does not include the amoral aspects that so many claim, see sections 7.12.B and 7.15.B. ↑

4. For a discussion on the important distinction between moral and amoral issues see section 2.3.B.4. ↑

5. For further discussion on how a better understanding of God’s will significantly impacts our perspective on divine guidance see chapter 7.15.B. ↑

6. Regarding the theory of a “conversational” relationship with God apart from Scripture see Book 14. ↑

7. Jack Deere, Surprised by the Voice of God (Zondervan, 1996), 291-2. ↑

8. James White, Scripture Alone: Exploring The Bible’s Accuracy, Authority, And Authenticity (Bethany House, 2004), 111. ↑

9. Excerpt from section 7.8.H. ↑

10. Excerpt from section 7.9.A.2. ↑

11. Excerpt from section 5.6.B. ↑

12. Excerpt from section 2.4.A.1, B.2. ↑

13. Regarding the place of human reason as our final subjective authority see section 3.1.C. ↑

14. Regarding the place of the conscience in the Christian’s life see chapter 3.2. ↑

15. For arguments against some ongoing “testimony” or “illumination” of the Holy Spirit see chapters 3.4-3.6. ↑

16. For further discussion of the idea of an “illumination of the Spirit” for the correct interpretation and application of Scripture see chapter 3.5. ↑

17. Excerpt from section 3.3.A.4. ↑

18. For further discussion on the exaggeration of the need and occurrence of personal divine inspiration for our decision making see section 14.5.B.4. ↑

19. Excerpt from section 4.4.A. ↑

20. For further discussion on the relationship between reason and the authentication of revelation section 3.1.C. ↑

21. Excerpt from section 6.11.B.6. ↑

22. Christ’s blessing on people who believed without seeing does not contradict our defense elsewhere of Thomas’ request to see Jesus (cf. section 6.14.A.5). ↑

23. Jack Deere, Surprised by the Voice of God (Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 291-2. ↑

24. Collin Brown says in his entry under “Miracle” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “The demand for conclusive signs is [condemned] (Mt. 12:39; 16:4; cf. Lk. 11:16, 29; Jn. 4:48; 1 Cor. 1:22). Such a demand is indicative of a refusal to respond to what has been already revealed” (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., 4 vols. [Eerdmans, 1988], III:371). ↑

25. Reference unavailable to our regret. ↑

26. Alexander Mackie, The Gift of Tongues: A Study in the Pathological Aspects of Christianity (Doran, 1921), 258. ↑

27. Excerpt from chapter 6.17. ↑

28. For further discussion of how God authenticated Himself to the Prophets and Apostles He spoke to see chapters 8.3 and . ↑

29. For further discussion on the need for divine authentication of divine revelation see sections 3.1.C-D and 6.13.E. ↑

30. Excerpt from section 7.1.B.5.f. ↑

31. For further discussion see section 7.3.E. ↑

32. Martin Luther, “Introduction to the Old Testament”; available online at

    http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm. ↑

33. For further discussion of our new nature as a source of divine revelation see chapter 7.12. ↑

34. For further discussion of God’s permissive will see section 14.5.B.3. ↑

35. For further discussion on the concept of Spirit-liberated reason see chapters 4.15-16. On decision making see sections 4.4.A and chapter 14.5. ↑

36. Gordon T. Smith, Listening to God in Times of Choice (InterVarsity, 1997), 101. ↑

37. For further discussion of the great freedom involved in God’s will see section 14.5.B.3. ↑

38. For further discussion of how the relationship between Christ and the Father relates to us in the context of personal guidance see chapter 14.12. ↑

39. Excerpt from section 7.3.D. ↑

40. Theophanies are appearances of God in human or angelic form. For further discussion see section 10.9.C. ↑

41. K. Jentoft, Hearing God’s Voice – Guaranteed” Critical Issues Commentary, #105, 2008, 5. ↑

42. For further discussion on the enormous amount of divine revelation God has ordained to come through human authorities see chapter 7.14. ↑

43. Older commentators seemed reluctant to notice the communal nature of Christian encouragement in 2 Corinthians including Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Corinthians, I.3; Calvin, Hodge, and Barnes (all at http://www.ccel.org). More recently, C. K. Barrett does not discuss this at all (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Hendrickson, 1973], 60-61).

    However, Colin Kruse has written: “in [2 Cor] 7:5ff, where Paul describes the events immediately preceding the writing of this letter, he speaks of the release from anxiety experienced when Titus joined him in Macedonia” (2 Corinthians [Eerdmans, 1987, repr. 1997], 60).

    Likewise, Paul Barnett writes regarding the source and nature of the comfort Paul received:

    God comforted Paul by Titus, who had been comforted by the Corinthians (7:6-7), enabling Paul in turn (by means of these words in this letter) to comfort the Corinthians—and indeed members of other churches—with the comfort of God. . . . Thus God’s “comfort” comes full circle among his people. . . .

    The closeness and reciprocity of fellowship within, and between, congregations as expressed here by Paul is rather pointed, given the Corinthians’ coolness to him at that time. It also calls into question the individualism of modern Christianity and the sense of remoteness within and among many contemporary churches. (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Eerdmans, 1997], 73).

    Nonetheless, Dr. Barnett adds:

    How does God comfort his people? Although the later reference [regarding Titus, 7:5ff] reveals God’s use of human intermediaries (7:6-7), in this verse there is no hint of such mediation. The exercise of “comfort” appears as a charisma, a concrete manifestation of the grace of God, a divine intervention. (Ibid.).

    In our opinion, Dr. Barnett should have stopped commenting when he pointed out the mediation of Titus. We believe we have demonstrated that this is the comfort Paul is referring to, and Dr. Barnett’s assumption that Paul is speaking of a private, exclusive experience with God is unwarranted and erodes the points he made previously. ↑

44. Perhaps it could be argued that the communal reception of divine revelation was valued in biblical times above the individual private kind because of the lack of printed Scriptures. However, would we claim that in such places as China, where Christians have traditionally only had the preached word (based on rare copies of Scripture), rather than the written word, that their Christianity is somehow less vital than that of American Christians who typically own multiple Bibles? ↑

45. For arguments that the first commandment is “identical” to the second see section 7.3.D. ↑

46. Regarding our claim aggelō used throughout Revelation 2-3 should be understood as the Pastors of the local congregations rather than Angels, see section 7.3.D and endnote there. ↑

47. Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, tran. Henri De Vries, (Eerdmans, 1946), 144. ↑

48. For what we believe are acceptable examples of God speaking to an individual in a personal miraculous way through a vision see section 10.11.A.4. ↑

49. For further discussion of human authorities as a vital source of divine revelation see chapter 7.14. ↑

50. B. B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles (Banner of Truth Trust, 1972), 26. ↑

51. Abraham Kuyper, Studies in Theology (Oxford, 1932), 666. ↑

52. Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology (Eerdmans, 1953), 359-60. ↑

53. Regarding “extra-biblical” revelation see chapters 7.11-7.14 ↑

54. Regarding our New Nature as a source of extra-biblical revelation see chapter 7.12. ↑

55. Excerpt from section 7.6.C. ↑

56. This percentage is based on the fact that there are 27, 570 verses in the OT and 7,956 in the NT. Dividing these we get: 3.465. ↑

57. For further discussion of the fact that God’s will for our life is essentially moral, and therefore completely known by Scripture and the New Nature, see section 14.5.B.2. ↑

58. For further discussion of a biblical view of decision making see chapter 14.5. ↑

59. Excerpt from chapter 7.12. ↑

60. Bill Hybels, Too Busy Not to Pray (Intervarsity, 1998), 163-4 ↑

61. Regarding our spiritual gifts as a source of extra-biblical divine revelation see chapter 7.13 ↑

62. For further commentary on Romans 12 regarding the relationship between our spiritual gifts and God’s will for our life see section 7.13.C ↑

63. Excerpt from section 7.13.C. ↑

64. Regarding God-ordained authorities as a source of extra-biblical divine revelation see chapter 7.14. ↑

65. Excerpt from section 7.14.H.2. ↑