Chapter 14.9

The Dangers of Mega Mysticism

 

Table of Topics

A) The Danger of Lying in Mega Mysticism

B) The Danger of Abusing Authority in Mega Mysticism

C) The Danger of Devaluing Scripture in Mega Mysticism

C.1) The Devaluation of Scripture in Mega Mysticism Stated

C.2) The Devaluation of Scripture in Mega Mysticism Illustrated

C.3) The Hypocrisy in Mega Mysticism When Defending the Authority of Scripture

D) The Danger of Disparaging Reason in Mega Mysticism

D.1) Introduction to Mega Mysticism & Reason

D.2) Reason & emotion

D.2) Free Will & Mega Mysticism

D.3) Mega Mysticism’s Encouragement of Foolishness

D.4) Mega Mysticism’s Hypocritical Reliance on Reason

D.5) Some Conclusions on Mega Mysticism & Reason

E) The Danger of Intimidation & Arrogance in Mega Mysticism

F) The Danger of Perverting Prayer in Mega Mysticism

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• The issues surrounding mega mysticism are not simply a theological debate regarding divine revelation. There are serious sins involved.
• Mega mystics claim direct divine revelation from God when in fact, they have simply been guided by other means including their conscience, knowledge of Scripture, personal desires, logical thinking, counsel, or the moral fruit of their New Nature. This is the great sin of lying.
• In mega mysticism there is an illegitimate desire to add spiritual authority to their statements and decisions that they do not deserve, all again amounting to lying.
• One of the most common reasons that people crave a mega mystical mindset is that they believe this is essential to a personal relationship with Christ. But while such a loss may be difficult, is not lying to yourself and others much worse?
• A final and constant source of lying in mega mysticism occurs because its proponents are rarely, if ever honest about the many, many times that their “intuitions” or interpretations of circumstances turned out to be wrong and misled them and others to their own hurt.
• In the end, to be honest, our biggest concern with mega mystics is that they are habitual liars.
• Mega mystic Jack Deere: “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.”
• Although mega mystical leaders deny that their ministries devalue the place of Scripture, in practice it is unavoidable.
• In mega mysticism there is a general mistrust in the value of the God-given purposes of reasoning. Instead, there is an emphasis on trusting inner feelings and psychological experiences.
• The answer to any deficiencies of reason is not mega mystical revelations, but rather, having our mind renewed with the truth of Scripture.
• We would like to see some honesty from mega mystics concerning the fact that many, if not all of the bad decisions they have ever made were because they failed to diligently do their research and gather the facts or reasoned incorrectly on the facts they had.

Primary Points

Continued

• God never wants us to act against reason. Never.
• For all the mega mystical encouragement to abandon reason, if pressed, mega mystics will always come back to it. The very thing they ridicule, is the very thing that they themselves desperately depend on.
• Mega mystics suggest the “voice” of God is hard to recognize and we might miss it if we do not practice all kinds of unbiblical practices. Fortunately, there is not a single person in Scripture that fits their teaching.
• It is an incredibly tempting thought to believe that prayer is intended as an extra-biblical source of divine revelation. The problem is that it is nowhere described like this in Scripture. It is Scripture that tells us what God’s will is, not prayer. The purpose of prayer is to seek help in doing God’s will as already revealed in Scripture.
• The ascetic mysticism commonly promoted in mega mysticism as a way to “hear” God is both deceptive and damaging as warned of in Colossians 2:18-23.

Earlier, in chapter 4.7, we discussed the great dangers in mega mysticism of the bondage of superstition and the sin of divination. Here we will discuss other dangers and unbiblical temptations, if not tendencies of mega mysticism.

A) The Danger of Lying in Mega Mysticism

We can debate all we want about the unbiblical nature of claiming to be receiving direct revelation from God apart from Scripture. But let us say at the outset of this section what is one of the greatest dangers of mega mysticism: lying. And let us remind the Christian why this is so horrible: God hates it. When a mega mystical person claims to have received an extra-biblical revelation from God through a mental impulse and it is merely their own thinking, they are lying and God hates lying.

Mega mystics seem to care very little about lying, even though God cares about it a great deal. Accordingly, we have written elsewhere:

In Colossians, the Apostle Paul simply commands, “Do not lie to each other” (3:9; cf. Eph 4:25; 1 Tim. 1:10, 13). The Scriptures indicate that no true Christian will be gripped by this sin enough that they might be called “liars,” for such people are damned to Hell (cf. Rev 21:8, 27; 22:15). Lying is so demonic that Christ referred to it as the devil’s “native language” (John 8:44). Biblically speaking, there is no work more destructive and demonic than lying. God’s view of fraud within the Church is graphically portrayed by His killing Ananias and Sapphira for this very thing (cf. Acts 5:1-10). In contrast, lying, exaggeration, and fraud seem quite rampant in the Church today, particularly in super-supernatural [which includes mega mystical] environments. ^[1]

Often, it would seem, mega mystics claim direct divine revelation from God when in fact, they have simply been guided by other means including their conscience, knowledge of Scripture, personal desires, logical thinking, counsel, or the moral fruit of their New Nature. Evidently, these more biblical and God-ordained means of guidance don’t seem as spiritual as claiming to have heard more directly from God like Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Unfortunately, many such claims amount to Christians lying to other Christians. For example, we have already noted John Eldredge’s claims to direct revelation from God Who told him to “Go fishing.” He was lying.

The popular theologian R. C. Sproul is also more honest about how divine revelation really works in mega mystical circles when he writes:

The claims of private new revelations are many. Pat Robertson routinely gets the “word of knowledge” on national television. God reveals specific illnesses of people who live in various parts of the nation as he prays. I have seen him say things like, “Someone in Topeka, Kansas is right this moment being healed of a goiter.” This is an astonishing thing. Here is a man hundreds of miles from the scene who is getting supernatural revelation of the healing of a specific disease in a specific city. What puzzles me is the restricted specificity of these revelations. The disease and the city are named, but never the name and address of the person being healed. Here the prophecy can be neither verified nor falsified.

But it gets more subtle. We hear respected Christian leaders claiming that God has “spoken to them” and given specific guidance and instructions upon which they are duty bound to act and obey. They are careful to note that this divine speech was not in audible form and there is a disclaimer that this is not a new “revelation.” Yet the message which is “laid on the heart” is so clear and powerful that to disobey it is to disobey the voice of God. . . . Though such claims are more often than not attended by the disclaimer that they are not revelation, the way they function is as revelation so that the distinction between them and bona fide revelation is, in actuality, a distinction without a difference. ^[2]

And indeed there are many much more biblical explanations for the thoughts that guide us other than the direct divine revelation mega mystics claim. God certainly is concerned that we make wise and moral decisions and has provided an abundance of means for this that are devalued and ignored by mega mystics when in reality they are depending on and using them just as much as the rest of us, but putting a more super-supernatural spin to them by claiming a more direct revelation from God.

Christians in general have been far too quick to give their decisions a spiritual weight they do not deserve by claiming direct divine revelation for them. Consequently, charismatic Doug Banister is right to point out the hypocrisy of Evangelicals who criticize charismaticism for their claims of extra-biblical revelation when mega mystical language is all too common among them. Describing his experience in seminary, Mr. Banister writes:

The message [from the professors] was clear: God speaks through the Bible and the Bible only. Don’t trust anything else. There was just one problem. We didn’t live that way. Almost everyone I knew on our campus lived on a daily level with a God who speaks in ways other than the Bible. We called these communications from God “leadings” or “promptings” or “impressions” or “a still, small voice” (see I Kings 19:12 KJV). And we acted on these words from God. . . .

We prayed for each other and sometimes were “prompted” to share something God had “put on our heart” for a friend. Our professors, at times, changed their lesson plans, sensing that “God has something different for us today.” We used different terms from our charismatic cousins to describe God’s speaking, and we were quite a bit more subdued about it (no one I knew got swept into heaven for a tour), but it slowly dawned on me that we basically believed the same thing. God speaks-and not just through his Word. I am convinced that when you pare away the externals that distract us, charismatics and evangelicals are basically saying the same thing about how God speaks. ^[3]

And in our opinion, this is unfortunately true for two reasons. First, there is a refusal to recognize the absolute lack of biblical promises or instruction regarding such extra-biblical revelation. Secondly, there is an illegitimate desire to add spiritual authority to our statements and decisions they do not deserve, all again amounting to lying. Accordingly, Philip Yancey writes:

The same evangelical tradition that spurs us on to greater intimacy also invites abuse. “I asked the Lord what to speak on and he said, Don’t speak on pride, speak on stewardship.” “The Lord told me he wanted a new medical center in this city.” . . . The wording implies a kind of voice-to-voice conversation that did not take place, and the fudged report has the effect of creating a spiritual caste that downgrades others’ experiences. ^[4]

Mega mysticism gives us a way to grant our decisions and statements with God’s own authority even when we have no right to do so. Along these lines, Ruth Tucker shares an all too common example when she writes: “There are countless pastors who testify of God speaking to them to leave one church and accept a call to another-and, perhaps only coincidentally, to a larger and more prestigious one.” ^[5]

Likewise, Gary Friesen writes:

This idea of explaining the reasons for difficult decisions is one that merits careful consideration on the part of pastors in particular. When the determination has been made to move from one place of ministry to another, it is very common (and perhaps expected) for the pastor to announce, “I feel that the Lord has called me to a new place of service.”

That explanation sounds very spiritual, and is usually accepted at face value by many in the church, including the pastor himself. But a few can’t help thinking, “I wonder what the real reasons are.” And in many cases, the real reasons are so painful, the pastor is thankful he can hide behind the “Lord’s will.”

As a result, the problems that prompted the decision to move (if that was the case) remain camouflaged until a new pastor stumbles onto them. At the very least, the departing pastor misses a golden opportunity to model wise decision making before his flock. While there may be occasions in which silence is the better part of wisdom, there are many others in which the church would benefit if the pastor manifested greater candor [honesty!] in explaining his decisions. ^[6]

Do we see how mega mysticism encourages us to deceive ourselves and others? Dr. Tucker goes on to relate:

In an article titled “Carrying the Burden of God’s Silence,” Suzanne Britt writes a parody of this phenomenon. She tells of receiving from a friend a subscription to Guideposts-a daily devotional magazine that features what might be termed everyday miracles. “The God of Guideposts,” writes Britt, “speaks in complete sentences, telling this golfer to chip rather than putt, suggesting that this housewife bottle her barbeque sauce for the masses and make a million dollars, commanding this entertainer to switch from radio to television.” But is this the whole truth, she wonders. What of the times “when God is silent”? Why doesn’t Guideposts feature stories when there is no “happy ending”-a “story in which God does not make a timely and loquacious appearance at the exact and miraculous moment”? ^[7]

For our part, we deplore how lightly this topic is taken in American Christianity and we would wish more Christian leaders would discourage the abuses we note here rather than encouraging them. Ruth Tucker would seem to be only one of a few with the courage and convictions necessary to write something like:

Is Jesus talking with us today? Some people cannot live without a message directed exclusively for themselves in words they can repeat. Jesus, they reason, is not fulfilling his role if he is not speaking words today [in addition to those] spoken two thousand years ago. But a talking Jesus-one who voices [what is really just] our own words [and desires, decisions, and consequently deceptions]-is surely no improvement over the Jesus who lived and walked and talked among us.

“Jesus told me. Jesus said to me.” These are phrases we dare not use. Hearing those words was the unique privilege of only a small number of people who lived during a short period of time. The one exception was the apostle Paul. As Saul, the great persecutor of Christians, he was stopped dead in his tracks, blinded by a light and verbally accosted by the voice of Jesus. This decisive incident set the stage for him to become an apostle. It is no small matter for someone else to claim a similar encounter.

Fabricating conversation is a serious transgression. But more than that, it diminishes the greatest event of history: the incarnation, when God became man. If we truly believe and honor that most precious doctrine, we will avoid the temptation of giving words to our risen Lord. His words were astonishing. They are memorable, and they ought to live in our hearts. We cannot improve on them, and to attempt to do so is not only presumptuous but it is trifling with what is holy. ^[8]

Indeed, we understand the desire for personal extra-biblical guidance for decision making. And it can feel like a loss to be corrected in this matter and realize that the Scriptures do not promise such a thing, nor give instruction regarding it. But while such a loss may be difficult, is not lying to yourself and others much worse?

A final and constant source of lying in mega mysticism occurs because its proponents are rarely, if ever honest about the many, many times that their “intuitions” or interpretations turned out to be wrong and misled them and others to their own hurt. As Dr. Friesen notes:

It is often forgotten that many, if not most . . . inward impressions lead nowhere. Promptings are followed to dead ends as often as to avenues of service. ^[9]

Accordingly, mega mystics can tell you stories about how a dream, thought, impression, or “prophecy” gave them good guidance, but what they seem to forget, and usually neglect to share, is about all the times that they thought a similar “message” was from God and it turned out not to be. The confidence that mega mystics speak about divine guidance apart from Scripture rarely matches their real experience, and if they truly kept track of the “success rate” of such means most of them would be more humble about the reliability and value of mega mysticism.

This is a foremost criticism of Henry Blackaby’s materials on divine guidance. He gives the impression that he has been rather perfect in his interpretation of “signs” and circumstances as the extra-biblical message of God. At least to our knowledge he has never admitted to a mistake in such things in his writings or elsewhere. Of course to do so would undermine his agenda in promoting such a thing as a trustworthy source of divine revelation. Imagine, for example, if Scripture misled us at some point. We would not trust it. And if mega mystics were more honest about how many times their mega mysticism has misled them, people wouldn’t trust it either.

In the end, to be honest, our biggest concern with mega mystics is that they are habitual liars.

B) The Danger of Abusing Authority in Mega Mysticism

In a similar vein, John MacArthur relates an example of the same kind of dangerous authority that occurs when mega mysticism is tolerated:

People begin to pursue paranormal experiences, supernatural phenomena, and special revelations-as if our resources in Christ weren’t enough. They spin their views of God and spiritual truth out of their own self-authenticated, self-generated feelings, which become more important to them than the Bible. They create experiences in their minds from which they develop a belief system that simply is not true, opening themselves to further deception and even demonic influences. That’s the legacy of mysticism.

The pastor of a rather large church in our area wanted to relocate the church. The idea wasn’t popular with some members of his congregation, but he convinced them that it was God’s will by appealing to mysticism. He told them that on three separate occasions the Lord Himself had spoken to him instructing him to move the church to a certain location. The pastor claimed that on the third occasion the Lord said to him, “The time has come. Leave the problem to me. I will work on many hearts. Some will not understand. Some will not follow. Most will. Go, and do my bidding.” That is a verbatim quote from the church’s newsletter. . . . When the pastor presented the plan to his congregation, he likened it to Caleb and Joshua’s challenge to the Israelites to enter the Promised Land (Num. 13:30). Then he added:

If you cannot catch the vision of God’s beautiful plan, I will understand, but it is essential that our church be faced with this opportunity to follow His plan. If you won’t go with us I will understand. I will not think of you as evil, or destructive. . . . I want us to move forward into God’s plan, and I want every one of you to go with us. You will be glad you did, and God will bless you for it.

That’s the classic intimidation of an appeal to mysticism! This man effectively renounced all responsibility for his plan and placed it on God. By doing so he took the decision away from his people and other church leaders and based it on his own unreliable feelings. He implied that anyone who disagreed with his plan was opposing God’s will and ran the risk of incurring the same fate that the unbelieving Israelites suffered when they refused to enter Canaan! ^[10]

Likewise, Millard Erickson relates:

In one church, a decision was to be made on two proposed plans for a new sanctuary. One member insisted that the Lord had told him that the church should adopt the plan calling for the larger sanctuary. . . . The church eventually divided over this and similar issues. ^[11]

Elsewhere, we have noted how mega mysticism serves to violate the God-ordained roles of husbands and wives in marriage. ^[12]

C) The Danger of Devaluing Scripture in Mega Mysticism

C.1) The Devaluation of Scripture in Mega Mysticism Stated

As noted throughout Knowing Our God, mega mysticism serves to devalue the authority and importance of Scripture in the minds of God’s people. ^[13] The value of propositional, objective truth such as one reads in Scripture is minimized, and the intuitions, impulses, and imaginations of the mind are deemed as another, or even better source of spiritual truth. While Paul instructed us to, “Let the [written] word of Christ dwell in you richly” (Col 3:16), as Charles Hodge put it, “What dwell in the mind of the mystic are his own imaginings, the character of which depends on his own subjective state.” ^[14]

A common slogan of the modern mystic is to misuse 2 Corinthians 3:6 and refer to the Scriptures, or doctrinal training in general, as “the letter [that] kills,” while their spiritual intuitions and experiences represent “the Spirit [that] gives life.” ^[15] The result of such emphases is a decreasing value placed on Scripture as the vehicle through which God speaks. The authority of God’s written word is already far too often ignored, and mega mysticism promotes this very thing.

Accordingly, what the respected Bible scholar Rene Pache says in reference to the belief that God is granting “prophecies” today surely applies to mega mysticism:

The excessive preeminence given to the Holy Spirit in their devotions and their preoccupation with gifts, ecstasies, and “prophecies” has tended to the neglect of the Scriptures. Why be tied to a Book out of the past when one can communicate every day with the living God? But this is exactly the point.

Apart from the constant control of the written revelation, we soon find ourselves engulfed in subjectivity; and the believer, even if he has the best intentions, can sink rapidly into deviations, illuminism or [self] exaltation.

Let each remind himself of the prohibition of taking anything away from Scripture or adding anything to it (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19). Almost every heresy and sect has originated in a supposed revelation or a new experience on the part of its founder, something outside the strictly biblical framework. ^[16]

C.2) The Devaluation of Scripture in Mega Mysticism Illustrated

It is in light of all we have written regarding the unbiblical nature of mega mysticism that we would claim that there has never been a more dangerous, deceptive, and demonic book than Jack Deere’s Surprised by the Voice of God. Elsewhere, Mr. Deere 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. . . . Satan understands the strategic importance of Christians hearing God’s voice so he has launched various attacks against us [who promote mega mysticism] in this area. One of his most successful attacks has been to develop a doctrine that teaches God no longer speaks to us except through the written word. Ultimately this doctrine is demonic even though Christian theologians have been used to perfect it. ^[17]

Likewise, Mr. Deere has written:

A Bible deist has a lot in common with the natural deist. They both worship the wrong thing. The deists of the eighteenth century worshiped human reason. The Bible deists of today worship the Bible. Bible deists have great difficulty separating Christ and the Bible. Unconsciously in their minds the Bible and Christ merge into one entity. Christ cannot speak or be known apart from the Bible . . . . They do not understand how it is possible to preach the Bible without preaching Christ . . .

The Bible deist talks a lot about the sufficiency of Scripture. . . in reality he is proclaiming the sufficiency of his own interpretation of the Scripture. When many people say they have confidence in the Bible, what they really mean is they have confidence in their ability to interpret the Word. . . . The Bible deist is so confident in the sufficiency of his interpretation that it is difficult for him to be corrected by experience. . . .

[T]here is something very wrong in our relationship with God when we do not see [visions], hear [voices], and feel [impressions] from him, and yet leave our “time with him” feeling satisfied.. . . This is what happened to the Pharisees who diligently studied the Bible, but “never heard his voice” (John 5:37). Evidently, Jesus thought that the voice of God and the Bible were not the same. . . .

Somewhere along the way . . . the church has encouraged a silent divorce between the Word and the Spirit. Divorces are painful, both for the children and the parents. One parent usually gets custody of the children, and the other gets to visit occasionally. It breaks the hearts of the parents, and the children are usually worse off because of the arrangement.

Many in the church today are content to live with only one parent. They live with the Word, and the Spirit has only limited visiting rights. He just gets to see and touch the kids once in a while. Some of his kids don’t even recognize him anymore. Some have become afraid of him. ^[18]

If anyone is tempted to think that there is anything biblical or healthy about what Mr. Deere claims here, we would humbly suggest they need to study the topic of divine revelation in Scripture more. Perhaps start with the quotes of more accurate Bible Teachers in chapter 14.3.

Although Mr. Deere adds disclaimers throughout his book to give the appearance of orthodoxy, the intended message of his book is very clear: 1) Don’t trust your ability to interpret Scripture, 2) Subjective experiences, like impressions, dreams, visions, and voices are just as reliable, if not more, than your interpretation of written Scripture, 3) God is speaking today through impressions, dreams, visions, and voices and if He is not speaking to you in this way you are really missing out.

Separating Christ from the Bible as Mr. Deere suggests is dangerous, even arrogant business. And if our interpretation of Scripture and its God-ordained exclusive authority is accurate, then Mr. Deere is guilty of promoting some of the most dangerous, deceptive, and demonic teachings in the Church today. Accordingly, all of even his most supernatural stories (if they are even to be believed as he describes them), could be retold by any number of modem day psychics, mediums, and New Age channelers. The man of God is to keep the devil out of the Church. Mr. Deere has welcomed him in.

A similar tendency of mega mysticism is to disparage Bible study. Along these lines, former member of the Board of Directors of the Association of Vineyard Churches, Tom Stipe says:

One [Vineyard] conference speaker, addressing 8,000 people, discouraged the use of reference books, commentaries, and language tools for sermon preparation. Rather, the pastors were exhorted to determine their Sunday messages through listening for prophecies during long walks with the Lord. ^[19]

It is as if our mega mystical brethren do not believe that the Bible is enough, that God would really like to say more, and that those who confine their divine revelation to the Scriptures are missing out. On the contrary, as one pastor put it:

All that I can possibly know as God’s binding, authoritative will is what God TOLD me (Scripture) not what God “tells” me (subjective ideas that may or may not be from God). It is abusive to bind people to non-authoritative, fallible words (even insensible ones) and tell them that obeying such words is the key to God’s presence in their lives. ^[20]

Likewise, watch how Doug Banister abuses Scripture to degrade the authority of Scripture when he writes something silly like:

The Bible uses the term revelation in several different ways. Sometimes the word apokalypsis refers to scriptural revelation, which is divinely authoritative. At other times the same word is used to describe a message with less authority; in such passages the word means “divinely prompted guidance or direction” (I Cor. 14:26; Gal. 2:2; Eph. 1:17; Phil. 3:15). ^[21]

His first reference (1 Cor 14:26) is to the gift of prophecy in the early Church which, contrary to Mr. Banister, we have demonstrated elsewhere was considered the authoritative word of God. ^[22] The “revelation” for Paul to visit Jerusalem (Gal 2:2) was obeyed by Paul as the word of God. Why would Mr. Banister assume that the “revelation” that Paul is praying for the Ephesians would be less authoritative than Scripture? In fact, we argue elsewhere that the Apostle expected it to come from the Apostles and Prophets mentioned throughout the epistle to the Ephesians. ^[23] Finally, Paul writes in Philippians 3:15: “[I]f on some point [I’ve just written] you think differently, that too God will make clear [reveal] to you.” The topic Paul has been discussing is that knowing Christ is supreme (cf. vs. 3:1-11). Perhaps experience would reinforce such a truth, but again, why would we assume that Scripture would not be sufficient to better convince us of this truth as well. There certainly isn’t any implication of an extra-biblical, less authoritative source of divine revelation here as Mr. Banister claims. Unfortunately, his misleading proof-texting is essentially what we have come to expect from mega mystics.

C.3) The Hypocrisy in Mega Mysticism When Defending the Authority of Scripture

Mega mystics understandably wish to deny their disparagement of the authority of Scripture. As a result, they embark on the impossible, if not hypocritical task of promoting their doctrine of extra-biblical divine revelation, but at the same time claiming to protect the authority of Scripture. We have noted elsewhere that the charismatic theologian Wayne Grudem has written one of the most compelling and complete statements regarding the sufficiency of Scripture we have seen. ^[24] Yet he is one of the foremost promoters of all kinds of extra-biblical revelation. For example he writes:

Some have objected that waiting for such [extra-biblical] “promptings” from God is “just too subjective” a process. But in response, it may be said that, for the health of the church, it is often the people who make this objection who need this subjective process [of extra-biblical revelation] most in their own Christian lives! [Obtaining] this [extra-biblical revelation] requires waiting on the Lord, listening for him, hearing his prompting in our hearts. For Christians who are completely evangelical, doctrinally sound, intellectual, and “objective,” probably what is needed most is the strong, balancing influence of a more vital “subjective” relationship with the Lord. ^[25]

Again, as noted elsewhere, such a statement is a complete contradiction of how he speaks elsewhere of the sufficiency and authority of Scripture.

Because of his adherence to a mega mystical perspective, Dr. Grudem elsewhere unnecessarily confines his concern about “other revelations” that might impinge on the authority of Scripture to only other written books. However, the following warning is just as applicable to his claim of divine revelation through modern “promptings”:

It should also be noted at this point that whenever challenges to the sufficiency of Scripture have come in the form of other documents to be placed alongside Scripture (whether from extrabiblical Christian literature of the first century or from the accumulated teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, or from the books of various cults such as the Book of Mormon [or how about the “promptings” of mega mystics!]), the result has always been (1) to deemphasize the teachings of the Bible itself and (2) to begin to teach some things that are contrary to Scripture. This is a danger of which the church must constantly be aware. ^[26]

And it is a danger that Dr. Grudem and other mega mystics flat out ignore but cannot avoid. Although mega mystical leaders deny that their ministries devalue the place of Scripture, in practice it is unavoidable. When supposed extra-biblical revelations are available as a “word from the Lord,” such a belief and practice will undoubtedly rival Scripture in the minds of those who adhere to mega mystical doctrine.

The same kind of hypocrisy occurs in the writings of Dr. Henry Blackaby as well. It would seem that out of one side of his mouth he upholds the authority of Scripture when he writes in his popular Experiencing God:

The Bible is God’s Word to you. The Holy Spirit honors and uses Gods Word in speaking to you. The Scriptures will be your source of authority for faith and practice. You cannot depend on traditions, your experience, or the experience of others to be accurate authorities on God’s will and ways. Experience and tradition must always be examined against the teaching of Scripture. ^[27]

If Scripture were indeed our “source of authority for faith and practice” and we “cannot depend on . . . experience” as “authorities on God’s will,” then it would seem major premises in Experiencing God regarding the proper extrabiblical reading of our circumstances are useless.

For example, Dr. Blackaby claims that God giving us His written word is equivalent to abandoning us when he writes:

It is inconceivable that God would draw people to give their lives to him, only to abandon them to live out their Christian lives independent of his [extra-biblical mega mystical] direction. God cares about each of his children, and he takes an active part in guiding them to experience his will to the fullest. ^[28]

In an effort to uphold the authority of Scripture, mega mystical teachers always claim that extra-biblical guidance can and should be checked by Scripture. Accordingly, Dr. Blackaby writes:

Must I always confirm with Scripture what I sense God is saying to me? Answer: When you believe God is telling you something, the Bible is your best [not only?] guide to ensure you are hearing him correctly. You will not always come across a verse that speaks directly to your situation. There is no Scripture passage that reads: “Thou shalt marry Greta Smith on June 12.” However, you will be able to verify anything you hear God say to you by the teachings of Scripture. ^[29]

This is a lie. There are numerous examples in Dr. Blackaby’s books and the writings of other mega mystics that would be impossible to verify with Scripture because they involve issues that Scripture does not speak about. And this is precisely why mega mystics seek such extra-biblical revelation in the first place. Usually, the verification that Dr. Blackaby speaks of is merely ensuring that an extra-biblical “revelation” does not contradict Scripture. This is completely inadequate. How would this help in trying to decide between two good jobs or potential Christian spouses?

In other words, the extra-biblical revelation that mega mystics see is too specific to be authenticated with Scripture and leaves people with no certain way of knowing if it is from God, or merely themselves. Accordingly, anything that could be authenticated by Scripture is from Scripture. Along these lines, the “Old Princeton” theologian Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) was right when he wrote:

Mystical revelation claimed by many as a personal privilege is out of keeping with the [category] of Biblical religion. Mysticism in this detached form is not specifically Christian. It occurs in all types of religion. . . . At best it is a manifestation of [natural] religion [as opposed to supernatural], subject to all the defects and faults of the latter. As to its content and inherent value it is unverifiable, except on the principle of submitting it to the test of harmony with Scripture. And submitting it to this it ceases to be a separate source of revelation concerning God. ^[30]

Finally, because the disclaimers of modern mega mystics about the ongoing authority of Scripture are so obviously meaningless and ineffective in the context of their doctrines and practices, they seem insincere, and appear to be offered only to avoid the charge of false teaching which they may very well deserve.

D) The Danger of Disparaging Reason in Mega Mysticism

D.1) Introduction to Mega Mysticism & Reason

Elsewhere in KOG we have written a great deal on the God-ordained place of human reason in decision making and how mega mysticism habitually disparages this. ^[31] The Bible is clear that God gave us our moral (i.e. conscience) and logical reason in order to make wise, God-pleasing decisions.

Promoters of mega mysticism rarely, if ever, like to talk about the importance of these God-given faculties, and instead insist that our reason will get in the way of understanding God’s will. There is a general mistrust in the value of the God-given purposes of reasoning and thinking, even in the life of the spiritually regenerated believer. Instead, there is an emphasis on trusting inner feelings and psychological experiences. Sidney Spencer, in his book, Mysticism in World Religion observes: “For the mystic, whatever his professed creed, final authority lies in his own experience.” ^[32]

Along these lines, someone has written of the Chinese author Watchman Nee (1903-1972):

Watchman Nee . . . elevates the intuitive capacity to the highest “part” of a human being (the spirit) and demotes the reasoning capacity to a lower “part” (the soul). On this analysis, direct intuitions (“word of knowledge,” “prophecies,” etc.) are often believed to constitute a higher, “spiritual knowledge” than knowledge that comes through a reasoned exegesis of Scripture. ^[33]

Such is the outcome of mega mysticism. Along these lines, a friend of this author has written:

What prevents or inhibits us from hearing the voice of God? We are too analytical and not child-like enough. A child simply accepts what he hears; the analytical “adult” mind goes beyond faith and tries to use too much human reasoning.

The disparagement of the God-given value of Spirit-liberated reason is obvious in mega mystical writing. For example, Dr. Blackaby writes in Hearing God’s Voice:

People who make decisions based merely on what seems most advisable [i.e. reasonable] to them will inevitably choose something inferior to God’s best. History’s overwhelming testimony is that the most brilliant human reasoning has proven inadequate to save humanity from its own frailty. To claim people can determine the best course of action apart from God’s [mystical] guidance is to ignore Scripture’s clear teaching concerning humankind’s degenerate condition (Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:9-18).

Numerous warnings throughout the Bible advise against making decisions apart from God’s involvement [mystical revelation]. The writer of Proverbs warned: “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Prov. 14:12). The apostle Paul speaks of God as “able to do above and beyond all that we ask or think according to the power that works in you” (Eph. 3:20). ^[34]

Likewise, in Experiencing God, Dr. Blackaby says:

A popular teaching says God does not give you clear directives [through mystical revelation]. It says He just sets your life in motion. Then you try to figure out the directions using your God-given mind. This implies that a Christian always thinks correctly and according to God’s will. This does not take into account that the old nature is constantly battling with the spiritual nature (Rom. 7). Our ways are not God’s ways (Isa. 55:8). Only God can give you the kind of specific directions to accomplish His purposes in His ways. ^[35]

First, it would appear that Dr. Blackaby completely ignores the fundamental difference between the devil-darkened reason of the unregenerated unbeliever and the Spirit-liberated reason of the born again believer. Of course the former is inadequate to understand the Gospel or make God-pleasing decisions, but not the latter, and Dr. Blackaby is wrong to not distinguish them as we carefully do elsewhere. ^[36]

Secondly, the answer to any deficiencies of reason is not the mega mystical revelations that Dr. Blackaby claims, but rather, having our mind renewed with the truth of Scripture.

Thirdly, to imply that “God’s involvement” in our decision making primarily or even partially includes mega mystical revelation is not biblical as demonstrated in the next section of this book.

Fourthly, Ephesians 3:20 has absolutely nothing to do with using reason in decision making and is yet another example of Dr. Blackaby’s proof-texting.

Fifthly, Dr. Blackaby completely misrepresents his opponents by implying they promote thinking without and apart from Scripture. Contrary to Dr. Blackaby, thinking with Scripture is completely sufficient for knowing God’s will, and we need no other subjective, mystical, extra-biblical revelation.

Finally, we would like to see some honesty on Dr. Blackaby’s part concerning the fact that many, if not all of the bad decisions he has ever made were because he failed to diligently do his research and gather the facts or reasoned incorrectly on the facts he had. We have no doubts that the importance of reason for good, wise decision making could be abundantly illustrated in Dr. Blackaby’s own life. All of this is because God has made us and designed life with our thinking faculties at the center of how we live our life, ^[37] and Dr. Blackaby is no exception.

In fact, upon closer examination, many of the decisions Dr. Blackaby speaks of even in his literature involve proper reasoning more than he seems willing to admit. For example, he writes:

[Hudson] Taylor began to sense a growing impression from the Holy Spirit that he was to shift the focus of his ministry to the southern port city of Swatow where no missionaries had gone. ^[38]

Why couldn’t what Dr. Blackaby labels here as a “growing impression from the Holy Spirit” simply be the reasonable conclusion of recognizing that “no missionaries had gone” to Swatow and so it would be a good idea to send some?

If Scripture, conscience, and reason are to be our guide as Martin Luther claimed, then it is clear that Christians need more meditation (thinking deeply about Scripture) rather than mysticism.

D.2) Reason & emotion ^[39]

One wonders if anything has fueled and aided evil more than human emotion. It should never be forgotten that the emotional part of us is the most susceptible to the manipulations of our three arch-enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil. God’s primary and initial point of influence with us is in our reason where we receive, process, and believe the truth. satan’s primary point of influence is our emotions. As Eldredge notes, “Many people have made a wreck of their lives by following an emotion without stopping to consider whether it was a good idea to do so. Neither adultery nor murder is a rational act.” ^[40]

This is why it is so critical that our feelings are subjected to desires controlled by the Spirit and a mind controlled by the truth of reason, because both of these protect the emotional part of our “heart” from corrupting the other parts. Nothing God-pleasing or God-ordained occurs by our emotions acting independently from our reason. Such a perspective is to separate what God has joined together which, among other things, are the functions of the “heart.” It leads to empty emotionalism, a life with heat, but little light, and Evangelicals have been right to expose this tendency particularly in charismaticism.

We sense the influence of feelings on our reasoning when we read the description of the first sin. “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom [which she thought would enable her to reach the God-given human goal of happiness], she took some and ate it” (Gen 3:6). No doubt if the sight or thought of the fruit would have produced repulsive feelings, Eve would not have desired it. This is why satan works to make his temptations promise good feelings. It is emotion that can move us so strongly in a certain direction, whether it be for good or evil. Therefore, feelings do not automatically serve the purposes and glory of God but often thwart them.

It is the intensity of emotion caused by sin, the “high” it offers, that attracts us to it, that we experience in it, and that addicts us to it. Sin makes us feel like nothing else. And if all we want is to feel, sin will draw us in.

The eminent NT scholar John Stott, in his classic book Your Mind Matters, corrects the notion that the Fall should lead us to trust our feelings more, as so many contend today:

[T]he fact that man’s mind is fallen is no excuse for a retreat from thought into emotion, for the emotional side of man’s nature is equally fallen. Indeed, sin has more dangerous effects on our faculty of feeling than on our faculty of thinking, because our opinions are more easily checked and regulated by revealed truth than our experiences. ^[41]

It is not thinking that Scripture warns us about, but the wrong kind of thinking. No doubt, a good many of the personal and corporate problems in the Church today would be remedied by more and deeper thinking, instead of more and deeper feeling.

The potential harm our feelings can have on reasoning rightly needs to be heard loud and clear in our generation. C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) speaks of how such emotions can harmfully mess with our God-given reasoning abilities when he writes: “The heart never takes the place of the head; but can and should obey it.” ^[42]

An over-emphasis on emotions is particularly dangerous in decision making. While Christianity has traditionally warned that emotions can hinder good reasoning and decision making, it is popular today to claim otherwise. Yet this is essentially what mega mysticism encourages when it teaches that we are to expect extra-biblical impulses as an indication of God’s will. Accordingly, notice how the mega mystic Dallas Willard advises his readers to recognize extra-biblical revelation from God:

The quality of God’s voice [apart from Scripture] is more a matter of the weight or impact an impression [feeling] makes on our consciousness. A certain steady and calm force with which communications from God impact our soul, our innermost being, incline us toward assent and even toward active compliance. ^[43]

Essentially, then, according to mega mysticism, a strong feeling = “God’s voice.” Since when is a mere “feeling” a good indicator of what is true? It is virtues (i.e. love, humility, self-control) that enhance our God-pleasing decision making, not feelings, and the two should not be confused. In addition, no mega mystic would be able to point to a single verse of Scripture that would suggest that our life should be led more by feelings instead of reason. Along these lines, surely the words of D. M. Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) needs to be heeded:

Do not be swayed even by the fact that something . . . makes you feel wonderful. You may say, ‘Well now surely anything that makes me feel greater love to God must be right.’ Robert Baxter, to whom I have already referred in connection with the Irvingite movement [an early charismatic movement in England], used to say that he had never felt so much love, the love of God in his heart, or so much love in himself to God as he did at this period. He was ready to leave his wife and family for God’s sake. He was filled with a sense of the love of God, he said, that he had never known before, but he came to see that it had all been misleading him.

So we must not judge even in terms of such feelings. You may say, ‘I have never known such love, I have never known such peace, I have never known such joy.’ The people who belong to the cults will often tell you exactly the same thing. So we must not rely upon our own subjective feelings. Do not dismiss them or discount them, but do not rely upon them. Do not say, ‘I feel this is right, everything in me says this is right, all my Christian spirit.’ It is not enough. The devil is as subtle as that. Remember our Lord’s word—‘If it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.’ ^[44]

While there is no hint in the Scriptures that our outward physical senses need to be doubted, there are warnings concerning inward, psychological processes such as emotions, intuitions and speculations. Such things bypass our God-given reason, and are therefore not God-ordained sources for reliable knowledge.

Contrary to popular thinking in modern mega mysticism, God says, “It is not good to have zeal [feelings] without knowledge . . . and miss the way” (Prov 19:2). We are warned that, “fools die for lack of judgment,” not emotion, and that God’s “people are destroyed from lack of knowledge,” not feelings (Prov 10:21; cf. Hos 4:6). It is because satan has a particular way of deceiving us through our emotions and impulses that God tells us to, “Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet 5:8 NASB). No doubt our repository of beliefs and truth in our reason is a critical part of having the kind of “sober spirit” that will protect us from the devil’s emotional manipulations. Emotions may be the best indicator of what we believe, but the worst indicator of what we should believe.

Surely this is what the Prophet was implying when he said, “The heart (lēb) is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jer 17:9). Remembering our study of the Bible’s use of “heart” in chapter 4.1, we can say confidently that the meaning here is not our God-given reasoning faculties, but actually the things that can come out of the “heart” to distort those faculties. Irrational fears and selfish feelings are certainly among those things that hinder rational, God-pleasing judgments. This is why Solomon said: “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (Prov 14:23).

In the end then, and in spite of the popularity of anti-intellectualism, ^[45] emotionalism, ^[46] and mega mysticism, ^[47] we insist on what we will emphasize throughout Knowing Our God: God does nothing to us or through us except that which He does to or through our reason. It is sound reasoning that Scripture continually exhorts us to and it is the God-ordained gatekeeper of what is real and true, not our feelings, emotions, and experiences.

D.3) Free Will & Mega Mysticism

Mega mysticism ignores the value of human free will exercised by the reason God has given us. Accordingly, Gary Friesen writes:

A man could ask, “Is it God’s will for me to give a freewill offering today?” But if God answered, the gift would no longer be freewill! No, God wanted to give His people some ways that they could express their devotion to Him in voluntary displays of love. So He provided the option of the freewill offering, and explained what sacrifices would be acceptable for such purposes (Leviticus 22:18-25). ^[48]

Along these lines, the Apostle Paul writes, “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give” (2 Cor 9:7), not what has been mystically revealed to Him by God. Along these lines, Friesen writes further:

It is a demonstration of God’s goodness that He began His first commandment with a declaration of the extent of Adam’s freedom of choice: “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely.” Then He added the single restriction with a clear explanation of the consequence of violation. . . .

This first direct commandment conforms perfectly to God’s original design for mankind. . . . Only man was outfitted with the determinative features of personality: intellect, emotion, and will. Only man was assigned a position of responsibility requiring the exercise of those attributes of the soul. If man were to make his decisions as a function of instinct, he would be no different from the animals. If he required direct input from the Creator for every choice, he would be no more than a manipulated robot.

By God’s design, only the image-bearer approaches decisions in the same manner as the Creator. Within boundaries prescribed by God’s own character, man analyzes, evaluates, judges, and freely determines his choices. Only man was given the competence to make free judgments. And only man was given the dignity of bearing full responsibility for the consequences of his choices. ^[49]

And that is precisely how God wants it.

D.4) Mega Mysticism’s Encouragement of Foolishness

It is inevitable that mega mysticism’s disparagement of reason would lead them to exalt what is foolish. The strategy here is usually 1) Show an example in Scripture where God commanded something contrary to human reason, 2) Suggest we should expect mystical revelation today that is contrary to reason and then do something foolish. The strategy breaks down when we recognize the fact that biblical characters knew God was giving them direction contrary to reason, and even contrary to Scripture at times, whereas mega mystics usually cannot make such a claim. Keep these things in mind as you read the following examples of mega mystical teaching.

Again, Dr. Blackaby is typical of mega mysticism when he writes:

[I]f a powerful army besieged your city, would you choose to attack them with your choir in the lead? That’s precisely what God told King Jehoshaphat to do, and he was victorious (2 Chron. 20:20-23). If you were seeking to overcome a formidable enemy, would you command your soldiers to march around the city seven times and then shout? That’s what God told Joshua to do, and it brought down the walls of Jericho (Josh. 6:15-16).

If you were ministering to a crowd of five thousand men and their families, would you try to feed them with five small fish and two loaves of bread? That would not have appeared logical. But that’s what Jesus did, and there were leftovers (Mark 6:33-44).

One reason some Christians don’t experience God working powerfully through their lives is because they succumb to the allure of worldly [i.e. logical] thinking. They rule out any word from God that does not make sense to them. If you refuse to accept every word from God that does not match your human reasoning, then you will miss a great deal of what he says! ^[50]

Likewise, John Eldredge writes in Waking the Dead:

The Bible is full of such counterintuitive direction from God. Would you counsel a father to sacrifice his only child, the only hope for the promised nation? Certainly, it wasn’t wisdom that compelled a fugitive to walk back into the country where he was wanted for murder, a land where all his kin were held as slaves, march into Pharaoh’s palace and demand their release.

Was it reasonable to take a fortified city by marching around it blowing trumpets? What’s the sense of slashing the ranks of your army from 32,000 to 300, just before battle? It was dangerous advice, indeed, to send the young maiden before her king unbidden, and even worse to send a boy against a trained mercenary. And frankly, it looked like perfect madness for Jesus to give himself up to the authorities, and let himself get killed.

Somewhere in our hearts I think we’d love to have a role like [some biblical characters and], be used by God so dramatically. To find it, wisdom is just not enough-may even hold us back from doing the will of God. The particular foolishness of the church in the past century was Reason above all else. The result has been a faith stripped of the supernatural, the Christianity of tips and techniques. The commonsense life, which, as Oswald Chambers warned, can be the enemy of the supernatural life.

Many of the ministries and churches I’ve known made their decisions by principles and expedience. We have our morals and we have our precepts, but where is the living God? How will we hear him call us out of Ur, lead us to our own promised land, bring us through our own Calvary? Putting all our confidence in human reason was naive, and it left us in a very dangerous position. The only way out of this mess is to turn to our Guide, our Captain, to learn to walk with God. ^[51]

Along the same lines, the rightly respected Dr. Bill Hybels writes:

When God tells us to write to this person or make an appointment with that person or give away so much money, to start this or stop that or share the other thing, it doesn’t have to make sense to us. Some of the most important decisions in my life have made no sense at all from a worldly perspective. But I have learned that I can’t afford not to respond to his leadings.

One morning an elder of my church called me on the phone and said, I had a leading to call you. Are you in trouble or anything?”

“Not that I know of,” I said.

“All right,” she said. “I’m just obeying the Lord. I wanted to call you and encourage you.”

I was glad she called, even if neither of us knew exactly why. I never object to being encouraged, and I was glad she was obedient to the Holy Spirit. ^[52]

Several responses are in order. First, let us respond to this last example. Why must Dr. Hybels super-supernaturalize this event in an unbiblical way by claiming his elder received a revelation apart from Scripture to call him at a particular time? In light of the fact that there are no normative biblical promises, precedent, or example of such a thing in all of Scripture, Dr. Hybels is in danger of lying. Why not explain such an event in a more biblical manner by stating that the elder simply acted in love, a commandment clearly given in Scripture and desired by the New Nature in us?

But more to the point of our discussion, God never wants us to act against reason. Never. Not our moral reason (conscience) or our logical reason. This is how God has made us and He need not violate that in order to persuade us to do His will. He will always give us abundant reasons and evidence for the faith He expects us to have in Him and His word. And none of the biblical characters mentioned above violated their reason, but in fact, had plenty of reason to do what they did.

Acting on reason is a matter of gathering all the facts of a situation, comparing the pros and cons of various options, and making the best decision. That is precisely what happened in all the situations noted above. If we have no additional revelation from God on the matter then God expects us to make our decision based on good human reasoning. However, when God adds to the facts of the situation by providing additional, specific revelation on the matter, then we must reason with this additional information in mind. And in light of such additional revelation, these otherwise foolish, if not sinful decisions noted above, became the wisest thing to do.

If God truly tells you to jump off of a ten story building, then the most reasonable thing to do is jump, and it would be foolish not to. It was foolish, not reasonable, for the Israelites to disobey the clear command of God to enter the Promised Land, regardless of how their army was outnumbered.

Good reason tells us that God knows things we don’t and that He is powerful and loving enough to ensure the outcome of His commands for our good and His glory. A reasonable person knows that God’s revelation supersedes whatever mere human research we can gather, and if we have such revelation we need to take it into consideration as we reason to a decision. And make no mistake about it, all of the biblical characters reasoned to a decision that made the most sense to them.

Sacrificing his son was not unreasonable at all to Abraham because as the writer of Hebrews says, “Abraham reasoned [logisamenos] that God could raise the dead” (Heb 11:19). Knowing that, it was perfectly logical to sacrifice Isaac. Likewise, the Apostle Paul says that the great faith that Abraham exercised in believing God for a son in the first place was a result of, “being fully persuaded [plērophorētheis] that God had power to do what He had promised” (Rom 4:21). As we have argued extensively elsewhere, biblical faith is never foolish, nor is it against reason at all, but rather, is based on it. ^[53]

Therefore, we are in agreement with mega mystics that the divine revelation available to us must be considered in the decisions we are reasoning too. However, here is where we part company with mega mysticism. They are suggesting that there is extra-biblical revelation available that we should consider as we reason to a decision. The claim is that even if the mere facts of the case argue against a particular action, we should let an inner impulse or subjective intuition override the other facts we know. In other words, there is an appeal to go against your God-given reason based on a whim you think is from God.

That is what is foolishness. And God Himself would never expect us to do such a thing. That may not only be foolish but sinful, and instead of obeying God you may easily end up disobeying Him. And how many truly foolish and even immoral decisions have been justified with this very kind of erroneous theology?

D.5) Mega Mysticism’s Hypocritical Reliance on Reason

For all the mega mystical encouragement to abandon reason, if pressed, mega mystics will always come back to it. The very thing they ridicule, is the very thing that they themselves desperately depend on and if truly wise, will end up encouraging us to do the same. Notice, for example, what Dr. Hybels writes after he disparages reason as quoted above:

Let me add a few cautions [to abandoning reason for mere mental impulses]: If a leading requires you to make a major, life-changing decision in a very short period of time, question it. If a leading requires you to go deeply in debt or place someone else in a position of awkwardness, compromise or danger, question it. If a leading requires you to shatter family relationships or important friendships, question it. If a leading creates unrest in the spirit of mature Christian friends or counselors as you share it with them, question it. ^[54]

Dr. Hybels, are we not right back to simply good moral and logical human reasoning with biblical revelation in mind? And if the only impulses that we can be certain of are those that conform to good reason and Scripture, then why would we need such supposed extra-biblical divine revelation as desperately as you claim? ^[55]

We see the same thing in Dr. Willard’s popular Hearing God. In a book devoted to receiving, recognizing, and responding to subjective impulses supposedly inspired by God, he gives the following counsel on what to do if you are not confident that God has given you an extra-biblical revelation:

Act on what seems best [reasonable, logical?] to you after considering the itemized details of each alternative. If certain alternatives seem equally desirable, then select one as you wish. ^[56]

We could hardly say it better. Accordingly, Gary Friesen has pointed out the hypocrisy we see in mega mysticism when they make decisions the same way we do, but claim an extra-biblical revelation from God:

Everyone utilizes essentially the same sources of information in the process of decision making. So whether the believer is following the [mega mystical] view or the wisdom view he will study input from common sense, spiritual counsel, personal desires, circumstances, results, the Bible, and inner impressions. The two views do not look at the data in the same way, but since the sources are the same it is not surprising that conclusions reached by the two approaches are often the same.

The differences come in the final goal. The [mega mystical] view is looking for the [extra-biblical] individual will of God while the wisdom view is seeking a wise decision within the moral [biblical] will of God. The differences also come in the way the sources are viewed. To the [mega mystical] view, they are “road signs” pointing to the [extra-biblical] individual will of God when interpreted properly. To the wisdom view, Scripture reveals the moral will of God and the other sources are “wisdom signs” corporately pointing to a moral and wise decision. . . .

The second factor behind many of the practical successes of the [mega mystical] framework is the maturity and wisdom of those applying it. When wise people search for God’s ideal will, what they usually find, and apply, is [reasonable] wisdom. Wisdom by any other name still makes good decisions.

The third reason people have experienced success with the [mega mystical] view is because they have not tried to enforce its principles with the small decisions of life. Where it has proved unworkable, [e.g. where reason works] the [mega mystical] approach has been unconsciously set aside in practice. ^[57]

Let us look again at the mega mystical mantra that we must go to a quiet place and quiet ourselves in order to “hear” direct extra-biblical revelation from God. Is it not ironic that this is precisely what we need to do in order to think better and deeper about things? Could the helpful results of a “quiet time” be more from thinking rather than “hearing”? Meditation is not receiving revelation but reasoning carefully about our life. Accordingly, the “revelations” that mega mystics claim from their quiet times are no doubt the simple results of taking time to think about something. But such an explanation is not super-natural enough for them.

Therefore, we would suggest that in reality the decision making process of mega mystical Christians and non-mega mystical Christians are much more similar than the former would admit, and the latter is more honest about it. The biggest difference may be that feelings and emotions are given more value by mega mystics in decision making, which, as we demonstrate elsewhere is dangerous. ^[58]

D.6) Some Conclusions on Mega Mysticism & Reason

Instead of disparaging human reason, mega mystics should first recognize the monumental difference between the value and ability of our Spirit-liberated reason and the devil-darkened reason of unregenerated humanity. And after studying the clear teaching of Scripture on this, their writings should reflect the biblical view of it. ^[59]

Along these lines, the explanation of reasons behind a decision by a mature Christian can become an occasion of training and growth for others. For when younger believers watch a godly man work through a complex problem, the process of seeking wisdom is modeled for them.

Also, mega mystics should be more honest about the place of reason in our lives and God-pleasing decision making. Our generation of Christians do not use their God-given Spirit-liberated reason enough. Instead of warning people of its overuse, why not encourage them to use it in service to God? Instead of claiming subjective intuitions and impulses as the key to making God-pleasing decisions, this generation desperately needs to be taught the common sense wisdom God has given us in Proverbs. Instead of suggesting the best wisdom comes apart from reason in extra-biblical mystical revelation, why not encourage them to use their reason to meditate on Scripture? As the psalmist wrote:

Oh, how I love Your [written] law! I meditate [with my reason- for there is no other way] on it all day long. Your commands make me wiser than my enemies, for they are ever with me. I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate [with my reason] on your statutes. (Ps 119:97-99)    

It is the hard work of reasoning, meditating on Scripture that gives us the spiritual insight we crave, not private revelation and extra-biblical irrational impulses supposedly from the Spirit.

Finally, M. Blaine ­­­ reminds us of the emotional reason why we are tempted to crave direct extra-biblical revelation instead of having to do the hard work of thinking through our decisions:

[It is] instinctive . . . to want God to communicate with us supernaturally. Because God himself is purely supernatural, it’s only natural to think he would bend the rules of nature in his effort to make contact with us. Most people, Christian or not, long to see supernatural demonstrations of the existence of God. . . . We long for the supernatural not only to persuade us of God’s existence but also to convince us of what he wants us to do. For the serious Christian it’s in the area of guidance that the desire for supernatural evidence is often most strongly felt. We long for God to break through the void and communicate with us in a direct, unmistakable way, removing all doubt about what his will is for us. If he would just intervene and guide us in a way that would remove the need for personal initiative and absolve us of all need to think! . . .

Beyond this obvious psychological hazard, we can also see that supernatural guidance could pose severe trials for our faith. We might be inclined to think of ourselves as more spiritual than others. And we wouldn’t be motivated to take the sort of personal responsibility for making decisions that really develops faith. ^[60]

E) The Sins of Intimidation & Arrogance in Mega Mysticism

Mega mystics imply throughout their writings that Christians are in great danger of missing an extra-biblical message from God. This is one more clearly false and unbiblical claim in mega mysticism. What biblical example is there of someone who was in a covenant relationship with God, but failed to recognized a revelation from God? None. We have written elsewhere that if and when God desires to communicate with His people, it is His responsibility to ensure those people know He is speaking ^[61]:

God is able to ensure humans will recognize divine revelation . . . when He intends something to be so. Regarding, “My word” God says it, “goes out from My mouth [and] It will not return to Me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isa 55:11). The Scriptures know of no acts or words of God intended to be divine revelation, which were not recognized by humans as such. ^[62] Which is why humans were, and are always, judged for not heeding such revelations. ^[63]

Or as Gary Friesen has put it, “Rest assured, if God actually “speaks” [extra-biblical] revelation to you, you could not miss it even if you wanted to.” ^[64] Accordingly, the great fear that mega mystics wish to strike in our hearts because we could miss an extra-biblical message from God is unnecessary and harmful.

Ironically, Dr. Blackaby is willing to admit the following:

The Bible testifies that, despite the numerous times and ways God spoke to people, they ultimately knew it was God speaking. They also knew what God was saying. From Adam and Eve through to the exiled apostle John, the question was not, Is God speaking to me? but, How will I respond to what God is telling me? ^[65]

Then why does Dr. Blackaby warn us throughout his writings that we could miss a divinely intended revelation from God? Because all those people in Scripture were more spiritual than us? Apparently so, because this is the general requirement Dr. Blackaby claims is necessary in order not to miss an extra-biblical revelation from God. Accordingly, he offers five steps to “learning to recognize God’s voice,” none of which follow a pattern that was followed by any biblical figure:

• Develop your relationship with God.

• Seek to understand God’s ways.

• Prepare your heart.

• Learn to concentrate.

• Develop habitual obedience.

Ironically, Dr. Blackaby has an impression rendition of Moses on the cover of his Experiencing God materials, implying and stating throughout that Moses is the biblical example of Dr. Blackaby’s teaching. Did Moses meet Dr. Blackaby’s criteria for hearing God when he encountered the burning bush? In fact, Moses was so proud and unwilling to do God’s will that he essentially told God “no” five times in the form of excuses in his initial encounter with Him (cf. Exod 3:11, 13; 4:1, 10, 13) which is why “the Lord’s anger burned against Moses” (4:14). Some model for “hearing God’s voice”! And in fact there is no biblical evidence whatsoever that any biblical characters were superior to us in any of the characteristics that mega mystics claim are so vital to hearing God apart from Scripture.

Nonetheless, mega mystics ignore how easy and automatically people recognized revelation from God in Scripture, and accuse non-mega mystical Christians of lacking spirituality because they are supposedly not experiencing what mega mystics do. Mega mystic Jack Deere repeatedly states that the reason that Christians do not hear God apart from Scripture is because of ignorance, pride, selfishness, and just plain sin. For example we read:

Perhaps God has spoken to some of you repeatedly, but you didn’t recognize his voice because no one’s ever told you the various ways in which he speaks. Or you may know about those ways, but no one has ever given you practical instruction in how to understand things like dreams and impressions. . . . The most powerful hindrance I know to hearing God’s voice is thinking too much of ourselves . . . When we embrace religious pride, God lets us alone, and we rarely hear his voice. ^[66]

Likewise, Dr. Blackaby unnecessarily intimidates Christians when he writes:

The world is abuzz with voices all clamoring for your response. This is a dangerous environment for someone who is incapable of distinguishing between God’s voice and the competing voices of self, satan, and the world. Learning to unmistakably recognize God’s voice is too critical a matter to neglect. Take time to evaluate how well you recognize when God is speaking. Settle it once and for all that above everything else you will come to know clearly when God is speaking to you. Are there voices you have been listening to that you know are questionable? Are you uneasy about a message you are presently receiving? Check it out! Don’t be hasty to move forward until you are satisfied you are responding to God. Spend time with God. Learn to recognize his voice. It will be the most important thing you do. ^[67]

Thankfully, we do not need to accept Dr. Blackaby’s burden of recognizing God’s voice because it is clearly recorded for us in Scripture!

Dr. Blackaby writes elsewhere:

Question: What if there is silence when I pray? What does it mean, and what should I do?

Answer: If you don’t sense God is speaking to you in response to your prayers, there are at least three things you should consider.

First, it may be that God is speaking but you have failed to recognize his voice. Would you know if God were speaking to you? If not, the problem may not be [God’s] silence but [your] deafness. Make certain you know God well enough that you can recognize his voice when he speaks. Take time to review the way God speaks and learn the nature of the one who speaks. ^[68]

Did Moses or any biblical character to whom God wanted to reveal Himself ever “miss” the revelation of God because they did not know God well enough or were ignorant about the way God speaks or His nature? No.

Along the same lines, notice the unbiblical nature of the following from Bill Hybels:

I know that God continues to speak to his people today, and I am convinced that there are two reasons we don’t hear his voice more often. The most obvious reason is that we don’t listen for it. We don’t schedule times of stillness that make communication possible. ^[69]

And what biblical instruction or examples would Mr. Hybels point to in order to support such a monumental statement? Did any of God’s people miss divine revelation because they did not spend enough time in silence? Wouldn’t it be more helpful and biblical to suggest the real reason for times of solitude is so that we will think better, not “hear” better. In Proverbs we read: “a prudent man gives thought to his steps” (14:15) and “an upright man gives thought to his ways” (21:29). But we have no biblical examples or instruction regarding the need to be silent so we may “hear” God.

Likewise, John Eldredge writes:

Many good people never hear God speak to them personally for the simple fact that they’ve never been told that he does. . . . [M]ost of us haven’t been trained in this, and it’s going to take a little practice “tuning in” ^[70]

Again, what Bible character would Mr. Eldredge point to regarding his claim that lack of instruction regarding mega mystical techniques could cause someone to miss God’s voice? Again, none. And do you see the set up here? Of course those receiving and believing mega mystical teaching regarding how to hear from God are going to be very prone to believe that now God is speaking to them apart from Scripture!

Notice how intimidating the instruction of Dallas Willard is when he writes:

Most important and right at the outset, they [who want to learn to hear from God apart from Scripture] must be helped to see that recognizing God’s voice is something they must learn to do through their own personal experience and experimentation. ^[71]

So evidently, in the mean time, we miss or misinterpret a lot of extra-biblical revelation from God? And again, where in Scripture would we get the idea that it requires “experimentation” to recognize divine revelation?

Isn’t it instructive that mega mystics are required to write pages and pages of instruction on how to hear God apart from Scripture? The reason is that there are no such instructions in Scripture itself. Accordingly, mega mystical instruction is never taken from Scripture. Again, notice Dr. Willard’s advice on how to recognize extra-biblical revelation from God:

The quality of God’s voice is more a matter of the weight or impact an impression makes on our consciousness. A certain steady and calm force with which communications from God impact our soul, our innermost being, incline us toward assent and even toward active compliance. ^[72]

Where is that taught in Scripture? Accordingly, better teachers have said otherwise. J. I. Packer has written:

As for inner urges, it is surely enough to point out that some people have inner urges, strong and recurring, sometimes reinforced by voices, visions, and dreams, to rape, to take revenge, to inflict pain, to molest children sexually, and to kill themselves. Is any of that the leading of the Spirit? The question answers itself.

Obsessiveness (which is what we are really talking about here) is no sure sign of a divine origin for thoughts; Satan can spawn obsessive impulses equally well, just as he can nourish and manipulate those our disordered natures spontaneously produce. So sudden, obsessive thoughts need to be very carefully checked (preferably by consulting others) before we dare conclude that they come to us from the Spirit of God. Their obsessiveness, indeed, indicates that they probably do not. ^[73]

While Dr. Willard claims that the strong, “steady . . . force” of mental impulses indicates they are from God, Dr. Packer warns such obsessiveness in our thinking “indicates that they are probably not.” The only reason to tell is whether those impulses are commanded in Scripture. And if that is the case, we can abandon the whole myth of mega mysticism and simply obey Scripture with our whole heart.

Along the same lines, Gary Friesen has written:

[I]n nonmoral areas, Scripture gives no guidelines for distinguishing the voice of the Spirit from the voice of the self -or any other potential “voice.” And experience offers no reliable means of identification either (which is why the question comes up in the first place). And yet the [mega mystical] view requires that the source of those impressions must be identified if the believer is to discern God’s guidance. Tremendous frustration has been experienced by sincere Christians who have earnestly but fruitlessly sought to decipher the code of the inward witness. ^[74]

Charles Hodge said the same many years ago:

A fourth objection to the mystical doctrine is that there is no criterion by which a man can test these [extra-biblical] inward impulses or revelations and determine which are from the Spirit of God and which are from his own heart or from Satan, who often appears and acts as an angel of light. . . . Many men who are under the influence of some evil spirit honestly believe themselves to be inspired. The assurance or certainty of conviction may be as strong in one case as in the other. In the one it is well founded, in the other it is a delusion.

Irresistible conviction is not enough. It may satisfy the subject of it himself. But it cannot either satisfy others or be a criterion of truth. Thousands have been and still are fully convinced that the false is true and that what is wrong is right. To tell men, therefore, to look within for an authoritative guide and to trust to their irresistible convictions is to give them a guide which will lead them to destruction.

When God really makes revelations to the soul, He not only gives an infallible assurance that the revelation is divine, but accompanies it with evidence satisfactory to others as well as to the recipient that it is from God. All His revelations have had the seal of both internal and external evidence. ^[75]

In fact, as we’ve said, many of the times that more mystical Christians are claiming to be experiencing direct divine revelation in their decision process, they are actually just experiencing their own God-given ability to think rationally, morally, and biblically about things according to the many ordinary means of divine guidance. But our point here is that they cannot tell the difference anyway. Christians make both good and bad decisions when they think they are being directly “inspired” by God, and the process feels the same in either case.

How then would one confidently know that a thought or desire was inspired directly by God guiding us in way that our Spirit-liberated reason, regenerated conscience, biblical convictions, or our New Nature would not have otherwise? There is really only one answer. God would have to authenticate such a revelation in an obviously miraculous way. Another way of saying this is that unless a mystical revelation is accompanied by a miraculous revelation, we will not know if any divine revelation has occurred at all. Sometimes in hindsight we can discern direct divine intervention in guiding us because both the direction we took and our destination seem to have a miraculous nature to them. However, even with miraculous authentication, it is difficult to be dogmatic on the occurrence of direct divine inspiration or intervention that does not involve other more normal means of guidance. ^[76]

We have repeatedly mentioned the intimidation inherent in mega mysticism. While in reality mega mystics are not receiving any more divine guidance than anyone else, they talk like they do, making others feel like they must be missing out on something. The fact is, while they claim to be more spiritual than others, God knows that they are often merely living according to their feelings, and are actually quite spiritually immature. And that spiritual shallowness will eventually show in a mega mystic’s life.

Nonetheless, mega mystics claim a superior relationship with God. Mega mystical writer Leanne Payne tells the following supposedly true story of Agnes Sanford (1897-1982), founder of the Inner Healing Movement and a “key figure in the Charismatic Movement”: ^[77]

Agnes Sanford once heard the Spirit tell her not to board a certain plane. She did not and the plane crashed. Later, when she told this story to a group, one woman rather angrily asked her why God would speak to her and not the others. Agnes immediately replied, “Oh, I think He was speaking to all of us. . . . But so few listen.”

Ruth Tucker responds: “That God singled out Sanford to escape a plane crash because she was listening and punished others with death because they were not is an arrogant claim.” ^[78] That’s putting it mildly.

Notice in the following from Henry Blackaby that the reason one would not hear some extra-biblical voice from God is because they are not close enough to God:

The key is to recognize when the Spirit is speaking. And that brings us back to the recurring theme of this book: the closer you are to God, the more easily you’ll recognize his voice. ^[79]

The clear implication is that because Dr. Blackaby and other mega mystics supposedly and accurately “recognize his voice” apart from Scripture more than others, they are in fact “closer . . . to God.” In other words, if you do not believe in mega mysticism or experience what they claim to, you are not close to God.

Likewise, it is common for mega mystics to accuse non-“hearing” Christians of being rebellious. Dr. Blackaby writes: “The Holy Spirit will never force God’s best [extra-biblical will] on you if you are unwilling to receive it.” ^[80] Again, implying that not experiencing mega mysticism means you are unwilling to do God’s will. Dr. Blackaby is more clear on this elsewhere when he writes:

The measure for determining if someone really loves Jesus is the way that person receives God’s Word [apart from Scripture]. Those who listen closely to the Lord and subsequently do as he directs [apart from Scripture] obviously love him. Conversely, people who constantly resist God’s [extra-biblical] directions are demonstrating their lack of love for God.

Some adamantly argue that they do love God; they just struggle to obey him. According to Jesus, a failure to follow God’s Word is a failure to love him. The willingness to obey every word from God [even those apart from Scripture] is critical to hearing God speak. Those who do not believe God speaks specifically [apart from Scripture] will simply ignore or explain away the times when God communicates with them. However, those who spend each day in the profound awareness that God does speak [apart from Scripture] are in a wonderful position to receive his Word. ^[81]

Is anyone else offended by such nonsense? Dr. Tucker notes the following in regards to the Blackaby’s response to the claim that God is not speaking:

But “what if there is silence when I pray?” they ask. “What should I do?” They offer three suggestions:

First, it may be that God is speaking but you have failed to recognize his voice…. Make certain that you know God well enough that you can recognize his voice when he speaks….

Second, examine your heart for sin…. Silence is a powerful method by which God may be alerting you to sin in your life….

Finally … wait upon God in the midst of silence. The Lord may simply want you to trust him and to wait until he reveals something greater to you than you have known before.

In reference to the second response to God’s silence, “examining your heart for sin,” the Blackabys seem to suggest that God’s silence is a form of the silent treatment-a silence of anger or at least provocation: “Gods silence sends a strong message: we should examine our lives to ensure no sin is provoking him to remain silent.” There is simply no warrant in Scripture to make such a strong claim. ^[82]

Notice the unnecessary anguish that would result in a Christian’s life because God does not communicate an extra-biblical will to them apart from Scripture. Not only are the Blackaby’s in sin for promoting such an unbiblical idea, but they cause a great deal of unnecessary guilt and self-introspection for those who follow their false teaching. As we have pointed out many times throughout Knowing Our God, heresy hurts, and the mega mysticism permeating modern Charismaticism is both heretical and hurtful.

Dr. Blackaby continues with his disparagement of believers who do not believe God communicates through mystical mental telepathy:

Perhaps the single greatest reason people miss God’s voice [through mental telepathy] is their lack of faith. If you don’t believe God speaks to people today [through mental telepathy], it is doubtful you will hear him [no kidding]. If you refuse to believe what God has already told you [through [through mental telepathy], you are unlikely to hear what he says next.

The writer of Hebrews drew this lesson from the children of Israel’s plight as they wandered in the wilderness for forty years. While it is said, “Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, as when they provoked Me.” [Heb 3:7] ^[83]

First, again, there is the accusation that if a Christian does not experience God in the way Dr. Blackaby claims he does that it is because they don’t have enough faith. Secondly, notice again the irresponsible exegesis. The hearing of God’s “voice” referred to in Hebrews was not a case of the mental telepathy that Dr. Blackaby is pushing, but came through a miraculously authenticated Prophet of the stature of Moses himself. To actually equate the disobedience of the Israelites to Moses with Christians who see no biblical basis for Dr. Blackaby’s false teaching, is something Dr. Blackaby will no doubt answer for before our Lord.

In general, mega mystics claim that the reason we do not experience mental telepathy with God is because we are in sin. Accordingly, in a section entitled, “Why Doesn’t God Speak to Me Like That?,” mega mystic Jack Deere repeatedly states that the reason that Christians do not hear God apart from Scripture is because of ignorance, pride, selfishness, and just plain sin. For example we read:

The most powerful hindrance I know to hearing God’s voice is thinking too much of ourselves . . . When we embrace religious pride, God lets us alone, and we rarely hear his voice. ^[84]

While the judgmental attitude inherent in such accusations is offensive and sinful enough on the part of mega mystics, their arrogance and false boasting is even worse. They claim that others are not hearing God like they do because of a lack of intimacy with God, willingness toward God, love for God, faith in God, and humility toward God. Accordingly, they are also claiming that the reason they are hearing God apart from Scripture is that they possess in a superior way an intimacy with God, a willingness toward God, a love for God, a faith in God, and a humility toward God. We seriously doubt it and look forward to such hypocrisy and self-delusion being exposed at the judgment seat of Christ.

Unfortunately, those promoting mega mysticism tempt us all to be jealous of those in the Bible who experienced frequent, direct, personal communication from God. Of course we would all like to claim such a thing, and it is even implied that if God really loves us He would do such a thing, but such jealousy is dangerous, and ultimately of the devil. Moses himself encountered such jealousy regarding the unique relationship he enjoyed with God. It is instructive to ponder the following narrative in the context of so many today who claim that our relationship with God should be the same as that of Moses.

Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite. “Has the LORD spoken only through Moses?” they asked. “Hasn’t He also spoken through us?” And the LORD heard this. (Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.)

At once the LORD said to Moses, Aaron and Miriam, “Come out to the Tent of Meeting, all three of you.” So the three of them came out. Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud; He stood at the entrance to the Tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam. When both of them stepped forward, He said, “Listen to My words:

 “When a prophet of the LORD is among you, I reveal Myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams. But this is not true of My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?” The anger of the LORD burned against them, and He left them. (Num 12:1-9)

Do not those who claim that God now normally speaks to individual Christians personally, (“face to face”) and “clearly” like Moses, need to recognize how unique such a relationship was in Moses’ day? And don’t such people need to be careful about inciting jealousy and discontent about the more indirect relationship with God that we enjoy today? Isn’t this always the result of false teaching—hurting God’s people instead of helping them?

Not surprisingly, the Apostle Paul warned of such arrogant, intimidating mega mystics in the first century. We have written elsewhere of the heresy of gnosticism in the first and second centuries which claimed extra-biblical/apostolic revelation for themselves. ^[85] It was just such people that the Apostle was condemning when he wrote:

Do not let anyone who delights in false humility [“self-abasement” NASB; “asceticism” ESV] and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen [in visions], and his unspiritual [“fleshly” NASB; “sensuous” ESV] mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head [Christ], from Whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. (Col 2:18-19)

While we argue throughout this book that there is no biblical evidence or instruction supporting mega mysticism, we also believe the Apostle Paul warned against it here.

While mystics have continually claimed that their “revelations” draw them closer to God, the Apostle says they may have in fact “lost connection” with Christ. On that Great Day that we stand before God and everything is revealed, it will be known that many of those who claimed a superior intimacy with God through their mystical ways were in fact following their own “idle notions” and were actually out of fellowship with Christ.

This is because they are constantly misinterpreting their feelings and impulses and circumstances as the direct miraculous communication or intervention of Christ when, in fact, He promises and is doing no such thing. The mega mystical and unbiblical belief in “listening prayer” discussed above is, no doubt, greatly to blame for their erroneous view of the purpose of solitude and spending time with God.

Of course, spiritual disciplines such as fasting, solitude, and meditation can be helpful to growing as a Christian, but only if they help us “be transformed by the renewing of our mind” (Rom 12:2). Spiritual disciplines for their own sake, to simply feel something, or especially as required steps to supernaturally experience a revelation from God, can easily become the legalistic practices of the flesh that Paul warns about. And unfortunately, this is just the language of mega mystics like Richard Foster who promote spiritual disciplines as a way to experience direct, extra-biblical sources of divine revelation.

Accordingly, Peter O’Brien comments on this passage:

Those who laid claim to exalted experiences or visions as a prelude to fresh divine revelations were puffed up. They may have claimed that they were directed by the mind; but it was a mind of flesh. Theirs was the attitude and outlook which was characteristic of the old nature, dominated by the flesh. ^[86]

Accordingly, Dr. O’Brien summarizes the “Colossian heresy” being addressed as: “claims to spiritual superiority validated by claims to higher religious experience through mystical-ascetical piety.” ^[87] Let us be careful in our pursuit of God that we do not fall into the same sin, because the mega mystics have done this very thing. And elsewhere we have quoted several classic mystics on the dangers of ascetic mysticism and the “revelations” that come from it. ^[88]

Accordingly, the NT scholar F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) commented on this passage:

[T]he Colossian heresy [was] a form of mysticism which tempted its adepts to look on themselves as a spiritual elite. . . . The Colossian heresy evidently encouraged the claim that the fullness of God could be appreciated only by mystical experiences for which ascetic preparation was necessary. Paul’s answer to such a claim is that the fullness of God is embodied in Christ, so that those who are united to him by faith have direct access in him to that fullness and have no need to submit to the ascetic rigor which the Colossian Christians were being recommended to practice, with its attendant spiritual dangers. ^[89]

All of this sounds alarmingly close to mega mysticism especially when we add the mega mystical teaching that such “asceticism” as solitude and fasting enhance the ability to “hear” an extra-biblical “word from God.” The Apostle warns against the value of such practices when he writes:

Since you died with Christ to the basic [ascetic, legalistic] principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:  ²¹“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”?  ²²These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.  ²³Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship [“self-made religion” NASB], their false humility [“self-abasement” NASB] and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. (Col 2:20-23)

The Apostle, in fact, hints at a cure for ascetic mysticism in this very passage when he writes of “the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow” (v. 19). The Apostle reminds us of two things here to guard us against the legalism and disappointment of ascetic mysticism.

First, he reminds us that it is ultimately “God” who “causes” both us and the body of Christ “to grow,” not the “harsh treatment of the body,” or ascetic practices in themselves.

Secondly, he reminds us of our vital, communal connection with other Christians. Ascetic mystics are into spending time alone, but Paul is stressing the importance of Christian fellowship and love (i.e. the “connections” in the Body of Christ), over and above private, self-focused mystical practices. Accordingly, we have written elsewhere:

It is real love that separates the Christian from the self-righteous, self-deceived, and self-serving monks . . . of any other religion. Some of the most committed Buddhists meditate [but] . . . sitting alone while meditating on a mountaintop can be selfish, not spiritual, nor supernatural. . . . On the other hand, to be neck deep among the failings and offenses of fellow humans and still sincerely love them, like God loves them, is a miracle that only Holy Spirit indwelled Christians can perform. Anyone, including unbelievers, can like people, but only Christians can really love them. ^[90]

The sin of mysticism being described in Colossians 2:18-23 is well described by John MacArthur:

Mysticism may be defined as the pursuit of a deeper or higher subjective religious experience. It is the belief that spiritual reality is perceived apart from the human intellect and natural senses. It looks for truth internally, weighing feelings, intuition, and other internal sensations more heavily than objective, observable, external data. Mysticism ultimately derives its authority from a self-actualized, self-authenticated light rising from within.

This irrational and anti-intellectual approach is the antithesis of Christian theology. The false teachers claimed a mystical union with God. Paul exhorts the Colossians not to allow those false teachers to keep defrauding them of their prize. . . .

Paul warns the Colossians not to be intimidated by the false teachers’ claims. Far from being the spiritual elite they thought themselves to be, they were inflated without cause by their fleshly minds. Being guilty of gross spiritual pride, they were devoid of the Holy Spirit. Having gone beyond the teaching of Christ (cf. 2 John 9), they were not holding fast to the head, that is, Christ (cf. Col. 1:18). . . .

There is a tendency in human nature to move from objectivity to subjectivity—to shift the focus from Christ to experience. This has always intimidated weak believers and threatened the church. Today this brand of mysticism is most commonly seen in the charismatic movement—where Scripture is a distant second in importance to visions and revelations.

When such intimidation came from the sixteenth-century mystical charismatics of Martin Luther’s day, the great Reformer was very firm with them, clinging to biblical revelation and the centrality and sufficiency of Christ. In particular, the followers of Thomas Münzer and the radical Anabaptists gave great prominence to the work and gifts of the Spirit—and to mystical knowledge. Their cry, expressing their supra-biblical experience, was “The Spirit, the Spirit!” Luther replied, “I will not follow where their spirit leads.” When they were granted the privilege of an interview with Luther, they gave their cry “The Spirit, the Spirit!” The great Reformer was not impressed and thundered, “I slap your spirit on the snout.”

We, like the Colossians, must not be intimidated by those who would make something other than knowing Christ through His [written] Word a requirement for spiritual maturity. Christ is all sufficient. ^[91]

Elsewhere, Dr. MacArthur has written regarding Colossians 2:18-20:

The Colossian believers were also being intimidated by people who claimed to have a higher, broader, deeper, and fuller union with God than Christ alone could give. They were the mystics. They claimed to have interacted with angelic beings through visions and other mystical experiences. . . .

Mysticism is still very much alive, still using spiritual intimidation to demean the uninitiated. People today who claim to have had heavenly visions or spellbinding experiences are often simply puffed up with idle notions using their claims to intimidate others into elevating them. As the apostle Paul wrote the Colossian believers, that kind of mysticism is the product of a prideful and unspiritual mind. Those who embrace it have turned from their sufficiency in Christ, who alone produces true spirituality. Don’t be intimidated by them. . . .

Apparently the Colossian mystics claimed that anyone not having similar esoteric visions or embracing similar doctrines was disqualified from obtaining the prize of true spirituality. In reality they themselves were the disqualified ones (1 Cor. 9:27). ^[92]

Meaning, of course, that mega mystics will “suffer loss” (1 Cor 3:15) at the judgment seat of Christ for their false teaching and claims. ^[93]

Historical mystics have warned of the very things the Apostle notes in Colossians 2:18-23. Theologian Donald Bloesch has written considerably on classic mysticism and relates:

Without denying the validity of gifts and visions, Meister Eckhart [14^th c. mystic] 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:

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.” ^[94]

Unfortunately, in their search for extra-biblical revelations and experiences, mega mysticism is even susceptible to demonic delusion. 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. ^[95]

F) The Danger of Perverting Prayer in Mega Mysticism

A very popular notion of prayer is that it is an extra-biblical means for receiving divine revelation. Almost as if prayer was intended by God to give us another Bible that speaks to us more specifically than the real one. Along these lines, mega mystical writer Gordon Smith writes:

[W]e need to speak of listening prayer-prayer that is both speaking with God and attending to God, attentive to the still small voice of God, who speaks within the circumstances of our lives through the inner witness of the Spirit. ^[96]

Along the same lines, Dr. Tucker writes:

Like many other writers on prayer, [Richard] Foster emphasizes the necessity of listening. “Listening to the Lord is the first thing, the second thing, and the third thing necessary for successful intercession.” Such advice is not an obvious conclusion one could draw from Scripture. ^[97]

Likewise, Henry Blackaby claims:

Prayer is two-way fellowship and communication with God. You speak to God and He speaks to you. It is not a one-way conversation. Your personal prayer life may primarily be one-way communication-you talking to God. Prayer is more than that. Prayer includes listening as well. In fact, what God says in prayer is far more important than what you say. . . . God speaks to His people by the Holy Spirit through prayer. ^[98]

Elsewhere Dr. Blackaby states: “[P]rayer involves God communicating as much as the person praying.” ^[99] Really? He then gives the following example of his son:

As Richard prayed, however, the Holy Spirit would not give him a sense of peace about the investment. Instead, a strong uneasiness [an emotion] persisted as Richard prayed about this seemingly sensible move. . . . [He was] trusting the prompting of the Holy Spirit. ^[100]

Several responses are in order. First, there is nothing like this in Scripture, either prescribed, or as an example. Secondly, Dr. Blackaby is essentially calling Christians to be led by emotions (“uneasiness”), rather than reason. To the contrary, Gary Friesen remarks, “When we feel uneasy, we should ask should ask why, not take feelings as a message from God.” ^[101] Thirdly, we have no doubts whatsoever that Richards emotions were based on beliefs of some kind which were based on the information he had, even if he is not willing to recognize or admit this himself. Finally, as usual, the Blackaby’s only tell the stories where their feelings get it right and do not relate all the times they have been undoubtedly wrong.

It is an incredibly tempting thought to believe that prayer is intended as an extra-biblical source of divine revelation. Again, Dr. Blackaby writes:

Claiming that God does not speak to us in our inner spirits also diminishes prayer. If the Spirit does not speak to us inwardly, our prayers are reduced to one-way conversations in which we ask for what we want and God mutely complies with or denies our requests. ^[102]

Yep. That is precisely the way it is whether we like it or not, and nowhere in Scripture is the purpose or practice of prayer described differently. It is Scripture that tells us what God’s will is, not prayer. The purpose of prayer is to seek help in doing God’s will as already revealed in Scripture.

Nonetheless, Dr. Blackaby offers the following biblical evidence for his view:

If Jesus were the only person mentioned in Scripture who took time to listen to the Lord, we would have a strong example to follow. But he is not alone. King David, author of many of the psalms, “went in and sat before the LORD.” The prophet Isaiah, before taking on an immensely difficult commission from God, listened to God in his temple (Isaiah 6). The apostle Peter “went upon the roof to pray” at lunch time, and God talked to him there (Acts 10:9-20). Scripture is full of accounts of people who took time to hear what God had to say to them. ^[103]

That simply is not true. Not even the examples that Dr. Blackaby offers proves that prayer is a means of divine revelation for the Christian. First, we have pointed out elsewhere the danger and even arrogance of claiming the revelatory experiences of God the Son with God the Father. ^[104] Secondly, we have argued from Scripture that not even Jesus experienced divine revelation through mental telepathy, but constantly spoke of actually and physically “seeing” and “hearing” the Father in visions, etc., while on the Earth. ^[105] Accordingly, Jesus is not an example of mega mysticism in any form or fashion.

Likewise, Dr. Blackaby’s suggestion that David “sat before the LORD” in prayer to receive divine revelation is false. Immediately before this, the biblical writer tells us, “Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation” (2 Sam 7:17). Then in verse 18 we read: “Then King David went in and sat before the LORD, and he said . . .” And he said a prayer to God, rather than receiving a revelation from God. The extra-biblical revelation that David received was from a real Prophet of God. Do we recognize again the mega mystics habit of reading mega mysticism into Scripture where it does not exist?

Finally, Dr. Blackaby would not only make the revelatory visions of the Prophet Isaiah and the Apostle Peter normative for Christians today, but some sort of biblical evidence that God wants to speak to us through prayer. Another good example of bad mega mystical exegesis.

Dr. Blackaby attempts another erroneous interpretation of Scripture to support his false teaching regarding prayer. In Romans 8:26-27 we read:

We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And He Who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.

Dr. Blackaby concludes from this verse:

We are weak and do not know how we ought to pray. The Holy Spirit has an advantage over us-He already knows the will of God. When He prays for us, He is praying absolutely in agreement with the will of God. He then helps us know the will of God as we pray. ^[106]

Where in this verse does Paul say that the Holy Spirit “helps us know the will of God as we pray”? Never. And there are no other Scriptures that teach this either. In fact, study particularly the prayers of Paul in his epistles. Was their purpose to hear from God or talk to God? As you study prayer throughout Scripture—is its purpose to make requests of God or receive revelation from God? While the idea of “listening prayer” is certainly another one of those things our ears are itching to hear, mega mystics are simply wrong on this one too.

In fact, as noted above, the good effects that come from silence and prayer are simply the result of meditation and good, hard, careful thinking. Accordingly, meditation and contemplation with our mind, thinking through things carefully, could just as easily be the cause of what Gordon Smith describes when he writes:

Accept silence as a time of listening rather than talking to God. . . . By the end of the day, more often than not, there will be an abiding impression that has arisen from our prayers and extended reflection. . . . . usually, if we are open with God, sincere in our desire to attend to his voice and do his will and prepared to be thorough in approaching discernment, a clear and distinct impression will arise out of the day, some measure of resolution to the question we brought to our time of prayer. ^[107]

On the contrary, if we experience such a thing, it is not because God revealed something to us apart from Scripture but because we are taking the time and exercising the effort to use our God-given Spirit-liberated reason with God’s written word.

Extras & Endnotes

Devotion to Dad

Our Father, the claims of mega mysticism are tempting, but help us to discern their errors from Scripture and to stay in the path of truth, avoiding the dangers, deceptions, and sin inherent in seeking, claiming, and trusting in imagined revelations apart from Scripture.

Gauging Your Grasp

1. We claim that the issues surrounding mega mysticism are not simply a theological debate but that there are serious dangers involved, and every one of them amounts to sin against God. Do you agree or disagree and why?
2. What are several ways that we claim mega mystic’s commit the great sin of lying in the body of Christ? Do you agree or disagree and why?
3. Why do we claim mega mysticism unnecessarily burdens Christians? What truth of Scripture sets us free?
4. In what ways do we claim mega mysticism devalues the authority of Scripture? Do you agree or disagree and why?
5. In what ways do we claim mega mysticism devalues the God-given place of rational thinking? What are the consequences of this? What is the hypocrisy in this?
6. Why do we claim mega mysticism is intimidating? Do you agree or disagree and why? What truth sets us free from such intimidation?
7. What biblical evidence do mega mystics have that “listening prayer” is intended by God to be an extra-biblical source of divine revelation? What is the ramifications of this?
8. We believe Colossians 2:18-23 is warning against the dangers and deception of ascetic mysticism. How would you describe this practice and its purpose? How can spending time alone with God be a good thing? How can it be a bad thing?

Publications & Particulars

1. Excerpt from section 11.8.B. ↑

2. R. C. Sproul, “The Establishment of Scripture” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible (Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), 90-2. ↑

3. Doug Banister, The Word and Power Church (Zondervan, 1999), 96-7. ↑

4. Philip Yancey in Reaching for the Invisible God, quoted by Ruth Tucker, God Talk: Cautions For Those Who Hear God’s Voice (InterVarsity, 2005), 113. ↑

5. Tucker, 19. ↑

6. Gary Friesen and J. Maxon, Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 1980), 262. ↑

7. Tucker, 114 ↑

8. Tucker, 156-7. ↑

9. Page number not available. ↑

10. John MacArthur, “The Sufficiency of the Written Word” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible (Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), 183-5. ↑

11. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., (Baker, 1998), 278. ↑

12. Regarding how mega mysticism serves to violate the God-ordained roles of husbands and wives in marriage see section 7.14.D. ↑

13. Some places that we have discussed the devaluation of biblical authority are sections 7.8.H; 7.14.D; and 9.3.A.2. ↑

14. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Edward N. Gross ed., Abridged version, (Presbyterians & Reformed Publishing, 1992), 65. ↑

15. Of course, Paul is contrasting the OT Mosaic law (“the letter”) with the saving Gospel (“the Spirit”), not Scripture and private inspiration. ↑

16. Rene Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Moody, 1969), 319. ↑

17. “John Wimber: Friend or Foe?” reprint from The Briefing (Sydney: St. Matthias Press, 1990), 18. ↑

18. Jack Deere, Surprised by the Voice of God Voice (Zondervan, 1996), 251-53; 291-2; 358. ↑

19. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival (Word, 1997), xiii. ↑

20. Bob DeWaay, Critical Issues Commentary newsletter, #99, p. 2. ↑

21. Banister, 79. ↑

22. Regarding the biblical view of the gift of prophecy and its authority see Book 9. ↑

23. Regarding the proper interpretation of Ephesians 1:17-19 see section 14.18.A.4. ↑

24. Regarding Wayne Grudem’s statement on the sufficiency and authority of Scripture see section 7.9.A.1. ↑

25. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 1059. ↑

26. Grudem, 132. ↑

27. Henry T. Blackaby and Claude V. King, Experiencing God Workbook (Lifeway, 2000), 9. ↑

28. Henry and Richard Blackaby, Hearing God’s Voice (Broadman & Holman, 2003), 68. ↑

29. Blackaby, Hearing, 110, 258. ↑

30. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Eerdmans, 1948), 326-27. ↑

31. Regarding the God-ordained place of human reason in decision making see chapter 4.4. For additional discussion regarding how mega mysticism habitually disparages the place of reason see section 2.4.A.2. ↑

32. Sidney Spencer, Mysticism in World Religion (Penguin, 1963), 337. ↑

33. Quoted in Demarest and Lewis, I:39. The authors are remarking on Nee’s book, The Spiritual Man, (Christian Fellowship Publications, 1968) ↑

34. Blackaby, Hearing, 5. ↑

35. Blackaby, Experiencing, 75. ↑

36. Regarding the fundamental difference between the devil-darkened reason of the unregenerated unbeliever and the Spirit-liberated reason of the born again believer see chapters 4.12-4.16. ↑

37. Regarding the fact that God has made us and designed life with our thinking faculties at the center of how we live our life see chapter 2.4. ↑

38. Blackaby, Hearing, 58. ↑

39. Excerpt from section 4.6.C.2 ↑

40. Eldredge, 42. ↑

41. John Stott, Your Mind Matters (InterVarsity, 1973), 16 ↑

42. C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (Harper, 2001), 30. ↑

43. Willard, 175. ↑

44. Lloyd-Jones, The Sovereign Spirit: Discerning the Gifts (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw, 1985), 68 ↑

45. For further discussion of anti-intellectualism see section 2.4.A and 1.? ↑

46. For further discussion of emotionalism see chapter 4.8. ↑

47. For further discussion of the mega mystical idea that we are to be led by impulses Book 14. ↑

48. Friesen, 174. ↑

49. Ibid., 172, 4. ↑

50. Blackaby, Hearing, 206. ↑

51. John Eldridge, Waking the Dead (Nelson, 2003), 101-02. ↑

52. Bill Hybels, Too Busy Not to Pray (InterVarsity, 1998), 157. ↑

53. Regarding the fact that biblical faith is never foolish, nor is it against reason at all, but rather, is based on it, see chapters 6.12-6.14. ↑

54. Hybels, 165. ↑

55. Regarding the uselessness of mega mystics claiming that their “revelations” much be checked with Scripture see section 14.4.G. ↑

56. Dallas Willard, Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God (Intervarsity, 1999), 215. ↑

57. Friesen, 277-9. ↑

58. Regarding the dangers of making feelings and emotions a large part of decision making see section 4.6.C.2. ↑

59. Regarding the monumental difference between the value and ability of our Spirit-liberated reason and the devil-darkened reason of unregenerated humanity see chapters 4.12-4.16. ↑

60. M. Blaine Smith, Knowing God’s Will: Finding Guidance for Personal Decisions (Intervarsity, 1991), 130-31. ↑

61. Regarding God’s responsibility to make His revelation evident see sections 7.1.B.2-5. ↑

62. We claim here that, “The Scriptures know of no acts or words of God intended to be divine revelation, which were not recognized by humans as such.” We maintain this claim despite what Elihu is recorded as saying to Job:

    My words come from an upright heart; my lips sincerely speak what I know. . . . Why do you complain to Him that He [God] answers none of man’s words? For God does speak—now one way, now another—though man may not perceive [shur: “behold, notice”] it. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men as they slumber in their beds, He may speak in their ears and terrify them with warnings, to turn man from wrongdoing and keep him from pride. (Job 33:3, 13-17)

    Elihu clearly implies here that God may intend to reveal something, but “man may not perceive it.” First, there is no examples in Scripture of such a thing. Secondly, perhaps he is referring to the divine manipulation of unbelievers (cf. chapter 4.6). Finally, we would simply contend that Elihu was wrong about this, just like he was wrong about a lot of things throughout the book of Job. He admits that his words “come from” his “heart” and merely from what he knows, and there is no indication that they were by divine revelation. ↑

63. Excerpt from section 7.1.B.2. ↑

64. Gary Friesen in How Then Shall We Choose?, ed. Douglas Huffman (Kregel, 2009), 90 ↑

65. Blackaby, Hearing, 44. ↑

66. Deere, Voice, 235-6, 244. ↑

67. Blackaby, Hearing, 215. ↑

68. Ibid., 250. ↑

69. Hybels, 151. ↑

70. Eldredge, 102, 105. ↑

71. Willard, 108-9. ↑

72. Ibid., 175. ↑

73. J. I. Packer, Keep in Step With the Spirit (Revell, 1984), 46-7. ↑

74. Friesen, 131. ↑

75. Hodge, 70. ↑

76. Regarding the important topic of recognizing divine intervention in our lives see chapter 10.3 ↑

77. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Sanford. ↑

78. Tucker, 110 ↑

79. Blackaby, Hearing, 210. ↑

80. Ibid., 85. ↑

81. Ibid., 52-3. ↑

82. Tucker, 100-101. ↑

83. Blackaby, Hearing, 213. ↑

84. Deere, Voice, 235-6, 244. ↑

85. Regarding Gnosticism see section 14.8.B. ↑

86. Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (WBC) (Word, 1982), 156 ↑

87. Ibid., 145 ↑

88. Regarding the dangers of mystical practices see section 14.8.C. ↑

89. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians NICNT (Eerdmans, 1984), 22, 26. ↑

90. Excerpt from section 5.3.D.2 ↑

91. Commentary, Colossians, 2:18. ↑

92. John MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ (Crossway, 1998), 180-1. ↑

93. Other NT scholars support the application of Colossians 2:18-20 to mega mysticism. N. T. Wright notes regarding the literal meaning of v. 18: “Paul describes these people as ‘entering into their own visions!’ All they have discovered in their vaunted mystical experiences is a set of imaginary fantasies” (123), which is a very good description of mega mystics’ presumption that they are hearing and experiencing God.

    Peter O’Brien remarks that, “This verse has been described as one of the most contested passages in the NT, presenting great difficulties in language and content” (141). Nevertheless, he summarizes the Apostle’s warning: “The Colossians are not to be impressed by those who boast of their own experiences and arrogantly pass disparaging judgments on the readers” (137).

    Dr. O’Brien argues against the common idea that the “Colossian heresy” consisted of humans worshipping angels, but rather, them imagining to enter into or join the angels in worshipping God (Introduction, xxxviii). He believes the heresy Paul was addressing consisted of “claims to spiritual superiority validated by claims to higher religious experience through mystical-ascetical piety” (145). Dr. O’Brien adds:

    At Colossae whoever laid claims to these exalted and heavenly experiences was puffed up (“conceited” BAG). . . . Bornkamm suggested they were boasting of their acquaintance with divine “fullness” and being full of knowledge, when all they are full of is their own pride! . . . The self-inflation and pride in these private religious experiences come from not maintaining contact with Christ. (146)

    Barnes is not much help on this passage ↑

94. Donald Bloesch, The Holy Spirit (Intervarsity, 2000), 92-3. ↑

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

96. Gordon T. Smith, Listening to God in Times of Choice (Intervarsity, 1997), 87. ↑

97. Tucker, 125. ↑

98. Blackaby, Hearing, 87-88. ↑

99. Henry Blackaby in Huffman, 222 ↑

100. Ibid., 43 ↑

101. Gary Friesen in Huffman, 88. ↑

102. Ibid., 164-5. ↑

103. Blackaby, Hearing, 88. ↑

104. Regarding the danger and even arrogance of claiming the revelatory experiences of God the Son with God the Father see chapter 4.12. ↑

105. Regarding the biblical fact that not even Jesus experienced divine revelation through mental telepathy, but constantly spoke of actually and physically “seeing” and “hearing” the Father in visions, etc., while on the Earth see section 8.3.B. ↑

106. Ibid. ↑

107. Gordon Smith, 80-81. ↑