Chapter 14.8

Mega Mysticism’s Rejection Throughout Church History

 

Table of Topics

A) Introduction

B) Gnosticism & Mystery Cults in the Early Church

C) Monasticism in the Middle Ages

D) Anabaptists in the Protestant Reformation

E) Quakerism

F) The Great Awakening

G) Charles Spurgeon

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• Hodge: “Mysticism has always been productive of evil.”
• 2^nd-3^rd century Gnosticism claimed a special revelation acquired by sudden illumination. It was condemned as heresy in the early Church.
• Mega mysticism can be distinguished from classical mysticism, the latter being that which monks have practiced in monasteries for centuries.
• There is no biblical support for many of the practices of classic mysticism and one gets the sense that it can be both selfish and works oriented.
• Descriptions of some of the more prominent medieval mystics would seem to reveal unbiblical extremes in their lives.
• Luther: “’enthusiasm’ inheres in Adam and his children from the beginning to the end of the world, having been implanted and infused in them by the old dragon, and is the origin, power, and strength of all heresy.”
• Calvin: “What say these fanatics, swollen with pride, who consider this the one excellent illumination when, carelessly forsaking and bidding farewell to God’s Word, they, no less confidently than boldly, seize upon whatever they may have conceived while snoring?”
• Edwards: “The devil has ever shown a mortal spite and hatred towards that holy book, the Bible: he has done all in his power to extinguish that light and to draw men off from it. . . . As long as a person has a notion that he is guided by immediate direction from heaven, it makes him incorrigible and impregnable in all his misconduct . . . They who leave the sure word of prophecy [in Scripture]—which God has given us as a light shining in a dark place—to follow such impressions and impulses, leave the guidance of the polar star to follow a Jack with a lantern.”

A) Introduction

It is instructive that the early Christians recognized that the Scriptures said nothing regarding finding a will of God outside of Scripture, and so they wrote nothing regarding it as well. Douglas Hoffman writes:

Compared to the modern level of Christian concern, it appears that relatively little was written on the idea of discovering God’s specific plan for one’s life prior to the twentieth century. Indeed, the writers who touched on the subject in previous centuries tended to speak of God’s will more in its moral/prescriptive aspect than in a specific individual sense. ^[1]

More specifically, Gary Friesen relates:

Only later did I discover that what had become “traditional” for my generation is actually a historical novelty. The obsession for certain guidance guaranteeing foolproof decisions appears to be a preoccupation peculiar to modern Christianity in the last 150 years. Prior to the writings of George Muller, there was virtually no discussion of “how to discover God’s will for your life” in the literature of the church. What I call the traditional view of guidance was an integral part of the theological culture of the Keswick Movement, which was very influential in England and America. As Keswick-trained missionaries spread across the globe, this view of guidance became part of the evangelical tradition through their teaching. I was among the recipients of that heritage. ^[2]

Nonetheless, mega mysticism has been such a common practice throughout the history of the Church, and has manifested itself in so many different ways, that various labels have been applied to it including experientialism, enthusiasm, spiritualism, Quakerism, and quietism. ^[3] Even in the 1870’s, the great American theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878) wrote in his systematic theology:

Our Lord says of men, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” The same rule of judgment applies to doctrines. Mysticism has always been productive of evil. It has led to the neglect or undervaluing of divine institutions-of the Church, of the ministry, of the sacraments, of the Sabbath, and of the Scriptures. History shows that it has also led to the greatest excesses and social evils. ^[4]

What Dr. Hodge said over 100 years ago has been echoed by even leaders in modern charismaticism. Pastor Donald Bridge writes:

The illuminist [mega mystic] constantly finds that “God tells him” to do things. . . . Illuminists are often very sincere, very dedicated, and possessed of a commitment to obey God that shames more cautious Christians. Nevertheless they are treading a dangerous path. Their ancestors have trodden it before, and always with disastrous results in the long run. Inner feelings and special promptings are by their very nature subjective. The Bible provides our objective guide. ^[5]

Likewise, the Pentecostal leader Donald Gee has written:

Many of our errors where spiritual gifts are concerned arise when we want the extraordinary and exceptional to be made the frequent and habitual. Let all who develop excessive desire for “messages” through the gifts take warning from the wreckage of past generations as well as of contemporaries. . . . The Holy Scriptures are a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path. ^[6]

Here we attempt to chronicle some of that “wreckage of past generations” wrought by mega mysticism and how it was responded to by the most respected and influential leaders of the Church at the time. What we discover along the way is that the vast majority of the most extraordinary and influential Christians never claim to have heard from God apart from Scripture, and in fact, denounced any kind of practice or presumption to do so. So much for the mega mystical claim that extra-biblical revelation is so vital to the Christian’s life.

B) Gnosticism & Mystery Cults in the Early Church

The first form of mega mysticism we encounter in the history of the Church is in Gnosticism. This spiritual movement is not easy to describe, primarily because it was a melting pot for a complex variety of spiritual perspectives. Nonetheless, its similarities with modern mega mysticism are apparent. Biblical scholar William Abraham writes:

Gnosticism was not a uniform religion. The term is used to refer to a wide variety of religious views and movements that were influential during the first several centuries C.E., and particularly during the 2nd and 3rd centuries when the various gnostic teachers dominated Christian intellectual life, each one promulgating his individual views.

Gnosticism is a product of Hellenistic syncretism. It is an eclectic fusion of philosophical speculation, astrology, mythology, as well as Egyptian, Persian, Jewish Hellenistic, and Christian ideas.

Like many of the other religious ideas of the time, it arose in response to humanity’s feelings of insecurity and alienation, which were prevalent at the time. Gnosticism took many forms, ranging from extreme speculations to the crudest fantasies. Through the many varieties of gnostic expression, however, there existed certain common concepts, principal of which was the idea from which the movement received its name, that of gnosis, a Greek term meaning knowledge, to which the Gnostics gave a unique meaning.

For them, gnosis was a special revealed knowledge or revelation that comes from a divine savior who is often understood as Christ. This knowledge, acquired by sudden illumination, enabled the Gnostics to understand the ways of God, the universe and themselves. It was through this special gnosis, not through faith, that an individual was redeemed. ^[7]

Indeed, much of what the leaders of the second and third century Church wrote was in response to Gnosticism. ^[8] The specific heresy addressed in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Hippolytus’ The Refutation of All Heresies, and Tertullian’s A Prescription Against Heresies, was Gnosticism. This was no doubt in response to its dangers and popularity as described by A. M. Renwick:

Gnosticism was a heresy far more subtle and dangerous than any that had appeared during the early years of the church. It became so widespread that by the beginning of the 3rd cent. A.D. most of the intellectual Christian congregations throughout the Roman empire were to some degree infected by it. . . . In the 2nd century the movement “spread with the swiftness of an epidemic over the Church from Syria to Gaul” (Law, p. 26). ^[9]

The popularity of Gnosticism is yet one more reminder that just because a spiritual movement is “successful,” does not mean it is of God. In fact, such popularity just serves to make it more dangerous. ^[10] Accordingly, the respected Church historians Philip Schaff and Jacob Herzog report:

The crisis evoked by the assaults of Gnosticism was the greatest and most momentous in its consequences of all the convulsions to which Christianity was exposed in the course of its growth in the soil of antique civilization. ^[11]

Related to Gnosticism and popular at the same time were the many religious “mystery” cults. They too claimed that a knowledge of extra-biblical “mysteries” was to be sought. A foremost scholar of ancient Greek religions, Antonia Tripolitis, writes:

With their purification rites, their enthusiasm and ecstasy, and their promising rewards of immortality through deification, the cults satisfied an inner longing for individual salvation, revelation, and redemption, or inner illumination. To the degree that they satisfied the needs of the time, they developed and spread throughout the empire. ^[12]

While there were several heretical beliefs contained within the mystery cults and Gnosticism, ^[13] the one that concerns us here was their dependence on mega mysticism or “sudden illumination” as noted above, as a source of divine truth. While many Gnostics claimed to be Christians, and fellowshipped in Christian churches, they denied that Christian Scripture contained all of the divine revelation available or necessary to know God’s will. In fact, the highest and most valuable knowledge (gnosis) came from personal impressions, dreams, speculations, and “spiritual illumination.” Drs. Schaff and Herzog remark that they, “drew power and instruction from direct converse with deity.” ^[14] Elsewhere, Dr. Schaff reports:

The Gnostics, in their daring attempt to unfold the mysteries of an upper world, disdained the trammels of reason, and resorted to direct spiritual intuition. . . . This spurious supernaturalism which substitutes the irrational for the supernatural, and the prodigy for the miracle, pervades the pseudo-historical romances of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts. . . . “Demoniacal possessions,” says one who has mastered this literature. . . . A rich apparatus of visions, angelic appearances, heavenly voices . . . ^[15]

Likewise, John MacArthur comments:

Gnostics . . . believed they were privy to a higher level of spiritual knowledge than the average believer had access to, and this secret realm of knowledge was the key to spiritual illumination. . . . The gnostic heresy caused many in the church to seek hidden knowledge beyond what God had revealed in His Word and through His Son. ^[16]

Accordingly, the Lutheran theologian, Carl Braaten, points out that ancient Gnosticism is alive and well in modern mega mysticism and remarks that:

Harold Bloom claims that America provides a happy home for the alien god of Gnosticism, the hallmark of which is experiential religion divorced from Christian doctrine. In his book, The American Religion, Bloom writes: “Gnosticism . . . is now and always has been the hidden religion of the United States, the American Religion proper.”

The essence of Gnosticism is the notion of an occult self, at one with the divine source, from whose abyss experiences are verbalized at the level of consciousness, providing inputs for theological reflection. Thus Bloom can say: “The God of the American Religion is an experiential God, so radically within our own being as to become a virtual identity with what is most authentic (oldest and best) in the self. Bloom is not a Christian, but he sees that the historic Christian faith is incompatible with this experiential religion. ^[17]

We would pray that believers would see what even this unbeliever sees. Nonetheless, Gnosticism along with its insistence on extra-biblical revelation, was condemned by the early Church, just like its cousin, Montanism that believed in prophecy and tongues. ^[18]

One will not find support for mega mysticism in the writings of the early Church Fathers, but rather, condemnations of it. ^[19] For example, Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386) wrote in the fourth century:

Let us assert of the Spirit only what is written [in Scripture]. Let us not busy ourselves about what is not written. The Holy Spirit has authored the Scriptures. He has spoken of himself all that he wished, or all that we could grasp. Let us confine ourselves to what he has said, for it is reckless to do otherwise. ^[20]

C) Monasticism in the Middle Ages

It is popular in mega mystical literature to support this perspective by calling upon the extra-biblical writings, opinions, and experiences of what we will refer to as classical mysticism. ^[21] Mega mysticism can be distinguished in some respects from classical mysticism, the latter being that which monks have practiced in monasteries for centuries. During the Middle Ages, it was primarily through extremes in classical mysticism that mega mysticism was practiced in the Church. John McClintock and James Strong explain:

That among this class of devout men there was often genuine piety, with a living faith which realized Christ within them the hope of glory, is not to be doubted. But delusion soon sprang up, and men, given to mental introversion, mistook the dreams of their own distempered imagination for realities. Sudden impressions were cherished as the illapse of the Spirit. . . . The obscure, unintelligible, and even absurd descriptions given by Mystics of these phenomena, reproduced even by modern theological writers, make mysticism synonymous with quietism (q.v.), and all forms of fanaticism and enthusiasm. ^[22]

Of course, other religions have had their own mystics who promoted and alleged the same things. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the Muslim Sufi mystics claimed a direct, immediate knowledge of God through contemplation, and practiced severe physical abuse on themselves. ^[23]

As for the value of revelations received in classical mysticism, it is important to note that such mystics themselves came to doubt their reliability. For example, Drs. McClintock and Strong write:

John [of the Cross] warns the Mystic that his only safeguard against delusion lies in perpetual and unreserved appeal to his [human] director [instead of Scripture?]. Theresa [of Avila] tells us that whenever our Lord commanded her in prayer to do anything, and her confessor ordered the opposite, the divine guide enjoined obedience to the human. ^[24]

Donald Bloesch writes extensively on the critique that medieval mystics themselves offered concerning mega mysticism. He quotes John of the Cross as stating, “All visions, revelations and impressions of heaven, however much the spiritual man may esteem them, are not equal in worth to the least act of humility.” ^[25] In the same vein, Dr. Bloesch writes:

[I]n sharp contrast to enthusiasts and gnostics, the mystics tend to harbor a profound distrust of ecstasies and visions (though they do not spurn them), believing that these things are usually left behind in the higher stages of faith. . . . Although the mystics were emphatic that faith involves experience, they generally maintained that faith may prosper even when felt experience is lacking. . .

Without denying the validity of gifts and visions, Meister Eckhart echoed the reserve that many mystics harbor toward such experiences: “Aware of it or not, people have wanted to have the ‘great’ experiences; they want it in this form, or they want that good thing; and this is nothing but self-will. . . . We ought to get over amusing ourselves with such raptures for the sake of that better love, and to accomplish through loving service what men most need.” . . .

Among the Quietists the gifts of the Spirit were viewed with considerable suspicion, since they were thought to foster an egocentric piety. Francois Fenelon (1651-1715) advised resting on God “only in unpretentious and plain faith, in the simplicity of the gospel receiving the consolations which he sends, but dwelling in none of them.” He explained the reason for his caution:

These supernatural gifts nourish in secret the life of the old nature. It is an ambition of the most refined character, since it is wholly spiritual. But it is merely ambition, a desire to feel, to enjoy, to possess God and his gifts, to behold his light, to discern spirits, to prophesy-in short, to be an extraordinarily gifted person. For the enjoyment of revelations and delights leads the soul little by little toward a secret coveting of all these things.” ^[26]

Likewise, the famous spiritist Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) recognized the difficulty of distinguishing good revelations from bad ones and after years of practicing mega mysticism he wrote:

When spirits begin to speak with a man, he ought to beware that he believes nothing whatever from them; for they say almost anything . . . they would tell so many lies, and indeed with solemn affirmation, that a man would be astonished . . . if a man listens and believes, they press on and deceive, and seduce in [many] ways. ^[27]

D) Anabaptists in the Protestant Reformation

Church historians recognize that the Protestant Reformation was God’s ordained vehicle to correct the erroneous claims of Roman traditionalists and medieval mystics to divine revelation outside of Scripture. Accordingly, Drs. McClintock and Strong write:

During the 15th century, indeed, the Scripture element had gradually supplanted the mystical in the religion of the times. . . . No sooner was the great Protestant principle announced by Luther that the Scriptures are the sufficient standard of Christian truth than traditionalism and mysticism alike fell before it. Oral tradition and individual intuition were both of them rejected as infallible guides in an inquiry after truth. ^[28]

Still, mega mysticism was rather common in the days of Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, and they vehemently opposed it. For example, the Anabaptists were universally condemned by the leaders of the Reformation for claiming that they had an authoritative means of communication from God apart from Scripture. It was partly because of the Reformers’ denial that God has promised such means that they developed their doctrine of sola Scriptura. Along these lines Martin Luther wrote:

It is impossible for you to fail to meet the Father’s will if you hold to the Man Christ; in this Man you will encounter the Father. There is no other will, neither in heaven nor on earth nor in hell. ^[29]

Holding on to Christ certainly meant imitating and obeying Him as we see and hear Him in the Word.

A succinct statement of this historical Christian doctrine is found in the Westminster Confession, and it is one that modern mega mystics must deny:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. ^[30]

Again, modern mega mystics must deny this historic, orthodox statement of sola Scriptura. Concerning Martin Luther’s experience with and stand against mega mysticism, K. Jentoft relates:

Some of Luther’s main battles for sola scriptura were against freestyle spirituality and revelations claimed by the new “Charismatics” among Protestants who had embraced these mystical traditions. The Charismatics Luther battled were broadly called “enthusiasts” because of their excessive emotional zeal and “subjective” means to approach the Holy Spirit. These enthusiasts included Anabaptists and the followers of various leaders whom people perceived as having some special “anointing.”

Luther opposed both Catholic mysticism and Protestant mystics because they both had rebelled against the authority of scripture. For Luther and the reformers, the Holy Spirit came to them and interacted with them through the scriptures alone, not through internal feelings. Here is what Luther says concerning their freestyle spirituality:

It is good to extol the ministry of the [written] Word with every possible kind of praise in opposition to the fanatics who dream that the Holy Spirit does not come through the [written] Word but because of their own preparations. They sit in a dark corner doing and saying nothing, but only waiting for illumination, as the enthusiasts taught formerly and the Anabaptists teach now. . . .

In these matters, which concern the external, spoken Word, we must hold firmly to the conviction that God gives no one his Spirit or grace except through or with the external Word which comes before. Thus we shall be protected from the enthusiasts – that is, from the spiritualists who boast that they possess the Spirit without and before the Word and who therefore judge, interpret, and twist the Scriptures or spoken Word according to their pleasure.

These enthusiasts demanded interactions with the Holy Spirit outside of scriptures – revelations felt and perceived internally by individuals to be the “voice of the Holy Spirit.” Luther attacked these “revelations” because they had no authority and resulted in people following their own imaginations. . . .

Luther knew this appetite for new internal revelations of the Holy Spirit was damaging to those who believed that inner words had authority. . . . Luther fought this Charismatic paradigm with as much vigor as he did the abusive Catholic Church – the mystical authority supporting both was the same. Protestants simply replaced the Catholic pope with mystical feelings. Luther knew that sola scriptura was the certain authority that mysticism sought to undermine with internal revelations. . . .

Dr. Karlstadt was one such leader in Luther’s day teaching people to be quiet and listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking inside them – he called it “self abstraction.” The means he emphasized was an “inner word” that was “felt,” and he compared that to an external word that was spoken or read. His means are the same ones embraced by Charismatics today. This is what Luther says:

When you ask them how one comes by this lofty spirit, they don’t point to the outward gospel, but go up into cloud cuckoo land and say, ‘Ah, you must have the experience of waiting and suddenly, just like that, God will be talking with you. . . Remain in “self abstraction” where I now am and you will have the same experience and God himself will speak to you.’ If you inquire further as to the nature of this “self abstraction,” you will find that they know as much about it as Dr. Karlstadt knows of Greek and Hebrew.

Do you not see here the devil, the enemy of God’s order? With all his mouthing of the words, “Spirit, Spirit, Spirit,” he tears down the bridge, the path, the way, the ladder, and the means by which the Spirit might come to you. It is through the outward and oral proclamation of the Word of God he wants to teach you, not how the Spirit comes to you, but how you come to the Spirit [through the Word].

Luther rightly condemns this Charismatic teaching. Why? Because our internal feelings do not have the authority of God. God’s Word has the authority of God; it is the means by which the Holy Spirit speaks to us individually and as a congregation. The Holy Spirit speaks to us with an external voice found in the words of scripture, as we read it or hear it preached, and He empowers these same words to change our hearts and actions.

Here is Luther speaking on the Holy Spirit described in John 16:1, “For He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak”:

Here Christ makes the Holy Spirit a Preacher. He does so to prevent one from gaping toward heaven in search of Him, as the fluttering spirits and enthusiasts do, and from divorcing Him from the oral Word or the ministry. One should know and learn that He will be in and with the [written] Word, that it will guide us into all truth, in order that we may believe it, use it as a weapon, be preserved by it against all the lies and deception of the devil, and prevail in all trials and temptations. For there is, after all, no other way and no other means of perceiving the Holy Spirit’s consolation and power, as I have often demonstrated from Holy Writ and have often experienced myself. ^[31]

Likewise, J. W. Montgomery relates:

Radical reformer Thomas Muntzer considered himself sufficiently led by the Spirit to cry, “Bible, Babel, bubble!” Luther’s reply was that apart from the inscripturated Word he would not listen to Muntzer even if, “he had swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all.” ^[32]

In more detail, Lutheran theologian J. Theodore Mueller relates:

In the revolutionary spiritualism of his day, Luther encountered the detachment of the Spirit from the divine Word in various forms. One of the earliest spiritualists was Andreas Karlstadt, his colleague at Wittenberg, who had supported his challenging theses against Rome and had attended his decisive disputation with Dr. Eck at Leipzig as his trusted friend. Soon, however, Karlstadt became a religious evolutionist, encouraging incendiary methods of reformation. He almost succeeded in destroying Luther’s work at Wittenberg by his extreme seditionary procedure, for which he cited the Spirit’s promptings.

Fortunately the great Reformer, who meanwhile had been busy at the Wartburg translating the New Testament into the language of the people, was informed of Karlstadt’s erratic behavior and, boldly returning to Wittenberg, soon restored peace and order by means of a few timely sermons. Luther’s sane and sober guidance of the disturbed people was based upon clear Scripture passages, whereas Karlstadt boasted of being led by the Spirit’s inward prompting in his social and spiritual agitations. His example shows that the pretended guidance of the Spirit without the inspired Scriptures may lead to unspeakable confusion.

More calamitous was the appeal to the Spirit, apart from the Scriptures, in the case of Thomas Muenzer, whose personality and talents so favorably impressed Luther that the Reformer recommended him to his friend John Silvanus for promotion at Zwickau, Saxony, where in 1520 he was appointed a pastor. But before long Muenzer began to raise objections to Luther’s spiritual Reformation of the Church. He pretended to be moved by the Spirit to surpass Luther as a reformer.

To this end he depreciated the Bible, which Luther esteemed as “the treasure of all treasures.” Following his “inner light,” he set out to destroy the godless in the world and establish a kingdom of peace ruled by Christ. His fanaticism fanned into burning flames the prevailing unrest among the peasants, caused by many social and economic evils, and finally led to the Peasant’s War. In a short time the disorganized peasants were defeated and their “prophet,” as Muenzer was known among them, was executed.

Karlstadt and Muenzer, no doubt, were extreme enthusiasts in their appeal to the “inner guidance of the Spirit” apart from the written divine Word. While the invocation of the Spirit has not always proved itself so utterly disastrous, the two cases show the dangers inherent in this trend. Wherever the Scriptures are set aside and man’s faith is based upon some alleged “inner prompting of the Spirit,” there commonly the gospel truths of the Christian faith are set aside and social pursuits are put in the place of the spiritual teachings of Christ’s saving gospel. . . . ^[33]

Luther therefore agreed with Calvin in rejecting “heavenly prophets” and other “swarmers” (as Luther called them) who boasted special revelations from God outside and apart from the Scriptures. The reason why Luther spoke of the “spiritualists” as swarmers (Schwaermer) was because they, like bees, were swarming in the air without any certain place upon which to rest.

The swarmers, he said, were aimlessly flying around in the cloudland of their own dreams and refused to base their faith on the Bible. . . .

Thus the Protestant leaders of Wittenberg and Geneva, whatever their other differences, were in full agreement in teaching that the divinely inspired Scriptures are the only source and norm of the Christian faith and so the divine means by which the Holy Spirit leads men into all truth. Both opposed the detachment of the Spirit from the Scriptures. ^[34]

The great Dutch theologian, Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), related other examples of mega mysticism during the Reformation age:

Various sects, the Cathars, Amabric of Bena, Joachim of Floris, the Brothers and Sisters of the Free Spirit, and later the Libertines in Geneva believed that after the era of the Father and the Son that of the Holy Spirit had dawned, an era in which everyone lived by the Spirit and no longer needed the external means of Scripture and church. . . .

Especially the Anabaptists exalted the internal at the expense of the external Word. As early as 1521, a contrast between Scripture and Spirit was forged, a dichotomy that became a permanent characteristic of Anabaptists. Holy Scripture is not seen as the true word of God but only a witness and a record of it; the true word is that which is spoken in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is merely a book containing letters; the Bible is a Babel [of tongues] full of confusion, which cannot generate faith in human hearts. Only the Spirit teaches us the true word. And when the Spirit teaches us, we can do without Scripture as well, since it is a temporary aid and not necessary to the spiritual person. ^[35]

It is interesting to note that while Martin Luther was very familiar with mystic religion, being a practicing monk himself, he rejected it, while emphasizing that spiritual disciplines and experience certainly has a place in the Christian life. Luther received his life-changing revelations through the study of Scripture, not mere visions or voices in his mind. Accordingly, the Lutheran theologian Francis Pieper remarks:

Our old [Reformed] theologians are right in calling attention, again and again, to the axiom which holds true of all pretended sources of theological knowledge, distinct and independent of Scripture: “New revelations in regard to the Christian doctrine either coincide with the doctrine contained in Scripture, and then they are superfluous, or they offer something else than is recorded in the Word of the Apostles and Prophets, and then they are to be rejected” (Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3 ff.; Luke 16:29-31). . . .

We conclude this section with a remark of Luther in the Smalcald Articles: “In a word, ‘enthusiasm’ inheres in Adam and his children from the beginning to the end of the world, having been implanted and infused in them by the old dragon, and is the origin, power, and strength of all heresy” (Trigl. 497, 9). Whoever is no longer dominated by the ‘enthusiasm’ should in no wise credit that to himself, but should ascribe it alone to the gracious working of God, just as Luther ascribed to the grace of God his ability to dismiss all thoughts that arose in his mind without God’s Word. ^[36]

Nevertheless, mega mystics have been able to find support from Luther in the following excerpt from his treatise, A Practical Way to Pray:

If such an abundance of good thoughts comes to us we ought to disregard the other petitions, make room for such thoughts, listen in silence, and under no circumstances obstruct them. The Holy Spirit preaches here, and one word of the Spirit’s sermon is far better than a thousand of our prayers. Many times I have learned more from one prayer than I might have learned from much reading and speculation. . . .

I repeat here what I previously said in reference to the Lord’s Prayer: if in the midst of such thoughts the Holy Spirit begins to preach in your heart with rich, enlightening thoughts, honor him by letting go of this written scheme. Be still and listen to the one who can do better than you can. Remember what the Spirit says and note it well and you will behold wondrous things in the law of God, as David says [Ps. 119:18]. ^[37]

Perhaps Luther was alluding to a belief in the “illumination of the Spirit” or simply that the Spirit can help us think better, but it is admitted that he seems to contradict here his own rejection of extra-biblical sources of divine revelation.

There is no doubt that John Calvin, considered the “theologian of the Spirit,” would be appalled at the reliance that many Christians place upon supposed subjective promptings of the Spirit. Again, such claims are not new, and Calvin wrote against the mega mystics in his own day in his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion. For example, we read, “Now daily oracles are not sent from heaven, for it pleased the Lord to hallow his truth to everlasting remembrance in the Scriptures alone [cf. John 5:39].” ^[38] In more detail, under the heading of “Fanatics, Abandoning Scripture And Flying Over To Revelations, Cast Down All The Principles Of Godliness,” John Calvin wrote:

Those who, having forsaken Scripture, imagine some way or other of reaching God, ought to be thought of as not so much gripped by error as carried away with frenzy. For of late, certain giddy men have arisen who, with great haughtiness exalting the teaching office of the Spirit, despise all reading and laugh at the simplicity of those who, as they express it, still follow the dead and killing letter. But I should like to know from them what this spirit is by whose inspiration they are borne up so high that they dare despise the Scriptural doctrine as childish and mean [lacking value]. For if they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, such assurance is utterly ridiculous. . . .

Paul was, “caught up even to the third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2), yet did not fail to become proficient in the doctrine of the Law and the Prophets, just as also he urges Timothy. . . . What devilish madness is it to pretend that the use of Scripture, which leads the children of God even to the final goal, is fleeting or temporal? . . . But lest under his [God’s] sign [what represents Him- i.e. the Church] the spirit of Satan should creep in, he [God] would have us recognize him in his own image, which he has stamped upon the Scriptures. He is the Author of the Scriptures. . . .

They censure us for insisting upon the letter that kills, but in this matter they pay the penalty for despising Scripture. . . . What say these fanatics, swollen with pride, who consider this the one excellent illumination when, carelessly forsaking and bidding farewell to God’s Word, they, no less confidently than boldly, seize upon whatever they may have conceived while snoring? Certainly a far different sobriety befits the children of God, who just as they see themselves, without the Spirit of God, bereft of the whole light of truth, so are not unaware that the Word is the instrument by which the Lord dispenses the illumination of his Spirit to believers. For they know no other Spirit than him who dwelt and spoke in the apostles, and by whose oracles they are continually recalled to the hearing of the Word. . . .

For by a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of his Word and of his Spirit so that . . . we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived when we recognize Him in His own image, namely, in the Word. ^[39]

Likewise, while many in charismaticism claim John Wesley as a forerunner of their mega mysticism, he wrote in his journal:

All the other enemies of Christianity are triflers: The Mystics are the most dangerous of its enemies. They stab it in the vitals. ^[40]

And elsewhere Wesley stated, specifically speaking of mega mysticism: “Beware of that daughter of pride, enthusiasm. Keep at the utmost distance from it!” ^[41] Oh that Christians today would heed these words instead of exalting and seeking “enthusiasm” today.

E) Quakerism

Quakerism is a Christian sect, also known as The Society of Friends, and was founded by George Fox in the mid 1600’s. Like many other mystical sects, the Quakers have been known for their virtue and piety. However, their dependence on extra-biblical revelation has also led them into doctrinal error. From the beginning, Fox and his followers encouraged receptivity to “openings” of the Spirit, the touch of the “Inner Light,” and the sound of the “Inner Voice”. J. D. Douglas explains concerning Fox:

In 1643, the earnest youth left home and traveled in search of religious enlightenment. After painful experiences, he spoke of having found One who spoke to his condition, and he came in 1646 to rely on the “Inner Light of the Living Christ.” Fox forsook church attendance, rejected outward sacraments and clergy, dismissed current religious disputes as trivial, and taught that truth is to be found primarily, not in Scripture or creed, but in God’s voice speaking to the soul. So emerged the “Friends of Truth.”. . .

At Derby in 1650 he was convicted of blasphemy, at which time the term “Quakers” originated in a judge’s jibe, after Fox had urged the bench to “tremble at the word of the Lord.” . . . He established local congregations [in which] women preachers were as acceptable as men. ^[42]

J. E. Johnson adds concerning Fox:

In 1652 [Fox] said that he had a vision at a place called Pendle Hill; from that point on, he based his faith on the idea that God could speak directly to any person. Their ultimate and final authority for religious life and faith resides within each individual. ^[43]

Accordingly, the Quaker theologian Robert Barclay denied that spiritual revelation had to be tested by the Scriptures.

F) The Great Awakening

Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758), the foremost leader of the Great Awakening in America, also encountered mega mysticism in the midst of this great revival. And he firmly and consistently denounced it. This should be heeded by modern mega mystics who cannot deny the spirituality and spiritual maturity of Edwards. Nonetheless, he would rebuke all mega mystics in the Church today who claim extra-biblical divine revelation for guidance- especially through divine/human mental telepathy. Accordingly, some excerpts from his vast writing on this topic are worth reading.

John Gerstner relates Edwards’ response to mega mysticism throughout his writings:

The Spirit does not, Edwards, quoting [Solomon] Stoddard, says, “reveal new truth not revealed in the Word.” The Spirit’s communication is not a “secret whisper,” that is, not the imparting of new propositions. ^[44]

By this imaginary “inspiration or immediate revelation” these dangerous mystics supposed that God led them, but according to Edwards it is not God who tells them, for “By such a notion the devil has a great door opened for him,” and in time he comes “to have his word regarded as their infallible rule,” and the Bible becomes “in a great measure useless.” This is only the beginning of sorrows for “This error will defend and support all errors.” The enthusiast becomes “incorrigible” for he is now guided by “the great Jehovah.” How can blind worms of the dust, go to argue with him? “I have seen” Edwards concludes, “so many instances of the failing of such impressions, that would almost furnish a history.” ^[45]

Elsewhere, Edwards urged the Christians of his day to, “take the Scriptures as our guide,” ^[46] rather than indulging impulses and impressions. He knew that without a complete dependence on Scripture, the Christian is vulnerable to “woeful delusions and would be exposed without remedy to be imposed on and devoured by its enemies.” ^[47]

In a much lengthier discussion, Edwards addressed the issue in his Treatise Concerning the Religious Affections. Here, he desired to distinguish true “supernatural understanding” from:

[T]his falsely supposed leading of the Spirit, which has been now spoken of . . . and all kinds and forms of enthusiasm, all imaginary sights of God, and Christ, and heaven, all supposed witnessing of the Spirit, and testimonies of the love of God by immediate inward suggestion; and all impressions of future events, and immediate revelations of any secret facts whatsoever; all enthusiastical impressions and applications of words of Scripture, as though they were words now immediately spoken by God to a particular person, in a new meaning, and carrying something more in them, than the words contain as they lie in the Bible; and all interpretations of the mystical meaning of the Scripture, by supposed immediate revelation. . . .

All consists in impressions in the head; all are to be referred to the head of impressions on the imagination, and consist in the exciting external ideas in the mind. . . .

From what has been said, it is also evident, that it is not spiritual knowledge for persons to be informed of their duty, by having it immediately suggested to their minds, that such and such outward actions or deeds are the will of God. If we suppose that it is truly God’s manner thus to signify his will to his people, by immediate inward suggestions, such suggestions have nothing of the nature of spiritual light. . . . .

But this leading of the Spirit [that mega mystics promoted in his day] is a thing exceedingly diverse from that which some call so; which consists not in teaching them God’s statutes and precepts, that he has already given; but in giving them new precepts, by immediate inward speech or suggestion. . . . ^[48]

Edwards also had done his historical research and added:

Such sort of experiences and discoveries as these, commonly raise the affections of such as are deluded by them, to a great height, and make a mighty uproar in both soul and body. And a very great part of the false religion that has been in the world, from one age to another, consists in such discoveries as these, and in the affections that flow from them. In such things consisted the experiences of the ancient Pythagoreans among the heathen, and many others among them, who had strange ecstasies and raptures, and pretended to a divine afflatus, and immediate revelations from heaven.

In such things as these seem to have consisted the experiences of the Essenes, an ancient sect among the Jews, at and after the time of the apostles. In such things as these consisted the experiences of many of the ancient Gnostics, and the Montanists, and many other sects of ancient heretics, in the primitive ages of the Christian church. And in such things as these consisted the pretended immediate converse with God and Christ, and saints and angels of heaven, of the Monks, Anchorites, and Recluses, that formerly abounded in the Church of Rome.

In such things consisted the pretended high experiences and great spirituality of many sects of enthusiasts, that swarmed in the world after the Reformation; such as the Anabaptists, Antinomians, and Familists, the followers of N. Stork, Th. Muncer, Jo. Becold, Henry Pfeiser, David George, Casper Swenckfield, Henry Nicolas Johannes, Agricola Eislebius; and the many wild enthusiasts that were in England in the days of Oliver Cromwell; and the followers of Mrs. Hutchison in New England; as appears by the particular and large accounts given of all these sects by that eminently holy man, Mr. Samuel Rutherford, in his “Display of the Spiritual Antichrist.” And in such things as these consisted the experiences of the late French prophets, and their followers. And in these things seems to lie the religion of the many kinds of enthusiasts of the present day. ^[49]

Edwards went on to share the dangers of mega mysticism:

It is by such sort of religion as this, chiefly, that Satan transforms himself into an angel of light; and it is that which he has ever most successfully made use of to confound hopeful and happy revivals of religion, from the beginning of the Christian church to this day. When the Spirit of God is poured out, to begin a glorious work, then the old serpent, as fast as possible, and by all means, introduces this bastard religion, and mingles it with the true; which has from time to time soon brought all things into confusion. The pernicious consequence of it is not easily imagined or conceived of, until we see and are amazed with the awful effects of it, and the dismal desolation it has made.

If the revival of true religion be very great in its beginning, yet if this bastard comes in, there is danger of its doing as Gideon’s bastard Abimelech did, who never left until he had slain all his threescore and ten true-born sons, excepting one, that was forced to fly.

Great and strict therefore should be the watch and guard that ministers maintain against such things, especially at a time of great awakening: for men, especially the common people, are easily bewitched with such things; they having such a glaring and glistering show of high religion; and the devil biding his own shape, and appearing as an angel of light, that men may not be afraid of him, but may adore him. ^[50]

Edwards denied that the following is a ministry of the Holy Spirit:

If they imagine they have immediate direction from heaven to go and do thus or thus, by any impression immediately made on their minds any otherwise than as they learn it to be their duty by Scripture with reason; or imagine that God reveals any future thing immediately in a dream. ^[51]

Finally, our favorite quote from Edwards on the subject of mega mysticism is the following:

The devil has ever shown a mortal spite and hatred towards that holy book, the Bible: he has done all in his power to extinguish that light and to draw men off from it. . . . As long as a person has a notion that he is guided by immediate direction from heaven, it makes him incorrigible and impregnable in all his misconduct . . . They who leave the sure word of prophecy [in Scripture]—which God has given us as a light shining in a dark place—to follow such impressions and impulses, leave the guidance of the polar star to follow a Jack with a lantern. ^[52]

We’re not sure what Edwards means by a misleading “Jack with a lantern,” but if we believed Edwards was prophetic, we would suggest he is speaking of the charismatic author Jack Deere.

We are prompted to ask, where are the men of God today who are willing to denounce mega mysticism as Edwards did in his day? Unfortunately, we would suggest that the American Church has allowed precisely what Edwards warned against. Just as he saw the true spiritual revival in his day be swallowed up with mega mysticism and “mindless worship,” ^[53] so we have experienced the same great tragedy today.

G) Charles Spurgeon

Unfortunately, we have found mega mysticism in a message from even the great Bible teacher Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892). In a sermon entitled “Nevertheless At Thy Word,” Spurgeon preached on the following text:

One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, with the people crowding around Him and listening to the word of God, ² He saw at the water’s edge two boats, left there by the fishermen, who were washing their nets. ³ He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little from shore. Then He sat down and taught the people from the boat.

When He had finished speaking, He said to Simon, “Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch.”

Simon answered, “Master, we’ve worked hard all night and haven’t caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets.”

When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. (Luke 5:1-6)

Spurgeon preached:

There was the sermon to the many first, and after the sermon this word to Peter about launching out into the deep. Mind that you, who love the Lord, always look for the private piece after the public sermon. Watch for the sweet word which your Master is always willing to utter, and do not be satisfied unless you hear it.

Then, if the message that he gives you shall be a precept, or a command, like that addressed to Simon, bidding him let down his nets, be careful that you at once obey it. Be not negligent of the special voice of God in your own heart and conscience, for God intends thereby to bestow a great blessing upon you, even as he did upon Simon whose boat was filled with fish almost to sinking. If you give heed to that special private word of your Lord to your own heart and soul, many a boatful of fish shall you have, or, rather, many a heartful of untold blessing which otherwise you might never have received. ^[54]

We write elsewhere that God gave us minds and consciences to accurately and adequately apply Scripture and sermons to our lives. ^[55] On the contrary, Mr. Spurgeon implies that using our Spirit-liberated reason is not enough and that we must expect and recognize some sort of message by divine/human mental telepathy apart from what could be concluded by carefully listening to and thinking about a sermon.

And Spurgeon was somewhat confusing in this sermon, as he ends it with the following:

The moment we become Christians, who are saved by Christ, we become his servants to obey all his commandments. Hence, it is incumbent upon us to search the Scriptures that we may know what our Master’s will is. There he has written it out for us in plain letters, and it is an act of disobedience to neglect this search. ^[56]

Trying to recognize a Spirit-inspired “message within a message” as he had just instructed is not the same thing as searching “the Scriptures that we may know what our Master’s will is. There he has written it out for us in plain letters.”

“The Holy Spirit still exists, works, and teaches in the Church. And we have a test by which to know whether what people claim to be revelation is revelation or not—‘he shall receive of mine’ (Joh 16:14). The Holy Spirit will never go farther than the Cross and the coming of the Lord. He will go no farther than that which concerns Christ. ‘He shall receive of mine.’ When, therefore, anybody whispers in my ear that there has been revealed to him this or that, which I do not find in the teaching of Christ and His Apostles, I tell him that we must be taught by the Holy Spirit. His one vocation is to deal with the things of Christ! If we do not remember this, we may be carried away by quirks,[2] as many have been. Those who will have to do with other things, let them—but as for us, we shall be satisfied to confine our thoughts and our teaching within these limitless limits: ‘He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.’ ”–1891, Sermon 2213

Spurgeon (1834-1892), Charles. Spurgeon Gems . Chapel Library. Kindle Edition.

Extras & Endnotes

Devotion to Dad

Our Father in Heaven, we ask You to protect us from the “swarmers” who buzz around thinking God’s word is in the air somewhere coming to them, instead of the word of God. And purge this mindset from us as well, that our minds may be saturated with the Word of God, rather than our own meandering thoughts. Amen.

Gauging Your Grasp

1) What is a memorable quote from Charles Hodge on mega mysticism?

2) What manifestation of mega mysticism did the early Church deal with? What descriptions of it tie it to modern mega mysticism?

3) What were some of the good things about monastics in the Middle Ages? What were some unbiblical things?

4) What are some groups that engaged in mega mysticism during the Reformation? How did the Reformers respond to them?

5) Pick out one quote from Luther on the topic of mega mysticism to remember.

6) Pick out a quote from Calvin on the topic of mega mysticism to remember.

7) Pick out one quote from Edwards on the topic of mega mysticism to remember.

8) Pick out a modern quote on this topic.

Publications & Particulars

1. Douglas Huffman, How Then Should We Choose? (Kregel, 2009), 21. ↑

2. Gary Friesen in Huffman, 105. ↑

3. Paul Kubricht writes regarding quietism:

   The term has several connotations and is often used in a broad sense to refer to the emphasis on human inactivity and passivity that has accompanied the mystic experience. In a more specific way it refers to a manifestation of Roman Catholic mysticism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries . . .

   Despite . . . opposition quietism spread to France, where it found an outstanding proponent in Madame Guyon, a woman from an influential family . . . Following the death of her husband she came under the influence of [quietism] and by 1680 felt herself so close to God that she received visions and revelations. Traveling widely through France she won many converts, calling them “spiritual children.” Her teaching, elaborated in A Short and Easy Method of Prayer emphasized passive prayer as the major Christian activity. ]

   Eventually, she felt, the soul will lose all interest in its own fate, and even the truth of the gospel would be insignificant before “the torrent of the forces of God.” On a popular level her teaching led to a disregard for the spiritual activities and the sacraments of the church. The result was a belief in a vague pantheism which is closer to the South Asian religions than to Christianity. (“Quietism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT), Walter Elwell, ed. [Baker, 1984], 903. ↑

4. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Abridged version, Edward N. Gross ed. (Presbyterians & Reformed Publishing, 1992), 70-1.

   However, Dr. Hodge seems to equate the biblical means of divine revelation of visions, etc. with the mental telepathy of mega mysticism in the following:

   The idea on which mysticism is founded is Scriptural and true. It is true that God has access to the human soul. It is true that He can, consistently with His own nature and with the laws of our being, supernaturally and immediately reveal truth objectively to the mind and attend that revelation with evidence which produces an infallible assurance of its truth and of its divine origin [e.g. a revelatory vision which biblical Prophets experienced]. It is also true that such revelations have been made to the children of men. But these cases of immediate supernatural revelation belong to the category of miracles. They are rare and are to be duly authenticated. (Systematic Theology, I.67; online at http://www.ccel.org) ↑

5. Donald Bridge, Signs and Wonders Today (Intervarsity, 1985), 183 ↑

6. Donald Gee, Spiritual Gifts in the Work of Ministry Today (Gospel Publishing House, 1963), 51-52. ↑

7. William J. Abraham, Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology : From the Fathers to Feminism (Clarendon, 1998), 36, underlining added. ↑

8. Many have suggested that several NT writers were writing in response to Gnosticism. Most of these suggestions have come from more liberal scholars attempting to produce evidence that several NT documents were written after the Apostolic Age in the second century.

   For example, concerning the “Colossian heresy,” that some equate with Gnosticism, F. F. Bruce writes: “It is not . . . easy to relate it to any of the particular forms of developed gnosticism known from Irenaeus or Hippolytus or (more recently) from the Nag Hammadi texts” (20-21; cf. N. T. Wright, Colossians [Eerdmans, 1999], 23-30).

   Likewise, we would suggest that interpreters are reading far too much into Paul’s statement to Timothy concerning “the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge [gnosis]” (1 Tim 6:20) when they suggest he has Gnosticism in mind. Accordingly, G. W. Knight remarks: “[I]t is precarious to make too much of Paul’s one use of gnosis in the Pastoral Epistles since he has used it so widely and frequently before (some 22x) where Gnosticism is not in view and has also from time to time warned against a false view of the significance of “knowledge” in earlier contexts (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 8:1, 2)” (The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC) [Eerdmans, 1992], 27).

   Concerning the Gospel of John, Leon Morris writes: “As far as I am aware, no one has succeeded in showing that developed Gnosticism is present anywhere in John” (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans, 1995], 12). Accordingly, G. L. Borchert writes in the EDT: “It is hard to read the NT and gain any secure feeling at the present that canonical writers were attacking the Gnostic devotees or mythologizers.” (“Gnosticism,” 447)

   While the scholarly consensus is that Gnosticism was not really established until the second and third centuries, it is also widely agreed that, at best, there may be “pre-Gnostic” glimpses in the NT, but not clear instances. It may be that the ancient historian Hegesippus (c. 120-190) has it right when he informs us that “the heretical gnosis did not make its appearance with an uncovered head until after the death of the apostles, but that it previously worked in secret.” (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 3:32) ↑

9. A. M. Renwick, “Gnosticism,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), 4 vols., Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed. (Eerdmans, 1988), II.484. ↑

10. Gnosticism was both popular in the Christian Church and a false dangerous teaching. For claims of the same regarding modern charismaticism see section 10.15.A. ↑

11. Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (SHERK) “Gnosticism,” (Baker, 1954). ↑

12. Antonia Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age (Eerdmans, 2002), 2. ↑

13. See good summaries of these non-Christian beliefs in the ancient mystery cults including Gnosticism see Renwick, 488-89. ↑

14. SHERK, “Gnosticism.” ↑

15. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Electronic Edition STEP Files (Findex.com, 1999), II.123. ↑

16. John MacArthur, “The Sufficiency of the Written Word” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible (Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), 28. ↑

17. Carl E. Braaten, “The Role of Dogma in Church and Theology,” in The Task of Theology Today: Doctrines and Dogmas (Eerdmans, 1999), 25. ↑

18. Regarding the similarities of 2^nd century Montanism to modern charismaticism and its condemnation by the early Church see sections 9.13.D and 12.13.B. ↑

19. Regarding the fact that mega mysticism is unsupported in the writings of the early Church Fathers see Alasdair Heron, The Holy Spirit (Westminster, 1983), 63-86. ↑

20. Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis, 16.2; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

21. Accordingly, Gordon Smith, Dean of Regent College, in his rather mega mystical book on divine guidance, Listening to God in Times of Choice (InterVarsity, 1997), says of Gary Friesen and his very good book, Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 1980), that Friesen rightly rejects the blueprint model of God wanting to micro-manage our lives which mega mysticism is based on, but then loses touch with the classic mystical tradition. (102) ↑

22. Ibid. ↑

23. “Mystics” M&S. ↑

24. Ibid. ↑

25. Donald Bloesch, The Holy Spirit (Intervarsity, 2000), 78. ↑

26. Ibid., 92-3. ↑

27. Erwin Lutzer, Who Are You to Judge? (Moody, 2002), 207. ↑

28. “Mystics”, EDT. ↑

29. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Daniel E. Poellot (Fortress, 1953-86), vol. 23, pp. 70-71. ↑

30. Westminster Confession of Faith, I.6. quoted in Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Zondervan, 1994), 1180. ↑

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

32. John Warwick Montgomery, “Lessons from Luther on the Inerrancy of Holy Writ”, in God’s Inerrant Word, John Warwick Montgomery ed. (Bethany, 1974), 87. ↑

33. J. Theodore Mueller, “The Holy Spirit and the Scriptures” in Revelation and the Bible, Carl F. H. Henry ed. (Baker, 1958), 278-9. ↑

34. Ibid. ↑

35. Herman Bavinck Prolegomena, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 1 (Baker, 2003), 466-7. ↑

36. Francis Peiper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 1, (Concordia, 1950), 210, 213. ↑

37. Martin Luther, A Practical Way to Pray, in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings Timothy F. Lull, ed. (Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 14, 16. ↑

38. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.7.1; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

39. Ibid., I.9. ↑

40. John Wesley, The Journal of John Wesley, ed. N. Curnock (Epworth, 1938), I:420. ↑

41. Bloesch, Certainty, 144. ↑

42. J. D. Douglas, “George Fox,” in WWCH. ↑

43. J. E. Johnson, “Quakers,” EDT, 430-1. ↑

44. John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. (Berea, 1991), I.187. ↑

45. Ibid., 148-9. ↑

46. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Edward Hickman (Banner of Truth Trust, 1992), vol. 2, 260. ↑

47. Ibid. ↑

48. Jonathan Edwards, “A Treatise on Religious Affections,” III.4.4; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

49. Ibid. ↑

50. Ibid. ↑

51. John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. (Berea, 1991), I.177 ↑

52. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Edward Hickman (Banner of Truth Trust, 1992, vol. 2, 267-8; vol. 1, 404 and vol.2, 275. ↑

53. Regarding the “mindless worship” in previous and modern day revivals see section 4.10.D and chapter 4.11. ↑

54. Charles Spurgeon, “Nevertheless At Thy Word” in the CH Spurgeon Collection Volume 3: Miracles (Emerald, 1998), 34-5. ↑

55. Regarding the claim that God gave us minds and consciences to accurately and adequately apply Scripture and sermons to our lives see section 3.3.A.4. ↑

56. Spurgeon, “Nevertheless At Thy Word” 34-5. ↑